Sloth

1903 Cleveland Roadster project

Recommended Posts

It’s two or three separate skill sets.......Auto Cad, Casting and manufacturing, and engineering. Merge them all together and you get high costs on complicated and large items. Small items are much easier. I have worked with people who are on the cutting edge of some of this technology......it’s still very difficult and expensive to use.......to the extent that the old fashion way is often times a better option. Have you seen the 3D printer that is making food.........yup.....it’s happening. Base protein and color with taste. The problem so far is texture.......who wants to eat a steak that is the consistency of toothpaste?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Benefits of AACA Membership.

Jan, I enjoyed and learnt a lot from the video you posted. This 3D printing seems to have come a long way in short time. Mike

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ed you are correct there are distinct skills involved  - some the same some different from traditional methods.

A CAD program such as Solidworks or Inventor Professional can be daunting to learn and are indeed very expensive.

I teach pre-engineering at the high school level and it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the students pick it up. Also

there are some cheaper and even free products on the market. Some are good and some are best left to die.

 

One great program is Fusion 360 by Autodesk. Its free for individual home use and include a great CAM package to interface

with CNC capabilities.

 

Re-producing a part such as Harm has is in some ways easier since the shape and nominal dimensions can be pulled of of the existing part.  However, thats only the begining. Notice I said "nominal" dimensions. These are the basic dimensions that determine geometry and location of features (holes, bosses etc.) and for the most part they

do not need to be exact to the thousandth of an inch - only use high precision where required right? Next is determining the types of fits involved

 - running or sliding clearance fits, location clearance fits, transition clearance/interference fits, location interference and force or shrink fit.

 

Each fit is broken down into specific classes. For instance for running or sliding fits (RC)  we have RC1 through RC9. In this case, using RC fits, the size of

the components that will interface along with running speed and operating tempreture determine the minimum and maximum clearance (i.e. tolerance)

Then there are other things such as roughness of finish finishes, heat treatment etc. that have to be determined. 

 

I have made patterns both using traditional methods as well as 3d printing and CNC. All have advantages based on the specific application.

In the end 3D printed patterns are a fine solution but they are not the only solution and if you have to higher it all out it can indeed get expensive rather quickly - especially the 

CAD and engineering components which will eclipse by far the actual cost of the actual 3D printing and foundry work. Its akin to when I would design an

addition for say a house and the client - though we agreed on a price - would freek out when they saw all those thousands of dollars represented as

just two or three 22x34 Architectural drawings with no concept of the hours involved in code research, concept development, CAD work, not to mention years of applied knowlege, experience  and profesional liabilty incapsulated in those thin sheets of paper.

 

Again 3D printing its not the be-all-to-end-all and may not be the best choice for a particular application.

 

3D printed patterns and core boxes for bronze water manifold fittings. These were done on a fairly cheap home 3D printer. The 

core prints are panted red. These form a cavity that indexes and locks the core in place when the mould is assembled. The raw 3D printed

components are too rough to use as is so quite a pit of time was spent filling, sanding and painting. The smoother the finish the 

easier the pattern will pull from the sand.

IMG_1662.thumb.JPG.ef7fea411468dfa77aa23b4b7838e409.JPG

 

 

CNC wood pattern and corebox for valve covers for a Wisconsin model "B" T-head engine. Also shown is the original

part we used as a go-by.  The part was modeled in Solidworks than we used Fusion 360 to generate the tool paths

and post process to G-code.

IMG_0982.thumb.jpg.1a6c4088c7550337f65492b073ad96bc.jpg

 

Traditional wood patterns and core boxes for an intake manifold for a very large T-head engine. I actually made 

male patterns and cast plaster core boxes from them. Simple 2D drawings served as paper templates.

Lots of lathe work here!

100_3697a.jpg.176d5942be36c5cc0fd9daca330742bd.jpg

 

Intake manifold (exact copy of the original) assembled and ready to be polished. 

IMG_0097-a.jpg.6186aea278e58108ac0cd9a48d2d540f.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Terry Harper (see edit history)
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Terry Harper said:

One great program is Fusion 360 by Autodesk. Its free for individual home use . . . .

 

Terry, enjoyed reading the above and seeing the photos. As I am unable now, to do anything in the workshop, I am trying to learn Fusion 360, trying being the operative word! They say 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' I think they might be correct. 🙂 Sorry Harm, for going 'off piste', but I could not resist it. Mike

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Macartney said:

 

Terry, enjoyed reading the above and seeing the photos. As I am unable now, to do anything in the workshop, I am trying to learn Fusion 360, trying being the operative word! They say 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' I think they might be correct. 🙂 Sorry Harm, for going 'off piste', but I could not resist it. Mike

Mike the only time you can't teach a dog a new trick is when they have died.  You just have to want to learn.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Terry Harper said:

Ed you are correct there are distinct skills involved  - some the same some different from traditional methods.

A CAD program such as Solidworks or Inventor Professional can be daunting to learn and are indeed very expensive.

I teach pre-engineering at the high school level and it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the students pick it up. Also

there are some cheaper and even free products on the market. Some are good and some are best left to die.

 

One great program is Fusion 360 by Autodesk. Its free for individual home use and include a great CAM package to interface

with CNC capabilities.

 

Re-producing a part such as Harm has is in some ways easier since the shape and nominal dimensions can be pulled of of the existing part.  However, thats only the begining. Notice I said "nominal" dimensions. These are the basic dimensions that determine geometry and location of features (holes, bosses etc.) and for the most part they

do not need to be exact to the thousandth of an inch - only use high precision where required right? Next is determining the types of fits involved

 - running or sliding clearance fits, location clearance fits, transition clearance/interference fits, location interference and force or shrink fit.

 

Each fit is broken down into specific classes. For instance for running or sliding fits (RC)  we have RC1 through RC9. In this case, using RC fits, the size of

the components that will interface along with running speed and operating tempreture determine the minimum and maximum clearance (i.e. tolerance)

Then there are other things such as roughness of finish finishes, heat treatment etc. that have to be determined. 

 

I have made patterns both using traditional methods as well as 3d printing and CNC. All have advantages based on the specific application.

In the end 3D printed patterns are a fine solution but they are not the only solution and if you have to higher it all out it can indeed get expensive rather quickly - especially the 

CAD and engineering components which will eclipse by far the actual cost of the actual 3D printing and foundry work. Its akin to when I would design an

addition for say a house and the client - though we agreed on a price - would freek out when they saw all those thousands of dollars represented as

just two or three 22x34 Architectural drawings with no concept of the hours involved in code research, concept development, CAD work, not to mention years of applied knowlege, experience  and profesional liabilty incapsulated in those thin sheets of paper.

 

Again 3D printing its not the be-all-to-end-all and may not be the best choice for a particular application.

 

3D printed patterns and core boxes for bronze water manifold fittings. These were done on a fairly cheap home 3D printer. The 

core prints are panted red. These form a cavity that indexes and locks the core in place when the mould is assembled. The raw 3D printed

components are too rough to use as is so quite a pit of time was spent filling, sanding and painting. The smoother the finish the 

easier the pattern will pull from the sand.

IMG_1662.thumb.JPG.ef7fea411468dfa77aa23b4b7838e409.JPG

 

 

CNC wood pattern and corebox for valve covers for a Wisconsin model "B" T-head engine. Also shown is the original

part we used as a go-by.  The part was modeled in Solidworks than we used Fusion 360 to generate the tool paths

and post process to G-code.

IMG_0982.thumb.jpg.1a6c4088c7550337f65492b073ad96bc.jpg

 

Traditional wood patterns and core boxes for an intake manifold for a very large T-head engine. I actually made 

male patterns and cast plaster core boxes from them. Simple 2D drawings served as paper templates.

Lots of lathe work here!

100_3697a.jpg.176d5942be36c5cc0fd9daca330742bd.jpg

 

Intake manifold (exact copy of the original) assembled and ready to be polished. 

IMG_0097-a.jpg.6186aea278e58108ac0cd9a48d2d540f.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Terry, great post. Too many people today think new technology is just point and click. Not only do the computer people need very specialized skills.........how many computer guys understand metallurgy, casting, machining, ........the list of problems is staggering. Then, how many castings will be scrap before you get a usable unit. Finding a machine shop willing to do the work......another staggering problem.......and then can they actually pull it off and do it right? Today’s casting techniques are light years ahead and different from 100 years ago. Most modern castings are half as thick, or even less than the early days of automobiles. Most modern castings are treated for porosity, as they are so thin they leak oil/fluids. My guess is a skilled programmer/designer would not be familiar with what is needed for something pre war.....so there would be even more learning curve.

 

 

Terry, can you expand on the laser scanners and how the function and relate from start to finish with a product in hand?

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, edinmass said:

Terry, can you expand on the laser scanners and how the function and relate from start to finish with a product in hand?

 

Hello Ed, Sure. I do not have a laser scanner in my classroom/lab. Every year I include $30,000 - $40,000 in my yearly budget

with predictable results. I think I need to find a wealthy benefactor (LOL)

 

With that said I have worked with the scanners at the Univerisity of Maine Advanced Manufacturing Center and our local community

college precision machine program. Both are Faro systems $$$$$$$ Like a lot of things you get what you pay for and if your going to

purchase a system you can't be shy about forking over the cash - you want the best system you can possibly afford and beyond.

 

3D scanners have really become a mainstay of the manufacturing industry as comparitors - i.e. scanning finished components

and using the resulting model and data to verify that the part is within tolerance and specifications. In this regard they excell.

 

In regards to our context of reverse engineering. Scanning works well but there is a process. The actual scanning is the easy part.

With a high end scan the resulting model will incorporate every flaw, every scratch, every dent of the original. Once the 3D 

model is in the system all those blemishes and imperfections need to be removed. This of course takes time. 

 

We also have to perform what I call "rationalization" When the original part was machined it was held

to specific tolerances to maintain what we call design intent. Design intent is how a component will interact with other

components - sliding, rotating, location etc. The original part we have scanned was machined with specific tolrances

to allow that interaction. We have to adjust dimensions of features that are critical to maintaining the design intent. Lets take for

example a cube of cast iron. As scanned the dimensions may be 2.026 x 1.985 Since our cube dosen't interface with any other part

we recognize that we can adjust the dimensions to 2.00 x 2.00 without affecting how the cube looks or functions. In fact if we 

could jump in the way back machine and look over the draftsman's shoulder we would most likely see that the original

long lost drawing called out the dimension as 2.00 x 2.00. If the finished casting came out slightly small or slightly bigger

it didn't effect function. 

 

Now lets get a bit more complicated. Lets add a hole in our cube that a shaft runs through. We have previously rationalized the 

cube dimensions to 2.00 x 2.00. Our scanned model shows that the hole for the shaft is 1.0081. I would rationlize this along with the shaft

to a nominal dimension of 1.000 and use that as the basis for calculating the clearance and resulting tolerance.

 

Flanges, mounting bosses etc. all go through the same process. For instance a mounting boss that scanned at 0.93375 in diameter is 

going to be adjusted to 1.000 in diameter. The rationalization is that most of the time the designers of the day loved to work in 

nice numbers:  inch, quarter of an inch and eighth of an inch. For instance a flange that scanned at 0.7225 would

become 0.7500 if it was 0.522 it would become 0.500" and so forth. Then we add improvements etc.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that depending upon the geometry of the part is that you may not be able to scan internal

passages. In some cases the part can be sectioned (cut apart) to access these but in other instances  its an educated guess.

 

All of this has to be incorporated in the 3D CAD model  - all this takes time which translates to $$$$$ The notion that a few

minutes can be spent scanning the part and then sending it directly to be 3D printed is simply not reality. Client: "But it only

took you 15 minutes to scan the part! Why am I being charged over a thousand dollars?!"  My answer: "Why do you pay such huge fees to 

your accountant?" 

 

Once all the above has taken place we now follow the same steps as if we modeled the part from scratch - develop 2D shop drawings,

Modify the 3D CAD model as required for the pattern and then 3D print or CNC machine the part. I am not sure if I mentioned this before

but one of the major, major benefits of using 3D software is that the 2D shop drawing is directly linked to the 3D CAD file.

If I have to make a change I modify the 3D CAD file and in turn the changes will appear on the 2D shop drawings requiring

only modification to related dimensions a callouts.

 

When I look at Harm's project I see a nice set of traditional wood patterns. For the core boxes for the water passages

I would consider fabricating wood male masters and cast core boxes in plaster. Or perhaps these might lend themselves

to 3D printing. I would use a CAD program such as Fusion 360 (again free for home use) to develop a 3D models of the patterns

and core boxes so you can verify how everything fits together and then print-off full size 2D drawings to use as patterns while

fabricating the patterns.

 

Again, its all about choosing the right method for the application based on each methods strengths and weaknesses.

Here is an example:

We named this "The impossible part". Its a simple water manifold fitting for a Wisconsin T-head. Since the part has two 90 degree bends

(one horizontal the other verticle) and in fact tappers throught its length I decided to use a 3D printed pattern due to the curved part line.

Trying to model it from skratch proved frustrating and nearly impossible. The reason being that the CAD program works within geometric

rules and limitations and to match the dimensions of the oriiginal these needed to broken which meant that we simply could not get

the part to model correctly. I Isuspect the pattern maker simply carved and blended the original wood pattern - I don't have those skills!

 

Anyway, we opted to scan it and work off of that.

 

IMG_1216.thumb.jpg.36025cabe88452530ad5c9ce7ae0a506.jpg

 

Here is a link to the video of the scanning process:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Ehgt633vw

 

 

 

Anyway, I hope this helps!

 

Best regards,

 

Terry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Terry Harper (see edit history)
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello gentlemen,

I love this 3D discussion. That's why we report our restorations, don't we? We learn ticks, new techniques, and also old(er) techniques and got tips to make life easier (some times, that is). In my humble opinion, all this, enriches us very much.

Terry, I learned a lot from your former posts. Also I followed with great interest your blog on the Practical Machinist forum, were you reported restoring the  large Wisconsin engine. I have no problem with the deviation of subject in my blog. I am looking at it as a vacation trip, driving along at a nice touristic route. Sometimes one leaves the main road to look whats behind the next tree, but after a while one returns to the main road.

 

Well, returning to the main road:

Today I managed to get the chassis on its four wheels, a milestone is reached! At the moment, I am very happy, although I realize much has to be done. The whole steering gear must be made. I have some parts but a lot must be made/repaired. Further some special nuts for the kingpins and the front stub axles.

 

116220053_Chassisonitswheels.jpg.a1984dcd788581aefa8c6341c94d9eb3.jpg

At last, on all its 4 wheels.

 

633784272_Chassistopview.jpg.9b18bd8730b8eecc86092c3209458544.jpg

Just a better view of the chassis.

 

245661213_Leftsidefrontaxle.thumb.jpg.c03e099794439fbafe39aa37eba804cc.jpg

Picture of left front side

 

183174987_Rightsidefrontaxle.thumb.jpg.344a8b2382a65d9a9ac420feff9a680c.jpg

Picture of right front side

 

Regards,

Harm

Edited by Sloth (see edit history)
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Terry and Ed. There is a major disconnect between knowing how something is done and knowing how to do it. To the person who doesn't know how it's done, it looks easy but the person who has to do it will see all the attendant problems, if not at first, long before the part is completed. On a very minor scale I deal with this constantly. Everything has to be designed and made according to the limits of the machines used in the making and those limitations often effect the finished design.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, as promised, some detail pictures of the Cleveland engine block.

 

1493160021_Bottomside.jpg.5cdc2a03b73f1688fd386260c3be0452.jpg

Botom side

 

750237091_Leftside.thumb.jpg.f716dcb11daaf4b717c02d1d4c07d7b5.jpg

Right side (as seen from the top deck)

 

560679389_Rightside.thumb.jpg.02f9d140764c96b1e118b991d3b34e70.jpg

Left side (as seen from the top deck)

 

Upside.thumb.jpg.e4c4912343aa2185b1941508e4867094.jpg

Up side

 

Underside.thumb.jpg.041023a989734587228172340b2014cf.jpg

Crank shaft bearing side

 

Top.thumb.jpg.1be0df975a3fdb637c0f0a6069ed06bd.jpg

Cylinder deck

 

Some dimensions:

Length of block as pictured: 20.375"

Outside dimensions crank shaft bearing side: 11.22" x 4.33"

Width of ears at crank shaft bearing side: 5.7"

Inside dimensions at crank shaft bearing side: 10" x 3.35

Diameter of cylinder outside: 6"

Diameter of cylinder inside: 4.8

Length of cylinder outside: 6"

 

Gentlemen, if you need more dimensions or pictures, please feel free to ask.

 

Regards,

Harm

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wow!

