 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages contained in these archives without consent from the respective author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors. Received: with LISTAR (v0.128a; list perf-list); Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:15:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:15:53 -0500 (EST) From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server To: perf-list digest users Reply-to: perf-list  ford-trucks.com Subject: perf-list Digest V2000 #11 Precedence: bulk ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts Performance, Hot-Rod and Custom Truck Mailing List Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ perf-list Digest Thu, 24 Feb 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 011 In This Issue: Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Carb for an 1984 302 HO 99 F150..... Re: 99 F150..... Re: 99 F150..... Re: 99 F150..... Re: 99 F150..... Re: power steering hose woes Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Re: Carb for an 1984 302 HO Re: power steering hose woes ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "William S. Hart" Subject: Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:34:55 -0600 > According to my "Ford parts identifier" the 410 was an FE motor.Hope this > isn't a stupid question,but is MEL the 385 series engines? dave > Nope, the FE series is of course the 352, 360, 390, 410, 427 and 428 there are a couple more lesser known ones too ... easily identified by the intake manifold being half of the head, so the valve cover actually covers the intake a bit too ... (your 428 for instance) The 385 series motor is the 429/460 MEL is the Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln motors from the mid-60's. I"m not sure what they displaced but I've never really heard anything good on the performance side about them ... lots of torque I guess ... Since we're on the topic there's also the Windsors (260/289/302/351W) The M-blocks or 335 series (351M/400) (no M on the 400 designation 'cause that was the only 400 Ford made :) And of course the 351 Cleveland ..which sports a W bellhousing ... Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:29:05 +0100 (MET) From: Bas van der Veer Subject: Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) > And of course the 351 Cleveland ..which sports a W bellhousing ... .. I thought the 351C has the 351M/400/429/460 bellhousing? ------------------------------ From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:44:51 -0800 Nope... "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" ----- Original Message ----- From: Bas van der Veer To: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 8:29 AM Subject: [perf-list] Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) > > .. I thought the 351C has the 351M/400/429/460 bellhousing? > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:45:09 -0800 From: eltopo fnord.nwinfo.net (Kenneth J. Toop) Subject: Carb for an 1984 302 HO >X-original-sender: William.Vierra barclaysglobal.com > >Last Saturday I bought the 84 HO 302 for my 51 F1. I bought it without the >carburetor and am now trying to decide between a Holly 4160 and an Edelbrock >1406. You might read the Technical Article at FTE on Choosing your next carb. Sounds like some good information and advice. Kennth Toop (Alias: "el Topo") Head Librarian, Barge--Lincoln Elementary School 219 East "I" St., Yakima, Wa. 98901 Assisting Librarian, Garfield Elementary School Phone and Voicemail: 573-5207 Yakima School District "Lo bueno, si breve, mejor." ------------------------------ From: FORDTRKMANinPA aol.com Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:56:07 EST Subject: 99 F150..... i have a 99 f150 with the 4.6L 4x2 ext cab 3.55 axle. no towing package. it's the sport package, it has the eagle gt II tires on it. not sure of the exact size, they're p275... my question is about the power of the engine. it's all stock. stock 4.6 has 220 hp and 285 ft lbs torque. what i'm wondering is why i can't squeel my tires? i know this sounds childish(23 yr old). i was just playing around the other day and tried to squeel the itres, but to no avail. the tires will spin, but no squeel. most of the time they won't even spin, i just jump forward and go. i was talking to some guys at work who said i have soft rubber tires on it. they said that's why they won't squeel. the truck has almost 13000 miles on it. it pulls great throughout the rev range, but it just won't squeal tires. i keep the tires aired up to the spec on the sidewall, and i have a "husky" toolbox mounted right behind the cab. probably weighs about 150-200 lbs with my tools and stuff in it. is it that the engine doesn't have the bean bags to make the tires squeal? i would be happy with a bark of the tires, but i have nothing, only a spin, sometimes. any help would be appreciated. i thought also that maybe my rear axle being geared at 3.55 is too high. maybe lower gears like 3.73 or so would do it. thanks, Bill ------------------------------ From: "William S. Hart" Subject: Re: 99 F150..... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:18:12 -0600 > i have a 99 f150 with the 4.6L 4x2 ext cab 3.55 axle. no > towing package. > it's the sport package, it has the eagle gt II tires on it. > not sure of > the exact size, they're p275... > my question is about the power of the engine. > it's all stock. stock 4.6 has 220 hp and 285 ft lbs torque. > Sounds pretty good so far ... :) > what i'm wondering is why i can't squeel my tires? i know this sounds > childish(23 yr old). i was just playing around the other day > and tried to > squeel the itres, but to no avail. hahahahaha ...sorry, I've got a pair of race tires that I run that don't squeel either, they howl, like a 4x4 tire on pavement when they're spinning ... they started callin my car the "singing Mustang" ... > i was talking to some guys at work who said i have soft rubber > tires on it. > they said that's why they won't squeel. That is part of it, that's why they don't spin very much, those are an eagle tire which is pseudo performance ... the softer compound lets it bite into the asphalt and go instead of wasting so much time spinning (trust me, its faster to not squeal) > i keep the tires aired up to the spec on the sidewall What spec is that ? If its the "max load max pressure" then you don't need that much unless you're hauling a lot or cornering really really hard (even then you don't NEED that much pressure) ... > have a "husky" > toolbox mounted right behind the cab. probably weighs about 150-200 lbs > with my tools and stuff in it. > That won't help things either ... > is it that the engine doesn't have the bean bags to make the > tires squeal? Somewhat, the torque curve is much smoother on the 4.6 than the previous generation motors, which means that it might be harder to get squealing because of the way the curve is ... but it also means that once they start they will continue to go ... > i thought also that maybe my rear axle being geared at 3.55 is too high. > maybe lower gears like 3.73 or so would do it. > It might ... here's something else to consider ... you've got a somewhat soft tire, and a fairly wide one ... my CAR which weighs a bit less than your truck has trouble spinning the rear tires too, though from a stop if I pull it to 2K and let the clutch out I can break them loose, try the same stunt with my race tires and it just goes without even a chirp ... so you can see that the "stickiness" has a lot to do with it.... I'm talkin a 245 tire here too, you've got a 275 that's 29" or so tall, while mine's a 26" tire ... also a 17" rim, so mine's a bit lighter probably ... though I do only have 3.27 gears I think the 1st gear in your tranny (auto right?) makes up for it ... Next time you really want to spin those tires and don't care about anything else, use the brake to hold it and pull your revs up to 2000 or so (it may not go that high depending on your converter, so don't try too hard to get there).... then when you want to go, release the brake and nail the gas ..... might work, might now, I haven't tried to spin the wheels in an auto in a while ... Or of course you could just get some $30 snow tires and burn those off all day ... Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:13:35 -0800 (PST) From: Ryan Reinke Subject: Re: 99 F150..... Hey! What type of gas milage do you get? I have much larger tires and manual trans, and consistently get 14s... I have a K&N and am considering a chip this summer. I commute about 60 mi one way and at 1.50$ the gas is killing me! Ryan --- "William S. Hart" > > i have a 99 f150 with the 4.6L 4x2 ext cab > 3.55 axle. no > > towing package. > > it's the sport package, it has the eagle gt II > tires on it. > > not sure of > > the exact size, they're p275... > > my question is about the power of the engine. > > it's all stock. stock 4.6 has 220 hp and 285 ft > lbs torque. > > > > Sounds pretty good so far ... :) > > > > what i'm wondering is why i can't squeel my tires? > i know this sounds > > childish(23 yr old). i was just playing around > the other day > > and tried to > > squeel the itres, but to no avail. > > > hahahahaha ...sorry, I've got a pair of race tires > that I run that don't > squeel either, they howl, like a 4x4 tire on > pavement when they're spinning > ... they started callin my car the "singing Mustang" > ... > > > i was talking to some guys at work who said i have > soft rubber > > tires on it. > > they said that's why they won't squeel. > > That is part of it, that's why they don't spin very > much, those are an eagle > tire which is pseudo performance ... the softer > compound lets it bite into > the asphalt and go instead of wasting so much time > spinning (trust me, its > faster to not squeal) > > > i keep the tires aired up to the spec on the > sidewall > > What spec is that ? If its the "max load max > pressure" then you don't > need that much unless you're hauling a lot or > cornering really really hard > (even then you don't NEED that much pressure) ... > > > have a "husky" > > toolbox mounted right behind the cab. probably > weighs about 150-200 lbs > > with my tools and stuff in it. > > > > That won't help things either ... > > > is it that the engine doesn't have the bean bags > to make the > > tires squeal? > > Somewhat, the