|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
Well I went to Olympia,Wa. this weekend and picked up my "new engine". I'm going to ask you fellas to please identify this block and the heads. I am new at this and i will offer my reasearch and question after. That way I can tell if I'm coming to correct conclusions. Kind of a way for me to grade reasearch skills if you will. Going to try and load a few pics, here goes.......   
|
|
By Cliff - 9 Years Ago
|
Looks like a 312 Ford to me, with 1956 Heads
Cliff
|
|
By Oldmics - 9 Years Ago
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh Huh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oldmics
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
|
First thanks cliff, oldmics, I did figure it is a 312. This engine was sold to me as a 292. That's why the request for an ID. just wondering why the guy t
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
|
There go my fat fingers again! Sorry. As I was saying, wondering why he said it was a 292?!? Now for the heads, I was under the impression through MY research that the ECZ G heads were 57. I know the pics are less than ideal, but the heads ARE marked "G". Where did I go wrong? Where do I find the correct info? I checked John Mummerts' page and Tim McMasters'. How am I reading the castings wrong? Thanks for your help. Rowen
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Years Ago
|
The head looks like ECZ-C to me. G heads also would not have the casting number between the exhaust ports as pictured. C's are still decent heads, from the 2nd most powerful year.
|
|
By MoonShadow - 9 Years Ago
|
By the way it looks like you scored on this engine!
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks Charlie for the clarification on the heads. Ill have to look a little closer when I get home. The old eyes arnt quite what they used to be. Thanks to you as well MoonShadow, yes I think I did. It has had 8 sleeves installed. The crank has been ground and polished. It also has a clay smith cam in it as well. I don't recall the grind off the top of my head. I have the card at home. The heads have been ported, hardened seats, with the 1.92(?) intake valves. Oh and they and the block have been decked. The pistons are forged domed Mummert with all clevite bearings throughout. It has been stored for the last 3 yrs in dry storage and was bagged. Minor serface rust on the heads but I think a wire brush will take care of that. New lifters, push rods, and rocker arms. 115# springs, and more that I can't remember. With my 57 dual quad intake and two of Sals teapots I think it will be a very nice motor for my 55CV. And the price was right. The paper work says near $2900 in parts and labor and that does not include the cost of the cam, pistons, rods(balanced), timing set, rings, etc. I paid, don't know if I should post this, $800 for all. It was stalled project for a young man that life caught up with and couldn't finish. I feel VERY blessed indeed!! AND it's a 312, not a 292 ta boot!! Looking forward to putting it together and gettin it installed. Gotta change out my 6v harness first though as it is cracked EVERYWHERE with a lot of repairs over the last 60 yrs. it will be 12v when it happens. Anyway, thanks guys for all your responses. Ill be back with more info and questions later. Rowen
|
|
By Cliff - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Not scored, a HOME RUN
|
|
By 62bigwindow - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Home run for sure! If you need or want a set of G heads pm me I have a couple sets laying around.
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
Ok I believe I have this figured out. As near as I can tell, The gentleman sleeved the 312 down to a 292. I measured the new pistons, and they are 3.75. And my reasearch tells me that what I have on my hands is a stroked 292. I took some pics that I will post here. The rods are ECZ. The crank has what I believe is the "correct bung" at the front of it. Now I was lead to believe that the pistons are 10-1/10.5-1. Honestly that is part of the missing paper work. And while I'm on that, I see no "Mummert" marking. But I'm not sure if he marks his parts. Ill send a e-mail and ask. So until I do more reasearch (and with your help, I will learn this engine. I am determined to make this a fun, local daily driver!! Oh, and smell burnin rubber every day till I die!:0)
So here are the pics and I look forward to your feed back. Thanks   7ab.jpg[/img]
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
I'm to long winded.....more pics..... 
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
Sorry just one more..
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Years Ago
|
Mummert's pistons are made by a regular piston company, so his name probably wouldn't be on them. The piston in your picture looks a lot like I remember of the Probe pistons I got from him for my engine.
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Yes sir, it says probe on the box!
|
|
By PF Arcand - 9 Years Ago
|
A couple of things caught my attention; Sleeving a 312" down to 292" is an unusual procedure, I wonder why? However, it's likely fortunate it wasn't sleeved out from a 312" piston , as that apparently can result in a much weakend block. And you may know this already, but just in case you don't, the Cam you have is likely the one that Mummert sells as the Y-292-S. It's a street & strip race cam. It has a nasty idle..
|
|
By Y block Billy - 9 Years Ago
|
|
You should check with Mummert if it has not been done already but the valve guides may need to be shortened a bit with that lift to be on the safe side. Cam will be nasty, I have the 272 cam from him and love it in my driver.
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
Thanks Paul, Billy,
Yes, I think you both are correct. I was looking at Mummerts site just last night and I couldn't agree more! The 272 cam seems to be a much better fit for me. First, I intend to keep my Ford-O. At least foe now. I may change it out, but that is is in the future. Second, as I said, I have 3 yrs till I retire and this will be my daily driver. I don't this cam will be practical for that.
So charlie, you saw my pistons and I believe you are correct. What cam are you using? What application, daily driver, drag car? What is your opinion of me going to the 272S cam? It seems a good fit for me.
Billy, if I go down to the 272, do you still think I might have to shorten the valves?
I really want this engine to be reliable and perform well. It will NOT ever be a race motor. But that is not to say I won't take it to the track every once in a while! :0)
I have to get back to work so ill look forward to hearing back from you fellas!! You guys are the best!!! Thanks, Rowen
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Years Ago
|
My cam is a repro of the blower cam. The Y-270-S is probably the most similar that John currently offers. The biggest difference is probably that mine is on 112 degree centers, rather than 108. According to his chart, the 270 is about the biggest you can go and still use the auto without hassle. Mine is probably 99% daily driver street use and 1% strip use.
I also removed the dome from my pistons because the ultimate plan with the engine is to apply some boost. If you plan to stay naturally aspirated, you will want to leave some of the dome. You'll probably have to remove some of it to make it friendly with pump gas, but that will depend on the heads you end up going with, too.
If the heads were properly setup for the 292-S, then the 270-S will work just fine with those heads. If you use another set of heads, you will want to check the clearance but it will probably be fine. And it never hurts to future proof the heads and go ahead and ensure that you have enough clearance if you choose to go with a bigger cam later. If you check the valve to piston clearance, you will know the max lift possible and you can go ahead and set it up for .500-.550", if possible.
|
|
By Rowen - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks for your input Charlie, yep, I think I'm gonna put this up for sale and go with the 270S. Like I said, I'm keeping the Ford-O till I either blow it up or get a bunch more money to swap. As near as I could tell from the conversations I had with the builder, the heads are set up for this cam. So I gather from your post, that the 270S cam will work without modifying the pistons?
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Years Ago
|
For valve clearance, they will be fine. If the compression is 10-10.5:1, you'll probably need to get that lower to run on pump gas. Ask John what he recommends for the 270 cam and mill the domes or get larger chamber heads to reach that ratio.
|
|
By Canadian Hot Rodder - 9 Years Ago
|
Charlie,
FYI I am running the Y-284-S cam from Mummert and even with a stick it does not like to idle below 1000 rpm. Also I am running 10 to 1 compression on my stock G heads (dome Mummert / Probe pistons) and I am able to run on the 91 octane that is sold around here.
|
|
By PF Arcand - 9 Years Ago
|
On the cam selection: Mummert's site says the 270-S is o.k. with a Fordomatic, It's a 108 LSA cam, & he suggests headers. However, pre made in chassis headers for those Fords are not readily available. So, for a daily driver with exhaust manifolds, he says the 265-S works well with the Fordomatic. It has a 110 LSA, so will likely idle a bit better. Either cam should not need the valve guides to be trimmed. It's your choice..
Note; Mummert's chart shows the 265S cam right below the stock early ( & later than 1957 cam), which from a performance point is is a bit misleading. However, as he notes down below, he does not handle the stock 1957 cam, which had more duration and lift than the listed regular cam. I presume this is because the Clay Smith company does not make that grind. The only place that does that I know of is Oregon Cams of Vancouver Washington.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Years Ago
|
Rob, You can usually get away with more static compression with a bigger cam because the dynamic compression tends to be lower, everything else the same. Your same ratio with a smaller cam might be too much.
|
|
By miker - 9 Years Ago
|
I'll second CHR on the 284, it's what's in the F code motor in my roadster.
I did a cam change last spring, and here's an articles members here sent me . Further in it gets to load centers and valve sizes.
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/0607phr-camshaft-basics
Here's a dynamic calculator. I think it's different from what Ted uses, but the results where close.
https://www.uempistons.com/index.php?main_page=calculators&type=comp2&zenid=8e9027fc60bbc5227c417444b739f709
|
|
By DryLakesRacer - 9 Years Ago
|
|
Check out Bullet Cams in Mississippi. They list hundreds of grinds. They be grinding the new roller cam for my GMC 6 Howard 12 port head engine. Good luck..
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 9 Years Ago
|
Miker: INTERESTING link to the July '06 PHR article by David Vizard and Johnny Hunkins. A VERY comprehensive article regarding camshaft selection and related valve train components. I was surprised that dynamic compression ratio was not dealt with in greater depth. Maybe I need to read the article again. 
The link to United Engine & Machine's 'Effective Compression Pressure Ratio Calculator' is interesting, too. It's different from what I've seen referenced in other threads here on the Forum. Below is the link to the Wallace Racing calculator.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php
THANKS for the links, Miker!
|
|
By CK - 9 Years Ago
|
It's interesting in the hotrod article where the rockers are discussed that the exhaust can benefit from .1:1 less lift than the inlet?
Has anyone experienced this or have any thoughts regarding? Being we have that variation with our std rockers 1.43:1 and 1.54:1.
And I like the lobe separation chart too, cubes to overlap.
It brings my 296 to an ideal 108-109 LSA
So this is how I understand compression. Compression dictates the operating speed of the engine amongst other things, and the faster the engine operates the less each individual cycle may induce making it a smaller combustion event, yet more frequently occurring. And this creates a higher HP (HP=the amount of work done in time). And alternatively the slower the engine operates a greater volume can be induced (yet less frequent) requiring a larger combustion chamber( lower compression) to achieve a correct combustion event.
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 9 Years Ago
|
CK. Backing up just a little bit to the chart Vizard suggests for tie-ing the relationship of camshaft LCA to engine displacement...
I was also taken with Vizard's information pertaining to the relationship of valve size to engine displacement in considering the valve timing overlap interval for a given displacement.
The more I THINK I 'understand', the more complicated selecting a camshaft seems to become. And even IF the engine build for your purpose (intended use) IS correct, you've got to have the gearing (transmission and rear end) coupled with tire size to complement the vehicle's weight.
FUN! 
|
|
By 314 - 9 Years Ago
|
|
those are 57 G heads the casting number tells all.73G built1957 march 6.
|
|
By LordMrFord - 8 Years Ago
|
Vizard's LCA formula might not work well with Y with big valves and poor flowing runners.
I dont know but I presume.
My cam is grinded with Vizard's methods but with one cam only you dont get wiser.
|