torque con. and flex plate

[Alaska Jim]

I got a seized eng. for free. block and heads are ecz-c . I have not disassembled it yet. still had the torque con. bolted to the flex plate, no trans. can any one tell me the application that used this type of flex-plate and converter. I have not seen one like this and am curious.

[darrell]

fits all fordomatics.they changed it in 57 but this one will still work.

[WestCoast]

ive seen those on 64 autos, the brackets are riveted to the flex plate and will wear letting the torque converter rock back and forth on the flex plate and cause a knocking sound, install a newer one

[Alaska Jim]

Thanks guys, I just did not remember ever seeing one like it. not sure of the fate for this eng, or even if it is salvageable, it was given to me, condition unknown. I will spend the time to tear it down and see if there is any thing that can be reused.. it does have the good rockers in it. I only have the intake, and valve covers off of it so far, it is also pretty sludged up, will probably take me awhile, over did it yesterday and my back is giving me greif today.----Jim

[dmsfrr]

Can you post a photo of the torque converter too?

Since it's got the good rocker arms, if it's original, there's a slight chance it might be a 312?

[WestCoast]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

312 engine main caps will be marked ECZ

[Alaska Jim]

dmsfrr, yes I am hoping that it is a 312. not holding my breath though. on another note I was given an eng. years ago that is supposed to be a 272 in good running condition, since I did not have a place to use it at the time, I have had it it in storage. I recently told my brother that he could use it in his 57 wagon project. we looked at the block # and according to John Mummert's site it could possibly be a 312 or 292 by the #'s on it. we will have to at least pull the pan to see. could be a good surprise. block # is B9AE-F 292 v8 59-60 cars and trucks---59-60 Merc 312 w/ ecz main caps. it will be awhile until I get to ck this one also, as it is in my brother's shop 40 miles away. I will try to post a picture of the converter later today.----Jim

[darrell]

all you have to do is look at the back of the crank for the dot

[dmsfrr]

Originally Posted by darrell

all you have to do is look at the back of the crank for the dot

......

[Alaska Jim]

according to John Mummert's site the dot is not always there. I don't see one on the flat on the crank of the ECZ-C eng. I am tearing down, so will keep my fingers crossed and wait until I get the pan , and the heads off.

[WestCoast]

Jim, the only sure way to know if its a 312 is to look at the main caps

[Alaska Jim]

WestCoast, yes, that is what I meant by waiting until I got the pan off. maybe later this week. maybe I will be lucky, and the caps will be ECZ.

[scicala]

ECZ-C blocks were used in 1957 on 292's and 312's. ECZ-C heads were used in 1956 on 292's and 312's. had the smallest chambers, so highest compression for '56. Also used on a 272 possibly.

Sal

[Alaska Jim]

Thanks Sal, I have read that these heads are not "posted" and are prone to cracks. anyone know if it is true about the cracking?

[Alaska Jim]

here are the pictures of the converter and more of the flex plate
that dmsfrr ask for. ignore the black "shaft" on the converter, it is just a plug. to keep the converter from leaking

[dmsfrr]

Originally Posted by Alaska Jim

... I have read that these heads are not "posted" and are prone to cracks. anyone know if it is true about the cracking?

Ford probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of adding posts in the later heads if they didn't think they needed to. It's also why they can't be milled much without creating a problem

[darrell]

most liked the c heads.the early heads didnt need posting only the G heads were a problem.the posted head thing has kind of run away with itself.you dont need them unless your planing to plain the hell out of them or do something radical with the engine.

[scicala]

Jim, I agree with what the others Ford Barners said about posted and non posted heads. You should be fine with the ECZ-C heads as long as they haven't been milled, or milled much. If looking for performance the '57/'58 ECZ-G heads are best (more compression and larger intake valve). Or the later 5752-113 heads ('59 ?)

