I recently picked up an "ECU" Y-Block that was being prepped for a "Hot Rod Lincoln" powerplant. It is believed to be from a later COE Ford truck which I've been told is the best of both worlds. This engine got the t*******s of a Lincoln but the better crankshaft, intake, gear-driven cam, rear oil sump, that was only on the truck engines. Is this engine a desirable power plant for a real "Hot Rod Lincoln" style rod?
Will cost you a boatload of cash since pretty much all of the parts are obsolete. Kanter seems to have the replacement parts market on these engines all to themselves. Not a bunch of speed equipment availiable for them. Pretty heavy and they mount weird to frames. Only mate to automatic transmissions UNLESS your lucky enough to find an original M 335 aluminum bell housing that were made by Crager. (Good luck with that ) Still if you do build one it will turn heads. Good Luck,Oldmics
Did you get the flywheel and bell housing to go with? I am running mine stock in my Premiere with the automatic and it purrs right along. Speed parts are tough for sure but you will have the biggest y-block most anywhere you go. Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
OK. I find most of that to be not so. i have not tried it, but it is widely reported that a FE bellhousing can be mated to the Lincoln fairly easily. I have an FE blowshield so that should be even more easy. The heads aren't bad. I have a 317 truck motor and a 368 with the pretty valve covers. Both have cast cranks and chain driven cams. The 317 is a rear sump. I am using a Mallory distributor for a Y block Ford. Switching to a FE distributor drive gear makes that work. Stack injection is widely available as long as you can think for yourself. Cam and lifters, valve springs and all that is as near as your phone. So i say go for it. PS A 317 crank in a 368 block, bored .060 over comes out to 363 cid. Very nice for SCTAs "C/AIR" cl***.
Little known factoid - the Lincoln Y-block, at 10.940" in has the tallest deck height of any modern automotive V8. While not particularly long, it is TALL. jack vines
368" Lincoln has an approximately 1.9 rod/stroke length(see Smokey's books for what it means) & was probably one of the best 'mid-range-torque' motors of it's era. Pulled like a freight train, even relatively stock! It does require LOTS more homework than the 'popular' motors, but your final product will be both noticed & remembered! Good luck with your project, & don't be afraid to keep asking on the HAMB; the only 'stupid question' is the one not asked!! Also sometimes the posters can be reached 'off-thread' for more info!!
I think that the song "Hot Rod Lincoln" was written with this engine in mind. I am not big on the gear drive but that is a personal thing. I would find the motor desirable if I had a light body that needed an engine. They pulled well and just ooze cool.
The 368 is a pretty good cruiser and torque is good. Heavy , large and cool. The truck bell is supposed to work as well as the flywheel. Mine cost about 5 grand to build with all machine work and put together. That is probably 1000 more than a 390 fe.
I do have the flywheel and the manual transmission bell housing. It sounds like it's going to make a really cool engine. My intentions would be to bore it out to accept the stock 368 pistons. Would this be possible in a 332 configuration? In other words, is there enough metal in the block to bore from the 3.80" bore to a 4.0o" and use new stock-sized 368 pistons?
If you get into the project and the clutch setup begins to be a nightmare, contact me thru the board and I can point you in the right direction for speciality clutch parts. I went down this road with my M 335 mercury wagon and it took a lot of time to sort it all out. Oldmics
You want to bore the cylinders .200 larger? I can't say that i have tried that. So I can't say it wont work. But I can say that i will never try that and keep my overbores at .060 max. I think at .200 you are going to be looking at water. I believe the 332 has a 3.5 stroke. And the 368 is at 3.66. Which would put a 368 piston .080 down the hole in a bored 332. Going to result in pretty low compression.
I agree with Rich here. @ .060 if it were mine I would consider it to be its last overhaul without sleeves. I haven't been deep enough into one to know that it would or would not go .2" but for an example of big cuts only some GM 283 blocks will go .125 and those are considered to be throw away blocks. I know apples to oranges but I would think that a .2 cut would make it a throw away block and you may even have to run concrete in the water jackets to keep the cylinders stable enough to run, Y block or not. I would mic the bores if it needs overhauled now and see where I was at. maybe a good honeing and a switch to forged pistons would make it right and give you many happy miles of motoring.
That still wouldn't cure the compression deficit. maybe longer rods if you could find them. kind of defeats the purpose of using stock pistons though unless you just happen to own a set.
If it didn't fall through when boring it, I bet the cylinder walls would be to thin to hone and get a round bore. Let alone what kind of flexing might happen on the thrust side when it's running and you wish the rings would seal.
