(first posted 2/19/2015) Henry Ford’s greatest accomplishments boil down to two. He created the Model T along with mass production, thus putting America on wheels. And when that wasn’t good enough anymore, he produced the first affordable V8 engine, starting a love affair that Americans have had with that magical alpha-numeric engine configuration, one that hasn’t shown signs of ending any time soon. Which is the greater one? A tough call. The more unlikely one? That’s easier: the V8.
The mass-production automobile assembly line was inevitable, as it was utterly logical. And Ford hardly invented it; the Venetians were building one new galley ship per day 600 years ago, using a canal to float the hull past work stations. And Chicago’s meat packing assembly lines were the direct inspiration to Ford’s Model T lines.
image: lutheransonline.com
For that matter, the Model A was really a fallback, designed and built out of necessity when the T’s sales finally collapsed. Even though Henry claimed the T never needed to be replaced, and resisted until it was almost too late, he had been working for almost a decade on a Model T replacement, with an X-8 engine. Essentially two banks of a four-cylinder radial engine, numerous versions were built and tested for years, in both air-cooled and water-cooled forms.
image: theoldmotor.com
This shows a cross section of one of the water-cooled versions. We’re not going to go in-depth on the X-8, except to say that it was classic Henry Ford all the way: Instead of using rationality or the scientific method, he just went with gut instinct. Did the X-8 appear in a dream? What possible advantages did it have, given its inherent complexity, other than a compact packaging? And Henry intended it to be backed by a three-speed planetary transmission.
After way too many years and variations, Henry finally gave up on it, since the problem of plug fouling in the lower cylinders from oil could never be overcome. That explains why he finally relented on designing the new A along rather conservative lines: tried and true flathead four, and a sliding-gear three-speed transmission like the rest of the world was using. And wisely, he let Edsel take care of the styling.
Only one year later, GM dropped a bombshell: a six cylinder engine in the 1929 Chevrolet: “A Six for the price of a Four”. And one with overhead valves, at that, as all Chevys had from day one. No such thing as a Chevy flathead, ever.
Well, Henry wasn’t going to match the Chevy, as he was born with a deep and abiding hatred for the inline six-cylinder engine. Despite its inherent balance, which made it the most common engine in the US for many decades, Henry saw it as the anti-engine, whose sign was 666.
No, Henry was going to notch it up, and in his usual style, sequestered several engineering groups to design the world’s first monobloc V8. These groups of engineers would have no contact with the others, and Henry would come to them with ideas and directives. Like: “no water pump”, or “no oil pump” or “use a 60 degree bank”, or “use a single-plane intake manifold”, or…
It took some doing, but Henry eventually got a running engine. But it was born with a number of compromises, the biggest one being that Henry had the exhaust ports snake back through the block to exit on the low side, which meant that the hot exhaust would run right through the block next to the cooling passages, which made the V8 intrinsically thermally challenged. The early arrangement of the twin high-mounted water pumps pulling the hot water out the top didn’t seem to help any either.
The biggest production challenge was in casting the monobloc engine block. Up to this time, almost all V8 engines were cast in three primary units: the crankcase, and two cylinder blocks attached to it. This was how Cadillac did it until 1936, and Cadillac was by far the biggest proponent of V8 engines in the US. Cadillac also had the exhaust ports emerge at their natural outlet, in the vee, along with the intake, which made plumbing a bit more complicated, but avoided the thermal issues.
Ford had great difficulty in mastering the casting process, with a huge percentage of early blocks having to be rejected. And those blocks that were usable resulted in engines that had a host of teething issues: blocks cracking later in use, oil consumption, piston failures, vapor lock, and a few others for good measure. Ford did not have a proper test program, the result being that 1932 V8 buyers were the beta testers. It took some scrambling to correct the worst of the issues, but it wasn’t until a major re-do of the V8 in 1938 that some of the problems were truly fixed. And even then, the flathead always liked a big radiator full of water in front of it.
The V8 had 221 cu.in. (3.6 L), and was rated at 65 hp, which was the same as the Plymouth PB’s flathead four and only five more than the Chevy “Stovebolt Six”. But the Ford weighed some 200 lbs less than a comparable Chevy or Plymouth, and therein lay the Ford’s lively accelerations, which soon endeared it to many.
Including outlaws, like John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde. Fords were the way to go…to jail, or worse. But the Ford’s 80 mph top speed likely prolonged the inevitable outcomes for a bit longer.
Needless to say, the 1932 Ford “Deuce” quickly became an icon. The Ford hot rod scene had been around since the teens, when all sorts of trick parts to make a Model T fly, even at Indianapolis, became readily available. But the V8 was soon in another league altogether, as the classic post-war hot rod scene took off. At that point, finding cheap deuce roadsters or coupes was still easy, despite the fact that there weren’t all that many ’32 V8s built: some 180k (there was also a four cylinder Model B available too). And of those V8s, only some 7,400 were roadsters, although their survival rate was undoubtedly high.
This is how they ended up, or in so many variations of the theme.
The deuce “highboy” roadster became an icon a long time ago, being the most desirable of the V8s as it was of course the lightest (2217 lbs). The ’33 Ford put on some weight, as would all subsequent model years. Horsepower did go up, to 85 in 1934. But undoubtedly, few of those ’32 hot rods still had their original engines, as later flatheads were easy to come by and much improved.
When I first saw this red ’32 ahead of me in traffic, I assumed it would be another overly-perfect hot rod deuce, which has lost its appeal to me many decades ago.
