In the Posts in this forum I havent seen any direct comparisons between the 534 and other engines with similar dispalcement and purpose.This could also be a reply to those who ask about dropping a 534 on top of the frame/fenders of your F350(cause thats about what'll happen if you try) or alternatives to the 534.All engines here use pump gas and a 4 barrel carb. won't mention Forced induction or alternate fuel in this comparison because thats a different kettle of spiders alltogether(ie the twin turbo Seamaster 534 or that other propane piyast of junk Ford made for busses or something).
The 534 fuel converter itself is a tough engine with a reputation for long life,bad gas mileage and chunking connecting rods.Appearently Fords answer to the 302 V6 GM stuck in its 5 ton and up trucks.While it could move any load you want for a long as you want.Just make sure you aren't in a hurry and your wallet is deeper than the gas tank.With 277 hp@3400 and 490 lbft over a broad 1800-2300,It is kind of a dog.It seems to me It gives little in return for such a beast of a motor and the amount of dino juice you have to pump at it.(2-3 mpg)Being designed for heavy service it can bolt up to truck trannies easily,7,10 and 13 speed Fullers and what have you(maybe derived from the GAA in the sherman tank?not certain)
My first comparison is a 533 inch Ford This is a stroked 460.Similar cubes and better power in a smaaler lighter package are already advantages.4 wheeler built one up for a Big Bronco With 9.8-1 compression it made 454 hp@4500 and 551lbft @3000.This is a pretty sweet one with aluminum heads intake and water pump.A 460 is just as hard on gas as any other big block.10 mpg up or down hill,head or tail wind empty or loaded.Not sure how this will hold true in an F1000 or some old fire truck loaded up with 10 tons of yunk.
Another tourque monster is the vereable 500 inch Caddy.This motor was in their lead sleds from 68-ish to 76'.There is a kit to stroke these to 537 cubes and with other help these can make serious power.Street rodder built such a motor.A proper intake to raise the carb so it no longer sits below the heads (as per factory),some head porting and compression(9.5-1) yeild 430 hp and 610 lbft .These Cads have a reputation for mileage comprable to a small block Chevy (17+mpg) and loong lifeSo I would expect decent mileage and reliability for a 537.
Since I know of no Chevy built fot hauling that can run with this crowd,we'll toss in a 'no code' 502 for sheeyats & giggles Cranking 502 hp@5200 and 567 lbft@ 4200. As you can see inpressive,but not exactly set up for hauling and I Imagine they are quite pricey.
Not aware of any good gas engines that Dodge built for Heavy Duty Service.I guess you don't see Dodge school busses or dumptrucks for a reason...
I know international made some gas engines (478 or something) but I know little about them so If anyone would care to enlighten..
There are also a multitude of diesel engine that fall into our category as well:3208 Cat and 8v 53 and 71 series detroit not forgetting the 7.3 diesls the Duramax,and the 360 I6 Cummins having found their way into medium duty trucks.North American Diesel Performance have built examples of the latter three with up to 800Hp and 1500 lbft,capable of launching a 1 ton 4x4 crew cab down the.1320 in around 12 seconds but as mentioned,a whole other thread on these computerized turbo diesels could be started.
I think the Dodge 413 and 440 were used when Dodge had Medium and Heavy duty trucks, back in the 60's and early 70's. I remember seeing Dodge 800s used as gas powered, city bus tow trucks and city tractors hauling around 40 foot trailers. I remember unloading 40 lb. boxes of lard from the Dodge Tractor's trailer into a cold storage, during my Univ. days. These tandem axle Dodges were the size of gasser Louisvilles L800s.
I also remember seeing Chevy C70's (medium to heavy duty) equipped with 366 and 427 big blocks. Around 1970 the local newspaper used one of these (C70) 427s to haul newspapers from my city to small towns in the country. That 427 would move with a full load, and the noise it made was a glorious V8 sound. The chevy big block, truck engine I believe has some differences compared to those used in light truck and car applications.
GMCs used variations on their 305 V6, which was a well cooled, heavy nickel content block used in P/Us to MDT. You could get bigger V6s in the GMC line in displacement up to about 470 something.
International, back in the 60's used 304, 345 and 392 gasser V8s, all using the same high nickel content block, just with variations on bore and stroke.
I used to drive a 460 V8 in an E350 dually , cube van and although I thought the world of the 460, I'm pretty sure this engine was just set up for light trucks, up to the E350 and F350.
The built Caddy, bow tie 502 and blue oval 460 you refer to, I don't think would be heavy duty enough for Medium duty and Heavy duty service.
I think the MDT and HDT, Ford 534s, Internationals, GMC and Chevy big block truck engines met different specifications than did the car/light duty truck engines. They were for the most heavy engines,with lots of meat. Not quite built to Diesel standards, but beefier than car/light truck standards. In a MDT/HDT, these engines are having their comparatively low revving necks wrung, and have to be built to withstand this kind of severe service.
Just my speculation for the most part.
Last edited by lesmore49; 01-07-2006 at 09:46 PM.
