292 with 239 heads

Okay I'm confused. I always thought that the 1954, 239 Y-block heads had the intake ports closer together than the 272/292 heads, thus requiring the smaller intake gaskets that are included in standard Y-block engine gasket sets. That means that the intake manifold itself would not be interchangeable between the 239 and any later Y-block. The only carb that fits on the 1954 intake is a Ford EBU or Holley 2100 which are not compatible with the '57 and later distributors due to mechanical advance.
Has anybody ever noticed that the head castings of the 239 and 272 heads appear identical except for the casting insert at the intake surface is different? Probably due to the different spacing of the intake ports.
So what intake manifold do you have? Or have I been wrong about all this?
 
Daves55Sedan said:
Okay I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Join the club ... :p

I always thought that the 1954, 239 Y-block heads had the intake ports closer together than the 272/292 heads, thus requiring the smaller intake gaskets that are included in standard Y-block engine gasket sets.

That means that the intake manifold itself would not be interchangeable between the 239 and any later Y-block. The only carb that fits on the 1954 intake is a Ford EBU or Holley 2100 which are not compatible with the '57 and later distributors due to mechanical advance.

Has anybody ever noticed that the head castings of the 239 and 272 heads appear identical except for the casting insert at the intake surface is different? Probably due to the different spacing of the intake ports.

So what intake manifold do you have? Or have I been wrong about all this?
Click to expand...
It is confusing until you start to cipher on it and even then a lot of info has been forgotten/deleted and you have to wade through the usual wives tales/misnomers.

There were two 1954 239 engines, one cast and assembled @ the DIF and the other @ the CF. The biggest service problems are with the DIF version. The CF version was an update and was the pattern for all following FYB's.

The intake runners are smaller than later engines, specifically but coolant passages are also somewhat different. That is why an overhaul gasket kit contains two sets of intake gaskets, to enable the kit to fit more than one engine and lessen inventory.

FORD also offered head gaskets to allow the DIF heads to be mounted on a CF engine.
 
I thought the second version came out in 55 when the 272 came into being. They had the smaller cam journals and the different drives for the distributor/oil pumpo
 
paul2748 said:
I thought the second version came out in 55 when the 272 came into being. They had the smaller cam journals and the different drives for the distributor/oil pumpo
Click to expand...

It is confusing -

During 1954, all 239-cubic-inch passenger-car engines and some 239 truck engines were built at the Dearborn engine plant. At about the middle of the model year the manufacture of 239 cubic-inch truck engines was transferred to the Cleveland engine plant. In 1955 all 239 truck engines were built at Cleveland.

Not all parts, however, were interchangeable between the Dearborn engines (both car and truck) and the Cleveland engines. The cylinder block assembly, block, heads, head gaskets and camshafts on the Dearborn 239's were not interchangeable with the respective parts on Cleveland 239's.

The Dearborn-built 239 used a "large" camshaft with a thirteen-tooth distributor drive gear and bearing journals 1/8 inch larger in diameter than the "small" Cleveland camshaft and all other Y-block camshafts. The Cleveland- built 239 and all later Y-blocks used camshafts with a fourteen- tooth distributor drive gear. (Parts interchangeability among 239's is addressed in the service bulletins section of this book.
Click to expand...


Above excerpt from


http://www.jcs-group.com/cruisin/muscle/engines.html

Most of text shown above was taken from –

THE FORD Y-BLOCK – James Eickman -1984 [/quote]

Left out is the description of the 256 TRUCK ENGINE and it's phasing to the 272.
 
kul I agree with paul but I have only been playing with the engine for over 50 years gathering parts rebuilding etc.never heard about 2 different engines.strange that the engine in question has supposedly been running in the car since 1961 that is a lot of years if intake and heads were mismatched something is not being disclosed.hopefully the pictures when and if they appear will clear up some questions.with regard to the link you provided you must remember the old adage do not believe anything you read and only half of what you see. as to the camshaft specs he provided a simple search will show only one camshaft and one gear for 239 it is a one year only block with regards to camshaft bearings and distributor gear.myths are meant to be busted:rolleyes:
 
54vicky said:
kul I agree with paul but I have only been playing with the engine for over 50 years gathering parts rebuilding etc.never heard about 2 different engines.strange that the engine in question has supposedly been running in the car since 1961 that is a lot of years if intake and heads were mismatched something is not being disclosed.hopefully the pictures when and if they appear will clear up some questions.with regard to the link you provided you must remember the old adage do not believe anything you read and only half of what you see. as to the camshaft specs he provided a simple search will show only one camshaft and one gear for 239 it is a one year only block with regards to camshaft bearings and distributor gear.myths are meant to be busted:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you are disagreeing with the reference I provided, that is your choice. If you think that there were not two versions of the early engines, again your entitled belief.

TED EATON and JOHN MUMMERT will say the same in their TECH ARTICLES. If you feel that you know and have more experience than them, you need to publish your information.

How many references have to posted to rid the hobby of 'I never saw one so it can't be'? Being a hobbyist only and not in the service field is lending yourself to not seeing all that FOMOCO produced.

Paul asked for confirmation and I responded. At least admonish in a respectful manner.
 
Last edited:
It is a fact that there is a very early version of the y block in 54 that did utilize a dist. gear of it's own. Therefore a different cam. Upon rebuild it may be possible to upgrade to the later cam but I never tried it. Why waste money on a 239 when you could have a 292 or 312. EBU EBV and EBY blocks were the odd ducks. I also believe there was something about a groove in the center cam bearing on very early y blocks. When the ECZ blocks were introduced everything pretty much standardized thru 64. It would also be interesting what head gaskets were used on the gentlemans 1961 292 as the 239 was different.
 
It certainly is possible (as far as I know) to run 239 heads on a 272/292 block as long as the 239 intake is also used. This way, the ports in the head match the intake, including the water ports. And a later load-o-matic is used (except for the 56 dual diaphram model) that has the correct gear and oil pump drive. Actually, a 57 and later distributor can be used with the 239 head/intake combo as long as the vacuum was not hooked up. Engines can run almost as good with just the mechanical advance only



The problem with the mismatch is the heads/intake situation


While there was a certain amount of standardization starting with 1955, there still are differences between the years. One example is the cam - in the early years a cross drilled cam was used (for oil supply to the rockers), then a cam with a groove and then back to a crossed drilled cam and then in the last years I think they went back to the grooved cam. Internal parts of the distributors also changed over the years although they are interchangeable throughout 57-64.
 
Last edited:
Yes the whole top end may be used all together but it would probably be a dog on power. The early 239 intake valve was barely 1 5/8 and I would be surprised if compression hit 8.0 even on a 292. I would bet if he got a set of 57-59 heads,an ECZ9425B intake and the later dist. he would add at least 40 h.p. Even with a 2 barrel he would probably add at least 20 h.p.
 
54vicky said:
...when you see one take a picture and post it then I may stand corrected
Click to expand...

I guess you are directing this to me ...

Tell you what, you stand right there and I will be back in a while...

Why did I over-ride the IGNORE BUTTON?
 
paul2748 said:
It certainly is possible (as far as I know) to run 239 heads on a 272/292 block as long as the 239 intake is also used.
Click to expand...
This stands to reason. Have you noticed that when you get a complete engine gasket set for a Y-block, they come with one set of head gaskets, but there are two sets of intake-to-head gaskets. The set that has the smaller and closer-together ports is for the 239. The larger set fits all 272, 292 and 312 engines.
 
from comment # 4.
dmsfrr said:
...
The 239 heads use ... smaller intake ports which should have a matching intake manifold. (photo)
...
Click to expand...

