Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Engine tech, for those engines, products, and technologies of yesteryear.

Moderator: Team

MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

PackardV8 wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:11 pm
MichaelThompson wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:48 pmI don’t know, I think a good Flathead would hold up to 4-6 PSI pretty well. Probably break a trans or axle before the motor went.
Easy to make boost on any breathing limited engine. The inherent weakness in the Ford V8 flathead is heat rejection. The long transverse exhaust passages transfer too much heat to the coolant, but still can't keep the valve seat area cool enough. These days, at least half the flathead blocks we mag have too many or too severe cracks to be used.
Yes point taken, but 65-70 years ago was a pretty long time ago. The Flattys were in better condition then.

I agree about the transverse exhaust port boxes are a liability but they seemed to work pretty good in spite of their shortcomings.

I don’t know what it is about a Flathead Ford V8’s but to me they seem to be greater than the sum of their parts.
Ks Fats
Pro
Pro
Posts: 375
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:39 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Ks Fats »

Thanks for the pics. guys. The Frenzel Supercharger pic appears to be from the Speedway Collection; that's where my McColluch went 25 years ago or so. On a good day it would make 4# max but may have been capable of more early in its life. Even in n/a form a my 60's era 2800# coupe would destroy axles and trans once we started putting better rubber on it; no blower needed for that!
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

I’m guessing the shine guys were swapping not only GM engines but possibly LaSalle transmissions and or Hydromatics to take the guff from the OHV torque.

With a load of moonshine in a full bodied car that’s a lot to ask if those smallish gears in the stock box.

This brings me back full circle. I think the balance was lost on those little Ford’s that acquired the big Kettering V8’s.

I personally saw a genuine ‘39 Ford shine car with an ElDorado dual carb engine and a big GM Hydro stuffed behind it. It has some modifications to the engine too. I’m sure it was a runner but man it looked like a lot of cast iron to get to quickly change directions on them old back roads.
User avatar
frnkeore
Expert
Expert
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:06 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by frnkeore »

This brings me back full circle. I think the balance was lost on those little Ford’s that acquired the big Kettering V8’s
It wasn't the extra 170 lb on the front, that changed the handling, it was the 700 lb of shine.

I'm sure, this is where Jr Johnson "shined" and why he became such a good driver and chief Mechanic. The cars needed to be setup for the pay load and not empty.
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

frnkeore wrote: Fri Mar 19, 2021 8:00 pm
This brings me back full circle. I think the balance was lost on those little Ford’s that acquired the big Kettering V8’s
It wasn't the extra 170 lb on the front, that changed the handling, it was the 700 lb of shine.

I'm sure, this is where Jr Johnson "shined" and why he became such a good driver and chief Mechanic. The cars needed to be setup for the pay load and not empty.
Oh for sure, I agree by the time one of those cars was fully loaded with its payload they were pushing 4000 pounds. That kind of tells the story right there.

Those big Caddy’s and Olds’ were in that weight range. The torque of those engines combined with the stronger gearbox would probably make the little Ford coupes squirt out of the corners like nothing else. To look at one all done up though you’d think you were driving a truck.

My buddy owns a moonshine car that was still Flatty powered. The modifications to the suspension were quite clever like dual lever style shocks, heavy springs with over riders, the later factory panhard bars, Lincoln brakes etc.

It’s a pretty cool deal and it’s real.
Truckedup
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2728
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:41 pm
Location: Finger Lakes

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Truckedup »

Juan Fangio, the great F1 driver in the 50's got his start in South American road racing. His car of choice was a late 30's Chevy with a beam front axle. The 216 could be converted to full pressue engine oil system and bored to around 230 inches. Wish some port work, compression, cam ,multiple carbs made a reliable 160 Hp..Equal or better to a Flattie Ford...Some in the USA were aware of this...Then after WW2, 270 GMC inlines were availabe as surplus...A properly modified streetable GMC was in the 225 hp range. A shit load of power for the same weght as a Flathead..
Motorcycle land speed racing... wearing animal hides and clinging to vibrating oily machines propelled by fire
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

Truckedup wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:14 pm Juan Fangio, the great F1 driver in the 50's got his start in South American road racing. His car of choice was a late 30's Chevy with a beam front axle. The 216 could be converted to full pressue engine oil system and bored to around 230 inches. Wish some port work, compression, cam ,multiple carbs made a reliable 160 Hp..Equal or better to a Flattie Ford...Some in the USA were aware of this...Then after WW2, 270 GMC inlines were availabe as surplus...A properly modified streetable GMC was in the 225 hp range. A shit load of power for the same weght as a Flathead..
Yes Fangio started racing Chevrolets because at one point he could not get a Ford coupe in time to prepare for a race. He went to a Chevrolet dealer and acquired a ‘36 coupe I think and the rest is history. He had a long relationship with the GM road race program.

His main competitor was this right here. https://youtu.be/Pjg0E3o5ewM
PackardV8
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7619
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Spokane, WA

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by PackardV8 »

Truckedup wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:14 pm Then after WW2, 270 GMC inlines were availabe as surplus...A properly modified streetable GMC was in the 225 hp range. A shit load of power for the same weght as a Flathead..
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The GMC 270"/302" does make a shit load more power than a Ford flathead V8, but it also weighs a shit-ton more. A loaded GMC 270"/302" weighs 790#; subtract 120# for flywheel, clutch assembly and bellhousing gets you in the range of 670#. The flathead Ford V8 weighs 525# and aluminum intake and heads are a shelf item. There were aluminum GMC heads and intakes, but they're rare and very expensive.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

Yes in my opinion (without actual experience on these big GMC’s) is that not only is the Jimmy heavier but also more of that weight is necessarily higher and more forward.

Probably not that much of a liability on a drag car but on a road racer I’m thinking some planning had to go into that to overcome that weight.

That being said, as mentioned before Fangio had it figured out at least with the Chevy sixes.

An interesting sidebar to this conversation pertains to the vintage car rallies particularly the Peking to Paris one.

Anyhow there are quite a few of the GM six powered coupes built in the Fangio style of South American road race style.

Also there are a few Flathead Ford cars from varying years. They seem to all do pretty well. Flathead Ford’s have won this rally before.
User avatar
frnkeore
Expert
Expert
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2019 3:06 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by frnkeore »

I'd like to see how you put a 302 Jimmy, in a '40 Ford.

As I envision it, the firewall would have to be cut back, quite a bit and the back of the head, would be about where the floor shift would be. I only saw two 302's installed in cars, in all my 76 years. One was in HS (around '60), a somewhere between '37 & '39 Chev and the other in a Auburn.

I'm from SoCal and the 302 wasn't very popular, even there. For about the same weight, or less, you could get a lot more cubes, 2 more cyl and 4 more valves. Hard to beat that combo.
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

In a straight line all bets are off. I’m certain the Flathead would have been handed it’s lunch.

In this discussion I’m getting more towards complete vehicle performance combining the aggregates of acceleration, cornering and stopping and even including the intangibles like being stealthy enough to not draw attention from the lawmen.
Ron E
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2085
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: nc

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Ron E »

MichaelThompson wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:11 am In a straight line all bets are off. I’m certain the Flathead would have been handed it’s lunch.

In this discussion I’m getting more towards complete vehicle performance combining the aggregates of acceleration, cornering and stopping and even including the intangibles like being stealthy enough to not draw attention from the lawmen.
Agree. Years ago I was working with a couple of LMS cars. This is back in the 350 2bbl days. The Mopar W2 combination was good for 20-25 more HP. But, the tall deck and the heavier heads offset the HP with the advantage usually favoring the chevy. The cars just refused to turn as well.
Truckedup
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2728
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:41 pm
Location: Finger Lakes

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Truckedup »

PackardV8 wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 1:10 pm
Truckedup wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:14 pm Then after WW2, 270 GMC inlines were availabe as surplus...A properly modified streetable GMC was in the 225 hp range. A shit load of power for the same weght as a Flathead..
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The GMC 270"/302" does make a shit load more power than a Ford flathead V8, but it also weighs a shit-ton more. A loaded GMC 270"/302" weighs 790#; subtract 120# for flywheel, clutch assembly and bellhousing gets you in the range of 670#. The flathead Ford V8 weighs 525# and aluminum intake and heads are a shelf item. There were aluminum GMC heads and intakes, but they're rare and very expensive.
The 302 GMC In my 37 Chevy pu weighed 575 pounds on the shipping terminal scale. Complete engine minus the truck flywheel . We will likely argue this .... :D
Motorcycle land speed racing... wearing animal hides and clinging to vibrating oily machines propelled by fire
Truckedup
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2728
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:41 pm
Location: Finger Lakes

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Truckedup »

jack, I am totally wrong....Factory GMC info from the era says a fully dressed 302 is 735 Pounds, water pump to clutch housing... about 80 pounds of that is heavy truck stuff like the flywheel and other bits, but trimmed for auto use is still over 600 pounds....
Motorcycle land speed racing... wearing animal hides and clinging to vibrating oily machines propelled by fire
MichaelThompson
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:25 pm
Location:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

One of the projects I’d like to accomplish on video would be to take a fully dressed stock Flathead and weigh it.

Then after stripping it down weighing each component before and after machining.

I have built .125” over Flatheads and I even have a block that is .250” over bore.

After all the porting polishing and grinding of unnecessary casting flash I end up with a pretty good piles of iron dust on the floor.

Anyhow it would be interesting to see how much weight gets removed from the block alone.

Then as the engine is assembled replacing some of the common parts with aluminum components such as the intake manifold, cylinder heads and water pump. If we were building a lightweight roadster we could even think about an aluminum flywheel.

Now there are mini starters and alternators which wouldn’t be traditional or in the context of our moonshine discussion but they are very interesting to think about just for the weight savings.

So the final scene would have the complete hotted up Flatty with common go fast parts on the scale. I’ll bet the engine would weigh close to 100 pounds less.

After which dyno testing the fresh engine to see just exactly how we’ve improved the power to weight ratio.

That ☝️to me would be a fascinating video.
Post Reply