Kaiser Frazer Owners Club Forum
General Category => Modified Kaiser-Frazer & Willys Cars => Topic started by: traveler on August 05, 2007, 09:08:06 AM
-
I would like to correspond with any owners who have installed Chev V-8 or other motors into their 51-55 Kaisers - you can email me direct at "traveler@netrover.com".
-
I think that this is going to be a more and more popular topic in the future as many of us want our KF cars to be more roadable and dependable. Many KF products have been sucessfully converted to more powerful engines with air conditioning added and they can look absolutely stock from the outside. I recently attended a Southern CA Chapter function and there were about twenty members that were there but only about three Kaiser Frazer products. Our chapter like most covers a large geographical area and members are reluctant to drive their cars in heavy traffic over long distances. A breakdown could spell disaster as no parts are available unless you bring a stock of them yourself. This seems to be a trend in not bringing your KF to a meet and it seems a shame that we can not see more of our great cars at club functions. The Chicago National meet had more trailers in the parking lot than I have ever seen before at a National. What will the future be like for our chapter meets? I think that we are just going to see more and more of the same! A good solution is to update our cars and make them more dependable and fun to drive long distances. This was a great topic and I am sure that there are many of us that are curious about the costs and the "how to's" of these engine conversions. Any experiences and ideas that any of you that have "been there and done that" could share would be greatly appreciated and welcomed by many members. Gordie
-
Gordie - Thank you for your comments - Very well said. I have put different engines into Kaisers over the years - one of the easiest conversions years ago was the 49-53 Ford/Mercury flat head - I have also done several Chev V-8 conversions using the 283-327 - and for that I used the front mount assembly off a 1957 Corvette with a custom fabricated rear mount using the existing Kaiser Transmission rear crossmember. This is a very easy conversion - the front engine mount hangs on the waterpump mounting bolts and uses all chev components including the mounts and the mount support stanchions - even Chevy exhaust manifolds can used - While these parts were almost impossible to find for a few years, they are now being reproduced and are again readily available as an aftermarket item. The one big drawback however is the fact that for the engine to sit right, you have to heat and bend the centerlink and lower it enough to clear oil pan, unless you modify the oil pan, both of which I want to avoid. My reason for the post was to see if anyone has come up with a better system that does not necessitate this - hopefully one of the rack and pinion set-ups now so popular. I have a couple of sets of the Studebaker to Chev V-8 mounts that I am experimenting with as the frames are somewhat similar, but I would like to avoid the steering problem if at all possible, and not yet sure if the Stude Mount will permit that. Kaiser Bill has done a frame clip on one of his cars - it is nicely explained on his website, and that is a great way to go as it gives you modern braking as well - but I would like to come with a conversion that is less complicated and uses the Kaiser Frame - one that perhaps a kit could be designed for making it a job that most owners could accomplish without owning a machine/welding shop, or having to try and locate someone proficient enough to do this correctly. My whole purpose in this is to keep the car looking original from the outward appearance, yet give it reliability for long trips at highway speed and be simple enough that most owners could do the job themselves. Every one speaks of the reliability of the Kaiser 6 Cyl. motors, so either no one wants to admit it, or I am an anominally, but I have had no success with them at all - and I am speaking long term here as I have owned kaisers for over 50 years and even with the best of maintenance I have NEVER had a motor that was any good for any period of time - and I am not hard on my vehicles (2 of the current vehicles I am driving (both GM) have over 300,000 on them and not using any oil yet so I must be doing something right) - thus my interest in the conversions.
As an aside, I have put a lot of miles on a 53 Manhattan sedan with this Chev. conversion using the stock Kaiser rear end, suspension and brakes, and never encountered a problem - I used a set of 57 Chrysler 14" rims on the car with the appropriate sized tires, and it both rode and handled well. Even braking was never a problem. I have never experienced a rear-end failure or even a rear wheel bearing problem on any of the cars, so I am satisfied that those components are solid.
