perf-list-digest Tuesday, August 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 062



=======================================================================
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: Re: FTE Perf - Expected gas mileage?
Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters
RE: FTE Perf - RE: temps
FTE Perf - Running warm
Re: Re: FTE Perf - Expected gas mileage?
RE: FTE Perf - Running warm
FTE Perf - Re: Temps
RE: FTE Perf - Re: Temps
Re: FTE Perf - Re: Temps
RE: FTE Perf - K&N Filters (FIPK)
FTE Perf - K&N Filters
Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters (FIPK)
FTE Perf - K&N
RE: FTE Perf - Re: Temps
Re: FTE Perf - RE: temps
Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters
FTE Perf - ADMIN: Truck Driving Schools

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:04:30 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Re: FTE Perf - Expected gas mileage?

From: WmRobinso aol.com
Date sent: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:14:47 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: FTE Perf - Expected gas mileage?

> But - - I just today received the new license plate and registration for
> this truck from the NM MVD. The weight shown on the registration is 3,200
> pounds. Could that be right? This subscriber mentions "close to 5,000 lbs
> of truck" certainly a large discrepancy. Which weight is right for this
> truck?

My 78 standard cab, long bed, with 460 and c-6, standard tires etc. Weighs
4500# according to the gravel pit scale. My econoline van weighed 4600#
before the 4x4 conversion and my 68 weighed 4400# according to the
registration but I never weighted it. New cars come from the factory with the
weight of the base model with no fluids in them so if there is a 4 cyl option
thats the weight you will have on the paper work regrardless of what options
it has (that's my understanding anyway) and I've seen several that seem to
bear this out.

My 78 bronco weighs 4600# according to the papers and I agree with this.
My van weighed 4800# with tool box, 460 etc after the 4x4 conversion. 2wd
trucks typically weigh about 200-300# less than comparable 4wd of the same
model.
I seriously doubt that you could build an F-150 that weighed 3200# with all
normal street materials installed. Sport trucks which are completely stripped
weigh 2800 - 3200# depending on class and they have tin foil bodys on them.

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 08:24:01 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters

From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters
Date sent: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:52:41 -0700

> pure competition, I'd use K&N. I was joshing Gary on the oil treatments
> and plugs after his reply about the marketing vocabulary (microns, one
> million miles, etc.) K&N and many other firms use.

The only real advantage I see for the oiled foam type elments is that they are
not affected by water contamination like paper ones are. Microns are
microns are microns so if you keep the element in good condition they
should clean the air just as well but the oil can trap quite a bit on the surface
before it gets into the element so it doesn't get pulled through etc..

For racing, especially Baha type where some water crossings may be in the
mix or rain may be a hazzard foam is a much better choice than paper but
otherwise I'm not convinced :-) One option the after marked versions
sometimes give you is larger elements which can hold more dirt before thay
clog up and begin allowing dirt to be pulled through the element into the
intake. That option gives you a more constant intake volume over the length
of a race because it takes longer to fill up etc..


Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 11:15:55 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: temps

no. got one with 10" fan for tranny. not heating it up yet though
according to the temp gauge for the tranny. may when i know the temps of
the engine oil get a cooler and fan for that too.

sleddog

- ----------
From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 6:47 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: temps

Are you running an oil cooler?

George Miller


not sure of the ideal. will eventually find out though, as i want to put
an oil temp gauge on it.

some day i hope to have gauges also for O2, head temp, exhaust temp,
manifold vacuum (need to tap a hole) and volts/amps and a memory tacj for
the wheel speed.

sleddog



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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:49:39 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Running warm

Sleddog writes: >>ell, the engine is still running hot. started my pull
at almost 200, finished at 230-235.

Ever give thought to removing every other fin/blade on your water pump. If
this sounds excessive, maybe every third one or so - just so you remove
them across from each other to maintain some simulance of balance!! I used
to do this in my earlier days of drag racing. Worked to some extent.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 13:10:53 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Re: FTE Perf - Expected gas mileage?

From: WmRobinso aol.com
Date sent: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 01:07:30 EDT
Subject: Re: Re: FTE Perf - Expected gas mileage?

> I've NOW figure that I'm getting circa 12 mpg around town. I thought that
> that was pretty poor for a 302 cid.

