lofcom.com"> lofcom.com"> fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #18 X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest<img src="http://images.ford-trucks.com/clipart/at.gif" border=0 width=9 height=10 valign=bottom>lofcom.com
 

Return-Path: From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:10:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #18 X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/18 To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:

351M in a car? [John Strauss
Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) ["Harry Jennings"
Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) ["Harry Jennings"
Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) [rick adc.com (Rick Larson) ]
Re: Once again, its an issue. -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Send a buck jr -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Unsubscibing Idiots [John Strauss
John Strauss's stuid stovebolts [Stuart Varner
Unsubscibing Idiots -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Electrical Problem [Jesus Cardoso
Re: Stuid Stovebolts [cableeng vt.edu (Douglas Minnick, T]
Re: Unsubscibing Idiots -Reply [pmm2 lehigh.edu (PATRICK M MURPHY) ]
Seats [DC Beatty
split list [DC Beatty
Re: 351M in a car? [William Sabers
Re: 351M Mileage Master [William Sabers
Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) ["James A. Doty" ]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:29:36 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: Ford Trucks List Subject: 351M in a car?
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

William Sabers wrote:

> There are pro's and con's to each arguement. I used to have a
>351M in a 4200lb Mercury that could bury a stock corvette. Of course it
>was modified to be more of a 400 than a 351M, but like I stated earlier,
>what are you doing with the motor, and how much $$$$ are you willing to
>part with? (how much Bang for the Buck).
>

Well, this is interesting. Was this a factory engine? I was not aware the 351M was ever used in cars. I know the 400 was, but I thought the 351 in a car would be either a Windsor or Cleveland. Are you sure it wasn't a Cleveland? The performance you speak of are more associated with the Cleveland and hop-up parts are more plentiful and much more varied.

John

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:30:01 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings" To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain

I put a 351M/C6 (used w/ 80,000mi) into my '71 F-100 and it got an average of 17mpg. This was with alot of in town driving and a VERY heavy foot. It got better than 20mpg on the highway. After the rebuild it was even a little better!
My Dad also has a '71 w/ a 302/C4 with 88,000mi (all stock but the dual pipes) and it gets better than 21mpg on the highway.

Harry.

'71 F-100 shortbed 351SVO
'71 F-100 longbed 351M





>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Fri Apr 25 09:23:07 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id MAA21539; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:07:08 -0500 (CDT)
>Message-Id:
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16)
>To: Ford Trucks List
>From: John Strauss
>Subject: 351M Mileage Master
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-Loop: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>Precedence: list
>X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>
>> > We just put a grand into rebuilding our Modified and she is a sweet
>> > piece of machinery for us and so is the gas mileage (20mpg) so you
>> > testosterone filled Rolex carrying fuel suckers who need to have speed
>> > can just shove your accelerator through the floor burn rubber and keep
>> > going 'cause I got no use for any of you!And while you stop at the gas
>> > station 10 miles down the road we'll wave to you as we pass on by and
>> > keep TRUCKIN......
>
>If you can make a '77 Ford with a V8 of any size get 20MPG you should
>probably go into business and I'll be happy to have you work over my 302
>equipped F150 as your first client.
>
>I am glad that your 351M is working so well for you but even you would have
>to admit it is a little unusual. The gripes about the M do get watered
>down to "it's a slug" or "those things suck" or whatever, but I do think,
>yours notwithstanding, the complaints center on this engine's use of fuel
>vs. the power it produces. Heck, I've got the same complaint about my 302
>but it's got 150K on it and I'd drive it across the country tomorrow
>without a second thought. Ford V8s in general are not usually noted for
>their MPG.
>
>Could you elaborate on what mods were done to the engine and how it is
>setup now to acheive such great mileage? I know many M owners would be
>interested to learn your secret(s).
>
>
>John
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>



--------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:30:40 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings" To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain

I put a 351M/C6 (used w/ 80,000mi) into my '71 F-100 and it got an average of 17mpg. This was with alot of in town driving and a VERY heavy foot. It got better than 20mpg on the highway. After the rebuild it was even a little better!
My Dad also has a '71 w/ a 302/C4 with 88,000mi (all stock but the dual pipes) and it gets better than 21mpg on the highway.

Harry.

