Tag Archives: Randy Gummelt

The Ford Y-Block engine

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 For
d 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 It was later superceded by the Ford FE (Ford Edsel) engine in 1958 and the Ford Windsor engine (on smaller cars) in 1962 but remained in production as a base V8 engine offering through the 1964 model year 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 the MEL (Mercury Edsel Lincoln) engine that was introduced in 1958. The LYB engines did continue to be used in the trucks though through 1963.

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.

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.

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.

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 blocks continued to be cast and assembled as both short blocks and complete engines for warranty, industrial, and marine usage until late 1967 although they were no longer being put in any trucks after 1964.

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 while a gasoline 272 Y was used in the F-100 until 1977.  Ford kept the 272 engine on large trucks until 1980 with these running on alcohol.  These 272 alcohol engines are rare though as they are high compression and as alcohol fuel became priced closer to gasoline in the mid eighties, the engines were swapped out for either gasoline or diesel engines of other makes.

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.

Although 1960 was the last year the 312 was factory installed in a vehicle (Mercury), the blocks continued to be cast and assembled as short blocks and completed engines for warranty, industrial, and marine usage.  Starting late in 1961, the C2AE reinforced main block was used for both the 292 and 312 engines and these were cast up to the end of 1967.




Quickest Y-Blocks on record.
Randy Gummelt eclipsed a thirty plus year old Australian record originally set by Bob Saint James (9.10 seconds at 173 mph in 1974) 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.

Bob Linsay.  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.  Keith Cornell, Rolling Bones Group out of New York, 1932 Ford with 342″ Y-Block, 175.539 mph at Bonneville on 8-17-2011.  Keith Cornell, Rolling Bones out of New York, 1932 Ford with 342″ Ford Y-Block, 183.742 mph at Bonneville on 8-14-2012.  Keith Cornell, Rolling Bones Group out of New York, 1932 Ford with 352″ Ford Y-block, 188.563 mph at Bonneville on 8-11-2013.

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 using a billet 4″ stroke crankshaft.  Eaton Balancing used the 375 cubic inch combination in the 2009 & 2010 Engine Masters Challenge competitions.  At the 2016 Engine Masters Challenge, Eaton Balancing took a first place win in the Vintage Engine class with a 375″ Y-Block producing 603 HP in normally aspirated form.

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.

Building the foundation for an eight second Y-Block.

When Randy Gummelt and I set out to build a Y engine for his rear engine dragster, the plan was to have an engine combination that would run an eight second quarter mile. And Randy also had his sights on the Australian Y record and with a target of an 8.99 or better et, that plan would achieve both goals. By now, it’s pretty well known that Randy ran a best of 8.15 @ 162mph at the Y Shootout during this past Labor Day weekend at Columbus Ohio so the plan was definitely a good one. But to back up a bit, in order to accomplish this it was necessary to figure out a workable combination and then to start gathering up the necessary parts that would make this combination work. Thus the plan starts to take shape as follows.

C2AE-C BlockFor the basic foundation, it was decided to use a C2AE-C block due to these particular castings being known for their consistent thicker cylinder walls as well as the additional main support webbing that is already present in these blocks. For an aspirated version, I normally have no issues in boring these particular blocks out to 3.860” (+0.110” over) but because this was to be a serious blown effort, the finished bore was targeted at a smaller 3.800” bore to maximize cylinder wall integrity and in turn reduce any chance that cylinder wall flex would potentially kill or hurt some of the power. Part of the reason for going with a 3.800” bore versus a 3.810” bore was being able to get in on a special run of Total Seal brand 1/16” wide gapless rings for a 3.800” bore that were being made for one of the Nascar teams. The 3.810” bore 1/16” wide rings were already available as an off the shelf item but being in a position to make the bore and stroke ‘square’ was more conducive to the overall plan. Because of the supercharged nature of this engine, the top ring would be gapless by design as opposed to normal practice of using a gapless style ring in the 2nd groove in a normally aspirated application.

It was determined early on to use a Moldex crank in order to get the desired 3.800” stroke. To facilitate this much stroke and free up some much needed clearance at the camshaft , 2.000” rod journals were specified to bring the rod bolt area of the connecting rod inboard and away from the camshaft. To permit the use of an economically priced SFI approved flywheel, a scrub bolt pattern on the flywheel flange was called for and the face of the flange was spaced ~0.420” further to the rear or away from the engine. This additional spacing was to eliminate any spacers between the flywheel and the torque converter while still maintaining the pre-requisite 0.100” freeplay in the transmissions front pump. The C2 block already incorporated 292 main bearing sizes and so the main journal dimensions were sized as standard 292 size which at least kept main bearing selection both simple and inexpensive. The crankshaft is fully counterweighted which means eight counterweights versus the normal six and even with the additional weight afforded by the extra counterweights, lightening holes were needed in the crankpins to facilitate balancing without an extreme use of heavy metal or tungsten. Both the leading and trailing edges of the counterweights are bullnosed or rounded in shape; no knife edging on this crankshaft.

Going to the front end of the crankshaft, the snout was mandated as 1.600” diameter as opposed to the stock 1.250” diameter normally seen on a Y. This allowed the use of the more readily available BBC blower hubs and drive hardware while also reducing significantly any deflection that occurs due to the blower belt pulling heavily on the crankshaft snout. Through the use of a Y marine cover, the crankshaft snout was shortened even more which reduced any potential deflection even further. Although 3/16” woodruff keys (#9 if you’re ordering them) were employed for the timing gear and basic drive hub allignment, an additional groove was machined into the crankshaft at 180° from the other keys so that ¼” keystock could be employed to insure no key failure at the drive hub for the blower.

The 2.000” rod journals made it possible to use the considerably less expensive Eagle 6.125” long H-beam connecting rods that were available as an off the shelf item. Even though the connecting rod cross-section was dimensionally smaller by using the 2.000” journal, there was still less than the required minimum of 0.050” clearance to the camshaft. Although only a pair of connecting rods actually had interference issues with the camshaft, all the connecting rods were subsequently modified to insure that they would clear the camshaft in the event of a catastrophic camshaft timing failure.

Pistons were a custom order item from Wiseco. These pistons maintain a minimum of 0.260” thickness in their decks for the blower application and incorporate an inverted dome (dish) that adds 27cc’s to the total cylinder volume. Because of the unavailability of a pair of usable 471 heads while gathering up parts, it was decided to use the 113 castings which were attained through and already ported by John Mummert. Because the pistons were going to be custom built regardless of the head being used, the particular head in regards to the chamber size being used was not a major player as the piston dish size could be altered in which to compensate and still maintain the targetted 7.5:1 compression ratio. But had 471 heads been available, then a more desirable ‘D’ shaped dish in the piston would have been used. The particular piston blank that was being used to make the pistons only had a given amount of deck thickness which limited dish design when using the smaller chambered 113 heads. The compression height (pin location) for the pistons is 1.715” which places the top of the piston at a calculated 0.010” in the hole for deck clearance.

This basically takes care of the parts required to put a rotating assembly together for the bottom end other than the main support girdle and that’s already been covered in a previous article. Future articles will go deeper into blueprinting and camshaft specifications as well as some of the other modifications that were required to put a final assembly to the engine.


Originally published in the Y-Block Magazine, Mar-Apr 2006, Issue #73

Blueprinting for an eight second Y-Block

Like any engine that’s in its planning stages, particular care must be paid to that engines intended use in  order to select the correct parts and maintain those clearances that would be considered optimal for that combination.  In the case of the blown engine for Randy Gummelt’s rear engine dragster, I’ve already covered some of the parts selection as well as the main support girdle construction in previous articles.  At this point, I’ll cover in more detail some of the specific clearances and specialized machine work that was required to make Randy’s engine a reality.


The C2AE-C block was rough bored to 3.797” and the main journals align honed so that the engine could be initially dry assembled.  The rotating assembly was installed within the block without piston rings which allowed for some preliminary measurements to be made and in particular, connecting rod to camshaft clearance and determine how much would be required to remove from the deck surfaces to obtain the desired piston to deck clearance.  Used bearings were installed on the crankshaft at this stage to prevent any potential damage to the new bearings.  There are no deep pockets in this operation so saving a buck where possible is always a consideration.  Upon removing the rotating assembly from the block, the head bolt holes in the block are drilled and retapped to ½” X 13 and the cylinder bores are notched at the intake valve locations to both aid flow and increase valve to cylinder wall clearance in this area.  Care is taken to insure that the cylinder wall reliefs do not protrude into the top ring area when the piston is at top dead center.  The block is now ready to go back to the machine shop for final cylinder wall honing and block decking. All the hardcore machine work on the block including align honing the mains was performed by Lonnie Putnam in Gatesville, Texas.


The Moldex steel crankshaft is fully counterweighted which alleviates some of the balancing issues that comes from using heavier connecting rods and piston combinations as well as potentially reducing some of the crankshaft flex that can be associated with high horsepower and/or high rpm applications.  The crankshaft was balanced using a 2015 gram bobweight value which includes a calculated amount of ‘over balance’ to compensate for the blower application on this engine.  As a point of reference, a typical bobweight value for a normally aspirated stock Y-Block rebuild will fall in the 1960-2050 gram range.


The Eagle H-Beam connecting rods are an off the shelf item that are 6.125” long and specific for a 2.000” journal and work with the 0.927″ pins being used in the pistons.  These were surprisingly quite economical and should be considered viable options in even a moderate performance build up as opposed to just reworking stock rods.  The rods did however require some modification at the top of the rod bolt area in order to clear the camshaft adequately and this is a result of just pushing the stroke out to 3.800”.  Although only a pair of the connecting rods would have required specific modification for adequate camshaft lobe clearance under a normal camshaft timing event scenario, all eight rods were clearanced in the event of a catastrophic failure in the cam drive.  Minimum connecting rod clearance to the camshaft was targeted for 0.050”.


The Wiseco pistons are machined for 1/16” rings in both the first and second grooves while the oil groove is the common 3/16” size.  The top ring is also spaced 0.330” down from the piston top instead of the more typical 0.250” spacing.  The rings are provided by Total Seal and have a gapless style top ring which was deemed a necessity considering the supercharged nature of the engine.  The main thought process here is to minimize the amount of alcohol that’s ‘blown’ past the pistons and into the crankcase.  Of lesser consequence but still worth considering is that gapless rings also minimize the amount of leakage that’s created by cylinder wall wear which equates to 0.00314” of additional ring gap for each 0.001” of cylinder wall wear in a standard production ring set.  Unlikely that this engine will ever see enough service to make cylinder wall wear and the effect on ring end gap significant, but is a factor regardless.

The Iskenderian camshaft is a custom grind and is designed specifically for this combination.  The lobes are placed on 114° centers while the intake/exhaust durations at 0.050” are 254° and 260° respectively.  Intake and exhaust lobe lifts are 0.350”/0.346” which provides 0.560”/0.554” intake/exhaust lifts at the valve before taking valve lash into account.  Dove Manufacturing 1.6:1 aluminum roller rockers are utilized with the rocker stands being altered in height in order to optimize the valve train geometry.  Isky 3/8” tubular pushrods connect the lifters to the rockers.  A Rollmaster timing set spins the camshaft and is 0.008” shorter than standard in order to bring the slack in the chain to the preferred deflection value of 0.180” or less.  Because the crankshaft snout diameter was increased to 1.600”, the crank timing gear was bored and honed for the proper fit and a new keyway slot for cam timing purposes was broached back into the gear.  The camshaft was installed at 112½° intake lobe centerline or 1½° advanced.


The ‘113’ heads were obtained from John Mummert who also took care of the required porting work.  Valve to piston clearances were checked during dry assembly and these measured out at 0.155” on the intakes and 0.210” on the exhaust before taking into account the head gasket thickness and valve lash values.  This was more than enough clearance and most of the excess in clearance could be attributed to the deep dish in the pistons.  While the heads were apart, the head bolt holes are redrilled with a 17/32” drill bit in which to accommodate the larger than stock ½” head bolts.  The ‘113’ heads require two different length head bolts on the top rows with the end bolts being longer than the center three.  To equalize combustion chamber volumes on both heads at 67cc’s, one head was milled 0.050” while the other was milled 0.055”.  Prior to final assembly on the heads, the gasket surface around each of the combustion chambers was machined by Don Chandler (Gatesville, Tx) for a groove that would hold a stainless steel sealing ring.  These wire rings work in tandem with the copper head gaskets being supplied by SCE that were 0.043” thick.  After setting the valve spring seat pressures to 135 lbs. (337 lbs ‘over the nose’ pressure), the cylinder heads are ready to be bolted in place using a custom set of ARP ½” head bolts and torqued to 110 ft/lbs.


A standard set of Clevite 77 main bearings (MS178P-STD) for a 272/292 engine are used with clearances being maintained at 0.0027”-0.0030”.  Clevite 77 rod bearings (CB663H-STD) keeps the connecting rods in their place with 0.0020”-0.0022” clearances.  Connecting rod side clearances were set at 0.022-0.024”.  Piston wall clearance is 0.0055” while ring end gaps for the Total Seal rings are maintained at 0.032” for the gapless top ring and 0.027” for the second ring.  The pistons themselves sit 0.010” in the hole when they are at top dead center.  Connecting rod bolts are torqued to 63 ft/lbs while the main caps are torqued to 75 ft/lbs.  The outer main girdle bolts at the pan rails are torqued to 18 ft/lbs.

Because the Enderle fuel pump for the injectors is mounted facing forward on the front of the marine timing cover, it required a special drive fixture to be located on the front of the camshaft and camshaft sprocket.  This involved more fabrication and ended up being a two piece affair which allows a hex drive to connect the camshaft to the pump.  The original tach drive location on the marine cover not only provides a location for bolting up the Enderle fuel pump directly in front of the camshaft, the marine cover also permits the blower drive at the crankshaft to be placed closer to the engine which in turn further reduces any flex or deflection on the crankshaft snout caused by the blower belt.


The one component on this engine that remains relatively stock is the oil pump.  The oil pump is a Dynagear P/N DM-42 which is a gerotor (gerorotor) style pump but utilizes a cast iron body instead of the aluminum body normally found on that same style of pump when offered by FoMoCo.  The pump was simply disassembled, checked for any flaws and clearances checked, and reassembled with the only modification being the addition of a 0.150” shim on the bypass spring in order to boost the cold start oil pressure.


Engine break-in was performed on an engine dyno so the engine could be appropriately loaded but was done so before actually installing the 6-71 roots style blower on the engine.  The break-in process was performed using standard carburetion rather than the blower setup; a Blue Thunder intake and a List #1850 600cfm Holley took care of this chore.  After break-in, a single dyno pull was made with the carb in place which peaked 321 HP @ the 5750 rpm cut off point.  Not too shabby for a 7½:1 compression ratio, being over cammed, and no carburetor or ignition timing adjustments.

The blower was then installed and subsequent dyno pulls were made.  Due to ignition constraints, the engine was cutting out (ignition breaking up) after 5500 rpms but still managed to make 642 HP (6000rpm) and 644 lbs torque (4750rpm) before the ignition problems would ultimately terminate the dyno session.  The ignition problems were eliminated when the engine was installed in the chassis by utilizing an MSD crank trigger ignition.

Although the engine is allowed to shift at 6500 rpms in the course of running it down the track, it has bumped the rpm limiter at 7800 rpms during the burnouts.  Teardown of the bottom end to check bearings after a number of quarter mile passes still had everything looking fresh and new even with the given amount of alcohol that was making its way into the pan.  So far, so good, and continues to make quarter mile passes with minimal problems.

 Originally published in Y-Block Magazine, Issue #76, SEPT-OCT 2006

Addendum:  As of this writing, the best et has been an 8.15 second pass at National Trails Dragway.  There have been a multitude of low eight second passes at Texas Motorplex in Ennis but all these have been with the tires breaking loose at mid track and the car just coasting thru the traps.  Even the addition of a wing did not help.  Final conclusion is that the chassis is simply too stiff along with the wheel base being too short for this combination.                           T.E.