Depends on the year and application. A 302 in a 4x4 with big tires and low
gears will be a dog and not get very good mileage but in a 2wd with the right
power train components and stock size tires it can get up to 24 (that I've
heard of). What's sad to me is that new trucks with V6's only get 13 mpg
when I can get 12 from a worn, un tuned 460 and have a LOT more get up
and go. Course the 460 won't pass smog if that's important......not to me :-)

There's no good reason for this except.......well, I won't go into my theories :-
)

As long as men (and/or women) are in charge of the rules there will be no
end to the waste.......Come Lo........you know what I mean :-)

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:49:01 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Running warm

on an electric h2o pump?
sleddog

- ----------
From: am14 chrysler.com[SMTP:am14 chrysler.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 12:49 PM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Running warm

Sleddog writes: >>ell, the engine is still running hot. started my pull
at almost 200, finished at 230-235.

Ever give thought to removing every other fin/blade on your water pump. If
this sounds excessive, maybe every third one or so - just so you remove
them across from each other to maintain some simulance of balance!! I used
to do this in my earlier days of drag racing. Worked to some extent.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:51:28 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Temps

From: "George"
Date sent: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:35:50 -0700
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com

> Have I been wrong in getting excited when my temp gauge (not a sensor)
> approaches 220 degrees with the a/c on while idling in the summer desert?

Can't give any real data but the thing I worry about is how this affects the
seals of the head gaskets and rings etc.. As long as it doesn't boil it should
continue to cool the engine evenly but what about the metal expansion??

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 16:47:22 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: Temps

i myself can't see how when an engine gets hot there could be anything even
remotely close to "even" cooling. the water enters the block and exits in
front, with bottom to top circulation.

that is why many chubby builders (known to run hotter than fords) and even
some other brands, run cooling lines from rear of block/heads to the water
crossover in front.

if i can't get mine cooler any other way, i will run these lines too.
tapping into the back of the heads, or intake and running AN fittings and
SS hose up to the front of the engine. the threads where the heater hose
used to connect looks like a nice place to use.

sleddog

ps-never understood why detroit engineers never run the top radiater hose
to the back of the engine for curculation that more closely resembles
"even" and "consistant" cooling.

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3 ford.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 11:51 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Temps

From: "George"
Date sent: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 10:35:50 -0700
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com

> Have I been wrong in getting excited when my temp gauge (not a sensor)
> approaches 220 degrees with the a/c on while idling in the summer desert?

Can't give any real data but the thing I worry about is how this affects
the
seals of the head gaskets and rings etc.. As long as it doesn't boil it
should
continue to cool the engine evenly but what about the metal expansion??

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

- -- 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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:58:23 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: Temps

Sleddog wrote:

> ps-never understood why detroit engineers never run the top radiater hose
> to the back of the engine for curculation that more closely resembles
> "even" and "consistant" cooling.

I can answer that one: it would cost an extra nickel to make either (a) a
longer hose to get to that point, or, (b) some other conduit to do the same
thing.

Funny that you don't see what you're talking about on newer transverse-mounted
engines, since this is no longer an issue. Maybe you should file for a patent!

Good luck with your new engine.

- --
Dave Baldwin '95 F-150
Dallas, TX Wheezy 302
- --------------------------------------------------------------


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:58:46 -0600
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - K&N Filters (FIPK)

Hi all,

I'm new to the list and have been following the K&N discussion
and haven't figured out yet if you are talking about the Filtercharger
Injection Performance Kit (FIPK) or the standard drop-in replacement
for paper filters. I have no experience with the drop-in filter but I
did
install the FIPK in my '95 F-150 w/351. The FIPK is a performance
inhancer and since this is a performance list I will try to focus the
discussion on performance and add my 2 cents worth to boot.

The FIPK has significantly better flow than the drop-in. You can
immediately see this by the very large convolutions (folds) in the
filter as well as the increase in over all size. As for the HP increase,
I can only go by the manufacturers claims (~10% HP 2500 RPM), but
my ass-dyno registers an corresponding increase in seat pressure that
confirms this. As for the claims it cleans better than the standard
paper
filters I have no data nor have I looked at the oil. I do have some
experience
designing filters and the principle is very sound.

Performance:
The increased surface area allows more air to flow through at a much
reduced drag (pressure differential between the outside and inside of
the filter) through the filter media.

