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

[mfirth]

Thanks petehoovie & Tubman for the info. Got a ride in a 51 Vicky V8 auto when i was 16 & thought it was O K, but the tranny leaaked like a sive so i passed. Sure would like to ride in a 51 six with auto just to see if it would be better than a gutless Powerglide Ch----y.

[tubman]

Originally Posted by 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
........


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

I'll bet this is because of rear -end gears rather than any advantage the six may have had. Lower rear-end gears are a great help for initial acceleration. When I was in high school we had a very short dragstrip marked of in a supermarket parking lot, of all places. The winner of most of our impromptu late night races? A guy with a '51 Rambler that had 4.44 gears. On the street, he was an also ran.

This was brought home to me in 1967, when I got my first '67 Corvette coupe. That car had a 327/350, regular 4-speed, and 3.70 gears. I had a friend who had a '66 Corvette coupe with the same setup, except he had opted for 3.08 cars. In short, while my car was pretty fast,, his was a downright pig with those gears. So bad in fact, that he would get beat by Impalas with 300 HP Powerglides.

My '51, built in St. Paul with a standard transmission came with 3.55 gears. I would imagine a six with 3.73's or 4.11's would outjump it up to 30.

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by tubman

I'll bet this is because of rear -end gears rather than any advantage the six may have had.

I'll bet you're wrong...The gear ratios would have to be the same for a comparison test like this to be accurate/fair...

Given your analogy, McCahill should have tested a '51 Rambler or any other car for that matter...

[tubman]

Originally Posted by petehoovie

I'll bet you're wrong...The gear ratios would have to be the same for a comparison test like this to be accurate/fair...

Given your analogy, McCahill should have tested a '51 Rambler or any other car for that matter...

Not the McCahill I used to know and read voraciously. He was not above tilting the playing field if it suited his purpose.

These early "tests" were notoriously, um, unscientific.

[petehoovie]

Originally Posted by tubman

Not the McCahill I used to know and read voraciously. He was not above tilting the playing field if it suited his purpose - notoriously, um, unscientific.

A lot like your posts....

[RalphG]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by 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.

My research books on Mercury show numbers of 18to 20 seconds quarter mile times which also yielded 65 mph. The Mercomatic was even a bit slower having a 3.3 rear axle ratio compared to 3.7, 3.9, or 4.10 ratio on the standards. From a Motor Trend article.
Sorry for getting a little off topic here but most of my information is on Mercury. Maybe Ford was a little lighter and faster? But Mercury had the bigger engine.

[tubman]

Originally Posted by petehoovie

A lot like your posts....

Really? I don't think it would to be to your benefit to get into who is "unscientific".

[Tinker]

Originally Posted by LazarusLong

So,you are calling me a liar?

No I am not.

[LazarusLong]

Ok,since I will never figure this out,if someone will PM me their email address,I will send them photos and descriptions,and they can then post the stuff for me.


Thanks in advance,
LazarusLong

[LazarusLong]

Ok,I have now given up on posting photos of the 51 flat 6 FOM parts. I got one photo down to 231kb,and got a message it was too big to post.


Thanks to chemo brain,I am just not as sharp as I used to be.


If any of you want to see photos of the transmission and driveshaft,send me a PM with your email address,and I will be more than happy to email them to you.

[VeryTangled]

Originally Posted by LazarusLong

Ok,I have now given up on posting photos of the 51 flat 6 FOM parts.

This 4 minute video tutorial on photo posting might be helpful.

https://youtu.be/sdP9Bvbojoo

[LazarusLong]

Thank you VERY much!

I will read it and try to learn more once I get a little more rested.

[Tinker]

Originally Posted by LazarusLong

Thank you VERY much!

I will read it and try to learn more once I get a little more rested.

Take it slow. Be well! I look forward to hearing from you.

[STEVE O]

Here are Authurs photos although the descriptions are not with the photos hopefully you can figure them out as I had to get to work! Steve

B
The data tag on the side of the transmission is different from any FoMoCo tag I have ever seen. It is POSSIBLE it is the original tag that identifies it as a 6 cyl FOM trans,but it is also possible it is the tag of a "rebuilder". I have no idea which it is.

BTW,my friend who restores Studes says he believes it to be a direct replacement for the auto trans in his early 50's 6 cylinder Studebakers. He has also told me he has had both the V-8 and the flat 6 early FOM's apart for rebuilding,and sees no practical difference between the 6 and the 8Driveshaft nose coupling. I suspect this will be the toughest part to find for anybody restoring one. After all,nobody saves driveshafts when they strip a car for to the crusher. You would most likely have to look around Stude restorers to find the part This is a photo of the trans tailshaft so you can see the coupling "sleeve".

