534 vs Everyone else
#61
01-13-2009, 04:16 PM
Senior User
your 332
Hi there, new to the board also... I am a volunteer firefighter and have driven many different firetrucks with different motors in them. I figured I would throw my 2 cents in on this topic. I can remember a Ford C/Hamerly tanker I drove.. it pulled 2,500 gallons of water through a 5 speed transmission.... it was slow as sin... I mean SLOW (as has been noted here)...you used to try to come up with the best way to get to calls without doing hills. It was retired in 1998 with 38,000 miles on it, it still ran but it was starting to limp pretty badly. The Kennett Fire Department in Chester County, Pa had another Ford C tanker (with a Bruco body) that had the 429 Ford in it... they said that it drove much better than thier pumper (which had a 534 in it) and would routinely go faster than it (the pumper carried 1,000 gallons of water compared to the 2,000 on the tanker). Both seem like good motors to me..... I have another friend that has a 1961 Ford F-700 with and American LaFrance body on it... it is supposed to have a 332 in it.. but everyone who looks at it says that there is no way it is a 332.. it is to small and it is Gold in color (which I guess the 332 never was)... it moves the truck pretty well though (300 gallons of water in a 1,000 gallon tank). Moving to Cornbinder power... there was a ladder truck at one of the fire schools around us that had an I-H 549 motor in it.... it was very loud and sound like it was moving pretty well... but it was also slow. Plus it had TERRIBLE overheating problems... on a fire department ladder truck... a hydraulic pump is run off a PTO from the transmission... so the drive engine also powers the ladder on it. The engine runs at about 1,700rpms when you are using the ladder (activated by a high throttle switch)... if you ran the ladder for more than 10 minutes the manifold would glow red and you could cook on it. I couldn't imagine this was normal... but I saw it in another piece that had the International 549 motor in it.. if you pumped with it (pump is PTO driven) for any amount of time the manifold would glow red and you would have to keep the engine covers open (which didn't help that much it didn't seem). Continental made alot of large gas engines for the fire service as did Hall-Scott, Waukesha and Lycoming... Lycoming motors were standard in American LaFrance fire trucks from 1948 through 1959 (the 700/800 series pieces).. most of them were Lycoming J V12 motors with dual ignition (of course).... they were airplane motors basically.. if you lost your engine book from American LaFrance... you were up a certain creek without a paddle.... the only person who could really tune it up was an airplane mechanic.... another gashog but a very powerful motor. FWD, Ward LaFrance, Hahn, Peter Pirsch and Maxim all used Waukesha gas motors as standard equipment on thier pieces (unless you speced a diesel at which point you got a 6'71 Detroit). Those were all some very tough, bulletproof motors (although the Waukesha had a problem with throwing rods and/or self destructing if worked to hard). The 543 Ford always seemed a bit doggish for it's functions.... if you compare it to some of the GMC V-6 motors of that time it is sort of hard to fight for the Ford motor... although they were built tough. I can remember having a Ford C/Hahn pumper that I drafted (pulled water from a pond and than a river) with for 6 hours... we moved 3 million gallons of water in that time.... she was running pretty high up in the RPM range (around 1,900 or so) but it didn't overheat or cause problems... it just pumped merrily away. That piece had a Ford 534 in it as well... good motors for the fire service.
Dave Fritz
Dave Fritz
#62
01-13-2009, 04:41 PM
Senior User
hi,the 478-549's listed for dodge are IH engines. they made the DV 550 for tractors also, ran good but didn't have the torque of the 6's. a couple of guys made them run really good in tractor pullers. Reo made a v-8, 390 cu.in. used later in white trucks, was equal to a 391 ford. when my dad drove truck in the 60's a friend of ours ran 534 gas tractor and he could run with the 220 cummins deisels pulling 60,000 gvw. the latter 534's went to different heads, the intake had individual runners and better exhaust. GMC also used a HD 454 for a short time, same deck hight as car, was on par with the 460 ford. i know of a few 534's that run hot, grain trucks and Floater trucks, usually partially blocked radiators and gunk buildup in the block from setting most of the time. try back flushing the block, also check the timing. if you want somthing different try a 430 linc. it was developed the same time as the 534, is a lot lighter, a little shorter, and they made cams and intakes for it, 3x2's, fuel inj., and a blower. a 430 won the 59 nationals. iit has the same bore spacing as a 460, i wonder !!!
#63
01-13-2009, 04:43 PM
Senior User
#64
02-04-2009, 09:04 AM
hi david, the 332 you have is an old HD332 truck version of the early lincoln y-block, 52-57, it was olso used in trucks from 52-64. 279 & 317 from 52-55, and 302 & 332, from 56-64. used in f-8, and 800's. it has side by side ports like an early olds. very dependable motors.
