There's been plenty of rock solid reliable engine's that once they try something goofy like this with it is when they find out all the little reasons why it's not a good idea. A prime example is just about every major aircraft engine manufacturer trying to attach successful engine's together and none of them ever worked out, the V1710 Allison engine when mated together with another one to make what they called a W engine configuration in theory should have been a reliable engine that made twice the power of a V1710 and been every bit as reliable, they were even so sure it'd work that several aircraft manufacturers started designing aircraft for them, their design depended on the theoretical power they were supposed to make per it's dimensional size. Nope, they didn't work, and when development of the engine's lagged behind the aircraft manufacturers changed the engine mounts to accept regular V1710 engine's just for the sake of getting the aircraft flying to start working out any aerodynamic issues with the intent being that when the W engine was finally ready it could quickly be adapted to the airframe that would have most of it's flight development issues already sorted out. Nope, the engine's never could be sorted out and without engine's that could produce the power that was originally promised the aircraft themselves were naturally worthless from being so underpowered so they never made it beyond the prototype stage. Then there's even some engine's like that which actually limped their way into production but we're constantly plagued with problems that never were satisfactorily sorted out in their lifetime, the R4360 Wasp Major is a prime example of that, people oh and ah at their massive 4 row size and 4,360 cubic inch displacement but the fact is those engine's had more problems and killed more people because of their problems than you can count, that's why their service life was very short and they were quickly replaced by turbo prop and jet engine's with some aircraft that were born wearing R4360 engine's actually being converted over to turbo props in their lifetime.
Yea US peaked in the 50's. Back then it was clear the most important thing was making the best product. NOT making the most money as it is now. I think the 50's had solid education, we were not messing around with our food, we did not tinker w/ our social systems, our news was REAL, our products were the best in the world, and we were on the gold standard. Honestly its turned to sht ever since. Capitalism gone awry. Now we have these "cars" that are being turned into driving electronic devices. What lunacy. I cant...
I have a 230 in my '56 Dodge truck. Rebuilt it myself. They were used in all kinds of equipment, fork lifts, street sweepers, wood chippers. pumps. Cool motor.
@@abelq8008 The straight six has the smallest number of cylinders giving perfect primary and secondary balance, and overlapping power impulses. This makes it inherently smooth. Which is why such luxury makes as Mercedes, Jaguar, Rolls Royce, and BMW stuck with the "big six" concept for so long. They are an optimum design, larger number of cylinders have their advantages but represent diminishing returns, in other words, more complexity but not always to your advantage.
Warms my heart, my grandfather was a Sherman mechanic in the war and if it wasn't for him crashing into a ditch test driving one he would have been cannon fodder at the battle of the bulge.
I love to hear these stories. Put a 1944 penny on your grandfather's grave for me sir. God bless him. America needs to hear more of these stories about the Greatest Generation especially during a time when so many Americans are confused about the disease of fascism. We need to be reminded of the sacrifices of those who fought and died to protect and preserve this great republic.
My Pop was a M10 Tank Destroyer mechanic. The M10's in the 818 TD Battalion had two 220 horse power Detroit Diesels and my Pop said they did was better than the Ford V8's in mud. My Pop was injured hauling ammunition in the middle of the night as it was a black out time with headlights taped up with just slots. And he collided with another jeep before it snowed in the Battle of the Buldge and was in the hospital for months afterwards and was out of the war.
The A57 seems complicated, but it was a straightforward combination of 5 very simple flathead sixes that were understressed in this application and as were reliable as could be. It would be as if one built an engine by combining five Briggs & Stratton single cylinder engines-seemingly complicated but not really. The A57 was an unorthodox solution to this early-war problem that worked very well. Nice video on an interesting subject.
