| Author |
Message |
    
richarddurgee
Senior Member
Username: richarddurgee
Post Number: 2451
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 02:11 pm: | 
|
*
Looking for a photo of the manifold side of one of these engines !
* |
bgoss
Senior Member
Username: bgoss
Post Number: 148
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 07:51 pm: |
|
Richard - I thought that the engines pictured below were the same as the one in your ad above, but I now see that the lower cylinder casting has more shape to it on these. I'm not sure whether your ad depicts a different model or year than these, but I suspect that the manifold must be different.
.
 .
.
 .
. |
richarddurgee
Senior Member
Username: richarddurgee
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 09:41 pm: |
|
*
Blair, thanks for taking the time to post these photos,the ad above is 1908, as close as I can tell these engs were made as early as 1904 maybe earlier ? trying to help a collector with info and I see you answered also, hard to come by very early Canadian Marine eng info !
* |
bgoss
Senior Member
Username: bgoss
Post Number: 149
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 08:41 pm: |
|
Richard - I did a little more digging. These two engines are s/n C8XX and C9XX, while Brian's is C17XX. The triple of similar style to Brian's is C86XX.
There is no CFCo in raised letters on the crankcase covers on either of the two above or on Brian's, however the triple has it.
Both of the above engines should have the screwdriver handle ignition lever behind the flywheel. The light green one has been altered for a rotary ignition.
This ad that Denis Rouleau dug up is 1907. The engines pictured have different manifolds again, but the cylinder shape and ignition lever are similar to the two above.
.
. |
richarddurgee
Senior Member
Username: richarddurgee
Post Number: 2454
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 10:06 pm: |
|
*
This thread may be confusing, the Engine in dicussion is this one posted elsewhere, and we are trying to identify the original intake/exhaust manifold configuration ?
Blair, I had the above ad but discounted it because Brians eng has the one diamenter cylinder shape, where as the other engs and the ad have smaller diameter cylinders about half way down ? Generally in my experience with other mfgrs the single diameter cylinders were older, but in this case maybe the cylinders were different design in different Hp engs ??
** |
bgoss
Senior Member
Username: bgoss
Post Number: 151
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, September 20, 2010 - 08:50 pm: |
|
Interesting in that 1908 ad...FM seems to be offering both a bolt-on head engine and a 'solid' head (blind head?). Maybe there was an overlap to see if there was a market for both? |
ernie
Senior Member
Username: ernie
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 11:19 am: |
|
The headless engines were physically a lot smaller for the same horsepower than the ones with removable heads.
So...workboat vs pleasure???
More Torque? |
billschaller
Senior Member
Username: billschaller
Post Number: 340
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 05:29 pm: |
|
Red Wing sold both headless and bolt-on head engines at the same time. I am pretty sure one is described as heavy duty, and the other high-speed. |
