I am no expert about the Y-block--but it seems to me that Ford developed the Y-block up until 1957.And subsequent model years of Y-block--right up to the last year--what was it--1964--the Y-block wasnt further developed--the horsepower ratings never increased and the Y-block remained as a two barrel "entry engine".

Why didnt Ford develop the Y-block beyond 1957? Why wasnt fuel injection developed from the factory ? No more supercharging after 1957? No more displacement increases? No more dual quads? And only small valve two barrels after 1957(except for some 4 barrel heavy duty trucks)?

Is the Y-block not as good as the Chevy small block--that exist even to today?

Why did Ford stop development on the Y-block? Even before the new Ford small block of 221,260,289.302 came out in 1962?

I suspect that Ford missed an opportunity to develop this wonderful engine.

What are your opinions?

 

To answer your question, I would like to disagree with some of your assumptions and gently suggest that you look at things a little differently. Also, take into account what was taking place in teh automotive scene in these years.

First, the trend in cars during the 50s was larger and heavier. The Y was limited in discplacement and this was not a good thing for the larger and heavier cars in the later 50s.

Remember, Ford didn't just compete against Chevy. think of things like this:

At GM, you had a pricing pyramid, where you entered their product like at the Chevy and reached the top in a Cadillac. This worked lin this progression:

1. Cadillac (the top)
2. Buick
3. Oldsmobile
4. Pontiac
5. Chevy

To counter this, Ford had the Mercury and Lincoln lines. Lincoln covered the Cadillac and Some of the Buick line, Mercury the Olds and some of the Pontiac, and Ford, the rest. If you think about it, you can see how the Edsel was a reasonable move for Ford, as it was intended to fit between Ford and Mercury, for the Pontiac - low Oldsmoble market.

(At Chrysler, the divisions went like this: Plymouth-Dodge-DeSoto-Chrysler-Imperial -- you can see why Ford felt a need for a new division.)

So, remember, cars were growing larger into the late 50s, and Ford had two V8s to match the competition: The Ford Y and the Lincoln Y.

At GM, Cadillac had their own V8, taylored for that car. Buick had the nail valve motors. Olds had their own V8, sort of a baby Cadillac in design. Pontiac had their own larger motor, and Chevy, a smaller V8.

At Chrysler, Plymouth was making do with a litle polysphere V8, and at Dodge, Desoto, and Chrysler/Imperial, they each had their own version of a Hemi that was sized for the appropriate car, with a polysphere V8 to back it up for lower cost car lines in Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler.

So, you see Ford was doing with only two basic motors, what the other companies were doing with many more.

In 1958, Look at what happened: Chevy brought out a larger "W" motor, the 348, for larger cars. The other GM divisions had large enough blocks to begin with to stretch into larger engines. (Cad's reached 390, Buick's, 425, Olds, 394, and Pontiac's, 455). Over at Chrysler, the divisions saw the cost wastefulness of having a different motor for each division. They developed a low and high deck version of the same design, and used them as the 383-400 and the 413-440 (I know, I'm leaving some out) B and RB motors. They were less expensive than the Hemis to make, had a larger size potential for bigger cars, and were cheaper than making motors for each line. The Plymouth got the bigger polyshphere motor and the littlest B motor.

Everyone went to bigger motors. Chrysler ended up with really "2 1/2" V8s, since the B and RB were very similar. GM kept their separate engines for each division, because they actually competed agaisnt each division within the company -- their 65% market share always bordered on what the government would take for a trust violation, so doing this was necessary, legally.

Ford's two V8s were limited to 312 and 368 in size, and they saw the same trend to bigger cars, just as everyone else did. So, they developed the FE and the MEL motors, and kept the Y Block for cheaper cars. This was an economic decision.

Now, look what happened next: In the late 50s, the economy went stagnant. folds turned away from big cars somewhat, and that's when the VW became popular. The Edsel and the DeSoto failed. Packard died. There was a demand for little cars. Ford made the Falcon and Comet. Over at Chrysler, they brought out the Valiant and Lancer. These didn't do that hot, so we got a new Valiant and Dart, later on. At GM, you had the Corvair, the Tempest, the F85, and the Skylark. As was typical with GM for the reasons I stated, these cars were much different from each other than the multiple badge offerings of Ford and Chrysler.

With these newer cars, littler motors were needed, not the big, heavy motors of the past. Look what happened for these little cars:

Ford made up a new, little 6, the 144-170-200-250 motor. Chrysler developed a new "Slant 6". Pontiac cut off a bank from their v8 for the Tempest. Corvair got a bigger 6 cyl version of a VW engine. Buick and Olds shared an aluminum block with their own heads.

Note that these engines are little, and lighter than the ones of the past. In the early 60s, as these compact cars began to stretch and "intermediates" came out, Ford needed a little V8 that was lightwieght and small, not big and heavy like the Y Block

So, they developed the V8-90* series, at 221-260-289-302-351-400 size. Note that these engines used similar toolling, for they all preserved the same bore centers and simlarites in crankshafts from their parent in development, the Y Block. Blocks were raised for longer strokes several times, and several different heads were used -- "windsor" and "Cleveland" style. When Ford went to replace the FE, they even scaled up the Cleveland to become the "Lima", or 385 series 429-460. Ford sued their tooling and basic dimensional designs to make a new motor, that while very different form th eY block in many ways, was very much the same in others.

So, in my mind, they didn't really cease development, they just made some very radical redesign work to meet the demands of the market, or what people were buying at the time.

Now, you ask about the fuel injection: well, this matter has answers, too!

Remember that GM had HUGE resources. Not only were they more than twice as big as Ford, but they were a public company. They could go to the stock and bond market for help in funding. Ford was a private business until 1957. Only then was stock sold on the public exchanges, adn that's when Ford got a cash infusion for additonal money.

Ford bought carburetors from Holley and Carter. GM made their own at Rochester, so they had their own development people working and their own extensive labs. They were even able to produce not one, but two fuel injection systems, one for Chevy and one for Pontiac. Over at Chrysler, they took the route of buying an injection system from Bendix, and that eventually became the basis for all modern electronic injection systems. But at the time, I think only 15 of them were installed on 1958 Chrysler 300s, and even then, most were removed for dual quads, because fo the problems they had.

Fuel injection sounds great, but why did the folks at GM and Chrysler stop offering it? Because it was too expensive and didn't make money for them. Look at Ford's response: They got a modification of an already available peice of equipment, the McColloch blower, they took advantage of the toughness of heir motor, the Y, and they were able to put a competitive machine on the road to generate all that car selling publicity. Remember, successful racing sells cars, not race cars. There were only a little over 2000 F code Ys sold. Why make a big investment developing somee new system that will never be a big seller, when you can buy it off the shelf, slap it together without much work, and have success?

Ford was doing what everyone else was doing: Making money. The idea isn't to put a bunch of gadgets out there for people to say gee-whiz over, it is to make money. that means, of course, building cheaply and charging a lot. If htey come across something that people like, so much the better. Let me illustrate it another way:

In my mind, the most beautiful car built in America after the war was the 1955-1957 TBird. Everyone loves how they look. Many car lovers were horrified when Ford quit making a beautiful little TBird and began making a big ugly 4 seater square box. But, the big ugly Bird outsold the pretty little ones by a large margin. And, in 1964, when ford brought out a different version of the Falcon with swoopy sheet metal, they sold millions of Mustangs, made a legend, and made piles of dough!

This is why, even tho I love Y Blocks, I don't think that Ford made a wrong move. I think they were pretty smart. You don't stay in business long if you aren't smart, and Ford is still around.

 

Wild bunch, very interesting!

 

Nice assessment, Tim.

 

Wild.Bunch:

I am impressed with your concise history of the auto industry of the last 50 years. Thoughtful insights. I just have to ask: What do you do for a living? If you dont write for a living--You may want to think about it.

I think that I follow your argument about the marketing decisions that apparently Ford made in the late 50s to develop a higher torque motor (FE) for the increasingly larger and heavier full size and later--mid sized vehicles. And to leave the small entry size V8 market to the 292-312 Y-block. After 57--if the Ford buyer wanted power--he got the 352 or after 1960--the 390 FE engine.

But--notwithstanding the market trends of the late 50s--and the recession of 1958--that caused disappointing sales--the competition was still developing their small block V8s in entry level cars: 318s and 283/327 V8s.

There was still a hugh market for small V8s--even in the late 50s. There was still a buyers resistance to anything other than a straight 6. I can remember that my family thought that a V8 in 1959 was wasteful and unnecessary in a full sized car. I agree that probably this was a marginal market--but it was still there in the late 50s. And the arrival of the compacts of 1960 proved that this market was there and was profitable. A small block V8 with sizeable increase of performance over a straight 6 in a full sized car with minimal additional cost over the straight 6 would be a wonderful incentive for the economy minded buyer to not buy the straight 6 and buy the four barrel ,dual exhaust,high compression small block with manual transmission and overdrive. Such small block options were less than 100 dollars at the time.

Also remember that the full size entry level car of the late 50s only weighed in the mid 3000 pound size--and a small block V8 could still give a more than average performance level in the late 50s and early 60s. Air conditioning and power steering and brakes and even heaters were rare and not ordered on entry level cars. And the weight wasnt as high as one would expect considering the size of the vehicle.And final drive gear ratios were much lower in those days than what is common for full sized cars now. Gear sets of 3.50 or 3.70 were not uncommon in this period.(especially with overdrive transmission. Small block V-8s could easily give the performance expected .

Remember that a full sized car that could do 16 second quarter miles was considered fast for this period ( late 50s-early 60s).A small block with dual exhaust and 4 barrel carburetor and high compression and manual transmission could satisfy the customer--with minimal fuel economy cost.

Your thoughtful and concise post still doesnt explain why Ford couldnt increase the compression and valve size and place a four barrel carburetor and dual exhaust on y blocks on their full size cars of the 59,60,61 and 62 model years.

Chevolet came out with the 327 small block in the fall of 61 and placed many 327s in the full size Impala SS of that period and sold thousands of them--in heavy full sized cars.

The corporate cost of further developing the Yblock would have been minimal and the rewards would have been sizeable--see the SS Impala.

But Ford has always been very conservative as an auto manufacturer. Ford didnt offered as many 4 barrel options as GM in existing motors--even in the 70s.

My hat is off to you--Wild.Bunch--I am still very impressed with your post.

 

Thanks guys...I've thought about this some more, and there is a little more hash I'd like to sling regarding this issue of Ford and Y Blocks.