As is our HAMBwont, we wander, but no; the original Hot Rod Lincoln was built here in Spokane by Charlie Ryan. It's an A-bone body on a shortened flathead V12 Lincoln Zephyr ch***is. jack vines
My 368 is .040 over now. I may or not go to +.060. As I said I will install a 317 crank for the 3.5 stroke. As i now know your 332 also has a 3.660 stroke so the pin height question is resolved. Still the .200 bore is something I wouldn't do and I think it would be hard to find someone who would.
I have a 56 368 out of a Lincoln, which has the front sump. I am going to install the engine and dual range hydramatic (52-57 Lincolns all have same bolt pattern so the hydramatic fits just fine) in my 57 F-100 "push truck". I might just have to get a truck pan and pickup tube, but the engine clearance with the 272 Y to the crossmember is quite big. I have the finned aluminum valve covers too. Just need some time, money, and a garage.
The 332 Y-block shares the same stroke as the 368 at 3.66 inches. Both the 368 and the 332 blocks have the ECU casting numbers. Is it possible that they have the same amount of metal in them and the 332's 3.8" bore is shy of the 368's 4.0" bore by choice? If so, is it possible there is enough metal in the 332 block to go to the 4.0" bore? Anybody try this before me????
'52-'57 Lincoln rods same length : pistons were matched to stroke, i.e. necessary 'deck height' was built into the piston. There were stories of using 389" Pontiac forged pistons for replacements (cheaper or easier to find/correct 'deck height' & pin size{or could be re-honed safely}/close enough in weight for 'budget-builds'[or could be re-balanced]/etc.), but would suggest 'due diligence' in your own research(!) Remember : the brand name doesn't mean "only"; if the numbers & weights will work for your application, can you give a good reason NOT to?? This hobby/sport was started by those who weren't afraid to think outside the box & look at other brands for sources, so why are we limiting ourselves now?? Sorry about the 'rant' about sources ; just a 'pet-peeve'!
Am I wrong again. Isn't a 389 bore 4 1/16? If so that seems like a really bad idea for a 332 block. But I never tried it. .2625 over bore. When in doubt-go bigger, I came up with my bore/stroke sizes to make a specific SCTA cl***. Your not building a race car. So if it was me I would be pretty conservative, If you really need a 368 then that is what you should get. But a .060 over 332 is about 343 cid. Or call it a 5.62 liter engine if that sounds better.
Rich : most of the early 'Lincoln'(Ford industrial/Lincoln p***enger) were regularly considered(at the time & pre-'Sonic' checking) capable of accepting 1/8"(.125") overbore as a matter of course, & were considered routine. These were not the 'thin-wall' castings of the early '60s : these were relatively heavy, thick-walled castings. Remember, it was considered 'common' to over-bore a flathead Ford to 3-5/16(+ 1/8") or3-3/8"(+ 3/16") in the same period,. I was referring to using std. Pontiac 389 forged pistons for a .o6o overbore in a 368 Lincoln block to gain the increase in cu. in. as well as fairly inexpensive forged units, as I would expect std forged Pontiac replacement pistons as being far cheaper than after-market +.060 over custom units. Yes, today I would certainly recommend 'sonic' checking prior to grabbing the boring bar, but I think these blocks are capable of far larger bores than we normally consider 'safe' by today's standards. It's certainly worth investigating before just condemning large over-bores just on principle.
I have the opportunity to visually measure (using a tape measure) the size of the casting around the cylinders in both a 368 "ECU" block and a 332 "ECU" block since this area seems to be in question. If they are cast the same, I'm thinking they should be able to be bored the same.
Well if you want to bore your 332 to use 389 pistons, it's your block. I will stick with my 363 inch motor. I don't think anybody else wants a 363 anyway. drtrcrV-8- This thread was started to question boring the original poster's 332 to 4 inches. So it follows that my thoughts center around boring a 332 out to 4 inches or 4 1/16 to use 389 pistons. The idea of using Pontiac pistons in my 368 is interesting. The Pontiac rods seem like they would also work. But I think Lincoln rods are a better choice. And I am stuck on using a 3.5 stroke crank. The extra displacement of a .125 overbore compared to a .060 on my GMC at the salt was unnoticeable. But the pistons lived longer, I think because of better seal kept the black death away. Round holes is why people use Block Rock.
I had a custom shop Quick Time bell made for Toplaoder 4-speeds,T85, T10, 3550/TKO/TKX. The Tremecs will require a short input or the spacer plate. I like the short input in most applications. I can do a production run of 10 units to bring the price down from what mine cost.
The Jalopy Journal
