Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #111
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/111
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:

Re: 454 in an Econoline????? ["James A. Doty" ]
Re: that 4V intake ... [William Sabers
Re: Mileage Again !?!? ["John W. Barron"
429/460 flywheel [AM14 chrysler.com ]
Re: Mileage Again !?!? [Ken Payne ]
1968 Truck info [John Strauss
460 Swap [Chris James
RE: 460 Swap [Kevin Kemmerer ]
Re: Mileage Again !?!? [BillyCIII aol.com ]
Subscribe Information [Ken Payne ]
Re: something's not right.. [sdelanty sonoma.net ]
Re: Disc brakes for rear? [Daver ]
Re: King pins, disc brakes (was Merc [Daver ]
Re: something's not right.. ["Harry Jennings"

Administrivia:

____________________________________________________________________
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-digest-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________________


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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:59:26 -0700
From: "James A. Doty"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 454 in an Econoline?????
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:01 PM 5/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Daver wrote:
>>
>> Chris North wrote:
>> >
>> > I worte:
>> > >>I could very well be wrong, but I don't think Ford put a 351M in any
E-150,
>> > >>250, or 350 Vans in 1978. Small block 302 and 351W. Large block,
what, a


>Yes.. I have a 78 e-250HD with a 460 .. a 9 mpg beast..
>But it's almost unstoppable if you can live with that.
>rlgreen
>
I checked under the hood Friday night. It's a 351W alright.

======================
James A. Doty
NT Administrator
jamesd e-z.net
E-Z Net, Inc.
209 NE 120th. Ave., Suite B
Vancouver, WA 98684
(360) 260-1122
KI7EL

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 13:06:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: William Sabers
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: that 4V intake ...
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I don't have a clue as to the worth of a intake manifold for a 3024v????
Or for anyone interested.. a 600 cfm Holley for that matter.
Or does someone have any good swap-stuff???

Wsabers
69 Mach I
78 Bronco

> >P.S. I have one in my garage... what's it worth to anyone....
> >I also have a 302 4bbl intake taht I will not use
>
> There were two others that asked about other engines that this might fit
> on ... here's the best info I remember on it ...
> If I remember that series of engines correctly, the intake from a 302 will
> also fit a 289, but the one for a 351W is bigger, except for engines built
> after 1976. (I'm not exactly certain of that on the 351, though ... )
>
> How much would you want for this intake ?
> (I have a 302 that I wouldn't mind making a 4V for my 83 F150)
>
> == Serian
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:10:32 -0400
From: "John W. Barron"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:23 AM 5/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>If anyone needs to get subscribed to the 1980+ list in addition to
>or instead of the pre-1980 list (this list) let me know. Also, let
>me know if you want the live version or digest.
>
>-Ken Payne
Ken:
I am interested in the 1980+ list, but did not know such a list existed.
I went to the referenced site, and did not see any reference to a seperate
list for the newer trucks.

Please send information.

Thanks
John W. Barron
e-mail jwbarron mindspring.com
or j.w.barron worldnet.att.net
PCS Mobile Phone: 919-272-2384
Avoyelles Parish (LA) Web Page:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~jwbarron/avoyeles.htm

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 97 15:38:20 EDT
From: AM14 chrysler.com
To: "FOMOCO Truck B/S list"
Subject: 429/460 flywheel
Message-Id:

Anyone on this list know what the FOMOCO P/N is for 429/460 flywheel
manual trans applications??? Someone told me there were at least two
(2) different P/N's!! Internal balanced (68-79) and external balanced
(mid 79 and later).. Is this a fact???? Any cheap aftermarket
suppliers for these out there. (cheap in price not quality).

WORKING TO BE THE BEST
Azie Magnusson
PROFS ID (AM14):E-Mail AM14 Chrysler.com
Tie Line (835-2578):Outside (205)464-2578

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:57:36 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 03:10 PM 5/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 11:23 AM 5/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>If anyone needs to get subscribed to the 1980+ list in addition to
>>or instead of the pre-1980 list (this list) let me know. Also, let
>>me know if you want the live version or digest.
>>
>>-Ken Payne
>Ken:
>I am interested in the 1980+ list, but did not know such a list existed.
>I went to the referenced site, and did not see any reference to a seperate
>list for the newer trucks.
>
>Please send information.
>
>Thanks
>John W. Barron

-snip-
I've sent John instructions, if anyone else needs them please email me so
I can keep them off the list (lengthy).

-Ken Payne
1967 Ford F100 Custom Cab, 390 FE V8
List maintainer, send me comments and suggestions.
Visit the Ford Truck Enthusiast List Web Page (unsubscribe
form is there): http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:06:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: 1968 Truck info
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>top row:
>F10YNC85978
>
F10 = F100
Y = 360 FE 2V V8
N = assembled at Norfolk, VA
C85978 = serial number; truck was assembled February, 1968

>middle row:
>
>WB - 131
131" wheelbase - 6.5' bed, commonly referred to as SWB (Short Wheelbase)

>Color - MJ
M=Wimbledon White, J=Rangoon Red (obviously a two-tone, don't know which is
which tho)

>Model - F100 (I guessed what this one meant)
This means the GVW is 5000 lbs.

>Body - N481
N4 means the interior trim is Red vinyl, 81 means conventional cab

>Trans - G
Auto trans - both my books say C-4 which is somehwat suprising to me

>Axle - 17
3.25:1 ratio

>bottom row:
>
>Max. GVW lbs - 05000
We already figured that from the model

>Cert. Net H.P. - 172
>RPM - 3800
172 hp 3800 RPM I guess

>D.S.O - 25
Domestic Special Order - 25=Richmond District, Regular Production unit
(truck was not special ordered)

John

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:56:06 -0700
From: Chris James
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com, fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 460 Swap
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have a 1981 F250 4x4 with 351M and 4 speed. I was planning to swap in
a 460. I know I can use the same bellhousing. I was wondering what else
I need to do.


Thanks


Chris

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 21:03:14 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
To: "'fordtrucks lofcom.com'"
Subject: RE: 460 Swap
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

start, with motor mounts and headers or manifolds.
manifolds can usually be made to work from the vans or trucks that came =
with 460. but finding any that aren't cracked ma be a problem. headers =
are better and can be got from hooker i think (and motor mounts too). =
better headers are available from a company called L&L. i just got rid =
of a set you could've used.

L&L 214-475-5202
3210 century drive=20
rowlett texas 75088

their headers are expenise, but VERY good. they took a long time to =
send me my headers, but the motor mounts ($70) took few days. they will =
sell you a whole kit to do the swap if you want. everything from oil =
pan to accessories. sometimes the perches must be slotted a bit more =
for the swap to work.

kevin


----------
From: Chris James[SMTP:cjames bossie.cow-net.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 1997 6:56 PM
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com; fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 460 Swap

I have a 1981 F250 4x4 with 351M and 4 speed. I was planning to swap in
a 460. I know I can use the same bellhousing. I was wondering what else
I need to do.=20


Thanks=20


Chris


____________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 12 May 1997 21:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: BillyCIII aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-ID:

Ken,

I really need to be on both lists. Can you send the details? I must have
missed a bunch of mail the last couple of days. We had a family tragedy...my
brother bought a ch*vy....and I thought I had taught him better!!!

Thanks,
Bill

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 21:47:43 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Subscribe Information
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:21 PM 5/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Ken,
>
>I really need to be on both lists. Can you send the details? I must have
>missed a bunch of mail the last couple of days. We had a family tragedy...my
>brother bought a ch*vy....and I thought I had taught him better!!!
>
>Thanks,
>Bill
>

You may want to print this:

To subscribe to a list, send a message with the word "subscribe" in the
subject of the message. There are 4 different subscription addresses:

fordtrucks-request lofcom.com - 1979 and older live list
fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com - 1979 and older digest list
fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com - 1980 and newer live list
fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com - 1980 and newer digest list

After sending the message, wait about 5 minutes, check your mail and you
should have a confirmation message from the listserver. YOU ARE NOT YET
SUBSCRIBED! The confirmation message will contain a line with the following:

CONFIRM 050709594329623

(NOTE: Number you receive will be different) Send a message to the SAME
address that you subscribed with (one of the 4 above) with the confirmation
line in the subject of the message. Example:

To: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
From: me mysite.com
Subject: COMFIRM 055878321298

The confirmation has to be in the subject, not the body. Do not delay
as the confirmation number expires after about 2 hours. Within 5 minutes
of receiving the confirmation you will be subscribed.

