I like creative solutions. Nice work.

If you have 'massive compression loss', you might find that the PCV system won't keep up with the blow-by.

If you don't already know where the compression loss comes from, try running the engine and one-by-one pull the spark plug wires off of the plugs to see which cylinders aren't running. If the engine slows down after you've pulled the plug wire on a cylinder, the cylinder was running, if the engine doesn't slow down, that cylinder is dead.

Consider stuck valves as one of the possible causes for compression loss. Some guys swear by a technique of smacking the ends of the valves (after removing the rocker shaft) to un-stick a stuck valve.

If you think you have a stuck ring, you might try adding some Marvel Mystery Oil to the crankcase. That might unstick a ring.

Good luck.

Hi Mike.

 

Thanks Paul,

I only put the PCV system in because of the canister leak on the draft tube, not for smoking or blow-by issues.

That said, my valves all move well, and no signs of sticking valves or rockers. What happened is that the motor went dry on the passenger side rocker assembly. I pulled it apart to find that I did not have blockage. A compression test gave me 25-75 PSI readings per cylinder. And an oil pressure check came back with a cold pressure of 40PSI dropping to under 10 when warmed up.

The motor, is a true '59 (looking at casting numbers) and may very well be original to the truck. So this leads me to believing that I may just have a 50 year old motor that is very well used. I am trying to come up with some extra folding money so I can figure out the next step I need to take. Either replace or rebuild.

 

In the replace or rebuild equation, money makes a big difference. I don't want to discourage you, but y-blocks need a lot of work (money) to get them running right. But once they're running right, people love them.

But the good news is that if you've got the B9AE block and the -113 heads, you are starting with the best parts.

I spent $150 to get a B9AE block's bellhousing bolt holes repaired because I wanted that particular block casting. Then I spent a lot more money getting the decks shaved flat and square on a Rottler F65a. I'm still working on that engine.

 

Paul,

Thanks for the reply.

The Y-block is tired, the transmission howls (plus it is a crappy three on the tree that really doesn't like shifting), and then there are the issues with my hydraulic clutch and suspension and all the other things old vehicles needs after half a century of use that all are screaming for my attention.

I am still kicking around the choice right now. The truck has lived hard and it needs a lot of love. Plus I have a 385 series 400 that is complete with a C-6 or FMX (need to check) that is out back. So it is a candidate for the truck.

I need to fire it up and test it out so I can see what shape it is in and then I can make a decision from there. Honestly after all the work I did to get it back on the road, only to find out that the motor was truly shot, I just lost desire. The desire is coming back, but in that period of time my fiancee picked up a toy of her own and we have been throwing a lot of time and money into it. I figure that once we get it mostly sorted out, I think I will have enough time away from the '59 to really get back in the mood.

 

CShroom, best of luck no matter what the choice. You may want to consider looking for a truck of the same era that someone else has already sunk a lot of money into. Many times they can be had for .50 on the $1 or less, assuming you make a thorough analysis of the vehicle being bought.

About PCVs. If you look at the 61-64 292s that had PCV screwed into the intake, only the front four cylinders (#1, #2, #5, #6) were drawing in "recylcled air" from the block. It has been a curiosity, because the front cylinders would be running leaner than the back. Has anyone else noticed this, or have comment?

Everyother Ford System I've seen, say '63-'74, was setup so the PCV line connected to a carb spacer or the carb base, distributing crank case gases equally.

I currently have a PCV valve at the rear of the valley, with a T fitting on top. A line runs to each side of an aluminum carb spacer drilled and tapped for fittings. Forget exactly but the internal diameter of each fitting is approximately .200 in. This seems to be my best setup so far.

 

The 385 series came in 370, 429, and 460 cu. in. sizes. Not sure what you've got there.

 

Mike,


I'm not really sure I would agree with that because the PCV valve doesn't really allow ALL the vacuum to go to the crankcase does it? So the flow might not be a lot, and there should be enough mixing in the intake manifold to make the mixture more or less the same everywhere......now having said that the vacuum source on the carb below was right at the base........

I'm going to use the PCV fitting I removed from my previously installed (in my boat) OMC 460 V-8. (you can see the vacuum tube for the PCV valve at the base of the carburetor)


The tube is on the left in the pic below.....


The fitting that was pushed into a grommet in one of the valve covers had a sort of check valve in it that appeared to limit "flow" from the crankcase to the vacuum source...... The oil cap was un-vented and when you removed it, there was a slight vacuum present.

This would imply that if the blow-by was really excessive, it could also produce crankcase pressure!


I don't think that really ever happens unless the engine is turbocharged though........


Regards,



Rick

 

Rick, with the modern carb in your pics there should be more or less equal "dilution" of crankcase gases mixing with the those passing through the carb. But with a stock 2V 2100 no fitting is available at the carb. If I still have an extra 2V intake I'll post some pics in a few days to help show what my question(s) has been.

This is mainly in the realm of curious trivia.

Mike

 

CShroom, I would caution that the intake manifold is putting unregulated vacuum on the crankcase at all times unless there is a PCV valve inline from the rocker arm to the intake manifold. The 2.3 Lima engines have a PCV valve that fits inside two hose pieces under the intake manifold. One end goes to the oil seperator and crankcase, the other end goes to intake manifold vacuum. I would think you could do the same thing with an in-line PCV that regulated the amount of extra air fed to the intake. I think that you now run the risk of leaning out the 4 cylinders mentioned in one of the above posts as the 292 does not have such a well-sealed crankcase so as to limit the air intake from becoming too much. It will let in any amount of air the intake will accept... while a PCV will limit the volume because it has a small diameter port, and closes at higher rpms.
You do not have an oil separator, but I guess you don't need one so much under the rocker arm cover - the crankcase would have a LOT more turbidity and hopefully, a lot more oil flying around. The 62 version Numberdummy mentioned had an oil separator 'canister' down where your road draft tube mounted, and that was necessary to keep oil consumption down.
I obviously am being to wordy, so, to make it short, I would put a PCV inline from the rocker arm to the intake port, and make sure that the oil filler cap has decent 'threads' inside to filter the air that is now flowing in all the time. In addition you could also get a filler cap with a fitting to attach a piece of hose connecting the filler to the filtered side of the air cleaner. In that case, there would be no 'threads' [hog bristles, I think] inside the filler cap, and it would be sealed from unfiltered air flow.
tom

 

Yeah........... I think you're right.....

 

Thanks Tom. I did use a PCV valve, I even added the Fram part number in the blog post. I entirely agree that running without would be a very bad idea. I didn't notice any extra smoking so I think I was ok leaving the baffle, However, since I was losing oiling pressure to the rockers I have some doubts about that..