earlwb

I know there have been some other threads about the famous or infamous Deezil model engines. But I thought I would start up another thread about them. These engines were made from around 1948 to 1955 or 1956 or so. It appears towards the end that Gotham Hobbies may have sold unassembled kits for the engines too. Over the years there were several replicas made, notably Gordon Burford made the best replicas and CS engines sort of flooded the market briefly with engines too. The late Mr Schroeder used to make casting kits for the engines so one could make their own.

The engine manufacturer had problems with quality control and it is hit and miss on whether one could get a engine that ran or not. So you see where some people had no problems with them and everyone else had problems. But here in the USA model diesel engines weren't popular, so many people didn't know how to start or run the engines, nor how to get fuel for them.

I have wound up with several examples of the Deezil engine. I had acquired this engine and found that the a previous owner had used a pair of pliers on the cylinder cooling jacket. Plus they had used the typical screwdriver when they removed the backplate as well. When I disassembled the engine I found that it was bone dry on the inside, no oil at all. So it was worth getting it apart to check it out as it needed to be oiled good anyway. I found that the piston fit is relatively tight, maybe too tight to run, hard to say yet. There is no recess cut into the piston top for the intake port like was shown on the Schroeder replica that Model Engine News had made. The gudgeon pin and connecting rod are both made from brass too, which is different, as I wasn't expecting that. There is a bronze bushing on the crankcase for the crankshaft to turn in. There was a small burr on the crankshaft which made it hard to get the crankshaft out. But once I did, I was able to remove the burr so it fits better. After reassembling the engine, it seems to turn over OK, so the next thing to do is to see if it will actually run or not. This example does not appear to have ever been run, even though the screw mounting holes look buggerd up some, it looks like it was never screwed down on anything to even test run it.

Some other old threads about the Deezil engines:
http://modelenginenews.org/deezil/index.html

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_76...tm.htm#7618912

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_99...tm.htm#9985289

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_90...tm.htm#9232513

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_91...tm.htm#9176061

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_87...tm.htm#8749965

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_14...tm.htm#1419473

Here are some pics of some of my Deezil engines. I plan on giving them a try at running later to see what happens.

earlwb

Here is a advertisement for the engine from a Popular Mechanics 1955 magazine page that I have:


I haven't done anything with this engine, but at least no one used a pair of pliers on the cooling jacket.




Another Deezil engine example that I haven't worked on yet either:

raglafart

My Feedback: (10)

Before you even contemplate running it, you have already observed that the engine like all the others has a brass wrist pin. If it runs it won't last.
Have a good hard look at the crankshaft, it's 3 bits press fitted together, now look at the thickness of the crankwebb and I think you will agree, if you try running it, it won't last.
You have also established it has a brass rod and while it may be strong enough, it certainly won't help vibration issues.
I'd either remake all the highly stressed parts, ie a one piece crank, aluminium alloy rod and hardened and tempered steel wrist pin. Then I'd hone the bore and make sure the taper is right.
Make a new piston and contra piston and you will then have a nice engine.
Whether it's worth the hassle is another thing, but doing that will give you a better chance of getting it to run than using the parts it came with.
Personally, I'd put it back together and put it up on eBay, though I must admit, I would be uncomfortable selling something like this to anyone else.
I can't believe the prices that are paid for them.
Now the Burford replica engine is another matter altogether and made to the quality and fits they should have done in the first place.
Put yours in the glass cabinet as a reminder to do the full research on an engine before buying!

I could never understand why they went to so much trouble to make an absolute dud off an engine! but that was back in the late 40's I guess.

Diesel Die-hard

gcb

Here's the bottom end of my CS replica...mine runs well.

George

earlwb

Thanks guys. I can agree too. I was looking at the crankshaft and determed that they had brazed the crankweb and crankpin on it. At least it sure looks like it.
yeah that brass rod might possibly be OK, if the engine isn't run too hard, but the brass gudgeon pin is very questionable.
The strength of brass, if the quality is OK, is better than aluminum, so the rod is probably OK.

peterburford

Gordon told me a potential customer once asked if his "Deezil" would run.
Dad replied, "Of course not! It's a replica."
The person bought one.
Peter

raglafart

My Feedback: (10)

