We had this exact engine in our 36' Jeffries cabin cruiser in the late '50s/early '60s. We also had a spare in our locker at Newmark's landing in Wilmington, California, which we swapped in when a wave flooded our exhaust and a valve head embedded itself in a piston...the GAA was a marvel, and would push the Jeffries to 30 knots! As a kid, I used to read the service documentation, while laying on the upholstered engine cover on the way to Catalina Island... Thanks for the blast from the past...
Yep, broke my first bolts in the bilge, when my Dad was too big to work in the confined space. BTW, if anyone knows about Jeffries boats, they know that they were built for speed, not comfort - completely utilitarian and sparse, and it took experienced sailors to run. My Dad was in the Coast Guard, and saw duty in the Pacific in WWII (bet you didn't know that the CG actually deployed overseas during the war). Seven Jeffries boats took a trip down the coast of Baja, we had a head gasket blow out, but they just took some copper wire and pounded it into the head/block joint, and kept going. I was 9 at the time (eight cherry bombs for a quarter in Ensenada, yeah!). A lifetime of memories...
Another interesting Ford engine. I wonder how much power one would produce if brought up to our machining standards and topped with a fuel injection system and supercharger.
It was an aircraft engine. The machining was definitely up to the standards of today. All It needed was a supercharger not even need fuel injection wouldve made 1200 to1500 hp. At 2500 rpm.and still be dead reliable
Probably about double or so, I doubt you could ever spin it fast enough to break much over1000 hp, but you could easily get 2000+ lbft of torque out of it if you could keep the rotating assembly together. My best guess if it was remachined with custom forged pistons and rods, large super or multiple turbos and E85 fuel injection, target would be 2500lbft and 1200hp. Would make an awesome monster truck engine or vintage tractor trailer or bus racing engine.
My Dad was a US army tanker immediately after WW2 and into Korea. He loved that engine and would rave about how great it was. And yes they were definitely defeating the governors!
It’s a time honored practice that continues to this day 💪…red thread wire on a screw means “TURN THIS FOR MORE FUN” …and if you’ve got a really cool FSR you can get your hands on that red safety wire then nobody who would care is the wiser 😏
@@neilkratzer3182I think he means his dad joined right after WW2 (meaning his dad DIDNT serve in that conflict) then got deployed to Korea…there’s a big gap between those conflicts…many people who were easily to young to serve in WW2 were just turning 16-18 around the time of the Korean conflict…were there ww2 vets in Korea? You bet there was, but most of them were senior officers or NCOs well into their late 20s-30s or older … hopefully that puts some perspective on the generational differences
@@neilkratzer3182 The responder below is correct. My Dad joined the army in 1948, at 17. He was in combat in Korea in 1952 and 53. He also fought in the M48 Patton, which is a different story altogether!
There's more info about the GAA engine: a). it had side oiler oiling 23 years before the Ford 427s had the feature. b). It came with tapered wrist pins in 1940, whereas most rodders think this feature didn't come around until the 1970s-1980s. c). most present day engine builders, as well as auto manufacturers engine design centers, say that the ideal connecting rod to crank stroke ratio ideally should be at 1.70-1.75 :1. The GAA came with rod-to-stroke ratio of 1.75. (10.5 rod centers, divide by 6" stroke.). d). The initial 12,080 engines came with double-splay 4-bolt main bearing caps. The later models went with regular 2-bold main caps because it took too much time to machine the block for the doble splay blocks. e). the engine had 1,000 lbs / ft of torque @ 1,000 rpm. Looking at Ford's dyno sheets (which I have), the hp line goes straight up at a 45-degree angle until 26-2800 rpm, when the engine runs out of carburetors. The first thing any engine modifier does is add carburetion or blowers. I am the website owner of the www.fordgaaengine.com website, and also am one of the administrators for the GAA engine blog site on Facebook. If you are interested, go to the Ford GAA engine website, and go down the pictures section. My #1 engine that I built is the one near the bottom, with the polished valve covers and the black background, and labeled as "reprocessed as screen savers." I have two stories that may be of interest to you: a). Story #1: there was a logger in Washington State that was a friend of a man that I knew who also has some GAA engines. When my friend went out to Washington to visit his friend, the friend showed him his logging truck, which had a GAA engine for power. My friend asked the man what gear he normally ran the truck in when hauling logs. Bearing in mind that a stock GAA engine has a minimum of 1,000 lbs / ft of torque at every rpm from 1,000 revs to beyond the redline, the man just told my friend, "whatever gear it happens to be in at the time." b). Story #2. I bought some parts a couple times from a man out by Lake Mead / Hoover Dam in Nevada, and the man ran an offshore V-hull boat in competition, with his power plant being one GAA engine, modified with some internal goodies, MSD ignitions and 3 Holley double pumper carbs. His one engine drove dual Mercruiser racing outdrives, connecting the drives with a 6" Gilmer timing belt to each one. The class competition was the same hull with dual Big Block Chevys on Hilborn Fuel Injection. He won as many races as he didn't win, his one Ford GAA vs Dual Chevy 427s-454s. b-1). He one time tromped the throttle too hard and snapped a 6-inch Gilmer belt from too much torque being applied too quickly. b-2). An example of: sometimes some is good but more is not better: He had a friend who convinced him to take out the GAA engine and put in a gas turbine engine. He did so, the boat caught fire, burned to the waterline, and the hull is now quietly resting in 800-ft of water behind Lake Mead / Hoover Dam. Thanks for putting out this little video about the GAA engines. Its amazing, a man out in the Seattle area set up the Facebook blog site not quite a year ago, and we now have over 525 members wanting to know more about this engine. I even got, about 2-3 years ago as a result of my website (www.fordgaaengine.com), a man affiliated with a Ford Flathead owner website, and he asked that I send some pics of the GAAs to his website, because he wanted to "bookend" the Pre-WW2 engine building efforts of Henry Ford and Friends. After I sent some pictures, my website provider sent me a tabulation of all the people logging on to the site right afterwards. A 60-HP flathead Ford V8 side by side with an aluminum, DOHC, 32V engine at the far opposite end of the engine spectrum. Who'd a thunk it.
Your own website says it only made 175 HP. Maybe a stock flathead made 60 HP, but I've worked on a couple pretty hot ones now that easily cleared 500 HP, let alone 175. I've bored and honed Honda B18 blocks for guys that purportedly made 1600. (My boss did the fire rings.) The torque is impressive as a number, but not considering that's less than one pound foot of torque per cubic inch. Don't get me wrong, I love old engines, especially odd or giant ones, but you really seem like you're overselling these things. What's the mileage in a full-size truck? My 454 gets about 14 making roughly 350 horsepower and 600 ft-lbs and it's stock other than the cam and rockers. Edit: Oh, duh, Holley carb and Edelbrock intake too. Oh, and it's a pushrod engine. :P Double edit: there's a reason Mercury used Chevy-designed engines for their marine division; Ford's engines couldn't handle wide open throttle for hours on end out on the lakes. Holy triple edit, Batman: I just realized I have a '62 Olds aluminum 215 CID that's supposed to make more horsepower, though significantly less torque. (The side oiling and tapered gudgeons are still awesome in 1940 though, as is the DOHC config.)
@@FuckGoogle502: I knew it. Some Blowtie would bring up Chevy engines. No one gives 2 sh*ts about the run of the mill boat anchors. Focus on this history lesson. 🙄
@@cobracharmer6178that and his comment that Ford’s wouldn’t hold together wide open for long periods of time. He’s a typical fanboy. I would argue Merc using GM engines is more a function of being able to use interchangeable parts between big and small blocks. Whereas Ford has different bell-housing patterns, and many other features that inconvenience being budget friendly. But instead of discussing this cool piece of history he had to talk about his boat anchor.
One would think about the times... There really wasn't a horsepower war, and Furd relied on the fact that their vehicles were built light, as were most mass-produced autos, the flathead motivated those Furds right along to justify them to keep making the quick buck with every option... as long as it was black.
The flathead was cheap, reliable, and it worked. Ford would have been making that into the 70s if GM/Chrysler/Foreign manufacturers didn't go to OHV first.
Imagine a 1950's surplus , one of those engines swapped into a bobbed duce!! That would Made an awesome toy! Especially if ya made a custom intake threw be on a couple 6-71 blowers from the Detroit diesels, and two more be of these carburators!! It should easily Make 900+ ,@ 3000 rpm mated to a ,,5"speed transmission maybe a 4speed aux. ,you could have a 2.5ton hotrod for about $100- $200 in yesteryears money probably $10-$15k today 'maybe $20k! it would be fun to drive!!
Fun fact - the GAA nomenclature was re-used on another Ford DOHC 4 valve V engine - the Ford Cosworth GAA 3.4 litre V6 used in the racing Ford Capri. Capable of making similar power to its 18 litre namesake, too, though at considerably higher revs.
Another reason for the 60° bank angle of the GAA, is it helped to cancel both harmonics and idle vibrations. If you tried to run a flat plane crank on a 90° V8 of this size, it would rattle your teeth out in a tank. They sound weird, but run much better.
That is the same reason that the V8 engine in the original Leland Lincoln, (before Ford owned it) was a 60 degree V8. Henry Martin Leland understood that buyers of expensive cars want SMOOTH.
It is amazing the advancements in technology. Metaurlagy and the like.i was thinking it was probably easier to forge that crank to get production through. It was wartime. Ford made the plant for the B 29 and the like. Something else
I commented on Mason? a couple comments before about Ford going on to make the flat heads. In the comment I had noted Ford is still going strong today. Keep the faith. I too like Ford's. I think I fell into Chrysler due to peer pressure back in the early eighty's. They were pretty obtainable then. But still I identify myself as Ford First. Buttholes are exit only.
When I was truck pulling in the 80's there was a gentleman from Moberly Missouri who had an open class pulling tractor with this engine. It would really scream!
When I was 16 I found 2 of the Continental radial engines that were new in the crate, I was able to donate one to my automotive shop class. Thanks for this video.
