THIS ENGINE SOUNDS PERFECT. JUST AS IT WAS MEANT. PERFECT. STOCK FUEL SYSTEM, NO TURBO, JUST PLAIN UNADULTERATED WORKHORSE MEAN. NICE WORK MISTER! I WOULD BE PROUD TO OWN THAT!!! EDIT- NEXT TIME YOU GET IT OUT TO RUN IT IF YOU WOULD DO A LONGER VIDEO AND WALK AROUND THE ENGINE I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IT. THANKS FOR SHARING THIS!!! STEVEN
Right on. And I believe the GAA was a shortened version of Ford's V12 engine that was supposed to go in airplanes. But Allison won out the contract bids for their 1710 V12 SOHC, and shortly after that, the American Merlins built by Packard V12 1650 SOHC.
You know your history my friend. In 1966 every race track worldwide was dominated by Ford it was not just at Lemans. In 1970 they banned Ford at Lemans. That is how they got rid of them.
You are absolutely right Hoss. The tractor pull guys in Europe really exploited this engine. I gave this one to the Marine muesm at Camp Pendleton, Calif. Stop by and see it, they run it from time to time. Thanks for looking Ron Devoll
@HOSSMCGILLICUTTI the ford GAA actually could breathe very well ,,it was a massive well built engine ,,and if you do some research you'll find out it was designed as a V12 by ford in an attempt to get into the aircraft engine market ,,this is a monoblock engine unlike every other V12 aircraft engine which had a 2 piece crankcase and removable cylinder banks ,,you might also mention that this was the very first all aluminum V8 engine with dual overhead camshafts ,,ALL other V12 aircraft engines both allison and RR designs were single OHC but with 4 valves per cylinder and the GAA was the most conventional engine used by the Sherman tank ,the others being the DETROIT 6046 twin diesel , the wright R975 radial airplane engine ,,and then there was the weird Chrysler A57 multi bank 30 cylinder engine this was 5 inline 6 engines in a circle geared to a central shaft ,,it was a monster that was massively complex and hard to work on ,,and it was NOT considered a radial engine even though it is round
@@wildcoyote34 The reason why Chrysler multibank engine isnt a radial engine is mainly due to it isnt round more like half of it and each "engine" or "bank" is individual from each other meaning theoritically 1 could be shut off and the other will still remain on unlike a true radial where if 1 piston doesnt move the other will most likely do the same
@@billytheshoebill5364 absolutely correct ,, the A57 was 5 individual engines that were geared together with a planetary type arrangement,, and according to the literature i have found the engine was still capable of moving the tank even with 2 banks knocked out ,, i have looked at technical drawings of the A57 and it is an engineers nightmare ,,spiders web of hoses and pipes for the oiling system and cooling system ,,only during a wartime emergency would such a monstrous design be adopted for production , especially considering that the other 3 sherman tank engine designs were much more conventional ,,and easier to service ,, an air cooled radial airplane engine ,, 2 inline 6 cylinder diesel engines ,,or a huge V8 gas engine ,,the last of them the ford GAA was a modern design even by today's standards ,,being a 60 degree dual overhead cam DOHC 32 valve V8 engine ,,Albeit a huge one with 1150 cubic inches producing 500HP and 1050 Lb/Ft of torque
@@wildcoyote34 certainly a nightmare to work on those but atleast from words around its actually a reliable engine from what I've heard granted I've never actually look it that deep, just from couples of comment and from a few talks my friends shared with me and like you said even when 2 banks arent working it can still atleast drive the tank incase of emergency to the mechanics and probally just could swap it for a new one if needed that bad (dont hold it for granted because I've never actually see for my self how good the British logistic in war was) and a huge plus point for it is in my opinion the smoothest when running engine ever put on the Sherman during WW2 just compared it to the other sure the twin diesel maybe smooth but it doesnt beat this one nor does the radials and GAA and both those are I think kinda rough but maybe thats just the video quality I've never actually hear it myself
@bobba84 same hp maybe? then again thats only if you have it built up pretty good. around 525hp is what it produced. Lets not get started on the torque, which is what this engine was built for. Can your 2l move a tank that weighs over 30 tons? this engine was made to move a 67,000lb tank, which requires more than 1,000ftlb of torque.
