Y-Block history?
#1
07-30-2005, 09:27 AM
Y-Block history?
Hello all,
I was just looking through all the different forums and found this one and i've never heard of the 'y block'. Could anyone give me a breif history on the engine? What it was used in? why its called 'y'? Stuff like that.
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to educate me,
-Paul
I was just looking through all the different forums and found this one and i've never heard of the 'y block'. Could anyone give me a breif history on the engine? What it was used in? why its called 'y'? Stuff like that.
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to educate me,
-Paul
#2
07-30-2005, 11:31 AM
More Turbo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Peoria, IL (more or less)
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As brief as I can get without putting you to sleep:
It was the replacement engine for the flathead, Ford's first mass production OHV. Called a "Y-block" because the side skirts of the block hang down past the main caps & crank centerline, to give more support, like the later "FE" engines. Offered from '54-'62 in cars & trucks and until '64 in trucks only; made in sizes from 239 ci to 312 ci. Closely related to the "Lincoln Y" which was offered in, naturally, Lincolns, & big trucks; but few pieces are interchangeable. Reached its performance peak in '57, with the T-bird & other Fords, in dual four-barrel & supercharged factory versions. The FE & MEL engine families more or less replaced it as a "big car" engine & it was offered only as a 292 in detuned versions from '58 on (there are some cases of 312s installed in trucks during factory shortages, I'm told). It was used as a baseline engine in cars & trucks until the 221 & 260 "Fairlane" engine was introduced in 1962. It stayed in light trucks through '64.
Probably the largest issue with it for Ford was that the architecture does not allow displacements substantially over the factory 312, with overbores or stroke increases. (Performance stroked versions have made it to around 364 ci, but with custom cranks, rods, etc.) At the time, the factories were building bigger, heavier cars every year, horsepower & torque were required, and larger CI engines were being introduced all the time. Ford went from a 239 ci in 1954, eventually to a 427 ci /425 hp in 1964. In the ten years from 1952-1962 Ford introduced five new V8 engine families to replace the varied V8 flatheads- the Lincoln Y, Ford/Mercury Y, MEL, FE, & "Fairlane", commonly known as Windsor.
The Y was maligned in automotive mags of its day & had a reputation for oiling problems, but much of this is untrue or had contributing factors, like the oil quality of the time. Often compared unfavorably to the SBC in terms of power, but racing records of the day show that the Y-block just spanked the Chevy in NASCAR racing & to an extent in drag racing. It has enjoyed an increase of popularity in the past few years due to a number of diehard fans, new performance parts, the Y-Block Shootout, Y-Block Magazine, and the trend away from using the 350/350 in everything.
All this JMHO, of course.
It was the replacement engine for the flathead, Ford's first mass production OHV. Called a "Y-block" because the side skirts of the block hang down past the main caps & crank centerline, to give more support, like the later "FE" engines. Offered from '54-'62 in cars & trucks and until '64 in trucks only; made in sizes from 239 ci to 312 ci. Closely related to the "Lincoln Y" which was offered in, naturally, Lincolns, & big trucks; but few pieces are interchangeable. Reached its performance peak in '57, with the T-bird & other Fords, in dual four-barrel & supercharged factory versions. The FE & MEL engine families more or less replaced it as a "big car" engine & it was offered only as a 292 in detuned versions from '58 on (there are some cases of 312s installed in trucks during factory shortages, I'm told). It was used as a baseline engine in cars & trucks until the 221 & 260 "Fairlane" engine was introduced in 1962. It stayed in light trucks through '64.
Probably the largest issue with it for Ford was that the architecture does not allow displacements substantially over the factory 312, with overbores or stroke increases. (Performance stroked versions have made it to around 364 ci, but with custom cranks, rods, etc.) At the time, the factories were building bigger, heavier cars every year, horsepower & torque were required, and larger CI engines were being introduced all the time. Ford went from a 239 ci in 1954, eventually to a 427 ci /425 hp in 1964. In the ten years from 1952-1962 Ford introduced five new V8 engine families to replace the varied V8 flatheads- the Lincoln Y, Ford/Mercury Y, MEL, FE, & "Fairlane", commonly known as Windsor.
The Y was maligned in automotive mags of its day & had a reputation for oiling problems, but much of this is untrue or had contributing factors, like the oil quality of the time. Often compared unfavorably to the SBC in terms of power, but racing records of the day show that the Y-block just spanked the Chevy in NASCAR racing & to an extent in drag racing. It has enjoyed an increase of popularity in the past few years due to a number of diehard fans, new performance parts, the Y-Block Shootout, Y-Block Magazine, and the trend away from using the 350/350 in everything.
All this JMHO, of course.
Last edited by Homespun91; 07-30-2005 at 11:51 AM. Reason: sp
#3
07-30-2005, 05:44 PM
Senior User
Homespun91 has given a perfect rundown of the motor. I would like to add the following details that may be less important, but somewhat fun, also.
The idea of all the the Detroit manufacturers was to take advantage of the lessons they had learned and the high octane fuels that became available from WW2 aircraft testing and manufacture experiences. The flathead design produced lots of low end torque, but it's design was limited in breathing capability (becomes more of a detriment at higher RPM) and compression.
Ford's ideas seem to have been directed toward economy rather than performance, and they forsaw high compression facilitated by high octane fuels as the route to take to achieve this. Ford engine design up to the Cleveland/Lima era always seemed to have stressed pronounced combustion chamber "quench," a feature that was identified by researcher Sir Harry Ricardo in the 1920s as promoting chamber turbulence, quick burning charges, and more power by means of quick and efficient combustion.
Note that the Y's combustion chamber is offset perhaps more than any other OHV V8 from the cylinder center to make sure that there is plenty of quench. Ford was also always careful to put the spark plug in the most advantageous spot in the chamber that they could -- not in the lowest, wettest, farthest reaches of the chamber like brand x did.
Ford didn't seem to do a very good job of predicting the growing cubic inch race when designing either the Y or the early Lincoln motor. Both have the nice long rods giving the best theoretical rod length to stroke ratios. For instance, consider my 239 with 6.324" rods and a 3.1" stroke. Thats a rod to stroke ratio of 2.04! Long rods give plenty of piston dwell at the top of the bore, and ensure that the piston doesn't exceed the pressure curve of combustion (where the piston "runs away" from most of the pressure rise of combustion, limiting the amount of power that can be extracted from the burning fuel). Long rods also minimize the side thrust of the pistons on the cylinder walls, maximizing the engine's longevity. Because long rods slow the piston more gently and accelerate it more gently from the stopping point at TDC, you can see that this puts less stress on the rod bolts, which must ultimately assume the duty of keeping the piston from launching out thru the head. TDC on the exhaust stroke is usually where rod bolts fail (the piston doesn't have the resistance to flying out of the engine on compression, because of the pressure against it). When the rod bolts loose their tension, the rod bearing loses its "crush," the bearing spins, and the motor is history. That's why long rods are more suited to high RPM. (There are exceptions, like the HP Honda engines, but their engineers do such a job that they seem to defy science sometimes!)
On the other hand, the acceleration of the piston with a short rod motor gives a strong pulse on the intake stroke, and this tends to allow a larger carb to be run -- the metering systems are given stronger signals to work with due to the stronger pulse. Ford always seemed to use smaller carbs until the 60s. I've always wondered if this had something to do with it.
Anyway, they stuck the cam down in the block, close to the crank, that the amount of stroke that they could run was limited. Look at how Ford balanced the Y: all 8 counterweights on the crank and even a counterweight on the cam, to offset the rotating fuel pump eccentric! But Ford engineers always seemed to go to extremes to correct things: The 289 used really short rods (and kept the rod/stroke ratio in line by running the 2/78 stroke). They used evenly spaced intakes on the heads, which were a good way to give uniform mixtures to the cylinders -- another way to deal with the same problem the over-under ports were intended to deal with. The crank of the 289 was very small and light, where the Y's was big and heavy for the stroke. The 289 crank was balanced externally, giving the smallest crank for a compact engine. (Recall that the V8 crank runs and balances like a 2 cylinder engine with an up-down throw arrangement. This is why the end counterweights on a V8 are the biggest ones. Keeping them small means weight needs to be added to the damper and flywheel.) And, when Ford wanted to face the cubic inch race, they went with the monster 430 in 1958 -- the biggest American V8 until Chrysler came out with the 440 in 1966. But Ford wasn't trumped by Chrysler, because in 1966, the 430 was punched out to 462 and remained the biggest American motor for 2 more years.
Homespun91 noted that the Y was a killer in competition. Another successful venue where its competitors felt its power was the Pike's Peak hillclimb. When altitude increases, the advantages of a supercharged engine will be increasingly evident.
Homespun91's point about "bellybutton" motors is well noted. Personally, the "monkey see monkey do" approach has always left me a bit cold, and the Y is a great roosting place for those who want to do it a different way than the crowd.
The idea of all the the Detroit manufacturers was to take advantage of the lessons they had learned and the high octane fuels that became available from WW2 aircraft testing and manufacture experiences. The flathead design produced lots of low end torque, but it's design was limited in breathing capability (becomes more of a detriment at higher RPM) and compression.
Ford's ideas seem to have been directed toward economy rather than performance, and they forsaw high compression facilitated by high octane fuels as the route to take to achieve this. Ford engine design up to the Cleveland/Lima era always seemed to have stressed pronounced combustion chamber "quench," a feature that was identified by researcher Sir Harry Ricardo in the 1920s as promoting chamber turbulence, quick burning charges, and more power by means of quick and efficient combustion.
Note that the Y's combustion chamber is offset perhaps more than any other OHV V8 from the cylinder center to make sure that there is plenty of quench. Ford was also always careful to put the spark plug in the most advantageous spot in the chamber that they could -- not in the lowest, wettest, farthest reaches of the chamber like brand x did.
Ford didn't seem to do a very good job of predicting the growing cubic inch race when designing either the Y or the early Lincoln motor. Both have the nice long rods giving the best theoretical rod length to stroke ratios. For instance, consider my 239 with 6.324" rods and a 3.1" stroke. Thats a rod to stroke ratio of 2.04! Long rods give plenty of piston dwell at the top of the bore, and ensure that the piston doesn't exceed the pressure curve of combustion (where the piston "runs away" from most of the pressure rise of combustion, limiting the amount of power that can be extracted from the burning fuel). Long rods also minimize the side thrust of the pistons on the cylinder walls, maximizing the engine's longevity. Because long rods slow the piston more gently and accelerate it more gently from the stopping point at TDC, you can see that this puts less stress on the rod bolts, which must ultimately assume the duty of keeping the piston from launching out thru the head. TDC on the exhaust stroke is usually where rod bolts fail (the piston doesn't have the resistance to flying out of the engine on compression, because of the pressure against it). When the rod bolts loose their tension, the rod bearing loses its "crush," the bearing spins, and the motor is history. That's why long rods are more suited to high RPM. (There are exceptions, like the HP Honda engines, but their engineers do such a job that they seem to defy science sometimes!)
On the other hand, the acceleration of the piston with a short rod motor gives a strong pulse on the intake stroke, and this tends to allow a larger carb to be run -- the metering systems are given stronger signals to work with due to the stronger pulse. Ford always seemed to use smaller carbs until the 60s. I've always wondered if this had something to do with it.
Anyway, they stuck the cam down in the block, close to the crank, that the amount of stroke that they could run was limited. Look at how Ford balanced the Y: all 8 counterweights on the crank and even a counterweight on the cam, to offset the rotating fuel pump eccentric! But Ford engineers always seemed to go to extremes to correct things: The 289 used really short rods (and kept the rod/stroke ratio in line by running the 2/78 stroke). They used evenly spaced intakes on the heads, which were a good way to give uniform mixtures to the cylinders -- another way to deal with the same problem the over-under ports were intended to deal with. The crank of the 289 was very small and light, where the Y's was big and heavy for the stroke. The 289 crank was balanced externally, giving the smallest crank for a compact engine. (Recall that the V8 crank runs and balances like a 2 cylinder engine with an up-down throw arrangement. This is why the end counterweights on a V8 are the biggest ones. Keeping them small means weight needs to be added to the damper and flywheel.) And, when Ford wanted to face the cubic inch race, they went with the monster 430 in 1958 -- the biggest American V8 until Chrysler came out with the 440 in 1966. But Ford wasn't trumped by Chrysler, because in 1966, the 430 was punched out to 462 and remained the biggest American motor for 2 more years.
Homespun91 noted that the Y was a killer in competition. Another successful venue where its competitors felt its power was the Pike's Peak hillclimb. When altitude increases, the advantages of a supercharged engine will be increasingly evident.
Homespun91's point about "bellybutton" motors is well noted. Personally, the "monkey see monkey do" approach has always left me a bit cold, and the Y is a great roosting place for those who want to do it a different way than the crowd.
#6
07-31-2005, 12:47 AM
Senior User
To add a little inconsequential appeal
For the unfamiliar:
Even stock Y-'s had a nice lope, were very smooth idling engines for their day, and had good low end torque. Built and balanced to today's maching and parts standards, they make a nice nostalgic mild performance engine.
They seem however, not cheap to build, but if you want cheap drive a Hundai. I do, it makes buying vintage performance parts for the Y- I'm building possible.
I suppose this is why people resign themselves to SBC's. Of course not I, I've always worked very hard to make my life as diffiicult and complicated as possible
Even stock Y-'s had a nice lope, were very smooth idling engines for their day, and had good low end torque. Built and balanced to today's maching and parts standards, they make a nice nostalgic mild performance engine.
They seem however, not cheap to build, but if you want cheap drive a Hundai. I do, it makes buying vintage performance parts for the Y- I'm building possible.
I suppose this is why people resign themselves to SBC's. Of course not I, I've always worked very hard to make my life as diffiicult and complicated as possible
#7
07-31-2005, 12:37 PM
Trending Topics
#8
07-31-2005, 01:16 PM
Senior User
In things automotive, as in many things, fads and trends rule. You may recall this pattern in other such things:
Julia Roberts: "America's Sweetheart" (to me, she's ugly)
Dallas Cowboys: "America's Team" (I never got to vote, I'm a Steelers fan)
Chevrolet: "The Heartbeat of America" (better clear the patient and apply the electrodes)
The fact that brand X is popular has to do with most of the pricing issues, I think. Everyone makes parts and makes kits for them. Ys haven't been around for a long time and few fiddle with them. There's a lot more competition among makers of X parts, and the economies of scale make them cheaper to manufacture.
So, what does this say? Brand X is better, because it is cheaper? Or, because more people use them?
Well, I smoke La Flor Dominicana, La Aurora, and Padron Anniversaries. There are cheaper cigars (much cheaper!) but they sure aren't better. More people smoke other kinds of cigars, but that doesn't make them better, either. There's lots of reasons why I like the cigars I listed better than some "dog rocket," and there are plenty of reasons I like a Y better than brand X.
I don't particularly hate brand X (just don't care for them) but I do dislike the attitude that because everyone does it, it must be good or better or right.
People wonder where their kids learn the excuse: "Everybody else is doing it."
The answer is simple: they learn from their parents, and the natural human inclination to laziness means that it is easier to copy someone else than it is to think for one's self. And, many people value doing what someone else thinks is "cool," and fewer care to do what they like, regardless of whether it pleases others or not.
I hope Ys never become popular. When too many people gather, there is a strong force to "run with the herd." Taste becomes institutionalized (such as when everyone must by obligation drool over a corvette, when a 57 Thunderbird or 63 Avanti are actually much better looking cars, designs that are more refined, in my opinion).
Or, to be crude about it, where there are big crowds, there is a lot of BO, hot air, and flatulence. I like the clean air of the Y crowd, myself, but everyone must make their own choices for their own reasons. I don't argue with everyone's right to do this, only when they try to impose their tastes (or lack thereof) on me do I get irritated.
Julia Roberts: "America's Sweetheart" (to me, she's ugly)
Dallas Cowboys: "America's Team" (I never got to vote, I'm a Steelers fan)
Chevrolet: "The Heartbeat of America" (better clear the patient and apply the electrodes)
The fact that brand X is popular has to do with most of the pricing issues, I think. Everyone makes parts and makes kits for them. Ys haven't been around for a long time and few fiddle with them. There's a lot more competition among makers of X parts, and the economies of scale make them cheaper to manufacture.
