There is no problem exploring this area, except the discussion is about  the heads. We should probably get Ted to move this to TECH or Racing.

      The valve events and geometry can be discussed there. It is an area that can be explored now, there wasn't much point prior to the new heads since the port airflow stalled at relatively low lifts and rates with the iron heads. The Mummert head changes the ball game. I think it's safe to say the limits of the iron heads have been explored to death by John Ted and others. None of the cam timing, profile or lift theorys help much without ports that carry increased airflow.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

I don't see any problem with exploring the limits of camshaft right up until the point where you do more harm than good.

The Y-block does have a large lifter for a domestic V-8. Things you will want to keep in mind when trying to push the limits of lobe velocity are.

1. Chamfer on the edge of the lifter.  More chamfer less useable lifter face.

2. Lifter bore centering over the lobe. The farther off center it is the less useable the lifter face becomes.

3. Acheivable nose radius on the cam. Short duration, high lift cams will have a small nose radius. Making them RPM limited. They almost always get pitting on the nose of the lobe. Not neccesarily going flat but just but just tramatized do to high spring rates with high velocity lobes and small contact area, nose to lifter.

4. Spring rate, rate in a spring is stored available return energy.  Two spring set ups can have the same open pressure but one can have considerably less return energy. Example.  120# on the seat and 320# open @.500"  200# gain over .500 lift is a 400# rate per inch.  This will have more nose control than a lower rate setup. Say  145# on the seat and 320# open  is a 175# of stored energy over the nose. 350# rate per inch

5. Lobe dynamics are the biggy on the list. The main reason is that these harmonics get transfered through whole valvetrain. Especially your pushrods. Pushrods have been one the biggest culprates to unstable valvetrain and many times the springs get the blame. Don't get me wrong you can be under sprung.

Like I said earlier pushing the limits of the lifter face can done safely as long you are looking at everything much closer.

In the end it all call comes down to valve events. More modern attempts have been tamer lobes and more rocker ratio to acheive the desirable valve events

 When done right they both work well.

John deserves a huge amount of credit, both for his heads and intake. The old heads and intake were corks in the Y performance bottle. I doff my hat to John and his son for the effort and heart ache this project has caused. He is on the edge of sucess here, and I hope he sells all he can produce. Just from the bits I have seen in print There has been a tremendous amount of thought done for accomodating the future with these heads. They will be the rock on which the future of the Y will be built.

   There was/is a certain amount of insanity involved in this project. I can tell you that the only SpeedSmith left in the project is the name on the sales receipt. Everything else is Mummert. I have personally seen flow bench results that are pretty impressive. And you can carry one around the garage in ONE hand. The amount of work time and investment John (and son Jeff) have put forth is tremendous. We're talking two guys in a small shop, NOT a large corporation with limitless capital and resources. Congrats are in order, the finished product will be worth the wait, I hope that we all apreciate this effort. 

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

John, I did not in any way take offence. I value your knowledge which is far more extensive than mine. I certainly do not intend to offend you or anyone else. I have a certain set of personal criteria for this engine. It is certainly not what others will want. I just want to build the best product I can that fits these guidelines.

 My application is a very mild street application. The thought process I am going through may be applicable to others that have a different set of parameters. Ted has obviously has pushed the limits on extreme performance with his EMC entry and the dragster engine.

My main thrust is to explore the limits of the camshaft/lifter interface. 

Since John has adresses the airflow issues this appears to be the next problem in building an exceptional Y.

John,  you have proven that it was possible to do and have the HP increase to back it up. I hope the orders are coming in, let me know when mine are ready, thanks from everyone here! regards bill.

  AussieBill            YYYY    Forever Y Block     YYYY

 Down Under, Australia

Don, I was only trying to point out some things you might not have thought of. I'm certainly not trying to tell you that you should not follow your own ideas. Its your engine and your car and so far this is still America and you are free to follow your dreams.

A lot of people would argue that building aluminum heads for a Y-Block is not a wise thing to do. I chose not to listen to them.

http://ford-y-block.com 

20 miles east of San Diego, 20 miles north of Mexico

John, you're so right by going 8 to 10 degrees bigger when going from hydraulic to a solid lifter cam to get the same results.

-Gary Burnette-

Ok I mentally missed the delta between the solid and hydraulic cams, the soft ware does not. This explains why software modeling of a 393" Windsor engine using a 214/224 .500 cam was peaking at a higher RPM than the 214/220 .500 in the Y. The extra 4 degrees ex duration did nothing for the Y and very little on the Windsor. 

My wish list may not be practical, but this is my thing. I tried to push the practical technical limits by asking "can we do this?" during my engineering career, and find it hard to back off now that I have retired.

Don. one other thing too consider is the difference in durations between a hydraulic cam and a mechanical cam. Since the industry standard for hydraulic cam lash is .006" and your typical mechanical cam is .014-.020", cams of equal duration will act quite different.

I just checked a 216 @ .050" Crower hydraulic lobe against our Y265S  224 @ .050" mechanical lobe. Both have .280" lobe lift +-.002". When figured with .006" lash for the hydraulic and .018" for mechanical cam the timing at the valve was essentially identical. Due to the difference in lash you must use 8-12 degrees more for a mechanical cam when using your software or seat of the pants speculating what size cam to use.

I have sold well over 100 of the Y265S Y-Block cam and no one has ever complained that it was too big, even with a FOM trans.

http://ford-y-block.com 

20 miles east of San Diego, 20 miles north of Mexico