It wasn't a 427 SOHC that beat Ferrari, it was a side oiler 427 medium riser. The SOHC would probably have just broken the Ford GT's drivetrain and shredded tires too quickly. Later on they used a Ford 4 Cam to beat Ferrari again.. a much smaller engine. The SOHC ended up mostly being a drag race motor which is somewhat sad considering how good it was.
@fiat38 if it was horizontally opposed it would fire 2 cyls at the same time with a flat crank. but it is a V so if its a 60 degre V it would fire them 60 degres apart.....Yes?
kblackav8or - The four-cam Indy engine was long gone from the GT program by the time Ford began whupping Ferrari's ass at Le Mans. Their first win was 1966 with a 1-2-3 finish for Ford MkII's - the 427 monsters. The following year, Ford won again with the MKIV. Then, in '68 and '69, a Ford GT40 MKI-B, #1075 won with a Ford 302 with Gurney-Weslake heads. This is the only car to have ever won two races. The four-cam (or DOHC, as it's also known) did very well at Indy from 1965 on, though.
@bobba84 you about half way. What rpm does your 2l make 600+ torque? 7k+? That engine probably makes over 1000ft lbs at less than 2k rpm, and can do it for DAYS. How long could your 2l hold 7+rpm before it explodes? Im not bashing small engines by any means as they have their purpose, and do very well in the niche they were made for, but there are reasons why they built them so damn big.
I know this is 11 years after but to be fair the GAA is derived from a prototype aircraft engine which require constant power and also it is much more easier on the engine to run at 2000 compared to 7000
Built by Ford in 1937 and therefore being a hemi would you say Ford is to be credited as the American automaker for designing the Hemi years before Chrysler.
@@wildcoyote34 FORD BUILT V8 HEMI LIBERTY AIRCRAFT ENGINES IN 1917. YEARS BEFORE CHRYSLER EVER KNEW WHAT A HEMI WAS. THE GAA WAS A HEMI MOTOR. THE HEMI MAKES POWER BY ITS VALVE ARRANGEMENT. WHERE THE INTAKE AND EXHAUST ARE OPPOSED IN A CROSS STRAIGHT FLOW WHERE THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS LIKE REGULAR INLINE MOTORS WHERE THE AIR FLOW HAS TO BANK AND CURVE TO MAKE ITS WAY INTO THE CYLINDER AND ALSO TO MAKE ITS WAY OUT OF THE CYLINDER. THE HEMISPHERICAL HEAD DESIGN IS NOT WHAT MAKES POWER. IT'S THE VALVE ARRANGEMENT OF THE OPPOSED VALVES. LET'S COMPARE IT TO A ROOM THAT HAS TWO DOORS THAT OPPOSE EACH OTHER. AND YOU WANT TO RUN THROUGH THIS ROOM AND GET OUT THE OTHER DOOR AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. IF THE DOORS ARE OPPOSED YOU'LL GO IN AND OUT VERY QUICKLY. IF THE DOORS ARE ARRANGED IN A DIAGONAL/OFFSET. YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN TO MAKE YOUR WAY OUT IN A DIAGONAL FORMATION. THE FORD BOSS 429 DESIGN WAS LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF ITS TIME. IT WAS CALLED THE CRESCENT SHAPE HEMI WHERE IT HAS THE OFFSET. WHAT THE OFFSET DOES IS SLOW THE AIR FUEL MIXTURE UP, LONG ENOUGH SO IT BURNS 100% EFFICIENTLY. GM DRCE PRO STOCK RACE ENGINE IS A CLEVELAND-BASED DESIGN WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE BOSS 429 WHERE THE VALVES ARE OFFSET TO ALLOW THE MOTOR TO MAKE THE MOST POWER BURNING THE MOST EFFICIENT. IN PRO STOCK THE DRCE WHICH IS A BIG CUBIC INCH CLEVELAND MOTOR. HAS DOMINATED DECADE AFTER DECADE OVER THE CHRYSLER HEMI. BECAUSE OF THIS OFFSET OF THE VALVE ARRANGEMENT. UNLIKE THE HEMI WHICH IS A MORE UNRESTRICTED FLOW IT NEVER QUITE BURNS THE FUEL 100% SO THERE IS A LOSS OF EFFICIENCY. THAT'S WHY THESE NEW HEMI MOTORS ARE SLOBS. THEY BURN GAS LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW. THE HEMI DESIGN IS A VERY BAD DESIGN FOR EFFICIENCY, BUT IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF POWER.
