Bret Ludwig

L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
> >
> > For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
> > partly a flat head.
> >
> > It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
> > Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
> > have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
> >
> > Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
> > the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
> > races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
> >
> > There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
> > that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
> > increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
> > parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
> > carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
> > ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
> >
> > To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
> > is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
> > give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
> > those upgrades.


Most old flatheads were very thermally inefficient because of the low
compression and the large surface area of the combustion chamber.
That's why flatheads were never used as aircraft engines with the
exception of the Continental A-40 (which was originally developed as a
motorcycle powerplant) and the Funk Ford conversion. Virtually all were
replaced with A or c series continentals after WWII.

If you build an inline flattie you will want to fit the block with
Stellite exhaust valve seats and an upgraded aftermarket stainless
valve for use with modern fuels. Probably the easiest to find today
would be a Continental Red Seal out of a welder, genset, pump or
forklift as they were made up until five or six years ago.

Bret Ludwig

L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
> >
> > For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
> > partly a flat head.
> >
> > It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
> > Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
> > have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
> >
> > Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
> > the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
> > races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
> >
> > There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
> > that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
> > increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
> > parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
> > carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
> > ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
> >
> > To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
> > is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
> > give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
> > those upgrades.


Most old flatheads were very thermally inefficient because of the low
compression and the large surface area of the combustion chamber.
That's why flatheads were never used as aircraft engines with the
exception of the Continental A-40 (which was originally developed as a
motorcycle powerplant) and the Funk Ford conversion. Virtually all were
replaced with A or c series continentals after WWII.

If you build an inline flattie you will want to fit the block with
Stellite exhaust valve seats and an upgraded aftermarket stainless
valve for use with modern fuels. Probably the easiest to find today
would be a Continental Red Seal out of a welder, genset, pump or
forklift as they were made up until five or six years ago.

Bret Ludwig

L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Jeep used a flathead four and six cylinder engines:
> http://perso.orange.fr/morbius/jeep....orisation.html
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > Did they ever put a flat head six in a Jeep?
> >
> > For that matter was there ever a flat head four? The F head is only
> > partly a flat head.
> >
> > It really depends on the engine and the car itself. I used to have a 57
> > Studebaker wagon with a flat head six, NEAT car but both it an I would
> > have been a lot happier with a Stude 259 V8 in it.
> >
> > Again, I only have experience with Studebakers but an early Lark with a
> > the six and overdrive will get in the low 20's. You won't win any drag
> > races but it will get you there and will keep up with modern traffic.
> >
> > There are also things you can do, there is a conversion kit available
> > that enables the use of a more modern 2bbl carburetor and it actually
> > increases both power and gas mileage. Then you can also get performance
> > parts but I suspect that would defeat your purpose... although with that
> > carb conversion, a mild compression increase, and with electronic
> > ignition I bet that same Lark could approach 30 MPG.
> >
> > To stay on topic I understand that same little Studebaker Champion six
> > is pretty much a direct bolt in replacement for the F head and would
> > give you better performance and possibly better mileage, especially with
> > those upgrades.


Most old flatheads were very thermally inefficient because of the low
compression and the large surface area of the combustion chamber.
That's why flatheads were never used as aircraft engines with the
exception of the Continental A-40 (which was originally developed as a
motorcycle powerplant) and the Funk Ford conversion. Virtually all were
replaced with A or c series continentals after WWII.

If you build an inline flattie you will want to fit the block with
Stellite exhaust valve seats and an upgraded aftermarket stainless
valve for use with modern fuels. Probably the easiest to find today
would be a Continental Red Seal out of a welder, genset, pump or
forklift as they were made up until five or six years ago.

Earle Horton

You have to put an overdrive unit in it to get good fuel mileage, and even
then I doubt you'll get out of the low twenties. If you really want to know
who got the best WWII gas mileage, it was probably the Kubelwagen, military
version of the VW Bug. Think about fuel shortages and blockades, motivation
to design an economical vehicle.

My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26 mpg.
I think I am limited by aerodynamic drag. I am going to do some top-down
tests this summer as soon as it stops raining. :o( If you really want to
save fuel, my aerodynamic Honda Civic HX, a model that was specifically
designed for increased fuel economy and decreased emissions, gets 40 mpg in
the mountains, 45 on the Interstate.

