Locomobile model 48 and 38 engine related topics

[George K]

[alsfarms]

Frank, Is you 1917 touring car running on the original ignition system?

Al

[George K]

1 hour ago, Ittenbacher Frank said:

See the difference between the spare part books No. 65 (Eisemann) and 68 (Bosch):

48-2 is 1918 according to the auction of the Pershing Sportif.

[Ittenbacher Frank]

14 hours ago, alsfarms said:

Frank, Is you 1917 touring car running on the original ignition system?

Al

It is a series two with dual ignition (12 plugs) and two independent sources for the high tension (magneto and coil), it can run on both.

The engine can be started on three different ways: manually by handle, by electric starter motor, or with the button on the dual coil unit for the "shower of sparks" (starting on the spot).

Edited November 7, 2022 by Ittenbacher Frank (see edit history)

[Ittenbacher Frank]

Regarding my muffler reproduction for the 1917 tourer, I can report: all is well, it fits and works as it should, and most amazingly: Aside the huge difference in noise, I can't feel any difference in engine performance between open and closed cut-out!

I already explained: The necessary spring pressure to hold the cut-out closed is quite high. With a spring which is too soft the valve slightly opens during acceleration, which sounds bad because of the metallic clatter. A strong spring does the job.

Yesterday I found a possible reason for the cut-out: it protects the muffler! When playing with the ignition switch on a downhill, one strong explosion caused the valve to open over the handle's dead center and remain open!

[alsfarms]

That explosion event must have been quite exhilarating!👍

Al

[rydersclassics]

 

Do you think this engine was in a 1914 or 1915 automobile?

 

Guessing it could have been either.

 

 

[Ittenbacher Frank]

5 hours ago, rydersclassics said:

 

Do you think this engine was in a 1914 or 1915 automobile?

 

Guessing it could have been either.

 

 

sorry I have no good data on these years, but there are some nice people on this forum who own 1914 and 1915 cars. They can probably give you hints.

[George K]

8 hours ago, rydersclassics said:

 

Do you think this engine was in a 1914 or 1915 automobile?

 

Guessing it could have been either.

 

 

Does that engine it’s cylinders on it? If they are original how many exhaust ports per cylinder.

[rydersclassics]

I do have the original cylinder blocks for this crank case/crank shaft, and they are the single not duel port exhaust side.

Rough with freeze cracks, can be saved with a bunch of work.

 

Given I have better cylinders with duel ports and the split intake manifold with Rayfield carburetor as discussed earlier, It's tempting to fit  2 carburetors and a 6 tube header.

I am weighing all options with 1 eye on respecting and preserving anything historically worth while vs the opportunity to create a unique Speedster engine with my earliest crank case and frame. 

 

        

[Ittenbacher Frank]

This time I like to share my limited knowledge about the carburetor development which I have accumulated from period documents and observations on my cars. I hope that more experienced people can correct me and add their knowledge, in order to better understand these carburetors.

 

1. earlier model 48 (before series two), probably applying to cars delivered until November 22, 1915: 

- one-stage carburetor

- no accelerating device

- cooling water jacket on carburetor body (pos. 12 and 27)

[Ittenbacher Frank]

2. for cars shipped between Nov. 22, 1915 and Oct. 15th, 1916: SERIES TWO

- two stage (second butterfly valves opens near the end of the throttle linkage travel)

- accelerating device (plunger at the rear)

- one hot air pipe between stove and carburetor (instead of water jacket)

- a dial (0-9, with pointer) sits in the lower part of the carburetor body, connected to a needle valve for metering the fuel flow

- linkage from steering column is connected to this needle valve's lever

 

Advantage: more power at less fuel consumption was claimed

 

(this type is installed on my 1917 tourer)

[Ittenbacher Frank]

3. for cars shipped after Oct. 15th, 1916: SERIES THREE

- two stage and accelerating device as before

- two hot air pipes between stove and carburetor

- no dial and needle valve any more

- linkage from steering column is connected to a butterfly which sits horizontally in the aluminum housing

 

Advantage: much easier to understand and adjust (they called it fool-proof!)

 

Pls. note: I didn't find a photo with exactly the style shown in the drawing, just close to it!

Edited November 18, 2022 by Ittenbacher Frank (see edit history)

[Ittenbacher Frank]

4. for later models 48 (April 1917 or already before?)

- visually similar to series three

- butterfly axis sits vertically in the aluminum housing, with 3-piece-linkages

- showing "SERIES 3" on the carburetor ID-plate

 

Advantage: The choke linkage from the steering column to the carburetor is placed in a better position, maybe more internal improvements?

 

(this type is installed on my Sedan and on most of the Locomobiles I have seen)

[Ittenbacher Frank]

Here are some photos of both my carburetors side-by-side.

I am keen to get your feedback!

[Ittenbacher Frank]

On 11/6/2022 at 5:21 PM, George K said:

All this being said I have noticed a systematic change in Locomobile’s tag number sequencing. Type, Lot, Series and None. This can account for the two designation of 1917 models and perhaps sheds light on the absence of delineation in 1918 model. Frank should be interested as the Instruction Books show double ignition in the Series Seven but single ignition in the M 7. 

George, I noticed: all your car ID-tags show "type 48" and the Lot or series, but my Touring car shows "type M lot 7". Isn't that strange?

Edited November 25, 2022 by Ittenbacher Frank (see edit history)

[George K]

Frank, That was the point of me picturing the the two different instruction books. 1917 is the first to be designated M-7. After this there are no more M designation used in the Locomobile Society records. Remember all records are generated by accounting departments. With all the financial trouble could be one contributing factor.

[George K]

This is from the Blue 1918 48 That was recently sold on the HCCA site.

[George K]

The Locomobile Society list must have typos listing all years after 1917 as R -7 but answers the questions I posted about about all the years listed as 7.

[George K]

Found these on EBay. Thought it explains the Locomobile Society short comings.

[prewarnut]

George, so is "R" the short wheelbase and "M" the long (from the manual above)?

[George K]

1913-1918 the best I understand was the era of the so called Little Six aka Type R and model 38. Various wheelbase 128”-132”-139”-140” according to published sources. Smaller displacement throughout.

[alsfarms]

I am curious as this Locomobile engine related engine topic is currently on the subject of the Model 38.  I have a few related questions.

If the 48 was rated around 95 to 105 hp, what would the advertised HP of the 38 be?  I have the understanding that these two engine designs are kindred spirits but two different engines with minimal interchangeability of any parts between the two.  Is that assumption correct.  Also did the 38 stay at the same bore and stroke throughout it's production run or were CID changes made late in the run?

Al

[Ittenbacher Frank]

On 1/27/2022 at 9:21 AM, Ittenbacher Frank said:

Now everything is repaired and I am satisfied in knowing how Mr. Riker had designed the muffler:

1. the most inner absorber pipe (3"): it has 3/8" holes distributed all over it's length (app. 35"), their total open area is more than 57 square inch.

2. the next absorber pipe (4"): it has 270 holes 3/8" only at the rear half, their total area is 28 square inch.

3. the outer absorber pipe (5"): it has 144 holes 3/8" only at the front half, their total area is 15 square inch.

Because the 2nd pipe has holes only at the rear and the third only at the front, it requires the gas to change its direction twice.

The outer shell is slightly less than 7", it forces the gas to exit through the circular gaps which are cast into the rear cover. The tail pipe has a diameter of 1 3/4", equal to 2 square inch.

I discussed this design with the engine testing specialist of our company, and he confirmed: this is the way to eliminate the noise in the most successful way, as long as you are not limited to space and weight: Starting from a big volume, you distribute the shock waves into various chambers, change their direction, and slowly reduce the area until the gas exits at an even speed, with low noise and reasonable back-pressure.

By the way, the total weight of the completely assembled Loco muffler is 15 kg (33 lbs).

Recently I found one sketch which shows the working principle of this type of muffler quite well:

[Ittenbacher Frank]

16 hours ago, alsfarms said:

I am curious as this Locomobile engine related engine topic is currently on the subject of the Model 38.  I have a few related questions.

If the 48 was rated around 95 to 105 hp, what would the advertised HP of the 38 be?  I have the understanding that these two engine designs are kindred spirits but two different engines with minimal interchangeability of any parts between the two.  Is that assumption correct.  Also did the 38 stay at the same bore and stroke throughout it's production run or were CID changes made late in the run?

Al

When Chris from England visited me, we compared the main external engine dimensions between his 1917 model 38 (R7) and my 1917 model 48 (M7). Everything looks identical but is smaller by a certain proportion!

Another discovery: I bought a spare carburetor, it is a series two for the smaller model R8. The aluminum elbow which is bolted to the front of the carburetor body and connects to the heating pipe from the stove is not only slightly smaller in diameter but also shorter in a way that the pipe will fit in between the first and second cylinder block. That confirmed that the length of the crankcase is shorter.

I would relay on the spare parts book for the question of interchangeability.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Ittenbacher Frank (see edit history)

[Ittenbacher Frank]

By the way, Locomobile‘s model 38 compares more to the silver ghost than the 48.

[alsfarms]

That is an interesting comparison, that of a Locomobile 38 to the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost.  How do the HP and torque values compare between these two?

Al

[Ittenbacher Frank]

On 10/21/2022 at 9:18 PM, Ittenbacher Frank said:

Today I can report a first progress: The sensor in the exhaust pipe works well and will definitely help me in finding the proper carburetor adjustment. The air-fuel-ratio-values shown on the display are reasonable:

- theoretically best value = 14,7: The Loco engine runs smoothly, feels ok.

- best power shall be at 12-13: The engine runs well, lively, feels ok.

- theoretically too rich: when I see values between 9 and 11, I can still feel no difference, engine runs smoothly (!)

- too lean: as soon as the values exceed 15...16...17, the engine will pop, or even cough.

- values above 20: more misses than running, terrible, no use.

When the engine idles and you turn the air valve thumb nut in and out, you feel and hear a diffence after you have adjusted half a turn in or half a turn out (360° = 8 klicks). On the sensor display you see the air-fuel ratio changing after 1 or 2 klicks already!

I can also see the values changing when going steep uphill (leaner) or steep downhill (richer), but not as much as I expected. I think that has a lot to do with the setting of the fuel level height in the float chamber.

Today I can say: The Locomobile engine can cope with far too rich air-fuel-ratios, which you cannot easily detect while driving. When adjusting something, the sensor shows changes much earlier than you can detect by listening.

 

A quick update on the issue of carburetor adjustments with the support of the lambda-sensor: 

I reached a point that the Locomobile ran quite well in most road conditions. This was after I had adjusted the lever and linkage between needle valve and the ring on the steering column in a way that „completely on the lean side“ was ok for continuous driving, but when you had to push or release the throttle pedal frequently according to traffic, there was still some popping. Air-fuel-ratio values were in the 13-15-range then.

Moving the ring on the steering column about 1/3 away from lean towards rich, it never popped, values read 11-13.

Moving the ring completely to rich enables the cold engine to move the car up that steep road in front of my house with very little throttle opening and barely above idle speed, absolutely stable, sensor readings around 9-10.

I started to believe that I have two choices:

a. If I want to run lean, I have to play one the ring position frequently for avoiding popping, or

b. If I don’t want to touch the ring I should place it 1/3 and accept the too rich mixture.

 

But then luck helped me: the magneto started showing some irregularities and soon broke down completely, I found open circuits in both high tension wirings.

During the next week I didn’t touch anything on the carburetor or anything else, just repaired the magneto by installing a new armature. The ignition setting remained the same.

Now comes the big surprise: There is no more popping on the lean setting!

The Locomobile works very nice with the repaired (stronger?) spark, I have the impression it even pulls uphill faster with less throttle opening.

I did a quick check on the fuel consumption (the distance was less than 30 miles which is not representative yet): 8.3mpg.

Then on the way home an old unqualified repair failed, causing the crankshaft damper nearly to fall off. Of course this immediately became priority one on my long to-do-list for the winter. The next tour will be next year, I guess…

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Ittenbacher Frank (see edit history)

[alsfarms]

George,

I was re-reading some earlier posts on this thread and on Nov. 6 you posted some information and pictures speaking on the subject of the evolution of Locomobile tags.  One picture shows a 25XX Model L tag.  That is of interest to me.  Is this a tag you own or just an image?  I would like to know the width ad height of this tag as the posted serial number is very close to what my Model L is.  I assume that tag would be what I should use on the 1909?  Do you have information as to where this tag would basically be mounted?

Al

Edited December 19, 2022 by alsfarms
spelling (see edit history)

[George K]

2 hours ago, alsfarms said:

George,

I was re-reading some earlier posts on this thread and on Nov. 6 you posted some information and pictures speaking on the subject of the evolution of Locomobile tags.  One picture shows a 25XX Model L tag.  That is of interest to me.  Is this a tag you won or just an image?  I would like to know the width ad height of this tag as the posted serial number is very close to what my Model L is.  I assume that tag would be what I should use on the 1909?  Do you have information as to where this tag would basically be mounted?

Al

Al, 

 I nicked the picture off of Ebay many years ago. They are both the same size. Do you have a Selden tag. Here’s where they go.

[Ittenbacher Frank]

While waiting for the Santa Claus to arrive, I checked for one engine detail: the crankshaft damper which is attached to the front of the crankshaft, or isn't it? First some observations from the old literature, then from my 1917 tourer, then my 1921 Sedan, and finally the question for you: How does your Loco engine front end look like?

1915: no damper, just a slim pulley.

 

 

[Ittenbacher Frank]

then 1917: two different spare parts lists, and still no damper on the pulley.

[Ittenbacher Frank]

The 1918 catalog for selling the older Locomobiles as exchange cars clearly shows the crankshaft damper with the friction discs compressed by springs! Note: It seems there is no cover in front of the damper.

[Ittenbacher Frank]

In the 1920 spare parts list (series seven) the damper is shown, with a cover in front.

[Ittenbacher Frank]

The Series 19000 cars also have such a friction damper, the cover plate is different. This drawing is shown in the operating manual.

==> Al, can you pls. provide the view from your 19000-series parts manual?

[Ittenbacher Frank]

Here is what I found on my 1917 tourer: A cast iron damper with some holes drilled for balancing, but without screw holes at front for attaching a cover. There are 6 bolts with springs pressing the damper against the flange. Two fiber lining rings are in between, it works like a clutch on an old british motorbike.

The whole assembly is pressed onto the crankshaft with one woodruff key and and secured with two large nuts.

Maybe this was specially made as retrofit-kit?

[Ittenbacher Frank]

One additional note: The 1924 manual shows how to adjust the spring pressure on these six springs.

[ak]

On 12/24/2022 at 1:41 PM, Ittenbacher Frank said:

One additional note: The 1924 manual shows how to adjust the spring pressure on these six springs.

Frank, what you did is amazing.  What a great resource for all of us.  Thank you so very much!  

 

[alsfarms]

Frank, Nice mechanical summary of what you have accomplished.  You would have been a great mechanic in a Locomobile dealership in 1920!

Al

[George K]

1916 M 6 is when double port exhaust, covered valves arrived. There maybe 1916 cars that have one but not both of these features. Front balancer and Berling magneto appears 1917. Make sure you get your balancer set right. Looks easy out of the car but could be fun to accomplish in.