|
By dbird - 11 Years Ago
|
So I ended up with a 292 marine engine I hope to make a road engine, but there are issues I can't figure out. It's a B9 block with one 113 head and one G head, supposedly rebuilt 20 years go with only a few hours, the crosshatching in the cylinders and the spotless interior of the engine would support that. However, the 0.020 under bearings which are dated 1997 are toast. The 97 is close enough to 20 years it sounds reasonable. The rear main had bearing material still attached to the end of the bearing the looked as if it were planed off. The crank journals look pretty decent. I had some 25+ year-old plastigauge that was pretty dried out, so I don't know how accurate it is , but it showed plenty of clearance, in the high side of acceptable.
Now the part that has me really confused, B9TE-L pistons with ECZ rods ( 7 that look like I'd expect and one that has a cap with 2 long ridges instead of one fat one on the middle ). I would expect the 312 rods would not bring the piston up far enough, but my wonderfully accurate measurement, straight edge with a stacked feeler gauge, shows about .035 distance piston to deck. A dial indicator with a magnetic base showed more, but only about .050-.060. Either way, EBU rods would seem to be way too long. For what it's worth, there was no ridge in the cylinders and the ring gap was a consistent 0.028 all the way down.
Anyway, some questions:
Should I just have the 113 head milled, or do a little grinding on the G and then mill both, or ignore the compression difference. Just a mild street engine.
I'm going to need to bore it, so the pistons will be different, are the ECZ rods the ones I should use or should I find a set of EBU rods?
Any thoughts on why the bearings would go so fast?
Thanks for any help and advice,
Don
|
|
By slick56 - 11 Years Ago
|
What is the bore size , Don?
I suspect the engine may be a '59 Merc 312?
See if you can find another head to match, preferably
the 113 as thay are 'posted' (stronger combustion chamber),
however, for a street engine the G heads are also good.
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 11 Years Ago
|
I suspect that the one connecting rod with the different cap is an aftermarket replacement rod, not from Ford. I would suspect that the replacement rod does not have the ECZ marking on it.
Where are you, Don? My thinking is to attempt to connect you with another 113 head and an original ECZ rod to match the other 7.
If you bore the cylinders, consider having the rotating assembly (pistons, piston pins, retainers, rings, rods, and crank) re-balanced.
|
|
By miker - 11 Years Ago
|
FWIW, from Mummert's site
"B9AE-F 292 cu. in. V8 1959-60 cars and trucks. (312 with ECZ main caps, 1959 & 60 Mercury only) "
" 312 cu.in 3.80X 3.44" ECZ 6.252" 1.816:1 .9122" 143gr 585gr 638gr 1.768" "
So, maybe a 312? Or a crank from a 312 turned down, and put into a 292 B9 block?
Along with the above post also being correct.
|
|
By dbird - 11 Years Ago
|
I sure wish it was a 312, but it's not.
Crank pictures match a 292, Clevite bearing numbers match a 292, EBU main caps, piston part numbers, and my super accurate Harbor Freight digital calipers say it's a 292. The eighth rod is a probably Ford product, the rod itself is stamped with Ford logos and part number and the cap has an oval, I can't see the Ford script, plus the ECZ.
Thanks for the input, keep it coming. Matching the heads would be good if somebody in central California wants to swap one.
Don
|
|
By 2721955meteor - 11 Years Ago
|
|
just asembled a 292, core came frome a truck,it had 312 style rods,i have a set of the older style 272-292 rods,they wher the same length.was told later truck engines (292 had the beefier rods.but i did not note the part#.). if you say no ridge why would you bore the engine. light hone and instal new molley rings.( is the engine a ccw rotation(frome the front.). ther wher coments hear that ccw marine engines had rod bearing isues. that being the case you will need the diferent cam and chain drive.(as ccw has gear driven cam re prev. posts with pictures
|
|
By dbird - 11 Years Ago
|
Reason for bore:
The ring end gap was way over what I want,
I seem to remember something about pistons being knurled and these have marks I would expect with that process.