To post a message:

1980 and new group: fordtrucks80up lofcom.com
1979 and older group: fordtrucks lofcom.com

How to unsubscribe from a group:
Send a message with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject of the message.
There are 4 different unsubscribe addresses, each which corresponds to the
subscription address:

fordtrucks-request lofcom.com - 1979 and older live list
fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com - 1979 and older digest list
fordtrucks80up-request lofcom.com - 1980 and newer live list
fordtrucks80up-digest-request lofcom.com - 1980 and newer digest list

If you are having any difficulty or these instructions aren't clear (which
wouldn't be surprising since I wrote them) send me email letting me know
what group you want to be subscribe to (or unsubscribed from) and if its
live or digest - I'll handle it manually.


-Ken Payne
1967 Ford F100 Custom Cab, 390 FE V8
List maintainer, send me comments and suggestions.
Visit the Ford Truck Enthusiast List Web Page (unsubscribe
form is there): http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:08:38 -0700
From: sdelanty sonoma.net
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: something's not right..
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hey Harry and Jim and all,

I've been gone for a bit, and haven't had time to work on a PCV faq I
promised,
but I will try to have it ready this coming weekend.
I would like to jump back in again on the PCV subject tho...

>I do NOT want to argue, but if you want to hear the rest of my idea then
here it
>is. (If not PLEASE ndo not read on.)

Me too. EVERYONE has a right to his/her opinion. Just getting the facts out
in the open so each person can decide is what lists like this are about...


>We all no what a PCV does, but think about how it works.

O.K.

>
>First, what are the gases that are being vented? It is "blow by", which is hot
>(hot air going into the intake=less power) and it is exhaust gases (remember,
>most blow by occures on the power stroke).

Yes there is spent exhaust gas. But much less than You might think. A very
large percentage is still unburnt gases.

During the compression stroke, everything that gets by the rings is unburned
fuel/air mixture. This is perfectly good stuff to return to the inlet manifold.
As the piston is nearing TDC and the fire gets sparked off, the flame front
progresses downward away from the spark plug and towards the piston. The
piston is now descending down the cylinder and the flame front is following
it down the cylinder, only faster, *compressing the unburnt* fuel/air
mixture ahead of it.
This is pushing *unburnt* fuel/air mix ahead of the flame and past the
rings, until the flame actually "catches up" to the piston. By this time the
piston is quite a long way down, so the pressure is way past peak by the
time the flame front has caught the piston and "exhaust gases" are begining
to push past the rings. In just a few more degrees of crank rotation the
exhaust valve begins to open, and the pressure drops drastically.
*Only* unburnt gases get by on compression, and *mostly* unburnt gases get
by on power stroke.
Have the guy at the smog station sniff Your crankcase vent sometime. It'll
blow his machine off the scale with unburned HCO.
The "exhaust" byproducts from the crankcase are probably less than 30% of
the total crankcase emissions on a motor that still has *any* rings left in it.

>
>When does the most blow by occur? At WOT!

Yep. That's for sure.

>The PCV is hooked to engine vacuum. This produces good vacuum at low speeds
(yet
>little blow by) and no or very little vacuum at WOT (and the most blow by).

Yes, this also is true.
>
>What I am saying is the PCV works the most when it is needed the least and the
>least when it is needed the most.

But remember that under WOT even if the manifold vacuum isn't pulling gases
out fast enough, the "intake" vent on the crankcase is vented to the air
cleaner so that unburnd gases are still pulled in to the motor for a second try.
Both vents return gases to the intake one way or another...

>Not to mention the system is dumping HOT
>Exhaust gases into the intake system which DECREASES MPG and inturn INCREASES
>pollution (you use MORE gas)!

Again, most of the gases are not really "exhaust gases". It's largely unburnt.
The real problem is, as You say, they are HOT. This is definately bad.
But remember that these gases are a very small percentage of the total
intake gases unless Your motor is toasted. And it is largely good, usable
fuel/air mix although it is heated up some.

>
>My thinking is that a PCV system hooked to the exhaust would create the most
>vacuum when needed (at WOT) and less when not (at lower speeds).

Yes, this works fine for extracting gases from the crankcase. One problem is
that it just spews the goods out the tailpipe as unburned HCO, unless You
use an air pump and catalytic converter after it.

The other problem is exhaust backpressure. Unless You have an *extremely*
freeflowing exhaust, the exhaust backpressure is usually higher than the
crankcase pressure, and then exhaust gas under pressure enters Your
crankcase and blows Your seals out. )-:
You can use a venturi in the exhaust port to make the system work better,
but any significant venturi causes an exhaust restriction with bad effect on
horsepower/economy/etc. The venturi should be cast into the exhaust port to
get maximum use of exhaust velocity.
I've seen reed valve setups on "exhaust style" PCV's to help relieve the
problem of exhaust going "the wrong way", but when the reeds are closed, the
gases still have to go somewhere, and are usually vented to the air cleaner...
If You have a 2000 max rpm diesel fishing boat with open exhaust stack, You
need not worry about it.

>
>PLUS, if blow by is basicaly exhaust gases why wouldn't it be possible to
place
>as "little" in-line cat-converted to *filter* the PCV gases

Unfortunately the gases aren't nearly hot enough to combine with O2 in a
seperate cat.
They are still combustible enough that maybe You could add O2 with an air
pump, and ignite them with a spark plug and burn them before dumping them in
the exhaust pipe ahead of Your cats, but that sounds.... inconveniant.

>before reaching the
>exhaust? (Remember, it would pass through ANOTHER cat, too.)

These gases are still *very* much unburned HCO, and just dumping the gases
unburned ahead of Your cats may shorten the life of the cats unless they are
plenty hot and provided with lots of fresh air from the pump.
Dumping them after the cats is the same as spewing them to the air...

Intake manifold PCV is such a simple, effective system that it's pretty hard
to beat for automotive applications.
It really does provide significant reduction in unburned HCO to the
atmosphere for a very low cost. Only a minimal amount of "retuning" is
necessary to make it work correctly.

Happy motoring and more on PCV's later,

Steve Delanty (sdelanty sonoma.net)

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 22:08:14 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Disc brakes for rear?
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You do not have to change the master cylinder for four wheel disc brakes
the secrete is the proportioning valve. Yuo need a proportioning valve
that meets the aplication.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 22:19:29 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: King pins, disc brakes (was Mercury trucks?)
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

They do make a control valve to stop that grabing I think R&B's Obsolete
automotive.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 20:18:20 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: something's not right..
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Mon May 12 19:17:03 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id WAA28595; Mon,
12 May 1997 22:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>From: sdelanty sonoma.net
>Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:08:38 -0700
>Message-Id:
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
>Subject: Re: something's not right..
>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
>
>Hey Harry and Jim and all,
>
> I've been gone for a bit, and haven't had time to work on a PCV faq I
>promised,
>but I will try to have it ready this coming weekend.
> I would like to jump back in again on the PCV subject tho...
>
>>I do NOT want to argue, but if you want to hear the rest of my idea then
>here it
>>is. (If not PLEASE ndo not read on.)
>
>Me too. EVERYONE has a right to his/her opinion. Just getting the facts out
>in the open so each person can decide is what lists like this are about...
>
>
>>We all no what a PCV does, but think about how it works.
>
>O.K.
>
>>
>>First, what are the gases that are being vented? It is "blow by", which is hot
>>(hot air going into the intake=less power) and it is exhaust gases (remember,
>>most blow by occures on the power stroke).
>
>Yes there is spent exhaust gas. But much less than You might think. A very
>large percentage is still unburnt gases.

See, I have always heard different. If you are right then that changes alot.

