John make sure they increase the cam to crank centerline so increasing the stroke is more achievable

I meant to say center to center cam/crank distance

The 4.6 and 5.4 is already an alloy block of Y design, change too many things and you may as well just put a modern block in there.

55 Vicky & customline

58 Rack Dump, 55 F350 yard truck, 57 F100

59 & 61 P 400's, 58 F100 custom cab, 69 F100, 79 F150, 82 F600 ramp truck, 90 mustang conv 7 up, 94 Mustang, Should I continue?

If this is a wish list, four bolt mains and an o-ring rear crank seal.

There is little set in stone at this point. In fact it might not even happen. These are some of the ideas I heard from the person thinking about the project:

Lifter Bores would be .875" so they would accept FE solid or roller lifters

Cross bolted mains ala 427

Raised cam to allow longer stroke

4.00" bore minimum, perhaps 4.125"

Side oiler.

Nodular iron casting.

The block would probably be heavier than stock unless areas can be found to reduce thickness because there would be MORE material around the mains. Material might be removed around the valley area to offset some extra material in the main bearing area.

A one piece rear seal would be nice be no existing Y crank would fit.

The existing bore centers are the same as SBF, Windsor and M motors so 4.125" bore should be possible without trouble.

Of course the 292/312 main bore argument will still be had as will 1/2" vs 7/16" head bolts.

Way too soon to discuss price.


http://ford-y-block.com 

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

Re the 4.00 inch bore minimum:

Does it mean that at least a 4" bore must be used or that it will be able top support a 4" bore at least.  The latter will be best because limiting it to a 4" only crowd will not make a good seller.  Making it an option for the guy who is having difficutly finding a good 312 block or simply doesn't want to mess with a used 292 block will be ideal.

Re the mains and head bolts:

To one not at all experienced with casting, it seems that it will be easy to satisfy both demands with a difference in machining alone.  Is that not the case?  Surely it will affect the cost slightly to offer both options.  But here again, limiting it to a performance only crowd does not seem wise.

Is there any other crank which is similar enough to allow the correct external appearance, with the cast timing cover and all yet allowing for cheap aftermarket crank options.  If so, perhaps the block could also be machined to allow for the use of this crank instead of a stock Y crank.

Lawrenceville, GA

I really like the idea and would try one.  It sure would make this y-block ultimate performance easier.

The more modifications the better.  All I really would be concerned about is that it still looks like a Y-block on the outside, so it looks like it belongs in my '57 Ford.

Pat Fleischman

Due to costs, trials & tribulations, likely well exceeding what John Mummert (& others previously) expereinced with the Heads project, I doubt this will ever happen. How would it ever pay for itself ?. But if I'm wrong, one way to save weight would be to reintoduce the discontinued aluminum Timing Covers...

Paul

Paul. Passion will drive many projects where the financials are not feasible.

My own preferences for design changes on a new block offering would include the following standard features:

>4” bore with the capability to go out to a 4.125” bore.

>292 main bearing sizes.

>Cross-bolt mains for the main journal caps. Add billet caps as an option if they are not standard.

>Oil filter pad made into the block (no plate required) which would also help with the main cap cross-bolting at the #4 main.

>Additional motor mount pads in front of the originals like the ’65 and up FE’s. This would allow the engines to go into later model Fairlanes, Mustangs, Galaxies, and pickups/trucks using FE motor mounts assuming that the firewall clearance with the rear located distributors is not a problem.

>Additional bellhousing bolt pattern(s) on back of block to accommodate other Ford family bellhousing patterns (ie. FE and/.or SBF).

>The block is still designed to accommodate original production crankshafts, cylinder heads, timing covers, oil pans, etc.

>Raised camshaft would be nice but that involves a specialized timing set. With the raised camshaft is also the change in valve train geometry which may be a potential issue when the cylinder heads are installed. With a 4.125” bore and the current camshaft to crank centerline, the cubic inch capability would be 428 with a currently doable 4.00” stroke so it’s difficult to justify raising the camshaft.

>That’s a definite yes for the 0.875” lifter bores.

And here is a past thread on the ‘new block’ topic.

http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/Topic12901-11-1.aspx

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

I see where you're going. What we need is a stacked port conversion for 4.6 and 5.4.


Lawrenceville, GA