Talk:Ford Model T engine/Archives/2012

Is it really the longest-in-production?

I hate to light the "VW versus Model T" war again, but it seems to me that the Volkswagen Type 1 flat four engine, in continuous production since 1938 and still being produced for the replacement market, has a time-in-production twice that of the Model T engine.

Yes, the VW engine has had detail changes during its lifespan, but the basic design remains the same. The Model T also had detail changes, as stated on this page.

I doubt it's even in the top ten of longest production for an engine. Off the top of my head:

Austin 'A' Series 1951-2001 Rover V8 1961- (Still in production) Chevvy small block 1955-2000 VW (as above) Ford kent - 1959 - (still in production) Ford Windsor V8 - 1963-1997 Jaguar XK - 1948-1991 Mazda Rotary 1963- (still in production) Rolls-Royce V8 1955- (still in production) Austin B Series - 1947-1981 Porsche Flat 6 - 1963-1998 Rover F-head 1948-1990 Austin 750 sidevalve - 1922-1956 Reliant Four 1956-2002

there are no doubt more... I would therefore suggest that the claim to even be 'one' of the longest be removed from the article.

This is all true, but I think the Model T should still be mentioned, since it was unprecedented for an automaker to produce one model (albeit somewhat changed throughout its 19 year production run) that early in the production of the automobile. Mike Helms 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So has the Mazda not seen any significant alterations to the design that would make the modern one no longer comparable to the original? In any case, the Rover V8 is now out of production if that makes any odds, as is - AFAIK - the Ford Kent engine. Unless newly minted examples of the latter are still clattering in their almost VW Beetle way off the production line in some foreign territory... (The last I knew of it was in the Ka, and even then it's been phased out in favour of the much more refined, if probably much less durable, Zetec and Duratec types from the Fiesta).

(Was going to suggest the first variant of VW water cooled engine as well, 'til I realised I'd made a maths error and they only made low-20s years not high 30s... they'd come up with something punchier and more efficient by then and weren't afraid to use it) 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

second picture down

The engine shown in the second picture down the right hand side of the page, labeled "1929 Ford Model A engine" is NOT a model A engine. It is probably a Pinto engine used in a Shay replica Model A. The picture below it labeled "1931 Ford Model A engine" IS a picture of a Model A engine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Waterpump Engines

Missing in this article is any mention of the first productions (early 1909) engines that we unique in the fact that the had a water pump on the front of the engine. Later production engines of the same year had the water pump removed and relied upon thermosyphon for cooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.15 (talk) 20:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if that reads OK. Mike Helms 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Engine outliving car in production

I think the article needs to be clearer about why an engine for an automobile that stopped production in 1927 continued to be produced to 1941. -- Infrogmation 14:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's any number of reasons why this could happen. Ford may have been selling the Model T engine as a "crate" engine, even though it wasn't being used in a production automobile. There would have also been a strong demand for parts long after production Model T's stopped coming off the line. Mike Helms 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically it was a different era where things worked differently... engine swaps and replacements would have been far more common as a car was a lot more valuable commodity and unlikely to be scrapped for something so trivial as a terminally blown engine. The frames of the T's were tough and durable enough that well cared for ones would have kept going for many more years, and Ford would have known there was still a good market for selling new engines to owners who would keep the same vehicle running (and, I'm thinking, particularly the truck and agricultural conversions) rather than risk losing all of their business if they looked elsewhere as well as to Ford should they have to replace the entire machine for want of parts. Then there's all the other things that would have ended up using surplus engines, or modified drivetrains from wrecked T's, etc (the typical example is a water pump, generator and cargo elevator for a small vertical-shaft mine all using power-take off belts or shafts from various parts of a TT drivetrain... if that conks out, you're not going to buy a whole new truck are you? Just an engine to patch it up, and a new T engine will be the easiest to bolt on). Also the coachbuilding and other running gear would have made up much more of the car's total value - modern engines make up a heck of a lot of the purchase price of a car, or at least, the cheap model-T ones (I can't imagine a 5-litre mercedes v8 manufacturing costs are any more than 2-3x that of a small 4-cylinder, but the car is 20x more to buy than the equivalent runabout).

