| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Les Royer 
Orange Level
Joined: 25 Dec 2014
Location: Carson, Iowa
Points: 5593
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: Which way is better?
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 12:23pm |
|
One WD has a coolant manifold on top of a short head that connects both coolant ports to the upper radiator hose through the thermostat. The other coolant manifold sits on a tall head and just comes off the port closest to the front of the engine and has the back port blocked off with a plate. What gives? Did Allis decide one was was better so they modified it? Or is it because one head is taller than the other? I'd post a pic, but I can't seem to get it uploaded.
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
CTuckerNWIL
Orange Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: NW Illinois
Points: 22825
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 12:26pm |
|
I think they decided one port served the purpose and they could save money by just blocking the back one off. Wat less material to just use the front one. JMO
It may have something to do with the taller head too?????????? Maybe more room to circulate better so they just used one port.
Edited by CTuckerNWIL - 07 Jan 2015 at 12:27pm
|
|
|
|
SteveM C/IL
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Shelbyville IL
Points: 8628
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:13pm |
|
I'm with Charlie.I think they figured out one would do.WD45's and everything later was that way.
|
|
Les Royer
Orange Level
Joined: 25 Dec 2014
Location: Carson, Iowa
Points: 5593
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:22pm |
|
OK, the double ported manifold was on a 48 year, the 51 has the single.
|
|
Gary
Orange Level Access
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Location: Peterborough,On
Points: 5900
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:44pm |
|
change was effective at S/N 289000 in 1951.
Gary
|
|
Rick
Orange Level
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Location: Jonesburg,Mo.
Points: 3698
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:51pm |
|
And, who knows what all has been changed around through the years! Rick
|
|
Bill_MN
Orange Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Points: 1471
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 4:26pm |
|
Two less head studs you can't "torque" 'cause you can't get to em underneath that gul darn thing! Interesting fact Gary, mine was close to the last one then, 1951 engine 285394 and still has the larger manifold.
Edited by Bill_MN - 07 Jan 2015 at 4:29pm
|
|
1951 WD #78283, 1918 Case 28x50 Thresher #76738, Case Centennial B 2x16 Plow
|
|
DaveKamp
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Location: LeClaire, Ia
Points: 6069
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Jan 2015 at 9:03am |
|
I'd expect that there's some simple answers, and probably some deeper answers. Simple is going to be a combination of improvement in performance, and reduction in cost.
Deeper answer is that they probably had all of the interests noted above, and that the combination of higher compression, better fuels, taller head, and a myriad of other changes, elimination of 'tractor fuel' option, availability of quality mechanical thermostats, better understanding of internal combustion thermodynamics, coolant and radiator flow... all added to it...
|
|
Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest.
|
|
