Combustion engines are just beautiful, saved humanity countless times throughout the ages, in stormy weather, in firetrucks on the go, police cars, rescue vehicles. Kept the streets free of snow, got you home for christmas, summer vacationing in hot weather and much much more.
@@SALTrips Yep ive said the same things, I cant see an electric cross country semi especially with time being money on the road - and I can just see batteries overheatiing and exploding pulling heavily loaded trailers and a whole host of other reasons gas engines must stay around even if fueled by hydrogen, also no practical in the foreseeable future. And who the hell wants to rely on an electric ambulance - I can just see one getting sidelined at a charger while someone finishes their heart attack
I had a 1947 Chevy pickup (converted to a 1 ton flatbed), and I pulled a 248 GMC engine from a 1953 military duece-and-a-half, along with a 5 speed O.D. transmission, and installed it in the Chevy. It was all of 105 hp., but 238 ft. lbs. of torque! It was commonly used in a lot of small to medium sized trucks of the era. They maxed out around 3400 rpm. tops, but had massive amounts of torque from 1200 rpm. to the 3400 rpm. maximum, and would pull heavy loads all day with no complaints. However, they were not easy on gas, and I eventually replaced it with a more modern 1979 250 cu. in. 6 cylinder that had 30 more hp. and better fuel mileage!😉
My 1.9 vw tdi swapped vw rabbit pickup makes 150hp 250tq Revs to 5000rpm And gets 75 mpg (54mpg in a vehicle 800+lbs heavier than my swap chassis. Crazy how technology changes.
The m135 GMC deuces had the 302 I6, so unless someone else swapped it into the truck you pulled it from and the earlier ones dubbed cckw had the 270 I6
@@TheRathead80 LOL, it could very well have BEEN a 270. The guy that sold it to me wasn't sure, and they look pretty similar. I do know it got pretty lousy gas mileage, even though you could pull a house down with it!😆 It had a REO unsyncronized 5 speed with 25% over in 5th gear. I had to modify the floor pan over the trans to get it in the truck. With the overdrive and a 4.88 Dana 70 differential, it would run down the road all day long at 65 with no issues.🙂
@@fadedsoul23 The 228, 248, and 270 were all pretty much the same block (with a few exceptions that had side motor mounts), just different bore and stroke. The 302 was considerably heavier, and had even larger piston pins than the early 228, 248, and 270.
Back in the day (I was born in 49) we had a low grade of fuel called "Buss Gas" or "Commercial Gasoline". It had an octane rating of maybe 75 under to old rating system. It's why all these big engines had 6~7 compression ratios. With modern fuel they could be run up maybe 8.5 to 1 and probably make 50% more power with that higher CR and some more timing ... With modern diesel trucks with regen, catalytic converters, and exhaust additives - these older gas engines are starting to get some interest again. But parts are hard to come by 🙃
Funny you bring that up about the octane rating because I never got to drive earlier than 1971 I've always said that the low compression engines then because the gas was bad had no power but if you jack up the compression modify the engine you could run 9 to 1 in a commercial engine and have so much power and torque so the reason a lot of these things have bad mileage is because of the low compression and the accordingly given components camshaft Springs valve etcetera anyway interesting info good luck
I always thought big-block gas engines were due for a revival with diesel emissions getting so strict, but they need one more component to be truly capable of replacing diesels: turbocharging. Tow in the high mountains here in Colorado with a gas engine and you're going to practically run out of air. Imo if ford built their 7.3 gasser with a low-pressure turbo that focused on low-end torque and consistent power at altitude, rather than high power and speed, it would be the perfect modern towing engine.
@@alexbeuerman7608With modern technology why doesn't anyone make a straight 6 gas motor for a truck? 6.0L + should do it. Many people talk about the Ford 300 like it was the best thing since sliced bread.
I have a 1954 GMC 5 window fire engine with a 503 in.³ it is a beast! Super slow rever, but has tons of torque. It move that beast around fairly easy. Original Engine still runs really smooth .
Yes well sort after for their gearboxes as well. Many hot rodders run jag gearbox or diff here in Australia anyway...... Maybe not so much now but old school hot rodders used to swear by them? Most people these days go with a T56 manual or Ford top loader and run a Ford 9" rear as simple proven formular?
Straight 6's are special! I recently bought a 1992 Cherokee manual with the 4.0 AMC inline 6, and the engine is such a joy to drive! It has a roar, almost like a V8, and is so balanced you never feel like you're logging it. It just pulls smoothly without shudder, or hesitation from under 1.500 rpm in any gear, but I prefer to rev it out a bit, as it sounds magnificent 😁
Grunting around at low RPM's is tough on bottom end , cause oil pump bearly pumping oil at low RPM's to hold bearings apart from each other, my experience , Rev her up grunting is for old people don't know they crank is banging around in block! Lol
When my Father started his construction company about 1948, he bought a surplus Army Deuce-and-a-half, six-wheel drive truck. It had a huge, inline, gasoline six, and was probably one of these engines. it was very dependable. I just vaguely remember the scripted GMC on the valve cover. He kept it for well over ten years, maybe a bit longer.
I actually wanted to hop up at 305 V6 but I also wanted to rebuild a 478 although they're truck engines and they were designed for reliability who says I'm going to be hauling stuff for 200,000 mi? So basically it wouldn't hurt anything to add more compression they certainly are built heavy enough to withstand it which would give them better mileage
I had a 2005 TrailBlazer with the 4.2 in it. It was a pretty decent SUV, especially since it was the LT trim, with power leather seats. But my favorite part, of course, was the BEAUTIFUL sounding "big block" straight-six! Unfortunately, it began spending more time in the shop than on the road, so I ended up scrapping it earlier this year. If you still have your TB, take real good care of it. Thanks to our government here in the "states", we'll NEVER get to see a new big-block gasser, let alone a STRAIGHT-SIX, ever again!
one of the most reliable engines ever made too... when i was a kid my dad had a '78 F100 shortbed with a 351 small block, and then after that a '77 F100 longbed with a 300... the 351 had a rapid unscheduled disassembly during a normal calm drive, but he beat the absolute living hell out of that 300 for over a decade trying to kill it and it just refused to die. by the time he got rid of it the entire truck was rotting and falling apart except for that engine. still ran like a dream and fired up the first time every time 👌
I have, and love, 300 Fords, but they're only "big" compared to the Falcon six. I have a 292 Chevy, 300 Ford, and an International Harvester Red Diamond head. The IH head weighs double, and is 6 inches longer, 2/3 again wider. And the Hall Scott and others were LOTS bigger yet.
Neat to see! Hercules built a 936 ci flathead six. The 478 magnum V6 made only 13 ftlb less than the 504 but did so 200 rpm lower (442@1400). However, the V6 was 254 hp vs. 216 and could wind higher. What blows most peoples minds is that the V6, V12, and V8s were oversquare short stroke engines that pull like an electric motor. The 637 V8 was 5.125 bore x 3.86 stroke, a 637 with less stroke than a 454. GMC figured out that stroke doesn't equal torque. Actually, the math comes out the same. Big bore engines have less piston speed, less cylinder and ring wear, better rod ratios, can fit bigger valves, use smaller cams, and have higher rpm potential. I had a 401 magnum V6 (4.875x3.58) that you could pull down so low the electronic tach quit reading the revolutions, and you could count the fan blades going by, I put a 4bbl on it in a pickup and dual valve springs. I shifted it at 5k rpm, once, I missed a power shift, and it hit 6300 rpm and lived! . By comparison, long stroke motors fall on their butts lugging down before oversquare ones trying to bring the next cylinder up on compression. I have owned 27 GMC v6, v8, v12s gas and Diesel, two 602 Continental inline 6, 3 331 Diamond Reos, 2 302 GMCs and a 251 and 230 Dodge flathead 6. And an International RD 450. Great to see a presentation on these little known stump pullers! The big gassers wete lighter (more payload) cheaper, simpler, made way more hp and bottom end torque, wound higher, and required fewer gears in the transmission than early especially turbo Diesels, they still pull down lower because they don't fall out of the turbo. A gas 478 was 254hp/442 ftlbs, a Diesel 478 was 170hp and 342 ft lb 200 rpm higher. About equal to a 305 gas v6. The gas crunch killed them.
Very interesting on how many engines and trucks you had I've been a mechanic since 1968 a hot rodder a mechanic a machinist I like modifying things but I've never got to play with the older trucks typically because they're commercial Duty stuff and what am I going to do drive a commercial truck around but then again I like working on engines and I like modifying them I could read your response about three or four times I like studying different engine size I've done this for 50 years sitting down one Cube at a time figuring what engine family used it and what they came in just from memory or any kind of general knowledge but again I liked your article good luck on all your trucks
@brantardrey7360 Thanks! I would like to swap stories! I was very blessed in my life to have the father I did, a highly intelligent R&D engineer and farmer who traveled the world and worked harder on the farm. It didn't matter where he went. Who he was talking to, he ALWAYS wore his steel toed boots, blue jeans, and flannel shirt! He had several patents and built a weight transfer sled for pulling tractors. He built 3 tractors, 2 of which we used for 40 years until he died. He was the winningest driver in the history of Oceola dragway, using Grandpa's 73 Chrysler newport, with a farm built 440 six pack. It would lift the front tires, run 107 in the 1/4 on 87 octane, and pull the 20,000 lb grain wagon to the elevator and the fertilizer buggy back home! 2500+ timeslips and no breakages in 13 years. We retired her when the reese hitch rusted and fell off at the track! I was 10, and he said to me, "You build it, and tune it, I'll drive it!" He taught me everything from machining parts for the tranny, to setting up rear gears, and chassis, by 14 yrs old. We only had $550 in that car! Everything else was farm shop built. When I was about 8 or 9, I helped machine out billet aluminum high dome pistons for a 1937 Farmall we were pulling. I had a drafting table in my bedroom, and he taught me how to read and draw prints. We also had a small plane. Everyone from miles around came to have us work on their old trucks and tractors. I always went to sleep with a stack of Motors manuals and I&T tractor manuals beside the bed! I had 136 engines, 14 6x6s , 12 trailers, 9 tractors, 20+ old cars, etc, etc, and 3 barns completely full of old parts when I sold out after he died. I have worked for several shops, excavating companies, and maintenance work. I was a diesel engine builder (TRUE Diesels, you know, you roll start them, go to town and leave the batteries at home!) I'm the crazy guy who likes Detroit Diesel 2 strokes, loathes mufflers, and had permanent tinnitus before I graduated grade school! I had a massive brain tumor removed a few years ago that left me disabled. They said that I had a 45% chance of either dying on the table, being a vegetable, or having a stroke in recovery. My first memory after surgery was hearing that I was surrounded by doctors and family, I heard the surgeon say "we won't know what if any brain function he will have left until he wakes up and we do some tests" I still couldn't open my eyes, and started to moan. I felt dads huge calloused hand take mine, and he said, "Son, what's the bore and stroke of a 478 v6?" I mustered all my strength and said,"Five point one two five by 3 point eight six sir. " he looked at the surgeon and said,"He's ok!"
