Stumbled on this video while checking the Motor City website. There is a tab to click on to play a recent video of Mark Kirby describing the main points of the new Flathead engine. I can't help but think that this engine will approach 300hp. Probably be strong on the torque figure too. In fact good low and mid range torque are a Flathead hallmark and is why they feel so snappy. I think he states that the engine weighs 318 lbs complete. Release date must be getting close. Gawsh I think ole Henry must be smiling knowing that his "baby" is living well into the 21st century. Here's the link...... http://www.motorcityspeedequipment.com/
Dang I just watched the video again and caught new stuff. First the head bolts are 3/8" dia and purchase way down in the block and second the sleeves "screw in" from the bottom and are retained at the top in a groove machined in the deck. Very interesting!
My hat is off to Mark and the other people developing the Aluminum/Cast Iron "New Flathead" motors. Verdict is still out on SCTA letting these motors run in any sanctioned events, but should make for a good street/drag motor. The $12k price tag for a short block may stop some people and I think with a single 4brl it would probably be between 225/250hp............don't think you will see 300hp until you get to something more exotic sitting on top. I still prefer the cast motor over the aluminum motor although the weight savings is very interesting for a race car. Here is a picture of my (hopefully) 300hp flathead at about $2k less than what the new short block will cost..............nothing like a little blower sitting on top.
Exactly my thoughts but-. JMHO, -But there are (obviously) those that do think that 12 or 14 k is way too pricey for an aluminum Flathead. -As Well As There are ~more~ that have not yet experienced The fun or the fact that a real Flathead cost money to build (WooHoo) - Plus, many are used to paying less than $1000 for a cheap rebuilt, - Like Those That want a SBC. (Pssst, I'll let em keep to, and stick to*****BC's -Because if they want cheap things for cheap, or need 14 cheap engines for 14 rusty trucks for a lot under $14K......). I fully expect to pay my local machinists 10 to 12K for something worthy of a blower (Blower is another $3500)... And I expect my favorite Machinist to Stand Behind His Work..... JMHO but -There are two kinds of V8's in this world, A properly cast Original Ford Flathead, which was built using proper metallurgy to withstand years of***** and abuse... And the Planned Obsolescence*****BC, which is Cheaply pumped out with such poor metallurgy (None!) that GM fully expected you to come back after the warranty had expired for a rebuild with a wallet full of cash so that The GM stockholders would grow rich at the expensive of all the blind sheep while they laughed at your ignorance while you gazed all $tarry eyed at the all -new for 1986- "FartHeat Of America" Silverado, with the exact same Planned Obsolescence engine that still had the cam lobes that would still wear off at 50,000 miles, -which was way over the 20,000 mile warranty. But that's OK because you wanted a new truck every 3 years anyway -and the old one had******* problems and the rings were allowing blowby (no metallurgy in the cheap block) right about when it's cam lobes strangely disappeared -Ah, but it had served you well for 78,000 miles already and you only paid 14K for it originally in 1983....... -Well Not really, -Yeah, I'm just kidding of course, GM has never actually sold any $14k trucks to anybody ever in the history of automobile history) --------------------------------------------------------- .....I think Kirby has done a great job and his new aluminum V8 is just a new step in the 75 year history of the Non-Planned Obsolescence World that is the FMC and the Ford Flathead. JMHO but the price is compatible to a fully rebuilt -Quality Cast- Original Flathead done up properly with quality parts that are worthy of the History, and the Ford Name because there are two kinds of V8's in this world...... Ford's with Metallurgy and others without. But thats jmho and I am Opinionated. If the Aluminum Engine becomes available before the next Flathead build goes off to the machine shop then just maybewe'll 'Opt In' to The new V8 -given that it will only be about ~$2000 more than the next Flathead build... (???Or, If I did The Math Right?, That's about 3 extra rebuilt*****BC's for 3 belly*****on engine equipped Old, all Original steel 1930's Ford barn finds. ).... BTW, IF GM outproduced and sold -on average- 2 GM's to Ford's 1 car from 1927 thru to 1953, Then just where are all the 1927 to 1953 GM Engines? ??? ?? Cars? ???Trucks? Oh I forgot, they weren't meant to last the test of time because the key factor to Planned Obsolescence is to convince you that you need a new car because the old one is so screwed when the second owner got it. Gee whiz, there are still about half a million running Model A's (with their bangers) -or about 2% of the original production sitting and running and hidden in barns... ?Where is the corresponding and running 2% of the GM's from that period? Dam the sound is hard to hear, -The video looks like something my 6 year old Daughter could do with her $30 Barbie Cam (which happens to be about as -throw away- as a SBC but I hear that Mattel spends more money to build her a camera than GM spent on Lobes for SBC cams) . -Kirby's website promotional video is rough to Say the least ?? ???You'd think that after spending hundreds of thousands of $$$$$$$ on reverse building a new V8 that they would spend a few $$ on a better camera but then again maybe that's why the couldn't (?They better get some Aluminum V8's on the market before bankruptcy sets in) . .
