Viking - Defunct GM brand

[Stude Light]

I think the Viking statue used by the dealerships is more rare than the car.

The Museum has a decent amount of information on the Viking.

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Stude Light (see edit history)

[Bloo]

The engine looks like it shares a lot of engineering features with the Oakland and Pontiac V8s, although I believe the Oakland and Pontiac used a flat crankshaft. Is it a related engine?

[ConquerCustom]

5 hours ago, Stude Light said:

The Viking was the only premium companion brand produced by GM. As mentioned above it used a monobloc V8 engine but used a cross-plane crankshaft not a flat-plane design. The design of the engine began in 1926, was completed by 1928 and was ahead of it’s time but complex to manufacture. A brand new manufacturing plant was constructed by Oldsmobile just to produce that engine. Unfortunately, the market crash of 1929 put the nail in the coffin for the car and it was discontinued after 1930. 
 

The RE Olds Transportation Museum in Lansing has one. Last year I got that car running for the first time. It had been upgraded with a Zenith G that I rebuilt.

My plan was to get the car running for the Eyes on Design Show at the Edsel and Eleanor Ford Estate so I didn’t have to tow it on to the show field. The engine sounds great and runs strong and smooth.

 

I ended up taking a 1959 Super 88 convertible to that show so Rusty Berg (@rustyjazz1938) was kind enough to trailer the Viking there and drive the car from the trailer lot the few miles to the event.

Does your Viking have an original VIN plate? Could you DM a pic of it? I’m trying to supply a reproduction company with a picture of what the tag is supposed to look like. 

[Stude Light]

On 12/4/2022 at 2:53 AM, Bloo said:

The engine looks like it shares a lot of engineering features with the Oakland and Pontiac V8s, although I believe the Oakland and Pontiac used a flat crankshaft. Is it a related engine?

I’m sure that there were some shared design resources within GM, so I would say related but not the same. Kind of like the Northway V8s in the early Cadillac, Cole, Olds, Oakland and Cunningham (had bad info on Cinningham). They had some shared influences but different designs.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Stude Light (see edit history)

[Stude Light]

2 hours ago, ConquerCustom said:

Does your Viking have an original VIN plate? Could you DM a pic of it? I’m trying to supply a reproduction company with a picture of what the tag is supposed to look like. 

I’ll look when I’m at the Museum on Tuesday 

[58L-Y8]

51 minutes ago, Stude Light said:

I’m sure that there were some shared design resources within GM, so I would say related but not the same. Kind of like the Northway V8s in the early Cadillac, Cole, Olds, Oakland and Cunningham. They had some shared influences but different designs.

I didn't know the Cunningham Series V V8 engine was sourced from Northway.  Were they the largest displacement version of the group?

 

[30DodgePanel]

3 hours ago, Stude Light said:

I’ll look when I’m at the Museum on Tuesday 

Sorry for the mini hijack but could you also check to see what number is stamped on top of the bowl of the one you rebuilt? 

Did that carb also have the pot metal venturi?

I've seen the numbers stamped of 114 1/2 and 116 1/2 on other similar looking Zenith G updraft carbs but yours looks like it has a different number stamped on top of the bowl. 

 

PM me with the details if you'd like

 

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)

[Stude Light]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:23 AM, 58L-Y8 said:

I didn't know the Cunningham Series V V8 engine was sourced from Northway.  Were they the largest displacement version of the group?

 

Displacements are as follows:

Cunningham 442 cu in (not a Northway design)

Oakland 365 cu in

Cole 346 cu in

Cadillac 314 cu in

Oldsmobile 246 cu in

Edited December 5, 2022 by Stude Light (see edit history)

[Stude Light]

40 minutes ago, 30DodgePanel said:

Could you also check to see what number is stamped on top of the bowl of the one you rebuilt? 

Did that carb also have the pot metal venturi?

I've seen the numbers stamped of 114 1/2 and 116 1/2 on other similar looking G carbs but yours looks like a different number on top of the bowl. 

 

 

Here is another shot of the carb. The Venturi was pot metal but in good shape although it was a bit stuck when pulling the carb halves apart.

The only number I could make out on the top of the float bowl was 116

Edited December 4, 2022 by Stude Light (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

17 hours ago, Stude Light said:

The Viking was the only premium companion brand produced by GM. As mentioned above it used a monobloc V8 engine but used a cross-plane crankshaft not a flat-plane design. The design of the engine began in 1926, was completed by 1928 and was ahead of it’s time but complex to manufacture. A brand new manufacturing plant was constructed by Oldsmobile just to produce that engine. Unfortunately, the market crash of 1929 put the nail in the coffin for the car and it was discontinued after 1930. 
 