USA railroads were first in Dieselisation, starting in 1930. For transcontinental railroading, steam wasn't particularly suitable due to US geography (water was difficult to procure and transport in the desert). For use in navy submarines, diesel was only correct option. However, it's use on highway was an afterthought in North America until 1960s.
Which soon brought what, IMO, was the large scale intro of 'Grandfather hybrid' GM's Electro-Motive Division (EMD) ... Harold L. Hamilton and Paul Turner founded the Electro-Motive Engineering Corporation in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1922, soon renaming it to Electro-Motive Company (EMC). The company developed and marketed self-propelled railcars using General Electric's newly developed internal combustion-electric propulsion and control systems. ... ... The General Motors years 1930s In 1930 General Motors (GM) was seeking to enter production of diesel engines and broaden their range of applications. They purchased the Winton Engine Company, who had in their product line a variety of stationary and marine diesel engines and spark-ignition engines for heavy vehicles. GM saw EMC's role in developing and marketing Winton-engined heavy vehicles as fitting their objectives and purchased the company shortly after the Winton acquisition, renaming it Electro-Motive Corporation (EMC), a subsidiary of GM. Supported by the GM Research Division headed by Charles F. Kettering, GM's Winton Engine Corporation focused on developing diesel engines with improved power-to-weight ratios and output flexibility suitable for mobile use. Eugene W. Kettering, son of Charles Kettering, led Winton's side of the development project. ... ... 1940s General Motors moved production of locomotive engines under the authority of EMC to create the GM Electro-Motive Division (EMD) on January 1, 1941. With that move, EMD became a fully self-contained development, production, marketing, and service entity. Non locomotive products (large marine and stationary diesel engines) continued under GM's Cleveland Diesel Engine Division for another twenty years. ... Postwar ... EMD emerged from the war years with major advantages over its competitors in diesel locomotive production, having entered them with fully developed lines of mainline road diesel locomotives while war production allocations restricted their competitors, principally the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) and the Baldwin Locomotive Works, to selling mainly diesel switchers and steam locomotives of pre-existing designs. That gave an advantage to EMD's state of technical development with higher powered diesels in the critical postwar years. New model passenger locomotives were delivered starting in February 1945. New models of their freight locomotive followed later in 1945 and 1946. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Motive_Diesel IMO...EV's are simply a rich man's hod rod Batteries in an automobile are an Eco liability & should only be used in a traditional role...an inefficient means of regenerative storage🤨
@@charlesangell_bulmtl Quite a long reply. Everybody on the globe knows of (formerly GM's) EMD. Locomotive builder that connected North America (plus, huge exporter). And then, GM blew it. Today EMD is just a brand in Caterpillar Inc. portfolio (trough Progress Rail Services Corporation). A mere shadow of it's former self. PS: Engineers, locomotive engineers (loco drivers, term used to describe locomotive is "Engine" in North America) and workers recoil to term "hybrid" to describe diesel-electric locomotive. Hybrid includes some form of capacitors (accumulator, or other form of batteries). The only electric component in majority of diesel-electric locomotives today are traction motors. Also, the term electric batteries refer to non-rechargeable, single use, disposable types.
I don't know. It seems to me a submarine surrounded by trillions of gallons of water would be a natural for using steam power. Are you sure about that? Just kidding, go back to your beer and sandwich.
Back in the late-1950s, Seattle Fire received six Mack "B-21" engines, powered by the Hall-Scott 1091 cu. in. inline six. They did well on the hills, could run high-capacity fire-pumps, and had a very deep, rumble to the exhaust note. About 350 BHP and 1000 ft.-lbs. torque. They were in service (at least as backups) into the early-1980s...
I bought a '68 Chevy C/10 Stepside in 1973. It was factory equipped with the L25 292 L6. I still run that truck. On its third engine. Currently 406,000 miles on the odometer.
Great video on really large U.S. domestic Inline 6 cylinder industrial gasoline engines! I was impressed by the 7 main bearings design & gear drive cams! Nice!
Thank you. Good episode. You can beat the sound of those old petrol sixes but … you can certainly beat their fuel economy😁. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿. Good to be a Patron.
The inline 6 certainly has it's charm. Some of the most sought after BMWs and Jags were inline 6s. Now we see Dodge going back to the layout in their vehicles. What was old is new again!
Dodge isn't doing anything. That is nothing more than a label. Now if you really want to have a good solid inline six, bring back the Leaning Tower of Power or the AMC 4.0L.
Hard to imagine big gas engines still? Look no further than Ford's 7.3 V8 (Gas) and Chevy's 6.6 V8 (Gas) in pickups, box trucks, delivery vans, buses, and more :) The 7.3 Ford recently replaced their 6.8 V10.
But those are V8's. What's the last truck (not just just pickup truck) gas inline six? Ford 300? Afaik the GM Atlas was never put in a medium or heavy truck. (T-Blazers are basically minivans and don't count). I have a 1962 Ford F600 with a 262 truck six, and it is quite the motor! You had to special order it if you wanted it in a pickup. Things beefy.
@@digitalgulby In a 3/4 ton Ram, the 6.4 will make 420 horsepower and 525 lb.-ft of torque, for an average 13-18mpg. When considering the truck weighs around 9,000 pounds with just a driver and a passenger or two, is powered by a 392 cubic inch engine, and can do 0-60 in around 7 seconds, the fuel economy is astoundingly good. Even if you're carting around 1500 pounds in the bed, the mileage and acceleration doesn't noticeably change. That's not to speak of long distance driving, either. On a 2,200ish mile trip across the country (moving), with 3 passengers and around 1200 pounds loaded in the bed (with a bed cover), the average was 22mpg. The hemi powered Rams are an excellent platform. Stellantis choosing to get rid of the hemi v8s for passenger vehicles and mostly doing away with them in trucks seems like a questionable decision to me. From what I know of the Hurricane v6s they seem like a good powerplant, but for truck use the low end torque and lower stressed engine components will be lamented for their loss. I can't speak for Fords or Chevys, I imagine they are similarly impressive. Modern ICE powerplants have really become works of art and impressive efficiency. The transition to electric vehicles has lots of good reasons behind it, but I'm happy I got to live to drive gas and diesel burners. I guess I probably feel similar to the way steam locomotive engineers felt when the transition to diesel-electric locomotives was happening.
@@TylerLinnerThe new Rams are coming out with a 3.0L I6 unit. Not exactly a big truck engine though, maybe we'll see a bigger 5-6L version for the HD trucks, whenever they replace the 6.4, who knows.
The 302 GMC engine was amazing powerhouse 2 barrel car with a 3 inches off what more could you ask for with a 12-inch clutch, I believe it was only three or four inches longer than the regular GM engine I installed one in my friends flatbed, what a true powerhouse put a nice 3 inches on all you can hear is The Sweet sound that engine purring under load.😊
The super nice 302 cu in "Jimmy" was a great almost drop in switch to most in-line later Chevys. If I recall the block was about 1 1/2 inch longer so in some it required an adjustment in the radiator mounts etc. Bell housing to Chevy all the same. Nice and a great add on to a Chevy and looks almost original. Some speed equipment was available as cast iron headers and dual intake manifolds, cams etc. There were also the very rare 12 port heads made by one or two cos Wayne Horning and another one I believe. The 302 block could not be bored out much over as the walls got thin. Very sweet sound they made with a nice cam.
You made a bit of a passing mention of Hall-Scott truck engines. Their engines were works of art. Their chief engineer, E J Hall, was the person who developed Duesenberg's OHC engines. Their truck and bus engines, in both vertical and horizontal configurations, had overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder and hemispherical combustion chambers, and produced massive amounts of horsepower and torque. His designs would power some of the fastest cars and boats of the 1920s-30s, as well as the fastest intercity coach ever put into production, the ACF-Brill IC41.
I was getting over 200hp out of a 261 blue flame think it was bored 20 over, balanced and was decked, to have 10.5 compresion. Still have the 55 1st 1/2 ton it was in, daily driver with the 383HT GM V8 and 5 speed tremic trans, was very easy swap. :}
3:05 I have seen that snow plow in person every year for over a decade, had no idea it was gas powered. Will definitely be taking a closer look next week. If anyone is in Oregon, Antique Powerland is having their Steam Up the next couple weekends, last weekend of July and first weekend of August every year. Well worth a visit.
