Evolution of the "226" engine
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=192418
Printed Date: 24 Sep 2024 at 2:05pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Evolution of the "226" engine
Posted By: DrAllis
Subject: Evolution of the "226" engine
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2022 at 8:40pm
| There's been lots of confusion and misinformation over the decades on the A-C "226" gas engines. Many (who think they know) have said that the D-17 is the same engine as the WD-45, just revved up some more. Well, both claims just ain't true. While many parts do interchange between them, some simply do not. The G-226 engine used in the D-17 tractor evolved from the W-226 engine that came from the WD-45. The changes were somewhat minimal, but nevertheless, needed to be done for reliability and performance. While the 4 inch bore and 4 1/2 inch stroke remained exactly the same, yielding the 226 cubic inch displacement, there were only three things that were changed in the new G-226 from the old W-226. The block, the crankshaft and piston compression were the only things redesigned. The block casting was stronger/heavier and had a horizontal reinforcing rib down each side. These reinforcing ribs are very obvious when both a W and G block castings are side by side. The G-226 blocks also have larger 3 inch diameter main bearings, instead of the 2.400"+ diameter mains used in the W-226. This area had to be beefed up to withstand the compression and rated speed increases. So, with larger diameter main bearing journals on the crankshaft, it was a stronger piece of steel. So essentially, the cylinder heads are the same, manifolds are the same, carburetors and camshafts are the same, as far as making HP goes. It took compression being raised (from 6.5 to 1 up to 7.25 to 1) and rated RPM (from 1400 to 1650 RPM) being increased 250 RPM to get the performance to where engineers and salesmen wanted to be. The W-226 produced 50.6 flywheel HP @ 1400 rated RPM in the WD-45 tractor. The same engine produced 56.1 HP at 1600 RPM and 60.0 HP at 1800 RPM, all flywheel HP. So, when the compression is increased, the G-226 makes 55.6 HP at 1400 RPM, only 5.0 more HP than the WD-45. But if you increase the RPM to 1650, you get 63.2 HP. And at 1800 RPM, you get 67 HP. So, you see that the new D-17 engine compared to the WD45 engine (with both at their rated RPM) produces 12.6 more HP at the flywheel. When you add power steering to the D-17 (which it was Nebraska Tested with) it brings the PTO HP to an almost 10 HP improvement over the WD45 it was replacing, 43 to 53 HP on the PTO. The G-226 went thru a few improvements over the years, with the first of which being long reach spark plugs, then the full flow oiling system and finally the nitrided crankshaft journals, which resisted wear much better. I have overhauled many a D-17 series 4 tractor and never had to re-grind the crankshaft on the first OH. In my opinion, that generation of G-226 engine was about as good as it got when it came to long life. I don't think any of the competition had 4000 hr life on any of their gas engines back then. The G-226 still lived on until March of 1976 thru the 170 and then in the 175 tractor, and by then may have been rated at approx 73 HP at the flywheel (61 PTO) at 1800 RPM. And to think, it all started in 1934 with the W-201 used in the WC tractor !! |
Replies:
Posted By: tbran
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2022 at 10:00pm
|
Good anaysis. Also as you pointed out the crank is different and also had the thrust bearing changed from the front main to the middle on the D17. Ithin I am also correct in that the G226 in the 175 was the only AC engine to have the cam changed to improve performance. The cam was changed on the D262T in the first few D19s but then programmed back to the old profile due to cold starting issues. I have long stated cam research was lacking out of Harvey. One knows there could have been improvements in performance and economy from the first 3400 to the last 670HI... ------------- When told "it's not the money,it's the principle", remember, it's always the money.. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2022 at 10:05pm
| The 175 gas (as far as I've ever been able to determine) was the only grind change since the 1934 WC. There have been different p/n cams, due to a bolt on gear or pressed on gear, fuel pump capable or not and oil pump drive gear tooth count. |
