|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 478.4K
|
I got the info I was looking for
54 Victoria 312; 48 Ford Conv 302, 56 Bird 312
Forever Ford
Midland Park, NJ
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.2K,
Visits: 203.1K
|
What info were you originally looking for? Just curious.
  Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 478.4K
|
A friend of mine was installing rebuilt heads on a 55 292 and all the longer bolts were the same. He questioned me on the longer end ones and I was going to get the lengths for him. While looking up the info (after my post here) I found an article on Y head bolts by Gil Baumgartner (CTCI web site) with the information. Per his article, the 54 and 55 long head bolts were the all same, the longer end ones started in 56. I assume this agrees with your info?. https://www.ctci.org/gilsgarage/ford-y-block-head-bolts-239-256-272-292-312-ci-engines/
54 Victoria 312; 48 Ford Conv 302, 56 Bird 312
Forever Ford
Midland Park, NJ
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.2K,
Visits: 203.1K
|
That agrees with what I have seen. My ’55 272 had all the same length bolts on the top row. When I rebuilt the engine, I installed the longer 1957-up bolts in the end top row holes.
Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 277.3K
|
That agrees with what I have seen. My ’55 272 had all the same length bolts on the top row. When I rebuilt the engine, I installed the longer 1957-up bolts in the end top row holes.
I am trying to figure out the why of FORD going to different length head bolts in the mid/late 1956 production year. There were several changes also made (valve-train) along with this.
Rhyme or reason? Is the difference(s) in the head or block casting?
I would think a SERVICE LETTER was released regarding this.
- CORNFUSED IN W(BY GOD)V ... 
____________________________
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 9 hours ago
Posts: 6.0K,
Visits: 400.4K
|
The Upper end holes loose some thread length because of the counterbore for the dowels. I would guess that there were some problems as a result of the reduced thread engagement that caused them to lengthen the end bolts. Another possibility is simple human error. Maybe the original intent was to use longer bolts but somehow the documentation had an error. I would expect bulletins to exist for either of these.
Lawrenceville, GA
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 4 days ago
Posts: 719,
Visits: 113.3K
|
64F100 57FAIRLANE500
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 277.3K
|
FORD DEARBORN (10/29/2023)
!!! THANK YOU SIR !!!
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS AFTER ...
____________________________
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 277.3K
|
charliemccraney (10/29/2023)
The Upper end holes loose some thread length because of the counterbore for the dowels. I would guess that there were some problems as a result of the reduced thread engagement that caused them to lengthen the end bolts. ! !! THANK YOU SIR ALSO !!!
You hit it on the head ...  ...(pun intended)
____________________________
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 478.4K
|
The bulletin does not explicitely say, but I guess it was ok to use the longer bolt in the 54's and 55's since there was no warning about not using the longer bolts in the 54 and 55 engines.
54 Victoria 312; 48 Ford Conv 302, 56 Bird 312
Forever Ford
Midland Park, NJ
|