Filtration:
The larger surface area will support more particles before filter
failure
or an increase in air restriction occurs. Saturating the filter with oil
stops more particles by increasing the adhesion (stickiness) of the
filter media, particles that normally would pass through the filter are
glued to the filter media. All preceding particles are trapped by the
previous particles that by then have reduced the pore size of the filter
media. It would make since that the filter would exhibit less air
velocity
per square inch than the stock filter therefore less suction that could
cause more particles to be forced through the filter media.

Darker oil:
As previously mentioned, I would expect that the K&N filter
effectiveness
increases as the filter becomes obstructed and that may be why the oil
is carbonized more than it was just after initially switching to the K&N
filter.

I believe using the oil as an indicator of air filter effectiveness is
not always a
true indicator. There are too many variables that contribute to oil
contamination;
the season of the year, the quality of fuel, the type of fuel delivery
system,
driving conditions, and additives such as methanol that they use during
the
high pollution times. Basically anything that effects fuel consumption.
It also
seems to me that it would take an incredible amount of additional dirt
to get
by your filter to suddenly cause your oil to carbonize enough to turn
from tan
to black after one oil change cycle. I don't think there is that enough
of a
difference between filters to cause this. I have always heard from
mechanics that
if your oil isn't black, it ain't doing it's job keeping your motor
clean. I don't
necessarily agree with that also but then I don't work on engines for a
living.

Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary, 78 BBB [SMTP:gpeters3 ford.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 2:24 AM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters
>
> From: "George"
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters
> Date sent: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 06:52:41 -0700
>
> > pure competition, I'd use K&N. I was joshing Gary on the oil
> treatments
> > and plugs after his reply about the marketing vocabulary (microns,
> one
> > million miles, etc.) K&N and many other firms use.
>
> The only real advantage I see for the oiled foam type elments is that
> they are
> not affected by water contamination like paper ones are. Microns are
> microns are microns so if you keep the element in good condition they
> should clean the air just as well but the oil can trap quite a bit on
> the surface
> before it gets into the element so it doesn't get pulled through etc..
>
> For racing, especially Baha type where some water crossings may be in
> the
> mix or rain may be a hazzard foam is a much better choice than paper
> but
> otherwise I'm not convinced :-) One option the after marked versions
> sometimes give you is larger elements which can hold more dirt before
> thay
> clog up and begin allowing dirt to be pulled through the element into
> the
> intake. That option gives you a more constant intake volume over the
> length
> of a race because it takes longer to fill up etc..
>
>
> Greed is the Creed of the Breed
> that did away with the Steed
> Visteon, Delphi..........:-(
>
> -- 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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:58:43 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - K&N Filters

I have been following the K&N thread with a great deal of interest myself. I
am considering one for my 54, but have held back for one reason: I haven't
seen any authoritative information on the size of particles that a K&N
filters vs. a paper element. I do not mean an advertizing claim; I mean
conclusive testing.

I am familiar with "Hot Bunk" and "Camaro Craft" tests. As most of us who
are past adolescence, those rags have little credibility. I have seen enough
independent testing presented in a number of publications to convince me
that the K&N: 1. Filters effectively when dirtier, 2. Has a longer service
life, 3. Lasts longer between service intervals, and 4. Flows measurably
better than paper elements. Therefore, I don't equate the K&N product as
equivalent to VX-7 liquid battery overhaul or Nology capacitive discharge
wires.

What I haven't seen is whether a K&N will filter out smaller particles than
a paper element will, or vice versa. That's the confidence I need before
I'll trust my rings and bores to a K&N. Is there anyone who has seen real
data (not hype or "I've been to the county fair and nothin' can beat my old
man's Rambler" syndrome) on this?

tim

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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:44:02 EDT
From: MindEfx aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters (FIPK)

As far as my experience with the K&N filtercharger i had had nothing but good
experience with them...and my times slips at the track have shown it. I have
a '94 Lightning and the Filtercharger dropped a full tenth off my times. I
didnt except to see that much of a difference. It isnt street legal, so make
sure you save the stock air box for when inspections roll around though.
Another thing that noticable decreased my times were underdrive pulleys. It
basicly a smaller crank pulley that spins your acces. at a slower speed (ie.
less drag). While it wasnt quite a full tenth in the quarter, my 0-60 times
went down and it was quite noticable just cruising around town, much more low
end punch.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:56:10 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: FTE Perf - K&N

My own experience with K&N is very good. I first put one in my moms 88 T-Bird
Turbo Coupe. Immediatly I noticed that the turbo spooled to 18 psi much
faster. I've also noticed an overall cleaner oil, But then it's always been
pretty clean (one of many good points to using Mobil1 Synthetic). I encourage
all to use a K&N. They truly do work wonders.

