|
|
Return-Path: Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:00:28 -0600 (MDT) From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest To: fordtrucks80up-digest Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #120 Reply-To: fordtrucks80up Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest 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 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 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 RE: Popping sounds [Steven McCullough ] Re: High Octane Gas ["Dave Resch"] 351w for sale [yhtlines RE: Strange noise [BILL_CHANDLER 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 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 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 > To: fordtrucks80up > 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 > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request > +-- 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. > -- > Best Regards, > > Dave Baldwin > Dallas, TX ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:18:16 -0500 From: "David J. Baldwin" Subject: Re: Popping sounds Jay Chlebowski wrote: > > 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 > > 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! Can you get those urethane bushings that some people use to improve handling? Maybe someone out there has used these before. I don't know if the urethanes squeak any less. I have squeaky bushings, too, but noises like that don't bother me and I just have been living with it. - -- Best Regards, Dave Baldwin Dallas, TX - -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:21:20 -0500 From: "David J. Baldwin" Subject: Small block engine history. All, There are probably many of you out there who have some answers for me on this. There is something that has been perplexing me for some time. Usually, when a manufacturer makes a high performance variant of an engine (traditional american V8), usually you find things like compression ratio, camshaft, valve springs, maybe 4 bolt mains, beefier con rods, forged crank rather than cast, and different intake, exhaust and ignition to enable higher rotational speed. So I'm looking for cams for my 5.0L. I notice that there are cams for 221, 255, 260, 289, and 302 (5.0L). Then I look and see cams for 5.0L HO...and also 351W (5.8L). Then there's a note that says you can use cams for 221-302 in HO/351W if you change the firing order. Similarly you can use the 302HO/351W in the 221-302 if you change the firing order. A recent SVO newsletter said that the major components of the 5.0HO and 5.8L are essentially identical with the exception of the crank having a 1/2 inch longer throw for the 5.8L. So here are the questions: (1) All of these engines (221-302,302HO/351W) appear to be dimensionally identical insofar as camshaft selection goes. Is this true for blocks, heads, intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, cranks. Same bore centers? Same main bearing sizes? (2) Can I turn my 5.0 in my '95 F-150 into a 5.8L by changing the crank and connecting rods? (3) Why the firing order difference between the 5.0 and the 5.0 HO? If the blocks and cranks are identical, this doesn't make sense to me. (4) I remember the old 351 Windsor and 351 Cleveland engines. Hot-rodders in the 60's and '70s preferred the Cleveland. What was the difference in these (other than one came from the Cleveland plant and the other in the Windsor plant)? The Windsor appears to be a big small block which continues as the 5.8L. What was the Cleveland? Thanks in advance for your help. - -- Best Regards, Dave Baldwin Dallas, TX - -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:26:00 -0500 From: Thom Cheney Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 Mike Jones wrote: > > Higher octane fuel 'running hotter' is an old wive's tale. > Left over from the glorious old lead days. Didn't the high octane leaded fuels have a higher lead content that made them burn hotter? I was just a pimply faced kid when unleaded became the mandated norm. TC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:36:43 -0400 From: tgstoner Subject: High Octane Gas On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 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 . . . ****************** In my 1996 Ranger XLT Supercab with 3.0 liter V-6 and a 5-speed, I generally use regular grade gasoline, from a "name brand" source such as Mobil, Marathon, or Unocal. The truck usually runs quite well and without complaint on this diet. The exception is when I'm towing my Boston Whaler Rage jetboat (about 1,800 pounds total), when in the past and with regular gas I've noticed some engine "pinging" on the longer uphill runs. Now when I'm towing the boat, I fill the tank with premium grade gas and have had no further problems. Also, although I've not yet had this problem with my Ranger, I have experienced rough running with previous vehicles which had fuel injected engines, which I thought might be dirty injectors. On those occasions I switched to detergent premium gasoline, such as from Mobil, for a half dozen tanks full or so, and this has always seemed to eliminate the problem for several months. Tom Stoner Ann Arbor, MI 1996 Ranger XLT Supercab 1996 Taurus LX ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:09:05 -0500 From: Steven McCullough Subject: RE: Popping sounds Be careful!! A lot of petroeum lubricants will destroy rubber/poly etc.. Using a normal lubricant may be doing more harm than good Brake fluid is used a lot to lube bushings since it won't attack most rubbers. Someone correct me if I'm wrong Steven McCullough >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 > >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 > Steven P. McCullough Graduate Research Assistant Section of Diagnostic Imaging Physics U.T. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Office - (713) 792-0789 Fax - (713) 794-5272 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 14:28:14 -0600 From: "Dave Resch" Subject: Re: High Octane Gas >From: James Federline >Subject: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...) >On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, 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? High octane gasoline is only better if your engine requires it to prevent knock/ping. Using a higher octane gasoline than your engine requires will have no affect on your engine's operating temperature or longevity. Otherwise, as some sage said, the only way it improves your performance is by lightening your wallet. >Depends on how you feel about things... :) >1) less emissions: Octane alone has no affect on emissions. Octane is a characteristic of gasoline that is used to describe its resistance to knocking or pinging. There are other gasoline formulation issues that will affect emissions, and some of those things are coincidentally related to octane. Gasoline is a very complicated chemical soup, though, and there is no direct correlation between octane and emissions. >2) less buildup on your injectors: There are a number of additives in gasoline straight from the pump that are designed to counteract or prevent "buildup" in fuel systems and on intake valves. These additives are not related to octane. If you want a good additive package, buy major name brand fuels, which as a rule, are more expensive in all octane grades. >3) "Runs your engine too hot": Octane has nothing to do with the engine's operating temperature. Spark plug heat range, if too high, will promote pre-ignition, which is related to knocking or pinging, although not the same thing. Pre-ignition is similarly bad for an engine, though. Otherwise, the cooling system efficiency and thermostat affect engine operating temperatures. >4) higher gas milage: There is no direct connection between octane and fuel mileage. In fact, some of the chemicals now used to increase octane actually have a lower specific energy (energy per mass) than gasoline itself, so in theory, higher octane fuel could actually reduce your gas mileage (since the engine must burn more fuel for a given power output). >5) better throttle response and a bit more power: This is probably a subjective feeling, since octane is not directly related to power output, etc. (see previous response). As long as the gasoline is of sufficient octane to avoid knocking in your engine, other factors of the fuel formulation and additives have much larger impact on overall drivability Fuel formulation varies dramatically from one supplier to another and even from season to season from a single supplier. Fuel formulation is also affected by things like refinery pollutant emissions quotas, environmental regulations (e.g., oxygenated fuels), and crude oil sources. >6) Engine mods: One of the engine operating parameters that affects the tendency to knock is ignition timing. Some performance chips remap the ignition timing curves and induce sufficient advance to cause knocking with an octane that would be adequate for the OEM engine system. In this case, the octane requirements of your engine are changed and you should use a higher octane fuel to meet the new octane requirements. Even so, using a higher octane than actually necessary is superfluous. >7) Tuning of todays engines from the factory is made to work well on Your factory owner's manual lists your particular engine's octane requirements. Using a higher octane than that recommended will only waste your money. Conversely, using a lower octane than required is very risky and can severely reduce your engine's life. Knocking (or pinging) caused by too low octane will cause immediate and severe engine damage. If you really want to learn more about gasoline and octane and emissions and internal combustion engines, refer to the following web site: Dave R. (M-block devotee) 1980 F250 4x4 351M ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:50:35 From: yhtlines Subject: 351w for sale A fellow at work rrm9 has a 351w for sale, contact him if interested, Located 200 miles north and west of LA! "The motor was from a 1980 van. I bought it from the wrecking yard for a F-150 that I had. The van had been hit in the right side by the sliding door moving it in about a foot. The van had about 60 to 70k miles on it. I did the rebuild on it in 1989 30 over with TRW forged pistons, molly rings,melling oil pump, edelbrock rv cam and 4bbl performer intake manifold. The heads got a valve job just to make everything even. I pu about 30k miles on it till the referee up here said I had to computerize it, go figure stock the motor was not computerized. When I put in I lived in Orange County and it passed smog. I took it out in 1992 and it has been in storage since. It does not have a distributor and it needs valve covers." I think he's asking $650. Dave Lampert ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Sep 97 15:28:40 -0700 From: BILL_CHANDLER Subject: RE: Strange noise Item Subject: cc:Mail Text >Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:17:51 -0500 >From: Steven McCullough >Subject: Strange noise > >Ok, here's a question for all you F150 owners: > >I have a 1990 F150 302 with the E4OD (I think - it has the electronic >switch to disengage OD) Mine's a '88 with 5speed manual. > >About 3-4 years ago (yes years), I took off in it and noticed a >strange sorta vibration noise coming from either under the hood or >the transmission (its sound a >little like a noisy 60 Hz transformer) I get a similar noise, but it come from the Air conditioning compressor. When the AC is engaged it makes a similar "high pitched".... 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 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.
|