tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66200166161070800032024-02-06T23:01:29.510-06:00Y-block Ford powered T-bucketJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-37271066023314127812009-12-15T22:54:00.003-06:002009-12-15T22:57:53.586-06:00Seasons Greetings from Chester Greenhalgh<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JjrAWlTVBW8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JjrAWlTVBW8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />A cute video message from Chester Greenhalgh, author of the legendary "How to Build a T-Bucket Roadster for Under $3000", now available as a 250+ page eBook at <a href="http://www.tbucketplans.com">TBucketPlans.com</a>.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-56828532392797193512009-11-23T10:40:00.004-06:002009-11-23T10:54:41.121-06:00How to Build a T-Bucket Roadster for Under $3000, by Chester Greenhalgh<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUjErAGNaC545inRbg406ZODxYSbqjDYAECD3q7gc3z5vjVGO_Zo3UgNN1EqNsr0Y2f1TarY7IOPDxvCgI0tbqlUelzI1mAFgLqAwKhjc6WfOy6wR1F33Eze2vvHxO8tjato1Ksf-W0BU/s1600/BookCover5.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5407340790312392738" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 283px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUjErAGNaC545inRbg406ZODxYSbqjDYAECD3q7gc3z5vjVGO_Zo3UgNN1EqNsr0Y2f1TarY7IOPDxvCgI0tbqlUelzI1mAFgLqAwKhjc6WfOy6wR1F33Eze2vvHxO8tjato1Ksf-W0BU/s400/BookCover5.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><br />I'm very happy to see that Chester Greenhalgh's T-Bucket bible, "How to Build a T-Bucket Roadster for Under $3000", is now available in an eBook version -- for just $9.99! Talk about a deal -- I saw a post three years ago on the HAMB that it was selling on Amazon for anywhere from $184 to $393 for Amazon in Canada! The new, fully authorized edition features several pages of bonus content and is available from <a href="http://www.tbucketplans.com/">http://www.tbucketplans.com/</a>.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-2794572049424980612009-07-29T22:39:00.002-05:002009-08-22T22:45:17.641-05:00Primered Turtle Deck T at Turning Back Time<object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ASKkPO8is-8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ASKkPO8is-8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object><br />A nice turtle deck t-bucket I saw at the Sycamore Turning Back Time car show. Really tall front spring perch to accomodate the traditional spring-over beam axle.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-89261502269122812952009-07-27T22:52:00.001-05:002009-08-22T22:54:31.641-05:00Track Nose T-Bucket<object width="580" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3BzfYNfaJRQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3BzfYNfaJRQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object><br />Kinda nice track nose T-bucket from the Turning Back Time show, with knee action shocks, a coupla' two barrels, and other nice features.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-15549523334126902622009-07-26T22:47:00.001-05:002009-08-22T22:50:15.571-05:00Sycamore, IL Turning Back Time 2009 Car Show<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f76R8M0obPA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f76R8M0obPA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object><br />Since I've posted a slide show of the 2008 show, here's a movie created from still pics taken at the 2009 show today. Will post a few videos as well.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-28210697345053435672009-06-02T19:38:00.009-05:002009-06-04T14:41:35.410-05:00Where Did the Term "Fad T" Come From?To start, here's the definition from no less an authority than the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0760318239">"Ultimate Hot Rod Dictionary: A-Bombs to Zoomies"</a> by Jeff Breitenstein:<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>fad-T</strong> (also fad car) <em>n</em>. <em>Any T-bucket roadster constructed entirely from new, prefabricated components, including a reproduction fiberglass body. The first aftermarket fiberglass roadster bodies featured in hot rodding and street rodding applications were introduced (notably by Cal Automotive) in the late 1950s. From the early to mid-1960s, T-bucket roadster kits gained in sophistication and completeness; the resulting fad-T trend peaked in popularity in the late 1960s and has maintained moderate favor to the present. Fad-Ts offer the advantages of simpler construction and lower initial cost when compared with other street rod types, but are sometimes discounted by rodders who prefer genuine vintage tin bodies and components.<br /></em><br />I'll put a stake in the ground and say that the term fad-T was first used in print by the legendary hot rod writer and builder LeRoi "Tex" Smith in the July 1964 edition of Rod & Custom magazine. Fresh from building the innovative XR6, which was crowned America's Most Beautiful Roadster at the 1963 Oakland Roadster Show, perhaps no other person at the time was better qualified to write a story on "Trends in Roadster Styling". In comparing "traditional" roadsters and modern roadsters, Tex noted that:<br /><br /><em>"(The modern) category also takes into account the 'fad' cars, as they have come to be known. These are the 'kookie' cars that have become the rage in various sections of the country. In the early days of hot rodding they were called modifieds. They consist of an engine, frame, four wheels and a body. And not much else. They are generally of the bobtailed version, using a '23 glass Model T body set at a rakish angle on channel iron frame rails. The engine is very much out of doors, with outside drag headers modified (usually plugged) to feed the exhaust through stock mufflers under the body. Stock height windshields and tops add to the strange illusion of great height of these styles.<br /><br />Although the kookie cars are never identical in every respect, they do look the same. Thus the tab of 'fad' cars by the more traditional builders.<br /><br />These cars are really quite easy to build, especially since they have become so popular. There are several major speed companies now offering complete kits for building such a car, which makes them even more reasonable. They also make ideal show machines, as they catch the fancy of the general public. However, unlike the other categories, they are not the greatest for highway cruising. Much fun around town, though. Many West Coast builders are now even chauffering two cars, a kookie machine and one of the other approaches."</em><br /><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxJZQVpJ1L6ykVgPrRAKuO3n_XoYft6_9vQj5sumc-YyB6foF1rFydV3XAxLHslmYP7MrQYSvjJpNqic-w-NNegnmNNmr1E3NVUwffgj42MbHKVyauM2MSMdBKg8a-HWou3XVOqe6lcdU/s1600-h/0302sr_miles01_z.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5342910283159051778" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxJZQVpJ1L6ykVgPrRAKuO3n_XoYft6_9vQj5sumc-YyB6foF1rFydV3XAxLHslmYP7MrQYSvjJpNqic-w-NNegnmNNmr1E3NVUwffgj42MbHKVyauM2MSMdBKg8a-HWou3XVOqe6lcdU/s400/0302sr_miles01_z.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><br /><br />(Tex really knew what he was talking about. In later describing how the XR6 was conceived, he said, "I had been using a lot of drawings from artist Steve Swaja, a student at the time at the nearby Art Center. One day I asked if he could design a roadster project for me, using a combination '23/'27 Model T body and a race car nose. This was the drawing that we used as the project was introduced in Hot Rod. Curt Hamilton and Bud Lang had recently begun producing the first fiberglass replicas of the Model T bodies, mostly for drag cars. Their company was called Cal Automotive. Curt made me up a '27 cowl mated to an upswept '23 rear portion." However, this design concept swiftly changed when Tex received a phone call that a major model car company was willing to pay for the whole project if it was really far out. The rest is hot rod history.)Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-21610764581897309762009-05-02T22:05:00.000-05:002009-06-02T22:09:29.557-05:00Big Bore V-8s by Roger HuntingtonOne of the articles that I believe may have contributed to the Y-block's "Rodney Dangerfield" image. From Selecting & Building Hot Rod Engines by the editors of Hot Rod Magazine, 1964 :<br /><br />In the last chapter we analyzed the compact lightweight V8's in the American hot rod picture. Now we're going to talk about the big boys. We arbitrarily define this group as those basic engines weighing more than 600 pounds with accessories (but no flywheel or clutch). FORD 239-312: This is the modern ohv V8 engine that Ford brought out in their 1954 cars. It was used in displacements all the way from 239 to 312 cubic inches and finally settled at 292 cubic inches as the standard V8 engine option for the '58-'62 models. In '63 it was replaced by the new Fairlane cast iron V8 (221-289 cubic inches). The engine is still being produced for commercial applications, but is no longer used in passenger cars. Actually this is a relatively small, light engine that is very handy for swaps. External dimensions compare with the small Chev V8 (a little larger), and weight is only a bit over 600 pounds with accessories (say 605). Transmission adaptors and motor mount kits are widely available. You can get all kinds of factory and special speed equipment. The things are plentiful and cheap in the junkyards. Factory parts over the counter are reasonable. It has everything ... Or everything except performance. The basic engine was never strong on power and torque. The '57 312-cubic-inch Thunderbird engines were the best of the bunch. They had pretty big valves and ports, and breathed fairly well. And this was the year Ford supplied the McCulloch supercharger kit for this engine. Holman & Moody pulled 340 hp at 5300 rpm from their 312 NASCAR engines with the blower. They could easily blow off the '57 fuel injection Chevys on the NASCAR tracks in the early part of the season. Then NASCAR officials banned blowers and f.i. A few weeks later, Detroit pulled out of racing and the 312 racing engines were dropped. In 1959 Ford went back to 292 cubic inches and small-port heads, and made an economy engine out of this. If you ever expect to perform with this basic engine you will definitely need a set of the '57 312 heads. Even then there were problems of valve shrouding by the close combustion chamber walls. You have to do a lot of grinding in the heads to get 'em to breathe right. Another limitation here is cubic inches. The 312 block can only be bored .075 inch and stroked 1/4. There's no more room -- and this gives only 348 cubic inches. That isn't very big these days. So I see the small Ford engine mostly for the boy on a shoestring who must pick up an engine cheap for a swap or something. It'll do the job here ... but don't count on it for all-out applications.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-39754079248719701232009-04-27T07:22:00.005-05:002009-04-27T20:52:09.122-05:00Weslake Ford Y-Block Engine<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9bVvRX2l8q2Xz6z4wY9SJh-6WRv_nZ32G-AGBmUeQDZNhEC6SHLIiV8Hajn0af-NGF_66kV830qKJADWg5RdSKwBUP8blgKauRwsswLvU3tcinufsKUSLqF0Yf0MXBMSLEwGCQWevrw/s1600-h/FordYBlock.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5329547302585978418" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 255px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic9bVvRX2l8q2Xz6z4wY9SJh-6WRv_nZ32G-AGBmUeQDZNhEC6SHLIiV8Hajn0af-NGF_66kV830qKJADWg5RdSKwBUP8blgKauRwsswLvU3tcinufsKUSLqF0Yf0MXBMSLEwGCQWevrw/s400/FordYBlock.