perf-list-digest Tuesday, July 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 043



=======================================================================
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 - Pinging 428
Re: FTE Perf - Freecell and other trivia.....:-(
Re: FTE Perf - 97 Explorer pinging
Re: FTE Perf - 97 Explorer pinging
RE: FTE Perf - Looking for recommendations on a good oil filter
Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!
Re: FTE Perf - Looking for recommendations on a good oil filter
FTE Perf - 428 Ping
RE: FTE Perf - 428 Ping
Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!
FTE Perf - Oil
FTE Perf - Octane Too Much?

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:00:50 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Pinging 428

From: sdelanty sonic.net
Date sent: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:06:44 -0700
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Pinging 428

> >especially when towing.My timing is at 10 int. 25 mech. 35 vac.

> dialed in better. I'm down to less than 15 degrees of mech advance
> and about 10 degrees of vac advance (with about 16 degrees of initial

Initial is what the engine starts on and initial and vacuum is what it idles on if
you have it on manifold vac port. Initial, mechanical and vacuum is what it
cruises on, again with manifold vac.

When you step on it the vac goes away and is out of the loop so is not
important in that mode. To find the right curve for your engine you need to
test with the vac disconnected using only WOT. If you use any other setting
and leave the vac connected you will get too many factors involved to find
the best solution. You need to separate them and take them on one at a time.

First get the initial as advanced as you can and still start it with no kicking
when hot. This is your absolute highest initial but not necessarily the ideal
setting.

Next with no vac try accellerating briskly from a rolling start in second gear.
If it pings you need to back it off, if not try it in high gear, low speed, heavy
throttle. Low speed keeps the mechanical mostly out of the way and you are
basically testing your initial.

Once you have found a good initial take it up to 60 mph with no vac and
accellerate hard. If it pings you have too much mechanical and need to
tighten the springs a tad but be carefull, a small change can dramatically alter
your performance here! Start with the soft spring first since it controls low
speed advance and also affects all ranges above it. The heavy spring usually
hangs limp up to a certain point and then comes into play later.

When you have all this covered then hook up the vac and work on smooth
accelleration in various modes. Remember at cruise with throttle at
equilibrium you need a lot of advance to run economically due to lean
mixture and low cylinder pressure, as much as 50 degrees total. You also
need this much at idle due to lean mixture and extremely low cylinder
pressure or if on the ported vac you need to richen the idle mixture
considerably. The reason you still have only 40 - 50 degrees at cruise is the
vac is not fully in play due to manifold vac being less than at idle so the
mechanical offsets it but just the right amount when you have everything
properly set up.

Many swear by the ported vac but I've always run manifold vac because it
does exactly what I've described above which is exactly what an engine
needs for best performance. If you have an off idle flat spot with manifold
vac then you may need to use ported with richer idle mixture but the
mechanical and vac timing should operate essentially the same if I understand
ported vac as well as I think I do??

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 LIncoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:20:49 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Freecell and other trivia.....:-(

From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Freecell and other trivia.....:-(
Date sent: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 12:39:37 -0700

>> Are pumps out of the question and would that include siphoning? Or does it
>> have to be removed when full?

If you must know I just couldn't wait to have an excuse to test my new
tranny jack setup :-) Worked pretty well too but not very convenient for
pouring into another tank, tended to slide off at the most inopportune
moments and I kept running out of hands, again at the most....:-(

> After 7 bottles of dry gas and one of injector cleaner (just
> happened to be lying there so I threw it in too :-)) the truck still sits
> in the driveway waiting for someone to get up the guts to try to drive it
>
>> I don't know of any other way than dumping it to get water out of
>> gasoline. Unless you have a big enough container to let it rise to the top
>> and scoop it off. Sounds like you might have the time to do that........

I wanted to use it, not dump it partially because dumping it is illegal and
polutes the ground water etc. and partially because I'm basically throwing
away $200 I spent on the car since I don't expect to try to make a racer out
of it now and wanted to get some of it back........Ooooops!

>> What about the tried and true method of crawling under it while it's on
>> the ground? It's not exactly like the Bronco's ground clearance is
>> slammed.

I didn't put in a $6000 lift just to crawl under the truck and work on
it! ##$%$# # Doesn't that seem like some kind of a sacrilige???


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 LIncoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:30:34 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 97 Explorer pinging

Date sent: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 08:58:10 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 97 Explorer pinging

> Sounds like your timing is advanced somehow or another. I dont
> understand tehir theory on lower octane gas??? If it pings on high test
> than it will ping more with lower grade gasoline. Chris == FTE:

The dealers told me that new vehicles need low lead regular (87) since that's
what they are tuned for except for certain high performance cars. The
problem with high octane in these is that it won't run as efficiently or
economically as with regular due to low compression and other factors
which I believe is true but if you are having problems then there is something
wrong with the controls in the EFI or timing as others have mentioned and
this is something ford should address before your warrantee runs out.

Make sure you keep all documentation on any work or work requests you
make so you can confront them later if you don't get any help.

The problem I see with all this is that the ford mechanics don't know how to
properly test the systems so can't help most of the time due to this and the
service managers know this so keep putting you off. It's really pretty sad
IMHO :-( This is an area Ford needs to address but no one is listening and
there is no one to complain to that I know of?