Just for grins,below is a photo of the 3x1 intake I have for my flat 6 FordBelow is the high compression head I have for it. Notice the water distribution tube. For some reason the flat 6's were very popular with boat racers. Clay Smith of Clay Smith Cams got his start racing boats on Lake Michigan. It was reported that one Sunday Henry Ford attended the boat races and he could tell by hearing the flat 6 in Clay Smith's boat that it was turning waaay too many RPM's to stay together,so he walked down to the shoreline to talk with the boat owner,and met 17 year old Clay Smith. When Ford asked him how many RPM's he was turning (7,000 rpms) and how he held it together,Smith supposedly told him "I cross-drilled the crank for better oil flow",Ford hiring him on the spot as a consultant to Ford Motor Company on a handshake deal. I have no idea if this is true or not,but that is what I have read

[rotorwrench]

The 1P-7003 series is correct for all of the early Borg Warner FOM/MOM designs and yes, there were other manufacturers that used Borg Warner designs. Not all are the same as the FOM/MOM design. FoMoCo purchased exclusivity from Borg Warner for this design but it was only for 5-years so other manufacturers had to negotiate purchases with FoMoCo. Plenty of 215 OHV Ford 6-cylinder engines were sold with the FOM transmissions. I've yet to see an OEM installation of an FOM for the Ford 226 H-series flathead 6-cylinder engine. Not saying it was never done. I just haven't seen any evidence yet.

An FOM could be adapted to fit the 226 but it would take a drive plate modified to fit, a torque converter & flex plate to work with the drive plate & crankshaft, and all the throttle/TV control mechanism to operate the transmission. It may also need a rear mount similar to what the V8 set up used in 1951. The rear axle drive gearing would be better with the V8 type ratios but it may work OK with the stock 6-cylinder ratios. I don't know what the RPMs would be at highway speeds though. A steering column from a V8 car would be a bolt in for gear selection controls.

[rich b]

Gee whiz; I was thinking there would be more to see; like pictures of the whole set-up.

[34PKUP]

Originally Posted by rich b

Gee whiz; I was thinking there would be more to see; like pictures of the whole set-up.

Ya' got that right, much ado about nothing along with other stuff thrown in to muddy the waters

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by STEVE O

Just for grins,below is a photo of the 3x1 intake I have for my flat 6 FordBelow is the high compression head I have for it. Notice the water distribution tube. For some reason the flat 6's were very popular with boat racers. Clay Smith of Clay Smith Cams got his start racing boats on Lake Michigan. It was reported that one Sunday Henry Ford attended the boat races and he could tell by hearing the flat 6 in Clay Smith's boat that it was turning waaay too many RPM's to stay together,so he walked down to the shoreline to talk with the boat owner,and met 17 year old Clay Smith. When Ford asked him how many RPM's he was turning (7,000 rpms) and how he held it together,Smith supposedly told him "I cross-drilled the crank for better oil flow",Ford hiring him on the spot as a consultant to Ford Motor Company on a handshake deal. I have no idea if this is true or not,but that is what I have read

Funny how the same basic story has so many variations! The version I read in a car magazine years ago said this happened at the Detroit Hydroplane Race in 1948 or so on the Detroit River. Henry Ford died in 1947 and was pretty much incapacitated from a stroke for some years before. Some Ford engineers were there and their question was how these guys avoided breaking crankshafts because the six had a bad harmonic frequency vibration around 4800 RPM that caused cranks to fracture. The reply was that the engine went through that RPM range so quickly that the vibration was not a problem! As I recall Fran Hernandez was also involved, and this event led to his career at Ford. Anyway, it's another example of hot rodders outdoing the factory.

[LazarusLong]

Originally Posted by rich b

Gee whiz; I was thinking there would be more to see; like pictures of the whole set-up.

What more IS there to see? You see the transmission casting numbers,the output shaft,the drive shaft nose,and the data plate on the side of the transmission.

[LazarusLong]

Originally Posted by 40 Deluxe

Funny how the same basic story has so many variations! The version I read in a car magazine years ago said this happened at the Detroit Hydroplane Race in 1948 or so on the Detroit River. Henry Ford died in 1947 and was pretty much incapacitated from a stroke for some years before. Some Ford engineers were there and their question was how these guys avoided breaking crankshafts because the six had a bad harmonic frequency vibration around 4800 RPM that caused cranks to fracture. The reply was that the engine went through that RPM range so quickly that the vibration was not a problem! As I recall Fran Hernandez was also involved, and this event led to his career at Ford. Anyway, it's another example of hot rodders outdoing the factory.

Kinda like the old "saw" in the army about secrets. Pass one on to one guy,and by the time the 6th guy is whispering it to someone else,it has no relation to the first version.

I doubt anybody here is old enough to have actually heard and witnessed what happened.

i,for one,would like to find out why the flat 6's were so popular in race boats.