perf-list-digest Saturday, July 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 033



=======================================================================
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:

FTE Perf - roller rockers
Re: FTE Perf - roller rockers
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - roller rockers
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
FTE Perf - 71-84 460 Engine Swap
Re: FTE Perf - 71-84 460 Engine Swap
FTE Perf - Gary's opinions!
RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds -T/C

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 07:41:32 -0500
From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
Subject: FTE Perf - roller rockers

Crane claims a 25HP gain using their roller rockers. Anyone out there with
opinions and/or experience to back this up? They sell a "roller conversion
kit" that fits inside the stock sled type fulcrum (351M/400), these are
attractive because they are only $112, but they don't provide the roller tip
to push against the valve. Is this a good alternative to the full race
rollers that run over $300. What is the best option for the budget
conscience street builder looking for the most HP/$$$.

I would also like opinions for the best HP/$$ build-up in general engine
building terms.........NO engine wars please!! I am committed to building
a 400 to replace my 351M.
later,
dale c

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 06:53:22 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - roller rockers

My experience is with the 385 series but I'm too smug about the differences
to start an engine war. If you're building the M, I guess it's probably
going to be for a low rpm/torque application. When you do the assembly and
correctly determine your valve train geometry, there should be no real need
for roller rockers. They do reduce friction and that's always a gain for
those who seek higher rpms. I've used the rail type Crane roller rockers
(the real ones with the roller tip) on the 385 but, without a dyno, couldn't
determine any increase in HP from 'seat of the pants' analysis due to other
modifications. HP claims made by manufacturers should always be taken with a
grain of salt. Roller rockers are normally used in conjunction with other
valve train modifications. I'll use the Comp Cams or Harland Sharp rockers
in my next engine.

Somebody else on the list is pouring money into an M series engine and would
surely have more detailed info on it. BTW, there's an excellent book on what
you're approaching; How to rebuild your Ford V-8 351C-351/400M-429-460. It's
written by Tom Monroe, published by HPBooks, Inc.. Very detailed with all
the specs and interchanges.

George Miller



Crane claims a 25HP gain using their roller rockers. Anyone out there with
opinions and/or experience to back this up? They sell a "roller conversion
kit" that fits inside the stock sled type fulcrum (351M/400), these are
attractive because they are only $112, but they don't provide the roller tip
to push against the valve. Is this a good alternative to the full race
rollers that run over $300. What is the best option for the budget
conscience street builder looking for the most HP/$$$.

I would also like opinions for the best HP/$$ build-up in general engine
building terms.........NO engine wars please!! I am committed to building
a 400 to replace my 351M.
later,
dale c




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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:52:37 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

> From: "George"
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:59:59 -0700

> I think it's kind of funny; here we are talking about an engine with
> a cam lift of under .500 with a conservative amount of degree that
> will probably last 200,000 miles, makes 450hp with torque that slops
> over the table. When I read how much money some of the small block
> people spend to get MAYBE 400hp and 350lb torque in a 50,000 mile
> engine I just have to smile.

When I press the pedal on my 400 at 60 mph and the truck just squirts
ahead at a faster pace and then I compare that to my 460 I have to
agree. The 400 is more than aduquate but the 460 is just so smooth
and quiet about it and does it so much more elegantly with less
throttle and gets the same mileage to boot. What kind of mileage do
those small blocks get with 400 hp and 350# torque?

My first big block was a very worn out 429 in a 5k# 4wd van and it
had more guts with a timing chain falling off and 200k miles on it
than any other engine I've ever had except the 460. With a new
timing chain it was a real screamer :-)

My quest now isn't for "more" power but to maintain the power and get
better economy. I think I can actually improve on both up to a point
with roller cam and a few other little additions like the Rochester
or Carter thermo quad. I might even let Sleddog move me to try out a
single plane manifold I mean if it only takes 250# of torque to move
me briskly down the road who cares if I drop to, say, 400# with a
single plane :-)


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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:57:43 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

> From: Sleddog
> Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:39:06 -0400

> i don't mind engines that run rumpety rump at idle and need 2000 rpm
> t/c and only give real torque at 4000 rpms. i think you'll love 450
> hp as much as 480.

Actually I enjoy idling through a parking lot with a "cammer" that
goes rumpity rump but don't want to have to go with the high stall
converter. I like George's idea with the 700 rpm stall and torquy
bottom end but the 460 has so much torque anyway will it really drop
so much that you can't get a hole shot? My first attempt did exactly
that but I had a cold manifold, poorly tuned Holley and other
problems. My current "RV" engine with 2.75 gears flat melts the
tires with little effort so I can see a whole lot more cam in there
with no problems??

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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 08:48:18 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

> From: Sleddog
> Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:39:06 -0400

> i don't mind engines that run rumpety rump at idle and need 2000 rpm
> t/c and only give real torque at 4000 rpms. i think you'll love 450
> hp as much as 480.

Actually I enjoy idling through a parking lot with a "cammer" that
goes rumpity rump but don't want to have to go with the high stall
converter. I like George's idea with the 700 rpm stall and torquy
bottom end but the 460 has so much torque anyway will it really drop
so much that you can't get a hole shot? My first attempt did exactly
that but I had a cold manifold, poorly tuned Holley and other
problems. My current "RV" engine with 2.75 gears flat melts the
tires with little effort so I can see a whole lot more cam in there
with no problems??

- -- Gary --


Think tractor. With a 700rpm stall speed, limited slip dif., 3.50 gears and
31" tires, there's no such thing as a hole shot. It's like dumping the
clutch on a manual trans with no rpms. You have to get momentum on the mass.
With a stock (1600rpm) t/c, the trans is following the engine rpms, a 'head
start'. With a low stall speed, the engine is following the momentum. When I
was running the CJ specs engine and a 2000rpm t/c, I had to be cautious on
wet streets or get into serious trouble from wheelspin. T/C stall speeds
are not an exact science. From what I've experienced and read, many factors
are involved. What's rated for say 1600rpm can and will go up or down
depending on the torque and rpm curves of the engine modifications.

George Miller

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 09:03:04 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

> I think it's kind of funny; here we are talking about an engine with
> a cam lift of under .500 with a conservative amount of degree that
> will probably last 200,000 miles, makes 450hp with torque that slops
> over the table. When I read how much money some of the small block
> people spend to get MAYBE 400hp and 350lb torque in a 50,000 mile
> engine I just have to smile.

When I press the pedal on my 400 at 60 mph and the truck just squirts
ahead at a faster pace and then I compare that to my 460 I have to
agree. The 400 is more than aduquate but the 460 is just so smooth
and quiet about it and does it so much more elegantly with less
throttle and gets the same mileage to boot. What kind of mileage do
those small blocks get with 400 hp and 350# torque?


Mines not even close to quiet when you stand on it at 60mph. And smooth is
also an issue as the speed comes so quick that steering a large metal brick
with a high center of gravity demands a lot of attention. Don't know about
the small block mileage in a truck, the small block hot cars I'm familiar
with do about 10mpg on the street primarily due to high number rear ends. My
truck, with the stock 351W got about 13-14mpg on the highway.

My first big block was a very worn out 429 in a 5k# 4wd van and it
had more guts with a timing chain falling off and 200k miles on it
than any other engine I've ever had except the 460. With a new
timing chain it was a real screamer :-)

My quest now isn't for "more" power but to maintain the power and get
better economy. I think I can actually improve on both up to a point
with roller cam and a few other little additions like the Rochester
or Carter thermo quad. I might even let Sleddog move me to try out a
single plane manifold I mean if it only takes 250# of torque to move
me briskly down the road who cares if I drop to, say, 400# with a
single plane :-)


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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:09:51 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

single planes are less sensitive to carb tuning and many times make more power from off idle all the way up.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3 ford.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 6:52 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

I might even let Sleddog move me to try out a
single plane manifold I mean if it only takes 250# of torque to move
me briskly down the road who cares if I drop to, say, 400# with a
single plane :-)


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



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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:21:21 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - roller rockers

the roller rockers power increase soms from several places. lighter
(sometimes) componants, less friction, proper ratio, and less bending.

less frictio i am sure you understand. the bending od the rocker looses
lift/duration and also changes cam dynamics for the worse. this is where
the biggest increases come from. on small cams i see no need for roller
rockers, but i'll use them anyway as i like the idea of not pushing the
valve into the side of the valve guide as hard and they are less sensetive
to oil problems.