Posted By: Travis2766
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2022 at 10:07pm
|
Thanks for that great info, so did a series IV d17 have more rated hp than the series 1? ------------- 190XT Series III, D17 Series IV, D15 Series II, All Crop 66 and a whole mess of equipment. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2022 at 10:12pm
| D-17 gas engines always had 63 FLYWHEEL HP from 1957 til the end in 1967. The actual PTO HP was less because of the "live" hydraulic system, which took away 2 to 4 HP compared to pre-S4 models. |
Posted By: captaindana
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 4:46am
|
Thanks Doc, what an earful to wake up to! What a history! I love those 201’s and 226’s. Grew up with them, counted on them for a living, maintained them and prospered with them. And to think where they all started from! I wonder who was the guy way back then that first came up with the notion of making a 201 cu in motor??? His idea put on paper then into production changed the world! ------------- Blue Skies and Tail Winds Dana |
Posted By: Les Kerf
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 6:25am
Fascinating! Modern camshaft design could easily improve performance while actually reducing peak acceleration changes (Instantaneous Rate Of Change), resulting in less stress on the valve train and longer life. |
DrAllis wrote:Posted By: Steve in NJ
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 8:13am
|
Great info Doc! I enjoy reading interesting engine tech over the years. Imagine how those engines would've ran with a roller cam, lifters and rocker arms from the factory as Les mentioned with modern cam design of today. Those engines would be even more "bullet proof" as well as the HP rating being possibly even a little higher..... Steve@B&B ------------- 39'RC, 43'WC, 48'B, 49'G, 50'WF, 65 Big 10, 67'B-110, 75'716H, 2-620's, & a Motorhead wife |
Posted By: WF owner
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 11:54am
| Even a better flowing head would have been a major improvement. |
Posted By: jvin248
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 12:17pm
|
. When I look up the D17 on "tractor data", why does it show such a severe drop from "63" engine horsepower to "48" draw bar (tested) horsepower? That seems like a significant loss from power steering/etc systems and friction. Error in the data? Or the testing firm used a fixed rpm for all the tractors so if a particular product used higher revving to achieve marketing hp the figures differed? Which got me thinking about sales figures for market impact (including market longevity), figures from the Tractor Data site: WC: 178,000 first sold at $1,300 WD: 131,000 first sold at $1,800 WD45: 90,000 first sold at $2,400 D17: 85,000 first sold at $5,400 Chasing higher horse power, at higher prices, reduced the number of units they could sell between model changes. By the late 1970s/80s on that other thread where AC refused to send their latest product to Nebraska Testing (sixteen tractors needed) -- that was likely a significant portion of their total production that year because unit sales had fallen so precipitously with the chase for larger tractors with more horsepower so
they can cover more acres to "finally be profitable!"... .
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 12:57pm
| 63 engine flywheel HP is the bare engine, minus the generator and fan. A 10 HP drop to 53 HP at the PTO is totally acceptable. The engine is spinning every transmission gear, Power Director clutch & gears, PTO gears, hydraulic pump and finally the generator, radiator fan and power steering pump. All of those things take some HP to operate. So now you are only talking a 5 HP drop to 48 HP, which then goes thru the ring and pinion, differential and final drives. Every shaft, bearing and gear turned requires HP to do so. |
Posted By: AC7060IL
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 1:13pm
| DrAllis what was the G226’s torque ratings? Dad’s Wd45 & D17 series 1 always seemed to impress when it’s loads heaped up. Thanks for sharing. Great AC history read!! |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 2:00pm
| Peak torque of 211 ft lbs lugged down to 1,100 RPM's. |
Posted By: SteveM C/IL
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 2:24pm