But first, to clean up some dirty loose ends:

When Chrysler brought out the Slant 6, they copied their strategy from the old days -- the Slant 6 was actually 2 engines. Just like the big and small flathead 6s that were so similar and were used in Chrysler and Desoto (the big one) and Dodge and Plymouth (the little one) and the B and raised deck RB version (383 and 440) the slant 6 came in a small version of 170 cubes for the little Valiants and Lancers, and a bigger version for bigger cars, the 225, which had a longer stroke and a higher deck. Saves all kinds of money on manufacturing and development, and both were outstanding engines, too. The later 198 was a version of the 170.

The 289, being short stroke as it was, was very narrow, to fit into small cars that had shock towers on the upper springs, like the Falcons, Fairlanes, and Torinos. It didn't matter that they were fairly long, because they went into compartments that were long enough for 6s, so length wasn't a problem. Incidentally, when the public showed an aversion to the Corvair and embraced the Falcon, GM paid Ford the compliment of copying it: We always called Novas and Chevy IIs "Flint Falcons." The trouble with them was that they copied Ford's front end and did a crappy job: they wore out in 30K to 40K miles all of the time.

Oldsmobile 303, 324, 371, and 394 engines didn't really end in 1964. Olds did to them what Ford did, when they went from the Y to the 289: They were thinwall casted, kept the same machining centers, and offered like Chrysler offered the B/RB series: in a low deck short stroke version, and a high deck version. Both kept the same 4.625 bore spacing, which generally translates to a 4.125 bore. Big motors had a tall deck, and were 400, 425, and 455, and smaller ones had a low deck and were 330, 350, and 403 big bore versions. There were some little ones at the end, but these were all low deck motors that shared the same cam and lifers with the big motors.

Cadillac's old 331-365-390 was redone for 1963 as a new 390. It was also thinwall casted and light weight. The next year, it came out as a 429, but was the same motor that traced itself back to 1949. When Cad came out with the new 472 and 500s, these were new motors with a 5" bore spacing. Cad meant business!

Fuel injection: Yes, Ford began offering their own carb in 1957. That was their engineering effort as a start, with the 2100 and 4100 2v and 4v. You can see the Holley influence, and also the effort to make them less expensive by using aluminum. They even went Holley one better with annular booster venturis, for more efficiency. Ford wanted a cheaper unit, and they also wanted good gas mileage. More on this in a bit.

Those in the know, know that the Chevy fuel injection wasn't the hot setup. Even tho it was always rated as being more powerful from the factory than the dual quad setup (at first, a 283 had 270hp for the 2x4, and 283hp for the fi, and at the end, the 327 was 365 for the 2x4, and 375 for the fi version) folks who raced them knew that the 2x4 was actually quicker than the fi. The fuel injection was more efficient, however. It was a mechanical unit, so it needed a venturi to supply a signal that told the unit how much air was flowing, and thus how much fuel to measure out. Where it shone was that it squirted fuel right by each port, so the distribution was very good. Also, the ram box used for air was smoother than most manifolds, and we all know now that fi allows us to pipe a "dry" air, so that the fuel doesn't fall out of atomization and puddle up, causing rich and lean cylinders. The fuel ALWAYS squirted -- it was sort of a street version of the old original Hilborn constant flow setup. It worked really well, but it was expensive, and many mechanics didn't know how to work on them. As a young man, my neighbor loved them for their combination of performance and streetability, and he knew how to make them work, so he'd buy them and run them on his cars all the time. But, while they were "gee whiz" at the time, they weren't that much more technical than a carb, actually.

Now, after WW2, all of the makers learned lessons from war technology. Ford liked the idea of high compression and of getting good gas mileage. GM liked high compression, and Chrysler picked up the hemi idea from their aircraft engine experience, and some say, the ARDUN OHV conversions for flatheads. Of course, ARDUN was done by Zora Arkus Duntov, the father of the Corvette. He got the hemi idea while working as an engineer for Anthony Lago, who used the hemi principle to make up powerful 6 cyl French sports cars. Lago got the hemi bug from his days in America, working for the Pratt and Whitney aircraft engine company. Small world, eh?

Ford knew that the most efficiency came from the highest compression on a given octane. One good way to do that was quench. To get lots of quench, the Y Block has the combustion chamber pushed way over the block's deck, to give a big quench area. We now know you don't need that much quench, but that was Ford's approach. Even the 289 family, at first, kept the chamber far to the side and small for good efficiency.

Chevy emphasized a simpler design, and they didn't give as much attention to the chamber, as they did to the ports. That's why they spark plug is in the worst possible place on an SBC, way over on the farthest, lowest side of the block where it would take the longest path for the flame to propogate and the plug could get fouled with liquid gas. Great. Ford kept their plug near the top of the chamber and out of the gas, for a clean burning, efficient design and a compact chamber. Chrysler B and RB heads are almost a spittin' image of SBC heads, and share the same problem. That's why Chevy introduced the "angle plug" heads in the 70s, to fix this problem partially. Both SBC and BB Chrysler motors suffered from a limitation on compression, because the pop-ups necessary to gain very high compression also blocked flame travel in the chamber. Beyond a certain point, the power gained by increased compression was offset by the poor flame travel at high RPM in these cylinder heads.

So, while Chevy emphasized port layout over efficient chambers, Ford designed the Y Block in accordance with the well-known technology of Harry Ricardo of Britain, who discovered the principles of high turbulence combustion chambers and the secret of quench.

