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); Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server ford-trucks.com>
To: perf-list digest users ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list Digest V2000 #54
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 Wed, 26 Apr 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 054

In This Issue:
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Moonshine
C6 w/lockup TQ
FE heads
Re: FE heads
Re: Uncle Jesse
Re: Moonshine
Re: C6 w/lockup TQ
Re: Uncle Jesse
Re: Uncle Jesse
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
L&L headers
Re: Uncle Jesse
Re: L&L headers
Re: [Uglying a dually
Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]
Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse] & dukes
Re: Moonshine
Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]
Re: C6 w/lockup TQ
Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Re: [Uglying a dually
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse] & dukes
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
E4OD's and FE Heads
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse]
Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse]

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

From: Sleddog epix.net>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:13:50 -0400

First, mine is a application specific to truck pulling, that has alot of
slippage. Just the opposite of what you want. Mine needs a rebuild it
would appear, but has had more runs on it than i know before i even got it
(i got it used). I am happy with it, but I have no other converter to
compare it to behind my big motor.

I can give you a number of a place that builds them. They will need to
know, vehicle weight, engine size/power/etc, gearing, use, tire size, etc.
Then they make a converter that suits that vehicle. I don't know what
their slippage limit is as I never looked into one like that. It is only a
possibility. How decreasing slippage at highway speeds effects the idle,
and stall of a converter i do not know - someone at a company that makes
them would be better able to explain that.

Kevin

----------
From: Bas van der Veer[SMTP:yl dds.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 8:40 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [perf-list] Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)



Can you tell me more about those? How much do they save? Are you happy
with yours, ie was it worth the money? For me, basically the less
slippage the better. Except of course that the motor still has to idle
decent. Is there any reliability issue?

Bas.


Op Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Sleddog schreef:

> I don't know about the lockup converter, but many places sell converters
> with less slippage. Companies that make custom converters for
specialized
> applications could help you out. The cost should fall between 300-500
> bucks. My custom pulling converter ran close to $500.
>
> Kevin
>



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

From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: Moonshine
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 08:56:52 -0400

Wish writes: >> Stop that, 'cause I would also think I could make it
undrinkable and not be
violating any laws .....<<

I'm not absolutely sure of this, but I think I'm right. You can make
moonshine in any amount you want to, you just can't sell it.. I may be off
in left field someplace, but I seem to remember that. Check with your
local law enforcememt agencies.. Ask them point blank if you can
own/operate a still without breaking the law...

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al



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

From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: C6 w/lockup TQ
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:05:57 -0400

Bas writes: >>So I was wondering, is there a way of installing a locking
torque
converter on my 351M / C6 combo without major mods to the tranny?<<

C6 was not produced from Ford with a lockup. The modifications that would
have to be made in the valve body and the input shaft (and I think in the
oil passages within the case) are way beyond the capabilities of most of us
"shadetree" types. I would like to see someone aftermarket come up with
one though. I think it would be worth investigating by some firm
someplace..

The E4OD is basically a C6 with OD, so there may be some possibilities
there with the inputshaft and TQ itself, but you still have the valve body
and oil passages to contend with...

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al


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

From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FE heads
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:09:50 -0400

Tracy writes: >>A guy gave me a set of C8AE-H heads with dual pattern
exhaust
manifold bolts. Are these the basic 360/390 heads?<<

If memory serves me correctly these are '68 GT heads. If the upper
hole(the one directly above the port) is missing on the two end cylinders,
then I'm pretty sure I am correct..

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al


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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:34:16 GMT
Subject: Re: FE heads



>Hey All (FE gurus),
> A guy gave me a set of C8AE-H heads with dual pattern exhaust
>manifold bolts. Are these the basic 360/390 heads?
>

Nope, these sound like the 390 GT heads to me ...anyone got the book in front
of them ?