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><div><div>Much attention has been focused in the Y-Block community on the rare Argentina-built Y-block engines. Perhaps the most rare connection to that is the famed <a href="http://www.gurney-weslake.co.uk/">Weslake</a> Ford Y-block engine built by <a href="http://www.lotus30.com/Bios/Bio_Harry_Weslake.html">Harry Weslake</a>'s famous British racing and aircraft engine company. According to "Speedy" Bill Smith of <a href="http://www.speedwaymotors.com/">Speedway Motors</a> (who has one of the few known in existence on display in his <a href="http://www.museumofamericanspeed.com/">museum</a>), <a href="http://www.museumofamericanspeed.com/Collections/Engines/AllAlphaE214.shtml">the engine </a>features aluminum heads with "Industria Argentina" cast onto them. With the fuel injection and aluminum accessories it can be only speculated that this was an engine development intended for Formula One racing which, unfortunately, never made it. However, Smith doesn't even know much about this motor, which is very similar in appearance to the famed Gurney Weslake engines based on the Ford 289, and which began development around 1965. In 1967, it was reported by Jim McFarland in Hot Rod magazine that a problem with the 289 was "cracks developed in the main webs ... but until such time when the current block design is made obsolete by the new patterns, the problem will probably continue to exist." Could it be that someone at Weslake decided to experiment with foregoing the new 289 for the inherently more rugged bottom-end design of the then obsolete in the U.S. Y-block? The ribbed aluminum oil pan and injectors would seem to indicate that the Y-block Weslake head development came <em>after</em> the Gurney Weslake 289 head development. That's my theory at least. <a href="http://www.customclassictrucks.com/hotnews/0811cct_weslake_ford_y_block_engine/index.html">More></a></div><br /><br /><br /><div></div></div></div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-51636961254460934552009-01-09T09:05:00.008-06:002009-01-24T11:33:17.086-06:00Total Performance Inc. - R.I.P.<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="288" height="192" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5289686130384715713%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss%26authkey%3DsZ72irdmpVY"></embed><br />Just learned today that <a href="http://www.tperformance.com/">Total Performance, Inc</a>. of Wallingford, CT is no more. The early word is that most of the T-bucket product line has been acquired by <a href="http://www.speedwaymotors.com/">Speedway Motors</a> (shades of Mr. Roadster). Total Performance was founded in 1971 by Mickey Lauria and focused quite heavily on T-bucket components, kits and complete cars. Total claims to have sold over 3000 street rods, most of which were probably T-buckets. I'd guess that as many or more T-buckets were built using Total chassis, suspension and body components or using their very detailed T-bucket assembly manual as a guide.<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><em>Associated Press - January 21, 2009 6:25 AM ET<br />LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A Lincoln-based manufacturer and retailer of racing products has announced that it's buying the street rod-related assets of Wallingford, Conn.-based </em><em><strong>Total Performance, Inc.<br />Speedway Motors</strong> said Tuesday that Total Performance has a line of more than 3,500 products and is best known for making fiberglass T-bucket bodies, frames and kits. A T-bucket is a hot rod based on a Ford Model T design.<br />Total Performance's operations will be consolidated into Speedway Motors' facilities in Lincoln.<br />Terms of the deal were not announced.<br /></em>----------------------------------------------------------------------Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-60522021051705856632009-01-05T21:55:00.004-06:002009-09-14T13:13:18.180-05:00Brief History of the Fiberglass T-Bucket Body<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfqfyD4XWWFfKSVU7WZRlWVhc8scmcwxft0Z-GXaiSTzW8eL00ZTsNuA81_Livz49gnOdFvD5bWT_hRyxbUtSPb1Ofa-AnrVLjycwFT8kg-dn8ndWG0J9UyX4kkYk2dB1A9tdpOI7poDs/s1600-h/Cal+Automotive+Curt+Hamilton0001.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5288024809017916754" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 240px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfqfyD4XWWFfKSVU7WZRlWVhc8scmcwxft0Z-GXaiSTzW8eL00ZTsNuA81_Livz49gnOdFvD5bWT_hRyxbUtSPb1Ofa-AnrVLjycwFT8kg-dn8ndWG0J9UyX4kkYk2dB1A9tdpOI7poDs/s400/Cal+Automotive+Curt+Hamilton0001.gif" border="0" /></a> We take the fiberglass T-Bucket body for granted. It seems like they've<em> always</em> been around, in abundance and economically priced: the ideal starting point for an exciting, budget hot rod.<br /><br />The first published reference to a fiberglass T-Bucket body was in the 1957 issue of Hot Rod magazine in the form of an ad run by the Diablo Speed Shop.<br /><br />Along came Bud Lang and Curt Hamilton, the founders of Cal Automotive, which became the first volume producer of T-Bucket and other fiberglass bodies.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-39260665815575297792009-01-04T09:52:00.005-06:002009-01-04T10:05:06.323-06:00NTBA 2006 T-Bucket Nationals<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5285412763385561185%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss%26authkey%3DzdvNiCiabMk"></embed><br />Thought I had lost my pics from the 2006 <a href="http://www.nationaltbucketalliance.com/">National T-Bucket Alliance</a> Nationals, which returned to lovely Mountain Home, AR. Fortunately, I recently found them. I've already posted my <a href="http://yblock.blogspot.com/2008/07/2005-ntba-nationals-mountain-home-ar.html">2005 T-Bucket Nationals</a> and <a href="http://yblock.blogspot.com/2008/06/national-t-bucket-alliance-2008.html">2008 T-Bucket Nationals</a> pics. The 2007 T-Bucket event was held in Arizona and I was unable to attend, so no pics. The number of T-Buckets at the 2006 Mountain Home event was down from '05, but there were still plenty of nice ones, so enjoy the show.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-65722577784137709832009-01-03T20:48:00.007-06:002009-01-03T22:20:16.079-06:00Ted McMullen and the U.S. Speed Sport "Instant T"<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5287262016573983761%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss%26authkey%3DX7zi72tqFsQ"></embed> Hot rodder Ted McMullen made his pioneering imprint on the T-bucket world in a short time span. Prior to 1963, T-buckets were individually designed and constructed vehicles. Starting with Grabowski and Ivo in the 50s, they were constructed from steel T-bucket bodies. Fiberglass T-buckets, although introduced in 1957, were only starting to take off in the early 60s. T-bucket frame technology ran the gamut from flimsy Model-T frames, to Model-A frames and even deuce frames, as in the case of the Johnston/Roth Tweedy Pie. Purely home brewed frames came in steel channel, round or rectangular tube variations and almost no two were the same.<br /><br />That all changed with Ted McMullen's vision of a rudimentary "production" T-bucket where jig-built frames would be offered as a package with fiberglass bodies. The purchaser could either purchase standard suspension elements or add his own and the engine choice was wide open. Ted established U.S. Speed Sport in Santa Fe Springs, CA in 1963 and by August the barely one year old Popular Hot Rodding magazine covered Ted's new concept and called it an "Instant Hot Rod" a moniker that evolved into the "Instant T" name.<br /><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5287273332585385026" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 219px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS6EZLL9RsCvXEiRY9Bubi28XI7hh9utFAK54L9NzDJ-ZXPzqtGXisNdQTfYual5dm8Jp3Ay4HsU2qAoMGarqJCQy2EZ9h9aukfE1xCogEkG3dkFJV-6dDFVcCumgCWIiZ2bsoxHxulPo/s400/usssad6poprod863.jpg" border="0" /></p><p>The Instant-T generated tremendous interest and U.S. Speed Sport sold everything from kits to complete T-buckets, but owing to that old nemesis of bad business partner situations Ted had sold and left the business by 1965 and it closed not too long afterward. You can learn more about all the details at a very nice web site set up by family members to honor Ted's accomplishments, <a href="http://www.usspeedsport.com/">http://www.usspeedsport.com/</a>. </p><p>Ted McMullen left a tremendous T-bucket legacy. Ted was very happy to discuss and share the details of his well-engineered T-buckets and it was Ted's contribution that formed the basis for a very significant 8-part series on "How to Build a Hot Rod" by Ray Sisemore that debuted in Car Craft magazine in November, 1964 (and concluded with the July, 1965 wrap-up story, "$1399.88 Rod"). Never before, had the construction of any hot rod been covered in such detail and this series is undoubtedly responsible in large measure for the T-bucket boom that occurred in the 1960s.<br /></p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-9791753876100751512009-01-02T19:40:00.002-06:002009-01-03T10:41:12.602-06:00Ted Brown: T-Bucket Chassis Designer Extraordinaire<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5285349030863270545%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss"></embed><br /><a href="http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=13581045">Ted Brown</a> was a young hot rodder from Minnesota who heeded the advice to "go west young man" to seek fame and fortune. Man, was he ever successful!<br /><br />After arriving in Southern California, Ted had the opportunity to see Norm Grabowski's "Kookie" T-bucket at the famous Bob's Big Boy in Toluca Lake and "was totally blown away". "That car is what got me wanting to build those types of rods," Ted said recently. But first Ted went into partnership with another legendary chassis builder, Chuck Finders, and contributed to the success of many of the nationally successful A/Gas Supercharged cars of the day, including Stone Woods & Cook, K.S. Pittman, Jr. Thompson, Hamberis & Mitchell and, my personal favorite, the MGM-C & O Hydro AG/S Austin pickup.<br /><br />About 10 years ago, I bought a set of the <a href="http://www.californiacustomroadsters.com/">California Custom Roadsters</a> (CCR) T-bucket chassis plans <a href="http://yblock.blogspot.com/2008/01/california-custom-roadsters-t-bucket.html">and blogged about them last year</a>. I was particularly taken with the CCR logo image with its rakish lines and sleek top. <table style="WIDTH: auto"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/11fthKVYjxe4KqUSMKcZ7A?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdAzJetNpqXh3mv43lTRzyssQF1I2VmLCur6jtRNZlMH5ixC_q7YMUPM4xfG8naSCR9iNhliXn9HEkg8nx-G7w61ar9dY0M2_s4XHwmFmFbN19A-cpCehV66Ko2N8JtL4xp8ioHl3Aiu4/s400/CCR_T_bucket_logo.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/John.Morehead/Logos?feat=embedwebsite"></a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />Not too long ago, I was looking at an old Rod & Custom from the early 70s and noticed an uncanny resemblence to the CCR image in a Ted Brown Chassis ad. <table style="WIDTH: auto"><tbody><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/QKW_T2-GGVQ7JFkXV2WzGA?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE8SGI4xESubmTXDo95VAzDGfpTVYMYLkGX-op2FI8YB88ebFgIl4v5DPBOq4gFVQzddSRi9hqp5BgLqk6VPNR0FONfgx6PR8wN9ML8ZyAs_5dH246UIwtDCrFpYzf5oY1nPUsZtGLLGM/s400/l_23c8143094b24607a6d6aeaf47bad087.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: right"><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/John.Morehead/TedBrownChassisSlideShow?feat=embedwebsite"></a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />After researching my old magazines a bit more, I then made the connection. The first ads for the CCR plans, which ran in 1973, referred to "<strong>Plans & Data for building the famous Ted Brown/Bill Keifer Chassis</strong>." I then learned that Ted established CCR in 1971 with Bill Keifer as his partner; the CCR plans were Ted's unique, original design; and Ted was eventually eased out and no longer given credit for his unique frame design which was built by CCR into thousands of T-buckets and by plan set purchasers into many more thousands (<em>estimated at 4000 T-buckets in 1977</em>). Net result, <strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">Ted Brown is perhaps the most influential, yet totally unrecognized, T-bucket chassis designer of all time</span></em></strong>.<br /><br />Today, Ted is "retired" in Bakersfield, CA and still driving his T-bucket which has racked up over 200,000 miles and has been home to a variety of engines, including Buick nailhead as well as big block and small block Chevys.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-83086142329876366272009-01-01T21:26:00.001-06:002009-01-02T21:44:59.336-06:00Chester Greenhalgh: T-Bucket Genius!?!