| Those little engines have a lot of power and pulling guts for their size. Have dad's WD & my 45. Done lots of plowing, discing and dragging with both in the "old days". |
Posted By: AC7060IL
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 2:54pm
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2022 at 3:40pm
| I have an early 1960's "Power Units" sales book that has all the information I have listed. |
Posted By: AaronSEIA
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2022 at 6:08am
That $1,300 WC in 1935 would have sold for $2,800 in 1960 if it were new along side the D17. It also didn't have electric start, lights, hydraulics, a lift, or a Power Director. It wasn't only horsepower they were chasing. Creature comforts and usability were huge. The same thing happened with Farmall. The $1,400 M wit 270,000 sold vs the $5,500 560 that sold 66,000. Farmers wanted increasingly more options, power, and usability. That necessitated changing designs faster. AaronSEIA
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2022 at 8:10am
| One 7000 at 106 HP did the work of two D-17's at 53 HP each. Engineers were working themselves out of customers to sell to. Same amount of land and fewer farmers. |
Posted By: Tom59
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2022 at 8:13am
Years ago in tractor brochures the manufacturers gave PTO horsepower and drawbar horsepower. Don’t remember seeing engine horsepower advertised in the seventies and eighties. I guess I remember seeing engine horsepower listed was about twenty to twenty five years ago. It was about eight years I realized the manufacturers more focus on the engine horsepower of tractors when selling then. But I always look at the PTO horsepower of tractors I look at buying because it was the minimum PTO horsepower or drawbar horsepower that was needed listed in manufacturers implements and equipment brochures. I think today to many tractor buyers are looking at engine horsepower and not focusing on the PTO horsepower and they are not really buying the size of tractor they need. |
Posted By: jrbynf
Date Posted: 18 Dec 2022 at 1:24pm
| Great thread Dr Allis. Thank you |
Posted By: tbran
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2022 at 8:14pm
|
When Kubota entered the market they advertised engine hp - that is less alternator, hyd pumps and water pump.... a worthless measurement, but when they entered the market they leap frogged competition as those early buyers had no idea of eng vs pto vs drawbar hp... and still don't. It didn't take everyone else long to catch on and start advertising eng hp.. ( we lost a lot of sales to Kubota - we were selling 5020's -5030's at 21 and 26 Hp -PTO hp before we caught on that these were about 2 sizes above the same engine hp units - we didn't win any Einstein awards) ------------- When told "it's not the money,it's the principle", remember, it's always the money.. |
Posted By: allischalmerguy
Date Posted: 21 Dec 2022 at 11:20am
So true! ------------- It is great being a disciple of Jesus! 1950 WD, 1957 D17...retired in Iowa, |
Posted By: Allis dave
Date Posted: 21 Dec 2022 at 6:54pm
| Add this to the knowledgebase |
Posted By: CrestonM
Date Posted: 21 Dec 2022 at 7:56pm
| Where would the "Z" code Gleaner engines and the model "17" engines used in cotton strippers fit into this timeline? |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 21 Dec 2022 at 8:23pm
| As I understand it, a "Z" code means 8.0 to 1 compression ratio, which should be a One-Seventy engine. So, the serial number should be 7- XXXX -Z and that should be 1967 til 1973 ?? A D-17 engine serial number is 17- XXXX -M for a gasoline engine and maybe "V" for an LPGas engine and ran from late 1957 til mid 1967. I think the 175 engine serial number would be 77- XXXX -V from 1973 til early 1976. **** EDIT: I'm a little confused on the 175 gas engines s/n. My 175 owners manual gives reference to 7- XXXX- Z, which cannot be correct, as the compression code should be "V" for 8.25 to 1. Nebraska Test lists the test tractor engine as 77100 with no letter code. So, if someone has a 175 gasser, could you please look at your engine s/n and report back ?? Thanks. |
Posted By: WF owner
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2022 at 6:10am
|
Wasn't the Gleaner E (that had the Z and M code engines) production ended long before the 170 (maybe even before the D-17)? |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2022 at 6:56am
| 1968 was the last year for the "E" series. Sometimes the Gleaner line had an engine before the tractor line. Example: F-2 had the 4-cyl turbo engine in Fall of 1977 (78 model year) and the 6000 series came in Fall of 1980. ***** EDIT: If someone actually has a 175 gas tractor, would you please check the engine serial number for me ?? There is conflicting information between the owners manual and Nebraska Testing. The owners manual I have says the engine s/n should read 7- XXXX- Z, which I believe is wrong. That is a 170 engine format, as the Z should be a V. Nebraska Test says the tractor that they had, the eng s/n was 77100, not 7-7100-V, which I think it should be or 77-7100-V. Can any owner shed some light on this please ?? Engine s/n is stamped on the block just behind and rear of the carburetor. Thanks. |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 22 Dec 2022 at 5:40pm
| BTT for some help. |
Posted By: Charlie175
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 6:48am
|
How do you think the 226 compares to other motors of the time? Ford had the 134-172 ci motor line that they used for a lot of years. JD had the 134 ci line also (1960's) Case had their 148 ci motors IH had 169-175 ci motors. AC seemed to be on the upper side of engine displacement in the class ------------- Charlie '48 B, '51 CA, '56 WD45 '61 D17, '63 D12, '65 D10 , '68 One-Ninety XTD |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 7:34am
| The G-226's biggest weakness, was poor oil pressure/dirty oil. Once they went to the "full-flow" oiling system, that engine was the best they had had to date in late 1959. So, the first two years of G-226's were maybe a little suspect. I have seen several over the last 45 yrs that still had the old oiling system on them and they survived. But, I also know of an old customer who had an old D-17 and he claimed he had nothing but trouble with crankshaft/bearings/oil pressure that he finally had to get rid of it, and switched brands. I believe those old original oiling system engines were probably failing in the heavy tillage applications, where engines performing lighter jobs didn't have that much trouble. By the time the series 4 came along (with the nitrided crankshaft journals) that was another step forward. I think the competitive engines you've listed would compare more to the 40 HP class instead of the 50+ HP class. The Ford engines were a good cheap engine, using a cast iron crankshaft versus the A-C forged steel crank and a parent bore block instead of wet-sleeves. The G-226 family was ALWAYS the easy overhaul "wet-sleeve" design, which cost more money to build, but service-wise was the best idea there was. No time consuming block boring. Just knock out the old sleeves and drop in new ones !! If I had an improvements wish list for the G-226, it would have been sodium filled or stellite exhaust valves, a rubber type rear seal and better manifold gaskets. I may have mentioned this before, but I had a classmate in jr high and high school, whose Dad had a series 4 D-17 AND a 2510 John Deere. Both gas engines. Both rated at 53 PTO HP. They did all their plowing and discing with the D-17. The 2510 was 180 cubic inches that ran 2700 RPM high idle. The D-17 was 226 cubes and ran 2,000 RPM. |
Posted By: CORLEWFARM
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 8:02am
| A WD45 was better filling a silo than a G John Deere. Story was told that the Deere kept stopping up the blower and my grandfather brought a D14 from his dealership and the pipe never stopped up. After that they bought a used 45 to run the blower. |
Posted By: WF owner
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 12:47pm
|
Even the 201 was good on the blower. When Dad bought a 20' x 50' silo, our local AC dealer tried to sell him a new tractor/blower. My grandfather's WF filled it many times with an old AC long trough blower. Dad told the story that my (maternal) grandfather had his Farmall M on an old Papec ensilage cutter, one very wet year when it was too wet to tow a forage harvester. The M broke a valve (which I understand was a pretty common occurrence when running at prolonged high RPMs). Dad told him to put his WD45 on it. My grandfather told him it would ruin his new tractor. They used the WD45 for the rest of the year. The only problem they had was they sheared the shear pins in the ensilage cutter several times, trying to plug the blower.
