Eaton Balancing

By the time this is published, the 2009 Engine Masters Challenge (EMC) will be history and the final results very likely posted all over the internet.  Because this is being written as the engine is still being tested and before the competition takes place, I’ll do a followup article on the actual competition and what took place there.  But in the meantime, here’s the short version of what was involved to get a Ford Y-Block engine readied for the EMC competition.

I had intentionally kept the displacement of this years EMC project under wraps as it was treading in some territory not normally being explored for a Y buildup.  The original plan was for a four inch bore along with a four inch stroke to give a 403 CID.  This combination likely would not have given the best overall score but was going to give some impressive peak numbers.  After assembly, the four inch bore block broke in fine and running the engine up to 150 HP to seat the rings exhibitted no problems.  It wasn’t until a low rpm full throttle pull was made that some water issues came to the forefront.  These were only discovered after shutting the engine down and doing a general checkout.  With the single dyno pull that was made, the block took a twist and that allowed water to seep in at each cylinder where the head gasket sealing ring comes off of the sleeves and onto the deck surface.  The block had filler in it at both the tops and bottoms of the bores but to no avail.  When the engine was disassembled, it became evident that the camshaft tunnel had also taken a serious twist thereby making the block unusable for any future work.

Due to the four inch bore scenario being a no go (for the time being), plans went forward to build another four inch stroker but this time utilizing a fresh block with a smaller bore.  No sleeves this time.  Custom pistons were reordered August 31^st and received Sept 11^th.  Block work commenced again during the interim.  This time the bore was going to target for 3.859” giving a claimed cubic inch of 375.  That’s still a respectable cubic inch value by Y standards but not the 400+ I was really targetting for.  Most of the other parts from the 403 incher such as heads, crank, rods, and camshaft would be reused.  The 375 CID Y engine was cranked back up on September 19^th and looks to be a solid performer.

Now that I’ve brought the whole EMC Y program up to date, I’ll step back a bit and give some additional information on what it took to get to this point.  For the 2007 & 2008 competitions, I was looking at a 0.022” over 312 with stock stroke (316 CID) and this looked to be a very good combination for the rules for those years.  But for 2009, there were some major rules changes.  Of significance was the  increasing of the rpm range for the competition dyno pulls, engines were now being allowed to deviate from factory supplied bore and stroke  combinations, and the static compression ratio could now be increased up to 11½:1.  Although the 316” Y looked to be a very good combination and especially at the prior 2500-6500 rpm test range, the rules for 2009 would have this same Y placing much lower in the field simply due to the allowance of roller camshafts thrown into the fray and the upping of the rpms to a 3000-7000 test range.  I was already at a disadvantage by having to use oem iron heads as the rules do allow aftermarket heads with some given guidelines.  But regardless, I did go forward with a plan to use a Y as my basis for this year’s competition even though I had last years Ford 427 Tunnelport backup engine still sitting here. Also available was a very stout 455 Buick engine being built for a customer with the latest in technology that was also offered up for the competition if so desired.

With the 312 engine that had been built for the 2007 and 2008 competitions being deemed unsuitable for this years competition, a new plan came to the forefront.  And that plan kept shouting “Go BIG!”.  And not talking about the 352 inchers that surface from time to time for a Y build but going with 402+ inches with a 4X4 bore & stroke combination.  Although 3.75” and 3.80” strokes had been used successfully in prior Y builds, it was time to see what a 4.00” stroke would look like within the confines of a Y block.  A stock cast iron Y 292 crank was ground to a 4.00” stroke on one journal for mockup purposes.  Playing around with this combination found that by using a Honda rod journal (1.889”) and experimenting with the base circle of the camshaft, everything could be made to clear with a 4.00” stroke.  Camshaft to connecting rod clearance is typically the issue when stroking the Y but the smaller rod journal size in conjunction with an aftermarket connecting rod that utilizes 3/8” rod bolts instead of  7/16” bolts helps significantly in this area.  But a smaller base circle cam was not going to help here in that I was already planning on using a camshaft with ~0.376” lobe lift to get in the 0.600” lift neighborhood at the valve. As a point of reference, the base circle of the cam could be no smaller than 1.150” and still have the lifters not falling out of their bores from the bottom side.  Using the 1.150” base circle with a reduced lobe lift would help in the rod to cam clearance department only if the lobe lift was maintained at 0.337” or less; but I am wanting to keep the lift at the valve in the 0.600” gross lift neighborhood which does put clearance issues between the rods and tips of the cam lobes back to the forefront.

Because the four inch bore block essentially failed, I’ll not go into much detail on how it was sleeved to get to that final bore size.  For the latest smaller bore block, a B9AE-F casting 292 non-steam hole block was selected.  Like the four inch bore block, the water jackets were partially filled to increase cylinder wall rigidity.  With the thin piston rings that are being used, it’s important to keep cylinder wall flex to a minimum.  This block was then fitted internally with the main support girdle from the 4” bore block which fits within the inside of the machined pan rails and at the same time crossbolts to the outside of the block.  After align honing the mains, the cylinders are then bored and torque plate honed to a 3.859” bore.

In the midst of all the work that was being performed, there was the ordering of the various parts of which lead times were a major consideration.  With the stroke figured out, a Moldex billet steel crankshaft with a 4.00” stroke and the aformentioned Honda rod journal sizes was used.  Rather than stay with a Y-Block flywheel flange at the rear of the crank, the flange was made the same as the FE and 460 Fords which solved the problem of locating the required SFI approved steel flywheel that’s mandated for the competition.  PRW supplied the necessary flywheel.  The connecting rods are manufactured by Oliver and are parabolic beams in design while being 6.750” long.   Being longer increases the dwell time at TDC and helps to make the engine less susceptible to detonation.  While the pistons for the 403 incher were by Wiseco, the pistons for the 375 entry are manufactured by Diamond.  Both sets are ceramic coated on their tops while the skirts have a special friction reducing coating.  The compression height (wrist pin location) is at exactly 1.000” which puts the wrist pin in the oil ring area and subsequently requires oil ring support rails to minimize any oil ring flex in the wrist pin area.  The wrist pin itself is 0.866” in diameter while a 9cc convex dish is used in the pistons to keep the static compression ratio at 10.1:1 for the 375 incher.  The dynamic compression ratio is 8.0:1 with the camshaft installed 1½° advanced and with the valve lash set at 0.025” hot.  This engine has to live with 91 octane fuel and oem iron heads which is why the static and dynamic compression ratios remain on the conservative side.  In theory, aluminum heads had they been available in time for this competition could have allowed for an increase in the static compression ratio while using the same 91 octane fuel.

The Moldex crankshaft as usual looks like a work of art.  Their craftsmanship as always is superb.  I deviated this time in crank design as the crankshaft is not fully counterweighted as I’m going for an overall lighter mass.  The 4” stroke fits within the confines of the block but some light massaging on the connecting rods was still required to insure adequate clearance to the camshaft.  Rod bearing clearances are held to 0.002¼” while the main bearing clearances are opened up to 0.0035”. The crankshaft was balanced to a 1630 gram bobweight value and this includes a considerable amount of overbalance or an increase in the percent value used for the reciprocating parts.  For harmonics control an ATI damper is fitted to the front of the crank.  I’m still working at this point on all those little details that will insure this engine revs freely to 7000+ rpms.

The piston rings are by Total Seal and were given considerable thought.  For the 375 incher, the top ring is 1.2mm wide with a 0.130” radial thickness while the second ring is 1.2mm wide with a 0.143” radial thickness.  The oil rings are 3mm wide with a 10lb pull.  The plan here is to keep ring drag on the low side without spending a ton of money on a set of custom rings.  Both the top and second ring end gaps are set at 0.018”.

Unfortunately the aluminum heads were not available in time for testing on the EMC engine.  As a result, a set of oem ‘113’ iron heads were ported and prepped for the engine.  It’s undoubtedly an understatement to say that it’s going to take some really good flowing heads to provide an adequate amount of air to feed 375 inches of Y-Block at 7000 rpms.  Valve sizes are 2.02” on the intakes and 1.56” on the exhausts and were originally configured for the four inch bore.  Too late to reconfigure valve sizes at this point.  No flow numbers on the heads simply due to a flow bench not readily available to work with.  This particular pair of heads are already heavily milled and are at 65cc’s and that’s simply due to the needs of the prior engine and not this one.  On the flip side, the smaller combustion chambers are expected to help from a performance standpoint as expanding gases that are the result of combustion can be more easily directed into the piston dish rather than reside in the head where the heat gets misdirected back into the water jackets.  Much taller than stock valves are ultilized which has the rocker shafts being relocated ~0.315” higher than stock in order to get the valve train geometry correct.  Both Dove and Rocker Arm Specialist 1.6:1 roller rockers are still being tested as of this writing so more on this in another article.

As of this writing, seven different intakes have been tested on the 375 incher.  The new Mummert intake has so far proved itself superior to the various Blue Thunder intakes that were tested.  Evaluated on a separate engine was the Cain intake manifold that was made in Australia but the torque numbers being on the lower end of the scale left this intake out of the testing being performed on the 375 incher.  Special thanks goes out to Peter Royale for sending the Cain intake and to Gary Burnette for sending a collection of Blue Thunders and a modified iron intake for testing.  Intake manifold testing will resume after the EMC competition on a +060 over 312 for a more detailed look at how the various manifolds compare to each other on a Y engine that’s more representative of what the majority have.

No deep pockets here so the camshaft was going to be a one shot deal.  I would preferred to have tried several different grinds but lifter pricing made it out of the question.  After much debate, the camshaft was custom ordered from Iskenderian Racing Cams with the following specs:  Duration at 0.050” is 254° Int and 258° Exh with the cam being ground on 109° lobe centers, lobe lift is 0.0370” Int and 0.376” Exh.  Before installing the camshaft at 107½° intake lobe centerline, it was balanced.  There will be more on camshaft balancing in a future writeup.

The oil system was kept simple.  Karol Miller had donated a new old stock iron gerotor style oil pump and other than being dissassembled and deburred, is essentially stock except for a 0.095” thick shim behind the bypass spring.  I still believe there’s a horsepower advantage to the gerotor pump over the spur gear design and will eventually get around to testing that assumption as an individual test somewhere in the future.  A rear sump design is being used for the oil pan in order to keep the inlet tube to the oil pump itself as short as possible.  The oil pan itself was made from sections of three different truck pans.  Rules were reasonably open in this area with the main restrictions being that the pan is not wider than the pan rails and no deeper than 12” below the crankshaft centerline.  Nothing trick in oil pan construction other than just making it deeper and adding some directional screening to keep the oil from being pulled back up into the engine due to crankshaft windage.  Seven quarts of oil including the filter is the plan.  There was debate about running with four or five quarts of oil but it’s simply not worth the risk.  Prior testing on a Ford FE showed no power level detriments with oil levels up to 9 quarts on an oil pan originally designed for 7 quarts.  There’s too much invested at this point to be taking risks with minimal oil levels that could lead to a premature or catastropic engine failure.  When this is all said and done, I’d still like to have a usable engine on hand.

Header testing took place on several different Y engines early on which gave a good feel as to what the EMC engine was going to need.  Jerry Christenson and Royce Brechler stepped up to the plate and provided a set of 1¾-1 7/8” stepped headers to work with while David & Robin Church at Metal Finishing Services contributed the JetHot coating on these headers.  Also being used as test headers are the 1¾” tuned headers from my 23T Altered racecar.  A future article will go into detail on the header testing as there are some interesting insights that were coming out of this in regards to what the Y engines were preferring in regards to header design.

Special thanks goes out to all that went out of their way to contribute parts, funds, and other support to make this happen.  Because some have requested anomymity, I’ll not publish the list at this time but it is lengthy.  At this point, I’ll just say “Stay tuned for the next installment”.   Ted Eaton.

This article was originally published in the Y-Block Magazine, Sept/Oct 2009, Issue #94.

The Holley 94 and 2100 two barrel carbs came as the standard equipment 2 barrel carbs on the 1938 thru 1956 Fords.  When converting the distributors on the Y-Block Ford engines from the original Load-O-Matic (LOM) design to the later model Ford (1957 and up) distributors, the Holley 94′s original distributor vacuum port for the distributor will supply an excess of negative pressure or vacumm signal to the late model distributors.  The original Holley 94/2100 carb port design uses an anti-spark valve as well as a speed sensing venturi port and a ported vacuum signal just above the throttle blades to provide the proper vacuum signal to the original LOM distributors.  All three of these work in unison to supply a vacuum signal to the distributor even at full throttle with the LOM system.  This is a good thing for a LOM distributor equipped vehicle but a bad thing for the later model distributors.

The LOM distributors did not incorporate a centrifugal advance and relied solely on the vacuum signal supplied by the carburetor in which to maintain the proper advance curve under a variety of driving conditions.  When using these carbs with the later model distributor which incorporates both a centrifugal and vacuum advance system, hooking up the vacuum advance without any carb modifications will provide an excess of vacuum signal to the distributor’s vacuum advance chamber at both idle and full throttle.  This in turn creates tuning and drivabilty issues as well as increasing the propensity for detonation.  Here is a pictorial in which to convert the Holley 94′s and 2100′s so that only a ported vacuum signal is supplied to the distributor and in turn makes this older model carburetor function similar to the ’57 and up carbs in both performance and fuel economy.

This is a first in a series of articles about engine families and their history/ idiosyncrasies. Eaton Balancing offers services for all types of engines.

Manufacturer: Ford Motor Company
Production: 1954–1964
Predecessor: Ford L-Head engine (Flathead V8)
Successor: Ford FE engine, Ford Windsor engine

The Ford Y-block engine was introduced in 1954 by the Ford Motor Company to replace the side-valved Ford Flathead V8 engine. It was later superceded by the Ford FE (Ford Edsel) engine in 1958 and the Ford Windsor engine (on smaller cars) in 1962 but remained in production until 1964 as a viable engine for the Ford truck lineup.   Regarding its 1954 introduction, the story goes that the engine was originally planned to be introduced in 1953 to coincide with the Ford Motor Company’s 50th anniversary but a nickel shortage that year (in part due to the military action taking place in Korea) delayed the planned introduction until the following year. But that extra year paid off in that the 239 (Ford) and 256 (Mercury) engines had very few new engine introduction issues and many of these engines are subsequently still on the road today. The same could not be said for the introduction of the 1955 Chevrolet 265 cubic inch engines which were confronted by a majority of warranty issues due to its rush into production. The last year for a Y-Block engine to be officially used in a Ford car was 1962.

Because this engine was the result of ‘clean slate’ engineering, there were many new design features not previously seen on a Ford production V8. Some of these features included full pressure oil filtration, counterweighted fuel pump concentrics, oil trough for timing chain oiling, valve guide oil diverters, shaft rocker arms, a single water pump, and staggered oiling at the connecting rod journals. Priority oiling to the mains was also a standard feature and was eventually reintroduced on the sideoiler 427 as an upgrade to the FE oiling system. Although some of these features were eliminated after the introduction of the engine as cost cutting measures, other improvements were also introduced during the course of the engines production life (1954-1964).  Some of these included the oil slinger at the rear of the crankshaft (1956), neoprene rear seals that would replace the original asbestos rope seals, a gerotor style of oil pump over the originally introduced spur gear style of oil pump (1957), the introduction of the disposable spin on oil filter in place of the cartridge filter sytem, and an upgrade of the Load-O-Matic ignition system to a more modern ignition sytem (1957).

Particular to this family of engines are the stacked intake ports at the heads and intake manifold. Instead of the intake ports being side by side as is the common practice, the intake ports are in pairs and stacked on top of each other. The thought process behind this is a larger port being available while leaving room for the optimum placement of the pushrods. The intake ports being stacked also contributes to the runner lengths being the same lengths or more equalized between all the cylinders which in turn makes for a higher peak torque than an engine with varying lengths of intake ports.

This family of engines is infamously known for having oiling problems at the rocker shafts which in turn is directly attributed to the poor quality of the oils at the time. The non-detergent oils in conjunction with the already slow flow rates of oil to the topend subsequently allowed the oil galleries to plug or stop up. This problem plagued the entire Y-block family of engines during all years of production and the common fix was to run a separate oil line from one of the main oil galley plugs in the block directly to the valve covers to a hollow valve cover stud which allowed oil to directly feed to the rocker shafts. By the original design and so that the top end was not flooded in oil, an oiling restriction was placed at the center cam bearing that forced the oil to flow through or around the center cam journal in a very controlled manner. The design of the restriction simply added to the problem of the slow flow rate of oil to the topend. The oiling problem was also compounded by a cast 2” long horizontal channel on the head deck surface which allowed non-detergent oil to sludge up in this area and also inhibit the flow. The modern fix is to groove the block behind the center cam bearing so that a full flow of oil at this area is restored to the topend of the engine and restricting any excess flow at the rocker arms. And of course, a good quality oil and a reasonable frequency to the oil changes also helps significantly.

Distinctive also to this family of engines is the rear mounted distributor and other than the LYB engines that were introduced in 1952, these were the only V8 engines offered by FoMoCo having rear mounted distributors. Another distinction on the Y family of engines are the center cylinders having the exhaust valves placed next to each other. This created some overheating in this area and was eventually worked around by the use of ‘steam’ holes in the block and heads to aid in some additional cooling and especially on those cars with low profile radiators such as those offered on the 1960 thru 1962 Fords. With the introduction of the FE and MEL engines in 1958, lessons had been learned in regards to exhaust valve placement and the new engines remedied this issue by either placing intake valves next to each other at the center cylinders or simply doing an even stagger of the valves down the head.

A quick reference of the engine specifications for 1955-57 will show the Ford V-8s ahead of the Chevrolet counterparts in displacement, horsepower and torque. The Y-block head provided excellent air flow and considered superior to the Chevrolet engines of the same time period. Although the Y-Blocks were on the heavy side, the real detriment was its displacement limit. The original architecture was very small and tight. Even with the benefit of today’s technology, (aftermarket rods and stroker cranks) the reasonable limit of a Y-block is about 352 cubic inches while the Chevrolet small block design could go well past the factory limit of 400. Simply put, with the ever increasing size and weight of the standard passenger car, the added parasitic losses for accessories like power steering, power brakes and air conditioning, cheap gasoline and the horsepower race all conspired to outgrow the first Ford OHV V-8 engine. It is interesting to note that both Ford and Chevrolet went to optional “big block” engines for 1958, 352 in³ (5.8 L) at Ford compared to 348 in³ (5.7 L) at Chevrolet.

Note that Lincoln introduced its own Y-block in 1952 and are more commonly referred to as the LYB (Lincoln Y-Block) or OHV (overhead valve). That engine was used in the various car lines through 1957 at which point it was officially replaced with MEL (Mercury Edsel Lincoln) engine that was introduced in 1958. The LYB engines did continue to be used in the trucks though through 1963.

239
The first Y-block was the 1954 239 in³ (3.9 L) Ford engine; known for its deep skirting which causes the engine resemble a Y. Rated at 130 hp (97 kW), it replaced the 239 in³ (3.9 L) Flathead which was rated at 106 hp (79 kW). The Y-block was considered a major advancement over the flathead. The 239 engines lacked the breathing abilities compared to the later model Y’s and the first year engines also had some of their own pecularities in regards to water pumps, fuel pumps, distributors, oil drives, oil pumps, and camshafts which made many of the parts on the 239 not interchangable with later model Y-Block engines. The early 239 engines also incorporated a washered 14mm sparkplug which was superceded by a tapered seat 18mm spark plug in 1955.

256
Introduced in 1954, the Mercury Y-block was the 256 in³ (4.2 L).   The 256 engine was available in the 1954 Fords for law enforcement use.  This engine was originally intended to be the Ford offering in 1955 and the 272 would then be the Mercury offering for 1955.   But the introduction of the 265 by Chevrolet in 1955 moved plans up in that the 272 was moved into the Ford spot and the 292 moved into the Mercury spot instead. The 256 engines subsequently were not offered in the Ford lineup and likewise, the 272’s were not offered in the Mercury lineup. The same interchange issues that were present with the 239 engines also apply to the Mercury 256 engines.

272
The 272 in³ (4.5 L) version was introduced in 1955. Most standard Fords used this engine with a two barrel version being rated at 162 HP. A four barrel version was offered and called the “182 HP Special”.  The 272’s were not a standard Mercury offering.  The 272′s were used in the truck lineup from 1955 through 1957.

292
The 292 in³ (4.8 L) was also introduced in 1955 and used in the Ford Thunderbird and Mercury cars (as the “Thunderbird Special”). For 1955, the 292 was not available in the Ford passenger car lineup except as an option when ordered by a government or law enforcement agency. For 1956, the 292 was offered in the Ford lineup as the Thunderbird V8 option while the 272 still remained the standard V8 in 1956. The 292 engine was also used in Ford truck lineup starting in 1958 and used through 1964.  The 292 was used in the Ford car lineup through the ’62 model year after which point it was replaced by the small block Ford engine. 

The 292 forged steel crankshaft available in the HD truck engines was popular with hot rodders in stroking the 289 V8’s. With some machine work, this part was used to upstroke the 289 V8’s to a 340 cid in combination with custom-made pistons and a .040 inch overbore (4.040 in. x 3.3 in.).

Ford Australia released this V8 motor as its only option in the 4 door sedan Customline for 1955 through 1959 (based on the Crown Victoria) and its utility based on the same styling as the Customline and called a Mainline.

The 292 version of the Y-Block engine was used in Argentina in the F-100 Pick-up well into the sixties, and was known as Fase I (Phase I). Later in the sixties, the engine was modified to accept a new-style cylinder head with a different valve arrangement (E-I-E-I-E-I-E-I versus E-I-I-E-E-I-I-E) and was re-named the Fase II (Phase II). In this form, the 292 Fase II continued into the eighties in the F-100, and in addition, was also used in the Argentine Ford Fairlane (built from 1969 to 1982, and based heavily on American 1968 model).

The 292 Y was used in Ford produced vehicles in Brazil until 1975.

312
The 312 in³ (5.1 L) engine was offically introduced in 1956 and was again used in high-end Ford and Mercury cars including the Thunderbird. Documentation exists showing this engine was available in 1954 as a test engine and for purpose built vehicles but was not offered in any production vehicles until 1956.  1957 was the last year the 312 was offered in the Ford cars while 1960 was the last year it was offered in the Mercury lineup.  The 312 engines incorporated a larger main journal size than its smaller counterparts (239, 256, 272, 292) but these crankshafts are popular with the hot rodding segment in that the mains can be turned to the smaller journal sizes and easily placed in the 292 blocks.

The 312 was available with a 2 barrel carburetor, a 4 barrel carburetor, two 4 barrel carburetors, and a McCulloch (Paxton) supercharger. Although the supercharged engine was factory rated at 300 HP, general concensus is that none left the factory at less than 340 HP.

Quickest Y-Blocks on record.
Randy Gummelt eclipsed a thirty plus year old Australian record when he traveled the measured standing quarter mile at 8.15 seconds at 163+ mph. This was done at National Trails Dragway located at Hebron, Ohio, Sep 3, 2005.

The Randy Gummelt record held until August 16th, 2009 when Bob Lindsay ran a 7.966 and 171.46mph in the quarter at an Oregon track.  Bob’s vehicle of choice is 180″ front engine dragster.  Congrats go to Bob.

Fastest Y-Blocks on record.
Karol Miller, 155.844 mph, 1956 Ford Victoria, Feb 14, 1958, Daytona Beach

Largest Y-Blocks on record.
412 cubic inch. Awaiting permission to publish name and details. Doubt anyone is going to beat this one with a factory block.  The next one down from this is a 403 incher which was a 4.00″ bore X 4.00″ stroke using a fully sleeved block.  Using a stock bored block without sleeves, a 375 incher is an easy put together.  Eaton Balancing used this combination in the 2009 Engine Masters Challenge competition.

If you have documentation of a quicker or faster or larger Y than previously stated, then please email me the pertinent (and documented) information. Thanks. T.Eaton.