Moving some things around in my shop yesterday and happened to notice that this late block doesn't have a window for the throttle rod to pass through to operate the carburetor. Anyone seen this before? How would it have worked without it?
Vaporizer carb. Iíve seen some before
If you ignore the spacing of the digits, this block is numbered over 15 million, which means it was beyond the Model T run.
Could it be a Model A block? Could it have been made as a stationary engine for some purpose? Could I be wrong (likely)?
I have complete 27 engine like this
This is definitely a Model T block. I was told it was a post-production replacement unit. Never knew Ford produced them without the window, though.
Did they produce the later engines with & without the window and why?
Late production engines with the Vaporizor carb did not have the pass thru sine the throttle rod passed over the engine to control engine speed. Perfectly normal late block.
Bob is absolutely right. If it had a vaporizer carb when it left the factory, it did not have the hole in the block. In Ford's thinking why pay someone to knock out the hole if you were not going to use it. That saves money!! Henry liked that idea.
PS Those blocks are hard to find now.
I'm not a big fan of vaporizers, so would it do any harm to drill a hole to allow for throttle linkage, or is it best to leave it alone?
If you look in the Service Bulletins, I think I remember a notice in one from Ford that you should knock out the piece with a ball peen hammer. Dan
Thanks for the responses from all of my learned and esteemed colleagues on this here forum!
it is a very late '27 production block, not post-production, in a configuration that is not easy to find these days. Sell it to someone who will want and value it. Standard blocks are so common it would be a shame to alter this one
Scott, your point is well taken. I'll just leave her alone.
According to the serial number it was built in Sept. of '27, after the end of car production but before the introduction of the Model A.
My TT has a 1929 engine and that part had to be drilled out for the throttle rod to pass through.
Just out of curiosity - how thick is that web?
Just an observation, there are many more posts about making irreversible alterations to original parts than there are about making repairs which would bring worn or broken items back to original standards. Those whose comments are less than enthusiastic about doing so are often sneered at for being "purists " or otherwise berated. There are also a fair number of posts where new owners are confounded by non-original alterations.
Model T is a conundrum. In its time it was a "perfect" balance of cost vs. reliable performance and utility. It was for all practical purposes an off-road ATV. As roads improved and speeds went up, it's short-comings became glaring. It had outlived its own time by a good five years or more by dint of sheer numbers, and it was abandoned by the general driving public with blinding speed. Consider the huge difference between a '27 model T and a new '32 Ford V-8 !
Maybe a very few of today's Model T drivers can say their first car was a model T, but even fewer of those will have experienced driving conditions that were the he norm in the model T's "formative years". There's a tendency to bring expectations from cars far newer and far advanced above the Model T's very real imperfections to a newly acquired tin lizzie and then attempt to make it into something it typically never was.
My 27 doesn't have the hole either.
from the encyclopedia
Ser. # 14,619,255 to 15,076,231, calendar year
14,049,030 to 15,006,625 approx., model year
(August 2, 1926 to May 26, 1927)
Beginning in August 1926 the felt front crankshaft seal was changed to the asbestos type with the rubber core. \b During 1927 the hole between the center cylinders was closed. Since all cars used the Vaporizer type carburetor, the throttle rod passed over the engine instead of through it. Sometime during 1927 production (beginning in August 1926) the "Ford" and "Made in USA" began to be omitted from the cylinder head casting.
Late in calendar 1926, the cylinder head and water outlet bolts were given rounded, nickel-plated, heads in an attempt to dress-up the engine appearance.
I would not hit it with a hammer. You could damage the cylinder if you do. However you could drill it out and grind out a hole large enough for the throttle rod to work.
Or... just suck it up and install the Vaporizor carb set..... keep the block original.
Was this block ever used as a complete engine ?? or as a nos replacement ??
My '27 depot hack engine with original engine does not have the hole in the block either. I have an NH Holley carburetor in place of the vaporizer and I installed a very nice and very well made throttle linkage that comes over the top of the engine and down to the carburetor which is available from Langs. It is listed in their catalog and I highly recommend it as it has worked so well for me. FWIW,.....harold
Yeah, keep the hole blocked off! I've got two 27 engines and both have a hole punched through. Not many left original I don't think.
If you go Vaporizer, I have some NOS throttle rods. Pm me for info. Dan
May want to paint some heavy oil or grease on those bores to arrest corrosion. But that's just me.
So is the area in question a solid casting of it just a thin scab that was left to cover the hole in the block. Could the thin (if it was thin) pieces been simply knocked out to use the older style carburetor linkage?
Could it be that all T blocks had the thin scab of cast iron and upon assembly of the blocks it was knocked out to use the hole to install the linkage?
When Ford went to the late change for the linkage they probably just left the hole closed and didn't drill or break it out.
Just my opinion of course,
If you look closely at the picture of the valve chamber side, you will see a thinner recessed area that can be knocked out for the NH style throttle rod
For whatever it is worth. Years ago, I had a September '27 engine that had the web between 2 & 3 apparently knocked out with a hammer and punch. I would imagine that thin cast iron would break out easily. I would also personally prefer to drill the web rather than risk forming a crack which could grow into the cylinder wall. Since I was using the engine in an earlier car that used a through the block throttle rod, I left the knocked out area alone.
Interesting to note, the side cover on those engines also had no hole in them either. For my use of that engine, I replaced the side cover with an earlier one with the oval hole for the throttle rod. Whoever had used the engine years earlier had drilled a small (about half inch) hole in the cover for the throttle rod. All the parts I have looked at through the years, I think I have only seen maybe a half dozen of the side covers with no hole in them, and maybe about that many blocks with unbroken web between the cylinders.
While I would like for most of these unusual blocks and side covers to remain as examples of a somewhat rare and mostly forgotten change? If someone wants to use such an engine (or side cover) in their car that they want to drive? If they choose to drill a pathway for the throttle rod to operate? I won't gripe about it. I hope they drive and enjoy their model T! That is a much more important aspect of the hobby.
I don't know if I could find it easily or not? But I am fairly sure I still have that side cover with the smaller hole in it.
I noticed the same thing also in the block photos.
I have to admit, I'm a bit anal when it comes to keeping original things original. Especially when it involves hard-to-find, unmolested items. I tend to agree with the majority of the respondents to this post; I don't plan to drill, punch, or otherwise knock out a hole in this block just to make room for a throttle rod.
Thanks to all of you for giving me good suggestions and insight as to the rarity of the block. I'll just leave it alone...the way Henry and the boys made it!!
We never had a use for the web to be punched out on RHD T's but all have been done, even 25/6 and 7's that had been built in Australia.
The engine #15095965 is listed as produced April 15, 1928 in Bruce's black book. There were still lots of demand for replacement engines by that time - and the last replacement engines were built as late as 1941.
I run an NH on a block without a hole using a linkage set up that runs over the head. I was not about to punch a hole in the block and I had run through 3 vaporizer carbs that ran well but made for hard starting. Simple solution that left the block as Henry made it.
Is is true that Ford stamped an engine number on only completed engines with the transmissions attached?
I thought the short blocks and engines without a transmission attached were replacement engines that were blank in the engine pad. It is thought that the old engine number would be transferred to the blank new engine short block pad. It was then suggested to deface the original old block number so only one block would have the number that one started out with. Can anyone confirm this?
It was also suggested that some states had a problem with this engine number transfer scheme.
Just a thought. Perhaps T replacement block production stopped because the U.S. entered WW2.
After the war Ford was too busy catching up on new vehicles.