|
Posted By: captaindana
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 12:57pm
|
I don’t believe there was a ‘snappier’ governor back then that would come close to a ‘45 on the blower or chopper. I was just a little kid then but all the farmers were saying such. ------------- Blue Skies and Tail Winds Dana |
Posted By: Alex09(WI)
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 9:27pm
|
175 gas engine serial #s always end in a -V from what I've seen. Here is one from a repair we did back in May 2020.  ------------- www.awtractor.com A&W TRACTOR 920-598-1287 KEEPING ALLIS-CHALMERS IN THE FIELDS THROUGH THE 21ST CENTURY |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 23 Dec 2022 at 9:48pm
| Thank you so much, Alex !! So, the AC owners manual AND the Nebraska Test information are indeed incorrect !! A-C designated this last generation G-226 engine (8.25 to 1 compression/ special camshaft grind / Marvel TSX928 carb with 2 inch air inlet and 1 inch venturi) as the "75" - XXXX - V. The D-17 engines were "17" ........ the One-Seventy engines were "7" ....... and the 175 engines were "75" ....... information complete !!! Now, to track down the one and only surviving One-Eighty prototype tractor with the G-226 engine ( I know where it is)....wonder what it says ?? I know it has a mechanical fuel pump on it underneath the engine oil filter. My wild guess is 8 - 1001 - V ? |
Posted By: Alex09(WI)
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2022 at 10:59am
|
That G226 powered 180 is the first tractor built by hand that never had vibration problems, correct? Here is a EIII combine engine that is now in my 170 tractor. The combine engines may have had different serial designations than the tractors? Has a D17 prefix but 170 suffix with 8.0:1 comp ratio?  Normal d17 tractor engine serial # here showing 7.25: comp ratio:  ------------- www.awtractor.com A&W TRACTOR 920-598-1287 KEEPING ALLIS-CHALMERS IN THE FIELDS THROUGH THE 21ST CENTURY |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2022 at 11:30am
| Correct. D-17 G-226 with M code is 7.25 to 1 compression and Z-code is 8.0 to 1 compression ratio. So, at the time that engine was built, I assume it was before July of 1967 when the One-Seventy was released. Really makes no difference, because the letter determines the compression ratio when that engine was built. The "V" code was in D-17 factory LPgas engines and all 175 gas engines. Yes, the lone non-vibrating One-Eighty G-226 tractor still exists., and as I said it does have a fuel pump on it to keep up to the 5.5 GPH fuel burn rate that 64 HP would require. |
Posted By: SteveM C/IL
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2022 at 1:43pm
| So I trust this "special" 180 is in good hands. The owner knows what he has and it will be preserved for the ages? |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2022 at 3:06pm
| They know what it is. How it's cared for, I don't know. I hope to maybe be able to view it again (I saw it in August of 1980 at the test farm south of Milwaukee) and gather some data. I'd like the complete engine serial number ( if it has one), a picture and tag number of the carburetor and a look in thru the bell housing inspection hole to verify the pressure plate mounting bolt size (3/8" or 1/2"). The pressure plate bolt size (to me) would indicate if it was just an 11 inch D-17/170 flywheel/clutch assembly, OR a custom made 12 inch flywheel/clutch like the diesel engine had. Just curious is all, but in my mind I'm convinced it was/is just a 175 gas engine that ran 2,200 RPM to get 64 PTO HP. |
Posted By: JimIA
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2022 at 9:51pm
Ive always said the only thing I would change about this engine is to have a rubber rear main seal and extend the block past the crankshaft and have a flat flange on the oil pan. The did it with the 125-160 engines, why couldnt they do it with the 226? ------------- An open eye is much more observant than an open mouth |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 30 Dec 2022 at 9:59pm
| The little B-C-CA engine started out life being the frame of the tractor would be my guess. The W/G series never had to do that because they were used in things that had side frames. Doing that would have added cost to the engine that wasn't needed. Just a guess. But the rear seal could have been 2-piece rubber lip with a wire thru the seal. FoMoCo had rear seals like that. |
Posted By: davemel3nzc
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2023 at 8:09pm
|
Posted By: davemel3nzc
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2023 at 8:22pm
|
Mine is a 1975 175 Gas. S/N 175 3685 Only 245 made that year. Engine S/N 75-1849-v uploads/18358/IMG_34071.jpg" rel="nofollow - uploads/18358/IMG_34071.jpg
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2023 at 8:25pm
| Thank you for the help and confirmation of the 175 gas engine serial number format. Like I said, Nebraska Test and the AC owners manual didn't have correct information. |
Posted By: Tracy Martin TN
Date Posted: 14 Jan 2023 at 11:53am
|
A low hour unmolested 175 gas is my dream tractor! Sweet tractor for sure. Tracy ------------- No greater gift than healthy grandkids! |
Posted By: jeickman01
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2023 at 12:57pm
| Like a lot of us on this forum I bought a D17 because that's what Dad farmed with early on. I bought it before I knew that there were four different series of D17s but at least in my ignorance ended up with a series III at a decent price (needed a lot of work). I had wanted a Diesel but am now glad that it has the 226 gas. |
Posted By: CrestonM
Date Posted: 15 Jan 2023 at 10:10pm
|
Since the Gleaner EIII was produced till the end of 1968, a year or so after D17 production ended, did they get the new One-Seventy engine coded 7-xxxx-Z or did those engines still get stamped with the 17-xxxx-Z format?