i quite like it and i dont think its that expensive either. im nearly finished with a 59ab which has been built and I cant be far off the cost of that given everything on the engine has been renewed/machined, yep i might have some rare heads and an even rarer manifold but it hasnt been cheap, could have built 3 sbcs for the price ive paid for the flathead.
The metalurgy issue that Moefuzz brings up is an interesting subject. Being a Ford aficianado I have been interested in this for some time. Remember the late model Ford engines are reffered to as "Thinwall Henrys". Ford did in fact conduct tons of scientific research on foundry metallurgy and techniques to come up with their lightweight engines. When I was just a lad I thought that the typical Chevy had it over the typical Ford in that the Chevy's always had beefier looking main webbing. To be sure added material does increase strength in most cases BUT it also brings weight. The trick was to put the correct amount of material in the proper places to achieve max strength at minimum weight. For hot rodders there are a couple instances where more material would have been a tremendous help like in 351C and some FE cyl walls. At standard bores they were very reliable but not much extra to whittle with a boring bar I understand. The latest pushrod Ford V8's used an oval shape on the outside of the cylinders to provide strength in the direction of thrust forces and yet still allow for space between the cyls for water passage. Very good indeed. As it turns out The Ford engineers were darn well ahead of their time. The newest innovations to engine casting is the "CGI" or compact graphite iron for the purpose of..... you guessed it, to further remove even more material and still maintain the durability of iron but at weights that rival aluminum castings. I'm pretty sure that all the Nascar engines use this material already and there are some production diesels in service now with CGI. All of the newest race blocks have areas where material is scalloped out to reduce weight. In fact I'm sure many of you have seen block that are CNC'd on the exterior to reduce unwanted weight. In a recent article in a Mustang mag a writer got to look inside the new Boss 500 nitro engine. You probably know this was the result of a collaboration between John Force and Ford. I read with interest because I was skepical since the NHRA had them on a tight leash. I hoped it was'nt just a rebadged Chrysler. Sure enough it looks similar as many dimensions and characteristics were mandated by the sanctioning body, but the article states that the starting point was two hard points, the bore centers and the head bolt patterns, all other lines were erased. The new "analytical" computers they were using helped them place the correct amount of material in just the right places. When they were finished the article states that the new Ford block is 2.2 pounds heavier than the previous block they used. Can you imagine? 2.2 pounds in an 8000 hp drag engine. Force said that they were going to remove that weight provided the track testing showed they could. I guess my point here is that alot of things Ford did are commonly misunderstood but in fact very good reasoning went behind them. The thinwall designs in this example for one, or more famously the changes made to the architecture when the 351W sprang from the basic 289/302 design. This seems to be the bane of Fords to the non- believers but in fact the changes were made to maintain proper geometry for long service life with the longer stroked 351W's and also their heavier job duty intentions. How this relates to Kirby's new Flathead I'm not sure, I guess I'm just rambling. As far as the price goes on this engine I don't think it has been released yet. Some savings are sure to be realized with the fact that an early Ford car will require less modifications to accept this engine. I'm sure it'll be almost a bolt in on a car like my `41 so long as I remember the gearbox's limitations. Back in the day many high powered OHV V8's were bolted to early Ford trans and lived just fine so long as you drove them correctly.