But as I got a bit closer, I could tell that was not the case. Yes, it had been lowered some, but the unusual steel wheels and otherwise stock body intrigued me enough to follow it.
Its driver/owner Jimmy pulled over, and consented to pictures as well as sharing the interesting history of his recent acquisition. This Tudor sedan spent 45 years stashed away in a barn in Montana, until its hibernation was broken recently. A friend of Jimmy’s bought it and then sold it to him; he just had to have it.
What appealed to him, as well as me, is that this ’32 is remarkably original, at least in relative terms. It’s not been treated to the open-checkbook approach. The current wheels are just temporary, until some 16″ Ford wheels arrive. The only significant modifications are the dropped front axle and the lowered rear end, accomplished the old-fashioned way by heating the ends of the springs and bending them up.
Of course, opening the hood was a must. And I was a bit surprised; it’s a bone-stock 1948 engine, but its dual exhausts with minimal muffling makes all the classic Ford flathead V8 music that is utterly unmistakable. The little stock Stromberg 97 sits high, and by this time, an oil filter is also along for the ride. Meanwhile, the distributor on these is in a rather awkward location, down in low in front, driven right off the camshaft.
Time to take a look around inside. These cars were very cozy compared to modern cars, especially in width.
One of the other big improvements on the ’32 was syncromesh on second and third gear, which finally made downshifting without double-clutching possible.
Instrumentation is sparse, but the two vital engine health-related gauges are accounted for.
The back seat is also pretty narrow, but leg room is good; or would be, except for some parts on the floor.
That’s a two-carb intake manifold, so that two Stromberg 97s can work in unison. Jimmy says that he’s going to resist doing too much to this car, because he recognizes that there aren’t exactly many ’32s around in this kind of time-capsule condition. He’s going to preserve that as much as possible, and my hat’s off to him for that. But a twin-carb intake is quite fitting to that approach.
If I ever hoped to find a genuine curbside classic ’32 Ford, this one is about as good as it gets. They’re otherwise perfectly restored, or dipped in chrome.
The license plate is not original to this car, as it came from Montana. But Oregon allows one to put on period-correct old plates, and this does it. Good thing it’s not from the early months of 1932, as the Model 18 V8 didn’t arrive until April of that year.
With certain cars, I can’t resist getting a shot which includes my car as a frame of reference. Given the somewhat similar overall dimensions of these two, it was calling out for that. My Xb probably has twice the interior room, but that’s progress, at least of one kind.
Needless to say, the ’32 Ford V8 ignited a long love affair with the V8 engine. Ford had that market to itself, building the flathead V8 longer than Henry probbaly ever envisioned, through 1953. By that time, it was out of date, and hardly sprightly, in the much heavier cars by then. But for many, the V8 emblem on a Ford was a bit of magic. Ford was alone with a V8 in the low price field, until 1955,when both Chevrolet and Plymouth jumped in with OHV V8s. Needless to say, the ’55 Chevy became the new 1932 Ford.
Related reading:
CC 1929 Ford Model A – The Best Ford Ever
I’ll take the 1932 Ford pickup with a Lincoln V12 motor.
The V8 ruled for a long, long time, but that’s been over for quite a while. Is there a single American car you can still get with a V8 besides super high priced high performance cars like the Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger? Yes, full sized trucks have them, but they are not for performance, they are necessary to move all that weight.
I have considered getting one of those first gen XBs. They remind me of the ’60s and ’70s VW bus in an odd sort of way. Nowhere nearly as easy to work on, and being Japanese, I don’t expect parts to be around much longer.
Sure, my Chrysler 300 for one, available in several trim levels. The V8 is a large reason why I chose it. To date averaging 19.5mpg.
Engineers found the secret to making smooth-running 4-cylinder engines through the use of balance shafts. The fact that they can now produce vibration-free large 4-cylinder engines took away the practical advantage of the 8-cylinder. It’s much cheaper to make engines with fewer cylinders, and so they do.
Balance shafts were first invented and patented by the British engineer Frederick W. Lanchester in 1904, but they were not used by any other major manufacturer until 1975, when Mitsubishi introduced it’s “Silent Shaft” 4-cylinder engines. It took a few more years, but the rest of the industry eventually caught on, and balance shaft engines are common today.
Also, theoretically, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 cylinder engines have lower friction losses than an 8, and this is another factor that has led manufacturers to abandon V8 engines. (Don’t be surprised if, in the future, 4-cylinder engines are relegated to the trash heap of history in favor of 2-cylinder engines because they are more efficient!)
But in my opinion, nothing sounds as sweet as a V8, especially a flathead Ford V8! No four or six cylinder engine comes close to its melody.
Shown below: Schematic of a balance-shaft 4-cylinder.
Being an amateur drag racer, and being pretty familiar with engine design, not just bolting them together, I have found one thing in particular that the V8 has over a 4 cylinder of the same displacement. RPM. Suppose you have a 350 c.i. V8. those 350 c.i. are split 8 different ways, resulting in 43.75 c.i. per cylinder. The 350 small block has a 4.0″ bore and a 3.48″ stroke, making it oversquare (bore is larger than stroke) this allows the engine to rev, because that displacement is split up between 8 smaller cylinders, and having a shorter stroke means there is less distance between BDC and TDC. A stock 350 has a redline of about 5400 rpm, but properly built, using lighter and stronger parts, getting all the clearances to optimum, and balancing it better than the factory did can significantly raise that redline.
