Yes,there IS such a critter as a factory FOM flat 6 Ford!

[LazarusLong]

Guys,I did take photos of the flat 6 FOM parts today,and then somehow deleted them from my phone while trying to post them.

Hoping I have a better "chemo brain day" tomorrow.

[Tinker]

Sounds like a lot of claims and no actual proof of what you have, right now. It's okay to be excited about something, but it's okay to think about it.


Maybe come back with something solid and not so many vague claims that are just that.

[LazarusLong]

So,you are calling me a liar?

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by Tinker

Sounds like a lot of claims and no actual proof of what you have, right now. It's okay to be excited about something, but it's okay to think about it.


Maybe come back with something solid and not so many vague claims that are just that.

"vague claims"? He has the trans in hand, obtained from the person who owned and drove the car from which the trans and parts were pulled. There are the Ford ads and the parts book with part numbers. What do you have to show otherwise?

[flatford8]

Wow!…..sorry this thread took such a bad turn….I like learning about the oddities of Ford Land…..
Lazarus: We PM’d back and forth quite awhile ago….I’d like to see picks of the Vicky….take care and good luck with the Coupe…..Mark

[rotorwrench]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The standard transmission H-series 6-cylinder has subtle differences where it interfaces with the transmission drive when compared to the V8. A V8 flywheel will bolt up to a 6-cyl crankshaft but may have clearance problems with the drive plate that bolts up to the 6-cyl engine block. I'm not sure if the starter engagement center line is the same as the V8. The starter rings are different on the inside diameter where they fit the flywheel even though both are 112 tooth (for 9.5-inch Long type clutch). The 6-cyl with the 11-inch clutch has 114-tooth ring. The bell housing is different in the way it bolts up due to differences in the drive plate bolt pattern.

In my 1949 through 1953 Ford car chassis parts catalog, all of the Ford-O-Matic interface parts are for the V8 only prior to 1952. It lists nothing for the H-series 226 6-cylinder interface. I'm not sure if the crankshaft has a bore large enough to fit up a torque converter so that's another unknown. The torque converter, drive plate, and flex plate are listed for the 1952 and 1953 OHV 6-cyl and have part number prefixes that confirm that. There is nothing listed for the 1951 226 interface. Ford generally included all replacement parts that were ever fitted to their production cars in those parts catalogs.

With all this in mind, a person is going to be a bit skeptical about a one year only optional item that there is no actual evidence of ever being factory produced. I would like to see a photo of a Ford-O-Matic bolted up to an H-series 226 with period correct dress just to confirm it in my own mind. I wasn't born in the "Show Me" state of Missouri but my Grandmother was. If they exist then that's fine. It will be good to know that for future reference.

[LazarusLong]

Originally Posted by flatford8

Wow!…..sorry this thread took such a bad turn….I like learning about the oddities of Ford Land…..
Lazarus: We PM’d back and forth quite awhile ago….I’d like to see picks of the Vicky….take care and good luck with the Coupe…..Mark

Thanks,Mark. I don't remember seeing any "snark" back when I was posting here before,and am genuinelly surprised to see people sniping at me now because I provided some information they don't like,or are mad because they didn't know about it.

Here are some photos of my Vicky as it sits in the yard now. Body is pretty solid and needs on a a couple of very small patch panels. I had to have the top repainted because the previous owner used paint remover to remove the old paint,and didn't do a proper job of cleaning before getting it repainted. It peeled off in sheets.

Have new chrome bumbers,nos grille,etc,etc,etc for it,but saw no reason to put them on until the repaint in the same color.

Had to have the front seat redone because there was literally a hole with springs where the driver sits. Going to finish the door panels with matching materiel and put in a white perforated headliner. Don't really plan on selling it until I get the biz coupe rolling down the road again,but could change my mind

[flatford8]

Nice!…. The choice between a Vicky and a Coupe…..your fortunate!…..I drive a ‘50 Fordor almost daily from April till the first sign of snow and I’m still working on a ‘51 Tudor. I think Shoeboxes are a great vehicle….. Take Care…… Mark

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by LazarusLong

Here are some photos of my Vicky as it sits in the yard now. Body is pretty solid and needs on a a couple of very small patch panels. I had to have the top repainted because the previous owner used paint remover to remove the old paint,and didn't do a proper job of cleaning before getting it repainted. It peeled off in sheets.

[5851a]

It would be interesting to see the accelerator linkage adjustments for F O M flathead 6. It has to be in the shop manuals or in the F O M appendix. Just a thought.

