Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:00:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #120
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, September 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 120



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks80up-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 ["Mike Jones"]
Remove from list [Casey129 aol.com]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 ["David J. Baldwin" ]
limited slip for 8.8" [Gary Spradley ]
Re: A Hearty Thank You... ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 [Lars ]
Re: Popping sounds [Jay Chlebowski ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? and displacement ["David J. Baldwin"
Re: Remove from list ["Martin and Nancy Jalovec" ]
Re: A Hearty Thank You... [Lars ]
Re: Popping sounds ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Small block engine history. ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 [Thom Cheney ]
High Octane Gas [tgstoner umich.edu]
RE: Popping sounds [Steven McCullough ]
Re: High Octane Gas ["Dave Resch"]
351w for sale [yhtlines surfari.net]
RE: Strange noise [BILL_CHANDLER HP-Roseville-om2.om.hp.com]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? ["C. E. White" ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:12:12 -0400
From: "Mike Jones"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119

>Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
> because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
> right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs your
> engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong engine
> > life and may in fact reduce engine life". Any truth to this?

Use the lowest octane you can get away with with out experiencing pinging.
(One caveat, if your engine has a knock sensor, you may want to go up a
grade or two. You may indeed experience better performance as ignition
timing may advance compared to operation on lower octane fuel.)

Lower octane fuel actually contains more energy per unit of fuel than does
higher octane fuel, and all else being equal, will actually result in
better economy and power. (The difference is probably too small to
reliably measure in the real world, in my opinion.) It has been
demonstrated that operating with high octane fuel can actually increase
intake valve and piston deposits, since it combusts slower.

Higher octane fuel 'running hotter' is an old wive's tale.

Hope this helps...

Mike J.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Casey129 aol.com
Subject: Remove from list

How do I get removed from this listservice?

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:31:02 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118

Bill Funk wrote:
> ... a "race" cam will move the torque up on the RPM
> line, increasing HP at higher RPMs. A torque cam (sometimes called an
> "RV" cam) moves the torque down lower on the RPM line, for better
> accelleration off the line. (You can't have both.)

Hey, Bill, I was looking at Competition Cams' web site a while back
looking for an "RV" cam--and didn't find any.

I've since seen several references to RV or Torque cams here, but nobody
specifies who makes them. Do you know of any good ones to check out?
My '95 5.0 is a little weak on the low end and I would like to know if
there is a cam out there that will help. I don't tow anything, but the
size of the F-150 dictates that good low-end torque is required to get
it moving quickly. BTW, most of my milage is highway, and I don't want
to go higher than the 3.55 rear end ratio that I already have. I've
been somewhat dissatisified with off-the-line performance all along.
I'm just glad I didn't opt for the 3.39!

I've been thinking that a set of underdrive pulleys would be an easy,
low-cost torque improvement. I've been concerned about turning the
water pump slower when I live in an area where it is regularly 100
degrees F (38C, for our northern neighbors) for about 4 months of the
year. Anybody out there running underdrives on a 5.0L in an F-150 in
someplace like Arizona without overheating problems (in traffic)?

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:51:52 -0500
From: Gary Spradley
Subject: limited slip for 8.8"

Hello,
I was curious if anyone has tried the Torsen differential that's
advertised in the Ford motorsport catalog. If so, how do you like it?
I am considering installing one in my 84 F150.

Thanks
Gary Spradley

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:54:07 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: A Hearty Thank You...

Brian Pynn wrote:
>
> Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
> because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
> right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs your
> engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong engine
> > life and may in fact reduce engine life". Any truth to this?
>

Prolong engine life? If you're getting detonation ("ping" or "knock"),
going to higher octane will reduce stress on the engine. It might even
run better. I had a Jaguar that would ping on 92 octane gas so bad that
it would actually decelerate! 104+ octane booster was a must.

It won't make your engine run hot.