As the old saying goes: Necessity is the mother of invention. It's amazing to think of the engineering employed throughout the forties, fifties and sixties that is still unmatched today.
That's because there were no emissions laws and no CAFE back then! American ingenuity was allowed to flow freely. Today, it is determined by politicians and office workers, politicians and office workers who know absolutely nothing about cars, except how to start them and aim them.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Pretty much taking the engineers and real scientists out of the equation and replacing them with self self-serving fake feel-good-based special interest comities.
You are so right on. The innovation spirit is just not here today. Not to be negative about today but I worked with a lot of engineers in the late sixties and on and I marvel at what they taught this young whippersnapper. No calculators or computers just slide rules. Damn those guys were geniuses'.
Can' t believe it : Stood in front of this FORD engine TODAY at the German Tank Museum in Munster/Germany - and here is your full video on this very interesting engine , released on youtube the same day. Thank you !!! Much more info than the exhibit description card offered 👍
The old timers that were drag racing in the era of flathead V-8’s used to talk about making 180 degree cranks for their engines to use in place of the original 90 degree cranks. Those truly iconic 671 GM Diesels (before the division was called Detroit Diesel) deserve more than this passing mention! They did not share a common block. It was two straight sixes driving a common gear box. Each engine had a clutch allowing operation on either engine, as stated. These are naturally aspirated two strokes, not supercharged. The scavenging blower is necessary to remove the exhaust from the cylinder and replace it with fresh air while the piston is near BDC after the power stroke and before the compression stroke. Turbosupercharging would come later.
People don't realize that what became the hot rod "supercharger" (6-71, 8-71, 10-71 etc) was originally a literal "air blower" for a 2-stroke diesel. People know so little about the old Detroit/GM diesels that they are constantly referred to as 'supercharged'.
The twin Detroits was probably the best powerpack the Sherman had. Not incredibly fast, but very torquey and easier on fuel. Also, diesel doesn't burn with a spark.
@@drifterbbb3649 Refreshing to see that there are still folks out there who realize that a Detroit 2 cycle diesel was not supercharged, not in it's factory form.
The Sherman’s had a wide array of super interesting engines! And not gonna lie, when someone first told me about the Gaa I thought they were pulling my leg lol
4:08: The Chrysler 30-cyl tank engine was actually 5 separate flathead inline-6 car engines, all mounted to a single casting, sharing 1 oil sump. Each engine was complete, essentially an off-the-shelf motor which could be independently replaced. So, you had 5 crankshafts, 5 distributors, 5 carburetors, etc.....
I feel bad for the guys at the factory and the army mechanics that had to build,install and dial everything in on these they should have got a medal for that alone! LoL could you imagine going into work on a Monday to find out you have to change the plugs & wires and service the rest of the motor?!? I would have went back and tried again Tuesday 😂
You might argue this 5x6 flat head is an early "modular" engine. That Chrysler 6 was a sturdy performer, having had several of them in my family back in the day. They found there way into a lot of stuff. Look forward to seeing more...
I have been hearing that "slant six" was the engine they had bashed together when they made this but this predates this engine by decades. ...it's also a long time since hearing this. I am glad I've now seen a video on that. Take a look. It'll blow you're mind
I volunteer at the Museum of American Armor in Old Bethpage NY. You actually are showing off a GAA in our museum at the 8:00 mark! We have a number of vehicles we keep in running condition. One of the other drawbacks of the radial engine is that it needs to be cranked by hand 50 times before startup, to get the oil out of the bottom cylinders and flowing throughout the engine. Ask me how I know!
My first thought was that this GAA engine foreshadows both the DOHC Ford Indy engine, and the SOHC Cammer used in drag racing! The brief cutaway view shown explains the relatively low horsepower as airflow appeared quite restricted. Since any internal combustion engine is basically a compressor with spark plugs added, it seems that Ford's engineers had not realized that unrestricted air flow is key to performance. Decades later, they caught on to that fact. Great post! Thanks for sharing, as I was unaware that such an engine existed.
It is not that they didn't realize that, it is the fact that heavy vehicles need low RPM torque, and in order to defeat the enemy, you need reliability more than horsepower.
Then they made the 4V Cleveland with its way too big ports that people have been closing down for decades. For a engine like this all about low rpm torque big ports are generally bad
It's so interesting that in the 40s we used an aviation engine to power our front-line tank. Here we are 80 years later using an aviation engine to power our front-line tank. The Abrams tank engine is a jet turbine originally developed for helicopters.
I note that the Ford engine started as a competitor to the RR Merlin, but after losing to the Merlin for aircraft, was trimmed by 4 cylinders leaving a 60-degree 1100ci V8. I also note that Rover in the UK developed the Meteorite (but that was post WW2), which was a Merlin trimmed by 4 cylinders leaving a 60-degree 1100ci V8. Most common use was in the tractor of tank transporters. Built in both gasoline & diesel variants. Furthermore, I note that a development of the Merlin became a WW2 tank engine - the Meteor. 1650ci V12. While only SOHC, the 50% larger displacement made up for anything like that.
Cool video. The Ford GAA V12 is a truly missed opportunity in WW2 it would have greatly outperformed the Merlin been cheeper to produce and more fuel efficient. It's like comparing a 5.0L Windsor to a Coyote. The Merlin is just a generation older and the GAA was newer in design as simple as that.
The Chrysler Multibank was 5 6-cylinder truck engines eventually turning a single output shaft. The demand for tank engines was so great that they had to come up with something in the 400-500 HP range fast. (The U.S. went from basically 0 tank production in 1939 - thousands in late 1941.) The R975 in the M4A1 Shermans was a bear to work on. Getting to the bottom cylinders was a pain - and you had to be careful to ensure that any oil that had pooled in the bottom cylinders was drained - otherwise, when you started it, you'd be trying to compress the incompressible oil, and bent or broken conrods was the least bad thing that would happen. (Used to own one) While the Ford GAA was pretty advanced for a ground vehicle engine of the time, its features were pretty much state of the art for aircraft engines of the time. At the beginning of the War, typical in-line combat aircraft engines were Supercharged V-12s, (Some with 2-stage blowers or Turbosuperchargers in addition to the Engine's main stage blower), displacements ranging between 1600 and 2300 cubic inches, All aluminum, Overhead cams, usually 4 valves / cylinder. The Radials at the start of the war were single or twin-row, 'bout 1800-2800 ci. producing between 1200-2100 HP. The Brits has some with sleeve valves. Lat war radials were 18-28 cylinder (2 or 4 rows) beasts with displacements in the 3300-4400 ci range. Rolls-Royce basically did the same thing with the Merlin - took off the Supercharger, lopped off 4 cylinders to make a V-8, and it was produced as the Meteor tank engine. It, too, was a great success, and is really worth a look.
The Mopar A-57 multi bank is a genius kludge of how to put a big HP engine into production ASAP by tying 5 proven inline 6 engines together. Given the low end torque of the old long stroke flathead Mopar in lines, must've had a mind bending torque curve. Look forward to your feature on it!
@@trevorlewis8515And don't forget, being based on common truck engines an average mechanic had the know how to work on them, not much special training needed.
The con rod length as well as the bore/stroke ratio helped in torque I am sure. When I was young I ran a Shimano 3 speed on my moto cross bike (back in the 70's) second gear was 1:1 ratio first gear was reduction. Third gear was compound. There seemed to be a lot of power loss in that compound gear. But that reduction gear (first gear?) The opposite seemed to apply. Could be the planetary design. If anything a reducing of the crank speed on this thing would be less reducing of actual crank speed. Keeping rpm in focus over varying terrain. That Chrysler 30 cyl thing. Oh Boy !
WWII and the period directly preceding it were full of innovations, especially in aircraft engines. Turbo-compound engines were an example. It might be safe to say that until computer controlled engines became the norm that very little new innovations occurred after that war.
100% correct, although if we never had an EPA or CAFE, we might have had some innovations, but meeting their mandates comes first nowadays, or else you can't sell the car for street use, only as a racing car. Imagine, a 2024 70s-style Cadillac Fleetwood being sold as a racing car!
mate,, computers are a double step back.. more trouble than there worth.. like ev,s , wind farms, solar.. all bs.. solar pnl farms, are contributing more, to global warming, than a fkn volcano,,look it up..wind farms cost more to re cycle, than they produce, ev is unsustainable, any time.. bs tech..
Thank you for sharing. A real unique engine for the day. My great-uncle was a master tank mechanic for the duration of the war. He often spoke of Ford engine and, yes, tweaking they did to use the real power curve it was capable of.. That thirty cylinder Chrysler motor I'd sure like to see you do a video on. That he said was a crazy configuration and a real headache to service. I don't remember him speaking much about the Continental one. All great information. Thanks again!
How'd you like to be a tank mechanic that had to change 30 spark plugs at a time.? While the engine was in the tank.? The British and the Russians went out of their way to request the Chrysler multi-bank engine for the lend-lease tanks we gave them. Yes, the Russians. We gave them 7,056 Sherman tanks, which their own action reports said were 99% reliable, but of course they never admitted they used anything but their own T-34s
That's an impressive bit of tech. It would have been amazing if they shrunk the displacement by half and put it in their cars. Likely like the Buick aluminum V8 cost considerations would have quickly killed that off, but it would have been truly something to admire while it lasted.
The buick aluminium v8 was taken over by the rover group, and they made a schedule change between tempering tbe block and machining it, which resulted in a reduced rejection rate and became more cost-effective.
Some fun facts: The GAF version of this engine was fitted into the M26 Pershing. The GAF was physically configured to mate with the TorqMatic 900 automatic transmission used in the M26. The Russians really liked the Sherman with the twin diesel that they got under Lend Lease, it meshed right into their supply chain as the major Russian tanks of WW2 used diesel engines. Besides the Sherman series with the twin diesel, all of the M10 series tank destroyers were fitted with the GM twin diesel as well. When a batch of M10 series TDs were remanufactured up to the M36 tank destroyer configuration (new turret and 90mm gun), the diesels were replaced with the GAA.