The RE Olds Transportation Museum in Lansing has one. Last year I got that car running for the first time. It had been upgraded with a Zenith G that I rebuilt.

My plan was to get the car running for the Eyes on Design Show at the Edsel and Eleanor Ford Estate so I didn’t have to tow it on to the show field. The engine sounds great and runs strong and smooth.

 

I ended up taking a 1959 Super 88 convertible to that show so Rusty Berg (@rustyjazz1938) was kind enough to trailer the Viking there and drive the car from the trailer lot the few miles to the event.

For folks to understand better I think it would have been more helpful to say that the Viking brand was the only companion brand to be elevated above its parent (Oldsmobile) in Sloans pricing structure. Marquette and LaSalle were also clearly premium vehicles in the G.M. lineup.

 The Oakland / Pontiac V-8 comes from Oakland V-8 model 50 of 1916.

Viking and Oakland/Pontiac V-8 engines seem to be at a loss for a description. They are valve in the block, but the valves are overhead of the cylinders, and the Oakland/Pontiac heads are not flat (flat head) as they are in two planes or angles, one for the cylinders and the other for the valve chest (still cast into the block). With two having a flat plane crank things can get very rocky, so Oakland/Pontiac have a counterbalance to smooth things out.

  

Edited December 4, 2022 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Stude Light]

17 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

With all three having a flat plane crank things can get very rocky, so Oakland/Pontiac have a counterbalance to smooth things out.

Oakland and Pontiac had flat plane cranks while the Viking had a two plane crankshaft design so no counterbalance needed. Interestingly, GM tested a dual ignition/spark plug combination on the V-29 Viking engine and found that it produced a little less horsepower and was more prone to detonation. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Stude Light (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

13 minutes ago, Stude Light said:

Oakland and Pontiac had flat plane cranks while the Viking had a two plane crankshaft design so no counterbalance needed. Interestingly, GM tested a dual ignition/spark plug combination on the V-29 Viking engine and found that it produced a little less horsepower and was more prone to detonation. 

Yes, you are correct about the crankshaft. Interesting that the Viking engine was slightly larger than the Oakland/Pontiac that the Oakland/Pontiac made slightly more horsepower. Probably had something to do with that compound cylinder head/block.  

[58L-Y8]

4 hours ago, Stude Light said:

Oakland and Pontiac had flat plane cranks while the Viking had a two plane crankshaft design so no counterbalance needed. Interestingly, GM tested a dual ignition/spark plug combination on the V-29 Viking engine and found that it produced a little less horsepower and was more prone to detonation. 

The two machined planes for the cylinders and valves must have contributed to the costs to build the engines.  One wonders what the engineering rationale was to try out that design.   A more intriguing question is how much the development and production of the Viking and Oakland/Pontiac V8 mono-bloc engines influenced and informed the development of the 1936 Cadillac 322 and 346 ci mono-bloc V8 engines. 

[Stude Light]

2 hours ago, 58L-Y8 said:

A more intriguing question is how much the development and production of the Viking and Oakland/Pontiac V8 mono-bloc engines influenced and informed the development of the 1936 Cadillac 322 and 346 ci mono-bloc V8 engines. 

I would think Ford’s flathead V8 had more influence.

[Pfeil]

15 hours ago, Stude Light said:

I would think Ford’s flathead V8 had more influence.

One thing they learned was to keep the exhaust out of the block! Ford didn't figure that one out until 1954.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[charlespetty]

15 hours ago, Stude Light said:

Yes. Displacements are as follows:

Cunningham 442 cu in

Oakland 365 cu in

Cole 346 cu in

Cadillac 314 cu in

Oldsmobile 246 cu in

Where did you get the information that Cunningham's V8 was built by Northway?  Every mention of Cunningham that I have read over the years states that their Volney Lacey designed V8 was built in house at their factory in Rochester NY from 1916 - 1932.  

[Stude Light]

5 hours ago, charlespetty said:

Where did you get the information that Cunningham's V8 was built by Northway?  Every mention of Cunningham that I have read over the years states that their Volney Lacey designed V8 was built in house at their factory in Rochester NY from 1916 - 1932.  

I had done some research on Northway after I bought my Northway powered 1921 Olds Model 46. In an area of that information it listed all the V8s I posted above. I went back through the rest of the info and couldn’t find anything else referencing the Cunningham so that info could easily be in error. I have no expertise nor background in the Cunningham so I defer to anyone that does and that sounds like you. I stand corrected and will edit the Cunningham out of the original post. Thank you for finding my error. I can also correct the info I have on file.

