Refreshing to see what you have said here, i hope some of the newer members read it!

  AussieBill            YYYY    Forever Y Block     YYYY

 Down Under, Australia

Carbs and spacers have been tested to death. YBM issue #108 covered an engine build where just three of the basic carb spacer designs were dyno tested. Here’s the link to that article. http://www.eatonbalancing.com/blog/2012/09/29/carburetor-spacer-testing/

The latest issue of the YBM (#120) goes into detail on the effect of the slot in the plenum divider which gives some insight on how that slot affects the torque values by itself. For the most part, each engine combination likes something a little different but there are some trends that do come to the forefront.

.

John’s intake as well as the Blue Thunder intake works well with almost any carburetor but head flow is the key here. With either of these intake manifolds, stock heads prefer smaller sized carbs while cylinder heads with increased flow capabilities will make more power with larger carbs being used. This is simply a case where whichever piece has the minimum flow values, be it the heads or the intake, dictates the optimum cfm of the carb being used.

.

There are very few instances where the intake port runners would be sized smaller than the heads if looking to maximize power numbers. It essentially boils down to the intake manifold simply needing to outflow the cylinder heads if wanting to maximize the benefits of any cylinder head flow increases. Out of the box Mummert and Blue Thunder intakes do this in fine fashion on most home ported cylinder heads. When porting the aluminum heads, then porting the aluminum intakes becomes prerequisite simply due to the intake manifold still needing to outflow the heads in order to maximize any head porting benefits.

.

The factory ECZ-B intake was well matched to the factory G and 113 heads but if the heads are ported, then the intake needs to be appropriately ported so it can keep up with the cylinder head flow requirements.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Ted, I see the ECZ-B manifold actually works better with a smaller 650cfm carb and 1/2" spacer. Have you tried Johns manifold as such, without spacer and 650cfm carb and various other spacers, Carbs.

Holley suggests a 570 cfm for performance 390cfm stock!

hi ted, i just got done looking at the 56 hotrod article and they showed the 56 merc 2x4's holleys had 6.688 sq. in. of total venturi area. the carters had 6.60 with a 1/16 smaller secondary's, and the edelbrock 3x2's with 56 ford 2bbl's had 5.32 sq. in. with stock 1 1/16 butterfly's. after they bored the carbs to 1 3/16 they showed 6.65 sq. in. of venturi area. i'm sure someone here can convert those # to cfm. they never did try the 2x4's on the finnished engine. i think it would have done a little better with the 2x4's. 342 cu. in., ported c heads with 11.3 comp., 1 7/8 intake, 1 5/8 exhaust valves, and headers. 303 honest hp. but there chart showed 340 corrected hp.

 lincoln/merc. y-blocks &mel's                                                               bucyrus, ohio.

 I must of missed the day when HP didn't cost money or time, time spent chasing HP costs money.  Wether you like the saying or not its true.

 Patience is a virtue, there are multiple development projects going on as we speak with the alum. heads. They are being laid out for specific purposes and reasons.

  The one thing that should be pointed out is that in todays age parameters can be laid out very accuratley to taylor certain projects. The old days of trying what I would call off the wall things just to see what happens aren't really neccesary. 

Dyno testing will be performed to back up different levels of performance.  Giving customers the most for their money is a priority with the new heads wether it be as cast or at different levels porting. Camshafts for the new heads will also be available

 The expected delivery date for the 2nd batch of heads will be some time in October. I don't think anyone will be let down.

John,

Yes I am yes. If you take the cheap way out It will end up costing you money.

The BT rods are your's $325 a set if I read right. If you consider the price of resizing they are cheap. The risk of using a 50year old possibly stressed part.

$1400 carillo's direct from carillo. 15 years ago original rods were $465 each. Carrillos are 100 grams a rod lighter.   

Cheers

Grizzly (Aussie Mainline)

Although the 316” Y that was prepared for the 2008 Engine Masters Challenge is still sitting here, it’s a finance issue that keeps it from being tested with the aluminum heads and being a potential candidate for the 2010 EMC competition.  That engine needs another set of pistons, rings, camshaft, and lifters at the very least to make it competitive for this years EMC.  The 375 incher used in last years competition ends up being the preferred engine for this years competition by default as it’s the best fit with what’s on hand.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Charlie,

 

I’m all for some decent discussion but some of what you have said are straight insults.  There is a lot of BullS#*t in the performance industry. Unfortunately I have run into several examples who instead of discussing outcomes in a logical and informed way shove “speed cost, how fast do you want to go?” in at a very early stage.

 

It equates money to horsepower in an equation and in a linear way. It does not equate to the multitude of different directions that you can go with a rebuild. It ostracises those on small budgets or those who require less. It does nothing to encourage thorough tuning of engines and correcting setup.

 

If you’re wanting a rebuild and spending whatever level of your hard earned cash, you need to ask questions. People who know their product are usually only to happy to stand behind it with information and facts.  “speed cost, how fast do you want to go?” puts up a wall. Where can you go with this? Throw some idiot some cash and hope they know what you want intuitively? I doubt it! I’m sure they would never take advantage?

Grizzly (Aussie Mainline)

i hope we'll see some aluminum heads at columbus so we can see what really works. after all we all have to live in the real world. of cource we'd all like to see what a set of max ported heads with a huffer will do, HA!HA!

 lincoln/merc. y-blocks &mel's                                                               bucyrus, ohio.

That makes sense, too. For some reason I thought it was going to be a smaller engine this year. I guess that plan was only if the new heads weren't available in time.



I didn't even notice that previous post.

Grizzly, I see several problems with the idea that speed doesn't cost money.

In the 1st method, you talk about only rods as the performance component. That is only a small part of the picture. There are many more parts that go into a true performance build. And if you really know of a good low cost alternative for rods, let us know.

I don't quite understand method 2 but I've never been talked out of a performance mod. If I decided not to do it, it's because I saw the price and decided that I really don't need it. If you set realistic goals, you'll never run into that problem, anyway.

In method 3, you talk only about a 10% gain. You certainly don't need the aluminum heads for that. Depending on what you start with, you may not even need porting... which costs more.

In method 4, I guess you're building off of my previous statement about having a 1500 horse Y one way or another. It absolutely is possible, just as much so as a 1500 horse small block or big block. It won't be OEM but neither is a small block or big block at that level. If I had the money laying around and didn't know what to do with it, I'd use it to have the parts cast, forged, or machined that will support that power level. But if you believe this doesn't cost money, then, with all due respect, you're crazy.



You're right. We are in the USA. Free thought and expression does prevail. As a result, free conversation and bench racing does, too.

As I've said previously, even the most educated get it wrong sometimes; nobody can know everything. The way you talk, it sounds like you know how to build a 500 horse Y for the same that it will cost to rebuild my stock 1961 292. There are those who talk and there are those who do. If you can do it, then by all means do it. Prove the naysayers wrong.


Lawrenceville, GA