It is becoming obvious that in order to really benefit from the money spent on the new heads we need to rethink some of the currently available parts for the "Y". Primarily we will need high (.500 + lift) camshafts, revised piston configurations, distributer curve modifications just to start with. We have to realize we are a very limited market but we need to develop sources and templates.

I personally am looking for a source for a camshaft ground to specs similar to the Ford racing parts M-6250-A332 except ground on 112 lobe centers and 214(in) and 220(ex) durations and close to .500 lift. I have yet to work out piston configuration, still working out stroke options. Nelson cams may be a possible source of cams, they ground a 214/214 cam with approximately .5 inch lift for Royce Brechler.

All of this can be done by individuals but are Ted and John going to introduce some of these items to hit the market in conjunction with the new heads?

Looking at the dyno test, you should not need a different cam. The cam used during the test provided .430" lift at the valve. A bigger cam is not a necessary expense. If your performance is good now, then it should be better with the new heads. Ted and John will know more, but the only changes I see that will have to be made is the tune of the carb and timing, and these are cheap.

Certainly, changing the pistons can help depending on the application, but here again, will the cost/benefit be worth it? Same thing with the cam and lifters- will the price be worth it?

Most cam companies can do custom grinds. Call 'em, tell them your goal, tell them what you're thinking and see what they recommend.



You can do the exact same stuff to a stock motor - get a new cam, get new pistons, port the heads. It all helps. The questions are how far do you want to go, and is it in the budget.


Lawrenceville, GA

Charley, you can "get by" with an old cam. If I spend 2K+ on new heads that can utilize cams in the .550 lift area (max flow is @.550 lift per my newly arrived Y mag) that is what I want to do. My engine will be a scratch build so I only want to spend the money once.

The new high lift, agressive ramp cams are on the market for a reason. 1950's cam technology leaves a LOT on the table. 

DW

Don, i am curious what is your car application with these changes you mention, i wouldnt think as dailey driver, i would be guessing once a month go tear up some rubber somewhere? or just great looking and sounding engine? I think milder specs for daily nicer to drive car. regards bill.

  AussieBill            YYYY    Forever Y Block     YYYY

 Down Under, Australia

My car is a 57 Tbird, auto, totally stock, well almost. I have pocket ported the heads, with a good valve job. The car is used for Sunday cruising. The update will consist of a fresh engine, C-4, headers, a 21/2 in exaust, revised suspension. Intended use is still week end cruiser, a STRONG one.

Cam will be 214in 220ex @.050, 112 lobe centers, at least .500 lift with 1.6 rockers, 10.2 CR. Johns heads,and intake, headers. Carb is a bit in the air, if the budget will take it a Quick Fuel Technologies 750 tweaked for street use. The above cam should give 16 in of vacuum at Idle and be very smooth.

When I build an engine I want to leave as little on the table as possible.

I did put Ted's engine as described in the latest Y block mag into the EAP Pro software and came up with almost Identical results.

The soft ware engine made the same horsepower but gave up 500 RPM sooner. This is probably because I guessed at his header dimensions. 

Two of the good things to come from Mumert are a better single 4 manifold and these heads. It adds to the range of parts that are already available as either vintage or new items. The thing with both of these items is that they address part of the design inefficency of the originial design, breathing.  The heads do not address anything other that porting, combution chamber (both shape & size) and the other funtions of a over head valve head.

New cam design revolves around the use of either roller lifters or overhead cam construction. The head has nothing to do with this as it doesn't address any of these functions. Although I do conceed that there will be developments in line with the release of the heads.

I would be disapointed if the heads didn't fit abroad range of applications as a potential customer I don't see myself at ether end of the range and would like the freedom to build an engine around what I need and want.  

Grizzly (Aussie Mainline)

Grizzly, I hope not all of the new cam research has not been wasted. Todays camsfafts have much more agressive lift rates to give more area under the lift curve. There is a lot of hype in selling cams,but developing as great as area possible with out exceeding the limits of the valve train is the name of the game. Think of a valve opening event. The area under a square wave is a lot greater thana modified sine wave that is achieveable using a cam and solid or hydraulic flat base lifter. A roller can more closley approach a square wave. Stock class racing cams deliberately induce valve float to attain more performance. There are a lot of sublities th be addressed in cam design.

Don: I'm a bit surprised at your conclusions. I gotta agree largely with Charlie, bill & griz. First your comments that all sorts of changes are needed to optimize the heads.. Ted got well over 50 H.P. with no changes other than timing & jetting! And over 20 lbs Ft of torque also. And the Cams you are talking about are likely all for roller valve trains. Not "Y" compatible. I'd say that John Mummert has done a superb job with the heads. They stand very well on there own...

Paul

Don,

I agree entirely that modern valve timings have improved. The faster and wider a inlet can open the better the VE of an engine. This is the advantage of overhead cam that because of a lack of valve train weight the faster you can open the inlet because of reduced inertia.  This not only increases the time a valve is open at it's maximum it also optimizes the ram effect and uses the pressures that occur in the inlet port when closed.

The new heads don't affect any of the currently available valve train componentry. You have avenues to explore where, you can as you say, either choose to grind your own cam or use an existing can with hi ratio roller rockers.

I like higher lift cams I've had a few engines where either the existing cam or the one I've chosen is of relatively modest duration but of higher lift than other cams that are available from other companies. I think it tends to broaden the power band. Some of these engines have felt as though they are bigger than they are.

Lift can be at odds with one of my other preferences reliability. All machines are a compromise of function over use.  

Grizzly (Aussie Mainline)

Please, I said optimize. Camshafts with profiles generated in the 50 and 60's have been vastly improved on. I suspect most of the cams offered for the "Y" have a direct lineage to those cams probably because the stock heads needed mods at rather modest valve lift.

This is not a new head issue, this is an issue with most Y cams.

Using the software to experiment a gain of 30 HP can be gained by increasing lift from .400 to .550 with the new heads based on Ted's engine. The old heads may not gain very much if the airflow gains stall at lifts above .400. Please remember the new heads peak at .550 valve lift.

As to reliability, pushing the limits by raising acceleration rates on the valve train can lead to lubrication failures at the cam/lifter interface. Lifts of .500 are common and reliable with longer duration cams. As the duration shortens and acceleration to achieve the lift increases reliability becomes more marginal.

The test results of the EMC engine should be very revealing. the higher lift cam used on this engine and the added displacement should really test the new heads.

The soft ware is not an absolute but it is a strong indicator of directions to take during an engine build.