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGXpp3tbAhyNNNC-RS7jLPHf6Y-pH3NBcqv0IJz0dfq-dlXq5KrnfiGoD5SsRX0ZPbII9G8KtbHmtICFxQam4GS4EJP0l3iwGAuZKLD-GryTFM1jPFQxZu0-tTMlvD0d8o3WPf1aSfRXU/s1600-h/Chester_Greenhalgh_T_Bucket.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5286539891979149250" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 296px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 400px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGXpp3tbAhyNNNC-RS7jLPHf6Y-pH3NBcqv0IJz0dfq-dlXq5KrnfiGoD5SsRX0ZPbII9G8KtbHmtICFxQam4GS4EJP0l3iwGAuZKLD-GryTFM1jPFQxZu0-tTMlvD0d8o3WPf1aSfRXU/s400/Chester_Greenhalgh_T_Bucket.jpg" border="0" /></a> A lot of disparaging remarks have been made about Chester Greenhalgh's out-of-print T-bucket bible, but they don't hold water. It takes a true mechanical and scrounging genius to convert raw materials like old truck front axles, steel bed rails, iron water pipe, cast-off house trailer springs, furnace louvers and glass doorknobs into a safe, fun creation of beauty like a T-bucket -- and on a budget anybody can afford! Just take a look at one of his creations on the book cover above. Chet can take a $500 rolling wreck Chevy passenger car and, like the food processing industry does with a pig, use everything but the squeal.<br /><br /><div>While the <a href="http://www.californiacustomroadsters.com/">California Custom Roadster</a> plan set introduced in the early 70's was instrumental in terms of useful T-bucket build information, it was limited in that it was just a plan set. CCR's plans covered building a frame, the associated brackets and suspension elements. However, a huge information void was still left. The guy living in Podunk who'd only seen T-buckets in magazines or maybe flashing by on the highway didn't have a clue about how to run the brakes; reinforce and mount the body, bed and windshield; wire it; find a suitable radiator, driveshaft, shifter, lights and dozens of other things. And if he was able to somehow learn how to do this or farm it out it was likely to cost big bucks!<br /><br />Most people had nowhere to turn for this vital T-bucket build information. Fortunately, the unassuming, ingenious, budget conscious owner of Chet's Car Craft in Naples, FL decided to employ some of those same skills he'd used to successfully build T-buckets for his family and customers and self-published the legendary "How to Build a T-Bucket Roadster for Under $3000" in 1986. The first ad I saw for this spiral-bound book was in the February, 1987 issue of "Rod Action" magazine, with the bargain introductory price of $11.95. By September, 1987 the price in the ad had risen to $14.95 and in 1988 it was up to $19.95. </div><br /><div></div><div>Around that time, the folks at <a href="http://www.motorbooks.com/">Motorbooks International </a>struck a deal with Chet to <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgt983JN1lrZm9YhBHGSe8FIFYVi5X-5AfJ1E902LIhiCsbLzl5BgfgGJLQDoD9nO1HfA6A0mq3MbXKw-73ffqZ4k6p9enT1KDK_v3xx5qaOj96qaXq7lkXBPtX0o_Ck22y5E3G-4vpNQ/s1600-h/Chester_Greenhalgh_How_to_Build_T_Bucket_Roadster_on_Budget.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5286546341817682530" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 285px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 380px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgt983JN1lrZm9YhBHGSe8FIFYVi5X-5AfJ1E902LIhiCsbLzl5BgfgGJLQDoD9nO1HfA6A0mq3MbXKw-73ffqZ4k6p9enT1KDK_v3xx5qaOj96qaXq7lkXBPtX0o_Ck22y5E3G-4vpNQ/s400/Chester_Greenhalgh_How_to_Build_T_Bucket_Roadster_on_Budget.jpg" border="0" /></a>produce a perfect bound softcover version of his work that was introduced in 1990 with a price of $14.95. Somebody in Motorbooks' marketing department decided that the appropriate cover photo for this "how to" book about building a T-bucket on the cheap would be a high dollar, <a href="http://www.tperformance.com/">Total Performance</a> T-bucket laden with chrome and a blown Chrysler hemi -- budget, indeed!</div><div></div><br /><div>I mention this price history because Chester's book has been long out of print. Currently, used copies available on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/087938395X/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used">Amazon.com</a> range from $169 to $198! </div><br /><div></div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-29336087637472238492008-09-01T08:10:00.000-05:002008-09-01T15:06:26.206-05:00Tommy Ivo's T-Bucket<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F4944008369552424977%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss"></embed><br />Shortly after becoming aware of Norm's Kookie Kar around 1959, I was also struck by another T-bucket that had the "look" and received Hot Rod magazine coverage: "TV Tommy" Ivo's Buick nailhead powered T-bucket. On a recent visit to the NHRA Wally Parks Museum in Pomona, CA, I had a chance to snap a few shots of this car that I've admired only in print previously.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-11067274488831707162008-08-31T21:46:00.000-05:002008-08-31T22:20:38.513-05:00One More Y-Block: my second favorite hop-up article<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiIYRb2cG7T1HVeiWaBfUlX25Jjyn96PdaAzwCXfmSYKEv3AM3iHBe-4WDYVPNxRTW5K2YF_Y89WumhGGKmi25WYWPF0KmA1KEGsBCeXL3NWDLnWvvkO6caVidyTKx3hXLKnoZEEZvkpM/s1600-h/One+More+Y-Block.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5240880195076711266" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiIYRb2cG7T1HVeiWaBfUlX25Jjyn96PdaAzwCXfmSYKEv3AM3iHBe-4WDYVPNxRTW5K2YF_Y89WumhGGKmi25WYWPF0KmA1KEGsBCeXL3NWDLnWvvkO6caVidyTKx3hXLKnoZEEZvkpM/s400/One+More+Y-Block.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>In the September, 1968 issue of Hot Rod Magazine, John Thawley wrote what is probably my second favorite Y-block hop-up article. It contained a lot of good information 40 years ago that is still pertinent today:</div><div><br />We would be the first to point out that, in this day and age of high-performance engines flowing from automotive machine shops and factories alike, you cannot build up an old Y-block Ford to be a world-beater. Nevertheless, thousands are still in service in trucks and passenger cars in this country, while in much of South America and Australia the Y-block Ford (or Mercury) is the engine for street and circle track, due to availability and low cost. This same availability and low cost makes the engine somewhat attractive to the Stateside budget rodder. For instance, in Los Angeles a ball-park price for a complete Y-block in running condition is $25. Granted, this is little more than a core to rebuild from, but not bad. We'll point out some combinations of parts, what to look for in wrecking yards, what can be had in speed equipment and some dos and don'ts on assembly, and then let you take it. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>Stick with the 272, 292 or 312 block assembly. In 1954 (the first year of the Y-block), Ford introduced the engine with 239 cubic inches. Camshaft bearings are of different sizes than the later blocks, and a number of other components won't interchange, so it is best to forget this engine and go directly to the larger block. The charts included in this article show how the engine began life in a relative stage of untune, worked up the horsepower ladder to a peak in 1957, and then was detuned by the factory in subsequent years. This is your first clue to finding the road to low-cost performance. You're now looking for '57 Fords, right? </div><div> </div><div></div><div>The assembly line Y-block Ford contains more meat than a prizewinning Hereford. The lower block skirt extends well below the centerline of the crankshaft to ensure rigidity for the five main bearing saddles. The 272 block can be bored out to 292, the 292 goes out to 312 with no trouble and, since replacement pistons for the 312 are sold in .40-inch oversize, that route may be taken for increased displacement. All of this is safe and presents no problem. Unless one encounters a core shift problem, much more can be done with a boring bar. We currently have a Y-block running on the street which began life as a 272 and is now .030-inch over the 312 bore of 3.800. This is not uncommon. So if your desire is displacement, don't shy away from the boring bar. Anything over 3.875 is asking for trouble. A check of the chart shows the same stroke for the 272 and 292 versions. The two-year offering of the 312 produced a longer stroke (by .140 inch). What the chart doesn't show is that the 312 crank turned on 1/8-inch-larger-diameter main journals. To use this crank in the 272-292 block, the main journals must be machined down to the smaller size. If this is done, the 312 connecting rods must be used. Depending on what bore you've decided on, the 272, 292 or 312 pistons may be used. If the 272 or 292 pistons are used in this configuration, the entire assembly should be balanced, since the 312 pistons were 2 ounces heavier than the late 292 pistons. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>Block preparation past boring and honing to fit the pistons should include hot tanking. Before boiling out, the baffle plate bolted to the block at the oil filter boss should be removed, since sludge collects here and is hidden from view. After hot tanking and machining, scrub the block with brushes and hot soapy water. In the crankshaft department, the forged steel truck unit is worth searching for, since it was designed to withstand more loading than the cast units. The parts number on this item is listed as C1TE6303F. The number to look for on the crank is the same except for a B which replaced the F at the end of the parts number. If you plan to spend the better (or worse) part of a Saturday in a wrecking yard pulling a crank from a truck, make a deal for the rods also. The truck rod (parts No. C1TE6200C) is somewhat beefier and better-designed than the passenger car counterpart. The rods should not be mixed in the assembly; that is, use all truck rods or all passenger car rods, not three of one kind and five of another. Also, you'll be miles ahead of the game if the piston, rod and crank assembly is balanced after you've decided what you want. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>There are at least 17 different head casting marks from 1955 to '62. Compression ratio varies, since in several cases a particular type head was used on the 272-, 292- and 312-inch engines produced in a given year. The expeditious route out of this dilemma is a set of '57 heads. Check the chart for casting numbers, parts numbers and compression ratio per given displacement. Note also that the '57 heads carried the large 1.925-inch intake valve and a rocker ratio of 1.54. Any of the heads can be helped to some extent by some judicious grinding in the combustion chamber, where the high lip shrouds the valve and thus disrupts the flow. With machinists' bluing, a head gasket and a scribe, mark off how far outward you may grind before botching up a set of heads. Enlarging the intake and exhaust ports with a grinder will help flow characteristics somewhat. A good valve job (not a $12.95 special) with a close check for excessive clearances in the guides -- and the lower portion of the heads is taken care of. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>One of the chronic problems with the Y-block is a lack of lubrication in the upper valve train assembly. There are a number of ways to help overcome this malady; none are sure cures. Enlarge the oil entrance hole in the head (check the photos). Make certain that the rocker shafts exhibit no trace of scoring; if they do, replace them. There are several oil holes in the side of the rocker shafts. These must line up with the holes in the rocker shaft support brackets. Change oil and filters often in these engines to slow down the formation of sludge. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>The '57 cam produces more lift and slightly longer duration than any other FoMoCo cam except the unit designated for use with the supercharger. This cam is all but impossible to locate. The enthusiast who wants this much camshaft would be time (and probably money) ahead to go to any number of the racing cam grinders -- such as Isky, Crower or Crane -- who still offer such grinds for the Y-block. For street use, shoot for a cam with relatively short duration but higher-than-stock lift. This configuration tends to retain bottom end torque, and a cam of less than 270 degrees duration seems to work quite well with any of the intake manifold/carb combinations. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>Spending the time necessary to come up with a set of '57-'59 heads will pay off in the manifolding department, since the single four-barrel and the two-barrel manifold of these years have larger runners which match up with the '57-'59 heads. Later heads and intake manifolds exhibited ports of smaller size. For a brief period of time Ford offered a dual four-barrel intake manifold, as did a number of speed equipment makers. Even if the item can be located, this is still not the manifold to have for all-around performance. A somewhat archaic-appearing three two-barrel manifold by Edelbrock has proven time and again that it offers the response, flow and flexibility desired for street flogging or highway cruising. The manifold is most often set up with Holley two-barrels pirated from boneyard '56 Fords. After the three two-barrel manifold and carb combination, the next best unit is probably the stock four-barrel manifold mounted with a late Holley or Autolite carb. Depending on carb used, the intake manifold may have to be touched with a grinder to allow the larger throttle plates to open into the manifold throat. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>The dual exhaust manifolds offered on the '57 312 engine were the best factory-produced items for this engine. They'll bolt to all of the Y-blocks. At one time, a lot of header systems were available. Currently, Hedman is probably the only manufacturer to produce a header system in any volume for the Y-block. </div><div> </div><div></div><div>Carefully rebuilt to factory clearances with quality parts (our own engine went together with TRW bearings and pistons, Grant rings, etc.), the Y-block will offer countless miles of service. This may not be the most powerful engine available to the low-budget rodder, but it is one of the lowest in cost -- both important features to one just getting started with engines. </div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-15692592422465498452008-07-27T14:48:00.000-05:002008-09-01T15:01:14.398-05:00Sycamore, IL, Turning Back Time Car Show<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5241127095905925457%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed><br />Got a chance to attend this car show for the first time. It's held on the main streets of downtown Sycamore, IL, on the last full weekend of each July and features over 700 cars. It's quite an event and a great excuse for a pleasant drive in the country.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-89135787878128584092008-07-23T21:05:00.001-05:002009-01-04T08:07:57.582-06:002005 NTBA Nationals - Mountain Home, AR<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5241236779334568593%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss"></embed><br />Although it's been three years since this great <a href="http://www.nationaltbucketalliance.com/">National T-Bucket Alliance</a> event was held, I felt some of the T-buckets that attended warranted further viewing. Enjoy.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-86535635979863201252008-07-22T22:02:00.000-05:002008-08-31T22:16:31.919-05:00Roger Huntington's Y-Block Engine Modifications<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXaQ4iheBLpeR0VI1cuk3Dycd1KNtBtrjBLBFoWPLU8aumLlV2iYKRa67uqmUoFNeu9y44Qi2o2yDi5kqrjFHVUpHVls4mYAiz9nNm5MpJOwXZUYj2GYMqUkEopCeEH-0P3jVzdxhU2q8/s1600-h/CIMG2939.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5240883750482061442" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXaQ4iheBLpeR0VI1cuk3Dycd1KNtBtrjBLBFoWPLU8aumLlV2iYKRa67uqmUoFNeu9y44Qi2o2yDi5kqrjFHVUpHVls4mYAiz9nNm5MpJOwXZUYj2GYMqUkEopCeEH-0P3jVzdxhU2q8/s400/CIMG2939.jpg" border="0" /></a> In 1962, Petersen Publishing put out a special publication by the editors of Hot Rod Magazine, titled "Ford Performance Handbook". It contained a great article on Y-Block Engine Modifications by Roger Huntington. There's much to learn from this little seen article:<br /><br />There will always be thousands of car enthusiasts who are never satisfied with the standard performance you can buy at the showroom. Even when some of the factories are building out-and-out hot rods -- (which they definitely are these days) -- they're still not satisfied. They insist on the right to engineer their own "customized" performance with special speed equipment and modification procedures that have been the lifeblood of the hot rod sport for 25 years. These fellows are hopeless hop-up bugs. Sometimes they can't do any better than factory engineers. I've seen many instances where a modified Super/Stock engine didn't go any better than a well-tuned stock Super/Stock! But no matter. The hop-up enthusiast is having a ball -- and there's always the very good chance that he'll strike on just the right combination that will make a world-beater. The specialist still has every advantage over the mass-producer. The purpose of this (article) is to bring you up to date on available special performance equipment for late Ford Motor Company engines, with some hints on the application of this equipment and other special procedures to get your best performance compromise. (And engine modification is always a compromise).<br /><br />I think it would be best if we considered each basic engine model separately, as they all have special problems that don't apply to the others. These basic engines (include) the '54-'57 Ford-Mercury-Thunderbird Y-V8 -- which is still used as a standard V8 in 292-cubic inch form. Here's a run-down ... '54-'57 FORD-MERC: This engine lacks the cubic inch potential of some of our later designs (maximum stock displacement was 312 inches), but it has plenty of hop-up potential within its size class.<br /><br />The basic engine was available in stock displacements of 239, 256, 292 and 312 cu. in. All these blocks will take an overbore up to 1/8 except the 312, which should be limited to 3 7/8 total bore (.075" overbore). The 272 and 292 blocks will take a stroke increase of .340", but the 312 should be held to 1/4" total stroke increase (to 3.690" total). It is suggested that the beefier 312 rods be used in all stroked engines. The maximum recommended bore and stroke on the 312 block (3 7/8 x 3.69") would give 348 cubic inches. That's the potential. If you want to increase stroke the best practice is to buy a complete "stroker" kit, which includes oversize pistons (in any desired bore), rings, pins, rods, the stroked crank, bearings -- and the whole assembly is dynamically balanced to a gnat's whisker. This is the only way to go on this. Several big companies (like Crankshaft Co.) can supply. If you just want to increase the bore there are any number of California outfits that specialize in pistons for all engines. Names would include Jahns, JE, Venolia, Forgedtrue, Grant, Thompson, etc. These special pistons are available in any desired bore size, sized to any desired clearance, with crown height for any desired stroke -- and you can order them with special rraised domes to give any desired compression ratio. You can't go wrong. This is a good way to increase displacement and compression with one blow.<br /><br />No other precautions seem necessary in the lower end. Stock copper-lead bearing shells are strong. Stock oil pressure and capacity are adequate. Bearing clearances could be increased to .002-.003" for a freer engine if you wish. Rebalancing the lower end, especially when you change pistons that may have a slightly different weight, is always a good idea. Piston skirt clearance should be .003-.007" for the street, but can go to .012 for competition.<br /><br />Cylinder heads are another area where we can do a lot for the output of this Ford engine. Fortunately all the heads for these '54-'62 engines are interchangeable, so we can do a little switching. The '57 heads for the 312 engine had 1.93" intake valves and much larger ports than the earlier heads. The boys who are really serious generally pick up a set of these heads, then start modifying from there. Ports are cleaned out a little, matched to the manifold openings, and generally they will run a 70-degree reamer down into the valve port (piloted in the guide bore) to open the port diameter out to a seat width of about 1/16" around the outside edge of the valve. This gives a substantial increase in breathing area without reducing seat width so much that valve life is affected. It is also practical to increase the size of the exhaust valve. Some fellows machine out the seat and port to take the '57 Lincoln exhaust valve (diameter increase from 1.51 to 1.64"), then chop and regroove the Lincoln stem to accept the Ford keepers. You can get some crazy breathing out of these heads with all the tricks. One special word: Ford heads of this vintage had a considerable amount of restriction around the edges of the valves caused by the walls of the combustion chamber being too close -- so they actually shrouded the valve as it opened. Breathing can be considerably improved by getting in here with a grinder and cutting away this close restriction around the valves. Of course remember that any metal you take out of the chamber reduces the compression ratio. This can be restored by milling a little off the lower head surface. A maximum of .060-inch can be milled -- though generally .030 is enough to compensate for combustion chamber "porting". (Incidentally, milling is a cheap way to increase compression. Keep in mind that a cut of .060-inch raises compression roughly one full ratio).<br /><br />Carburetion is one of your toughest problems on a modified engine. You need lots of venturi area and big manifold passages to minimum restriction at the top end (for maximum hp) -- but if you go too far you lose a lot of throttle response and torque at low speed for the street. You have to compromise if you expect to have a nice drivable street machine. Fortunately there is a terrific variety of special manifold equipment available for this '54-'57 Ford engine. The factory has cast iron manifolds to carry a single 2-throat carb, single 4-barrel, or dual 4-barrels. Edelbrock has an aluminum dual 4-barrel with conventional "180-degree" passages, three different triple 2-throat manifolds to allow for the increasing port sizes through the years, plus a 6-carb log manifold (without heat) for competition. Weiand can supply triple 2-throat and 6-carb logs -- and Offenhauser has three models of a 3x2 for the different port sizes. Edmunds has a 3x2 and dual 4-barrel in aluminum. There ought to be enough here to satisfy any need. But which carburetion layout to choose for your particular needs? Personally I like either a single 4-barrel or triple 2-throat system for the street. This seems to be a good compromise on venturi area between high and low-speed performance. Ford 4-barrels have the secondary throttles controlled by the volume of air flow through the primaries, so there is no chance of over carburetion when you suddenly open the throttle wide at low speed. Even a dual 4-barrel setup with this system isn't bad at the low end. Normally three 2-throat carbs would overcarburate at the low end. But by using one of the new "progressive" throttle linkages -- where you run on only the center carb up to about two-thirds throttle, then the end carbs open at a faster rate to full throttle -- you can get away from a lot of the response and gas mileage problems. (You still have to be careful about using full throttle at low speeds, however, as all six barrels will open wide).<br /><br />The 6-carb log manifolds are great for maximum hp in competition. They're not very suitable for the street, not only because of the excessive venturi area, but they don't have provision for exhaust heat to vaporize the fuel in cold weather. If you use your car for both street and competition, and are willing to put up with a little rougher operation, they're OK. But don't expect that luxury feel.