From: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com (perf-list-digest)
To: perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list-digest V1 #14
Reply-To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


perf-list-digest Thursday, July 2 1998 Volume 01 : Number 014



=======================================================================
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 - inline-6 project, any opinions?
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
FTE Perf - Methanol
FTE Perf - Computer Advance
Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
FTE Perf - Methanol Fuel
RE: FTE Perf - Computer Advance
RE: FTE Perf - Methanol
FTE Perf - Performance Firetruck!!!!
Re: FTE Perf - Methanol Fuel
RE: FTE Perf - Methanol
RE: FTE Perf - Methanol

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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:05:14 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

- -> From: Mike Schwall
- -> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
- -> At 12:33 PM 6/30/98 , you wrote:
- -> >SNIP
- -> >
- -> >- 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 RPM's, the 600 may be about
- -> right,

SNIP
The 600 Edelbrock will work just fine in this application it is not "way to
Much" and it would appear that the price was rite! Using the standard type
calculations you get
390 CFM 4500 RPM so theoretically your recommendation of a 450 would be
too large.
In fact the 600 Edle. is a semi spread bore in that there is a difference
between the Primaries and Secondary. When run with an educated foot this
Carb will meter fuel quite well. Yes it is on the large side but the price
negates that. The Jetting kit for this Carb should be purchased and an O2
Sensor should be added to the price of the engine just to make tuning
easier; but the Carb will work just fine, just take a little longer to get
perfect. I run this Carb all the time on engines in the 289-302 range and
have even run one on an engine that had a 122CID.
- -> 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.

SNIP
This engine runs sooo well on the bottom end (like a diesel) because it was
designed to is correct; but to then say that it will not perform well at
higher RPM's is incorrect. Consider the way that the engine is set up.
Generally the cheapest manifolding that Ford could get away with; however at
low RPM's it will work. Cam timing events that are again specifically
designed for low RPM work. Most of the time we are looking at a 1 BBL or
small 2BBL. Here again the bias is low speed operation.
The compression ratio's are also generally conservative.
Looking at the potential of this engine... IT's a FORD and you cant start
out better then that. The 300 has a pretty good head on it (Cross flow
design), and you can clean it up in the ports and add some larger valves to
get the flow potential. The bottom end needs good quality fasteners and
everything Mag'd but other then the standard machining operations it will
live at a higher power output just fine. Add the above manifolding and the
Carb, kick the compression ratio to around 9.0:1, or so using a forged type
piston, and all that you need is a Camshaft. Duration figures would be
about 215 to 235 degrees or so. Yes that is a big spread but I don't know
exactly how the project will be completed. Like I think that the FDR it to
high and should drop to about 3.7-3.9:1. So with high gears (low #) run a
lower duration on the cam.
- ->
- -> >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.
- ->
- -> You made a good choice to stick with the 300 6. (IMHO) - just a tad too
- -> much carbueration
- ->
- -> Mike
I agree I like the 300/6, the Carb is a tad on the large size but it will
work, and the price was right!)
CS


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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 14:20:48 -0400
From: "John F. Bauer III"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

At 10:05 AM 7/1/98 -0700, you wrote:
>-> From: Mike Schwall
>-> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?
>-> At 12:33 PM 6/30/98 , you wrote:
>-> >SNIP
>-> >



>-> Mike
>I agree I like the 300/6, the Carb is a tad on the large size but it will
>work, and the price was right!)
>CS

I really appreciate everyones advise and tips, I getting pretty charged up
about getting started on this project.

Not to totally reveal my newbie-ness on automotive tinkering, but to verify
effects of "overcarburation", couldn't the secondaries (since they are
manual) be disconnected as a comparison (ie, making it ineffect a 300CFM
carb) on overall running and performance or is this going to throw things
so off I'm just going to make matters worse?

John


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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:36:07 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - Methanol

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

While we're here, doesn't methanol need more static compression than
gasoline to produce equal power? It would seem that it would be less
prone to detonation(very important in Truck-Pulling), so you could tune
a given combination "hotter" But without more compression, does it
really make more power than a gas engine with it's proper octane
requirements met?


- --
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, 01 Jul 1998 13:55:04 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - Computer Advance

> 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.

Would this system happen to use a vacuam sourced potentiometer to sense
load? I've theorized that if you could use the vacuam signal and break
it down into the smallest increments readable(like breaking down an
electronic wave-form and reading it in micro-volts) and tie it to a
microprocessor to incrementally control spark(and on EFI, the fuel)you
could be stoichometric under any load condition. On an older style
engine it would greatly simplify the installation of EFI and ESM,
because the network of sensors new engines use would then be redundant.
On a racing engine, there would be no over-rich or lean-out conditions
to deal with(or compromise for)when running under changing weather
conditions.
- --
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, 01 Jul 1998 15:01:51 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - inline-6 project, any opinions?