So, what does this say? Brand X is better, because it is cheaper? Or, because more people use them?
Well, I smoke La Flor Dominicana, La Aurora, and Padron Anniversaries. There are cheaper cigars (much cheaper!) but they sure aren't better. More people smoke other kinds of cigars, but that doesn't make them better, either. There's lots of reasons why I like the cigars I listed better than some "dog rocket," and there are plenty of reasons I like a Y better than brand X.
I don't particularly hate brand X (just don't care for them) but I do dislike the attitude that because everyone does it, it must be good or better or right.
People wonder where their kids learn the excuse: "Everybody else is doing it."
The answer is simple: they learn from their parents, and the natural human inclination to laziness means that it is easier to copy someone else than it is to think for one's self. And, many people value doing what someone else thinks is "cool," and fewer care to do what they like, regardless of whether it pleases others or not.
I hope Ys never become popular. When too many people gather, there is a strong force to "run with the herd." Taste becomes institutionalized (such as when everyone must by obligation drool over a corvette, when a 57 Thunderbird or 63 Avanti are actually much better looking cars, designs that are more refined, in my opinion).
Or, to be crude about it, where there are big crowds, there is a lot of BO, hot air, and flatulence. I like the clean air of the Y crowd, myself, but everyone must make their own choices for their own reasons. I don't argue with everyone's right to do this, only when they try to impose their tastes (or lack thereof) on me do I get irritated.
#9
07-31-2005, 02:58 PM
More Turbo
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Peoria, IL (more or less)
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One item I would add to Tim's thesis:
Ford, at times, appears to make a concerted effort to make things as hard as they can for the Ford enthusiast or rodder. Looking at it objectively we know it's not really true; but to love Fords is something like being a Cubs fan. You know they're going to break your heart, all over again.
In the specific case of the Y-block, it's the transmission choices, or more precisely, the bellhousing bolt pattern. It doesn't interchange with much of anything else (I'm not sure about the Lincoln Y) and it is not a simple process to use anything else more modern.
Virtually all of the 1st generation automatics are fairly primitive; Ford, GM, or whatever. The SBC was saddled with the Powerglide, IMO one of the worst street transmissions ever built. (I'm not talking about drag racing, where the Glide in heavily modded form is used behind many engines, including Fords). So, ya want a more modern automatic, a 3 speed or overdrive, in your '57 Chevy? No problem. Go to any junkyard in the U.S. and get one. Maybe drill some holes to move a crossmember, change a yoke or U-joint, alter the shift linkage Might vey well bolt in with no hassle whatever.
On the other hand, ya want a better transmission behind your Y-block? Oh boy, here we go. You can use the original Ford-O-Matic- decent enough with some work (especially if it's air-cooled, there's gonna be work), heavy, a kind of inaccessible first gear, not the most common; the FMX, similar to the F-O-M, takes a converter mod, or the F-O-M converter & pump, (not the strongest pump drive); or a C4, AOD, or GM trans, with expensive adapters. And all that just gets you the trans. Then you get to figure out mounts, shifters, driveshaft, etc. If you have a truck, then you get to puzzle out the side mounts on the bellhousing.
It is simpler to get a better manual trans for your Y, but there are a few issues there as well.
About this time, the novice (or new to Fords) builder starts thinking about THE SWAP. "I could just throw in a 302 or 390 for not much more work since I've got to go through all this transmission crap anyway. Or, what the @#$%, Chevys are easy. And I've already got a 350/350 in the garage."
To be perfectly fair, it's not that simple to compare Ford vs. Chevy at any level. Yeah, there's tons of different engines, transmissions, bolt patterns, etc......but, is Ford's main competitor Chevrolet? No. It's all of GM. Ford has/had to provide a complete lineup for the entire market, baseline to luxury, sports car to station wagon; up to at least the mid '70s, the GM divisions were individually focused on different slices of that market. Until the late '70s, every GM division except GMC had their own engines, trans bolt patterns, & in some cases, their own axles & transmissions. Stack all that up against Ford- if you look at it that way, it's easier to understand why Ford has the bewildering complexity of design that they do.