so, if your rockers are giving you proper lift at valve, very little pwoer
increase will occur. but if they are bending, and have a poor ratio to
start with (manufacturing tolerance you know) then you may get a full 20 or
more horse out of them.

look for harland sharp. the cheapest and one of the best. it is all i use
on my 460's.

the roller conversion for stamped steel rockers will reduce friction, but
that is all. the amount it helps valve motion will be unmeasurable IMHO.

best HP/$$ build-up in any engine depends on how far you are going to go
with it. but generally, the cheapest parts are intake, cam, headers.
after that, it gets a bit messy and hard to figure out where to put the
money. the best thing is head porting, but at a stiff price. Chris samuel
is doing a 400M. where is he??

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dale and Donna Carmine[SMTP:dcarmine inetnebr.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 8:41 AM
To: perf-list
Subject: FTE Perf - roller rockers

Crane claims a 25HP gain using their roller rockers. Anyone out there with
opinions and/or experience to back this up? They sell a "roller conversion
kit" that fits inside the stock sled type fulcrum (351M/400), these are
attractive because they are only $112, but they don't provide the roller
tip
to push against the valve. Is this a good alternative to the full race
rollers that run over $300. What is the best option for the budget
conscience street builder looking for the most HP/$$$.

I would also like opinions for the best HP/$$ build-up in general engine
building terms.........NO engine wars please!! I am committed to building
a 400 to replace my 351M.
later,
dale c

== 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:22:46 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

> From: "George"
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 08:48:18 -0700

> Think tractor. With a 700rpm stall speed, limited slip dif., 3.50
> gears and 31" tires, there's no such thing as a hole shot.

I'm thinking like this.......2.75 gears, wide ratio C-6, stock
converter and RV cammed 460 will melt the tires from stop or even
rolling start and the engine doesn't bog. That's what I call a hole
shot. I know that's not a drag style hole shot with brake valves
etc.. :-)

> It's like dumping the clutch on a manual trans with no rpms.

I understand the principle just don't have actual values to
compare......what's the stall speed of a stock converter?

And I think you are right since the stall speed would be the speed at
which it locks up solidly enough that on a brake dyno the engine
would not be able to turn with converter bolted to a solid object, is
that correct?

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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 12:27:23 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

they also change from gear ratio in the tranny, rear, and tire size and oil temp and type and driveline inertias and vehicle weight.

sleddog

- ----------
From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 1998 11:48 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds



. T/C stall speeds
are not an exact science. From what I've experienced and read, many factors
are involved. What's rated for say 1600rpm can and will go up or down
depending on the torque and rpm curves of the engine modifications.

George Miller

== 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 09:59:58 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

> Think tractor. With a 700rpm stall speed, limited slip dif., 3.50
> gears and 31" tires, there's no such thing as a hole shot.

I'm thinking like this.......2.75 gears, wide ratio C-6, stock
converter and RV cammed 460 will melt the tires from stop or even
rolling start and the engine doesn't bog. That's what I call a hole
shot. I know that's not a drag style hole shot with brake valves
etc.. :-)

> It's like dumping the clutch on a manual trans with no rpms.

I understand the principle just don't have actual values to
compare......what's the stall speed of a stock converter?

15-1600 rpm. But you've probably already changed that (higher) with the rv
cam. On a manual trans, you'd be reving the engine up to 1600rpm while
releasing the clutch just behind the revs. or dumping it at 1600rpm.

And I think you are right since the stall speed would be the speed at
which it locks up solidly enough that on a brake dyno the engine
would not be able to turn with converter bolted to a solid object, is
that correct?

Not beyond the torque ability. I've seen C6s and many 350 turbos fried from
hauling loads in the mountains at low rpms. If the t/c lockup is say 2000rpm
(and that's not an absolute number as slippage is still there unless you
have a manual lockup like the drag cars), the continual slippage at lower
rpms generates intense heat over a period of time. Trans coolers help but
nothing can cope with heat/wear over the long haul.

