|
By 55blacktie - 9 Months Ago
|
Just curious, but have any of you ever acquired a set of Argentine "Fase II" heads and compared them to our American "Phase I" heads? Has anyone asked John Mummert why he stuck with the stacked intakes when he designed his aluminum heads?
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Months Ago
|
My guess as to why he chose to go with the stacked ports is cost, both for him and the customer.
The US, I will assume, is his biggest market and stacked ports are nearly exclusive, apart from any Fase II engines that might have been imported by a curious individual. Creating heads that use the Fase II ports requires a unique intake, headers or manifolds, distributor, camshaft and possibly a few other items I'm not thinking of. I would not be surprised if all of those extra items effectively doubled the cost of the heads, since all of it would be required, rather than only the heads.
It may be possible to design them so that small block intakes could be used, for instance, but that might introduce other limiting factors, like the ability to fit everything under thee hood, potentially limiting buyers.
Bottom line, I think he chose to stick with stacked ports because that is what's practical.
|
|
By Hoosier Hurricane - 9 Months Ago
|
|
I read somewhere that stacked ports were better for more equal flow from cylinder to cylinder. It was easier for pushrod spacing than with side for side ports. However, Lincoln Ys had side for side ports, so maybe that statement was just hype.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Months Ago
|
Total runner length can be closer to equal with the stacked ports which probably does help to make flow more equal. However, stacked ports will have different short turn radii for upper and lower ports, probably favoring the upper port for best flow.
|
|
By 55blacktie - 9 Months Ago
|
Charlie, I understand your reasoning, but of all of the parts you mentioned-heads, intake, exhaust , cam, distributor, in my opinion, the heads are the most important and most costly. John's aluminum heads are now $3,700. I have non-posted G heads, but the cam, distributor, and headers that I have & intend to use, were all added expenses. Hood clearance? With the possibility of 55-57 Tbirds (I have a 55), I don't know if hood clearance (or lack thereof) was a deciding factor for going with stacked intake ports. None of the possibilities mentioned deterred Ford from manufacturing the "Fase II" heads. Cams, manifolds, and distributors are all less complex and less costly to design and manufacture than cylinder heads. I can't help but question the logic of Ford's designing and manufacturing the "Fase II' heads, if they were inferior to "Phase I" heads.
I don't mean to be critical; if I were, I wouldn't be putting a Y-block in my 55.
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 9 Months Ago
|
|
Faze II heads are similar to the 221-260-289-302-351w heads because the Y block and SBF have the same bore spacing, and the 292 crankshaft can be modified to fit the 289 for a stroke increase. Ford could have switched over to the SBF in S.A., but instead of changing all the equipment, it was much cheaper to simply change the heads, intake, exhaust and keep the Y up to the late '70s on into '80s in their cars. I am sure there are other reasons, but these are what I have read about in the past. Joe-JDC
|
|
By charliemccraney - 9 Months Ago
|
55blacktie (2/2/2024)
Charlie, I understand your reasoning, but of all of the parts you mentioned-heads, intake, exhaust , cam, distributor, in my opinion, the heads are the most important and most costly. John's aluminum heads are now $3,700. I have non-posted G heads, but the cam, distributor, and headers that I have & intend to use, were all added expenses. Hood clearance? With the possibility of 55-57 Tbirds (I have a 55), I don't know if hood clearance (or lack thereof) was a deciding factor for going with stacked intake ports. None of the possibilities mentioned deterred Ford from manufacturing the "Fase II" heads. Cams, manifolds, and distributors are all less complex and less costly to design and manufacture than cylinder heads. I can't help but question the logic of Ford's designing and manufacturing the "Fase II' heads, if they were inferior to "Phase I" heads. I don't mean to be critical; if I were, I wouldn't be putting a Y-block in my 55.
The cam, distributor and headers you chose are relatively high production, low cost items, compared to the specialty items that would be required to work with a unique design of head, where those items only work with those heads. The cost would be significantly higher for those items you bought for your build, if you were using a hypothetical Fase II based head. .
You misunderstood what I said regarding hood clearance. I did not suggest that Ford went one way or another in favor of hood clearance. I suggested that as an alternative, to save on intake R&D and tooling costs, the hypothetical Fase II styled head could be designed to be able to make use of off the shelf small block intakes. However, doing so requires that you use whatever is available, with no control over fitment and that can lead to compromises (thermostat housing and radiator hose, throttle linkage, intake height, etc.) that may not be favorable to most. Maybe it wouldn't but that cannot begin to be determined until the design process is well underway.
Since Ford designed the Fase II engines, they do fit the vehicles they were intended to fit. That's the point I was trying to get across, if you design the whole package, you have full control but possible compromises that may be made in an attempt to reduce cost may compromise the fit.
|
|
By Ted - 9 Months Ago
|
Here are some early morning ramblings.
To summarize all that’s been mentioned thus far, the Phase 2 (Fase II) heads are a completely different cylinder head and was an Argentina design that came into being long after the Y production stopped in the U.S. The Phase 2 heads require a different camshaft, different firing order, different intake manifold, and different exhaust manifolds. Small block Ford (SBF) orientation for the valve layout was used which made the current design SBF exhaust manifolds a bolt on. The SBF valve layout also required a camshaft that would accommodate that revised layout and that in turn required a different firing order. A standard Y distributor works with just a change in the wiring on the cap. The Fase II intake manifold likewise has the SBF layout on the ports but is an Argentina Y engine specific piece. Not sure if a 4V intake manifold was available for the Fase II engines as I have only seen 2V intakes on those. Very few of those Phase II engines made their way to the States so there’s not much if any demand for parts for those engines here.
John obviously wanted a cylinder head that would be compatible with the vehicles made in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Hence the stacked port layout on the aluminum heads as there was already a multitude of aftermarket intakes available that would work with the stacked port design. The stacked port heads are obviously a money maker while any Phase II aluminum head production here would not have come close to covering tooling costs. There’s more background history on how the aluminum heads came into being but is lengthy and reserved for a coffee shop conversation.
Another thing to consider are the cam blanks for the Fase II engines. They are different and with the cam blank manufacturers not making low volume blanks, having camshafts available for a limited production cylinder head was not going to take place without an expensive buy in. Cam blank availability for many of the mid-Fifty’s engines are no longer available.
The dual plane intake design for the stacked ports is a superior design to what you see on the majority of the more ‘modern’ V8 engines. The plenum floor under the carburetor for the FYB is the same depth on both planes. This aids in maximizing the torque production on all eight cylinders whereas on a more conventional V8 where the plenum floor is deep on one side and shorter on the other, you have four cylinders making more torque than the other four. All the dyno sees is the average of all eight cylinders.
Here are some links to previous threads on the subject.
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost47961.aspx
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost41341.aspx
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost28056.aspx
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost7806.aspx
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost7036.aspx
|
|
By 55blacktie - 9 Months Ago
|
|
Best answer yet; thanks, Ted. However, It still doesn't make sense to me why "Fase II" came into being. For me, it would have made more sense to either continue using the Y-block/w stacked ports or eliminate it altogether when the Windsor small block came onto the scene, as was the case here in the states.
|
|
By darrell - 9 Months Ago
|
|
they didnt change for the same reason they kept the same models for years.they didntmake enough cars to make it pay.they were set up for the y block and they had to stick with it.
|
|
By 55blacktie - 9 Months Ago
|
|
Darrell, in other words, you're saying that the South American factories could no longer build a Y-block with stacked intake ports after 1964, but they could come up with a modified Windsor-based head to replace it? That doesn't make sense.
|
|
By Ted - 9 Months Ago
|
|
To make some sense of what took place, it’s easier to put this in a chronological timeline. Ford cast 292 and 312 blocks for U.S. production until the end of 1967. Those were used for warranty, service replacement, industrial, marine applications, and over-the-counter sales. Up until 1969, Argentina was using the original Y design for their own applications. Comes 1969, the SBF head was adapted for use on the Y block as it was narrower than the stacked port design and was a better fit for the narrower engine bay in their next generation Fairlanes also being introduced in 1969. At this point in time, the new design was designated as Phase II making the original design Phase I. It must be noted that the original FYB stacked port cylinder heads were much more complicated to cast than the SBF head design so that likely helped in the decision to retool a new head for the Argentina Y-Block.
|
|
By darrell - 9 Months Ago
|
thats not what i said.they build both heads for years.they used the same car body style for years.same as brazil and others they didnt make enough cars to change every second yearsame as engines
|
|
By KULTULZ - 9 Months Ago
|
This TECH ARTICLE may help to explain the reason(s) -
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cc-global/cc-global-ford-argentina-fairlane-with-292-v8-the-y-block-gets-a-high-performance-second-act-in-argentina/
https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showthread.php?t=287906
|
|