'71 F-100 shortbed 351SVO
'71 F-100 longbed 351M





>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Fri Apr 25 09:23:07 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id MAA21539; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:17:57 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:07:08 -0500 (CDT)
>Message-Id:
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16)
>To: Ford Trucks List
>From: John Strauss
>Subject: 351M Mileage Master
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>X-Loop: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>Precedence: list
>X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>
>> > We just put a grand into rebuilding our Modified and she is a sweet
>> > piece of machinery for us and so is the gas mileage (20mpg) so you
>> > testosterone filled Rolex carrying fuel suckers who need to have speed
>> > can just shove your accelerator through the floor burn rubber and keep
>> > going 'cause I got no use for any of you!And while you stop at the gas
>> > station 10 miles down the road we'll wave to you as we pass on by and
>> > keep TRUCKIN......
>
>If you can make a '77 Ford with a V8 of any size get 20MPG you should
>probably go into business and I'll be happy to have you work over my 302
>equipped F150 as your first client.
>
>I am glad that your 351M is working so well for you but even you would have
>to admit it is a little unusual. The gripes about the M do get watered
>down to "it's a slug" or "those things suck" or whatever, but I do think,
>yours notwithstanding, the complaints center on this engine's use of fuel
>vs. the power it produces. Heck, I've got the same complaint about my 302
>but it's got 150K on it and I'd drive it across the country tomorrow
>without a second thought. Ford V8s in general are not usually noted for
>their MPG.
>
>Could you elaborate on what mods were done to the engine and how it is
>setup now to acheive such great mileage? I know many M owners would be
>interested to learn your secret(s).
>
>
>John
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>



--------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:40:44 -0500 (CDT) From: rick adc.com (Rick Larson)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harry writes:

> My Dad also has a '71 w/ a 302/C4 with 88,000mi (all stock but the dual pipes)
> and it gets better than 21mpg on the highway.

My '71 F100 w/ a 302/C4 with 102,000 miles gets around 13 mpg. I guess I need to add dual exhaust.

rick
'66 Mustang
'71 F100 *Custom* daily driver

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:43:53 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Once again, its an issue. -Reply Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>>> "James A. Doty" 04/25/97 10:24am >>>
>Hi Ken:

>I get a lot of useful information from this list and wouldn't
>mind paying a small sum to keep it alive.

>If we split the list how much per person are you looking at?

My costs are:

$140 for the first year per list (half that amount if we don't
have digest - but I think digest format is a must)

So total costs for two lists are:

$280

280 / 500 = .56 cents per user per year average

That doesn't take into account the web space - $25. The web space has been taken care of thanks to the generousity of a list member. I'm going to have to to keep the current web site to as a front door into the new space (we'll have the new in a couple of weeks) because the old site is registered with over 120 search engines (I've been busy registering us!). I think keeping the current web site through year end would be wise. Total costs to get web space with my personal account is $7 per month.

7 x 12 = 84

So total costs to maintain the list and site come to:
$84 + $140 = 224 one list
$84 + $280 = 364 two lists

This doesn't take into account that the first 3 months are already paid for. I tried to keep the math as simple as possible.

One list: ~$0.45 per user per year average Two lists: ~$0.73 per user per year average

Now realistically we know that for one reason or another _most_ users will not send anything so send what you believe is fair.
Judge what you get out of the list and and what you can afford.
I will post a general accounting of all money received - however, I will not post who gave how much as I don't think this would be appropriate. I'll open up a savings account (checking fees would eat into the principle) and pay the quarterly fees out of it.
If the savings account gets low, I'll make another plea for help.
I think a quarterly accounting ought to be sent to the list showing all expenses and all donations.

Most of you don't know me - therefore everything needs to be in the open. I realize that it takes some trust to send a check to a total stranger. My only defense is this: judge my based on my track record and I think you'll see that I have the list's best interest in mind.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:48:46 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Send a buck jr -Reply
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>As for the unsubscribe BS, 5 by 8:00 pst, A NEW RECORD!

Last night a verification scheme was put into place. The number of people who get subscribed unknowningly against their will should plunge over the next few days and stop completely after that. This will take care of most of the problems. Most unsubscribe messages come from this. Alot of unsubscribes are sent to the list, we have about 3 unsubscribes for every 5 subscribes. Half are sent to the wrong address but the list server is catching 95% of them. Its just when someone doesn't spell "unsubscribe" or "remove" correctly that it slips through.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:02:56 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Unsubscibing Idiots
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ken,
Any thoughts on why this list has so many people trying to unsubscribe via the list itself? I am on another list right now and have been on several in the past and I have not seen even 1/10th the traffic of this sort that we "enjoy" here.

John

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:01:07 -0700
From: Stuart Varner To: Fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: John Strauss's stuid stovebolts Message-id: Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

John, I happen to be very right there with you when it comes to Chevy people thinking they are "better" than everyone else. I live in an area that is very pro GM. Having had family who have worked for Ford and one slightly distant family member who owned a small Ford Dealership, evryone in my family has always owned FORD. The few who were brave enough to listen to the ridicule ...and..... were stupid enough to buy Chevy's or even worse a Foreign job didn't matter and they were trying to prove a point to family. Reunions look like a Ford car lot. Anyway, to make my point. Ford people seem more intrinsically motivated than Chevy folks.

To build a Chevy street rod or a Ford street rod with Chevy parts is a NO BRAINER!!

To build a street rod with Ford mechanicals and running gear, well I have always seen them as people who have a sincere love and knowledge of the hobby.....and as evidenced by this email list, are willing to share valuable info to us all...FOR FREE! Building that Street rod/truck/ muscle car.....out of Ford parts......usually IT WILL BE A WORK OF ART!
NO Biases here though.

Chevy people don't want to know how to make a FORD RUN! Frankly, I don't think they've got the brains to learn, but..........Car and truck people have always had to learn to fight and hate someone....Thank you NASCAR.......but, when I was a kid I always wanted a 442 with a 455, 4 speed.....that was until I saw my First real live Thunderbolt Fairlane with the baddest engine ever to spit fire, the 427. Oh I wish I was a millionaire.............

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:28:39 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Unsubscibing Idiots -Reply
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>>> John Strauss 04/25/97 01:02pm >>>
>Ken,
> Any thoughts on why this list has so many people trying to
>unsubscribe via the list itself? I am on another list right now and have
>been on several in the past and I have not seen even 1/10th the traffic of
>this sort that we "enjoy" here.
>
>John

I think Charlie's subscribe form on LOF and the one on our web site made it _too_ easy to subscribe. Since unsubscribing is basically the same as subscribing we take away the learning curve by supplying a form. We do have unsubscribe on the form but by the time some users get around to unsubscribe they've either lost or forgotten about the web site. Also, the form makes it really easy to use it to target someone for email bombing.

Charlie took the steps to stop email bombing last night. Now users will now receive a email asking for verification before they are subscribed.
Unless someone can manage to intercept someone else's email there is no way to email bomb anyone now with the list server.

In addition, my web form no longer subscribes anyone. It now only unsubscribes. Now it sends a message which contains a subscribe and unsubscribe information.

One last item and then I'll shut up. I think the very nature of what it is we're discussing attracts a lot of non-computer literate users. This is not to say that they're stupid - far from it. Its just that some of them are completely new to computers and have no clue as to whats going on. Alot of them can work technilogical wonders with fuel injection and pistons but can barely type. I've had several such users email me and ask for help or advice before they joined the list. I have no problem with this, thats what I'm here for.

Ken

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:11:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Jesus Cardoso To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Electrical Problem
Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hello Everyone,

First of all I wanted to thank everyone for answering my question on the door locks.

I need some more HELP!!!!!
I am currently experiencing a problem with my ol' 63. Once again it has a 292 with a three speed manual tranny. The problem I am experiencing is kind of strange.....it has a hard time starting, by this I mean the starter seems to have a hard time turning. I replaced the starter relay, but it did not help. It only does this some of the time, but sometimes it completely drains the battey when I am trying to start it. When it does not drain the battery, I have about a 2 V drop at the battery when the starter is turning, which if I remember correctly Chilton says it should only be .5 V. When it does drain the battery I give a "jump" with another car and it starts right up. I know it seems kind of confusing, but believe me it is very frustrating to not know when it plans not to start. Thanks in advance for your help.

p.s. The charging system is working fine.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Jesus Cardoso, a.k.a. Chuy
Graduate Research Assistant (Power System Automation Lab)
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University
e-mail: cardoso tamu.edu
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ee.tamu.edu/~cardoso

:::::::::::::::"Todos en el mundo sonreimos en la misma lengua.":::::::::::::::

