silvrsvt Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 The GAA was an interesting engine. It came from an unsuccessful V-12 aircraft engine Ford was working on during WWII that design-wise borrowed a bit from the Rolls-Royce Merlin. Worked very well in tanks, better than air-cooled radials and that 30 cylinder monstrosity Chrysler came up with. The GAA's only fault was that is was a gasoline engine, which made the Sherman somewhat vulnerable. The United States Marine Corps preferred diesel engined tanks, and their Sherman's used twin 6-71 Detroit Diesels. Not quite as powerful as the GAA, but very reliable and safer for the crews. Actually the engine wasn't the issue with the Sherman and it catching on fire...it was the ammunition carried on it. They solved this problem by putting in a glycerine/water mix blister over/around the ammo, so if it was hit, the glycerine/water would smother the fire from the ammo. The different engines that the Sherman used was due to several factors, but the Marines used M4A3 Shermans late in the war and the only reason they got M4A2 (diesel powered Sherman) was it was easier to get from the supply system early the in war. The Army used the A2 power plant in its Tank Destroyer units, in the M10...but the M10A1 used a gas powered engine. That must have been a logistics nightmare to deal with. The GAA was used in the Pershing, which it was underpowered for because it weighed more then a Sherman and the GAA was replaced by a Continental V12 in the tanks that succeeded the Pershing and Sherman, which started off gas powered then was converted into a diesel engine because the post-war Tanks used by the US Army and Marines where lucky to go 100 miles on a single tank of gas, when the current standard is more like 200-300 miles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Actually the engine wasn't the issue with the Sherman and it catching on fire...it was the ammunition carried on it. They solved this problem by putting in a glycerine/water mix blister over/around the ammo, so if it was hit, the glycerine/water would smother the fire from the ammo. The different engines that the Sherman used was due to several factors, but the Marines used M4A3 Shermans late in the war and the only reason they got M4A2 (diesel powered Sherman) was it was easier to get from the supply system early the in war. The Army used the A2 power plant in its Tank Destroyer units, in the M10...but the M10A1 used a gas powered engine. That must have been a logistics nightmare to deal with. The GAA was used in the Pershing, which it was underpowered for because it weighed more then a Sherman and the GAA was replaced by a Continental V12 in the tanks that succeeded the Pershing and Sherman, which started off gas powered then was converted into a diesel engine because the post-war Tanks used by the US Army and Marines where lucky to go 100 miles on a single tank of gas, when the current standard is more like 200-300 miles. . So what you are saying is, it will not ever be a pushrod design.... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 . So what you are saying is, it will not ever be a pushrod design.... Shameless attempt to get back on topic? LOL! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) It was all aluminum, 500hp and 1100 cubic inches. It was considered the best American tank engine of all during WWII. . Unfortunately there were a lot of Shermans that burnt up because they were using gas, but that had nothing to do with the quality of the Ford engine. They built to the spec sheet. Edit: I stand corrected, as mentioned above, it did have more to do with the protection of the ammunition than the fact it used gasoline verses diesel. Edited April 18, 2017 by tbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 . So what you are saying is, it will not ever be a pushrod design.... hahahah just interjecting some knowlege. The funny thing is the Conti Diesel engine is still being used today. When I was in the Army 20+ years ago, the recovery vehicle we used had this engine in it...and it was "SLOOOOW" if the M88 could go over 25 MPH, that basically meant the engine was at the end of its life and needed to be replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Actually the engine wasn't the issue with the Sherman and it catching on fire...it was the ammunition carried on it. They solved this problem by putting in a glycerine/water mix blister over/around the ammo, so if it was hit, the glycerine/water would smother the fire from the ammo. The different engines that the Sherman used was due to several factors, but the Marines used M4A3 Shermans late in the war and the only reason they got M4A2 (diesel powered Sherman) was it was easier to get from the supply system early the in war. The Army used the A2 power plant in its Tank Destroyer units, in the M10...but the M10A1 used a gas powered engine. That must have been a logistics nightmare to deal with. The GAA was used in the Pershing, which it was underpowered for because it weighed more then a Sherman and the GAA was replaced by a Continental V12 in the tanks that succeeded the Pershing and Sherman, which started off gas powered then was converted into a diesel engine because the post-war Tanks used by the US Army and Marines where lucky to go 100 miles on a single tank of gas, when the current standard is more like 200-300 miles. Interesting, I can see where the Navy would have a better supply of diesel fuel than the Army at the time. I was told most if not all M26's had there GAA's replaced with Continental V-12's after the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Unfortunately there were a lot of Shermans that burnt up because they were using gas, but that had nothing to do with the quality of the Ford engine. They built to the spec sheet. Edit: I stand corrected, as mentioned above, it did have more to do with the protection of the ammunition than the fact it used gasoline verses diesel. Hmnn-no argument on ammo but seems like I did read that "gasoline in American tanks made them more susceptible to loss vs. Gemans ( Tigers?)which I guess were diesel??