The 1,100 Cubic Inch Ford GAA Was Extraordinary

[@schwartzenheimer1]

In the late '50s/early '60s we owned a cabin cruiser which was powered by the GAA's cousin, the GAN. It had roughly the same specs. It would easily plane our all-plywood, 36 ft. Jeffries cruiser at 30+ knots. I turned my first wrench on that engine, because my Dad couldn't fit in parts of the engine compartment! Later, when I was 12, I was able to pilot, navigating a crowded harbor to our mooring. Several times, I had to blip the throttle to avoid sailboats on a direct collision course (sailboats have the right-of-way). The boat would lurch forward like it was shot from a cannon! That engine took us to Catalina countless times, and all the way to San Quintin (Mexico, not prison) and back. On the Mexico trip, it developed a head gasket leak, but my father just pounded some copper wire strands into the gap, and we made it home. The engine finally was damaged by gulping some seawater back through the exhaust, a freak wave being the cause. A valve broke off its stem, and embedded itself into the piston! It still ran! Having a spare engine in our storage locker, we swapped it out, and had it running again in 2 weekends...that piston sat on my Dad's desk until his passing in 1990. Great memories of that boat, and, especially of that 1100 cu.in. BEAST under her engine cover...thanks for a great video.

[@TIMEtoRIDE900]

Do you happen to have Horsepower and Torque numbers for that engine, or the GAA ?? and is "N" for "Navy" and "A" for "Army" ??

[@ThisTimeTheWorld]

An exhaust valve might help

[@schwartzenheimer1]

@@ThisTimeTheWorld Nah, because ice cream has no bones!?!

[@schwartzenheimer1]

@@TIMEtoRIDE900 It was rated @500hp, no idea the torque, but it was probably pretty high, as a long-stroke, low RPM engine...

[@denisiwaszczuk1176]

jealous great boat and engine

[@Flies2FLL]

DOHC 32 valve V8, 18.0 liters......And all back in WWII! Great video!

[@johndowe7003]

And gasoline 👌

[@Coyote27981]

If you think about it, it makes sense that complex engines were first available in big size. Bigger size makes it easier to fit more stuff, and lower rpm means less thermal issues. On top of that, military funds help a lot to pay for nice stuff.

[@K-Effect]

And aluminum

[@shanefeeney9630]

Awesome Ford power

[@spankthemonkey3437]

Was it German 😃

[@WhuDhat]

crazy how a European gentleman younger than me teaches me more about my countries automotive achievements than anyone else. this thing would make the ultimate old school hot rod engine

[@uasparts]

That’s because Europe embraces education, history, and science, not stupidity, willful ignorance, and brain dead tribalism like our country

[@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts]

It's been done. If you search youtube there are at least 2 project cars with this engine. Funny to think you can tell people you've got an Aluminum 32-Valve Ford V8 if you put one in your car

[@apancher]

I really enjoy how he finds the really weird but interesting topics to discuss. I'm happy to say I've been a fan for years!

[@rogerringold616]

Usa has too many agendas/ power players/ greedy/layers of politics/ selfish louts to let us enjoy and celebrate our own accomplishments. Its sickening....we dont know the Good or Bad we really do as a country. Or the individuals doing. To keep so many secrets...makes too many liars by Commision and Omission....as both tell a tale incorrectly by choice to gain something.

[@aleksandrnestrato]

Ahahaha! Minor addition: crazy how a European gentleman _from a former Communist Block country_ younger than you teaches you more about your country's automotive achievements.

[@g.n.b.3351]

As the design was originally intended to be an aircraft V-12 the design specified a 60 degree bank angle. When the change was made for use as a V-8 tank engine the design was too far along to change the bank angle to the V-8 optimal 90 degrees. Therefore as a 60 degree V-8, a cross plane crank would have provided no benefit so a flat plane crankshaft was used.

[@throttleblipsntwistedgrips1992]

not to mention you dont want split crank pins in a mill that big.

[@jwalster9412]

I would have thought adding a flat plan crank would have been beneficial to a 60° engine.

[@keithjurena9319]

Flat plane crank needed no special die to forge.

[@g.n.b.3351]

Keep in mind that an in-line 6 and V-12's use/require a cross plane crankshaft for even firing AND primary balance. But there are 3 planes involved, crossing at equal angles of 120 degrees, not just the two planes of a V8 crankshaft which cross at 90 degrees. So when the decision was made to alter the design for use in a Sherman tank as a V8 rather than as a V12 aircraft engine, did the engineers think about giving it a cross plane crankshaft with just two planes crossing at 120 degrees? Or 60 degrees? Would that have made much of a difference in the basic balance dynamics of the engine? Hard to say but I suspect that in a tank there is so much going on that perfect balance was not a priority.

[@robinsage1964]

FORD built a 427 single overhead powerhouse back in the 60s and it was banned from NASCAR and only 5-10 thousand were built. They called it the Cammer engine.

[@SCRB1GR3D98]

The 427 Cammer. I've seen one of those engines on display in a dustproof case at thr Don Garlits Museum in Ocala, FL

[@robinsage1964]

@@SCRB1GR3D98 I think they built only 5000 of them.

[@wymple09]

Very powerful in it's time, but the cam chain was a mile long & did not contribute to reliability.

[@duke5171]

@@wymple09 Pete Robinson and Harvey Crane designed a sprocket system as an alternative for the chain to solve these issues.