Also, as an aside on the Kaiser 6 - I have a nice 54 that I would like to keep original, but it also suffers from that annoying bottom end "tick" that is the harbinger of a crank failure, and in that vein, I recently had a conversation with a chap in Toronto Ontario who specializes in overhauling engines - particularly older stuff. He was somewhat familiar with the Kaiser engine, and his feeling was that the oiling system is lacking. This is originally an industrial designed engine that was subsequently converted for automotive use,and the oiling system was not properly addressed for the stresses that automtive use places on the design. The addition of one more main bearing would probably have solved the problem and made this a very reliable engine, but that was not undertaken. He felt that the system could be sucessfully modified and the crankshaft strengthened through the welding process so that reliability could be gotten out of the engine, but the cost is prohibitive unless you are wanting a totally original car and money is not an object. I am not into 100 point restorations - I just happen to like 51-55 Kaisers style, ever since I drove my first one at age 16, and the reason I still have 4 of them, and I just want a nice reliable driver.
Tom
-
Interesting topic considering all of the recent negative hype over judging of "modified's" at KF meets. I'm a proponent of "resto-rods" because of the advantages when traveling/driving our vehicles to meets or pleasure. A special class for modifieds seems more and more warranted and logical. 8)
-
Well, I have no arguement or axe to grind with the purists - it's just that in my own case, I like to drive the cars and I want them dependable, and the old 6 is not dependable - at least it never has been for me. I am not concerned about a 100 point car - mine are not trailer queens - I want them to do what they were intended to do. If I had unlimited funds available to me, I would have a 100 point car - but I do not and I want to enjoy the cars so for me, having a good dependable driver is more important. Quite frankly, I don't care what anyone else thinks. They are my cars, and I will set them up any way I want.
That aside, I recently made contact with a fellow near here who does all sorts of custom frame work, even to the point of building custom frames for one-offs. He came over and looked the Kaiser Frame over and also the Camaro clip that I have here for it - After we had carefully assessed the posibilty of using a clip, it became readily apparent that this was not going to be a real easy task to accomplish as the two frames are not even close to being compatible. He suggested just modifying the existing Kaiser frame by removing the front crossmember and then putting a custom made Mustang II crossmember/suspension/steering into it - much easier and cheaper than using the clip. He had me over to his shop to show me how the mustang set-up works, as he currently has 3 cars in there undergoing this procedure. It makes a real nice installation that looks like it was factory engineered. He builds them right in the shop so they are built to work with whatever frame you supply. Either Ford or Chevy disk brake rotors can be used, and the new style rack and pinon steering is a definite plus. It also opens up the engine compartment so that almost any motor could be used -
I will probably go that route for the 53 Coupe I have - and will make a photo journal of it as it progresses so that anyone interested can take a look at the results. Due to the backlog of work at the shop, it is tenatively scheduled for March of 2008.
Tom
-
The best conversion that I've seen done was putting the Kaiser body on a Caprice chasis. It fits with slight modification. A man by the name of Lee Pearcy in in So. Cal region did it.
-
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=272171&highlight=kaiser
I think this is what your talking about
-
Hi interesting topic,personally I would like a swap to a "modern" inline six.The problem with the oilpan clearing the steering using a chev v8 I am pretty sure it could be solved by using the correct oilpan/pump there are many different pans for the chev.SB as for judging there should be two classes strictly original and modified. ;D
-
The club has long had a modified class.
-
As a newcomer I have several simple questions - for reliability are we talking about the 6-226 motor? I thought that was in Checker taxis as well, which suggested to me some degree of durability.
Also what paint is currently available that comes close to the original color?
Thanks for the help.
-
Properly tuned, a KF 226 should deliver at least 100,000 miles of reliable running. KF engines had trouble with oil pressure due to how the pumps were made. Since many owners didn't change their oil as often as they should, and the pumps tended to wear causing a low pressure condition, alot of engines met an early demise.
As for colors, KF painted their 226 engines 4 different colors between 1947 and 55. The early engines were grey, then in 1949 the 2bbl carburetor equipped cars got a mint green engine. In 1951, they went to a darker green that is close to John Deere green (but not quite the same). Finally in 1954 the supercharged cars got a maroon color for their engines.
Willys cars and trucks used silver for most years for their 226 equipped vehicles.
