Thanks for your input. It has been very informative and interesting. There's always more to learn.

Ian.  'Could be more desirable' is a fair way to state where discussion on this block casting issue sits with me, too.  I have high regard for both what John Mummert and Ted Eaton have to say about y-blocks.  In recent years, Ted has been prolific in what he has made time to share in writing through Forum contributions, Eaton Balancing web site articles, and Y-Block Magazine submissions.  John M may have as much to say, also, if one had the opportunity to sit down and talk with him.

I do not recall Ted having made a statement anywhere like the one I copied from John earlier in this thread relating to cylinder wall thickness. 

I have a suspicion that pre 1961 y-blocks may have more iron thickness in the cylinder walls than the C1AEs and the C2AEs.  My suspicion comes from the interest in 'thin wall casting' that was touted in the early '60s as Ford moved into production of the 221, 260 and 289 engines. 

Regarding cam tunnel cracking... about two months ago Ted made the comments pasted below about the cracking that Randy H ran into as he set out to rebuild a 312 for his SC '57




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

So early blocks could be more desirable if you want a large bore unless you are pushing out some serious power, maybe a blown motor.
I'm guessing the 312's are more prone to cracking between cam and main bearing bores also.

Ian.  Yes, some engine blocks were apparently the basis for either being machined as a 292 OR a 312.  The determiner of their final use in production was the main caps used in '56, '57, '58, '59, and '60, - the years of regular production of the 312.  Those engine block castings to be completed as 292s had main caps marked EBU while 312s had main caps marked ECZ.  Additionally...

Per JM's chart,  my expectation is that these particular engine blocks [ ECZ-A, ECZ-B, ECZ-C, EDB-E, and B9AE-F ]  used the same sand cores when they were cast to be used as 292 or 312 cores.  I speculate that other '50s y-blocks may have had different sand cores used in the sand casting process because of their being used to form cylinder thicknesses for the smaller finished bore size of the 239, 256, 272, or 292-only engines.

In addition to main bearing bore size and the bearing tang location, the 312 caps were physically taller and required longer bolts. Longer bolts because of the increased 312 cap height, not because of a difference in how far the bolts screwed into the engine block depth.

Sooo...  I know that Ted Eaton has bored '60s blocks to 3.859 for the Engine Master's Competition after carefully sonic testing the blocks for core shift and rejecting some because of it.  Remember that Ford only supplied a maximum oversize piston size of .040 for the 312.

In a long standing entry on John Mummert's web site in the Technical section titled Parts to Look For, top of the page sub titled Blocks, John made the statement:

292 blocks from 55-64 are fairly easy to find. Slight improvements were made in 1959 with deeper drilled main cap threads. 61-64 C1AE and C2AE blocks have additional material in the main webs. These blocks typically don't sonic test as thick as earlier blocks. Therefore if a good early block is found drill and tap the main cap threads deeper and use the early block. Base your decision on cylinder wall thickness over added material in main webs. 

312 blocks have the advantage of use of 312 crankshaft without modification. The down side is 312 blocks are difficult to find, expensive and have often been bored .040' or .060"oversize. These block typically sonic test thin at these bore sizes. 312 blocks are often cracked near the main cap bolt holes.

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

Thanks, that's very enlightening. Interesting how information gets blurred and later blocks are desirable for strength, not core shift. It comes as a surprise to me but I didn't realise 292 and 312 blocks are the same casting only machined differently.
If he doesn't change his mind it sounds like it might be worth having.

Ian.  You asked where the block numbers are located.  Usually, they should be on the driver's side above the spin-on oil filter.  Yes, there are variations with some of the Canadian made blocks, I think.  Click the link below for info. and pictures from JM's web site.  Scroll down toward the bottom of the page...
http://www.ford-y-block.com/Block%20identification.htm

Also, IF the 292 engine in the F100 is a '62-'64 vintage C2AE casting, it should have connecting rods with the C2AE marking on one side of the web just above the big end.  Earlier rods for the 239, 256, 272, and 292 y-block engines [1954-1961] were EBU designation.  The C2AEs are considered to be a more rugged design than the EBUs and they also weigh 15 gr. more.


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

Ian.  In a recent thread in the Forum This and That section,  I saw Carl's statement, '...when Ted Eaton builds a motor his first choice is a 60s block, less core shift so can be bored out more.'

I believe that Ted does seek to use later engine blocks for some of his maximum performance builds.  I do not recall Ted stating that this is because of them being less prone to cylinder core shift in the block casting, though.  My understanding is that sand core shift is an issue in the casting of any year of Ford y-block.  IF you are looking to go maximum cylinder oversize, sonic testing of the block is important to determine if the sand cores shifted (moved) as the metal was poured into and RUSHED throughout the sand mold cavity.

From reading numerous of Ted's write-ups on engine builds he has done and from John Mummert's info on his web site [Technical section, under the heading Parts to Look For] my understanding is that Ford made a change in the y-block engine block molds for the C1AE ['61 Ford cars and trucks] and C2AE ['62 cars, '62-'64 trucks] engine blocks.  The only particular of that change that I've seen referred to in writing was the use of an additional quantity of metal in the crank shaft main bearing webbing area.  When Ford makes a change in a mold and if additional metal was required by doing it, it's most likely that the change was intentional and for a purpose.

Perhaps another reason that some may favor later engine blocks is that beginning in April of 1959 with the production of the B9AE 6015-F engine blocks [late model year '59 & '60 Ford 292 cars and trucks; late '59 & '60 312 Mercs] longer crankshaft main cap bolts were used.  I'm sure this change was made for a reason and represented additional expense to accomplish.  Click the link below to read JM's write-up for installing longer main cap bolts in earlier '54-'59 engine blocks.
http://www.ford-y-block.com/ARPmaininstall.htm

On his web page, John writes,
Why is this modification necessary?  All Y-Blocks built prior to mid 1959 had main cap bolts that were too short to satisfactorily retain the main caps under high performance usage. This is especially true for the 312 blocks.  All 1954 to March 1959 blocks had insufficient threads in the block to accept longer fasteners.

John, Hoosier Hurricane, advised me that the use of longer main cap bolts eliminated his problems with main bearing block webbing cracking in his 'F' code engine.  This is noteworthy knowing that John prefers using blocks with stock 312 main bearing sizes and that his SC output boost is significantly over the original stock setting of 5 or 6 p.s.i.  

Reproduction y-block rams horn exhaust manifolds are available from JM and from Speedway Motors for over $300 a set.

P.S.  Credit to John Mummert for the treasure trove of technical information he provides on his web site that I often reference.

Hope this helps.


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

I don't know any numbers. The owner night give me a call in about a month when he is ready to pull it out.
Is the casting number in an easy to read spot?
The dizzy is probably good but not a straight swap for mine, tach drive on the Tbird.
Yes I read that recent quote on later blocks having less core shift, is it true?
I was mostly thinking of the block and the value of other parts if I want to move them on.
Are the rams horns worth much? I could always throw them in my suitcase the next time I have a trip to the USA. Any other parts people might want for that matter.

  Ron Lane,  Meridian, ID

I read someplace, I think here, that the later blocks had less core shift. I think someone was "quoting" Ted, but it wasn't him.

If you can pull the valve covers, check the head castings numbers. Chart here from Mummert's site. Also the rockers, if it's original they're probably the low ratio.

I've done strokers with 312 cranks in both a 292 and a 312 block. Both motors were sonic checked, and I only went 40 over. Due to core shift and they were both blower motors. If I were doing it again, I wouldn't use a 312 block. The rear main always seems to be a problem. They were early blocks.

I don't know where your at, but up here in WA, an ok running low performance 292 truck motor is a $200 deal, maybe a little more. If the heads will take bigger valves, those and the block, maybe the dizzy, are what you're buying as a spare. Price accordingly.

http://www.ford-y-block.com/cylinderheadchart.htm



miker
55 bird, 32 cabrio F code
Kent, WA
Tucson, AZ