|
By Shaggy - 6 Years Ago
|
|
I cant think of any, sure there are cars with solids, but i cant come up with any that were not even plumbed for hydraulics. Heck, off the top of my head i cant even come up with a 6 or 4 that was solid-only. I find it odd that ford was this far behind the times.
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 6 Years Ago
|
|
I believe the '58 332 cubic inch FE had solid lifters. The FE high performance engines used solid lifters.
|
|
By Sandbird - 6 Years Ago
|
|
All Studebaker engines had solid lifters including their R Series performance engines of the 60's.
|
|
By MoonShadow - 6 Years Ago
|
|
As I recall the school of thought was split in the beginning. Some believed solid lifters were the only way to go. I can remember people getting solid cams and lifters to put in there modified motors to get more out of them. It's like everything automotive, when something new comes out there are always those that resist the change. How many true stick shift cars do you see around in the late 20th century.
|
|
By 1960fordf350 - 6 Years Ago
|
|
My dad had a 77 Dodge Aspen with a 225 straight 6. It had mechanical lifters.
|
|
By Shaggy - 6 Years Ago
|
MoonShadow (1/7/2018)
As I recall the school of thought was split in the beginning. Some believed solid lifters were the only way to go. I can remember people getting solid cams and lifters to put in there modified motors to get more out of them.
I understand the whole reason for solids in a performance engine, especially before anti-pump up lifters and such and i understand for a reliability standpoint(boats, industrial, ect), but for a mild performance motor it seems like an odd call when dodge had them in '54 and scrub had them in 1950.
As mentioned stude v-8s had solids, but they were introduced well before the Y-block in '51, the slant 6 came out in '59 and was solid only when introduced so i guess it fits the bill
|
|
By PF Arcand - 6 Years Ago
|
At a guess, I suspect Ford engineers were being cautious because the engine was also intended to be used in Medium duty trucks. Further, as I recall many early hydraulic lifter top ends tended sometimes to be troublesome, possibly because to the oils of the day. It's my understanding (but I stand to be corrected? ) that 1950s oils often contained paraffin which tended to promote sludge, particularly if oil changes & crankcase venting were neglected...
N.B- Further, for what ever reasons, the Y-Block was designed with solid "mushroom lifters" which probably couldn't be hydraulics..
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 6 Years Ago
|
|
I have a '68 Chilton manual that lists Chrysler products 273/318 V-8s with solid lifters at least until '68.
|
|
By 2721955meteor - 6 Years Ago
|
58 fe 332 aswell 406 and 427 had no oil galleries for hyd lifters 352 361 428 had the oil gallery drilled for hyd. all fes had a seperet gallery to lube the rockers,think oil came up a head stud hole and into the rocker shaft via a short hole in heads. i read some later 427s for marine had hyd
lifters tho never had 1 apart. 406s had a different lube system with 2 relief valves,high pressure at pump,and secondary relief at rear of the main oil gallery. flywheel had to be off to axcess. can't understand why ford went to mushroom lifters when the lincoln and truck engines had non mushroom type. will be interesting to hear from one that knows. the overhead valve tractor engines also had mushroom leavers
|
|
By Ted - 6 Years Ago
|
Here’s my two cents worth on the subject.
If Ford had wanted the hydraulic lifters in the Ford Y, it would have been no problem in casting the block accordingly. From a cost standpoint, solid lifter engines are less expensive to build than hydraulic lifters which may explain why the Ford/Mercury Y (239/272/292/312) had solids while the Lincoln Y (317/341/368) had hydraulics. Hard to say why the Ford Y was blessed with a mushroom tappet design other than Ford had previous experience using mushroom tappets in the Lincoln flathead V8, the 226” flathead six cylinder, and the 9N/8N tractors. At the time of the Ford Y introduction, it was customary to adjust the valves on a routine basis thus making it a regular maintenance item on many vehicles in that era. This was the norm for many engines produced in the early Fifties which made it acceptable on the less expensive car models.
The ’49-’51 Lincoln with the 337” Flathead V8 had mushroom tappets that were hydraulic or self adjusting in nature. These lifters did have a 0.715” shank diameter rather than the ½” shank diameter seen in the Ford Y but it’s still a mushroom tappet design. While the Y lifters have a 1.000” pad, the Lincoln lifters have a 1.160” pad. Here are a couple of pictures of the ‘Flattie’ Lincoln hydraulic mushroom tappet.
|
|
By Shaggy - 6 Years Ago
|
This has been a good read.
PF Arcand (1/8/2018)
Further, as I recall many early hydraulic lifter top ends tended sometimes to be troublesome, possibly because to the oils of the day. It's my understanding (but I stand to be corrected? ) that 1950s oils often contained paraffin which tended to promote sludge, particularly if oil changes & crankcase venting were neglected...
In my understanding most of the issues were with shaft rockers being plugged and killing rocker assy's, which Y's were known for too. I know one of my 303 olds's is plumbed for oil from a galley up to the rocker shaft which was also a common kit for Y's of the era too. I guess i could see the lifters themselves getting plugged too
|
|
By FORD DEARBORN - 6 Years Ago
|
Greetings to all: I will attempt to pass on some information from a dear long time friend and I'm not great as expressing myself in text so please bare with me. Recently the subject was brought up regarding Ford"s reasoning for using solid lifters in the Y-block to which Ted and others brought up several very good points. After reading those posts I Immediately picked up the phone and called my good friend to pose the same question. My friend is probably one of the few surviving engineers directly involved in the Y-block development program still in good health, spirits and active in the automotive hobby. He also very fondly remembers several of the engineers mentioned in the Eichman book. While I am old enough to fondy remember the Y when it was introduced in 54, I was, at that time, too young for automotive employment. So I'll try describing the points from 65 years ago my friend remembered along with a few other interesting procedures employed in the experimental and dyno lab. It sounded like it was a deliberate intention to stay with solids for the Ford Y, not just for the cost factor, buy rather to keep the valve train light, to mention a few. It was determined the Y valve train was a very good stable and proven design. Rocker adjustments common in the day, were indeed attempted to be eliminated by developing, on the Y, 0 lash rockers. That is, a rocker fitted with a spring loaded eccentric to "wedge" into the rodker-to-valve stem space. It was very difficult working out the problems to make this mechanism reliable. Evidently it did work good, but not for long until the mechanism failed or wedged in too far preventing valves from seating. 0 lash rockers were abandoned as far as the Ford Y was concerned. (I believe Ford did equip some 6 cylinder engines around 1960? with these special rockers though.) It was also explained how technicians in the lab became very proficient at changing cams and lifters without turning the engine upside down. Most of us have or are aware of using clothespins to retain the lifters up into their bores so the cam can be removed and replaced. To remove the lifters, a tray was fabricated such that would allow it to be inserted into the cam tunnel, then releasing the clothespins from above, allowing the lifters to fall into the tray. If it was important to match each lifter to it's lobe, then one lifter was released and withdrawn at a time. To install, one lifter was placed horizontally? on the tray "hooked" to a rod like device that allowed the technician to manipulate it while being sighted from above, then fished up into it's bore with a magnet. Since a lifer is taller than a cam journal, my mind is running high gear thinking of this "hook" device because my friend could not remember the exact details or it. Hmmm, wish I now had a block sitting in the garage to test this method. If anything, this may be some food for thought. I hope my text is comprehensible and all Y Guys find it as interesting as I have. Please keep in mind this information is from someone's memory of 65+ years ago and is not, as of yet, my experiences. Thanks for reading, JEFF.........................
|
|
By PF Arcand - 6 Years Ago
|
Another possible factor is while the Ford Y-Block was introduced in 1954 (in the U.S.A) I read that they wanted to get it into production for the company's 50th anniversory in '53, but it didn't happen one way or the other. The point is the design pre dated that other unmentionable engine by more than it appears..
|