#65
02-04-2009, 10:20 AM
Senior User
they did make a 332 FE, 58-59 only, most had solid lifters, completely different than the HD 332 lincoln based engine. linc. based engines were used from 52-64 in F8 and 750-800's. you could order it special in other models. it had over 11 in. deck hight, 4.625 bore centers, 7 in. rod ctr., side by side ports, heavy. it looks like they used the olds engine for a pattern.
#66
02-04-2009, 01:35 PM
they did make a 332 FE, 58-59 only, most had solid lifters, completely different than the HD 332 lincoln based engine. linc. based engines were used from 52-64 in F8 and 750-800's. you could order it special in other models. it had over 11 in. deck hight, 4.625 bore centers, 7 in. rod ctr., side by side ports, heavy. it looks like they used the olds engine for a pattern.
#67
02-10-2009, 08:42 PM
I too have have found these engines interesting. I know these are probably old posts but Its amazing how big they are but how little power they show number wise. It just goes to show how technology has made small engines very powerful. Look at the diesel engines of today, they are like 4 bangers compared to the size of these monsters but they do much better on power heck even the small V8's today are almost as powerful as these. HP wise they are more powerful torque right on par or better.
#68
02-20-2009, 04:00 AM
Fleet Mechanic
I agree with Dave Fritz. The Super Duty Fords were as good if not better than any other comparibly sized gasoline engine in it's day. The GMC V-6's might have been a bit better, but they were more modern with better cylinder head design and a very short stroke. They would really lug. There were 637 cubic inch V-8 and a 702 cubic inch V-12 versions too that were real powerhouses. The Reo/White V-8's were well respected, but I have no experience with them. All these large gasoline engines were popular in fire apparatus, as fire departments were among the last heavy truck users to go diesel. I am from Los Angeles, and anyone who lived in L.A. before the mid-70's remembers well the Hall-Scott powered Crown Firecoaches. Crown was primarily a school bus manufacturer (right in downtown L.A., if you can believe it!) but did build some fire apparatus. Crown favored the big 935 and 1091 cubic inch Hall Scotts. These engines were in-line 6's with aluminum hemi heads, overhead cam, dual ignition, and 5 barrel Zenith carburetors (some of the late versions had 2 Holley 4bbls). Many of those old 50's era Crowns ran a 1250 g.p.m. pump, and a few had 2000 g.p.m. pumps. They would often beat the ambulance to the incident as well. Absolute monsters. Crown build some smaller pumpers on Ford C trucks with 534's too.
#69
02-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Posting Guru
The 332 displacement was used in 1961 - 1963 truck apps also but nothing else after or between '59 & '61. Well at least Mr Chiltons says so.Here are some CIDs that I did not see you guys posting about - 605 GMC, 461 international. I dont know if it was mentioned, but the 427 truck engines from Chevy have a recess in the cylinder at the top to lower the compression ratio unlike 427 car engines which do not.
#70
02-20-2009, 04:32 PM
Posting Guru
#72
04-04-2009, 07:21 PM
Senior User
#73
04-05-2009, 02:07 AM
The 332 displacement was used in 1961 - 1963 truck apps also but nothing else after or between '59 & '61. Well at least Mr Chiltons says so.Here are some CIDs that I did not see you guys posting about - 605 GMC, 461 international. I dont know if it was mentioned, but the 427 truck engines from Chevy have a recess in the cylinder at the top to lower the compression ratio unlike 427 car engines which do not.
#74
04-27-2009, 02:07 AM
583 cubic incher planned.
Was just looking at James K. Wagner's Ford Trucks book and I am sure I had seen it there before, but had forgotten about it - there was also a 583(!!) cubic inch SD engine under development along with the other sizes. It never made it to production for some reason - possibly a marketing department decision or it may have had a running problem such as a vibration issue.
Since the 534 shared the bore size with the 477, but had a longer stroke crank, it's possible that the 583 would have used the 534 crank with a larger bore and if so, it suggests that a 534 block could be taken out enough for 600 cubic inches or so.
It would be cool for someone who has a 534 in a truck to take it out to 583 and bill it at shows as "The One That Could Have Been"
Was just looking at James K. Wagner's Ford Trucks book and I am sure I had seen it there before, but had forgotten about it - there was also a 583(!!) cubic inch SD engine under development along with the other sizes. It never made it to production for some reason - possibly a marketing department decision or it may have had a running problem such as a vibration issue.
Since the 534 shared the bore size with the 477, but had a longer stroke crank, it's possible that the 583 would have used the 534 crank with a larger bore and if so, it suggests that a 534 block could be taken out enough for 600 cubic inches or so.
It would be cool for someone who has a 534 in a truck to take it out to 583 and bill it at shows as "The One That Could Have Been"