WOW, someone don't like Chevys! I think the old Chevy engines you ask about are gone because Chevy kept improving their design, and made earlier stuff expendable. Why hang on to antiquated junk when there's a better "mousetrap" available? Flatheads are one of the best looking motors when decked out. But, 85HP, and 3 main bearings? 250HP for $12,000? I'm not feelin it. BUT, everyone's entitled to an opinion. If you think that's the best way to spend YOUR money, by all means, go for it.
With all do respect I think this statement misses the point a little. I think the new Flathead has the potential of combining the latest build technology in a package that is powerful and unique but still keeps the "Fordness" of a particular vehicle intact. I think this board is a testament to the fact that lots of people don't want an old car silohette (sp?) with a completely modern car underneath as is the case with many "street rods" When I jump in my old Ford I don't want it to feel like I'm driving a Camry. I like how it feels, sounds, and yes even smells. Leave the tweed interiors and easter egg colors for someone else. If we followed the logic of dropping the antiquated as soon as there is a better mousetrap we'd all be driving modern cars with all the amenities down to the coffee shop to slurp on latte's. Shoot Harley Davidson would be out of business long ago. People want to feel the pulses of those big jugs jumping up and down in their air cooled cylinders. I'm sure the Goldwing is an awesome bike but I doubt it gives the "visceral" feelings you get on the old fashioned 45 deg. air cooled Harley Vee Twin. Lot's of modern tech goes into Harleys for sure but they have brilliantly clung to the essence of what makes a Harley a Harley. This new Flathead parallels for old Fords what Harley has done for Vee twins. As hotrodders we all want plenty of action when we stomp on the go pedal. Our expectations are high. I mean frick'in minivans can haul**** now comparatively speaking. This will raise the bar undoubtedly for what a streetable Flathead is capable of. Price may be out of reach for some but lots of good will trickle down. If you check the engine parts section of the Shadow Rods website you will see the new intake manifold, cyl heads and bellhousing. All of these utilize modern tech to raise the potential of both these new Flatheads and the original engines since these parts interchange. If you go there look at the combustion chambers on the heads, especially the intake path. Looks pretty promising to me. I'm stoked about this obviously.
My comment addressed the other guy asking where all the old Chevy motors went. I, being a fan of the Bowtie will admit the early Chevys were worthless, and that's why I suspect they're pretty much gone. I see the flathead still has it's place today. But, I don't see that for the older Chevys. It's difficult at best to get thoughts into print on the computer(where's those damn little icons when ya need em?)
oh gee, I did it again. -I surely expected some will be offended but don't blame me for just being the bearer of bad news. Back in the Late 20's when Alfred P. Sloan (CEO of GM thru to the 30's) Personnely came up with the idea of and indeed invented the idea of "Planned Obsolescence, It made the industrial engineers steaming mad that they went to school to learn to build a better mousetrap and the Bosses (accountants and stock holders) at GM were telling them to make parts that had a shorter life span thru poorer quality materials and manufacture procedures in order to boost sales of new cars and parts for newer vehicles. The Society of Automobile Engineers, Or The SAE, In 1930 came to together at their annual meeting and discussed how to apply pressure on GM, as an educated group - in order to force GM to change it's profit driven and greedy ways. The GM Stockholders in the Late 20's could have cared less -As they do today about the consumer (You).. Today, some 80 years later the American Automobile is laughed at around the world as the poorest quality, most problem ridden industry in the World. Sorry to offend all those that seem to love the GM Stock holders but Planned Obsolescence was invented by GM. Not Ford. Miss leading - Lies in advertising have given GM much cloat while the rest of the