 

Harm, the pattern and cores look to be very simple. On first thought I am thinking you can do this as one two piece pattern

with the part line running perpendicular to the crank axis - this would avoid under cuts and the need for pinned pattern pieces

The handhole opening would be formed by a core print Combined with core prints at the top & bottom it would be nice and secure.

 

The core forming the water jacket space would be fairly straight forward. The tricky part is keeping the water jacket space core

from shifting since there is no support at the bottom and only the two openings at the top You would need to use the inlet/outlet

openings as core prints to help lock it in place combined with chaplets. I would consult with your foundry about this to see what

they suggest or are comfortable with.

 

Harm, this is certainly doable and looks like it would be fun. I am still thinking wood. All varnished-up it would be a piece of art in itself!

 

Upside.thumb.jpg.e4c4912343aa2185b1941508e4867094.jpg.181ecd6675954e3e8e75a40839e62380.jpg

 

Underside.thumb.jpg.041023a989734587228172340b2014cf.jpg.d443b78792f9845d125af5e413f79ef2.jpg

 

Edited by Terry Harper (see edit history)
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Everyone,  I am away for a couple of days and my...this conversation has grown legs and is is off to the races.  We all have learned to appreciate the pattern maker and also a good casting facility.  If Harm decides to spring for a new casting, this casting does appear to be not overly complex but would still need a good machinist to do the machine work.  It is sad that there is not 50 fellows out restoring this same type automobile and would be willing to share the cost of patterns, casting and machining.

Al

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I thought I'd give a try to creating a 3D CAD model of the engine block.  I didn't really have enough actual dimensions, so I scaled from the photos.  Undoubtedly, there are many things wrong in the CAD model, but it indicates it could be done.  My CAD program says the casting would weigh about 68 lbs/30.5 kg.  Because of the length of 20.375 inches, it would take a big 3D printer to print out a pattern.  Additional models would be needed for cores, but there are now 3D printers that will print green sand cores.  

 

2138269886_Clevland1903block1.thumb.png.26035dfd85922892020b8e167be84cff.png

 

View of left side.

1550130376_Clevland1903blockbot.thumb.png.fd6538ec1d4c3aec6a2809a9145807e4.png

 

View of bottom.

 

2040077068_Clevland1903blockside.thumb.png.1c1fee1f1099d8f87c5b1b0a389b6a51.png

View of right side.

Edited by Gary_Ash (see edit history)
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technocolgy is very impressive.......even knowing the weight of the casting is amazing. The Brush guys made new castings of engine blocks in England a few years ago.......all 3D printed for the patterns and cores.......they came out fantastic. They added extra material where things had proven troubblesom over the years. What impressed me most is the casting pattern programs transferred into the CNC machines to do the actual machine work. They got a good unit on their first try. Now that the "own" the data, they can make blocks on an as needed basis. For some reason it sticks in my memory the first one was about 40K all in....but the is no where near certain.........just my poor memory. Anyways, they have since made multiple units, doing the numbers if you could make ten blocks and sell them for a total of say fifty grand, your at 5k for a new machined block......which is very fair, unfortunately not everyone who owned a similar car got on the band wagon, if they did the price would be even lower...........Gary, when your done with your current build project, you could start a nice side line making parts for collectors......I'm sure I know enough people who would keep you busy. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Garry,

That are really very nice drawings, I am properly impressed. You are good with it, what program do you use? The weight is not far off, 27.8kg / 61.4 pound. Thank you for spending the time to make these nice 3D drawings.

Regards,

Harm

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The program I am using is TurboCAD Pro Platinum, which I bought for my consulting work (and maybe just a little for building the Indy car).  It's very capable, has a steep learning curve, and is more CAD software than most people need.  The same company offers DesignCAD 3D Max for $99.99, will do most everything any car guy wants.  Ed, I'm trying to stay retired, don't really want to get into the business of creating CAD files and supervising fabrication of parts for others.  However, I do enjoy taking on the odd impossible task just for fun.  I thought some about how to 3D print the Cleveland pattern on the cheap, would have to divide the part into a top third, a middle third, and then split the bottom third in two to fit the pieces on the $200 printer I have, then glue the pieces together.  Each of the four parts would take about 2 days to print. 

 

Harm, I'm pleasantly surprised that my estimate of the weight was within about 10%, since I didn't know actual wall thicknesses and made no allowance for the water cooling core at the top of the cylinder. 