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:43:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Uncle Jesse


>I'm wondering about the ox sensor and the other
> "sensitive" things on it. Will they be adversely affected? Long term
> problems? >>

>The only time you have to worry about O2 sensors and other electronical
>gadgetry is when the octane rating goes above 104. The bone stock fittings,

>lines, hoses, tanks, pumps and sensors should be able to stand that no
>problem.
>

Curious here, I thought the O2 sensors were just against leaded fuels, maybe
most stuff over 104 is leaded ?

I also find it funny that people worry about running this stuff in the vehicles
made back in the muscle car era where 100+ octane wasn't unheard of and actually
required on some models, I know it was a different formulation, but I can't
believe it was much less corrosive ...

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:44:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Moonshine



>Wish writes: >> Stop that, 'cause I would also think I could make it
>undrinkable and not be
>violating any laws .....<<
>
>I'm not absolutely sure of this, but I think I'm right. You can make
>moonshine in any amount you want to, you just can't sell it..

That's what I was thinking too Azie, maybe we just picked that up from some
old movie, but I could've sworn that's what we discussed in govt. classes in
high school (yes that was a long time ago for me too, just not quite as long
:)


>Ask them point blank if you can
>own/operate a still without breaking the law...
>

Heh, I've got a friend whose an officer in another county, I'll ask her :)


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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:46:23 GMT
Subject: Re: C6 w/lockup TQ

>converter on my 351M / C6 combo without major mods to the tranny?<<

>The E4OD is basically a C6 with OD, so there may be some possibilities
>there with the inputshaft and TQ itself, but you still have the valve body

>and oil passages to contend with...
>


I'd look at swapping in the E4OD myself, it'd be expensive, but you'd get an
overdrive AND a lock-up converter, and if your 351M is stock, I'm sure it would
hold up too. A Baummanator from baumann engineering (is that spelled right?)
can be purchased to control the electronic tranny in a non-electronic vehicle
...

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "Brad DeFore" computerlogic.com>
Subject: Re: Uncle Jesse
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:47:25 -0400

Thanks guys, now lets get out the old beakers and starta mixin.

-----Original Message-----
From: perf-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:perf-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of FLR150 aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 9:35 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [perf-list] Re: Uncle Jesse


In a message dated 4/25/00 2:37:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bdefore computerlogic.com writes:

<< I have most of this stuff lying round the house already and
thought I'd mix up a batch. I'm wondering about the ox sensor and the other
"sensitive" things on it. Will they be adversely affected? Long term
problems? >>
Brad,
The only time you have to worry about O2 sensors and other electronical
gadgetry is when the octane rating goes above 104. The bone stock fittings,
lines, hoses, tanks, pumps and sensors should be able to stand that no
problem.


Later,
Wayne Foy
94 Flareside SC
1999 Fun Ford Weekend
Racing series
#2 Top Truck
Atlanta GA
==========================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of the
message.


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

From: FLR150aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:50:22 EDT
Subject: Re: Uncle Jesse

In a message dated 4/26/00 9:44:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wishford-trucks.net writes:

<< Curious here, I thought the O2 sensors were just against leaded fuels,
maybe
most stuff over 104 is leaded ? >>
Wish,
Of what I know, any racing fuel from 110 up is leaded. You can tell this by
the LARGE nozzles on the pump handles. The wont go into the filler neck on
the standard unleaded gas vehicles. So in that case I would say you would be
correct. But also remember, that the O2 sensor has a range of operating temps
and with the higher octane, means more timing for most, which means a hotter
gas coming to the sensor. Most Stang racers I have seen pull the O2 sensor
out and cap the bung when racing as not to damage a $45-$60 sensor(x2)
everytime at the track. I have one O2 sensor and I have to monitor mine
closely to make sure I am not frying it on the nitrous.
Later,
Wayne Foy
94 Flareside SC
1999 Fun Ford Weekend
Racing series
#2 Top Truck
Atlanta GA

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:50:57 GMT
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)



>10% isn't bad at all. I seem to remember a 20% loss
>number being tossed around somewhere in school.
>
>It's a fluid coupling, not a mechanical connection...
>

Exactly, the 20% loss is TOTAL power loss for the drivetrain when calculating
horsepower at the crank based on rear wheel horsepower. This is usually for
an auto and 15% for a manual. From what I hear the C6 is a bit more power hungry
than most of the newer trannies so it may be a bit more loss even.