<br /><br />Camshafts and valve gear can make or break any high-output engine. It's much like the problem with carburetion. A long valve open duration (in degrees of crank rotation) and high valve lift, coupled with very quick opening and closing rates, are very effective in boosting top-end horsepower. But they also knock off torque at the low end. Also the high lifts and quick rates can overload your valve springs at high rpm, cause severe valve "float" that cuts power and ruins the valve gear. No, you've got to compromise carefully on valve timing, lift and rates -- then get just the right combination in the valve gear. You have a lot of equipment to choose from in the specialty market. The big cam companies like Iskenderian, Howard's, Racer Brown, Engle, Harmon-Collins, etc., can supply complete kits that have every part engineered to match in performance characteristics, to give stable operation at the highest useable rpm. These kits generally consist of the camshaft itself, with any one of perhaps a dozen optional grinds -- plus lightweight compatible solid lifters (either flat or roller type), light tubular pushrods, adjustable rocker arms, with special high-tension valve springs and heavy-duty spring keepers and locks. The whole assembly is "tuned" to work as a unit. I can't recommend highly enough that you spend the extra money and get a complete matched kit. Hot cams used with stock lifters and springs can often wear lobes in a hurry, float valves at low rpm, clatter, fail to pull their potential. Don't cut corners. As to recommendations on specific grinds for specific situations, this is much too broad a subject to touch here. Your best bet is to outline your car specs to the cam grinder, tell him what kind of performance you want, how the car will be used -- and he will give you the optimum grind for the job. As for the problem of flat-vs.-roller lifters, there seems to be little difference in top power output. You can use stiffer springs with the rollers, to turn higher rpm, without wearing out cam lobes -- and they seem to give longer life on the street for this same reason. Some experts say the reduction of rubbing friction with roller valve lifters will add 15 to 20 hp to your net output. I don't know. I do know that roller cams are more expensive than flats ... so you always have to balance the benefits against the cost. But I still recommend a complete cam kit rather than a piecemeal conglomeration of parts when you decide to go modified in this department.<br /><br />There are a lot of possibilities in special ignition equipment for late Ford engines. We have the well-known Mallory dual-point distributors, Magspark and Mini-Mag -- and there are the dual-coil distributors by Jackson, W&H and Spalding. All have installations for all Ford engines. This is all high-quality stuff that will do the ignition job under the very toughest conditions. Actually stock ignition will do the job up to at least 5000 rpm, given the right spark advance curve. The special ignitions can take it from there -- and, of course, they all feature custom advance curves that are tailored to a specific engine-car combination. This is a valuable feature. The optimum advance curve for dragging on these Ford engines seems to be an initial advance of 12-15 degrees (crank). with full advance of 36-40 degrees at a crank speed of 2000 rpm or so. Stock mechanisms can be modified to give it.<br /><br />Superchargers are a very effective way to hop up any engine, since you're pumping the fuel-air mixture into the cylinder rather than depending on atmospheric pressure to force it in. As mentioned earlier ... , Ford offered the Paxton "blower" as optional equipment in 1957 (300 hp); but only a few models were put out before the AMA anti-horsepower resolution put a stop to it. But those blown '57 Fords were the hottest things in the Super/Stock class in those days. Paxton still offers that kit -- and you can still go like that with it. Add the blower to a few other hop-up goodies like cams, big bores, etc., and you've got a wild machine. Latham Manufacturing also offers a neat axial-flow blower kit for the '54-'57 Ford-Merc, driven by a flat belt from a special crank pulley. This is a larger unit, has a bit more pressure and air flow potential than the Paxton -- but it costs more. You take your choice. But either one of them will make your Ford come alive in a way you never thought possible.<br /><br />No hot engine can really flex its muscles if it can't get rid of the exhaust gas efficiently. Speed experts used to say we didn't have to worry so much about exhaust restriction because the gas was being pushed out under 60-100 pounds of pressure. That's true ... but now we know that we do have to worry about the restriction even so. It'll kill an engine's performance. Notice the beautiful streamlined exhaust headers on the late Ford high-performance engines. Ford engineers have gotten the message. Unfortunately they hadn't received it in the '54-'57 period -- so you have to depend on the special "California" headers fabricated from welded steel tubing. The Hedman company can supply a full line of headers for these cars. They're a must for any all-out combination. Then take your exhaust back through dual lines. You can use either straight-through steel or glasspack mufflers or conventional baffle type. The packs have a good sound and slightly less restriction; but the dual outlet lines themselves cut back-pressure by 75% -- so you don't sacrifice much performance by using the quieter baffles. Do something about your exhaust anyway.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-75832264199603043712008-06-20T19:39:00.001-05:002009-01-04T08:10:16.824-06:00National T-Bucket Alliance 2008 Nationals, Springfield, IL<embed pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5241585773746716769%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss"></embed><br />While I certainly enjoyed the location of previous <a href="http://www.nationaltbucketalliance.com/">NTBA</a> Nationals in Mountain Home, AR, the trade-off this year (June 18-21, 2008) was that Springfield, IL, was less than half as far away. While the attendance was maybe reduced a bit by the competing "<a href="http://www.bucketheadbash.com/">Buckethead Bash</a>" next month, there were still a lot of cool T-Buckets, offering many inspiring ideas for any builder. Enjoy the show.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-80178455051860892632008-01-27T09:11:00.008-06:002009-09-13T17:35:43.936-05:00Marty Hollmann's 1915 "Bobtail T"<strong>Martin Hollmann is</strong> without a doubt <strong><em>the most underrated</em></strong> <strong><em>T-bucket builder of the 50's and 60's</em></strong>. How so, you say?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGmTaHwUBAsTznL72tU8YExyXGIVNi7NBJ_-BCT7J8rAr05SB6QFdaNJRjwEWB862hbqxnVFjd_8e_-qJpp_sfblLNLsYQVt4-NJSyQcPPSFn4oCyGBBgm43z2f2xV_idlwkvgK6KlHes/s1600-h/TBucket.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161771499242360050" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGmTaHwUBAsTznL72tU8YExyXGIVNi7NBJ_-BCT7J8rAr05SB6QFdaNJRjwEWB862hbqxnVFjd_8e_-qJpp_sfblLNLsYQVt4-NJSyQcPPSFn4oCyGBBgm43z2f2xV_idlwkvgK6KlHes/s320/TBucket.jpg" border="0" /></a> Sure, Grabowski and Ivo built awesome buckets that have inspired generations that followed. But, what other 19-year-old (born in Berlin, Germany, no less) creates such a unique, beautifully proportional T-bucket that it achieves the hat trick of hot rodding: the covers of Hot Rod, Car Craft, and Rod & Custom -- all within a 15 month period!<br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO67ESA-qw2LqjNZaBJx5p28nAqb_1m0QcO_2G9HhNl7QKnSJgocozqRA7y6Kegiga_R0jgUPI8OjWNjD6tuBZmCHYB4PdOWJrN6n_vwfPOKyxdQXURJWtwFRT0raECZwF75Z0xavKuDc/s1600-h/Bobtail+T+Marty+Hollmann.JPG"></a>I first saw Marty's T-bucket on the cover of the January 1961 Car Craft and was fascinated by it. At the time, I was only 12 and didn't truly understand the beauty of symmetry, but I knew I loved this T-bucket. The T grille shell was sized and positioned to allow the finned Weiand valve covers to be perfectly visible above its angular sides. And that '49 Olds V8 appeared massive -- it was as wide as the bucket's firewall!</div><div>The profile photos showed a T-bucket that appeared more rakish than those of Grabowski and Ivo. Only later did I learn that there was a significant difference between Marty's 1915 T body and the later models used by Norm and TV Tommy.<br /></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /></div><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Coincidentally, Marty & Norm Grabowski were friends. Norm was member #10 and Marty was member #11 of the L.A. Roadsters club.<br /></p><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG9vlOMv1Kj4ahMdhnOeEpc7ciHyZrqKDmjngba1aTVuycoJgBIsHwhGdbjtPaRMkKPDkypCuGveTaaU_T-yn2D49AIjUnnHcLOO-GJJXDHqJyTc2rqo2IDyb7NUN_lInX8INJWYA8J60/s1600-h/HotRodMarch1961MartyHollmann.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161772448430132482" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG9vlOMv1Kj4ahMdhnOeEpc7ciHyZrqKDmjngba1aTVuycoJgBIsHwhGdbjtPaRMkKPDkypCuGveTaaU_T-yn2D49AIjUnnHcLOO-GJJXDHqJyTc2rqo2IDyb7NUN_lInX8INJWYA8J60/s320/HotRodMarch1961MartyHollmann.jpg" border="0" /></a></div><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sure the friendship also helped when Marty's T appeared in the 15th episode of the 4th season of 77 Sunset Strip as the "Chrome Coffin".</p><div><br /><br /></div><p>When Marty's T appeared on the cover of the March 1961 Hot Rod, it was paired with Norm's T touring. As further proof of this bucket's mass appeal, it was used in such movies as "Bikini Beach" and "Son of Flubber" and other TV shows like <em>Dobie Gilles</em> and <em>Westinghouse Playhouse</em>.</p><div><br /><br /></div><p></p><p>Marty's bucket was also the car that the Lindberg "Bobtail T" model was based upon. This was a huge 1/8 scale model that even came with a small DC motor to power it. Lindberg still makes the "Bobtail T" (now with a list price of $99). It's been such a venerable model kit that Lindberg even cloned it in another color and offers it as the "Big Red Rod". </p><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161772688948301074" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrJk5AILdRiQ6sOd44Cvm4gQynuslesa978US82IWD3g8s0QB0C_0aTMfCDyXEJR2zNyrUjYCYnWv2l_YNUIQKOlG85nkgA0DwlKsLBp-1AcA6qmmFp3CaSpAzy0rVmuaJI-7fpxrUV_s/s320/Bobtail+T+Marty+Hollmann.JPG" border="0" /></p><p>I'd like to know if Martin Hollmann has ever earned any royalties from either of these models, but my guess is probably not because Big Daddy Roth was evidently one of the few to have a licensing agreement with a model car company. <em><strong><span style="color:#666666;">(I've subsequently learned, Marty didn't receive a cent in royalties for the tens, or hundreds, of thousands of models that were sold in his car's likeness).</span></strong></em></p><p align="left">Just in case you might have any lingering doubts about how cool Marty's T-bucket was, here are a couple of other facts to note: Chassis guru, <a href="http://www.standard1320.com/Fuller/KentFuller.html">Kent Fuller</a>, helped Marty in the construction and the shiny black finish was applied by an up and coming young painter named <a href="http://www.carcraft.com/thehistoryof/77858_don_prudhomme_snake/index.html">Don Prudhomme</a>.</p><p align="left"></p><div></div><br /><br />Sit back and enjoy Marty's T-bucket, less windshield, as "The Chrome Coffin" in the <a href="http://www.tv.com/77-sunset-strip/the-chrome-coffin/episode/85195/summary.html">episode of the same name</a> (Season 4, Episode No. 15, December 29, 1961) from the hit TV series, <strong><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/77_Sunset_Strip">77 Sunset Strip</a></strong>:<br /><object height="364" width="445"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RCjVry6fNFM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RCjVry6fNFM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-5788200573179386492007-07-15T22:00:00.001-05:002009-01-04T18:14:10.417-06:00Y-block engine hop up potential from the '60s<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width="400" height="267" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2FJohn.Morehead%2Falbumid%2F5287595558730369121%3Fkind%3Dphoto%26alt%3Drss" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed><br /><br />Popular Hot Rodding magazine in the '60s ran what I felt was one of the best articles on hopping up the Y-block engine.