Now take a 350 c.i. 4 cylinder. Each cylinder would have to be a whopping 87.5 c.i. That would result in large, heavy pistons, and a lot of reciprocating mass. Whether you make it oversquare (large diameter pistons) or undersquare (smaller pistons but longer travel from BDC to TDC) you are going to wind up with one very low revving motor. It would have a lot of torque, but not much HP. It would probably make a good tractor engine.
I know this is not a motorcycle site, but compare an 80 c.i. (1340cc) Harley V-twin to an inline four of the same displacement. The Harley makes stump pulling torque (and sounds nice) but doesn’t have much HP. A 1340cc inline four makes over 3 times the power. The Harley has about the same redline as the 350 Chevy even though it only has 2 cylinders and the 350 has 8, because the bore and stroke are very close to being the same, which puts the redline at about 5400 RPM. An inline 4 of that size can safely rev to over 12,000 rpm. It would leave the Harley for dead in a race. So for performance, a larger displacement engine requires more cylinders. There is a reason why 12 and even 16 cylinder car engines have been built. There is also a reason why both NASCAR and NHRA (I’m member #386677) use V8 engines. Radial aircraft engines have as many as 36 cylinders. Small 4 cylinder engines work well in small low performance cars. You can get a lot of power out of a small 4 cylinder engine by using turbocharging or supercharging, and raising the RPM. But nothing is free. Doing it this way puts a lot more stress on the components, and decreases engine reliability and longevity. I have seen a number of people at the track blow up their engines by installing a bolt on turbo or supercharger, or using nitrous, on an otherwise stock engine that could barely handle the power it was designed to make.
This is one of the main reasons Ferrari’s early engines (even ones as small as 1.5 liters) were all V-12s.
The other consideration, aside from individual cylinder displacement (and the attendant mass and friction loads bigger pistons involve), is breathing. Even with just two valves per cylinder, more cylinder means more valves, which typically means more valve area. In fact, with more cylinders, you can use smaller valves (for better mid-range intake velocities) and still have more total intake valve area.
I would hate to have a 350CID four. I know that Mercedes raced one a long time ago that was even larger. I do think that the OHC could have been made much earlier. I think the engine from my Nissan truck would have propelled any of my 53 Fords just as well as the flathead did. If someone had made a good OHC four in the 2.5 liter neighborhood or something like Pontiac’s OHC six back when Henry was developing the flathead it would have taken forever for technology to catch up.
From my personal experience the 79 Datsun, cast iron and carburated or the 20r (?) Toyota would have worked just fine.
320-360ci horizontally opposed fours are the most common engines in small aircraft. Even 390’s are used in experimentals. These, however, are very low rpm as the propeller is directly bolted to the crankshaft with no transmission. Redline is under 3000rpm. Big bore, short stroke is due to packaging.
The boxer aero engines from Lycoming and Continental are very low stressed engines for obvious reasons.. some of the larger variants can have cooling issues of the rear cylinders (the 720 cube flat eight for instance, as used in early Fletcher topdressers) and the more powerful flat sixes (the 300 hp Continental 520 cube as used in some of the Cessna 206’s) have piston crown cracking issues if the mixtures are not handled very carefully. The Lycoming 540 cube equivalents are less fragile, as used by the Cherokee Six and many of the twin engined light aircraft.
It is interesting to note that the fasted piston engined light aircraft since WW11 uses twin turbocharged Lycoming 540’s with contra-rotation to eliminate torque effects on the airframe’s handling …the 300 mile per hour Riley Rocket 310 ! What an aeroplane !
A big inline four with balance shafts is not vibration-free. It’s certainly a lot better than a big four without balance shafts, but balance shafts are not equally effective at all RPM. As one who has a big (2.3-liter) undersquare four, at idle or just off idle, it’s still noticeably lumpy. I wouldn’t call it objectionable and it is of course possible to mask that lumpiness further by getting cute with engine mounts, but you’re not going to mistake it for an inline six.
Offenhauser 4-bangers of enormous size were used in Indy cars in the old days. They approached 300 cubic inches if I remember correctly. Hilborn injection and Isky cams were, I think, what they ran. Or maybe that was what was used on old modified flathead racing ford V8 motors.
Now, what was the type of magneto used in those old offy motors? Hmmm, my memory is completely shot.
Common aircraft type magneto, probably Bendix. Thousands of these are still in use on small aircraft.
It is interesting to note that the dual ignition systems (twin magnetos, leads, and plugs to each cylinder) have a decided bearing upon power output.
Once I flew in a Tiger with one of the magetos inadvertantly switched “OFF” under the engine cowling by the engine starter (hand swung engine start). At 3,000 feet under climbing power the engine (under heavy load) developed significantly less power than with both magnetos providing spark necessitating a low skim over the top of the Coromandel Ranges with the odd backfire and miss from the engine.. not recommended to be repeated!
There was a red-faced engine handler back on the ground . .
Twin spark definitely helps with combustion performance and hence power output.
A lot of the Offys used a Joe Hunt magneto, which was a Bendix-Scintilla unit that had been redesigned for the purpose.
What’s the biggest 4-cylinder car engine these days ? The Mazda 2.5 ?
Mitsubishi has a 3.2 liter 4-banger in the Pajero, but that’s a turbodiesel. Many SUVs, big vans and light trucks have an approx. 3.0 liter inline-4 diesel. Car diesels with that kind of displacement always have 6 cylinders; as far as I know only BMW has an inline-6 diesel, the rest offers V6 engines.