I think the Ford Super Duty engines compared well with the competition for the most part. They were among the first big-inch gassers that had become popular in the late 1950's. The story is that moonlighting engineers from International helped design it, and based the design off of the big Lincoln V-8. The competitors to the Super Duty was as follows: International had the V-401, V-477, and V-549. These were pretty good performers, maybe not quite as reliable as the SD's. Some 549's had dual ignition, with twin distributors and 2 plugs per cylinder. The Internationals suffered from cracked heads and oil leaks, and International tried to make a diesel out of the 549. About as good as the Olds 350 diesel! Dodge used heavy duty versions of the 361 and 413 to power their heavy trucks. These were great engines, but more in the league of the Ford 361 and 391 FT V-8's. Dodge offered the International 549 as a special order option in the late 60's. GMC had their V-6's. These went all the way from a 305 inch job for the small truck to 351, 379, 401, 432, and a 478 for the large trucks. I think these were about as good as a large truck gas engine ever got, and the 478 was equal to the 534 Ford in performance. Very short stroke for their displacement allowed them to build torque fast at low R.P.M.'s. Way overbuilt, the larger versions were 900+ pounds, and the crank was very short and fat. The 305 didn't do much in the pickups but eat a lot of fuel. GMC made diesel versions of the 351 and 478, and they didn't need to beef up the block. From 1960-65, GMC offered a 702 cube V-12, which was basically 2 351's end to end with a common block, crank, and cam. Monster had 4 cylinder heads. Pretty rare, usually only found them in large fire trucks and Air Force mobile missile launchers. In 1966, the V-12 was dropped, and GMC added 2 more cylinders to the 478 creating a 637 V-8. This was built as a gas or a diesel. 600+ ft. lbs.. Chevy had the 348, 366, 409, and 427. They were all pretty tough, but again more like the FT Ford V-8's. Chevy used some of the GMC 478 V-6's in the larger trucks. There was another large gas V-8, the REO. I don't remember the displacement, but I heard tell it was quite an engine. White used it in later years after they bought REO out.
I remember the old man bringing home a pamphlet on the Chrysler 413 being sold as a repower unit for trucks. They bragged about how the main bearings were "designed to take twice the rpm" you could expect from the repower version, which, I think, peaked at 4000 rpm. My brother and I pointed out that this must be true, as Don Garlits was running his to 8000 rpm.....(or so we thought, not sure Garlits ever ran a 413 and it would have been a Hemi, not the wedge in the pamphlet, but details details.....)
Anyway, based on the previous postings about various HP and torque ratings, and how different engines run, I'd say it's true that it's not how big you make it, it's how you make it big.
Chrysler used what they called "modified torque" and "full modified torque" depending upon the truck size, say D400 or D600. They were available in 361 (low big block) and the 413 (tall big block) good for a maximum RPM of approx 3300 (varied upon the exact engine / torque profile) They also produced a "premium" 440 for the motorhome and medium truck usage (400-600 series) with modified heads for increased exhaust valve/port cooling (which is why Chrysler never had the exhaust manifold problems on it's big block compared to the 460 ford or 454 chev)
Chevrolet had 366 and 427 tall (1/4" taller) block big block, why you might ask, well they used 4 rings on the pistons! These were also available in the medium duty trucks. These engine blocks were also the basis for the racing engines of the 70's that were larger than the 427/454 as the taller block couold accomodate a longer stroke with normal pistons.
Don't forget INTERNATONAL!!! They had large displacement gas engine up to and including a 549 ci beast! (AS noted in the above post)
And if you go a little further back to the 40's and fifties --- well there were very large (1000 ci or bigger) gasoline enignes made by makers such as Hall-Scott and used in specialty rigs such as fire trucks.
Makes event he 534 Ford engine seem SMALL by comparison
I know of the 366 and 427 BBCs GM used in their medium duties,but I am kinda disgusted with them. I suppose they run ok but,like the 6.2 diesel were dogs.Sure they would move the load but be prepared to get out and
push or drop it into the crawler gear to go up a hill.Can't imagine one in a gravel truck.
I never knew that GM had so many variants on the V6.Besides the 305 and the twin 6 v12,I knew of nothing else.
I still would like to know more about the aluminum GAA tank engine if anyone has info
The comapny I work for had a few GMC C-6500 5 yd. dumps with 427's in them, backed by a 5 speed and a 2 speed rear axle. They ran very well, even pulling a backhoe on a trailer. Very thisty! It's all in how they are geared. As for the Ford GAA tank engine, I don't know too much about them, but I read where they weren't really a Ford design. They were a cut down Rolls-Royce Merlin aircraft engine.
I recently read about GM having 637 cubic inch V8 engines used in both large Chevy and GMC trucks. I'm not familiar with them. I wonder if anyone knows how they compared to the other big gassers from Ford, International, etc?
The GMC 637 gas V-8 made 275 h.p. @ 2800 r.p.m., and 600 ft. lbs. @ 1600 r.p.m., according to an old manual I have. 534's were around 260 h.p. and 480 ft. lbs.. 637's were very rare, but I know of a man that has one in an old fire truck. I seem to remember the 637's gave a bit of trouble with vibration (they had a balance shaft in the crankcase) and ran hot (big surprise, huh?).
I just found my 1962 Motor's truck manual. The 534 is listed as having 270 h.p. @ 3200 r.p.m., and 481 ft. lbs. @ 1900. The GMC 702 V-12 is listed at 275 h.p. @ 2400 r.p.m., and 630 ft. lbs. @ 1600 r.p.m.. The International 549 V-8 is listed at 256 h.p. @ 3200 r.p.m., and 505 ft. lbs. @ 2000 r.p.m.. Kind of fun looking at the spec.'s of those old monsters!
It is interesting to find out about the hp/torque figures, uses, purposes and hearing some of the old stories, of those rugged, old monsters. You know, there are books out, extolling the virtues and faults, on just about every domestic, gas V8, except on these old, jumbo , MDT/HDT truck engines.
I for one, would find it fascinating reading, and a great reference book, to boot! Too bad there is nothing out there. Or is there?
If there isn't, it probably has to do a lot with market demand. There are probably only a few older, (I'm not that old yet) coots who would buy such a book.
Last edited by lesmore49; 01-15-2006 at 08:50 PM.
Reason: add to the post