'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.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

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.

See The Attached Jim -

There is so much knowledge there it is a shame that you cannot use it.

When you ordered the push-rods, did you know the engine was a 239?

[JimNNN]

Again, I really appreciate your help and support, KULTULZ. I contacted Eaton Balancing about getting on the forum.



I did know that it was a 239 cid engine. I'm guessing I bought the rods about 10 years ago. Just looked for my receipt and didn't find it, but I'm pretty sure I didn't buy them directly from Elgin, though I could be wrong. I think maybe I bought them from a parts supplier on eBay.

[KULTULZ]

I meant when you purchased them, did you realize the engine was a 239 rather than a 272/292/312? That may be the problem.

[JimNNN]

Yes, I knew it was a 239. I had the shop manual by that time, and besides the previous owner had told me it was a 239.



I see what you mean that the ball ends are tips that I guess can be changed out(??) With that in mind, I see what you're saying about the push rods likely being hollow.



Anyway, when I was last up at storage, I set the preliminary lash at .019" with the original push rods per the shop manual, and had to loosen many of them (ie, increase the clearance) to get there. I figured that would this would result in a bit more ticking in my typically very quiet motor, and I was right. I've always heard that solid lifters usually had more ticking than hydraulics, and this was part of the reason for checking lash: my engine seemed a bit on the quiet side.


However, I recently saw a video from Y-block guy Tim McMaster that said you can set the lash as low as .015" to help the engine run a little quieter. Any opinions on this? Don't want to wear valves or seats more than I need too.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

Yes, I knew it was a 239. I had the shop manual by that time, and besides the previous owner had told me it was a 239

But the 239 was not discussed in the 1957 FORD WSM. How did you come to discover the difference other than the former owner being honest? Did you mention 1957 FORD on the order? That may explain the length difference.

I see what you mean that the ball ends are tips that I guess can be changed out(??) With that in mind, I see what you're saying about the push rods likely being hollow.

ELGIN gives you a choice of four type ends. I found the description in their catalog but cannot find it again. The PN PR-71 gives you the end types -

[KULTULZ]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

As for valve lash, follow this thread - https://www.fordbarn.com/forum/showt...06#post2031506

He is in the same situation. Any questions feel free to ask.

EDIT -

However, I recently saw a video from Y-block guy Tim McMaster that said you can set the lash as low as .015" to help the engine run a little quieter. Any opinions on this? Don't want to wear valves or seats more than I need too.

The most likely reason McMasters suggests a tighter lash (IMO) is that the valve tip on the rockers are subject to very extreme wear making proper valve lash a guessing game.

TED EATON - JOHN MUMMERT - TIM McMASTERS (and one other that I can't remember) are the final authority regarding FYB. Just take everything you read with a grain of salt and ask is this the best method for my engine.

[JimNNN]

Thanks for the advice, KULTULZ. BTW, what the Y-Block forever forum is apparently doing is limiting the times within which people can register for the forum. I guess this is pretty effective in limiting the spam that was mentioned in the link/note you provided. Many thanks to the mods at this forum in keeping the spam off. Not an easy job I'm sure.


I never mentioned to anyone that my car was a 1957 (??) It's a '54. I remember that the rods were advertised as fitting a 1954 y-block 239...but I can't remember where I bought them, exactly. My shop manual is for '54. If I mentioned "1957" anywhere in this thread, I misspoke. Sorry! Here's my car:

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

I never mentioned to anyone that my car was a 1957 (??) It's a '54. I remember that the rods were advertised as fitting a 1954 y-block 239...but I can't remember where I bought them, exactly. My shop manual is for '54. If I mentioned "1957" anywhere in this thread, I misspoke. Sorry! Here's my car:

Originally Posted by JimNNN

POST #1

... 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.)

...uh...

No, that seems to be my mistake. I am confusing your car with another thread.

SENILE and CRS.

Sorry about that ...

[paul2748]

The problem with the TBlock forum is spammers. Because of this, you have to go directly to the moderator (Ted) to become a member.

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

...uh...

No, that seems to be my mistake. I am confusing your car with another thread.

SENILE and CRS.

Sorry about that ...

No prob! Appreciate your help, especially in helping me around the YBF forum issue.



Paul said:

The problem with the Y Block forum is spammers. Because of this, you have to go directly to the moderator (Ted) to become a member.

I just registered there a few minutes ago. Looking forward to being a member. Thanks to Ted and the mods for letting me join.



Here's a Y-block question that some of you probably know, though. I set my final hot lash today with the existing rods today in case I decide to keep them instead of changing them out (if the new ones won't work.)



I basically followed the shop manual, but I didn't get one aspect of the instructions. I set the lash in a preliminary adjustment per the manual (ie, with the engine cold and not running.) THe manual then says to do a second valve lash check with the engine warmed up and idling. How do you check the lash with a regular feeler gauge while the engine is idling? I'm guessing there's some special tool for that I don't have. I just got the engine up to norm oper. temp, then shut it off and removed the covers and checked the lash the same way I did the first time.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

I basically followed the shop manual, but I didn't get one aspect of the instructions. I set the lash in a preliminary adjustment per the manual (ie, with the engine cold and not running.) THe manual then says to do a second valve lash check with the engine warmed up and idling. How do you check the lash with a regular feeler gauge while the engine is idling? I'm guessing there's some special tool for that I don't have. I just got the engine up to norm oper. temp, then shut it off and removed the covers and checked the lash the same way I did the first time.

(IMO) -

You set all cyls cold to get them somewhat in the ballpark. You then start the engine and bring it to operating temp and then go through them again hot.

You can adjust while running with just a feeler gauge but it takes experience and perseverance as the early FYB had two piece adjusters and that is difficult to keep up with. If you were an experienced LINE TECH in the day, you would do them while the engine is running to make your flat-rate.