industrial world laughs at all of the American auto industry and regards it as*****. ???It's little wonder that the Asian and European people think so little of the Dam intelligence of the North American people. - JMHO -In Europe as well as in Japan, at least the people can feel comfortable in purchasing a Honda all the while fully knowing that Honda really wants to build a fair quality and long lasting vehicle to compete against other "World Class" -similiar vehicles. In America, The auto industry is painted with a "all Vindicating" And Extremely broad brush . All the while people ignore history, ignore the facts and they don't even know why they love there Olds alero, even though it's known as a lemon but maybe next time you'll buy a Lumina ( from the Stockholders) . The American Auto industries downfall started when the CEO of GM invented the idea of planned obsolescence in 1926. -Not Ford. If people continually choose to fill the GM stockholders pockets with cash then I can't blame the rest of the world for thinking so poorly of the intelligence of the North American People. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Say, did you ever notice that every Single GM built truck that's left the factory since the late 1970's has Just > 1 < Single burned out front park light ->within 6 months<-? of leaving the GM Factory??? - Gee Willekerrs, Just Drive down any street and Watch all the GM trucks approach you ---> with just One and only one <--- burnt out front signal light. (???Never 2, just the 1 ) ) That ----->1<---- burnt out light has made GM billions of dollars over the last ~30 years. For one thing (->not<- 2) , the driver never sees the 1 burnt out front park light bulb while he is driving along..... ....But when you take your 6 month old GM in for it's First check up here's what usually happens... -The GM technician takes care of the bulb for you, gee thanks GM. -Then when you go to pick up your freshly checked over truck you are handed a bill that will include 1/2 hour of shop time (at about $120 per hour) plus the bulb is ~$10 bucks (not really, cost of manufacture of the bulb is about 7 cents but Goodwrench Service has a fair mark up on parts) -"Well wait a minute my very very very good-man, But please Excuse Me Mr Goodwrench you honest kinda guy because I've seen how good your "Lean on Me" commercials are...., But, Mr Good, -NO Mr Very Very VERY Extrememly Good Wrench. Isn't It under warranty??? Right?, My New Car Is only 6 month's old,and that dam Original Equipment General Motors Light Bulb bulb is covered"? "Right??" -"Nope, the warranty doesn't cover any single General Motors ~Or~ Goodwrench Maintenance Parts- like brake pads or bulbs etc., I am sure you understand......... please pay The Pre-Prescribed Amount of $69 at the Shinny Bright and Ultimately relaxing Full Service Goodwrench "we care about your front Park Lights" window -- Next" Do the math for ---> (For Just the front light bulb) Of just some of the 30 some odd years production of GM trucks X I million trucks a year X $69 per --->"After the fact Sale"<--- of unsuspecting con-sumers -Many of which the dealership has managed to con it's valued(?) customers out of $69 (For a front light bulb they could not see while driving down the road In Their Brand New Chebby Truck)(Oh gee, Just on this one part ( and in this case a really inexpensive 7 cent front park light bulb) Of the ~8000+ Plus Parts of a typical Truck Sold for the soul benefit of the Accountants and The Stockholders of THAT Company ) to replace the ONE bulb That GM -Itself- designed to fail in 6 months in order to create additional revenue ~some 6 months after the sale of the new vehicle-. That's ignorant. but so are the customers because they don't know that GM has tried to pull this one and only ->1<- tiny little trick on 30 years of customers on 30 years of production at 1 million trucks per year at 1/2 hours shop labour per customer ~On every single -->1<-- Of the `8000 or so Goodwrench Parts. Now that's some serious Stock Holder Profits and gee, the customer is happy because GM took care of them ->Personnely<-. Ahhh, life is great and it's good to Actually Know that GM Thinks so much about my safety that they fixed the burnt out park light for me, and what the hell, it's only $68... Now