I've always been partial to straight sixes, and have owned them most of my driving life. Starting with a '65 Rambler Classic with a 232 six that I started driving on in the early 70's, on up to the '93 Dodge Cumins I stll have today, and several straight six cars in between, They've been the most practical for me.
That would probably explain why most semi trucks these days are big block straight six desiel. I see where they came from. Those big block straight six gassers are insane
In line 6 has inherently more low rpm torque, and longer durability than a v type engine. Gas or diesel. Diesels last a bit longer because the fuel is a oil which lubricates , and burns cooler . Most companies made v type diesels , but they always had durability problems . V engines need higher rpm which kills them in heavy load use
One of the main reasons inline 6 motors faded in passenger cars is the length of the block. Long hoods reduced space in the passenger cabin and made the vehicle heavier. Too bad because I love the inline 6’s. Most commercial trucks still use this design. It is far easier to service and is naturally balanced.
Correct. Many newer usa RWD vehicles will not accept a straight 6 anymore. Thus happened decades ago. The old 1960 Ford Falcon was designed to fit a I6. Ie the 144 then 170..later 200. Then Mustang Fairmont etc too. Fords 144 to 250 series has an integral head and intake manifold that was never too high tech. I think in Australia they had a different head with a separate intake manifold. Ie those were imported by hot rodders in the 1970s. So Ford just let the 200 to 250 I6 design die and focusing on FWD cars in the 1980s.
I like many types of engines. I admire every type of engine design. But straight inline six engines are my first and forever love, especially long stroke inline sixes. Torque rules over horsepower. Torque can move anything, no matter how gigantic, if you are smart enough not to be in a hurry. Nothing has more torque, and smoother torque, and indestructible simplicity and durability, than a straight six engine. I've never worked on or driven a straight six of more than 300 cubic inch displacement. I'm not sure I've even been near a running straight six of more than 300 cubic inch displacement. I'm a scrapyard wander for 5 decades but not really seen any massive gasoline straight sixes. Id have noticed them and I'd have taken a bow to them. I'd be in awe standing next to one that's running. I'd be very turned on to drive one. And thank you for showing yours in a shop environment where real people are doing real things, not some fake-ly fastidious environment cursted for a camera.
Put an LTx style aluminum cylinder head on it with EFI & 6 independent TB's, COP ignition, headers and let it eat. Maybe even VVT-L if you're feeling fancy and don't think you have enough possible future failure points.
70s and 80s GM straight 6s were the 252 and 292 Chev 6s. Which used a LOT of SBC components. GMC also had some 6s but I have no idea of capacity. Ford used the 300 6 for decades. Same bore and stroke to the 400 M V8 I think Chrysler gave up on 6s with the slant 6. 225. Though in Oz we got the hemi 6 with 215 245 and 265 capacity
imagine modernizing one of these with fuel injection, forged internals, a better and/or bigger cam, and a turbo or two hanging off of it. I wonder what kinda power itd make
I loved my 2 Dodge pickups with 225 slant 6’s! One was a 1979c the other a 1982. I don’t even like 4 strokes, but these are sweet engines and tan amazing! Good on gas and loaded with torque as well! Sweet exhaust note too! These sounded very close to a 6-71 2 stroke Detroit!
@@rctopfueler2841 I meant the big GM inline 6 at full song. Hs similar exhaust note to a Detroit 2 stroke at about half the RPM as the big 4 stroke inline 6. The slant six to me was the quintessential typical automobile straight 6 sound with the solid lifters adding the valve rocker click sound track. I am not a 4 stroke guy at all as they are a silly design that is kikd of not the best principle in my opinion, but I still love these leaning towers of (pretty low 😝) power, though! And yes, the Subi flat 4’s and 6’s sound great, especially the 4’s with true duals! Sadly, the inline 4’s which to me are mediocre at best and should be flat plane instead of crappy flat plane, will sound just like those flat 4’s (which are also flat plane in all fairness), if they would just dump the crappy 4 into one exhaust manifold and put 2 separate 2 into one manifolds on, one on 1 and 2 and the other in 3 and 4 cylinders, true duals, same sound as the Subi! They would breathe and run better too, with more low end, which most inline 4’s desperately need more of! 😋 BUT NOTHING ON EARTH CAN MATCH THE INSANE EXHAUST NOTE IF A 2 STROKE DETROIT! Best. Diesels. EVER.!! 😋🤘 Cheers, man! 👍🏻 Keep on ROCKIN’ 🤘🤘🤘😋
The Ford 240/300 is like an upgraded GMC 270/302 - produced one year after the 302 went out of production. In most ways similar, but the Ford had 12 ports.
Have you noticed that most all simi trucks run I6 engines? Very few V8s. Heavy mining & AG equipment too, all I6s. They build 650hp I6s you can get from the factory in your new simi. An I6 can be tweaked to make 800hp for truck pullin. An I6 only uses 75% as many parts as a V8 making the I6 more dependable and economical as it has 2 less cylinders to feed fuel to than a V8. !
The biggest problem with petrol engines in trucks is there thirst , a 500 cube conte in a 1942 tank transporter drinks about 3 imperial gallons per mile , 500 cube V8 in trucks from the 70s drink about the same and diesel same displacement sip at about 6 MPG .
The USA was slow to use diesel fuel in trucks because they taxed gasoline at a low rate, a lot less than on diesel fuel. Thus their tax regime masked the cost saving in using more efficient diesel engines. It should be noted too that the USA is an extremely conservative, change resistant, country. This shows up in many ways, apart from sticking to gasoline:- sticking to 8-track tapes long after the market died elsewhere; 8-bit s-100 CP/M computers selling long after the world changed to 16-bit DOS computers; and refusing to go metric.
Imagine taking the GMC big 6, making a light weight crank , rods and Pistons. Made from 4340 and forged aluminum. Bore it out about .100" and destroke it to around 4"-4.37" and cast a 4 valve head for it, possibly aluminum. With stainless o-ring with dead soft copper gasket around .020", thick. And possibly. Make the head a cross flow. And make billet steel main caps. With additional bolts. Or studs, along with head studs. An aluminum intake manifold holding 6 single barrel carburetors. Possibly holley carbs if they can be found. Or 3x 2,bbl 350 holley carbs. In a high rise design with a dtraight shot down to the intake valves. The runners at about 22° angled down to the head. With a large open plenum the carbs sitting side by side. With the throttle blade sitting directly over the port. With all carbs sharing the vacuum signal. The cam getting around .580" lift and 230° @ .050", using a roller follower. Made of titanium and tool steel roller with oilite bushings . Being double bushed, bushed in the roller and in the follower , or use pushrods to operate the 4 valves per cylinder with hemi style rockers. However a over head cam is best. with a shaft mounted roller follower. with thr shaft feeding the oilthe cam also hollow, feeding oil through pin holes in the lobe bottoms. The follower having milled in oil cups to funnel oil into the bushing, or possibly in a trough, so the cam and follower is filed with oil that slowly drains out when shut off. And possibly incorporate twin spark plugs per cylinder. Using a distributor with two cap and rotors. With the ability to set the timing lightly different. Fire one then with in 1°- 2° if crank rotation fire the other. With the mechanical advance operating them both together. Before the split. Cast 1.75" i.d. stainless header split into 3cyl wit dual out with 3.5" collectors , And possibly go fuel injection, build the same basic intake with individual throttle bodies, and port injection two per cylinder a bottom injector at the top of the runner, with a top mount injector at the ports traditional location. Using smaller injectors for a fine mist ,. using 3x 350-400:cfm throttle bodies, or 6x 300cfm units, or possibly a single 102 mm , mount an aluminum flywheel, with a bolt in .250" iron friction surface with about 60,1/4 counter sunk bolts , with a 5-6 speed manual transmission, or(modified) 6L90 auto transmission. With the shorter stroke light weight free flow head capable of around 120 CFM at .150" lift and 500cfm @1.0" getting to 5700 rpm should be simple. And possibly 6k - 6500for a short time, probably drill the block to access each main oil Galle externally, use a crank drive oil pump. Sump in the pan to remote filter and cooler. Lubrication to the crank, then av1/4" or 5/16" line to the head split to go to each end a follower shaft bearing grooved to feed oil to the shaft . The cam the same way the bushing using using brass labyrinth seals to slow the leak. One on each end of both shafts.with the follower shape feeding oil to the valves,. A basically semi dry sump oil system using the sump as the oil tank.. and possibly use a second pump stage to feed piston oil squirter's a 1/2 line from sump, filter screen about 20' x, 3"-4" forming a zigzag picku screen when placed in a 2" tube with 3/4" pickup welded to the end, placed inside the sump , possibly feeding both pump stages , also incorporating a 18 gauge steel windage tray. To separate the crank from the oil. And possibly mount an adater manifold to alow fitment of a 6-71 Detroit diesel blower, with a air to water intercooler inside the manufold the flow path going from 6-4-2-1 to the blower discharge, the topside ofthe blower having a large 90° elbow to adapt a pair of 650 holley carbs, capable of about 1 bar additional atmosphere. This should simulate a engine twice th displacement! 100 hp per cylinder should be nothing. And 450+lbft TQ without boost. And the stars and moon with boost. With long runnrs for a blower manifold to keep the TQ. This makes me want to find on of these engines. Put it into a modified 55 56 chevy 1/2 ton truck, it would be awesome and very different! Sorry for the rambling, havesn awesome day 🎉
Its important to recall that in WW2 the US and UK tanks were petrol, so were the heavy military trucks and even the MTBs. The military had all the supply in place for petrol and did not want to change to diesel and they bought a lot of trucks.
I have something that looks like this in a 69 Chevy grain truck. You can drive it all week on the farm, but 30miles to the grain elevator and back will burn a full tank of 20!gallons. Top speed floored loaded is about 60 mph. 70 unloaded. Only 30k miles on her.
