61-79-list-digest Sunday, July 12 1998 Volume 02 : Number 369



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 61-79 - 427 sohc
FTE 61-79 - Exhaust systems
RE: FTE 61-79 - 427 sohc
FTE 61-79 - Camshafts
FTE 61-79 - RE: Able TRuck Wrecking
FTE 61-79 - Re: Gas tank conversion(was 1963 rear end sway)
FTE 61-79 - overheating/underheating
[none]
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Server went down
RE: FTE 61-79 - Dual Exhaust
> FTE 61-79 - Ugly Bed
FTE 61-79 - What clutch do I have?
FTE 61-79 - NP205 Rebuild
FTE 61-79 - 1967 F100 VIN and rear end tag nomenclature
FTE 61-79 - AC recharge with 134A
Re: FTE 61-79 - AC recharge with 134A
FTE 61-79 - Pesky rear hub oil seal failure
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cool Screen Saver
Re: FTE 61-79 - 76-77 4x4 Front Dana 44
FTE 61-79 - Re: Re: DUI Distributor
> FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 gears
Re: FTE 61-79 - 76-77 4x4 Front Dana 44

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:03:19 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 427 sohc

At 09:56 AM 7/10/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 02:33 AM 7/10/98 EDT, you wrote:
>>I just saw that awesome 427 pics from pigeon forge.I was just wondering if
>>anyone knew how much hp that beauty made?
>
>I think the rating was 625 stock.
>
>rmmmmmmmmm rmmmmmmm brappppppppp
>
>Ken Payne
>

According to the Ford V-8 Workshop,
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/427sohc.html.

"Factory ratings were 615 hp 7000 rpm with a single 4-barrel, and 657 hp
7500 with dual carburetors. The engines weigh 680 lbs."

Ken, I think you are right. If I remember right, the board they had in
front of the truck at Pigeon Forge said the engine was rated at 625 hp
7000 rpm. Anyway you look at it, it was definitely over 600 hp!

Anybody got an extra cammer laying around that they would part with
cheap??? (yea, right)

later


Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:30:29 -0700
From: "Douglas W. Hack"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Exhaust systems

I had a guy who manufactured exhaust systems for a special application
similar to mine put a system into a car I'd swapped engines in. Even
though the application was similar, he had to experiment to get an
acceptable level of sound. Luckily he was willing to share the costs of
this experimenting. There are a lot of variables between different
engines and exhaust systems. Exhaust pulse intensity is effected by the
way the engine is built. Headers have different designs and
efficiencies. Larger tubes reduce back pressure but slow down the
exhaust pulses, overall length matters, mufflers vary widely, and their
distance from the header matters too. Then there is a trade-off between
performance and sound, not to mention noise.

The first combination he put in my car was really hot - just a high-flow
turbo muffler and medium sized tubes. Braaap-braaap-braaap. Clearly
good for performance, but not civilized. He then added a glass-pack
muffler near the tail as an expansion chamber to soften the exhaust
> pulses. This helped a lot, but there was still an objectionable
harmonic at a certain engine speed. Finally he made the exit pipe
slightly smaller in diameter. This exhaust system is still plenty loud
in good ways, but doesn't sound like a race car anymore, and some
performance was traded off.

I don't mention my experience as any sort of recommendation - my point
is that there are a heck of a lot of variables and trade-offs, and what
sounds good to one person can get you a fix-it ticket. My
recommendation is that you buy a complete developed system from a
company that is very familiar with your application and has already done
the experimenting.

- -- Doug Hack
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:55:57 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 427 sohc

can you say *almost* enough!

sleddog

- ----------
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com[SMTP:JUMPINFORD aol.com]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 1998 2:33 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 427 sohc

I just saw that awesome 427 pics from pigeon forge.I was just wondering if
anyone knew how much hp that beauty made?
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 11:06:19 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Camshafts

>
> More Cam questions - I am lacking in general knowledge as to what makes
> a cam aggressive or mild as far as duration and lift numbers go. What
> would be considered a "high lift" cam. What would typical numbers for an
> RV cam be?
> What specs typically provide low end power vs high rev power and why
> would one be desirable over the other?
> Any and all info is appreciated.
> Sleddog? Azzie? Steve? anyone else?


Sleddog? Azzie? Steve? anyone else?

What makes a cam agressive or mild is determined by the timing of the
valve events to crankshaft position. The lift is a value that will
determine the maximum amount of mixture that an engine can theoretically
digest at the moment it is fully open. The amount of time the valve
spends open takes that value into its actual application by setting a
value on the amount of time it's open.

