perf-list-digest Thursday, July 16 1998 Volume 01 : Number 029



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE Perf - What's going into the Bronco?
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation_very long.
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation_very long.
FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners

=======================================================================

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:48:12 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - What's going into the Bronco?

> From: "Chris Samuel"
> Subject: FTE Perf - What's going into the Bronco?
> Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:39:19 -0700

> so? The test was when we got to the Deep and the Steep. or Vertical
> Standing Mud. The extra weight of the B.Blk was a penalty, the truck
> certainly did get up the hill, but my truck came up with half the
> effort, faster, less wheel spin. This happened repeatedly,

150# one way or the other isn't going to make a whit of difference in
this situation. These two trucks were obviously set up much
differently. The engine had very little to do with the outcome
IMNSHO :-)

> regardless of driver. Hey, we were both amazed! So, I decided that
> for my type of wheeling the 335 was the better choice. Had a buddy
> pick one up for me and I started down the path to Building a
> competent 400M.

The 400 is a good torquer engine and a fine choice for the bronco but
you can not build the same torque or power into it for the same price
as you can with a 460. Not even close. The 460 makes it's power
with no fancy parts and a junk yard 460 will eat a fresh 400 all day
long power and torque wise. If you want your cake and eat it too put
the 460 in your truck with the same gearing and tires you used for
the 400 and you might have a whole different point of view on the
matter :-)


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hooo!

- -- Gary --
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:59:45 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

> Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:20:48 -0400
> From: "John F. Bauer III"
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

> Not to totally reveal my newbie-ness on automotive tinkering, but to
> verify effects of "overcarburation", couldn't the secondaries (since
> they are manual) be disconnected as a comparison (ie, making it
> ineffect a 300CFM carb) on overall running and performance or is
> this going to throw things so off I'm just going to make matters
> worse?

The primaries are the part that makes or breaks the performance and
economy. The secondaries on a mechanical carb don't come in till the
primaries are almost all the way open so are not part of the equation
normally. if they are not properly set up and come in too soon they
can be a problem. This is one reason I preach the spread bore. It
gives you the best of both worlds in a street application, small
primaries for good metering at low speeds and large opening for WOT.


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hooo!

- -- Gary --
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:35:29 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
To: bigbroncos moab.off -road. com
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:24:12 -0700
Subject: Re: 460 builds
Send reply to: bigbroncos moab.off -road. com



I just got accidentally disconnected with Summit and was in the porcess of
ordering a new cam, springs and lifters. Told the guy I wanted to go with the
Rhodes lifters and he asked why. I told him to help out with the low end and
because the loudness of them is cool. He told me there is nothing cool about
a loud drivetrain!! What the hell is wrong with this guy?? Louder is always
better!!:-) Anyway I was ordering the CompCam 268H, .494 lift intake and
exhaust and I think 218 duration intake and exhaust. Anyone care to talk me
out of this and into something better?? Stock C6 with Transgo shift kit, 10:1
compression with port matched heads to an edelbrock performer intake,
Sandersons headers, Performance Distributors ignition system, 35 inch tires
and stock 3.50 gears. Oh yeah,, bigger valves. 2.19 intake and 1.725 exhaust.
I want tons of low end and don't want the top end to suffer. Cake and eat it too
kind of guy huh??:-) This bronco is driven mostly on the street but does see some
mild offroading. I am not towing anything right now but plan on it in the future.
Comments welcome.


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:35:23 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
To: bigbroncos moab.off -road. com
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 12:24:12 -0700
Subject: Re: 460 builds
Send reply to: bigbroncos moab.off -road. com



