Tom any actual weight there for the engine. I bet it is at least 1500 lbs.




John

 

Judging from the size of it I would guess way north of 2000 lbs. Remember Ford hadn't invented thin wall castings yet and it had to have the strength to operate a tank reliably in war time, even though our tanks didn't last very long when confronting the Panthers or Tigers in WW II.
The allies beat them by sheer numbers. The Germans had the most highly engineered but way too heavy and too slow tanks on the battlefield in those days. The only tanks that could slug it out with them were the Russians who built a lot of their tanks in a factory confiscated from Ford during the great collectivization after the 1917 revolution.

 

men, paul here, i have much to ask, and much to say. but i will be honest, anyone who reads the 300 6 f and the 351/400 forum should know by now where my attitude and my real hearts lays. BUT, i am asking, quietely and respectfully for YOU MR post fiend. last listed # quote, what ? 8,000.00 plus posts. come on man, you jump to every thread and forum.. thats fine. you are a legit member and you are entitled, but i am asking you to but out on this thread because it has USA MILITARY connattions, ie good men who have given there LIVES plus the fact that you are so full of your self you completely missed the entire mechanical issue of a listen ll of the respondents save you sir. do me a personal and but out with your ho hom whatever. on this thread and this issue. this aint 300 6 or 351400 0r whatever other nthread you espouse with your NEGATIVE attitude. i ask you leave us alone please SIR paul k md. ps the weak knee thing,listen up mr, thats the last thing you should have said to me. i spent the PRIME of my life on my knees as a PROFFESIONAL hardwood floor instalar and sander. my knees sirs are tried and true and i gaurantee i can outwork you until you BEG for mercy. GOOD NIGHT SIR. paul k. MD psscrew the computers. i always have trouble with diction and mformat but i am good with my hands and i have no problems to reapeat everything i said to your FACE if it twas possible SIR. quietely, respectfully. b ut sincerely. paul k md

 

mr moto mel,paul, i know we are digressing now, wre are off topic on the actual powerplant, but until my/our moderator says enough can we keep gettin up. for exp. quote you and i know you are right. the russians hurt the axis with shear numbers. but,also were they not the first to introduce SLOPED sides. ie armor. what kind of powerplant did they use. hey , before i go go any further. i am a patriot and a product of usa military discpline. this is about history and pure mechanics . i harken back to my older posts on this thread. i am not WEAK in the knee. i just had now knowledge that our forefathers were building and reliably running alum, ohc and so forth engines that allowed MR gen Patton on one occasion to traverse 400. miles in 1 month. and on and on. do not mistake me my hopefull new friend. the wright bros crankcase was alum. read SIR Harry ricardo. fuel inj, turbos, superchargers,methanol injection. sleeve valves and a bunch more BEFORE the great war. i just wonder about one of your other grown up for real posters said on your threads. dagone henry, what happened. why did us later fellas have to wait until ford started with the big block cammers and so forth. what happened in that gap. was it enginering or polical. or the best engineers up and died on us before they could prove there point for the general public. done, but only for know/ respectfully paul md

 

So someone notes there is a 500 hp tank engine made by Ford and that somehow translates into the sacrifices of millions and now I'm pissing on their graves because I note that it's not a particularly powerfull for it's size engine, powered by gasoline, which contributed to the deaths of many tankers, and I'm told I'm some ignoramus who doesn't understand torque and horsepower and I'm supposed to butt out.

Well, you don't run the forum, and as far as I'm concerned, you're hijacking the thread by turning into some war memorial that I'm apparently not fit to visit.

Ford didn't produce this engine out of some sense of patriotic duty or self-sacrifice. They tried to get into the airplane engine business, and ended up selling it for tanks, along with the twin 6-71s, the airplane engine, the 5 Chrysler slant 6s and whatever else they put in there. Ford was trying to PROFIT from defense--war--contracts.

There's more discussion of the GAA here: start with post 18, an owner:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/4...ne-else-2.html

There are more posts in that forum, but I can't find them. Gotta get busy and make some more posts, you know, pee on every tree in the park like a stray dog.

 

I just read some of the posts by Bobsoc about his tank engine and he says
the weight is only a little more than 900 lbs, because it is an all aluminum engine.
He also said he was going to put it in his F 350 just for fun. I bet it would really be something to see in the flesh. Has anyone heard from him lately?

 

The engine is all aluminum and was designed s an aircraft engine. NO way 1500 pounds.

Home

About half way down the page.

"Aluminum engines are lighter than cast iron engines. However, "light" is relative. An aluminum 1,100 cubic inch engine is not going to be as light as an aluminum small block Chevy 350. In this instance, "light weight" is listed in the GAA overhaul manual as being 1,440 lbs "with all accessories and ready to run." This means including the generators and fans, their drives, the enormously heavy flywheel and twin-disc clutch, etc. As set up with modern day components and without all the combat related items, a typical GAA weighs around 900-950 lbs ready to run. A complete modern day lower engine with starter and lightened flywheel weighs around 675 lbs. The bare block itself weighs 220 lbs."

 

Well, as was noted, you do seem to have a good time flitting about the various forums in your six cylinder half ton van, dropping little tidbits of "knowledge", which seem to always be general knowledge that you read here or elsewhere. Your "notes" about this particular power unit, again, show your ignorance about low-RPM, high torque, mildly-tuned industrial type engines in general- and all that hooey about the Jimmys and Chryslers you got directly from Wikipedia and other sites that pop up on a simple search, and really is pretty irrelevant anyway, you're just trying to look "knowledgable"- it ain't workin'
If you do a little more Internet instant-expert "schooling" you'll find out the Ford was already in the aircraft engine business, in fact in the airplane business, and the non-use of the V12 really had very little to do with the quality or performance of the engine itself. Got into it more and more- ever heard of Ford Aerospace? Bet you'll be an "expert" real soon
With the basics of this engine, fairly low weight (less that 1 lb/ci), DOHC, 4 valve, good valve sizes, etc., if it was needed in a higher state of tune, has great potential. For the job it was spec'd for, moving a heavy vehicle with low-stress absolute dependability and reasonable fuel economy being priorities, hence the mild state of tune and low governed RPM and powerband, similar to industrial, heavy truck, and earthmoving engines, which your comments indicate you know very little about- in particular, the torque/horsepower relationship in this type of engine. This engine does what it was spec'd for very well, which was NOT to power a hot rod- but it could, with a different set of specs and state of tune- might even be faster than your mighty six-cylinder
Your whole reason for posting in this thread seems to be to pi$$ in somebody's cornflakes- congratulations on two servings. You didn't have ANY real knowledge of your own about the subject, and what you "found" about it, your general lack of knowledge about industrial-type engines "helped" you misinterpret what you found- sounds like you're thoroughly qualified to be a writer at CarCraft

 

Can we have a NICE conversation?

 

Some people (?) don't understand nice. They only understand

 

Six inch stroke, 1050 ft-lbs @ 2200 RPM... With fuel injection that would make one hell of a crawler!

I just watched a vid of some rock buggy with a small displacement engine trying to ram his way over an obstacle. Guy's daddy bought him a $100,000 buggy that can't make respectable torque at low RPM. What a waste!

 

Then ignore them.

 

I derive much more fun beating them over the head. Besides they will never learn if you ignore them.

 

I prefer a 50/70 myself.

 

I do have a 45/120 I could use, but the 45/70 is so much easier to load super hot for use in my Ruger #1 or my H&R Buffalo Classic.