I figure this question from Daniel deserves a new thread which in turn will help to keep this topic separated from the 3X2 testing thread.

This is great information for all of us, and will prove worth its weight in gold in the long run, and for many years to come in my estimation...where is HOT ROD magazine when you need them? Wish we could set that record of the Y block's ability for excellent TORQUE and HORSEPOWER numbers at the same time. To me, the Y block tends to be an engine that delivers an awesome torque:horsepower ratio at many levels of engine rpm. From what I have read and seen, our engine responds well to subtle changes and the direct proportion of the numbers tend to remain solid over a good range of rpm.

Many people still do not believe the torque and horses coming out of a mild 292, .060 over, that installed in my old Club Sedan a couple years back. With stock G heads and the 1.54 rockers and stock exhaust (ok, she does have glasspacks) and a B intake, much juice was still being delivered to the rear wheels through the "horspower robbing" Fordomatic. Albeit a standard transmission would deliver better numbers to the rear wheels because of the rpms and such, I think old Henry knew what he was doing with the engine and transmission combinations with the known info at the time of manufacture.

Real world testing like yours lets us know solid figures and performance numbers on the same engine (a constant configuration). Believe me, being a school administrator I know a little bit about science projects, hypotheses, theories, abstracts, control groups, experiments, and the like. You are right on the money with this project.

Sounds like a good science project for my son one of these days! Can't you just see us backing up to the gymansium/science display center unloading an engine test stand with a Y block on it trying to answer the hypothesis that questions which intake flows more volume, etc??? Awesome!

Good observations, except one minor point.  Ol' Henry didn't have anything to do with the Y, he died in 1947.  But the groundwork he laid in the '40s paid dividends in the '50s.

When we did back to back testing of ECZ-B and Blue Thunder a number of years ago we found 2900 RPM to be the break even point. The engine was a 332 cu in street engine with a good set of headers and well ported ECZ-G heads.

On another engine the original flat exhaust manifolds were nearly as good as an old set of Hedman T-Bird Tri-Y's. The Y-Block just doesn't like 1-1/2" headers from the testing I've done.

One of Henry's best ideas (well, not too related to cars, but it was related to machinery) is Greenfield Village up in Detroit, MI. I took my kids there 2 summers ago - my kids are 6, 8, and 11 - You would have thought they were at Disney World! They just loved it. I had a hard time pulling them away. His foresight to preserve some of America's most treasured history was truly ahead of its time. By the way, my family just loved riding around in Model T's all day to see the sights...a real credit to Ford engineering and longevity.

Definitely the exhaust system.  The exhaust system that was being used originally on the dyno mule was a set of Reds/Hedmans headers connected to a set of lead pipes 2” diameter about four foot long.  No mufflers.  The engine was unresponsive to timing and jetting changes with that system but was overly sensitive to air changes that were taking place over the course of a days worth of testing.  It wasn’t until the four tube headers and mufflers from the EMC project was installed on this engine without any other changes that it became clear that the other exhaust system was holding the engine back.  The Y engines in general appear to be much more sensitive to exhaust system design than many of the other engines I’ve tested.

As a side note, the 1.4, 1.54, and 1.6 rocker arm assemblies were tested after changing out the exhaust systems and each upgrade was worth ~3 horsepower.  That’s a six horsepower increase going from the 1.4’s to the 1.6’s.  That particular test took place while the Edelbrock '573' 3X2 setup was on the engine so figure about a 1% change or increase in horsepower output for each incremental step up in rocker arm ratios. 

In the exhaust issue department, What are the best diameters for headers and exhaust systems for a healthy street car?

should primary's be 1 5/8", 1 3/4" and what size collector? should the rest of the system be 2" 2.5" or larger?

I wanted to start making my own set of headers is why I am asking this.

This information may be in previous threads somewhere in the past, but have you run any comparison tests between a modified ECZ-B intake vs. Mummerts intake?

Rono

For a pump gasoline 352” Y with ported aluminum heads, here are the summarized dyno results when testing a pair of modified ECZ-B iron intakes against a trio of ported and unported Mummert aluminum 4V intakes.  The Mummert intakes are not to be confused with the Blue Thunder intake manifolds.  Although the same 750 cfm Holley carb was used throughout this particular intake test, each intake was optimized with the appropriate carb spacer and jetting.  In reviewing the best sets of data for each tested intake, I do see where all the carb spacers were 2” in height but the style did vary somewhat.  What you see here are the best results for each intake that was tested as each manifold was tested with a variety of carb spacers.

1.      Fully ported ECZ-B iron intake still retaining the four carb holes, 455 HP and 429 TQ.

2.      Fully ported ECZ-B iron intake with two ovals instead of four holes, 472 HP and 442 TQ.

3.      Mummert alum 4V intake stock out of the box (no porting at all), 487 HP and 443 TQ.

4.      Mummert alum 4V intake fully ported with no divider, 499 HP and 450 TQ.

5.      Mummert alum 4V intake fully ported with divider, 502 HP and 451 TQ.