torque curve is much smoother on the > 4.6 than the previous > generation motors, which means that it might be > harder to get squealing > because of the way the curve is ... but it also > means that once they start > they will continue to go ... > > > i thought also that maybe my rear axle being > geared at 3.55 is too high. > > maybe lower gears like 3.73 or so would do it. > > > > It might ... here's something else to consider ... > you've got a somewhat > soft tire, and a fairly wide one ... my CAR which > weighs a bit less than > your truck has trouble spinning the rear tires too, > though from a stop if I > pull it to 2K and let the clutch out I can break > them loose, try the same > stunt with my race tires and it just goes without > even a chirp ... so you > can see that the "stickiness" has a lot to do with > it.... I'm talkin a 245 > tire here too, you've got a 275 that's 29" or so > tall, while mine's a 26" > tire ... also a 17" rim, so mine's a bit lighter > probably ... though I do > only have 3.27 gears I think the 1st gear in your > tranny (auto right?) makes > up for it ... > > Next time you really want to spin those tires and > don't care about anything > else, use the brake to hold it and pull your revs up > to 2000 or so (it may > not go that high depending on your converter, so > don't try too hard to get > there).... then when you want to go, release the > brake and nail the gas > ..... might work, might now, I haven't tried to spin > the wheels in an auto > in a while ... > > Or of course you could just get some $30 snow tires > and burn those off all > day ... > > Just my $.02 > wish > > 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L > 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: > listar ford-trucks.com with > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the body > of the > message. > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:25:21 +0100 (MET) From: Bas van der Veer Subject: Re: 99 F150..... > tire which is pseudo performance ... the softer compound lets it bite into > the asphalt and go instead of wasting so much time spinning (trust me, its > faster to not squeal) I can attest to that, if I step on the gas real hard with my lincoln (460) then for the first while it goes little faster than when I just let go of the brake :) Since you have the sports package you probably have higher gears too than trucks w/ towing pack. With my lincoln I expected it to squeal the tires much easier than it does (only in 1st gear, haven't got it to squeal in 2nd) but the thing is that the gearing is so high you can do 70mph in second gear (spec from manual, I tried it and still you hardly even hear the engine). > > i keep the tires aired up to the spec on the sidewall > > What spec is that ? If its the "max load max pressure" then you don't > need that much unless you're hauling a lot or cornering really really hard > (even then you don't NEED that much pressure) ... I'd recommend running high pressure though, I'm running 38 in my truck, really boosts the gas mileage. Only it's a little less comfy. Of course too hard won't do any good either.. > > have a "husky" > > toolbox mounted right behind the cab. probably weighs about 150-200 lbs > > with my tools and stuff in it. > > > > That won't help things either ... No like my bronco, the roof is so heavy you need a forklift to get it on, tailgate weighs 200lbs (heard that from another guy who took it off), and the rear seat and tire carrier aren't light either.. so it doesn't squeal either. > Next time you really want to spin those tires and don't care about anything > else, use the brake to hold it and pull your revs up to 2000 or so (it may > not go that high depending on your converter, so don't try too hard to get > there).... then when you want to go, release the brake and nail the gas > ..... might work, might now, I haven't tried to spin the wheels in an auto > in a while ... If you REALLY don't care about anything else.. Step on the gas in neutral, then pop into reverse, that should do the trick :) > Or of course you could just get some $30 snow tires and burn those off all > day ... I'll sell you the bald tires .. err, racing slicks :) from my car, how's that for a deal :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 00:34:21 +0100 (MET) From: Bas van der Veer Subject: Re: 99 F150..... > I have a K&N and am considering a chip this summer. I > commute about 60 mi one way and at 1.50$ the gas is > killing me! I used to have a little '85 nissan, had 180k miles on that 4cyl 1.7 liter diesel.. never had much problems for it, got about 55mpg :-) In fact only thing it has ever needed was a oil pressure sensor. Of course I only drove it about 7k miles before I sold it.. and instead bought a 68 lincoln that has 5x as much power, weighs 2.5x as much and uses 5x as much gas, and hence is 5x2.5x5=62.5 times as much fun :-) I love big american cars and trucks.. I'll drive 'em for as long as I can afford it! Bas. ------------------------------ From: "david" Subject: Re: power steering hose woes Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:28:26 -0000 Paul,if you used the p/s pump from around the same