I've heard it said that "a true mark of technological advancement is simplifying the complicated" 🤔 I have no idea what I would use it for, 🤔 But I want one of these engines (I work on dodges daily) 🤪 I can almost see how you could "disable" a failed engine (or TWO🤯) and continue driving until you could make repairs. 💪 But I wonder how many "gallons per hour" that engine used at half throttle (I bet she was a thirsty girl). LoL 🤣🤣🤣
There are a lot of sound engineering reasons why nobody slaps together something as hideous as the A57 Multibank engine . It was obviously done because there was an urgent need to leverage Chrysler's engine building capacity. The Ford GAA, all aluminum, 32 valve, V-8 became the preferred Sherman tank engine and was the only engine kept in postwar, American Sherman's. They later served in the Korean War of 1950 - 53. General Motors provided a twin diesel engine combination for the Sherman, with two joined to a single driveshaft, down from five engines for the Multibank. The British Matilda II tank ran a similar engine layout. The US Army in the European Theater standardized its Shermans for logistics purposes , with all of them running on gasoline /petrol. The Marine Corps in the Pacific relied on the Navy for logistics and many Navy boats ran on diesel , so that's where the GM powered tanks were sent. Lend Lease also shipped the GM diesel tanks to the Soviet Union where the T-34 tank also ran on diesel fuel . The Chysler design was considered too complex (30 spark plugs !) and dumped on the British via Lend Lease, with the US Army retaining only the Wright aircraft and Ford V-8 engine powered Shermans. The air-cooled Wright engine (built by Continental) required air to be drawn through the crew compartment to sufficiently cool the engine . It was great in North Africa where a breeze was usually welcome, but chilly in Northwest Europe later on . The Ford GAA V-8 was originally designed as a V-12 aircraft engine to compete with the Allison V-12 which powered the P-38 Lightning , P-39 Airacobra , and P-40 Warhawk. The Ford design lost out, so it was re-engineered down to a V-8 and became the most popular Sherman tank engine .
@@tracewallace23 That's actually pretty easy to figure out - Let's take a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption of 0.45 and multiply by the stated horsepower of 115 HP. 115 X 5 = 575 then X 0.45 = 258 pounds of fuel, then cut that in half for "half throttle" , so 129 pounds, divide by six, = 21.5 gallons an hour, just toolin' around.
@@peterdarr383 Wow 🤯🙂 awesome explanation 💪 That seems REALLY thirsty to me 😵💫 🤔I would think that tank would always be waiting on fuel (or getting it where it could). Thanks for the knowledge👍🙂
@@tracewallace23 It's basically "rule of thumb" and you can run the calculation the other way - - My truck gets 20 MPG at a steady 60 MPH. I'm burning 3 gallons an hour that weigh 18 pounds. Some division with the 0.45 factor gives 40 horsepower. My truck needs to make 40 HP to pull me down the road.
That engine fired 15 times per one main crank revolution. That is crazy and very cool. Just some of the cool and weird stuff from the war. Once again Vizoracer you found another gem of an engine. Keep up the good work and God bless you brother
@@magnetmannenbannanen that's what I was thinking. When he gave HP numbers I thought oh yea but what was the torque? And that's what you need to move heavy metal.
Although it might be complicated in shape. The parts that would be needed to replaced, were common and the mechanics were familiar with them. the center casting merely held held 5 common truck engines.
The way I heard it, the 30 cylinder was a stopgap to get over a shortage of tank engines. Different companies made the Sherman tank including Ford and Chrysler. Originally, Chrysler was supposed to make tanks equipped with giant V8s made by Ford. But Chrysler got the tanks in production 2 months early while Ford's engine was 4 months late. To complete the tanks Chrysler quickly put together this power plant by combining 5 of the engines they were already making for trucks and stationary power plants i.e. generators, air compressors, water pumps etc. Once better engines became available they dropped the 30 cylinder. But, it did the job and proved reliable in service.
the A57 equipped shermans were mainly for lend lease the american troops stuck to the FORD powered tanks and the radial engine powered machines ,,the one you don't hear much about is the Diesel powered variant that had 2 6-71 detroit diesels
The M4A4 was REJECTED by the US Army because it was 1 or 2 mph slower than the other variants. That's why they were all sent to Lend-Lease. Main recipients were Britain and China.