I wonder what would come out if such old enormous straight-six gas engines would be build with today's parts and possibilities, including a turbo and such bells and whistles. 😯💪
A diesel engine cannot pre-ignite, as ignition starts when fuel injection starts, so adding a turbo to stuff more air in works really well, significantly adding power output across ALL the RPM range while improving fuel economy. But stuffing air in under pressure is really much the same as increasing the compression ratio which in a gasoline engine makes for pre-ignition. So at low/medium RPM the boost has to be kept low, and the turbo can only be effective at high RPM where increased turbulence in the cylinder causes loss of heat and thus reduces the tendency to pre-ignite. So in a diesel, a turbo is good at the RPM you want in a haulage truck or an industrial application - more power and better fuel consumption. But in a gasoline engine, apart from high RPM racing, a turbo can't do much. With gasoline engines not in racing applications, if you need more power, the best way is just use a bigger displacement engine. It will work just as well and be more durable and reliable.
@@keithammleter3824 1940's Turbo compound aircraft engines were getting thermal efficiency of 40%. Better than most CI engines. It could be done today if we tried.
@@bruceparr1678 You are misled. Two important factors about efficiency:- # Aircraft engines could indeed be quite a bit better than 40% thermodynamic efficiency because they are designed to run at a specific RPM (usually about 2000) - thus turbulence, which is set by cylinder head and valve geometry, can be optimised. A car engine, and to large extent a truck engine, needs to operate over a wide range of RPM, so turbulence is necessarily a compromise. If it is enough at low RPM to prevent pinging, it is too much at high RPM. # Since the amount of heat lost is proportional to cylinder bore, but power is proportional to the cube of bore, it follows that, within reason (considering factors like con-rod mass), the bigger the bore the better. Those turbo-compound aircraft engines had cylinder capacity around 2.5 to 3 litres. Given that for car engines 3 litres is a moderately large size, if a car engine was optimised for highest thermodynamic efficiency, it should have only one cylinder. This would confer totally unacceptable vibration. And it would need to be large and heavy. 4 cylinders is about the minimum number of cylinders for a smooth ride in a car, 6 cylinders is better and that means the bore size has to be well under the optimum for efficiency. V8's were designed for cars, to further reduce vibration, and get more capacity in a short length, but there was, compared to 4 or 6 cylinders with the same total displacement, a fuel consumption penalty. When BMC were doing the initial design of the Mini Minor, they calculated that about 800 to 900 cc would give the performance needed. So they designed and prototyped a 3-cylinder engine in order to not take the bore too far away from the requirements of efficiency. On test they decided that vibration would be too high for market acceptance and stayed with 4 cylinders. You should note that supercharged, turbocharged, and turbo-compound aircraft engines were set up so that at sea level the amount of boost was minimal or non-existent. The system was set up so that a near constant amount of air-fuel mix was pushed into the engine regardless of altitude, i.e., by means of waste gates and other means, the boost increased as altitude lowered atmospheric pressure, so the engine was operating at sea level conditions even at maximum altitude. Note also that with aircraft engines, a couple of factors gave a few more percent efficiency that don't apply to car and truck engines. At altitude, air temperature is much lower. Engines thermodynamically work on the difference between combustion temperature and air temperature, so you gain a bit of efficiency at altitude. Secondly, the exhaust gasses act like a jet engine and impart a bit of thrust to the airframe. It's small but it does count. A typical car engine has a thermodynamic efficiency of around 22 to 26%. If there was a way to easily increase it to 40%, manufacturers would have long since done it, and we would all be getting 40 - 50 miles per gallon. Fact is, there isn't. Except for one thing: If the vehicle is a hybrid, i.e., an engine driving a generator charging a battery, the battery in turn feeding an electric motor driving the wheels, the engine can be optimised for a specific RPM and always operated at that RPM. But would you want a car where the engine is always screaming at high RPM, regardless of how fast or slo you are driving?
Did we need it? That's a good question. We could have used diesel engines instead of petrol, both for greater torque and efficiency. However, back in the old days, farms and industrial sites had their own fuel depots on property, and it was more convenient to use one fuel for all. We had a single axle dump truck with a big petrol inline six. GM also made a big V6, which was also made into a V12.
I owned a early model GMC wrecker truck that had the 503 engine. It had duel exhaust and a four barrel carburetor. I did run but my brother was impatient and sent it to the crusher. Said no purpose in saving junk trucks and other stuff stored on his property. I really was hurt by his decision to junk it and maybe he was right in the fact that I was broke and could not use it.
The thumbnailnyou ise for this video is NOT the large six. It is the smaller consumer version that topped out at 302 C.I. the 426 and 503 BIG sixes had the intake on the passenger side .
I seriously doubt that GM would have called any displacement in liters back then. They would have all been in cubic inches of displacement. And as they say, there's no replacement for displacement :)
If you refer to the 3:41 picture with 9 ports, that's the non-cross flow cylinder, meaning the intake and exhaust are on the same side and the other side does not have any ports. The second, fifth and eighth are the intake ones, others are for exhaust.
Combustion engines are just beautiful, saved humanity countless times throughout the ages, in stormy weather, in firetrucks on the go, police cars, rescue vehicles.
Kept the streets free of snow, got you home for christmas, summer vacationing in hot weather and much much more.
Imagine an electric fire truck
Yep, battery cell on fire having to put itself out 😂 @@SALTrips
As a truck driver myself I couldn’t agree more, the old Mack I drove never let me down. Snowing sideways etc and always got me there and back.
@@SALTrips
Yep ive said the same things, I cant see an electric cross country semi especially with time being money on the road - and I can just see batteries overheatiing and exploding pulling heavily loaded trailers and a whole host of other reasons gas engines must stay around even if fueled by hydrogen, also no practical in the foreseeable future. And who the hell wants to rely on an electric ambulance - I can just see one getting sidelined at a charger while someone finishes their heart attack
I had a 1947 Chevy pickup (converted to a 1 ton flatbed), and I pulled a 248 GMC engine from a 1953 military duece-and-a-half, along with a 5 speed O.D. transmission, and installed it in the Chevy. It was all of 105 hp., but 238 ft. lbs. of torque! It was commonly used in a lot of small to medium sized trucks of the era. They maxed out around 3400 rpm. tops, but had massive amounts of torque from 1200 rpm. to the 3400 rpm. maximum, and would pull heavy loads all day with no complaints. However, they were not easy on gas, and I eventually replaced it with a more modern 1979 250 cu. in. 6 cylinder that had 30 more hp. and better fuel mileage!😉
My 1.9 vw tdi swapped vw rabbit pickup makes
150hp 250tq
Revs to 5000rpm
And gets 75 mpg (54mpg in a vehicle 800+lbs heavier than my swap chassis.
Crazy how technology changes.
The m135 GMC deuces had the 302 I6, so unless someone else swapped it into the truck you pulled it from and the earlier ones dubbed cckw had the 270 I6
@@TheRathead80 i mean he did say it was a military truck, did the military have a different engine?
@@TheRathead80 LOL, it could very well have BEEN a 270. The guy that sold it to me wasn't sure, and they look pretty similar. I do know it got pretty lousy gas mileage, even though you could pull a house down with it!😆 It had a REO unsyncronized 5 speed with 25% over in 5th gear. I had to modify the floor pan over the trans to get it in the truck. With the overdrive and a 4.88 Dana 70 differential, it would run down the road all day long at 65 with no issues.🙂
@@fadedsoul23 The 228, 248, and 270 were all pretty much the same block (with a few exceptions that had side motor mounts), just different bore and stroke. The 302 was considerably heavier, and had even larger piston pins than the early 228, 248, and 270.
Back in the day (I was born in 49) we had a low grade of fuel called "Buss Gas" or "Commercial Gasoline". It had an octane rating of maybe 75 under to old rating system. It's why all these big engines had 6~7 compression ratios. With modern fuel they could be run up maybe 8.5 to 1 and probably make 50% more power with that higher CR and some more timing ...
With modern diesel trucks with regen, catalytic converters, and exhaust additives - these older gas engines are starting to get some interest again. But parts are hard to come by 🙃
B1..............did not know that .........I'm a 53 ......thanks for the info Bro .
The old school american 6s are fascinating to me. A long term enthusiast goal is to own a truck with one.
Funny you bring that up about the octane rating because I never got to drive earlier than 1971 I've always said that the low compression engines then because the gas was bad had no power but if you jack up the compression modify the engine you could run 9 to 1 in a commercial engine and have so much power and torque so the reason a lot of these things have bad mileage is because of the low compression and the accordingly given components camshaft Springs valve etcetera anyway interesting info good luck
I always thought big-block gas engines were due for a revival with diesel emissions getting so strict, but they need one more component to be truly capable of replacing diesels: turbocharging. Tow in the high mountains here in Colorado with a gas engine and you're going to practically run out of air. Imo if ford built their 7.3 gasser with a low-pressure turbo that focused on low-end torque and consistent power at altitude, rather than high power and speed, it would be the perfect modern towing engine.
@@alexbeuerman7608With modern technology why doesn't anyone make a straight 6 gas motor for a truck? 6.0L + should do it.
Many people talk about the Ford 300 like it was the best thing since sliced bread.
I have a 1954 GMC 5 window fire engine with a 503 in.³ it is a beast!
Super slow rever, but has tons of torque. It move that beast around fairly easy.
Original Engine still runs really smooth .
The Jag 6 was 3.8-4.2L, you can get them everywhere for cheap here! Even comes with a broken Jag for free.
Would love to get my hands on a jag, thanks for the reminder!
@@thisisyourcaptainspeaking2259IRS is nice!
Where is “here”? Please.
