'54 Y-Block push rods

[JimNNN]

The other day I decided to put the new Elgin push rods I bought (a while back) in the 239 since I was going to be checking and setting the lash again anyway. However, I saw that the replacement push rods were not the same as the originals. They were thicker and they were longer by about 1/8" I'd say, with kind of a ball on the bottom of them. I thought wherever I got them from had sold me the wrong rods.



I went to Elgin's website, however, and found that the part number on my new rods is correct for a 1954 Ford 239 Y-block. Also, I saw (on ebay) yesterday a set of new 239 rods that look pretty much like the Elgin replacements I bought (but they aren't Elgin.)



Are the Elgins different from the originals as an improvement in the design? Can I use them? I understand that being thicker might keep them from bending, but the fact that they were longer than the originals made me pause. There's more than enough threads in the rocker arm adjustment to adjust out for the longer length, but I didn't want to put them in until I talked to you guys. Thanks.

[KULTULZ]

Is your 239 a 1954 PASS CAR (EBU) or 1954-55 LT (EBV)?

ELGIN PN?

[JimNNN]

Sorry. It's a Ranch Wagon. 239 is the original engine in it. 99% sure. And not rebuilt.



BTW, I entered this info on the Elgin site, and the part number matches the rods I bought.


Elgin part # is PR-71s (I think the "S" refers to how they come packaged.)

[KULTULZ]

Sorry, there were two different 239's. I do not know off-hand if the different engine push-rods are the same style.

Can you give me your ELGIN PN?

Elgin part # is PR-71s (I think the "S" refers to how they come packaged.)

... sheesh ...


KEY WORDS ... think ... KEY WORDS

[KULTULZ]

Jim,

I am having difficulty with their cataloging.

Probably be quicker if you ask over at y-blocksforever forum

Sorry about that.

[JimNNN]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Thanks for trying, KULTULZ. I find their site a little difficult to use. If you plug the part number into here:


https://catalog.elginind.com/elgin/partlookupPage


...you can see that the push rod with that part # is specified for 1954 for both the car and the light truck, up to one ton, from what I can see. The strange thing is they specify that push rod in Ford 239 from "1939 to 1955" which doesn't sound right for a variety of reasons. They also had a 256 cid option for 1954 FORD , which can't be right either.



The picture they show on the site also don't look quite like my new ones. (Attached a pic of the rods on the Elgin site.) Like I said, mine kind of have a ball on the solid lifter end of the rod, while theirs looks more like a straight shaft (with a seam around the tip.) I don't know if that's just more sloppiness on the part of the Elgin site or what.


Here are the ones I found on ebay which look like what I've got. :


https://www.ebay.com/itm/39208057802...kAAOSw5IFbRMsC




I should mention that the reason I was going to replace the push rods is about 5000 miles ago, some of the push rods were bent, so I straightened them out. Fixed the sticky valve issue that caused the bent rods, but never got around to replacing the push rods. Did a pretty good job straightening them out, but they probably aren't perfect. Seemed to work OK this far, though.

[KULTULZ]

... oh crap ...

I hope you didn't think I abandoned you.

I am spoiled as I am used to FORD CATALOGING where most everything make sense as it is in order and fairly easy to find.

Most vendor cataloging jumps around and leaves too much guessing (IMO).

Anyway, the 1954 to 1955 OEM push-rod (for either engine) is XXX " OL (FORD MPC). Of course that has to be converted to METRIC to compare.

The FYB push-rods were not very sturdy and bent easily. Aftermarket is the only way out. Lots of TECH and knowledgeable people over there. I know TED can answer it right away. Are you a member?

Let me work on it but please feel free to post there as the knowledge base is unbelievable.

CORRECTION - 1954-1955 239-272-292 - EBU 6565-B Push-Rod

8 19/64" OL

[darrell]

are these hollow.most replace ones are.they should be lighter than the old ones.

[KULTULZ]

They also had a 256 cid option for 1954 FORD , which can't be right either.

The MERC 256 was used on police and emergency vehicles in 1954 FORD.

[KULTULZ]

OK ...

I think I have it ciphered. My CRS is forgetting 7th grade math.

ELGIN PR-71 8.258mm or 8 17/64" OL

FORD EBU 6565-B = 8 19/64" OL

So the OEM is a bit longer.

The ends description are included in the spec and can be found further in the ELGIN CATALOG (See Attached)

You really won't know until you install (one cyl), lash and then check valve-train geometry (IMO).

Maybe call TECH?

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

... oh crap ...

I hope you didn't think I abandoned you.

I am spoiled as I am used to FORD CATALOGING where most everything make sense as it is in order and fairly easy to find.

Most vendor cataloging jumps around and leaves too much guessing (IMO).

Anyway, the 1954 to 1955 OEM push-rod (for either engine) is XXX " OL (FORD MPC). Of course that has to be converted to METRIC to compare.

The FYB push-rods were not very sturdy and bent easily. Aftermarket is the only way out. Lots of TECH and knowledgeable people over there. I know TED can answer it right away. Are you a member?

Let me work on it but please feel free to post there as the knowledge base is unbelievable.

CORRECTION - 1954-1955 239-272-292 - EBU 6565-B Push-Rod

8 19/64" OL

No, I don't feel abandoned. I really appreciate your help.



I'm not a member at Y-blocks unlimited, but when I tried to register this morning, it said "registration disabled." They may be getting a lot of spam, or something, so they're taking measures.



I agree about the Elgin cataloging. As I said, I find their website difficult to use. I will say that their push rods do seem sturdier than the originals. Certainly a little heavier. I could call Elgin to see if they can help, but I generally have little confidence that even knowledgeable car folks have the specific knowledge of the somewhat unique 1954 Y-block stuff. "1954 y-block" seems to be an esoteric sub-category of the already esoteric "all years of y-block" category. Some of the parts interchange with other years and others don't. Their catalog seems to indicate that this pushrod is basically used for all y-blocks, but who knows for sure.



I took one of the new push rods and dropped it in place of one of the existing rods (with rocker arm pushed to the side), and it didn't seems to fit in the same way that the existing did. The existing rod could slide to either side of the lifter, while the new one couldn't. SO I didn't try installing it with the rocker arm in place and cranking to see what happens.

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by darrell

are these hollow.most replace ones are.they should be lighter than the old ones.

THey aren't hollow. Neither the original or new rod is. The 1954 yblock 239 cid is solid lifter, btw. I don't know when they went to hydraulic.


New ones definitely heavier than original.

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

OK ...

I think I have it ciphered. My CRS is forgetting 7th grade math.

ELGIN PR-71 8.258mm or 8 17/64" OL

FORD EBU 6565-B = 8 19/64" OL

So the OEM is a bit longer.

The ends description are included in the spec and can be found further in the ELGIN CATALOG (See Attached)

You really won't know until you install (one cyl), lash and then check valve-train geometry (IMO).

Maybe call TECH?

OK, thanks for that info. Using tape measure and hand held measuring, I'm showing about 8 - 9/32" for one of my new rods, so that more or less jibes with what KULTULZ says Elgin claims the PR-71 rod length is. Now my questions are:
-Why is the pic Elgin shows of the PR-71 rod different than what mine is?
- Why is my original rod shorter than the Elgin rod, not longer?


I might just call Elgin, or email them a pic of my rods to see if I got the correct ones.


OR...I might just keep the straightened out original rods in the car, since I'm not seeing any overt negative consequences of running them.

[KULTULZ]

They should be hollow and yes they are greater in DIA so as not do what the OEM ones did,

Let me do some more exploring. If they are not tubular they are of little use.

Oh, if you go ahead with one cylinder crank it by hand and watch closely first.

[KULTULZ]

-Why is the pic Elgin shows of the PR-71 rod different than what mine is?

- Why is my original rod shorter than the Elgin rod, not longer?

Usually, a photo is generic and not the actual product. Usually, they are made once ordered to keep inventory costs down.

As for length, ELGIN has to answer that one. Do you still have your receipt?

Are you going to keep the 239 or upgrade to a 292?

EDIT -

I included the PUSH-ROD chart if you need the reference -

[JimNNN]

Don't have the recipt I don't think. Bought the rods 8 to 10 years ago.



I put about 500 miles a year or less on the car, and have for the roughly 15 years I've owned the car. It isn't fast, so I don't bother thrashing it, and wouldn't anyway. IE, even though the cars far from perfect, I'm gentle with it. Has 67,000 original miles. Smokes a little at start up, but always stops when warmed up. Plan on keeping the 239 as long as it doesn't cause problems.


When or if the engine goes out it will be replaced with a 292 or 272.

[Y-Blockhead]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

THey aren't hollow. Neither the original or new rod is. The 1954 yblock 239 cid is solid lifter, btw. I don't know when they went to hydraulic.


New ones definitely heavier than original.

Yes, the later Y-Block push rods are hollow and the Ford Y-Block NEVER went hydraulic...

[paul2748]

Can't help on the length issue, but check how the ball end of the rocker fits into the cup of the push rod. The ball end should fit into the cup all the way. Some push rods had small cups and the ball rested more on the sides which may cause breakage of the cup.

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by paul2748

Can't help on the length issue, but check how the ball end of the rocker fits into the cup of the push rod. The ball end should fit into the cup all the way. Some push rods had small cups and the ball rested more on the sides which may cause breakage of the cup.

Good point. I actually checked that yesterday and the ball of the rocker adjuster goes in as far on the cup of a new rod as it goes into the cup of an existing rod. I take that to mean that it fits properly in that respect. Cup is same diameter as ball of adjuster.



As far as hollow push rods go, neither existing or new rods give me any indication of being hollow. In other words, there's no hole at either end of the rod on new or old. Whether they have a hollow core or not, I couldn't say or know from looking.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

Good point. I actually checked that yesterday and the ball of the rocker adjuster goes in as far on the cup of a new rod as it goes into the cup of an existing rod. I take that to mean that it fits properly in that respect. Cup is same diameter as ball of adjuster.

As far as hollow push rods go, neither existing or new rods give me any indication of being hollow. In other words, there's no hole at either end of the rod on new or old. Whether they have a hollow core or not, I couldn't say or know from looking.

The PN breakdown gives you the ends ELGIN used. As for being hollow, you shouldn't be able to determine by sight as the ends are installed. If the ELGINS were solid they would weigh much more then the OEM.

Hollow gives strength and it took FORD few years to realize that.