@bobba84 Power on demand? By that, do you mean, floor it, and wait until you get above 5k rpm before you make any real power (in terms of the rb)? The words "Turbo" and "Power on demand" dont belong in the same sentence. Even with the lag, I would still turbo my car, before I would supercharge it, but a supercharger would produce more "power on demand" than a turbo would. What I mean by demand is, as soon as you get on the gas, not 2-3 seconds later.
BTW...My big clunker? My "big clunker" (4.6L 3valve) Puts down 459rwhp and still manages to get 25mpg on the highway. I doubt a 450+hp RB20 is going to get any better than that.
@bobba84 Im sure they could make 7 or 8,000hp with that engine, but would it last long? probably not. just like a 2l wont last long at all pushing close to 1000hp. The thing will last forever pushing 100-200hp, which is what it was designed for. Same with that big tank engine. you can beat on it all day long pushing 5 or 600hp and 1k-1,500ft lb of torque.
@bobba84 I know you didn't literally say that the RB series could drive a tank across europe, but thats what you were implying. Those big engines moved 68,000lb across europe, while getting shot at, over all sorts of crazy ass terrain, often times, at wide open throttle for several hours at a time. Lets see you hold the RB20 at 8k+ on the highway for 2 or more hours. AGAIN....THE RB series ISNT A BAD ENGINE..I'm NOT hating. BUT...it would be a HORRIBLE mistake to put even a 1000hp RB20 in a tank
@bobba84 Where in any of my posts did I say the RB20 was a 4cyl??? I said "2l" as in 2 LITERS...which a RB20 is.... I never said 4 cylinder in any of my posts....
The Ford GT-40 was never BANNED in FIA racing. They were still entered at Daytona and Sebring, that year, by privateers. As were Ferrari 250LM's, the GT-40s target, from 1964. But the 5.0 liter DOHC Porsche 917 flat 12 and Ferrari V-12 produced 100 more horsepower. c.550 Than the Ohv 305 V-8s in the GT-40, even in Gurney Weslake form. c.425. The 250LM sohc 3.3 liter V-12 produced 336 hp. Slick enough to go 193 mph on The Mulsanne. Same top end as the GT-40s. Plus the 1964-1966 era GT-40 aerodynamic package was aging. John Weyr added some ideas from the Mirage, for the '68 and '69 cars, such as the hidden, ducted nose foil…wing... But the 917 Kurz produced less drag and more down force. So 1969 was the last winning year for the Ford GTs. They had done their thing.. 1966-1969. No reason to be snide about Le Mans or the FIA. History...
"what kind of motor is that?" "ford tank motor" ahhhh ok that clears up everything....
Josh Amidon lmfao 💀
That perfectly sums up my childhood 😂 I learned to just accept the still vague answers. (I'm the one asking the question at the beginning)
They were surplused out in the 50s and 60s. I found two runouts in Texas that had been pumping water for many years.
THIS ENGINE SOUNDS PERFECT. JUST AS IT WAS MEANT. PERFECT. STOCK FUEL SYSTEM, NO TURBO, JUST PLAIN UNADULTERATED WORKHORSE MEAN. NICE WORK MISTER! I WOULD BE PROUD TO OWN THAT!!!
EDIT- NEXT TIME YOU GET IT OUT TO RUN IT IF YOU WOULD DO A LONGER VIDEO AND WALK AROUND THE ENGINE I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IT. THANKS FOR SHARING THIS!!! STEVEN
Caps button locked?
I saw this engine started up in person when I was a little kid. Awesome to see!
Right on. And I believe the GAA was a shortened version of Ford's V12 engine that was supposed to go in airplanes. But Allison won out the contract bids for their 1710 V12 SOHC, and shortly after that, the American Merlins built by Packard V12 1650 SOHC.
Thank you for sharing!
