perf-list-digest Saturday, June 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 008



=======================================================================
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 - RE: FE Cam
Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
Re: FTE Perf - got more parts
Re: FTE Perf - Balancing Rods
Re: FTE Perf - Rod and Piston weights
Re: FTE Perf - Distributors
Re: FTE Perf - 460 roller cam was: FE cam
FTE Perf - Roller Cams and more Ramblings
RE: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
RE: FTE Perf - roller rocker arms was got more parts.
RE: FTE Perf - 460 roller cam
FTE Perf - Test
FTE Perf - 390 Ford vs 389 Poncho
Re: FTE Perf - Roller Cams and more Ramblings
Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
FTE Perf - Hello All
FTE Perf - Hot motor

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 07:07:22 -0600
From: dcbeatty
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

Dave wrote:


>It's already been said that manufacturers have an annoying tendency to
>recommend small cams; me and the way-too-small cam in my 460 play motor
can
>vouch for that. In this case though I think they may have come pretty
>close to what you need. A friend of mine had the 280 magnum in a 460
>powered '78 F150 4x4 and although the truck ran fine once underway he said
>it was a little soggy right off idle. His motor sounds similar to yours:
>9.75:1 cr, Performer intake, small Holley, cast iron exhaust manifolds and
>duals and a stock torque converter. Others may disagree but if you don't
>plan on doing a lot of modifications I think the 268H or the 270 Magnum
>should work well.

Great Dave. Thanks a-lot for the advice. When you say your friend's 460 was
soggy off idle with the 280 magnum, your saying that the cam was a bit
much, or, more specifically, that it was ground to perform better in the
upper end of the 1500-5500 rpm range, right? This is the stuff I'm trying
to avoid and this is the advice/information I've been looking for. I needed
to sort of narrow down the field.

My hope is to find something that will maximize power throughout this rpm
range. I just want to put some guts in the truck where, as someone here
said, folks think that just because it's a truck it's supposed to be slow.
I just pulled out the worn out 360 (which I thought was a 352) with a
broken ring so I'm pretty familiar with slow!

Thanks again. Any other advice/recommendations are appreciated.

Drew
dcbeatty rmi.net

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:03:39 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

You might also want to contact Crane cams, they have a website with allot
of good info. I've used their cams on...ahem...other makes of engines with
good luck. Their URL is http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cranecams.com/index2.htm

- ----------
> From: dcbeatty
> To: 'perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
> Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 6:07 AM

>
> Thanks again. Any other advice/recommendations are appreciated.
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:38:36 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - got more parts

Forwarded for maga55 netcom.com

>
>I heard Blue Thunder stopped making those cast iron heads so you are one
>lucky racer. Are you fabricating your own headers? I found the CJ exhaust
>ports are too big for L&L, Hedman or Sanderson headers. And the restoration
>people value original CJ exhaust/intake manifolds more than the heads.
>
>Maybe you can answer this one for me; I've heard that the BB Chevy roller
>rocker arms (mucho cheaper) are the same as the BB Fords. I'm in Las Vegas.
>
>George
>
>
>
>blue thunder cast iron heads with the CJ ports, not the BB chevy ports.
>
>they are ported and flow enough that the previous owner ran over 9000 rpm
>with 500+ cubes. the intake is also ported and flowed on the bench to flow
>within 2% of each runner (hard to do with long/short runners like the p-o-s
>has.
>
>sleddog
>
>ps-where are you located? in PA/NJ area?
>
>----------
>From: maga55[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 2:24 PM
>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - got more parts
>
>Good lookin rigs. What iron heads?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sleddog
>To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
>Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 9:53 AM
>Subject: RE: FTE Perf - got more parts
>
>
>>460 for truck pulling- check out my homepage:
>>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/7273/
>>for more info. there is info regarding my previous truck and my new
>buildup.
>>
>>sleddog
>>
>>----------
>>From: maga55[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 10:12 AM
>>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - got more parts
>>
>>What engine are these goodies going to enhance?
>>

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Performance List Admin in Training.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:40:15 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Balancing Rods

Forwarded for maga55 netcom.com
>
>Thanks - wish I'd had your concise explanation when I was trying to explain
>to my brother about the importance of balancing the entire assembly and why.
>
>George
>
>
>
>We know this and are just using a short cut term, but balancing rods
>involves balancing all of the big ends and then balancing all of the small
>ends. The total rod weights match also after this process, but that is an
>incidental result of matching all 8 big ends and matching all 8 small ends.
>When the parts are hauled down to the balancer, they view the big end as
>rotating weight and the small end as reciprocating weight. Reciprocating
>weight includes pistons, rings, and pins also. When the balance shop puts
>the bob weights on the journals, the value of the weights equals two rod big
>ends and one reciprocating weight assembly. This is because most
>reciprocating engines balance only 50% of the reciprocating weight. Some
>high RPM engines may find a 52% balance better, but no piston engine can be
>in theoretically perfect balance (unless it is opposed and the pistons are
>not offset with respect to each other) so the 50% figure is a compromise.
>
>wild.bunch
>

