|
By joey - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I know Ford's G heads were superior to the Cs, and in turn the Cs flowed better than the Bs. But do any hard numbers exist? Or, is anyone able to put this into better context? For example, wouid a set of professionally ported and polished C heads be equivalent to a stock set of G heads?
|
|
By Ol'ford nut - 15 Years Ago
|
|
You would still have different size valves and compression ratios.
|
|
By DANIEL TINDER - 15 Years Ago
|
|
joey (3/19/2010)
I know Ford's G heads were superior to the Cs, and in turn the Cs flowed better than the Bs. But do any hard numbers exist? Or, is anyone able to put this into better context? For example, wouid a set of professionally ported and polished C heads be equivalent to a stock set of G heads?
At high revs, Cs flow as well (smaller valves, but less shrouding). Port & polished C would likely surpass stock G flow, but also lower CR due to larger chamber.
|
|
By 46yblock - 15 Years Ago
|
|
4 or 5 years ago, Bruce Young gave some numbers in the Y Mag. As I recall 113s did 185 cfm, G's 180 cfm, and C's 170 cfm, stock. Maybe someone else has a photographic memory.
|
|
By John Mummert - 15 Years Ago
|
|
The upper port of almost any Y-Block head can be ported into the 210-215CFM range. The G, -113 and -471 heads can be ported to around 225CFM with 1.94" and 230's with 2.02" for both upper and lower. The problem with the less desirable heads is the lower. I've tried every trick I can think of and most won't reach 200CFM. The lower on the C head is one of the worst. High 190's is the best I've found. The C1AE can be made better with good porting and 1.88" valve,1.94" cut down to 1.88" to avoid spark plug interferrence.
|
|
By joey - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Thanks gentlemen for your input. John Mummert
The problem with the less desirable heads is the lower. I've tried every trick I can think of and most won't reach 200CFM. The lower on the C head is one of the worst. High 190's is the best I've found. The C1AE can be made better with good porting and 1.88" valve,1.94" cut down to 1.88" to avoid spark plug interferrence. John, do you believe the stacked head port configuration which was supposed to increase turbulence really had any benefit? Did the stock Gs deliver evenly between uppers and lowers? Thanks.
|
|
By John Mummert - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Well, yes and no. At low rpm the original head design probably kept the air/fuel well mixed and helped reduce detonation and may have improved fuel mileage. As the rpm increased the bends and sharp edges hindered flow and made the engine inefficient above 4500 rpm. The squish area was also exagerated in the Y-Block design with the valves pushed over the deck surface. Most performance engines try to place the valves as close to the center of the cylinder bore as possible. Again, good for low rpm use but not the best for performance. Maybe too much of a good thing from a performance stand point but they weren't trying to design a race engine. Luckily the bottom end is stout enough to take performance abuse. The heads and intake manifold can be improved to much higher levels. I will say that the stacked ports lock a designer in a box. I found there are definite limits to what can be done with the ports even when building a new head. The biggest problem is that the lower port cannot rise significantly before it is out from under the upper port. You must elevate the lower port floor to get the port to make the 90+ degree bend to the valve seat. If fact, this is the biggest problem with the 1955-56 heads. The lower floor is a simple arc that never gets very high and approaches the valve seat at too low an angle. You want the port to approach the valve at close to 90 degrees and this can't be done with the 55-56 heads. The later heads were greatly improved in this area. The lower port is the most compromised by the design so we basically made a lower port that worked well and fit the upper port around it. With the stock gasket opening I think that around 270CFM is going to be very close to limit. Only time will time tell.
|
|
By Flying Jester - 15 Years Ago
|
|
46yblock (3/19/2010)
4 or 5 years ago, Bruce Young gave some numbers in the Y Mag. As I recall 113s did 185 cfm, G's 180 cfm, and C's 170 cfm, stock. Maybe someone else has a photographic memory.
With numbers that close, I would be more inclined to spruce up an existing head than go out of my way to find a better one.
|
|
By Ted - 15 Years Ago
|
|
joey (3/22/2010)
John, do you believe the stacked head port configuration which was supposed to increase turbulence really had any benefit?I’m not John but I’ll add that the turbulence has more to do with the valve placement and combustion chamber design than the intake port layout in this particular case. The small cylinder bores on the Y simply compounds the issue. The stacked port design did allow the engineers at the time to use intake ports that had a larger cross sectional size as opposed to using ports that were placed side by side. This was in part due to the pushrod placement and having to fit the ports between the pushrods.The ports being stacked also made it easier to make each intake runner more equal in length from the carb to the valve which in turn allows the engine to produce a higher peak torque value. Where an engine has unequal length intake ports, the average torque value ends up being lower.
|
|
By joey - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I have to say I find all this fascinating.
|
|
By grovedawg - 15 Years Ago
|
|
John Mummert (3/19/2010)
T....The problem with the less desirable heads is the lower. I've tried every trick I can think of and most won't reach 200CFM. The lower on the C head is one of the worst. High 190's is the best I've found. The C1AE can be made better with good porting and 1.88" valve,1.94" cut down to 1.88" to avoid spark plug interferrence.
What would you classify as the less desirable heads? Am I reading that right that all C heads are less desirable?
C0TE
C0AE
C1AE
C1TE
???
|
|
By charliemccraney - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I would say that for all out performance, the C head is less desirable than, say Gs or 113s. But remember, '56 is the second most powerful year for the Y. C heads were used in '56.
|
|
By grovedawg - 15 Years Ago
|
I have a set of C1TE heads that I was just planing on adding oversize valves with a port and polish. But, I found a set of 57' G heads 4 hours south of here that I could get for fairly inexpensive. Would it be worth the trip, knowing that I'd still probably port/polish/relieve the G heads as well?
|
|
By joey - 15 Years Ago
|
|
grovedawg (3/25/2010)
I have a set of C1TE heads that I was just planing on adding oversize valves with a port and polish. But, I found a set of 57' G heads 4 hours south of here that I could get for fairly inexpensive. Would it be worth the trip, knowing that I'd still probably port/polish/relieve the G heads as well?