@@WgCdrLuddite ah yes rejected because its 1 to 2 mph slower not because the powerplant is significantly more complex and weighs significantly more than others. and defiantly not because no that can be driven in maintence company's and supporting units to supply and repair tanks. can lift the 5500 lb engine. granted it took them over a year to make such a vehicle the US armys brockway 666. but even then. it was 2 years later. and they only made 1300 of them. and it DEFINATLY wasn't not adopted because of its "extremely good fuel efficiency and high power output" and it also wasn't adopted because of its excellent engine cooling. all jokes aside. Testing of course is a bit biased due to the fact that no shit a 32 cylinder survived testing the next highest cylinder count in the competition was a 9 cylinder aircraft engine. the competition was very very strenuous for a time where Oil filters were pretty much non existent the rules were 400 hours or 4000 miles. until ANY failure of a powerplant or 30% power reduction and it was 400 hours of non stop running with almost 0 maintence done other than grease zerk fittings and replacing belts when they break. in a hot dusty climate the competitors vs a 32 Cylinder engine a 9 cylinder Gasoline aircraft engine. a large Gas V8 truck engine a Detroit 6-71 2 stroke diesel 6 cylinder its a overall crap design. their best choice would've been 6-71 2 stroke diesel hindsight is 20-20 but as we all know today. you can go find a old 2 stroke Detroit that's been sitting outside for 70 years and put fresh diesel and some vise grips on the injector rack and free it up and it'll start. hell it'll even start on some ancient diesel. guess they didn't know any better of have any way of making better air filters at the time for obvious reasons they dusted the Detroit diesel a supercharged 2 stroke diesel has pretty high compression and really strong suction force. bound to suck any small particles through the filter.
@@justnsaliga8518 You over look one major component of not deploying a diesel engine into theater: logistics. The GMC diesel would have demanded its own unique fuel supply chain unlike the other three candidates. Secondly, one the opinions in this chain is that Ford couldn't deliver engines initially for the Sherman. That may be true on the face of it, but the Lycoming airplane engine was the engine the Sherman was designed around and it being in short supply is what initiated the search for alternative engines. The Ford engine was an adaptation of an engine design Ford had produced as a competitor to the Allison V12.
Although most historians don't say this Roosevelt knew the US was going to get dragged into the war when Stalin and Hitler signed a nonaggression pact in 1939. After that US industry was fast prepared for military production and men began to be recruited for the services, all of which went full scale in December 1941. Great video.
Ford had to be dragged kicking and screaming into war production. Henry Ford in particular hated Franklin Roosevelt with a passion and obstructed him wherever he could but supported Adolf Hitler’s philosophy whole heartedly. That only changed when Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States.
Roosevelt had already been calling on the "titans" of U.S. Industry to ramp up production of everything from "beans to ships" as early as 1939... The powers that be knew that we were going to war. Sad to think that the generation that is here now couldn't and or wouldn't make the sacrifices that the "Greatest Generation" did. . I read somewhere that for every soldier with a rifle in a combat zone, it took 28-35 people to make the materials to get them there...MIND BOGGLING
A very large number of Shermans equipped with the multi-bank engine were used by the Canadian Army's tank units. My uncle was a senior officer of a self-contained formation built around a central force of Shermasn; other arms were attached to give them both independence and mobility. Among my uncle's many full-time jobs was Logistics and Supply - which included spare parts, fuel, ammunition, etc. He was also tasked with evaluating intelligence, and producing maps for all sub-units every day, showing the locations of allied and enemy units. He remarked many times that the crews just loved the multi-bank engine. Partly this was because of its reliability, but also because many of the Canadian troops included "farm boys," and they all knew the basic engine well, and were very adept at repairing and maintaining it. Interestingly, in addition to the mass of the multi-bank, it required a longer chassis than other variants of the Sherman, so there were more track links and suspension parts as well. The concept of a 30-cylinder "lash-up" was poo-poo'd by some non-Canadian units, but when it was time to do servicing or repairs, the fact that all banks used the same parts, and that those were readily available changed their views sometimes. The 6-cylinder flathead had already been produced in quantity before WWII, so designing new production tooling, etc. wasn''t required - they just made "more of the same" True, there were parts that were unique to the multi-bank configuration, but they were pretty straightforward in design, and (relatively) simple to make. The head of Chrysler at the time, K.T. Keller, was both a mechanic and an engineer, and he had a lot of first-hand experience working on engines, as well as on manufacturing production lines. Keller's name is frequently overlooked, but he was truly an amazing engineer as well as an innovator. In one biography, Keller described his introduction to building tanks. He and a few of his engineering staff were taken to an Army test site, and then were given an afternoon to watch the prototype in operation. At the end of the day, Keller was handed an enormous roll of drawings and blueprints, and was told as they were driven to the train station that he had 3 months to get the production line for tanks assembled and operating. I don't know how long it actually took, but given Keller's "roll up your sleeves" approach to almost every problem, it was probably done as quickly as possible, but also made to turn out something rugged and reliable. Since Chrysler were already at work on several other very large production projects, taking on the job of building tanks from scratch probably required a lot of long days. Keller was well known for getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He relied on skill and a wealth of hands-on experience including many types of production-line jobs (described in detail by one biographer), rather than relaying on being a "name" with an ego and sense of his self-importance. It's a shame he is not remembered as well as some - his contribution to engineering and production was second to none. Even today, people read about the 30-cylinder multi-bank engine and wonder how on earth it was ever made to function at all. The trick, of course, was that it was based on an engine that was thoroughly tested and widely used, and known for its reliability. Bolting five of them together does not seem quite so outrageous after all. The success of the multi-bank was due to that proven reliability and low maintenance requirements, as well as to the many tank crew members who all lent a hand, since many also had already become very familiar with maintaining and repairing the basic 6-cyliner inline Chrysler engine. Thanks for putting this together - it's one of the more unusual aspects of Sherman tank production.