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Performance List Admin in Training.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:38:45 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Rod and Piston weights

Forwarded for maga55 netcom.com

>
>Let's try and stay away from ounces of difference in connecting rod/ piston
>weights, that scares me. If you take your crank to a machine shop for
>balancing and they ask you for a piston/rod assembly, they're ASSUMING that
>you've already balanced the other piston/rod assemblies to the lowest
>weight. If you haven't already balanced them, your crank is going to be
>balanced to whichever assembly you give the machine shop. That could be good
>or bad, Most likely it'll be like putting just the heavy throw rug on one
>side of the washing machine drum. And all that dough you sunk into the new
>engine could make it perform like a low rpm dog.
>
>George
>
>
>
>Keith Srb wrote:
>>
>> Somewhere, I heard or read that you should try and match up the rods to
>the
>> pistons by weight. If I remember right, the purpose of this was to try and
>> maintain about the same weight, of rod and piston together, between each
>> cylinder. Is there any truth to that?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>Not exactly. If I remember correctly, what you want to do is match the
>rods and pistons so that they are all within a few grams or ounces of
>each other. The purpose for this is to cut down or eliminate vibration.
>This is part of the blue printing and balances process for racing
>engines. The example I like to give is, it is the same principle as
>evening out a load in a washing machine, you get two much weight on one
>side and it makes a terrible noise. Same principle for an engine. Or at
>least thats what my wife kept telling me.
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
>
Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:38:55 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Distributors

Forwarded for maga55 netcom.com
>
>I've used them for ten years (first one lasted seven years, I still have it,
>changed it cause it was looking pretty shabby from the ins/outs) and aside
>from one module failure and a sheared shaft key, I've never had any
>problems. But I've never ran them above 6500rpm. A local bracket racer went
>to the MSD when his BB tunnel ram wouldn't clear the Mallory top cap.
>
>George
>
>
>
>no, the mallory uses a light, and the msd is magnetic. i personally don't
>like mallory's design.
>
>sleddog
>
>----------
>From: maga55[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 2:25 PM
>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Distributors
>
>Is that pickup anything like the Mallory Unilite?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sleddog
>To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
>Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 9:52 AM
>Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Distributors
>
>
>>ford duraspark will work into that range. the msd billet destributer i use
>>on my 460 for pulling has no vac advance, and i locked out the mech. adv.
>>to use a timing computer. i really like this one, but the pickup inside
>>did fail once. msd replaced for free.
>>
>>the msd is expensive, and the ford is not, why not just run the ford one
>>with the big cap?
>>
>>sleddog
>>
>>----------
>>From: Jim Craig[SMTP:jcraig nations.net]
>>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 12:41 AM
>>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>>Subject: FTE Perf - Distributors
>>
>>Hey I would like to upgrade my electronic dist. I am currently running it
>>with a Jacobs ignition (which is Great!) Any suggestions? I am wondering
>>what the little grey ignition box is for. When I rewired my truck, I hated
>>tying into that box! Accel advertises one of their distributors with no
>>external control box. Hey y'all, what you think of this?!
>>
>>I am looking for an accurate one to at least 6000RPM. I have only owned
>>ones with vacuum advances, any preferences?
>>
>>
>> Jimbo
>> '77 Supercab 460
>>
>>

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 09:38:27 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 roller cam was: FE cam

Forwarded for maga55 ix.netcom.com

>
>So you're just getting it's throat cleared at about 3500rpm?
>
>George
>
>
>
>264/272 at 0.050
>
>sleddog
>
>----------
>From: maga55[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 2:40 PM
>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 roller cam was: FE cam
>
>What duration are we talking at those stratospheric lifts?
>
>>
>>the cam i have, ultradyne (perhaps the best cam company) told me it is a
>>mild street cam. that is with almost .700 lift!
>
>

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Performance List Admin in Training.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:16:59 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - Roller Cams and more Ramblings

> Generally cam manufacturers will list two duration figures for a cam. One
> is so-called "advertised" duration and the other is a measurement of
> duration between opening and closing taken at .050 of lift at the lobe.
> It's an attempt of sorts to provide some measure of comparability between
> cams. Here's what I could find about specs for the two cams:

A thing about cams that complicates a choice is that duration is really
not the thing to compare the performance qualities of two cams. Two cams
can have the same duration and lift but be very different in their
ability to provide the power band you are looking for.