As the resident Studebaker nut pointed out, an "economy car" from that era
was probably my uncle's Lark, or the 1960 Rambler American I tried to
restore once. After I spent some time reading manuals, looking at the
actual design, and pondering the effects that a broken ring will have over
time, I traded it in on a 1985 Cavalier station wagon.

Good luck though.

Earle

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:P5OdnTkbeuzrjyzZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> By flattie I mean Flat fender Jeep, a ****** MB up to a CJ2a, so what
> I'm asking is which of the old extremely light weight WWII era Jeeps got
> the best MPG?
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Earle Horton

You have to put an overdrive unit in it to get good fuel mileage, and even
then I doubt you'll get out of the low twenties. If you really want to know
who got the best WWII gas mileage, it was probably the Kubelwagen, military
version of the VW Bug. Think about fuel shortages and blockades, motivation
to design an economical vehicle.

My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26 mpg.
I think I am limited by aerodynamic drag. I am going to do some top-down
tests this summer as soon as it stops raining. :o( If you really want to
save fuel, my aerodynamic Honda Civic HX, a model that was specifically
designed for increased fuel economy and decreased emissions, gets 40 mpg in
the mountains, 45 on the Interstate.

As the resident Studebaker nut pointed out, an "economy car" from that era
was probably my uncle's Lark, or the 1960 Rambler American I tried to
restore once. After I spent some time reading manuals, looking at the
actual design, and pondering the effects that a broken ring will have over
time, I traded it in on a 1985 Cavalier station wagon.

Good luck though.

Earle

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:P5OdnTkbeuzrjyzZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> By flattie I mean Flat fender Jeep, a ****** MB up to a CJ2a, so what
> I'm asking is which of the old extremely light weight WWII era Jeeps got
> the best MPG?
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Earle Horton

You have to put an overdrive unit in it to get good fuel mileage, and even
then I doubt you'll get out of the low twenties. If you really want to know
who got the best WWII gas mileage, it was probably the Kubelwagen, military
version of the VW Bug. Think about fuel shortages and blockades, motivation
to design an economical vehicle.

My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26 mpg.
I think I am limited by aerodynamic drag. I am going to do some top-down
tests this summer as soon as it stops raining. :o( If you really want to
save fuel, my aerodynamic Honda Civic HX, a model that was specifically
designed for increased fuel economy and decreased emissions, gets 40 mpg in
the mountains, 45 on the Interstate.

As the resident Studebaker nut pointed out, an "economy car" from that era
was probably my uncle's Lark, or the 1960 Rambler American I tried to
restore once. After I spent some time reading manuals, looking at the
actual design, and pondering the effects that a broken ring will have over
time, I traded it in on a 1985 Cavalier station wagon.

Good luck though.

Earle

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:P5OdnTkbeuzrjyzZnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> By flattie I mean Flat fender Jeep, a ****** MB up to a CJ2a, so what
> I'm asking is which of the old extremely light weight WWII era Jeeps got
> the best MPG?
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

Earle Horton wrote:
> My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26 mpg.

It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
Flat fender.

Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)

I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

Earle Horton wrote:
> My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26 mpg.

It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
Flat fender.

Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)

I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

Earle Horton wrote:
> My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26 mpg.

It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
Flat fender.

Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)

I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Earle Horton

I figure 45-50 mph is where aerodynamic factors become more important than
weight. Any of the flat fender vintage engines will sip gas all day long
idling or crawling around the farm, but on the highway it is going to suffer
decreasing fuel economy until you wonder exactly what was the "be-all
end-all goal". I don't get the purpose of this project.

Now Bill had the right idea of what to put in an old Jeep. I wonder how
much goatpower that 400 cid engine has? Or you could try a more modern four
cylinder, something capable of handling forced induction and a wide rpm
range.

Earle

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:gMKdnU6vp9aC8izZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@rcn.net...
> Earle Horton wrote:
> > My 1995 Wrangler has the four cylinder AMC pushrod engine, modern fuel
> > injection, and five forward speeds. The best I can get out of it is 26
mpg.
>
> It weighs close to 4,000 pounds which is roughly 2 times more than a
> Flat fender.
>
> Fuel economy isn't the be-all end-all goal, I'm just looking for
> opinions on the best power plant to start with. Assuming it had to
> achieve highway minimum speeds of 55 to 60 MPH (which to tell the truth
> is all I ever do in my YJ because of the aerodynamic's problem)
>
> I do of course realize there are better suited Cars for daily driving,
> that's pretty obviously not the point of my question.
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein