Stovebolt engines

The Chevrolet Valve in head 6 cylinder engine, introduced in 1929 at 194 cubic inches was both more powerful and more popular than Henry's antique four cylinder L-head Model A engine.  The Chevrolet 6 soon gained a nickname "The Stovebolt".  This was due to the 1/4-20 fasteners used to attach the valve cover, lifter pan and oil pan to the engine block.  I promised a picture of a Stovebolt 6 from the car show, and so I shall.



This is a 1946 coupe with a later 235 engine that has been "massaged" for a tad more oomph.  This engine has the valve cover held on by two bolts thru the cover, but the later 235's this went to bolts around the flange of the valve cover.  You can see the 1/4-20 bolts holding the side cover on.  This cover runs from below the distributor up to the edge of the valve cover.  It sounded to me like it could have been a hydraulic lifter engine, but I don't know that.



1/4-20 bolts were commonly used in the construction of heating and cooking stoves that burned wood or coal, back in the day.  Hence the connection to stovebolts. The engine was improved in 1954 to include full-pressure lubrication to replace the former splash and trough oiling system in use from 1929. The larger 261 truck engine was introduced in late 1954. It was a favorite of the Chevy 6 hotrod crowd. A whole host of hop-up parts was available for the 261.

WC

That was not one of Henry's better moves. Henry didn't like the 6 cly. engine because the number of cylinders did not divide equally by the number of engine strokes. Four strokes (in Henry's mind) was OK with the 4 cyl. and the 8 cyl. engines. It was just one of many decisions which caused Ford to loose the sales lead to Chevy.

Great info WC!

I like that color combination on the '46. I see it also has the painted trim rings for the headlights. Leftovers from the 42's?

I am guessing here, but I would think those headlamp rings were probably chrome when that car was new, since it is a "Deluxe."  This old coupe is a sort of "resto-rod" in that a number of items on it are "personalized" and not technically correct.  That does not detract from its being a neat car, you understand.  It is powered by a 6 rather than a more common 350 crate motor and has a number of period accessories on it.  Most 1946 GM cars were warmed over 1942 models.  The "new" body style GM cars appeared in 1949.  The trucks were upgraded in 1947.  My dad had a '46 Chevrolet half ton truck with the old 216 in it.  It broke a piston, so dad removed the head and the pan, removed the offending (#5) piston and rod.  Then he cut a hunk of cedar fence post and jammed it in the hole.  He removed #5 plug wire and ran the thing on 5 cylinders for a couple years.  He traded it in on a new '60 Chevrolet pickup with a 235, and three on the tree.  The all-new six cylinder Chevrolet engines introduced in 1963 actually had more 1/4-20 fasteners than the older engines, but the name "stovebolt 6" never caught on with them.  They had seven main crankshafts, hydraulic lifters, full-flow spin on oil filters, and were short stroke/big bore designs.  They had 194, 230 and 250 cid displacements.  The larger 292 truck engine shared nothing with the smaller 6's except the valve lifters, oil filter and the spark plugs.  It was a long-stoke engine of the same basic design as the smaller engines.  The 292 was GM's industrial engine and powered Gleaner and John Deere combines as well as swathers, cement mixers, pumps and other industrial applications.

WC

As I remember, Many of Chrysler's products were powered by sixes as well during the '30s and '40s. Then they had their newer 6's in the '60s as well.

75X11 wrote:As I remember, Many of Chrysler's products were powered by sixes as well during the '30s and '40s.  Then they had their newer 6's in the '60s as well.

I owned a 1962 Dodge Dart, with a slant 6 and they were economical (21-24 mpg) and well built. That reminds me of my Dads 1954 2 door Studebaker Champion it to would get around 23-24mpg. I had a 1954 Ford Fairlane that had a jammed Starter, didn't know anything about engines so I had the engine rebuilt, Best car I ever owned. I think the engine was 223 cubic inches. Economical and gas was $0.17 gal. I had that car until a drunk rear ended me with a 1965 Cadillac.

I borrowed a 47 Cadillac for a while and it had a Flathead V8, I guess that engine was also used in the Sherman Tanks. Yep a real gas Hog.

When I was little, there was a Grant tank on static display on the lawn of our city hall. we were all over and inside that thing all the time. It had 2 engines, each had "Cadillac" stamped into the valve covers. I had a 47 Cadillac 62 with most of the available options, including an automatic transmission. That thing was like trying to maneuver a destroyer on casters on an interstate.

There are very few engines ever built tougher than a Chrysler L-head six. They were built in several versions, from 201 thru 265 cubic inches. Chrysler Industrial engines were essentially automotive engines with valve rotators, high capacity oil pumps and bigger water pumps. They were typically converted from downdraft to updraft carburetors, controlled by Novi, Roof, or Pierce belt-driven mechanical governors. Chrysler Industrial engines powered all kinds of industrial and agriculture equipment, including forklifts, welders, gensets, combines, tractors, draglines. Massey-Harris, Wards, Custom, Friday, Earthmaster, Co-op, and others used Chrysler power. The 324 cid Chrysler straight 8 was also used in Industrial applications and to power Chris Craft boats.

WC

My sister worked for Pierce governor in Upland, Indiana in the mid 60s.

We had a Massey-Harris combine with a Chrysler 251 and a Pierce governor. Grandpa had a Massey 101 Super tractor with a Chrysler 265 with a Novi governor. Novi governors were built in Novi, MI and was the same company that built the famous Novi V-8 racing engine, the most powerful racing engine of its day. I had forgotten that Pierce governor was in Indiana. Wonder if they had any connection to the Pierce company that built fire apparatus?

