They're in 5th place with only 7 more entries to go!! Watch for more....

                                         Cross yo' fingers

                                                Bill

P.S.  Lon, They be "fix'in" things....

Jerry suffered a lifter failure on the dyno in Minnesota. He was actually 1st alternate and wasn't guaranteed a spot.

The meeting room was packed when the Y ran and the crowd was awed when the score was posted and then placed at fifth place.  Have a great crew with me including Harry Hutten and some good calls were made during the tuneup session.

The team and I are still more than pleased with this years Y entry though.  The Y engine was finally taken out of quarantine earlier today and We'll pack it back in the truck sometime tomorrow.  I'll try to post some more tomorrow evening as at that point the final placement will be finalized for all but the top six.

Here's the link to the video again that Charlie previously linked to.  This video was put together by Neil Elliot of the Car Shop of Temple, Texas.  The team besides myself consisted of Neil Elliot, Jody Gunter, Jody Orsag, and Harry Hutten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbPl24ncqa4 

Ted, would you be willing to speculate on similar or slightly higher specific output with a smaller package say in the 320 to 340 CID range? Such an engine would require somewhat less exotic pieces. Also were the heads as cast or were they tweeked by you or John or a Divine hand?

Like John F said, it gives you a great feeling to watch that video, kinda like watching one of your kids doing great in a sporting event. 

Again congratulations to All involved in this great stage of the Y-Blocks rebirth.

Regarding the heads they were definitely ported. Intake valves are 1.98" as opposed to 1.94 in standard heads. We felt that a 375cu in engine could use the larger valves. In more common displacements the 1.94" will be sufficient. Exhaust valves are still 1.54".  Surprizingly, a heavily modified intake manifold didn't score as well as a less modified intake, so Ted used it instead.

All previous accolades were well earned.  Congratulations!

I am waiting for the videao to upload now so we can watch it, he is another Y blocker hooked, but you think Gerry is extravagant, you should hear the stuff he wants to build.

The EMC short block is the same one that was used last year mainly due to finances being what they are.  A smaller cubic inch engine was considered but this one was begging to run again and show what it could really do.  Besides, the larger engine was able to bypass the 500HP mark with ease and this is with fuel that was giving many of the competitors fits.  On the flip side, it’s hard to say if a smaller cubic inch engine would have made a higher score as this particular combination made good lowend torque while peak horsepower was coming in at 6400-6500 rpms.  This years competition was all about making good power starting at 2500 rpms and that’s a challenge all in itself.

This years camshaft ultimately was just a tad large (duration wise) on the exhaust side but the intake side seems to be spot on.  In hind sight, there’s still some additional score left both in the camshaft and headers while maintaining the compression ratio so the engine can run on the poorer grades of 91 octane fuel (motor octane number of 86).  I’ll not elaborate on the finer points of camshaft timing and exhaust tuning as some of the ‘good’ engines that this years Y relegated to a lower score may be listening.

The Y’s badge of honor this year came from being quarantined for a day after making the qualifying pulls.  At that point, the Y was in fifth place and it took a full day of other engines running to get the Y out of confinement and back on display in the engine staging area.

Fuel injection is definitely a possibility.  I don’t see the stacked ports being a show stopper but just an opportunity to do something different in regards to injector placement.  John Mummerts new manifold would be more injector friendly than the Blue Thunder intake in this regard.  General concensus with the EMC competitors was that carburetion and fuel injection were pretty equal in performance as some of the competitors had tried both on their entries during their testing phases.  Crank trigger ignitions are definitely the way to go as ignition control can be made much more defined and accurate for any given rpms.

The rules definitely leaned favorably towards fuel injection so many of the competitors went for the fuel injection and because of the complexity of the systems, there were a lot of difficulties experienced which in turn had a lot of DNF’s (did not finish) or zero scores.  The late model Hemi that placed in first was fuel injected while the engine that placed in second was carbureted.  It’s interesting that both the #1 and #2 engines this year came out of the Bischoff shop.  Kudos to the Bischoff teams for that storied accomplishment.  The remaining top four finishers were fuel injected though.

What are the chances that this combination might make it into a street car to see what real world situation would be like with an engine making that kind to torque and HP.

What the FI world needs is a low impedance crank trigger and engineers that will forget what they were taught in college about saving money by keeping the current low in the peripheral circuits.

If you've ever had a turntable, record player, that had a hum you coldn't get rid of, you have experience with the problem. That's a 47,000 ohm circuit and I'll bet that crank trigger circuits are much higher than that.

MSD supplies a resistor with some of their ATV ignition boxes. The instructionds don't say what its for and most of the tech guys don't know. Took quite a while to find out it was meant to go from the crank trigger signal wire to ground. Fixed the problem we were having.

Not talking this particular engine but the combination in general, the chances are actually pretty good but the billet crankshaft does run the cost up in a hurry.  If the pocket book isn’t an issue, then ‘yes’, the same engine could be done for the street and live for awhile.  Getting the cubic inches beyond the ~345 mark in a Y tends to get expensive.  The EMC Y entry was not built on the ragged edge and as a result, there is some durability built into it.  I’ll add that this engine ran well on the same fuel that the other competitors were having difficulty with but there was considerable work up front to insure that the static compression ratio and dynamic compression ratios were happy with each other.

The 4” stroke combination is pretty figured out so there’s nothing fancy there other than the Honda rod journals and using an aftermarket rod for the Honda journal.  Very little block work was needed in which to accommodate the longer arm on the crankshaft.  The pistons are obviously custom and I broke away from the ‘D’ shaped inverted dome on this engine and went with a full conical inverted dome so that the combusion pressures would be more centered in the piston rather than on one side.  Not much quench with this design but that doesn’t seem to be a deterrent at this point.  The rings are 1.0mm, 1.2mm, with a 3.0mm 10lb drag oil ring and this ring package is probably marginal for a 100K mile engine but the rings are holding up just fine after 160+ hard dyno pulls.  The rods in the EMC combo are 6.750” long and these are expensive to say the least but obtainable.  Using a 6.300” connecting rod instead lowers the cost significantly with peak horsepower numbers only dropping a small amount.  In fact, low end torque numbers could show an improvement with the shorter rods.

The EMC engine in its current format is going back on the dyno to answer some questions that the team came up with at the Challenge.  After this, the engine does get tore down so that a mold of the combustion chamber and part of the cylinder can be made to facilitate making domed pistons specific to the aluminum heads.  When this engine goes back together, it does so with 13-13½:1cr along with a larger camshaft. After testing, the new combination goes into the racecar to see what it can really do.

But on a less expensive note, I’m currently working on an aluminum headed 318” Y that gets there with an offset ground 292 crankshaft (3.48” stroke) and is using a 1.5mm, 1.5mm, and 3.0mm ring package.  This engine will have a lower static compression ratio than the EMC engine but simply due to it also having a slightly smaller camshaft to assist in keeping the dynamic compression ratio from being excessive.  It’s hard to guesstimate what the peak horsepower is going to be but all indications point it to being in excess of 450HP in a usable street rpm range.  Both time and testing will tell on this.

It'll be fun watch.

The February issue of Popular Hot Rodding will go into detail on this years EMC competition and is scheduled to be on the store shelves 12/21/2010.   At that point some interesting stats can be figured based on the Y’s official #16 finish.

For all the scrub bashing that goes on here this is a true statment.

Ted & John and others, what do you think of the over/under ports?   My personal estimation is that it is an advantage in the heads themselves but a disadvantage in the manifold.  Estimating the effect in the combustion chamber is beyond me!

Well, i enjoy scrub bashing!! Its our Ford owners divine right and should be made compulsory at school.

AMEN!  BROTHER.

To Me it is the Harley Davison of all v8 engines. Takes a little tinkering, but they always run, are stout, great sounding and will perform.