I've often thought that this may be the reason why Ford has been so successful with their light truck line; they were able to focus on a specific market. This market has evolved & grown over the years, but a truck buyer in 2005 still buys a truck to haul things, at least once in a while. In that respect things haven't changed much. (Although to continue Tim's thought about "running with the herd", I think now more & more people do buy trucks who could just as easily drive a car 90-95% of the time & borrow a truck as needed. How many people are buying F-250 diesel 4x4 Supercabs nowadays? How many of those NEED that big a truck & that kind of initial expense? Will they recoup the cost with fuel savings? Prolly not.)
But it would have been nice if they could have stuck to one trans bolt pattern, anyway....
Ford, at times, appears to make a concerted effort to make things as hard as they can for the Ford enthusiast or rodder. Looking at it objectively we know it's not really true; but to love Fords is something like being a Cubs fan. You know they're going to break your heart, all over again.
In the specific case of the Y-block, it's the transmission choices, or more precisely, the bellhousing bolt pattern. It doesn't interchange with much of anything else (I'm not sure about the Lincoln Y) and it is not a simple process to use anything else more modern.
Virtually all of the 1st generation automatics are fairly primitive; Ford, GM, or whatever. The SBC was saddled with the Powerglide, IMO one of the worst street transmissions ever built. (I'm not talking about drag racing, where the Glide in heavily modded form is used behind many engines, including Fords). So, ya want a more modern automatic, a 3 speed or overdrive, in your '57 Chevy? No problem. Go to any junkyard in the U.S. and get one. Maybe drill some holes to move a crossmember, change a yoke or U-joint, alter the shift linkage Might vey well bolt in with no hassle whatever.
On the other hand, ya want a better transmission behind your Y-block? Oh boy, here we go. You can use the original Ford-O-Matic- decent enough with some work (especially if it's air-cooled, there's gonna be work), heavy, a kind of inaccessible first gear, not the most common; the FMX, similar to the F-O-M, takes a converter mod, or the F-O-M converter & pump, (not the strongest pump drive); or a C4, AOD, or GM trans, with expensive adapters. And all that just gets you the trans. Then you get to figure out mounts, shifters, driveshaft, etc. If you have a truck, then you get to puzzle out the side mounts on the bellhousing.
It is simpler to get a better manual trans for your Y, but there are a few issues there as well.
About this time, the novice (or new to Fords) builder starts thinking about THE SWAP. "I could just throw in a 302 or 390 for not much more work since I've got to go through all this transmission crap anyway. Or, what the @#$%, Chevys are easy. And I've already got a 350/350 in the garage."
To be perfectly fair, it's not that simple to compare Ford vs. Chevy at any level. Yeah, there's tons of different engines, transmissions, bolt patterns, etc......but, is Ford's main competitor Chevrolet? No. It's all of GM. Ford has/had to provide a complete lineup for the entire market, baseline to luxury, sports car to station wagon; up to at least the mid '70s, the GM divisions were individually focused on different slices of that market. Until the late '70s, every GM division except GMC had their own engines, trans bolt patterns, & in some cases, their own axles & transmissions. Stack all that up against Ford- if you look at it that way, it's easier to understand why Ford has the bewildering complexity of design that they do.
I've often thought that this may be the reason why Ford has been so successful with their light truck line; they were able to focus on a specific market. This market has evolved & grown over the years, but a truck buyer in 2005 still buys a truck to haul things, at least once in a while. In that respect things haven't changed much.
(Although to continue Tim's thought about "running with the herd", I think now more & more people do buy trucks who could just as easily drive a car 90-95% of the time & borrow a truck as needed. How many people are buying F-250 diesel 4x4 Supercabs nowadays? How many of those NEED that big a truck & that kind of initial expense? Will they recoup the cost with fuel savings? Prolly not.)But it would have been nice if they could have stuck to one trans bolt pattern, anyway....
Last edited by Homespun91; 07-31-2005 at 03:13 PM. Reason: sp
#10
07-31-2005, 08:43 PM
Laughing Gas
One thing you can (or at least should) say about Ford is they have never been afraid of change. The flathead had a long run (ok through a depression and world war) and the 302 went for a long time. In many of the posts I have been a part of concerning the Y block I have found that there were a number of major changes even in its lifespan. The Japanese have always been quick to change drivetrains. So I applaud Ford you doing all they have done to make their (OUR) engines current. But...