Sal

[Alaska Jim]

before I realized I had these C heads ( and I don't have them off the eng. yet so don't know if they are cracked or are any good). how can I tell for sure if they have been previously milled or not and how much? is there any type of indicator to measure from? I had a set of C1TE truck heads rebuilt with larger valves, better springs and retainers etc. , and my brother is going to do a little port work on them for me. I am trying to build a 312 for my coupe. have the block, crank and rods. bought an Edelbrock 257 2x4 intake, some nice aluminum v/covers from N.Z. . I do not think anyone in the U.S. sells them. work on the eng. will be slow, as I am retired and live on what amounts to an allowance, can only spend so much money at one time. have not settled on cam selection yet. need the eng. to be streetable and dependable. would like a bit of lope at idle, yet need to be compatible with an automatic with out a high stall converter. ( yes I know real hot rods have 3 pedals, but had to make an exception in the chopped and channeled car, no leg room to work the clutch with a bad back and a bad left knee ) I also have not decided if I am going to run 2 teapot 4 bbls or not. I am not very familiar with them. last one I worked on was over 30 years ago, but I know the guy to go to here on the barn to get them straightened out. I may use a set wcfb's if I can find a matched set at a reasonable price.

[mercman from oz]

This is the Flex Plate from my 1956 Mercury with the 312 Y Block. A few years back, the Transmission had a big rattle at idle. Some people told me that the Torque Converter needed oil, while others said that the bolts attaching the Torque Converter to the Flex Plate were loose. When we pulled it out, the Rivets on one of the "Fingers" were loose. I took it to my friends Engineering Workshop and he fixed the problem. Put it all back together and the problem was solved.

[Alaska Jim]

much better picture than mine. my ony reason for posting it was because I had never seen one like it. I am not going to be using it. I have a flat-o-matic kit in my car that adapts the Y-Block to a C-4

[Dobie Gillis]

"How can I tell for sure if they have been previously milled or not and how much? is there any type of indicator to measure from?"

On the spark plug side of the heads are 2 square and 2 oblong pads. If the heads have never been milled they will measure exactly 1" high. A tape measure will give a rough idea but really isn't accurate enough for this, best to use a machinist's ruler or calipers.

[Alaska Jim]

Thanks Dobie, good to know I will ck them when I get the heads off. does this apply to all Y-block heads?

[Dobie Gillis]

As far as I know it does. The basic mold was the same for all of 'em.

[bfdinardo]

Reviving an old thread regarding flex plates! I've removed the old thick heavy rivet flex plate per some of the recommendations here in favor of the new stamped one shown in the picture below. Can anyone offer some advice on which way it should be installed? I'm not sure on 4 things.

1. which direction the plate should face either relative to the engine (first or second picture?)
2. what the 3 spacers are for and how many to use? (are they to compensate for length of the 6 bolts to the crank?)
3. original plate was held on to the ring gear fly wheel by the 6 bolts and rivet wings (3 on each side 180 deg from each other) but this one looks like 4 bolts at 90 degrees from each other. so i should use the center holes from the original wings location at 3 oclock and 9 oclock and then use the existing nuts for 12 and 6 oclocks on the ring gear fly wheel? (3rd picture)
4. Are the 2 smaller bolts at 12 and 6 oclock on the fly wheel slightly closer to the center the drain bolts for the torque converter?


Thank you so much in advance for your help!

[KULTULZ]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by bfdinardo

Reviving an old thread regarding flex plates!

I've removed the old thick heavy rivet flex plate per some of the recommendations here in favor of the new stamped one shown in the picture below.

Can anyone offer some advice on which way it should be installed?

Is there an original thread describing your situation and model?

[bfdinardo]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

Is there an original thread describing your situation and model?

Not to my knowledge. Maybe I should start a new thread.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by bfdinardo

Maybe I should start a new thread.

Please as we have no idea of what you are working on and what vehicle type you have.

[paul2748]

I am not sure, but one reason they may have gone to the posted heads was because of the supercharged "F" engines. Non posted heads can be modified with posts.


For most usages, the un-posted heads are fine and had no inherent problems. In high performance modification situations the posted heads are better to use.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by paul2748

I am not sure, but one reason they may have gone to the posted heads was because of the supercharged "F" engines. Non posted heads can be modified with posts.

For most usages, the un-posted heads are fine and had no inherent problems. In high performance modification situations the posted heads are better to use.

FORD went to posted heads in MAY 1957 as they were having failures both on the street and track. I guess the E and F CODES put a stress on them.

What you very rarely find being discussed is the steam hammering in the head causing the deck to lift due to steam pockets being formed in the coolant jacket between the center cylinders as FORD (and CHEV) put two exhaust valves next to one another.