Another fun fact: the soviet's were in fact so pleased with the Detroit Diesel 71 series that the build them themselves as YaAZ-204 (4-71) which was mounted in trucks like the MAZ 200 and YaAZ-206 (6-71) which was put in the early Kraz 214 trucks...
Ford also In order to meet the need for a larger engine, Ford resurrected the V-12 version as the GAC, which produced 770 hp (570 kW) and powered the T29, and T32.
Most of the tanks of WWII era were using engines that were either aircraft or airship derived since that was the large displacement technology that was readily available. As a consequence, almost all main WWII tanks were gasoline powered with few exceptions - the Russian T-34 being one of them. Fun fact: the US army did not accept the twin GM 6046 diesel variant of the Sherman. Only the US Marines and Commonwealth countries used them. Diesel was still scarce for land vehicles in WWII.
Germans did not use aircraft or airship derived engines in their tanks neither did the Russians. The British eventually used a detuned version of the Merlin aircraft engine.
@@FairladyS130 How do you think Maybach (German tank engine supplier of WWII) got started? They were the power plant provider for the Zeppelin airships. Before the war, many of the US Navy's airships were powered by Maybach V-12s. Many of the design characteristics were applied to the HL series of 6 and 12 cylinder engines used in almost all German armored vehicles during the war (and after the war if you want to include the French AMX-50 program..
it is the the uncontestable proof that bean counters have killed so many wonderful designs, it is a shame that Ford had not took advantage of these developments to gain the advantage of that technologic advance over the competition. very good video.
I came from Dayton Ohio. Big GM town. And at the time it was the #2 or 3 spot in the whole nation for having the largest concentration of machining and tooling. Sadly, it is a shadow of it's former self these days.
No worries boys. For the next war we will not have the industrial base nor the human capital to win. Between Harvard MBA's and our 70 years of prosperity, we are soft and don't want it bad enough to win.😢
@@bentrovato3082 All anybody can think about is self gain and the half-ass, easy way out. Screw any and everybody else. There is no sense of anything bigger than themselves. It’s quite pathetic.
With all of those engines made, hot rodders and racers were bound to get ahold of them. The GAA was pretty common on the tractor pull circuit back in the day.
There were other problems with the radial in the sherman...you had to rotate the engine over when cold to prevent from blowing the bottom cylinders to pieces going solid in the oil that settled in there. The BEST engine in the sherman tank and the grant tank...was indeed the two stroke GM detroit diesel double block. Mostly because the tank did not burn and incinerate the crew.
@@retiredbore378 The shermans were burning up even with "minor damage" due to the 80 octane gasoline required for the radial engines. AKA they were named Ronsons because they" lit the first time, every time". I took a good look at a sherman with a radial engine and that thing was a death trap if hit by at 70 to 88 mm shell
@@certaindeedFun fact, the Sherman didn't have higher burn rates than any other tank, and once wet stowage was introduced and the ammunition was moved to the hull floor it burned significantly _less_ than literally every other tank. The fuel used had little to do with burn rates. In its weight class the Sherman had the highest crew survival rate when destroyed, thanks to a combination of the aforementioned ammo stowage changes, and large, easily accessible hatches. And no, it wasn't under-armored compared to its equivalents, the T-34 and Panzer IV, as the angle of the hull meant it had superior line-of-sight thickness to both from the front. The Cheiftain has multiple videos on the history and development of the Sherman, and it's fascinating just how much went into making sure that when a tank got delivered to the troops, it worked reliably. The only real missteps in the development and deployment of the Sherman were not deploying the 76mm variant to Normandy, and not making more HVAP ammunition available sooner, both decisions being made due to a perceived lack of need.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Yes moving the ammo was a huge improvement. It was a medium tank and in that class it was decent. The radial version was also quite fast tank with a good power to weight ratio. Sherman radial was indeed not bad on gasoline fuel consumption either despite the drawbacks of the radial. There is no doubt however, that in the event of a fire in the engine compartment or damage anywhere, diesel was not going to burn.
@@certaindeed Not really? Fuel fires are arguably the least likely cause of a tank burning down, at least if you aren't in a German tank with fuel line issues (looking at you, big cats) or mishandling the fuel in the first place. Diesel is technically less likely to catch fire, but if a shell punctures a fuel tank in such a way that the leak's inside the vehicle and not outside, you likely have bigger problems to worry about.
mate, Peugoet and Fiat had double overhead cam four valve per cylinder engines back in 1916. Ferrari have never had a pushrod engine, ever. Ferrari are all aluminium blocks except for the 206 and 246 which were manufactured by Fiat. What are you on about? One other thing, anything bigger than a 5 litre V8 with a flat plane crank just vibrates itself to pieces. Just look at the lack of reliability with the flat plan corvette V8.
Lots of engine features that people think of as being 'high tech' today have been around for decades. The reason why Ford didn't produce overhead cam engines for passenger cars back in the the day is because the manufacturing tech of the day would have made it too expensive. Companies like Ford sold to a certain price point and that's what limited engines like this to special applications and not ordinary consumer products.
@@marcolucchini8173 Dont forget the American Miller engines ( later Offenhauser) from the early 20s, dual overhead camshafts and 4 valves per cylinder. They dominated racing for decades.
Ford engineers were way ahead of there time . Most people not in the know would have never have guess this was made in the 1940s .Feel sorry for the army mechanics who had to work on these monster engine's in the field .They were some tough ,get er done guys back then .
I've read that the Ford GAA(& presumably the v12 it was derived from) are able to use pistons, conrods, valves & cylinder liners from a Rolls Royce Merlin, as a military engine it makes some sense that they might want to standardise the inventory of spare parts.
Every part of the Ford G engine was unique to them. The Merlin and Meteor v12's had the notoriously weak fork blade rod, the Fords used "standard style" side by side rods, which were extremely strong.
Aircraft engines in tanks isn't totally unusual. The Allison, the Merlin (Meteor) were both used in tank applications, though the Allison was only installed experimentally. I love these old engines, so interesting. DOHC does date back to the turnn of the century....the 20th century that is. I think Peugeot was first here, in 1912.
I had never heard of that engine, so this was an engaging video; well done mate! It seems that there was a big gap in thinking in the automotive world vs the aero world, with the latter being much more inventive and progressive. This is doubly weird when the same company produces the flathead and the GAA- obviously cost is the main factor at play.
The Detroit twin six was a two stroke diesel engine, and the blowers on them were not superchargers, but scavenger blowers. As with all two stroke Detroits, they have no means of natural aspiration so the blowers are needed to pump in fresh intake air charge, and scavenge the exhaust out. Intake air is provided at slightly above atmospheric pressure. Intake charge entered the cylinders through ports in the cylinder sleeve when the pistons were at bottom of their stroke, and exhaust exited through valves in the head. There were turbocharged versions of Detroit two stroke engines later available in trucks and the like though. Two stroke Detroits have a sound all their own. The main truck in the movie "Maximum Overdrive" is a good example of that sound.
Off an Allison or Merlin aero engine..... a drain pipe with 1/4 inch jets and a Coke bottle sized accelerator pump... Fuel injection for the win...with all the modern sensors to control everything on that engine... idle @ 250rpm or less... full out past 3000rpms or more... (the crankshaft is the weak point with those horrible vibrations (that's why the 150lb flywheel) @@De19thKingJulion
@@JohnSmith-yv6eq If I could EVER get one of these, probably for a heavy duty truck... Fuel injection for sure, perhaps 16 of 'em. Hearing one idle at 250-300rpm? Ooooh
@@De19thKingJulion Not necessarily. LPG regulator and HHO regulator or EGR and it would work with just one of those mistifiers. It only needs to turn 2500 to 2700, and not for a "max power", but smooth operation with decent fuel economy.
Flat plane cranks went into some of the first V8s, going back to the OX-5 and earlier. The 1917 thru 1919 Chevrolet Model D V8s were so configured. Rolls Royce built a similar engine called the Meteorite, a derivative of the V12 Meteor, which itself was a marine version of the Merlin, but naturally aspirated. Ford ultimately built the final version of the Pratt and Whitney R-4360, under contract by Pratt and Whitney, which was a 28-cylinder radial. AKA the Wasp Major, the Ford built versions powered Boeing C-97/KC-97 Stratofrieghters, Douglas C-124 Globemasters and Consolidated B-36 Peacemakers. Rated at 3,500 to 3,800 HP.
Yeah, the original flat planes were just because cross-plane hadn't been invented/commercialized. It's not like they were revving an 18L engine to 8kRPM, lol.
OK, I'll bite, what is a "flat plane crank"? The Ford looks rugged and simple, would love to see the worm gear set up for the cams. It's amazing how many of today's technological marvels had their roots many years ago... I'll bet this engine had steel sleeves in the aluminum block, and aluminum heads as well. So Ford figured it all out back then, what was GM's excuse(s) for the Vega!
I can tell you what one of GM’s problems was. The bean counters had more power than the engineers. Of course cost has to be controlled. But look what happened with the Vega. It ended up costing more than if they just would have done it right from the outset.
You can see the worm gears in the cutaway. Flat plane just means the counterweights and journals are all within one axis as opposed to 3 axes. A bit hard to explain. Take a look at a pic on google and you’ll see what I mean.
There are unofficial reports of some tractor pullers turning over 5000 rpms. Remember that today's engines measure pistons and rods in "grams", and I think NASCAR has a 450 gram minimum weight on rods. The GAA rods weigh "5 pounds" each and the pistons (with pins) also weight "5 pounds" each. So, when you have 10 pounds of reciprocating weight per cylinder, it gets rather dicey when revving the engines.
The M-4 Sherman was considered one of the fastest tanks of WWII. It was certainly faster than any of the German tanks it went up against. This, its maneuverability and sheer weight of numbers, normally gave it the upper hand in the European Theater.
My dad was in the Third Armored, and he said the Sherman was faster and had a much better and faster turret system, but all tankers were terrified of the German 88mm.