The best way to determine what a cam is really doing is to look at the
lobe seperation and overlap, and the timed events, or the points of
opening and closure.

To compare the streetability of a cam you have to understand that more
lobe seperation is better, as is less overlap. One case in which more
overlap can help is if you are running more compression than you should
be, as it will bleed off a little at low speed. Keep in mind though that
burnable mixture is what is going out the tailpipe, and if you have a
choice, opt to tailor the CR to your usage.

The process of designing a cam for a specific engine requires more than
looking at the duration and lift. Every type of engine and application
has a need for specific valve events to optimize the power in the rpm
band it is used in. This requires a specifc understanding of the flow of
mixture in that specific engine, the capability to live with ignition at
it's most optimun without destroying itself(flame front), and the
ability of the exhaust to make it's pulse waves to scavenge.(to be in
tune in the powerband desired)The aftermarket research on Ford engines
is sketchy, and a lot of the cams ground for us aren't the best. There
are fewer choices available, and this makes the cams available to have
to work in a wider range of applications than an SB Ch*vy, where they
grind a different cam for every 100 rpms difference in powerband. On the
FE, the factory did the R&D and came up with some fine offerings that in
my opinion are optimun for this engines abilities. Aftermarket
"tweaking" of the specs usually causes a loss of power somewhere.

Everyone compared the FE to the 389 P*ntiac back in the '60's. Hot Rod
would get a GTO prepared by P*ntiac R&D and run it against a dealer
prepped Fairlane. No one would mention that the Fairlane was much
smoother and freindly in traffic, and got 4-7 mpg better fuel mileage.
Of course the Fairlane got it's a*s kicked in the quarter. It really
just had a higher compression truck engine. The P*ntiac had the
equivalent of SCJ heads and alot racier cam profile and 3 2bbls. I've
run this stuff (though only with a 4bbl) and it's much more radical and
hard on plugs than any factory 390. The FE is a much better engine in
every respect, but on the 390 they dropped the ball on making a bread
and butter musclecar engine. Ford was concerned with insurance and
liability issues, and by the time they got their priorities right, the
big guns were out and these issues really were at the forefront. If only
they had put the 2.09 / 1.65 valves with the hotter GT (CJ) cam in it.
History would be a little different.

Hydraulic roller cams are the best tickler of valves made for a street
performance application. Solid rollers are the best for high rpm work.
Period. Hydraulic flat-tappets are sloppy and solids don't give enough
performance difference in most applications(up to 5500) to justify the
higher maintenence. If I had the money to put a dual-purpose engine
together, a hydraulic roller is what I'd use. You can ramp it quicker
without ungodly spring pressures, and gain power normally lost to
friction. Quicker opening and closing means more time at optimun lift
for a given profile, and less overlap (gives more low-end and better
vacuam signal) than a cam of equal duration and lift with longer opening
and closing time.

The roller of either type is a much more stable valvetrain, but of
course is a lot more expensive. That's where the rubber meets the road.
If you are rebuilding the engine for performance (running up to and over
5000 rpms alot )the cost IMHO is worth it. If it's not going to be run
that hard it becomes a matter of if it's worth it to have the capability
or not.
- --
Come on over to my Back Porch
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ldd.net/scribers/ballingr
Ballinger
ballingr ldd.net
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 12:50:13 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

try the comp cams camquest program too., go to their website - url?
download it and see what happens.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Bill Beyer[SMTP:bbeyer pacifier.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:03 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

You might also want to contact Crane cams, they have a website with allot
of good info. I've used their cams on...ahem...other makes of engines with
good luck. Their URL is http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cranecams.com/index2.htm

- ----------
> From: dcbeatty
> To: 'perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
> Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 6:07 AM

>
> Thanks again. Any other advice/recommendations are appreciated.
>

== 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: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:00:15 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - roller rocker arms was got more parts.

i am lucky, they had casting problems, so stopped casting them.
i also got them complete, ported and all with all hardware and a matched
intake and stud girdles for only $1400!!!

my headers are a set that are custom made from the same guy i got the heads
from. they are a bit small overall, but they'll work for now. they are
matched to the ports, but should still be a little larger yet for more
anti-reversion.

i have heard this also (roller rockers). i use the harland sharp rockers
for the 460 using 1.73 ratio. they are $200 from summit. backordered -
still waiting for my set for my new engine.