Daves55Sedan said:
This stands to reason. Have you noticed that when you get a complete engine gasket set for a Y-block, they come with one set of head gaskets, but there are two sets of intake-to-head gaskets. The set that has the smaller and closer-together ports is for the 239. The larger set fits all 272, 292 and 312 engines.
Click to expand...
Photo: a '55+ intake gasket laid over a '54 239 gasket for a port size comparison.
 

Attachments

  • '54 239 vs '55+ intake gasket.jpg
    '54 239 vs '55+ intake gasket.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
It certainly is possible (as far as I know) to run 239 heads on a 272/292 block as long as the 239 intake is also used. This way, the ports in the head match the intake, including the water ports.
Click to expand...
1954 FORD PASS CAR 239 - 6051 CYL Head Gasket-

Used when replacing cyl block or cyl assy with 1955 model and using the 1954 EBU cyl head - (2) B5C 6051-A

49/59 MPC FINAL ISSUE 1964
Click to expand...
What this is saying (IMO), if one wanted to use the 1954 DIF cyl head (EBU) on a CF block (EBV-ECG), FORD issued special gaskets for the swap.

I am certain what this describes was when replacing a DIF block or short due to a warranty claim or regular service (as the DIF replacement block was most not likely available at some point), there were coolant passage differences.

The 1954 DIF EBU engine was PASS CAR issue mostly as the CF was opened later in the model year and it's engine design produced was the later upgraded Y-BLOCK. The EBV was the 1954-55 CF truck engine and was cast, machined and assembled at the CLV FOUNDRY/ENGINE PLANT.

So you can't say can without knowing exactly what you have.
 
I was scouring the NET regarding the FYB engine differences and came across this thread-

http://1954ford.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3665

It is the desire by others of early FYB info knowledge and the lack of documented facts is why I am trying to figure all of this out. It has become fairly obvious but I am lacking much reference materials to lay it all out correctly.

FYB FACTOIDS are spread out all over the NET (and publications) and some are true/accurate and some are not. Hopefully, future info seekers will see this thread and be able to ascertain the difference(s) in the early engines.
 
Kul what I was saying is unless you with your own eyes see something it is probably based on proposed items that were later discarded.if you look through your collection of literature re- assembly manuals with different printing dates you will find instances of this.
 
This can always be blamed on the"Whiz Kids" HFII hired to run Ford after the war. The Edsel is a good example. What were they thinking when they came up with the timing chain set up for the Y-block.

Joking aside, the Y-block went through less teething problems than the first 221 V8 of 1932. All of the different designs of engines went through changes during their first few years before they were improved as well as they could get them for the era of each example. The Ford Windsor V8 engine started life as a 221 in 1961 just like the flat head but it didn't stay that way very long.
 
I seem to be losing something in the translation it seems.

Anyways, I have gone far enough to satisfy myself as I have no desire to acquire/buy any further research materials. I just wanted to track down what everyone was seemingly having trouble with regarding the earlier Y.
 
Sid said:
Yes the whole top end may be used all together but it would probably be a dog on power.
Click to expand...


All I can say is, there is no lacking in power, performance or acceleration in this old '55 car with a 292 truck crate motor which was later rebuilt, bored out 60 over and balanced by a racing engine builder years ago. It has 1960, 292 heads on it with the original '55 2bbl intake manifold and original Ford EBU carb with 1 inch venturi's and factory load-o-matic distributor.
As far as the fuel distribution and the vacuum advance, it is basically the same as the factory 11954, 239 (except for the '54 has the slightly smaller intake).
I couldn't ask for better power and acceleration.
I had a rebuilt completely stock 1957, 292 with original flat style 2bbl carb. Comparing it to the 292 in my '55, I would choose to drive the '55 any day of the week. Not saying the '57 was a dog. It wasn't, it was great. But the '55 always beat the '57 getting on uphill highway ramps with very short merge lanes without taking your life in your own hands. I never had to worry about not having enough room to merge in the '55. That thing can push 0-60 in nothin flat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top