If you run a final drive of say 2.75 with 26" tires, what are your rpms at
60mph? (there are several websites with those calculators) Compare that to
your t/c stall speed. If the rpms are under your stall speed, you're wasting
the trans and not getting the economy you'd achieve with a lower stall
speed. To further beat this subject into the ground, most stock converters
are designed to help lower hp/torque engines (small blocks) get the mass
rolling. If you stand on a newer rice boy or any small cc engine from a dead
stop, it'll usually burn rubber from the higher stall speed t/c needed to
facilitate that smooth acceleration curve the marketing people like to sell.
Trans rebuild shops are a big business.



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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:09:12 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds

You must live with t/c stall speeds in the pulling competition. What do you
use?

George Miller

they also change from gear ratio in the tranny, rear, and tire size and oil
temp and type and driveline inertias and vehicle weight.

sleddog


. T/C stall speeds
are not an exact science. From what I've experienced and read, many factors
are involved. What's rated for say 1600rpm can and will go up or down
depending on the torque and rpm curves of the engine modifications.

George Miller

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



== 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:54:27 -0600
From: Jeff fisher
Subject: FTE Perf - 71-84 460 Engine Swap

Hello Perf-list,

Hello all, I'm new to this list and have a question you might be
able to assist me with..

I have an 82 F-250 4WD, 460 engine, 4 speed manual trans, A/C, pwr steering, the motor is worn and I am planning
the rebuild. While I was considering this a friend offered to sell
me his 72 F-250 2WD, 460 engine (1971), automatic trans, the 72 460 has only 15k on it
and runs well, the chassis of the 72 is in need of work but is functional.

So... I am considering swapping the engines and then selling the 72
chassis with the worn 84 engine.

Any thoughts on what kind of troubles I may run into doing a swap
like this?

I know I will need to maintain the flywheel and exhaust but I am
unsure of any major roadblocks. Money is the main issue here so I
am trying to do this on a low budget.

Thanks in advance for any help/guidance you can supply....

Best regards,
Jeff mailto:jrfish seqnet.net


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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 17:23:36 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 71-84 460 Engine Swap

I don't know the standard trans bell housing info (is it on the trans or a
separate piece) but the rest of it should be a bolt-in exchange. There are
no external block differences in the 385 series other than accessories and
you have both engines to choose those from. It's an ideal swap situation.

If that engine is a '71 as you stated, you'll have a much better performing
engine than the '82. '72 was when Ford went to a lower compression ratio
with increased deck height and larger combustion chambers and then again in
'75. Even the '72 will perform better than the '73 on. Either way, you'll
like the change.

George Miller

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff fisher
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, July 18, 1998 1:59 PM
Subject: FTE Perf - 71-84 460 Engine Swap


Hello Perf-list,

Hello all, I'm new to this list and have a question you might be
able to assist me with..

I have an 82 F-250 4WD, 460 engine, 4 speed manual trans, A/C, pwr
steering, the motor is worn and I am planning
the rebuild. While I was considering this a friend offered to sell
me his 72 F-250 2WD, 460 engine (1971), automatic trans, the 72 460 has
only 15k on it
and runs well, the chassis of the 72 is in need of work but is functional.

So... I am considering swapping the engines and then selling the 72
chassis with the worn 84 engine.

Any thoughts on what kind of troubles I may run into doing a swap
like this?

I know I will need to maintain the flywheel and exhaust but I am
unsure of any major roadblocks. Money is the main issue here so I
am trying to do this on a low budget.

Thanks in advance for any help/guidance you can supply....

Best regards,
Jeff mailto:jrfish seqnet.net


== 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 18:07:16 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Gary's opinions!

- ->From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
- ->Subject: Re: FTE Perf - What's going into the Bronco?
- ->
- ->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 :-)
- ->- -- Gary --

Before we start; I'll apologize in advance...

The engine is really not the issue here; the total performance of the truck
is!

As this is the Perf. List and for the record these two trucks were set up as
close to equivalent with the exception of engine as they could be right down
to the brand of tire!

I don't believe that I stated in this post that I was going to build this
400 to the power levels that I could with 60 more cubes, or even to what I
can get out of a "Built" 400! In fact I am really only building it for rock
solid reliability for the next 150,000 miles, my target is only 1 HP/CI
under 5.5k RPM. 1HP/CI is a basically stock rebuild in my world; but is a
power level that "junkyard 460's" do not achieve. I have easily pulled 600
plus horses out of a naturally aspirated street/strip type 460; the goal for
my 400 is much more realistic, and driveable! I chose to set my 400 up to be
able to run it at 1 HP/CI output for hours or even days, to get a 385 to
give 1 HP/CI for the same amount of time takes the same type modifications,
and they cost the same or more; not opinion - facts, period.

The weight difference you mention is not just 150 LB. it totals much more!
You forget to mention, or perhaps you don't know, that the extra weight of
the 385 series engines pushes the limit of the Dana 44 front axil should you
ever catch air, I play hard and I have had multiple feet of the stuff (and a
creek)under all 4 corners simultaneously. This combined with excess power
creates a mandatory front Dana 60 or 70 swap, more weight; and the D60/70
should be fully gusset'd; More $$$$, More Weight!
With the Dana 60/70 you must run a 38/9" tire to keep the same ground
clearance as a D/44 with a 36" tire. A 38/9" tire is more then I will run on
a flange type axil, so there goez a bunch of $$$$, and/or the 9" and you are
into a "Corporate" or Dana 60/70 rear axil.
Now the 38/9's are more then should be trusted to stock breaks so we add
aftermarket disks all round, more $$$$ (first rule of High Pro: Make it
STOP). The 38/9's and the 60's are all unsprung weight and even at crawl
speeds that hurts performance. The 385 adds all of its mass to the front of
an already nose heavy truck, not a good thing to do with regards to polar
moment of inertia. Yes, I could set the engine back but look at yours, it's
a nightmare to do! I've BTDT!
The simple reason that my Bronco worked so well was the overall weight and
the distribution of same, not the power output. What power?, at that time I
would guess that my tired engine was straining to give 200 horses, gee,
that's the factory rating for "junkyard" 460 of the same year!

Then there is your issue of cost, you raised it so here it is:
My Bronco set-up for the way I play will end up costing me around $15-18k
including the price of the truck.
The equivalent BBlk Bronco set up to do the same things is in the upper 20's
to low 30's, and in my experience will be an equally awesome beast; and not
work as well doing the type of things that I like to do.

If engine power were the only issue sure I'd run a 500+CID 385 series.
If cost and engine power were the only issues I'd drop in a 572 inch Big
Bowtie. They are the least expensive 1000 Horse Power option going on Big
Block island!!(sorry all, just the facts.)

If you want to run a 385 in your truck go ahead, enjoy it. If your pulling
something, racing, or suffer from Big Henry Envy 'you' may "need" it.

My truck is the result of building many Serious Off Road Toyz for a living
over the last 20+ years. Learning the difference between what works, or what
looks good in a magazine.
My truck don't play on the track, or strip.
I didn't build it to pull like Sleddog.
It is not purtty and or trendy.
I am not building it for any type of competition.
It is not set-up for flat bogs, sand, or drag racing.
You will never see it in any Magazines, and it will never be "done".
It is not the fastest thing on the street.
I am building it for my kind of wheeling, I tend to get into extreme
situations in the hills, I tend to be there alone, and I like to drive home!
With the "SMOGDOG 351/400M's" I have shown the tailgate to many a Big Block
powered toy in the woods. I fully intend to keep on doing just that.

- ->"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."

You are talk'en trash here Bro' and I've heard it all before!
Bad case of Big Henry Envy!
There needs to be a 12 step program for this kind of crap!

I make Horsepower for a living.
You are telling me I can go down to the local junkyard, pull out any of the
remaining running tired old 460's that only had a factory rating of 200 to
300 HP after about 73 or so (figuring that the hot factory engines are long
gone). That such an engine just takes some Gas and Oil and it will make 400
BHP.
Following the same logic when I bolt together a Truly Built 400 it makes
1175 BHP and If I build a mild 460 I'm getting 1000 BHP at 2000 RPM and it
goes up from there!
Do you smoke your copies of Chevy Craft and Not Rod???

Regards
CS
79 Bronco
Little gutless POS "SMOGDOG 400M"
Darn-it! Gary! I could'a had a 460;-)


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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 23:21:12 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - (Fwd) Re: 460 builds -T/C

1st build - about a 2500 stall....

---

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.