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Hmnn-no argument on ammo but seems like I did read that "gasoline in American tanks made them more susceptible to loss vs. Gemans ( Tigers?)which I guess were diesel??? Nope they where petrol powered too Maybach HL230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230 Fire issues with the Sherman http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Well this is hopelessly off topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Well this is hopelessly off topic Welcome to BON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Well this is hopelessly off topic But we are filling your head with useless information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 OK, here's my Sherman. And now that we've officially gone off on a TanGent. Here's George Hamilton. Our official tangent mascot. And that's how we roll on BON... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Don't complain, this is interesting stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 OK, here's my Sherman. And now that we've officially gone off on a TanGent. Here's George Hamilton. Our official tangent mascot. And that's how we roll on BON... It's not officially off the rails 'til we get Dean's penguins in sweaters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 But we are filling your head with useless information Is it Useless But Important Information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Nope they where petrol powered too Maybach HL230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230 Fire issues with the Sherman http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/ Thanks for the education! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I guess we are done speculating about an engine that will show up sometime around 2020, will likely only be available in class 4 and heavier trucks, might be available in the Mustang, and could be a pushrod/OHV configuration. Where is the thread on George Hamilton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Ok ..."Pushrods forever" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Ok ..."Pushrods forever" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) Going back to the 6.2L's alleged unsuitability for medium duty truck service (apologies to theoldwizard, I have no reason to doubt him) due to cooling system limitations: I came across something recently that may tend to support that notion (if true): According to a high performance engine builder that supposedly does a lot of 6.2L's for the Raptor crowd, the 6.2L block has siamesed cylinder walls (no coolant passages between the cylinders) and the water jackets only extend about halfway down the cylinder from the deck. Does not sound like the block holds much water. If true, that may indeed explain why the 6.2L is limited to the F-350. Anyone out there with 6.2L experience that could verify those claims? I have yet to hear of any cooling system problems with the 6.2L in any of it's current applications. Edited April 19, 2017 by 7Mary3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) Later efficiency and emissions strategies in automotive engines is to run the cylinder barrels hotter and the heads cooler, I wonder if something like that was baked into the bosses design early on and perhaps acts against it in heavier truck applications where the engine has extended periods of slogging against heavier loads... I wasn't aware of the partial siamese sections on the cylinder barrels, the older 400 chev had siamesed bores and needed additional steam holes in the block to relieve those hot areas where the barrels come together.... Edited April 19, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Anyone want to know how to find the first derivative of a polynomial ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Anyone want to know how to find the first derivative of a polynomial ? I haven't used Calculus since college, why should I go back to it now? But, even though it's been almost 20 years, I still remember how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I just don't see the benefits of ever going back to pushrods....might as well go back to a flat head design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I haven't used Calculus since college, why should I go back to it now? But, even though it's been almost 20 years, I still remember how. I didn't know how to do it when I was actually in Calculus class so I definitely don't know how to do it today. That's the one college course I just never understood. My first teacher at our local community college was horrible so I never really learned the basics. I managed to get a C in both courses. Then I got a 105 average in Linear Algebra which was really just matrix multiplication. Why that course came after the Calculus courses is still a mystery - easiest course I ever took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.