>
>During the compression stroke, everything that gets by the rings is unburned
>fuel/air mixture. This is perfectly good stuff to return to the inlet manifold.
>As the piston is nearing TDC and the fire gets sparked off, the flame front
>progresses downward away from the spark plug and towards the piston. The
>piston is now descending down the cylinder and the flame front is following
>it down the cylinder, only faster, *compressing the unburnt* fuel/air
>mixture ahead of it.
>This is pushing *unburnt* fuel/air mix ahead of the flame and past the
>rings, until the flame actually "catches up" to the piston. By this time the
>piston is quite a long way down, so the pressure is way past peak by the
>time the flame front has caught the piston and "exhaust gases" are begining
>to push past the rings. In just a few more degrees of crank rotation the
>exhaust valve begins to open, and the pressure drops drastically.
>*Only* unburnt gases get by on compression, and *mostly* unburnt gases get
>by on power stroke.
>Have the guy at the smog station sniff Your crankcase vent sometime. It'll
>blow his machine off the scale with unburned HCO.
>The "exhaust" byproducts from the crankcase are probably less than 30% of
>the total crankcase emissions on a motor that still has *any* rings left in it.
>
>>
>>When does the most blow by occur? At WOT!
>
>Yep. That's for sure.
>
>>The PCV is hooked to engine vacuum. This produces good vacuum at low speeds
>(yet
>>little blow by) and no or very little vacuum at WOT (and the most blow by).
>
>Yes, this also is true.
>>
>>What I am saying is the PCV works the most when it is needed the least and the
>>least when it is needed the most.
>
>But remember that under WOT even if the manifold vacuum isn't pulling gases
>out fast enough, the "intake" vent on the crankcase is vented to the air
>cleaner so that unburnd gases are still pulled in to the motor for a second
try.
>Both vents return gases to the intake one way or another...
>
>>Not to mention the system is dumping HOT
>>Exhaust gases into the intake system which DECREASES MPG and inturn INCREASES
>>pollution (you use MORE gas)!
>
>Again, most of the gases are not really "exhaust gases". It's largely unburnt.
>The real problem is, as You say, they are HOT. This is definately bad.

Maybe I will try to think of a way to cool the PCV gases!


>But remember that these gases are a very small percentage of the total
>intake gases unless Your motor is toasted. And it is largely good, usable
>fuel/air mix although it is heated up some.
>
>>
>>My thinking is that a PCV system hooked to the exhaust would create the most
>>vacuum when needed (at WOT) and less when not (at lower speeds).
>
>Yes, this works fine for extracting gases from the crankcase. One problem is
>that it just spews the goods out the tailpipe as unburned HCO, unless You
>use an air pump and catalytic converter after it.
>
>The other problem is exhaust backpressure. Unless You have an *extremely*
>freeflowing exhaust, the exhaust backpressure is usually higher than the
>crankcase pressure, and then exhaust gas under pressure enters Your
>crankcase and blows Your seals out. )-:
>You can use a venturi in the exhaust port to make the system work better,
>but any significant venturi causes an exhaust restriction with bad effect on
>horsepower/economy/etc. The venturi should be cast into the exhaust port to
>get maximum use of exhaust velocity.
>I've seen reed valve setups on "exhaust style" PCV's to help relieve the
>problem of exhaust going "the wrong way", but when the reeds are closed, the
>gases still have to go somewhere, and are usually vented to the air cleaner...
>If You have a 2000 max rpm diesel fishing boat with open exhaust stack, You
>need not worry about it.
>
>>
>>PLUS, if blow by is basicaly exhaust gases why wouldn't it be possible to
>place
>>as "little" in-line cat-converted to *filter* the PCV gases
>
>Unfortunately the gases aren't nearly hot enough to combine with O2 in a
>seperate cat.
>They are still combustible enough that maybe You could add O2 with an air
>pump, and ignite them with a spark plug and burn them before dumping them in
>the exhaust pipe ahead of Your cats, but that sounds.... inconveniant.
>
>>before reaching the
>>exhaust? (Remember, it would pass through ANOTHER cat, too.)
>
>These gases are still *very* much unburned HCO, and just dumping the gases
>unburned ahead of Your cats may shorten the life of the cats unless they are
>plenty hot and provided with lots of fresh air from the pump.
>Dumping them after the cats is the same as spewing them to the air...
>
>Intake manifold PCV is such a simple, effective system that it's pretty hard
>to beat for automotive applications.
>It really does provide significant reduction in unburned HCO to the....


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.