Y-Block Details
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Y-Block Details
I was wondering if anyone would be able to tell me some horsepower and torque numbers on Y-Blocks (specifically the 292), or tell where on this web site I can find out? I have a '59 F-100 with a 223 and am wanting to go the V-8 route. Originally I was thinking 302 and AOD, but I am thinking 292 now. I have never built one, but my '60 Galaxie with a 292 and Ford-O-Matic is just cool. It is dependable, runs smooth, and sounds GREAT with dual glasspacks. It is a bit of a dog with the 2 speed Ford-O Matic though. The only other experience I have with a 292 is in a 1963 grain truck.
I am interested in stock power and any guesses as to what a four barrell, mild cam, and maybe headers might do for it. I know somebody out there has done this. If anybody wants to make a cam grind recomendation that would be great too! I don't have any experience playing around with a Y, but there is surely some potential for power. My experience is limited to Mustangs and Windsors, they are pretty easy to make run. Hope to get some knowledge of another great Ford product now with your help!
Thanks!
I am interested in stock power and any guesses as to what a four barrell, mild cam, and maybe headers might do for it. I know somebody out there has done this. If anybody wants to make a cam grind recomendation that would be great too! I don't have any experience playing around with a Y, but there is surely some potential for power. My experience is limited to Mustangs and Windsors, they are pretty easy to make run. Hope to get some knowledge of another great Ford product now with your help!
Thanks!
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 713
Likes: 1
From: Houston U.S.
Horsepower varies on diffrent apllications, but personally i would like to say, a 223 6 cylinder is a pretty darned good engine!!! Plus the originaily to stay is better as well. But those 223 engines are very reliable! I would keep it.My car and my pickup both came factory with 292 Yblocks, and much work had to be done to make them what they are, but as a mechanic i will say for a fact, a 223 is a better engine, also a 223 doesn't have all the problems Yblocks have, plus a 223 can be a rubber burner and last you forever...Janet
Last edited by Janet40; Jun 30, 2004 at 09:20 PM.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,361
Likes: 1,723
From: AKRON ohio
A Y will really run!
I have a 1957 292 that is .060 over with the deserible ECZ-G heads the 257 edelbrock two fours intake, erson cam 520 lift and 296 duration (Had to have the guides machined down for the high lift cam) I'm using the 1.54 ratio rockers. Vintage aluminum sheifer flywheel that weighs 20 lbs less than the stock one. Using the rams horn manifolds with turbo 400 thrush mufflers All this plus the C1TE steel crank. I'm very happy with the combo so far>
The only down fall is I would like to get a hotter ignition (MSD)
Kevin
I have a 1957 292 that is .060 over with the deserible ECZ-G heads the 257 edelbrock two fours intake, erson cam 520 lift and 296 duration (Had to have the guides machined down for the high lift cam) I'm using the 1.54 ratio rockers. Vintage aluminum sheifer flywheel that weighs 20 lbs less than the stock one. Using the rams horn manifolds with turbo 400 thrush mufflers All this plus the C1TE steel crank. I'm very happy with the combo so far>
The only down fall is I would like to get a hotter ignition (MSD)
Kevin
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Yes
Since we're on the subject of the 223, I just bought a '63 F-100 that has a 223 in it. I've got a truckload of 292 parts I saved when dad emptied his old warehouse, and can easily create a running 292 BUT, will it bolt up to the 223 tranny? It has a 3 spd column shift, it's not that I don't like the 223, just that I wouldn't mind running a vintage v-8 IF I don't have to modify the truck permanently since I eventually want to get this truck to show quality and take it to car-shows. Thanks in advance for the info...
Laughing Gas
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 2
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 4
From: Southern Oregon
Glasspack, your original question was horsepower and torque. A 292 depending upon the heads, intake, carb and cam would easily achieve 245 hp. Torque numbers I am not familiar with, but the 292 is notorious for its torque.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Wow, those are pretty good numbers for some simple changes. Now I just need to find the right combo!
Thanks 46yblock!
Thanks 46yblock!
