Replace Flathead with Y-Block?

Believe it or not, Ford actually made an adapter to do this for trucks. They also made a kit to convert from the flat-6's to the OHV 6's. The parts lists for the kits runs to 2 pages...

Never seen one of these adapters myself.
 

Attachments

  • conversion kit.jpg
    conversion kit.jpg
    79.8 KB · Views: 25
Ross F-1 said:
Believe it or not, Ford actually made an adapter to do this for trucks. They also made a kit to convert from the flat-6's to the OHV 6's. The parts lists for the kits runs to 2 pages...

Never seen one of these adapters myself.
Click to expand...

I have the same book, also never seen one in all the junkyards I've walked through.

We did have a 54 F600 that was.converted from a 6 wheeler to a 10 wheeler full screw
 
The 312 wasn't any better. It was the worst of the bunch. The 292 was lousy but probably the best Y block. The 57 312 introduced the Holley spread bore carburetor which was a milestone but a terrible overall engine. The engine code was ECZ. I know, I had several back in the day.
 
In the late 50's I built a 345ci "Y" block for the drags for a fellow. The engine had a C&T stroker assy with floating bearings. The roda were bored out to except them. Yes it was a welded crank. Clay smith hard faced cam and Hilbore Fuel injectors. I'd never run anything like this before and my stupid factor was very hi. Took awhile to get the tuning figgered out. The flame thrower ign gave us problems as the rotors would short out. solved this with stock coils. Engine was bolted uo to a cad.LaSal trand and 4.10 rear, Altho we never got it to a drag strip. It's the only vehicle I ever drove that could spin the tires while cruising at 60 mPH. The acceleration was more thar the Hemi 66 Dodge I ran

Yes if you put the time and money into one, they wii run
 
DougE said:
A Bones - I am posting identical threads in the H.A.M.B. 1952-59 Ford Social Group and not getting much response.
Click to expand...

Doug this is good to know. Since I came off strong I apologize. You are getting a load of good input here. I'm sorry to say I'm in the agin camp.

As well, I have in my growing years committed conversions that just ate up time energy, and cash I regretted later.

Good Luck I understand the aspect of having that look when the hood goes up.

(seldom mentioned fact: Ed 'Big Daddy' Roth had a '55 Chevy with a 406 just for fun):)
 
Well;the latest V8 times has photos of the '49-up passenger bell housings and includes the '54-56 Y block bell housings! Looks like the same passenger trans pattern to me. Newc
 
Most adapters for these transmissions show them fitting '49-'64. "rotorwrench" has posted some good information on the previous page.
 
Last edited:
Ross F-1 said:
Believe it or not, Ford actually made an adapter to do this for trucks. They also made a kit to convert from the flat-6's to the OHV 6's. The parts lists for the kits runs to 2 pages...

Never seen one of these adapters myself.
Click to expand...

looks like a pretty complete kit. It even includes the engine!
 
philipswanson said:
The 312 wasn't any better. It was the worst of the bunch. The 292 was lousy but probably the best Y block. The 57 312 introduced the Holley spread bore carburetor which was a milestone but a terrible overall engine. The engine code was ECZ. I know, I had several back in the day.
Click to expand...

Hey Philip, I know you don’t care for the Y-block and you have your reasons but I must say I’ve never seen a Y block pull a press in rocker stud or have an oil leak at the corner of the intake like the kind that were invented with the advent of the small block chevy.

A Ford Y block beat out two small block Chevys a Pontiac and a Studebaker V8 at last weeks Engine Masters Competition. It finished behind a 390 and 289 Ford and a couple big block Chevys with the latter two only beating it by a little.

Remember this year the engines were required to run factory block and head castings.

Ford Y blocks have won this competition twice. No early Olds, Caddy, Buick or small block Chevy has accomplished that feat yet.
 
I always liked "Y"-blocks, especially the intake ports.;)

I always thought the 312's were the best of the bunch, too.
 
philipswanson said:
The 312 wasn't any better. It was the worst of the bunch. The 292 was lousy but probably the best Y block. The 57 312 introduced the Holley spread bore carburetor which was a milestone but a terrible overall engine. The engine code was ECZ. I know, I had several back in the day.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, that '57 Holley was a square bore. The Holley spread bore didn't show up until much later, as a replacement for spread bore carbs like the Quadrajet or the Carter Thermoquad or the Autolite 4300 or the Motorcraft 4350. Although at least the 4350 had a different bolt pattern.
Interestingly, the '57 312 also used Carter AFB and Ford/Autolite 4100 carbs.
It was the first year for these carbs too.
 
tubman said:
I always liked "Y"-blocks, especially the intake ports.;)

I always thought the 312's were the best of the bunch, too.
Click to expand...

I’m glad you said that Tubman. I used to scratch my head when I first saw them. Then I thought about it........

I realized the valve seat (width of the valve) is in line with the wide dimension of the port. Thinking about it even further if you had two situations where you were pouring water over a ledge which way is better? In the case of the conventional vertical port the “fluid” is pinched in the minor width of the port then has to flare out to be able to flow around the valve.

In the second case the horizontal port in the Y block has the major intake port dimension in line or parallel to the entire periphery of the intake valve. The “fluid” column is NOT pinched and therefore it’s my opinion that at least theoretically this is a superior configuration.

Look at a modern 4 valve engine and tell me what you see looking down the intake port. Answer: generally you’ll see a horizontal and “in line” major port dimension.

Maybe just maybe the Y block is the only common 50’s engine that got it right.
 
like it or not the small block chevy is the best choice . light small ez to install & you can buy a eng much cheaper than any other eng. ps they don,t over heat
 
I've already said at least twice I'm keeping it all Ford. Suggesting some other brand is just a waste of space. Anyone else checking out this thread to find out the options for doing what I'm trying to do now has to wade through a bunch of non-useful information.
 
A friend of mine is installing a Y-block in a 1940 Merc convertible street rod. He is planning to cut a pretty wide diagonal trough in the dash panel (aka firewall) for distributor clearance. Not sure if you would have the same issue with the '52 body.
 
Re top end oiling on the Y blocks. My T bird had no oil to the rockers on one side. The problem was worn cam bearings. New cam bearings were fitted and the oil problem was solved.

Mart.
 
richard crow said:
like it or not the small block chevy is the best choice . light small ez to install & you can buy a eng much cheaper than any other eng. ps they don,t over heat
Click to expand...


The sbc is a terrific engine , but it has its places . Those are in GM products .
The best way to ruin a Ford is to put a Chevy engine in it . Works every time ! LOL
 
Richard makes a good point. I recall in 1961 I had a 40 Ford with a 265 SBC and it ran great with zero problems. Didn't ruin the car at all. Just think of all the old Fords that were "ruined" with 331 Hemis, Olds Rocket 88's and Cadillac engines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top