year,the fitting on the hose for a 75 should work.When I talked to steer and gear,they told me ford used the same box from 69-79,so any hose in those years will work .As far as finding a parts guy to help,I'm just grateful when they don't get an attitude when I ask them to look at different years and applications of parts. ----- Original Message ----- From: OAI Electronics: Paul Rozell To: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 1:23 PM Subject: [perf-list] Re: power steering hose woes > Dave, > I beleive the bos that I used was from a 73 to 75 F100. I just didn't know > what year of hose to ask for. Half of the parts counter people in this area > do not work on cars or trucks just look up part numbers. It is really hard > to find a parts profesional that is of much help. > > Paul > ----- Original Message ----- > From: david > To: > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:05 PM > Subject: [perf-list] Re: power steering hose woes > > > > I am also new to the list,so hello,my name is dave.I have a 1966 f100 > > stepside,428 pi+.060,auto,373 rear,etc.I converted my '66 to > p/s,pdb,auto,so > > i have dealt with this before.all basic parts for the swap are from a '75 > > f100.the box,hoses,all fit.what steering box did you use?I might be more > > helpful with more info..........dave > > > > ========================================================== > > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with > > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the body of the > > message. > > > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the body of the > message. > ------------------------------ From: "david" Subject: Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:34:24 -0000 I'm not trying to be a smart ass,but I do know what my motor is,and an FE,,just never heard that(mel) reference before.I am guessing that since those motors were built in the 60's,they were FEs also?...dave ----- Original Message ----- From: William S. Hart To: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 2:34 PM Subject: [perf-list] Re: 410 MEL/FE (was 429/460/462 engines) > > According to my "Ford parts identifier" the 410 was an FE motor.Hope this > > isn't a stupid question,but is MEL the 385 series engines? dave > > > > Nope, the FE series is of course the 352, 360, 390, 410, 427 and 428 there > are a couple more lesser known ones too ... easily identified by the intake > manifold being half of the head, so the valve cover actually covers the > intake a bit too ... (your 428 for instance) > > The 385 series motor is the 429/460 > > MEL is the Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln motors from the mid-60's. I"m not sure > what they displaced but I've never really heard anything good on the > performance side about them ... lots of torque I guess ... > > Since we're on the topic there's also the Windsors (260/289/302/351W) > The M-blocks or 335 series (351M/400) (no M on the 400 designation 'cause > that was the only 400 Ford made :) > And of course the 351 Cleveland ..which sports a W bellhousing ... > > Just my $.02 > wish > > 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L > 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the body of the > message. > ------------------------------ From: "david" Subject: Re: Carb for an 1984 302 HO Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:39:31 -0000 I'm no carb expert,but if you want performance,use a holley.If you want to put it on and forget it,use edelbrock.Just my personal experience. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kenneth J. Toop To: Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 7:45 PM Subject: [perf-list] Carb for an 1984 302 HO > > >X-original-sender: William.Vierra barclaysglobal.com > > > > >Last Saturday I bought the 84 HO 302 for my 51 F1. I bought it without the > >carburetor and am now trying to decide between a Holly 4160 and an Edelbrock > >1406. > > You might read the Technical Article at FTE on Choosing your next carb. > Sounds like some good information and advice. > > Kennth Toop (Alias: "el Topo") > Head Librarian, Barge--Lincoln Elementary School > > 219 East "I" St., Yakima, Wa. 98901 > Assisting Librarian, Garfield Elementary School > Phone and Voicemail: 573-5207 > Yakima School District > > > "Lo bueno, si breve, mejor." > > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the body of the > message. > ------------------------------ From: prozell oaielectronics.com (OAI Electronics: Paul Rozell) Subject: Re: power steering hose woes Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:28:33 -0600 > Paul,if you used the p/s pump from around the same year,the fitting on the > hose for a 75 should work.When I talked to steer and gear,they told me ford > used the same box from 69-79,so any hose in those years will work .As far as > finding a parts guy to help,I'm just grateful when they don't get an > attitude when I ask them to look at different years and applications of.... To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.
Advertising -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy -
Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company. 
|