Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:49:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest Digest V97 #47
X-Loop: fordtrucks80up-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/47
X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
To: fordtrucks80up-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks80up-digest DigestVolume 97 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:

RE: F-250 Rough Ride ["DAVID MUMMERY"
RE: headers ["DAVID MUMMERY"
RE: underpowered 84 Bronco II ["DAVID MUMMERY"
RE:F-250 Rough Ride [jlester naxs.com (Jason Lester) ]
Bronco II [Stibbard ]
R12 Conversion [BARRY PRICE
RE: R12 Conversion ["Beaman, James"
RE: R12 Conversion [pharrell bae.uga.edu (Graphics & Re]
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob) ]
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob) ]
Re: 2.3L Stock Cam [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob) ]
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems ["Chad Z. Hower" ]
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems [Gary Manning
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems ["Chad Z. Hower" ]
ADMIN: For those who think they've b ["Payne, Kenneth"
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems [Gary Manning
Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems [Kenneth Overton ]
Performance mods for 351M/400? [Dave Resch ]
F250 Rough Ride & Crew Cab [Dave Resch ]

Administrivia:

____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________________


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

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 97 22:34:31 UT
From: "DAVID MUMMERY"
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: RE: F-250 Rough Ride
Message-Id:

Larry, you can get a F250 crew cab in 1997. They are not just F350's. The
difference is in the length of the bed. The one tons have a 8' bed. The 3/4
ton's have a 6 1/2 foot bed.

----------
From: Larry Smeins
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 10:03 AM
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Cc: 'wjeska nt.com'
Subject: RE:F-250 Rough Ride


> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:00:00 -0400
> From: "Bill Jeska"
> To: "'fordtrucks80up lofcom.com'"
> Subject: F250 Rough Ride
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Has anyone experienced a rough, bumpy ride with a 1997 F250 Crewcab
> (4x4, Powerstroke, Camper/Towing Package) between 55 and 70mph on the
> highway ? Once this condition starts, it seems if the truck continues
>
> in a harmonic bounce for a distance and if another bump in the road is
>
> encounter before the truck smoothes out, the harmonic bouncing becomes
>
> worse and makes for an jarring ride for passengers in the back seat
> and an uncomfortable ride for the passengers in the front seat. The
> truck had 2 passengers in front and 1 in back with about 200lbs of
> cargo. The truck was factory ordered and received on July 2nd.
>
> I suspect the problem to be caused by poor shocks absorbers used with
> stiff rear springs. I have also been told to install "Velvet Ride"
> shackles on the rear springs in addition to replacing the shocks which
>
> would fix the problem and smooth out the ride.
>
>
> Also, I have seen some Newsgroups posting about problems with F250s
> with Powerstroke diesels causing front spring sagging. Does anyone
> have information about this problem ?
>
>
> Any suggestions and recommendations ?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill.Jeska
>
Bill,
I think you have a F250 Supercab, crewcabs have four doors and only come
in F-350s. I'm not being picky, my answer is different for the two
trucks. I have a 95 250 Powerstroke Supercab 4x4 and am basing the
answer on my experience. In general the F-250 has a very good ride for
a truck of its size and load rating. If you experienced this problem on
an Interstate the problem may be a characteristic of wheel base length
and ripple frequency in the road. The early Interstates that were made
of concrete had sections of concrete that became distorted with a
periodicity based on section size. The distortion was caused by the
heavy over the road trucks. Even after overcoating these roads with
asphalt the periodicity comes back with time. The wheelbase on
Super/Extended cab pickups is such that they will go into a bucking mode
when driven in the 50 to 70 MPH range on these roads. It happens on
Dodges and Chevs as well as Fords. I first heard about the problem in a
test report on a Dodge and experienced it after buying my Ford. I've
travelled across the country and find sections of road with this ripple
effect all over.

If your problem doesn't fit the above you may need shocks but shocks
usually produce a less severe motion than you've described. If you have
a 350 you can expect a much harsher ride from the solid axle front and
heavier rear springs. They do have a reputation for a rough ride.

Larry
If you don't care where you are, you ain't lost.


____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 97 22:10:13 UT
From: "DAVID MUMMERY"
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: RE: headers
Message-Id:

The BBK headers are of better quality than the headman. I ran them on my 86
mustang w/302 for years. I did not have any problems with them as in the way
of warping. The Industrial coating(dull chrome) did blue a bit. They do not
use that finish anymore.
The price that I quoted was a adddvertised sale. The regular price is about
199.99 to 209.99.
They were the shortie header that started the high performance exhaust swaps
with the 5.0 gang.
Their design is around making hoursepower.
Check them out.

