Why Wasn't the 226 6 ever bored out?

[Roadmaster49]

Why wasn't the 226 6 cylinder engine ever bored out to produce more torque and horsepower?

One of the reasons KF and other independents went out of business was the horsepower race and the modern high compression V8. While the 226 6 remained a decent powertrain, there was some cache' in just increasing engine size from year to year. 

I understand they supercharged it in 1954, but I wonder what the effect of a 255 or 265 cubic inch motor might have done. Buick had a 248 cid and a 263 cid straight 8.   Even Pontiac's 6 was 236 cid.  For a premium offering such as a Manhattan, it would have made sense to me to "seperate" from a Kaiser Special by having a larger displacement motor.

Could have been done with extremely minimal cost (bigger pistons).  Just curious why in 9 years they enver increased the displacement from 226.

[stroker70]

Don't know about back in the day but my 226 has 1/8 inch overbore (the way I got it) 3-7/16 bore 

[dpledger]

Seem to recall that the inter cooling between  the 226 cylinders is somewhat marginal, one of the reasons cooling problems are not uncommon. Also seem to recall that one interface is particularly bad, like 4-5. Appeared as tho any further  reduction in space would have been problematic.

[kaiserfrazerlibrary]

The factory did not advise boring out more than .060".  The amount of horsepower would be marginal (less than 5 bhp) and the risk of vapor lock due to engine heat would increase (the bit about cooling of the cylinders in the block is correct).  Kaiser-Frazer Experimental Engineering tried a 248 cubic inch version of the existing motor and results did not merit considering it for production.

It should be noted that in 1953, there was a serious effort to get an aluminum head for the 226 (with higher compression possibilities that would produce more horsepower) as a production option.  I have a copy of the Inter-Company Memo that went so far as to suggest dealer and retail prices for the upgrade compared to the standard engine.

[kenneth]

Hi let`s face it an overbore would not have done it,lower end too weak and it`s still a flathead,everybody was going for OHV engines too bad they did not get V8 from one of the 3 bigones!

[kaiserfrazerlibrary]

Kaiser Frazer poured a couple hundred thousand dollars into a V-8 between 1948 and 1950; as it turned out the basic design concept did not work (the lead engineers took their work to Nash Motors when they left K-F; in their paper to the SAE they explained they lost years of R&D work trying to get the concept to work).  Had the Korean War not happened, 1952 and later model year Kaisers would have Oldsmobile supplied V-8 engines (a de-tuned version of the Rocket 88) coupled with a required Hydra-Matic transmission.  Olds could not expand the Lansing MI engine plant  to cover needs of themselves, K-F and a couple other potential major customers outside the GM family. 

As it turned out, having overhead valves and a V-8 did not necessarily make a difference; look at Studebake and Packard.  Also, remember that Hudson dominated the stock car tracks with their flathead 6 that had the same parts in it that anyone could order from a Hudson dealer (granted, some were special service type category).

[HJ-ETEX]

There is one and may be more Continental 6s that appear to be the same basic block dimensions as the 226 with more displacement. It would have made sense if the Frazer had a bigger displacement version of the 226.
BUT...the auto engineers across the industry viewed the future as engines with 12:1 or even higher compression ratios. And that wasn't going to happen with flathead engines. Packard may have had the highest CR on a flathead with a 4bbl straight 8 in 1954, but the car companies had realized when the 49 Cadillac & Olds V8s were introduced that they had to develop OHV engines.

[HJ-ETEX]

And one thing that is not mentioned about the high CR OHV vision was that it didn't include larger displacements. Studebaker expected 15:1 CR so they didn't plan the engine to get much bigger than 260 cubic inches. When the higher CR didn't show as fast as expected, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac and Olds had to revise their V8s for 1957 with taller engine blocks to allow bigger displacement for more power. Chevy and Ford both developed bigger engine families (W block and FE series) for 1958 rather than expand what they had. The AMC V8 that was previously developed at Kaiser, ended at 327 c.i. while the Studebaker stopped (for all practical purposes) at 289 c.i. Both the AMC and Studebaker cars were smaller than the Big 3 cars so they could rationalize not equaling those in a displacement race. In the case of Kaiser, if they had found the money to finish development and bring their own V8 to production, by 1956 they would have found they needed to spend a substantial amount more to expand that engine to keep it competitive. 
So Kaiser was backed into a corner. It didn't seem prudent to spend much development money on the 226. If they could have bought a V8, it would have always been the supplier's last year model. If they had produced their own V8 for 1952, it might have extended the car line into 1956 or 57.

[HJ-ETEX]

And why didn't the increase in Compression Ratio come? I have seen several explanations. The amount of tetraethyllead needed to boost the octane rating of gas would have been too costly OR a new additive would have been required. And the pump price was a real consideration. In the late 50s, the price difference per gallon between regular (8:1 CR) and Premium/super octane gas (10:1 CR) was about 6 cents per gallon with a gallon of regular going for around 32 cents - quite a substantial bump. This was such an importance to the buying public that between 1959 and 1962 Pontiac and Olds offered Regular and Premium gas versions of all their engines except their highest performance units.

[Jim B PEI]

Actually, it was bored out a bit--sort of, but not really by Kaiser.

There was a slightly larger engine I seem to recall that ended up in a one-off, and wasn't there a picture of it in "The Last Onslaught on Detroit"? I've lent my copy so can't check, something like 244 or 248 cid and some other modifications, so that it was in the range of 130-140 hp??  Like the supercharged 54-55 engine without the supercharger. Which begs the question--what would have THAT engine put out with a supercharger? Perhaps enough to keep them competitive a year or maybe two longer but again, not worth the expense if there was no game changing V8

Mind you, Massey/Massey-Ferguson used Continental engines, 4 and 6 cyl, in their tractors, and I was offered a good strong near new engine from a friend, and it was either 248 or 244 cid--whatever the size, I think it was the other size from the Kaiser one-off--although it might have been where the Kaiser engineers got their basic block or idea. I eventually determined it wouldn't work in the 49 even though it looked identical, because the crank end was quite different. Shame, because with a Kaiser head and a better carb than my Special, it would have had more than 100 hp. There wasn't a problem with overheating with this engine, but then again, it all depended how they were used. The problems with the Continental design became quite apparent if used as a car engine and run above 3500 rpm--I'm guessing here at the RPM, but somewhere above 3000 under load it would run hot. Used in tractors and stationary engines with perhaps some sort of governor on the rpm, or run at their optimum speed which I think was somewhere like 2800 RPM, they lasted very well.

About the pump price, the spread in the early 50s works out to nearly 20%!  Americans are (very foolishly IMHO) staying away from diesels today with a percentage spread in the US around half that. Due to a different taxation model in Canada--we don't have those extra 'punitive' taxes on diesel like the US has, and we don't have the strange monomaniacal fixation on ethanol to the extent the US has either, regular and diesel are usually close, sometimes the same, or diesel somewhat higher in the cooler months (ie heating oil demand), but the difference is usually no more than about 4% either way, with premium almost aways a bit higher than diesel. Maybe 6% more than regular gasoline. Today's prices for reg-mid-prem-diesel are 121.7-125.4-128.9-126.5 per litre for example, and that is right on the mark.

I can understand why premium was such a hard sell in the early 50s--that was a huge extra cost for a perceived lesser gain, when all you had to do was "get a V8". "An 8 would be stronger than a 6" which wasn't always the case, which is why even when incorrect, Ford sold so many flathead 8s that had less hp than many competitor's 6 cylinders, but perception is all.  Recently, we have begun realising that a V6 can be better than a V8 (Ford F150 sales) that a 4 might be better than a V6 (Buick etc) and that a 3 might be better than a 4, (nothing here yet, but amply proved by VW, Ford etc in Europe and elsewhere)at doing what it is supposed to do--under the right conditions

[kaiserfrazerlibrary]

The 244 cu in 6 was in fact an experimental OHV version.  They found that there was a drop in fuel economy and not much of an increase in horsepower.  The idea of an OHV was revisited at Willys Motors in the late 1950's which resulted in the 230 cu in Tornado that also had an overhead cam.  Lots of teething troubles and issues during early production gave the thing a bad reputation.  It was finally worked out but by then the decision was made to try a different tact and the company bought engines from AMC or old tooling from GM.