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Hot Rodding the 292 Engine</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br />We started this series of articles on "shoestring" hop-up projects with the small Chevrolet V-8 engine because it is the most popular basic powerplant in the hot rod field -- for reasons of performance potential, low cost, light weight, etc. In picking a second basic engine for the budget-minded rodder we inevitably arrived at the Ford Y-block V-* of the 1954-'62 period, used mostly in 292-cubic-inch form.<br /><br />Admittedly this engine lacks some of the virtues of the small Chevy. It's larger and heavier -- around 600 lbs. without flywheel and clutch -- and it doesn't have the breathing and high rev potential of the Chev. Also there is not quite such a wide variety of speed equipment available. But this engine had to be listed next in this series for one very good reason: You can probably do more hopping for less money with this engine than any other one. There are millions of these things in the junkyards at dirt cheap prices. Good ones are trading for well under $100. There's a big supply of spare parts in the junkyards, and part interchangeability between different year models is excellent. New factory parts over the counter are not rough. There's a lively market in used speed equipment. If you're hopping on a shoestring, this could be your engine.<br /><br />This basic engine was introduced in 1954 at 239 cubic inches for Ford and 256 for Mercury. In 1955 the bore and stroke were increased to give displacements of 272 and 292 cubic inches for the various models. For '56 another bore and stroke increase gave 312 cubes. All three engine sizes -- 272, 292 and 312 -- were used in 1956 and '57. Then in 1958, after the AMA anti-racing resolution and condemnation of the horsepower race in Washington, Ford standardized on just the 292 block -- and carried it through 1962 (after which the new 260-289 engine took over as the standard V-8 option).<br /><br />In other words there were millions more 292 engines built than any other kind. These are the ones that are by far the most plentiful in the junkyards. Of course the 312-cubic-inch blocks would be preferable; but you have to go back to '56 and '57 models to find them. Fortunately these years were right in the bloom of the horsepower race, and a lot of buyers were glad to pay the extra to get the big engine. Quite a few were produced in those years. So don't give up too easy. But also don't feel too badly if you have to settle for a 292 engine to keep within the budget. After all, the difference is only 20 cubes.<br /><br />Unfortunately a 292 block cannot be readily expanded to 312 cubes using factory parts. The 312 crankshaft had 1/8-inch larger main bearings. These could be machined down; but it would be an expensive job. One good part about it, though: When Ford lengthened the stroke for the 312 engine they used shorter connecting rods, rather than compensating for the stroke increase by raising the block deck height or increasing the piston pin-to-crown height. This means that intake manifolds are interchangeable, and you can use 312 pistons in a 292 block by boring .050. (You would thus end up with 300 cubic inches). Incidentally, a 272 block can be raised to 292 by boring .125 and using 292 pistons. Also the cylinder walls are relatively thin on the 312 block, so maximum safe overbore (using specialty pistons) is about .060. The smaller blocks can be bored .125. The "crank train" parts on the Ford Y-block engine -- crankshaft, rods, pistons, bearings, etc. -- seem to be plenty beefy for moderate hopping. There are no glaring weak points. The oil pump relief valve spring can be shimmed a little to raise the oil pressure. Also it might be mentioned that Ford used copper-lead bearings on many of their engines, so it is important that you change the oil filter at regular intervals. (Copper-lead bearings are a little harder, and thus more critical on dirt in the oil).<br /><br />You have an unusual situation on cylinder head valve and port sizes on this Y-block Ford engine. That is, intake valve head diameter started out at 1.65 inches in 1954 (1.51 exhausts). When they went to the 272 and 292 blocks in '55 they went up to 1.78-inch intakes. In 1957, with the emphasis on horsepower, Ford went up to 1.93-inch intakes and much larger ports for all three blocks. These heads were continued through '59. Then in 1960, with the emphasis back on fuel economy, Ford went back to the original 1.65-inch valve size and small ports for the 292 engines -- which they retained through the end of production in '62. (Also it must be remembered that Ford had their big, 352-390 engine for performance in this period).<br /><br />So it's obvious that if you're after maximum performance you absolutely must have these big-valve, big-port cylinder heads used between 1957 and '59. You can identify them by numbers and letters on the castings -- the number 5752113, and generally either the letter code ECZ-E or ECZ-F. The letters identified the volume of the combustion chamber, which determines the compression ratio. The ECZ-F heads give 9.7-to-1 ratio on a 312 block; the ECZ-E heads give 8.8-to-1 on the 292 block. Or these ECZ-E heads would give 9.3-to-1 on a 312 block. All heads are interchangeable right through 1962, so there's no problem of adapting the parts you have. Just bolt them on.<br /><br />You can also remember that the heads can be milled to raise compression ratio. On these Y-block Ford heads a mill cut of about .050 inch will raise compression one full ratio. In other words if, say, you found a 312 block with a cracked head, you could substitute ECZ-E heads from a 292 engine -- which would give 9.3 compression when bolted on (instead of the 9.7 of the standard ECZ-F heads). Compression could then be raised, say, 10-to-1 by milling the heads about .050. Maximum recommended mill cut is .060 or .070, as these heads didn't have much deck thickness. Also, when milling heads on any engine, be careful for interference between pistons and valves at top center. This can be a problem with late high-compression engines using high-lift cams.<br /><br />And of course there's the usual head work that can improve breathing -- porting out with a high-speed grinder, opening up the port under the valve with a 70-degree reamer to narrow the valve seat, etc. In fact there is one thing you can do in this area that will help this Y-block Ford engine more than most. This engine was always noted for excessive "shrouding" of combustion chamber walls around the edges of the valves. These engines lost a lot of breathing efficiency right here. A little grinding away of the chamber walls around the valves will do wonders for you. Of course this removal of metal from the combustion chamber lowers the compression ratio; but this can be restored by milling. A mill cut of .030 or .040 will compensate for fairly deep porting in the chamber. Keep it in mind.<br /><br />Since Ford didn't raise the deck height of their Y cylinder block all through these years ('54-'62), all intake manifolds for this basic engine are interchangeable. However the passage sizes of the various manifolds were increased to match the ports in the heads. Thus, of course, your '57-'59 manifolds, used with the big port No. 5752113 heads, would be the ones you would be looking for. These were available for either single 2-throat carb, single 4-barrel, or in 1957 only they offered a dual 4-barrel Thunderbird power option on the 312 block.<br /><br />The latter would be very scarce in the junkyards of course. You can still buy them from Ford Parts over the counter (part No. B7A 9424-D), but the price is $92. Better haunt the used hot rod market. Incidentally, casting numbers are not available for the above manifolds -- so be sure to measure the ports carefully before buying, to see that they match up with your head ports. It would be easy to get a late model '60-'62 manifold with small ports. A '57-'59 single 4-barrel will do the job.<br /><br />It might be mentioned right here that Ford offered an optional 300-hp supercharged 312 engine in 1957. It used the Paxton centrifugal blower kit with a bigger 4-barrel carb (on standard manifold with bigger throttle bores) and special heads with larger combustion chamber volume to give 8.3-to-1 compression. It was a real strong engine early in the season, and was blowing off a lot of new 283 fuel injection Chevys. But after the AMA resolution in June, 1957, Ford withdrew the car from the market. Only a few were actually built and sold. So your chances of finding one of these engines are small. (We just wanted to mention it to keep the story complete!) Of course you could always build up your own supercharged Y-block engine by using a later Paxton blower kit to bolt onto a standard engine. There are a lot of these kits on the used speed equipment market.<br /><br />Ford was unique in using mechanical valve lifters for the small Y-block engine clear through the end of production in '62. This will give you a slight advantage on RPM potential, if you don't let your valve springs get too tired. You should be good for between 5000 and 5500 rpm before valve float. Most camshafts are interchangeable, except as noted here: Early 1954 blocks had 1/8 in. larger cam bearings than later blocks, so late cams can't be used in those blocks. Late '54 and '55 camshafts had a hole in the center journal to feed oil to the rocker arm shafts. In 1956 this oil was metered by a groove around the journal with a different bearing. So if you use a later cam in a '55 block you would need to use the corresponding late bearing, to prevent excessive oil flow to the rockers. Otherwise all your '56 and later cams are interchangeable.<br /><br />Actually you don't have much choice in factory cams. All your '58-'62 engines used a mild 246-degree-duration cam with .350 valve lift with the early 1.43-to-1 rocker arms. In 1956 they used this cam with new 1.54 rockers to get .386 lift. Then in 1957 they used the high-lift rockers and a more radical 256-degree cam that gave .400 lift. You will naturally want to use the '57 256-degree cam with the 1.54 rockers ('56-'57). Don't settle for a late 246-degree cam, even if you have to use the low 1.43 rockers -- since a '57 cam can be bought over the counter for only $24. It's not a bad cam at all for all-around driving. Good mid-range torque with a healthy top end. Ask for part No. B7A 6250-B.<br /><br />Of course there's always the possibility of a special "California" reground cam for $30 or $40. This would be a good investment. You can use your stock mechanical lifters, pushrods and springs. Your maximum rev potential still may not be much above 5000; but the hotter cam will give you a lot between 3500 and 5000 rpm. If you want to wind up tighter you'll need stiffer valve springs. These can be bought with your hot cam from the hot rod supply house. Incidentally, Ford also offered the Iskenderian E-2 cam as a factory high-performance service part in 1957 (No. B7A 6250-C). This had 290 degree duration, and was factory-installed in the '57 supercharged jobs. You might be able to locate one of these. With this E-2 cam and dual 4-barrels on the 312 Thunderbird engine, the drag strip boys used to run over 90 mph -- and 95-100 mph with the blown jobs in Super/Stock. This was in '57.<br /><br />Up through 1956 Ford used a unique spark advance system that used vacuum only to operate the mechanism. This vacuum was taken off at the carb venturi, instead of under the throttle plate, so it would be more or less proportional to the amount of air flowing into the engine. The spark was retarded at low vacuum readings at low speeds, then higher vacuums would advance it. The theory looked good on paper; but it had its flaws in practice. Mostly it was a matter of lag, so when you whomped the throttle open at low speeds there was insufficient advance to make the car jump.<br /><br />Needless to say, we advise the 1957 and later vacuum centrifugal distributors of a more conventional design. All of them are interchangeable. Of course there will be different spark advance curves for different engine models. But we expect you'll want to tailor your own curve by juggling advance weight springs and stops. We would suggest a total distributor advance of about 12 degrees (distributor degrees), at a distributor speed of 1000 rpm. Then set your initial spark timing at 12 or 14 degrees BTC at the crankshaft. You'll need access to a Sun machine to work this out. It's fun.