pushrod length will most likely be a custom length, or at least a non
standard length. i have heard bad things about the crane rockers, and the
svo ones are made by crane. i'll stick to the harland sharps.

sleddog

- ----------

>I heard Blue Thunder stopped making those cast iron heads so you are one
>lucky racer. Are you fabricating your own headers? I found the CJ exhaust
>ports are too big for L&L, Hedman or Sanderson headers. And the
restoration
>people value original CJ exhaust/intake manifolds more than the heads.
>
>Maybe you can answer this one for me; I've heard that the BB Chevy roller
>rocker arms (mucho cheaper) are the same as the BB Fords. I'm in Las
Vegas.
>
>George



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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:15:33 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 460 roller cam

don't know yet, as i haven't assembled and ran it yet, but my cam was used
for one season each by two previous pullers.

from what they say, it will turn on at about 3000 and build big power to
6000 or so and then hold on till 7000 or so, maybe almost 7500.

desktop dyno "confirms" this showing 345 hp at 3000, and adding almost 100
hp each 500 rpm till 5000 where the curve smooths off to a max of 767 at
6500 and not dropping below 700 till 8000 rpm.

this shows a trend similiar to the way i was told it would run, but the
numbers of course may be quite different (though engine analyzer shows the
same trends and within 15 horse or so)

torque peak (by DESK DYNO) is over 700 at about 5000 rpm.

engine analyzer shows over 100% VE for a braod range of rpms.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Keith Srb[SMTP:herbie netvalue.net]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:38 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 roller cam was: FE cam

Forwarded for maga55 ix.netcom.com

>
>So you're just getting it's throat cleared at about 3500rpm?
>
>George


>264/272 at 0.050
>
>sleddog
>
>----------


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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:36:35 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: FTE Perf - Test

Test

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:57:24 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - 390 Ford vs 389 Poncho

Here's my experience concerning poncho iron. I had (1) 64 GTO, (2) 65 GTOs,
(1) 65 LeMans, (1) 67 Lemans, and (1) 66 Catalina. I also had first hand
experience with a 69 Firebird RA III 400. My 64 GTO had a 69 GTO 400 in it.
As you can see, I have had a lot of poncho experience before seeing the
light and sticking with BLUE IRON (my younger days - what else needs to be
said?). Base on this, I can personally attest to the following facts:

1. When Pontiac moved from the 389 to the 400, the big change was not the
.060 increase in bore, it was the change in heads. 67 - up heads had larger
valves and much better flow than their 389 predecessors. My 400 64 goat had
3.53 gears, tri power, and iron headers. It was so much faster than my 65
389 tri power with tube headers and 3.73 rear that there was no comparison.
In fact, I raced the 65 389 against a guy with a new 72 Grand Prix 400 and
barely beat him. I do not consider the 389 much of a motor, due to the
heads.

2. The tri power setup looked ready to kill the world, but the manifold was
very restrictive. It would not produce as much flow as the later stock Q-Jet
manifold with a Q-Jet, and the Q-Jet is one of the lowest forms of
automotive life there is, IMHO.

3. Had a 454. This was 8.5 compression (instead of GTO 10.75), broomstick
cam (instead of GTO performance cam), Q-Jet vs tri power. Tell you what -
that stone 454 had more poop that any poncho I owned. Adding an RV cam, 780
Holley, and headers, the 454 was a motor and the 400 poncho was in the
Briggs and Stratton catagory. Ditto compared to a 440 I also built.

4. After driving a 67 Fairlane 390 GT, I really don't see how a 400 poncho
could hold its head up in this company, either. Performance 390s and 428s
were serious street equipment from FORD.

5. As an afterthought, I raced my 65 389 against a 429 SCJ Mustang once. I'd
tell you about it, but this story was featured on Monty Python as "The Joke
that Killed the World".

Ask the man who owned more than one; there's NO reason for a FORD lover to
be jealous of Pontiac iron. They may build excitement, but you'd have to
choose an Audi Fox at the light to find it.

Comparing the ultimate potential of the FE series against ponchos, just look
at early 60s track and strip records: 427 vs 421. That pretty much says it
all.