 

I didn't put any draft or machining allowance into the 3D model.  Each machined surface needs to be 0.060" to 0.125" thicker to allow a fairly deep first cut through the "skin" of the casting, then a few more fine cuts to get good smooth surfaces.  We'd have to ask Joe Puleo about the strategy for the machining, but it would take a tall mill to do it.  I think I'd grab the top of the cylinder in a 3-jaw or 4-jaw chuck with the block upside down to center things up, then mill the bottom flange flat and drill the holes in the flange.  The cylinder can be bored in the same setup or the part could be moved to a large lathe.  The set-up for cutting the crankshaft eludes me a little, but maybe the bottom of the crankcase needs to be bolted on so both halves get bored together.  I'm not sure how to grab the block for that operation so that the crankshaft winds up properly perpendicular to the block.  The top surface and the rest of the holes in the sides can be machined easily once the bottom flange is done.  The factory would have made jigs for holding the rough castings for these operations.

 

  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In looking at this I have to say I like Terry's idea of making a "half" pattern in wood. 3D printing would be more useful for the cores. I have some figures from PM Heldt regarding wall thicknesses and I'd use those. He was writing c.1908-09. The biggest problem I see is getting what I call the "register" edge (having spent most of my life in the printing industry I tend to use printing term). In this case I think it should be the bottom edge. If machined flat (and I'm not sure how I would do that) everything else could be done in relation to that surface. I would probably leave about .100 or .125 extra material on the machined surfaces. I know that is more than they would have done originally but we have to consider making errors or having difficulties they would not have had.

What provides the bottom half of the bearing journals? That should be machined flat as well and the journals bored in one piece. I am almost certain that several holding fixtures would have to be made...at least that's what my limited experience dictates.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look closely at the photo of the bottom side (first photo) you can see what looks like vestiges of the part line from the cope & drag.

Either that or its just marks from wear and tear over the years Hard to tell from the photo.

 

Harm, looking at the chassis its lookes amazing to see it resting on those beutiful wheels. Simply wonderful workmanship.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is nice to get the creative juices flowing for sure.  To bad we all live in so many far away places.  If we could convene at a central place and solve/resolve all these little problems, the world and our hobby would be a better place.  I would like to be able to mess with a good cad Drafting program but I am not sure I am willing to invest the time needed for the "steep" learning curve.

Al

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1903 Cleveland engine casting is extremely close to that of many other circa 1903 one cylinder automobile engines.  From across a room you would have a hard time telling an Oldsmobile casting, from a Rambler casting, from a Northern casting.  In the Curved Dash Oldsmobile club there has been new main engine castings offered for sale.  I was wondering just how close the Cleveland is to the CDO.  Also maybe a raw/unmachined, CDO engine casting would be "close enough" and allow you some luxuries of small changes that more closely matched the Cleveland engine.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how much the Olds engine resembles the Cleveland engine.  It can't be an accident.

See this older post:  

 

 

1811811537_post-62459-1431381101391.thumb.jpg.7e95dbeb818351ae9b5fdc3e9ce01600.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... the Olds engines were made by Leland & Falconer. Is it possible that the Cleveland engines were made there also? That would be very much in keeping with the period. Of course, L&F later turned into Cadillac but in the very early days they were builders of engines for anyone who wanted to buy them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Leland  & Falconer were a machine shop that made parts for by bicycles, motorcycles, cars, generators, and other assorted machines items including firearms. Henry Ford is rumored to have worked there for less than a week as a young boy.

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/24/2020 at 11:54 PM, JV Puleo said:

Hmmm... the Olds engines were made by Leland & Falconer. Is it possible that the Cleveland engines were made there also? That would be very much in keeping with the period. Of course, L&F later turned into Cadillac but in the very early days they were builders of engines for anyone who wanted to buy them.

Hello Joe,

According to the literature, Cleveland made the engines themselves. It seems that they had the capabilities to do so, although I have my doubts.... As Ben stated in an earlier post, the Oldsmobile engine and the Cleveland engine look very much the same. Interesting subject to explore further, I have a few friends who own Curved Dashes. As soon as the Corona virus crisis is more or less gone, I will visit them and take pictures and measurements of the engine block. But my first preference is repairing the original Cleveland engine.

Regards,

Harm

Edited by Sloth (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now