I just got accidentally disconnected with Summit and was in the porcess of
ordering a new cam, springs and lifters. Told the guy I wanted to go with the
Rhodes lifters and he asked why. I told him to help out with the low end and
because the loudness of them is cool. He told me there is nothing cool about
a loud drivetrain!! What the hell is wrong with this guy?? Louder is always
better!!:-) Anyway I was ordering the CompCam 268H, .494 lift intake and
exhaust and I think 218 duration intake and exhaust. Anyone care to talk me
out of this and into something better?? Stock C6 with Transgo shift kit, 10:1
compression with port matched heads to an edelbrock performer intake,
Sandersons headers, Performance Distributors ignition system, 35 inch tires
and stock 3.50 gears. Oh yeah,, bigger valves. 2.19 intake and 1.725 exhaust.
I want tons of low end and don't want the top end to suffer. Cake and eat it too
kind of guy huh??:-) This bronco is driven mostly on the street but does see some
mild offroading. I am not towing anything right now but plan on it in the future.
Comments welcome.


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:18:07 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation_very long.

From: Sleddog
To: "'perf-list ford-trucks.com'"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation_very long.
Date sent: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 14:31:41 -0400
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com

> the PI heads are usually the big valves or the 2.19/1.73 as far as i
> remember with the standard ports. very good heads for what you want! wish
> i had a set of these for my street truck.
>
(Snipped right about here)


> sleddog


> ----------
> From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 1998 10:57 PM
> To: Ford-performance
> Subject: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation
>
> I've finally completed cleaning up the combustion chambers of a set of '72
> 385 series PI heads. They have the CJ sized valves and DOVE ports. Ford did
> make some strange combos; all the references say they should cc at 91.5
> with
> regular CJ ports but these are 75.3 with the small runners. Ford Motorsport
> said that combo was common for the casting number. It saved me coin as I
> had
> intended to have DOVE heads machined out for the big valves.
>
> My objectives are off idle torque from 700-1200rpm for getting up snow
> covered logging roads carrying while pulling a load without wheelspin and
> continue being able to frustrate the highway plastic car high rpm'ers on
> the
> street who like to crowd me after we're rolling. I'll stay with a 7-800rpm
> stall speed t/c. C6 (wish I could justify the wide ratio) and 3.50
> differential gears.
>
(Snipped here too!!)
Funny I was reading Sleddogs response and thought it was to my post until I got to the
bottom and saw it was in response to George's. Our setups are almost exactly the same
though. My heads are C8VE-E heads though and will have the ports opened and
smoothed out. The shop doing the work is supposed to really know there 429-460 stuff so
i am sure they know what they are doing and won't go to far. Sounds like you are
reccommending a little more cam than the Comp 26H grind then huh?? How's about the
Lunati with .516 and .543 lift with 214 and 224 duration at .050?? Separation of 112 I thin?/
Maybe 114.


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:48:33 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

I just got accidentally disconnected with Summit and was in the porcess of
ordering a new cam, springs and lifters. Told the guy I wanted to go with
the
Rhodes lifters and he asked why. I told him to help out with the low end
and
because the loudness of them is cool. He told me there is nothing cool
about
a loud drivetrain!! What the hell is wrong with this guy?? Louder is
always
better!!:-) Anyway I was ordering the CompCam 268H, .494 lift intake and
exhaust and I think 218 duration intake and exhaust. Anyone care to talk me
out of this and into something better?? Stock C6 with Transgo shift kit,
10:1
compression with port matched heads to an edelbrock performer intake,
Sandersons headers, Performance Distributors ignition system, 35 inch tires
and stock 3.50 gears. Oh yeah,, bigger valves. 2.19 intake and 1.725
exhaust.I want tons of low end and don't want the top end to suffer. Cake
and eat it too kind of guy huh??:-) This bronco is driven mostly on the
street but does see some mild offroading. I am not towing anything right
now but plan on it in the future. Comments welcome.


Sounds like we're both after the same thing. All of it. I ran Crane's
version of that cam several years ago with 96.cc heads and a stock t/c. I
then went to a .541/232 degrees, with the CJ heads and a 2000rpm t/c
(impressive clouds of tire smoke off the line when desired, not an off-road
or towing combo) and now am at .519/228, DOVE heads and a 700rpm t/c.. I
think, unless I win the lotterey and can afford Sleddogs roller and custom
pistons suggestion w/offsetting jewelery for the SO, I'll stay with another
.519/228, use the PI heads and up the t/c stall speed to approx 1000rpm. A
dog off the line but it'll pull your house off it's foundation and baffles
the little plastic car crowd from 20mph on. Believe me, the noise of a rough
idle, Roades lifters, headers and 18" turbos gets their attention at traffic
light stops. Especially from a truck.

Sleddog doesn't like variable lifters but I've never had any problems. He
has more 385 experience and could maybe enlighten us on their drawbacks.
They provide me with a solid minimum of 16" of vacuum.

You're used to the 8.0:1 c/r, so be prepared for a new world when you go to
10.0:1 and big valves. That 385 was designed for a high c/r. Mucho fun.

George

ps: how did the Sanderson Headers fit? Are they shorties or full flow?

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:11:34 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation_very long.

> the PI heads are usually the big valves or the 2.19/1.73 as far as i
> remember with the standard ports. very good heads for what you want! wish
> i had a set of these for my street truck.
(Snipped right about here)

> sleddog

> From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
> I've finally completed cleaning up the combustion chambers of a set of '72
> 385 series PI heads. They have the CJ sized valves and DOVE ports. Ford
did
> make some strange combos; all the references say they should cc at 91.5
> with
> regular CJ ports but these are 75.3 with the small runners. Ford
Motorsport
> said that combo was common for the casting number. It saved me coin as I
> had
> intended to have DOVE heads machined out for the big valves.
>
> My objectives are off idle torque from 700-1200rpm for getting up snow
> covered logging roads carrying while pulling a load without wheelspin and
> continue being able to frustrate the highway plastic car high rpm'ers on
> the
> street who like to crowd me after we're rolling. I'll stay with a 7-800rpm
> stall speed t/c. C6 (wish I could justify the wide ratio) and 3.50
> differential gears.
>
(Snipped here too!!)
Funny I was reading Sleddogs response and thought it was to my post until I
got to the bottom and saw it was in response to George's. Our setups are
almost exactly the same though. My heads are C8VE-E heads though and will
have the ports opened and smoothed out. The shop doing the work is supposed
to really know there 429-460 stuff so i am sure they know what they are
doing and won't go to far. Sounds like you are reccommending a little more
cam than the Comp 26H grind then huh?? How's about the Lunati with .516 and
.543 lift with 214 and 224 duration at .050?? Separation of 112 I thin?/
Maybe 114.

Sleddog says to stay with the 110 separation angle; you've got the cubes and
don't need any increase. Another thing, Comp Cams states that their High
Energy cams (216 advertised duration) are not intended for higher
compression due to lobe design and an increase in c/r could cause
preignition and detonation. That's part of the reason I'm going crazy trying
to decide on a cam. Every manufacturer has different ideas on what the
public needs and since most have a high rpm marketing mentality, the desired
combo of torque AND rpm confuses their customer reps. We who want it all
really confuse them.

George Miller


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:52:55 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners

I've heard pros and cons about smoothing the intake port/runner inside
surfaces. Some say don't as the rough surface provides turbulence that
creates a better air/fuel mixture for combustion purposes. Others say smooth
is better for faster delivery. Both sound reasonable but I'm not sure which
is valid. Maybe both with lots of variables?. I'd appreciate any comments.

George Miller

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 19:53:50 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

From: "George"
To:
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:48:33 -0700
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com



(snipped right about here!!)
> idle, Roades lifters, headers and 18" turbos gets their attention at traffic
> light stops. Especially from a truck.
>
> Sleddog doesn't like variable lifters but I've never had any problems. He
> has more 385 experience and could maybe enlighten us on their drawbacks.
> They provide me with a solid minimum of 16" of vacuum.
>
> You're used to the 8.0:1 c/r, so be prepared for a new world when you go to
> 10.0:1 and big valves. That 385 was designed for a high c/r. Mucho fun.
>
> George
>
> ps: how did the Sanderson Headers fit? Are they shorties or full flow?
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Sorry George but I actually haven't purchased the headers yet!! This is as close as I have
been to getting them. Maybe this Friday. I know about a loud vehicle and don't think the
anti pump lifters are going to make that much of a difference in noise. I just swiped a nice
vacuum gauge from work so i am interested in seeing where I stand right now. Probably
drop the heads off as soon as the new springs come in. Looking for at least 450hp and
500 torque. Plan on playing tug of war with a poor Chubby!! Forgot to mention the pretty
Harland Sharp roller rockers sitting in the back of the Bronco waiting the "Build part II".
Need guideplates and hardened pushrods too. Any suggestions??