[@g.o.b.2558]

It is estimated there were less than 500 of the engines built making the Cammer rarer than the Boss 429. The Ford 427 Cammer produced 616 horsepower with single four-barrel carburetor and 657 horsepower with dual four-barrel carburetors.

[@Carstuff111]

I am not personally a Ford man, however, I do respect a lot of what Ford has managed to do over the years. They were great at bringing the dual overhead cam V8 to the masses. And engines like this beast prove that when Ford does something right, they can knock it out of the park.

[@Lesterman_1]

When Ford operates unrestricted.

[@simonwalker356]

This engine is 2/3 of a merlin v12. The plans sent from UK to US to make Merlins were intercepted by ford and they stole the design. They even kept the firing and 60 degree v angle. Ford went back to making flatheads for 20 years after the war.

[@shanemccart5059]

The 427 SOHC. A friend’s dad has had 3 of these in his shop over the last 30 years, one of which I’ve seen. Beast of a motor. The building that kept all records of how many were built burned to the ground decades ago, leaving only a semi educated guess as to how many were made. Being an over the counter motor, they were never factory installed in any cars. No one knows how many are still in existence. In today’s market, you’re looking at a solid 50k for a turnkey motor, 15-20k just for workable non running engine. Back in the day, Ford advertised the engine with lower numbers than it actually made due to insurance/legal matters. In reality, a correctly built Cammer in factory form produced around 800 hp and 650-700 lb-ft of torque. It’s not unheard of for a NA motor to reach 1,100 hp when fully built. Truly a masterful work of engineering

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

I believe they WERE installed in the Thunderbolt T'Birds, as the only factory installation. But that was not a "dealer sold" car as I recall.

[@deadon4847]

@@bricefleckenstein9666 No they weren't, T Bolts used the 427 Hi-Riser and were Fairlanes not T Birds.

[@joseguzman1073]

First time hearing about this engine. Still a wonder knowing how capable these engines were close to 100 years ago

[@johndowe7003]

Very capable lol it's just a oversized v8

[@wildcoyote34]

@@johndowe7003 yes it's just an oversized V8 but also a first of it's kind in many ways ,,it was an all aluminum alloy V8 engine with a monoblock design ,,all of the V12 engines that this was meant to compete with were single cam engines ,,and both the allison V12 and the Merlin V12 were much more complex they had a split crankcase and heads that were not removable without removing the entire cylinder bank from the block ,, the GAA was the very first DOHC V8 engine ,something we take for granted today

[@andrewthorpe3219]

@@wildcoyote34 There was a tank version of the Merlin. The Rolls-Royce Meteor. Put out about 650hp. Same physical size and capacity of the Liberty L-12 (27 liters) but the meteor had about 60%+ more power than the aging Liberty engine (from WW1).

[@wildcoyote34]

@@andrewthorpe3219 the meteor like the merlin it had all the same complexities and difficulties of maintenance ,,,and the meteor had 4 more cylinders to make 600HP ,,i'm not gonna say 1 was better than the other because the Meteor was reliable and after development issues so was the GAA ,,american tanks moved away from gasoline engines sooner than the british did ,,the M48 Patton had a V12 continental air cooled gasoline engine 1790 cubic inches later changed to a diesel engine of the same type by 1960 they were all diesel while the british were still using gas engines

[@jwalster9412]

I thought the title said 1100cc not 1100cui at first..

[@sachideshmane5088]

Western Washington University's VRI is restoring a couple GAAs. I got the chance to help them before the pandemic. This video does a great job covering most of the important features. The early 4 bolt main blocks tended to crack if tank drivers dropped the clutch, but i think the later ones fixed this. Also, the cams are driven via shafts and worm gears, which is unusual.

[@5naxalotl]

those cams look brilliant ... avoiding fiddly OHC chains and the reciprocating mass of pushrods i'm wondering why the idea didn't last

[@david929190]

Probably really noisy.

[@kristoffermangila]

What will WWU do to those GAA's after restoration?

[@mfree80286]

@@5naxalotl Smaller engines would have smaller drive gears with smaller teeth. They wouldn't last as a smaller unit, they survive here because of lower RPM, lower spring pressures, and more material to accept wear tolerances.

[@oldleatherhandsfriends4053]

@@5naxalotl Noise, cost, and transmitting of vibrations to more sensitive components.

[@Roddy_Zeh]

Already knew about this engine, but surprisingly, didn't know it was a flatplane crank design. Interesting! 👍🏻

[@VisioRacer]

Really cool project, indeed

[@joshjones3408]

I was born in the early 80 an as a child you over hear thangs that at the time you dont pay attention to it but i rember my grand father talking to my uncle an i remember him being mad cause he got given two engines off of the old Stewart's air force base in symarna TN an he dent have a way to get them up off the ground into the truck.....then it dent mean anything to me but now after watching this i know why he was so mad cause i remember him saying they where old really big tank engines made by ford so thats pretty cool thanks for the videos great job 👍👍👍👍👍

[@CarSpot]

Didn't know it was a flat plane crank, truly an interesting engine with an even more interesting and unique story!💯

[@jameszz9720]

Exactly what I thought

[@blackericdenice]

I heard about the engine before but they never said it had a flat plane crank.

