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 ....

---

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.