Being a flathead and being as sturdy as the engine was rumored to be it would probably have been a great candidate for a Supercharger. A very mild boost would have done a lot for that engine if they had the octane fuel that they needed. You can't raise compression without having higher octane fuel or you risk detonation.
I used to have a 1939 Hobart Brothers welder with a 215 (I think) flathead Chrysler six cylinder engine. Ran like new and sounded awesome when it was under load.
My grandfather had one as well. It was mounted on a trailer with semi truck sized tires. He used it for welding on his fleet of trucks and road building machinery. He bought it new too. It welded as well as any modern machine and had no shortage of amperage.
5 water pumps 😯 Very complicated, but actually genius for using already proven engine architecture. I remember reading somewhere years ago that there was a 10 litre V-twin tank engine used by (I think) the Germans which broke clutches regularly because of it's huge firing pulses.
I would also imagine it being advantageous for redundancy - a single water pump failing wouldn't kill teh whole engine. While this engine is complex with a lot of failure points, being basically 5 engines bolted together, it also has a lot of redundancy in that many failures would only take out one of the five, as long as it can remain turning the engine as a whole can keep running. I wonder if it was even possible to mechanically disconnect a damaged bank (perhaps by removing the gear that connected it to the main output gear)?
@@bobroberts2371 Yes, but is that a practical thing to do in the field? Can they unbolt a cover and take the gear off? Or would that be a more major overhaul? I'm thinking for an emergency field repair, in order to limp back to friendly lines, which is something you'd want to be able to do in a tank.
@@quillmaurer6563 With the power unit out of the vehicle, pulling the flywheel and gear cover would not be much of an issue. As for doing it in vehicle , I don't have any information to say one way or another.
@@t16205 I one time saw a clip where tractor pulling team got a hold of an 1100 CI Ford GAA tank motor installed EFI and twin turbochargers to compete in the modified class.
I hear the inline 6 that was put into older jeep cherokees were hard to kill too. I know someone that ran into a deer totalling the front end and that damn thing still ran .... The deer was a bit hamburger tho....
This engine required the M4 chassis to be lengthened, hence the M4A4. You can tell by looking at the spacing between the bogeys. All Firefly Vc's were built on the M4A4.
Don't know how many of you picked it up but in the closing frames, you can hear the driver shifting gears as he drives off. Easy to forget today when everything is automatic that nearly everything back then was manual shift.
@@vasopel Canada, actually. And I was referring to tanks and heavy machinery. I haven't seen any of those with a manual shift in 30 years or more... at least not in my part of the world.
@@hughjass1044 oh tanks and heavy machinery...well yes almost all of those have automatic transmissions in Europe and the rest of the world too (maybe not in Africa...), but you can see how someone would think that you were primary talking about cars...like the first comment: "a shiftless generation" ...that obviously is talking about the new electric cars that are on the roads, or..maybe I suppose they are referring to those hybrid armored vehicles that are on development? :-)
Tell me you are an old angry white guy without saying you are an old angry white guy. Sticking multiple engine blocks together was hardly a new idea. And pretty much by definition innovation is unconventional thinking.
I agree. the US built the atomic bomb but the German engineers in my opinion were way ahead in weapons development no computers just pencil paper and slide ruler can you imagine if they had today's technology that goes for all parties involved.