[@gullreefclub]

@@blackericdeniceook at the on screen description of the engine at 2:38 of the video. That said if you listen to one run you would know that straight off from its voice (exhaust sound) additionally the presenter makes mention of the crank shaft at 4:15 of the video

[@RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts]

@@gullreefclub the footage of it running in this video is good enough to hear the flat plane sound, almost like a giant Ferrari. The other videos I've seen were terrible quality so I never knew it had a flat plane. What an amazing engine for the time

[@phil955i]

@@blackericdenice when I heard it running in the video I thought it sounded odd, not like a traditional cross plane V8, then it mentioned in the video that it was a flat plane crank which then made sense.

[@tonychavez2083]

1000 Ft.lb. Of torque just off idle! Huge rotating mass..

[@C.Fecteau-AU-MJ13]

I've long wanted to do a hot rod style pickup truck using a GAA engine and a chopped Peterbilt body... Kinda like Randy Grubb of Blastolene's "Pissed Off Pete" It's on the list of things I don't need that I definitely need.

[@tacomas9602]

One of my neighbors has one out of a Ford M4A3 tank IIRC. He uses it for a modest sawmill. He's got it running through a big muffler but I can hear that giant cam lope miles away some times.

[@eclipsegst9419]

That war-era stuff was built different. I used to do continuous steel fencing for a guy and he had a Lincoln Electric welder he said "came off a tank repair truck" and that thing would run all day and make the brand new Lincoln and Miller units we had look like toys. So smooth you didn't hardly ever touch the knob, just pulled your arc back a little or push it in a little to adjust for thinner or thicker steel. I would love to know how many hours are on that old Continental engine, it has to be an absurd amount. We kept fresh 15w40 in it and it just kept ticking along.

[@lancelot1953]

Hi VisioRacer, excellent presentation! I hope that viewer understand how advanced our technology was back then. Germany could produce little (or big) marvels but not in great quantity. Germany built (some) good engines but so did the Allies, think about the Merlins, the Allisons, the GAA and the Curtis-Wright/Pratt & Witney series of radial engines, to name a few. Consider the complexity and fine edge of the technology used in valve train/drive and/or crankshaft balancing. Remember that these marvels were produced by the thousands and assembled by an uneducated (for the most part) man/woman power trained "on the premises". We (Westerners) did make those achievements and we could still do... if we wanted to and... worked for it. The complexity of a B-29 Bomber is insane! At its peak production hey days, Ford's Willow Run B-24 Liberator factory was delivering one ~36,000 lbs/16,500 kg 4-engine bomber every 55~60 minutes! Imagine the process of such undertaking, this back in the forties! Peace be with you, Ciao, L (Veteran)

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The Willow Run plant received subassemblies that only took one hour to put together to have a complete B-24 being pushed outside where a waiting air crew and ground crew added a gas then fired up the engines for testing and adjustments. Once that was done, everybody climbed aboard and took off for an air base.

[@wruenvadam]

Considering this engine's capabilities, one could only imagine the magic that would have been the V12 aircraft variant once it got superchargers or even turbochargers. On some level I think we were robbed of what could have been one of the greatest aircraft engines of WW2 and could have sat right alongside the Pratt & Whitney R2800, RR Merlin, and likely took the place of the Allison V-1710. I absolutely love the V-1710. Many people rag on it as not being good enough for the P-51 but that just ignores the success these engines really had throughout the war, most notably in the likes of the P-38, but was also in the P-40, P-39, and P-63. They were reliable engines that were also easier to maintain than the Merlin. However I 100% believe that if Ford had managed to get their foot in the door with their V-12, it would have been a serious contender for a powerplant for the P-51 assuming they already had supercharger plans in the works as well, which I wouldn't doubt that they did. But alas we can only dream.

[@kingssuck06]

If you look at power levels the Allison was just as capable. The allisons in the P-38 that were turbo/supercharged made as much power as the merlin. The single stage supercharger is what made the allison seem so much weaker. It was also much easier to service and maintain

[@wruenvadam]

@@kingssuck06 I think it just took them a little too long to develop a proper supercharger for it. The most powerful turbocharged version I believe was in the P-38K with something over 1800hp, and then they got a supercharged version pushing something around 2000 in the F-82 I believe, but by that time Packard had gotten the Merlin's to have a good bit more than that. And little do people know, the P-51A with the Allison engine was still the faster than the B/C/D variants at low altitude. It was a damn great engine and I'm not saying otherwise, just held back from being as good as it could have been for a while because of difficulty getting it to have proper performance at very high altitude without a turbo.

[@andyharman3022]

Ford had the GAC V12 designed first because they saw an opportunity to build an engine competitive to the Merlin, but at much lower cost and higher production rate. That effort was stymied when Packard licensed the Merlin design, revised it with American production standards, and started producing it in Muskegon, Michigan. The GAA/GAC even had the same bore and stroke as the Merlin: 5.4" x 6.0"

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The Allison had been in production since 1930 so had its bugs worked out with a known cost that the Army Air Corps expected to become lower once in mass production. Rolls-Royce was still producing the Merlin by hand-fitting the various parts like building a custom engine. The British aircraft mechanics preferred the Allison engine since it used 50% fewer parts with replacement parts being ready to install straight out of the box. The British Government asked Ford about manufacturing the Merlin due to RR being so slow. Ford declined the offer since he was trying to sell them his aero V12 so gave the Merlin blueprints to Packard to look over. Ford's V12 was turbocharged and used fuel injection so it took his engineers a couple years to figure out how to make the V8 version run on carburetors. They were still working out the bugs when it started being used in the M4 .