Newer engine control systems on most cars/trucks run the spark advance
lower to allow use of lower-grade fuel. Performance cars (especially
with blowers or turbochargers) will often say in the owner's manual to
use high-octane. Many systems employ knock detectors to sense
detonation, and if they sense it, will retard spark timing appropriately
to minimize knock. This way if you get some bad gas out in the boonies
(or can't find 92 octane), the control system will protect your engine.
The system is adaptive, so after you get some new fuel, it will
gradually increase the advance again to restore performance.

The aftermarket "chip" manufacturers reprogram the controller to have a
more aggressive advance curve, and thereby get 10-15HP improvement
across the board. The penalty is that you MUST use high-octane fuel.
You should get better milage from this as well. Whether the trade-off
breaks even or not, I don't know.

I had a guy tell me that his O2 sensors got fouled by using high-octane
fuel. This is unlikely. What WILL foul O2 sensors is using silicone
sealant on gaskets in your engine: silicone is VERY soluable in
gasoline, and somewhat in oil. It dissolves into your engine oil,
vaporizes when hot, and gets pulled through your PCV valve into your
engine's combustion process. The remains passing through your exhaust
> system foul the O2. Don't use this stuff on engines. It's great for
weatherproofing or as an adhesive, but not inside of engines.
- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:00:25 -0500
From: Lars
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118

Put on some pulleys and a 180 degree high flow thermostat, and you
should have
no problems. I live in Dallas, too, and my temp guage on my Lightning
never goes above 1/2 way, even while sitting in traffic w/ the air on.
Good luck.

==========

> I've been thinking that a set of underdrive pulleys would be an easy,
> low-cost torque improvement. I've been concerned about turning the
> water pump slower when I live in an area where it is regularly 100
> degrees F (38C, for our northern neighbors) for about 4 months of the
> year. Anybody out there running underdrives on a 5.0L in an F-150 in
> someplace like Arizona without overheating problems (in traffic)?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Dave Baldwin
> Dallas, TX

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 97 13:11:02 -0500
From: Jay Chlebowski
Subject: Re: Popping sounds

On 9/18/97 8:58 AM , Charles A. Biggs wrote:

>Eric, I had those sounds in my 90 truck and it turned out to be the
>rubber gromets in the front suspension. I shot them with some brake
> >fluid and the popping went away.
>
>Ciao,
>
>--
>Chuck Biggs
>Aerospace Consultant
>mailto:biggs flash.net

Why di you use brake fluid? I've got a similar problem with the leaf
springs (front & rear) on my F350, and while regular spray lubricants
work fine, they don't last long. Anybody know of anything that will
stick for awhile, or does brake fluid do that?

BTW, why didn't Ford use shackles with Zerk fittings -- I'd love to have
greasable bushings!

Best Regards,
Jay

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:10:19 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage? and displacement

S. Spaulding wrote:
>
> But, if you use the factory tolerance limits for bore & stroke (at the
> high end), and go through the calculation, it DOES come out to 5.0L when
> you round it off. On the other hand, who cares?

Well, if you're talking nominal, it's 4.949L, and if rounding to tenths,
strictly speaking, you'd have to say it's 4.9L. But you're right, of
course: nobody really cares anyway, and normal process tolerance will
dictate that you will get a few that would round the other way => 5.0L.

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:22:39 -0700
From: "Martin and Nancy Jalovec"
Subject: Re: Remove from list

Me too!!!

Please get me off...

- ----------
> From: Casey129 aol.com
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Remove from list
> Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 10:12 AM
>
> How do I get removed from this listservice?
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:16:22 -0500
From: Lars
Subject: Re: A Hearty Thank You...

The chip will generally give you 5% to 10% better fuel economy. 92
octane
gas is generall 15% to 20% more than 87 octane. So you won't break even.
But, the torque and HP increases are well worth it. The timing advance
can also easily be done manually, by simply adjusting the distributor.
Hope this helps.

========

> The aftermarket "chip" manufacturers reprogram the controller to have a
> more aggressive advance curve, and thereby get 10-15HP improvement
> across the board. The penalty is that you MUST use high-octane fuel.
> You should get better milage from this as well. Whether the trade-off
> breaks even or not, I don't know.

....

---

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.