ive been looking at old y blocks with those oiling kits all my live.only saw one on a 55 and it was rebuilt so my have had the cam changed.that tells me the cross drilled was better.anyone else notice this.

when the machine shop had my motor and heads they told me about the groove problem and they checked my new cam and it was wrong, they grooved it deeper to .035 inches deep, this in turn will oil better

simplyconected has the best theory as with drain tubes  blocked rocker arms receive good oil suply, and good presssure at the cam bearing,on cleaning rockers most had the holes blocked where oil goes to vave stem end of rocker.that is the way my ranchero is set up,just set valves and lots of oil  to the entire valvtrain. my opinion re cam wear is poor oil flow to rockers and vave train in general,causing excessive cam lobe wear

I dont think its about cam bearing wear as theres plenty of oil there, it was to keep oil flow to rockers.


  AussieBill            YYYY    Forever Y Block     YYYY

 Down Under, Australia

I'm with Ted, mostly.  I look at more modern Ford engine design and the obvious is to scrutinize FEs.  FEs used TWO undercut cam journals; #2 feeds the LH rocker shaft and #4 feeds the RH rocker shaft.  Both rocker shafts are sealed which keeps the cam bearings lubed and it forces oil through the rocker arms under full oil pressure.

Ys use only the center cam journal to feed both rocker shafts and each are open to atmosphere via the 'overflow tubes' at the rear ends.  Man, that's truly a recipe for disaster because flow takes the path of least resistance.  Crossdrilled or cam groove, it's still a disaster waiting to happen.

I opened up the cam groove on my 292.  There is nothing precision about opening a cam groove.  You can do it with a cutoff wheel if you're careful.  When the rocker shafts are plugged, cam groove depth cannot be too deep and the bearing gets plenty of oil because "pressure is resistance to flow".  Your oil pressure will raise and that muck that tends to form inside your rocker shafts will no longer develop if tiny bits of dirt are forced through the rocker arm holes, and out.  Otherwise under OEM conditions, dirt serves to block off oil flow as the bypass tubes allow free passage to the oil pan.  - Dave

Royal Oak, Michigan (Four miles north of Detroit, and 12 miles NORTH of Windsor, Canada).  That's right, we're north of Canada.

Ford 292 Y-Block major overhaul by simplyconnected

re camshaft grooved, i have dismantled 3 later ys that where truck engines,1 a rebuild,they wher all grooved,all lat blocks with no breatherhole in the block. all 3 had cambearings in good condition 2 wher generally worn,3rd i will use as they ar perfect.dont know if this is helpful or not

Not to throw more speculation into the issue here, but maybe some of our buddies from the continent of South America could speak to the Y blocks of post '64... what did they do down there in Brazil and Argentina with the Phase II Y block and the camshafts? Was the block different in any way? We know the heads were.
Guys can you help us here?

Daniel Jessup

Lancaster, California

aka "The Hot Rod Reverend"
check out the 1955 Ford Fairlane build at www.hotrodreverend.com

You can rest assured that the cross drilled cams used in ’63 & ’64 were not left over old stock from the mid-Fifties.  Ford was struggling with the top end oiling on the Y’s during the course of its production and simply went back to the cross drilled scenario as it was the least troublesome of the two methods being employed.  The Y was originally designed to take advantage of the just introduced multi-viscosity oils but between many owners simply using paraffin based oils and not changing the oil at regular intervals, top end oiling was a problem.

The advantage of the cross drilled camshaft is the repeated surge of oil pressure which does help to keep the passages clearer longer.  Based on what I see with the FE and MEL top end oiling, Ford recognized the problems with the Y early on and did a different topend oiling design on the those two engine families that were introduced in the ’58 model lineup.  The SBF was likely already being considered as the engine that was going to replace the Y so further development of the Y was not going to take place.

What I’m doing with the groove behind the cam bearing brings the oiling back in line with what Ford did with the FE.  The Schumann grooved cam bearing provides a similar constant supply of oil to the top end.  Having too much oil at the top end is easily corrected by using restrictors at the rockers arms similar to what the racers are doing with the Fe engines.  Having an inadequate amount is simply difficult to deal with.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

The cam & top end oiling has had several issues as already covered here by other contributors. A further issue was sludge buildup in high mileage engines, due to inadequate oil & filter changes & failure to keep the crancase venting serviced. Mostly the venting problem happend because the only air intake is thru the oil filler cap. The cap's screen would get plugged with dirt comming into the engine bay & oil residue, which resulted in little or no crancase venting. Another problem is that cam bearings were/are sometimes not installed properly, resulting in restricted oil flow. As already noted, John Mummert discouvered some years ago that replacement cam blanks, which are only made by one or two companies, were somehow using an inadequate depth groove in Y-Block cam blanks. Why this happened is not known. So, all cam blanks that he uses are re machined to a proper spec. I'm also of the opinion that the later 63-64 cross drilled cams issued by Ford were likely a stock clearance move, as the engines were being phased out at end of 1964..   
N.B.- Re read your post.. can we assume you have the engine apart? Due to the ammount of work involved in replacing a Y-blk cam once it had been installed in the vehicle, why not replace that cam & lifters (bearings?) while you have it apart? For one thing all the later replacement stock Ford spec cams are very mild grinds, which don't even meet std 1957 "D"code specs. Mummert (& likely Isky) have moderate grinds that are much better even for regular street use without getting into rough idles or cams that don't work well with auto transmissions.. Mummert's 265 S grind, which is a bit beyond a 1957 grind, seems to be popular, even for auto transmissions..   


Paul

I just read this thread from its beginning.  I think that something got confused along the way. 

The purpose of the groove in the one camshaft journal OR the cross-drilling of that same cam journal... is to provide a means for oil to get from one particular main bearing to one particular cam journal that because of either the groove in that journal OR the cross drilling of that camshaft journal, the oil will FLOW in volume to get past that camshaft journal and up to the two passageways above that cam journal that lead all the way to each block deck, and then lead through another passageway through each cylinder head that serves to feed the rockerarm shaft on top of each cylinder bank.

Soooo... the debate is which way is the bast way to get the oil to flow past the one camshaft journal and to the rocker arms above.  Do you put a groove around the circumferance of the one camshaft journal OR do you cross drill the one camshaft journal?

From what has been reported, for this engine design Ford wasn't sure throughout the entire 1954 through 1964 production, either.  They started out using the idea of a cross drilled camshaft journal in '54, turned to the alternative of a concentric groove in (?) '56 (?) and then in later production (?) '63 and '64 (?) went back to the cross drilled camshaft journal for getting the oil past the one cam journal and to the rocker arm shafts on the top of each cylinder head.

The cross drilled camshaft journal was used in the beginning of production in 1954 and at the end of production in 1964.  The cross drilled camshaft may have been used for a total of (?) 4 (?) years of y-block Ford production.  In between the beginning and ending of production, the grooved camshaft journal was used for some seven years!

Quite possibly, both pathway methods past the one camshaft journal will work adequately for 'normal' engine operation. 

PERHAPS for high rpm performance y-block applications... a groove in the camshaft journal OR a groove on the back side of the camshaft bearing (Vern Shumann's 1959 patented bearing design OR Ted Eaton's suggested block machining modification technique) IS the best technique.

For some street application engines either method MAY be totally fine... just like Ford did...   


NoShortcuts
a.k.a. Charlie Brown
near Syracuse, New York