Yes well sort after for their gearboxes as well. Many hot rodders run jag gearbox or diff here in Australia anyway...... Maybe not so much now but old school hot rodders used to swear by them? Most people these days go with a T56 manual or Ford top loader and run a Ford 9" rear as simple proven formular?
@@jeffreyoneill6439 'Murica
inline 6 is the best engine geometry ever invented. perfect primary and secondary balance.
60 degree and 120° V12s also have perfect primary and secondary balance.
I do agree however, the inline 6 is the perfect engine configuration.
Straight 6's are special! I recently bought a 1992 Cherokee manual with the 4.0 AMC inline 6, and the engine is such a joy to drive! It has a roar, almost like a V8, and is so balanced you never feel like you're logging it. It just pulls smoothly without shudder, or hesitation from under 1.500 rpm in any gear, but I prefer to rev it out a bit, as it sounds magnificent 😁
the AMC 6s are all very good
I love my 4.0L TJ so damn much. Best vehicle I've ever owned.
(They sound REALLY good with a flowmaster 44)
Grunting around at low RPM's is tough on bottom end , cause oil pump bearly pumping oil at low RPM's to hold bearings apart from each other, my experience , Rev her up grunting is for old people don't know they crank is banging around in block! Lol
@@scottyjones27 i do rev it, read the comment 😂
I was very surprised how much torque my 4.0 Cherokee had
When my Father started his construction company about 1948, he bought a surplus Army Deuce-and-a-half, six-wheel drive truck. It had a huge, inline, gasoline six, and was probably one of these engines. it was very dependable. I just vaguely remember the scripted GMC on the valve cover. He kept it for well over ten years, maybe a bit longer.
I'm still impressed with the GM 305ci Bigblock v6 from the 60s70s80s.
In heavy trucks like they show in the video, you could get a 478ci V6! You could get the 305V6 in a GMC Suburban and Pickup.
I actually wanted to hop up at 305 V6 but I also wanted to rebuild a 478 although they're truck engines and they were designed for reliability who says I'm going to be hauling stuff for 200,000 mi? So basically it wouldn't hurt anything to add more compression they certainly are built heavy enough to withstand it which would give them better mileage
Yes. GMC seemed to be vested in 6's back then, inline and V.
Try finding a rebuild kit for one of those. They are really expensive if you can find it!
20 years ago I tried to find one. Yeah it wasn't feasible.
Thanks for showing these unique period engines
Love the sound of those big sixes.
I bought a 2002 Chevy Trailblazer that had a 4.2 L inline six. What a smooth, powerful engine that was, with a really flat torque curve.
I had a 2005 TrailBlazer with the 4.2 in it. It was a pretty decent SUV, especially since it was the LT trim, with power leather seats. But my favorite part, of course, was the BEAUTIFUL sounding "big block" straight-six! Unfortunately, it began spending more time in the shop than on the road, so I ended up scrapping it earlier this year.
If you still have your TB, take real good care of it. Thanks to our government here in the "states", we'll NEVER get to see a new big-block gasser, let alone a STRAIGHT-SIX, ever again!
We did have a big block six, it was the Ford 300. It’s still used to this day in agriculture, aircraft pullers , Mail trucks and Delivery trucks….
one of the most reliable engines ever made too... when i was a kid my dad had a '78 F100 shortbed with a 351 small block, and then after that a '77 F100 longbed with a 300... the 351 had a rapid unscheduled disassembly during a normal calm drive, but he beat the absolute living hell out of that 300 for over a decade trying to kill it and it just refused to die. by the time he got rid of it the entire truck was rotting and falling apart except for that engine. still ran like a dream and fired up the first time every time 👌
I have, and love, 300 Fords, but they're only "big" compared to the Falcon six. I have a 292 Chevy, 300 Ford, and an International Harvester Red Diamond head. The IH head weighs double, and is 6 inches longer, 2/3 again wider. And the Hall Scott and others were LOTS bigger yet.
Neat to see! Hercules built a 936 ci flathead six. The 478 magnum V6 made only 13 ftlb less than the 504 but did so 200 rpm lower (442@1400). However, the V6 was 254 hp vs. 216 and could wind higher. What blows most peoples minds is that the V6, V12, and V8s were oversquare short stroke engines that pull like an electric motor. The 637 V8 was 5.125 bore x 3.86 stroke, a 637 with less stroke than a 454. GMC figured out that stroke doesn't equal torque. Actually, the math comes out the same. Big bore engines have less piston speed, less cylinder and ring wear, better rod ratios, can fit bigger valves, use smaller cams, and have higher rpm potential. I had a 401 magnum V6 (4.875x3.58) that you could pull down so low the electronic tach quit reading the revolutions, and you could count the fan blades going by, I put a 4bbl on it in a pickup and dual valve springs. I shifted it at 5k rpm, once, I missed a power shift, and it hit 6300 rpm and lived! . By comparison, long stroke motors fall on their butts lugging down before oversquare ones trying to bring the next cylinder up on compression. I have owned 27 GMC v6, v8, v12s gas and Diesel, two 602 Continental inline 6, 3 331 Diamond Reos, 2 302 GMCs and a 251 and 230 Dodge flathead 6. And an International RD 450. Great to see a presentation on these little known stump pullers! The big gassers wete lighter (more payload) cheaper, simpler, made way more hp and bottom end torque, wound higher, and required fewer gears in the transmission than early especially turbo Diesels, they still pull down lower because they don't fall out of the turbo. A gas 478 was 254hp/442 ftlbs, a Diesel 478 was 170hp and 342 ft lb 200 rpm higher. About equal to a 305 gas v6. The gas crunch killed them.
DS ...........shorter stroke .........with a longer rod helps flatting out the torque curve .
Short rods are ruff on pistons
Very interesting on how many engines and trucks you had I've been a mechanic since 1968 a hot rodder a mechanic a machinist I like modifying things but I've never got to play with the older trucks typically because they're commercial Duty stuff and what am I going to do drive a commercial truck around but then again I like working on engines and I like modifying them I could read your response about three or four times I like studying different engine size I've done this for 50 years sitting down one Cube at a time figuring what engine family used it and what they came in just from memory or any kind of general knowledge but again I liked your article good luck on all your trucks
@brantardrey7360 Thanks! I would like to swap stories! I was very blessed in my life to have the father I did, a highly intelligent R&D engineer and farmer who traveled the world and worked harder on the farm. It didn't matter where he went. Who he was talking to, he ALWAYS wore his steel toed boots, blue jeans, and flannel shirt! He had several patents and built a weight transfer sled for pulling tractors. He built 3 tractors, 2 of which we used for 40 years until he died. He was the winningest driver in the history of Oceola dragway, using Grandpa's 73 Chrysler newport, with a farm built 440 six pack. It would lift the front tires, run 107 in the 1/4 on 87 octane, and pull the 20,000 lb grain wagon to the elevator and the fertilizer buggy back home! 2500+ timeslips and no breakages in 13 years. We retired her when the reese hitch rusted and fell off at the track! I was 10, and he said to me, "You build it, and tune it, I'll drive it!" He taught me everything from machining parts for the tranny, to setting up rear gears, and chassis, by 14 yrs old. We only had $550 in that car! Everything else was farm shop built. When I was about 8 or 9, I helped machine out billet aluminum high dome pistons for a 1937 Farmall we were pulling. I had a drafting table in my bedroom, and he taught me how to read and draw prints. We also had a small plane. Everyone from miles around came to have us work on their old trucks and tractors. I always went to sleep with a stack of Motors manuals and I&T tractor manuals beside the bed! I had 136 engines, 14 6x6s , 12 trailers, 9 tractors, 20+ old cars, etc, etc, and 3 barns completely full of old parts when I sold out after he died. I have worked for several shops, excavating companies, and maintenance work. I was a diesel engine builder (TRUE Diesels, you know, you roll start them, go to town and leave the batteries at home!) I'm the crazy guy who likes Detroit Diesel 2 strokes, loathes mufflers, and had permanent tinnitus before I graduated grade school! I had a massive brain tumor removed a few years ago that left me disabled. They said that I had a 45% chance of either dying on the table, being a vegetable, or having a stroke in recovery. My first memory after surgery was hearing that I was surrounded by doctors and family, I heard the surgeon say "we won't know what if any brain function he will have left until he wakes up and we do some tests" I still couldn't open my eyes, and started to moan. I felt dads huge calloused hand take mine, and he said, "Son, what's the bore and stroke of a 478 v6?" I mustered all my strength and said,"Five point one two five by 3 point eight six sir. " he looked at the surgeon and said,"He's ok!"
USA railroads were first in Dieselisation, starting in 1930. For transcontinental railroading, steam wasn't particularly suitable due to US geography (water was difficult to procure and transport in the desert). For use in navy submarines, diesel was only correct option.
However, it's use on highway was an afterthought in North America until 1960s.
Which soon brought what, IMO, was the large scale intro of 'Grandfather hybrid'
GM's Electro-Motive Division (EMD)
... Harold L. Hamilton and Paul Turner founded the Electro-Motive Engineering Corporation in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1922, soon renaming it to Electro-Motive Company (EMC). The company developed and marketed self-propelled railcars using General Electric's newly developed internal combustion-electric propulsion and control systems. ...
... The General Motors years
1930s
In 1930 General Motors (GM) was seeking to enter production of diesel engines and broaden their range of applications. They purchased the Winton Engine Company, who had in their product line a variety of stationary and marine diesel engines and spark-ignition engines for heavy vehicles. GM saw EMC's role in developing and marketing Winton-engined heavy vehicles as fitting their objectives and purchased the company shortly after the Winton acquisition, renaming it Electro-Motive Corporation (EMC), a subsidiary of GM. Supported by the GM Research Division headed by Charles F. Kettering, GM's Winton Engine Corporation focused on developing diesel engines with improved power-to-weight ratios and output flexibility suitable for mobile use. Eugene W. Kettering, son of Charles Kettering, led Winton's side of the development project. ...
