Why was Henry against the Inline 6?

:DChryslers flat head six was built from 1935 until 1959 when they came out with the slant six. About the only thing they changed was bigger bore and stroke. Darn tough engine, lots of low end torque, great in truck if geared correctly.

I agree I had several of the 300 Ford inline 6 pickups. If you keep oil and water in them they ran forever! I had one in an '88 150 that had over 227,000 on it and ran like a top! The motor had 7 main bearings, made it really tough!
 
Agreed the Ford 300ci 6 is bulletproof. I have one on an old 1970 rig that had been severely mistreated (warped manifold, carbon hot spots in combustion chamber, etc. got it really cheap) but fixable and purrs right along at about 50 with a 4.56 rear end. Did I mention low speed torque is not a problem? A guy here in the Sonoma A's is putting one in a Peitenpol he is building!!! But have a soft spot for the Stovebolt Chev, and IMHO nothing sounded cooler than a Chev 6 split manifold with dual Smittys.
 
The 6 was 1hp behind the flathead in 53. Maybe he didn't buy into the ovh right away but he was into economical advancements for the consumer. From the start.
 
Actually, the planetary transmission lives on to this very day: in every vehicle with an automatic transmission: bands & drums, and disc-clutches. The only things "missing" from the Model T version were a fluid coupling and an automatic shifting system.
 
Tinker, Ford's flathead six ended production in 1951. In '52 it was replaced with a 215 cu. in. OHV six-same year that Lincoln went to an OHV V-8. In '54 the six went to 223 cu. in. and they made a 263 (or so) version for trucks.
 
I read a book by Leslie R.Henry with a supposed quote by Henry Ford on the six,All of the engineering problems of an eight with none of the advantages.I have seen a lot of military equipment with those Ford sixes in them.I had a Hughs-Keenan yard crane powered by one,an airport tug with one,a welder,some pumps,generators,and I still have a 10 foot wide snowblower that chains into a loader bucket powered by one.I know of a front end loader powered by one also.The worst thing I have seen is a Ford pickup powered by the four cyl.engine.That truck has low miles to this day because they could never get it to do anything.They could leave the farm OK,as it was downhill toward town.But,the ride back was another story.They had to go out of their way about 3 miles to climb the gradual slope,instead of the steep one.When empty you could climb it in low gear,but when loaded,even slightly it would just run out of power and stall.The man that owns it now planned for a flathead 8 conversion,but the truck has such low miles he has been dragging his feet on taking it apart.But,it is also so wimpy he won't drive it like it is either.
 
As mentioned several times about Henry's stiff backbone on ideas that were anything but his, reading the history of the flathead V8 it was interesting to see this played out.

The old statement, "if they want 6 cylinders, I will give them 8!" sounded like a battle cry.

When he was working on the V8 prototypes, he wanted it to run like a A Bone 4 Banger, no water pumps, no fuel pumps. It took alot of arm twisiting from his son to ad those items.

I imagine it could be hard, if we were in his shoes at times, to have built up such a successful company on your own ingenuity and effort. You seeming seem like you have all the answers and were usually proven correct. I think in some ways he was living in the past on what the public wanted in cars as time went by.

And as pointed out in other replies, it took a miracle to get him away from making T's.
 
Henry was stubborn! Ever heard of a person who learned nothing new and forgot nothing old? That was Henry Ford! He was born in 1865 and grew up with steam, crappy iron, non standard nuts, bolts, threads, overhead belts,etc. I wish there was a time machine to bring him forward into a CNC world. It would be amusing to say the least. So along comes gasoline engines and HF was mesmerised! After a while, He knew what worked and what didn't. But whyinhell did he use stuff like 9/16-18, 7/16-20 or 12-24 threads. Fours and eights worked for him, sixes didn't! Fords one attempt at building a V12 was a failure also (1940, 1941?) Flatheads worked, overheads were to complicated in principle. Yet his lubrication system was a throwback that even he could see was outdated. The man was a genius, but stubbornly had his feet rooted in the 19th century.
Terry
 
Good points Terry...

HF's old man, William Ford was also a stubborn character too, according to various HF biographies I 've read over the years.


I think one of Old Henry's biggest "problems" with the six was the miserable experience he'd had with them during the 2nd incarnation of Ford Motor Co (pre-1908 ): the wealthy investors insisted that the Henry Ford Co. build a prestigious luxury machine, over Henry's adamant protests; but HF was outnumbered, and so the Model K Ford was developed and introduced in 1906. I believe the biggest issue with the K was its two-speed planetary transmission was adapted from the tiny Ford N / R / S cars, and just was not up to the power of the six-cylinder motor combined with the weight of the car - they were pretty huge vehicles...

And if it weren't for Edsel Ford's persistence, Henry would have probably kept on building Model T's until Ford Motor Co. would have gone bankrupt in the Depression.

There's absolutely nothing "wrong" with a well-designed six...
 
If Ford had come out with a six instead of the V8, he would have been playing "catch up" to the other companies who already had a six (and admitting they were right). His decision to go them one better and put out an eight in the low price field was smart marketing. Henry's V8 has done some incredible things over the years, and we are still fooling around with them. It was the "standard" performance motor of it's time, later replaced by the small-block Chevy. If Ford bet it all on a six, things would have turned out different
There is nothing wrong with a six at all, but I don't think it would have been the right move for Ford at that time. The V8 got headlines, a six came out later, and then they had something for everyone.
 
From Know Your Model A Ford there is a discussion on why the 4 is great and how the others are not ideal.

The discussion on the 6 leans towards the un equal intake distances and how that un balances the fuel loads. Then the discussion talks about the great powerful 6 used in the model K. The money issue is brought up as they point out for the same money you can make a poor 6 or great 4.

Here is a quote from the book:

'Those who may have thought more cylinders were necessary to reach modern standards of performance will find a well-built car as teh Ford glides along so smoothly ans with such a feeling of reserve power, even at speeds of 55 to60 MPH, that little more could be asked.'

A chart that shows the # of cylinders of the top 10 cars that finished each year at Indy. Only a total of 10 six cylinder cars from 1911 to 1923 with 65 four cyl cars. It is interesting to note that starting in 1920 the field changed to something other than 4 or 6 cyl cars. There were a few 4's still being run.

It is an interesting little book. Some hype for the Ford products, but the book was written by a Ford guy.
 
Actually, I don't think it was all that hard.He was getting a lot of pressure from those around him for a new model. And the later "T" model years were declining sales. Plus losing market share to Chevrolet and Chrysler's new Plymouth (Formerly Maxwell). even HF could see where that was going. Ford hated anything new! (unless he created it) He regarded new things as an invasion into his peace of mind. However, The public didn't share that with him and wanted something more to their liking. Henry saw that and gave it to them.
Terry



ken1939 said:
As mentioned several times about Henry's stiff backbone on ideas that were anything but his, reading the history of the flathead V8 it was interesting to see this played out.

The old statement, "if they want 6 cylinders, I will give them 8!" sounded like a battle cry.

When he was working on the V8 prototypes, he wanted it to run like a A Bone 4 Banger, no water pumps, no fuel pumps. It took alot of arm twisiting from his son to ad those items.

I imagine it could be hard, if we were in his shoes at times, to have built up such a successful company on your own ingenuity and effort. You seeming seem like you have all the answers and were usually proven correct. I think in some ways he was living in the past on what the public wanted in cars as time went by.

And as pointed out in other replies, it took a miracle to get him away from making T's.
Click to expand...
 
Equal fuel distribution. Then, after his T success, he had the natural habit of feeling that "I know what the car buying public wants." This from an enginer that had to tear out a workshop wall because his car couldn't fit through the door.
 
Tom Wesenberg said:
Flathead sixes reign supreme!
Just look at Studebaker. They kept the flathead six through 1962. In 1963 Studebaker put out their first overhead six and a year later they were out of business.
Lesson learned......enough said! :( LOL
Click to expand...

Studebaker was out of business long before the OHV Six came out. It just took a few years for them to finally close the doors.

Chris
 
CWPASADENA said:
Studebaker was out of business long before the OHV Six came out. It just took a few years for them to finally close the doors.

Chris
Click to expand...

:confused:
My 1963 Studebaker Lark has an OHV 6 and South Bend Studebaker closed it's factory in late 1963. Studebaker in Canada closed it's doors 2 or 3 years later, finishing up by using Chevy engines.
 
Tom Wesenberg said:
:confused:
My 1963 Studebaker Lark has an OHV 6 and South Bend Studebaker closed it's factory in late 1963. Studebaker in Canada closed it's doors 2 or 3 years later, finishing up by using Chevy engines.
Click to expand...


I think perhaps Chris was suggesting that by the early 1960's, Studebaker was dead; they just didn't know it... ;)


I think AMC Rambler were the last US company to let go of the flat-head six, in 1964 or '65... this particular little engine started-out in the Nash 600 in 1940 or '41. Around 1956, Nash developed an overhead valve conversion for it, and put that in the full-size Ramblers, continuing to put the flat-head version in the small Rambler ( American ).

After AMC finally retired the Nash engine, they replaced it with the 232 & 258 cid sixes, which lived-on into the early 2000's as the 4.0 litre Jeep six...

As for Stude Larks, I would just love to have a first-generation Lark ('59-'61) convertible, with the 259 V-8, 3-speed and OD... :cool:
 
Frank,
I too suspected that's what Chris had in mind about Studebaker being dead. That was a shame, because Stude had so many nice cars in the 50's, as well as the Avanti in the early 60's.

My 1971 Scout 800B also has the AMC 232, which is a good engine and the best of the 3 offered for that year, slant 4 (which was half of their V8), 232 AMC inline 6, or the V8. The 6 got better fuel economy than the 4 or 8.
 
Tom,

I had no idea that IHC ever used engines from American Motors...

Aside from Studebaker's corporate maladies, the other big issue was their susceptibility to rust...

My Dad had a '49 Studebaker 1/2-ton pick-up back before I was born... my older cousins and Uncles all talk about "how nice the body was"... sure wish Dad had kept that one !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top