Toyota has a 2.7 L I believe. Toyota has publicly said they don’t see across the board adoption of small displacement turbo engines, particularly in their bread and butter cars – those will use LARGER displacement Atkinson cycle engines. They don’t seem too keen on CVT’s for cars larger than the Corolla either. It will be interesting to see if they can produce a competitive next generation Camy without going down the same road to fuel economy and emissions compliance as most other companies.
Didn’t Porche use a big four at some point? GM as well in their smaller pickup trucks.
Toyota recently introduced a new 1.2 liter inline-4 turbo (gasoline) engine in the C-segment (compacts) Auris. It replaced the naturally aspirated 1.6 liter engine in that car. Of course this may be a Euro-only thing, I don’t know.
The 2.4 liter is the biggest 4-cylinder Toyota gasoline engine that I can remember. It was in the Camry and smaller Avensis.
I have that engine (turbocharged) in my Mazda CX-9. I wished when I bought it that it was a V-6, because I’ve always had a concern about the longevity of turbo 4’s.
It generally conducts itself well. It has decent torque and HP with premium fuel, and gets a solid 24 mpg in a bog SUV. That said, it has a bit of lag, and the torque tails off rather quickly above 75 mph or so.
My wife has a CX-5 with a non-turbo, and the difference in power (and smoothness) is quite noticeable, in my car’s favor.
It’s interesting to compare it to my late beloved BMW 325, which had the same displacement in a normally aspirated in-line 6. Although the HP and torque of my Mazda are both much greater, I’d take the six back in a heartbeat, for sheer smoothness and willingness to rev. The sound it made under throttle was music.
So, do I still wish for a six in the Mazda? Yes. Maybe I’m just an old guy who grew up learning that there is no substitute for cubic inches, or I still worry about long-term longevity, since I keep cars a minimum of ten years, or I just like the sound of a six . . .
The German Ford V4, first used in the Taunus in 1962, had a balance shaft. Same basic engine that later went into the Saab 96.
The Essex V4 was a vibration machine no balance shaft
And PARTICULARLY the flathead!! …interesting ..why do OHV and OHC modern V8’s sound so puny by comparison to the ’32??
I suspect the firing order has much to do with it …the firing order of the short-lived ‘Cleveland’ range of Ford V8’s also produced a very good sound . .
Even the baby Windsor sounds okay…
But the modular V8’s don’t do it for me at all 🙁
Get the xB. They’re wonderful cars if as long as you can deal with the lack of cruise control and the fact that the engine is spinning at 3500rpm at 70mph. It really needs a 6th cog in the gearbox.
Mine’s an ’05 with 52k on the clock, and its a wonderful commuter, decent fun on the back roads (I could transfer from my Porsche 924S without being disappointed), and giving me a steady 31-32mpg on the commute. The fun, of course, is finding an unmolested one.
Aftermarket cruise control is an easy two-hour DIY install. I couldn’t live without it.
Rostra makes an aftermarket cruise control for it for about $200. I have to have cruise control on the highway because I get severe leg cramps holding my leg in the same place for any length of time, due to medical issues. It is cool looking, and also looks like it would be a good cross country vehicle with the cruise control.
I like fours because in smaller cars it’s the only way to get over 30 mpg. I don’t think anyone would build a 350cid four. Comparing cruising rpm my 96 Mustang GT with AOD auto, it cruises at 70 mph at 2,200 rpm and returns 25 mpg. It also has 191k on the clock. And it sounds pretty good with Flowmasters.
Thanks for the pictures of the X-8 , I’d heard of this but seeing is believing. Remarkable that such an original 30s car can be a daily driver in Oregan.
I’d love to find out the reason for Henry’s obsession with the x-8
Nobody else was doing it that way. That’s pure Henry.
Barnyard Engineering – Henry the old Farm Boy thought he could show up a bunch of over educated pencil necks.
Not to take away from Henry Ford’s achievements, but everything I’ve read about Henry Ford leads me to believe that he could be a terrifying person to work for. He also looked like the personification of the scary old man – tall, lean, with a spectral countenance.
According to one bio, he drove his son Edsel to an early grave with his bullying.
This is regularly parked in this position out side a local wrecking yard its someones semi daily drive from 1934
That’s a Terraplane I think, certainly not a Ford.
Definitely not a Ford. I like it though, except for the dip in the front bumper and spiderweb grille.
Dig the custom sunrise grille .
-Nate
What a terrific catch! Jimmy certainly deserves praise for keeping it original.
The ’32 Ford did help set the template for American cars for a long time – low priced, V8 engine, rear wheel drive, with a choice of body styles. This car also makes me wonder what might have appeared from Ford Motor Company had Henry not had the disorders he developed later in his life.
>> This car also makes me wonder what might have appeared from Ford Motor Company had Henry not had the disorders he developed later in his life.<<
This was my thought too–how much more dominant would Ford have been, and for how much longer, had Henry known when to walk away?
Henry Ford outlived his greatness when he wouldn’t step aside and allow Edsel take over operations, modernize succeeding models, develop further makes to match and challenge GM and Chrysler.
Edsel Ford was a brilliant automan whose talents were largely wasted by his domineering, increasingly paranoid and senile nutty father who badgered and hounded Edsel to an early grave. Shame on him forever!
Also agreed on Edsel–had his father not essentially driven him to his death from stress (resulting in ulcers and stomach cancer, IIRC), we’d have never heard of Edsel the car and only of Edsel the Ford executive.