[@JohnCompton1]

That monster even slaps like a diesel, lol.. Wow! Thanks for sharing these historic powerplants with us Visio!

[@Beosaw]

Great video, as always 👍🏼. I've seen very often the 'T' Smidje' Tractorpuller in the netherlands the last years. They drove some years ago two GAA engines with roots blowers. Now they ride with a single GAA turbocharged on Methanol. Always a joy to see and hear. The GAA sound is and was always special. Keep in your good job making this videos. Cheers Björn

[@ohger1]

My father was always a Cadillac man, but he always bought Ford trucks for our business because his Sherman (Third Armored Divison WWII) tanks had Ford engines and never let them down.

[@kiefershanks4172]

The different mixtures in the cylinders is probably intentional as the cylinders closer to the center of the engine would heat up more than the outer two. So I think this is to improve cooling performance under high load. Smart.

[@5naxalotl]

that would be a very practical solution to the difficulty of engineering truly even water cooling ... make a basic bulletproof design and fine tune the temperature in the fuel system. seems to me that makes a lot of sense in a tank engine

[@robinsage1964]

Never seen this before Visio, very interesting engine and story.

[@VisioRacer]

My pleasure!

[@3RTracing]

Still waiting for you to do a piece on the 1,192 cubic inch inline 6, overhead cam dual ignition hemi that Hall Scott built for many years. Every one of those motors were balanced, dyno tested and dyno tuned. Hall Scott combined those inline 6's into a V 12 that was used in many US Navy applications too.

[@yaboileeroy3038]

And were so damn sturdy, they didn’t change anything about them when they used them as truck motors well into the 1960s. Heard one story about an old timer who ran a Hall-Scott powered Kenworth in the 1970s on the Jersey Turnpike. Ran on propane and kept up just fine with all the diesel trucks. Called it a “diesel teaser” lol

[@brantardrey7360]

I think I have a carburetor for one

[@_..-.._..-.._]

You got your wish! He made that Hall Scott video

[@Mazda13bRotary]

Congrats on your English, It's gotten so good. I remember when you didn't even talk in your videos, and now look how far you've come!

[@VisioRacer]

Thanks, it's been a long time, yeah

[@chrishenniker5944]

@@VisioRacerYour writing has improved considerably, you’re writing better scripts and it shows.

[@VisioRacer]

@@chrishenniker5944 Thanks. Though since the next video coming out next week I started using AI to improve that even more.

[@Oddman1980]

That is a really interesting drive for the overhead cams.

[@gwilliamwallace]

Thanks for the great video. One of my friends from a couple of decades ago was a tank commander in WWII and he told me about these engines. I wish he could have seen this video.

[@alanbare8319]

I got the chance to drive GAA powered Sheman tank-what a sound!

[@amaccama3267]

What a beast of an engine.

[@igostupidfast3]

that gear train for the engine seems great. The durability of gear drive but none of the vibration or packaging issues. Might be able to use that on an EFI setup with knock senor(s).

[@DOWNTOWN_AUDIO]

Wow!! And to think, it doesn't sound like any other v8 I've heard before! It doesn't sound like a 302, or a 427, a 460 or even a massive crate only big block v8! Its in a class of its own, TRULY!!

[@randymagnum143]

The twin GMC diesels were only used in the Pacific, to ease logistics. They only wanted to supply gasoline in theater Europe.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

Ordnance used the twin GM Diesels in the M10 tank destroyer since their high torque at low RPMs could get one moving faster from a dead stop. Chrysler tried to get the British interested in using their A57 Multi bank engine in their Lend-Lease tanks. Their Army politely declined using those so Chrysler showed those to the Soviets. The Russians said those were too complicated and needed simple Diesel engines instead, so received the twin GM Diesels in their Lend-Lease tanks. The British got stuck using the A57 with Chrysler working with their tank mechanics to find ways to make servicing those easier. That was done by pulling out the giant engine by using a clever self adjusting hoist bar.

[@randymagnum143]

@@billwilson-es5yn the Mopars proved to be reliable torque monsters in their own right, but yes, they had a lot of moving parts. They did what they could with what they had, in order to get tanks out the door *right now*

[@SuperFullin]

Fantastic piece of equipment. Thanks for sharing. Cheers from Brazil 🇺🇸🇧🇷

[@BM205]

WOW! I never thought of early tanks being powered by gasoline engines, jus kinda assumed they were diesels. Now I know! Thanks for the video!

[@Ares-jx4ep]

The Soviets were the only ones running diesel power in armor. Although there were diesel Shermans all of them were either kept in the US with training units or shipped to the Soviets as lend-lease. It was a logistics decision. Commonality of fuel for everything in theater.

[@billledbetter740]

I've always been a tank enthusiast, even before I was a tank mechanic (M60) in the Marines. But if I've ever heard of this engine, I don't remember it, which is unlikely. Thanks so much. Too old to turn wrenches but not to old to dream of younger days and big machines that go BANG.

[@Zach-ju5vi]

Great video, I had no idea this engine existed. The overhead cam set up is truly remarkable and the head stud pattern looks very strong.

[@herbnalis3723]

The movie ' Kelly's Heroes ' has V8 Sherman tank's made to look like German Tiger tanks. You get to hear 3 Sherman V8s start up & run at the same time.