The Australians fitted 4 Buick flat head v6s together to put in the Shermans they had. They couldn't get the other motors, and they had access to the Buick motors. They stacked the motors in a square configuration and used a gear system to link them.
From what I have observed and studied the GAA was a very advanced engine for the time, and even today modern engines incorperate many of these features. I may be wrong but i think they had basic variable valve timing, and the later models used in the M26 pershing were updated with throttle body injection. These engines bare many simulairities with Fords modern modular block V8s.
The GAA8 was based on an aircraft engine that Ford was developing but the Army didn't want it and the Navy was only interested in aircooled engines. The UK did the same with their Merlin. I wish that Ford had kept working on the aircraft engine.
As a bit of a student of WWII, I'm flabbergasted that I never knew of this engine! Very interesting. Too bad Ford has lost their way in dependable innovation. Instead, it's recall madness.
According to the NTHSA, as of 2023 there is only one manufacturer with more recalls than Ford; Honda with 6.3 million vehicles to Ford's 6.1 million vehicles.@@kemosabegt350geuss6
Its not so much that Ford lost their way, it is the fact that mass-produced poularly-priced cars must be cheap to produce, and the fact that they have been, since the 70s, forced to first satisfy EPA and later CAFE mandates.
Always loved seeing that Chrysler engine on display at the late great Walter P Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills Michigan. So sad to see that great museum long gone now, thanks to Fiat. During my time as a Chrysler contract employee from 2002 to 2013 prior to going back to GM I went there many times.
For a short time the GAA was a popular tractor pulling engine but was soon replaced by the guys running Allisons. I've seen an example of Plymouth's 30 cylinder engine in the lobby of Chrysler's museum north of Detroit. Really interesting engine. It was designed this way to use proven engine parts already in production. Still, it was great engine that field mechanic would have no trouble understanding and keeping running in the field since it was the same engine their car had.
Whenever I hear old engine specs, I'm always blown away by how powerless they were, and how inefficient, too. My tiny little 1997 Subaru EJ20 2-litre turbocharged horizontally opposed 4-cylinder weighs 380lbs with headers and turbo attached. Yes, it is highly tuned with bigger injectors, a much large top-mount intercooler, and a 4" cat-less downpipe - and it dynos at 404 HP at 18lbs of boost. It's got a short-ratio 5-speed gearbox from the WRC rally cars, and so it redlines in top at just 215 kmh! Throttle response with the little Mitsubishi TD04 turbo and the ultra-light crankshaft is phenomenal, and acceleration in 2nd and 3rd gears is ferocious, and the utmost driver care and attention is required, lest the vehicle gain the upper hand. :)
Maybe, but it doesn’t have the torque to pull a tank. Horse power isn’t everything and that’s why trucks have big diesel engines, not high horsepower figures but look at the torque, it’s massive.
If you were to put your engine in a tank that constantly requires 400 hp, it wouldn't last long at all. The 450 hp the GAA makes at 2600 means it is also producing over 900 ft/lb. You can't just go by hp to understand what is going on. Edit: Also consider that an operating requirement would have been to run on inconsistent or low quality fuel without detonation. That would place limitations on what can be done regarding compression or forced induction.
@@shawnbottom4769 Agree 1000%---what many don't realize is that the fuel available to ground forces back then by necessity was very low octane, because the vast majority of the engines consuming that fuel were flatheads in trucks, jeeps, and stationary equipment. Since this engine went onto the drawing board as an aircraft V12, I'm sure it started out with a high compression design, but when it was redesigned for V8 ground duty, the compression ratio had to be lowered for the reason stated above.
One of the largest gasoline engines produced in the world? Not even close, not even close! Every WWII fighter had larger gasoline engines. 1500 CI was about the minimum for a US fighter. Bombers? The B-29 had four 3,350 CI engines during the war and was upgraded to 4,360 CI engines after the war. 1,100 engines is a cute little baby engine! :) Good video though!
@@riogrande163 That was a direct quote from the video " one of the largest gasoline engines produced in the world ... " Not "the largest V8" , and it's not even close to the largest gasoline engine produced. And Ford produced a number of significant;y larger gasoline engines than this one.
@@riogrande163"one of the largest gasoline engines produced in the world" I did watch the video. Clearly, you did not *listen* to the video. Something tells me listening is not really your thing.
That Chrysler 30 cylinder engine(s) is an interesting unit! Can’t wait for that video! And you are totally right Adam on this Ford engine being ahead of its time. But old Hank had a lot of that genius. Be interesting to see you do a feature on his 1949(?) all hemp body construction car.
We had this exact engine in our 36' Jeffries cabin cruiser in the late '50s/early '60s. We also had a spare in our locker at Newmark's landing in Wilmington, California, which we swapped in when a wave flooded our exhaust and a valve head embedded itself in a piston...the GAA was a marvel, and would push the Jeffries to 30 knots! As a kid, I used to read the service documentation, while laying on the upholstered engine cover on the way to Catalina Island... Thanks for the blast from the past...
@schwartzenheimer1 Sounds like a healthy childhood
Yep, broke my first bolts in the bilge, when my Dad was too big to work in the confined space. BTW, if anyone knows about Jeffries boats, they know that they were built for speed, not comfort - completely utilitarian and sparse, and it took experienced sailors to run. My Dad was in the Coast Guard, and saw duty in the Pacific in WWII (bet you didn't know that the CG actually deployed overseas during the war).
Seven Jeffries boats took a trip down the coast of Baja, we had a head gasket blow out, but they just took some copper wire and pounded it into the head/block joint, and kept going. I was 9 at the time (eight cherry bombs for a quarter in Ensenada, yeah!). A lifetime of memories...
Another interesting Ford engine. I wonder how much power one would produce if brought up to our machining standards and topped with a fuel injection system and supercharger.
It was an aircraft engine. The machining was definitely up to the standards of today. All It needed was a supercharger not even need fuel injection wouldve made 1200 to1500 hp. At 2500 rpm.and still be dead reliable
Probably about double or so, I doubt you could ever spin it fast enough to break much over1000 hp, but you could easily get 2000+ lbft of torque out of it if you could keep the rotating assembly together. My best guess if it was remachined with custom forged pistons and rods, large super or multiple turbos and E85 fuel injection, target would be 2500lbft and 1200hp. Would make an awesome monster truck engine or vintage tractor trailer or bus racing engine.
My Dad was a US army tanker immediately after WW2 and into Korea. He loved that engine and would rave about how great it was. And yes they were definitely defeating the governors!
Your dad actually went directly from ww2 to Korea? My wife's grandpa did the same thing.
It’s a time honored practice that continues to this day 💪…red thread wire on a screw means “TURN THIS FOR MORE FUN” …and if you’ve got a really cool FSR you can get your hands on that red safety wire then nobody who would care is the wiser 😏
@@neilkratzer3182I think he means his dad joined right after WW2 (meaning his dad DIDNT serve in that conflict) then got deployed to Korea…there’s a big gap between those conflicts…many people who were easily to young to serve in WW2 were just turning 16-18 around the time of the Korean conflict…were there ww2 vets in Korea? You bet there was, but most of them were senior officers or NCOs well into their late 20s-30s or older … hopefully that puts some perspective on the generational differences
@@neilkratzer3182 The responder below is correct. My Dad joined the army in 1948, at 17. He was in combat in Korea in 1952 and 53. He also fought in the M48 Patton, which is a different story altogether!
My grandfather was a tank commander as well and went directly Korea after WW2 as well.
There's more info about the GAA engine: a). it had side oiler oiling 23 years before the Ford 427s had the feature. b). It came with tapered wrist pins in 1940, whereas most rodders think this feature didn't come around until the 1970s-1980s. c). most present day engine builders, as well as auto manufacturers engine design centers, say that the ideal connecting rod to crank stroke ratio ideally should be at 1.70-1.75 :1. The GAA came with rod-to-stroke ratio of 1.75. (10.5 rod centers, divide by 6" stroke.). d). The initial 12,080 engines came with double-splay 4-bolt main bearing caps. The later models went with regular 2-bold main caps because it took too much time to machine the block for the doble splay blocks. e). the engine had 1,000 lbs / ft of torque @ 1,000 rpm. Looking at Ford's dyno sheets (which I have), the hp line goes straight up at a 45-degree angle until 26-2800 rpm, when the engine runs out of carburetors. The first thing any engine modifier does is add carburetion or blowers.
I am the website owner of the www.fordgaaengine.com website, and also am one of the administrators for the GAA engine blog site on Facebook. If you are interested, go to the Ford GAA engine website, and go down the pictures section. My #1 engine that I built is the one near the bottom, with the polished valve covers and the black background, and labeled as "reprocessed as screen savers."
I have two stories that may be of interest to you: a). Story #1: there was a logger in Washington State that was a friend of a man that I knew who also has some GAA engines. When my friend went out to Washington to visit his friend, the friend showed him his logging truck, which had a GAA engine for power. My friend asked the man what gear he normally ran the truck in when hauling logs. Bearing in mind that a stock GAA engine has a minimum of 1,000 lbs / ft of torque at every rpm from 1,000 revs to beyond the redline, the man just told my friend, "whatever gear it happens to be in at the time." b). Story #2. I bought some parts a couple times from a man out by Lake Mead / Hoover Dam in Nevada, and the man ran an offshore V-hull boat in competition, with his power plant being one GAA engine, modified with some internal goodies, MSD ignitions and 3 Holley double pumper carbs. His one engine drove dual Mercruiser racing outdrives, connecting the drives with a 6" Gilmer timing belt to each one. The class competition was the same hull with dual Big Block Chevys on Hilborn Fuel Injection. He won as many races as he didn't win, his one Ford GAA vs Dual Chevy 427s-454s. b-1). He one time tromped the throttle too hard and snapped a 6-inch Gilmer belt from too much torque being applied too quickly. b-2). An example of: sometimes some is good but more is not better: He had a friend who convinced him to take out the GAA engine and put in a gas turbine engine. He did so, the boat caught fire, burned to the waterline, and the hull is now quietly resting in 800-ft of water behind Lake Mead / Hoover Dam.