I remember seeing one of these in the Chrysler museum at the Tech Center here in Auburn Hills before they converted the building to Alfa/Maserati office space. I love how resourceful the design is, using so much existing tooling and production to create a tank engine with very few tank-specific parts. Although it might have helped those Shermans get up and go a little easier if they'd used five of the 310 cubic inch sixes instead of the 251s!
those engineers didn't have much to go off of and still managed to make such a sophisticated machine, without help from calculators or the internet... truly a marvel of human ingenuity
They were able to do so just because they had not computers. I'm an IT guy and I often have the sensation computers and CAD programs are stifling progress and ingenuity.
@@rossinimauro that makes sense. When you don’t have computers it forces you to think outside the box. Plus they didn’t have all the distractions we do nowadays and their parents taught them the value of hard work
My dad loves these old obscure engines.. I love how easy these are to watch.. Especially the engine ratings on screen and stuff, very nicely engineered videos thanks.
Thanks for the very interesting video. I had heard of this engine but I hadn't looked into the details. When I heard "L Head" that explained a lot about why it was so reliable - it wasn't the best design for high power-to-weight but it was simple without the need for a complicated cylinder head, the exhaust valves operated in a cool environment, and it would be robust. I had always assumed the banks were arranged like a radial. 72 degrees apart, but it wasn't. No inverted bank means no oil pooling in the heads (and you wouldn't be able to drain the oil with a L head... ). Great way to make use of something that you had already with the bugs thoroughly sorted out.
Imagine this engine supercharged in a tank! Flatheads really wake up with boost. The sound of 30 cylinders firing is so nice, I could listen to that at night to fall asleep.
I am quietly bemused by the absolute obsession by some with horsepower, engine speeds & ground speed. What is important in a tank engine? Reliability, serviceability & TORQUE. Horsepower barely rates. Combat terrain was not even remotely like a paved road & at times, even 10mph/16kph was taking your life in your hands. More important was the ability to climb out of a hole, ditch or creek embankment, & unadulterated pure grunt [AKA Torque.] is what is needed to get the job done. The multibank, with a firing stroke every 24 degrees of output shaft rotation had all the torque needed to do just that. Low compression handled a fuel octane that bore a close resemblance to kerosene & low rotational speeds kept wear & stress down to a level that the technology of the day could comfortably handle. Serviceability? Got a multibank with a damaged engine bank? Hell, that shot up Dodge power wagon/ambulance or gun carrier on the battlefield will be a useful source of parts, something that tanks with other engines could not do. The multibank was the right engine at the right time, which was, .. back then, .... RIGHT NOW, using existing, proven technology & materials that had been in continuous production for almost ten years. Long may the multibank live. [With Chrysler reliability, it will probably still be around when the sun grows cold.]
This engine is a testament to engineering ingenuity. Today you see multiple components in all facets of industry from multi CPU computers to multi Motor and air pump compressors.Even electric cars with two or more motors. Imagine even if one 6 cylinder engine completely locked up, one could remove that drive gear and run on four instead of five engine blocks. Also using standard parts from greater America was is the smartest thing ever. Today We use every excuse to create unique one-off designs that have to be 3-D printed laser cut , custom metallurgy etc. meaning number one it’s expensive and number two, once the engines lifetime is past, it’s impossible to get spare parts.
The Ford GAA V8 OHC was what New Zealand specified in our M4 Sherman Tanks in WW2. My father was a Tank Commander with the 20th Armored Regiment and he loved the Ford Engine so much that only owned a brand new Ford for the rest of his life. The Ford GAA was also the most powerful engine to power an Mk4.
Great video! The early M4s had an air cooled Wright Whirlwind (Continental built) 9 cylinder radial aircraft engine which in itself is pretty cool but this 30 cylinder beast takes the cake!
always wanted to see one of these monsters in person , I own several chrysler 251 engines ,,all of them run 2 are on water pumps and 1 is in a generator/welder the other really cool engine used in the sherman was the ford GAA and i have one of those too although not currently running yet,,i found it at a salvage yard about a decade ago
@@aldenconsolver3428,,it wasn't in a vehicle I actually found it half disassembled setting in a crate at an army surplus place ,, the guy didn't know what it was ,,it's been setting on a stand covered up in the back of my garage for most of the last 10 years ,,i have all of it's parts and have it almost back together ,whether it'll run or not is another mystery
@@wildcoyote34 Oh wow, that is unusual for sure. The GAA is pretty special, to be sure. IIRC it was meant to be a 12-cylinder aero engine for the military, but that didn't work out. So we got the lovely V8 instead, and wouldn't you know? Perfect size, shape, power output and weight for a tank. Noice. Man, I bet that thing runs--wonderful engines, sound like a monster truck had a baby with a stock car. GL with it friend, you got yourself a winner, even if it never runs.
