Kaiser Frazer Owners Club Forum

General Category => Henry J & Allstate Forum => Topic started by: chrysleralmighty on February 09, 2016, 06:19:54 PM

Title: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 09, 2016, 06:19:54 PM
All--So, I picked up an L-head 6 out of a Henry J to rebuild and replace my stock 4-banger in my '52 J. Just heard from the machine shop and they said that they can't find cam bearings or rod bearings for these 6-cylinders and that nobody really rebuilds them.

Does that sound crazy to you guys? They also said that they didn't think the 6 would "bolt right in" to an original 4-banger car. That also sounds off to me, since the 6 came out of another '52 J.

Love some advice from you guys. This shop tells me that they can rebuild my original 4 to be a hotter motor than the 6, too. Ideas?

Thanks guys!
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: njpatera on February 09, 2016, 07:15:32 PM
http://www.kaiserwillys.com/product/772/willys-jeep-engine-camshaft-bearings-parts-accessories
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Quadromaniac on February 09, 2016, 07:18:19 PM
I changed my 4 to a 6 a couple of years ago. You will need the front motor mount towers as they are not the same. Other than that it will go right in.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Fid on February 09, 2016, 07:28:03 PM
You need to replace the front motor mount towers, the throttle linkage, the front exhaust pipe (from the manifold to the muffler) and possibly the rear end. Been there, done it many times.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: darrin145 on February 10, 2016, 08:46:07 AM
All--So, I picked up an L-head 6 out of a Henry J to rebuild and replace my stock 4-banger in my '52 J. Just heard from the machine shop and they said that they can't find cam bearings or rod bearings for these 6-cylinders and that nobody really rebuilds them.

Does that sound crazy to you guys? They also said that they didn't think the 6 would "bolt right in" to an original 4-banger car. That also sounds off to me, since the 6 came out of another '52 J.

Love some advice from you guys. This shop tells me that they can rebuild my original 4 to be a hotter motor than the 6, too. Ideas?

Thanks guys!


Seems to me it might be time to find a new machine shop!
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Corsairdeluxe on February 10, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
RUN, don't walk.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Corsairdeluxe on February 10, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
I do not recommend hopping up the 4 cyl. It has earned its place in history and deserves a restful retirement. It was modified a lot in Australia after the war. A lot of G.I. stuff was left there and the jeep engine powered became a "class" of race car. I include some of the equipment used. I doubt you could find any of it today.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Corsairdeluxe on February 10, 2016, 02:34:36 PM
The parts you need are only a few miles from the "rebuilder".Cam and rod bearings are the same on F and L head engines.This particular parts supplier is one of the oldest and most knowledgeable in the business and does not do a quick look at a computer screen by an at risk youth to research parts.

https://egge.com/product/kits.php?action=Search+MMY&kit_make=WILLYS&kit_model=AERO+ACE&kit_year=&kit_engine=161+CID
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Corsairdeluxe on February 10, 2016, 02:42:56 PM
Fid points it out. Most folks do not realize the the front motor mount towers are different and most people pulling the engines do not save the towers.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 11, 2016, 11:11:19 AM
The one thing these guys told me that now makes sense is the motor mount towers necessary for the 6. And that Egge kit looks like exactly what I'd need, except for not including the timing gear! I need to keep digging...
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Fid on February 11, 2016, 11:28:41 AM
Quote
Fid points it out. Most folks do not realize the the front motor mount towers are different and most people pulling the engines do not save the towers

Also, they bolt into a different set of holes the cross member. Those holes should be present already but are often filled with mud/grease/etc.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Terry T on February 11, 2016, 11:41:04 AM
If you want a better performer, install a 161 F-head.
I replaced the L-head with an F-head and the driving experience is immediately noticeable.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 11, 2016, 08:46:46 PM
Quote
Fid points it out. Most folks do not realize the the front motor mount towers are different and most people pulling the engines do not save the towers

Also, they bolt into a different set of holes the cross member. Those holes should be present already but are often filled with mud/grease/etc.