JUMPINFORD AOL.com
73 F-250 RangerXLT Camper Special
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 18:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: Temps

>ps-never understood why detroit engineers never run the top radiater hose
>to the back of the engine for curculation that more closely resembles
>"even" and "consistant" cooling.

The real trick would be to use the expansion plug holes for
cooling, some of the Japanese engines use 'em. I seem to
remember an American racer in the 50's using a flathead
Merc with a positive displacement pump for cooling into the
sides of the block, beating up on the Ferraries and Alfas on
the F1 circuit.........

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:51:24 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: temps

I don't know what your staging times are in the pulls. Many of the circle
racers seem to like 250+ with non-synthetic degrees on the oil. If your
engine temp is at 230 after the pull I'd think the oil would be at least 20
degrees above that, probably more if you have to stage for any period of
time. Don't know about the start temp if you're idling at 190 or so.

George Miller


no. got one with 10" fan for tranny. not heating it up yet though
according to the temp gauge for the tranny. may when i know the temps of
the engine oil get a cooler and fan for that too.

sleddog

- ----------
From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 6:47 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: temps

Are you running an oil cooler?

George Miller


not sure of the ideal. will eventually find out though, as i want to put
an oil temp gauge on it.

some day i hope to have gauges also for O2, head temp, exhaust temp,
manifold vacuum (need to tap a hole) and volts/amps and a memory tacj for
the wheel speed.

sleddog



== 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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 19:27:55 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Filters

I started this thread and haven't had my oil analyzed by one of the
independent labs that service the diesel engine industry for PM and failure
purposes while using the K&N and paper element air filters. That's the only
conclusive data I'd accept if I were considering usage on anything other
than a driver. I don't disagree with any of K&N's flow performance/lifespan
claims. My 'eyeball' evaluation showed about 10% darker oil using the K&N as
versus Fram paper elements in two separate cycles. The engine is a medium
deck .030 over 460 block that was hot-tanked clean enough to pass my
personal neat freak satisfaction. It has moly rings, factory bearing
clearances that I took a lot of time with, an aftermarket .519 lift, 110
separation cam with 51,000 hard miles on it and shows a constant 45 lbs.. of
oil pressure at operating temps using a remote oil filter and Pennzoil 40
weight. The DOVE heads are 26,000 miles old with stock Ford valves, Crane
springs and bronze guides. The intake system is Edelbrock RPM and his 750
cfm carb. I'm just neurotic when it comes to oil color with 1,000 miles of
usage.

George Miller


I have been following the K&N thread with a great deal of interest myself. I
am considering one for my 54, but have held back for one reason: I haven't
seen any authoritative information on the size of particles that a K&N
filters vs. a paper element. I do not mean an advertizing claim; I mean
conclusive testing.

I am familiar with "Hot Bunk" and "Camaro Craft" tests. As most of us who
are past adolescence, those rags have little credibility. I have seen enough
independent testing presented in a number of publications to convince me
that the K&N: 1. Filters effectively when dirtier, 2. Has a longer service
life, 3. Lasts longer between service intervals, and 4. Flows measurably
better than paper elements. Therefore, I don't equate the K&N product as
equivalent to VX-7 liquid battery overhaul or Nology capacitive discharge
wires.

What I haven't seen is whether a K&N will filter out smaller particles than
a paper element will, or vice versa. That's the confidence I need before
I'll trust my rings and bores to a K&N. Is there anyone who has seen real
data (not hype or "I've been to the county fair and nothin' can beat my old
man's Rambler" syndrome) on this?

tim

== 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: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 23:31:39 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: Truck Driving Schools

Dear Ford Truck Enthusiasts list members:

We have a new advertiser on our web site. Since the beginning,
our practice with web site advertisers has been to make a brief
announcement for 2 days (this is day 1 of 2). Please show your
appreciation to them for helping to support the web site and the
....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.