80-96-list-digest Thursday, February 18 1999 Volume 03 : Number 048



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980-1996 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 80-96-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
FTE 80-96 - Missed Digest
FTE 80-96 - Widths of 302/351 intakes
RE: FTE 80-96 - Key Problems with 86 F150
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - Widths of 302/351 intakes
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
FTE 80-96 - RE: Tank capacity
FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
Re: FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...
FTE 80-96 - Noise
RE: FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...
FTE 80-96 - Fuel Filter Connector
Re: FTE 80-96 - Noise
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w
FTE 80-96 - Re: pilot bearing
FTE 80-96 - Metrinch tools
Re: FTE 80-96 - Fuel Filter Connector
Re: FTE 80-96 - Noise
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: pilot bearing
Re: FTE 80-96 - Noise
Re: FTE 80-96 - I6 Newbie question
FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w (40 lbs)

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:05:05 EST
From: FLR150 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

Well, guys I hate to tell you this, but the gains in horsepower on a STOCK 302
Vs a STOCK 351 are minimal (about 60 hp) and the torque gains are about the
same. I know from my experience building up my '94 5.0, that as of right now,
I have more horsepower and torque than the 351 and that I also still have
plenty of options to add even more power to it. Whereas the 351w aftermarket
options are slim to say the least unless you go stroker!
Just my Lincolns.
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"
Wayne's Flareside Page
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:48:58 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Missed Digest

Darrin Gourde writes: >>
Lately I have not been getting all the copies of this list. I received V3
#41 on 02-12-99 and did not get another copy until V3 #46 on 02-16-99. V3
#24 was also missed. Has anybody else had this happen?

Yes Darrin. I thought it was just me, so I didn't say anything, but I got
nothing for the 13th nor the 14th and I am on the Performance, 80-96, and 61-79
list in Digest mode.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:03:05 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Widths of 302/351 intakes

Chris writes: >>Taller yeas...but I don't think its wider....I know I can use
5.0 parts
are interchangeable with the Lightnings! So I can't see what the
difference would be!

Yo Chris. Draw a large "V" some where on a piece of paper. Now go up a given
distance and measure the distance from the left line to the right line. Now go
up a bit farther on the "V" and measure it again. The further up you go, the
more distance between the two side lines of the "V". Same principle applies to
the 302/351. The 351 is a taller deck, therefore the intake is wider.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:21:02 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - Key Problems with 86 F150

At 11:03 PM 2/16/99 , you wrote:
>I have the tilt wheel and I got by with leaving it on but it was a pain!
>Glad I did disassemble it though because one side of the tilt portion had
>come out of it's hinge bracket.
>
That would've helped immensly! The whole problem I had was I couldn't get
the tilt far enough apart, with one hinge loose it would've snapped right
in (well almost :)


Just my 2cents

wish

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:32:01 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

>Well, guys I hate to tell you this, but the gains in horsepower on a STOCK 302
>Vs a STOCK 351 are minimal (about 60 hp) and the torque gains are about the
>same.

You're saying that 60 hp and 60 ft-lbs of torque are minimal??!?!?!?!?
Especially stock to stock I would think that would be tremendous! What are
the differences between the 351 and 460 stock to stock ? Also I don't
think there is one part you can just bolt on to a 302 to create that much
additional, especially one that couldnt' be bolted onto a 351 to achieve a
similar effect ...



I know from my experience building up my '94 5.0, that as of right now,
>I have more horsepower and torque than the 351 and that I also still have
>plenty of options to add even more power to it. Whereas the 351w aftermarket
>options are slim to say the least unless you go stroker!

Which options are so slim that you're thinking of ? The heads interchange
... therefore exhaust manifolds/headers ... about the only thing you can't
interchange is the lower intake manifold ...

I've always been a big fan of the 351W, but have never been able to compare
the newer ones. We have 3 69 351's and 1 74, our 302's are a stock 70
(2200 miles on car) and a hopped up 70, plus a FI 91 in a full size pickup.
Anyway just no good comparison motors runnin around. Maybe when dad gets
his FI 351 pickup he's lookin for I can compare that with my sister's.

There's no replacement for displacement.