[@bitterdrinker]

The Tigers were built out of T-34 tanks. Powered by V-12 diesels.

[@paulg3336]

7:17 This one has developed an electrical problem - some of the plug leads seem to have come off

[@aldenconsolver3428]

Maybe its just me, but I think that is the best-sounding engine I have ever heard. It sounds stronger than any petrol engine there is. The big aircraft piston engines put out more horsepower but they do it by buzzing and the GAA is like a bass drum compared to them.

[@eclipsegst9419]

Yea the sound of a GAA is just so iconic. You hear one and you immediately think of a Sherman. Even just as someone who watched ww2 movies and played ww2 games growing up, i immediately got called back to them when i heard that sound.

[@synshenron798]

This engine and the Detroit diesel engine were the two best engines used in WW2. The radial was fine but had some reliability issues. The chrysler mutli bank was a NIGHTMARE to work on but was a decent enough engine. I would have loved to have driven a tank with either the diesel or GAA engines. I love the detroit diesel 2 strokes

[@michaelpielorz9283]

Maybach HL Series laughing in the distance.

[@synshenron798]

​@@michaelpielorz9283you wanna talk about a glorified boat anchor that thing is a boat anchor. Id take a Ford 6.4 diesel over the maybach

[@johnelliott7375]

Awesome stuff and enjoyable as always, sharing your work with everyone immediately. Thanks for sharing this with us today.

[@WilliamMoser]

I'd love one of these, I made a simulation of what such an engine might sound like with a crossplane crank, its pretty interesting. Cheers for the credit @VisioRacer !

[@psychotikpaisano]

The engineers were so happy of their creation they felt GAA

[@1murder99]

When I was a boy growing up in Oklahoma these were stacked up in crates outside warehouses. Farmers were using them to power water pumps for irrigation. I wanted one to power my 58 Ford but they are just to large to fit.

[@5naxalotl]

it's droolworthy reading about the historical availability of this war surplus. i remember reading about postwar racing boats being largely powered by used merlins, which could be bought for about twenty dollars, or twice that if they were dismantled

[@scootergeorge7089]

Now, this is a BIG BLOCK V-8!

[@eclipsegst9419]

Crazy, the specs on that thing are basically similar to that of the 5.2 Voodoo V8, but scaled up. Ford always has been the most forward-thinking of the big3 when it came to engine design imho.

[@CaymanIslandsCatWalks]

Bro i followed u from the v early day on diff accounts where i offered english pronounciation. Your english is great man.

[@michaelszczys8316]

I'll have to listen again with headphones, I could only make out about 1/3 of what you were saying. The engines were pretty clear

[@robertmattox9715]

Got to love the sound of a big motor

[@billwilson-es5yn]

During the 1930's the US Army was developing Christie concept combat cars that used the Liberty V12 engine. They wanted to make it lighter and shorter so made prototypes using a surplus Wright R975 radial aircraft engine. The drivers liked it due to having a smooth delivery of power and the mechanics liked it for not having a liquid cooling system plus being easy to remove and reset. The Ordnance Department decided to keep using the Wright radials in the M3'S and M4'S due to the commercial air carriers having plenty of surplus R975's plus parts on hand (they switched over to using more powerful Wright radial engines) plus Wright was still producing new engines. Ordnance had Continental take over production of Wright's smaller radials (a smaller one was used in the M5) while Chrysler figured out how to mass produce armored tracked vehicles. Ford had his V12 aero engine completed by then and was trying to get the US Army Air Corps and British Air Ministry interested in buying it. It was superior due to being fuel injected and turbocharged. The USAAC decided to keep using the Allison since it's bugs had been worked out over the past ten years, their mechanics were used to working on it plus the War Department knew how much each cost and expected that number to become lower once in mass production. The British Air Ministry declined Ford's V12 and asked him to manufacture the Merlin instead due to Rolls-Royce being too slow. Ford declined and handed the blueprints over to Packard to study while he converted the V12 into a V8 tank engine for the Ordnance Department. That took a few years as Ordnance tested them in their T Series being worked up to replace the M4. The V8 allowed Ordnance to design a hull with a lower height and a lighter weight fluid drive GM Hydromatic transmission. In the M4 it allowed more space for wet ammunition storage on the floor. The V8 also held up longer than the R975 when hot-rodded by the drivers. Both had speed governors that were tinkered with to increase the tanks speed with drivers using engine braking to slow down when racing along. The R975 was expected to run for 200 hours before being swapped out for inspection and refurbishing. Hot rodding had reduced that number to 120 and even 80 hours so the Army now started removing all radials after 150 hours of use. The V8 could sustain being hot rodded for more hours but still had some problems once subjected to rough battlefield operations. Components were still being redesigned when the war ended.

[@navelriver]

i love the throaty, burbling sound of large displacement gasoline engines!

[@williamtrueman7898]

Wow what a spectacular engine, impressed!

[@phil955i]

Thought it sounded odd when they started it up, but then it was revealed that it was a flat plane crank V8. No wonder & how strange that they chose that type of crank.