WC

I see from their website they are owned by Oshkosh. They make good vehicles, I got to help do the communications installations on a few of their new units.

OK, a dumb question, how did the governor work?  The only RPM governor I have had experience with was on an early 911 Porsche 1970 E.  It was part of the rotor cap and with a spring inside it would short out the spark at max RPM.  I never realized it was bad until my wife driving it on a "race course" set up by the PCA to have fun and setting next to her (helmets on) watched the tac hit 8000.  I fixed that straight ahead.  She really hated to shift! She never quite mastered the handling of the car and was given many thumbs up for her ability to spin the car around. You know, understeer to oversteer in a heart beat in a tight corner depending on breaking or throttle. My 1950 Ford business coupe never seemed to have that problem.
Jerry

Sorta Dateline Upland...

http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=80&ArticleID=58327

My home built engine from pieces of brass.
ttp:///wordpremadscientisthut.comss/tag/joule-thief-kit/

Sorry, I don't seem to get the link to work.
Jerry

The governor on the Porsche was an electronic governor. There were various types, some worked differently than others. Yours must have had some type of control over engine timing that prevented it from revving over a certain level. The governors on Chevrolet, GMC and International engines that I once owned worked off both the distributor and the carburetor. A centrifugal arrangement in the distributor would actually retard the timing while a vacuum diaphragm in the carburetor would prevent the carb butterfly from opening beyond a certain amount to limit the rpm to about 3500. They were a huge pain to keep working properly and I took mine off. The ignition distributor and the carburetors had to be replaced. You had to watch the engine speed, but they ran lots better.

Belt-driven mechanical governors were "flyball" centrifugal type governors. There were usually three balls that would change the angle on a cone which was attached to the throttle rod. When you set the governor to a set speed, the governor rod would apply tension to the cone. As the speed increased, and the angle of the cone increased, it would slow the engine. As the engine slowed, and the cone angle decreased, it would open the throttle a corresponding amount to increase (stabilize) engine speed. They worked pretty well until the belt broke. Most of them would return the engine to idle if the belt broke. Occasionally, a governor with high hours would get gummed up inside and it would surge or act wonky. You could take them apart and clean the up and they were good to go. They could be rebuilt if needed.

WC

jerryhawthorne wrote:My home built engine from pieces of brass.
ttp:///wordpremadscientisthut.comss/tag/joule-thief-kit/

Sorry, I don't seem to get the link to work.
Jerry

Try uploading it, we'd like to see it!

Thanks for the info on the early governors. No the Porche just stopped the spark, grounded it when the RPM got too high. Fun listening as it made cut off speed the engine would just shut down until it got below cutoff. Simple German creativity, just ground out the spark. Certainly not as nice as the spinning balls that would gradually control RPM on steam engines. Nice and smooth but then again they were only controlling a set speed, taking it up to that speed and controlling it. Concept would not work well on a gas engine designed to work at variable speeds.
Best, Jerry

Interesting information, I can always learn something but WC the Porsche was not that complicated, the rotor cap would just short out the spark when it reached the max RPM based on the spring installed. It certainly was not any kind of an electronic governor, just mechanical based on RPM and the spring on the rotor cap. So simple. Germans usually solved problems with more complex solutions and do doubt did in later years. The rotor in mine was missing the spring and the RPM would go up forever. Should have shut off around 7100 RPM

75X11 wrote:

jerryhawthorne wrote:My home built engine from pieces of brass.
ttp:///wordpremadscientisthut.comss/tag/joule-thief-kit/

Sorry, I don't seem to get the link to work.
Jerry

Try uploading it, we'd like to see it!

I get a warning on my computer that its trying download software

I'm getting a message on mine that says it doesn't understand it. Now isn't that special.

One more time, seems to work for me?
Jerry
http://madscientisthut.com/wordpress/category/joule-thief/

Tell us more about it, that is quite interesting!

Well 75, if your referring to the "steam" engine, there really is no governor. The dome on the top of it has a lever that will control air delivery and thus to a certain extent speed under load. Rotate it 180 degrees and the motor will reverse. I started building it in the late 70s with a small lathe/vertical mill I had purchased. We had a metal scrap yard not far from our house and I would browse the brass area for pieces that could be used.
The engine is a V4. Often referred to as a "wobbler design. The lower end, crank and connecting rods are like any engine, the differece is there are no wrist pins, the rods are screwed into the base of the piston. With the cylinders pivoting against the end plates, they expose intake/exhaust holes at the extremes of their wobble. Once I perfected the hole alignments and bent all that nasty brass tubing for ducting the gasses I tried it out a year or so ago. I couldn't figure out what to do with it so I started on the carousel then went nuts with an electric generator, some lights and a music box.
Useful for very little but kids get amused by it.

I would imagine that would amuse kids of all ages!

MEZLAW wrote:That was not one of Henry's better moves.  Henry didn't like the 6 cly. engine because the number of cylinders did not divide equally by the number of engine strokes.   Four strokes (in Henry's mind)  was OK with the 4 cyl. and the 8 cyl. engines.  It was just one of many decisions which caused Ford to loose the sales lead to Chevy.

Great info WC!    

That is odd...no pun intended. There is nothing smoother idling that a straight six. I used to just stand there and listen to the slow tickover of my '50 DeSoto 235 cu in 6...Like silk. I drive a modern V6 now, and there are certainly some engineering advantages to the vee type as well, but nothing idles as smooth as six-in-a-row-makes-it-go.

jerryhawthorne wrote:One more time, seems to work for me?
Jerry
http://madscientisthut.com/wordpress/category/joule-thief/

Jerry, you a a tinkerer's tinkerer. Hats off to ya!