The change in revs isn't really a sign of a power loss or anything, the torque
converter is designed for the engine to run it, so letting off will create a
sort of overrun clutch that will cause the motor's revs to be held up, but will
drop a bit because the efficiency goes way down when you spin it backwards ...


I'm trying to think of an example, but can't really come up with anything you
could see ... maybe a boat prop? but I don't play with those so I couldn't
tell you ... airplane props would do the same thing ... when you cut power to
them (let off the gas), the air passing by will continue to spin them, but they
won't spin as fast because they are being pulled down by the motor and because
the air going over them is losing its efficiency since they are designed to
pull the air, not be pulled by the air ...

Hope that makes some sense ...
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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: TracyJonesCinergy.com
Subject: L&L headers
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:54:18 -0400

Hey All,
Anyone have anything good or bad to say about the L&L 429/460 '79
F-250 4x4 swap headers? I'm currently using stock truck manifolds that
really hamper performance and my next 460 build-up is going to require a
header.

Thanks
Tracy


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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:03:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Uncle Jesse

> Most Stang racers I have seen pull the O2 sensor
>out and cap the bung when racing as not to damage a $45-$60 sensor(x2)
>everytime at the track. I have one O2 sensor and I have to monitor mine
>closely to make sure I am not frying it on the nitrous.

Lucky you, just one to worry about ...my truck has of course 0, but the car
has 4! Yep, 4 of em ... sheesh ...

its not modified enough to benefit from anything other than maybe 93 (never
tried, always run 89)

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: Sleddog epix.net>
Subject: Re: L&L headers
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:13:41 -0400

My story:
Good headers. Thick steel. of the 3 sets I have had, only one had ugly welds and splatter.
Very long wait for me, a few monthes. They kept giving me the run around.
Kevin

----------
From: TracyJonescinergy.com[SMTP:TracyJonescinergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 9:54 AM
To: perf-listford-trucks.com
Subject: [perf-list] L&L headers

Hey All,
Anyone have anything good or bad to say about the L&L 429/460 '79
F-250 4x4 swap headers? I'm currently using stock truck manifolds that
really hamper performance and my next 460 build-up is going to require a
header.

Thanks
Tracy

==========================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of the
message.




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

From: JUMPINFORDaol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:33:52 EDT
Subject: Re: [Uglying a dually

In a message dated 4/25/00 5:19:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, johnynetapp.com
writes:

<< Usually the rear duals are replaced with some huge single tire.
Interesting look, but not for me. >>

Here in Vegas we have a nice lowrider influence, which has resulted in quite
a few duallies running a true dual system, albeit with 20" Gold Wire Spoke
wheels. Most are Chevies, but the new Super duty is getting a little bit of
attention. REally bad part is since the 2wd uses twin I-Beam, its not as
easy to get down to 1'' of ground clearance, so they are making custom spring
under sytems for the 4wd!!!!!!!

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"

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

From: JUMPINFORDaol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:36:46 EDT
Subject: Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]

In a message dated 4/25/00 5:36:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ManicMechanicNCnetscape.net writes:

<< Seems to me the best solution if you're worried about losses and the
environment would be to install a 5 speed manual. Almost no slippage and
would use much less oil inside than an automatic. (plus isn't prone to
leaking
the fluid like an auto either..)
>>

Or you could come up with a way of using a C-6 and a standard clutch. Now
THAT would be something cool. I think this is actually possible with
chrysler, never seen it myself, but my uncle said its a drag racing system
they nicknamed "ClutchFlite" Id sure like to see it, but man, talk about a
nasty tranny. Seemless shifts, but instant power on demand with the clutch.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"

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

From: JUMPINFORDaol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:55:58 EDT
Subject: Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse] & dukes

In a message dated 4/25/00 8:58:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, kevkemepix.net
writes:

<< Trust me, you can squeal tires on dirt. not as much as they did, but I
have done it many times.