[@juanasanelli6831]

Es el mismo plan de cigüeñal en cruz como los V8 que Ford hacia en esos años Mire, me equivoque Mirando mejor el video veo que si es de dos planos Fue por eso que me costo ponerlo a punto Porque yo insistia con el orden de encendidos de Ford V8 Yo no desarme el motor que ya venia con el cigueñal puesto y solo le coloque las tapas de cilindros ,los carburadores Bendix y los magnetos

[@phil955i]

@@juanasanelli6831 he said in the video that it was a flat plane crankshaft, that's why it doesn't sound like a traditional American V8

[@juanasanelli6831]

@@phil955i Mire yo arme uno en mi epoca del US ARMY hace mas de 40 años Y SI es de 2 planos NO es igual que el Ford V8 .Por eso me costo mucho ponerlo a punto ya que no tenia ningun manual que me orientara con el Firing Order.

[@juanasanelli6831]

No conozco ningun otro V8 con cigueñal de dos planos

[@phil955i]

@@juanasanelli6831 Ferrari, TVR, Ford Mustang GT350, Lotus Esprit V8, to name but a few, are all flat plane V8s

[@bigblocklawyer]

Tech is so amazing. I've done some work to my Duramax Silverado. It makes 497 hp and 960 lb ft of torque on a chassis dyno, more than this engine, but at the time, this was state of the art.

[@possessedlunarkanine1174]

That was a flatplane V8, wow.

[@louis-philippelavoie6929]

Ford owns the V8 -First ( *mass produced* ) V8 -385 is the biggest baddest big block -351 Cleveland got heads as good as LS -302 is lightweight -Modular are boost junkies -Coyote can rev to 9000 rpm 🎵🎶🎵 -Godzilla 7.3 just because -Ford GAA just in case

[@FloodExterminator]

Nah. Cadillac made the first V8 :P

[@louis-philippelavoie6929]

@@FloodExterminator Godamnit you are right. I'll edit my original comment

[@PRR1954]

"Cadillac made the first V8 :P" There were others (see Hispano-Suiza), but Caddy did make a lot of V-8s long before Ford. What Ford developed (bought from Lincoln) was the technology to make a one-piece V-8 block, instead of a crankcase and two cylinder banks bolted-up. And the cheap tricks that made a V-8 marketable at a popular price. Valve adjustment by grinding. Way too much exhaust porting inside the water jacket. (And 3 main bearings, though that hardly seems to limit the Flatty's performance.)

[@Zach-ju5vi]

Forgot about the 534 series.

[@andyharman3022]

The Cadillac 500 has a bigger block than the 385.

[@codyhatch4607]

If I was a tank commander in WW2, that is the engine I would want. I did not know it had a flat plane crank (cool), just like a new Mustang GT-350, 5.2l

[@alexandertoshich765]

Great Video, Ford is Cool. Greetings from Florida!

[@launch4]

Imagine if Ford had taken the same aluminium casting technology and put it to use in their later V8 designs for performance applications. Imagine the old school fire breathing 302s, 351s and 427s coming out but with featherweight aluminium engines.

[@TheSaturnV]

The early choice for massive radial engines is partly to blame for the Sherman's high silhouette. The other being the M4 was based on the M3 Lee, a compromise design that tried to satisfy requirements for a larger caliber 75mm they had to stick in the hull and still have a gun in a turret

[@quietcool4884]

What motor mounts would I need to put this in my Mustang ???

[@billynomates920]

well you live and learn. not only do i know a lot more about engines thanks to visio but i now know that flivver really is a word. well, sort of.

[@walkawayjoe]

I know a guy that has one of these . They are huge and awesome

[@CarLos-yi7ne]

The mistake was made to delete four cilinders on the Ford V12. Beter lengten the Sherman body (which they already did for the A57 Multibank engine). The British did better with the 1650ci RR Meteor (Simplyfied Merlin) and made in their turn the mistake not to make a diesel version of it! Shortly after WW2 Rolls Royce / Rover made also a V8 version for heavy tank transporters etc., the Meteorite, which was made in a Petrol and Diesel version.. So they where close to a liquid cooled V12 Diesel like the Sovjets already had for years!

[@whotf888]

6:50 I was about to comment that the GAA must also have amazing tuning potential, since originally it was made to power aircrafts, which at the time featured massive centrifugal superchargers.

[@williamstel9330]

The M10 Tank Destroyer had dual Detroit Diesels of like 200 or 250hp each I believe but my dad said it passed the Ford V8 going through the mud possible a broader power band where it was needed for lugging through the mud and bogging heavy work.

[@buckhorncortez]

The tank destroyer was a much lighter-weight vehicle than the Sherman Tank. The GM design had two parallel 16-cylinder motors. The GM motor had a 100-hour operational life while the Ford GAA had a 400-hour operational life.

[@Oliver66FarmBoy]

Don’t know where you got your information from but everything you stated is pretty much incorrect. The GM 6040 was NOT two 16 cylinders. It was two inline 6-71 Detroit’s side by side giving a total displacement of 852 cubic inches, 410 flywheel horsepower and 1000 ft/lbs of torque, driving through a common gearbox to a single output shaft. This is why it got the nickname twin six pack. They were one of the more reliable allied tank engines of the war it it was not uncommon for them to log 2000+ miles between overhauls. And most of that was contributed to wear and tear on the engine gearbox more than the engines themselves. It is common yo find Detroit’s from the 40s and 50s with 20000+ hours still running today that have never seen a major overhaul.

[@andypdq]

@@Oliver66FarmBoy I'll bet they used much less fuel than gasoline engines too, which is a huge advantage on the battlefield, much less pressure on logistics.