-
Hello
This is a very interesting topic. I would like to know if anyone has measured out a Kaiser frame and compared it to a truck chassis? I would think that a truck chassis would be simpler to modify.
Roger
-
Take a look at Kaiserbill.com He has been using S-10 Blazer frame pieces I believe to weld into Kaiser Frames
-
I was thinking that an AMC 6 would make a nice swap, has anyone ever done or seen this conversion?
-
I was wondering about using an olds 324, as it used the same transmission.While not a "modern" V-8, it certainly was reliable.
-
Barnum: I too thought an early Olds V8 would be an easy swap into a 51-55 Kaiser. Well...there was such a car at the KF National in Oshkosh. The steering has to be moved and the drivers side exhaust manifold still has to be modified. I was disappointed.
-
boothguy: A AMC 6 is certainly an interesting possibility for a swap in a 51-55 Kaiser. What most people miss is that the oil filter on the post 1965 AMC 6s is in the middle of the block. Chevy, Ford 6s have the oil filter at the front of the block which precludes designing simple & easy engine mount brackets.
I don't believe in remote oil filter adapters because I believe they are GOOD possibilities for failure.
-
Well, any conversion will require modifications. There is a video on youtube that claims Kaiser made a deal with GM to put Olds V-8's in 54/55 Kaisers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwVUeQvzbqU If I did it...I'd also use the supercharger
-
I need to find out the length of the AMC 6, It might be too long since it has 7 main bearings- also dont know if it has rear sump.
-
KF was going to use Reo engines in their 51-5 cars but that deal fizzled so they also looked at the 265 V8 that GM was developing. KF also worked on a V8 of their own but beyond one or two running test engines, the project never bore fruit.
A former member had an Olds 303 in his 49 Virginian and the installation was relatively clean. I've seen a Mopar 318 and a 225 slant 6 in Kaisers as well as a Chev 250 6cyl in a HJ. I've also seen a Pontiac straight 8 in a 48K. To make it fit, the firewall was slightly modified.
-
Boothguy:
Of course the later series of AMC 6 is too long. A casual measurement on the engines in my 71 Hornet and 73 Commando show it is 33 inches from the mounting face for the bellhousing to the pulley flange on the water pump (3 inches longer than a 226). This is essentially the same as the Chevy 230-250-292 and the Ford 240-300. This isn't all due to the 7 main bearings, though. These 6s are based on modern V8 cylinder large bore/short stroke dimensions so they tend to be 2 cylinders longer than a V8. If you want something shorter, there is the MOPAR slant6 and the 170-200-250 Ford 6 (both about 30 inches, but with features that make them less than desirable). But if you can figure how to make up the extra 3 inches, which will have to be from the radiator yoke forward, without being crude, the AMC could be a nice swap.
BTW, both AMCs I have have rear oil sumps. The water pump outlet is on left (driver's side) unlike the majority of other favorite engines.
-
I'm a ford inline 6 guy with 4 econolines pickup/vans in my yard. My pickup has a stock 250 inline 6 in it I really like. I have a 300 EFI inline6 for my van when I get to it. The log head on the 250 is a bit of an issue but if HP is important they are vary buildable. If you don't mind a floor shifter a T5, 5 speed will bolt on a 250. Here's some links to show how..
http://falconperformance.sundog.net/
Check out the dyno's on these... and the rest of the site.
http://classicinlines.com/DynoRoom.asp
-
Frazerwill: The 250 I was thinking about was used in the 71-73 Torinos & Mustangs - NOT trucks. That made it somewhat rare since by that time the Torinos & Mustangs usually had base V8s at least. One of the Colorado KFOCI members used such a 250 in his FC170.
-
Yeah my 250 is out of a ford Granada. It came with a 170. I don't know if ford had a truck version. I still see 250's at the local pick a parts now and then. Another thing that makes these a nice motor is it had a front and a rear oil pan versions.
I always thought a flat head V8 would look original in my 49 Frazer with a automatic. Or that straight 8 if I could fit it in without cutting anything.
I still like the good old inline 6's be it the 226 flathead or a 250.
-
Well, I am at a loss here because my digital camera has decided that ANY battery I put in is low on charge. But basically I built an engine cradle with casters to store & move a 51 Kaiser 226 I have. I built a duplicate cradle to develop motor mounts to fit in 51-55 Kaiser chassis. After 5 days of work, I managed to have the second cradle with a Chevy 6 side by side with the cradle with the 226. From what I see so far, you can put a Chevy 250/292 in a 51-55 Kaiser and you can make it a bolt-in swap. BUT: 1) you have to run a remote oil filter and the remote adapter and fittings can only be 2 1/4" tall. 2) There is plenty of room for an HEI distributor and the stock mechanical fuel pump can be used. 3) Not all Chevy 6 blocks have mounting bosses on the front of the block by the oil filter. A mount to the stock Kaiser frame tower can be much simpler if the engine has such a boss. 4) there is still the problem that the Chevy 6 is 3 inches longer than the 226, but I think the needed sheet metal alterations can be subtle. 5) I am not sure about interference between the exhaust outlet and the steering box and this also depends on whether the Chevy 6 has a separate intake manifold or if it is integral with the head because outlets are different. This is something that would be decided when the engine is placed in the chassis. Note that a Chevy 6 block is NARROWER than a 226 by approximately the width of the valves. 6) The 1/2 ton 6 that I was using for measurements looks to have an oil pan that has a sump similar in length (about 10 inches) to that of the 226. I know the 292 version of the Chevy 6 may have a longer sump. Again, it is unfortunate that I don't have photos since they would say a lot more.
-
I would like to make a comment that is prompted by kenneth's post on Jan 14. When I initially set up a Chevy SB V8 in a Kaiser back in 1983, I used a dummy block and I set the engine as far back as the 226. Things really looked good until I set heads on the block and I discovered that #3 spark plug stuck into the steering box. To correct this, I moved the engine forward 4 inches and the steering box fit between #5 & #7 spark plugs. Since the SB Chevy is lighter than the 226, moving the engine forward didn't make the steering any heavier. Moving the engine forward actually made the transmission crossmember simpler and allowed for an off-the-shelf driveshaft to be used.The drawbacks were that the stock mechanical fuel pump could not be used and the front of the sump on the oil pan had to be reshaped to clear the steering linkage. In fact the oil pan modification was about the only part of the whole swap that couldn't be easily done in a driveway because it really required a dummy block, oil pump & pickup, and heating the oil pan.
Between Ben Walker's car, my brother's car, and my car, we put at least 65,000 miles on this technology. Pretty impressive for how simple it was.
-
Seems most city or freeway driving intimadates our members , the el dorado meets usually have 10-12 cars show up and were driven rubber on the road for some 100 to 300 miles round trip. what we have established is the thought that the TRUCK speed limit is 55 MPH and they travel 55-57-mph independent drivers go 60-62 MAX in California so we are comfortable at those speeds. and stay a comfortable distance behind the big boys,
-
Has anyone looked into the AMC v8 engines as I believe they were originally from the kaiser design ??
-
Ask Kaiser Bill about the AMC connection. He has a Kaiser/AMC V8 on display in his museum in Utah I do believe.
www.kaiserbill.com (http://www.kaiserbill.com)
-
dusty - You would be referring to the pre1966 AMC V8s. The earlier AMC V8s seem to be reasonable designs (especially when compared to Y-block Fords) but weren't all that common even when compared to Olds, or Pontiac V8s (Ramblers had tended to have a higher % of 6s). Unless you are restoring an AMC, I think you had better forget about those engines. ... AMC had a 327 before Chevy did and Studebaker had a 289 before Ford, but your general car enthusiast also isn't aware of Kaisrs.
-
let's see if I can post a working link to an image. http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4498132707/
This is an Early K-F 226 engine mount plate (green) bolted on to a 51-55 Kaiser engine mount plate (red).
-
One more: http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4498782338/in/photostream/
GM 10SI Alternator in 49 K Vagabond
-
GM 10SI alternator on 51/52 K engine with simple bracket and bridge strap to use original tensioning bracket
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4498205549/
-
Last summer I made an apparatus to fix the motor mount plate of a Kaiser 226 engine for the purposes of measurements. I posted a link to a 3rd version of that fixture yesterday http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4498132707/
I expanded that apparatus into a full carriage to store and move a 51-55 Kaiser 226 engine.
1) Carriage front view without engine but with cat. http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4500861873/
2) Side view of empty carriage http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4500865691/
3) Side view of carriage with 51-52 Kaiser engine. http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4500870321/
The carriage is made from a single 10 foot 2X4 and 3 3 inch castors. The fittings are made from 3/16 inch X 2 1/2 inch flat steel and 3/16 X 1 1/2 inch L steel. This is suitable for storage and movement of the engine. In addition this can also be used for testing of rebuilt engines.
When not occupied by an engine, the carriage can be stored in against a wall in a small space or it can be disassembled into components.
-
You may not be aware but auto engines are angled downwards for several reasons. The brackets on the 226 engine carriage (http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4500870321/) were designed so the carb base is level front to back and side to side. The angle looks severe but it is the same as in the car chassis.
-
I have put i chevy 350 engine with 350 trany in my Kaiser 1952 Virginian.
i used a Hurst mount that you bolt in the front of the engine.
i had to build 2 new exhaust manifold because the steeringbox is mounting where the original manifold is going down.
I used the original trany mount for the th350 short model.
If you use the short model th350 you can have the stock cardan shaft.
I had to move the handbreak handle.
excuse my bad English I'm writing from Sweden
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2491/3693239851_f1e76706cb.jpg?v=0)
Here´s a picture on the engine that i put in my kaiser 1952 virginian
-
Kaiser_Jonas, Nice!!
I was at an early ford econoline meet this last Saturday and was looking at what the guys had in there vans/pickups. Theres a nice ford 250 inline 6 that would fit nice in my 49 Frazer, but is it going to give me the HP I want/need? Maybe with an AOD trans?
V8's look and sound nice but a 6 would fit easier. I just want a nice driver.
It looks like the HP is only 50hp more then a inline 6 on stock motors. The 226 has around 112hp
I asked around and got these numbers for ford motors...
-----------
"Will, that's a tough one since there were several versions of each engine, and since the ratings depend on where and when you look.
In my 1966-72 Motors Manual the following are listed:
6-250 - 155 HP @ 4000 RPM, 240 ft-lb @ 1600 RPM (1969)
V8-289 (2 bbl) - 200 HP @ 4400 RPM, 282 ft-lb @ 2400 RPM (1968)
V8-302 (2 bbl) - 210 HP @ 4400 RPM, 295 ft-lb @ 2400 RPM (1968)
In the 1969 Ford Truck shop manual the following is listed:
6-300 - 165 HP @ 3600 RPM, 294 ft-lb @ 2000 RPM
These are gross ratings - later net ratings would be lower. Other years and different versions of these engines will have different ratings, but this is probably a fair set of numbers for comparison."
-
FrazerWill: When I first did a Kaiser motor swap, I figured it would not be of interest unless the swap had 50% more hp and the possibility of more. So...that required a motor with 180 hp. This excluded common 6 American 6s and pointed towards small block V8s.
Why 50%? That is what I figured was the max before you had to worry about weak brakes, rear ends, or the suspension.
$4 gas did have the effect of moving down these hp considerations so the large modern American 6s (Chevy 292 & Ford 300) become possible candidates. The Chevy & Ford big 6s had hp ratings of around 175 hp on similar scales that rated the 226 as 115 hp.
-
After I did the Kaiser/Chevy motor swaps, I did a HJ for my brother. I used a Buick 231 (3.8L) V6 with a T50 5speed transmission. Unlike the Kaiser/Chevy swap, I never wrote about this because the engine mounts were more complex and the transmission crossmember was particularly involved because it also mounts the brake master cylinder. I couldn't write an article with templates so people could duplicate the parts in their driveways.This was also before digital cameras - or even the internet - so I couldn't post images.
The choice of the T50 was not satisfactory because 5th gear was only 10% OD and top gear needed to be 30% OD with the Dana 23/4.55 ratio rearend at least (30% OD x 4.55 = 3.00 final drive ratio).