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 19:58:23 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners

From: "George"
To: "Ford-performance"
Subject: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:52:55 -0700
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com

> I've heard pros and cons about smoothing the intake port/runner inside
> surfaces. Some say don't as the rough surface provides turbulence that
> creates a better air/fuel mixture for combustion purposes. Others say smooth
> is better for faster delivery. Both sound reasonable but I'm not sure which
> is valid. Maybe both with lots of variables?. I'd appreciate any comments.
>
> George Miller
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
Does the optimmum mixing of the air fuel take place in the heads or the intake manifold??
I heard the same thing about leaving it rough and actually "stepping the port" which helps
prevent reversion and promote better mixing. I have no idea about this. Anyone?? I really
plan on leaving it in the heads of the machine shop and plan on questioning some of the
things I have heard and read.



dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:58:57 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

my experience is still coming, never learn enough - just wish i had more
time/money and a real place to do work. then i could go nuts! like a
sheetmetal crossram "box" intake and nitrous and blowers. . . .

anyway, my buddy in an FE found that tossing the rhoads in favor of
standard lifters it ran better all round (280 comp cam if i remember right)

my 460 with rhoads only pulls about 12" of vacuum (keep thinking psi, but
12" would be about .5 psi. that is inches of h20 wich i think that those
gauges are, right?) still got to get a pipe tap so i can put a vac gauge
on my new motor - see what that pulls.

oh yes, that CR will definatley make a difference. i went from 11.5 down
to 9:1 and i really felt robbed :( but it will run all day on the cheapest
gas!!!

my new one will be 12.3:1 and i can't wait to hear that high compression
pop from an early exhaust valve opening and high CR at idle.

variable duration lifters is just covering up a poor cam selection or bad
parts combo IMHO. i do not beleive you can get something for nothing when
it comes to cam design. did you know that not only rpm, but oil viscosity
and temperature and spring rates and oil pressure all effect the operation
of variable duration lifters to some extent.

sleddog





Sleddog doesn't like variable lifters but I've never had any problems. He
has more 385 experience and could maybe enlighten us on their drawbacks.
They provide me with a solid minimum of 16" of vacuum.

You're used to the 8.0:1 c/r, so be prepared for a new world when you go to
10.0:1 and big valves. That 385 was designed for a high c/r. Mucho fun.

George

ps: how did the Sanderson Headers fit? Are they shorties or full flow?

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:08:53 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation

i think more cam is better, but that is me. i would go bigger but i know
what i like, and it differs some some peoples likes and desires.

i don't think you have to worry about them going to far with the heads.

i like closer lobe seperations, but then i know someone who ran more rpm
with the 460 than i ever have and his cam has 114 deg. guess i need to
start rethinking things a little. (of course he has over 300 duration at
.050) and my engine analyzer thinks it should barely make power, and can't
explain how he turned so many rpm's with it!

guess computers can't predict everything.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Darryl A. Regan[SMTP:dar6 jps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 6:18 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Cam Recommendation_very long.

Funny I was reading Sleddogs response and thought it was to my post until I
got to the
bottom and saw it was in response to George's. Our setups are almost
exactly the same
though. My heads are C8VE-E heads though and will have the ports opened
and
smoothed out. The shop doing the work is supposed to really know there
429-460 stuff so
i am sure they know what they are doing and won't go to far. Sounds like
you are
reccommending a little more cam than the Comp 26H grind then huh?? How's
about the
Lunati with .516 and .543 lift with 214 and 224 duration at .050??
Separation of 112 I thin?/
Maybe 114.