Just my 2cents

wish

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:49:43 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

FLR150 aol.com wrote:
>
> Well, guys I hate to tell you this, but the gains in horsepower on a STOCK 302
> Vs a STOCK 351 are minimal (about 60 hp) and the torque gains are about the
> same. I know from my experience building up my '94 5.0, that as of right now,
> I have more horsepower and torque than the 351 and that I also still have
> plenty of options to add even more power to it. Whereas the 351w aftermarket
> options are slim to say the least unless you go stroker!
> Just my Lincolns.
> Wayne Foy
> '94 Flareside SC
> "Hazardous Material"
> Wayne's Flareside Page
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Most 5.0 performance parts work with the 5.8s! You are making good power
for a 302 but the 351 in my Lightning makes 240hp and 340 ft lbs of
torque....all on heads and intakes designed for a 5.0...these motors
really respond to head work as MOST fords do. All 5.0 aftermarker heads
work with 5.8 there are numerous number of superchargers, underdrive
pulleys, K&N, mass air

It is easy to make as much horsepower with a 302 but try making as much
torque as the 351! A stock 302 barely makes more torque than the
I6...and even then the I6 make sit torque at lower RPM.

All of us that drive trucks know we NEED TORQUE!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:51:41 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Widths of 302/351 intakes

am14 daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>
> Chris writes: >>Taller yeas...but I don't think its wider....I know I can use
> 5.0 parts
> are interchangeable with the Lightnings! So I can't see what the
> difference would be!
>
> Yo Chris. Draw a large "V" some where on a piece of paper. Now go up a given
> distance and measure the distance from the left line to the right line. Now go
> up a bit farther on the "V" and measure it again. The further up you go, the
> more distance between the two side lines of the "V". Same principle applies to
> the 302/351. The 351 is a taller deck, therefore the intake is wider.
>
> Azie
> Ardmore, Al.
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

You are absoluetly right Azie....I posted that I was wrong right
afterwards. I had just got off work and wasn't thinking clearly and had
wished I could stop that message from being sent, so I didn't look like
an idiot!
Chris

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:52:49 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

hat with my sister's.
>
> There's no replacement for displacement.
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:49:33 PST
From: "Steve Likness"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

>>I am in the process of rebuilding a 86 351w to replace my 83 302 I was
wondering if anyone would know what kind of torque and horsepower
increase I can expect. I would also like to know if I can use the intake
off the 302 on the 351w (the 351 intake has a lot of smog stuff)

I just thought I would add my 2 cents. I'm in the process of building a
351W to replace my I6 in my '82 F150. Some of the issues I have run
into are the differences between the 2 bbl 351W built '82-'83 and the 4
bbl built '84-'86. There are a few smog issues since you are not
supposed to put a 2 bbl on the '82-'83. The only difference that I have
been able to tell is the difference in the port size on the heads and
intake. You can use the '84-'86 intake on the older engines, but the
ports don't exactly match and you lose some hp. Just make sure that if
you add performance, street legal equipment that you keep it to the
newer engine specs, get the C.A.R.B. stickers and certifications, and
make sure your inspection folks know that it is a newer engine. There
are also some signifigant changes in the exhaust and EGR systems from
the older to newer engines and both are a pain in the rear. You just
have to muddle through.

Ok, now on to my problems; With my swap, I'm still having trouble
getting the appropriate brackets for my accessories, especially the smog
pump. I would love to convert to a serpentine system, but have not
found anyone that offers a system that includes a way to drive the smog
pump which is required for inspection. Also, does anyone know if I
would pass inspection in NC switching from a single exhaust/cat to dual
exhaust with dual cats? Did Ford have a true dual cat/exhaust system
for the 351s in '82,83?

Thanks,


Steve

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:38:36 -0800
From: "Ferino, Chris"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Tank capacity

I don't know if it's the same on the pickups as the Broncos, but for the
single-tank Broncos, they came with either a 25 or 32 gallon tank. (You
could tell if you had the 32-gallon tank - it came with a skid plate
standard where the 25 gallon didn't.)