-
At a KF Regional Meet, Bobby Roads brought a HJ with a Buick V6. Even though he had replaced the weak HJ Dana 23 rearend (4.55) with a big Kaiser Dana 44 Hydramatic (3.30) he was unhappy with the rpms the engine was running on the interstate. After I saw it and did some research, I figured he could use a GM 200R4 trans instead of what he had, but by the time I talked to him again, he decided to switch the Dana rearend for an S10 rearend. The big Kaiser rearend also had the problem of putting the tires too close to the rear fenders as well which wasn't a problem with the S10. However, he then had mismatched wheels on the car.
-
KaiserBill used a 68 Chev Nova frame grafted to the 51-55 Kaiser frame at the firewall. He has pictures on his website showing how to do it. Most GM engines will fit this Nova chassis.
-
boatingbill would be referring to this:
http://www.kaiserbill.com/Nova-Sub-Frame/index.html
-
I am actually in the middle of putting a 292 Chevy and a 200r4 in my '51 Deluxe, I should have the preliminary engine installation done this time next weekend, so I will let you all know how well that worked out.
-
I had a '51 frazer,bought new, that I drove over 300k and the base was never off. Innumerable valve jobs but that is because that exhaust valve beside the distribtor doesn't get proper cooling.
-
Well kndllmtt, I had a 250 6 set up in my KF engine cradle 4 weeks ago. There are of course several ways you can put an engine in a car and since I was planning on doing as little cutting as necessary to the frame and existing mounts, I saw a problem with the oil filter and holes on that side of the engine to bolt a mounting bracket.
So I went on to another project which was to duplicate a power steering pump mount for a Chevy straight 6. Motor mounts are WAY simpler. I tried doing this about 20 years ago based on illustrations in Chevy parts books, but I gave up. This time, I have a borrowed mount set. So I know what the pieces look like, but that doesn't mean they are easy to copy.
Don't cut any holes that you can't fix!
-
I am also trying to install the engine with as little cutting as possible, and as far as the oil filter is concerend, I was planing on running a remote filter with cooler, so hopefully (fingers crossed) I won't have that problem and will avoid butchering the rest of the car.
It is good to know that I will eventually need to fab a bracket for power steering, I was planing on putting it on somewhere down the road.
-
Cutting & welding on the Chevy 6 PS mount was finished today after 19 afternoons of work. 3 of the 4 parts were painted and maybe I can take some photos and move on to another project.
It is indeed unfortunate that my digital camera went contrary when I had the Chevy 6 in the engine cradle, because the images might have answered some questions before they were asked.
-
This is what I have wasted my time on the last (nearly) 3 weeks - a copy of a Chevy 6 Power Steering pump mount.
What you are looking at is the original assembly off of a 1974 or 75 car or 1/2 ton truck. The separate pieces are the replicas.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4566315773/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4566319695/
There are 4 pieces of which the largest is rather complicated, the next smaller is somewhat complicated and the 2 smallest pieces are relatively easy.
I waited some 20 years just for the opportunity to have those original pieces in my hand (see previous post).
-
The accompanying story: I had a 71 GMC 1/2T SWB step side truck. Yes it was fleet type vehicle which had an advertised price of $1987. I rebuilt the engine, I rebuilt the front suspension, I replaced the 3 speed on the tree with a car type 4 speed (i.e, not a top loader) and I replaced the springs front and back with 3/4 Ton springs. I decided I wanted Power Steering and I had a Chevy parts book that had a crude drawing of what the power steering mount for a 6 cylinder would look like. Well illustrations were just not good enough for me to transfer into steel at that time, so I replaced the 6 with a Chevy 283 V8. This was mostly done because I already had most of the PS brackets for the V8 engine.
This truck in both 6 cylinder and V8 configurations was used to pull in a number of KF and Studebaker vehicles.
-
kndllmtt: I did manage to do something with a Chevy 6 this weekend.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4573225658/
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4573120736/
show a comparison of a 250-6 and a 51-52 K 226.
A 250-6 isn't particularly taller than a 226, perhaps only 1 1/2 inches more at the rear.
