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 ....

---

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.