The 292 was last used in a passenger car in 1962. The 1963 Galaxie first came out with a 260 V8 and was soon replaced by the 289 when they figured out it was way underpowered.

Re Con Rod redesign:

The C1TE-6200-C (292 Trk/312) and C2AE-6200-A (292 Pass) Conn Rod Assys share a common Cap - ECZ-6210-A2, Nuts - C1TE-6212-A, and Bolts - C1TE-6214-E. 

It appears the Rod forging was also redesigned, similar to the truck rod.  Now was all this done to use these rods for truck applications, to commonize components, share manufacturing lines at CEP#2, or any or all of these?

Did the 292 rods have EBU on the forgings and has anyone seen any with ECE?  The reason I ask is ECE-6200-A is what came up for the 6.320-6.324 Ctr to Ctr Length Conn Rod/Assy.

Regards,

Dennis

Our next trial will be with 6.500" rod and 1.560  comp height piston with stock dimension 3.30" stroke crankshaft. Time will tell how it works

http://www.stahlheaders.com/Lit_Rod%20Length.htm

http://www.strokerengine.com/RodStroke.html

If nothing else, you get a good sleep after reading those...

 Seppo from Järvenpää, Finland
www.hollowheads.net (just click the hole in the head to proceed)

THANKS Paul, Bill, Mike, Warren, and Ted for your replies. The input is appreciated as I try to understand (make sense) out of y-block changes (improvements?) made by FoMoCo over the production life-span of the engine.



My inquiry was prompted by seeing a CITE forged steel crank and rod assembly go for $455 Sunday night on ebay.



Regards,

NoShortcuts
a.k.a. Charlie Brown
near Syracuse, New York

The shorter rod went into the truck engines as a less expensive method to decrease the compression ratio without using another piston design or a larger combustion chambered cylinder head.  The shorter rod simply lowered the standard piston another 0.072” in the hole.  This is conjecture on my part but had it not been for the 312 engine being produced, the shorter length rod would not have been readily available as a ‘quick fix’ for lowering the 292 engine truck compression ratios.  Keep in mind that the longer C2AE rod was also available in the HD trucks but I’ve found many of these were used with the larger combustion chambered heads.

 

But on to the rod length debate.  Shorter rods are typically advantageous in making increased lowend torque numbers as there is a piston speed increase when using shorter rod lengths.  On the flip side of the coin, longer rods exhibit decreased cylinder wall wear at the lower portions of the cylinder wall due to reduced rod angles.  If playing with rod lengths, then camshaft opening/closing attributes must be changed as the piston dwell at TDC changes based on the rod length.  Just changing rod lengths and not changing the camshaft appropriately for each will not be a definitive test if doing a rod length test on an engine dyno.  The Y engine that saw service at the EMC competition used a 6.750” long rod which had the dwell time at TDC as long as possible while the longer rod length also helps to reduce the propensity for detonation with low octane fuels.  But in the grand scheme of things, rod length is still a minor player compared to all the other variables that are available to change up.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)

The real reason that ford changed lengths I have no idea but I would guess at two things.

First, rod stroke ratio the ideal ( so called "perfect") rod stroke ratio (the ideal mix of torque and power) is said to be 1.75:1. F1 and some motorcycles have a rod stroke ratio of 2.00:1 seeking higher powerformance and higher rpm with a radically oversquare engines. Generally shorter rod can provide more torque. So standard 292 1.915:1 HD 292 1.894:1 312 1.816:1

The other guess would be strength a shorter rod would give higher strength. It could allow stronger pistons or longer skirts to allow for higher loads. 

Again just speculation.

Cheers

Warren

Grizzly (Aussie Mainline)

What I understand is the longest rod you can have in a given application is best.  So stock 292 length vs. shorter HD 292 would seem best.

Mike, located in the Siskiyou mountains, Southern, OR 292 powered 1946 Ford 1/2 ton, '62 Mercury Meteor, '55 Country Squire (parting out), '64 Falcon, '54 Ford 600 tractor.

 63 Galaxie,s came with 292 and cruisomatic. 

  AussieBill            YYYY    Forever Y Block     YYYY

 Down Under, Australia

Shorty: There were no standard duty Y-Blocks in 1963-64, as far as I know. They were all Truck/ Bus engines..

Paul

Connecting rod length and piston pin location (compression height) affects piston angularity and hence cylinder wall loading.



Ford went to a .072 shorter rod (6.252) for the '61 - '64 H.D. 292 truck engine and also increased the piston pin compression height by .062 (1.830) when doing so.



1) In building a 292 engine, is it advantageous to use 6.252 C to C rods (312 length) instead of the more common 6.324 C to C rods?



2) WHY did Ford shorten the rod length for the heavy duty truck? Was this change related to truck engine lower operating r.p.m.?



COMMENT: After using EBU rods from '54 to '61, I'm amazed that Ford spent the money to change to the C2AE rods for '62 to '64 standard duty 292 engines!








NoShortcuts
a.k.a. Charlie Brown
near Syracuse, New York