There’s a great book on Fordlandia (entitled simply “Fordlandia”), Henry’s failed project to start a rubber plantation in the Amazon, that deals with some of the Henry/Edsel conflict.
Ford had to wait for Henry to die to get rid of transverse springing and flathead engines, even then Dagenham still produced 30s Ford Prefects until 59 when the were 30 years behind anything else. This is a 54 but its 30s design flat head 4 mechanical brakes transverse springs.
“Dagenham still produced 30s Ford Prefects until 59 when the were 30 years behind anything else.”
How ’bout a Volvo Duett…made until 1969?
“Modernizing” is not always a good thing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it makes things worse. There is no doubt that disc brakes are better than drums, but I am still a believer in solid rear axles and leaf springs. The Mustang had them through 2014. The drag race versions of the COPO Camaro and Drag Pak Challenger had their weak independent rear suspensions replaced with a live axle and leaf springs. The 2015 Corvette still uses transverse leaf springs and a pushrod motor. I believe the simpler and stronger the design, the better, as long as it works. I am not a believer in technology for the sake of technology. The best case for that belief is the use of electronics in modern cars. I guess it was inevitable that when computer technology came along, people would try to use it anywhere it could go, even where it was not needed. FWD is another “modern” thing that I believe is not nearly as good as RWD. IMO, “modern” cars are a lot more modern than they need to be, and that has caused a lot of negative side effects, for no reason.
>FWD is another “modern” thing that I believe is not nearly as good as RWD.
In what way is space efficiency not a good thing for the average driver who has no interest in performance?
+100 For junkyarddog’s comment.
I forgot that center gauge clusters were common back then. They seem to get a lot of hate today.
Fabulous find! You are right that there has always been something magical about the early Ford V8. Jimmy has a real treasure here.
I have long been fascinated by Ford’s early cooling system. Henry Ford loved thermosiphon, and the Model T even made it work with no water pump, just the natural action of hot water rising and flowing into the radiator. The Model A added one of those high pumps to help pull the hot water out up top, but even working perfectly, the cooling system was barely adequate. After all, a thermosiphon system will run at about 200 degrees, IIRC, and a very small margin before boiling at 212. No wonder the V8, with its added heat issues, was a cooling system nightmare.
My mother’s parents bought a new Ford sedan in 1935. It served as their sole vehicle until 1951, when my oldest aunt and her husband took it over and drove it for another year before they could afford another car-a 1952 Ford V8 hardtop. Their experience with the 35 shows that the (fixable) bugs were pretty well worked out by then.
And I know *exactly* how great it feels to find something like this.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/slideshow/cc-outtake-how-many-fords-are-in-this-picture/
Boiling point was operating temperature on a lot of old engines the hotter they got the better they ran stationary engines especially.
I’ve attached a shot of the flathead in my 1934 Ford pickup. It is a 1937 bearing block with all 1934 accessories (replacement iron heads rather than the stock aluminum ones however), including Stromberg 94 carb. I had the water pumps internally modified for better cooling and now the engine runs nice and cool. The front mounted distributor is sure a pain to service, and right now the truck is down with ignition trouble until I can find the time and patience to get at it.
Note the stock exhaust manifolds on Jimmy’s car also (same as mine)…front exit to exhaust pipes still looks odd to me but works fairly well.
The development of the flathead Ford V8 is described quite thoroughly in “Ford in the Thirties”, a softcover book published by Petersen Publishing Company many years ago. Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 76-5982, ISBN 0-8227-0644-X. It includes photos of prototype engines including but not limited to the X-8. Chapters also include an analysis of Ford’s competitive position in the market, pros-and-cons regarding Ford’s transverse leaf suspension, Ford’s reluctance to adopt hydraulic brakes, and the history of each model, from the Model A up to the 1940 models.
Petersen seemed to publish a ton of great books throughout the ’70s on all sorts of automotive subjects. I’ve been picking them up used for some time. Darn it, now I might have to look for this one!
I bought this book many years ago and I highly recommend it if you can find it. Looking at the picture of the stock 32 above with the yellow wheels, I do think that it is a tragedy that more people didn’t appreciate the 32 for what it was. It’s rare to find them factory stock. From the factory it was a natural beauty.
Fantastic book! Mine’s falling apart, I’ve read it so much.
One explanation for the X-8 and a V-8 as a fallback. Maybe old Henry, relying on lessons learned from years of trial and error, placed a high value on keeping the crankshaft short. Model T’s engineering almost always employs the simplest solution with the fewest parts. That made the car more durable and easier to repair than its contemporaries, which was a major contributor to the car’s commercial success.
So, in thinking about the Model T’s successor, one can hardly blame Henry for seeking a way to avoid unnecessary complexity, weight an expense, even if that meant rejecting the conventional wisdom of the day.
If a V-8 is better than an I-8 in part because of a shorter crank, then an X-8 is better than either, right?
A four-stroke X-8 would have an interesting firing order. Not sure about the flat-plane crank in that 1925 drawing either.
Ford, like Edison, Twain’s “Connecticut Yankee,” & maybe even Bill Gates, typified the American trope that Common Sense, not a college degree, was all you needed to innovate. I would say it’s true up to a point; just as Ford was heedless of thermal issues with his V8, Edison failed to see what Tesla did, that DC was terribly impractical for electric power.
Can’t leave w/o mentioning “Little Deuce Coupe,” part of the now-extinct sub-genre of Hot Rod Rock music.