[@TheSaturnV]

@@Oliver66FarmBoy At least he was right about the lighter weight of the M10. 🙃

[@deadon4847]

The M10 and M10A1 were mechanically identical except for their power plants. The M10 used the General Motors 6046, a twin engine formed from two Detroit Diesel 6-71 inline engines mated to a single output. The tandem engine produced 375 horsepower (280 kW) at 2,100 rpm. One advantage of the GM 6046 was that the engines could be disconnected at will from the output and run independently. If one of the engines was damaged or destroyed, it could be disconnected and the other engine used to move the vehicle. The engine of the M10A1 was the Ford GAA, an 8-cylinder derivative of an ill-fated V-12 aircraft engine project. It produced 450 horsepower (340 kW) at 2,600 rpm. When tested side by side in September 1943, the M10A1 was judged to have superior automotive performance to the M10. Even though it produced only slightly less torque, the M10A1's engine was far lighter, and used a common fuel like the rest of the Army's vehicles (gasoline). By the time the test results were released in February 1944, the Army was committed to using the M10 overseas. As a result, the M10A1 was kept in the United States for training.

[@dustinshadle732]

If they had gear driven the modern 4.6 and 5.4l v8 engines it would have solved many problems.

[@veleriphon]

32 valve DOHC. Just think what we could do today with 1100 cubic inch displacement.

[@TheHarryChase]

Thanks for the English subtitles🤓

[@johnnytarponds9292]

I really appreciate this - thank you!

[@dentalnovember]

Very cool! Well researched production. Thanks for putting the time into this.

[@VisioRacer]

Thank you, Luke!

[@j.helvie6563]

Not dampened, DAMPED! Nothing is getting wet.....

[@mfree80286]

Well, that depends on where you're driving it and how hard you're running it, doesn't it?

[@marcellocoppolecchia3046]

Gran bella bestia ... un motore da tank per via del peso e della coppia generata.

[@crash4me719]

Missed your videos, this was a great story and a great engine!

[@needmoreboost6369]

Note the cam worm drive shaft’s

[@cjespers]

This is cool. Thanks for the video.

[@servicioelectromecanicocue7025]

It's incredible thats Ford didnt use more this design for comercial trucks, with low displacement

[@brianb-p6586]

It has 18 litres of displacement, which is about 2 litres larger than any on-road truck engine currently offered in North America or Europe. Cummins builds an 18 L (C18) for on-road-capable trucks, but it is not available for non-military on-highway use. Did you mean to suggest that they could have used it in a lower-displacement version for commercial trucks? There was no market for very large commercial gasoline engines, this design (with dual overhead camshafts) is too complex to be economical to build, and the 60-degree vee angle is undesirable for a V8 (although it is narrower than a proper 90-degree V8).

[@pbjracing14yearsago49]

Passerby: "Damn what kinda engine is in that tank" Soldier: "GAAAAAA"

[@claiborneeastjr4129]

An interesting drive system for the DOHC. Worm gears at the bottom of a long shaft, which has worm gears at the top to drive the cams. ingenious, and likely very reliable. Also, a 60-degree cylinder bank is very unusual for a V8, which are commonly 90 degrees.

[@patrickshaw8595]

Ford engineers analysed hell out of the RR Merlin and the GM Allison and said: "We can do better than either." and so that is how the V-12 GAC was born.

[@jamesjacobs1909]

That was good, thankyou.

[@brandonfairbanks5764]

Cool engines but a couple of super simple design changes could have made these engines legendary. A 2 bolt not skirted block on a engine that has harmonic issues. That and a huge 2 barrel carbs on each end when dual 4 barrels would have provided much more even fuel distribution. Hell to this day the Windsor platform is plagued by 2 bolt mains and 4 bolts per cylinder heads. It's like Ford wanted to dangle that carrot right in front of our faces. I bleed blue until the day I die but dang man.

[@alwenke212]

I don't think the four barrel carburetor had been invented yet.

[@bobkonradi1027]

Another problem with some of the other engines for the Sherman tank... the Chysler "multi bank" engine weighed over 4400 pounds, and the dual GMC 6-71 diesel also weighed over 4400 pounds. By contrast, the Ford GAA V8 engine only weighed 1440 pounds. That's a weight savings of 3000 pounds per each tank. Easier to ship, used way less fuel, could travel over softer ground than the heavier tank models.

[@hugejohnson5011]

Anyone who is amazed by any of the technology that was used so long ago, just remember: There were some seriously technical things being done with engines even way before World War Two, and the biggest limiting factor was materials. In many instances, engineers were already doing things that we are just again seeing in regular use today, but the metallurgy hadn't been developed to give them what they needed for their designs to be used regularly. Think about it, there were electric cars that went along pretty well over 100 years ago, but batteries sucked. Now, lithium battery technology (materials) have allowed the batteries to "not suck" and electric cars can be practical transportation.

[@5naxalotl]

exactly true. the mathematics of most engine geometries you could imagine were highly refined during the steam engine era. any number of times, i've had what i thought was a clever engine idea and discovered it was invented around 1900. engineering has largely been playing catch-up with mathematician eggheads forever the exception i know of is valve cam profiles, which looked pretty but didn't work well at high speed until about 1970 iirc

[@hugejohnson5011]

@@5naxalotl Indeed. As a child, if I had really understood that mathematics rules apply so deeply to much of our world, I would have studied harder! Even music is math! Thank you for your reply. As to my original comment, years ago as a child, I developed a keen interest in motorcycles, automobiles, aeroplanes, etc. And, as I studied, I soon realized that much of what was being touted as "new technology" had been applied nearer to 1920, but because of durability issues with available for the day materials, the products were shelved. Fast forward 75 years or so, and the old ideas were new again, because we now had the materials durable enough to make the machinery viable.