Thanks for putting out this little video about the GAA engines. Its amazing, a man out in the Seattle area set up the Facebook blog site not quite a year ago, and we now have over 525 members wanting to know more about this engine. I even got, about 2-3 years ago as a result of my website (www.fordgaaengine.com), a man affiliated with a Ford Flathead owner website, and he asked that I send some pics of the GAAs to his website, because he wanted to "bookend" the Pre-WW2 engine building efforts of Henry Ford and Friends. After I sent some pictures, my website provider sent me a tabulation of all the people logging on to the site right afterwards. A 60-HP flathead Ford V8 side by side with an aluminum, DOHC, 32V engine at the far opposite end of the engine spectrum. Who'd a thunk it.
Well that answers to stroke question. Bore? (I can do the math but don't want to figure you have it at your tips), Compression ratio? Valve size?
Your own website says it only made 175 HP. Maybe a stock flathead made 60 HP, but I've worked on a couple pretty hot ones now that easily cleared 500 HP, let alone 175. I've bored and honed Honda B18 blocks for guys that purportedly made 1600. (My boss did the fire rings.) The torque is impressive as a number, but not considering that's less than one pound foot of torque per cubic inch. Don't get me wrong, I love old engines, especially odd or giant ones, but you really seem like you're overselling these things. What's the mileage in a full-size truck? My 454 gets about 14 making roughly 350 horsepower and 600 ft-lbs and it's stock other than the cam and rockers. Edit: Oh, duh, Holley carb and Edelbrock intake too. Oh, and it's a pushrod engine. :P Double edit: there's a reason Mercury used Chevy-designed engines for their marine division; Ford's engines couldn't handle wide open throttle for hours on end out on the lakes. Holy triple edit, Batman: I just realized I have a '62 Olds aluminum 215 CID that's supposed to make more horsepower, though significantly less torque. (The side oiling and tapered gudgeons are still awesome in 1940 though, as is the DOHC config.)
@@FuckGoogle502: I knew it.
Some Blowtie would bring up Chevy engines. No one gives 2 sh*ts about the run of the mill boat anchors. Focus on this history lesson. 🙄
@@cobracharmer6178ya sound like some sucker who bought a f150 in the last few years & still lies about it being dependable.
Found
On the
Road
Dead
!!
@@cobracharmer6178that and his comment that Ford’s wouldn’t hold together wide open for long periods of time. He’s a typical fanboy. I would argue Merc using GM engines is more a function of being able to use interchangeable parts between big and small blocks. Whereas Ford has different bell-housing patterns, and many other features that inconvenience being budget friendly.
But instead of discussing this cool piece of history he had to talk about his boat anchor.
It's amazing that after the war they went right back to producing the flathead for like another 10 years
@@johnw.warneriv9779tooling already set up why bother
One would think about the times... There really wasn't a horsepower war, and Furd relied on the fact that their vehicles were built light, as were most mass-produced autos, the flathead motivated those Furds right along to justify them to keep making the quick buck with every option... as long as it was black.
Flatheads were cheap to build.@@johnw.warneriv9779
Cost had a lot to do with the flathead V8 engine design. Also the main reason GM, Chrysler and Ford all still produce pushrod V8's today.
The flathead was cheap, reliable, and it worked. Ford would have been making that into the 70s if GM/Chrysler/Foreign manufacturers didn't go to OHV first.
I'd like to hear it running.
Yes the GAA and the 30 cylinder Chrysler engine. Beasts!
Here is a video of a Sherman tank with a Ford GAA engine. czcams.com/video/DxI7R_IOAdY/video.htmlsi=RZvC5iFATQeQrUJj
Just do a search on Ford GAA engine to find video's of it running.
Imagine a 1950's surplus , one of those engines swapped into a bobbed duce!! That would Made an awesome toy! Especially if ya made a custom intake threw be on a couple 6-71 blowers from the Detroit diesels, and two more be of these carburators!! It should easily Make 900+ ,@ 3000 rpm mated to a ,,5"speed transmission maybe a 4speed aux. ,you could have a 2.5ton hotrod for about $100- $200 in yesteryears money probably $10-$15k today 'maybe $20k! it would be fun to drive!!
Ford made DOHC in 1940 but couldn’t put it in the modular engine
A lot of these made their way into marine applications too. I once worked on a fishing boat that had one.
Fun fact - the GAA nomenclature was re-used on another Ford DOHC 4 valve V engine - the Ford Cosworth GAA 3.4 litre V6 used in the racing Ford Capri. Capable of making similar power to its 18 litre namesake, too, though at considerably higher revs.
Another reason for the 60° bank angle of the GAA, is it helped to cancel both harmonics and idle vibrations. If you tried to run a flat plane crank on a 90° V8 of this size, it would rattle your teeth out in a tank. They sound weird, but run much better.
That is the same reason that the V8 engine in the original Leland Lincoln, (before Ford owned it) was a 60 degree V8. Henry Martin Leland understood that buyers of expensive cars want SMOOTH.
Yeah run it up in the RPM's and you stand a chance of fracturing the crank
It is amazing the advancements in technology. Metaurlagy and the like.i was thinking it was probably easier to forge that crank to get production through. It was wartime. Ford made the plant for the B 29 and the like. Something else
Perfect example of "Necessity is the mother of invention".
I’m a huge Ford fan, and this pleases me to no end. Thank you for sharing.
Hi bob, so am I, I've never owned anything but Ford. Henry Ford was ahead of his time. Cheers.
I commented on Mason? a couple comments before about Ford going on to make the flat heads. In the comment I had noted Ford is still going strong today. Keep the faith. I too like Ford's. I think I fell into Chrysler due to peer pressure back in the early eighty's. They were pretty obtainable then. But still I identify myself as Ford First. Buttholes are exit only.
I'm a pre-1980 Ford fan, but since then, not so much.
The worm-drive for the camshafts was a brilliant idea.
But noisy and I’m sure plenty EXPENSIVE to produce...
Hell yeah @@martyzielinski1442
@@martyzielinski1442not relevant in war or for military use.
I guess mostly higher rpms (thus automotive applications) might be an issue. But great for low rpm's like these
www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/Accessory-drive-gear-train-cams-included-FIXED-flattened.png
Such a cool engine for 1940 and a great narrative! Thank you.
When I was truck pulling in the 80's there was a gentleman from Moberly Missouri who had an open class pulling tractor with this engine. It would really scream!
Been an engine junkie for 60 years and this is the first time I've heard of this engine. Thank you. Never too old to learn 👍👍👍
When I was 16 I found 2 of the Continental radial engines that were new in the crate, I was able to donate one to my automotive shop class. Thanks for this video.
My shop class had one. The teacher would start it up once a year. What a sound!
As the old saying goes: Necessity is the mother of invention.
It's amazing to think of the engineering employed throughout the forties, fifties and sixties that is still unmatched today.
It's surpassed
That's because there were no emissions laws and no CAFE back then! American ingenuity was allowed to flow freely. Today, it is determined by politicians and office workers, politicians and office workers who know absolutely nothing about cars, except how to start them and aim them.
@@Bloodcurling In some way yes. In too many, still no.
@@jamesbosworth4191 Pretty much taking the engineers and real scientists out of the equation and replacing them with self self-serving fake feel-good-based special interest comities.
You are so right on. The innovation spirit is just not here today. Not to be negative about today but I worked with a lot of engineers in the late sixties and on and I marvel at what they taught this young whippersnapper. No calculators or computers just slide rules. Damn those guys were geniuses'.
Can' t believe it : Stood in front of this FORD engine TODAY at the German Tank Museum in Munster/Germany - and here is your full video on this very interesting engine , released on youtube the same day.
Thank you !!! Much more info than the exhibit description card offered 👍
I had a 1967 Ford falcon 144 that got 32 miles to the gallon in town or on the highway! That was with the three speed transmission!
I had the 170 Special with automatic in a '63 Falcon "SIX IN A ROW, SURE CAN GO"😊
The old timers that were drag racing in the era of flathead V-8’s used to talk about making 180 degree cranks for their engines to use in place of the original 90 degree cranks.
Those truly iconic 671 GM Diesels (before the division was called Detroit Diesel) deserve more than this passing mention! They did not share a common block. It was two straight sixes driving a common gear box. Each engine had a clutch allowing operation on either engine, as stated. These are naturally aspirated two strokes, not supercharged. The scavenging blower is necessary to remove the exhaust from the cylinder and replace it with fresh air while the piston is near BDC after the power stroke and before the compression stroke. Turbosupercharging would come later.
People don't realize that what became the hot rod "supercharger" (6-71, 8-71, 10-71 etc) was originally a literal "air blower" for a 2-stroke diesel. People know so little about the old Detroit/GM diesels that they are constantly referred to as 'supercharged'.
The twin Detroits was probably the best powerpack the Sherman had. Not incredibly fast, but very torquey and easier on fuel. Also, diesel doesn't burn with a spark.
@@drifterbbb3649 Refreshing to see that there are still folks out there who realize that a Detroit 2 cycle diesel was not supercharged, not in it's factory form.
Great to see somebody who knows that Detroit 2 cycle diesels were not supercharged. So many too young to know try to argue about this.
You shouldn't use the outdated term superturbocharging as it is misleading. Just say turbo
The Ford GAA V8 is such a glorious sounding machine! I would love to get my hands on some to help keep them going!
Back in the 1970's there was a local guy that ran one of these in a pulling tractor. I remember seeing when I was kid. That thing really sounded cool!
The Sherman’s had a wide array of super interesting engines! And not gonna lie, when someone first told me about the Gaa I thought they were pulling my leg lol
Got a friend that just built a pulling tractor using this engine. It’s called the “The Patriot”. I believe he has it making 2000-2500hp
Wow. What a monster . Rare to be able to see something like that. Thanks
4:08: The Chrysler 30-cyl tank engine was actually 5 separate flathead inline-6 car engines, all mounted to a single casting, sharing 1 oil sump. Each engine was complete, essentially an off-the-shelf motor which could be independently replaced. So, you had 5 crankshafts, 5 distributors, 5 carburetors, etc.....