However, the next image illustrates a problem:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4573122006/in/photostream/
What ever you replace the stock oil filter element with, there is only about 2 1/2 inches clearance.
The distributor may seem to be a problem, but this is a points type unit. A HEI unit sticks up taller and has several more inches of clearance.
-
Thank you for the information! I learned a lot
____________________
cohiba (http://www.topbrandcigars.com/)
-
This is what engine conversions were about in the late 50's to middle 60's. http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4590059133/in/photostream/
This image is of a Hurst saddle mount (so named because of the shape) for a SB Chevy (upper) and a 55-65 Pontiac (lower).
The idea was to make another motor fit in a 41-48 Ford chassis as a replacement for a 59A flathead.
The second part of this was to make frame adapters that would emulate the 41-48 Ford frame.
So if you had a 49-53 Ford, you could buy the frame adapters for that chassis and install a 59A V8 (as if you would want) or choose from
from a variety of engine mounts.
I used the pictured SB Chevy mount in both a 50 Ford and a 47 Willys 2WD
Some combinations were not possible - Ford FE (332-352-360-390-428) or Ford 221-260-289 - because of the oil pan.
Some were not likely although they were done. Example the Nail-head Buick V8 in a Ford chassis because the Buick starter was
in the same area as the Ford steering box.
This was an attempt at a "bolt-in" solution using mix 'n match components.
But really, if you spent some time studying the problem, you could come up with a specific design that was more satisfactory for your situation.
-
HJ-ETEX: I remember a friend of mine's older brother put a "full race" Mercury in his 51 Ford 2-dr custom. He went up against a 56 Chevy Power Pack and was beaten so bad, he gave up and did as you did. He put in a lighter, faster compact Chevy small block. With two years of that, the Chevy became the engine of choice. The local speed shop was selling flat head speed parts by the pound! This was give away prices and still few takers. If I remember correctly JC Whitney sold mount kits to put the Chevy in different cars. I do remember a kit to bolt to Hydromatics since different makes had Hydromatics (like Pontiac).
-
boatingbill: Ansen sold replicas of Hurst mounts and J.C. Whitney had "No Name" copies. I did buy some of J.C.'s wares. SB Chevy engines were in high demand until the mid 60's so a lot of people had to go with Olds V8s. The Olds had the feature of the Hydramatic trans. There were factory GM parts to bolt a Hydramatic to a Chevy 6 and V8, but since they had to be bought new from a dealer, they were both expensive and and limited in supply.
-
Hot Rod Magazine had a bad habit (back in those years) of claiming certain parts were available without citing parts numbers or applications. In the case bolting a Hydramatic to an SB Chevy, the article I saw (and it was reprinted) did have part numbers. On the other hand, there weren't that many copies of the parts made, so after they published the article the first time, the parts were Out of Stock in the GM parts network.
-
For the younger people, the Mighty Mouse (SB Chevy V8) wasn't so mighty in the beginning as it was a few years later. Unless you are restoring and matching numbers, you probably would not want to bother with a Chevy SB V8 prior to 1963. The first few years lacked integral/full flow oil filters (1957) or bosses for side motor mounts (1958) or holes for block mounted starters (partially 1957 up but 1963 for sure). The oil filter is one thing Ford got right from the beginning on the Y-block V8 - it had a full flow oil filter cast into the side of the block. It was a less than acceptable design because it was messy to change out and tended to sludge up, but since Chevy only had an optional, add-on/hang-on, partial flow filter until 1957, Ford won that comparison.
-
the same). Finally in 1954 the supercharged cars got a maroon color for their engines.
The Late 54 specials with the 3 piece rear window also had the same maroon engine paint
-
Just so you know, this image shows 55-57 Chevy bellhousing mounts vs a Kaiser Hydramatic mount (sorry, I only have 1 loose).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k513/4619775639/
-
http://inlinefever.homestead.com/files/burn_out3.jpg
V8??? no it's a ford 250 I6. It's been built some and I don't plan on burning out with my Frazer Like I saw John Parker do years ago but this shows the HP this 6 can muster up.
