Before removing the Mummert aluminum heads from the dyno mule engine, a morning was spent in trying several other intake setups on the heads.  Final conclusion is that many of the early intake designs are going to be a bottleneck on the aluminum heads in the upper rpm ranges.  No surprise there as I see this also on ported iron heads.  For many of these intakes though, the low end torque values were still very strong which is a credit to the flow properties of the new aluminum heads.  The Mummert aluminum single four intake is still by far the best overall performer of all the intakes tested to this point and compliments the aluminum heads nicely.

And here are a pair of graphs comparing the Cane and Mummert intake manifolds on the aluminum heads in a back to back test.  In this instance, the intakes were simply swapped with everything else remaining basically the same.  A variety of carbs and carb spacers were tried on the Cane manifold and what you see here is the best dyno pull with the Cane intake that resulted from that exercise as compared to the Mummert intake.  The carburetor ended up being the same for both intakes.

I've made tons of sketches of Y-Block intakes that will go past the limitations of our current street dual plane. I know some guys are going to want 500hp and trying to find that in anything that is available now is going to take a tremendous amount of work. There just isn't an easy way to make a true race intake for the Y-Block.

Still thinking about it.

Could we have details???

John.  Here's some rambling thoughts on the subject.

Although I’ve only tested the Cain intake manifold on two different engines, the initial observation is that it does perform better with milder cams.  As the lobe centerline increases (overlap decreases), the lowend torque values do improve.  With the first homemade single plane intake that was on my Roadster, there was some reversion taking place at cylinders 1 & 2 although the intake was designed with full runners.  By making the runners longer and with a different degree of taper in the runners on the second fabricated intake manifold, lowend performance was significantly improved while the engine also saw an increase of thirty horsepower at its peak.  With no runners at all in the Cain intake, any overlap at the valves on adjacent firing cylinders really dampens lowend performance.  With this in mind, I may yet retry the Cain intake on an engine with a wide lobe centerline camshaft just to confirm this as this would just give another insight into intake manifold design while reaffirming my initial thoughts.

Using the same scoring methodology that’s been used in the past, here’s how each ranked from highest to lowest.

1885.4pts - Mummert intake with 1” 4 hole spacer and 750 Holley

1841.0pts - Ford ECG-D 2X4 intake with L1437 Teapot Holleys

1817.4pts - Edebrock 573 3X2 intake with Stromberg 97’s

1743.8pts - Ford ECZ-B iron 4V intake with 1” 4 hole spacer and 465 Holley

1728.3pts - Cain open plenum intake with 2” 4 hole spacer and 750 Holley

Here are a pair of graphs summarizing the overall performance of the various intakes that have been tested on the aluminum heads.  Interesting results to say the least especially in observing the torque curves.  You'll have to take into account that the 3X2 setup is essentially under-carburetted at this point as the manifold vacuum was increasing in the upper rpm ranges.

Porting,perhaps different carbs???

Do you think the 56 manifold with its more restrictive casting in the carb pads would be better or worse for horsepower?

Oldmics

Charlie, i came to same conclusion, the max figures seem to peak around 3600 rpm and that fits into everyday driveing range, most certainly any improvements on heads etc really keep the HP coming nearer top end range and should keep us further ahead of those other brands! Ted, big thanks for your informative graphs that make it easier to compare intake side of things.

Having never examined the ’56 2X4 intake in detail, I’ll just take a wild guess and assume it’s not going to perform as well overall as the ’57 2X4 intake especially where the head flow has been increased signficantly.  As intake manifolds get more restrictive, the lowend torque values do improve to a point but at the expense of the horsepower being lower.

At the bare minimum, port matching the Ford ECG-D 2X4 intake to the heads is expected to show a slight improvement.  Then interior port work and using Lincoln Teapot carbs would be next on the list.  Switching out to the Edelbrock 2X4 intake manifold would be the next logical change as it looks to have a better placement of the carbs over the intake ports as well as less restrictive intake runners.  Testing is really only the only way to validate many of these changes though as sometimes what looks like it will or will not work works out to be completely opposite.

STOCK. I think the passage on the right has been opened up some.

Radius upper runner entry and increase diameter of passage to lower ports.

Ports are smaller than gasket opening.

