perf-list-digest Wednesday, July 1 1998 Volume 01 : Number 013



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

RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's & now blowers
RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's
RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's & now blowers
Re: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's
FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, now tools
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, now tools
FTE Perf - John Bauer - 300 6
FTE Perf - Keith Srb - tools
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
Re: FTE Perf - Keith Srb - tools

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:04:09 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's & now blowers

with a roller cam it would idle fairly well. rollers are like that.
with a high CR and BIG cam at low rpm, throttle, enough pressure is lost to
run ok, but when the rpms get into where the cam and parts work together
for good VE, then the cylinder pressure goes way up and detonation on pump
gas happens. that's why you can putt around on pump gas with an engine
like this, but need race gas to run hard.

a blower would make ingnition timng something to set very carefully. it
would require a lower static compression ratio. (top fuelers run about 5:1
CR) a blower would run great with a smaller cam, so therefore could be a
great street engine around town. as for detonation, it can only make it a
worse problem. the air is heated when compressed, so it adds to detonation
problems. but IIWY i would find someone more knowledgable about blowers,
and hopefully someone whp has done them on an FE if that's something that
interests you.

for methanol, i don't think the tank needs draining, but the
lines/regulater/pump/carb do.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Keith Srb[SMTP:herbie netvalue.net]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 4:50 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's & now blowers



What would this thing idle like? Why would it bust if you ran it hard?

I am no where near ready to play with a nitrous or blown engine yet. Hmmm,
a blown FE Truck. What kind of problems would a blower added to this
situation?? As far a having a solid bottom end, I think this is a
necessity. Once you have a solid bottom end, you can play with the cam,
intake, carb's and other things.

>BTW, race gas is better than pump gas with an off-the-shelf octane booster
>in it.

Octane booster has never helped any of my vehicles.

>ever consider methonal? can be a great fuel all round once it's set up
>right, but the fuel system needs to be emptied when it sits for any length
>of time, it costs alot to build/run, but will make great power and can use
>much higher CR. smalles nice too :)

I am not sure how often, or long the truck would sit. It might only be
driven once or twice a month. Would I have to drain the tanks?

>any help at all? i feel like i am just rambling.

Yes this helps, but now it also has me wondering about using a 4 or 6-71
blower on the motor. I think I would have to let some else build that
motor for me though. I don't know if I like the idea of letting some one
else build my motor for me though.

>
>sleddog
>

Keith Srbherbie 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




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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:15:52 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's

the advance is fixed, and is really a retard! you set the destributer for
max advance and then the timing computer retards the timing at lower rpms
according the the slope i give the computer, and start/stop points i give
it, all with a urn of a screw. i run cast iron heads only BTW.

sleddog

ps-the jap bikes can run high compression for many more reasons, non of
which are the same as ford truck engines of ours. they have good
combustion chamber shape, swirl, tumble, aluminum block/heads, small bores,
large intake valve area (cooler) and many more reasons i am sure.

- ----------
From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 5:59 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's

As Sleddog pointed out, 10.5 or 11.0 should be no problem with aluminum
heads. He does run a computer advance and I don't know if that's fixed or
compensating. Some of the new rice burners are running high compression but
it's my understanding that the processor compensates the advance depending
on load.


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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:06:41 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's & now blowers

Thanks Sleddog!

This definitely gives me some more things to think about.

Keith

At 12:04 PM 6/30/98 -0400, you wrote:
>with a roller cam it would idle fairly well. rollers are like that.
>with a high CR and BIG cam at low rpm, throttle, enough pressure is lost to
>run ok, but when the rpms get into where the cam and parts work together
>for good VE, then the cylinder pressure goes way up and detonation on pump
>gas happens. that's why you can putt around on pump gas with an engine
>like this, but need race gas to run hard.
>
>a blower would make ingnition timng something to set very carefully. it
>would require a lower static compression ratio. (top fuelers run about 5:1
>CR) a blower would run great with a smaller cam, so therefore could be a
>great street engine around town. as for detonation, it can only make it a
>worse problem. the air is heated when compressed, so it adds to detonation
>problems. but IIWY i would find someone more knowledgable about blowers,
>and hopefully someone whp has done them on an FE if that's something that
>interests you.
>
>for methanol, i don't think the tank needs draining, but the
>lines/regulater/pump/carb do.
>
>sleddog
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:06:30 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's

I meant the cars, not the bikes.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sleddog
To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's


the advance is fixed, and is really a retard! you set the destributer for
max advance and then the timing computer retards the timing at lower rpms
according the the slope i give the computer, and start/stop points i give
it, all with a urn of a screw. i run cast iron heads only BTW.

sleddog

ps-the jap bikes can run high compression for many more reasons, non of
which are the same as ford truck engines of ours. they have good
combustion chamber shape, swirl, tumble, aluminum block/heads, small bores,
large intake valve area (cooler) and many more reasons i am sure.