@@HANKTHEDANKEST it'll run someday , i'm an engine collector and i someday hope to have an engine museum ,,i am almost 50 and have been collecting engines since i was 16
From single cylinder engines, to 30 cylinder engines every engine has its own unique sound pattern, it's own sound detonation, and even though I know I could never listen to every sound pattern, there are times when I just stop all the music for the day, and listen to car engines firing/their detonations, just so I can hear the uniqueness of engines sounds firing/detonations. Have a Good Day!.
Cool. Thanks. I never saw the connection between the 251 being a flathead and the multibank's success. Then I saw your vid and ... Duh, a flathead is less tall so a smaller diameter multibank. Don't know why it took me so long to make that link. Thanks again.
The Chrysler A57 is a beautiful piece. It is in my bucket list of engines I want to rebuild. Mechanical science is my religion and the A57 is one to be worshipped😊
My grandpa drove a Sherman in WWII he talked about this type of engine because it was such an odd design But the one he drove has a air cooled radial air plane engine
One reason the Sherman was originally designed with an air cooled radial was it was available. Plus the US really did not have an inline engine large enough to power armored vehicles besides the Allison. Sherman's were actually powered by a number of engine types. The air cooled radials (gas and diesel), Twin inline GMC 2 stroke diesels and the 18 liter (1100 cid) Ford V-8. The US possibly could have had two useful engines for armored vehicle use in the Wright D-12 and Conqueror aircraft engines if the tooling had still existed. The Ford V-8 was actually developed from a 27 liter (1650 cid) aircraft engine Ford proposed and dedigned.
@@mpetersen6 Packard and Allison both had V-12’s in the power class but they were a bit long for the Sherman’s design. The late WW2 Centurion got the Meteor which was an un-supercharged 27 liter Merlin engine (which became available because the RAF stopped using them in new aircraft in 1943).
@@allangibson8494 Not exactly. First Meteor engines were decommissioned Merlin (not more airwhorty, due to defect, or caming from wrecked planes), with the supercharged removed. However, the production of Merlin engines continued until WWII's end.
@@gufo_tave Until 1943 Merlin’s were in short supply - the RAF frontline fighters then switched to RR Griffins and Napier Sabres (and gas turbines). That freed up production capacity for other uses.
Compression in the 6 to 1 range. They knew the engine would be hot with so many cylinders firing next to each other, plus the demanding loads presented by the weight of the tank and obstacles. An attempt to keep temps low and to be able to run ok on garbage quality fuels. Excellent.
The direct acting valve train of an L-head is the most efficient, can be very quiet. This series of L-head motors was designed by former Studebaker engineers: Zeder, Skelton, and Breer. - who were known as "The Three Musketeers". Not long after the v8 era began, Chrylser would lose its leadership over Ford for good in 1952 because the combined sales of the Dodge and Plymouth with this L-head had been greater than Ford sales - it was economical to manufacture and easy to service in the field. As long as low octane gasoline was the norm the flathead was probably the most practical motor, but during the Korean war the U.S. military began to switch to jet aircraft and volume sales of high octane gasoline would begin to become available for civilian use.
The multibank was the heaviest of the sherman engine packages, with basically the worst fuel economy and slowest performance as it also required a lengthened hull which was heavier still. The later M4A6 (of which only 75 were produced before the war ended) kept the lengthened hull of the A4 variant but switched to a diesel version of the Continental 1820 9-cylinder radial engine and would have replaced the A4s eventually had the war continued as it gave the M4 far greater range. Post war Canada adopted a fleet of new build M4A2(W)76s with HVSS that had never left the factory to replace the tanks they left behind in europe because again, the diesel engines had proved quite reliable with the USMC and gave better acceleration and fuel economy than the gas engine versions (due to the much greater torque in a tank that weighed less than the M4A4s).
The Army only used the Detroit Diesels in combat. They first tried a Gilbersen Diesel radial aircraft engine then decided the twin L6 two strokes were more practical. In 1944 the Army got Caterpillar to build a new diesel radial design that was cancelled after testing since the war was expected to end soon. The Ford GAA was "OK" yet still had bugs being worked out after put to use the M4's and M36's. The R975 was constantly improved after being put to use in combat with the upgraded parts being added during rebuilding. The A57 proved to be the most reliable with fewer upgrades during the war. The R975 required rebuilding after 150 hours of use while the Brits reported using their A57's for 1000 hours or more before rebuilding was required.