- --Chris

>More than 6 gallons!!! On my 94, I have two tanks, 15 and 18 gallons. I
>think the newer ones are a single 32 gallon.
>
>> 1. Gas Tank Capacity: 100 Miles and guage reads empty already, I fill
>> it and only put 6
>> Gallons in? I really don't want to pull the tank just to fix the float,
>> so need to know what the gas tank capacity is.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:19:45 -0000
From: "Lamar DeVille"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...

I have a "93 F-150 Ext Cab with the 5.8L V8 and I am installing a Tekonsha brake controller for a
small travel trailer (approx 2500#). Three wires must exit the cab. One goes to the rear of the
truck to the plug connecting to the trailer and two others connect to the positive and negative of
the battery. My question is what are the best places/locations to run these wires out of the cab?

Thanks,
J.


Get your FREE Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://personal.lycos.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:23:46 EST
From: FLR150 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

In a message dated 2/17/99 10:45:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
garrpam netgsi.com writes:


torque as the 351! A stock 302 barely makes more torque than the
I6...and even then the I6 make sit torque at lower RPM. >>

OK guys! I see that again I have started the flames flying. I have been
talking with a buddy of mine that works for FOMOCO factory in the Machine and
Tooling division. He is one of the major influences on the parts and such that
I have put on my truck and motor. I choose all of my parts carefully and I
don't make splitsecond decisions, being as my vehicle of choice is a 6000 LB
truck with a 5.0L. Mind you that I do building maintenance for a living and I
haul heavy loads on a daily basis. Now He put me in touch with an old motor
builder that used to work for Ford SVO. I have gone round and round with this
guy on the Horsepower Vs Torque Issue. He put it like this "You build a motor
for Horsepower and I'll build a motor for Torque and I'll whoop your A**
everytime." I feel obligated to believe him since he was one of the wrench
turners on some of the prototype musclecars in the 60's (GT40!!!). Anyway, the
reason for my comment on the 351WINDSOR is this, I have already put almost 2k
into my motor. I have been happy with the results so far. But like all of us
that walk with a limp more toward the right foot, I want to continue my build
up. I tossed around the idea of switching out my motor for a 351 W and
switching over all interchangeable parts and continuing my build up. They both
basically asked me why, when right now I am making more torque and horsepower
than the 351 and because with the swap I would have a harder time replacing
parts if it broke.
No offense against the "no replacement for displacement" theory, but you need
to come down to Atlanta and I'll take you to the street drags. I'll be more
than happy to make sure you see 1.6L hondogs kicking the crap out of 5.0L,
5.8L and 6.6L motors all day long. Displacement means nothing but a HEAVIER
motor to haul around. Make the torque/power with what you have.
My young and humble opinion,
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"
Wayne's Flareside Page
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:29:56 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

>guy on the Horsepower Vs Torque Issue. He put it like this "You build a motor
>for Horsepower and I'll build a motor for Torque and I'll whoop your A**
>everytime."

I don't think anyone will argue this, unless you have a rolling start and
some wicked gears.

when right now I am making more torque and horsepower
>than the 351 and because with the swap I would have a harder time replacing
>parts if it broke.

Okay, I think we need to narrow down exactly which parts are different
enough to be hard to replace ... also I would like to know for future
reference with the potential swap for my sister or dad ... You may be
making more HP and torque than a STOCK 351, but wouldn't a 351 with the
same mods you've got be making more yet ?


>No offense against the "no replacement for displacement" theory, but you need
>to come down to Atlanta and I'll take you to the street drags. I'll be more
>than happy to make sure you see 1.6L hondogs kicking the crap out of 5.0L,
>5.8L and 6.6L motors all day long. Displacement means nothing but a HEAVIER
>motor to haul around. Make the torque/power with what you have.

Ironic isn't it that you say displacement is nothing but more weight when
in reality the displacement is the size of the hole in the motor ? Sorry
always struck me as humerous. Anyway on to the real point. Yeah lots of
hondas and such are running blowers and turbos, and someone was even kind
enough to point out that they are a replacement, but unless you get a
positive displacement blower, the low side isn't really helped all that
much. hook one of those hondogs up to a trailer sometime and see what kind
of umph it has down low .... just a hunch it'll stall out tryign to pull
anything other than itself. This all comes back to the fact that we do
drive trucks, if we wanted to wind up forever and just pull our lard butts
around quickly, we could go with a little rice burner and get tons of rpm's
and just scream everywhere. But some of us live where we have hills and
have to haul stuff ... sometimes up the hill... or pull stuff ... like
that hondog out of the ditch after the first snow.