Kevin >>

Seen it myself. Me and my buddies do the prepwork for the local clay track.
We spent 2 days workin it before the races, turnin it over, packin it in, lil
more water, turn it over, pack it in. By race time the track was smooth as a
clay track can get, and the tires howled ALL night. The course was
litterally black at the end of the night from rubber comin off the tires. #
drivers complained it was gonna excessively wear the tires on their cars.
Said one set wont last a season if we keep doin the track up like that. Man
that was some GOOD racin.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"

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

From: JUMPINFORDaol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:03:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Moonshine

In a message dated 4/26/00 5:46:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wishford-trucks.net writes:

<< Ask them point blank if you can
>own/operate a still without breaking the law... >>

Careful, I've heard that this can lead to probable cause, which means they
can book ya right there till they find out you dont even own one.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:19:49 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer dds.nl>
Subject: Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]

> > it doesn't have much financial advantage it would be a good thing to
> > do for the environment. Plus I have better use for my power than to heat
> > up my transmission :-)
>
> Seems to me the best solution if you're worried about losses and the
> environment would be to install a 5 speed manual. Almost no slippage and
> would use much less oil inside than an automatic. (plus isn't prone to leaking
> the fluid like an auto either..)

I know.. must say though the one and only thing in my truck that has
never leaked a drop (I'm keeping my fingers crossed here .. darn that's
kinda tough typing..) is the auto tranny. Leakage is probably the worst
problem with old vehicles. I just fixed an engine leak and now my front
diff leaks, and the power steering pump had a drip on it too. And so
did my two week old fuel pump. You fix one thing and two others start
dripping. **SIGH** it would be easier to just keep adding fluids but I
don't want to be the *ss leaving ugly drips wherever he goes.

Anyway, nah I like my automatic, I care for the environment but I care
for my american luxury too :-) been driving a 55 mpg nissan with a 5spd
standard for a while.. no fun, traded it for a 14 mpg 68 lincoln with a
365hp 460 .. that's the stuff! :-)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:24:02 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer dds.nl>
Subject: Re: C6 w/lockup TQ

> The E4OD is basically a C6 with OD, so there may be some possibilities
> there with the inputshaft and TQ itself, but you still have the valve body
> and oil passages to contend with...

Has anyone looked into a swap? How difficult is it?

Also, do they have the same bellhousing as the 351M? Do the late model
460's still have the same bellhousing? Are they much different than the
earlier ones?

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

From: Sleddog epix.net>
Subject: Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:29:13 -0400

This was also called the "poor man's lenco". The Lenco trannies have
completely replaced the idea of converting a auto tranny to a clutch. Not
aware of anyone selling kits to do it anymore, but there used to be.

Kevin

----------
From: JUMPINFORDaol.com[SMTP:JUMPINFORDaol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 10:36 AM
To: perf-listford-trucks.com
Subject: [perf-list] Re: [C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)]

In a message dated 4/25/00 5:36:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ManicMechanicNCnetscape.net writes:

<< Seems to me the best solution if you're worried about losses and the
environment would be to install a 5 speed manual. Almost no slippage and
would use much less oil inside than an automatic. (plus isn't prone to
leaking
the fluid like an auto either..)
>>

Or you could come up with a way of using a C-6 and a standard clutch. Now
THAT would be something cool. I think this is actually possible with
chrysler, never seen it myself, but my uncle said its a drag racing system
they nicknamed "ClutchFlite" Id sure like to see it, but man, talk about
a
nasty tranny. Seemless shifts, but instant power on demand with the
clutch.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
==========================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of the
message.





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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane san miguel yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)

Sounds like you would be better off going with a
tighter torque converter.

Just check out a hotrod mag...

BTW, a tighter torque converter will be like letting
the clutch out with the engine rpm lower than normal.
Say if you're driving a four speed and you usually rev
the motor to 1,800 and engage the clutch. A tighter
torque converter would be like letting the clutch out
with the motor only turning 1,100 or something like
that. Shouldn't be a problem with that Midland of
yours though. But you will never ever be able to
achieve zero slip with a fluid coupling.