What is a college degree but “common sense” imparted to others (albeit heavier on the theory side as opposed to actual hands on experience)?
True. If nothing else, college gives one experience meeting deadlines & dealing with administrative red-tape (as I had to do), essential skills in the modern office environment.
The Department of Motor Vehicles seems to do an admirable job of pretty much the same thing 🙂 Alas, there doesn’t usually appear to be much common sense there though.
“Common sense” is an oxymoron.
You’re right; I repeated it only as a colloquialism, as it’s not measurable or even rationally defensible.
A nice old Tudor ! .
Just last night my Son and I were overhuling the engine ion his new (old) race Moto and he began talking about my old ‘A’ Model Fords , which ones he liked best etc.
I’ve never had a FlatHead V-8 Ford , I had to have an ‘A’ Model but in truth the overhead valves were so obviously superior in every way….
Hearing those Flatties un corked in street drags in the early 1960’s was a hoot ~ you’re right : _nothing_ sounds the same .
-Nate
Wow, that’s a great find. With some better wheels and a wash and wax, this looks like something that might turn up at a local car show near me.
While I love the look of a chopped deuce coupe, this is close to what I’d be looking for in a hot rod. Seating for four and un-chopped is much more family-friendly, especially when you’re tall as my wife and I are.
I’ll pull the inevitable nitpick(s):
Not all Chevrolets were OHV, just 99%+ of them. The first Chevrolet, the 1911-1913 Model C was powered by a 288ci T-head six cylinder. This was followed by the Chevrolet Light Six with a 271ci L-head six cylinder (and was the first Chevrolet to wear the bowtie). In all fairness, these (and the Model D OHV V-8 of 1917-1918) were dead ends, and not really in the main Chevrolet lineage.
Incidentally, except for the V-8’s, these Chevrolet’s were not part of GM. Chevrolet was an independent company which Mr. Durant used as leverage to buy General Motors. Yeah, for a short period of time, Chevrolet owned General Motors!
I’m fairly certain the four cylinder Model H (1914-1915) was OHV. The successor Model 490 (1915-1922) definitely was, as this was the motor replaced by the Stovebolt six. It wasn’t until the 490 that Chevrolet started competing with the Model T, prior to that the Chevrolet was a good 50% more expensive and much better equipped.
Good trivia, thanks. All I can offer in addition is, Louis Chevrolet, like Eddie Rickenbacker, was a Swiss-born gearhead & race driver. Hard to believe that once upon a time, many Swiss thought they’d improve their lot by immigrating to the USA.
Another famous Swiss engineer: Marc Birkigt, of Hispano-Suiza, famous not only for luxury cars, but also his WW1 aero engines & HS.404 autocannon used by the Western Allies in WW2.
Had things worked out slightly differently, maybe we’d be driving Birkigts!
Durant did with Chevrolet more or less what airlines have been doing lately: Take over the other firm and use that target firm’s name as the new name of your merged company. (See America West>>US Airways>>American) With the added wrinkle of it being his way to get his foot back in the door of his old company.
Even with those wheels, Jimmy’s ’32 is perfect in every way. Lucky guy and good to know he’ll preserve it.
I like the wheels. Some chrome smoothies would look good to me to. Sure would be awful to see it ruined with 24″ ree-uhms.
V8s will always be the engine of choice for me. Whether flathead or OHV (no OHC please) I have built more small block Chevys (old style) than anything else, including a couple with Dart blocks
I think those wheels belong on some kind of race car… or a trailer. I’d go with smoothie or artillery steel wheels, either painted or chrome, with chrome baby moon hubcaps. A set of “salt flat specials”, Dragmasters or similar slotted aluminum wheels would probably look good on it too. The big & little tire combination looks great though.
Maybe just paint the wagon wheels white for the full 70s-retro look. Which would really make it a matched set with Paul’s xB!
I read somewhere(Ford -The Men and the Machines maybe) that the X engine was something that Edsel was working in secret. Henry found out about it and invited Edsel and his engineer to the opening of one of his blast furnances. The first pieces on the feed belt were all the prototypes. Hard to believe.
Online sources I’ve seen dispute that story. Let’s see if this link works….
http://books.google.ca/books?id=S2gPNUKMgUIC&lpg=PA182&dq=ford+x+8+engine&pg=PA179&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ford%20x%208%20engine&f=false
No, that was Henry’s doing. Edsel didn’t do stuff like that, especially with engines.
Edsel also had a completely different mentality, as evidenced in his approach as Ford’s de facto styling director. Edsel felt you should look around at what worked and didn’t work and then adapt, license, invent, and/or synthesize the best elements. He was a person of excellent taste, but he was also a very conservative man and not the sort to embrace radical departures from orthodoxy just for the sake of being different.
I heard that story, but it was about an inline 6. I think this was some years before, and had no relationship to, the 1941 I-6.
If someone built an X-8 today, would they be able to prevent the fouling of the lower plugs? Of course, it would still be complex.
As a matter of interest, Ford was working on an I-5 in the late 1940s. They could never solve the vibration problems with it. Contemporary Fords were used as test mules. Sometimes for the fun of it, the engineers would pull into a gas station and ask the attendant to check the oil. On one occasion, told that the engine had five cylinders, the driver said “Don’t tell me that–I paid for six!”