----------
From: meadjr minotafb.ndak.net
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 1997 9:29 PM
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: headers

Just a sugestion on the headers. I have the BBK shorties. They cost 179.99
from Brothers racincg. You can find the phone numbers in Super Ford mag. or
MM&FF mag. I have not put them on yet. I do not have the free time. I will let

you know how it goes and how they work.

I have never herd of BBK headers. Are they any good as far as flange warpage
and gasket life? what is there life span? I am looking for headers that dont
require a lot of playing with once there installed. Just an ocascional check
to see if they are comming loose. I would rather pay extra for quality than
the problems of cheep headers. I had headman on my 69 Mach 1302 and 70SS 396
C evy and they were the poor quality ones that always needed gaskets and
tightning.

JJ


____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 01:39:26 UT
From: "DAVID MUMMERY"
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: RE: underpowered 84 Bronco II
Message-Id:

Just a thought. If you have an electronic 4x4 switch, chaek to see if you are
in 4 wheel drive. This happened before and it would explain the loss of power.
Good luck.

----------
From: Stibbard
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 4:10 PM
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: underpowered 84 Bronco II

Howdy Folks,

I have a 1984 Bronco II with a 2.8 carburated V6, and it has to be the
most underpowered engine I have ever encountered. I have seen other Bronco
II's spinning their tires on dry pavement while I would be surprised if
mine spun on ice! I need to get some extra zip out of it bad! I plan on
throwing in a K&N filter and upgrade the exhaust. I think it would also
help to change the rear axle ratio to a little shorter gearing! I have to
shift the 3spd auto manually in order to beat a loaded 16 wheeler off the
line, but then I'm still lucky to break 50-55 mph empty, (depending on the
wind). I find the current ratio set-up is great when it comes to
off-roading and the low range works great for climbing but around the city
and on the highway it sucks! If your Bronco II is the same way and you've
done some mods to it, let me know or if anyone has some suggestions, let me
know!

Much obliged
Darre
e-mail




____________________________________________________________________
Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 22:54:43 -0400
From: jlester naxs.com (Jason Lester)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: RE:F-250 Rough Ride
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Actually, crewcabs do come in F-250's too, check out Ford's website. I
also have an F-250 Supercab, but haven't experienced the harmonic
vibrations that the other guy mentioned. Mine has the HD front and rear
suspension, but I think it rides quite well for the size truck. It seems
like the crewcab would actually ride better with the longer wheelbase. We
have an '83 F-350 with the 400M that rides horrible (ever since it was new)
.. but what do you expect from a truck with a suspension that heavy?

You may have a point about the highways, I have had it happen on Tennessee
highways when pulling a trailer and it's a very strange feeling when your
whole rig starts bouncing for no apparent reason. The Virginia highways
where I live don't cause it.

Jason

>I think you have a F250 Supercab, crewcabs have four doors and only come
>in F-350s. I'm not being picky, my answer is different for the two
>trucks. I have a 95 250 Powerstroke Supercab 4x4 and am basing the
>answer on my experience. In general the F-250 has a very good ride for
>a truck of its size and load rating. If you experienced this problem on
>an Interstate the problem may be a characteristic of wheel base length

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 23:43:27 -0500
From: Stibbard
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Bronco II
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Change motors! Not necessarily a v-8. I know guys with 2.9 V-6's(fuel
injected) and they will spin the tires and in a ranger my friend has
runs 16.1 in the quarter with 100,000 on it and no upgrades. Would be a
simple exchange! My experience is that when Ford changed the carberated
motors to fuel injection...made the motor twice as good! Well good luck!


Howdy y'all,

To anyone out there who knows, If I were to swap my carburated 2.8 V6 for
a 2.9 injected V6 in my 84 Bronco II, would I have to do any squeezing to
get it in? I was told the 2.9 V6 is quite a bit bulkier than the 2.8 even
though there is not much difference in displacement! But it sounds like a
great idea.
I was also told the standard 3spd auto is pretty easy to convert to a 5spd
manual, because they use the same housings but different hardware. Is this
true? I always thought that if you wanted to convert an auto to a standard,
you must replace the entire tranny with a manual one! Who is right? Is it
possible to just convert one like that?

