Ask the Car People.SM


Comparing Older Domestic Engines

87 messages,  Last post on Nov 23, 2010 at 9:55 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet, Ford, Plymouth, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon

Messages Page 1 of 9

#1 of 87 Comparing Older Domestic Engines by hpmctorque

Sep 05, 2010 (9:31 pm)

Let's start with a comparison of the Chevy Stovebolt, Ford flathead V8 and the Mopar flathead 6. Which of these was best, overall, and why?
 
I'd vote for the Mopar, for its comparative reliability and economy. Sure, the Ford V8 was faster, but not by much in stock form. The Stovebolt had overhead valves, a comparatively modern feature, but from what I've read it was neither as reliable nor as durable as the Mopar.

#2 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [hpmctorque] by euphonium

Sep 05, 2010 (9:35 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 05, 2010 9:31 pm)
My '39 Chev would leap off the line against the flathead V8's, but by 55 they would always go by me.
 
The exhaust sound of the flathead's is much preferred over the 216 Chevy 6 and you didn't have to spend a lot of time adjusting tappets.
 
I remember the flatheads went through a lot more fuel pumps too.

#3 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [euphonium] by hpmctorque

Sep 06, 2010 (3:53 am)

Replying to: euphonium (Sep 05, 2010 9:35 pm)
Weren't the Ford flatheads also more prone to overheating and head gasket failures than the Chevy Stovebolt, or was that directly related to the fact that more of them were modified?

#4 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [hpmctorque] by andre1969

Sep 06, 2010 (8:00 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 06, 2010 3:53 am)
Weren't the Ford flatheads also more prone to overheating and head gasket failures than the Chevy Stovebolt, or was that directly related to the fact that more of them were modified?
 
I think the Ford flathead V-8 was prone to overheating, right from the get-go. One thing I always thought was interesting is how it had two upper radiator hoses, one for each head. Initially, I thought that was to provide better cooling, but more than likely it was done out of necessity, because Ford KNEW these things would overheat!
 
Did it also have two lower radiator hoses as well? It's been awhile now, so I can't remember. I just remember the two uppers gave the engine bay a neat, symmetrical sort of look.
 
One thing that surpised me though, is how lightweight the Ford flathead is. I always thought those things were a bulky, heavy lump of an engine, but I've seen 525 lb quoted, and 569 for the 1953 239 CID. In comparison, the Chevy stovebolt is listed at 630 lb! I always knew the Stovebolt was heavier than the smallblock V-8, but the fact it was heavier than the old Ford flathead surprises me.
 
Unfortunately, the tables I find online don't list any of the old Mopar flathead 6es. I'd be curious to know what they weighed, in comparison. The slant six, which replaced them, weighed 475 lb

#5 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [hpmctorque] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Sep 06, 2010 (8:51 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 05, 2010 9:31 pm)
I think it depends whether or not you are viewing these engines in the context of their time, or the context of *our* time.
 
If viewed by 1933 standards, the Ford V-8 was sensational, since it brought power and speed to the common man, along with V-8 prestige---a form of prestige that was considerable at the time.
 
Buick had already pioneered efficient ohv inline 6 engines, so the Chevy Stovebolt was more of a continuation of technology rather than something new on the market. Nonetheless, the Stovebolt, along with very snappy Chevy styling, allowed Chevrolet to run neck and neck with Ford and then surpass them in sales.
 
The Mopar flathead was smooth, and economical, but obsolescent by 1933---still, in straight 8 form they got the job done for many years to come.
 
By 2010 standards, the award has to go to the Stovebolt, as one of the most durable and long-lived engines in automotive history, along with the Chevy V-8 shortblock and ironically, the Jaguar OHC I-6.

#6 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [Mr_Shiftright] by hpmctorque

Sep 06, 2010 (2:23 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am)
For purposes of this discussion I think we should only consider those engines within the context of their time. By later standards, not to mention modern standards, they were all obsolete. Those old engines certainly did their job for millions of owners in their day, and were probably significantly improved compared to the engines of the '20s and early '30s.
 
We can certainly expand this discussion to include the pre high compression, short stroke 6 and 8 cylinder engines offered by Pontiac, Olds, Buick (on which you commented), Lincoln and the independents. For example, I understand that the Nash Ambassador's OHV 6 was rugged (seven mains?), smooth and economical.
 
Yeah, the Jag I-6 was more technically advanced than any of the domestics we're discussing here. Too bad the same couldnt be said about the electrical system.

#7 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [Mr_Shiftright] by explorerx4

Sep 06, 2010 (3:15 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am)
When you long lived, how many years is that?
The SBC started in 1955, but when did that design get replaced?
I think the 4.8/5.3 was a different design.
Random thought. How about the small Buick V8 that was adopted by Land Rover?
That was around for quite a while.

#8 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [explorerx4] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Sep 06, 2010 (5:44 pm)

Replying to: explorerx4 (Sep 06, 2010 3:15 pm)
you mean for the Chevy short block V8? From 1955 to 1997---so 42 years. Then came the next "generation" (which I guess is called the LS1).
 
For the Jaguar OHC I-6, that was 1948 to I think 1988, so 40 years.
 
Chevy Stovebolt 6 --- 1929 to 1962, so 33 years
 
Ford Flathead V8 -- 1932--1953, so 21 years
 
Chrysler Flathead 6 1932 to 1959, so 27 years. (still used for industrial engines for at least another 10-12years).
 
So I guess the "Champ" is the Chevy Short Block, although some might argue the VW air cooled motor because of all the years being made in Mexico.
 

#9 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [hpmctorque] by isellhondas

Sep 07, 2010 (11:05 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Sep 05, 2010 9:31 pm)
In comparing those engines, the 216's were pretty tough but they did have babbitt bearings and splash lubrication. If driven carefully, they would last a long time. They did not, however like high RPM's.
 
The flatheads were pretty amazing. If the were running right, they could idle so slowly you could watch the fan spin around. They had only three main bearings but that part seemed to work out. the did tend to overheat even with two water pumps. They also liked to burn valves which took some doing to fix.
 
Chrysler didn't go to an overhead valve engine until 1960. The flatheads were pretty tough as I recall as long as you weren't in a hurry.
 
In 1953 on Powerglide cars, Chevy went to the wonderful 235 with full pressure lubrication. by 1954 they all had this. Those were the best engines of the bunch by a wide margin at least in my opinion.

#10 of 87 Re: Comparing Older Domestic Engines [isellhondas] by texases

Sep 07, 2010 (11:09 am)

Replying to: isellhondas (Sep 07, 2010 11:05 am)
You can get some 'modern' Ford flatheads now, interesting combination of old and new technology. One maker talked about how some of the overheating of the old ones was caused by incomplete removal of the casting sand. No idea if that was true...

Messages Page 1 of 9

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement