I came across something connected to Chrysler building Shermans where they decided to use up the warehouse full of completed engines because they could and because Chrysler.
I always took it as Chrysler did not readily have capabilities to make Big V8s or 10s at the time, and still needed to keep up the flathead production for the trucks they were building for the war. So this was a great compromise. I think it was a great idea. They could keep pumping out the flat head six's, make a bunch of the main blocks that hold the engines, and did not have to close down to retool for a big tank engine.
Also, I think each of the five engines was a complete engine in it self, so they could be dropped into a weapons carrier, or other trucks Chrysler made, making repairs and logistics in country easier. Another neat thing is the engine could still run with several of the engine banks not running. That redundancy was nice, 5 engines, 5 carbs, 5 water pumps (on most), 5 ignition systems, ect.
Pretty much it was only the tanks made for the lend lease act, that got the Chrysler engines, the rest got the Ford aluminum engine. It would be interesting to know how they were produced, 1000 for the lend lease, then 1000 for the US, and 1000 for the lend lease, or all 8000 for the lend lease, then the one for the US. I am still wondering how the logistics between all the US factories was handled so well.
Would be interesting to know how much ageing was actually done on blocks, or for that matter how much still is. I keep reading that many machine tool makers aged the castings for a few years before milling. With the numbers they made during the war, I doubt they stuck to that. Yet you do not hear of anyone saying that machines made during the war were inferior in any way, except for the war time finish they mandated. That could explain warehouses full of blocks, and why retooling and making new castings would have taken longer (time needed to age the new blocks).