I would guess it would be worth it if high performance is what you have in mind. I think the flow restrictions with the Bs and Cs come into play as one approaches the higher end of the rpm spectrum. As for me, I don't approach the redline and in fact rarely surpass 4000, so my ported and polished C heads are fine.
|
|
By John Mummert - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I would never say that you can't make a Y-Block run good with ECZ-C heads or reworked C0TE C0AE C1AE C1TE. However, if you are going to replace guides, valve job, hard seat, surface, maybe new valves and springs, port and polish you might as well start with the best you can find if you're after performance. As I recall, Ford rated both a 56 4-bbl 292 and a 57 2-bbl 292 @ close to 205hp. I think the ECZ-G heads had a lot to do with equalizing the power. By less desirable I mean any head other than ECZ-G, -113 or -471. These are the only heads with a good lower port.
|
|
By PF Arcand - 15 Years Ago
|
This is very interesting stuff. Thanks John M. & Ted..
Grove Dawg-, even it you install oversize intakes, the real compression ratio of C1TE heads is likely well under 8 to 1 with composite gaskets. I'd buy the "G" heads, but check them for cracks between the center exhaust valves first.
|
|
By Ted - 15 Years Ago
|
|
grovedawg (3/25/2010)
Am I reading that right that all C heads are less desirable?If talking about heads, it’s necessary to clarify exactly which heads are being talked about. The ‘C’ heads in most conversations are the ECZ-C heads in particular and not the COTE, COAE, C1AE, or C1TE heads. The ECZ-C heads are in a completely different class from the COTE, COAE, C1AE, or C1TE heads and each group subsequently has different attributes in which to attempt to get performance out of them. As John brings up, using the ECZ-G, 113, or 471 heads are the more desirable head castings in which to start with for any kind of serious performance.
|
|
By grovedawg - 15 Years Ago
|
|
As John brings up, using the ECZ-G, 113, or 471 heads are the more desirable head castings in which to start with for any kind of serious performance.
Perfecto! Thanks duders!
|
|
By Y block Billy - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Grovedawg, Don't the C1TE heads you wanted to modify have the large sodium filled exhaust valves? Has anybody modified these for a hipo motor?
|
|
By 46yblock - 15 Years Ago
|
|
C1TEs have the 1.65 intakes with usual valve stem and 76 or 77 cc combustion chambers. ECR-A heads and maybe others have the sodium filled valves. I had a set of ECR-As (1956-?) and was going to redo them. It would be easy to replace the sodium valves with regular valves through use of new guides. The sodium material is contained in the valve stem, so they are a very thick 7/16 in. The combustion chamber cc'd at 73 and the head looked very similar to an ECZ-C. It ended up that both heads were cracked.
|
|
By NoShortcuts - 15 Years Ago
|
I've heard of the sodium filled valves on the (?) heavy duty / (?) medium duty truck 292 engines, but have never seen any. I'm astounded if the valve stems were in fact 7/16 inch diameter. I can't imagine that!
I don't have the Ford Truck Parts Books to look up any of the info. that was available about these. Were the stems sodium filled on both the intake and the exhaust valves?
Thanks.
NoShortcuts
|
|
By 46yblock - 15 Years Ago
|
|
Sodium filled on exhausts only. The intakes were regular type 1.78 in valves. There also was a special one piece spring collar, with a floating button between the stem end and rocker. I think it was only on the exhausts. Still have one of the heads and the valves.
|
|
By speedpro56 - 15 Years Ago
|
|
I'm with John on this one, if you're gonna spend x many of dollars on a set of heads then it makes sense to go with the all around good ones. It still cost the same wheather you're porting ECZ-Cs or ECZ-Gs and in the end better results are obtained from the Gs etc.
|
|
By grovedawg - 15 Years Ago
|
So I made the journey to Moab. It was a fun little saturday morning drive. Spent a couple hours pulling the motor out of a sweet little '57 fleetside truck that had been partially parted out and was severly deconstructed. I got home, pulled the heads and they looked GREAT! Obviously, they need to be cleaned and magnafluxed, but I'm stoked. Did I mention that already
The heads are ECZ-G 113 (With the S for Service Replacement I think.) I was under the impression that the G, C, and 113's were all different heads. Am I wrong in that assumption? Beacuase my heads are clearly marked ECZ-G 113 S.
Regardless, now begins the fun! 
The only other dissapointment (If it's a dissappointment at all) is that I was hoping the block would be a 292, but it's a 272. Which I've already got.... But I can't friggin WAIT to start monkeying around with them!!!    
|
|
By Ted - 15 Years Ago
|
Y block Billy (3/28/2010)
Grovedawg, Don't the C1TE heads you wanted to modify have the large sodium filled exhaust valves? Has anybody modified these for a hipo motor? I have taken the 332 LYB heads and converted them from the large stemmed sodium exhaust valves to the standard size 11/32” valves by simply installing new guides in the heads. The same could be done with the sodium filled exhausts in Y heads if deemed necessary but Y heads with the larger stemmed sodium valves typically need so much in the way of performance mods that it’s much easier to start off with a pair of ‘better’ castings to begin with. There are so many Y heads available (and better ones at that) that converting the sodium exhaust valve equipped Y heads over to a regular sized valve stem hasn’t been a cost effective solution for me.
|