- ----------
From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 5:59 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's

As Sleddog pointed out, 10.5 or 11.0 should be no problem with aluminum
heads. He does run a computer advance and I don't know if that's fixed or
compensating. Some of the new rice burners are running high compression but
it's my understanding that the processor compensates the advance depending
on load.


== 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: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:33:49 -0400
From: "John F. Bauer III"
Subject: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

Something I have always wanted to do and now with some scratch saved and
some space in the ole garage cleared, looking to build a mild 300 I6 for a
'77 E100 SWB van. Here are the items I'm considering putting together and
why. I am just looking for any advise from any experts (this is my first
project beyond "fix it so I can get to work"):

- - parts store re-manufactured 300 I6 longblock (don't have
skills/time/experience to rebuild my tired old 300, anyone have experience
with Marshall re-man. engines?)
- - Clifford Performance 4bbl water heated intake (gets chilly in Cleveland,
OH in the winter)
- - Edelbrock 600 cfm, manual choke, no EGR carb. (have practically new from
friend)
- - Clifford Performance single outlet van headers (worth having it heat
coated?)
- - "turbo" style muffler, single exhaust exit before rear wheel pass. side
- - Clark 3spd+OD manual trans, stock diaphram linkage clutch
- - '77 9" rear with 2.73 gears, stock tires if anything, maybe something a
bit wider (but not really taller) than stock
- - electric cooling fans, factory high output heater, dual batteries,
isolator, TV, vcr, nice stereo, fridge, laptop+GPS and other fun type
things when I win the local lottery ...

Seriously, the goal is to have a Ford van with high reliability for long
vacation trips (no pulling of trailers) and moderate fuel economy with some
uniqueness. I learned to drive and drove it till it rusted to pieces in a
'78 van with an inline 6 and have a slight passion for it.

Could anyone with more experience than I please let me know if I have a
pretty safe, do-able combination of stock and performance/clever parts?
Should I notice any serious improvement in economy or performance over a
stock arrangement?

John



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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:58:41 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

If you're after reliability, I'd take the time to disassemble and check the
basic tolerances on that short block. Some of the aftermarket manufacturers
are a little slack on Q.C.. A guy on another list found several sloppy
items, like a valve not properly faced on a SVO 351W head. There are
step-by-step books to lead you through it. If not for that particular
engine, all you need are the specs and the basics still apply. Some
plastigauge, a feeler gauge and you can rent a micrometer and torque wrench.

- -----Original Message-----
From: John F. Bauer III
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 10:41 AM
Subject: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?



Something I have always wanted to do and now with some scratch saved and
some space in the ole garage cleared, looking to build a mild 300 I6 for a
'77 E100 SWB van. Here are the items I'm considering putting together and
why. I am just looking for any advise from any experts (this is my first
project beyond "fix it so I can get to work"):

- - parts store re-manufactured 300 I6 longblock (don't have
skills/time/experience to rebuild my tired old 300, anyone have experience
with Marshall re-man. engines?)
- - Clifford Performance 4bbl water heated intake (gets chilly in Cleveland,
OH in the winter)
- - Edelbrock 600 cfm, manual choke, no EGR carb. (have practically new from
friend)
- - Clifford Performance single outlet van headers (worth having it heat
coated?)
- - "turbo" style muffler, single exhaust exit before rear wheel pass. side
- - Clark 3spd+OD manual trans, stock diaphram linkage clutch
- - '77 9" rear with 2.73 gears, stock tires if anything, maybe something a
bit wider (but not really taller) than stock
- - electric cooling fans, factory high output heater, dual batteries,
isolator, TV, vcr, nice stereo, fridge, laptop+GPS and other fun type
things when I win the local lottery ...

Seriously, the goal is to have a Ford van with high reliability for long
vacation trips (no pulling of trailers) and moderate fuel economy with some
uniqueness. I learned to drive and drove it till it rusted to pieces in a
'78 van with an inline 6 and have a slight passion for it.

Could anyone with more experience than I please let me know if I have a
pretty safe, do-able combination of stock and performance/clever parts?
Should I notice any serious improvement in economy or performance over a
stock arrangement?

John



== 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: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:32:37 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's

sorry, i thought you meant bikes, anyway many of the same principles apply.
an FE is certainly not as efficient a design as say the yamaha 6 cyl. in
the old taurus.

- ----------
From: George[SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 1998 1:06 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Compression Ratio's

I meant the cars, not the bikes.


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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:54:27 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, now tools

At 10:58 AM 6/30/98 -0700, you wrote:
>If you're after reliability, I'd take the time to disassemble and check the
>basic tolerances on that short block. Some of the aftermarket manufacturers
>are a little slack on Q.C.. A guy on another list found several sloppy
>items, like a valve not properly faced on a SVO 351W head. There are
>step-by-step books to lead you through it. If not for that particular
>engine, all you need are the specs and the basics still apply. Some
>plastigauge, a feeler gauge and you can rent a micrometer and torque wrench.

O.K. I need to purchase a Micrometer and a Torque Wrench. Suggestions as
to which brands?

