preferred 2 barrel Y-block intake manifold?

C

cars2cool

Senior Member
What is the preferred 2 barrel intake for the mid-50's era Y-block? I am assuming it would have the biggest intake runners under the carb. I am referring to OEM cast iron.
 
You'll likely want one from '57 or newer.
They use the 'newer' four bolt style carburetors, not the '54/'56 three bolt.
There is more than one model of them, I'm not familiar with the differences.

Here's a list of intake manifold casting numbers: Ford, Truck & Mercury...
http://www.y-block.info/casting/intake.html
.
 

Attachments

  • '57 2 bbl, ECG-H.jpg
    '57 2 bbl, ECG-H.jpg
    116.1 KB · Views: 122
Last edited:
cars2cool said:
Thanks for the site info. I'm looking for the preferred 3 bolt design.
Click to expand...
The '56 2bbl intake would likely be the most improved of the older 3 bolt versions.

The '57+ intake manifolds with a 4 bolt carburetor flange were built with improved runners and have better air flow characteristics... for the slightly higher horsepower engines available then.

Fyi, the '56 and older carburetors are vacuum matched to less desirable Loadomatic distributors for their ignition timing. They aren't the best option.
.
 

Attachments

  • early LoadOmatic part 2 copy.jpg
    early LoadOmatic part 2 copy.jpg
    53.8 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
The 54/55/56 2-bbl intake manifolds are each different, but will accept a variety of "bugsprayer" type carbs of the era (Ford EBU, Holley 2100, Holley 2110, ECG, etc) as the 3-bolt pattern on each is identical. These are all load-o-matic intake manifolds and must be used with original distributor and load-o-matic style carb as listed above.
The '54 car intake will not fit on an engine with 272, 292 heads. The 1956 intake manifold is the only one that has provision for automatic choke.
The 1957 and later intake manifolds are for use with distributors with mechanical advance and matching carburator.
 
The '55 and '56 three bolt manifolds should be the same as far as port size. Only difference I can think of is the '56 manifold has a provision for at warm air tube for automatic choke carbs.
The carburetor determines whether you need a loadomatic distributor, and not the intake manifold.

Sal
 
Gene F said:
Cars2Cool...May I ask why you are inquiring?
Click to expand...
Thanks Gene for asking. I'm gathering parts for a '56 F100 rebuild and want to install either a 292 or a 312 Y-block mated to a C-4 automatic. I would like to be able to maintain Interstate speeds and let the wife drive it too. She can't drive a manual transmission but she can change a flat tire! I currently have 2 mid-50's F100's that are done back to as authentic as I can afford, I am a Fordaholic. I am aware that there a different size holes in the base of the 3 bolt carburetors and that ties in with CFM's. I have been looking at the various used intakes that are being offered for sale on the internet, and I can't tell with any certainty which ones have the larger ports to match the larger carbs. I know there is a rear end gear ratio change in my future as well, as both of my current pickups have the original 3.92 Dana 44's. They work great for in town speeds, but I get this sick feeling in my gut when I wind them up past 55 or 60 mph. The '55 has the original 239 V8 with the original Ford-o-matic and the '56 has the original 223 inline 6 with the 3 speed transmission. I'm not into racing the old stuff but I do want them to run and drive with reliability. And I prefer a manual choke like I already have in my pickups.
 
Last edited:
KULTULZ said:
Not without an expensive ($$$) adapter kit.

IMO ... :rolleyes: ... If you are going that route go ahead with an AOD conversion.
Click to expand...
What year of transmission and suitable donor? I know the people that make the flat-o-matic adapter make one for the c-4 conversion. I'll have to check to see if they make one for the AOD.
 
What year of transmission and suitable donor?
Click to expand...

... whew ... That is a loaded question.

I wondered why you would want to go to the expense of a C4 conversion as it would have the final drive ratio as the F/M.

If you desire an AOD, it is going to be expensive, not only the adapter kit but also a prepared trans. Even if you found a suitable take-out it would most likely need to be gone through. And there are so many design progressions you would have to cipher on. It would be more feasible to have one built especially for your application (IMO of course).

You need to study the subject -

https://www.diyford.com/ford-aod-transmission-installation-and-swapping-guide/

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/swapping-ford-aod-new-gears-1956-ford-f100/

https://gearstar.com/y-block-aod-upgrade/
 
Last edited:
Just a couple things to consider on either a C4 or AOD swap. I think the trucks all used the front mount (like a tbird) and ears on the bellhousing for the rear mount. I’m not sure how the “kits” address that, but it’s not a concern in a car application or the Mustangs used in the articles K listed. The 56 truck in one of those has a 302, and it probably has side motor mounts added. They may have something in the kit that adds those back for the trucks.