Scott

[Stude Light]

There is only one tag on the Viking at the RE Olds Museum and that is the Fisher Body tag on the firewall

The engine serial number

I do like the aluminum lifter cover and that both the intake and exhaust were porcelain coated.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Stude Light (see edit history)

[Stude Light]

The spare engine looks to have a prototype intake and exhaust manifold with a downdraft carburetor on it. There are a number of 1/8” tapped holes with plugs on both manifolds which I would assume was for taking pressure measurements during testing. It has an unconventional serial number which may indicate that the entire engine was a prototype.

[ConquerCustom]

37 minutes ago, Stude Light said:

There is only one tag on the Viking at the RE Olds Museum and that is the Fisher Body tag on the firewall

The engine serial number

I do like the aluminum lifter cover and that both the intake and exhaust were porcelain coated.

Thanks for those pictures! I spoke to an owner yesterday and his is all original. It has 2 data plates. One on the passenger floor with the vin number and one on the drivers side floor with the motor number. He didn’t mention a Fisher Body tag. But who knows if there was actually a standard way of tagging these. 

[Stude Light]

1 hour ago, ConquerCustom said:

Thanks for those pictures! I spoke to an owner yesterday and his is all original. It has 2 data plates. One on the passenger floor with the vin number and one on the drivers side floor with the motor number. He didn’t mention a Fisher Body tag. But who knows if there was actually a standard way of tagging these. 

I'm familiar with the floorboard mounted tags as the Museum has a 1929 Olds that I had to get titled and that is where it's VIN plate is. I did look at the front floorboards on the Viking and there were no tags - maybe got removed sometime in the last 92 years.

[Pfeil]

On 12/4/2022 at 4:15 PM, 58L-Y8 said:

The two machined planes for the cylinders and valves must have contributed to the costs to build the engines.  One wonders what the engineering rationale was to try out that design.   A more intriguing question is how much the development and production of the Viking and Oakland/Pontiac V8 mono-bloc engines influenced and informed the development of the 1936 Cadillac 322 and 346 ci mono-bloc V8 engines. 

The rationale for the valves to be overhead of the pistons is the same rationale for an OHV - in head engine, that is for a better combustion chamber design.

[58L-Y8]

8 hours ago, Pfeil said:

The rationale for the valves to be overhead of the pistons is the same rationale for an OHV - in head engine, that is for a better combustion chamber design.

That would be a reasonable compromise approach, though something of a quasi-OHV design.  It likely increased volumetric efficiency to a degree but still not as well as a fully-OHV design would have.

[Pfeil]

3 hours ago, 58L-Y8 said:

That would be a reasonable compromise approach, though something of a quasi-OHV design.  It likely increased volumetric efficiency to a degree but still not as well as a fully-OHV design would have.

That, as they say is a matter of opinion, but for example take the typical wedge head V-8 valve angle to piston and take the valve angle to piston of the Oakland V-8 and compare. However, if you look at early ohv Chevrolet 216 six and ohv Buick eight of the same era you will find that the emphasis of those head designs were to have the combustion area over the piston and Viking and Oakland did that. If you look at a flat head Ford for example the combustion chamber and spark plug are not over the piston. The flame front has to travel across and turn down to force the piston down.  

[Pfeil]

I found this. Very interesting, especially the INDY part. And the counterweighted crank, plus the synchronizer which is only used for the secondary shake.

 

Specifications of 1930, 1931 & 1932 Oakland-Pontiac V-8
Bore & stroke of 3.4375” X 3.375”.
Displacement, 250.58 cubic inches.
Eight Intake valves Enbloc Siamesed, 4 ports.
Eight Exhaust valves Enbloc not Siamesed 8 ports
Horizontal valves adjustable by screw mechanism. (HOT)
Horsepower 1930-32 84 HP. 1932 85 HP.
Compression Ratio 1930-31 5.00 to 1, 1932 5.2 to 1.
Piston speed at 3,800 rpm was only 2137.5 Feet Per Minute.
At 3,000 piston feet per minute the rpm would have been 5333.3 rpm.
A t 4,000 piston feet per minute the rpm would have been 7,111 rpm.
The crankshaft was a 180-degrees but was balanced in the primary with four counterweights. The Horizontal Secondary shake was reduced by the use of a Horizontal Shake Damper called the Synchronizer.
This engine/car ran at Indianapolis in 1930 finishing 11th.
, a very respectful position for a car in such near stock roadster form, Claude Burton driver.
Wheelbase 117 inches. I have not been able to ascertain whether the 2 passenger Roadster was the same wheelbase or not for certain. If it were made on the Pontiac chassis it would be 112 inches. The only picture I have seems to make it to be shorter in the wheelbase and in the “tail” section placed to supplement and replace the heavy trunk area. The racecar also has the fenders, sidemounts, bumpers, lights, windshield, the top section of the canvas and its uprights, and the Lovejoy shocks are removed and replaced with Hartford friction shocks/dampers.