-
Well if you SAY it is a Ford 250... A Ford 250 based on the small 6 cylinder design (144/170/200) was offered on the Mustang/Torino after 1970 when these cars went to a body/frame from a unibody design. Since almost all of these cars had V8s, the 250 is a rare item. I wish I had one. Ford could have easily used the bigger 240/300 6 in these cars since no one would have bought one anyway.
-
http://inlinefever.homestead.com/RamAir.html
Here's some more of that car
-
http://inlinefever.homestead.com/
-
Frazerwill, love the Mustang--really awesome how you've set up the l6 for speed!
-
Not me, but I like these motors...
-
Oh, anyway, that's a pretty cool set-up. I generally keep everythint stock on my vehicles, but I have toyed with the idea of getting a pretty beat up 51-53 Kaiser and stripping it down and seeing what kind of performance I could get out of the 226 superesonic. I wouldn't do anything fancy with the body (no abilities there!), just remove weight and increase HP. Think it would be fun--maybe some day!
-
Does anyone have information on the AMC V8 that supposedly was a Kaiser design, the early AMC had an gm hydro on it and seems reading the spec, that it was a barn burner 307 at that time . It was in the Ambassidor and Marlin And rebel.
-
I thought that the Kaiser design was nominally a 288--AMC with the help of the Kaiser engineers (think A V Roe/Avro Arrow/Canada's inadvertent boost to NASA) came out with a 287? CID a couple of years later. The AMC 327 was later based on that, wasn't it? I have forgotten the history of AMC V8 engines, and what derived from what, and all I remember now is the 343 and 360, and wasn't there a pre-cursor 304?. The only 307 I remember is in the Chev 265/283/307/327/350 etc family.
-
The planned Kaiser V8 was named the Rapier. It was a 288 cu inch affair that sort of resembled an early 60s Buick nailhead, however, they shared nothing mechanically in common.
-
dusty - 1956 Ambassadors came with Packard V8s and part way through the model year, an Ambassador Special with the new AMC V8 at 250 c.i. was introduced. This is the engine that is related to the Kaiser V8 proposal. The next year, they put this 250 V8 in the compact Rambler chassis to create the Rebel. This engine was intended for a full size car and came with a Holley 4160 4bbl so it was quite the opposite of what the typical AMC customer expected in 1957-58. The 250 was joined by a 327 in 1958 and sometime after that the 250 was replaced by a 287. When a new line of V8s was introduced for 1966, they came in 290 and 343 sizes and a 390 was added for 1968. By 1970, the sizes got increased to 304, 360, and 401.
The Packard V8 came with Ultramatic (S-P needed to sell transmissions as well as engines.) and the AMC V8 used Borg-Warner automatics.
GM had more than just the Chevy 307. Buick stopped making V8s in 1979 and a turboV6 wasn't going to satisfy traditional Electra buyers so, Buick started using Olds 307 V8s! Buick had been using Olds, and yes, Chevy V8s and even Pontiac for several years prior to 1979 so the announcement wasn't as a dramatic change to the line up as one might think.
-
Jim Lower in California has a 54 Manhattan with a HP 289 C4 tranny, his comment was if he had to do it again he would go GM because of all the converson, but now that it is in the car he wouldn't go back to the 6 cyl http://www.flickr.com/photos/47203801@N08/5415015066/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/47203801@N08/5414401697/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/47203801@N08/5414401399/
-
Nice looking conversion.
-
amazingly ,Jim was able to bolt up the stock power steering
-
Traveler, Regretfully I did a conversion in my '54 Manhattan to a Chev 350 and am still not happy with my fabricated mounts. This mount assembly off the '57 Corvette... is it available after-market?
(Tried emailing you but it came back)
-
Traveler, Regretfully I did a conversion in my '54 Manhattan to a Chev 350 and am still not happy with my fabricated mounts. This mount assembly off the '57 Corvette... is it available after-market?
(Tried emailing you but it came back)
T Henry, this thread was started in 2007. 'Traveler' has not been active on this site since August 04, 2014. Not trying to discourage you, but just be aware that Traveler may not see your post. Hopefully someone else may be able to answer your question.