[HJ-ETEX]

A few more thoughts about higher compression ratios:
The first efforts by the US EPA in relation to auto manufacturers exposed the problems/stupidity/incompetency of bureaucracy. They told the car companies to lean out the fuel mixture which caused an increase in combustion temperatures (and poor driveablity - as if the EPA was concerned about that) and an increase in nitrogen oxides. About that time, it was realized that smog had a heavy component of nitrogen oxides so the EPA had to back pedal and stop emphasizing lean mixtures and force air pumps and catalysts as their preferred solution.
Well, higher compression ratios also result in higher combustion temperatures so in the interest keeping nitrogen oxide emissions down, compression ratios also have to kept down.

[HJ-ETEX]

And a further thought about buying engines from an outside supplier that Jim B PEI which can relate. Studebaker shut down car production at South Bend in the 1st week of December 1963. The foundry and engine assembly lines stayed in operation through June 1964 so the cars assembled in Hamilton Ontario had Stude engines. For the 1965 cars, Studebaker bought McKinnion (a GM Canadian subsidiary) engines, not Chevy engines. These were 194 & 230 sixs and a 283 V8 that were pretty much basic tune engines as found in 1964 US Chevys: 1bbl carbs for the sixs and a 2 bbl on the V8. Just adding a 4bbl to the 283 (220hp) would have made the 65 Studes into tigers - imagine what the base Chevy 327 (250 hp) could have done. But McKinnion didn't offer such things.
And that illustrates the problem about buying engines from another company. You don't get the latest version and you may only get the basic version of last year's engine.

[Jim B PEI]

I really enjoy the excellent commentary and information on this forum!  I had thought that the Kaiser experimental engine was an OHV but wasn't sure. About the McKinnon engines (drove past the plant in St Catharines ON many times) Studebaker just wasn't interested any more in building cars. it must have caused quite a bit of consternation in senior management to realize that, like the storyline in "The Producers" that the Canadian plant would have made a profit unless they took even more drastic steps to ensure defeat and failure. (Even, as revealed in the Lamberti papers, cancelling the 185 OHV six before the move to Canada--the 185 OHV being a very cheap solution to the chronically underpowered 170, and they already had the block and crank ready to use.) Kinnon engined Studes would have been a lot more salable--especially if there were a few faster lighter Hawks and Lark hardtop and convertibles on hand. I know of several 65 and 66 Studebakers that have been upgraded to 283 with 4 bbl, or even slightly larger displacement while maintaining the Studebaker stock block look, and driven carefully, they do get even better mileage than the stock 283 while having more power on tap. Such a simple change--but not interested; just going through the contractual motions.

About the EPA, they were embarrassed to discover a few years ago that their entire methodology and "given facts" about diesel pollution problems was suspect. The hypothesis was that the large carbon soot particles of diesels was responsible for about 75% of the low level air quality problems traceable in urban areas to airborne particles from IC engines--when they were less than 25% of the IC mix (if you include locomotives and heating oil in this mix as well). As the diesel soot particles were also known to be carcinogenic, this was seen as a major problem with diesels. They had been working on this assumption based on lab testing standards, but they finally got around to doing real world testing in urban areas a few years ago, a quite different result was obtained. The percentage was only in the 20-25% range
- that the diesel soot was a very low percentage was a vexing question, and further testing showed that the larger heavier Idiesel soot particles washed out with the rain and biodegraded very quickly under sunshine and moisture into carbon, and got absorbed into green plants once they were imbedded in soil where bacteria could work on them.
-the largest proportion of particles was from gasoline engines, but as the particles were much smaller, they aren't visible out of the tailpipe like diesel exhaust, and because they were lighter, stayed in the air much longer.
All of a sudden, like the whole asbestos story repeated, its the small particles not the larger visible ones, that cause the real damage. I immediately though about the worldwide continuing growth of asthma especially in congested areas, even with increasingly strict pollution laws.

About the diesel smoke, switching to biodiesel reduces it sharply as there are fewer excess carbon atoms than in crude oil based diesel. As well, Mazda has recently shown that they can maintain the diesel's advantages without many of the drawbacks just by lowering compression to about 13.5:1 in their SkyActiv-D engines so that NOX production drops off sharply. Mazda engineers now think that getting their European cars to be compliant with upcoming tougher Euro 6 levels will be much cheaper, easier (and more reliable) with cheaper to build engines than the current tech to reach current Euro 5!