"Engine Upgrade"

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2010: "Engine Upgrade"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By DAREL J. LEIPOLD on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 11:08 am:

"Engine upgraded to electric start, and is not original engine." This is in the description for a "1910" fire truck advertised on the HCCA web site. Is the replacing of an original engine with a starter engine an "upgrade"? To me it is a downgrade. What do you think?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Christopher Lang on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 11:30 am:

Well, depends on whether you are afraid of the Ford Fracture or not, some really are.

At least it's not a Pinto engine. Hahaha Seriously though, if you do have one of those, I don't mean to offend. I just always think of that movie where the back of the pinto gets tapped, and the car explodes.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Neil Kaminar on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 11:37 am:

If you are selling it, its an upgrade.

Neil


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 11:48 am:

It would have been an upgrade in 1920.

If I were upgrading an old T firetruck in 1920, I would add a starter, generator, dual ignition and demountable rims.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 12:15 pm:

Thats wierd, right in the middle of typing it all just disappeared!

Anyway...I'm with Ralphie...my own twist is

My 15 starts and runs like a top. The day it becomes a cantankerous mule that refuses to be fixed with a mind looking at it that gets soggier each year?

There isn't a beta-blocker dosage big enough to keep me from pulling that '23 motor out of the old pig-sty by the next weekend and 'upgrading' my '15.

It all depends on your point of view my friends :-):-):-):-) Not that long ago, I would have called such a transplant heresy myself


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Richard Gould on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 03:09 pm:

Downgrade is my vote. So far I am able to crank all my Ts. My opinion might change if creeping old age prevents that.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Eric Hylen on Saturday, June 12, 2010 - 04:28 pm:

I got a kick out of that ad too. The seller starts of stating that it was built by some guy using 1910 Model T parts, then goes on to detail how it's got a newer motor and "Everything is new including fenders, hood, cowl, seats, body and windshield". I doubt that you'll find an actual '10 part on the car. But, it's priced to sell at $27,500.

As for upgrade or no, a decent '10 block would cost more than a freshly rebuilt complete '23 powerplant.

I don't worry about needing a starter. If the car is properly maintained, with good coils and a good carb, it will always start easily. My daughter has been crank starting our '14 since she was seven. If I ever get too weak to flip the crank a quarter turn, I'll also be too weak to safely control the steering wheel. Of course, I may sing a different tune in fifty years.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Wayne Sheldon on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 03:28 am:

I, as with many people in the Horseless Carriage Club, do sympathize with older members that feel they cannot crank their cars any more. But in terms of keeping our antiques as the antiques they are supposed to be, any starter addition is a "down-grade". As long as a starter is added to the original engine in a manner that it does not seriously detract from it's originality, it is considered okay.

On a model T, you DO NOT have to change the engine to a later block or pan. The ONLY things you need to change is the flywheel, magneto and hogshead to mount the added starter onto. A battery also must be added. It could be put in a battery box on the running board, or hidden under the rear seat. You do not need a generator to tour with a T. A battery charger every other day is usually enough for the biggest tour.
The added wiring etc. can be easily removed if desired. And the hogshead changed in a couple hours returns the car to (almost) original. Most people would not care if the flywheel had a starter gear on it or the car had a later magneto inside where it cannot be seen.
My 1914 had a later flywheel and gear inside the early pan and aluminum hogshead. Everything seemed to fit okay.

My cranky, outspoken, opinion is that putting a later engine in an early T for a starter is just a lame excuse.

If you just want a fun car to enjoy, and don't care about authenticity (or many Horseless Carriage Club tours) that is another subject. It may be just fine. Just be sure the price reflects the lack of authenticity. The last genuine 1910 block-only I saw, sold for a little short of 10K.
W2


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By George on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 04:15 am:

Valid point Wayne, and perhaps I was a bit too cute in my metaphor...

To me it would be easier to just do the powerplant swap...I'd prob never do anything to the orig engine and would keep it. That '23 has been ready to plop into something for years, it's not that I would have to go and buy a later engine.

To look at my own situation having owned a crank only but one obstinent mule no matter what I did in the past...all the more reason that some 'clever' fellow come up with an under the hood kit worm drive, that goes into the crank pulley through an overrunning clutch.