One more issue should be raised, and that is the Y Block aspect of Y blocks. The GM shills that worked for "hot Dog" magazines, as well as their co-conspirators at various racing sactioning bodies, where always so quick to tell us that the deep skirts of the Y block were just added weight unless there were cross-bolts. No strength could be added by the deep skirted design of the Y Block unless the skirt was attached to the maincap. These amazing geniuses only criticized the Y Block for this, they never criticized the:

Big Block Chrysler
Small Block Buick
Nail Valve Buick
327 Rambler
OHC Pontiac 6
GM Detroit Diesel engines

for using the same design.

They also ignored the fact that many other forces are present in the engine block, beside the tendency of the crank to move away from the cylinder bore.

What I could never figure out was how they say that the crank isn't supported in a V8 by deep skirted blocks, when it is totally obvious that the crank of a V8 doesn't want to drop out of the bottom, it wants to be pushed out the side at a 45* angle, and thus the skirt DOES support the crank...DUH!

I have often wondered how many nice vacations and college educations various race sanctioning people and magazine people received from GM for all their "intelligent expertise." What bunkum!

Anyway, I wanted to add this to show that Ford had plenty of good ideas, and the Y Block was one of them.

 

Hmm, i too have to agree at always wondering wht did Ford during the 50's on Yblocks and up to 1964, still continue use of solid lifters. I'll illlustrate a few facts though.


Ford Yblock did however keep up with power demands, and did on Yblock from 1960 to 1964 revise the lower end crank saddle webbing, in their engines. I could get very detailed, but i will not. But will add that Ford did offer the interceptor FE engine as early as 1958.

But you are correct in the way, Ford must have been busy thinking of other things during the Yblock 54 to 64 era, because few person know that Cadillac used a hydraulic lifter as early as 1927 in their V12 and V16 engine!!!!!!!!! Yes 1927!! And the Cadillac 331 V8 Car engine (produced in 1938,with hydraulic lifter as well as even a rubber rear seal, during that era Rolls Royce and Cadillac had this ability) which in 1958 became the 390 that Cadillac revised that same 390 again in 1964 because it was such a good engine.

BTW, did however want to correct something that was said, Oldsmobile in 1958 proced a 374 V8, not a 394 V8 many manuals have flaw on that issue.

But Cadillacs 331 CID V8 was used in Army tanks during the war in the 1940 era, and that same 331 CID V8 was destroked and bored to produce the 390 used last in 1964 by Cadillac GM division, interesting...Huh??


But i can tell you Fords solid lifter yblock in the 50's and early 60's could and did last as long and could match in performance in about any application evailable despite the fact they they allowed GM all the way down to your Chevy line From Cad have hydraulic lifters at such an earlier time.



Janet

 

The evidence that the Y-block was a good idea is the present 4.6/5.4 modular V8s. They are y-blocks also. With neat flat flange oil pans.And cross bolted main bearings.

 

I'll tell you of another Ford engine that many people do not know has characteristics similiar to Yblock. In year 2000 i rebuilt a 3.0 V6 engine in a 1996 Ford explorer (belonged to owner of AL Oil in Houston here), that darned 3.0 V6 cast iron little engine once i got it on the engine stand and flipped it over and took the pan off, had a majorly STRONG DESIGN, very like kind to the V8 Yblock, at that same time in January of 2000, i was rebuilding also a 1984 350 Chevy V8 engine and the 3.0 Ford explorer engine had a stronger (Much strong lower end), as well as connecting rods that were even longer and stronger!


And that isn't from a manual. That is hands on because i did it!
Prior to that job i did rebuilding that 3.0, i didn't think much of those engines, but once i tore it down and saw what those things are like, i sure as heck swear by them till this very day!, it is superior in Strength and design (metal wise) compared to a 350 mid 80's chevy V8, and that V6 3.0 Ford is very much design wise like the Yblock, as far as the rods and crank setup and iron in them.


That 3.0 Ford explorer engine (all stock), also had copper color connecting rod and a piston with no skirts that was very strongly forged!! I was stumped as that was first one of those i had ever rebuilt, it was built better than any 350 V8 Chevy and much stouter than any 1990 era 302 Ford V8. A person could easily get 500k miles out of one.


It was obviuos what ruined that 4 year old engine as well, the owner never changed the oil nor the oil filter from the day they bought it new! And from what i found, the filter element appeared to come apart and ruin all the rod bearings and main bearings and stop up the oil pump on it.


But if a person changed oil on that engine i'm refering to, and didn't overheat it, i believe it would outlive just about any gasoline engine.


Janet

 

Janet:

Do you rebuild engines for a living? I am impressed that you have all of that first hand experience. I dont want to be a sexist--but I haven't ever known a woman to rebuild engines--but there isnt any thing wrong with that!Times are a changing!!

On that Explorer V6--that was a 4.0 liter engine --correct? And isnt that based on the old 2.9 V6 from the Ranger pickup. Which is in turn based on the 2.8/2.6 V6 of the old Capri from Ford of Germany?

 

Phoneman91: I want to respond to some of the things you have mentioned in one of your later posts here, and perhaps make myself a little bit clearer.

For one thing, you have hit upon the attitudes of the buying public very well, and that information will go a long way to answering your "why" questions.

