61-79-list-digest V3 #460

From: owner-61-79-list-digest

ford-trucks.com (61-79-list-digest)
To: 61-79-list-digest

ford-trucks.com
Subject: 61-79-list-digest V3 #460
Reply-To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest

ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest

ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk

61-79-list-digest Wednesday, December 15 1999 Volume 03 : Number 460

=======================================================================
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 - 78 F150 Clutch Question
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
Re: FTE 61-79 - 74 F250 drive shaft center carrier bearing
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: rings???
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
FTE 61-79 - Cast rings
FTE 61-79 - Gary's new computer
FTE 61-79 - rings???
FTE 61-79 - Gary's new computer
FTE 61-79 - '75 F150 axle interchangability
Re: FTE 61-79 - rings???
FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems
Re: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
FTE 61-79 - 460 in place of a 360?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems
RE: FTE 61-79 - rings???
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
RE: FTE 61-79 - Gary's new computer
Re: FTE 61-79 - rings???
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
RE: FTE 61-79 - rings???
FTE 61-79 - poping Carb.
RE: FTE 61-79 - poping Carb.
FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 - hard to start (update)
RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 in place of a 360?
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 - hard to start (update)
Re: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
RE: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems
Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F150 Clutch Question
RE: FTE 61-79 - '75 F150 axle interchangability
RE: FTE 61-79 - poping Carb.
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
FTE 61-79 - Lost my taillights
FTE 61-79 - FE "Shorties"/motor mounts

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:43:43 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 78 F150 Clutch Question

The pilot bushing is strictly a crank issue and an input shaft issue and has
nothing to do with the clutch itself. The 390 flywheel fits both the FE
series and the 385 series so any clutch which fits the 390 should fit the
429/460 and visa/versa. There may be some differences in the high output
versions though so you will probably have to pull it appart to get all the
right parts. That's what happened to me when I changed mine,
bummer#

$%^%$#

The way I do this kind of thing when I HAVE to get it on the road in one day
is buy the parts the book calls out and hope I don't have a wierd
application. The worst that will happen is you will have to take them back
for different parts and will be driving the wife's car for a day or two
(assuming it's available :-))

As others have stated on this list......DO NOT BUY REBUILT CLUTCHES....it
aint worth it!!! Buy new and buy the one for your application or heavier.
Std duty clutches S**k! :-(

If you find a questionable bolt hole in the flywheel, buy a helicoil kit and
fix it. I ran out of time on the last one I did and put it back together
with a very questionable bolt......not a good idea and I will be pulling it
this holiday with any luck to fix it. What a pain :-(

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> Just wondering if anyone out there can help me find what
> clutch setup I
> need for my truck... I've got a 78 F150 4X4 with a 429 in it,
> mated to a
> Borg Warner top loader tranny (4spd w/granny gear). I need
> to find out what
> size clutch this thing has in it, and I would like to do so
> before pulling
> it down....
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:54:04 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

Extrude honing will not take out the irregularities in the casting so you
have to sand it first to get the bumps out then hone it to polish the
surface. Over the years we have discussed this issue over and over and the
fact is that the exhaust is the last place you should go for improved
performance and has the least bang for the buck spent.

Yes it can add to the improvements in performance but it is the most
expensive Hp you will ever obtain. Improving the intake and ignition will
net you much more satisfaction for each dollar spent and if you "have" to
rebuild then add larger valves, 3 angle seats, touch up the bumps in the
exhaust ports, match the ports and then.........work on the exhaust unless
the system is falling off and you now have an excuse to spend some cash on
new parts, then it makes more sense :-)

The only reason I would hone stock exhaust manifolds is if I were racing in
the bomber class which requires cast manifolds....:-) I would venture to
guess headers would be cheaper but don't really know what honing costs so
can't say for sure :-) In any case the headers would probably provide more
improvement to the performance than honed, stock manifolds if properly set
up and tuned for.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> Does anyone know the existance of shorty or trywye headers for
> 400 4wd applications? Also the merits/cost of extrude honing
> the stock
> manifolds instead?
>
> Steve
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:37:58 -0600
From: prozell

oaielectronics.com (OAI Electronics: Paul Rozell)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 74 F250 drive shaft center carrier bearing

I replace the carrier in my 65 F100 and it was pressed on.
Paul
65F100(dads truck)
- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 74 F250 drive shaft center carrier bearing

> In a message dated 12/14/99 9:28:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Howard.Bottles

austin.ppdi.com writes:
>
>
>
> I have a 74 F250 long bed that has the 2 piece drive shaft, and I need
> to replace the center carrier bearing. Is this bearing pressed on or is
> it supposed to come off easy? Originally the truck had a 360/3spd and
> this weekend I installed the new 390/T18 4spd and thought it best to
> replace the carrier while I was there.
>
> Any info is appreciated
> >>
>
>
> I had to replace mine on me ol '73 F100 and as I remember, it was the
whole
> assembly, not just the bearing. I don't recall the price but do remember
that
> it wasn't too unreasonable in price. Was defiantly simple!
>
> George
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:32:09 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: rings???

It's not really an issue that "can" be questioned :-) The facts are in and
the moly rings are absolutely the best you can put in a touring engine. If
you take good care of an engine the rings will last longer than if you don't
of course and older engines have been known to get over 200k on a set of
cast rings when cared for BUT.....those same engines would have lasted
longer with moly rings in them :-)

Moly does a couple of things. It aids in transfering heat between the
piston and cylinder walls and is MUCH tougher than any cast iron made and
will handle more heat than cast without softening (called "Red hardness").
It resists abrasion much better than cast iron so will tolerate more abuse.
Because it is denser it has less porosity than cast so special precautions
are needed to ensure proper oiling and to prevent premature cylinder wear
but if you do these steps they will out last cast by a considerable margin
under the same conditions. They come with a special finish on the
peripheral surface to help break in and the cylinder walls are honed with a
special cross hatch and finness of scratches which compliment this finish.
The finished surface on both parts is much smoother than the cast so wears
longer as well due to this but still retains enough roughness to allow good
oil retension. As most of us know, a perfectly polished cylinder wall would
wear out pretty quickly due to lack of oil retension so even a well worn
engine should still have some signs of cross hatching in the cylinder walls
when properly cared for.

If you don't take all the steps and precautions then I agree that you are
better off to use cast rings :-)

Want to talk about chrome rings now? :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> Gary, I'm inclined to question your statement below. My cast
> rings have
> about 175,000 miles on them, and I'd say they still have some
> life left
> in them. My 390 is 30 years old, with a virgin (never been apart)
> shortblock, and I still have 110-120 pounds of cylinder
> pressure. There
> is minimal blow-by. I've always ran a 195 degree t-stat (which happens
> to be the best temp for cylinder wall life, according to what I've
> read), and changed oil, filters, and pcv valves on a regular basis.
>
> Jason Kendrick
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:04:29 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

> Over the years we have discussed this issue over and
> over and the
> fact is that the exhaust is the last place you should go for improved
> performance and has the least bang for the buck spent.
>

Wow, are we talkin about the same motors here ? Or do you mean trying to
make the stock pieces better ? 'cause I've done a bit of exhaust swapping
and stuff and I've always seen an improvement there that's almost
unparallelled by any other one mod ... on my truck I took the headers off
and lost a ton of power (also swapped headers so that I could hear myself
think and no power change there :) ... on my car I swapped out my H-pipe
for one with much less restriction (okay no more cats), that was about the
best hundred bucks I ever spent ... probalby 10-15hp improvement, which is
advertised, I'd say I got darned close to that using the butt meter ...
maybe its just 'cause I've played with the FE and with the 4.6, but from my
experience (and what others have told me of course) the exhaust should be
the first place to start ... you can do all the intake and ignition mods you
want, but until you get those spent gasses out the back end you are just
choking yourself ...

> Yes it can add to the improvements in performance but it is the most
> expensive Hp you will ever obtain. Improving the intake and ignition will
> net you much more satisfaction for each dollar spent and if you "have" to
> rebuild then add larger valves, 3 angle seats, touch up the bumps in the
> exhaust ports, match the ports and then.........work on the exhaust unless
> the system is falling off and you now have an excuse to spend some cash on
> new parts, then it makes more sense :-)
>
Okay, bigger valves, freer flowing exhaust PORTS, and you're not opening
anything up behind it !??!?!?! Am I the only one doing the mass in = mass
out thing here ?!?!?!

Would cat back systems be as prevelant now if this were really the case ?
Do they just claim all this extra HP without really adding any of it ? Not
to mention the nice rumble :)

> The only reason I would hone stock exhaust manifolds is if I were
> racing in
> the bomber class which requires cast manifolds....:-) I would venture to
> guess headers would be cheaper but don't really know what honing costs so
> can't say for sure :-) In any case the headers would probably
> provide more
> improvement to the performance than honed, stock manifolds if properly set
> up and tuned for.
>

Okay, this part I agree with ... did I just misread the rest of the message
or what !?!?!

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:07:05 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cast rings

Jason K. writes: >>Gary, I'm inclined to question your statement below. My
cast rings have
about 175,000 miles on them, and I'd say they still have some life left
in them. My 390 is 30 years old, with a virgin (never been apart)
shortblock, and I still have 110-120 pounds of cylinder pressure. There
is minimal blow-by. I've always ran a 195 degree t-stat (which happens
to be the best temp for cylinder wall life, according to what I've
read), and changed oil, filters, and pcv valves on a regular basis.

You don't say what year your 390 is but you do say it is a virgin 30 year
old, so that would make it a '69. Anyway FOMOCO was already into Chrome
rings by then. Not cast. I'm not exactly sure when crome became the
standard OEM, but it was in or around '60 - '61, maybe even '59. Your
longevity of the FE is quite similar to my experiences and it should be
good till at least 250,000 with the same care you are currently giving it.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:10:17 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gary's new computer

>>more FTE content: I've used my truck several times for hauling both Macs
and PC's to and from the labs ... I just wish some computer manufacturer
would make a box that stacks in a pickup bed an even number of times and
snugly!

Not me!! The less that fit at once, the more trips I get to make, the more
time I get to spend in one of my favorite places: behind the wheel of my
F150!!! It's well known among my counterparts that I will use almost any
excuse to do the Ford Truck boogie.

BTW, I'd rather haul the PCs out and the Macs in. :-)

- -- John
jlagrone

mch

rger when it was new
because it leaked a puddle of oil on his drive every night. After replacing
the seals and irking him considerably, the new crank solved the problem.

- -- John
jlagrone

ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 08:22:51 -0600
From: "Kelley McDaniel"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '75 F150 axle interchangability

Thanks for the response, Gary and Marvin.

Since the entire axle housing is missing, does it matter whether the axles are 28 or 31
spline? I would want the stronger axle, all things being equal, as I want this to be
able to tow heavy trailers; is that the 31 spline later one?

I found a parted out '77 Super Cab f150 with the entire rear end under it (maybe even the
driveshaft, hope, hope). It's in one of those junk yards run by a 90 year old man that
lives on the premises. I can have it for $100 if I jack it up out of the dirt and take
it off. Sounds good to me, if it will fit the '75.

> What size tires do you plan to use?

Haven't decided, yet. I'll be leaning toward the conservative. This won't be an
off-road vehicle, rather a (hopefully) elegant commuter/hauler/tow machine. Won't be
slammed, won't be towering. Are there recommendations?

> From: Marvin Meyer
> My 76 supercab has the factory 31 spline in it, just changed gears from 3.00 to 3.5's

I would guess the '77 I'm looking at has the 31 spline. Unless Ford didn't just switch
over and instead offered the choice (?) or used which ever was in stock that day (?). Th

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:45:25 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - rings???

John LaGrone wrote:
>
> >> I think what is being said is that apples for apples, Moly rings last longer.
> This makes sense because of the material they are made of... it is "slicker"
> than cast iron...
>

I thought any other ring besides plain cast iron was still cast iron
with a coating or other material around the edges of the ring?? Doesn't
the bore taper have to dead nuts to use moly rings?

OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:05:24 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems

Morning all,
A friend of mine at work has an ' 89 F-250 with a 302. It starts fine
when the weather is dry. If it's the slightest bit damp it won't start.
When it's wet out, if he blows some heat under the hood for about 15 mins.
he says it starts.
So far he's replaced the cap & rotor, plug wires, and the coil. Any
suggestions?

Ted Wnorowski
Bellevue,OH
' 64 F-250
352 transplant
4 speed
' 63 F-100
parts truck

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:16:52 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

William S. Hart wrote:
>

>
> Wow, are we talkin about the same motors here ? Or do you mean trying to
> make the stock pieces better ? 'cause I've done a bit of exhaust swapping
> and stuff and I've always seen an improvement there that's almost
> unparallelled by any other one mod .

Not me, neither my Bronc or my Capri responded all that much to exh
stuff. I went from manifolds and stock exh to headers and duals on my
351M and all I got was more sound. Now that I'm going 400, possbily with
a cam, it may help more, but I'll never know.

> Would cat back systems be as prevelant now if this were really the case ?
> Do they just claim all this extra HP without really adding any of it ?
I gained almost nothing in MPH on my capri from a 2.5 inch, madrel
bent, catback system. Sounds cool though. My buttometer votes for a gear
swap as the only relatively cheap mod that I could "REALLY" feel. I
don't see how you can feel 8 HP. I'm pretty sure I could give virtually
anyone two equal cars, one with 8 more hp (assuming 8 HP is less than 5%
of the total) and you would not be able to tell me which one was which.
Maybe it's just me, I thought my 150 HP NOS kit was, just OK. The only 2
mods I've ever done that impressed me were both on my Capri. One was the
gears, the other was the turbo kit.

OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:13:16 -0500
From: Steve Schaefer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 in place of a 360?

This weekend I will be getting ready to place my 460 in my 76 Crewcab.
Originally there was a 360 in the engine bay. The frame stantions are
still there from the 360. The 460 I am using have motor mounts from a
79 Ford van on it. What do I need to get this motor in the engine
conpartment? I still have the frame stantions from the van, but they
look totally different. Is there a different motor mount that I need
for the motor?
Thanks

Steve S.
76 F-350 Crewcab (about to get a new heart transplant)
77 F-250 Supercab (make alot of noise over bumps, d$#

body mounts)
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/8663/

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:52:00 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems

> if he blows some heat under the hood for about
> 15 mins.
> he says it starts.
> So far he's replaced the cap & rotor, plug wires, and the coil. Any
> suggestions?
>

Ignition module ... check all the connections too, and use di-lectric grease
on all of them to be sure it stays dry ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:55:23 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rings???

As I understand it the material is sintered or welded on to the cast base
ring and is nearly pure molybdenum, (had to run the spell checker on that
one :-)) not chrome moly or chrome but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that
there are other materials in it. Chrome moly steel would not be much, if
any, of an improvement over cast as far as abrasion resistance. Cast is
actually very good at that due to it's high carbon content. The moly is
quite a bit like pure tungsten in red hardness and toughness so gives the
rings better heat tolerance and abrasion resistance. I have heard of
failures which involved delamination of the moly from the cast, otherwise
I've heard of no problems with them when properly installed with properly
prepped cylinders :-) Can't remember but I think those failures were in
racing applications.

Since moly and cast iron are both dark grey the line may be hard to see but
there is just a layer of moly over the cast in the designs I'm familiar
with.

The Chrome rings I'm familiar with are merely chrome plated on the
peripheral surface, not solid and also have a cast iron base AFAIK.

Oil scraper rings are often made of steel but I believe all compression
rings have a cast base stock except for the endless or gapless variety and I
don't know how they do those but suspect they get the same treatment except
the base is steel.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> I thought any other ring besides plain cast iron was still cast iron
> with a coating or other material around the edges of the
> ring?? Doesn't
> the bore taper have to dead nuts to use moly rings?
>
> OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:00:12 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

> Not me, neither my Bronc or my Capri responded all that much to exh
> stuff. I went from manifolds and stock exh to headers and duals on my
> 351M and all I got was more sound. Now that I'm going 400, possbily with
> a cam, it may help more, but I'll never know.
>

Hmmmm... maybe the M series has decent manifolds and such ... though if the
400 had rusted out exhaust I don't think you can claim no gain :)

> > Would cat back systems be as prevelant now if this were really
> the case ?
> > Do they just claim all this extra HP without really adding any of it ?
> I gained almost nothing in MPH on my capri from a 2.5 inch, madrel
> bent, catback system. Sounds cool though.

Well the sound is always a plus too ... also some vehicles (like my 'stang)
have more restriction in those cats than they do behind it ... but most of
the trucks I've seen have such small single exhausts that anything should
help it out ...

> don't see how you can feel 8 HP. I'm pretty sure I could give virtually
> anyone two equal cars, one with 8 more hp (assuming 8 HP is less than 5%
> of the total) and you would not be able to tell me which one was which.

Uhm ... yeah (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/autocross.html) you
notice 8hp when you can suddenly spin the tires where you couldn't before
... vehicle weight may play in here though, as 8hp additional moving my
truck won't help as much as 8hp additional in moving the car ... and if it
was true that I couldn't feel an 8hp gain, then how much power did I gain
since I can feel it and it noticeably improved my times ?

> Maybe it's just me, I thought my 150 HP NOS kit was, just OK. The only 2
> mods I've ever done that impressed me were both on my Capri. One was the
> gears, the other was the turbo kit.
>

Everyone's buttmeters are calibrated differently they tell me ...

I will admit there are probably a fair number of engines out there (my
buddie's Jeep for instance) where the intake is just as restrictive as the
exhaust, so no one mod by itself will make a huge difference but will need
more of a package upgrade ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:04:41 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Gary's new computer

> >>more FTE content: I've used my truck several times for hauling
> both Macs
> and PC's to and from the labs ... I just wish some computer manufacturer
> would make a box that stacks in a pickup bed an even number of times and
> snugly!
>
> Not me!! The less that fit at once, the more trips I get to make, the more
> time I get to spend in one of my favorite places: behind the wheel of my
> F150!!! It's well known among my counterparts that I will use almost any
> excuse to do the Ford Truck boogie.
>

You obviously don't have to drive on campus ... I almost rear ended a stupid
roller blader who was going up hill (a gradual one, but still a slope) in
the middle of the road ... I didn't understand I mean I was driving my
office mate's Dodge ... it even says DODGE right on it how could he not get
out of the way !?!?!?

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:07:06 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - rings???

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>

> I've heard of no problems with them when properly installed with properly
> prepped cylinders :-)

I measured my bores last night and they seem to be within .002 taper.
I did not measure actual dia of the bores. My local machine shop claims
anything over .008 will need to be bored. Tom Monroes book says anything
over .004. I was thinking of just honing them at home, since this is
going to be the el-cheapo of all rebuilds. I only need the motor to last
until Oct. I only pulled it apart due to bad rod bearings. What rings do
you think I should use? Motor has 146K and ran fine (cept for part
throttle rattle which turned out to be rod bearings).

OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:48:37 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

Thank you OX :-) With the exception of the FE engine there are very few
stock engines which will benefit from exhaust changes and most will work
better with smaller pipes than most people put on them thinking they will
get more power. The fact is, on a touring engine, one that sees zero to
4500 rpm or so, once you have "enough" room in the pipe for the gases to get
out you have done all you can do but for racing at high rpms you not only
want larger pipes but the pipe length should be much shorter than anything
you could legally put on a street vehicle to actually affect the power
output.

I once saw the test results on a stationary engine where the best power was
obtained with 80' of 1.25 or 1" pipe, very small anyway, can't remember
exactly. This turned out to be the perfect resonant size and length for
this engine at that, precisely constant, speed.

In order to get the best low end torque from a truck engine at it's torque
peak, say, you actually need relatively small pipe and at least as long as
the vehicle. Obviously a truck runs at different speeds and you can't hang
80 feet of pipe out the back end so the exhaust systems on vehicles
are..........a compromise! Yes, a compromise at best but a darned good
compromise in most cases. If you want to narrow it down to a more limited
use with more specific speeds etc. then you can play with it some but for
most of us there won't be any measurable difference except, perhaps, with
the FE's.

Yes, if you modify the engine so that it's output is considerably greater
then the stock exhaust may be restrictive but this is the last thing I
would spend money on to gain power. It's the first thing I spend money on
for looks and sound and well worth it just for that IMNSHO :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> William S. Hart wrote:
> >
> > Wow, are we talkin about the same motors here ? Or do you
> mean trying to
> > make the stock pieces better ? 'cause I've done a bit of
> exhaust swapping
> > and stuff and I've always seen an improvement there that's almost
> > unparallelled by any other one mod .
>
> Not me, neither my Bronc or my Capri responded all that much to exh
> stuff. I went from manifolds and stock exh to headers and duals on my

> I gained almost nothing in MPH on my capri from a 2.5 inch, madrel
> bent, catback system.

> The only 2
> mods I've ever done that impressed me were both on my Capri.
> One was the
> gears, the other was the turbo kit.
>
>
> OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:24:41 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rings???

What is more important than the material you use is how you prep the
cylinders OX. If you use cast I believe it's 45 degree cross hatch and
about 400 grit but with moly it's 35degrees and at least 600 and I think 800
is recommended. Look it up before making a decision. These angles are not
required to be all that precise but are a way to differentiate between the
requirements of one or the other. Shallower angle works better for moly but
get it as close to the correct angle as you can and I'm sure it will be fine
with either material. Remember a proper cam break in also begins the ring
break in as well so lots of oil is required which is why the 2000 rpm or
higher for this.

I honed my 460 with 200 grit to get about 0.003" out of it and then used the
600 to get it up to the max spec for forged pistons and it's run very well.
The cylinders were out of round and there was some taper so there were
witness marks in all the cylinders but it still worked pretty well. With
only 0.002" measured taper and depending on the actual measured bore wear
you could get away with cast pistons and cast rings and be very happy with
the results. I never bothered to balance mine either and it worked out very
well that way too :-) I think where you will see the greatest problem with
not balancing an engine is when you bore and the pistons are larger. I
doubt if the factorys try to do anything to make them the same weight as
stock, not sure.

One thing that came out of my experience is that buying new "standard" sized
pistons is a questionable investment since you probably will never be able
to re-use them in another application where the 30 overs can be cleaned up
and the bores honed to match for clearance in a new application so can at
least get a couple of runs out of them. If it runs 150k then maybe it won't
matter since the skirts will probably be too worn to re-use then anyway.
Just some thoughts......:-)

If this is really a cheap rebuild you can probably re-use your pistons as
well but if you hone it there may be some slap. The skirts are worn and you
are enlarging the cylinders too so you have double jeapardy. Azie
apparently has had good luck with used pistons and touched up bores so maybe
he'll chime in here soon :-) I think 0.008 is too much unless that's the
finished size. For forged pistons, new ones this might work pretty well but
that's the outside limit for forged pistons as I recall so for cast would be
too much for a quiet engine and could even cause some ring flutter. I would
say if you are desparate to get it on the road and will live with some oil
usage 0.008 might works but I personally would try to keep it well below
that even if it meant leaving some serious witness marks and in that case I
would use iron, no question at all. If they clean up real nice at
0.002-0.003 over then maybe moly rings would be worth the money depending on
how long you would keep running it if it ran well etc... Cast rings are
probably cheaper too :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> I measured my bores last night and they seem to be within
> .002 taper.
> I did not measure actual dia of the bores. My local machine
> shop claims
> anything over .008 will need to be bored. Tom Monroes book
> says anything
> over .004. I was thinking of just honing them at home, since this is
> going to be the el-cheapo of all rebuilds. I only need the
> motor to last
> until Oct. I only pulled it apart due to bad rod bearings.
> What rings do
> you think I should use? Motor has 146K and ran fine (cept for part
> throttle rattle which turned out to be rod bearings).
>
> OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:29:04 -0600
From: Kirk Baillie
Subject: FTE 61-79 - poping Carb.

Hi i own a 74 F250 4x4 with a 360 and now when i take off from the line,
quite frequently i get a pop or two from the carb. Is this a choke
problem or a timing thing (it happens when the choke is fully closed or
almost fully open). It also seems to be under powered off the line.

Thanks
Kirk Baillie
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:46:04 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - poping Carb.

Does it do this any time you mash the pedal? If so you may have burned
intake valves. If it only does it off the line and is under powered then
you may have a jumped timing chain. Typically, engine components don't move
so it's not likely just a "setting" it's more likely to be something broke
or jumped if it came on rather sudden.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> Hi i own a 74 F250 4x4 with a 360 and now when i take off
> from the line,
> quite frequently i get a pop or two from the carb. Is this a choke
> problem or a timing thing (it happens when the choke is fully
> closed or
> almost fully open). It also seems to be under powered off the line.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:46:16 -0800
From: "Robert J. Neilson"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 - hard to start (update)

So I fiddled with the carb a bit this morning. It was pouring rain and my
truck was parked outside, so I didn't spend too long at it. Here is what I did
...

1. tried to start the truck. it didn't want to go (would fire then stall ...
would not keep running)
2. I looked at the carb and the butterfly choke thingy (a technical term) was
about 7/8 closed ... maybe open 3/16". I flipped it up and down a bit to make
sure it wasn't catching on anything. tried to start again; no go
3. I got a bit annoyed and poked it (the thingy) hard with my thumb; it closed
fully (with a medium amount of rough resistance
4. tried to start; vroom.

I did glance at the hoses etc and I can see that the heat riser (from the
manifold) is in place.

My suspicion is that the fast idle isn't engaging properly, and needs
adjusting. I don't think the plate thingy is supposed to be fully closed at
first ... but I am not sure. If it is (supposed to be closed all the way) then
it is probably not adjusted or it is binding on something.

Since I am paying some attention to this now I did notice that it doesn't seem
too idle fast while warming up - at least not like my other truck. There is no
problem with it coming off the choke when it warms up (at least that I can
tell).

Someone asked what type of carb. It is the stock ford unit for a 460 in a 79
F250.

One thing I am interested in is to know exactly what happens *inside* the carb
when the choke is on. Are there separate jets or valve that come into play
when the choke is on? Does the fast idle add fuel through another jet or
valve, or does it 'open' the regular idle valve a bit?

From an external perspective there aren't too many knobs to turn - so to
speak - and I can get these working correctly with a bit of fiddling. But what
goes on inside the carb? Is there anything that can get out of whack that
would cause the choke not too work? (of course I could pull one apart to see,
maybe tonight ... ).

btw, what kind of compression numbers should one get in a new stock engine. my
engine (old) reads 115-120 across the board. Is this good, bad, or somewhere
in between?

Rob --

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:54:19 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 in place of a 360?

Van cross member is completely different so stancheons won't cross over.
Engine mounts might work though. Does this mount in the center of the
engine? (side). Might just bolt right in in that case :-)

Worst case is you will need the L&L mounts to convert the 360 to 460 using
stock stancheons. Since it's out of a van you already have the proverbial
and highly esteemed passenger side exhaust manifold so pipes might even bolt
up with a little fiddling, probably not though :-(

You will need the tranny for the 460 as well and probably new drive shafts
depending on how much difference there is between the over all length with
tranny installed etc...

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> This weekend I will be getting ready to place my 460 in my 76 Crewcab.
> Originally there was a 360 in the engine bay. The frame stantions are
> still there from the 360. The 460 I am using have motor mounts from a
> 79 Ford van on it. What do I need to get this motor in the engine
> conpartment? I still have the frame stantions from the van, but they
> look totally different. Is there a different motor mount that I need
> for the motor?
> Thanks
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:18:15 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 - hard to start (update)

Well......the choke.....chokes it, that's all, cuts off the air so there is
more vacuum in the venturis and it pulls more fuel in for the volume of air
making the mixture much richer. The choke plate should never need to be all
the way closed except to start a very cold engine though and then the
pulloff should pull it part way open and the fast idle screw should force
the throttle open more than idle to make up for poor ignition in the cold
cylinders. I don't like to race a cold engine so I usually set mine pretty
low but still faster than a normal idle for sure. What I hate is to come
out after letting it run a while only to find it warmed up and running about
8000 rpms! :-(

It's a very simple concept really. If you put your hand over the top of the
carb you do the same thing the choke does with the same result but the choke
system is designed to progressively back the choke out as it slows the
engine down as it warms up so you have the cam thingy on the passenger side
with an adjustable screw resting on it if all is in order :-)

The pull off is important to prevent the engine from becoming fuel logged
and allowing fuel to get past the rings into the crank case which is what
mine is doing right now.....good thing it's got moly rings.....:-)
Typically it will pull it open about 1/4 and along with the fast idle it
should work well that way :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> One thing I am interested in is to know exactly what happens
> *inside* the carb
> when the choke is on. Are there separate jets or valve that
> come into play
> when the choke is on? Does the fast idle add fuel through
> another jet or
> valve, or does it 'open' the regular idle valve a bit?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 12:35:57 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems

I had this problem with an 80's Ford car. I took apart all the
weatherproof wire fittings on the ignition system, also the battery
cables at the battery and selonoid, cleaned and degreased them, and
applied some dielectric silicone. I'm not sure which connection was to
blame, but it fixed it.

Jason Kendrick
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:05:44 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

People still buy snake oil too and rhino (stupid spell checker couldn't fix
Rhinosorous...:-)) horn and tiger tooth and..........It sells because people
believe in it because the hype has them convinced and they like the sound so
it sounds more powerfull so they think it "is" more powerfull. One day I
lost my whole exhaust from the exhaust pipes back so I had about 3' of pipe
on each side with my 460. It really sounded cool for a few minutes but I
certainly wouldn't want to put up with that every day for sure :-) Just
couldn't help myself so when I had a chance to pass someone I just really
gassed it.....talk about blowing someone away! (with the noise that is :-))
but I guarantee you it did not pull as well as with the full exhaust on it.
The two into one exhaust I modified from a station wagon system worked
better with stock manifolds than the headers and true duals do and I can
assure you there is less physical pressure in my current system than was in
that 2 into 1 deal. This is one reason I suggest to people who have trucks
and 460's to try the 2 into 1 setup before getting all carried away with
headers and dual pipes that don't fit right etc....it simply does a good job
in a truck application.

I've got headers now and I like them but they did nothing for my power and
in fact actually reduced my top end over the 2 into 1. Again, I attribute
this to the fact that the OEM spread bore is not tunable and there is no
balance tube between the banks but it still has reduced the top end in any
case and most people, including myself, would have thought it would help,
not hinder.

As to the distinction, the bomber class racers still run upwards of 6000 rpm
and often blow up there too but are stuck with stock manifolds so honing and
prepping inside them would help at that rpm and therefore be worth while but
would have little, if any, effect at street rpms and uses so I did make a
distinction there :-) In racing, 8 hp does make a differnce and at 7000 rpm
the difference might well be more than 8 hp too but at 3500-4500 rpm the
engine won't even see polished exhaust manifolds :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> Would cat back systems be as prevelant now if this were
> really the case ?
> Do they just claim all this extra HP without really adding
> any of it ? Not
> to mention the nice rumble :)

> Okay, this part I agree with ... did I just misread the rest
> of the message
> or what !?!?!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:09:51 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Wet weather starting problems

My bird melted the dang fuse block and refused to start too and it was a
stupid plug under the fuse block that caused the whole thing. All I did was
unplug it and plug it back in several times and stick a new fuse in it :-)
Those big black plugs on the module and dizzy on dura spark systems are
notorious for this too, very, very notorious :-( Wet weather is when you
will get to play with them too :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> I had this problem with an 80's Ford car. I took apart all the
> weatherproof wire fittings on the ignition system, also the battery
> cables at the battery and selonoid, cleaned and degreased them, and
> applied some dielectric silicone. I'm not sure which connection was to
> blame, but it fixed it.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:10:31 -0500
From: William King
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F150 Clutch Question

*Oh, oh, oh!* Something I know about (kinda).
1. 429 Pilot bushings
The crank tails on 68 and 69 429s were not machined for a pilot
bushing (although there is a 'hole' for a bushing to fit into.
This hole is smaller than 'normal' 429/460 bushings).
Years ago I ended up finding a bushing that was close and turning
it down until it fit. Another list member (Henderson? Calls his
truck the 'Muny Pit') found a bushing to fit his 429 crank, and
he might have the part number handy. This applies to 68 and 69 429s.
The bushing size for later 460s may have changed, but I don't know.
>I think early 429's and FE's used the same pilot bushing of 1.875"
>compared to the later models with the 1.375" bushing, but I could be
>wrong.
>Jason
>bronco66 wrote:
>>With my 72 with a 429 and
>> a NP435 I use the clutch from i beleive a 71 t-bird. But the pilot bushing
>> doesn't fit and i could not find any that do. I ended up buying one a
>> little to big and turning it down.

2. I can only speak about clutch disks and pressure plates for car
(ie NOT granny gear) 4 speed Toploaders. First, there are two input shaft
sizes on Toploaders; they differ in shaft diameter and spline count. Some
people call the big input shaft 'bigblock' and the smaller one a
'smallblock' (but I am unsure if the tranny guts are different). Likewise,
the outputs are
also different (31 spline output is usually a bigbock Toploader). However,
it's possible to get a mix-n-matched Toploader like the one in my truck.
It has the small (smallblock) input, BUT the big, 31 spline output. It came
from the factory this way.
Second, it's possible to have different sized (diameter) clutch disks and
pressure plates, and this depends on your flywheel. My truck (360 FE) has
a 10.5 inch clucth, but my Torino (429) has an 11.5 inch clutch. I believe
some 429/460s have an 11 inch clutch. Since the FE and 429/460 flywheels
interchange, you have some possible clutch diameters lurking in your
bellhousing.
The moral of the story is that you should tear it apart to see what exactly
you have.

> Just wondering if anyone out there can help me find what clutch setup I
>need for my truck... I've got a 78 F150 4X4 with a 429 in it, mated to a
>Borg Warner top loader tranny (4spd w/granny gear). I need to find out what
>size clutch this thing has in it, and I would like to do so before pulling
>it down.... It is sad really, I bought this truck from a guy about 5 years

Good luck,
Ohio Bill

1968 Torino GT 429 4v 4 speed
1968 F100 360 2v 4 speed
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:47:44 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - '75 F150 axle interchangability

Actually, if you are not going to back up against dozzed dead piles of logs
and yank them out with a log chain the 28's will suffice for most things.
That's what my van had and I abused the heck out of it with a 460, 429,
351C, 351W.......:-) The 31's are much larger and stronger though so more
desireable in a truck, especially one with a 460 in it.