Nowadays manufacturers do keep the production line running for a short while to keep stocks of spares for run-out cars, including a few engines, but it's doubtful they'd bother to cover anything more than the retail warranty period, as there's no money in it for them, and people treat cars much more disposably these days ... even a well-worn replacement engine for an old beater is likely to be worth more than the car it will be transplanted into, so why not just replace the car? I only bothered to do the rings, gaskets and bearings on my last runabout because they were surprisingly "cheap" (still about 20-25% of the car's resale value), and it was a challenge - my brother would have just scrapped it as he wouldn't want the bother of doing it himself, and the labour costs would be astronomical compared to the benefit, or the price of replacing the entire car.

Plus, somewhat unusually, the engine basically never changed during the entire production run, and there was only one type and displacement offered. A modern car may see two or even more generations of engines, with differing mount points etc, pass through it's bay depending how long the model runs for, and maybe 10 or more variations within that generation (e.g. for my current 1990s "small family" hatch, mix-and-match several displacements between 1400 and 2200cc, plus choices of 2- or 4- valve, gasoline (with compressions requiring between 91 and 97 RON octane) and diesel, NA (with plain or variable length intake) or turbo, i4/v6 cylinder arrangements, and even different kinds of fuel/ignition system - carb & points, or SPi & MPi with ECU...), making the whole thing a bit of a logistical nightmare. Much better just to keep a representative stock of component parts and keep the tooling/moulds dormant but safe for a while until you're sure there's minimal demand anymore. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mileage

What was the mileage of the engine? I've heard that it was actualy better than many modern engines. // Liftarn (talk)

Only if you're driving a huge vehicle notably heavier and more powerful than the T, such as the monstrous SUVs so beloved of various americans who can't think their way to a better vehicle. The gas mileage stated on the actual Model T page (as claimed by Ford at the time, anyway) is IIRC "13 to 21mpg" (US). It's specific efficiency wouldn't have been great, and for all it's simplicity and reliability it wasn't an otherwise advanced design... sidevalve head (unbreakable but not high performance or frugal), low compression to deal with the poor fuel available including homebrew ethanol (again, very inefficient - modern cars demand good quality gas because that's required to run at high compression, high power and high efficiency), etc. Remember that's approx 20mpg from a car putting out only 20hp (from a nearly 3-litre displacement, maxing out at 3000rpm) and weighing about 720kg / 1500lbs, which is about the same weight as a modern Smart Car, less than half the engine power and more than 4x the cylinder volume. Also it's arguably LESS aerodynamic than the average housebrick, and very poorly geared, only managing 45mph before revving out and probably not making it much higher even if regeared. A Fiat 500 with similar power would be hitting 60+ mph and managing about 40mpg.

The best report I've heard of it is from some fans who'd driven overhauled T's longdistance, getting about 35-40mpg to the apparent envy of other travellers in the convoy. Note however they averaged about 30mph with a 35-ish mph cruising speed and considerable hill climbing issues... If I cruised at 35mph in my bog standard 1990s hatchback longdistance, I'd be seeing mid-70s if not 80mpg on the level, and whip up the same hills at a near constant speed, maybe having to drop to 4th or 3rd once in a while, still getting not much worse than 30mpg.

If you mean mileage TRAVELLED before complete failure however, you may be onto something. I can't refute it anyway as I don't have the info, but given the above conditions it's possible it could run for many hundreds of thousands of (very slow) miles, simply because it's under much less stress than a typical modern engine. However it's also built with less hardy materials and less precision/considered design, so it may have more weak spots that will either lead to early failure, require much more frequent servicing and overhauling, or both. I might expect to reach between 50 and 80 thousand miles on a typical modern 10:1 compression OHV sub-2-litre 4-pot before having to do any "major" work (i.e. head gasket, piston rings, big end bearings) - IF it's been abused or has a substandard part that's given way. Haven't a clue how long a T would last between these, but it seems garages used to make a lot more money off very regular routine servicing of such types, even with a lot less cars on the road... Can anyone shed light on this? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverse conversion

3+3⁄4 in (95.25 mm) or 95.25 mm (3.75 in), that's better Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. — ¾-10 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2,896 cc (176.72 cu in) or 2.896 L (176.72 cu in) Peter Horn User talk 00:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Content move in order

There's currently a lot of great content at Ford Model T > Engine and means of starting that's not here at Ford Model T engine. Given that that section points here with a {{main}} tag, I'm going to move the details here and leave just the highlights there (WP:SUMMARY). — ¾-10 23:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I got around to this last December. Anytime anyone feels motivated, it's worth doing. — ¾-10 00:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Done. It took a couple of years before the spirit moved me, but it happened. Eventualism in action. (Slo-mo action.) — ¾-10 00:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)