Trying to tie this into cotton stripper production because there is very little information on them that I've been able to find. The 707 and 707XTB used the G-226 and were produced till 1969 when the 760XTB with the GM industrial 250 took its place. It's very difficult to find a 700 series cotton stripper in the first place, but the 707XTBs I've seen all have the 17 prefix, followed with a Z code. So I'm guessing they were produced before July '67. Does anyone have a year-by-year serial list of the 17, 7, and 75 prefix engines?
|
Posted By: Tracy Martin TN
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 9:15pm
|
What would these two engines number tell you? 17-61606-Z, 17-5644-Z. Both are in 170's . The 17-61606-Z I suspect is a combine engine. How can you tell for sure? Thanks, Tracy ------------- No greater gift than healthy grandkids! |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 9:41pm
| According to A-C, all One-Seventy and 170 engines start with 7 and end with "Z". It seems some Gleaner model "E" or "E-3"combines had this s/n configuration of 17 and Z with the Z meaning 8.0 to 1 compression ratio for more (4 ?) HP. There were zero D-17 tractors made with the Z-compression codes. The D-17 tractor was always M-code (7.25 to 1) or if factory LPgas V-code of 8.2 to 1. Gleaner combine engines ALWAYS had the fuel pump hole underneath the engine oil filter base and grey paint on the block. So if there is a cover plate under the oil filter, it used to have a fuel pump on it and was a combine engine. Easy to determine. |
Posted By: Tracy Martin TN
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2023 at 5:19pm
|
I double checked my pics today. One is 7-2161-Z, one is 7-5644-Z, and 17-61606-Z it is a combine engine. I have one more to check at another farm. Thanks, Tracy ------------- No greater gift than healthy grandkids! |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 6:50am
| There were 62,500+ D-17 tractors built from 1957 to 1967, so if they were 80% gas and LPG tractors, that makes for 50,000 G-226 engines being built. The model E and E-3 combines totaled approx 21,000 more engines as there were no diesel engines offered. Then, there were all the cotton harvesters, irrigation engines, generators and merry-go-round engines that were built over that 10 year span. And finally the One-Seventy, 170 and the final model 175 tractors that all used the G-226 model engine in one form or another. Pretty hard to determine the actual total built, but we have some evidence it was into the 80,000+ count by one of the above engine serial numbers given. Edit: Using Swinford's book, I see about 3500 ? total gas engines made for the One-Seventy,170 and 175 tractors, but that wouldn't include any other power units that were built in that time frame. |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 10:46am
|
Earlier post looking for comparison of the Ford Industrial 192... there was a 4 cyl, and 3 cyl version of the 192. While the latter was certainly a better motor than the former, it would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY better in order to come close to even be on the horizon for a 201. I've got an Industrial 192 4-cyl in my Hyster, and it's beyond gutless. After working on it for a long, long time, I came across a guy who had been working on them since they first appeared, and he basically said that if it is running, not pinging, and has no significant power, you've got it tuned right. (notice, he didn't say "Not Overheating"... yes, mine has the head bypass port modification to clear steam bubbles). With respect of cost to manufacture, I believe Allis's design and tooling methods actually made the 201 and 226 at, or below the cost of doing a parent-bore block. The Allis block needed only to be rough-bored perpendicular to crank to accept sleeves, and with a gang drill on a crank-main centering fixture, that was a one-step operation. Making the sleeves was a pattern-lathe operation, they could face the end, cut them inside and out, then place it in a second fixture to hone them submerged. Add to that, the fact that the deck was flat, head height and angle didn't need to be precise, just flat, and the valves were perpendicular to the mounting plane, I think they probably had mastery of manufacturing cost economics. Whatever Ford may have saved in materials, Allis certainly beat in industrial engineering. ------------- Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest. |