That would be epically cool in a nicely done rat rod truck. Very modern looking, reminds me at the Packard OM-2500 V12s
Wow! Good to hear from you Mathew, I gave it to the Marine down at Camp Pendelton.
You know your history my friend. In 1966 every race track worldwide was dominated by Ford it was not just at Lemans. In 1970 they banned Ford at Lemans. That is how they got rid of them.
@zpunout, it uses a 4 cylinder crank design to get more torque.
No, hemispherical combustion chambers were used in the 20s & 30s on aircraft engines.
@zpunout, it does, for more low end torque...I thought is sounded like two inline 4s running so i looked it up a bit.
That's what they needed back on Jan 6th
amazing looking motor!awesome...wonder how you buy and how much?i guess this is goverment"surplus"?
it starts easier than the tiger tank engine I've seen...
Imagine if this thing could breathe better, headers and intake would probably add rpm's and HP.
You are absolutely right Hoss. The tractor pull guys in Europe really exploited this engine.
I gave this one to the Marine muesm at Camp Pendleton, Calif. Stop by and see it, they run it
from time to time. Thanks for looking Ron Devoll
@HOSSMCGILLICUTTI the ford GAA actually could breathe very well ,,it was a massive well built engine ,,and if you do some research you'll find out it was designed as a V12 by ford in an attempt to get into the aircraft engine market ,,this is a monoblock engine unlike every other V12 aircraft engine which had a 2 piece crankcase and removable cylinder banks ,,you might also mention that this was the very first all aluminum V8 engine with dual overhead camshafts ,,ALL other V12 aircraft engines both allison and RR designs were single OHC but with 4 valves per cylinder
and the GAA was the most conventional engine used by the Sherman tank ,the others being the DETROIT 6046 twin diesel , the wright R975 radial airplane engine ,,and then there was the weird Chrysler A57 multi bank 30 cylinder engine this was 5 inline 6 engines in a circle geared to a central shaft ,,it was a monster that was massively complex and hard to work on ,,and it was NOT considered a radial engine even though it is round
@@wildcoyote34 The reason why Chrysler multibank engine isnt a radial engine is mainly due to it isnt round more like half of it and each "engine" or "bank" is individual from each other meaning theoritically 1 could be shut off and the other will still remain on unlike a true radial where if 1 piston doesnt move the other will most likely do the same
@@billytheshoebill5364 absolutely correct ,, the A57 was 5 individual engines that were geared together with a planetary type arrangement,, and according to the literature i have found the engine was still capable of moving the tank even with 2 banks knocked out ,, i have looked at technical drawings of the A57 and it is an engineers nightmare ,,spiders web of hoses and pipes for the oiling system and cooling system ,,only during a wartime emergency would such a monstrous design be adopted for production , especially considering that the other 3 sherman tank engine designs were much more conventional ,,and easier to service ,, an air cooled radial airplane engine ,, 2 inline 6 cylinder diesel engines ,,or a huge V8 gas engine ,,the last of them the ford GAA was a modern design even by today's standards ,,being a 60 degree dual overhead cam DOHC 32 valve V8 engine ,,Albeit a huge one with 1150 cubic inches producing 500HP and 1050 Lb/Ft of torque
@@wildcoyote34 certainly a nightmare to work on those but atleast from words around its actually a reliable engine from what I've heard granted I've never actually look it that deep, just from couples of comment and from a few talks my friends shared with me and like you said even when 2 banks arent working it can still atleast drive the tank incase of emergency to the mechanics and probally just could swap it for a new one if needed that bad (dont hold it for granted because I've never actually see for my self how good the British logistic in war was) and a huge plus point for it is in my opinion the smoothest when running engine ever put on the Sherman during WW2 just compared it to the other sure the twin diesel maybe smooth but it doesnt beat this one nor does the radials and GAA and both those are I think kinda rough but maybe thats just the video quality I've never actually hear it myself
I gave it to the Marines down at camp Pendelton.. Go to their museum and see it.
just out of curiosity where do you get these engines?
@bobba84 same hp maybe? then again thats only if you have it built up pretty good. around 525hp is what it produced. Lets not get started on the torque, which is what this engine was built for. Can your 2l move a tank that weighs over 30 tons? this engine was made to move a 67,000lb tank, which requires more than 1,000ftlb of torque.