Shane

--- Bas van der Veer dds.nl> wrote:
>
>
> I know it can be worse.. like my roommate who has a
> 63 thunderbird with
> the cruise-o-matic --> 5 mpg.. and that car is a lot
> smaller than my 13
> mpg bronco.
>
> Did ford change the bolt pattern when they changed
> to the E4OD? Has
> anyone here done the swap? I heard the trouble is
> that they are much
> longer than the C6. But I never had a chance to take
> a close look at one.
>
> A friend of mine swapped in an AOD-E in his '69
> bronco. The swap worked
> out real well but he did do a tremendous amount of
> custom work.
>
> Frankly my plan was to keep this setup for as long
> as it works good, then
> get a late model 460 with a E4OD or similar
> transmission. But since I
> plan on keeping this setup in good working order for
> a long long time I
> figured a new TC may be a good interim mod. I'll
> have to go and call some
> tranny shops I suppose.
>
> Bas.
>
> Op Tue, 25 Apr 2000, shane san miguel schreef:
>
> > 10% isn't bad at all. I seem to remember a 20%
> loss
> > number being tossed around somewhere in school.
> >
> > It's a fluid coupling, not a mechanical
> connection...
> >
> > I don't know of anything for the C6 but there's
> always
> > the E4OD. It has a shifter mounted OD
> > engage/disengage.
> >
> > Shane
> > 55 F100 5.0
> > 15.5187
> > 289 Pinto
> >
> > --- Bas van der Veer dds.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My friends,
> > >
> > > I just drove about 1900 miles in three days in
> the
> > > beloved 78 bronco. I just
> > > installed a tach and while playing around with
> it a
> > > little bit I noticed
> > > there is about a 300 rpm difference between
> > > full throttle and complete deceleration. 2200
> rpm vs
> > > 2500 rpm 65 mph.
> > > Let's say the transmission input shaft turns at
> 2300
> > > rpm, that would make
> > > a 200 rpm slip of the torque conveter, which is
> > > about 10%. That's quite
> > > a bit of loss!
> > >
> > > So I was wondering, is there a way of installing
> a
> > > locking torque
> > > converter on my 351M / C6 combo without major
> mods
> > > to the tranny? Ideally
> > > I would want a electric lock with a switch in
> the
> > > cab that I can toggle
> > > myself, although I don't see how power could
> easily
> > > be transferred to the
> > > converter. But perhaps there is a company out
> there
> > > that has a solution. Has
> > > anyone ever looked into this?? Any experiences?
> With
> > > about 26,000 miles
> > > per year a 10% saving works out to about 200 gal
> of
> > > gas. Even if
> > > it doesn't have much financial advantage it
> would be
> > > a good thing to
> > > do for the environment. Plus I have better use
> for
> > > my power than to heat
> > > up my transmission :-)
> > >
> > > Bas.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
==========================================================
> > > To unsubscribe, send email to:
> > > listarford-trucks.com with
> > > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the
> subject
> > > of the
> > > message.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
> > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com
> >
>
==========================================================
> > To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listarford-trucks.com with
> > the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the
> subject of the
> > message.
> >
>
==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listarford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject
> of the
> message.
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane san miguel yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Uglying a dually

My neighbor has TWO slammed dually's. They look ok
but it's not for me.

It does seem to be a popular trend though.

Shane

--- Tim Turner netscape.net> wrote:
> JUMPINFORDaol.com wrote:
> > Im thinking of
> > converting it over to Dually, goin for a REAL fast
> hauler, except I WILL NOT
>
> > do that current (ugly) trend of having a firmly
> slammed Dually.
>
> Oh my goodness... you're not serious are you?
> People are lowering duallies
> now? What a waste of a good truck! IMHO lowering
> only belongs on vehicles
> that are being modified for cornering reasons
> (woo-hoo!), but now it's just a
> 'look' that reduces function and usually coupled
> with a music system that can
> overpower the local VFD siren.
>
> > Keep it up,
> > so I can still meander about on the trails.
>
> Amen. Offroad trucks can go up, sports cars can go
> down for 'legit' reasons
> and the rest should stay where they are.
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account
> today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.
>
==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listarford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject
> of the
> message.
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane san miguel yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)

I know about the 20% power train loss number. That's
not what I was referring to. I think I used to wrong
words to describe what my feeble memory was trying to
recall.

I remember a 20% 'slip rate' as pretty standard for a
fluid coupling.

As far as the C6 and how much power it consumes... It
soaks up about 63HP!!! It's the most power hungry of
ANY 3spd automatic.

The price you pay for bulletproof I guess...

Shane


--- wish ford-trucks.net> wrote:
>
>
> >10% isn't bad at all. I seem to remember a 20%
> loss
> >number being tossed around somewhere in school.
> >
> >It's a fluid coupling, not a mechanical
> connection...
> >
>
> Exactly, the 20% loss is TOTAL power loss for the
> drivetrain when calculating
> horsepower at the crank based on rear wheel
> horsepower. This is usually for
> an auto and 15% for a manual. From what I hear the
> C6 is a bit more power hungry
> than most of the newer trannies so it may be a bit
> more loss even.
>
> The change in revs isn't really a sign of a power
> loss or anything, the torque
> converter is designed for the engine to run it, so
> letting off will create a
> sort of overrun clutch that will cause the motor's
> revs to be held up, but will
> drop a bit because the efficiency goes way down when
> you spin it backwards ...
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane san miguel yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse] & dukes

Maybe that would explain why I've read you can get a
set of dirt track tires and use them as Drag slicks.
I seem to recall a recent tire comparison that said
the Hoosier drag slicks were the exact same compound
as the dirt tires...

Shane


--- JUMPINFORDaol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/25/00 8:58:40 PM Pacific
> Standard Time, kevkemepix.net
> writes:
>
> << Trust me, you can squeal tires on dirt. not as
> much as they did, but I
> have done it many times.
>
> Kevin >>
>
> Seen it myself. Me and my buddies do the prepwork
> for the local clay track.
> We spent 2 days workin it before the races, turnin
> it over, packin it in, lil
> more water, turn it over, pack it in. By race time
> the track was smooth as a
> clay track can get, and the tires howled ALL night.
> The course was
> litterally black at the end of the night from rubber
> comin off the tires. #
> drivers complained it was gonna excessively wear the
> tires on their cars.
> Said one set wont last a season if we keep doin the
> track up like that. Man
> that was some GOOD racin.
>
> Darrell Duggan
> 74 F-350 "Tweety"
>
==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listarford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject
> of the
> message.
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:28:13 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer dds.nl>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)

> As far as the C6 and how much power it consumes... It
> soaks up about 63HP!!! It's the most power hungry of
> ANY 3spd automatic.

Well that sounds too crazy for words, it would mean it uses 45% of
my engine's power?! Maybe behind a big 600 hp race motor it would use
that much, but not here.


Plus the added mileage with a standard would only be 10-20%.

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

From: galaxie63juno.com
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:49:47 -0500
Subject: E4OD's and FE Heads

> I don't know of anything for the C6 but there's always
> the E4OD. >>>>> > So I was wondering, is there a way of installing a
> > locking torque converter on my 351M / C6 combo ...............
> ===================================================
Bas, If you stay with an automatic your cheapest alternative is a
"tighter" converter. ($200-400) No other mods necessary. You should run a
stock or nearly stock cam for best efficiency though. The E4OD is another
way to go, but for your application it won't be very cheap. It would take
a long time to save back the $2000+ you'd have in that swap. Good luck,
Phil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> From: TracyJonesCinergy.com
> Hey All (FE gurus), A guy gave me a set of C8AE-H heads with dual
pattern
> exhaust manifold bolts. Are these the basic 360/390 heads?