This radical engine design is no surprise. Chrysler has been noted throughout history for technical superiority. Their engine and drivetrain development is renown and they were key to developing the Redstone missile out of their Huntsville engineering section. ....
The Chrysler industrial 6 was a very reliable engine used in many different roles over it's long production life. Large forklifts, generator sets, aircraft ground service equipment are but a few of the many applications that it was used for.
You can't get much simpler than a flat head engine. Combining five of them with low compression provides adequate power without the destructive factors of turbo/super charging or high compression. Chrysler excelled in engineering at that time. They also combined two OHV 6 cylinder motors into a single 12 cylinder engine that powered most infantry landing craft.
Only America could have made an overly complicated engine and make simple and reliable 80 years ago. Look at german cars today overly complicated and unreliable.
I've been fascinated by this engine ever since seeing one at Chrysler's Museum a number of years ago. The engine block draws you included were great and really reveling of how this unit came together. Excellent video once again.
This is something germany tried mainly with aircraft engines.main issue was any little bit of oil or fuel leakage usually resulted in a fire due to the comfined space for exhaust routing.
garage54 did it too, they tried coupling three lada engines with chains and sprockets in a triangle. they also tried welding 4 lada engines together in a line to make a 12 cylinder, though 3 engines was the most they could run successfully before fallng apart.
The multi bank engine would have had features familiar to any qualified mechanic of the day so they would have taken to it very quickly. Compare that to the complex Continental radial engine and Ford V8. Derived from aero engines. Aluminium casting techniques were not as well developed either making them very oily and leaky. A lot of emphasis is given to performance on paper in modern times that lacks important details.
Reliability wise its genius. Yes, there are a lot of parts, but they won't all fail at the same time. And even in the field you could, in dire emergency, Probabaly manage to flip some un-damaged parts into other non damaged sub-engines or something. Would be even funnier if you had a truck you desperately needed with a daged engine and you go, wait up we can spare one of our 5 sub engines for now 😂
That is an amazing engine. I think we now have 7-liter diesels that easily outperform this that so many smart people engineered in a hurry, but we stand on the shoulders of giants.
That is amazing, I never heard of it before. Wonder what the fuel mileage was,2 MPG?Oh wait, it's the army nobody cared(: thanks for the video I enjoyed it.
Those old flathead Chryslers were pretty fuel efficient. 18MPG on the hiway which was considered good for a 4000 pound luxury car at that time. In the tank, 5 of them driving through the friction of tank treads, probably 2 or 3 MPG.
A flat head 6 cyl engine would have been something many mechanics and the mechanically inclined would have been familiar with. Five of them hooked together was just formality. That helps when comes to maintenance and repair. Which is the priority right after beans, bullets, and gasoline.
I do believe the most famous variant of the Sherman that used this engine was the Firefly with the 17 pdr. It was probably the most lethal variant against German armour including Tigers.
@@allangibson8494 Didn't the Americans supply the British with a lot of diesel Shermans? So that they'd be the ones who'd have to worry about a second fuel supply chain for fuel? 😁
True. The British eighth armoured division mostly used the 75mm. The 75 was faster firing and had a superior HE round. The Brits encountered more German tanks than Patton’s 2nd armoured division, and there are multiple accounts of the fast firing 75 taking out Panthers, Tigers and Jadgpanthers. The Firefly had one less crewmen in the turret because of the large gun breach and was never the lead tank as the gunner was also the loader. When they figured out how to use the Firefly, and dispersed among regimental 75s, it was the preferred one shot killdozer.
@@iskandartaibThe Brits did get Diesel powered Sherman’s, but from I read not as well liked as it was less responsive in combat and used less readily avail fuel. I believe the Russians received the majority of the Diesel powered Sherman’s as this fuel was inline with their doctrine since virtually all their armor used diesel.
The Firefly had one less crew member in the HULL. The assistant driver/bow machine gunner was dropped to make space for stowing more of the very big 17pdr shells. It had a 3 man turret, the gunner certainly did not load 17pdr rounds!
