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:

Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by MichaelThompson »

So here goes another silly question but it might be fun just the same.

I’m in the middle of the book “Ford:the Dust and the Glory” right at the section that describes the early days of NASCAR and how the Moonshine runners figured into all that.

The classic description of a Moonshine car as everyone probably knows was the ‘39-‘40 Coupe fitted with elaborate suspension mods and a hotted up V8.


Now ‘shine runners predated the 39/40 Coupes and lasted long after but for the sake of argument let’s just focus on that era.

Okay it’s common knowledge that the hot Flatheads eventually gave way to more modern V8’s primarily the Caddy and Olds from GM.

I get it as to why things happened that way. A nearly new OHV was but a junkyard trip away. A 160 horsepower Kettering V8 was a “simple” solution?

That ☝️all sounds so easy but was it really? The engine bay was made for the Flathead. Certainly there were mods necessary, adapters brackets, linkages, cooling and exhaust systems to figure out.

After you were done you’ve added at least 100 pounds to the front end maybe a lot more. Remember the sbc wasn’t here yet so understand that those early GM V8’s were pretty beefy and not flyweights.

Anyhow a paragraph in the book I mentioned above describes a particular moonshine runner who drove a ‘39 Ford Coupe with a Flatty equipped with a McCulloch supercharger who was never caught by the law men.

This brought to mind something that I have wondered myself before. It seems to me, though history generally disagrees with me, that bolting on a supercharger could have been a much easier and viable solution than radically modifying a given vehicle to accept a completely different engine.

You’re probably rolling your eyes by now but hear me out. The V8 Ford’s were good cars because they were nimble and light with well thought out but simple suspensions. How were the handling dynamics affected by adding weight to the front end and even raising the center of gravity with the OHV engines.

What about sound? Wouldn’t an OHV engine be suspicious to the lawmen as they are distinctively different sounding both in start up and engine note than a Flathead Ford.

We talk about modern Kettering V8’s but in reality the Flathead Ford was quite well developed by 1939. They had very tough bottom ends with floating rod bearings not babbit.

The good ignition systems were there. Induction was sorted out and lots of hop up goodies were available.

I guess the ultimate question here is could a blown Flathead have been competitive with OHV conversions that were happening with greater and greater frequency?

I personally think 160-200 horsepower would be a walk in the park on a Flatty with a McCulloch blower.

In at least one case that scenario proved true as mentioned in the book. Maybe the supercharger was hard to get or more expensive than even completely revamping the car to accept a different engine?

It’d be interesting to hear your take on this.
User avatar
GuysMonteSS
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by GuysMonteSS »

Sounds like an interesting book.
Guy
'86 Monte SS,513 BBC,AFR heads,Bullet solid roller cam,Doug Nash 4+1 5 speed,Hurst Inline Shifter,Ford 9 inch Rearend.
Walter R. Malik
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6353
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:15 am
Location: Roseville, Michigan (just north of Detroit)
Contact:

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Walter R. Malik »

My grandfather who spent his early days in Kentucky told me stories of a certain 28 Chevrolet of one of his friends which had a stovebolt 6 cylinder which ran "shine" for the years before the depression and never got caught.
http://www.rmcompetition.com
Specialty engine building at its finest.
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 »

I was there at the end of the shine runner era and yes, the gutted '40 Ford coupe was the weapon of choice.

No, a McCulloch on a flathead wouldn't make a reliable 180 - 200 horsepower.

Stealth was the moonshiners tactic. No car with a 1000# load was going to outrun the Revenuers. If there was knowledge or suspicion they would be in the area, a pre-run car with open exhaust would blow through the route trying to draw them out while the loaded car took the long way around.