Geezers like me who are addicted to beta blockers[only kidding on the addicted part] could stay in the lower and lower year cars we've spent a lifetime getting to. I'm willing to do everything possible to stay with an easy start on crank, work at it dilligently, but if one of the beloved just turns into a permanent mule, I can't see parking it and 'locking' it either :-) That's the point to what I meant.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Alan Long on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 04:33 am:

If my 26 doesn't want to start with the battery / starter motor combo, we don't go anywhere that day!!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce Peterson on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 07:05 am:

The fire truck in question is not a 1910, so no one replaced anything. It's a fun car to own and drive I bet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry A.Woods on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 08:11 am:

Orginality and authenticity are great. Every T that I have ever owned, with one of my current T's excepted, have been as original as I could make them., but I think people get carried away when they belittle a T for changes using T era parts. Sure, its not 100% authentic if it didn't come from the factory that way, but at least it does have a Pinto or small block Chevy engine in it. More than likely this 1910 fire engine is a put together car anyway so who cares! A lot of T's are restored, but have Waukesha Ricardo heads, Model A cranks and rods, Stipe cams, or Z heads. Are we going to criticise these cars as well?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By William Harper on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 08:21 am:

As Wayne points out, The addition of starting equipment may not be due to a balky hard to start engine; it may be due to an owner with physical issues.
One buddy (now 90 or so) is no longer able to crank the 1914 that His father bought new. If he wants to use the T he calls his son to start it and then off they go.
Another fellow I know has a bad back and is unable to crank his brass depot hack. We spoke about adding a starter.

I'm not keen on adding a starter to a car which never had one. But who are we to criticize an owner with physical needs and a strong desire to "remain at the helm". Some of these people have been envolved in this hobby before most of use were born. I admire their dedication. Sometimes "ya gotta do what ya gotta do". We may someday face this decision ourselves.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. My two cents worth. Bill


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack Jeffrey Cole on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 08:54 am:

When I was waddleing around with my left arm in a sling it was awkward.I didnt like it.Not from starting a car though.So I do what I have to to make sure it dont happen.

Folks,you may be young,smart,strong,hardheaded,stubborn,whatever.But dont think you are incapable of forgetting to retard the timeing just that 1 time and break your arm.
From what I remember,the man that invented the self commencer watched his brother die from complications of a broke arm from starting a car.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Norman T. Kling on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:24 am:

Although the addition of a starter would cause the car to be "not authentic", it could have been done back in the day. I can understand someone, when having an engine overhaul, which was very common in those days, saying, "while you have it apart, install an electric starter". In fact I remember my grandfather telling me how he broke a crankshaft in a Model T. I'm sure that when that happened, he either replaced the engine or had extensive work done on it. He didn't tell me if the car had a starter either before or after the work was done, but it could have easily been done. And people didn't even care if the engine was made the same year, as long as it ran well.

So even if a repair does not conform with the original equipment, it could have easily been done later while the car was still in everyday use.
Norm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Terry A.Woods on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 10:14 pm:

Correction to my post above; I meant to write, "at least it does NOT have a Pinto or small block chevy engine in it."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Warren Mortensen on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 06:43 am:

Having watched some of the vehicles come through various stops on the New London - New Brighton run in Minnesota, it appears that you'll find starters installed on at least a few of the cars. I once had the opportunity to try cranking a Model K Roadster. Holy Moses, was THAT a chore. The owner then showed me the flywheel had been machined and a ring gear & starter installed. He said they were fun to drive but the starter made the K much less trouble to start. He stated that he didn't know any Model K owners who had not installed a starter on these cars. The only two Model Ks I've seen up close were both modified.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By DAREL J. LEIPOLD on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 11:34 am:

Interesting comments. On the big 6 cylinder 1906-7 (some were sold in 1908) Model Ks, it would seem that the mark of owning one would be that one could start the engine in the original way. I often wonder when I see a 1903-08 one cylinder Cadillac advertised as "starter added". It is only one cylinder. How hard would it be to start one? The big six K is a different situation. Tough to start, but go for it! When the going gets tough, the tough get going. I am a bit disappointed when I see an other wise original auto modified to make it easier to start or drive. To me, it takes some of the fun out of owning such an auto. If safety is an issue, then I would understand.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password:

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration