|
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:38 PM
Posts: 442, Visits: 5,733 |
| | I don't know if it was me who had mentioned that problem but I had to grind a little on the driver side valve cover to get it to clear the Blue Thunder manifold. It is toward the rear, I think the part of the casting where bolt goes through the manifold. I don't think that raising the rail is a good idea. I have barely enough room between the master cylinder to get my valve cover off. That is without power brakes. I am running a 'vette master cylinder but I don't think this will matter a whole lot. I think that many of the people who buy these heads will have upgraded there brakes with a dual mc and probably disc brakes.
Norcross, GA |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:14 AM
Posts: 282, Visits: 503 |
| | Thank you Charlie, for your reply. Sounds like a minor thing that falls under the " if it aint broke, dont fix it " category. I didnt realize that power brake booster clearance was a more important issue. |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:15 AM
Posts: 92, Visits: 159 |
| | I would hope to see 1.92 intakes & 1.60 Exhausts, as standard issue with capability of 2.02/1.64 for the race end of things. |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:15 AM
Posts: 92, Visits: 159 |
| | Maybe some R & D on Combustion chambers that are better than that of the ecz-g, c, or the 471's could be useful esp. for the performance & efficiency end of things. Some on this site are always looking for the possibility of using ethanol. Maybe some would be interested in more efficient burning of the fuel in relation to the newly modified runner alterations & flow characteristics these castings would have. |
| |
| | | Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:06 PM
Posts: 15, Visits: 140 |
| | Reading Ted's head's thread's, there is only one reason I would buy new heads. My ECZ-G's gave up the ghost and I couldn't find another ECZ-G or 5752-113 set to port. Given that: 1) As the restorer on a budget, I'd want a 100% authentic looking, 100% backward attachment compatible, 100% performance optimized, durable-as-dirt cast iron, posted, ECZ-G type casting, hardened seats, sbc 2.02" intakes, sbc 1.60" exhausts, sbc valve guide seals, sbc valve guide boss OD's, sbc valve spring shim compatible, 0.600" valve lift capable, flows as good as John Mummert's race port (so I don't have to port them myself), available in 69, 72 & 82cc's, starting with 69cc's. 2) As the racer with deep pockets, I'd want heads as mean as the best of the best sbf's, aluminum naturally, 100% sbf intake compatible giving full access to best air and fuel intake combinations sbf owners enjoy - even fuel injection), optimized to the Y-block's smaller cylinder diameter, in a variety of combustion volumes from pump gas to blowers. Either option offers more rpm breathing potential than a stock Y-block bottom end can safely handle. To fully tap that, in addition to head cost, one would need to upgrade the intake manifold (either find and port an ECZ-9425-B or invest in a Blue Thunder), carburetor (600 cfm or better), fuel pump (1/4" NPT in/out), fuel line (3/8"), fuel tank (1/4" NPT out), oil pump, oil pump drive, connecting rods, pistons, rebalance the crank, upgrade the cam, lifters, push rods, rocker arms if 1.43's, valve springs, retainers, locks, harmonic balancer, add a skirt brace + + + .... 312 owners might even consider a stronger 292 block to drop their crank in. Then there is the vintage drive train. Neither vintage Ford-o-matics or standard manual 3 speeds are up to what these heads can dish out. Count me as an option 1) 69 cc head buyer Jerome |
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:37 AM
Posts: 309, Visits: 666 |
| Ted: I'm probably not in the market for aluminum heads, but it occurs to me that some of the modifications that have been suggested, which could effect pushrod lengths, rocker arm stands, valves stem length, rocker covers & so on, "if' required for the new heads, will run the cost of an already expensive conversion up considerably. For many possible customers, it may make the whole thing cost prohibitive, thereby reducing potential sales, in an already limited market.. Just my thoughts on it..
Paul |
| |
| | | Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:41 PM
Posts: 32, Visits: 177 |
| | It would be nice to redesign the chamber shape, so we could use a round hole type head gasket like all the later Fords do. The odd-ball shaped headgasket/combubustion chamber opening limits the ability to have really good head gaskets made. A circular hole in the gasket would make O-Rings easy to do as well. If a windsor/scrub combustion chamber can use flat-tops and make compression and use a circular head gasket, what would it take for a Y-Block to do the same if were are improving it. I would prefer the heads use as many stock parts as well. Head gaskets would be easy and cheap to get custom made if necessary.
Pat Fleischman
|
| |
| | | Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:37 AM
Posts: 309, Visits: 666 |
| Pat: I'm sure many who are into max performance would agree with your suggestions re the chamber & head gasket problem. However.. I don't think Mr. "Ricardo", who's theory was used in the combustion chamber design of the Y-block, would appreciate you calling it "odd ball"! Apparently, the design was for high quench & hi turbulence, plus as I understand it, Ford engineers for saw higher compression ratios in the future, for more efficiency. We had them for a while, but unleaded fuel & emission standards killed that. Also, the design was intended to be more detonation resistant that a regular wedge chamber. And probably is.. I don't claim to be an SAE or anything, so Ted or other engine Gurus here, might want to comment further..
Paul |
| |
| | | | |
|