Darren
e-mail

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 07:34:17 -0400
From: BARRY PRICE
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: R12 Conversion
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

Has anyone done the R12 conversion to the new R134a yet on their
AC? I noticed JC Whitney has a conversion kit thats pretty cheap. I am
about to replace the compressor in my 1980 F150 Extended Cab and
was going to do the conversion then. Just looking for some info and
pointers on how to do it without spending a fortune.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:27:49 -0500
From: "Beaman, James"
To: "'fordtrucks80up lofcom.com'"
Subject: RE: R12 Conversion
Message-id:

Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

>BARRY PRICE[SMTP:BARRYPRICE PROCESS-CONTROL.COM] wrote:
>
>Has anyone done the R12 conversion to the new R134a yet on their
>AC? I noticed JC Whitney has a conversion kit thats pretty cheap. I am
>about to replace the compressor in my 1980 F150 Extended Cab and
>was going to do the conversion then. Just looking for some info and
>pointers on how to do it without spending a fortune.

The current issue of Trailer Life magazine (with the chevy pickup
pulling a 5th wheel on the cover) has an article on this conversion.
Most book store newstands will have a copy.

James Beaman
james.beaman lmco.com
Houston, Texas
>

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 10:50:38 EDT
From: pharrell bae.uga.edu (Graphics & Research Fabrication)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: RE: R12 Conversion
Message-Id:

I've converted two of my three vehicles. No problems. Sam's Club sells a
conversion kit that includes the charging hose, new fittings, and a 10 oz.
pressurized can that contains a new oil charge, seal conditioner, and also
some R134A refrigerant for UNDER $20.00! The oil is completely compatible
with all levels of R12 and the original mineral oil based compressor lube.
That is the important part. There are several conversion oils but if they
aren't compatible you will have to flush your entire system and suction all
the oil that is left in your compressor, and also change your
accumulator/dryer which costs around $80.00. Of course with a new compressor
installation you should change the accumulator (and orfice tube) anyway. I
would definitely recommend also putting a filter on the output side of the
compressor in a new install. This is for catching the metal particles that
get into your system when a compressor blows, and will keep you from having
to change accumulators and orfice tubes when it does. Good luck, anybody can
do it. The hardest part on some vehicles is getting to the compressor to
change it. But it's worth saving the $1000 or so that mechanics charge.

Pat
pharrell bae.uga.edu

--- Begin Included Message ---

Has anyone done the R12 conversion to the new R134a yet on their
AC? I noticed JC Whitney has a conversion kit thats pretty cheap. I am
about to replace the compressor in my 1980 F150 Extended Cab and
was going to do the conversion then. Just looking for some info and
pointers on how to do it without spending a fortune.

--- End Included Message ---

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:59:07 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-ID:

On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 08:23:06 -0700 Rick Horwitz
writes:
>Whats a tremec??


A tremec 3550. Heavy duty transmission.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:59:07 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-ID:

On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:53:59 -0400 "Chad Z. Hower" writes:
>At 09:45 AM 7/23/97 EDT, you wrote:

>>You can thank Ford on putting Mazda tranies in their trucks and cars.
>>I wonder who was the bright one who thought up that one.....
>
>Great! I've got a 97 4.0 5 Speed. Should I expect the same
>problems?


My problems started at around 45,000 miles. And I think it was with 2nd
gear.


.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------ fox mail.icso.com
/ / \(..)/ ----- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Shop)
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
//// / // : : ---
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[95 Ranger XLT 2.3L]=[silent.bob juno.com]===
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:59:07 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 2.3L Stock Cam
Message-ID:

On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:10:47 -0400 Chris Kelly
writes:

>Hey bob. How much difference is in the svo cam? I would like to put a
>cam in mine put haven't been able to find one! Everyone I talk to says
>
>that they do not know if the computer will accept it or not! I could
>try
>one but no gaurantees! Thanks in advance. How much is the new cam?


I havent put it in yet... ...hell, i havent even got it yet. I orderd it
from Tommie Vaughn Ford last Tuesday for $115 and should be in about a
week. The SVO catalog list it for $146. So I got a good deal.

Duration Valve Lift

int. exh. int. exh.

272 280 .420" .420"

:)


Just go to your local Ford Dealer and ask for an SVO catalog from the
parts desk.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------ fox mail.icso.com
/ / \(..)/ ----- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Shop)
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
//// / // : : ---
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[95 Ranger XLT 2.3L]=[silent.bob juno.com]===
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:10:37 -0400
From: "Chad Z. Hower"
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:59 AM 7/24/97 EDT, you wrote:
>>Great! I've got a 97 4.0 5 Speed. Should I expect the same
>>problems?
>
>My problems started at around 45,000 miles. And I think it was with 2nd
>gear.

I guess my question is, does everyone see these problems, or just you two?