Tracy, I looked in Steve Christs' book and according to him those are the
std. 360-390 head for 68; but also used on 428's with air injection. That
428 application may be why they have the dual bolt pattern ? Anyway ya
look at it though, they're keepers. Phil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~










________________________________________________________________





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

From: Sleddog epix.net>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:07:50 -0400

The C6 does absorb alot of power. I have heard over 25%. How true, I
don't know. An auto, makes up for the loss by multiplying torque, hence
the torque converter.

A converter might have a 2:1 multiplication at stall. So a 200 ftlbs
torque motor at that rpm will apply 400 (about) to the output. As the
difference in the input and output speeds decrease, the multiplication
decreases also. So, at highway speeds, when the converter is at its lowest
slippage the multiplication is almost 1:1.

This is where my pulling converter works. It allows more slip, which
allows more multiplication of the torque. slippage changes though, if the
gearing or tires size or engine torque changes.

Kevin

----------
From: Bas van der Veer[SMTP:yldds.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:28 PM
To: perf-listford-trucks.com
Subject: [perf-list] Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)

> As far as the C6 and how much power it consumes... It
> soaks up about 63HP!!! It's the most power hungry of
> ANY 3spd automatic.

Well that sounds too crazy for words, it would mean it uses 45% of
my engine's power?! Maybe behind a big 600 hp race motor it would use
that much, but not here.


Plus the added mileage with a standard would only be 10-20%.




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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane san miguel yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)

I know it sounds crazy, but it is true.

Check out the archives of the Fordnatics list at
www.listquest.com

It's all in there. I'll see if I can dig up the
magazine with the numbers in it.

That's one of the reasons people (drag racers anyway)
go with the C4 over the C6. The C4 consumes about 43
HP to turn it. I believe the only auto trans that
consumes less is the glide...

But that's Ch$%y junk anyway...


--- Bas van der Veer dds.nl> wrote:
> > As far as the C6 and how much power it consumes...
> It
> > soaks up about 63HP!!! It's the most power hungry
> of
> > ANY 3spd automatic.
>
> Well that sounds too crazy for words, it would mean
> it uses 45% of
> my engine's power?! Maybe behind a big 600 hp race
> motor it would use
> that much, but not here.
>
>
> Plus the added mileage with a standard would only be
> 10-20%.
>
==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listarford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject
> of the
> message.
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: shane san miguel yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: C6 with locking torque converter? (fwd)

I don't believe the power level of the motor has
anything to do with the consumption of the trans.
Friction is friction, no matter what is spinning it.
The % consumption would be less with a higher output
motor though...

Shane


--- Bas van der Veer dds.nl> wrote:
> > As far as the C6 and how much power it consumes...
> It
> > soaks up about 63HP!!! It's the most power hungry
> of
> > ANY 3spd automatic.
>
> Well that sounds too crazy for words, it would mean
> it uses 45% of
> my engine's power?! Maybe behind a big 600 hp race
> motor it would use
> that much, but not here.
>
>
> Plus the added mileage with a standard would only be
> 10-20%.
>
==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to:
> listarford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject
> of the
> message.
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://invites.yahoo.com

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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 12:01:56 -0500
From: Jordan Dean yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse]

Ok, I forwarded that link to the octane stuff to a different list and
here's a VERY knowledgable response.
I'll go a little bit further, and say that a bunch of stuff this page lists
is bad advice...
-If you wanna add Toluene (or especially Xylene) to your gas as an octane
booster- hey great, nothing wrong with that. In fact, when the chemical
prices get crappy, refiners will often blend Xylene into 93 Premium.
-Adding methanol to your gas would be a really bad idea for many reasons,
not the least of which is its corrosive nature on fuel system parts.
-Adding ethanol wouldn't hurt much, but it wouldn't be really smart either.
Where the "energy content" of gasoline runs 45-47 MJ/kg, ethanol is ~25
MJ/kg. You figure the rest out ;)
-Ditto for MTBE, but not quite as bad.
-I would not add any kerosene to my gas. Anybody wanna guess the octane
ratings of the components that make up kerosene? How about -40 to -90...
Other than that, it seemed OK ;) ;)
Later
Keith