For another thing, some of your perceptions of 50s and 60s cars are not the same as my recollections of them.

And finally, what I am saying is that Ford DID develop the Y Block, and that it became the 289 series of engines -- engines that were every bit as influential and ground breaking because of their technology -- more about that in a minute.

So, let me start with this statement of yours:

"the competition was still developing their small block V8s in entry level cars: 318s and 283/327 V8s."

Did you think that the 318 is a "small block?" Well, it isn't, or at least it certainly was not in its original configuration. Thru the 50s until the mid 60s, the 318 was a big, heavy polysphere engine. It came in larger cars, not small cars. It was referred to as the "A" engine. Chrysler didn't make the "LA" engine until the 273 of 1964, and the 318 version of it waited until 1966 or 1967 -- I recall an "A" 318 in a friend's 1966 Fury II. The LA motor was an A motor given a diet -- away went the polysphere heads, and a lightweight casting technique was used to make the motor quite a bit lighter. But still, a 318 was a larger engine physically than a 289/302 or an SBC. Please keep this lightweight casting concept in mind, for I'm going to hit on it later.

So, Chrysler wasn't doing any development of small block technology from the time the 318s appeared in the 50s until 1964. One of Chrysler's problems in 1958 was their build quality: 318s would last only 30K miles. In fact, the quality of late 50s Chrysler products was so poor that Chrysler had to come out with a 5 year 50K mile warranty (compared to 2 year 24K mile warranties from other companies) to get the public to believe in their products again. That was when they started touting their "engineering": you know that if you repeat something on TV long enough, there are enough "sheep" who will believe you!

"There was still a buyers resistance to anything other than a straight 6. I can remember that my family thought that a V8 in 1959 was wasteful and unnecessary in a full sized car. I agree that probably this was a marginal market--but it was still there in the late 50s. And the arrival of the compacts of 1960 proved that this market was there and was profitable. A small block V8 with sizeable increase of performance over a straight 6 in a full sized car with minimal additional cost over the straight 6 would be a wonderful incentive for the economy minded buyer to not buy the straight 6 and buy the four barrel ,dual exhaust,high compression small block with manual transmission and overdrive. Such small block options were less than 100 dollars at the time."

What you are saying is identifying the mindset of buyers at the time, and also contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.

Yes, people DID think that V8s were wasteful. They thought that a 6 would always get better mileage than a V8. I know that they were wrong, for I had a 65 LeMans with a 230 Chev 6 and also a bigger, heavier 1966 Fairlane Station Wagon with a 289. The Ford consistently got better mileage. In our small western town, we went 3 weeks on a tank of gas with the Pontiac, and 4 with the Ford. But, you could never convince buyers of that time that this was true. Just as you simply couldn't convince people that a 4V carb engine would get the same mileage as a 2V carb engine, or maybe better, if you drove it correctly. People were CONVINCED that if the car had a 4V, it HAD to burn more gas than a 2V.

The buying patterns of the public are NOT reasonable. Ford made many customers in the 60s satisfied with their cars that had "Thunderbird" and "Thunderbird Special" engines in them. It didn't matter that the 390s that came in Thunderbirds weren't much different than anything else -- performance at Ford had moved on. By golly, they had a Thunderbird engine in their car -- it said so right on the rocker covers, and that was that. They didn't race, but it sure made them feel good. I can't tell you how many people told me this years ago. The public wasn't very well informed. How many people told me that they had a Buick with a "445" in it, I can't count. Well, Buick made no 445, but they (like Ford) did put the torque figures on the air cleaner (torque usually being a bigger number in those days that HP) believed they had a "445" and no amount of reason could convince them.

You mention that people could spend $100 and get a better package. Well, this was often the case in reality. Optional engines abounded in the 60s and even in the late 50s. It is well to keep in mind that $100 meant a lot more to a guy making $5000 a year than it does to you today. That's important! But, people were not interested in those options. It wasn't until the mid 60s that V8s, air conditioning and the like began to be popular, as the public grew more affluent.

We, here, look at cars as car buffs -- the public did not do so then, and still doesn't. They are just buying a car, and if that car has a fancy wing on the trunk or flashy wheels, that will sell many more cars than refinements under the hood.

You speak of 283s and 327s as if they were "Jack the Giant Killer." On the street in full sized cars and intermediates, they most assuredly were not. Here's two examples:

I had a 1964 Chevy Impala with a 283 and a Powerglide. I HATED Powerglides! Now, people think of them in the sense of expensively prepared drag strip performance items. On the street, they were not. They were very sluggish and low performance items. In a word, they were all "PIGS." One thing your normal Chevy buyer would ALWAYS spring for was their Powerslide. When you looked at Chevys in the early and mid 60s, they were almost all 283 Powerglide cars. Sticks were rare. Maybe 10% of them had 327s, but almost inevitably, they had a Powerglide, too. Anyhow, my friend had a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500. It had what was standard for many Fords of 1964: a 4v 352 and a Cruisomatic. You probably know that the Galaxie 500 was equal to an Impala for 1964. His Ford was by far a faster car than my Impala. It was also built a whole lot better. Later, this same friend bought a 1963 Impala SS. It did have a 327, along with the fancy console shifter for the Powerglide. Another friend, who I rode to school with, had a 1964 Galaxie 500 XL with a 390 and Cruiso. Again, pretty comparable cars -- no need to tell you which one was faster.

Right out of high school, two cars that I had at different times were a 1966 Pontiac Catalina, 389, Turbo 400, and a rear end that must have been about 2.5:1 I also had a 1965 Olds Dynamic 88, 425 2V, Turbo 400, and a 2.73 rear end. I had a friend who had a 1967 Chevy Impala 2dr coupe, red, with a 327 Powerglide. My Pontiac was much much faster than his Impala. But the Olds was a real sleeper, and would easily blow them all into the weeds. I often raced Chevys with that Olds, and believe me, no small block in a full sized car could even begin to stand up to that Olds. I once pegged the speedo on the thing and it was stuck so hard on the peg that it didn't come off until I got down to 100. That car was very capable.

I rode to school at other times in a friend's 1966 Malibu, with a 327 and Powerglide. Those things just were not that fast. Now, the neighbor had a Malibu like that with a 327 that was worked on, that he'd put the factory FI on, and that car would go. But, most smallblocks just were not as fast as some think. "327" has a magical sound today, but most of it is because of the Beach Boys and "Hot Dog" magazine, not because of Street performance.

"Your thoughtful and concise post still doesnt explain why Ford couldnt increase the compression and valve size and place a four barrel carburetor and dual exhaust on y blocks on their full size cars of the 59,60,61 and 62 model years."

For the simple reason that people didn't want to buy such cars. Why should they, when for a few dollars more, they could buy the same car with a 352, or even a 352 with a 4v?

Now, I'd like to pay attention to your idea of Y block continuing development, what I believe was its culmination in the 289, and why I DON'T think Ford was conservative.

As I'd mentioned before, Ford was privately owned until 1957. With internal funding only, when Henry II took over the company totally from his senile grandfather in 1947, he set out to turn Ford around. In 1949, Ford was completely reengineered: Gone were the buggy spring suspensions and torque tube drives that went back to the Model T. The styling was fresh, and Ford set to work designing two new overhead valve motors for 1952: The Lincoln Y and the I6. Their development cycle was about 2 years, for as soon as these engines were finished, they began on the Y Block. It was intended to be introduced in 1953 for Ford's 50th anniversary, but they couldn't make the grade. Somewhere about 2 years after the Y was introduced, work started on 2 new engines, the FE and the MEL, which were introduced in 1958. Actually, I believe that a 3rd engine, which were the monster 477-534 truck engines, were also developed around this time. They were very similar to a MEL, only bigger.

As soon as the FEs and MELs hit the market, Ford must have begun work on the little 144-170-200 6s that were used on 1960 Falcons and Comets. These little motors were harbingers of great things to come...

 

I'd like you to stop and think about the Y Block for a minute, and consider its 4.375 bore spacing. Ever stop to think about that? Bore spacing can tell you lots about a motor! Ys had the same bore spacing as the SBC, but the biggest factory bore for a Y Block was 3.8", while the 283 was standard at 3.875". (Chrysler A and LA motors also had a 4.4" bore spacing) 312 is about at its limit at 3.83", or .030 over (in case you disagree with this statement, there are tons of sonic test data in Y Block Magazine, sent in by people who have tested many blocks, that confirms this!) while it was not unknown for 283s to be bored to 4" for a 301. Why didn't the Y Block have bigger bores? This would have been one road to the continued development that you suggest. (Remember that the cam in a Y Block is very low, near the crank, so stroke increases are limited to less than 3.5" in the Y.)

I believe that the answer to this question is in Ford's foundry work at the time. They simply couldn't cast blocks to permit the bigger bores in a 4.4" bore spacing. (Recall that bore spacing in the FE is 4.625 and the MEL is 4.9")

All engines were made like this -- Detroit's technology was similar. The Cads and Olds were noted for being very heavy. Hemis were very very heavy, with those huge heads. Everything was heavy in the 50s, except the SBC. But, the SBC didn't really have a very strong block, IMHO, back in those days. When they increased the stroke of the SBC in 1967 to 3.48", the block castings were changed to strengthen them, from the 307 on up.

The reason all of those old engines would take huge overbores commonly was because foundry technolgy wasn't advanced enough to ensure that cylinder walls would be cast accurately on the intended centers, so material had to be added to ensure that there would be enough iron dimensionally.

Anyway, the direction Ford took was a radical lightening of the Y Block. All that iron put into an engine cost Ford money and the weight in the car could be used for other purposes, like sound deadener or a larger car. If the same power could be gained from a lighter package that was cheaper to make, so much the better.

Now, you may say, who cares about the little 144 6 that came in Falcons? Well, that was Ford's first foray into the world of thinwall casting, which was applied to the 221 they began working on in 1960. When the motor was finally perfected thru the 221 and 260 and became the 289, not only were the walls thin, but the technolgy permitted Ford to go to a 4" bore on the same centers. This technology was also used to allow the FE to go to a 4.23" bore on 4.625" spacings, where most other manufacturers could only get a 4.125" bore -- 4.25" bores in the 60s were on 4.8" spacings.

The 289 was a pretty revolutionary motor in its day. In a lightweight Mustang, there was good performance. In a larger Fairlane (Those Ford intermediates were always nicer and lighter than their comparable GM competion, speaking as one who has owned both) the performance was adequate. In the full sized cars, the performance was no worse than the earlier Y Block, even tho the 289s had a little smaller exhaust and a little larger intake on a 289. The engines had LOTS of potential:

You had the plain 221-260-289-302 engines, which survived into the Mustang 5.0 of recent memory.

