Posted By |
Discussion Topic:
Original Engine Identification
-- page:
1
2
3
4
|
|
Dale Fairfax |
08-21-2011 @ 5:24 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Tracker: The low geared rearend gear (probably 4.27:1)is compensated for by the O.D. final drive ratio of .70:1. So in top gear with the O.D. engaged, you have an effective ratio of .70 X 4.27 or 2.99:1. There is no reason why you should be experiencing 11 m.p.g with that. That O.D. is the reason Mercs and Lincolns used to win the Mobilgas Economy Run. I suggest there is something awry with your state of tune.
|
Tracker |
08-21-2011 @ 6:48 PM
|
|
|
New Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Thanks .....probably you are right and I did find the same info you offered on the 4:27 rear end...it was also supplied in station wagons destined for western states. I admit to being perplexed when I hear all the reports of high gas mileage reported by other 51 Merc owners. This car has been through several old car shops and found everything in spec. I am wondering now if it is really going into overdrive all the time. It goes into passing mode when I step down on it so I assume its working but I'm not enough of a mechanic to do a check up. Thanks to all. Tracker
|
Dale Fairfax |
08-21-2011 @ 6:57 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Oct 2009
|
That "4.0" gear should not be affecting mileage if your overdrive is indeed working. The actual ratio in a Merc is probably a 4.27 but that is modified by the O.D. which has a .70 : 1 ratio in top gear. Your effective final drive ratio in 3rd gear with the o.D. engaged is about 2.99:1 That a pretty "High" gear-one that should deliver much better than 11 mpg. Something else is awry.
|
Tracker |
08-28-2011 @ 7:41 AM
|
|
|
New Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Oct 2009
|
After all the discussion on poor gas mileage in my 51 stock engine ( 3 speed w/od ), thought I should report back what we have found thus far : 1. The OD is definately not working all the time. Sometimes it shifts , sometimes not. We are going through the electrical as it was working previously. 2. The Carb has a heavy smell about it like raw gasoline. The car does not show signs of black smoke but you can definately smell raw gas while its running. No visible exterior leakage that we can see. Any thoughts on this ? I am thinking about sending the carb off for a rebuild but I'm not sure if thats the answer and its " read as expensive " The repair quotes are probably more expensive than buying a new carb. Thanks to all for the inputs. I investigate every recommendation. Regards Tracker
|
TomO |
08-28-2011 @ 11:03 AM
|
|
|
Senior
Posts: 7250
Joined: Oct 2009
|
The 51 Merc carbs tend to leak around the fitting where the fuel line comes into the carburetor. It is difficult to see this leak as it is from the fitting on the carb, not the fuel line fitting. The gas creeps along the bottom of the carb and evaporates before it drips. Try starting the car to bukd up fuel pump pressure and then shut it off before it gets warm. Feel around the bottom of the carb and you should get a film of gas on your finger. A dental mirror helps to see under there. You can try a new gasket for the fitting, but you may have to have the surface ground smooth or a bushing put in if the threads are worn enough.
Tom
|
janman33 |
08-28-2011 @ 7:25 PM
|
|
|
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Oct 2009
|
I have always thought the '49 was the only wide belt and from '50-'53 the narrow belt? Engine change or? how does the belt fit in the crank pulley?
|
Tracker |
08-29-2011 @ 1:52 PM
|
|
|
New Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Oct 2009
|
The family of the original owner says this car has never had an engine change or rebuild, so I don't have an answer why it has wide belts. I was also under the impression that the 51 had narrow belts which is what prompted my original question on motor nos -engine identification. At the moment , thats the least of my problems with this car but whatever the engine is, it performs well and moves the car as well as I would expect from 110 hp. Again, thanks to everyone for the advice ....I will report back when I get the OD and Crab issue resolved.
|
Tracker |
08-29-2011 @ 1:54 PM
|
|
|
New Member
Posts: 157
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Oops ! Meant to say the Carb issue ...thankfully the car does not have crabs ( need to use the preview button in future )
|
Stroker |
08-29-2011 @ 3:10 PM
|
|
|
Senior
Posts: 1460
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Actually, I used to run a "crab" (42 Ford) distributor on my 59A motor. Crab's ain't all bad.
|
TomO |
09-04-2011 @ 4:28 PM
|
|
|
Senior
Posts: 7250
Joined: Oct 2009
|
Tracker, after looking through the 49-51 Lincoln Mercury Overhaul manual, I am pretty sure that Mercury did not change to the thin belts until 1952. The early 49 cars had one belt that powered both water pumps and the generator. There was a change to the 2 belt system in 1949 and that was used until 1952 when the water pumps were redesigned and the thin belts were introduced. Ford went to the thin belts earlier.
Tom
|