FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79

perf-list-digest Thursday, September 10 1998 Volume 01 : Number 084

=======================================================================
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: FTE 61-79 - adress
FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress
FTE Perf - 2nd

pull
RE: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - Bad engine parts, was: responses
FTE Perf - EEC-III
RE: FTE Perf - 2nd

pull
RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses
FTE Perf - galled pistons?
RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses
RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses
RE: FTE Perf - galled pistons?
FTE Perf - Marine Engines
FTE Perf - ADMIN: Atlanta Get-together at the Atlanta Motor Speedway
FTE Perf - Shock Absorber replacement

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 09:46:56 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress

At 01:27 AM 9/9/98 -0700, J.S.H. wrote:
>My ford-truck email adress works great and I highly recomend it.
>Considering what I get off of these lists I figure buying a adress was
>the least I could do. By the way, my truck seems to run better now
>that I have my www.ford-trucks window sticker installed.
>
>
>
>== 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, 09 Sep 1998 09:47:24 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - adress

At 01:27 AM 9/9/98 -0700, J.S.H. wrote:
>My ford-truck email adress works great and I highly recomend it.
>Considering what I get off of these lists I figure buying a adress was
>the least I could do. By the way, my truck seems to run better now
>that I have my www.ford-trucks window sticker installed.
>
>
I get better milage with my sticker! Really! I slow down
whenever I pass another Ford truck or accelerate from
stoplights slower when there's a Ford truck behind me. I
like giving them a chance to read it.

Ken

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 09:53:26 -0400
From: am14

chrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - 2nd

pull

Yo Sleddog!!!!!!!! Congrats on your 2nd place finish. Not bad IMNSHO
for no longer than you've had this truck running. I can see now 1st
place. Just a matter of time and "tuning" in order to get there.

Didn't I see where toranados struck in your part of the country??? Sure
hope you escaped all damages.

Good luck.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 10:56:30 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - Bad engine parts, was: responses

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - Bad engine parts, was: responses
Date sent: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:27:28 -0400

> why not get the new crank kit from SVO? 4.300" stroke gives 514 cid, 520
> with a .030 over bore! it is a steel cast crank. under $800 for the
> crank, 1695 for the crank kit (pistons rods etc.) and 2650 for the block
> assembled with above, and 6495 for a whole 514 crate engine with alum svo
> heads minus carb, wires, headers, front dress.

This is just a keep it going for a while project so I think I may do a PAW
reground crank kit for $170 including bearings.

What I'm really looking for in my next project is a powerfull, torqey 460 that
runs CLEAN and SMOOTH but still has rheostat like power characteristics
that I can also hope to get 15 mpg out of. I know this can be done but I
don't think a stroker is the way to go :-) A roller cam OTOH............:-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's "The Ex-Black Hole"
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's "The Black Hole"
78 LIncoln Continental, 460, C-6, 19.5' long! "The Future.." :-)
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 10:00:57 -0500
From: ballingr

ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - EEC-III

The EEC-III was also a fuel mangement system. I had an '83 Grand
Marquis with a TBI 5.0 and AOD. It didn't have scan tool capabilities
like the EEC-IV, you had to get the codes by counting the blinks on an
LED under the Baro-Map sensor.

> Ford used both DuraSpark III (originally) and EEC-III names to designate
> this system. It was first used on cars in 1978 and discontinued by 1982.
> Again, the DuraSpark III system is not an engine control computer. It
> governs only the ignition system. Along with providing breakerless
> ignition triggering (like DS II), it also has some rudimentary
> advance/retard functions. It is a slightly more sophisticated (and
> cumbersome) version of the DS II system. It was used only on carbureted
> vehicles as it lacks the computing capability for fuel delivery control.

- --
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: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:11:00 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 2nd

pull

i ended up in 4th, by a few inches to all others, except 1st place. first
went to an alcohol injected BB beast with pulling tires. my biggest
problem was that i ran light. 1000# light in that class.

now, comes more building, then tuning. need a carb that can feed this
engine. the new holley 1250 dominater looks good.

no damage in this area, except for the marble size hail a few miles away.
glad it didn't hit here. they make big dents in my sheetmetal you know!

sleddog

- ----------
From: am14

chrysler.com[SMTP:am14

chrysler.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 9:53 AM
To: Perf-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - 2nd

ford.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 6:56 AM
To: perf-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - Bad engine parts, was: responses

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: FTE 61-79 - Bad engine parts, was:
responses
Date sent: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 15:27:28 -0400

> why not get the new crank kit from SVO? 4.300" stroke gives 514 cid, 520
> with a .030 over bore! it is a steel cast crank. under $800 for the
> crank, 1695 for the crank kit (pistons rods etc.) and 2650 for the block
> assembled with above, and 6495 for a whole 514 crate engine with alum svo
> heads minus carb, wires, headers, front dress.

This is just a keep it going for a while project so I think I may do a PAW
reground crank kit for $170 including bearings.

What I'm really looking for in my next project is a powerfull, torqey 460
that
runs CLEAN and SMOOTH but still has rheostat like power characteristics
that I can also hope to get 15 mpg out of. I know this can be done but I
don't think a stroker is the way to go :-) A roller cam
OTOH............:-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's "The Ex-Black Hole"
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's "The Black Hole"
78 LIncoln Continental, 460, C-6, 19.5' long! "The Future.." :-)
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

- -- 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: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:49:53 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE Perf - galled pistons?

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 2nd

pull
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:11:00 -0400

> now, comes more building, then tuning. need a carb that can feed this
> engine. the new holley 1250 dominater looks good.