I know tons of power can be made through blowers and tricks and all that
jazz, but it all comes down to "What happens if you do that same stuff to a
larger (displacement) motor?" Someone has a website up that touts how
great the Talon TSI AWD is ... look its little motor is putting out as much
power as a Mustang GT ... more per litre than a Cobra ... but looking at
those stats, then applying the same stuff to a Cobra, guess what ... same
HP/litre ... now which one is faster ???

Sorry, I love the 302 and hated to see it die, but I still think the 351 is
better ... has nothin to do with the fact that I grew up (first 2 years)
riding in a 69 'stang with a 351 either ;)


Just my 2cents

wish

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:40:37 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

Steve Likness wrote:
>
> >>I am in the process of rebuilding a 86 351w to replace my 83 302 I was
> wondering if anyone would know what kind of torque and horsepower
> increase I can expect. I would also like to know if I can use the intake
> off the 302 on the 351w (the 351 intake has a lot of smog stuff)
>
> I just thought I would add my 2 cents. I'm in the process of building a
> 351W to replace my I6 in my '82 F150. Some of the issues I have run
> into are the differences between the 2 bbl 351W built '82-'83 and the 4
> bbl built '84-'86. There are a few smog issues since you are not
> supposed to put a 2 bbl on the '82-'83. The only difference that I have
> been able to tell is the difference in the port size on the heads and
> intake. You can use the '84-'86 intake on the older engines, but the
> ports don't exactly match and you lose some hp. Just make sure that if
> you add performance, street legal equipment that you keep it to the
> newer engine specs, get the C.A.R.B. stickers and certifications, and
> make sure your inspection folks know that it is a newer engine. There
> are also some signifigant changes in the exhaust and EGR systems from
> the older to newer engines and both are a pain in the rear. You just
> have to muddle through.
>
> Ok, now on to my problems; With my swap, I'm still having trouble
> getting the appropriate brackets for my accessories, especially the smog
> pump. I would love to convert to a serpentine system, but have not
> found anyone that offers a system that includes a way to drive the smog
> pump which is required for inspection. Also, does anyone know if I
> would pass inspection in NC switching from a single exhaust/cat to dual
> exhaust with dual cats? Did Ford have a true dual cat/exhaust system
> for the 351s in '82,83?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> ______________________________________________________
> > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


You should look under the hood of a Lightning one time. They have a smog
pump ran by a serpentine belt and have the only dual exhaust that I know
of that come factory on ford trucks. I don't know if all this will help
you or not given the differnence in years but its an idea!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:55:04 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

FLR150 aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/17/99 10:45:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> garrpam netgsi.com writes:
>
>
> torque as the 351! A stock 302 barely makes more torque than the
> I6...and even then the I6 make sit torque at lower RPM. >>
>
> OK guys! I see that again I have started the flames flying. I have been
> talking with a buddy of mine that works for FOMOCO factory in the Machine and
> Tooling division. He is one of the major influences on the parts and such that
> I have put on my truck and motor. I choose all of my parts carefully and I
> don't make splitsecond decisions, being as my vehicle of choice is a 6000 LB
> truck with a 5.0L. Mind you that I do building maintenance for a living and I
> haul heavy loads on a daily basis. Now He put me in touch with an old motor
> builder that used to work for Ford SVO. I have gone round and round with this
> guy on the Horsepower Vs Torque Issue. He put it like this "You build a motor
> for Horsepower and I'll build a motor for Torque and I'll whoop your A**
> everytime." I feel obligated to believe him since he was one of the wrench
> turners on some of the prototype musclecars in the 60's (GT40!!!). Anyway, the
> reason for my comment on the 351WINDSOR is this, I have already put almost 2k
> into my motor. I have been happy with the results so far. But like all of us
> that walk with a limp more toward the right foot, I want to continue my build
> up. I tossed around the idea of switching out my motor for a 351 W and
> switching over all interchangeable parts and continuing my build up. They both
> basically asked me why, when right now I am making more torque and horsepower
> than the 351 and because with the swap I would have a harder time replacing
> parts if it broke.
> No offense against the "no replacement for displacement" theory, but you need
> to come down to Atlanta and I'll take you to the street drags. I'll be more
> than happy to make sure you see 1.6L hondogs kicking the crap out of 5.0L,
> 5.8L and 6.6L motors all day long. Displacement means nothing but a HEAVIER
> motor to haul around. Make the torque/power with what you have.
> My young and humble opinion,
> Wayne Foy
> '94 Flareside SC
> "Hazardous Material"
> Wayne's Flareside Page
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

I am game...when?
I have killed many 5.0 mustangs, 5.9L dakotas, numerous CRXsandGTI with
major modifications, SS monte carlos, preludes, you name it. You are
talking cars that weigh alot less probably close to a third of your
truck. Torque doesn't make a whole bunch differnece then....besides if
those rice boxes had more than 200 ft lbs of torque it would twist them
in two!

This is not to flame, just putting in my experience here. As I said you
are making good power for a 5.0 truck....but it has nothing on the 351
take both motors and do the same mods and you will see that 351 will out
shine the 5.0 everytime. As far as weight there can be much difference
between a 5.0 and a 5.8! The weight difference comes when you compare a
big block to a small block.
I am up for a race if you are? HEHE
I have put about 1K into my truck(mainly exhaust $800), cap, coil,
wires, advanced timing and high octane gas, K&N cone, and phenolic
spacer.! I am very happy with it, the only bad thing is gas mileage.
Your truck seems kinda of heavy too
I know its extended cab but mine is roughly 4500 maybe a little less and
I have every option except extended cab...does really add 1500 lbs!
Chris
Just voiving his opinion
NO FLAMES
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:02:39 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

>
> Okay, I think we need to narrow down exactly which parts are different
> enough to be hard to replace ... also I would like to know for future
> reference with the potential swap for my sister or dad ... You may be
> making more HP and torque than a STOCK 351, but wouldn't a 351 with the
> same mods you've got be making more yet ?
>
If I remember your numbers correctly it was 300 nad some horsepower that
is a big improvement over stock but your torque numbers were just a
little over 300...not much changed from stock yeah it come up some and
it all helps but stock a 351 made 310or so? I think in 94 and then
jumped to 325 in 95! That is not even the R engine which made 340 ft
lbs! Plus it makes its power at a lower rpm than a 5.0...more usable
power!

The 5.0 has done wonders for the mustang in the past...but what happen
when they stuffed the 351 into the cobra R...it went from a pony car to
a corvette beater, never seen a factory 5.0 do that!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:11:19 EST
From: FULSZBRONC aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

Build for torque, and the horsepower will come with the RPM's. If all you
want is horsepower, build the engine to rev...but give up reliability and
economy and and low speed drivability. The 300 cube 6 gets it's torque from
it's relative long stroke, but that's not conducive to high RPM's. So the
compromise is build a solid V8 with as much displacement and compression as
you reasonably can. You'll find that torque will get you going and the
horsepower will keep you moving!!

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:42:18 PST
From: "Steve Likness"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

The 351W is approximately 40 lbs heavier than the 302 at the long block
level!

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:03:05 -0500
From: "Matt Fitzsimmons"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...

Check your wiring harness under the middle of the dash. Most trucks have a
connetor there that has all the connections you need. Power, Ground, Brake
Lights, Trailer Brakes. It's a 4 pin connetor with black,white, green and
blue wires. If you have the towing package, the blue (trailer brakes) wire
will be in the harness at the back of the truck.

Matt


- -----Original Message-----
From: Lamar DeVille
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:26 PM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...


>I have a "93 F-150 Ext Cab with the 5.8L V8 and I am installing a Tekonsha
brake controller for a
>small travel trailer (approx 2500#). Three wires must exit the cab. One
goes to the rear of the
>truck to the plug connecting to the trailer and two others connect to the
positive and negative of
>the battery. My question is what are the best places/locations to run
these wires out of the cab?
>
>Thanks,
>J.
>
>
>Get your FREE Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mailcity.lycos.com
>Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://personal.lycos.com
>== 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, 17 Feb 1999 16:21:32 -0500
From: Tom Gunby
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Noise

My '86 F-150 302 EFI is making a noise (after the engine warms up) like
the "whine" an engine makes when it overheats due to low/no coolant.
Radiator is full of fresh coolant and overflow reservoir is
approximately half full. The temperature gauge on the dash is at its
"normal" position and the truck seems to run ok. But when I am stopped,
I hear the whining noise. Just did the front/rear brakes and most
recently, replaced the power steering pump but neither of these seem to
be the source of the noise. I can hear it loudest in the cab, faintly
when I open and look under the hood and semi-loud if I listen between
the rear of the cab and front of the bed. Thought it might be coming
from the transmission but (1) why would the transmission be whining when
I'm stopped and (2) I just serviced the transmission and torque
converter and the truck shifts smoother than it has for quite a while.
Sorry for the poor description of the problem but it's hard to pin down.

Thanks for any suggestions.
Tom Gunby

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:25:07 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...

J,

I ran some extra wires I needed though a hole already there. Just look for a
hole with a rubber grommet that has extra room and carefully poke another
hole for your wires.

I assume you also know that if you have the trailer towing package those
trailer brake wires are already there. I bought my truck used and it was a
surprise when I found out it was already equipped with the harness for the
trailer and the guy that owned it before me unplugged the connectors from
the back and kept the trailer brake connector for the inside of the cab.

If you have the tow package you will find a connector for the brake under
the dash below the ashtray.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Lamar DeVille [SMTP:sinclue mailcity.com]
> Sent:Wednesday, February 17, 1999 11:20 AM
> To:80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:FTE 80-96 - Running wires from brake control...
>
> I have a "93 F-150 Ext Cab with the 5.8L V8 and I am installing a Tekonsha
> brake controller for a
> small travel trailer (approx 2500#). Three wires must exit the cab. One
> goes to the rear of the
> truck to the plug connecting to the trailer and two others connect to the
> positive and negative of
> the battery. My question is what are the best places/locations to run
> these wires out of the cab?
>
> Thanks,
> J.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:25:09 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Fuel Filter Connector

Does anyone know how to get the fuel line connector off the fuel filter? My
haynes manual just says to remove it. Looks to me like it takes a special
tool to pop it off the nipple after you remove the clip.

Where can I get this tool at?

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:57:47 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Noise

That's a good one. If it's loudest in the cab, I'd sit there, hit the
brakes, turn the wheel, turn the blower on and off, rev the engine, after
each event, note the whine, does it vary in pitch or volume?

Oh yeah, mine turned out being the rear seal on my brake booster.

Bob
(86 Bronco XLT 302)


Tom Gunby wrote:

> My '86 F-150 302 EFI is making a noise (after the engine warms up) like
> the "whine" an engine makes when it overheats due to low/no coolant.
> Radiator is full of fresh coolant and overflow reservoir is
> approximately half full. The temperature gauge on the dash is at its
> "normal" position and the truck seems to run ok. But when I am stopped,
> I hear the whining noise. Just did the front/rear brakes and most
> recently, replaced the power steering pump but neither of these seem to
> be the source of the noise. I can hear it loudest in the cab, faintly
> when I open and look under the hood and semi-loud if I listen between
> the rear of the cab and front of the bed. Thought it might be coming
> from the transmission but (1) why would the transmission be whining when
> I'm stopped and (2) I just serviced the transmission and torque
> converter and the truck shifts smoother than it has for quite a while.
> Sorry for the poor description of the problem but it's hard to pin down.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
> Tom Gunby
>
> == 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, 17 Feb 1999 17:42:28 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 to 351w

> The 351W is approximately 40 lbs heavier than the 302 at the long block
> level!

You have to shed approximately 100 lbs for a tenth of a second...very
vague but thats what I have heard so...losing 40lbs is better than
gaining 30-40 ft lbs of torque. I DONT THINK SO!
How did you know that?
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:09:18 -0600
From: Geoffrey Schrag
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: pilot bearing

Azie wrote-Are you sure you are having this problem with the "Throw out"
bearing. It
sounds as if you are trying to get the "Pilot shaft" bearing out of the
rear of
the crankshaft. IF this is the case, DO NOT heat it with a torch, nor beat it
with a hammer and chisel.