The Stromberg 97’s are unmodified and still jetted the same as when they were used in the 3X2 intake manifold testing that took place a short time ago.  The increase in vacuum in the higher rpm ranges points to the 97’s being on the small side for serious horsepower but being undersized does help to make the lowend torque numbers as good as they are.  With Barry Grant, Edelbrock, and Speedway all manufacturing brand new carbs for the older 3 bolt carb flange intakes, chances are good that overall performance can be improved without sacrificing lowend torque.

Haven’t tested slotted versus non-slotted on the B intakes.  Have bored out bores in the carb flange of the stock intakes though so they would accommodate larger bore carburetors but haven’t tested these against a dead stock intake manifolds either.

The stock intake is not overly responsive to the larger sized carbs and that’s simply due to the bottlenecking attributes (low flow numbers) of the factory intake.  The total engine package or combination must be considered when making changes and that means head and/or port work as well as any exhaust system mods must also be considered if contemplating intake manifold modifications.  The factory intake appears to be well matched to the stock heads but ends up being a bottleneck as the rest of the combination is being upgraded around the intake.

Here are a pair of graphs comparing the Mummert intake and a stock ECZ-B intake on a +030 312 (317 CID) iron headed engine combination that was dynoed recently.  The engine had a 228/238 cam ground on 110° lobe centers and installed 2° advanced.  The G heads being used were mildly ported and designed specifically for street use and with an automatic transmission.  A variety of carbs were also tested on this engine.

Ted, I still have this intake if you're interested in a test.

Gary Burnette had a B manifold extrude honed a few years ago.  Maybe that one is still around and available for testing and comparing with John's extreme manifold.

Besides what Gary is using on his vehicles, he has been generous enough to already send me an assortment of intakes for testing including an extruded iron intake and an extrude honed aluminum Blue Thunder.  This is on top of the extrude honed Blue Thunder intake I also have which was previously ran on the Church Brothers Thunderbird.

I’ve already done some preliminary dyno testing with the extrude honed intakes and these actually don’t perform as well as some of the hand ported intakes that are also here.  Gary and I have batted this back and forth and have come to the conclusion that the extrude honed intakes may be too slick on their insides thereby allowing some of the fuel to drop out of suspension before getting into the combustion chamber.  Gary has given me the go ahead to scuff up the insides and see if that helps.  The plan is to run the extrude honed intake again in the near future on a set of heads that will take advantage of the increased flow in the intake and then immediately ‘rough’ up the runners and rerun the manifold again to discern the difference.

The new rocker stands for the aluminum heads arrived today so a set, along with hardware, are also on the way.

How much work was done to the heads for the racer? I assume that you have a flow bench. I'd be really intersted in what gains have been seen and if the ported heads are still good for street use. Maybe even a run on the test mule?

Cheers

We do have 2 flow benchs and have done many hours testing and porting on these heads. Intake flow through head is 270 +-5 for all ports. With Intake manifold and carburetor 250 +-5 for all ports.

 This should put Ted over the 500 mark, but only time will tell.

Valves are 1.98" intake 1.54" exhaust.

I'll take your cost comment on board. Unfortunately the Y misses the economy of quantity other engines do. This wouldn't be the first aftermarket performance head to get ported (optimized).

I prefer to chase VE over capacity that I cannot fill. I was always taught to get the heads right first. I've gone back through the posts and cannot find where you state the cast intake flow, only as envisioned 260cfm. So at 270cfm the change is not significant. A great effort though to get from the cast G @ 172.  There was interest on the site before about porting I am interested if the porting affects the bottomend on a streetable engine.

It's all relative, I live on the other side of the globe I'd hate to order heads and get them only to find out that there can be a significant advantage in a small change and have to send them back. 

It's all relative, I live on the other side of the globe I'd hate to order heads and get them only to find out that there can be a significant advantage in a small change and have to send them back. [/quote]

Grizzly, i dont get what you mean referring to this paragraph?

At 270CFM the heads will run a 320 inch engine well into the 7000 RPM range. I wouldn't consider this with cast pistons, stock rods or main cap fasteners. That is why I felt that running the EMC heads on the mule engine was not a appropriate test since the redline would need to held well below the potential of the heads. A low compression 320 incher with an antique cam and low redline simply won't show the true potential of the EMC heads.

While we realize that some people will want port work done to the new heads, at the present time we have enough to do just to get them machined and delivered in out of the box form. This may change in the near future. More on that subject in a couple of days.

I , like you, live in Australia. I've been guessing that there will be development in the new alumimium heads in porting and other tricks once they are released. If I buy and have them delivered before I get the advantage of any development I either need to ship them back to the USA or risk someone else changing them. Hoping they can change the heads in the desired way.

It's all relative because I have the added consideration of Frieght cost to factor in.

Cool,  that's really great information. I was thinking that the as cast was 260cfm. 35cfm is a reasonable jump.

It's been discussed before that the new heads are close to the design limit considering intake, bolts, pushrods etc. It's great to see that you've put enough meat into the ports that there can be the type of change and still have a streetable motor. How much has been done was one of my original questions. Obviously a fair bit.

There is a point in which porting will be disadvantageous to bottom end on a street engine. As you are progressing with the other development please keep us posted. It's really exciting to see these development on the Y block. The new heads should turn some heads when released on the track.

cheers

Grizzly, i think john has designed these heads with basic improvements off the shelf to keep up with much worked G heads for the street driven cars, then if going racing you can port them etc to perform to their full potential, obviously with other bullit proof parts in the engine, race headers etc. I myself think it was a great challange to finally produce a product that can suit 2 different ends of demand! To only produce only high end racing heads, to a limited market then the costs wouldnt be worth the investment. I would think in your case with a basic street driven car (ute) that the standard new heads out of the box would be more than enough improvement in your case. I assume working out the cost of porting whatever good cast heads you could buy and the cost of the new heads would be a consideration. I allways remember Jim Broardly of  Diablo Motors sign above his door; Speed costs money! how fast do you want to go!" . regards bill.

yyy

Aussie Bill has nailed it in that the new aluminum heads in their out of the box condition are as good as you’ll ever port a set of iron heads for maximum flow.  Where the ported iron heads typically suffer on their lowend numbers, the new aluminum heads are very stout at the bottomend of the range as well as shining in the upper rpm band.  Best of both worlds with the 'out of the box' aluminum heads.

As John mentions, there are no plans to put the highly ported aluminum heads on the dyno mule.  That wouldn’t give much meaningful data without a camshaft change at the very least while the bottom end of the dyno mule is definitely not 7000 rpm capable.  Both the freshly ported aluminum heads and another set of rocker stands are here so there are already plans on putting the EMC engine back on the dyno next week and getting some baseline numbers for that combination.

Gotta love that statement, it only comes out when you've got too technical for the mechanic and it's time to walk away. Time to find a real mechanic

Looking at other ford small blocks I notice that the Cleveland flows 230cfm and 284cfm for small and large port (respectively) wasn't the large port used on a 302 Boss. For stout street performance during the muscle car era??

I think you guy's are too used to looking back at at old y performance and not looking ahead to what can be now obtained

cheers

Grizzly, not sure what to make of that ! but i think you dont realize the vast performance improvements made with many fast times and HP increases proven here by members, and their cars while keeping with the original themes and history of these engines etc. I cant help feel you are keen on the various theorys but they are not really suitable to everyday road speed driving. Hope this helps. regards bill.

yyy 

Do ya think?

If someone wants to duplicate the performance of a Boss 302 in a Y-Block you could max port a set of the new heads and put them on a 272 (BOSS-Y or Y-Boss ?). Now to really duplicate a Boss302 you would also need to over cam the thing to death, as the Bosses were. The cam would not run below 4500rpm even in a 351.

The factory tech in 1970 wasn't all that advanced. Ford didn't understand port velocity or chamber shape. In the 1990's there was a hugh market in the US for Australian 302 Cleveland heads because the 4bbl US Cleveland heads had too large intake ports and the 2bbl heads had a horrible, detonation prone chamber.

Making power doesn't just mean big ports, big carb, big cam. Also, street power is totally different from dragstrip power.

When I quote an engine job I give people a base price and tell them "every time you say I want the price goes up". Now if you know where to get parts for free you might be able to build a better engine at no additional cost. I have not yet figured out how to install forged pistons for the same price as cast, or how supply aftermarket rods at the same cost as re-using the originals. Last time I ordered from ARP they wanted a lot of money for their fasteners. In short, the more power and RPM you try to wring out of an engine the better the parts need to be in the engine if you want it to live. Higher RPM=Better parts=More money!

I'll bite my tongue now

At the same time I ordered a 70 Torino GT sports roof with the 351 C 4V. 3.00 rear axle air and so on. The Boss 302 was a 13 second car. Running off with him he could open a car length off the line, then the Torino would hold the position, passing him (after the 1/4) as he ran out of revs. The big port heads worked OK on the Torino but they were NOT economical. I never did check the mileage on this one as I knew i would not like it. I would guess 12-14 on a trip. These heads were not a good design, poor exaust ports, sewer intakes. It seemed as a different school of thought took over head design in this era,taking a turn from the smaller port design of the Y and FE. This school of thought probably was first seen in the tunnel port FE's. Understanding quality of airflow as well as quantity has taken huge steps. John has done a super job on the new heads. This is shown by the horspower, well above predictions, and fuel flow observations by Ted on the Dyno.

We need to think a 400 Hp Y that is very streetable can become common place. The short block is not the contributer to horsepower that the heads, intake, carb, and cam are.   

"Speed costs how fast do you want to go". Rubbish.

Method 1. Ok I decide to rebuild my 312.  I decide that it will just be rebored and not interfered with in terms of capacity. I could (should) have my rods resized but instead I buy a set of BT rods and sell my old 312 rods on ebay. I can have a set of performance rods at little or no cost. Especially compared to what I needed to outlay to recon.

Method 2. I decide to save some cash on a rebuild and go with someone that says that can do it at less than the bloke down the road. Or I get talked out of performance component because “Speed cost” “just how fast do you want to go?” I have an engine failure. Or because of the restriction the part I saved on restricts me from what I wanted in the first place. This costs me a second rebuild or sell and move on.

Informing myself by asking questions and finding and realizing limitations builds a better engine and saves as it eliminates the need for a second rebuild because the limitation were not realized in the first place. Do as good as you can first up and never have to look back

Method 3.  I read a great internet article on performance parts and horsepower robbing components. The guy in question rebuilt a 302 using H beam rods, light pistons, moly push rods etc, to realize a 10% gain in performance without changing the parameters of the engine. 10%. There would be a saving in fuel costs and this engine would last longer. Performance parts that are often considered strengthening or reliability improvements can be also considered performance parts. If you used Ted’s test mule with alloy heads and added these parts to gain another 10% how sweet would that be? There is bang for buck in these components. Cost savings in engine life and fuel can be considered.

Method 4. The other end of the spectrum. I have a unlimited budget I want a Y block that delivers a certified dyno tested 1000hp and have it so streetable that my wife can drive it to church on Sunday.  “Speed cost, just how fast do you want to go?” indicates that with money you can go faster and faster and have just what you want. Impossible as there are limitations.

I have had experience with most of the above examples including both of the examples in method 2.  Both Mechanic’s (I use the term loosely) favorite statement was “Speed cost, just how fast do you want to go?”

Lastly my first passion is motorcycling I have three Moto Guzzi. If you think costs are high for a reasonably common 8V try buying stuff for an obscure Italian V twin. I bought Carillo rods. A set (pair) $1400 the last standard OEM cast piston I bough was almost $500.  When things go bust on a motorcycle you don’t necessarily quietly pull over to the side of the road.

I thought you guy's lived in the USA where free thought, free expression and justice for all prevailed. 

I had asked about using the race heads on the test mule for a number of reasons. The first tests showed “proof of concept” the heads showed improvements across the rev range on a typical engine with minor modifications. Scientifically the test showed that the old heads formed a restriction across the range when compared to the new.

With the information that only the race engine was to be tested with the ported heads. I asked if they could be tested on the “mule”. Thinking that even if the lower end showed a drop in performance we’d have a parameter or an indication of what won’t work. Often the best indicators are when something doesn’t work. If ported heads did work at low RPM the bar would have been raised.

The Y block should be able to support a head that have good flow because of piston velocity. A longer stroke compared to other engines of similar capacity should support better flow. High piston velocity provides better VE and higher torque at low RPM because of the ram effect.

Given that a 341cu/i is a possible street engine. About 10% larger than standard. Is it too much to expect that you would want a 10% increase in flow?

I understand the level of porting but we are in a development stage and looking for parameters by finding extremes.

Grizzly, I have built engines with a fairly standard short block and added performance parts like cam, intake, ignition, better exhaust ect. This can have good results within limits and not break the bank. A reasonable redline must be kept or the whole thing may be short lived. In that regard I agree with you. Some guys spend money needlessly. If you are building a 312 for a 57 T-Bird that will only be used for parades and Sunday cruises you probably don't need forged pistons, billet flywheel, head studs.

I am not familiar with BT rods. Don't know of any rods that will fit a Y-Block that can be purchased for the core value of 312 rods.

Why did you pay $1400 for 2 connecting rods? This seems to reinforce the "More speed costs more money" frame of mind.

If you are saying that taking the cheap way out can end up costing you more money in the end I agree whole heartedly.

Charlie,

I’m all for some decent discussion but some of what you have said are straight insults.  There is a lot of BullS#*t in the performance industry. Unfortunately I have run into several examples who instead of discussing outcomes in a logical and informed way shove “speed cost, how fast do you want to go?” in at a very early stage.

It equates money to horsepower in an equation and in a linear way. It does not equate to the multitude of different directions that you can go with a rebuild. It ostracises those on small budgets or those who require less. It does nothing to encourage thorough tuning of engines and correcting setup.

If you’re wanting a rebuild and spending whatever level of your hard earned cash, you need to ask questions. People who know their product are usually only to happy to stand behind it with information and facts.  “speed cost, how fast do you want to go?” puts up a wall. Where can you go with this? Throw some idiot some cash and hope they know what you want intuitively? I doubt it! I’m sure they would never take advantage?

John,

Yes I am yes. If you take the cheap way out It will end up costing you money.

The BT rods are your's $325 a set if I read right. If you consider the price of resizing they are cheap. The risk of using a 50year old possibly stressed part.

$1400 carillo's direct from carillo. 15 years ago original rods were $465 each. Carrillos are 100 grams a rod lighter.   

Cheers

 Patience is a virtue, there are multiple development projects going on as we speak with the alum. heads. They are being laid out for specific purposes and reasons.

  The one thing that should be pointed out is that in todays age parameters can be laid out very accuratley to taylor certain projects. The old days of trying what I would call off the wall things just to see what happens aren't really neccesary. 

Dyno testing will be performed to back up different levels of performance.  Giving customers the most for their money is a priority with the new heads wether it be as cast or at different levels porting. Camshafts for the new heads will also be available

 The expected delivery date for the 2nd batch of heads will be some time in October. I don't think anyone will be let down.

Carbs and spacers have been tested to death. YBM issue #108 covered an engine build where just three of the basic carb spacer designs were dyno tested. Here’s the link to that article. http://www.eatonbalancing.com/blog/2012/09/29/carburetor-spacer-testing/

The latest issue of the YBM (#120) goes into detail on the effect of the slot in the plenum divider which gives some insight on how that slot affects the torque values by itself. For the most part, each engine combination likes something a little different but there are some trends that do come to the forefront.

.

John’s intake as well as the Blue Thunder intake works well with almost any carburetor but head flow is the key here. With either of these intake manifolds, stock heads prefer smaller sized carbs while cylinder heads with increased flow capabilities will make more power with larger carbs being used. This is simply a case where whichever piece has the minimum flow values, be it the heads or the intake, dictates the optimum cfm of the carb being used.

.

There are very few instances where the intake port runners would be sized smaller than the heads if looking to maximize power numbers. It essentially boils down to the intake manifold simply needing to outflow the cylinder heads if wanting to maximize the benefits of any cylinder head flow increases. Out of the box Mummert and Blue Thunder intakes do this in fine fashion on most home ported cylinder heads. When porting the aluminum heads, then porting the aluminum intakes becomes prerequisite simply due to the intake manifold still needing to outflow the heads in order to maximize any head porting benefits.

.

The factory ECZ-B intake was well matched to the factory G and 113 heads but if the heads are ported, then the intake needs to be appropriately ported so it can keep up with the cylinder head flow requirements.