It has a small 2gal gas can under the power take off end.
really glad I didn't have to watch the operator get wrapped up in the output shaft
Am I the only one that noticed the wings in the garage? what are those from?
It wasn't a 427 SOHC that beat Ferrari, it was a side oiler 427 medium riser. The SOHC would probably have just broken the Ford GT's drivetrain and shredded tires too quickly. Later on they used a Ford 4 Cam to beat Ferrari again.. a much smaller engine. The SOHC ended up mostly being a drag race motor which is somewhat sad considering how good it was.
@fiat38 if it was horizontally opposed it would fire 2 cyls at the same time with a flat crank. but it is a V so if its a 60 degre V it would fire them 60 degres apart.....Yes?
SavageJim your right
@rondevoll Ferrari V8s use a flat plane crank. BTW you can look on the internet.
kblackav8or - The four-cam Indy engine was long gone from the GT program by the time Ford began whupping Ferrari's ass at Le Mans. Their first win was 1966 with a 1-2-3 finish for Ford MkII's - the 427 monsters. The following year, Ford won again with the MKIV. Then, in '68 and '69, a Ford GT40 MKI-B, #1075 won with a Ford 302 with Gurney-Weslake heads. This is the only car to have ever won two races. The four-cam (or DOHC, as it's also known) did very well at Indy from 1965 on, though.
@bobba84 you about half way. What rpm does your 2l make 600+ torque? 7k+? That engine probably makes over 1000ft lbs at less than 2k rpm, and can do it for DAYS. How long could your 2l hold 7+rpm before it explodes? Im not bashing small engines by any means as they have their purpose, and do very well in the niche they were made for, but there are reasons why they built them so damn big.
I know this is 11 years after but to be fair the GAA is derived from a prototype aircraft engine which require constant power and also it is much more easier on the engine to run at 2000 compared to 7000
I have a Sonerai ll with C-85 about 75% done.
Built by Ford in 1937 and therefore being a hemi would you say Ford is to be credited as the American automaker for designing the Hemi years before Chrysler.
i don't think it was considered a HEMI because it had 4 valves per cylinder and dual overhead camshafts
@@wildcoyote34 FORD BUILT V8 HEMI LIBERTY AIRCRAFT ENGINES IN 1917. YEARS BEFORE CHRYSLER EVER KNEW WHAT A HEMI WAS. THE GAA WAS A HEMI MOTOR. THE HEMI MAKES POWER BY ITS VALVE ARRANGEMENT. WHERE THE INTAKE AND EXHAUST ARE OPPOSED IN A CROSS STRAIGHT FLOW WHERE THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS LIKE REGULAR INLINE MOTORS WHERE THE AIR FLOW HAS TO BANK AND CURVE TO MAKE ITS WAY INTO THE CYLINDER AND ALSO TO MAKE ITS WAY OUT OF THE CYLINDER. THE HEMISPHERICAL HEAD DESIGN IS NOT WHAT MAKES POWER. IT'S THE VALVE ARRANGEMENT OF THE OPPOSED VALVES. LET'S COMPARE IT TO A ROOM THAT HAS TWO DOORS THAT OPPOSE EACH OTHER. AND YOU WANT TO RUN THROUGH THIS ROOM AND GET OUT THE OTHER DOOR AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. IF THE DOORS ARE OPPOSED YOU'LL GO IN AND OUT VERY QUICKLY. IF THE DOORS ARE ARRANGED IN A DIAGONAL/OFFSET. YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN TO MAKE YOUR WAY OUT IN A DIAGONAL FORMATION. THE FORD BOSS 429 DESIGN WAS LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF ITS TIME. IT WAS CALLED THE CRESCENT SHAPE HEMI WHERE IT HAS THE OFFSET. WHAT THE OFFSET DOES IS SLOW THE AIR FUEL MIXTURE UP, LONG ENOUGH SO IT BURNS 100% EFFICIENTLY. GM DRCE PRO STOCK RACE ENGINE IS A CLEVELAND-BASED DESIGN WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE BOSS 429 WHERE THE VALVES ARE OFFSET TO ALLOW THE MOTOR TO MAKE THE MOST POWER BURNING THE MOST EFFICIENT. IN PRO STOCK THE DRCE WHICH IS A BIG CUBIC INCH CLEVELAND MOTOR. HAS DOMINATED DECADE AFTER DECADE OVER THE CHRYSLER HEMI. BECAUSE OF THIS OFFSET OF THE VALVE ARRANGEMENT. UNLIKE THE HEMI WHICH IS A MORE UNRESTRICTED FLOW IT NEVER QUITE BURNS THE FUEL 100% SO THERE IS A LOSS OF EFFICIENCY. THAT'S WHY THESE NEW HEMI MOTORS ARE SLOBS. THEY BURN GAS LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW. THE HEMI DESIGN IS A VERY BAD DESIGN FOR EFFICIENCY, BUT IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF POWER.