Have another good look at the crankshaft, there is no brazing here! just press fitted together! [&o]
From a production point of view, it would be easier to make a one piece crank than add all the hassles of brazing with all the extra operations and cost of materials.
You can see there's no evidence of any braze or silver solder in the pictures. Especially the end views looking through the rear cover.
Looks like someone might have chanced trying to start it using an electric starter from the rub marks in the rear cover. There's simply no way it could have done that from actually having run

earlwb

We need to remember that we only hear about the poor folks who couldn't get a engine to work, or run, or that failed in some manner. There were quite a few people using them and not having any problems with the engines. They just run the engines in their model airplanes. Being in the USA at the time, model diesels weren't popular to start with, glow engines were all the rage at the time, so many people couldn't figure out how to start and run the engines. usually if someone had someone with diesel experience help them, the engines would work. Now as to how well the engine would work might be a arguable subject too.

Yeah I did. It appears that they did braze the crankweb and crankpin on it. There is a thin layer of of a brass colored like coating on the end. If you look at the pic of the inside of the crankcase view, you can see the circular brazing layer on the crankweb to crankshaft. But at the joints you can also see the brazing. it sort of looks like they heated the assembly up, smeared some plux on it and dipped it into molten bronze. But I can agree it may or may not be very good in any case. But if the people assembling the crankshaft had good tight fits and good brazing joints it ought to be fine.

It does help show where they could screw up in making the engine.
1) brazing on the mounting lug flange on the cylinder sleeve. Get it a little crooked and then the cylinder is misaligned. At the time, that was a big cost saver as you didn't have to machine a large chunk of steel down into a cylinder as a one piece unit.
2) brazing the crankshaft together out of three pieces. Get it wrong and the crankshaft is crooked. Many engine companies have done this too. Especially when they want a hardened crankpin but leave the crankshaft softer. So there isn't as big of a concern here. But the companies weld the crankshaft together not braze it. Although on the crankpin, I see a lot of them just pressing it in very carefully. Machining the crank as one piece means you have to machine down a large chunk of steel again. But this is a pretty large cost saver using a multipiece crank.
3.) using a brass gudgeon pin. Is too easy to break of course. That saved costs as they didn't have to used snap rings or small thin bushings on the tips.

I think the problem is mostly Gotham Hobbies at the time having employees who didn't care about fitting the parts together and giving it that extra attention and care that the other engine companies did. It fits in with the infamous engines that America's Hobby Center did at that era too, like the GHQ engine for example. But they had what appears to be a money maker of a sorts, make a engine as cheap as possible and it'll sell no matter what. But as information started spreading faster and faster, then more people would find the engines are poorly done, and they'd sell less and less. which shows in the advertisements for it over the time it was made, where at first it cost $5.95 and at the end they were blowing them out at $1.95. I would assume the early made versions would work better than the last of the engines made. The two hobby shops Gotham and AHC owners were all related to each other, so I can see them both using their shady business practices to advantage.


Peter, that is pretty funny.

Motorboy

Really bad craftsmanship!

Recycled Flyer

I agree with the above and just cringe when Isee the flashing left on the edge of the ports that is waiting to break off and score the piston and liner.

gossie

I'm also amazed at the interest in these engines when it seems they are so bad.

I wonder how many were made? They sure were low cost though in dollar terms. Without looking up my old mags here I think they were about $2.95?????

I'm yet to see a real one, and that sounds like a good thing.

As said, Gordon's replica of it is truly a superb engine. Mines in a Freeflight Goldberg Interceptor. It starts and runs like a dream.

earlwb

According to Gotham Hobbies they made and sold more than 100,000 of these engines. It might not be far off considering how many of the engines still exist. Even more amazing is how many survived not being thrown in the waste can. The engines first sold for $5.95 US in 1948, and by 1955 they were selling them for $1.95 US. There was no internet back then, so basically no one knew there were problems with the engine until they bought one for themselves. Few people subscribed to the few modeller magazines at the time. But if the magazines are like our modern ones, it is doubtful they would have stated there were problems with the engines. Heck Gotham might even send the magazine reviewer a good engine too.

Recycled Flyer

Here is a telling site about Deezil's and it has a Utube clip - note that the engine run time is incredibly short and is looped many times in order to appear longer.

http://antiquemodelenginesrunning.bl...am-deezil.html

And here is the spoiler, the engine indeed runs but is ruined in about 30 seconds flat!

