Talk:Ford flathead V8 engine

Production details of variants
great information but the flathead 239 was in 1949 not 1939


 * That statement is wrong. The 239 engine was used in Mercurys in 1939 and in Fords in 1946.  The last iteration of the 239 cubic inch engine was used in trucks from 1948 until 1953 following a major redesign.  It was used in cars from 1949 until 1953.  Quite often it is erroneously stated by someone only familiar with Ford cars of the time that the last flathead V-8 was built from 1949 through 1953.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Downing74.243.110.156 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Information on the circa 1946-1948 "59A" variant is missing. As I recall, back in the Ford/Merc flathead days it was an engine used by Ford as a bus and truck engine. Might also have been used in some Mercurys as well. The 59A block was highly valued and popular among hot rodders in the '50s because there was more 'meat' in the block; the block could be bored out with a lot less danger of going into the water jacket or ending up with thin cylinder walls. K. Kellogg-Smith (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

337 the information on engine size 279 should be 272 for Australia Harry Pollard 30/11/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.218.19 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition?
I would like to see a definition of what makes an engine a flathead, versus other types of engines. The article seems to assume that the reader already knows what a flathead engine is. Jayscore (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This [good] question of 2010-01 has since been addressed by having a link to the article flathead engine in this article's lede. — ¾-10 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This engine was developed by teams of engineers, not one man
The family genealogy page is interesting, but regardless, it cannot be said in the lede that this engine was designed by one man. As the existing (referenced) text makes clear, the block and its casting process were designed by Charles E. Sorensen and his subordinates, and the crank's casting process was also developed at that time. Henry Ford himself also contributed to this engine design. This Henry Moore fellow may have built an influential prototype, but it can't be said that "he designed the production engine". That's not how engine development programs go. There is development by teams of engineers. It would be OK to mention Moore's influence on the design, not in the lede but rather in an appropriate section, although the fewer citable sources are available, the shorter you should keep the mention, otherwise it will not tend to survive subsequent edits of the "citation needed" type. — ¾-10 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, it fails even the simple test of "was he actually involved", because the bio page suggests to me he was nothing but a tuner or hot rodder, not actually a Ford engineer at all.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Crankshaft
A film about the original 1932 engine depicts the crankshaft as being flat, rather than the three-dimensional one patented by Cadillac (and shared with Cleveland's Peerless). This should be mentioned, for the purpose of the patented Cadillac crankshaft was smoothness of the motor, while a flat crankshaft would produce more power. But is this the case? 173.162.253.101 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Original research / cleanup
Unfortunately, the Components section contains a lot of information on hot-rodding modifications, which, in general, seems to be useful information, but not in the component section. This section should contain information on how the engine works, which compenents it has and what they do, etc. – taking for granted that the reader knows about these components is suboptimal, and describing how to modify the components or how to add aftermarket parts, such as overhead valve kits, without citing any sources, very much limits the article and makes it attractive to car enthusiasts only. The book I have that describes the engine is very sparse in this regard, which means that I cannot fix it myself. Does anyone have books and time to fix this? --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Single casting block and stamped steel oil pan
Kremser, 1942, p. 215: „Die aus Chrom-Silizium-Halbstahl gegossene Kurbelwelle hat angegossene Gegengewichte (...) Das Kurbelgehäuseunterteil aus Leichtmetall ist ein verhältnismäßig teures Gußstück.“ The sectional drawing on that page illustrastes that the engine block is made of two parts, a "bottom" part and and an "upper" part; it is definitely not a single casting. The engine does not have a separated oil pan, instead, the oil pan is integrated into the bottom half of the bottom part (crankcase?) (this is a single cast piece). Possibly there are different interpretations of the same word. Seen from a traditional perspective, the crankcase is in the upper half of the engine block, and the engine has separated cylinders that are "mounted" on the engine block. The oil pan sits underneath the engine block and is a separated part. So you'd end up with oil pan, engine block, and cylinders (seen from bottom to top). More modern designs don't have separated cylinders anymore, instead, the cylinders become a part of the engine block as engine block and cylinders form a single cast piece. In this case, you could differentiate between engine block and oil pan, and the crankcase is the lower part of the engine block? The Ford engine incorporates a simple design with two parts, a lower and an upper part, however, the "crankcase" is located in both the lower and upper part, which means that the lower part is "more crankcase than oil pan". In the same book on page 212 there is a Tatra V8 engine that actually has a separated oil pan, which is called Kurbelgehäuseunterteil (crankcase bottom part). I reckon that Kremser chose this term to describe this part of the engine because not all manufacturers decided to make an easily removable oil pan in favour of a more easily castable "bottom part" of the engine block. I can assure you that the "bottom part" of the engine defnitely does not look like a stamped steel part (parts with such an S-shape cannot be stamped easily), and Kremser uses the term Gußstück, which means "cast piece". Therefore, I have serious doubts that the bottom part is stamped steel. However, the book describes the 8—60 and 8—85 engines (bore/stroke 2.6"/3.2", and 3.062"/3.75") made in Köln, Germany, only. (And yes, the bore and stroke are in inches in the book). Maybe the German made engines are different from the American made Ford V8 engines? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a typical early flathead parts view.  http://restoreyourford.com/v860spec.shtml http://restoreyourford.com/v860parts.shtml
 * The cast block stops at the crank line. The bearing caps are below this. The oil pump is also below this (not just the suction pipe), one of the reasons why the pan is so deep.
 * This pan though (for at least some variants) is complicated. It's not merely an oil pan, it's also a structural member at the rear end of the block. It carries the starter motor. I'm sure that many have been welded up from thin sheet or even aluminium, as lightweight racing pans. But they still need to do something about the back end. Here's a typical early production, standard cast pan:  http://www.2040-parts.com/1935-48-ford-flathead-oil-pan-black-ldbp-i2292249/
 * Mine (wartime production) is cast ferrous metal (I have no idea what, it's probably ersatz). But it's big and it's heavy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Maybe, over the years, Ford used different different materials; in the Austrian book, the material is described as "Leichtmetall" (literally light metal, it means aluminium alloy), and „Gußstück“ (cast piece). --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in addition there's also a rope oil seal at each end of the crankshaft. The lower half of the rope seal is held in the pan casting. So that would also be a problem for a simple thin pressing.   For later engines, once pressed oil pans did become common, the seal was more usually either an elastomer ring seal (at the front) and a two-part rope seal at the rear, where both of these were set into substantial castings bolted onto the block. The pan then seals onto these castings with a simple non-moving cork gasket. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)