At 09:56 PM 4/25/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>"Brad DeFore" computerlogic.com> wrote:
> > Any out there that could verify if and what problems might develop and or
> > parts that would tend to deteriorate when using the mixtures as suggested
>at
> > this site.
>
>Other than the MTBE I wouldn't. Re-read the disclaimer at the top of the
>page. Most if not all of the chemicals mentioned aren't really compatible
>with the fuel system in the long run. I may be mistaken but didn't the EPA
>recently decide MTBE should be removed from gasoline also? Isopropyl alcohol
>is usually diluted with water so be sure you get it 'pure' as well.
>
>
> > I have most of this stuff lying round the house already and
> > thought I'd mix up a batch.
>
>You have MTBE lying around? Wow! :-)
>
> > I'm wondering about the ox sensor and the other
> > "sensitive" things on it. Will they be adversely affected? Long term
> > problems?
>
>Corrosivity of the components would be the long term problem; for a few blasts
>down the strip go for it, but I wouldn't suggest a regular diet of it. If you
>wanted to run it often I'd suggest changing the components over to 'alcohol
>racing' parts. Also during the right conditions MTBE can glaze a plug's
>insulator nose (oops.. that's MMT.. could be wrong here. hard to keep track
>of all the changes to gas lately.)
>
>Tim
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of the
>message.



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

Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:16:43 -0500
From: Jordan Dean yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: Uncle Jesse]

Ok, I forwarded that link to the octane stuff to a different list and
here's a VERY knowledgable response.
I'll go a little bit further, and say that a bunch of stuff this page lists
is bad advice...
-If you wanna add Toluene (or especially Xylene) to your gas as an octane
booster- hey great, nothing wrong with that. In fact, when the chemical
prices get crappy, refiners will often blend Xylene into 93 Premium.
-Adding methanol to your gas would be a really bad idea for many reasons,
not the least of which is its corrosive nature on fuel system parts.
-Adding ethanol wouldn't hurt much, but it wouldn't be really smart either.
Where the "energy content" of gasoline runs 45-47 MJ/kg, ethanol is ~25
MJ/kg. You figure the rest out ;)
-Ditto for MTBE, but not quite as bad.
-I would not add any kerosene to my gas. Anybody wanna guess the octane
ratings of the components that make up kerosene? How about -40 to -90...
Other than that, it seemed OK ;) ;)
Later
Keith





At 09:56 PM 4/25/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>"Brad DeFore" computerlogic.com> wrote:
> > Any out there that could verify if and what problems might develop and or
> > parts that would tend to deteriorate when using the mixtures as suggested
>at
> > this site.
>
>Other than the MTBE I wouldn't. Re-read the disclaimer at the top of the
>page. Most if not all of the chemicals mentioned aren't really compatible
>with the fuel system in the long run. I may be mistaken but didn't the EPA
>recently decide MTBE should be removed from gasoline also? Isopropyl alcohol
>is usually diluted with water so be sure you get it 'pure' as well.
>
>
> > I have most of this stuff lying round the house already and
> > thought I'd mix up a batch.
>
>You have MTBE lying around? Wow! :-)
>
> > I'm wondering about the ox sensor and the other
> > "sensitive" things on it. Will they be adversely affected? Long term
> > problems?
>
>Corrosivity of the components would be the long term problem; for a few blasts
>down the strip go for it, but I wouldn't suggest a regular diet of it. If you
>wanted to run it often I'd suggest changing the components over to 'alcohol
>racing' parts. Also during the right conditions MTBE can glaze a plug's
>insulator nose (oops.. that's MMT.. could be wrong here. hard to keep track
>of all the changes to gas lately.)
>
>Tim
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.com.
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of the
>message.



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

End of perf-list Digest V2000 #54
*********************************
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Performance, Hot-Rod and Custom
Truck List

Send posts to perf-listford-trucks.com

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing
list, send an email to:

listarford-trucks.com

with the words "unsubscribe perf-list" in the subject of
the message.

Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
----------------------------------------------------------

....


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.