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 713
Likes: 1
From: Houston U.S.
Originally Posted by GLASSPACK
Wow, those are pretty good numbers for some simple changes. Now I just need to find the right combo!
Thanks 46yblock!
Thanks 46yblock!
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
From: australia
specifications / 292y
hi hope this helps you glasspack
1958 292 2b 158 @4000 rpms/ torque 269 @ 2200 rpms
292 4b 160 @3600 rpms / torque270@ 2300 rpms
1959 same as 1958
1960 292 2b 146@3800 rpms/ torque270@2600 rpms
292 4b 155@3800 rpms/ torque274@2800 rpms
1961 292 2b 135@3800 rpms/ torque245@1800 rpms
292 4b 153@3800 rpm/ torque260@1800 rpms
1962 same as 1961
1963 same as 1961
1964 292 2b 160@4000 rpms/ torque270@1800 rpms
1958 292 2b 158 @4000 rpms/ torque 269 @ 2200 rpms
292 4b 160 @3600 rpms / torque270@ 2300 rpms
1959 same as 1958
1960 292 2b 146@3800 rpms/ torque270@2600 rpms
292 4b 155@3800 rpms/ torque274@2800 rpms
1961 292 2b 135@3800 rpms/ torque245@1800 rpms
292 4b 153@3800 rpm/ torque260@1800 rpms
1962 same as 1961
1963 same as 1961
1964 292 2b 160@4000 rpms/ torque270@1800 rpms
Elder User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 713
Likes: 1
From: Houston U.S.
That helps everyone, when we need to know these specifications we are either at home or at work and don't have the stuff with us, or it's put up and it's and endless search trying to find out where we wrote it. As day to day life moves on, and one doesn't have trouble they slowly forget all of it....Janet
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Thanks for the numbers F700. That gives me an idea of where I am starting. I must say the torque numbers are more impressive than the hp. Its funny how the hp and torque decrease as the motors get newer although they are quoted at much lower rpms for the 60's. I guess that accounts for it?
Postmaster
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,688
Likes: 4
From: Southern Oregon
Glasspack, talking HP is always fun. There are alot of Y's around with 300 plus HP, but they all went to great lengths to get there. Mine is in the 250-260 HP range now with 1.43 rockers. If I put on the 1.54 ratio it would jump up close to 280. But there isn't any point in doing that since the tranny will never handle the full HP potential of the engine in its current form.
One of the big reasons performance decreased in the later years of the Y was the very small , 1.64 in. intake valve. There also was a head put on some engines in 1959, that had a roomy 82cc combustion chamber, resulting in low compression. That head was 5750-471. Stay away from it. 1959 engines also had the 113 head which is the second most sought after version Ford produced. Mike
One of the big reasons performance decreased in the later years of the Y was the very small , 1.64 in. intake valve. There also was a head put on some engines in 1959, that had a roomy 82cc combustion chamber, resulting in low compression. That head was 5750-471. Stay away from it. 1959 engines also had the 113 head which is the second most sought after version Ford produced. Mike
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
From: australia
y- blocks
hi all yes 292 is very torquee motor in my f700 i put a mustang 2054 skidsteer
loader in the back it weights 3ton,s trucks go for 6 ton,s as a payload,
it has 5 speed with a 2 speed diff eaton , and has that steel crank that
janet 40 was talking about , slow rev ing but torquee just tune my truck today
and its flying to . next time guys bye 
loader in the back it weights 3ton,s trucks go for 6 ton,s as a payload,
it has 5 speed with a 2 speed diff eaton , and has that steel crank that
janet 40 was talking about , slow rev ing but torquee just tune my truck today
and its flying to . next time guys bye
Freshman User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
From: Sidney, NE
F700, your right. My dad had a 1962 F600 dump truck, with a rebuilt 292, 4 speed and 2 speed rear end. He used it to pull his 580D Case backhoe and tripple axle trailer, when he had his backhoe business. That truck was a pulling machine. Top speed with the backhoe was 45 (with out pushing it to hard) and she had all the power in the world.
Mac
Mac