The wheels were replaced with racing wire wheels with knockoff hubs. Whether the starter was removed is not known. There is a starter crank shown in the picture this may have been use to lighten the car. The removal of the starter and its cables may have been removed. Starting handles were not taken off of cars until the middle 1930s.
Final gear ratios of the Spiral Bevel ring gear and pinion wheel were 4.42:1 std. 3.9:1 & 5.2:1 were optional.

This roadster model seems to have been dropped after 1930. The car did not appear to be lowered.

Automobile designer Benjamin H. Anibal designed the original Pontiac automobile (1926) for the Oakland Motor Company (it later became GM's Pontiac division)
Born on 12-2-1886 in Linden, Michigan expired 6-19-1977 in Royal Oak, Michigan age 91.
Anibal graduated from M.S.U. in 1909 in mechanical engineering. Started with the Olds. Motor Co. In 1909 he was with Cadillac Motor Co. from 1911-1921 and pioneered in producing the country's (U.S.A.) first V-8-cylinder car and industry's first electric lighting and starting equipment.

In 1925 he came to Oakland Motor Co. (Later Pontiac Motors) and was chief engineer until retirement in 1947. He is credited with some 200 automotive engineering advancements, including remote control gear shifts, multi-beam headlights, mechanical fuel pump, and automatic spark control. The engineering library at Michigan State University bares his name, as does a dormitory at Oakland University.

Just who and how the Synchronizer was developed is not known and I could not find anything about it. There is possibly a patent on it but I haven't the necessary apparatus to find it.

The distributor was manufactured without a centrifugal advance mechanism. Going by the numbers it appears to a very similar construction to the Cadillac and some Packard distributors with the numbers starting at 661 this distributor was used up until about 1937 by Buick, Graham. As I haven’t any books going back to very early models of this distributor I cannot say just when this unit was first used. It does appear that some models used a Vacuum advance but adapting the unit to an Oakland/Pontiac would be chancy unless some models of the Marvel carburetor have a tapped hole in the exact proper location to make the vacuum advance work effectively.

The reason that the flywheel is shown with a # 1 & # 7 is that the number Seven cylinder fires 360 degrees from # 1 cylinder. This is listed in some areas when the Firing order is changed to # 1-4-5-2-7-6-3-8 when numbered odd on the left cylinders and even numbers on the right cylinders. This is listed on page #35 of the Oakland Instruction Book. Cadillac used this numbering system from about 1935 to the time when Cadillac quit using this system after the big block 331/500 engine but is used to this day by Chevrolet and others such as Chrysler.

The dropping of this engine by General Motors is a small tragedy at General Motors as this was the same year that Ford introduced their 221 cubic inch V-8. Altho G.M. achieved the upper hand in production and sales over Ford it likely would have done even better if Pontiac had of been allowed to maintain and improve the Pontiac V-8. It was a superior engine to the Ford V-8 and I do not believe that it was dropped solely due to the Depression but to me more likely much of it was due to internal politics and jealousy at G.M./ Cadillac and possibly other divisions of G.M. The depression was a good excuse but I cannot believe it was the sole reason for the Pontiac V-8s demise. Jealousy at Cadillac must have been high due to the fact that their new engine was not designed at this time and they did not get the new mono-block engine into production until 1936. That was six years after the Anibal designed engine. Also remember that the tooling and the education of the works people at O-P were already achieved. Meanwhile Cadillac was producing the V-12s and V-16s; unneeded Show engines if ever one saw one.
G.M. did not need the Cadillac V-12s and V-16 engines as much as they should have had the Pontiac V-8 engine. The basic faults of the Pontiac V-8 with the 180- degree crank and the siamesed intakes would have been small and easily overcome in a short period of time as compared to the faults of the Cadillac V-8 engine even in 1930!


It should have been very easy to fix the lack of the 180-degree manifold principle that Ford introduced in 1933 and the use of a 90-degree crankshaft that Ford 1932 and Cadillac used in 1925.