Also, since any shine car caught was confisticated, most runners didn't invest in high dollar modifications. I know I never saw one.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
User avatar
GuysMonteSS
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by GuysMonteSS »

Walter R. Malik wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 11:48 am My grandfather who spent his early days in Kentucky told me stories of a certain 28 Chevrolet of one of his friends which had a stovebolt 6 cylinder which ran "shine" for the years before the depression and never got caught.
I bet that your Grandfather's friend could have told some interesting stories ..
Imagine,out running the authorities in a 6 cyl Chevy !!
Guy
'86 Monte SS,513 BBC,AFR heads,Bullet solid roller cam,Doug Nash 4+1 5 speed,Hurst Inline Shifter,Ford 9 inch Rearend.
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'm sure Jr Johnson could give the best detailed info, on this subject but, he's no longer with us :( I saw a program he did on this, 15 or 20 years ago but, I remember little on the details but, he used a Cad.

The Cad and Olds, were the first to have OHV V8's. They were heavy @ 695 for the Cad and 705 for Olds. 160 and 135 hp, respectively. Their weight, on average was about 130lb, more than the FH.

Based on what mechanical superchargers cost today, I think the wrecking yard V8's, would have been cheaper and much less trouble to get right and they also weighed something. Probably close to a extra 80 lb (more than 1/2 the wt differential), installed with multiple carbs. In the end, you would only save 50 lb, keeping the FH.

Regarding "handling dynamics" The moonshine would be the the one that had to be addressed. 130 lb extra eng vs 700 lb (100 gal + container) for the moonshine.

At best, the cars chasing them, would be 49 Olds, 135 hp & 3800 lb, add 200 lb for the extra cop. The gutted '40, wouldn't weigh to much less than that, with a full load but the Cads, extra 25 hp would help.

Here's a list of engine weights for '57.

PS
I'm surprised that Jacks favorite engine, weighs so much.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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 »

For true, the Studebaker is per cubic inch one of the heaviest ever built. A '55 224" version weighs 695# and made 140 horsepower or about five pounds per horsepower.

The 735# is for the 275 horsepower supercharged '57-58 Golden Hawk and '63-'64 Avanti.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
BCjohnny
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:07 pm
Location: Black Country, England

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by BCjohnny »

While not quite on subject, coincidentally watched a film earlier this evening which brought up the alleged letter sent by a one Clyde Barrow to Henry Ford himself about the flathead

"While I still have got breath in my lungs I will tell you what a dandy car you make. I have drove Fords exclusively when I could get away with one. For sustained speed and freedom from trouble the Ford has got ever other car skinned and even if my business hasen't been strickly legal it don't hurt anything to tell you what a fine car you got in the V8 "

Handwriting suggests it may have been written by Bonnie Parker
Circlotron
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:56 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Moonshine runners Flathead vs. Caddy V8’s

Post by Circlotron »

MichaelThompson wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:24 am What about sound? Wouldn’t an OHV engine be suspicious to the lawmen as they are distinctively different sounding both in start up and engine note than a Flathead Ford.
What does a McCulloch blower sound like at full song? Not like a Roots blower I hope.
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 »

Not sure what those early McCulloch superchargers sounded like at full chat. I was talking more about the distinctive Flathead Ford V8 sounds at normal speeds. Seems like that would be more stealthy.

The 312 Ford supercharged cars made 340-360 horsepower with the McCulloch blower.
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 »

The early McCulloch blowers were different than the later side mount versions; the early version was center mounted and pulled through a single two barrel discharging directly into the intake manifold. It was usually fitted with a "Y" adaptor to fit 2 three bolt carbs but still only pulled through two bores; they were relatively low output compared to the Y-block version. I still have an adaptor somewhere that mounted the later Y block style to the front of the intake in place of the generator so there must have been a "kit" for the later blow through style on a flathead. Unfortunately the adaptor is all I have so can't vouch for the viability of the installation. The early style did make more power than a n/a flathead but was never an overhead beater. The rumor I heard about the early version was that it was designed for the trucking industry and was adopted by racers; since this follows along the Ardun story line there may be some semblance of truth to it (but take it with a grain of salt).
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 »

Here is one type of this picture loads.

Image
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 »

Direct drive superchargers were a thing from the earliest days of the ICE

ImageMiller Dodge V16

ImagePackard Merlin V12

ImagePackard Marine V12
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 »

Image

https://myflatheadford.com/mcculloch-su ... er-intake/



I 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.
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 »

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.
Jack Vines
Studebaker-Packard V8 Limited
Obsolete Engineering
Post Reply