Author
|
Message
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: 2 Weeks Ago
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 205.0K
|
dropped 57 (7/30/2011) Ted, in your opinion,would it be a safe performance mod. to bolt a set of the aluminum heads on a freshly rebuilt 272/292, giving that all necessary factors will be to spec, or new. and do you think that an upgrade like this would net gains comparable to those charted?. Thanks for your time. portland, oregon.Aluminum heads added to a 292 are expected to show similar improvements in performance. And for most scenarios, this would still be on pump gas. There’s nothing fancy about the 312 dyno mule being used for the cylinder head testing in that it’s using cast pistons with the original design wide rings, stock rods, etc. The major changes on the bottom end are the camshaft change and the balancing of the rotating assembly.
 Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: 2 Weeks Ago
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 205.0K
|
yalincoln (7/30/2011) hi ted, were you using 1.64 valves in the truck heads?Yes for the stock COAE heads. No for the C1TE heads.
 Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
John Mummert
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Last Year
Posts: 912,
Visits: 7.4K
|
Ted, many thanks for all this info. I am amazed that the 1.64" intake C0AE heads run a well as they do. It looks like C0AE heads with 1.78 or 1.84" intakes and a little blending would make a good street head. The C1AE heads are much harder to find but do have some subtle changes. Hard to say if they are any better. A rare head that intrigues me is the ECZ-C-ED. They were used in 56, on pick-ups as far as I can tell, have 1.78" valves and -113 combustion chambers with 1957 style ports. Looks like a good street head. Very HTF.
http://ford-y-block.com 20 miles east of San Diego, 20 miles north of Mexico 
|
|
|
Grumpy1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 7 Years Ago
Posts: 35,
Visits: 219
|
Hi Im new but have been on the outside looking in for a long time. I was wondering if the power curve data is available for this head test. Im curious to see what rpm these max horse power numbers occur (also the torque). In my opinion just the max numbers are a little misleading and don't tell the whole story. Thanks
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: 2 Weeks Ago
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 205.0K
|
In lieu of a bunch of graphs that get busy in a hurry, here’s a revised chart using a scoring format to gauge the overall performance. While I've calculated the scores in the normal 2500-5500 rpm range, I've also included the scores for the 2500-3500 rpm range as this gives a better idea of the lowend torque values of the various heads. This information was already compiled and comes from the in-depth article that will be in a future issue of the Y-Block Magazine. The scores are calculated by adding together the average torque and horsepower numbers for the given rpm ranges, multiplying by 1000, and dividing by the cubic inch (322). The table format in this instance with the scores gives a better overview than a crowded and busy graph. Cylinder Head | Peak HP | Peak Torque | Comp Ratio | Ported | Score 2500-3500 rpm | Score 2500-5500 rpm | Mummert Aluminum | 377 | 368 | 9.8:1 | Yes | 1781 | 1892 | Mummert Aluminum | 354 | 356 | 9.8:1 | No | 1633 | 1852 | 113 – LP | 333 | 350 | 9.2:1 | Yes | 1592 | 1829 | G – Yellow Brick heads | 328 | 350 | 9.4:1 | Yes | 1586 | 1818 | G – MW | 324 | 349 | 10.6:1 | Yes | 1621 | 1841 | G – MT | 304 | 337 | 9.6:1 | Yes | 1591 | 1825 | G - GH | 302 | 337 | 9.2:1 | Yes | 1557 | 1749 | G - stock | 290 | 344 | 9.2:1 | No | 1633 | 1755 | 471 | 296 | 332 | 8.3:1 | Yes | 1517 | 1720 | ECZ-C – stock – JF | 288 | 336 | 9.0:1 | No | 1560 | 1733 | ECZ-C – stock – CL | 280 | 335 | 8.6:1 | No | 1556 | 1709 | ECZ-C – stock – JM | 273 | 330 | 8.1:1 | No | 1525 | 1676 | ECZ-C after milling | 295 | 339 | 9.0:1 | Yes | 1548 | 1754 | ECZ-C before milling | 290 | 334 | 8.4:1 | Yes | 1535 | 1726 | C1TE-D after milling | 297 | 337 | 9.0:1 | Yes | 1571 | 1754 | C1TE-D before milling | 295 | 335 | 8.4:1 | Yes | 1554 | 1738 | COAE-A - stock | 283 | 332 | 8.7:1 | No | 1566 | 1709 | COAE-A w/larger valves | 273 | 328 | 8.9:1 | No | 1525 | 1668 |
I’ll add that the ported aluminum heads really shine on those engines that are built to accommodate them. My roadster engine with the aluminum heads is now peaking at 520 ft/lbs of torque and that was enough to rip the planetaries to shreds a week ago at the Houston NMRA/NMCA race. Lots of runs on that particular transmission so it wasn’t a total surprise when that occurred. It’s just the first time I’ve done that kind of carnage with a Y-Block in front of the transmission.
 Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
Grumpy1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 7 Years Ago
Posts: 35,
Visits: 219
|
Thanks for posting those numbers. The numbers i find most interesting are g-stock heads out perform g-gh heads even though the stock heads are down by 12 horsepower. g-mt heads out perform g-yellow brick heads with the g-mt heads being down 24 horsepower and 13 torque. 113-lp and g-mt score about the same with the g-mt heads being down almost 30 horsepower. This is a good test but for me i have more questions then answers. Also a lot of whys, how comes and what ifs. I wonder on a stock 292 with a stock cam and intake how these heads would perform. Why did the coae heads with the larger valves not do well? Ted this engine is a 312 right. You said to score the engine divide by the cubic inch (322). Is this engine a 312 with a 60 overbore or is 322 a misprint. Thanks again for the numbers and all the hard work-Greg
|
|
|
charliemccraney
|
|
Group: Moderators
Last Active: 3 hours ago
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 441.5K
|
The heads that scored higher produced higher average hp and tq. Peak is for bragging rights. Averages, getting the power up and keeping it there, are what really counts. An engine with less peak power can be the more powerful engine.
Lawrenceville, GA
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: 2 Weeks Ago
Posts: 7.4K,
Visits: 205.0K
|
Grumpy1 (12/10/2011)
....This is a good test but for me i have more questions then answers. Also a lot of whys, how comes and what ifs. I wonder on a stock 292 with a stock cam and intake how these heads would perform. Why did the coae heads with the larger valves not do well? Ted this engine is a 312 right. You said to score the engine divide by the cubic inch (322). Is this engine a 312 with a 60 overbore or is 322 a misprint. Greg The dyno engine in this test is a +060 over 312 with the cast pistons still 0.025” in the hole. Basically a stock rebuild other than the amount of overbore and a Crower camshaft. More details on the rest of this engine are available at the start of this thread. As a general rule, porting the stock heads will sacrifice some of the lowend torque values for upper rpm performance. That has to do with the air velocity at the lower rpms slowing as the intake ports are either made larger or the port walls themselves made smoother. The intake manifold becomes a serious player once head porting is done. If the intake manifold does not flow at least as much air as the modified heads, then the intake itself will hold back the potential of the head porting. And then the actual valve job is a player. Subtle changes in seat angles can help or kill cylinder head flow which was part of the problem with the larger valves in the COAE heads. If an engine is not going to be romped on where it sees 5500 rpms or more, then it starts to become a moot point to change intakes, carbs, cams, head porting or any of those other modifications that helps that seat of the pants performance feel. Fuel economy is another subject though. For those Y engines that rarely see over 3500 rpms, then the stock 1957 292 or 312 engines give a good basic blueprint for the best combination between efficiency and performance. For those of us that want more performance, then head work is at the top of the list.
 Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
pegleg
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 3 Years Ago
Posts: 3.0K,
Visits: 8.7K
|
I was really disapointed in the 471's performance, until I realized I was comparing them to other ported heads.with more compression. Looks like the 113's were fairly good heads. Thank you Ted, unbelievable amount of work and time expended for free. Frank
Frank/Rebop Bristol, In ( by Elkhart)  
|
|
|
grovedawg
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 13 Years Ago
Posts: 246,
Visits: 622
|
I'm constantly amazed by the work that everyone puts into this website and their willingness to share. Thanks Ted. This was more than an amazing write up.
Heber City, UT (15 mins outside of Park City- basically it's in the mountains)
55 Effie
|
|
|