that's what I expect form Goodwrench service. ------------------------------------------------ For those that feel offended and/or don't read, research or know anything of Recent History, Then it is not my fault if you are insulted to read of industrial history here and have not actually read the history and/or care to ignore it or refuse to accept that GM and Planned obsolescence are one in the same. Our great Grandfathers knew of the term planned obsolescence in the 30's because of what it was doing to the manufacturing industry. Newer generations that actually believe that GM wants them to sell them a long lasting quality product are just ignorant to the fact that GM and it's stock holders have no interest in selling you a car that would ever last 80 years (like the 1/2 million Model A's that still run) because GM is out to make the stock holders rich by putting their hands in your wallet as often as they can. If those offended choose to ignore GM's rich history and/or can't read, you'll get no sympathy from those that can read. JMHO, but for those that are capable of researching things for themselves, they would do well to consult the Society of Automobile Engineers. The SAE's library includes the minutes of every meeting held since it's inception. Those minutes include the annual meetings of the late 20's and early 30's where they were disgusted by GM forcing their engineers to build and design profit driven things that break in such a way that it makes the customer think that it's not GM's fault. -I am not personnely insulted by being called ignorant on a forum But I myself am personnely insulted by the fact that GM believes That I, as an average American, are of such a low form of intelligence that I don't care to know the history of what they are up to. Now if you'll Please excuse me, It's time to go trim my Unibrow. and btw, I don't hate GM, But I Do despise their Business Morals which all started back in 1926 when the CEO of GM, Alfred P. Sloan -invented- the idea of Planned Obsolescence. -And All Of Which today relates to GM's GoodWrench Service trying to charge me $68 for a front park lamp lens that is working just -Exactly- the way that GM's Engineers designed it - -Which is to fail and be replaced at a good profit (for the stockholders of course) by a GM service Technician unbeknownst to the owner who didn't even know he had a burned out front park light. (sounds like the GM Planned Obsolescence system is working like clock work ((since 1926)))) [/COLOR][/SIZE] ??? But Still, -30 years of burnt front park lights on every truck and GM can't find that ONE Simple (maybe it'll cost 8 Cents?) light bulb that will last longer than 6 months???? Only a blind man Couldn't have noticed that the majority of GM trucks approaching them have ->JUST<- One (and only one) Burned Out Park Light. (so what other design flaws do the other 8000 parts have designed into them???) But still there will be those that are insulted here and those that will choose to not ever comfortably look at the front of any ~and every~ (79 to '09) GM truck approaching them ever, ever ever ever Ever again -on any street, in anytown in all of USA. The SAE complained about GM's practices in the late 20's and into the 30's. Do you Think GM cares more now then they did then? Well apparently not enough to find a bulb that didn't burn out within 6 months which is not covered by your new vehicle warranty. And irregardless of all that, History is wasted on all those who choose not to read and choose to ignore the facts that our forefathers actually had to live thru and deal with in Their day - No Wonder the rest of the industrialized world has such a low regard for the intelligence of the people of North America. -We're Stupid (jmho) . no apologies implied for insulted vehicle owners. I myself am more insulted by what the stockholders think of me as a consumer and what the rest of the world thinks of me as an American Consumer .
Ya, know, I've noticed this myself. I've seen sooo many late model Chevy and GMC pickups with only one parking light, I began wonderng if they came that way from the factory for some reason.
And just WTF does any of this rant have to do with the new Flathead. Take a chill pill, buy a Ford, relax, take a deep breath, it will be ok.