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:39:53 -0500
From: cableeng vt.edu (Douglas Minnick, Television Engr. WD4BSB) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Stuid Stovebolts
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>In my case the only big grudge (I have lots of small ones) I have
>>against Ch*vys is the attitude the "enthusiasts" have about any
>>Ford stuff. Face it, the 350 is not a bad piece of hardware (also
>>makes a great boat anchor) but the owners are such bigoted pain in
>>the *sses that I could never own one myself. Besides, I happen to
>>like Ford hardware (alot) and styling so why go elsewhere?
>>
>And I thought I was the only one. I think the Chevy guys are very
>uninventive. Hell, anybody can slap a set of headers on a 350 and go fast.
> But look at your hidden costs. Those things lose valve guides like there
>is no tomorrow. The Chevy small block is the Holley carburetor of engines
>- great out of the box, makes the most power, but replace them often and if
>you have to rebuild it's all over. The quintessential throwaway motor.
>You are right - those folks think their crap is so hot but most wouldn't
>have the first screaming idea how to make a Ford go fast.
>
>>What irks me the most is when someone takes a classic 40 year old
>>piece of Ford iron and drops a GM engine in it. Barf.
>>
>Yep, me too. When I go to a car show I pretty much only look at the Fords
>and the first thing I check is the engine. If I see Chevy I'm on to the
>next candidate - I don't care what the rest of it looks like. I know some
>of these cars have a lot of love thrown into them and maybe I should
>appreciate that but, I'm sorry, I'm just not interested.
>
>Mind you, my disdain pretty much only extends to Chevrolet (there, I
>spelled the whole thing and the server didn't go down). I like the old
>Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs and Buicks a lot. 442, GTO, GSX - those were cool
>cars. But when GM started mixing the bloodlines by putting Chevy engines
>in everything, the party was over. I worked at an Olds dealership in those
>days and the mechanics were PISSED over that because they had never seen
>the volume of engine failures under warranty that they had to deal with
>now. The Olds 307 was specifically built by Olds to cut down on warranty
>engine repairs from the Chevy 305s they had been using. I don't have first
>hand knowledge of this because we didn't sell 'em but the Pontiac 301 may
>have come about for the same reason. Buick just turbo'd the 231 V6 and
>picked up the Pontiac 301 as their response. The bottom line is the BOP
>guys tried to get the Chevies OUT of their cars before GM cut their engine
>development budgets so far that they couldn't do it anymore. THATS what
>killed GM for me - now they are pretty much all glorified Chevies (the Olds
>Aurora is a nice exception) and, I hate to say never, but there will NEVER
>be a Chevy in my garage while I've still got all my faculties.
>
>Well, I guess I better cut this little diatribe off now...
>
>John
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com


"Can't we all just try to get along", Rodney King.

Douglas Minnick, WD4BSB
Television Engineer
Va Tech University
204 Saunders Hall
Blacksburg, Va.
24061-0307
cableeng vt.edu

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:06:11 EDT
From: pmm2 lehigh.edu (PATRICK M MURPHY) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Unsubscibing Idiots -Reply Message-Id:

Hi fellow Ford fanatics,

I am somewhat of a new Ford person, I have been amazed at the volume of mail that I now recieve. I have an 89 F-250 4x4 that has a 302 in it. The truck has 162,000 miles on it and the engine still runs fine with the exception of loss of power in 4th and 5th gear up inclines. I had a warped intake manifold that I took off and had shaved. This took care of several problems. But the loss of power has got me. I am going to do a compression test, a mechanic friend suggested it could be blow by that would cause pressure to build up in the crank case. I think the problem is timing and have been adjusting it a little at a time with success. Any words of wisdom would be appreciated.
If my problem is compression ( the motor is getting long in tooth ) can I
put a 351 in the truck. Also what is the 351M? Will it bolt up to my 5 speed
tranny (Mazda HD). Thanks in advance.



Pat Murphy

Mechanic trapped in a
Telcom Techs body




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

Date: 25 Apr 97 15:42:03 EDT
From: DC Beatty To: "'FORD TRUCKS'" Subject: Seats
Message-ID:

>>>>Wish I could help you with the question, I'm in the same boat. I've
>heard that any 67-79 Ford truck seats are compatible - don't know for
>sure. I'm looking into getting some electric seats out of a full size
>70's car. I'll let everyone know if they'll work without much work.



I have a 1967 F-100 and I am pretty sure the seat is out of a '78. It came with the truck, so I don't know how the install went. Looks nice, though.

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

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

Date: 25 Apr 97 15:42:05 EDT
From: DC Beatty To: "'FORD TRUCKS'" Subject: split list
Message-ID:

I'm new to the list. I definitely get more info than I can give. If a split list would be beneficial for most of those concerned, including lessening the workload of the list mom, I say go for it. That way folks could focus more on their particular model year category (67-72 in my case), and still browse the other list and make beneficial suggestions there too (that is, if I am understanding the digest concept correctly).