As far as Hot Rod is concerned, I believe I've made my views of their rag
known on the pre-61 list.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 19:51:15 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Roller Cams and more Ramblings

Everyone compared the FE to the 389 P*ntiac back in the '60's. Hot Rod
would get a GTO prepared by P*ntiac R&D and run it against a dealer
prepped Fairlane. No one would mention that the Fairlane was much
smoother and freindly in traffic, and got 4-7 mpg better fuel mileage.
Of course the Fairlane got it's a*s kicked in the quarter. It really
just had a higher compression truck engine. The P*ntiac had the
equivalent of SCJ heads and alot racier cam profile and 3 2bbls. I've
run this stuff (though only with a 4bbl) and it's much more radical and
hard on plugs than any factory 390. The FE is a much better engine in
every respect, but on the 390 they dropped the ball on making a bread
and butter musclecar engine. Ford was concerned with insurance and
liability issues, and by the time they got their priorities right, the
big guns were out and these issues really were at the forefront. If only
they had put the 2.09 / 1.65 valves with the hotter GT (CJ) cam in it.
History would be a little different.

I enjoyed and appreciated your excellent information on cams but,
bleeding blue, must comment on a comparison of the P*tiac and 390 Fairlane.
I owned a '63 1/2 Ford R code during that era and lusted for a Thunderbolt.
The FE engine, in Mustang 428CJ configuration, dominated the muscle car drag
racing class even after the Boss 429, lodged in a bloated Mustang, was in
production. P*tiac had one muscle car piece to offer and a performance
comparison with a 390 Fairlane was like picking the ugly girl because you
knew she would....... Sorry ladies. Hot Rod wasn't thick with advertisers at
that point so perhaps commerce had something to do with publishing
decisions. I won't mention the Cobra. Anyway, thanks again for your info.
It's nice to subscribe to a list which has such great resources.








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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 20:59:41 -0700
From: "Dave & Debby Anderson"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

>When you say your friend's 460 was soggy off idle with the 280 magnum,
>your saying that the cam was a bit much, or, more specifically, that it was
>ground to perform better in the upper end of the 1500-5500 rpm range,
right?

Only a little soggy, 460's make a lotta grunt down low. I think the rpm
range Comp. Cams gives for the 280 magnum is from 2000 - 6000 rpm and he
noticed the power was a little off below 2000. In a lighter vehicle, or one
with more rear end gearing or more converter it might not have been
noticeable. It wasn't a horrible hesitation but it was there. He purposely
went to the 280 because the motor was coming out of the truck and going into
a newer Mustang and would be getting headers, shorter tires, more gear, more
stall in the converter, different intake and carb. I personally think the
280 is too small for what he has planned.

A previous cam that ran real well and was more suited to the whole
combination was a Cam Dynamics grind (0.508 lift, 210 deg .050, 110 deg
lobe centers). It pulled hard down low and continued pulling up over 5000.
He had a problem with retainers bottoming on the guides and ended up
flattening a couple of lobes. He switched to what he thought would be a
bigger Crower grind (.498/.526 lift 210/220 duration at .050, 112 deg
centers) and got noticeably less power and a pinging problem thrown in for
good measure. Crane bought Cam Dynamics a while back and still carries the
old Cam Dynamics grind for FE motors - my friend liked that cam so well that
he bought one of those and was going to have a local cam grinding company
duplicate it onto a 460 stick.

> My hope is to find something that will maximize power throughout this rpm
>range. I just want to put some guts in the truck where, as someone here
>said, folks think that just because it's a truck it's supposed to be slow.

For what it's worth that F150 4x4 with the Crower cam and a set of 10" by
26" slicks ran 14.7's at over 90mph in the quarter. Not too bad for an old
wood hauler with a relatively stock 460.

Dave





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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:51:31 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Hello All

Hello,
Some of you know me from the "Engine Wars" on the 61-79 list.
Some of don't so... My background is high pro. Been doing it for long enough
that SWMBO can identify a dry sump and tell you why it's there.
I have been a Tool & Die/Prototype Machinist for over 20 years, and my
second job is in an engine development shop (is that a job?-). The
advantage to the second job, I have access to some people that have
forgotten more then most so called experts will ever know! (and that is a
bunch more then I know!) I take this list in digest form and often have to a
bunch of checking to make sure that I don't create an unintentional RCI, so
my responses may be a bit tardy from time to time (R#ctal Cranial Inversion;
I hate it when you have to take your foot out of you mouth in that
position).

I am looking for some/any information on some old SVO Cylinder Heads. These
heads were last seen in the 1994 SVO Catalog; they carried the part numbers:
M-6049-C302 and M-6049-C302B. They were sold bare and priced $622 Ea.
in 1994. They are listed by part number on the 1995 SVO Catalog but at
least in my copy they are not in the catalog, I have not seen these heads
referenced since 1995. Are these heads available from someone in the
aftermarket. My local Ford Dealer claims ignorance, and obsolete.
I have been told that these heads were never actually produced.

Thankz All
CS
79 Bronco



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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 02:18:51 -0500
From: Ezekial....


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.