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary Manning
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Explorers are well known for tranny trouble, and I believe the same
components are used in Rangers. I had personal experience with my
Explorer, but I have not talked with any Ranger owners. I traded it in on
an F150 to avoid any more problems and get more cargo/towing capability.

Gary

On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Chad Z. Hower wrote:

> At 10:59 AM 7/24/97 EDT, you wrote:
> >>Great! I've got a 97 4.0 5 Speed. Should I expect the same
> >>problems?

> I guess my question is, does everyone see these problems, or just you two?

Gary Manningx84056gmanning qualcomm.com
Net Ops Centerx11243Qualcomm, Inc. San Diego, CA

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:48:05 -0400
From: "Chad Z. Hower"
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 08:33 AM 7/24/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Explorers are well known for tranny trouble, and I believe the same
>components are used in Rangers. I had personal experience with my
>Explorer, but I have not talked with any Ranger owners. I traded it in on
>an F150 to avoid any more problems and get more cargo/towing capability.

I don't suppose they've fixed this for 97? .

I don't do any towing, but I plan to do some occasional in the future.
Matter of fact, I don't even haul anything right now. I also do mostly
highway driving, but o get in the mountains a lot.

I also have the cargo optoin, but I think that is only the suspension,
correct?

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:41:22 -0400
From: "Payne, Kenneth"
To: "'fordtrucks80up lofcom.com'"
Subject: ADMIN: For those who think they've been unsubscribed
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain

This email doesn't apply to 95% of the list members but
unfortunately all will have to read it to find out if its
directed to them.

Three days ago I sent a email to the lists with the subject
"ADMIN NEWS: Please read". I waited for digests to go out to
both lists so I would be assured that everyone had a chance to
read it. Many didn't. I stated that I was cleaning out duplicated
entries from our subscriber lists so I could get an accurate count
of subscribers as we approach the 1000 member mark. I also stated
that if your name was duplicated you would receive an unsubscribe
message but you were not being unsubscribed - this is an informative
message from the server to let you know the duplicated entry is being
removed.

Several people emailed me asking "why am I being unsubscribed?"
Please read all ADMIN messages in the future to prevent such
misunderstandings.

A couple of users sent a message stating they were sending subscribe
messages just to double check that they were still subscribed. The
server tells you "already on the subscriber list" when you attempt
to subscribe if you already are. This is a very easy and appropriate
way to verify your subscription - thank you to those who did this.
Naturally, if you receive this email you're still subscribed.

Since I already spend over 1-2 hours each evening administering the
lists (not including time to participate as a member):

I'm doing an extensive update of the FAQ. Everyone will receive a
copy of this new FAQ when it's complete. Except a much larger and
complete FAQ. From that point on, questions covered in the FAQ or
via ADMIN messages be ignored or you'll just receive a reply that
states "read the FAQ." This does not apply to questions which ask
for clarification or more details. I'm doing this so I can go back
to participating in the list as a hobby rather than just administering
it. Currently 90% of the administrative work I do behind the scenes
is because many do not bother to read the FAQ and charter (each new
member in the past 2 1/2 months received them when they subscribed)
and ADMIN postings.

If you didn't receive digest 122 and you're on the old truck list,
then you missed the ADMIN notice. It seems that a couple of members
did not receive this digest - I got bounced emails from a couple of
sites, don't know why.

On another note, I still haven't received a reply from the potential
advertiser. I sent them email on Friday, obviously they aren't very
quick.


Ken (List "Mom")
Climbing down off the soapbox....
Send any personal replies to kpayne mindspring.com

PS. I know, my work email address is screwed, it shows me as "Kevin"


-Ken
Cole's Law: Thinly Sliced Cabbage

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary Manning
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> I don't suppose they've fixed this for 97? .
>
> I don't do any towing, but I plan to do some occasional in the future.
> Matter of fact, I don't even haul anything right now. I also do mostly
> highway driving, but o get in the mountains a lot.
>
> I also have the cargo optoin, but I think that is only the suspension,
> correct?

My Explorer was a '91. I would expect the highway vibration might have
been fixed with the '95 suspension redesign. I don't know if the trannies
are the same with the new engine choices. Maybe they redesigned them,
too. The main thing I remember was to keep the fluid changed on schedule
or sooner, and try to keep it cool. If it does not have an external
tranny cooler, think about getting one.

I am not familiar with the cargo option, but it seems reasonable to me
that it would be mainly a suspension mod.

It towed my jet skis just fine, even in the mountains. We just usually
took more camping gear and such than would fit in my 2 door Sport.