The main reason I am tempted to drop my 239 is this idea of change. I can't find anything for mine to keep it on the road. Plus is almost outweighs a 460! I could juggle 4 of the 3spd transmissions, so I don't know if that balances or not. I am of the opinion that Ford should not have come out with an engine that was going to need so much change in just 1 1/2 years, not to mention making them in 2 different factories that have no interchangable parts!!\
You are right about the idle. It runs (when it ran) very smooth. I just wish that it got more than 10 MPG. I think that most of the younger populace that looks under the hood wonder what year Cheby made that enging (rear dizzy). By the way, that's another thing I always liked about Ford was the front dizzy, I never liked leaning over a hot engine to set points!!!
Glenn in TN
The main reason I am tempted to drop my 239 is this idea of change. I can't find anything for mine to keep it on the road. Plus is almost outweighs a 460! I could juggle 4 of the 3spd transmissions, so I don't know if that balances or not. I am of the opinion that Ford should not have come out with an engine that was going to need so much change in just 1 1/2 years, not to mention making them in 2 different factories that have no interchangable parts!!\
You are right about the idle. It runs (when it ran) very smooth. I just wish that it got more than 10 MPG. I think that most of the younger populace that looks under the hood wonder what year Cheby made that enging (rear dizzy). By the way, that's another thing I always liked about Ford was the front dizzy, I never liked leaning over a hot engine to set points!!!
Glenn in TN
#11
08-09-2005, 09:20 PM
One area where Ford finally got it right was setting up Ford Racing to continue support of some of the more popular engine series. The Windsor and 460 families have been around since the 60's.
Ford has also provided full data and licensed reproduction of various sheet metal, trim and other restoration parts.
Speaking of a 430, I just picked up a 58 Lincoln torque monster, havent figured what to do with it yet. 375 hp and 490 ft/lbs torque in 58! Rumor has it that a FE C6 will work, havent dug into stick swaps yet. It was stored in 65 with 64K on it, should be an easy builder.
Tim, there is a low mileage 68 Fleetwood a few miles from me, you can have the whole thing for $500. A 472 is better than a 500 IMO.
Ford has also provided full data and licensed reproduction of various sheet metal, trim and other restoration parts.
Speaking of a 430, I just picked up a 58 Lincoln torque monster, havent figured what to do with it yet. 375 hp and 490 ft/lbs torque in 58! Rumor has it that a FE C6 will work, havent dug into stick swaps yet. It was stored in 65 with 64K on it, should be an easy builder.
Tim, there is a low mileage 68 Fleetwood a few miles from me, you can have the whole thing for $500. A 472 is better than a 500 IMO.
#12
08-11-2005, 04:38 AM
292 c.i. Y-block
All this is nice, very nice to read. Pfff!!! We did not know that there are so many 292 c.i. Y-block fans with such great knowledge of the block!! A big salute to you all!! And thanks, we have learned from it. We have nothing to add to these great threads, except for lots of pictures of the Y-block you all can see on our site http://www.fordfront.nl Please check "Techniek" and than just click on "Klik hier om naar het fotoverslag dé-assemblage 292 c.i. Ford V8 Y-blok te gaan", and enjoy. Thanks for visiting our site, thanks again for sharing your knowlegde of the 292 c.i. V8 with us, and hope to read and hear lots more from you all. Greetings. Ford Front from Holland.
#13
08-16-2005, 11:37 PM
Elder User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Milpitas, CA; Tyler, TX
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#14
08-17-2005, 01:15 AM
Elder User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lindsborg, KS
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#15
08-17-2005, 09:55 AM
Something else not mentioned is that the Y was originally designed to give Ford its own medium truck engine since flatheads had a bad habit of short life under hard conditions. They were already using the Lincoln 317 Y Block in Big Trucks.
Ford spies discovered the 55 Chevy 265 SBC project and rushed the Y into 54 cars to counter the threat.
Ford spies discovered the 55 Chevy 265 SBC project and rushed the Y into 54 cars to counter the threat.