Around my area, everybody ran Isky. I always had better luck with Pontiac factory cams on my street / strip panchos. Later when I came over, I had pretty good luck with Shelby or Ford "Muscle Parts" cams. The Red car is actually my first y block, although I've had FE's, and Small Block Fords for years. So I really don't know who ran what in The Y's. Only knew a few guys who ran them, and they were not telling.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

Oldmics:

Strange that they would close the exhaust that early.  That cuts the running duration down to 255*.  The lobe separation is 113, which is good, and with only 31* overlap, it would idle pretty smoothly.

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

Dennis:

My take on PSL#426 being issued late in game (1959) is that new camshaft was required for the new B8C-6500-C lifters being released for replacement to reduce camshaft lobe wear PSL 424 April 23, 1959. These are hardenable iron whereas the previous EAA6500D were steel. There are other PSL's dealing with premature camshaft failures in the "high performance engine"

PSL 426 requires the B8C lifters. My guess is the previous cams EDB-E/B7A-C were mfg for the steel EAA6500D lifters. The camshafts likely were the same specs, just had a different metallurgy from the previous camshaft.

This particular parts catalogue is the only one I have that states "customer demand "  it is not in my 55/56/57 Canadian Catalogue or my US 55/56/57 catalogue. This catalogue is the large three volume  Master Parts Catalogue and the latest issue I have (1961) were the others are 1957 issue. To me customer demand means not a regularly advertised sale item. It does not say special order so stock likely was available at a Canadain depot. Some of our parts books listed special order which would be from a depot in the USA

 

Re hardenable iron tappets, did you notice the two different part numbers betweens PSL's 424 (B8C-6500-C) and 426 (B8C-6500-A)?  I was not able to find any other info on the B8C-6500-C tappet and wonder if it was a typo? 

Yes, the EAA-D tappet is 5120 steel and the lobe contact surface is carburized and quenched to Rc 58 min. Incidently, the B8C-A tappet is furnace hardened cast iron and the lobe contact surface is hardened to Rc 55 min.  So in theory, the hardenable cast iron tappet is a bit softer.   

The 1957 Ford Police Interceptor parts list, dated Feb 1957,  calls for the B6A-6500-D tappet for the S/C cam and states the EAA-6500-D (steel) tappet is not used with 312 engine with supercharger.  I have no idea what the B6A-D tappet is.  Maybe this part number shows up in an earlier catalogue, or someone may be familiar with it. 

Re camshaft lobe hardness, the EDB-D and EDB-E camshafts were both manufactured from the same material, EAC (M1A11) iron and have the same hardness specification, 40 Scleroscope min., which converts to around 30-31 Rc. There appears to be no design changes to the camshaft lobes, relative to the tappet design change.

The later B7AE-6250 -C (290 deg) and -D (302 deg) camshafts were induction hardened cast iron (EAC then changed to M1A-117-B) and had a lobe hardness of Rc 60-50.  However these camshafts was not released until early 1963, and would be only for service. 

The later induction hardened camshafts appear to also use the B8C-6500-A tappets.      

Regards,

Dennis

 

Re hardenable iron tappets, did you notice the two different part numbers between PSL's 424 (B8C-6500-C) and 426 (B8C-6500-A)? I was not able to find any other info on the B8C-6500-C tappet and wonder if it was a typo?



Good eye there, I did not notice it.





I just checked on some NOS lifters I have and they are B8C6500A.



Reference the hardness's I guess my theory failed.



I will keep looking through my info as likely is somewhere.



Have a great Christmas everyone and talk later.

marv

maybe the 285hp engine used the same cam but used heads shaved from the factory and used linc. holleys?

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

The Holley document I have, Form F-136, with all the carburetor application data,specifications and parts list calls for the same carburetors for 1957 Ford 312 - 270 & 285 H.P.  That is ECJ-AB's for std trans and an AA and AB for auto trans.

BTW, the Lincoln teapot was used on the 312 S/C engine because a variant of a pressurized Lincoln carb had already been developed for a Lincoln turbocharger program that never went into production.  At least that was what was explained to me from a colleague of mine at Ford that worked on the supercharger program in Car Product Engrg back in 1956 - 57. 

Has anyone ever come across Lincoln teapots with the design features used on the 8V carbs, i.e. secondary balance tube, calibration, etc ... .

The issue with the B7A-C (EDB-D) S/C cam being used in the 285 hp engine was the cam wasn't released until Dec 1956.  However the 285 hp engine was allegedly available at the introduction of the 1957 models and discontinued upon the release of the S/C engine which was very late Dec 1956.  It's possible the same or similar cam grind was used, but it would of had an XE part number.   The other thing were the dual valve springs for the 285 hp cam.  I wonder why they weren't offered with the high lift S/C cam?  Perhaps the production heat treated cast iron cam lobe couldn't handle the pressures and the 285 hp cam had a hard face overlay?  Just a guess.       

Regards,

Dennis

BTW, the Lincoln teapot was used on the 312 S/C engine because a variant of a pressurized Lincoln carb had already been developed for a Lincoln turbocharger program that never went into production.  At least that was what was explained to me from a colleague of mine at Ford that worked on the supercharger program in Car Product Engrg back in 1956 - 57. 

      Dennis,   I've heard this also, I beleive from Gordon Payne and/or Hoosier. the F code project was a pretty Rush, rush deal to combat the injected Scrubs and possibly Pontiacs and Chrysler 300's. Industrial espionage was a major deal, Pretty much everbody knew what the other guy was up to. 

Most likely the race shops and a few select dealers had these cars/cams prior to the official release through the parts system.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

Dennis.   This may have some relevance.  In talking with Ed Iskenderian at the EMC competition, he expounded some on the early Y-Block performance development.  In one instance, Ed along with other cam grinders was asked to submit potential camshaft kit designs per a Ford engineering request.  On that particular request, a part of Isky’s original cam & kit design did include a double spring.  The Isky camshaft and spring combination were selected but Ed was asked to leave the inner spring out of the double spring setup he had originally submitted.  The reasoning given to him was that the extra rpms were not needed that was afforded by the additional valve spring pressure.  As a result of this, his cam and spring kits for that contract were supplied to Ford with only a single coil spring design.  It wasn’t until some time later that he learned that the Isky cammed engines being used in the factory racing program when over-revved were damaging valve train parts as a result of only using the single spring design.  That over-revving much of the time was simply a pot hole or wet spot in the track but that’s all it took.  It was passed on to him that the engineering fix at the time was to use a inner spring from a Pontiac application.  He had a good chuckle on this.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Another possible reason for no dual springs from the factory was the extra machining required to cut the OD of the guide bosses.

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"