<br /><br />Then ignition strength can be further beefed up with a dual-breaker-plate conversion (around $6), hotter coil, and maybe solid copper plug leads. You don't really have a critical ignition problem with the Y-block Ford engine, though, since its practical rev range is well below 6000. Just get the advance curve right.<br /><br />Ford designed new exhaust manifolds with larger passages to go with their new big-port 312 engines in 1957, and these manifolds were continued in production through '62. These would be your best bet for a factory exhaust system, preferably of course with dual mufflers and outlet lines. The next step would be your special fabricated headers from the hot rod shops. A number of companies make these for the small Y block Ford -- though we know of no company that has tooled up for the new split-flow drag racing type, that have twin secondary pipes on each bank. (There hasn't been enough demand from this engine to warrant tooling up). Hedman has regular streamlined headers with single outlet pipes for each bank. These are a lot better than factory cast iron manifolds, and cost around $60 a set. There's a lot you can do to help your exhaust breathing on this engine.<br /><br />So these are some ideas on "shoestring-hopping" the Y-block Ford engine. It's a good basic engine, and will respond well to the tuner's touch. And the basic parts are widely available at low prices in the junkyards. This factor is almost as good as horsepower in many hop-up projects! Now of course if you want to get the maximum possible performance from all factory equipment, the combination would be the 312 block with '57-'59 big port heads, Isky E-2 cam, '57 dual quad intake manifold, late exhaust manifolds and late vacuum-centrifugal ignition. The factory actually built and sold this engine combination in a crate to qualified racing people in 1957 (though it wasn't an assembly line option at that time). They rated it 285 hp at 5200 rpm -- and NASCAR mechanics say it would come pretty close to this on the dynamometer right out of the crate! You could do a lot worse for your hot homebuilt car. And you can't beat the prices!Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-63935887505768615592007-07-14T22:50:00.000-05:002007-07-14T23:12:39.024-05:00Kit Carlisle's "funny car" T-bucket<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-RvSftz2b0dIYrB4bCcuImuqSv_y297TlzFXZxVRB8o0vqYiScihj3yDAG7oZWiz4ndkfQ2KHk8jBu7eLqrhnQGSJCcg68spJUoCvPVdx2P9tYSn6NWNL4Zkm3AFl5MoVmQe02VUWwWU/s1600-h/Carlisle3.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5087267075752366642" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-RvSftz2b0dIYrB4bCcuImuqSv_y297TlzFXZxVRB8o0vqYiScihj3yDAG7oZWiz4ndkfQ2KHk8jBu7eLqrhnQGSJCcg68spJUoCvPVdx2P9tYSn6NWNL4Zkm3AFl5MoVmQe02VUWwWU/s320/Carlisle3.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ9RjYRi8ok2rwpZ13sMVqTurWp5XfBsqrg4Mttl0pXV44XKwbL7Wax1PZAkGv_UQx8cMD8lZVPQedh0KaAnt9w44xWYYm3F5XaRlBxPgy-8ZGnQ324EVPyWY6rd1mPpdNTyL3XfDpp8c/s1600-h/Carlisle1.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5087266895363740194" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ9RjYRi8ok2rwpZ13sMVqTurWp5XfBsqrg4Mttl0pXV44XKwbL7Wax1PZAkGv_UQx8cMD8lZVPQedh0KaAnt9w44xWYYm3F5XaRlBxPgy-8ZGnQ324EVPyWY6rd1mPpdNTyL3XfDpp8c/s320/Carlisle1.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div>Kit <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Carlisle</span> of San Antonio, Texas built what I believe is one of the most distinctive T-buckets ever. It was featured in Hot Rod magazine in 1965 and serves as the primary model for my build. Sure, the wheelbase is wickedly short and the rake is extreme. But who can argue with that profile!</div><div> </div><div></div><div>Some T-buckets feature a shortened pickup bed (i.e., <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Grabowski's</span>) and some feature a turtle deck. Still others feature just the "bucket", but they typically have a fuel tank and spring perch hanging behind the body. Kit's T-bucket seems to have been built around 1963 (at least that's the date of the license plate in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">HRM</span> photos). In that regard it could be considered a "funny car" precursor, with the rear wheels moved forward under the driver's seat. And just where is the fuel tank? I love the look of this car and will emulate it (along with other nostalgically inspired design elements).</div><div> </div><div>Oh, I picked up all the parts today in a packed 6x12 open U-Haul trailer. </div></div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-54168555472237029852007-07-13T06:10:00.001-05:002008-08-31T20:57:33.747-05:00Ted Kramer's Y-block Powered "Snoopy"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVb3ctWZRh8Vxo8KINj5wm6K7kP7UUVBeLuKDf3yQD5OQkb-p5gFCVBwmqJlTvVznP_hLvsHc6GJzqEqc9s888JNNOdG_3Tl2MJ9uMsD0yaAKKB3riPKXEEzBNxFmfjVjW44TlwXMbQ4M/s1600-h/Snoopy.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5240866106230560850" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVb3ctWZRh8Vxo8KINj5wm6K7kP7UUVBeLuKDf3yQD5OQkb-p5gFCVBwmqJlTvVznP_hLvsHc6GJzqEqc9s888JNNOdG_3Tl2MJ9uMsD0yaAKKB3riPKXEEzBNxFmfjVjW44TlwXMbQ4M/s400/Snoopy.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtnxMyWVAnsUzljas5LP3R2YqdeirhG_3Th77dwVB53rfH51BO7B5Sa2FHjFHexg0rDmREvOkWAK9u8HmXo_nkwv-iuWpf4p60JLZPXUwkR1gsJ-u8I-RuhP7gmA7mHt6LrapQZABKJ0k/s1600-h/Ted_Kramer_Y-block_powered_Peanuts.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5086637596755530258" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtnxMyWVAnsUzljas5LP3R2YqdeirhG_3Th77dwVB53rfH51BO7B5Sa2FHjFHexg0rDmREvOkWAK9u8HmXo_nkwv-iuWpf4p60JLZPXUwkR1gsJ-u8I-RuhP7gmA7mHt6LrapQZABKJ0k/s320/Ted_Kramer_Y-block_powered_Peanuts.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwmopi98o64h6Ri2ZGGINzp6o6K08clRQhxoKuqikRyoy7aKwmUm9iKInyPSpqwePrehvtPbL9foKm79Rsmfde05TIIVG8fo4vZuu46QVVOOPwX4r4l8k_XRPiMlsiJc264xILOHkHz4k/s1600-h/Ted_Kramer_Snoopy_Yblock.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5086637467906511362" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwmopi98o64h6Ri2ZGGINzp6o6K08clRQhxoKuqikRyoy7aKwmUm9iKInyPSpqwePrehvtPbL9foKm79Rsmfde05TIIVG8fo4vZuu46QVVOOPwX4r4l8k_XRPiMlsiJc264xILOHkHz4k/s320/Ted_Kramer_Snoopy_Yblock.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div>In 1965, a "Hot Rod" magazine feature appeared on Ted Kramer's Hilborn injected 312 Y-block powered '27 T B/Competition roadster, Snoopy. Although originally equipped with six deuces, the injected Y-block was turning 11 second e.t.'s, launching the front wheels on takeoff. This car really got me excited because at the time a similarly injected Y-block powered '56 Ford gasser was being successfully campaigned locally by <a href="http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_5hpbg">Mize Brothers Garage </a>of Rumsey, Kentucky. Coincidentally, the Mize gasser was named after another cartoon character, "Sluggo". But that's a story for another day.</div></div></div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620016616107080003.post-87534842209513194642007-07-11T21:04:00.000-05:002007-07-11T21:18:24.879-05:00Y-block Ford and Mercury History<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXxZPDX4tMNgmS8JYigvslFyTt87r6M2890OAUzinWbu065H29_eScTaFxRH1hrRyzjima3qxh-m63my7UAmtPq2gxoigGXQzvJoJCE01IFaHYdbhDILDMCGDIYyrf0cozMe2JLWUSH8c/s1600-h/1954MercuryYblock.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5086125894351884770" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXxZPDX4tMNgmS8JYigvslFyTt87r6M2890OAUzinWbu065H29_eScTaFxRH1hrRyzjima3qxh-m63my7UAmtPq2gxoigGXQzvJoJCE01IFaHYdbhDILDMCGDIYyrf0cozMe2JLWUSH8c/s320/1954MercuryYblock.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><p>Ford Motor Co. introduced the Y-block overhead valve engines in 1954 to replace what had become over the preceding 22 years the hot rod world's most popular engine: the flathead V8. The Y-block only stayed in production as a passenger car engine for a mere eight years.</p><p>Here is probably the best historical introduction to the Y-block from the February, 1954, "Hot Rod" magazine:</p><p></p><p><strong>Young Henry's New Engines ... Ford Forsakes the Flatheads</strong></p><p>By Don MacDonald – Detroit Editor<br />"EDITOR’S NOTE: The hood’s up on the 1954 Ford and Merc. It’s all new under there from oil pan to rocker covers. We think you’ll like what you see and we’ll show you a simple way to make it even better. </p><p><br />When Detroit designs a new engine, you can count on the first production version hiding a development potential intended to be spread out over the next ten years. The reason, of course, is to ease the pain of paying for the tooling. Ford realized that jigs and dies for the old L-head V8 were wearing thin as far back as 1947. After 640 hand-built experimental units, a quarter –million hours of dynamometer testing, and more than four million miles of road testing, they’ve come up with a whole family of new engines. </p><p><br />This was no small project. You’re familiar with the four basic passenger car mills, or will be after you read this. But did you know that Ford builds five different truck engines, a four-cylinder tractor unit, and a line of industrial powerplants ranging from 134 to 317 cubic inches? Again, because of economics, each of these had to be a first cousin to the other. Similarity pays off through low tooling and production costs, but complicates the designer’s problem. He can’t just specify the Lincoln engine complete for the biggest Ford truck, although he must use the same basic block for this entirely different service requirement. </p><p><br />In addition to versatility, the whole family had to have what engineers call a “high futurity.” In other words, these engines had to be good for ten or more years of progressive increase in output per cubic-inch displacement. Even a member of the “big three” can’t afford to change an engine design every odd year. This means that compression ratios on Henry’s new powerplants can and will be raised just as fast as refiners come up with higher octane regular (not premium) gasolines. That fact alone tells why Ford and most other manufacturers have gone to overhead valve V8’s. This design, whether hemispherical or Ricardo, affords compact combustion chambers, relatively simple manifolding, and better breathing. Detroit is after a certified 12 to 1 ten years from now.</p><p><br />Still following the design philosophy behind Henry’s engines, higher output means higher bearing loads. So we find that all of them, even the in-line six, are short-stroked. This is the only way to get the compact crankshaft necessary for a structure rigid enough now to withstand the bearing loads of the future. Over-square engines offer other advantages; there’s less friction and more usable power, and the large bore makes room for larger valves.<br />Overly simplified, these are the principles which guided Ford engineers. They know that some of us will wangle maximum output from their design less than a year after buying one. It’s tough for them to hold back and dole out improvements over a ten-year period, but it’s economical. Let’s see what we have to start with.