He refuses to get a V-8 - claims they are nothing but gas hogs and
extra weight.

The 6 doesn't get that much better mileage and if you are working it, it
is just as bad as a V-8!
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 18:07:50 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - Methanol Fuel

The major power gain achieved by running methanol fuel is due to the
increased BTU content of the intake mixture. Gasoline has many more BTUs per
pound, but is mixed with air at a relatively lean mixture. Whil methanol has
less BTUs per pound, many more pounds are contained in a given pound of air
becase methanol is run very rich. To put it another way, a pound of air
contains more BTUs when mixed at the correct proportions with methanol than
gasoline.
There is also a potential power gain due to the ability to run a higher
compression with methanol due to its very high anti-knock rating compared to
gasoline, but this is in addition to the inherent BTU issue described above.
Methanol runs cooler, too
wild.bunch (tim)

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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:36:55 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Computer Advance

it uses nothing to sense load, it is set by me, and stays there till i change it.

sleddog

- ----------
From: William L Ballinger[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 2:55 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Computer Advance

Would this system happen to use a vacuam sourced potentiometer to sense
load?

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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:35:29 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Methanol

yes, methanol can handle much higher CR. but that is what the initial
thread was about, how to run higher CR, and the meth gives that ability.
and it most likely would make more power than gas at same CR because of the
cooling effect of the fuel, and it is run at 6:1 instead of 15:1 mixture,
even though it has less btu per gallon energy.

sleddog

- ----------
From: William L Ballinger[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 2:36 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Methanol

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

While we're here, doesn't methanol need more static compression than
gasoline to produce equal power? It would seem that it would be less
prone to detonation(very important in Truck-Pulling), so you could tune
a given combination "hotter" But without more compression, does it
really make more power than a gas engine with it's proper octane
requirements met?


- --
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




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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 19:30:15 -0700
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - Performance Firetruck!!!!

Check this out!!! Fastest Ford (or any make!) firetruck on the face
of the planet. Nothing quite like 2 jet engines!

Rrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwhhhhooooooosssssshhhhhh!!!!


>
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cybertron.com/~ebb/firetruck.html
>
>Being a 1940 Ford truck, I'll leave it to Ken to forward to the
>appropriate lists :-).
>
>-john
>
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:53:07 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Methanol Fuel

What about propane?

George Miller

- -----Original Message-----
From: wild.bunch
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 4:18 PM
Subject: FTE Perf - Methanol Fuel


The major power gain achieved by running methanol fuel is due to the
increased BTU content of the intake mixture. Gasoline has many more BTUs per
pound, but is mixed with air at a relatively lean mixture. Whil methanol has
less BTUs per pound, many more pounds are contained in a given pound of air
becase methanol is run very rich. To put it another way, a pound of air
contains more BTUs when mixed at the correct proportions with methanol than
gasoline.
There is also a potential power gain due to the ability to run a higher
compression with methanol due to its very high anti-knock rating compared to
gasoline, but this is in addition to the inherent BTU issue described above.
Methanol runs cooler, too
wild.bunch (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: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:00:01 PDT
From: "MARK ROSENBERRY"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Methanol

what will it do to a stock engine with say a few street parts added to
engine ie headers chip pulleys nothing else.


From: Sleddog
To: "'perf-list ford-trucks.com'"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Methanol
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 18:35:29 -0400
Reply-To: perf-list ford-trucks.com

yes, methanol can handle much higher CR. but that is what the initial
thread was about, how to run higher CR, and the meth gives that ability.
and it most likely would make more power than gas at same CR because of
the
cooling effect of the fuel, and it is run at 6:1 instead of 15:1
mixture,
even though it has less btu per gallon energy.

sleddog

- ----------
From: William L Ballinger[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 2:36 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Methanol

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

While we're here, doesn't methanol need more static compression than
gasoline to produce equal power? It would seem that it would be less
prone to detonation(very important in Truck-Pulling), so you could tune
a given combination "hotter" But without more compression, does it
really make more power than a gas engine with it's proper octane
requirements met?


- --
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




== 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, 1 Jul 1998 23:47:53 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Methanol

running alcohol takes more than just dumping it into the tank. the whole
fuel sytem must be set up for it and it takes a system capable of flowing
more volume of fuel to run the same engine on alcohol than on petrol (gas).



- ----------
From: MARK ROSENBERRY[SMTP:ro771 hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 8:00 PM
To: perf-list ....


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.