I have considerable early literature regarding the efforts made to improve the durability of early Ford Parts. By 1914 (The Year That Ford gave His workers a much Appreciated raise to $5 a day and a cut in hours to 8 X 5 days a week) Ford was extolling the virtues of no less than 14 different types of metal built into all the parts of a Model T to make things like Wheels, Fenders, Headlight Buckets, Axles, Gears and engines etc. More durable, thus requiring less maintenance. Early pictures of things like a Model T front Axle twisted 7 times (revolutions) are impressive for 1914. By the time the Model A rolled out there were no less than 40 job specific metals and the model A axle was capable of being twisted 14 times.... In 1914, Ford advised that all ford parts that suffered damage Not be heated to bend them straight do to the metallurgy of things like axles... As for the doubling of the wage of the day and the cut to 8 hours from 10, as well as the cut from 6 days to 5, That made GM stock holders and Executive Officers Outrageously Furious. -----GM responded with a slander campaign that still remains in place today. All the rumors of Henry Ford as a hater and a tyrant were founded in the GM factories way back then to help keep their (GM) workers from jumping the fence for twice the wage at Ford. -GM was not interested in doubling it's workers wages or cutting the 60 hour work week to 40. -And why would they be? The much inflated strike and riots at Ford in 1941 all started at GM's plant 4 several months before the problems with the union and riots at Ford. But no one ever talks about the severe beatings and riots and deaths at GM's plant several months before the union planned a spectacular news worthy attack at Ford solely designed to bring the eyes of the nation and the attention of the Government into play. It's interesting to note that the union was brought into GM because of the poor unsafe and dirty working conditions, low wages and 60 hour work week that their contemporaries at Ford had abolished. The rumors still paint the opposite picture which couldn't be further from the truth. Ford's Plants were Clean, Well Maintained, Equipped with the newest and best equipment and tools. The plants were designed for good lighting and decent air flow in the day. These are things that would eventually cost GM in the fact the the Union Broke GM first, and then went after Ford once they had the cloat of the poorly paid GM workers behind them. This all took place just mere months before America would became involved in WWII. The 1940's were a turbulent time for America, The Auto Industry and particularly for the Ailing Henry Ford (at 80). -in 1943, Henry was forced to resume the role of president of the company when son Edsel passed away from cancer. During the height of WWII, Henry was forced to grab the reins and take control of things like the massive construction of the willow run bomber plant. Out of Henry Fords Personnel $avings came a factory so large and so advanced that once it was up and running, it was able to build 14 Liberator Bombers a Day In support of the war Effort (without government or Allied Forces funds). The Willow Run Plant Alone Was 2.5 million square feet. - The grounds around Willow Run would need to have an airport and runway as well as hangers all worthy of such huge aircraft in Massive amounts of Numbers -at One Time . So Out of Henry Fords personnel savings account came even more addition cash (Generously and Patriotically in Support of USA and America's Freedom As well as The War Effort) to build the airport and grounds. It is said that if Henry Ford had not lived to the age of 80+, that such a task could not have been done (? out of his savings account?) in such a short time and the war would have been lost. without such humble patriotisms History States that It was the huge willow run facility that was built from Fords Personnel Fund (Family Cash Savings Account) that is said to have swung the war effort in favor of the allies. The experience of the engineers at Ford, as well as the many different job specific metals developed and manufactured many years earlier at Ford, made it happen. One interesting note about the 2.5 million sq ft willow run facility was that there was a huge turntable half way down the****embly line. The turntable would turn the Liberator bombers 90 degrees as the building was L shaped. The L shape of the facility was necessary in order to keep the plant from encroaching into the adjoining county were the county taxes were higher. In order for Ford to build the massive factory, Ford was forced to reallocate one of his farms and adjoining training facilities that at the time had benefited local youths. As far as Mark Kirby and the new Flathead goes, I wonder if there is a problem that has not been overcome yet. Something like stress cracking after run in or??? Kirby has certainly attempted to break his bank in bringing the aluminum block forward. Hell, just the original R&D to reverse engineer an original block was almost $50,000 . For that first $50k, all they got was a detailed description of what was or wasn't inside the block and recommendations on how to reproduce it. The additional cost of casting/forging and tooling is probably many times that. One of the things that makes an original flathead V8 what it is, is the 3 main bearings. Today 3 main bearings in a v8 seems inadequate but back then it proved to be more than adequate for the hp and torque of the day. In redesigning the V8, Kirby choose to upgrade a few performance short coming that were not originally required in the 40's 50's. jmho but in redesigning the block to address as many -now a day- short comings for added performance is probably what is keeping this thing from reaching the publics hands. I guess ~18 months of "we're close, it's coming soon" is not too long to wait. It just would've been nice to have had more updates instead of just "soon" but I'd imagine that with others in America working on new Flatheads, nobody is going to give up any secrets. -And what about the Flathead Jack's Block? Is it d.o.a.? or ?? Hat's go off to Kirby and crew for the foresight in commissioning a University to reverse engineer the block. Which is Something that Flathead Jack probably never thought of. Early bird gets the worm I guess. .