As for the cost, access to the list is a lot cheaper for me right now than getting the factory 1967 repair manual from Obsolete Ford. Ay Caramba!!! They are proud of that thing!!! Yeah, I could come up with a couple of bucks.

By the way, I did send a message twice on accident (duh...duh). Apologies. Won't happen again.

Thanks Ken,

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:47:30 -0500 (CDT) From: William Sabers To: Ford Trucks List Subject: Re: 351M in a car?
Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

351M is a large block....
who knows, engines can be swapped! and my memory is fading with age...
Wsabers
69 Mach I
78 Bronco


On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, John Strauss wrote:

> William Sabers wrote:
>
> > There are pro's and con's to each arguement. I used to have a
> >351M in a 4200lb Mercury that could bury a stock corvette. Of course it
> >was modified to be more of a 400 than a 351M, but like I stated earlier,
> >what are you doing with the motor, and how much $$$$ are you willing to
> >part with? (how much Bang for the Buck).
> >
>
> Well, this is interesting. Was this a factory engine? I was not aware the
> 351M was ever used in cars. I know the 400 was, but I thought the 351 in a
> car would be either a Windsor or Cleveland. Are you sure it wasn't a
> Cleveland? The performance you speak of are more associated with the
> Cleveland and hop-up parts are more plentiful and much more varied.
>
> John
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:00:32 -0500 (CDT) From: William Sabers To: Ford Trucks List Subject: Re: 351M Mileage Master
Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

My stock 400M 2bbl in my 78 Bronco will get 15-16mpg (mostly intown) consistently..... not a big deal. Make sure you have good plugs (++on the gap), good spark, compression, and a carb kit.
Also make sure that you run a good detergent oil. Conoco, Quaker, Havoline have all done good for me. (keeps the build-up down)... And service, service, service.
My parents had a 71 Buick with a 455ci motor that got between 16-19 mpg its entire life (~180,000) before they sold it. So once again I say, service , service, service. (Can you tell I grew up in a service station?) My saying goes like,
"All fool and no tool is a bad combo"-no matter what flavor the motor.

Wsabers
69 Mach I
78 Bronco



On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, John Strauss wrote:

> > > We just put a grand into rebuilding our Modified and she is a sweet
> > > piece of machinery for us and so is the gas mileage (20mpg) so you
> > > testosterone filled Rolex carrying fuel suckers who need to have speed
> > > can just shove your accelerator through the floor burn rubber and keep
> > > going 'cause I got no use for any of you!And while you stop at the gas
> > > station 10 miles down the road we'll wave to you as we pass on by and
> > > keep TRUCKIN......
>
> If you can make a '77 Ford with a V8 of any size get 20MPG you should
> probably go into business and I'll be happy to have you work over my 302
> equipped F150 as your first client.
>
> I am glad that your 351M is working so well for you but even you would have
> to admit it is a little unusual. The gripes about the M do get watered
> down to "it's a slug" or "those things suck" or whatever, but I do think,
> yours notwithstanding, the complaints center on this engine's use of fuel
> vs. the power it produces. Heck, I've got the same complaint about my 302
> but it's got 150K on it and I'd drive it across the country tomorrow
> without a second thought. Ford V8s in general are not usually noted for
> their MPG.
>
> Could you elaborate on what mods were done to the engine and how it is
> setup now to acheive such great mileage? I know many M owners would be
> interested to learn your secret(s).
>
>
> John
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

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

Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:02:06 -0700
From: "James A. Doty"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M Mileage Master (20+ mpg) Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi:

I have a '75 short E-150 Custom van with a 302/C6, dual exhaust w/balance pipe that
gets 17mpg.

Too bad my '78 E150 with 351/C6 only gets 8mpg. I'm within $100 of getting tuned
exhaust headers and dualing it off. I hear a lot of talk on the list about running
straight exhaust after the cat. I'm pretty sure I'll end up with a cat at the end
of each exhaust header (just in front of the balance pipe). I don't expect the miles
per gallon to go up much, but I should see better hp.

With no mufflers how load is it going to be? When I start it up in the morning am
I likely to set off all the car alarms in my neighborhood?

I have set off car alarms in parking lots in my '75.


At 12:40 PM 4/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Harry writes:
>
>> My Dad also has a '71 w/ a 302/C4 with 88,000mi (all stock but the dual pipes)....


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.