Thanks

Keith Srbherbie 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: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:45:44 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, now tools

At 10:58 AM 6/30/98 -0700, you wrote:
>If you're after reliability, I'd take the time to disassemble and check the
>basic tolerances on that short block. Some of the aftermarket manufacturers
>are a little slack on Q.C.. A guy on another list found several sloppy
>items, like a valve not properly faced on a SVO 351W head. There are
>step-by-step books to lead you through it. If not for that particular
>engine, all you need are the specs and the basics still apply. Some
>plastigauge, a feeler gauge and you can rent a micrometer and torque
wrench.

O.K. I need to purchase a Micrometer and a Torque Wrench. Suggestions as
to which brands?

Thanks

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net


If this is a one time deal, why not rent them? If you're going to buy, I'd
suggest one of the flex handled torque wrenches. Inexpensive and accurate.
For mics, I haven't bought one in so long that I'll let someone else comment
on that.


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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:51:57 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - John Bauer - 300 6

John:
This looks like a good idea with the 300 six; it's a good motor. When I
was young, I worked in an engine rebuild shop, so I don't like to use
rebuilt motors - sort of like eating the hamburgers after you've worked
there. Can't tell you anything about this - you get what you get.
What I'd be concerned about is your drive train combination. I've been
aquainted with this setup, and if you are running the SROD 3sp + OD, you
really need to get rid of the 2.73 gears. It will pound out your bearings
from lugging: your drive ratio is 1.91:1. No point in running a 4v with
this, expecially with a van. A rear end in the 3.9 to 4.1 range would make
you happier and make your motor last longer, IMHO.
tim

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:59:36 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - Keith Srb - tools

Keith:
Everyone has their own likes and dislikes with respect to tools, tho you
can't go wrong with Starrett.
I'd suggest you not go out and by stuff in a big hurry, if you can help
it. I got a Starrett combo 2" - 6" mike at a gun shop for $60; it's like
new. Some guy used it to check case length, I guess. I also got a Mitutoyo
0" - 6" depth guage and 2" - 12 1/2 inside mikes at a swap meet for $60
(both for $60). Finally, I picked up a pair of nice dial indicators for $25
/ the pair at another swap meet. It sure saves a lot of money to scrounge,
as these tools are all in excellent shape. Look around before you buy.
tim

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:14:08 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

At 12:33 PM 6/30/98 , you wrote:
>SNIP
>'77 E100 SWB van. Here are the items I'm considering putting together and
>why. I am just looking for any advise from any experts (this is my first
>project beyond "fix it so I can get to work"):
>
>- parts store re-manufactured 300 I6 longblock (don't have
>skills/time/experience to rebuild my tired old 300, anyone have experience
>with Marshall re-man. engines?)
>- Clifford Performance 4bbl water heated intake (gets chilly in Cleveland,
>OH in the winter)
>- Edelbrock 600 cfm, manual choke, no EGR carb. (have practically new from
>friend)
>John

Without knowing the specs of the cam, I am suggesting that the 600 CFM carb
is way too much for the application. If it is a stock type cam, the carb
is almost double of what is needed. If it is a cam with some healthy
duration and lift and designed to run at high RPMs, the 600 may be about
right,

For a stock type cam, 450 CFM or less is best. A stock 300 I6 cam is not a
horsepower cam - they are designed for bottom end torque. The 300 I6 in
stock form has the characteristic of a diesel - lots of low end grunt and
not much on the top end. That is why most people don't like the 300 6's -
they want to rap it up to 5 grand and cruise down the highway then complain
that there is no power. That is not how a 300 I6 was designed. They were
designed to run at low RPMs. All their power is down low. You can cruise
at 70 MPH with a 300 6 (in an F150 aka brick on wheels) and not go above
2200 RPMs.


>- '77 9" rear with 2.73 gears, stock tires if anything, maybe something a
>bit wider (but not really taller) than stock

The wider the tires, the less gas mileage you will get. Wider the tire the
more friction there is between the tire and pavement - takes more power to
move the vehicle. The taller you go the less gas mileage you get unless
you increase the rear end ratio numerically.


>Seriously, the goal is to have a Ford van with high reliability for long
>vacation trips (no pulling of trailers) and moderate fuel economy with some
>uniqueness. I learned to drive and drove it till it rusted to pieces in a
>'78 van with an inline 6 and have a slight passion for it.

The 300 I6 is a great engine for towing and for everyday transportation.
My dad has an '85 F150 with the original 300 I6 that has 206K miles - and
still going. No major work has ever been done on it except for an oil pump
and the regular stuff like water pump, starter, ignition parts, etc.. I
keep bugging him to get rid of the old truck and get a new one. He keeps
saying that the last year for the 300 I6 was in '96 - and when he's ready
to buy a new truck there will be no more '96's that are worth the damn. He
refuses to get a V-8 - claims they are nothing but gas hogs and extra
weight. Stubborn German :)

You made a good choice to stick with the 300 6. (IMHO) - just a tad too
much carbueration

Mike

________________________________________
Email: mschwall texas.net
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mschwall.home.texas.net

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

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 18:14:56 -0700....

---

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.