I feel bad for the guys at the factory and the army mechanics that had to build,install and dial everything in on these they should have got a medal for that alone! LoL could you imagine going into work on a Monday to find out you have to change the plugs & wires and service the rest of the motor?!? I would have went back and tried again Tuesday 😂
You might argue this 5x6 flat head is an early "modular" engine. That Chrysler 6 was a sturdy performer, having had several of them in my family back in the day. They found there way into a lot of stuff. Look forward to seeing more...
I have been hearing that "slant six" was the engine they had bashed together when they made this but this predates this engine by decades. ...it's also a long time since hearing this. I am glad I've now seen a video on that. Take a look. It'll blow you're mind
No. The Slant 6 was an early 60's design, and the bottom of the engine block is milled square, not tapered like the Slant 6 is.@@jamespell8091
Adam, I like when you branch off from your normal subject matter like this. You have plenty more to share. Keep them coming
I volunteer at the Museum of American Armor in Old Bethpage NY. You actually are showing off a GAA in our museum at the 8:00 mark! We have a number of vehicles we keep in running condition. One of the other drawbacks of the radial engine is that it needs to be cranked by hand 50 times before startup, to get the oil out of the bottom cylinders and flowing throughout the engine. Ask me how I know!
My first thought was that this GAA engine foreshadows both the DOHC Ford Indy engine, and the SOHC Cammer used in drag racing! The brief cutaway view shown explains the relatively low horsepower as airflow appeared quite restricted. Since any internal combustion engine is basically a compressor with spark plugs added, it seems that Ford's engineers had not realized that unrestricted air flow is key to performance. Decades later, they caught on to that fact.
Great post! Thanks for sharing, as I was unaware that such an engine existed.
The GAA was designed more for torque than HP. Low RPM engines have much higher reliability.
It is not that they didn't realize that, it is the fact that heavy vehicles need low RPM torque, and in order to defeat the enemy, you need reliability more than horsepower.
Then they made the 4V Cleveland with its way too big ports that people have been closing down for decades.
For a engine like this all about low rpm torque big ports are generally bad
@@ldnwholesale8552 The 2V Cleveland heads are much better for street use.
Don't forget, they were side-oilers 23 years before the Ford 427s used this feature. One of the many innovations the engines had.
It's so interesting that in the 40s we used an aviation engine to power our front-line tank. Here we are 80 years later using an aviation engine to power our front-line tank. The Abrams tank engine is a jet turbine originally developed for helicopters.
The Brits used derated Rolls Merlin engines in their tanks. Don’t know if the engines were new builds or retired from aircraft.
I note that the Ford engine started as a competitor to the RR Merlin, but after losing to the Merlin for aircraft, was trimmed by 4 cylinders leaving a 60-degree 1100ci V8.
I also note that Rover in the UK developed the Meteorite (but that was post WW2), which was a Merlin trimmed by 4 cylinders leaving a 60-degree 1100ci V8. Most common use was in the tractor of tank transporters. Built in both gasoline & diesel variants.
Furthermore, I note that a development of the Merlin became a WW2 tank engine - the Meteor. 1650ci V12. While only SOHC, the 50% larger displacement made up for anything like that.
Ok your notes are duly noted..
@@mortenmerstrand5473 Thank you for noting the notes. Your note of the notes has been noted.
@@ShuRugal Ok i will take a note of that ;)
The Meteor engine used in the Centurion tank was a Merlin without supercharging.
@@pashakdescilly7517 it also ran in reverse rotation and had quite a lot of aircraft specific parts removed which reduced its size considerably.
Cool video. The Ford GAA V12 is a truly missed opportunity in WW2 it would have greatly outperformed the Merlin been cheeper to produce and more fuel efficient. It's like comparing a 5.0L Windsor to a Coyote. The Merlin is just a generation older and the GAA was newer in design as simple as that.
The Chrysler Multibank was 5 6-cylinder truck engines eventually turning a single output shaft. The demand for tank engines was so great that they had to come up with something in the 400-500 HP range fast. (The U.S. went from basically 0 tank production in 1939 - thousands in late 1941.)
The R975 in the M4A1 Shermans was a bear to work on. Getting to the bottom cylinders was a pain - and you had to be careful to ensure that any oil that had pooled in the bottom cylinders was drained - otherwise, when you started it, you'd be trying to compress the incompressible oil, and bent or broken conrods was the least bad thing that would happen.
(Used to own one)
While the Ford GAA was pretty advanced for a ground vehicle engine of the time, its features were pretty much state of the art for aircraft engines of the time.
At the beginning of the War, typical in-line combat aircraft engines were Supercharged V-12s, (Some with 2-stage blowers or Turbosuperchargers in addition to the Engine's main stage blower), displacements ranging between 1600 and 2300 cubic inches, All aluminum, Overhead cams, usually 4 valves / cylinder. The Radials at the start of the war were single or twin-row, 'bout 1800-2800 ci. producing between 1200-2100 HP. The Brits has some with sleeve valves. Lat war radials were 18-28 cylinder (2 or 4 rows) beasts with displacements in the 3300-4400 ci range.
Rolls-Royce basically did the same thing with the Merlin - took off the Supercharger, lopped off 4 cylinders to make a V-8, and it was produced as the Meteor tank engine.
It, too, was a great success, and is really worth a look.
The Meteor was a V-12. It was the Meteorite that was a V-8.
The Mopar A-57 multi bank is a genius kludge of how to put a big HP engine into production ASAP by tying 5 proven inline 6 engines together. Given the low end torque of the old long stroke flathead Mopar in lines, must've had a mind bending torque curve. Look forward to your feature on it!
@@trevorlewis8515And don't forget, being based on common truck engines an average mechanic had the know how to work on them, not much special training needed.
I owed and flew a Grumman ag cat powered by a r 975 continental good power but had a problem with cracking crankshafts. 11:04
The con rod length as well as the bore/stroke ratio helped in torque I am sure. When I was young I ran a Shimano 3 speed on my moto cross bike (back in the 70's) second gear was 1:1 ratio first gear was reduction. Third gear was compound. There seemed to be a lot of power loss in that compound gear. But that reduction gear (first gear?) The opposite seemed to apply. Could be the planetary design. If anything a reducing of the crank speed on this thing would be less reducing of actual crank speed. Keeping rpm in focus over varying terrain. That Chrysler 30 cyl thing. Oh Boy !
WWII and the period directly preceding it were full of innovations, especially in aircraft engines. Turbo-compound engines were an example. It might be safe to say that until computer controlled engines became the norm that very little new innovations occurred after that war.
100% correct, although if we never had an EPA or CAFE, we might have had some innovations, but meeting their mandates comes first nowadays, or else you can't sell the car for street use, only as a racing car. Imagine, a 2024 70s-style Cadillac Fleetwood being sold as a racing car!
mate,, computers are a double step back.. more trouble than there worth.. like ev,s , wind farms, solar.. all bs.. solar pnl farms, are contributing more, to global warming, than a fkn volcano,,look it up..wind farms cost more to re cycle, than they produce, ev is unsustainable, any time.. bs tech..
I'd love to hear them run!!
it also had shaft driven cams, too. no chains or belts to break!
Gears though
Most overhead cams in aero engines are bevel drive, a small few have a stack of gears driving the cam but that gets pretty heavy.
On what?
@@shawnsatterlee6035 Can you elaborate on the question & which of the three other people in the thread it's aimed at?
Thank you for sharing. A real unique engine for the day. My great-uncle was a master tank mechanic for the duration of the war. He often spoke of Ford engine and, yes, tweaking they did to use the real power curve it was capable of.. That thirty cylinder Chrysler motor I'd sure like to see you do a video on. That he said was a crazy configuration and a real headache to service. I don't remember him speaking much about the Continental one. All great information. Thanks again!
He does have a video on the 30 cyl Chrysler engine. That engine is out there man.
How'd you like to be a tank mechanic that had to change 30 spark plugs at a time.? While the engine was in the tank.? The British and the Russians went out of their way to request the Chrysler multi-bank engine for the lend-lease tanks we gave them. Yes, the Russians. We gave them 7,056 Sherman tanks, which their own action reports said were 99% reliable, but of course they never admitted they used anything but their own T-34s
@@bobkonradi1027 It wouldn't surprise me if the are still using some of them and reverse engineered to steal whatever they could.
I learn so much from this channel !!!
That's an impressive bit of tech. It would have been amazing if they shrunk the displacement by half and put it in their cars. Likely like the Buick aluminum V8 cost considerations would have quickly killed that off, but it would have been truly something to admire while it lasted.
The buick aluminium v8 was taken over by the rover group, and they made a schedule change between tempering tbe block and machining it, which resulted in a reduced rejection rate and became more cost-effective.
The fact that they can't sell cheap to produce engines today is one of the reasons today's cars are so expensive.
Rover still uses yhe Buick aluminum V8, or did.
Designing engines this complex before computers is mind boggling! Previous generations were just better than those around today in many ways.
Great video! I’ve always been fascinated by this engine and the fact it was from 1940!👍
One of Ford's best hammers that saved the Freedom of hundreds of millions.
Other than the fact Henry ford was extremely antisemitic and supported the nazis and made equipment for them as well
So, what are your thoughts on fiat currency, Breton Woods, the Petro Dollar, inflation, and the economy?
@@carterlee8344 me or the OP? Not sure what this has to do with the conversation
Did it though?
What an absolute cool beast!
Yes the GAA is very cool . I want one . I'm sure it made a helluva pulling tractor engine .
Some fun facts:
The GAF version of this engine was fitted into the M26 Pershing. The GAF was physically configured to mate with the TorqMatic 900 automatic transmission used in the M26.