</p><p><br />The new Ford V8 engine is built around a block of exceptional strength. The central section extends well below the crankshaft centerline, giving 240 degrees of support to the five main bearings. Last year’s supported three mains at the centerline. The casting is flared between the main bearing supports and the corresponding five supports for the camshaft bearings. Cylinder head bolt bosses are located only on the outside walls of the water jacket. There are no interconnecting webs to distort the bores. Rigidity is further enhanced by the widely flared attachment for the bell housing and drive train. Do you remember, on the old engine, how the flywheel extended well beyond the narrow lower block structure? The only really strong connections between block and drive components were above the flywheel. Now there are four, all outside the flywheel and two of them are three inches below its center. </p><p><br />The new oil pan will give you a little trouble if you try to put this engine in a pre-1954 chassis. Ford and Mercury have changed over to ball-stud front suspension, so with the old front crossmember no longer in the way, they moved the deep part of the pan forward along with the oil inlet. This change also applies to the six. But you’ll like the wide, flat mating surface of the pan and the simple one-piece gasket. Engine mounts have been changed too – for a rather startling reason. Laboratory measurements show that you’ve been driving your Ford all these years without ever knowing that the engine sagged a sixteenth of an inch between front and rear supports. So they moved the front mount close to the longitudinal center of gravity. With the wide-base bell housing attachment, the tendency to sag is now negligible. </p><p><br />You won’t recognize the new piston and rod except that the former is still aluminum and has steel embedded struts. Only three rings this year, all above the piston pin, and the oil control has a factory-installed expander beneath the ring. The larger bore permits adoption of separate rod bolts with Lincoln’s easy-to-work-on cam head and eccentric hole. The rod structure isn’t weakened by notching it for the commonly used T-headed bolt. Main bearings are steel-backed copper-lead – fancy words for a really thin shell. Think back to the first Ford inserts in ’36 that were .020 of an inch thick. The new ones are less than .002 of an inch. Bearings went on a diet when engineers found that fat ones were prone to fatigue failures caused by continuous deformation of the soft babbitt. </p><p><br />The new crankshaft is interesting, not so much because of its five mains but because it is cast rather than forged. Precision molded of alloy iron, it has eight counterweights. You have to get above 4800 rpm before running into 4th-order power-impulse harmonics, so they left off the vibration dampener. Last year’s crank was pounding away at 4500, as you may have noticed. Having driven this new engine, we can vouch that the “Ford sound” is gone. The rigid, well-balanced crank is one of the reasons. </p><p><br />Another innovation is the new valve train, driven by a one-inch wide timing chain. But before getting into this, we should mention that the fuel pump is operated by an eccentric on the front of the camshaft sprocket. This, believe it or not, is carefully counterweighted, so watch it when you yank the factory version and install electric pumps. You’re already out of balance! Now to the valves. This is one rig that’ll give you 5000 rpm without bounce, although you’ll have to take some weight off the 30-pound flywheel to get there. The reason is low inertia stemming from good detail design. Shot-blasted valve springs have dampening coils at their lower ends. Rocker arms are precision-molded (cast) rather than forged. Cam acceleration patterns (for all Lincoln engines) are based on the results of a special research project involving Wayne University’s mechanical differential analyzer and Ford’s analog computer. It’s beyond us how these machines work, but we do know that they solve in minutes differential equations of motion that take human mathematicians months of effort. </p><p><br />An unusual feature of the new engines is integral valve guides. We’ve often wondered why people bother to sink separate guides into a block or head. They wear out and are hard to replace. They complicate and, in fact, prevent adequate heat transfer. If not installed properly, they distort or extend into the manifold passages to interfere with proper breathing. The oil-retaining cast iron of a block or head is a better bearing surface for hard-steel valve stems than any thin insert. Integral guides will eventually wear, but you just ream them and buy a new set of valves with oversize stems. To further guarantee healthful valve temperatures, this time at the seats, all Ford-built engines incorporate valve rotators. These little gimmicks cause the valve to settle in a different position after each cycle. They’re still turning slightly when they seat, which keeps the mating surfaces wiped clean. Tests by valve manufacturers (Thompson, Eaton, and others) show that rotators vastly prolong intake and exhaust valve life in any engine, and incidentally, several equally good designs are now commercially available for most engines.<br />The cooling system features a single pump with forward-curved impeller blades which force the coolant into an equalizing chamber. From there, a balanced flow is fed to both cylinder banks. It cools the bores on its way to the back of the block, then rises and returns through the heads to the radiator. The new head castings were built to insure effective cooling around combustion chambers, valve seats, integral guides, and spark plugs. </p><p><br />The stock intake manifold will probably be the first item thrown out when you get your new Ford, but there’s a lot to be said for it the way it stands now. It’s about as close to being symmetrical as you can get on a V8. Equal length passages to each cylinder discourage directional favoritism for any one port. Compared to some contemporary V8’s, this manifold looks a little less like a basket of worms. Equitable distribution to all cylinders is one of the key reasons why stock (7.2 to 1 compression ratio) ’54 Fords will happily digest regular gasoline.<br />Another asset is combustion chamber design which follows the route pioneered by Ricardo. The kidney-shaped volume has a large “squish” area at the end farthest from the spark plug. The piston coming up on compression traps some of the mixture in this confined space and literally squirts it out into the main volume, creating the turbulence necessary for even burning. Smoothly contoured intake passages and short exhaust ports add to the already high volumetric efficiency. </p><p><br />The combustion chamber design gives you another dividend in smooth, knock-free performance. When the charge is fired and the flame front moves away from the plug, it compresses the gases ahead. This situation in other combustion chambers is ideal for detonation, but in Ford’s, the squish area now becomes a quench area. The unburned gases that weren’t squished out are confined and cooled by contact with the cylinder head and piston. Proponents of the hemispherical combustion chamber argue that this works too effectively; that the remaining gases aren’t burned at all. At any rate, Henry’s engineers had their choice for they’ve manufactured nearly twenty-seven thousand 525-horsepower V8 tank engines with hemispherical combustion chambers. They chose the squish type for passenger cars.<br />So far, all we’ve said applies equally to Ford and Mercury. The two engines are basically the same. The Merc is a bored (no pun intended) Ford block with better breathing and gas-eating equipment. Where the stock Ford mounts a two-barrel Holley carburetor practically identical to last year’s, Mercury has a radical new four-barrel carburetor which is the main reason for the 30 more horsepower. You’ve guessed what we’re getting at. There’s no reason why you can’t make a Merc out of your new Ford and then start from there. Here’s how. </p><p><br />The Mercury intake manifold will fit on your Ford. Some filing of the manifold or head ports may be necessary to make the Merc manifold fit and align with the ports of the Ford heads. This is because the manifolds are manufactured in two different plants. Until such time as superior speed equipment is available, this will give you the advantage of four-barrel carburetion. The new carburetor depends on air flow through the primary venturis to operate the secondary venturis, eliminating the usual mechanical linkage. In other words, whenever engine requirements exceed breathing capacity of the primary venturis, vacuum acting through a diaphragm opens the secondary throttle plates to the exact position for the right amount of additional air and fuel. They’re fully open when you hit 60 mph at full throttle. The system is entirely divorced from the accelerator linkage. The primary reason behind this development is to get a four-barrel to work with a standard shift transmission. An added bonus on all Ford carburetors is an external vent for hot starts. </p><p><br />Exhaust valves are the same and intakes are up to you. If you want drag potential, stick with the smaller stock Ford parts. These tend to choke down the big Merc breathing system, but will give you more low speed torque. If you’re after good times through the traps, change over to the larger Merc intakes. With these, there’s little loss in volumetric efficiency at high speeds. Installation should be comparatively simple, as seat inserts have been eliminated this year. Incidentally, that’s an indication of the unusually low head temperatures in these engines.<br />It’s too early to tell about cam grinds as the engines haven’t been available to many speed shops for study. Ford and Merc both use the same cams and hard tappets. All we can say is to watch your clearances if you go to one of the higher lift grinds, for they’re close. But the stock 7.2 to 1 heads can stand a lot of shaving. Mercury’s version ups compression ratio to 7.5 , and remember that these engines were designed for fuels ten years in the future. A safe rule to follow is that horsepower will increase percentage-wise in approximately the same proportion as the percentage increase in compression ration, if the calculation is based on air-cycle efficiency. Figures on this basis apply to all the new, better breathing, overhead valve V8’s and holds good for ratios between six and a little over ten to one. Using this formula on a Mercury, milling to 9 to 1 should give about 176 brake horsepower. No one is too sure (except Ford engineers and they aren’t saying) what this will do to octane requirement. Our guess is about 95 Research Numbers. This is somewhat higher than is available in present premium gasolines, but you can get away with it if you drag hard enough and often enough to keep deposits blown out of the combustion chambers. </p><p><br />The advantages of stroking these engines are dubious. First, any lengthening of the present 3.1-inch stroke violates the basic design concept. A short-stroke engine is a low-friction engine with resultant longer life and greater fuel economy. The new Mercury will go 29 per cent farther than the ’53 model on the same amount of piston travel assuming equivalent gearing. The second objection is that stroking for low-speed torque is a waste of effort when you have good breathing and spark advance. Sure, you could gain by stroking your L-head Ford, but that engine in stock form had asthma and the vacuum spark advance ignored the basic requirements of low-speed, full-throttle acceleration. </p><p><br />Boring the new engines out is another matter. We have reason to believe (based on available oversize service pistons) that the ’54 Ford block can stand another 1/8 of an inch before your run out of material or get into too much oil-control trouble. For the Merc, subtract the fact that it’s already 0.125 inch oversize. Again, there’s a simple formula to check the gain. The ratio of the two piston diameters squared is roughly equal to the ration of the stock torque and the unknown new torque. With maximum stock Ford torque at 214 pounds/feet, a one-eighth over-bore puts us up to about 223. If you use the larger Mercury intake valves, your maximum horsepower will go up in the same proportion, but only if you do. </p><p><br />Lastly, you can order either your Ford or Mercury equipped at the agency with dual exhausts. These do not included headers in the usual sense, but even so, they’re claimed to give a three to five per cent increase in stock horsepower. Most dual-pipe manufacturers claim about the same gain. A good set of well designed headers should add even more. </p><p><br />Any or all of the modifications we have discussed add up to an inexpensive and fat performance bonus, especially if you start out with the Ford. We’ve drive both of these cars in stock form (MOTOR TREND, Jan. and Feb. ’54). The new Ford V8 with a standard gearbox will do 0 to 60 in about 16 seconds. An equivalent Merc (weighing very little more) is considerably faster, taking between 14 and 15 seconds. Rough calculations show that the new Ford should do 96 mph. Mercury, unless our slide rule is wrong, will do 103 – over the century mark in stock form for the first time in its history. It shouldn’t be hard for you to improve on these figures. Good luck!"</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14556710729275694644noreply@blogger.com0