Hey Gary here are the pics I have. Took a little while to find them. Lots of tech "trickled down" from this engine project. Merry Christmas!

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

n/m

The block still has the distributor hole which isn't being used. The head studs hold down the rocker shafts and the valley-side studs are a style later "stolen" for Hemis and BB Chevs.

Reminds me of 292 or 312 components.

Regards,
Dennis

n/m

I also appreciated those pics.

Note the rev kit under the top ledge of the cylinder heads and small diameter valve springs. Back then, spring technology/metallurgy wasn't nearly as developed as today. To minimize the load on what today would be pretty small & low pressure valve springs, Ford chose to lower the mass of the lifter (very small diameter body) yet add the mushroom shape for max. cam contact. That and the rev-kit spread the load and allowed 7,000+ rpm for the near 4 hour race. Those lifter bores were also bronze-bushed in the cast aluminum block to allow absolute location to the crank/cam tunnels and offer long-lasting oiling to those mighty narrow lifters.

As pointed out, World Products of NY has just in the last year (late 2007) duplicated Ford's 4 extra head bolts (block and head) with their Man-O-War SBF series of 10 degree Windsor race parts. The World staff only added the lower 4 bolts (14) versus the 18 bolts shown in these late '62-early '63 pics. The head gaskets (not shown) at this point also appear to be copper or composition with SS o-ring grooves. Later I was told the engine, before it got the 4-cam heads, also got the Cooper's rings (sp?) that make it a dry deck, ala' the later NASCAR version of the Boss 429. Note to the screw-in block freeze plugs....Ford did the same with OEM Boss 302 blocks.

What still amazes me is why Ford stuck with the original design of tiny exhaust ports for the 260-289-302 and even 351W engines to come. By the pictures, the intake port is huge compared to the OEM port and although not shown, I'll bet the exhaust port is equally big....at least compared to the tiny OEM port. Sure the Boss 302 heads later had the size but once that run ended, Ford could have easily made larger port/valve W heads and likely forestalled soon to come the Chevy 302-327-350 revolution. And I know since the 60's, 70's and even early 80's were losers for all Windsor engines as the heads just could not support any decent hp. Only later did the aftermarket come to the rescue and also prodded Ford to released the GT series of heads, although none were nearly as great as the Edelbrock, Canfield, TFS, AFR, Dart, World heads to come even later.

The idea that header diameter, shapes, equal lenghts, any assortment of configurations - zoomies, Tri-Y, ram horn, etc... and exhaust port flow are relatively "new" concepts.After all, you had the piston "forcing" the exhaust out, plus it was hot and expanding - it took care of itself...right? The big issue was to get more air/fuel into the engine. Look at a bunch of old cars from "back in the day" there were plenty of cars running blower, still using stock exhaust manifolds.

I wonder if the "rev kit" secondary purpose was to take some valve spring pressure off the spring pockets in those aluminium heads for durability's sake? I realize that this system is primarily intended to stabilize the valvetrain at sustained high rpm.







Seeing stuff like this reinforces my belief that the Y-block was truely an underestimated premium engine that was not fully developed in North America. Imagine a 4" bore, crossbolted block with higher flowing symmetrical intake ports. Here are some pics of the Argentinian Y- block "Phase II" heads. Notice the influence.....




[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

I wonder if the "rev kit" secondary purpose was to take some valve spring pressure off the spring pockets in those aluminium heads for durability's sake? I realize that this system is primarily intended to stabilize the valvetrain at sustained high rpm.

-the rev kit did that and more as well. Valve spring failure was common in distance racing and anything (less mass, lighter components) they could do to reduce or spread the load helped. No titantium valves nor titanium spring retainers yet in these engines. The spring pockets did have steel shims underneath both to provide the proper installed height and keep the spring ends from eating up the soft alum. head material.

Seeing stuff like this reinforces my belief that the Y-block was truely an underestimated premium engine that was not fully developed in North America. Imagine a 4" bore, crossbolted block with higher flowing symmetrical intake ports. Here are some pics of the Argentinian Y- block "Phase II" heads. Notice the influence.....

-Agree but...lots of engines were 'underdeveloped' hence my little rant about what Ford could/should have done with the Windsor engine series. Check this:

Ford adds Boss 302 heads to the Windsor block and comes up a winner.
Chrysler adds true hemispherical heads to the slow-poke 383-426-440 engine block and launchs the "Hemi".
Ford adds SOHC heads to the FE engine block and brings forth the 427 'Cammer.

Would the Y-block truly be a 'Y' with say OHC's, canted valves and evenly spaced intake and exhaust ports?

I believe Ford could have be more generous with the valves and ports on the Windsor engines. They could have made those changes on a slow afternoon. In fact the `90's era GT40 and GT40P heads did indeed address this situation.

...interesting perspective on your part, but "tiny port" Shelby Mustangs beat the crap out of Chevrolet's finest sport car, the Corvette, in SCCA competition.

they were competition prepared entries I''m sure, just the like the Vette's, especially if they were B or C classed mod. production cars where head porting is allowed. The Windsors in GT-40 Fords then and some Lolas and even famed Gulf Oil GT's also did well with competition prepared Windsors in long track racing, for sure!

Stock, just look at how inadequate they are:




Perhaps I should have stated OEM or as delivered W's. Until Ford woke up with the Mustang GT and attendant "GT" heads in the 80's and the aftermarket followed with great aluminum heads, one was stuck with essentially the same tiny exhaust port OEM heads that they had used for years. Chevy on the other had a great many, if not always OEM production line, over-the-counter iron heads that were killers on SBC's. My question was why Ford couldn't have done this as well?

n/m

http://egaa.home.mindspring.com/engine3.htm

See pic of the mushroom-footed lifter 1/2 way down Page 1. This isn't even the first recorded use of a mushroom lifter, btw.

Most all the innovative engine designs actually date to pre-WWI aircraft engines or those developed by the late 20's. Hemi heads, pressurized dry sump oiling, roller rockers, shaft mounted rockers, 4 valve heads, single and dual OHC's, you name it. Heck, even Ford's WWII tank engine was a marvel.

http://home.alltel.net/bsprowl/Sherman.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1E_OBPpEVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilyGlrM1Q6A

http://www.mustangblog.com/index.php/2007/70-mustang-with-1100-ci-sherman-tank-engine/

************************************

1967 FE 390GT engine: 416 CID 233/238* @ 0.050 Solid Lifter w/ 4 spd TL.
1968 GT/CS Mustang. 289/c4
1995 Mercedes e320 I6 DOHC, 216 HP wagon.
2003 Tundra SR5, 4.7 DOHC, 4x4.
Another Galaxie (one day.)

Oh and a Bicycle - daily driver to save gas for the 'F'un 'E'xcursions.