You had Tunnel Port 302s for Trans Am Mustangs, which was also used on FE Tunnel Port 427s and copied by Pontiac for their Ram Air V 400s. The Boss 302 was easily a match for the 302 Z28 motor, and more sophisticated in head design.

The 302 had its deck raised 1/2" for becoming a 351.

A similar tactic, with Boss 302 - like heads became the Cleveland 351.

Another 1/2" deck height raising became the 400 and 351M.

A special 260 block was run at Indianapolis in 1963, where, if I recall, Jim Clark placed 2nd and Dan Gurney placed 7th, in a pushrod 260. Next year, Ford came back with a DOHC version of this engine, and even tho they didn't win, in 1965, Ford took Indy, with a derivative of the 260, which was a derivative of the Y Block.

That's not conservatism! Furthermore, Ford was the one who set the pace on thin-wall casting of blocks, for all of the manufacturers soon followed Ford's lead, and all engines became lighter (just as I noted about the 313, earlier). Now, most cars have gone to aluminum blocks, but that thinwall iron casting technique remained very much a part of cars into the 90s.

Ford was careful where it spent its development dollars, and I think that they paid off handsomly. I'd like to hit one more lick on the "conservative" comment, tho.

Once Ford had the FE (which also borrowed from the Y block) they had what I still consider the most amazing and outrageous engine family ever made. I love FEs, and it's because they were anything but conservative. Here's why:

They started with a passenger car engine, pure and simple. Going thru the improvements required by NASCAR racing to the crossbolted last 406s, the crossbolted 427 appeared. Look at what it did: High Riser, Medium Riser, Tunnel Port, and the awesome 427 SOHC: 667 hp with a 2x4 setup. We'd have seen them on the street, if NASCAR hadn't sandbagged them, you know? They did very well in Top Fuel and Funny Car ranks, until their lack of development caught up with them as new heads, and then blocks, for the RB based Mopar Hemi came out. Think about this: Those 427 Medium Risers went to France and beat Ferraris in their own back yard, something American cars hadn't done since the 1921 French Grand Prix victory by Deusenberg. If that isn't blue-blooded thoroughbred American technology for you, I can't think of anything that could be. Deusenberg is at the very pinnacle of American automotive legend, and there is Henry, right beside.

And, while the 390s powered many passenger cars, the 391 FE truck engines were very very good motors, too -- even my radically opinionated GM truck driving friend had to allow for that, just as he once admitted that a 1957 Ford Y Block was the most awesome street car he'd ever rode in (he raced stock cars, too!).

I can well understand why you may feel that Ford should have continued development of the Y. I actually wished they had, too. But if you look at the subsequent work that occured on the Y block when Ford sent the tooling to South America, especially the Weslake heads that were developed for it, you will note that the development path that the famous Harry Weslake charted out for the Y Block looked a lot like the heads you see on the 289. No, I think Ford had this one right.

Thanks for letting me ramble on.

PS: Your comment:

"The evidence that the Y-block was a good idea is the present 4.6/5.4 modular V8s. They are y-blocks also. With neat flat flange oil pans.And cross bolted main bearings."

Well, I've seen later aluminum Chevy V8s in the crate, and they have a Y Block design, too, and also the tall and narrow FE type intake ports. Tee Hee Hee!

 

wild Bunch:

Maybe I should wave the white flag now--I don't think that I can match the wide wealth of information that you have about this subject matter. I am struggling here--but let me give it a try.

My statements about Ford and the Y-block is mainly centered on Ford's marketing of the Y-block and what the market was at the time of the Y-block. There were many segments of the market of that time. And my contention is that Ford didn't take advantage of the lower end/economy/performance part of the late 50s and early 60 market like it could.The Mustang of 1964 is evidence of the viability this market. (This market of economy/performance would explode with MOPAR's offerings in the late 60s)

The competition--GM/Chevy did take better advantage with their 283 and later 327 small block. Sales of small block Chevys were good--even if the small block Chevy wasnt the best performance combination for a full sized vehicle. Again--marketing and many buyers did like this combination.

The corporate cost of adding performance inhancing features of a Y-block wouldnt have been costly--even for Ford.

I think that the basic issue you may be overlooking in this discussion is that I am more focused on MARKETING of the Y-BLOCK and the possible resultant engineering developements (4barrel,dual exhaust,big valve heads ,higher rpm valve train,ect) .

Your arguments --conversely are centered on engineering with marketing as a limited and controlling factor, as a secondary issue. For example --you state that the Y-block was limited in possible displacement increases. But this is an engineering issue and I dont think that limited displacement was a problem--in a multifaceted market place that was the market in the late 50s and early 60s. There were the compacts entering the market and there were the full sized boats and their heavy big blocks. That era was an period of time that offered the buyer the most choices ever up to that time--and it can be argued --the most choices since that time. Buyers could order a full sized Chevy with the straight 6 in an Impala convertible with a 2.56 or a 4.56 final drive. Or a 348/dual quad . There were less models available at this time than later--but MORE OPTIONs were available for any given model of vehicle.

My point is:

The Y-block wasn't MARKETED with performance options after 1957.

The competition did market their performance small blocks--with increased sales.