There is a ding in number 4 cylinder, same as the replaced rod, leading me to think that's why the rod and head were replaced along with a piston pn 5750474
The engine is normal rotation.
Thanks,
Don
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 11 Years Ago
|
Well... this supports what 2721955Meteor mentioned about a truck block with 312 rods...
This was found in the Forum Archive... from John Mummert, posted in a thread 5 years ago...
The early HD 292's thru 1960 used the cast 292 crankshaft and 312 rods with tall piston.
http://ford-y-block.com 20 miles east of San Diego, 20 miles north of Mexico
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 11 Years Ago
|
My understanding is that the 292 truck engines with the 'tall' pistons were odd-balls. These pistons are not commercially available today, the piston pin height is different from that of a standard 272, 292, or 312 y-block piston.
Unless you go with a 312 crank, you will need to switch to EBU connecting rods to get pistons to work with your 292 crank.
|
|
By dbird - 11 Years Ago
|
The tall piston makes a lot of sense, and if there's an oddball out there, I'll end up with it. It also kind of matches an Ebay ad for pistons for a 59-60 Ford truck with a 302(?).
Thanks,
Don
|
|
By pintoplumber - 11 Years Ago
|
|
Charlie, not to take anything away from your post, but the 239/256 pistons had a different pin height because of the shorter crank.
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 11 Years Ago
|
Oops! Thanks for catching me on that info, Dennis.
Merry Christmas! 
|
|
By 2721955meteor - 11 Years Ago
|
the 302 in ebay is not a 292 bored but a industrial version of the real truck engines(based on lincoln engine.) in my case the 292 rods ar the same length as the older style rods,as i did a acurate compareson. 302 truck engines wher 35/8 bore made frome1952-59.then there ws 317-332 truck engines 3.8 bore(same as 312.)made from 1952-59. easey to get confused.
ring gap is a poor indicator of bore wear,check piston to bore wear with long fealer strips2-3 thou is like new,after that ridge may have bean removed and honed pistons knerled wich for a street low use week ender in my opinion is fine. do not see the sense in spending a bunch on a engine that sees 1000miles pr year. re ring new bearings and cam regrind service heads, oil pump . just my take.
|
|
By 314 - 11 Years Ago
|
|
the 292 tall piston is not an oddball.its the h.d. truck piston.they come with cite rods or ecz.if you want to use car pistons just trade for a set of ebu rods.anyone will be glad to trade for a set of 312 rods. nothing odd about your engine.
|
|
By Y block Billy - 11 Years Ago
|
|
I beleive those heavy duty truck pistons were forged instead of cast, this makes them a much stronger piston and there is plenty of meat on the top, not 100% sure but if you use the regular EBU rods you can turn the tops of the pistons down to get zero deck, I think I did this on a mock up once but got new pistons for the final assembly.
|
|
By 2721955meteor - 11 Years Ago
|
|
the pistons on e bay ar3 5/8 b0re,1set .030 over size 2nd is .040. acording to listing they ar for a 302truck engine. the 317 cuin truck is 3.8 bore. piston ring book shows from 1952-1954 truck. so they can't be for yblockc as we know them. there where specs on this site showing 312 style con rods of same length as 292 early rods. i am not sure if the 52 to54 is the lincon family or a orphen. curious on which family
|
|
By 314 - 11 Years Ago
|
|
y block billy i used a set of those heavy pistons in a 292 with 312 crank and ecz rods.had to cut.045 of top for flush deck.plenty of meat and they are forged
|
|
By 2721955meteor - 11 Years Ago
|
look at the bore size of the 302 1952 -54. ,also the 1s on ebay are cast not forged. i am aware of the 317 being 3.8 bore,but are not a direct replacement as was noted.
my querey is the con rods that resemble 312 but are 292 length and weight. have a set in my 292 and they match length and weight. do not have a part# as engine all asembled.
|