Have a chuckle, go and watch it.

raglafart

My Feedback: (10)

That is priceless, I love it.
I see he didn't waste a whole lot of arm power trying to flick start it.
I have to say this is my all time most hated model engine, why, because with just a tad more effort in the right areas it could have been a reasonable engine.
Gordon obviously saw the potential or I doubt he'd have wasted his time doing his replica.
I mean how hard is it to make a one piece crank for heavens sake ?
Ah well, if they hadn't of made them, we wouldn't have had the fun we've had

Diesel Die-hard

DeviousDave

I wonder how much of his bent crank was to do with the healthy port prime he gave and then bum-rushed it with an electric starter?

raglafart

My Feedback: (10)

It was certainly more than a healthy prime!

My error on the brazing, I mean that really is a neat job! I just took it from looking at the rear picture that it was simply pressed on and the one I owned wasn't in my hands for very long at all and once I saw
the brass wrist pin I must have assumed that the shaft was also a very poor piece of work. What I didn't realise was they'd put even more effort than I originally credited them with into making these horrors

earlwb

That was a great video. I loved watching it. heck I had to watch it twice.

Thanks for finding it and sharing it. It's pretty priceless.

I was concerned with the prime he gave it and then he used the electric starter right away. I remember many a person bending the rod or crank using an electric starter on the diesel engines as caused by some hydraulic lock effects.
The other thought was the ether and oil mix requires mineral oil to moderate the ether during combustion. Many brands of the chainsaw bar oil are synthetic or bio-grade vegetable based stuff and not mineral oil at all. Only mineral oil would moderate the ether during combustion.

diesel_die_hard has a point, since Gotham started selling the engines and ripping off so many people, they probably put a lot of modellers off of diesel engines at the time. Their brothers running the AHC store did the same thing with the GHQ ignition engine along with several other junk engines too. But that might have been what helped kill off diesel popularity in the USA at the time when glow engines were becoming popular instead.

earlwb

More Deezil engine trivia stuff.
I numbered the three examples that I have for when i get a chance to try running them later. So I can tell them apart easier.
I discovered that apparently Gotham had some engines made with a single piece crankshafts versus the cheaper to make three piece crankshafts.
I assume that this might be a earlier version engine and crankshaft before they started cost reducing its manufacture.

I also took another pic of the piston to show the piston crown and the fact that they weren't recessing or cutting out a notch in the crown to advance the intake port timing any.

I also noticed that on the cylinder sleeves, that the upper threaded half is about 15.04mm in OD whereas the lower half is 14.04mm in OD. So that explains how they were able to align the mounting flange for brazing so that there was less chance of it being misaligned during production. They have a slight shoulder there at the cylinder to butt the flange up against it.

Anyway, i have reset the contra piston on all three engines to the top of the cylinder sleeve, so they are all set to be test run. So I'll see if I can get any of them to run. One engine feels more like a ABC engine as it has a bit of a pinch at TDC compared to the other two engines. Of course the engine with the pinch in the cylinder/piston fit, is the one with the one piece crank too. Engine number 1 has the cylinder/piston pinch on it with the 1 piece crank.





Deezil single piece crankshaft. I assume this might be a earlier version engine and crankshaft before they started cost reducing its manufacture.






The three piece crankshaft is made from three pieces pressed together and brazed. This reduces cost as you don't have to machine as much material off of the crankshaft metal blank to make the crank.




Here is a pic of the top of a piston. Note there isn't a recessed cutout in the piston crown to advance the intake port timing any. The short cylinder next to the piston is the contra piston.


Engine number 1 disassembled. I needed to make a new cylinder gasket for it.

cashrc

My Feedback: (2)

Here's a Youtube clip of my CS replica...[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xYamOVNLg8[/youtube]

fiery

My Feedback: (2)

Nice Studebaker in the background ..

earlwb

Good engine run there cashrc. Thanks for sharing. I like your Studebaker too. it looks much better than my old 1953 Studebaker pickup truck I had as a teenager.

earlwb

I thought I would let you all know that the three examples I have did not run either. LOL.
One popped a few times, but that was it.
I am thinking about making new pistons to fit and lap into the cylinder, as I think the pistons were a bit too loose. But maybe some mixing and matching of the parts might get a runner.
So maybe after I get a better piston fit I might get one to fire up and run one. The crankshafts didn't bend on them either. At least so far.

plane addicts

My Feedback: (271)

Hey guys what do these little deezil engines run for now a day. I have a guy bring one into the shop and I am wondering what it is worth.

Thanks
Tom