Cost of marketing a performance Y-block would have been minimal after '57.Most of the development cost already occurred.

That period of time, with the residual sense of economy, ( adults that lived thru the depression and their children)-- many buyers were receptive more to small blocks with performance features in full sized cars--than the heavy FE engines. Again--we are discussing MARKETING--not ENGINEERING nor OUTRIGHT PERFORMANCE issues.

I agree with you--we as motor heads see the issues differently than the typical buyer of the late 50s. But corporate engineering is driven by marketing decisions. And my argument is that Ford didn't make the correct MARKETING decision at that time. FORD full size sales only exceeded Chevy in 1957--and never again .

And this marketing decision not to increase horsepower in the Y-block was part of the reason.

 

and I can see your point. I feel that Ford had moved on and relegated the Y Block to "bread and butter" duties. Still, there were some advances, like the stiffening of the lower block in the early 60s. Also, Ford's improved foundry tehcniques seem to have spilled over into the Y, since I feel that the later blocks were a little better castings than the early ones from a quality perspective.

"many buyers were receptive more to small blocks with performance features in full sized cars--than the heavy FE engines."

Regarding your comment here, keep in mind that the FE wasn't very much heavier than a Y block: maybe 50 pounds or so. (http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html). The FE was larger physically, however, which made it a tight fit in smaller cars. (FEs didn't fit into Mustangs until the body change, adn even then you had to raise the engine to change the middle plugs on each side.)

One thing to keep in mind is that buyers especiallyl racers, are often attracted to the latest thing. Chevy 409s are a good point here. The 409 didn't become a performance item until 62, in 61 it was still a oversized truck engine. Chevy boys, except for a few hardheads, dumped it pretty quick when something better was availble. No one in the 50s really had more than one performance engine that was the flagship of the line. Ford did try in 58 with a 352 PI and a 430 Marauder 3x2, but that didn't last too long. Ford focused on the FE, and Chrysler on the B/RB performance.

While you may cite the acceptance of hot small motors by the public, notably SBCs and the Boss 302, and the hot 340s, think of all the hot small motors that failed:

Pontiac's OHC hi compression 6 with a 4v
Oldsmobile's turbocharged 215 in the 63 F85
Turbo Corvairs
how about the all time sleeper: the supercharged Studebaker Lark?
Pontiac Slant 4s (half of a 389) with hi compression and 4v
How many 63 Falcon Sprints with 260s have you seen?

I think that you can make the case that people were into full sized car performance until the Mustang showed them another alternative, and the Mustung was NOT a Y Block car, it was a 289 sized car. Pontiac also had a way forward with the intermediate with the big Block, but muscle cars were pretty much big block territory.

Small cars like darts, Novas, and the like really had to wait until the second half of the 60s for their day to come, and that day was heralded by the Mustang. Would you rather have a Mustang, or one of those first boxy Flint Falcons with a 283 in it?

Nobody really got the small car/small V8 formula right until Ford brought out the Mustang. Few people bought any of the earlier tries.

Anyway, I can appreciate your desire for further Y development.

BTW, I do think that a 312 4v was availble in 1958 in the Mercury line.

 

The Mustang was a success because of Marketing,economy and image. And to a lesser degree--performance . Mustangs until the 1968 428 where never high performance cars. They were economic marketed cars with a pretense of performance. Few cars were marketed as well as the Mustang. It was a true good car and it was also economical. I believe that the 6 cylinders and the 2 barrel V8s made up most of the production.But in such a light car--even 6 cylinder or 2 barrel V8 ran well.

And the lack of good marketing/packaging killed or muted the Falcon Sprint and the other eco-performance cars that you listed. Marketing was the only difference between the first Mustang and the Ford Falcon Sprint . ( The 64 1/2 Mustang had the 170/6 and the 260/V8--just like the 63/64 Sprint. But admittedly--the body style of the Mustang was nicer looking.)

I think that you are right about the 1958 312/4barrel Merk--but the Mecury wasn't an entry level eco full size Ford.

I think that the most successful cars of that era were full sized performance at an economic price. Only later did buyers realize that less mass meant more performance and sporty appearance.

And surprisingly--you are correct about the weight of the FE and the Y-block,--just 25 pounds difference I am told. But again--in the low- price pressures of the era--where compacts were not performance packaged yet--a performance Y-block full sized Ford would have sold very well. At a lower cost than a FE V8 and with the added marketing appeal of a smaller displacement V-8.

I still remember the countless 327 SS Impala's running about in '62 to '64.
Powerguide or not.

Just one question will close this discussion: Did Chevy sell more 348/409 V8 Impalas or more 4 barrel 283/327 Impalas between 1958 and 1964? I believe that the 283/327 outsold the big block Chevy. And since chevy was selling to the same market as Ford--why wouldnt Ford have sold large numbers of 292/312 Y-blocks--in a full sized car that could have been marketed and packaged in a performance image--just like the successful SS Impala?

Ford missed a golden opportunity to sell to the precompact eco/performance market.

Oh--and another thing: Ford had always been very conservative in their marketing of performance cars--in that era especially.An example of this would be the fact that Chevy first installed a factory four speed in their 1959 full sized Chevy. And Ford only offered a four on the floor as a dealer installed option in their 1961 full size with the 390 V8.Never with their y-block.I dont think that even the Thunderbird of that era ever had a 4 on the floor option!!