Awesome, the mythical motor. I think you can get new ones built. http://www.hotrod.com/articles/90-day-wonder-sohc-427-cammer/
The heads were pretty good but the cam drive was terrible. There were some conversions to gear drive done. Not too bad if you were going to use it a 1/4 mile at a time for a couple of weekends then rebuild the chain drive. A friend has one in his Cobra.
That is awesome! A while back, somewhere around early 2000s, I saw a Cobra 427SC replica that had one of the Cammers in it (the owner was from Headingley, Manitoba). The sound of that engine was amazing, I can't imagine what a 600+ hp Cobra would be like to drive...
As Rifledriver stated, the cam drive was a big problem with a six foot long timing chain. There is a good background on the engine here. https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/cammer-the-real-story-of-the-legendary-ford-427-sohc-v8/ Here is a discussion of the gear drive conversion. SOHC Gear Drive
Cool engine, but the cam chain drive was er, not optimal. Why didn't they just copy Ferrari's Columbo chain drive, down graded to duplex chain instead of triplex? Take the Jaguar V12 and Triumph Stag v8 ... also poor cam drive chain designs ... and probably many others, such as the Ferrari 365/400 GT/4 engine ... one very long chain that stretches. Interesting to read also how NASCAR held back American engine design. Always wondered why they stuck to such primitive designs for so long; I now have the answer. Pete
Ford had already done engines more sophisticated than that. All aluminum 32 valve V8 DOHC, gear and shaft drives, no belts or chains. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Really interesting article, thanks Any idea what the original v12 aircraft version put out vs its same period merlin or allison? All that aicarft tech then put to use in a more crude tank requirement. The 12 was probably a well balanced engine, to make the 8 work we get a flat plane crank and then massive flywheel counterweights adding weight to what could have been a relatively light engine, all to keep vibration managebale, which also probably explains ultimate revs. What did the 12 version weigh vs the 8. I was told by a ford enigneer that the current voodo V8 is countering flat plane vibes in such a large for flat plane car dispalcement and revs through massive crank counterwiegths, which negate the light crank and fast revability inherant in a flat plane. I guess there is precedent at ford for "balancing" large flat planes. In any event as the articles state The DDA was not an accountants freind, whereas a pushrod V8 certainly is, and saves a lot of weight. Given that aircraft value low weight, and given the low revs inherrant in an aircraft engine, why were the watercooled ww2 aircraft engines not pushrods. The radials had pushrods. Seems like the weight savings would have been big and manufactirign simplicity greatly enhanced. Or was it simply a function of head design for max power which took precedent.
"This listing has ended." That's an impressive lump of machinery. Probably the most aesthetically pleasing Ford motor ever.
Those were numerous and cheap after the war. I first heard of them from a friend who had a few for driving generators.
I think Allisons and merlins were plentiful and cheap too. Unilmited hydroplanes blew more than a few up, and then switched to turbines as supplies dwindled. I believe Kermit weeks has racks of both V12s. The aircraft engines also needed 130 octane for their hi compression ratios and superchargers. Leno has car/rod with an aircooled tank engine, and another with a merlin or allison. Seems like tank engines which are designed to rev up and down, as well as run on more normal fuel are better suited to special cars than an aircraft engine designed to run at more constant RPM and have a lot more care. Years ago I saw a 600 odd ft fiberglass boat in Hout Bay South Africa built in the late 50s running two inline 6 Rolls Royce tank engines. So many inetresting piston engines about, seems the late 30's to early 50s when budgets were unlimited for aircraft power was the zenith in what could be done mechanicaly and conceptualy. Since then there has been refinement in production techinques so we get production 4v car engines with great tolerances, and of course comupterised fuel injection and ingnition mapping brings greater efficiency.
They stuck to primitive designs because they were inexpensive to build and made a lot of power. With $.29 a gallon for gas we had big cars with big engines and it all worked. Even in racing it was a long time before anything displaced American pushrod engines in Group 7 and when Porsche did it was only at a very high cost. Probably the best engine on this continent and one of the best street engines in the world right now is GMs modern pushrod series of V8. Some might still consider them primitive but when judged by power/weight, cost/reliability/durability l'll put them up against any production motor in the world.
True, Seems like the LS7 couldnt play anymore and the way to get to the current 650hp was supercharging which burns fuel and adds weight, Is this why is Gm going to DOHC, is it for more power, better fuel economy and or marketing.
Maybe a little of all. I strongly suspect though that the current pushrod V8 will remain a catalog item for a very long time for racers and hotrodders. They have had that DOHC 4/5/6 cyl motor for some time and I would not be surprised if it winds up being a basis for a V8 for a host of reasons. Our world record holding streamliner has a 250 inch 6 cyl. version of it built by Ryan Falconer with 1300 HP on gasoline. 909 Falconer L6 | Speed Nymph Garage, San Jose
Emissions. The reason almost all manufacturers have standardized on the 4V pent roof cylinder head. Chrysler's band aid on the "Hemi" is to use two spark plugs.
How do Ferrari and Cosworth (DFV, etc.) deal with this then? Good point. I think in the GAA's case it was Ford trying to make his engine better than the Allison and Rolls Royce which in both cases were single overhead cam ... which made a lot of sense. As the revs are so low these was no need for double overhead cams and as you say pushrods should have been a viable option, even with a pent roof combustion chamber. Reliability? Even the old small block Chev was still considered a very good production motor taking all your factors into account, hence why Bizzarrini and others choose them. Which modern pushrod engine is better?, the LS7 GM or the SRT Chrysler? Is the current Chrysler engine really a Hemi?, I assumed it was just marking hype as the hemispherical combustion chamber is miles behind now. Okay I've answered my own question (http://www.allpar.com/mopar/new-mopar-hemi.html). Looks very much like a smaller volume (thanks to the non-hemi, squish area additions around the spark plugs) Alfa twinspark combustion chamber. This is the best you can do with a 2 valve setup I guess ... ? Pete
Yes, it's marketing. The valve angles resemble a more semi-hemi a la Ford Boss 429 from 1969-70. When first introduced this 3rd gen "Hemi" was called the Hemi Magnum. If you know your MOPAR folklore, you know that "Hemi" in from the hemispherical 2nd gen 426 or the various displacement 1st gen Hemi's. Magnum were the wedge head engines most commonly known as the 383 and 440. So Chrysler in the modern era combined two muscle car era marketing terms that have no basis in reality.
Ferrari is a comparatively small displacement motor, and they use very light internal componants needing less counterbalancing. The 308 which was msaller was no paragon of virtue in the vibes department, its one of the reasons why a thema 8.32 v8 was bent crank. The cosworth, was what 3 litres max, and by all accounts vibrated terribly, fine for race car not fine for a street car. There is also the lotus 3.5 liter flat plane v8, which was turboed, also not the smoothest of motors. As I understand it a flat plane V8 is like two 4cyl engines. Mostly if a 4 cyl goes above 2 litres it has balance shafts for good reason.
The Rolls wouldn't have been difficult to out do. With exception of the 2 speed blower drive the Allison was a far better motor. The head design in the Rolls was a disaster and the rods a terrible design. All the race motors convert to Allison rods and to compensate for the lousy heads they just give it more boost.
So the drawback to the allison was the blower. The merlin reputedly transformed the mustang as it could fly up high. The p38 was allisons only, didnt really work at altitude in europe and apprently had suffered at the cold temps in europe. In the pacific where combat was at lower altitudes, the air warmer and redundecy over ocean valued it was a champ even against nimble zeros in air to air. Of course atwin is going to be more expensive to produce. Why are the heads on the rolls so bad?
