| chrismac | -- 12-31-2009 @ 7:55 AM |
|
I bought the book and it has been very helpful. I am restoring a 1940 Marmon Herrington station wagon. Don't know much about 1940 Fords so I have lots of questions. My vehicle frame # is 99A-155627. I'm told this indicates it was built on a Mercury chassis with a 95hp engine. The engine has been replaced (I think) because it doesn't have the 1940 style block described on page 5-2. I do have an other flathead engine with the correct block but I am unclear on the differences between 60hp, 85hp and 95hp engines? Thanks, Chris
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 12-31-2009 @ 6:37 PM |
|
Chris, A MH is a very rare and desirable beast. Together with a '40 Ford Woodie, you have a great car there. Your friend got it almost right. Your original engine was a Mercury 95 hp, according to your frame number. The 85 hp engine is not correct for your Ford, and it is a Ford frame, not a Mercury. The serial number should also be on your DMV Title, and the bell housing of your three speed transmission. The 40 Ford book will give you loads of information, but not much on the Station Wagon, nor the Marmon Herrington conversion. Your correct engine should have a 3 3/16" bore, and carry 24 stud heads marked 81A or 81T. Alan
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-01-2010 @ 6:53 AM |
|
The correct block for a 1940 95 HP engine will have 99T stamped on the machined surface where the intake manifold mounts. It will be on the right front of the surface. The block is the same as the 85 HP engine, but was bored out to accept 3 3/16" sleeves and pistons. The correct heads for the 95 HP engine are P/N 81T- 6049 and 81T-6050. The 99T prefix heads were used on the trucks, and the 81A heads were used on the 85 HP engines. Tom
|
|
| chrismac | -- 01-03-2010 @ 7:25 AM |
|
Thanks for the info Alan. Any chance you are Alan Darr the 1940 Club Advisor? MH replaced the standard Ford 3 speed with a truck 4 speed. I'll look on the transmission case but I bet it was not stamped with the frame number. Is there a Marmon Herrington expert in the club? Thanks again! Chris
|
|
| chrismac | -- 01-03-2010 @ 7:33 AM |
|
Thanks for the info Tom. I want to restore this vehicle as accurately as possible which means finding or building a correct 95hp engine. The engine I have is out of a 2wd station wagon and is not sleeved so it probably is not a 3 3/16th bore. Was the only difference between the 85hp and 95hp engines in the bore and heads? How about the carb? What is the difference between the 81A and 81T heads; compression ratio? Thanks! Chris
|
|
| trjford8 | -- 01-03-2010 @ 8:15 AM |
|
Chrismac, if you have a roster look up Nick Alexander in California. Nick had a large collection of woodies and he had 3 or 4 that were Marmon-Harrington units. He knew a lot about them.
|
|
| ford38v8 | -- 01-03-2010 @ 10:29 AM |
|
Chris, my mistake, I forgot about the 4 speed transmission. No, this Alan is a Simpson, not a Darr. The correct carburetor for a '40 is a 91-99. This isn't one of the changes found on a MH. How complete is your truck? Do you have all the parts but the engine? The suspension, transmission, dash plaque and hood side plaques? I'm not sure what they did in the way of brakes for a '40, but they did convert the mechanicals to hydraulic in the earlier models. I agree with trj, get hold of Nick in California for the tough questions. Alan
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-05-2010 @ 9:04 AM |
|
Chris, both the 3 3/16 and the 3 1/16 bore engines were sleeved in 39 and 40. I beleive that there were also some 239 cu.in and 221 cu. in. engines bult in 1939 without being sleeved. There may have been some 41 engines built without the raised deck for the intake manifold, also. There is no difference in the external appearance of the 38-40 blocks that were sleeved and the blocks that were not sleeved. Sleeving the blocks was one of Ford's "Better Ideas". He thought that using thin steel sleeves that were easily replaced was better than having the owner pay for re-boring the block for over-sized pistons. The process did not require expensive machine shop tools and the stock pistons could be re-used. The steel sleeves had a tendency to wear faster than the cast iron block, so these engines would burn oil and lose compression with less miles than the cast iron cylinder blocks. The sleeved blocks were discontinued in 1941. The difference in the 81T, 81A and 99T heads was in the compression ratio. The 81T gave the same compression ratio with the 3 3/16 bore as the 81A heads gave with the 3 1/16 bore, 6.5:1. The 99T heads gave a 3 3/16 bore engine a 6.15:1 compression ratio. The 239 cu. in. engine also had a different crankshaft than the 221 cu. in. engine with larger rod journals. Tom
|
|
| chrismac | -- 01-09-2010 @ 6:41 PM |
|
will do, thanks!
|
|
| chrismac | -- 01-09-2010 @ 6:51 PM |
|
Alan, The car is actually 2 cars; a very complete Marmon Herrington woodie that is totally clapped out; rotten wood, rusted out body, trashed interior, been outside for years. It is complete, just rough. The engine has been replaced with a later flathead. The transmission shift pattern data plate is still on the dash but the other MH emblems are gone. The hood has the holes where the oval badges were mounted. Axles, transfer case, springs, mounts, etc are all there. The other vehicle is a standard 1940 woodie; 2 wd. It is a good, running, original unrestored and fairly rust free driver. Good original wood. The plan is to use the body off the 2wd woodie to restore the MH woodie. The brakes on both vehicles are hydraulic. The carb on one a correct 91-99 but the other is different. I need to assemble a correct 1940 95hp engine since neither vehicle has the right block. The heads on the 2wd rig are 81T castings but both are 6049 and I think one should be 6049 and the other 6050. Is this correct? Thanks, Chris
|
|
| chrismac | -- 01-09-2010 @ 7:02 PM |
|
Thanks for the details Tom. My block appears to be a post-1940 model because it has the raised deck where the intake mounts. I'd like to find a correct 1940 block. What casting # should I look for? Does the 3 3/16th bore equate to a 239 cid engine and 3 1/16th to 221 cid? I guess the 95hp engine requires the 3 3/16th bore. Were all 239 blocks in 1940 sleeved? Can a 3 1/6th block be bored to 3 3/16ths? As for the heads, I have two that are 81T-6049 castings. Should one be 6049 and the other 6050? Thanks, Chris
|
|
| TomO | -- 01-11-2010 @ 9:49 AM |
|
I don't know of any casting numbers to define a 1940 block. I identify the 1938 to 1940 24 stud blocks by looking for the raised areas by the oil pan for the core plugs, the exhaust manifold mounting areas are about 3/8" thick compared to the 1/8" areas on the later blocks and the pencil test shown in the 40 Restoration Guide. You are correct in relating the bore to the cu in size of the engine. With Ford items, I have learned the hard way to never say "all" or "always". Most 221 and 239 cu in engines built in 1940 were sleeved. The sleeved engines were stamped HS on the machined surface of the block for the intake manifold. You can bore a 221 cu in engine to 239 cu in in most cases. Your machine shop should check cylinder wall thickness and sleeve any cylinders that do not have sufficient wall thickness. If you can find a block that was not sleeved, that would be my preference for rebuilding. The rings will seat better and the cast iron will not wear as fast as the "tin can" sleeves used in 1939 and 1940. Yes, the left and right heads had different P/Ns. The right hand (passenger side) head P/N is 81T-6049 and the left hand (drivers side) head is P/N 81T-6050. Tom
|
|
| EFV-8 Club Forum : | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum |
| Topic: | https://www.earlyfordv8.org/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=14&Topic=522 |