... 1940s
General Motors moved production of locomotive engines under the authority of EMC to create the GM Electro-Motive Division (EMD) on January 1, 1941. With that move, EMD became a fully self-contained development, production, marketing, and service entity. Non locomotive products (large marine and stationary diesel engines) continued under GM's Cleveland Diesel Engine Division for another twenty years. ...
Postwar
... EMD emerged from the war years with major advantages over its competitors in diesel locomotive production, having entered them with fully developed lines of mainline road diesel locomotives while war production allocations restricted their competitors, principally the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) and the Baldwin Locomotive Works, to selling mainly diesel switchers and steam locomotives of pre-existing designs. That gave an advantage to EMD's state of technical development with higher powered diesels in the critical postwar years. New model passenger locomotives were delivered starting in February 1945. New models of their freight locomotive followed later in 1945 and 1946. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Motive_Diesel
IMO...EV's are simply a rich man's hod rod
Batteries in an automobile are an Eco liability & should only be used in a traditional role...an inefficient means of regenerative storage🤨
@@charlesangell_bulmtl Quite a long reply. Everybody on the globe knows of (formerly GM's) EMD. Locomotive builder that connected North America (plus, huge exporter). And then, GM blew it. Today EMD is just a brand in Caterpillar Inc. portfolio (trough Progress Rail Services Corporation). A mere shadow of it's former self.
PS: Engineers, locomotive engineers (loco drivers, term used to describe locomotive is "Engine" in North America) and workers recoil to term "hybrid" to describe diesel-electric locomotive. Hybrid includes some form of capacitors (accumulator, or other form of batteries). The only electric component in majority of diesel-electric locomotives today are traction motors.
Also, the term electric batteries refer to non-rechargeable, single use, disposable types.
I don't know. It seems to me a submarine surrounded by trillions of gallons of water would be a natural for using steam power. Are you sure about that? Just kidding, go back to your beer and sandwich.
Wow what a huge block of over 1000 cb inches. Those big 6's held the place in the heavy duty field until diesel came into their own.
Great Video I never knew about some of these Engines 1000 ci strait 6 hell yea !
Back in the late-1950s, Seattle Fire received six Mack "B-21" engines, powered by the Hall-Scott 1091 cu. in. inline six. They did well on the hills, could run high-capacity fire-pumps, and had a very deep, rumble to the exhaust note. About 350 BHP and 1000 ft.-lbs. torque. They were in service (at least as backups) into the early-1980s...
I bought a '68 Chevy C/10 Stepside in 1973. It was factory equipped with the L25 292 L6. I still run that truck. On its third engine. Currently 406,000 miles on the odometer.
Great video on really large U.S. domestic Inline 6 cylinder industrial gasoline engines! I was impressed by the 7 main bearings design & gear drive cams! Nice!
Straight 6 engines are awesome. No need for balance shafts, harmonic balancers, etc. Only problem is they are long...
Here in Brazil we jave GM 250" L6 in cara ,pick up s,from 70',80's and 90's
Brasil é nois caraio
Good Video. I saw some segments with my engine. I have been working on it for a couple of years. Soon will be driving it around. Stay tuned!
I have a Jeep and a Volvo with straight 6 engines, such smooth power delivery. 😊
Thank you. Good episode. You can beat the sound of those old petrol sixes but … you can certainly beat their fuel economy😁. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿. Good to be a Patron.
Barra, Australia has already done it!!!
23 years ago though.
The inline 6 certainly has it's charm. Some of the most sought after BMWs and Jags were inline 6s. Now we see Dodge going back to the layout in their vehicles. What was old is new again!
It's also naturally very smooth without balancing shafts!
I think about how much easier to build it is. That is one reason so many heavy diesels are inline six.
Dodge isn't doing anything. That is nothing more than a label. Now if you really want to have a good solid inline six, bring back the Leaning Tower of Power or the AMC 4.0L.
Is Dodge not going back to the I6 layout for their higher horsepower applications?@@danw6014
@@danw6014 True. Beautiful engines.
Hard to imagine big gas engines still? Look no further than Ford's 7.3 V8 (Gas) and Chevy's 6.6 V8 (Gas) in pickups, box trucks, delivery vans, buses, and more :) The 7.3 Ford recently replaced their 6.8 V10.
Chrysler/Ram (stellantis) also makes a 6.4 v8
But those are V8's. What's the last truck (not just just pickup truck) gas inline six? Ford 300? Afaik the GM Atlas was never put in a medium or heavy truck. (T-Blazers are basically minivans and don't count).
I have a 1962 Ford F600 with a 262 truck six, and it is quite the motor! You had to special order it if you wanted it in a pickup. Things beefy.
@@TylerLinner I had a GM vehicle with the atlas 4200, pretty strong engine, just sold it with 190k miles and it had no issues at all
@@digitalgulby In a 3/4 ton Ram, the 6.4 will make 420 horsepower and 525 lb.-ft of torque, for an average 13-18mpg. When considering the truck weighs around 9,000 pounds with just a driver and a passenger or two, is powered by a 392 cubic inch engine, and can do 0-60 in around 7 seconds, the fuel economy is astoundingly good. Even if you're carting around 1500 pounds in the bed, the mileage and acceleration doesn't noticeably change. That's not to speak of long distance driving, either. On a 2,200ish mile trip across the country (moving), with 3 passengers and around 1200 pounds loaded in the bed (with a bed cover), the average was 22mpg. The hemi powered Rams are an excellent platform. Stellantis choosing to get rid of the hemi v8s for passenger vehicles and mostly doing away with them in trucks seems like a questionable decision to me. From what I know of the Hurricane v6s they seem like a good powerplant, but for truck use the low end torque and lower stressed engine components will be lamented for their loss. I can't speak for Fords or Chevys, I imagine they are similarly impressive. Modern ICE powerplants have really become works of art and impressive efficiency. The transition to electric vehicles has lots of good reasons behind it, but I'm happy I got to live to drive gas and diesel burners. I guess I probably feel similar to the way steam locomotive engineers felt when the transition to diesel-electric locomotives was happening.
@@TylerLinnerThe new Rams are coming out with a 3.0L I6 unit. Not exactly a big truck engine though, maybe we'll see a bigger 5-6L version for the HD trucks, whenever they replace the 6.4, who knows.
How many people can say they used a GMC 503 inline six to haul loads and make money five days a week in 2024? Its me. I did
That's awesome!!! What kind of milage?
The 302 GMC engine was amazing powerhouse 2 barrel car with a 3 inches off what more could you ask for with a 12-inch clutch, I believe it was only three or four inches longer than the regular GM engine I installed one in my friends flatbed, what a true powerhouse put a nice 3 inches on all you can hear is The Sweet sound that engine purring under load.😊
I want to put a worked over 302 inline 6 cyl in a 1965 Chevy 4WD truck!
You had me at inline 6! 😍
The super nice 302 cu in "Jimmy" was a great almost drop in switch to most in-line later Chevys. If I recall the block was about 1 1/2 inch longer so in some it required an adjustment in the radiator mounts etc. Bell housing to Chevy all the same. Nice and a great add on to a Chevy and looks almost original. Some speed equipment was available as cast iron headers and dual intake manifolds, cams etc. There were also the very rare 12 port heads made by one or two cos Wayne Horning and another one I believe. The 302 block could not be bored out much over as the walls got thin. Very sweet sound they made with a nice cam.
You made a bit of a passing mention of Hall-Scott truck engines. Their engines were works of art. Their chief engineer, E J Hall, was the person who developed Duesenberg's OHC engines. Their truck and bus engines, in both vertical and horizontal configurations, had overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder and hemispherical combustion chambers, and produced massive amounts of horsepower and torque. His designs would power some of the fastest cars and boats of the 1920s-30s, as well as the fastest intercity coach ever put into production, the ACF-Brill IC41.
I was getting over 200hp out of a 261 blue flame think it was bored 20 over, balanced and was decked, to have 10.5 compresion. Still have the 55 1st 1/2 ton it was in, daily driver with the 383HT GM V8 and 5 speed tremic trans, was very easy swap. :}
3:05 I have seen that snow plow in person every year for over a decade, had no idea it was gas powered. Will definitely be taking a closer look next week. If anyone is in Oregon, Antique Powerland is having their Steam Up the next couple weekends, last weekend of July and first weekend of August every year. Well worth a visit.
I've always been partial to straight sixes, and have owned them most of my driving life. Starting with a '65 Rambler Classic with a 232 six that I started driving on in the early 70's, on up to the '93 Dodge Cumins I stll have today, and several straight six cars in between, They've been the most practical for me.
Very interesting! Thanks for presenting this excellent video content!
That would probably explain why most semi trucks these days are big block straight six desiel. I see where they came from. Those big block straight six gassers are insane
In line 6 has inherently more low rpm torque, and longer durability than a v type engine. Gas or diesel. Diesels last a bit longer because the fuel is a oil which lubricates , and burns cooler .
Most companies made v type diesels , but they always had durability problems . V engines need higher rpm which kills them in heavy load use
One of the main reasons inline 6 motors faded in passenger cars is the length of the block. Long hoods reduced space in the passenger cabin and made the vehicle heavier. Too bad because I love the inline 6’s. Most commercial trucks still use this design. It is far easier to service and is naturally balanced.
Yes, Mercedes and Jaguar went back to inline-sixes. And Mazda joined, too.
Correct. Many newer usa RWD vehicles will not accept a straight 6 anymore. Thus happened decades ago.