[tubman]

I will admit I was initially skeptical about the existence of this particular combination, but the sales brochure and manual pages have convinced me that they may have made some. I would like to see the photos of the parts, because car companies have been known to print literature showing products and options they never produced. I believe even Ford did it in 1951, as I remember seeing a brochure picturing a Crestliner with side trim that was never offered to the public.

[mfirth]

Interesting stuff here. Only read it because my 1st car was a 50 six cyl with o/d. Outran a few V8s with it. That little 6 really pulled specially after a rebuild. I'd like to drive one with auto trans just 4 giggles.

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by mfirth

Interesting stuff here. Only read it because my 1st car was a 50 six cyl with o/d. Outran a few V8s with it. That little 6 really pulled specially after a rebuild. I'd like to drive one with auto trans just 4 giggles.

"Just 5 horsepower separated the 95hp straight-six and the 100hp V-8. The six also out-torqued the eight, generating 180 lbs ft versus 156 lbs ft. And the six-cylinder did it all with a Holley 847F5 one-barrel carburetor, four main bearings and a 6.6:1 compression ratio (increased to 6.8:1 in 1950)."

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/1949-51-fords

[Pete]

Originally Posted by petehoovie

"Just 5 horsepower separated the 95hp straight-six and the 100hp V-8. The six also out-torqued the eight, generating 180 lbs ft versus 156 lbs ft. And the six-cylinder did it all with a Holley 847F5 one-barrel carburetor, four main bearings and a 6.6:1 compression ratio (increased to 6.8:1 in 1950)."

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/1949-51-fords

The 1950 Ford 6 was not a complete dog. The standard transmission model had a zero to 30 better time than any stock car that year.
Anyone remember what it was?
A free smooch from my bloodhound to the winner.

[40cpe]

5.9 sec, but I didn't remember it.

[tubman]

If you do a little research, you will find that Tom McCahill, the premier automobile tester (at Mechanics Illustrated magazine) back in those days, had fudged a bit with his initial 0-60 times of 12.0 and 12.1 seconds. When run with a corrected speedometer, they were in th 14 second range, which wasn't as good as the V8.

McCahill is credited with "inventing" the 0-60 test of acceleration. It was very widely used before 1/4 mile times began to be used.

[Pete]

We are talking ZERO TO THIRTY.

[tubman]

McCahill is the authority almost universally quoted in reference to the performance capabilities of the 1950 Ford 6. As such, the 0-30 figures were probably obtained from his testing and are as tainted by the incorrect speedometer as the other figures.

I didn't want any bloodhound kisses anyway.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by tubman

McCahill is the authority almost universally quoted in reference to the performance capabilities of the 1950 Ford 6. As such, the 0-30 figures were probably obtained from his testing and are as tainted by the incorrect speedometer as the other figures.

I didn't want any bloodhound kisses anyway.

Who knows how accurate any of the test numbers were.
The commonly accepted answer was/is 3.1 and my hound will miss the opportunity to slobber on you....lol

[petehoovie]

“When it comes to breaking fast from a traffic light or snap passing on the highway, the Six can make the V-8 look as loggy as your Aunt Tillie after a hard day’s shopping in Macy’s bargain basement,” wrote Tom. Regarding mid-range performance, he said: “The Ford Six can tear the ears of the V-8 in acceleration and performance, right up to 75 mph [121 km/h].” But “Above 82 or 83 mph [132 or 134 km/h], the Ford six flattens out like a Chinese pancake… it finally lays down and dies at about 91 or 92 mph [146 or 148 km/h] tops.” - Tom McCahill

Tom was such a V-8 fan that his test of the Ford Six came as a shock to him and his readers. In his famous zero-to-60 mph acceleration run, which Tom claimed he invented, the always understated McCahill wrote: “When I got a look at my stopwatch, my eyes nearly popped out of my head: 12.1 seconds … in this little crate? Impossible! I tried it again, 12 seconds flat! I was dumbfounded.”

It was indeed too good to be true. Later checking indicated that 60 mph on the Ford’s optimistic speedometer was actually only 54.38. Correcting for this, Tom got 14.9, 14.4 and 14.5 seconds, - on a Ford Six not as spectacular but still very respectable. He noted that the best he had recorded on a Ford V-8 was 13.9, and that was a fast example; 15.0 to 15.5 was about average. - on a Ford V8

Overshadowed as it was, that early Ford Six carved its own tiny place in automotive history by being a sleeper that was able to out-jump its famous V-8-engined sibling, considered one of the faster American stock cars of its day.




Good read > https://www.timescolonist.com/bill-v...house-1.847890