Gary

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:22:44 -0400
From: Kenneth Overton
To: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger trans. problems
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chad Z. Hower wrote:

> At 10:59 AM 7/24/97 EDT, you wrote:
> >> Great! I've got a 97 4.0 5 Speed. Should I expect the same
> >>problems?
> >
> >My problems started at around 45,000 miles. And I think it was with
> 2nd
> >gear.
>
> I guess my question is, does everyone see these problems, or
> just you two?
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

I have a 94 with a 3.0 and a 5 speed, and I personally have not had
any problems, except for the clutch. No major problems, I just don't
particularly care for it. It seems to overheat way too fast and when the
vehicle/clutch is cold (sitting overnight), I get some jumping the first
couple of starts. Does everyone experience this, or just me? I've
actually had this problem on two different trucks, the other being on an
86 B2000.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 97 10:17:00 PDT
From: Dave Resch
To: "'Ford Truck List'"
Subject: Performance mods for 351M/400?
Message-Id:

Does anyone out there have experience w/ performance mods for the
351M/400 V8 in an early '80s vintage truck or Bronco? I'm looking for
both power (i.e., torque) and mileage (the Holy Grail).

Here's the story so far: 1980 F250 4x4, 351M w/ 160K miles, 0.030 over
stock pistons, stock cam advanced 2 degrees, stock Motorcraft 2-barrel,
stock intake and exhaust manifolds, 17" factory air cleaner (from a 351
HO) w/ K&N element, Accel 8mm steel spiral core wires, stock-type
Autolite plugs (gapped out to 0.060"), Mallory ProMaster coil, stock
Motorcraft Duraspark II ignition module, stock distributor w/ Mallory cap
& rotor. On the back side: cat-back custom 2.25" single exhaust w/
Dynomax Super Turbo muffler. Running gear: NP435 manual tranny, axle
ratio 3.50 or so (3.55?).

Cruising on the highway at 80-85, the tach barely gets into 32-3300 rpm.
Romping on it with the right foot, I never shift higher than 3500 rpm.
Unladen, I can blow off Expeditions and the occasional smart ass in an
Accord. (Unladen means me and about 400 lbs of tools and equipment, and
"accessories" -- KC lights, rack, tool box, winch mount, etc.)

So far, the biggest single performance improvement was contributed by the
Accel wires (felt like another 10hp!). The next best improvement was the
2-degree advance on the cam (corresponded w/ a new timing set), which is
good for low-end where I like it. The exhaust system was installed
originally w/ no muffler, which ran great, though idle was a bit noisy
and deceleration was downright obnoxious (even so, the cruise roar never
overpowered the roar of the "mud" treads!). I've looked under her, and
the worst restriction in the system is the 1.5-inch(!) pipe into the cat.
Exhaust guys tell me that for low-end torque, the moderate single pipe
is better than bigger cat-back duals.

The Mallory coil (combined w/ the metal core wires) and bumping up the
plug gap was also good for a little more hill-climbing passing power.
The K&N filter element is nice, but it seems like I have to clean it
every 25-30K miles or so (a tad disappointing, given their advertising
rhetoric). More than improving power, the K&N seems to contribute to
less frequent filter element changes. (That basically tells me that the
air cleaner is not a breathing restriction for my engine.) I was going
through paper filters every 5-6K miles.

When the carb is clean and everything's adjusted to spec, I can get 12.5
to 13 mpg on mostly flat and level highway at 4500 to 5500 MSL altitude,
towing 4K lbs or not. With her apetite for 91 octane (dirty heads?), a
few more mpg would be nice, too.

There are two specific mods I'm considering right now: Tri-Y headers and
a 4bbl carb/performance intake. If I go w/ the headers, I will find a
(legal as possible) way to improve the breathing around the cat.

A couple of outfits make Tri-Y headers for the M-block in '77-'79 trucks
and Broncs, but I haven't found any listed for the '80-'82 application.
Does anybody know what mods would be necessary to make the '77-'79
headers fit in an '80s F250 4x4? Is it even possible? I'm really not
keen to spend the $300 or so for some parts that can't possibly work.
Nor am I keen to spend even more for a custom fab job or to mercilessly
hack on Ol' Betsy.

I'm also considering the Edelbrock Performer intake and 4bbl carb, though
technically, I don't think the carb would be emission-legal. I'm in
Colorado, where emissions are tested, but they're not as strict as CA.
On my vintage (1981 and older), they just check the tailpipe, no
treadmill. I know they visually check for the apparatus (like smog
pumps, cats, etc.), but I might be able to slip the carb through;-).....


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.