I noticed those holes in the crossmember when I cleaned up and painted the engine bay--I thought those were the only things I needed before I heard about those towers...
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Corsairdeluxe on February 11, 2016, 10:07:48 PM
I do not know how to get up with this guy. He's in SoCal and probably has waht you need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5vKwdjoXk
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: BigDave LM6174 on February 12, 2016, 01:02:50 AM
I am in Los Angeles area, let me know if I can help in anyway tracking this guy down in the video.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Fid on February 12, 2016, 10:58:34 PM
Here you go - a ways a way but it may help you find some of the parts. I see an overdrive relay in the pics so it has an overdrive transmission.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-keiser-henry-j-6-cylinder-engine-and-transmission-/222022721466?hash=item33b195dfba:g:SqoAAOSwPc9WvqSm&vxp=mtr
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 15, 2016, 10:54:55 PM
LOVE that '51 in the video! OK, so after lots of teeth-gnashing and fist-wringing, I'm gonna rebuild the car's original 4-banger. The shop says they've got a hot cam for it and I'm looking for some of those rare speed parts (head, 2x2 intake) and I'm gonna find out if that header that Clifford sells will work on it. Plus, it'll be a little cheaper and it'll bolt right back in. Which is always a plus...
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Corsairdeluxe on February 16, 2016, 11:22:20 AM
Having sent one 4 banger to Beaulaland with a rod through the pan,I look forward to hearing of your adventure. You should read the following with concentration.

Undersquare or long-stroke engine[edit]
An engine is described as undersquare or long-stroke if its cylinders have a smaller bore (width, diameter) than its stroke (length of piston travel) - giving a ratio value of less than 1:1.

At a given engine speed, a longer stroke increases engine friction (since the piston travels a greater distance per stroke) and increases stress on the crankshaft (due to the higher peak piston speed). The smaller bore also reduces the area available for valves in the cylinder head, requiring them to be smaller or fewer in number. Because these factors favor lower engine speeds, undersquare engines are most often tuned to develop peak torque at relatively low speeds.

An undersquare engine will typically be more compact in the directions perpendicular to piston travel but larger in the direction parallel to piston travel.


No matter what the shop builds or bolts on ,your biggest enemy is the amount of reciprocating mass and distance of travel in that engine.With increasing rpm the reciprocating forces increase exponentially.It will
"shake" itself to death at higher speeds.It was designed and introduced in1929 to get maximum torque at low speed. I love the Henry j in every aspect including it's engines. I've owned 11 of them. Quite frankly,the exercise you propose is putting make up on a pig. I look forward to following the romance
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 18, 2016, 01:56:56 AM
Do you need a 4 or 6 aluminum head ?? I called a speed shop today...

I hope they may have one...

Cheers..

Hey, Jake--I need the 4-cylinder one, since that's what's going in the car. But I have the 161/6-cylinder, too, so if he has one of those, I'd take it just to have!
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 18, 2016, 02:00:36 AM
Having sent one 4 banger to Beaulaland with a rod through the pan,I look forward to hearing of your adventure. You should read the following with concentration.

Undersquare or long-stroke engine[edit]
An engine is described as undersquare or long-stroke if its cylinders have a smaller bore (width, diameter) than its stroke (length of piston travel) - giving a ratio value of less than 1:1.

At a given engine speed, a longer stroke increases engine friction (since the piston travels a greater distance per stroke) and increases stress on the crankshaft (due to the higher peak piston speed). The smaller bore also reduces the area available for valves in the cylinder head, requiring them to be smaller or fewer in number. Because these factors favor lower engine speeds, undersquare engines are most often tuned to develop peak torque at relatively low speeds.

An undersquare engine will typically be more compact in the directions perpendicular to piston travel but larger in the direction parallel to piston travel.