I’ve owned flatheads, stovebolts and overhead cams. Fours, sixes, and eights of flathead and V8 design as well as one rotary. 4 of the flatheads were Ford, one studebaker, and two internationals. I agree with the commenter above that the fours are the superior engine. When you do it right they can even move massive amounts of cargo. Just not in the V8 league.
All of the fords were of the 49-53 model V8s. Even knowing the shortcomings they rate among the favorites of the cars I have owned. Still think the 52 to 54 Ford was among the best looking cars of the fifties. Just not garish enough to fit in with the others of that decade, I suppose. Henry was a mad genius. If he had developed the ohc 4 or six he would probably have owned Detroit.
inline sixes are the best motors
What a find. If I’d driven up behind that I would have assumed it was fibreglass.
I read somewhere that with all the repros there are now more 32 fords registered than Henry ever made.
Also saw a TV program once where they bought a restored 32 phaeton, drove it to the hot rod shop and ripped it apart. Bit of a shame, I wonder if there are any stock 32 fords left anywhere?
“Henry Ford’s greatest accomplishments boil down to two. He created the Model T along with mass production, thus putting America on wheels. And when that wasn’t good enough anymore, he produced the first affordable V8 engine”
Hey what about the Ford 9N tractor (even an old John Deere devotee can admit) it was pretty instrumental in bringing heavy usage of tractors to every American farm. Heck you can still buy parts for them.
Ford didn’t design it; Harry Ferguson did. Stay tuned; full story coming pronto.
But in classic Ford fashion wasn’t it advertised as the “Ford Tractor with the Ferguson System?” Referring to the 3 point hitch which is still in use (in various forms) today.
I never said old Henry wasn’t above theft. 😉
And wasn’t the engine in the Ford 9N/2N/8N tractor basically one-half of the Flathead V-8? Looking forward to this story.
the 27N was the world Tractor from Ford & son ok he copied it from Fargas but it revolutionized farming cast iron Kates can still be found in working order.
Dad says Grandpa Knobbe liked fast cars, so they had an early Flathead sedan, very much like the one in your pictures. It, too, had to be overhauled early, and Dad says the body was very drafty. It eventually became the “school car,” and ended up on the junk pile in back of the tool shop, where we bounced up and down on the seat springs and “drove” it for many more miles as children. The windows and doors were all out by then, so the front seat did not seem quite so confining.
Ford’s online collection, for anyone unfamiliar with it, has lots of V-8 related images (fingers crossed link will work):
http://collections.thehenryford.org/Collection.aspx?start=40&keywords=%22Ford+V-8+engines%22
Here’s one (1932) of all the cores used in casting block/heads, etc.:
Henry Ford hated straight-sixes, but that “666” analogy is news to me.
The reason most often given was that the company nearly lost its shirt on the 1906 Model K, Ford’s first and last six-cylinder car until 1941. It did not sell well and apparently could chew up its transmission. It was also attributed to one of Ford’s original investment partners, Alexander Malcolmson, who left the company soon after the K went out of production, leaving Henry as majority shareholder.
BMW would later be slow to adopt V-8 engines for much the same reason as its 502 “Baroque Angel” car of the late 1950’s was a sales dud. That failed experiment did, however, lead to the “Neue Klasse” cars that sent the company on the path it still follows today.
Henry generally didn’t like anything he didn’t invent, and the entire Ford engineering staff was set up to support his work rather than innovate on its own. That philosophy would hold Ford back until Hank the Deuce and company took over after World War II.
“Henry generally didn’t like anything he didn’t invent, and the entire Ford engineering staff was set up to support his work rather than innovate on its own. ”
An excellent point. I think that the only time Ford Motor tried an innovation during this era apart from the Old Man was with the ill-fated Liqui-Matic transmission offered on 1942 Lincolns and Mercuries. First off, it was a complicated Rube-Goldberg affair (proving that Henry had nothing to do with it) that didn’t work well. Then, after it proved to have problems in service, Ford killed it and retrofitted cars that had it with standard 3 speeds. There was apparently no attempt to work through the problems. Had they done so, Ford could have at least had a semi-automatic to offer after the war, as Chrysler did.
Ford didn’t really catch up to the other major companies in transmission design until the late 50s, and even then their design was heavily reliant on Borg Warner.
I think one of the principal reasons for Henry’s obstinacy in that regard was that he apparently hated the idea of paying patent royalties with a fiery passion. He had lived through some periods of ugly patent wars (including someone trying to enforce a patent on the concept of the automobile itself) and it was just anathema to him. It didn’t help that a lot of now basically universal automotive design elements (like the aforementioned pumps) were then still subject to patent.
That was a logical if overzealous extension of his whole philosophy: Make your product as cheap as you can so you can sell it by the truckload, and don’t buy in any piece or material you can make better and cheaper yourself.
This reminds me of the story of Henry Ford and the square-drive Robertson screw. Henry liked the Robertson screw for its qualities over the slot-head screw and wanted to license and manufacture it exclusively in the US.
Unfortunately, P.L. Robertson had earlier been burned by a rather sleazy company in England that had done the same thing, but the owners underhandedly and intentionally let the company fall into bankruptcy, then bought it out and manufactured the Robertson screw at a much lower cost under the new company.
So, Robertson was, understandably, quite loath to let Henry make his screws, fearing a similar situation would occur. Henry certainly didn’t want to be beholden to Robertson for his well-designed screws and went, instead, with the somewhat inferior (but still better than slot-head) Phillips-head screws. To this day, Robertson screws (which can be installed with one hand) are rare outside of Canada, with a few focused, specific exceptions, such as boating and deck applications.