Stock size tires on a 150 will be around 29-30" so wide ratio and 3.0 up to
3.5 or so would probably work well for towing. If the loads will be heavy
and distances long you may even want to go to the 3.87 ratio with this
setup. The 460 pulls well at low rpms if you cam it that way but it still
has limits :-) For non-towing street use I like to keep it around 2000 rpm
at 60. My pickup with 29" tires and 2.75 gears runs well unladen on the
street and gets about 1900 rpm at 60. I'm sure I could tow a light trailer
with no ill effects. Most new trucks with Od's run closer to 1800 at 60 and
with smaller engines too but they have the option of running in drive when
loaded. Running in second would be a real pain and probably over heat the
tranny. What ever tire you decide on, you can calculate what you need to
get that kind of rpm on the road but towing a heavy trailer will impact on
where you need to be in your power band so adjustments need to be made even
with a 460 for best performance and economy. If you tow only occasionally
and not for long distances then you may opt for better unladen performance.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --
> Since the entire axle housing is missing, does it matter
> whether the axles are 28 or 31
> spline? I would want the stronger axle, all things being
> equal, as I want this to be
> able to tow heavy trailers; is that the 31 spline later one?
>
> > What size tires do you plan to use?
>
> Haven't decided, yet. I'll be leaning toward the
> conservative. This won't be an
> off-road vehicle, rather a (hopefully) elegant
> commuter/hauler/tow machine. Won't be
> slammed, won't be towering. Are there recommendations?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:54:32 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - poping Carb.

> Hi i own a 74 F250 4x4 with a 360 and now when i take off from the line,
> quite frequently i get a pop or two from the carb. Is this a choke
> problem or a timing thing (it happens when the choke is fully closed or
> almost fully open). It also seems to be under powered off the line.
>

It could be a number of things, but the under powered statement points to
the timing chain .. likely its quite worn (mine sure as heck was) ... try
pulling the cap off of the dist, and put a socket on the harmonic balancer
bolt, then turn the motor back and forth by hand and see how much "play"
there is ... that is how far to one side or the other can oyu turn it before
the rotor actually starts to turn ... if its very far (how far is very?
dunno, 10? 20degrees?) then likely its time for a new timing chain ... mine
used to do this all the time and the new timing chain really cleared this up
(well that and a float that seated, but that was a different problem that
left me less than a mile from my house) ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:07:58 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

> People still buy snake oil too and rhino (stupid spell checker
> couldn't fix
> Rhinosorous...:-)) horn and tiger tooth and..........It sells
> because people
> believe in it because the hype has them convinced and they like
> the sound so
> it sounds more powerfull so they think it "is" more powerfull.

Okay, I'll take 2, if a bit more powerful is, then hey, I'm all for that ...

> One day I
> lost my whole exhaust from the exhaust pipes back

Uhm ... isn't the whole system made of exhaust pipes ? you mean
intermediate pipes ?

> so I had about
> 3' of pipe
> on each side with my 460. It really sounded cool for a few minutes but I
> certainly wouldn't want to put up with that every day for sure :-) Just
> couldn't help myself so when I had a chance to pass someone I just really
> gassed it.....talk about blowing someone away! (with the noise
> that is :-))
> but I guarantee you it did not pull as well as with the full
> exhaust on it.

Of course it wasn't tuned for it either ... and you still use emissions
equipment don't you ? that needs some backpressure to work properly ...

> The two into one exhaust I modified from a station wagon system worked
> better with stock manifolds than the headers and true duals do and I can
> assure you there is less physical pressure in my current system
> than was in
> that 2 into 1 deal.

Did you ever do the 2 into 1 with headers though ? Sounds like you went
from wide open to fairly restrictive again ...

> This is one reason I suggest to people who
> have trucks
> and 460's to try the 2 into 1 setup before getting all carried away with
> headers and dual pipes that don't fit right etc....it simply does
> a good job
> in a truck application.
>

I thought the 460 ruled by itself and didn't need an exhaust though ? (sorry
cheap shot, but had to take it :) Do they have the same issues with the
long tubes hanging down that the FE's usually do too ? It sounds like so
far you're talkin extreme cases of both, which obviously are easier to use
to prove your point, but what about an intermediate step ... take a look at
shorty headers for instance ... not quite as open as a long tube, but still
better flow than a cast manifold (not to mention some weight differences for
car apps) ...

> I've got headers now and I like them but they did nothing for my power and
> in fact actually reduced my top end over the 2 into 1. Again, I attribute
> this to the fact that the OEM spread bore is not tunable and there is no
> balance tube between the banks but it still has reduced the top end in any
> case and most people, including myself, would have thought it would help,
> not hinder.

I would be included in the prediction portion there ... but again I did say
that some vehicles would need a complete package, and there is more to an
engine than top end on the street ... how's your low side performance ? How
about mid-range? I don't build my truck for top end, that's for sure, the
car on the other hand, I can build it a little bit more for top end since it
does spend some time on the track (if only in 2nd gear ... beep beep....)....

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.

Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.