Wow, this is starting to sound interesting.



killer.


This ain't no L-Kamino!

    Congrats Ted, just checked the standings in Engine Masters and your #1 Alternate,with 30 entrys someones bound to DNF and then "wallah" your in the running! I can see the surprised look that a Ford Y-Block is in Engine Masters compitition,alas history is made! I can see John Kaase bring his "new" cast Boss 429 to compete this year(maybe?). I believe that everyone here at Y-Blocks would be willing to help in anyway to help you get into the challenge just to show the numbers these engines are capable of! Might also enlighten some companies to make high performance parts for the old y-blocks(you never know-LOL).So good luck in October and give a shoutout if any help is needed.  KID

The EMC website just isn’t updated yet but I’m officially in the competitive field of thirty now and no longer an alternate.  Maybe the EMC site will be updated early next week but I’ve already been communiciated to by the committee and I’m in.  As such, I will be doing a Y in lieu of some of the other options I have available here.  Part of that is simply because of how much is invested in doing the engines for the last couple of years that didn't make it due to being too far down on the alternate list.

 

The rules format during the last couple of years was more conducive to the Y scoring higher in the field based on the points system that’s being used but I’m going ahead with plans to do a Y entry for this years competition.  The new rules format being what it is makes a completely different combination more suitable than the engine that was originally planned for the 2007/2008 competitions.  But if I have to use oem iron heads, that’s still going to be a major disadvantage in regards overall scoring.  There’s a very strong possibility that the Y entry will be the only oem head being used if I’m committed to using iron heads.  As Doug mentions, the intake manifold selection is also a deterrent with the raised rpm band that is a part of this years rules format.

 

As far as donations to cover traveling expenses and the such, I’ll take them.   Tom Comptom has already donated to the cause so I’ll just make an associate sponsor out of anyone that wishes to be a part of this by contributing some funds to help defray expenses.  You’ll find my contact information at the following website.   www.eatonbalancing.com 

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Ted

I read your previous article in the YBM about your entry being disallowed as Y Blocks use mushroom lifters, but I cannot understand why they were disallowed.

Surely mushroom lifters are no better or worse than any other solid lifter.

I would appreciate the reasoning behind them being previously disallowed if only for the fact that they were fitted to Ford engines of the fifties.

Regards

Rick - West Australia
Do Y Blocks Downunder run upside down? Gravity Sucks!!

In the case of the other engines, a mushroom lifter allows for a much larger foot which allows for more aggressive cam profiles and ultimately in more power potential. On a Y-block, however, it does not provide that advantage. The foot on the Y lifter is about 1". Most "conventional" lifters are about .842" to .904". So I guess it does give us a slight edge. The ruling was a bit ridiculous. Fortunately, the rules have changed to allow engines that came with them originally to run.


Lawrenceville, GA

It’s exactly as Charlie says.  Rules for the past couple of years simply stated “No mushroom lifters” without any exceptions.  This years ruling says “No mushroom lifters unless oem equipped”.   A simple wording change this year made the Y or any engine that came factory with mushroom lifters a legitimate entry if it fits all the other rules.  And repeating what Charlie mentioned, lifters with a larger diameter wear face can logistically run more aggressive camshaft profiles; the easy route for those engines factory equipped with smaller diameter lifters and where a particular set of rules does not allow roller camshaft designs is to simply make the tappet wear face a larger diameter by lieu of the mushroom design while not having to enlarge the lifter bores themselves.  Depending upon the engine design to which mushroom tappets are being retrofitted, a recess may have to be machined at the bottom of each lifter bore for ‘mushroom’ clearance.  With roller camshafts and lifters being permitted this year in the EMC competition, it’s questionable why mushroom lifters are even an issue at all.

 

An additional observation is that this years selection committee has obviously recognized the number of teams or shops that were entering more than one engine combination which was keeping the actual thirty in the competition from being as diversified as it could have been.  By sending ‘2^nd’ teams to the alternate position this year, many of the entries that would have been alternates (myself included) are in a much better position to be actual players.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

Ted:

Count me in.  The check will be in the mail tomorrow.  Thank you for perservering in this matter.

John - "The Hoosier Hurricane"

Hi Ted,

Donating would be really simple if you had a PayPal account.  Instead of foreign cheques we could all kick in worldwide!

Larry D

Winnipeg, MB Canada Eh!


'57 Fairlane 500 Club Victoria

'58 Custom 300 Tudor

'56 Crown Victoria

'61 Starliner Z Code

'51 Ford Victoria

Ted, what are the rules on inlet manifolds, does "commerically available" mean they have to be still in production? Would this be any good to you?

As far as i know Cain hasn't done any casting for years. Maybe one of the other aussie know more about these manifolds than i do.

Pete, one of the Aussie mob. Beechworth, Victoria60 F100 Panel Van, Y-block. 65 Galaxie Country Sedan 390

Commercially available by my interpolation means past or present.  That particular manifold does look interesting but gut feel says the lack of dividers will put a serious hurt to the lower end grunt.   This is just an observation based on prior experience with a sheetmetal intake that had short runners.  A quick dyno test with that manifold on the mule engine could verify if the manifold has any potential for some additional power production for the rpm ranges that are being targetted for.

What’s it take to get that manifold to my part of the world for some dyno testing?  Or is there some dyno data available on your end already comparing it to a stock ‘B’ manifold?   With that information, it could be determined if that intake could be viable for the competition and if so, then a confirmation from the rules committee that the manifold in question could indeed be used.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)