I’d only heard about the Liqui-Matic here, but FWIU the reason why it was pulled so early was that the war was underway and replacing all the units turned out with standard was the least worst option presented by the end of peacetime production and the loss of skilled personnel to the war effort, up and down the line from the engineering department in Dearborn to the dealership mechanics.
I thought that Henry Ford I suffered from a mild stroke in the mid-1930s. From what I’ve read, and heard from older family members, in those days, there was no real treatment for stroke victims. If they “recovered” enough to function, great, but otherwise, there was no real, standardized way of rehabilitating them or working to spot any issues resulting from the stroke.
Then there was the challenge that Ford was family owned in those days, so there weren’t any independent bodies that could force him out of office. Edsel and his mother, Clara Ford, held blocks of Ford stock, but they weren’t about to confront Henry on that issue.
His declining health probably had as much to do with the company’s stagnation as anything else.
Just kiddin’ about the 666.
Careful – it’s on the internet now, so it must be true! 🙂
Henry did also eventually consent — extremely grudgingly, by everything I’ve read — to the flathead six that replaced the smaller V8-60 in the late ’30s. The six was actually a little bigger than the V-8 in displacement (226 cid or an even 3.7 liters) and almost as powerful, but it didn’t have the marketing value and never got much attention.
Oregon was using a fiscal-year system on its license plates from 1930 through 1933, so the JUN 30 date on the white-on-deep blue violet 1932 plate is the expiration date.
We had a V8 flathead made in Dagenham,the Ford Pilot.Roger did a feature on one,the Ford Zephyr and Zodiac replaced it,powered by OHV 6 cylinder engines
Good story. I have heard or read most of the stuff on the V8, and, having grown up in those days, can attest to the absolutely lovely sound of those flatties under hard throttle.
One small clarification in the story is that, the story of Dillinger liking Fords was not correct. A purported letter from him was found to be a fake. Dillinger, according to research I did for a historical newspaper story, preferred the Hudson Eight, which had about 10 miles per hour higher top speed than a Ford V8.
Great looking survivor. The fact the owner intends to keep it pretty much as found is good to know. Glad you go to talk to him and get his story on how he found it. Solid painted wheels with moon caps and trim rings would look great.
Dads first car! 32 ford v8 deluxe phaeton we have a picture of him driving it,with aunt
Maxine in the passenger seat the thing’s got yellow spoke wheels Dad sent to the
ww2 scrap iron drive Boy did he carry on when I was little about not keeping it
I’ve seen many Fords from the 1930s-40s that had their flathead V8 engines replaced with small block Chevy V8 engines. I guess they wanted a reliable engine that is easy to work on.
A new ’32 Ford V-8 is what caused my paternal grandfather to never buy another Ford product his whole life, and not buy another V-8 until 1965, a Plymouth. High oil consumption, like a quart every 200-miles was the primary reason.
I will always be in love with Flatheads. I drove quite a few of them even at race track. Cool write up and amazing Tudor. Congratulations.
Dad bought a new 49 ford custom a year after he went to work for Ford no v8 in
this one Flathead six,sir He never bought a another Ford til the mid sixties
From what I heard,both Mom and Dad wore their arms to the bone pushin it!
So many movies today are wall to wall product placements for advertising.
This has to be one of the earliest, from 1936…I couldn’t find a clip with the film that goes with these lyrics.
It’s amazing how influential the ’32 Ford V8 coupes and roadsters were, given how few of them were built.
I don’t know why but I am absolutely shocked that a 1932 Ford had a trip odometer. I don’t remember seeing those until the 80s, and then not on American cars until late 80s.
Not familiar with Fords that old, but Dad’s fifties Morris had one. Seemed to be common in British cars, not in American.
Was the reason why the both Flathead V8 and and Sidevalve 4-cylinder engines did not feature Overhead Value / OHV down to any particularly objection or dislike from Henry Ford himself?
Am aware of the Ardun Hemi OHV conversion for the Ford Flathead V8 as well as the Inlet Overhead Exhaust / IOE conversions of the Sidevalve 4-cylinder by the likes of Elva and Willment, yet Ford of German would later go on to convert the Sidevalve 4-cylinder to OHV from the 1955 Taunus P1 15M up to the 1964 Taunus P3.
Henry probably favoured the simplicity; simplicity and lightness coupled with quality materials seem to have been his guiding principles.
I’m familiar with the Ford flathead V8’s (we had a ’51), and have had many 6 (I and V type) and 8 cylinder engines (as well as several SAAB V4’s) and currently have the big M series in-line 6 Ford engine in a Marmon-Herrington F6 farm truck. At one point we had an International R185 straight truck with the big in-line 6. I am convinced through years of using these vehicles that the in-line six is the best configuration for an engine if smooth operation and tractability, especially pulling hard at low rpm’s, is desirable. Virtually every large Diesel in class 7 and 8 trucks in this country, regardless of brand is an in-line 6 in the 800 to 900 cubic inch displacement range. Ease of repair is good, as well. BMW, Jaguar, and Austin-Healey must have thought they were on to something, as well. Give me an in-line 6 any day!
My first time reading all this date. Fascinating and informative and much appreciated. I had known of the difficulties with early Ford V8’s but now I know the reasons why. Today GOM remarks about an International R185. What a load of iron that truck was! hard to kill and reliable. Tough in-line sixes, three displacements were offered in the “RD” series, meaning “red diamond.”