Which way is better?
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=100079
Printed Date: 09 Sep 2025 at 1:23pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Which way is better?
Posted By: Les Royer
Subject: Which way is better?
Date 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.
|
Replies:
Posted By: CTuckerNWIL
Date 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.
-------------
http://www.ae-ta.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.ae-ta.com
Lena 1935 WC12xxx, Willie 1951 CA6xx Dad bought new, 1954WD45 PS, 1960 D17 NF
|
Posted By: SteveM C/IL
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Les Royer
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:22pm
|
OK, the double ported manifold was on a 48 year, the 51 has the single.
|
Posted By: Gary
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:44pm
change was effective at S/N 289000 in 1951.
Gary
|
Posted By: Rick
Date Posted: 07 Jan 2015 at 1:51pm
|
And, who knows what all has been changed around through the years! Rick
|
Posted By: Bill_MN
Date 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.
-------------
1951 WD #78283, 1918 Case 28x50 Thresher #76738, Case Centennial B 2x16 Plow
|
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date 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.
|
|