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:22:09 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

i got one!
send me the rockers so i can finish my engine! summit has them on back order until at least the end of the month!!

:) :) :)
sleddog

- ----------
From: Darryl A. Regan[SMTP:dar6 jps.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 10:53 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Forgot to mention the pretty
Harland Sharp roller rockers sitting in the back of the Bronco waiting the "Build part II".
Need guideplates and hardened pushrods too. Any suggestions??


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:35:02 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners

to this point, i have formulated this opinion - it is only opinion so take
it the way you want:

for low rpm engines (maybe up to 4500-5500 for a 460) i think the roughness
in the intake runner and port of the porting marks, or the casting sand
will prevent raw fuel that is clinging to the walls from just running right
in to the chamber. basically improving mixture quality. maybe also
helping to richen mixtures when the throttle is opened up suddenly (like an
extra accelerater pump?) then again it may also grab exces fuel from an
accelerator pump that is too big a shot. can't decide which theory i like
better yet. anyway:

the smoother polished ports may work better at higher rpms 6500+ rpms by
reducing the friction, and therefore the speed differentiation between the
boundery flow and the full flow af the air fuel mixtures. at the higher
rpms, less fuel droplets fall out of suspension anyway due to the increased
turbulance and less time spent in runner.

in a dry manifold, such as efi nozzles next to valve or direct injection i
think that a well polished runner and port will always be of an advantage.
note, extrude honing is used more on the "modern" hot rods than on the
older motors, maybe for this reason - maybe not. maybe these builders just
have the money for it?

any thoughts?

sleddog


> I've heard pros and cons about smoothing the intake port/runner inside
> surfaces. Some say don't as the rough surface provides turbulence that
> creates a better air/fuel mixture for combustion purposes. Others say
smooth
> is better for faster delivery. Both sound reasonable but I'm not sure
which
> is valid. Maybe both with lots of variables?. I'd appreciate any
comments.
>
> George Miller
>



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:07:00 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

From: Sleddog
To: "'perf-list ford-trucks.com'"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Date sent: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:22:09 -0400
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com

> i got one!
> send me the rockers so i can finish my engine! summit has them on back order until at least the end of the month!!
>
> :) :) :)
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: Darryl A. Regan[SMTP:dar6 jps.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 10:53 PM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
> Forgot to mention the pretty
> Harland Sharp roller rockers sitting in the back of the Bronco waiting the "Build part II".
> Need guideplates and hardened pushrods too. Any suggestions??
>
>
> dar6 jps.net
> 78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
>
>
Well I just committed myself to getting things done on the head rebuild and cam swap.
Just spent $428 on the CompCam 268H, matching springs and lifters, hardened pushrods
and guideplates. Good thing th SWMBO is staying at her moms when these things show
up!! Now all I need are the gaskets. Is 450hp a reasonable expectation with the following
combo?? 460 cubes, 10:1 cr, edelbrock performer intake, 750cfm carb, 2.19 inch intake
and 1.725 exhaust valves, assuming good headwork, pocket porting maybe port matching,
.494 lift intake and exhaust, 218 duration intake and exhaust, 110 lobe separation,
headers, 2.5 duals into 3 inch 2 chamber flowmasters, roller rockers, 14x3 inch open
element air cleaner and chrome valve covers (I heard they give that last 20 hp):-).
Someones dyno software put me at about 480hp and 500 plus torque. Wish I still had the
info. Funny thing about you wanting the rockers,, I have had them sitting here for about 9
months!!


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 21:15:00 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Cylinder Head Intake Ports/Runners

>I've heard pros and cons about smoothing the intake port/runner inside
>surfaces. Some say don't as the rough surface provides turbulence that
>creates a better air/fuel mixture for combustion purposes. Others say smooth
>is better for faster delivery. Both sound reasonable but I'm not sure which
>is valid. Maybe both with lots of variables?. I'd appreciate any comments.
>
>George Miller
....


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.