Since this is a perf list I have question on marine engines. What exactly is
different about the power characteristics compared to a heavy truck. Seems
to me like they would be similar. A work associate is having trouble spinning
bearings and galling pistons at 4500-5500 rpm. That doesn't seem right to
me? I will say it's not a ford but I'm just curious what would cause this?

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's "The Ex-Black Hole"
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's "The Black Hole"
78 LIncoln Continental, 460, C-6, 19.5' long! "The Future.." :-)
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:57:34 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:17:03 -0400

> for the power
> band you want, big cubes are the only way to go! or a blower/turbo
> thing...

Boy! Stroker kit, blower.......stroker kit, blower..........what a choice :-) An
871 would look pretty nice sticking out the hood of the old bronco though
wouldn't it :-)

BTW, I would think this stroker crank would also require different
rods?......and certainly different compression height in the pistions?

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's "The Ex-Black Hole"
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's "The Black Hole"
78 LIncoln Continental, 460, C-6, 19.5' long! "The Future.." :-)
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:39:46 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses

can use stock CJ/truck rods, bushed for floating pins and use arp bolts.
piston pin height is different. you only will need aftermarket rods for
an offset ground stroker crank. and they are readily available, $600 i
think for eagles, $1200 for olivers like mine.

sleddog

ps-stroker AND 4.5" bore SVO block AND blower AND nitrous AND......

ok, ok, a man can dream right?

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3

ford.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 7:57 AM
To: perf-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Bad engine parts, was: responses
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:17:03 -0400

> for the power
> band you want, big cubes are the only way to go! or a blower/turbo
> thing...

Boy! Stroker kit, blower.......stroker kit, blower..........what a choice
:-) An
871 would look pretty nice sticking out the hood of the old bronco though
wouldn't it :-)

BTW, I would think this stroker crank would also require different
rods?......and certainly different compression height in the pistions?

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's "The Ex-Black Hole"
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's "The Black Hole"
78 LIncoln Continental, 460, C-6, 19.5' long! "The Future.." :-)
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

- -- 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: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 13:36:41 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - galled pistons?

to tight tolerance between piston/bore for piston type - maybe he is using
forged pistons with cast piston tolerances?
weak cyl walls - allowing flex and piston scuff.
dirt getting into intake
overheating
oil problems (like low pressure)
wrong bearing cleances
cheap parts like cast pistons, or cheap bearings
too low an oil viscosity (allowing metal/bearing contact)
poor assembly as in *dirty*
rod big end out of round allowing bearing to spin.
very poor oil quality allowing foaming, and perhaps alot of oil ends up
staying in the head, reducing the oil available to the pump at those rpms.
does he have oil coming from pcv valve or out crankcase breathers? high
oil consumption?
bearings can also be destroyed from an out of balance problem. a few
ounces of weight out a few inches from center will cause immediate bearing
failure! it is like a couple hundred pounds slinging around at high rpms!

marine engines are differnt than trucks, as they are expected to have a
braod torque curve from off idle on up, and still expected to turn "high"
rpms for long periods of time. i think it is the time spent at high
throttle/rpms, that makes the big difference. marine engines are generally
beefier. for ex, marine old 392 mopar hemis are mutch stronger blocks than
the car versions and are wanted by the rodder crowd for their ability to
take big blowers and nitro methane type abuse.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3

ford.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 7:49 AM
To: perf-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - galled pistons?

From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 2nd

pull
Date sent: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:11:00 -0400

> now, comes more building, then tuning. need a carb that can feed this
> engine. the new holley 1250 dominater looks good.

Since this is a perf list I have question on marine engines. What exactly
is
different about the power characteristics compared to a heavy truck. Seems
to me like they would be similar. A work associate is having trouble
spinning
bearings and galling pistons at 4500-5500 rpm. That doesn't seem right to
me? I will say it's not a ford but I'm just curious what would cause this?

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's "The Ex-Black Hole"
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's "The Black Hole"
78 LIncoln Continental, 460, C-6, 19.5' long! "The Future.." :-)
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

- -- 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: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 19:17:56 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - Marine Engines

Marine engines work in a very tough world for two reasons:

1. They require continuous power, like aircraft, not intermittent power like
cars.

2. They over rev very easily when the prop comes out of the water.

Oil control is also a problem if the pan is not baffled correctly.

tim

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 21:27:19 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: Atlanta Get-together at the Atlanta Motor Speedway

Sorry that I didn't get in touch with the people I promised to
call about this. Been working late.

Anyways, for the FTE gathering at the Atlanta Motor Speedway
(US Ford Truck Fest).....

We'll meet Saturday at 3 at the main entrance ticket office.
This is by the club house and condos, Richard Petty statue is
out front.

Mail me if you intend to be there and I'll send you my phone
number so we can chat. I'd like to bring some folding chairs
and perhaps sit down and chat over a late lunch/early dinner.

Peggy and I will be wearing yellow F100 Supernationals t-shirts.
Just look for the heavy guy with brown hair and a beard (ok, not
a good description, there are a million people like that at
truck shows).

Regards,
Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 20:11:43 -0700
From: Andrew Chung
Subject: FTE Perf - Shock Absorber replacement

I'm looking to replace all four shock absorbers on my '98 Explorer. The
body sways too much in turns and the rebound from the factory shocks is too
stiff. I haul a lot of people around during trips and rides around town
and they have started really noticing the bad shocks. I've looked at a few
brands but I would like to get some advice from people who have done shock
replacements about which brand/model and why they chose the shock they did.
I'm not gong to be towing a large amount of cargo. Mostly city/highway....

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.