[@kimkleiner8456]

@@hugejohnson5011 I had a similar experience with math. Found a book in my local library written by some British engineers and unfortunately don't remember the title exactly but it was something like " The Design and Building of the British Sports Car". When they referred to sports car I think they were talking about race cars primarily and I don't know why they would limit their topic to British vehicles but that was my memory of the title. Think it was written in late '50's early '60's and I was reading it early '70's as a high school student but it was full of mathematical formulas would give you for example the ideal exhaust length for an engine cylinder of a specific bore and stroke and compression ratio. There must have been more parameters that were needed ( such as exhaust pipe diameter) and I am sure this was just a rough estimate of a place to start but along with the formula there were graphs of flow rates throughout the rpm range which made me think that these formulas were backed up by actual testing. It also discussed maximum piston speed based on metallurgy of that time and how that translated into the theoretical advantage of say Moto Guzzi 8 Cylinder grand prix bike. It was all way over my head as a sophomore in high school but I studied it intently and affected my choice of major ( mechanical engineering) . Unfortunately by the time I got to University sex, drugs and rock and roll were also major influences and my utter failure with computers ( almost the size of the basement of the engineering building) and the method of interfacing ( keypunch cards through Fourtran software) and I dropped out. Sometimes I regret not sticking to it because I am still fascinated by anything mechanical but had plenty of fun just keeping my esoteric collection of vehicles ( Lotus elan, Norton Atlas, Motor Guzzi v7 sport, VW powered saw mill with 6x6 2 1/2ton skidding vehicle and even my current LR3) all running.

[@hugejohnson5011]

@@kimkleiner8456 It sounds like you have had fun regardless. I owned a Moto Guzzi as well, and of the few bikes I have let go of, that is one that I truly miss. A "Le Mans 1000cc" bike. Nice solid torque, reliable, good looking bike. A mid eighties model, and still had a points ignition. Never let me down. Cheers.

[@buckhorncortez]

There were three versions of the Sherman tank. The General Motors M4A2, Ford M4A3, and the Chrysler M4A4. Ford also built the M10A1 Tank Destroyer on a parallel assembly line to the Sherman tank line. The Ford engine was far simpler than the GM dual diesel (two side-by-side 16-cylinder motors), and the Chrysler A37 30-cylinder multi-bank design (five 6-cylinder motors connected to a single drive shaft). The GM and Chrysler motors had an operational life of 100 hours, while the Ford GAA had a 400-hour operational life. The Ford tank became the standard tank issued for field use with Ford making over 26,979 GAA (various model) motors built. The GM tanks were used in the U.S. for training, while the Chrysler tanks were sent to Russia as part of the lend-lease program.

[@mfree80286]

Six, sir... not sixteen. Total of twelve cylinders in a Detroit 6040.

[@jwalster9412]

I read the title as "1.100CC" V8 and was like "that's tiny" double took and saw the CUI and was like "wait what"

[@billhillyer334]

A lot of people died because Henry loved money so sad but love your videos i love all engine video's

[@billchildress9756]

If Ford would have built these engines on a smaller scale for their cars after the war it would be a very interesting period in time as it would have been a real game changer! Instead they clung to flatheads only!

[@jamesweaver1738]

I remember back when that Oldsmobile made a 900 inch block. I actually saw one but nobody ever finished it

[@nigel900]

Very nice. 👍🏻

[@onazram1]

I like the way the guy set it up like a big Cammer engine here 6:47

[@jagh1410]

Do Barra next please, little known powerhouse outside Ozz.

[@VisioRacer]

I already covered it

[@bakfixx]

Very cool! Great information.

[@_..-.._..-.._]

Oh no! Is it a flat-plane? That sucks for sound.

[@warmstrong5612]

The grandfather of the Coyote 5.0 V8.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

Any chance someday you might take us around the multibank engine used in the Shermans? It is certainly one of the weirdest piston engines only challenged by the Deltics.

[@VisioRacer]

Yes, definitely

[@gregoryschmitz2131]

Any input as to why the GAA or a V-12 did not go on to power other US tanks?

[@edilsonmartins6653]

Motor impressionante!

[@SeattleSuburb]

that chain-less DOHC design is so cool. shame that isn't a thing in modern cars today

[@Zach-ju5vi]

I'm wondering if physics won't allow it to spin high rpm but man it sure looks reliable compared to chains that wear out in 200k miles.

[@VisioRacer]

Many race engines do use chain-less valvetrains using cogs

[@martin-vv9lf]

@@Zach-ju5vi the downside of a geared overhead cam engine is that when you plane the head or block down the gears are too close. not as big an issue with the ford gaa because the gears are perpendicular and can ride up or down.

[@brianb-p6586]

Heavy trucks routinely use gear drives for the camshafts and accessories. They're just too expensive for most cars, and if they use straight-cut gears they're too noisy.

[@johnelliott7375]

5' × 4' that is insane for a V8

[@johnd5398]

Jesus... that thick accent is just impossible.