The 600 series distributor continued to be used up until about 1938 by various engines so the addition of a vacuum advance mechanism also should not have been a problem. Just who used the vacuum advance first I do not know. I have not been able to find a date of actual usage or patent.

The fact that Pontiac had gone thru three years of manufacturing the V-8 and then the additional cost of designing a straight eight would seem to greatly decrease the strength of the argument that it was so much cheaper to manufacture a straight eight engine. One must never forget that tooling in those days was a big big factor in the first several years of manufacturing any engine. The V-8 engine was already made and the people producing the engine were already trained to produce parts and assemble the engine. Every thing was in place and production was rolling.
The argument that production of the straight 8 engine has to take into account that other manufacturers also were experiencing much lower sales in higher priced cars.

Another factor in the switch to the straight 8 engine is that it took, in those days, about three years from the decision to produce a new engine to actual production/assemble line rolling. This means that the decision to make the straight eight was about 1929 just when the Depression started. The stock market crash was just the big visible factor in the public awareness of the oncoming depression? Some people did recognize the economic problem in advance but did the people a G.M.? If the G.M. management anticipated this, it must have been crystal ball time at G.M. in 1929.

Trying to find the spark plugs from AC type G-12 18mm to the newer plugs is now a chore but the people that kept and held onto the O-P V-8 kept up with it when it was easy. The 1932 Pontiac was 14mm K12. Finding the proper reach on these old plugs is another chore.

New Champion D-21, Old Champion C-15, A-C -87 AutoLite-B11, NGK-A-6. Bosch M 7A

Partly created from a 1947 heat range list and current Champion list.
By Chris Klossner.
klossner@worldnet.att.net

According to the Bosch Handbook this plug has 18mm thread by 1.5 mm pitch, the electrode porcelain is recessed by 1.1 mm, single electrode, hex size is 26 mm (1.023”)


For a straight-8 crank in one of my books and should come up with one today but Logic tells me, # 1. The str-8 crank has five mains; V-8 has four. Str. 8 crank has eight separate conrod journals; V-8 has four. Isn’t something fishy here? Both a V-8 and the str. 8 crank have to be 90-degrees don’t they? The more I think about this the more I think that this is just common knowledge bunk! We have been led to believe that a V-8 crank is more expensive but it just doesn’t seem to be true after some examination. It would be very interesting to know if the Buick crank weighed more than a Cadillac. I know those old 1936-52 Buick (320 cubic inch) cranks were heavy, long and whippy compared to a Cadillac V-8 crank of the year’s 1936 t0 1948.

A peculiar thing in the horsepower rating of this engine between 1930 and 1932 is the fact that the horsepower was increased by only one horsepower after the compression ratio was increased by .2, but the rpm was reduced by 600. It would seem that if the horsepower were increased by such a small amount the rpm would be hardly affected, especially downwards. This engine seemed to be far down in its horsepower rating. It also had steel pistons while I believe many other engines had aluminum.

There seems to be a “myth” about just how expensive it is to make a V-8 crankshaft as opposed to a straight eight crankshaft. After much thought I am beginning to believe that it is just as expensive, or more, to make a straight 8 crank as a V-8 crank! I am looking at this from a manufacturing standpoint (Money), as it doesn’t seem to stand up to even an incomplete examination.

At the same time that Pontiac, 1932, dropped the V-8 Buick went from a str. Six to a str. Eight, 1931. But in percentage of sales one would need some large amount of sales record to see if the dropping of the V-8 was really justified. The stroke/bore ratio of Buick was inferior compared to the Pontiac V-8, Pontiac 98.2% versus the Buick at 133.3%. Also the engine was long. It wasn’t until 1937 that Buick got the engine situation sorted out at 248 cubic inches and 320 cubic inches. Also Buick had the conrod/rod bolt problem.
 

 

[58L-Y8]

Thanks for the thoughtful insights into these intriguing engines.  If SAE engineering papers on the Oakland-Pontiac V8 are available in the archives, they may provide answers to some of the questions.  

 

One possible rationale for going to a straight eight was the in-line cylinder boring machines were already in place from six-cylinder engine production.  The V8 engine machining equipment with angled boring heads may have been more costly and less available at the time, pure conjecture on my part. 

 

My comment that the design was somewhat a quasi-ohv was based on the valves being at an oblique angle to the cylinders whereas in the wedge combustion chambers the valves were at an acute angle to the cylinders.

 

I'll be interested to read your analysis of these ideas.

Edited December 12, 2022 by 58L-Y8
Added further ideas to ponder (see edit history)