-Sorry, I did mean to say pilot bearing. Well, I tried pulling the pilot
bearing out with a couple of different pullers-screw and slide hammer type.
The center piece of the bearing came out, but the outer ring with the
notches on the back side is stuck fast. Anyone have any ideas how to get
this out?-I tried doing the hydraulic method too-packing it with grease and
pounding a dowel of similar diameter through the hole.

- -Any help would be much appreciated

thanks,

Geof Schrag
1980 bronco
351M, 4sp

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:13:22 -0500
From: Paul
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Metrinch tools

Reading about the 11/16 v. 18mm made me wonder what you guys think of
the Metrinch sockets. I bought a set and like them a lot, except:

a. The design allows slack before they grab the nut/bolt, so that
means that in tight spots they aren't very good.

b. They grab so well on the sides of the nut that often I have to
reverse the action to break the socket loose from the nut, cause they
stick.

They sure are great when working on a half breed car, with both US and
Foreign sizes mixed.

Just thought I'd ask.

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:51:31 EST
From: CphgnCwby1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Fuel Filter Connector

What clip is it?
A hairpin clip
A duckbill clip
ETC.

This will be in your book
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:56:39 EST
From: CphgnCwby1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Noise

Sounds like your high pressure pump (ASSUMING THAT THIS IS Fuel Injected) this
could be caused by a number of things.

First---Have you had a clogged fuel filter recently, or is there one on there
that may be clogged?

Second---If there has been, it could have caused mechanicl damage to the pump

Also, check and see if it is monted tight

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 19:02:31 -0800
From: "Dennis R. Fischer"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: pilot bearing

Geof

What do they say? Been there, done that. I had the same problem and it also
came out in pieces. The only thing that worked for me was getting a slide
hammer that fit the notches. I just tightened the snot out of it and
pulled, while I hammered away with the slide. It finally came out.

Dennis

- -----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Schrag
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:18 PM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: pilot bearing


>Azie wrote-Are you sure you are having this problem with the "Throw out"
>bearing. It
>sounds as if you are trying to get the "Pilot shaft" bearing out of the
>rear of
>the crankshaft. IF this is the case, DO NOT heat it with a torch, nor beat
it
>with a hammer and chisel.
>
> -Sorry, I did mean to say pilot bearing. Well, I tried pulling the pilot
>bearing out with a couple of different pullers-screw and slide hammer type.
> The center piece of the bearing came out, but the outer ring with the
>notches on the back side is stuck fast. Anyone have any ideas how to get
>this out?-I tried doing the hydraulic method too-packing it with grease and
>pounding a dowel of similar diameter through the hole.
>
>-Any help would be much appreciated
>
>thanks,
>
>Geof Schrag
>1980 bronco
>351M, 4sp
>
>== 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, 17 Feb 1999 22:13:27 EST
From: AeroAce13 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Noise

This sounds like a problem I just had with my 85 F-150. I brought it to my
mechanic and he knew what it was right away. Super simple problem, the card
had losened up and there was a vac. leak that was causing this whining noise.
If you move the carb you should hear a change in the pitch. My mecahnic fixed
mine, he locktitied the bolts and replaces the gasket. Hope this helps, let
me know what it turns out to be.

Ed
85 F-150 XLT Lariet 4x4
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:30:01 -0500
From: Randy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - I6 Newbie question

Nic,
Basically, it's your call here. I would think for overall performance
vs. dollars spent, go w/one cat and a single 3" and have the local shop
do it. I could go on and on as to why, but basically, the 3" is a good
free-flowing exhaust, but not so huge you lose power on the low end.
You are also installing half the exhaust from the headers back that you
would w/a dual 2.5" system. Mandrel-bent means that there is no
reduction in the diameter in the curving sections. You'll notice most
factory pipes have smaller diameters and some have the ribs on the
inside of the radiused parts. This can reduce your I.D. which kinda
nullifies the point of going w/that size exhaust. Mandrel machines use
a ball on the inside of the pipe so the diameter is not reduced. 3" is
3" all the way thru.
As for mufflers, basically depends on how you want the truck to sound
more than anything. All the name brand guys make good mufflers,
opinions usually start w/the ear in this case.....


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.