No matter what the shop builds or bolts on ,your biggest enemy is the amount of reciprocating mass and distance of travel in that engine.With increasing rpm the reciprocating forces increase exponentially.It will
"shake" itself to death at higher speeds.It was designed and introduced in1929 to get maximum torque at low speed. I love the Henry j in every aspect including it's engines. I've owned 11 of them. Quite frankly,the exercise you propose is putting make up on a pig. I look forward to following the romance

That's great intel, C-D! And I'll be posting more on this as I collect parts and get further with the machine shop...
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: MarkH on February 18, 2016, 06:17:35 PM
It would be interesting to know if the racers in Australia also monkeyed with gearing for increased speed or built engines for increased rpm's instead of torque and expect to regularly lose them mid-race.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: retired wrench on February 23, 2016, 08:35:56 PM
 


    Y ou are making one large mistake. I have messed around with these engines for many years and they are by no means a hot rod. You are dealing with some guys that dont know what they are talking about. As stated above a long stroke engine is made for torque not speed. Hate to see anyone spend a lot of money building a bomb.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: chrysleralmighty on February 24, 2016, 01:48:35 AM
No, my goal isn't to build a hot rod (I already have one of those--'27 T coupe w/a 392 Hemi), but just to warm up the original 4-banger a little bit and make it unique. Something cool to look at when you open the hood, too. Other than that, the car will stay the same.

I am curious, though: does it make any sense at all to run an O/D transmission from a 161 (and rear) with the 134? Any gains there for highway driving? And does the O/D even bolt-up directly to the 134? Love to hear your thoughts on this...
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Fid on February 24, 2016, 09:29:20 AM
Good questions. Both the 4 cyl and 6 cyl Henry J used the same overdrive transmission, the Borg-Warner T96. They both used the same rear end ratio for the OD cars - the 41/9.
Adding overdrive is a huge plus. It reduces engine RPM and vibration and it does allow  you to cruise at higher speeds.
I have to concur that building out a 4 cylinder for performance in a passenger car does not make sense. I've seen many of them, usually those without overdrive, throw rods. Adding extra HP to one will just make it blow up even harder.
If you're doing it for looks or conversation it won't matter but if the goal is get more power then the likely result will be that it throws a rod out sooner.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Ken_Parkman on February 27, 2016, 09:00:04 AM
If you are looking at hop ups convert either the 4 or the 6 to F heads. Going on hearsay but I believe back in the day Willys even had a kit to convert the 4 to an F.

On the 4 they went from 63 to 72/75 hp, and the 161 went from 75 to 90 hp. For some reason Kaiser rated their versions of the engines a little higher in power, 5 more hp each; dunno if they changed something or not. Willys was supposed to be very conservative rating their engines, so maybe Kaiser just used a better number.

Another tidbit is the 161 lived on in Brazil after Kaiser closed up car production in North America. Supposedly it got another 1/2" stroke to 184 inches; rated at 140 hp. That would be pretty "hot" in a J, and sort of stock related.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: njpatera on February 27, 2016, 02:26:18 PM
I was recently researching a related topic regarding 51-55  161 F-heads. I guess more so for knowledge sake....Anyway, I saw a note from Kaiser Bill that there was a high and a low compression head made. Lower compression yielded the 75 hp and the higher compression yielded the 90 hp. I called a few shops in the area that have worked on some f-heads and got conflicting info. One said the L-head put out the 75hp and the F-head was always 90hp... no confirmation though on a higher compression and low compression head...
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Ken_Parkman on February 27, 2016, 11:07:43 PM
I have a copy of an early Willys manual, and it shows the 161 L-6 at 75 hp and  6.9 compression, while the F-6 was 90 hp and 7.6 compression. Maybe the Kaiser L-head was a little higher compression explaining the 80 hp rating in a Kaiser? I've got one document saying the Kaiser version was 7.0 compression, but that is a very small change and would not account for 5 hp. More likely they simply put a not so conservative number on it. I can say you could not get 15 hp from compression, that's a big percentage.

The F-4 did have different compression ratios, 6.9, 7.4, and 7.8, with powers of 72 or 75.
Title: Re: 161/6-cyl. vs. 4-cyl.?
Post by: Aeroman on March 01, 2016, 02:10:39 PM
On the Willys F-head six, there was a high altitude head available. Same with the L-head six. They were painted different colors by the factory, don't have access to that info right now (I'm at lunch at work). If I remember when I get home, I'll post the colors.  Do not know if the high altitude head was available for HJ six. Don't know about the L-head 4 - it was not available in the Aero. Can't remember the F-head 4 (that was available for exported Aeros) - will have to look that up, too.