Awesome posts. More entertaining than informative, but fun to read. What does all that have to do with an engine that Ford didn't design, manufacture, or commission? I guess it's neat that there's another flathead option, but it's not any more a Ford engine than a "ShitBC."
Yeah, I don't think the original intent of this thread was to bash on small block chevys. Out of curiosity I was looking forward to reading "More on the new 339 flathead".
If you want to read more about the aluminum flathead blocks by Mark Kirby @ MCF, read these: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235617 http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234176 http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180278 http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=230763
Yes you're correct this is not a Ford engine. It is merely based on an original Ford design much like the French Flatheads or any of the myriad of aftermarket blocks or heads available for a large variety of modern V8's. I think Ford missed the boat a little here. I'm sure Chevy's crate engine program outsells Ford's by a good margin when speaking of early car installations. In fact the only engine design that even comes close to powering the number of old Ford's as the sbc is in fact the original Flathead V8. Sad, sad indeed if you're a Ford fan. I think Ford would have been well served if they reached out to help with this project. Not to steal the thunder but rather to express their desire in working in the hot rod market. In reality a project like this even if it was conceived by Ford or any other large company in Detroit would probably never be done inhouse anyway. I learned a little about this with a sbf oil pump project of my own. There is a tremendous amount of resources available nearby and it is simply a very economical way to do a "niche" project. If I remember correctly the port and combustion chamber designs of this engine had input from "Dr. Flow" a person who has done work for the "big three". (If I am wrong and misplaced credit for that please correct me and I'm sorry)
Re: "All the rumors of Henry Ford as a hater" No, not really. Examine his political life - you know, things like publishing "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion".
Although I may be in the minority, and certainly in disagreement with SCTA/BNI, I view the French flatheads as very much a Ford product, not aftermarket, whereas Kirby's Aluminum block is purely aftermarket. The French block is more evolutionary than revolutionary - refinements made along the way. I tend to agree with Bruce Lancaster that there was likely much cross-pollination with German flatheads post-war and it was definitely a production engine in a production vehicle (granted, they were military vehicles)... Kirby's block, on the other hand, shares virtually nothing with Henry's. With the exception of a few accessories, you might as well be looking at a Cadillac flathead. This isn't meant to take anything away from his endeavor, rather, to point out that he simply designed a new flathead-style engine... I think he'd sell a bunch more repro blocks than these things myself, but...
Gotgas wrote: I agree. As to where are all the old GM engines? Well I got two and they are running just fine thank you. The 57 Olds 371 J2*****s a lot of gas but still makes plenty of power and plenty of smiles, as does the '68 SBC. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Ernie I love ya but I have to disagree with this. I know Mark Kirby and did a good bit of business with him a long time ago (circa early 90's) when he was building engines. Kirby had this engine in his mind back then. He told me his goal was to bring out an engine that had all of the labor intensive modifications built into it. Absolutely this is related to Henry's Flathead, it was conceived and designed to be an outgrowth of the Ford Flathead . I mean the whole rotating****embly will interchange save for the 3.5" bore pistons. Camshafts will interchange too. Intake, exhaust, ignition, water pumps bellhousing, heads, oil pump and idler****y blah blah blah. I mean the whole profile and appearance is pure FORD Flathead. Funny you mention the Caddy flathead, if Kirby wanted to make it easier on himself he could have designed a Caddy style flathead with their topside exhaust ports. That's not what he did. Would have been much easier indeed. I mean I don't get what you mean.
I would be nice to read about a neat flathead engine without it turning into a sbc bashing session, the point about flatties being cool but pricey for the horsepower is certainly valid...and the '63 300hp 327 in my roadster is about 40 years behind on its planned obsolecence.
Haha! I love ya too! What I mean is it doesn't share a single Ford anything. That doesn't mean I don't like it, or I don't respect him for doing it - far from it. I think it's great someone like Kirby would develop an all new flathead. But that's what it is - all new. I stand by my statement that he'd sell more true repro blocks than these, but I hope these sell well enough he can justify making new repro blocks - most folks don't have the stones to do something like this - he does & good on him for it.
The Jalopy Journal