Again, the FYB is infamous for rocker tip wear that will give incorrect feeler gauge readings. If that bad, you would have to replace or have faced.

Here's a Y-block question that some of you probably know, though. I set my final hot lash today with the existing rods today in case I decide to keep them instead of changing them out (if the new ones won't work.)

If any of those rods were bent, you need to shake them, as they will most likely bend again and if straightened will not be true and throw your lash off. Either find NOS (again junk) or quality aftermarket tubular rods).

[Crankster]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

THe manual then says to do a second valve lash check with the engine warmed up and idling. How do you check the lash with a regular feeler gauge while the engine is idling?

What (Ford) manual says to set them with the engine idling?

I'm not doubting you, but by '64 they didn't specify that anymore. I may have to feed my ODC and go down to the garage and actually check the manual, but pretty sure on that.

I never worried about it that much, but if I were going to go through the trouble of setting them hot, I'd want the engine hot. As in summertime hot, after a highway run. That's the only way engine oil will get up to temperature, the coolant temperature is kind of a false indication.

You can sacrifice a .019" feeler gauge (or whatever clearance desired) by bending it at the correct angle, or buy one. It will beat them up badly. The idea, I've never tried it, is to slow the idle down as low as it will go, and stay running btw.

What you really want if you're that picky is a "P&G Valve Gapper" which is designed for this (engine idling).

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by Crankster

What (Ford) manual says to set them with the engine idling?

'52 - '54 manual, '54 addendum.

[flatrod]

The problem with setting them hot not running, is that it is not hot by the time you are done. What I do is have them rough set, run it up to temp, both oil and water temp. The pop a cover off, set any cylinder up to TDC on the firing stroke, check lash, make note, then come back the next day and check it again. That will give you the proper cold lash setting. I suspect it will only be about .002 to .003 different. But if you had aluminum heads, swell would be about .006 to .007, if all aluminum, block and heads I have seen as much as .020 swell.
I see no way to accurately set lash hot unless you can do it running. With shaft rockers, that is hard to do specially with early adjusters.

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by flatrod

The problem with setting them hot not running, is that it is not hot by the time you are done. What I do is have them rough set, run it up to temp, both oil and water temp. The pop a cover off, set any cylinder up to TDC on the firing stroke, check lash, make note, then come back the next day and check it again. That will give you the proper cold lash setting. I suspect it will only be about .002 to .003 different. But if you had aluminum heads, swell would be about .006 to .007, if all aluminum, block and heads I have seen as much as .020 swell.
I see no way to accurately set lash hot unless you can do it running. With shaft rockers, that is hard to do specially with early adjusters.

Thanks for the input Flatrod. That helps. I set my lash at what I guess you could call a "tight" .019 inch when up to temp (more or less) but not running. I put the feeler gauge in then tightened the adjuster enough to hold the feeler gauge in place, but not so tight that the gauge couldn't be reinserted (snugly with effort) after the adjuster was secured in place. This resulted in tightening up the lash on the valves compared to the cold setting I did (which was probably unnecessary in my case.) It did result in quieting down the ticking that I had after the initial cold adjustment.



I think I was more or less consistent from valve to valve, but who knows. I'll be undoing all of this if I put the new rods in, which I'm talking to the folks over on the Y blocks forever forum about now.

[JimNNN]

Okay, an update: I replaced one rod and tested it with cautious cranking, then took out the rocker shafts and replaced them all. Preliminary lash adjustment made. Seems to work fine. I drove it around for twenty minutes or so with no apparent problems. I'll still have to do a final lash adjustment with the engine hot (probably one bank at a time.)



So much ado about nothing on my part (which is common.) Both the vendor and manufacturer said they were the correct push rods for my car, but when they looked different than the originals I didn't know what to think.



I did a better job of straightening the originals than I remember doing. At a glance I couldn't tell that any had ever been bent, though I'm sure a good straight edge would reveal the truth. I'll keep the originals with the car. BTW, my engine is an EBU.

[KULTULZ]

A cheap and easy way to check a push-rod for straightness is to roll it across the kitchen table. Of course, do not do this while the wife is in the house.

[JimNNN]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

A cheap and easy way to check a push-rod for straightness is to roll it across the kitchen table. Of course, do not do this while the wife is in the house.

Just move the kitchen table into the garage...problem solved!

[Crankster]

Originally Posted by JimNNN

Preliminary lash adjustment made. Seems to work fine. I drove it around for twenty minutes or so with no apparent problems. I'll still have to do a final lash adjustment with the engine hot.

One thing I noticed messing around with different lash settings, whether on the "tight" or "loose" side of spec, performimg a vacuum test after adjustment is a really good QC check. Normally a stock Y-Block pulls 20" at idle (at sea level). If manifold vacuum were to drop off noticeably after a valve adjustment, then the lash clearances are on the "too tight" side, I assume because valves are opening too early. This vacuum business might be tough to determine with a performance engine (camshaft), but on a stocker it will be very noticeable.

[JimNNN]

Thanks for the info, Crankster.

[40 Deluxe]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

(IMO) -

You set all cyls cold to get them somewhat in the ballpark. You then start the engine and bring it to operating temp and then go through them again hot.

You can adjust while running with just a feeler gauge but it takes experience and perseverance as the early FYB had two piece adjusters and that is difficult to keep up with. If you were an experienced LINE TECH in the day, you would do them while the engine is running to make your flat-rate.

Again, the FYB is infamous for rocker tip wear that will give incorrect feeler gauge readings. If that bad, you would have to replace or have faced.

Not to mention that those worn rocker arm tips would chew up a feeler gauge in no time if you tried the engine running method!