The Dana 44 parts are available but not cheap. Working on them under the car is a pain and so is pulling them. I’m not sure about the open rear ends, but the limited slip units have a carrier change-3.73 and down, 3.92 (or whatever it is) and up. So you might have that to put in the budget while looking at this.

Just check it out, and avoid a surprise in the middle.
 
scicala said:
The carburetor determines whether you need a loadomatic distributor, and not the intake manifold. Sal
Click to expand...

True, but since there's no such thing as a 3-bolt "bugsprayer" carb suitable for use with mechanical advance, you might as well just say the 3-bolt intake manifolds are load-o-matic. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I do.
Technically, though, you are correct.
 
The 56 truck in one of those has a 302, and it probably has side motor mounts added. They may have something in the kit that adds those back for the trucks.
Click to expand...

I never understood that MICKEY MOUSE setup on either the F-SERIES or especially the BIRD. Holding down an F-CODE with ski poles ain't too smart.

Any-who, the 56 F100 swap shown has a base 302 and an engine mount conversion kit installed if you look closely. The author stated that there was very little power with the 302 so most likely a 239 2V (especially LOAD-O-MATIC) ain't gonna cut it on the highway.

This is one of those projects that keeps snow balling, especially if not hawked out and strategized properly.

Wait and see what the OP says ...
 
cars2cool said:
Thanks for the site info. I'm looking for the preferred 3 bolt design.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue with ya, after all, my '55 Sedan has the original 272, 2-bbl 3-bolt intake with Ford EBU "bugsprayer" carb, and I love it to death, BUT it is load-o-matic with original distributor. Now those work fine as long as you've got a good vacuum can on your dizzy, but if that ever changes, the load-o-matic dizzy vacuum cans are no longer reproduced for the '54/55/56 cars.
Also.....the old "bugsprayer" carbs (Ford EBU, Holley 2100, Holley 2110, EGC etc) are all leakers and so is the Holley1904 single bbl for the 223, I-block 6.
Many people have installed supplemental electric bypass fuel pumps to "prime" the carb if the car has been sitting for a few days or long enough for the gas to drain out of the float bowl. There can be complications with a supplemental electric fuel pump installation.
Some people have eliminated the mechanical fuel pump altogether and run straight electric fuel pump.
I'm not sayin it wont work. It can work and does for many people, but you may want to study on these things further before deciding to stay with the load-o-matic system (3-bolt carb base).
There's tons of info in the archives on this site about electric fuel pump installations.
Or, you can do what I do. If my car sits for three days, I don't even try to start the engine without first popping the oil bath air-cleaner off the carb and using a tuna can (with a spout bent into the side) about 1/4 full of gas and dumping it down the air-vent tube that goes into the float bowl. That gives the carb enough gas to start and run the engine long enough for the mechanical fuel pump to start filling the float bowl on it's own. And the engine always starts right up.
 
Daves55Sedan said:
True, but since there's no such thing as a 3-bolt "bugsprayer" carb suitable for use with mechanical advance, you might as well just say the 3-bolt intake manifolds are load-o-matic. Or maybe you wouldn't. But I do.

Technically, though, you are correct.
Click to expand...

How to convert LOM 2V CARB to DUAL ADV DIST -

https://www.eatonbalancing.com/2010...ey-94-two-barrel-for-late-model-distributors/

Now the question is what 239 he has in the truck, a big cam or small cam (DIST DRIVE).
 
If you do keep the 239 V8 truck engine, it SHOULD have the original ECG-9425-B intake manifold on it. The car 239's had a smaller intake and matching heads that are not readily interchangeable with the truck 239 intake and heads.
If it has the 9425-B, you can use any of the 3-bolt carbs of the era. All have the same bolt pattern. The Ford EBU has 1 inch venturi's. The Holley 2100 has 1-1/16 venturi's.
As KULTULZ has indicated above, these carbs can be MODIFIED to work with a mechanical advance distributor if you want to go with a '57 and later mechanical advance distributor.
Please verify which engine you have first. The 239 truck engine was similar to the '55 272 engine with many interchangeable parts between the two.
Also search the archives on this site to study the differences between the '55 truck 239 and the '55 car 272 engines. This will help with parts interchangeability
 
I took my 2 barrel off my 57 292. The thing had a rebuilt carb, and it still got 12MPG at 70MPH. I have a tri-power unit now. So if you are going 2 barrel for mileage, forget it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top