Lift:
There are limits (besides physical contact ones) to the amount of lift
you can use in a given engine. If you put a .700 lift cam in an head
that will stop flowing at .500, it can cause the port to stall and not
make any more power (or even less) than a .500 lift cam, and it will be
soggy at lower lift where most of the stroke is occouring. The idea is
to get the most lift that your engine and it's intended use can reliably
handle. Keep in mind that a higher lift cam needs better valvetrain
components than a low lift one, at the same duration value, since it
must snap the valves open and shut quicker.

Duration:
Duration is a bit misrepresented in the way it's used to compare cams.
Two cams with the same duration and lift specs can be very different in
the way they work. A much better comparison can be made by looking at
their seat-to-seat timing of valve events. This is where the valves
actually open and close according to crankshaft position. What works
best in a given engine is determined by the whole combination from air
cleaner to tailpipe, and must take into account the weight and intended
use of the vehicle. Most of the research involved is done for better or
worse by the cam companies. The principle involved is to maximize the
filling of the engine with the best quality
combustable mixture that the intake tract is capable of delivering at
the desired rpm level, and empty the engine after each combustion with a
tuned pulse that pulls the spent mixture out without backflowing and
contaminating the next incoming mixture charge, and do it within a
specific powerband. This is very application specific.

The Big Bugaboo With Big Cams:
Overlap. The period of time that both valves are open. A higher lift,
longer duration cam will by nature have more overlap than a stock cam.
Both valves will be open and part of the fresh mixture will be pushed
out of the exhaust. If you are turning enough rpm's the pulses will
stabilize and the losses will be proportionally less than at lower rpms,
so this cam profile won't make as much low end power as it could because
of the losses, but will make more power up high because of more mixture
flowing in at speed. Now if you sped up the opening and closing period
and spent more of the time involved at maximum lift, and compressed
these events, you can effectively shorten the
amount of overlap, and still have the flow (and by virtue of less loss
and more time at max lift, even more)of the former cam. This is what a
roller cam does, since it is capable of dealing reliably with faster
valve events. Bottom-end power comes back with a vengeance.

Recommendations:
So before choosing a cam, be honest with yourself about what you have
and how it will be used. This is the most important step. What are your
goals? More power in one area will usually take away from somewhere
else. If mileage , low-end power, and long life(with cheap parts)is
your goal, stick with a stock grind, or one with just a bit more lift
and the same duration. Use the overlap value to compare two cams, in
this application (and really most others)less is better. As you go up
profiles and in rpm bands, you'll lose low-end and towing power, and
vacuam signal, but some of this can be offset by raising the compression
ratio. A wider duration cam can tolerate more static compression since
it bleeds off cylinder pressure. If you drive it slow this setup will
be less efficient and create more pollution than a milder combination.
There will be more expensive parts involved to maintain the reliaility
factor also, especially if you opt for a cam that snaps the valves open
and shut much quicker. If you run it hard alot, get more duration and
lift, and learn to live with it's ideosyncracies. It's all what you
want out of it. I'd reccomend contacting Crane Cams with your honest
assessment of your combination and your goals, and use their research
for your engine to your purpose. They will be mighty close, and my
experience with them has been very good.
- --
Come on over to my Back Porch
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ldd.net/scribers/ballingr
Ballinger
ballingr ldd.net
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 07:35:40 -0700
From: Tom&Carol Hogan
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Able TRuck Wrecking

- ------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 16:54:55 -0700
From: Brian Koss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Able TRuck Wrecking

I believe the name is Able Truck Wrecking. It may be AAA Truck Wreckers.

They are off of Industrial, I think it is depot road but don't know for
sure, in Hayward. The are the second from the last yard befroe the dead
end
at the bay. The is a good door pocket on the drivers side door of a
white
66 custum cab in the north west corner of the lot. It is sitting
precaqriously on some truck axles. There yard is a mess but they haver a

lot of stuff.
=======================
AAA Truck Wreckers 3884 Depot Rd Hayward 510-782-9433. Good source.
Lots of older trucks. Be Very carefull here. The trucks are stacked on
top of each other. Also, bring a set of rubber rain/mud boots. You'll
thank yourself if you do!! As I rember there is no charge to look. Go
find your part first and then haggle with the guy at the counter. After
the price is set then go pull your part. These guys are fairly decent
to work with. I got my cruise control system there.

Another source in the bay area is the Truck Stop (408)-727-9966 in San
Jose. It is a small yard and the owner is usually there to deal with.
They are pretty good but their prices tend to be a little higher.

I'm not affiliated with either of these yards. Just found them to be
decent people who treat their customers well. Also some of the few
yards that carry stuff in the years we talk about here.

Tom H.

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:35:24 EDT
From: bobherring juno.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Gas tank conversion(was 1963 rear end sway)

"Kevin Leone" wrote:
>- -I plan on putting a ....

---

To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.