The Russians really liked the Sherman with the twin diesel that they got under Lend Lease, it meshed right into their supply chain as the major Russian tanks of WW2 used diesel engines.
Besides the Sherman series with the twin diesel, all of the M10 series tank destroyers were fitted with the GM twin diesel as well.
When a batch of M10 series TDs were remanufactured up to the M36 tank destroyer configuration (new turret and 90mm gun), the diesels were replaced with the GAA.
Another fun fact: the soviet's were in fact so pleased with the Detroit Diesel 71 series that the build them themselves as YaAZ-204 (4-71) which was mounted in trucks like the MAZ 200 and YaAZ-206 (6-71) which was put in the early Kraz 214 trucks...
Ford also In order to meet the need for a larger engine, Ford resurrected the V-12 version as the GAC, which produced 770 hp (570 kW) and powered the T29, and T32.
A very interesting video, Adam. I've never heard of any of these engines.
That in the back of a tube chassis galaxie would be mint!
Bad ass, it'd be cool to have one of these and pump it up a bit.
Most of the tanks of WWII era were using engines that were either aircraft or airship derived since that was the large displacement technology that was readily available. As a consequence, almost all main WWII tanks were gasoline powered with few exceptions - the Russian T-34 being one of them. Fun fact: the US army did not accept the twin GM 6046 diesel variant of the Sherman. Only the US Marines and Commonwealth countries used them. Diesel was still scarce for land vehicles in WWII.
Germans did not use aircraft or airship derived engines in their tanks neither did the Russians. The British eventually used a detuned version of the Merlin aircraft engine.
@@FairladyS130 How do you think Maybach (German tank engine supplier of WWII) got started? They were the power plant provider for the Zeppelin airships. Before the war, many of the US Navy's airships were powered by Maybach V-12s. Many of the design characteristics were applied to the HL series of 6 and 12 cylinder engines used in almost all German armored vehicles during the war (and after the war if you want to include the French AMX-50 program..
Diesel was less of a fire hazard on amphibious island landings in WW2 with many of them close together on boats.
@@FairladyS130 The Diesel in the T-34 tank (V-2-34) was derived from the Hispano-Suiza 12Y V-12 aircraft engine.
@@davem8790 So? Everyone starts somewhere.
I would love too hear all 4 of these engines run . I wonder if the GAA engine would fit in a Fox Body Mustang 😂.
Any engine will fit in any car, if you have a big enough hammer...and a torch.
GAA would be great for tractor pulling
@@ottopartz1 air cooled ???
@@bobturnbull18 it's an air cooled motor!
"I wonder if the GAA engine would fit in a Fox Body Mustang"
No, but the Fox Body Mustang would fit inside the GAA engine.
By reading the comments there is still a lot of guys around that had hands on with this type of engine that I've never heard of before
I remember a Tractor Puller in our area running one of these motors in his modified tractor
The thing also hemispherical heads to top it off
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing Ford's own personal moon landing. Amazing what they could do back in the day. 👍
Wow...I'd love o throw one of these in my old bus motorhome project!
Man these are gorgeous engines.
it is the the uncontestable proof that bean counters have killed so many wonderful designs, it is a shame that Ford had not took advantage of these developments to gain the advantage of that technologic advance over the competition.
very good video.
The bean counters have killed a lot of innovation, but they also save the companies from making stupid mistakes.
It was too expensive to produce to be used in Fords and Mercurys, but something like it might have been sweet in Lincolns!
The USA automotive manufacturers really jumped aboard with war-time defense manufacturing! Remember to LIKE and Subscribe.
I came from Dayton Ohio. Big GM town. And at the time it was the #2 or 3 spot in the whole nation for having the largest concentration of machining and tooling. Sadly, it is a shadow of it's former self these days.
GM at its best really hit a lot of home runs. It’s sad where things have gone since then.
Those war profits are hard to resist.
No worries boys. For the next war we will not have the industrial base nor the human capital to win. Between Harvard MBA's and our 70 years of prosperity, we are soft and don't want it bad enough to win.😢
@@bentrovato3082 All anybody can think about is self gain and the half-ass, easy way out. Screw any and everybody else. There is no sense of anything bigger than themselves. It’s quite pathetic.
Very cool engine for it's time,massive cubic inch dissplacement
With all of those engines made, hot rodders and racers were bound to get ahold of them. The GAA was pretty common on the tractor pull circuit back in the day.
There were other problems with the radial in the sherman...you had to rotate the engine over when cold to prevent from blowing the bottom cylinders to pieces going solid in the oil that settled in there. The BEST engine in the sherman tank and the grant tank...was indeed the two stroke GM detroit diesel double block. Mostly because the tank did not burn and incinerate the crew.
@@retiredbore378 The shermans were burning up even with "minor damage" due to the 80 octane gasoline required for the radial engines. AKA they were named Ronsons because they" lit the first time, every time". I took a good look at a sherman with a radial engine and that thing was a death trap if hit by at 70 to 88 mm shell
@@certaindeedFun fact, the Sherman didn't have higher burn rates than any other tank, and once wet stowage was introduced and the ammunition was moved to the hull floor it burned significantly _less_ than literally every other tank. The fuel used had little to do with burn rates. In its weight class the Sherman had the highest crew survival rate when destroyed, thanks to a combination of the aforementioned ammo stowage changes, and large, easily accessible hatches. And no, it wasn't under-armored compared to its equivalents, the T-34 and Panzer IV, as the angle of the hull meant it had superior line-of-sight thickness to both from the front. The Cheiftain has multiple videos on the history and development of the Sherman, and it's fascinating just how much went into making sure that when a tank got delivered to the troops, it worked reliably. The only real missteps in the development and deployment of the Sherman were not deploying the 76mm variant to Normandy, and not making more HVAP ammunition available sooner, both decisions being made due to a perceived lack of need.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 Yes moving the ammo was a huge improvement. It was a medium tank and in that class it was decent. The radial version was also quite fast tank with a good power to weight ratio. Sherman radial was indeed not bad on gasoline fuel consumption either despite the drawbacks of the radial. There is no doubt however, that in the event of a fire in the engine compartment or damage anywhere, diesel was not going to burn.
@@certaindeed Not really? Fuel fires are arguably the least likely cause of a tank burning down, at least if you aren't in a German tank with fuel line issues (looking at you, big cats) or mishandling the fuel in the first place. Diesel is technically less likely to catch fire, but if a shell punctures a fuel tank in such a way that the leak's inside the vehicle and not outside, you likely have bigger problems to worry about.
Imagine if Ford had made an automotive engine in the 40's with the same features. Ferrari may never have bothered to compete!
The Ferrari engine spun up a lot higher then these engines!
@@ronaldbrown5745well ya with this example since its 18 liters!
mate, Peugoet and Fiat had double overhead cam four valve per cylinder engines back in 1916. Ferrari have never had a pushrod engine, ever. Ferrari are all aluminium blocks except for the 206 and 246 which were manufactured by Fiat. What are you on about? One other thing, anything bigger than a 5 litre V8 with a flat plane crank just vibrates itself to pieces. Just look at the lack of reliability with the flat plan corvette V8.
Lots of engine features that people think of as being 'high tech' today have been around for decades. The reason why Ford didn't produce overhead cam engines for passenger cars back in the the day is because the manufacturing tech of the day would have made it too expensive. Companies like Ford sold to a certain price point and that's what limited engines like this to special applications and not ordinary consumer products.
@@marcolucchini8173 Dont forget the American Miller engines ( later Offenhauser) from the early 20s, dual overhead camshafts and 4 valves per cylinder. They dominated racing for decades.
Great, now my life's work will be to find one of these restore it and put it in one of my vehicles... thanks
Ford engineers were way ahead of there time . Most people not in the know would have never have guess this was made in the 1940s .Feel sorry for the army mechanics who had to work on these monster engine's in the field .They were some tough ,get er done guys back then .
Very interesting. Thanks Adam
I've read that the Ford GAA(& presumably the v12 it was derived from) are able to use pistons, conrods, valves & cylinder liners from a Rolls Royce Merlin, as a military engine it makes some sense that they might want to standardise the inventory of spare parts.
Every part of the Ford G engine was unique to them. The Merlin and Meteor v12's had the notoriously weak fork blade rod, the Fords used "standard style" side by side rods, which were extremely strong.
Ford has always had amazing engineers this was a great video
Great article and even better was the discussion from commenters. Thanks, it made my day.
Aircraft engines in tanks isn't totally unusual. The Allison, the Merlin (Meteor) were both used in tank applications, though the Allison was only installed experimentally. I love these old engines, so interesting. DOHC does date back to the turnn of the century....the 20th century that is. I think Peugeot was first here, in 1912.
I had never heard of that engine, so this was an engaging video; well done mate! It seems that there was a big gap in thinking in the automotive world vs the aero world, with the latter being much more inventive and progressive. This is doubly weird when the same company produces the flathead and the GAA- obviously cost is the main factor at play.
What a monster !!!What great video mate!!Cheers from Sydney Australia
Excellent video, I enjoy these obscure engines.
The Detroit twin six was a two stroke diesel engine, and the blowers on them were not superchargers, but scavenger blowers. As with all two stroke Detroits, they have no means of natural aspiration so the blowers are needed to pump in fresh intake air charge, and scavenge the exhaust out. Intake air is provided at slightly above atmospheric pressure. Intake charge entered the cylinders through ports in the cylinder sleeve when the pistons were at bottom of their stroke, and exhaust exited through valves in the head. There were turbocharged versions of Detroit two stroke engines later available in trucks and the like though. Two stroke Detroits have a sound all their own. The main truck in the movie "Maximum Overdrive" is a good example of that sound.
Very interesting. Great video 👍
Love the content! I never knew about this amazing engine. Bad ass.
An Extremely cool dicumentary of this incredible engine!!!
That with a single carb intake would be awesome in a tour bus. Quiet and smooth.
Fuel injection and quad turbos...
That would need to be a BIG single carb...