But will it fit in a 67 Mustang?
The GAA uses a flat plane crank.
@bobba84 Power on demand? By that, do you mean, floor it, and wait until you get above 5k rpm before you make any real power (in terms of the rb)? The words "Turbo" and "Power on demand" dont belong in the same sentence. Even with the lag, I would still turbo my car, before I would supercharge it, but a supercharger would produce more "power on demand" than a turbo would. What I mean by demand is, as soon as you get on the gas, not 2-3 seconds later.
BTW...My big clunker? My "big clunker" (4.6L 3valve) Puts down 459rwhp and still manages to get 25mpg on the highway. I doubt a 450+hp RB20 is going to get any better than that.
give it some long tube headers ! :-)
@bobba84 Im sure they could make 7 or 8,000hp with that engine, but would it last long? probably not. just like a 2l wont last long at all pushing close to 1000hp. The thing will last forever pushing 100-200hp, which is what it was designed for. Same with that big tank engine. you can beat on it all day long pushing 5 or 600hp and 1k-1,500ft lb of torque.
I want to purchase one.
Seen one of these in a Mustang lol.
I see airplane wings!
@bobba84 I know you didn't literally say that the RB series could drive a tank across europe, but thats what you were implying. Those big engines moved 68,000lb across europe, while getting shot at, over all sorts of crazy ass terrain, often times, at wide open throttle for several hours at a time. Lets see you hold the RB20 at 8k+ on the highway for 2 or more hours. AGAIN....THE RB series ISNT A BAD ENGINE..I'm NOT hating. BUT...it would be a HORRIBLE mistake to put even a 1000hp RB20 in a tank
@raginroadrunner you would'nt want to be in a sherman tank with a tiger stocking you .
Yes, has been done!!!! bangshift.com/general-news/bangshift-question-of-the-day/whatever-happened-ford-gaa-powered-mustang/
@426hemimoparX3 , u dont sadly
@bobba84 Where in any of my posts did I say the RB20 was a 4cyl??? I said "2l" as in 2 LITERS...which a RB20 is.... I never said 4 cylinder in any of my posts....
if i'm not mistaken an RB20 is a nissan inline 6 cylinder design
Don't know of any spares in US. Contact Bob At Ford GAA engine .com
Send pictures of your project. Sounds interesting!!
The Ford GT-40 was never BANNED in FIA racing.
They were still entered at Daytona and Sebring, that year, by privateers.
As were Ferrari 250LM's, the GT-40s target, from 1964.
But the 5.0 liter DOHC Porsche 917 flat 12 and Ferrari V-12 produced 100 more horsepower.
c.550
Than the Ohv 305 V-8s in the GT-40, even in Gurney Weslake form.
c.425.
The 250LM sohc 3.3 liter V-12 produced 336 hp.
Slick enough to go 193 mph on The Mulsanne.
Same top end as the GT-40s.
Plus the 1964-1966 era GT-40 aerodynamic package was aging.
John Weyr added some ideas from the Mirage, for the '68 and '69 cars,
such as the hidden, ducted nose foil…wing...
But the 917 Kurz produced less drag and more down force.
So 1969 was the last winning year for the Ford GTs.
They had done their thing.. 1966-1969.
No reason to be snide about Le Mans or the FIA.
History...
This thing needs to be a diesel