Models K, N and T weight to horsepower comparison

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 2014: Models K, N and T weight to horsepower comparison
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - 06:08 pm:

I've wondered for some time how much each car weighs. I finally had the N out today and weighed it at the local feedlot (after weighing the other two over the last few weeks).

Weights and advertised horsepower:

....Car...............Weight.........hp............lbs./hp

1906 N..............1200............15..............80
spare, MC battery, no top, tools, lights

1907 K..............2900............40..............72.5
spare, full size battery, no top, tools, lights

1913 T..............1690............20..............84.5
top, bat, no spare, no tools, lights

All fluids were topped off.

The best driving speeds for each seem to be 25 mph for the Model N, 30-35 mph for the T and 35-40 mph for the K. So far my fastest speeds have been 35 with the N, 52 with the T, and 58 with the K.

The Model K engine is stock (down to original cast iron pistons). The Model N has aluminum pistons, and the Model T has a Stipe 280 cam, Z head, and aluminum pistons.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Hjortnaes, Men Falls, WI on Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - 11:32 pm:

I know my T will do better than 58, but I don't think I have the guts to try it unless we were on a track. Then I could leave you in the dust. LOL


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Kelsey on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 12:46 am:

Interesting comparison. Now you need a Model B to add to the fkeet.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By David Mazza on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 06:25 pm:

or perhaps see what the early model t actually weighs out at, the book says 1200# but the n being 1200, I'm not so sure the first Ts were as light as advertised. The K is however lighter than one would think for a car of its size!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Georgetown TX on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 08:00 pm:

When comparing rated horsepower I don't see the reason to say what kind of pistons the car has.

It would be interesting to see a dynamometer reading on the K and the N. My guess is both of them put out more than their rated horsepower.

The Model T was rated differently by different authorities. This is from the introduction of the Model T at the London Motor show:


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 10:04 pm:

The reason I listed the Model K with cast iron pistons is as stated, stock vs. modified (T and N). If a person doesn't believe aluminum pistons make a max speed/rpm difference, so be it.

The stock K piston and rod weigh 9.5 lbs. I believe (memory) the piston alone weighed just over 5 lbs.

Next week I'm scheduled with our local dynometer shop. I'm taking our K (new rings and re ground valves) and either the N or one of the Ts. I'm not sure at what rpm/speed to run the test, and will probably ask the question before next Wednesday.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Kelsey on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 03:58 am:

Just curious. ..was there an engine upgrade from the N to the R to the S?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 04:44 am:

Jim,

No, the chassis remained the same for N, R and S. I have seen some period Ford advertising that listed the Model N at 15 hp and S at 18, but I think it was a dealer ad.

There were a few modifications such as a tapered manifold later (our early 1906 N has a straight manifold).


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ted Dumas on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 04:13 pm:

Why not run several speeds and get info so you can sketch power curves?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerry Hoffman (admin) on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 05:49 pm:

Last year at the speedster reunion, Rob had his K on the dyno and if I remember correctly the HP was 47/48. At the first reunion I had the use of a set of scales and weighed any car that wanted to be done. I did it with and with out a driver, and I asked everyone what they thought their car's number was. Not one person was closer than 100 pounds, or put this way everyone thought it was lighter than it was. The lightest speedster was owned by Herb Zook, it's won the Tulsa hill climb and even Herb thought it was lighter than it was. It was 1240 as I recall. Ed Archers yellow speedster was as I recall just under 1300 lbs. I'm at McDs and do not have my notes in front of me. J


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 06:42 pm:

Ted,
I'm not sure I fully understand the dyno reading. I'm not sure if the hp at typical driving speed, or more, or less, is what a person is trying to find out? My thinking was to try for a reading at 35, 40 and 45 mph (again, not sure what this tells me, but I'll find out more when I get there).

Jerry,
If you recall, the K was "doggy" last year. We had not checked compression, and this winter when we were addressing a cylinder that wasn't firing, found the compression terribly low (28-48 lbs). After Dean Yoder honed and put new rings on, we are around 65 on all six, and what a difference. Now it accelerates on any hill I've tried, and can start from high gear at idle on the level.

From period documents, it appears the compression was probably in the low 70's when the K was new. Meanwhile, another Model T friend is fitting aluminum pistons to our "spare" engine, and we'll replace these with newly rings and pistons sometime after New London to New Brighton.

I'll post more after the next weeks testing,

Rob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jerome Hoffman, Hays KS on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 11:13 pm:

Looking forward to new Brighton pictures, and what follows. I like the idea of testing on the dyno at 25, 35, 45 mph but I think(dangerous I know) that with out a "load' on the car the HP readings will be lower than most will think. That's why a T will still move when not running well.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 11:21 pm:

Jerry,
I'm not smart enough to poor piss from a boot (I know, I could stop there) when it comes to a dyno meter. Also, I don't think this dyno is very accurate on lower hp cars. Still, I am trying to dial in the original Buffalo carb and the CO2 scale and other readings may be just as helpful. I'll probably put the N on too, so the comparison may be interesting (or not).


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration