|
By Ted - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Some thoughts on some of the standard design features to keep a replacement head marketable to the masses would be: Must accept current Y-Block intake manifolds and gaskets. Must accept current Y-Block exhaust manifolds, headers, gaskets. Must accept current Y-Block valve covers and gaskets. Must accept current Y-Block rocker arm assemblies. If spark plug location is revised, must be able able to use with current exhaust systems. 14mm spark plugs. Lots of these available in the various heat ranges. Available ready to run with valves, springs, retainers, etc. If aluminum, then heli-coils in the rocker stand, intake, and exhaust bolt hole threads. Open for discussion. If necessary, just start a new thread for the topic you have in mind or add to this thread any additional standard features.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Ted, you nailed it for me.
|
|
By pcmenten - 16 Years Ago
|
The exhaust ports can be raised to improve the exhaust gas dynamics. I'm thinking of the 5.0 F7TE exhaust system where the valve is smaller but it flows more than bigger valves because of the excellent exhaust ports.
The shape of the combustion chamber can be based on the ECZ-G head.
|
|
By pcmenten - 16 Years Ago
|
More ideas;
Rocker shaft support for the ends of the shaft.
And can we do something about the oiling system?
|
|
By 56 effie - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Does the setting up of this ACH forum mean that someone is interested in producing alloy heads? If so sign me up for a pair.
|
|
By Ted - 16 Years Ago
|
|
56 effie (1/4/2008)
Does the setting up of this ACH forum mean that someone is interested in producing alloy heads? Yes. Hopefully not another false start but questions were posed and this forum was handy in asking all the right questions. No other information regarding the company to be handed out at this time.
|
|
By aussiebill - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Ted, thanks for your interest in starting this feasibility and design study to maybe finally end the aliminum head saga. The sensible input from members is great and my own veiw is to keep performance increase in mind 1st, just like the blue thunder intake, bolt it on and more power! I personally think smooth design without logos on front of heads, 14mm plugs, increased flow design through ports, nice evenly shaped exhaust ports as standard and wider rocker cover gasket sealing area, unlike narrow edge now that some of the original tin covers dont line up onto well. What thoughts about the extra coolant holes between center cyls that are reccommended by felpro when using their gaskets.? Thats just my little input and hope we can all help to get this going. i,m certainly in for a set or 2. Best regards, Aussie bill.
|
|
By yehaabill - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Y-guys I'm not up to speed on the head design but, I see some want smooth, some rough...IF the heads are interchangeable,.. why not make one end smooth the other rough. Just a thought....Bill
|
|
By Glen Henderson - 16 Years Ago
|
Ted, have you ever opened up a can of worms, good going! I will make a few comments and maybe confuse the issue even more.
1. Stock appearing vs smooth finish: In my opinion for the head to widely accepted it would have to be stock appearing for the restoration guys to accept it. The only problem that I see with this is that the Blue Thunder intake is the only one available at this time and as Frank stated they are having problems getting castings. A head designed after the small block Ford might offer more intake options including blown or injected.
2. Valves and associated components: I think that any off the shelf items (sbc or sbf) could be used to increase performance and still appeal to the resto guys. The idea of a complete bolt on package is very appealing, but should be offered bear for the individual that wants to install there own components.
3. Thicker Deck: No brainer, this should improve reliability and allow anyone who wants too reduce the cc's by milling the head.
4. FE head bolts: Good idea, but what about offering them with 7/16 hole's, but with enough material so that they could be safely drilled to 1/2".
5. Iron vs aluminum: My vote would have to go to aluminum, less weight and I think that they would look just plain cool with Frank's cover, water pump and a Blue Thunder intake. The resto guys can paint them.
|
|
By charliemccraney - 16 Years Ago
|
|
I don't know if it was me who had mentioned that problem but I had to grind a little on the driver side valve cover to get it to clear the Blue Thunder manifold. It is toward the rear, I think the part of the casting where bolt goes through the manifold. I don't think that raising the rail is a good idea. I have barely enough room between the master cylinder to get my valve cover off. That is without power brakes. I am running a 'vette master cylinder but I don't think this will matter a whole lot. I think that many of the people who buy these heads will have upgraded there brakes with a dual mc and probably disc brakes.
|
|
By 63 Red Stake Bed - 16 Years Ago
|
|
I would hope to see 1.92 intakes & 1.60 Exhausts, as standard issue with capability of 2.02/1.64 for the race end of things.
|
|
By 63 Red Stake Bed - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Maybe some R & D on Combustion chambers that are better than that of the ecz-g, c, or the 471's could be useful esp. for the performance & efficiency end of things. Some on this site are always looking for the possibility of using ethanol. Maybe some would be interested in more efficient burning of the fuel in relation to the newly modified runner alterations & flow characteristics these castings would have.
|
|
By Jerome - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Reading Ted's head's thread's, there is only one reason I would buy new heads. My ECZ-G's gave up the ghost and I couldn't find another ECZ-G or 5752-113 set to port. Given that: 1) As the restorer on a budget, I'd want a 100% authentic looking, 100% backward attachment compatible, 100% performance optimized, durable-as-dirt cast iron, posted, ECZ-G type casting, hardened seats, sbc 2.02" intakes, sbc 1.60" exhausts, sbc valve guide seals, sbc valve guide boss OD's, sbc valve spring shim compatible, 0.600" valve lift capable, flows as good as John Mummert's race port (so I don't have to port them myself), available in 69, 72 & 82cc's, starting with 69cc's. 2) As the racer with deep pockets, I'd want heads as mean as the best of the best sbf's, aluminum naturally, 100% sbf intake compatible giving full access to best air and fuel intake combinations sbf owners enjoy - even fuel injection), optimized to the Y-block's smaller cylinder diameter, in a variety of combustion volumes from pump gas to blowers. Either option offers more rpm breathing potential than a stock Y-block bottom end can safely handle. To fully tap that, in addition to head cost, one would need to upgrade the intake manifold (either find and port an ECZ-9425-B or invest in a Blue Thunder), carburetor (600 cfm or better), fuel pump (1/4" NPT in/out), fuel line (3/8"), fuel tank (1/4" NPT out), oil pump, oil pump drive, connecting rods, pistons, rebalance the crank, upgrade the cam, lifters, push rods, rocker arms if 1.43's, valve springs, retainers, locks, harmonic balancer, add a skirt brace + + + .... 312 owners might even consider a stronger 292 block to drop their crank in. Then there is the vintage drive train. Neither vintage Ford-o-matics or standard manual 3 speeds are up to what these heads can dish out. Count me as an option 1) 69 cc head buyer Jerome
|
|
By PF Arcand - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Ted: I'm probably not in the market for aluminum heads, but it occurs to me that some of the modifications that have been suggested, which could effect pushrod lengths, rocker arm stands, valves stem length, rocker covers & so on, "if' required for the new heads, will run the cost of an already expensive conversion up considerably. For many possible customers, it may make the whole thing cost prohibitive, thereby reducing potential sales, in an already limited market.. Just my thoughts on it..
|
|
By suede57ford - 16 Years Ago
|
|
It would be nice to redesign the chamber shape, so we could use a round hole type head gasket like all the later Fords do. The odd-ball shaped headgasket/combubustion chamber opening limits the ability to have really good head gaskets made. A circular hole in the gasket would make O-Rings easy to do as well. If a windsor/scrub combustion chamber can use flat-tops and make compression and use a circular head gasket, what would it take for a Y-Block to do the same if were are improving it. I would prefer the heads use as many stock parts as well. Head gaskets would be easy and cheap to get custom made if necessary.
|
|
By PF Arcand - 16 Years Ago
|
|
Pat: I'm sure many who are into max performance would agree with your suggestions re the chamber & head gasket problem. However.. I don't think Mr. "Ricardo", who's theory was used in the combustion chamber design of the Y-block, would appreciate you calling it "odd ball"! Apparently, the design was for high quench & hi turbulence, plus as I understand it, Ford engineers for saw higher compression ratios in the future, for more efficiency. We had them for a while, but unleaded fuel & emission standards killed that. Also, the design was intended to be more detonation resistant that a regular wedge chamber. And probably is.. I don't claim to be an SAE or anything, so Ted or other engine Gurus here, might want to comment further..
|
|
By MoonShadow - 16 Years Ago
|
|
There are a series of posts on this forum on the Argentine heads. They are more simular to the 289 type. Someone was going to get a set and do some flow testing but I havn't heard anything for a while. Chuck in NH
|
|