The old 1960 Ford Falcon was designed to fit a I6. Ie the 144 then 170..later 200.
Then Mustang Fairmont etc too.
Fords 144 to 250 series has an integral head and intake manifold that was never too high tech.
I think in Australia they had a different head with a separate intake manifold. Ie those were imported by hot rodders in the 1970s.
So Ford just let the 200 to 250 I6 design die and focusing on FWD cars in the 1980s.
I like many types of engines. I admire every type of engine design. But straight inline six engines are my first and forever love, especially long stroke inline sixes. Torque rules over horsepower. Torque can move anything, no matter how gigantic, if you are smart enough not to be in a hurry. Nothing has more torque, and smoother torque, and indestructible simplicity and durability, than a straight six engine. I've never worked on or driven a straight six of more than 300 cubic inch displacement. I'm not sure I've even been near a running straight six of more than 300 cubic inch displacement. I'm a scrapyard wander for 5 decades but not really seen any massive gasoline straight sixes. Id have noticed them and I'd have taken a bow to them. I'd be in awe standing next to one that's running. I'd be very turned on to drive one.
And thank you for showing yours in a shop environment where real people are doing real things, not some fake-ly fastidious environment cursted for a camera.
I had a 70 C-10 with the I-6 250ci great to work on. So simple
Put an LTx style aluminum cylinder head on it with EFI & 6 independent TB's, COP ignition, headers and let it eat.
Maybe even VVT-L if you're feeling fancy and don't think you have enough possible future failure points.
70s and 80s GM straight 6s were the 252 and 292 Chev 6s. Which used a LOT of SBC components.
GMC also had some 6s but I have no idea of capacity.
Ford used the 300 6 for decades. Same bore and stroke to the 400 M V8
I think Chrysler gave up on 6s with the slant 6. 225.
Though in Oz we got the hemi 6 with 215 245 and 265 capacity
Does Aussie 265 must hemis must be fun to play with that would be nice to build one up to 350 horse out of a 6
imagine modernizing one of these with fuel injection, forged internals, a better and/or bigger cam, and a turbo or two hanging off of it. I wonder what kinda power itd make
they almost certainly had forged internals.
@@djmjd I mean something stronger than 1950s forged internals. And more performance oriented than torque oriented
@@fadedsoul231950’s Forged is stronger than todays. I’ll put money on that. The grade of steel was higher quality
@@iant720 fine then, rest of my comment still applies then, I wonder how much power it could really make
@@fadedsoul23 Depends on what you want to use it for, 350-400hp with 1600NM of torque for heavy duty use or much more if you want to use it for speed.
I loved my 2 Dodge pickups with 225 slant 6’s! One was a 1979c the other a 1982. I don’t even like 4 strokes, but these are sweet engines and tan amazing! Good on gas and loaded with torque as well! Sweet exhaust note too! These sounded very close to a 6-71 2 stroke Detroit!
Say what now. ? Id say the subaru wrxs sound more like a 2 stroke sceamin jimmy than any leaning tower of mopars
@@rctopfueler2841different 2 stroke...
@@rctopfueler2841 I meant the big GM inline 6 at full song. Hs similar exhaust note to a Detroit 2 stroke at about half the RPM as the big 4 stroke inline 6. The slant six to me was the quintessential typical automobile straight 6 sound with the solid lifters adding the valve rocker click sound track. I am not a 4 stroke guy at all as they are a silly design that is kikd of not the best principle in my opinion, but I still love these leaning towers of (pretty low 😝) power, though! And yes, the Subi flat 4’s and 6’s sound great, especially the 4’s with true duals! Sadly, the inline 4’s which to me are mediocre at best and should be flat plane instead of crappy flat plane, will sound just like those flat 4’s (which are also flat plane in all fairness), if they would just dump the crappy 4 into one exhaust manifold and put 2 separate 2 into one manifolds on, one on 1 and 2 and the other in 3 and 4 cylinders, true duals, same sound as the Subi! They would breathe and run better too, with more low end, which most inline 4’s desperately need more of! 😋 BUT NOTHING ON EARTH CAN MATCH THE INSANE EXHAUST NOTE IF A 2 STROKE DETROIT! Best. Diesels. EVER.!! 😋🤘 Cheers, man! 👍🏻 Keep on ROCKIN’ 🤘🤘🤘😋
@@2StrokeDriptroit have you ever been where one of those 6 71 goes runaway thats a sweet sound but scary as anything could be
Thanks again
The Ford 240/300 is like an upgraded GMC 270/302 - produced one year after the 302 went out of production. In most ways similar, but the Ford had 12 ports.
Imagine what one of those high cubic inch 6’s would do today with modern EFI and boost. 🐌
Have you noticed that most all simi trucks run I6 engines? Very few V8s.
Heavy mining & AG equipment too, all I6s. They build 650hp I6s you can
get from the factory in your new simi. An I6 can be tweaked to make 800hp
for truck pullin. An I6 only uses 75% as many parts as a V8 making the I6
more dependable and economical as it has 2 less cylinders to feed fuel
to than a V8.
!
The biggest problem with petrol engines in trucks is there thirst , a 500 cube conte in a 1942 tank transporter drinks about 3 imperial gallons per mile , 500 cube V8 in trucks from the 70s drink about the same and diesel same displacement sip at about 6 MPG .
Great video as usual
The USA was slow to use diesel fuel in trucks because they taxed gasoline at a low rate, a lot less than on diesel fuel. Thus their tax regime masked the cost saving in using more efficient diesel engines.
It should be noted too that the USA is an extremely conservative, change resistant, country. This shows up in many ways, apart from sticking to gasoline:- sticking to 8-track tapes long after the market died elsewhere; 8-bit s-100 CP/M computers selling long after the world changed to 16-bit DOS computers; and refusing to go metric.
I did not know about the higher diesel taxation, thanks for the info!
'Murica. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The rest of the world mad that when they think about America they still smile instead of skilometer.
If you don’t mind diesel, caterpillar still sells the C6, C7, and C9. All have Tier and 4 final compliment models available now
My grandfather had a GMC after the second war, replacing his 1935 FN truck. Strong he always was saying.
Imagine taking the GMC big 6, making a light weight crank , rods and Pistons. Made from 4340 and forged aluminum. Bore it out about .100" and destroke it to around 4"-4.37" and cast a 4 valve head for it, possibly aluminum. With stainless o-ring with dead soft copper gasket around .020", thick. And possibly. Make the head a cross flow. And make billet steel main caps. With additional bolts. Or studs, along with head studs. An aluminum intake manifold holding 6 single barrel carburetors. Possibly holley carbs if they can be found. Or 3x 2,bbl 350 holley carbs. In a high rise design with a dtraight shot down to the intake valves. The runners at about 22° angled down to the head. With a large open plenum the carbs sitting side by side. With the throttle blade sitting directly over the port. With all carbs sharing the vacuum signal. The cam getting around .580" lift and 230° @ .050", using a roller follower. Made of titanium and tool steel roller with oilite bushings . Being double bushed, bushed in the roller and in the follower , or use pushrods to operate the 4 valves per cylinder with hemi style rockers. However a over head cam is best. with a shaft mounted roller follower. with thr shaft feeding the oilthe cam also hollow, feeding oil through pin holes in the lobe bottoms. The follower having milled in oil cups to funnel oil into the bushing, or possibly in a trough, so the cam and follower is filed with oil that slowly drains out when shut off. And possibly incorporate twin spark plugs per cylinder. Using a distributor with two cap and rotors. With the ability to set the timing lightly different. Fire one then with in 1°- 2° if crank rotation fire the other. With the mechanical advance operating them both together. Before the split. Cast 1.75" i.d. stainless header split into 3cyl wit dual out with 3.5" collectors , And possibly go fuel injection, build the same basic intake with individual throttle bodies, and port injection two per cylinder a bottom injector at the top of the runner, with a top mount injector at the ports traditional location. Using smaller injectors for a fine mist ,. using 3x 350-400:cfm throttle bodies, or 6x 300cfm units, or possibly a single 102 mm , mount an aluminum flywheel, with a bolt in .250" iron friction surface with about 60,1/4 counter sunk bolts , with a 5-6 speed manual transmission, or(modified) 6L90 auto transmission. With the shorter stroke light weight free flow head capable of around 120 CFM at .150" lift and 500cfm @1.0" getting to 5700 rpm should be simple. And possibly 6k - 6500for a short time, probably drill the block to access each main oil Galle externally, use a crank drive oil pump. Sump in the pan to remote filter and cooler. Lubrication to the crank, then av1/4" or 5/16" line to the head split to go to each end a follower shaft bearing grooved to feed oil to the shaft . The cam the same way the bushing using using brass labyrinth seals to slow the leak. One on each end of both shafts.with the follower shape feeding oil to the valves,. A basically semi dry sump oil system using the sump as the oil tank.. and possibly use a second pump stage to feed piston oil squirter's a 1/2 line from sump, filter screen about 20' x, 3"-4" forming a zigzag picku screen when placed in a 2" tube with 3/4" pickup welded to the end, placed inside the sump , possibly feeding both pump stages , also incorporating a 18 gauge steel windage tray. To separate the crank from the oil. And possibly mount an adater manifold to alow fitment of a 6-71 Detroit diesel blower, with a air to water intercooler inside the manufold the flow path going from 6-4-2-1 to the blower discharge, the topside ofthe blower having a large 90° elbow to adapt a pair of 650 holley carbs, capable of about 1 bar additional atmosphere. This should simulate a engine twice th displacement! 100 hp per cylinder should be nothing. And 450+lbft TQ without boost. And the stars and moon with boost. With long runnrs for a blower manifold to keep the TQ. This makes me want to find on of these engines. Put it into a modified 55 56 chevy 1/2 ton truck, it would be awesome and very different! Sorry for the rambling, havesn awesome day 🎉
That’s awesome!!
If doing real work is just part of your life then the 6 cylinders are your friend. Ford, GM and Chrysler have all made a solid 6.
DO a video on the new Cummins 6.7 GAS straight 6
Its important to recall that in WW2 the US and UK tanks were petrol, so were the heavy military trucks and even the MTBs. The military had all the supply in place for petrol and did not want to change to diesel and they bought a lot of trucks.
Fun fact. GMC never had a v8 engine. Ever! My old bus came with with a 478 V6. Pretty cool
What about the GMC V8 637?
@@VisioRacer Got me! I should've said light duty
Ford's 300 CID I6 was a torque monster, and could easily be built up.
I have something that looks like this in a 69 Chevy grain truck. You can drive it all week on the farm, but 30miles to the grain elevator and back will burn a full tank of 20!gallons. Top speed floored loaded is about 60 mph. 70 unloaded. Only 30k miles on her.
Minneapolis Moline used a 504 ci inline 6 gasser in tractors.
Moline also made a 800HD six cylinder engine
It’s crazy that diesels had been around for 40 years without more development.
Cummins has converted their isx15 to operate on natural gas or propane. Theyve recently did a conversion on a 6.7isb to run on gasoline
I wonder what would come out if such old enormous straight-six gas engines would be build with today's parts and possibilities, including a turbo and such bells and whistles. 😯💪
A diesel engine cannot pre-ignite, as ignition starts when fuel injection starts, so adding a turbo to stuff more air in works really well, significantly adding power output across ALL the RPM range while improving fuel economy.
But stuffing air in under pressure is really much the same as increasing the compression ratio which in a gasoline engine makes for pre-ignition. So at low/medium RPM the boost has to be kept low, and the turbo can only be effective at high RPM where increased turbulence in the cylinder causes loss of heat and thus reduces the tendency to pre-ignite.
So in a diesel, a turbo is good at the RPM you want in a haulage truck or an industrial application - more power and better fuel consumption. But in a gasoline engine, apart from high RPM racing, a turbo can't do much. With gasoline engines not in racing applications, if you need more power, the best way is just use a bigger displacement engine. It will work just as well and be more durable and reliable.
@@keithammleter3824 1940's Turbo compound aircraft engines were getting thermal efficiency of 40%. Better than most CI engines. It could be done today if we tried.
@@bruceparr1678 You are misled. Two important factors about efficiency:-
# Aircraft engines could indeed be quite a bit better than 40% thermodynamic efficiency because they are designed to run at a specific RPM (usually about 2000) - thus turbulence, which is set by cylinder head and valve geometry, can be optimised. A car engine, and to large extent a truck engine, needs to operate over a wide range of RPM, so turbulence is necessarily a compromise. If it is enough at low RPM to prevent pinging, it is too much at high RPM.
# Since the amount of heat lost is proportional to cylinder bore, but power is proportional to the cube of bore, it follows that, within reason (considering factors like con-rod mass), the bigger the bore the better. Those turbo-compound aircraft engines had cylinder capacity around 2.5 to 3 litres. Given that for car engines 3 litres is a moderately large size, if a car engine was optimised for highest thermodynamic efficiency, it should have only one cylinder. This would confer totally unacceptable vibration. And it would need to be large and heavy. 4 cylinders is about the minimum number of cylinders for a smooth ride in a car, 6 cylinders is better and that means the bore size has to be well under the optimum for efficiency.
V8's were designed for cars, to further reduce vibration, and get more capacity in a short length, but there was, compared to 4 or 6 cylinders with the same total displacement, a fuel consumption penalty.
When BMC were doing the initial design of the Mini Minor, they calculated that about 800 to 900 cc would give the performance needed. So they designed and prototyped a 3-cylinder engine in order to not take the bore too far away from the requirements of efficiency. On test they decided that vibration would be too high for market acceptance and stayed with 4 cylinders.
You should note that supercharged, turbocharged, and turbo-compound aircraft engines were set up so that at sea level the amount of boost was minimal or non-existent. The system was set up so that a near constant amount of air-fuel mix was pushed into the engine regardless of altitude, i.e., by means of waste gates and other means, the boost increased as altitude lowered atmospheric pressure, so the engine was operating at sea level conditions even at maximum altitude.
Note also that with aircraft engines, a couple of factors gave a few more percent efficiency that don't apply to car and truck engines. At altitude, air temperature is much lower. Engines thermodynamically work on the difference between combustion temperature and air temperature, so you gain a bit of efficiency at altitude. Secondly, the exhaust gasses act like a jet engine and impart a bit of thrust to the airframe. It's small but it does count.
A typical car engine has a thermodynamic efficiency of around 22 to 26%. If there was a way to easily increase it to 40%, manufacturers would have long since done it, and we would all be getting 40 - 50 miles per gallon. Fact is, there isn't.
Except for one thing: If the vehicle is a hybrid, i.e., an engine driving a generator charging a battery, the battery in turn feeding an electric motor driving the wheels, the engine can be optimised for a specific RPM and always operated at that RPM. But would you want a car where the engine is always screaming at high RPM, regardless of how fast or slo you are driving?
International Red Diamond 501 Cubic Inches.. Hercules , Hall Scott ..White ect
GMC did briefly make a 707cid straight six.
Id like to see a modern big block inline 6 aluminum block fuel injection with turbo charging and DOHC 😎
I bet the guy in the second video is real bad ass with out that camera in his hand.
Did we need it? That's a good question. We could have used diesel engines instead of petrol, both for greater torque and efficiency. However, back in the old days, farms and industrial sites had their own fuel depots on property, and it was more convenient to use one fuel for all. We had a single axle dump truck with a big petrol inline six. GM also made a big V6, which was also made into a V12.
If I recall that would be the 702 V12, right?
450 ft/lbs just off idle out of a gas 6 cylinder. Unreal.
I owned a early model GMC wrecker truck that had the 503 engine. It had duel exhaust and a four barrel carburetor. I did run but my brother was impatient and sent it to the crusher. Said no purpose in saving junk trucks and other stuff stored on his property. I really was hurt by his decision to junk it and maybe he was right in the fact that I was broke and could not use it.
If it was your property, he was wrong to scrap it. There may be side issues. But that is grand theft auto.
He said it was stored on bros prop.@@jameseroh6544
Imagine that 503 with 5 to 7 lbs of boost.
I have a big block 6 cylinder engine. It's a 3.5L with dual overhead cams and EFI. Runs wonderfully in my Lincoln MKX. What country are you from?
This is trucks, but I knew 2 locals who raced at the local 1/3 NASCAR oval always with 6 rather than 8. 200 lbs lighter and better handling.
5:04 sounds like a turbo diesel. Is that really a gas I-6, or is this just a visualization of what truck may have had this engine?
Gday mate , luv ya work. Do u Kno of the 1938 'Gusabera' V8 2 stroke bike ?
The thumbnailnyou ise for this video is NOT the large six. It is the smaller consumer version that topped out at 302 C.I. the 426 and 503 BIG sixes had the intake on the passenger side .
I seriously doubt that GM would have called any displacement in liters back then. They would have all been in cubic inches of displacement. And as they say, there's no replacement for displacement :)
Looking at old engines makes me cry…
I work on German cars…. Look up a 4.4l TT V8 from Audi/Lamborghini. You’ll see why I don’t like them.
The atlas was fairly large at least on the outside. How big should it be?
Time 504 Looks like they left a rear facing door open swinging in the breeze.
3:31 Are pairs of intakes sharing one port? I don't recall ever seeing a six-cylinder head having nine ports.
If you refer to the 3:41 picture with 9 ports, that's the non-cross flow cylinder, meaning the intake and exhaust are on the same side and the other side does not have any ports. The second, fifth and eighth are the intake ones, others are for exhaust.
@@VisioRacerwhat service visioracer
You’re awesome and a true enthusiast. ❤
Yes Siamesed intake and exhaust ports
You know what they say.. there's no substitution for cubic inches..
Ford 7.3 godzilla is bringing the big block gasoline engine back.
(2:30) That head looks to have had a blown head gasket.
My dad drove all 48 and Canada before diesel trucks were used born 1917
3 litres, 130 HP and 30L/100 km?😂😂😂
And 100,000,000,000 lb-ft of torque
@@TylerLinnerI was just thinking the same thing. Big displacement, long stroke.
High Kompression ;)
100l/30km
How many mpgs is that
Wait till this guy finds out about the continental r6602
Cool, thought the Hall Scott 1090 cui is still a king. I wonder if there is a larger on-road gas inline-6
Diesels of the time were not at all convenient, with long complicated start up proceedures and especially poor cold weather starts.
Why won't it let me like your video?
Big 6 hd
1091 Hall-Scott!
That's only 9 cubic inches smaller than the Ford GAA DOHC V -8 used in M-4 Sherman Tanks
Those burn about 2 gallons of gas per mile, according to my dad, who spent a good deal of time driving an M26 Dragon wagon over half of Europe in WW2.
Chonk block engines....
4.9 ford
These material are used six cylinder engine
The commenters thick accent makes parsing out details difficult .
So use captions
bigger loads. he’s saying “bigger loads” not “bigallows”. it’s his weird accent.
It’s an awesome accent
😂
all accents are "weird" if they're different than your own but that doesn't mean you need to be rude about it...
👀🇮🇪👍⚓
I need $$$😢 t repair my 258 AMC. 4 my jeep😢 i need $$$$
Trade it for a yugo ?
@@rctopfueler2841 wha year? Show me pictures
Show me the yugo.
@@scratchcardsandcollectible7455 its danny devitos yugo from drowning mona? The cop car
Cool