The British loved them as it was far more reliable and easier to work on than anything from their own tanks. Because the multi bank was so large, the hull had to be extended to accommodate this behemoth. I want to say Multibank variants were 10” longer that other Sherman’s.
That might be one kind of cylinder deactivation system I would tolerate. Just have a few small displacement engines running a common shaft and decouple and shut down one or more depending on load demands. Not sure of the frictional loss compared to current cylinder deactivation systems. Thanks for the interesting video.
@@Happyfacehotwheels You'd end up de-timing the engine, though... when you re-engage the clutch you'd somehow have to make sure it's re-engaged with the cylinders fitting in with the rest of the engine's firing order.
Ĺļ@@iskandartaib not really, it has 5 banks of straight 6, each with it's own distributor so as long as each bank of 6 is in time it will run. They did say it will run on 18 cylinders.
@@Happyfacehotwheels Sure, it will run.. it's just that the bank you deactivated and reactivated would not be in synch with the rest of the engine. I'm pretty sure the engine was set up so that the 30 cylinders were to fire 24 degrees apart - I think he said so in the video.
@@iskandartaib There may be overlap in the firing but I don't think it would matter. It will make the engine have a different power impulse. I'm no engine expert but I do know that some engines use uneven firing. Harley Davidson and Yamaha come to mind. Now let's see if this 30 cylinder monster will fit in a Power Wagon!
Me Dad had a lot to say about these engines. He were in armored recovery and maintenance from 1938 for the duration. His favorite remarks were around the tendency of the lower engine units having carbs full of water 😊
This feels like something a crazy slap together project some youtuber would try and do for likes but the actual reasons are about as opposite as you could imagine.
This was one of the more preferred engines in certain theaters of combat. Aircraft radials make poor tank engines because of the excessive idling and variable rpms they could experience. This led to poor fuel distribution and high oil consumption in the lower cylinders. Belton Cooper, a tank maintenance commander in Europe commented in his book that after they ran out of the new spark plugs for those radials they used up all their blasting media for the plug cleaners and had to resort to using beach sand. The Desiels (two 6-71 Detroits) were loud, and required two clutches to have perfect adjustments constantly made to keep from stalling one engine takng off. Diesels were hard starting in the cold. The Ford GAA V8 was a great tank engine, lighter and more powerful and offered much improved performance. It just didn't have the redundancy or field serviceability by unskilled tank crews the A57 did. Foul out 1 cylinder in a GAA V8 and you loose 1/8th of your power. Foul one in an A57 you loose 1/30th.
Cool video! I am a new fan of Chrysler products due to my new to me 2004 Crossfire. Especially the Mercedes derived Karmann built build quality. It's only drawback is the cheap Chrysler made plastic crap that you mainly see or touch.....
As you already mentioned, the Crossfire basically is a Mercedes SLK R170, it just got a Chrysler-Design. Manufactured in Osnabrück, Germany. The SRT-6 is is pretty much the AMG-version of the SLK R170, has the exact same drivetrain. The Crossfire is a nice car and good used ones are available for way better prices then good SLKs are nowadays, but imho it's not really a Chrysler product. Too bad that the DaimlerChrysler-coop ended in 2007, i liked the idea of Mercedes tech used in other brands cars.
Like the p-40 and the SBD Dauntless, sometimes the stopgap solution that you have in hand when it's needed is the best solution all around until something better comes along!
Well seeing as how other projects during the war that attempted to gang up or couple existing engines together (Rolls Royce Vulture and Daimler Benz DB610) and had disappointing or outright disastrous results , hats off to Chrysler engineers for getting this to work reliably. Thanks for the video. Wasn’t aware of this at all.
My great uncle was in the 62nd armored field artillery bn.as a Sherman tank driver,he was in N.Arfica Sicily, France on D Day onto Germany. He loved the Ford powered Sherman for it's reliability so much the 1st new car he bought when he got home was F1 and never owned anything but fords afterwards. He had some great war stories
Parts could be sourced easily but imagine trying to replace them without disassembling the engine to just fix it.The crank shaft on one of these engines would have to be incredible .
I had a 56 Plymouth 230 in my 41 Dodge 1/2 ton closed cab 4x4 pickup. It came with the 218 originally and other than the increased displacement it's exactly the same size physically so was a popular drop in replacement back in the day when these were common and easy to find. It was a lot quicker then my buddies similar pick up with the original 218 still installed.
