Chrysler multi-bank

[David DeWeese]

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

[tankbarrell]

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)]

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

[Hanno Spoelstra]

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]

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]

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.