Chrysler multi-bank

Paul Singleton · #1 11-02-09, 20:20

I thought that this may be interesting.

Source http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_a...940s&PageNum=1)

Alex Blair (RIP) · #2 11-02-09, 21:41

Paul..
That multibank was quite the engine..five blocks incorporated into one..30 cylinders...five separate heads ..
That beast had to have been conceived in the Officers mess late on a Friday night..
No mechanic that had to work on it would have designed an abortion like that...
Only Chrysler...

Richard Farrant · #3 11-02-09, 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Blair

Paul..
No mechanic that had to work on it would have designed an abortion like that...

In 1989, I was in Arromanches on D-Day, there was a Sherman from our group there. A D-Day vet who served in REME walked up to look at it and saw it was fitted with a radial, he turned to us and said that the five bank Chrysler was by far the best. Always remembered that, because as odd an arrangement as it looks, it must have had some merits, this chap would have worked on them in battle conditions and would know which was best.

Lynn Eades · #4 11-02-09, 23:01

Ive never seen one of those, but you'd have to admit that the war time Dodge motor was a pretty reliable unit. And ... if you think that was an abortion, you obviously haven't worked on British stuff like Ferrets, and their bevel boxes.How many per unit? How much room to work on any of it?

Richard Farrant · #5 11-02-09, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

And ... if you think that was an abortion, you obviously haven't worked on British stuff like Ferrets, and their bevel boxes.How many per unit?

Nothing wrong with Ferrets, worked on them for over 30 years.

If you want a challenge then try a Saladin or Saracen.

Alex Blair (RIP) · #6 12-02-09, 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Ive never seen one of those, but you'd have to admit that the war time Dodge motor was a pretty reliable unit. And ... if you think that was an abortion, you obviously haven't worked on British stuff like Ferrets, and their bevel boxes.How many per unit? How much room to work on any of it?

Richard and Lynn..
If you ever get a chance to see a parts exploded break down of the engine,it is impressive..
I was referring to the concept of the design rather than the reliability...a cross between a radial and a inline..or a combination of the two..all the normal engine functions..to get them to work...so many questions...How did the engine oil system work??If the crank was in the center of the five blocks,which were cast into one block,and radiated out from the center,where did the oil go and how did it work../?pressure system??..//...Timing???..I could see fuel injection working on the engine but these were carbureted...
I'll have to read up on the operation of the beast...but Dodge made good engines...

David DeWeese · #7 12-02-09, 05:21

Here's a link to some basic info....
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110704/article.html
Regards, David

tankbarrell · #8 12-02-09, 09:52

Having restored and operated one for five years now, I can say it is a very reliable unit and by far the nicest version to drive and that includes the M4A2 with the GM twinset.

It is actually a simpler concept than it at first appears. Each 'engine' shares only coolant and oil with it's mates, all other functions being independant. There is not a single crankshaft as is often quoted but five conventional cranks that are geared together at the front of the power pack.

The oil system uses a centrally mounted oil pump (two actually, one pressure and one scavenge as it is dry sump) with delivery to each blocks gallery at the mating faces. Some galleries drain out at the front to lube the drive gears.

The coolant is just a conventional centrifugal pump with five outlets. Early engines having one belt driven on each block.

It is a bit of a monster and access in the engine bay is.....limited but I'm very happy with it.

Alex Blair (RIP) · #9 12-02-09, 14:30

Adrian and David..
Thanks for the info...Makes a lot more sense..but an engineering feat from necessity ,for sure..

Hanno Spoelstra · #10 12-02-09, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Blair

but an engineering feat from necessity ,for sure..

Indeed; it was the fastest way to develop and manufacture an engine with enough power to propel the US Medium tank series. During the interbellum the US had no real funds to develop the tank concept (which had proven itself during WW1) and its components. So when WW2 broke out, the only available powerplants in the applicable power band were radial aero engines, but those were needed for aircraft manufacture. Hence the use of five truck engines, two diesel marine engines, and a V12 aero engine cut down to V8 to drive tanks.

- Hanno

Paul Singleton · #11 12-02-09, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Blair

Adrian and David..
Thanks for the info...Makes a lot more sense..but an engineering feat from necessity ,for sure..

I agree. The Germans used purpose built engines for their tanks and I have read that due to the complexity of the engines they were hard to maintain and parts were scarce.
The Chrysler engine was a common engine and many parts would have been shared with the Dodge trucks in use at the time. The mechanics doing repairs in the field also would find them similar to automotive engines. The Detroit diesels and the radial engines may not have been as reliable but that may have been due to the lack of experience of the men working on them.

Paul

P.S. Thanks to the moderator for fixing my post.

Bob Cohoon · #12 17-02-09, 22:13

I read in a book that one of the nicknames affectionately for this set-up was the "eggbeater". Apparently they were a very reliable powerplant, and filled the bill for a tank engine during a period of urgency.