Off an Allison or Merlin aero engine.....
a drain pipe with 1/4 inch jets and a Coke bottle sized accelerator pump...
Fuel injection for the win...with all the modern sensors to control everything on that engine...
idle @ 250rpm or less...
full out past 3000rpms or more...
(the crankshaft is the weak point with those horrible vibrations
(that's why the 150lb flywheel)
@@De19thKingJulion
@@JohnSmith-yv6eq If I could EVER get one of these, probably for a heavy duty truck... Fuel injection for sure, perhaps 16 of 'em. Hearing one idle at 250-300rpm? Ooooh
@@De19thKingJulion Not necessarily. LPG regulator and HHO regulator or EGR and it would work with just one of those mistifiers. It only needs to turn 2500 to 2700, and not for a "max power", but smooth operation with decent fuel economy.
Back in those days piston aircraft engines were far ahead of automotive designs. That changed when jet engines came along.
Too cool! I would love to have one of these to put in my Ford F-250!
My uncle Herman was a Sherman tank commander in the Battle of the Bulge and more. He told me they stuck a PENNY in the governor to get more revs.
Flat plane cranks went into some of the first V8s, going back to the OX-5 and earlier. The 1917 thru 1919 Chevrolet Model D V8s were so configured.
Rolls Royce built a similar engine called the Meteorite, a derivative of the V12 Meteor, which itself was a marine version of the Merlin, but naturally aspirated.
Ford ultimately built the final version of the Pratt and Whitney R-4360, under contract by Pratt and Whitney, which was a 28-cylinder radial. AKA the Wasp Major, the Ford built versions powered Boeing C-97/KC-97 Stratofrieghters, Douglas C-124 Globemasters and Consolidated B-36 Peacemakers. Rated at 3,500 to 3,800 HP.
Yeah, the original flat planes were just because cross-plane hadn't been invented/commercialized. It's not like they were revving an 18L engine to 8kRPM, lol.
@@retiredbore378 That's why I wrote invented/commercialized, rather than just invented.
OK, I'll bite, what is a "flat plane crank"? The Ford looks rugged and simple, would love to see the worm gear set up for the cams. It's amazing how many of today's technological marvels had their roots many years ago... I'll bet this engine had steel sleeves in the aluminum block, and aluminum heads as well. So Ford figured it all out back then, what was GM's excuse(s) for the Vega!
I can tell you what one of GM’s problems was. The bean counters had more power than the engineers. Of course cost has to be controlled. But look what happened with the Vega. It ended up costing more than if they just would have done it right from the outset.
Combination of “flat crank” and “single plane crank”. All this time I thought planes were by definition “flat”.
You can see the worm gears in the cutaway. Flat plane just means the counterweights and journals are all within one axis as opposed to 3 axes. A bit hard to explain. Take a look at a pic on google and you’ll see what I mean.
@@CamaroSS-sy2ei Seems to be a common theme here in the US. Short sided thinking/savings wouldn't be tolerated in other countries.
@@RareClassicCars will do...thanks!
I knew about the radial engines in Sherman’s but nothing about the others. Excellent Video!
Ive heard stories of these engines spinning over twice their rated RPM, must have sounded amazing!
There are unofficial reports of some tractor pullers turning over 5000 rpms. Remember that today's engines measure pistons and rods in "grams", and I think NASCAR has a 450 gram minimum weight on rods. The GAA rods weigh "5 pounds" each and the pistons (with pins) also weight "5 pounds" each. So, when you have 10 pounds of reciprocating weight per cylinder, it gets rather dicey when revving the engines.
@@bobkonradi1027 makes me think of the crazy aircraft radial tractor pull builds, those guys are nuts lol.
The M-4 Sherman was considered one of the fastest tanks of WWII. It was certainly faster than any of the German tanks it went up against. This, its maneuverability and sheer weight of numbers, normally gave it the upper hand in the European Theater.
My dad was in the Third Armored, and he said the Sherman was faster and had a much better and faster turret system, but all tankers were terrified of the German 88mm.
@@ohger1 I think your dad was right.
No code p0420 or p0300 back then
Not faster than a Panther and they had wider tracks, better for soft ground. The Panther 75mm gun actually had better penetration than the 88.
The Australians fitted 4 Buick flat head v6s together to put in the Shermans they had. They couldn't get the other motors, and they had access to the Buick motors. They stacked the motors in a square configuration and used a gear system to link them.
Flat head v6? What?
@patrickporter6536 are you asking what a flathead v6 is or what Buick motor was used?
Flathead Buick engines? Buick always used overhead valves.
@@cyclonebuzz8172I know what a v6 is, I doubt Buick made one in the 30s/40s, flat head or not. I may be wrong.
From what I have observed and studied the GAA was a very advanced engine for the time, and even today modern engines incorperate many of these features.
I may be wrong but i think they had basic variable valve timing, and the later models used in the M26 pershing were updated with throttle body injection.
These engines bare many simulairities with Fords modern modular block V8s.
The GAA8 was based on an aircraft engine that Ford was developing but the Army didn't want it and the Navy was only interested in aircooled engines. The UK did the same with their Merlin. I wish that Ford had kept working on the aircraft engine.
As a bit of a student of WWII, I'm flabbergasted that I never knew of this engine! Very interesting. Too bad Ford has lost their way in dependable innovation. Instead, it's recall madness.
You would be hard pressed to find a company thats never had recalls
According to the NTHSA, as of 2023 there is only one manufacturer with more recalls than Ford; Honda with 6.3 million vehicles to Ford's 6.1 million vehicles.@@kemosabegt350geuss6
See All The Honda Recalls Lately?
Its not so much that Ford lost their way, it is the fact that mass-produced poularly-priced cars must be cheap to produce, and the fact that they have been, since the 70s, forced to first satisfy EPA and later CAFE mandates.
Yeah....and GM never has any recalls!....lol
Always loved seeing that Chrysler engine on display at the late great Walter P Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills Michigan. So sad to see that great museum long gone now, thanks to Fiat. During my time as a Chrysler contract employee from 2002 to 2013 prior to going back to GM I went there many times.
The worm gear driven cams is the wonder to me.
At a power show just south of Hastings MN, they used to (maybe still do?) bring a Sherman with that engine. Unmistakable sound!
For a short time the GAA was a popular tractor pulling engine but was soon replaced by the guys running Allisons. I've seen an example of Plymouth's 30 cylinder engine in the lobby of Chrysler's museum north of Detroit. Really interesting engine. It was designed this way to use proven engine parts already in production. Still, it was great engine that field mechanic would have no trouble understanding and keeping running in the field since it was the same engine their car had.
Whenever I hear old engine specs, I'm always blown away by how powerless they were, and how inefficient, too. My tiny little 1997 Subaru EJ20 2-litre turbocharged horizontally opposed 4-cylinder weighs 380lbs with headers and turbo attached. Yes, it is highly tuned with bigger injectors, a much large top-mount intercooler, and a 4" cat-less downpipe - and it dynos at 404 HP at 18lbs of boost.
It's got a short-ratio 5-speed gearbox from the WRC rally cars, and so it redlines in top at just 215 kmh!
Throttle response with the little Mitsubishi TD04 turbo and the ultra-light crankshaft is phenomenal, and acceleration in 2nd and 3rd gears is ferocious, and the utmost driver care and attention is required, lest the vehicle gain the upper hand. :)
Maybe, but it doesn’t have the torque to pull a tank. Horse power isn’t everything and that’s why trucks have big diesel engines, not high horsepower figures but look at the torque, it’s massive.
If you were to put your engine in a tank that constantly requires 400 hp, it wouldn't last long at all. The 450 hp the GAA makes at 2600 means it is also producing over 900 ft/lb. You can't just go by hp to understand what is going on.
Edit: Also consider that an operating requirement would have been to run on inconsistent or low quality fuel without detonation. That would place limitations on what can be done regarding compression or forced induction.
lets see how your subaru runs on 80 octane gas
@@shawnbottom4769 Agree 1000%---what many don't realize is that the fuel available to ground forces back then by necessity was very low octane, because the vast majority of the engines consuming that fuel were flatheads in trucks, jeeps, and stationary equipment. Since this engine went onto the drawing board as an aircraft V12, I'm sure it started out with a high compression design, but when it was redesigned for V8 ground duty, the compression ratio had to be lowered for the reason stated above.
I don't think the original poster was insinuating putting a Subaru engine in a tank or wheeler truck.
This engine is very cool, but that Chrysler one is absolutely insane. I would definitely like to see a video on it.
30 cylinders is wayyyy to complex for a war time engine XD Thankfully they went for a V8 XD
One of the largest gasoline engines produced in the world?
Not even close, not even close! Every WWII fighter had larger gasoline engines. 1500 CI was about the minimum for a US fighter. Bombers? The B-29 had four 3,350 CI engines during the war and was upgraded to 4,360 CI engines after the war.
1,100 engines is a cute little baby engine! :)
Good video though!
everything is relative.
This is still the largest gasoline v8 that ford made.
next time watch the video.
@@riogrande163 That was a direct quote from the video " one of the largest gasoline engines produced in the world ... " Not "the largest V8" , and it's not even close to the largest gasoline engine produced. And Ford produced a number of significant;y larger gasoline engines than this one.
@@riogrande163"one of the largest gasoline engines produced in the world"
I did watch the video. Clearly, you did not *listen* to the video. Something tells me listening is not really your thing.
@@andrewalexander9492 "And Ford produced a number of significantly larger gasoline engines than this one."
I did NOT know that!
@@robjohnson8522 Yep, Ford built Liberty V-12's, Merlin V-12's and R2800's
That Chrysler 30 cylinder engine(s) is an interesting unit! Can’t wait for that video! And you are totally right Adam on this Ford engine being ahead of its time. But old Hank had a lot of that genius. Be interesting to see you do a feature on his 1949(?) all hemp body construction car.
Can you explain what is ahead of its time on this Ford engine?
Excellent video! I am a Ford guy all the way. I just learned something new, thanks!
This really is an amazing engine