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 LIncoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:12:38 -0500
From: Paul Olson
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 97 Explorer pinging

I believe that the knock sensor should automatically adjust the timing to avoid
this. On these vehicles the timing should be automatically adjusted, so it
shouldn't matter what octane fuel you use. (For pinging that is) However, if it
pings with high octane, it should only get worse by going to a lower octane. If
your mechanic doesn't undersand something as simple as that, DON'T LET HIM NEAR
YOUR TRUCK!!
Just my $0.02
Paul

LexRex aol.com wrote:

> For 1 1/2 years, I ran it on 93 octane without problem. Recently, at 35,000
> miles, it has begun pinging so I took it to the dealer, who suggested I use
> lower octane. I asked him twice, and he said lower octane. He said these
> engines are so well tuned that anything more than 87 causes pinging. He said
> it didn't ping before because I needed a tune-up, which he performed.
> I also talked to the regional service rep, who said I needed to try lower
> octane.
> Now I've run 5 tanks of 87 through it, and it pings more and more.
> Suggestions? Is there anyone at Ford I can talk to that can cut through these
> stories and get it fixed?
> Thanks
> Jack
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



- --
Paul A. Olson
B&B Electronics Mfg.
707 Dayton Road
PO Box 1040
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 433-5100 x244
FAX (815) 434-7094
email: polson bb-elec.com
web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bb-elec.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.obdii.com


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 11:09:57 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Looking for recommendations on a good oil filter

i checked this web site out. what they say is partially true, clean oil
needs no replacing, but they are forgetting to mention that the oil
additive package in oils does not last forever, and therefore needs to be
changed.

amsoil has a good idea, run the good filters, send an oil sample in to them
and they tell you if you need to add any additives, they send you additives
and you keep running same synthetic oil quite possible forever if it stays
clean.

so, do not beleive you will never have to change oil again. you will need
to do something to it.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Andrew Chung[SMTP:acchung techie.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 3:00 AM
To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: FTE Perf - Looking for recommendations on a good oil filter

I would like to ask people for their opinions on which oil filter is good.
I've looked at Fram, K&N, Motocraft, System 1, Oberg, Amsoil, etc. I
don't have all the stats for these filters, and many make a lot of claims
of this or that. If anyone has any stats on the Fram, K&N, and Motocraft
filters it would be appreciated. I've also looked at reusable filters and
also other oil systems which I don't have much experience with. Has anyone
tried System 1, Tattletale from Racor, or Oberg filters? I also found an
intersteing oil product at: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.trabold.com/ which claims to be
able to filter oil REALLY well. I'd like to see how reputable this company
is. Any comments will be appreciated. Thanks!
== 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, 27 Jul 1998 10:37:48 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!

>From: "George"
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!
>
>I've also heard that multi-viscosity oils are not good
>for the combustion process and since older stock
>Ford engine valve seals don't have the best rep for
>doing their job, would you recommend going to a
>single viscosity oil?
>
Yo George:

That may be true of other (older) Ford engines, but I've heard the opposite
about valve seals in M-block/Cleveland heads. Several engine builders I
know have told me the most common problem w/ Cleveland-type heads is worn
valve guides caused by too little lubrication because the neoprene disc
valve seals work too well. A common (but somewhat expensive) cure for this
problem is to ream out the original valve guide passage and install
silicon-bronze valve guide inserts. The silicon-bronze supposedly has
decent self-lubricating properties that allow it to function well for many
K miles and tolerate the lack of oil.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:23:20 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Looking for recommendations on a good oil filter

I don't know which is the best filter, But I do know that the Fram Double
gaurd is a waste of money. Basically anything that involves teflon is a
crock, because in orger for that stuff to "bond" to engine parts your engine
would have to get hot enough to melt your pistons.

Also I don't know what oil you use, but I use Valvoline Durablend. It's
cheaper than full synthetic(Mobil 1 IS the best oil, but I can't afford it)
and it doesn't break down. I put a lot of different oils to the test in my
old Galaxie Station wagon. Aside from full synthetics and any brand of
Valvoline, after 2000 miles the oil would be sludge
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:21:04 -0700
From: "J.Scott Harkema"
Subject: FTE Perf - 428 Ping

Thanks for the input guys. I have a Mallory Unilite dist.
on it so taking some more timing out of it is fairly simple.
I'll try 8 int. 15 mech &25 vac. The mech advance does come
in about 2500 rpm. I'd like to slow it down but i don't know
how & Mallory Tech. won't return my call. Typical aftermarket.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:06:49 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 428 Ping

just as a general rule for mech. advance, lighter springs and heavier
weights - it will come in faster, heavy springs and lighter weights it
comes in later. than there hould be a bushing to adjust the total amount
of mech advance when all in.

you should be able to buy a spring weight kit for it. my MSD came with
one. not as familiar with the mallory as i had not had good experiences
with them on mine and friends engines.

sleddog

- ----------
From: J.Scott Harkema[SMTP:harksjcd nvbell.net]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 1998 5:21 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - 428 Ping

Thanks for the input guys. I have a Mallory Unilite dist.
on it so taking some more timing out of it is fairly simple.
I'll try 8 int. 15 mech &25 vac. The mech advance does come
in about 2500 rpm. I'd like to slow it down but i don't know
how & Mallory Tech. won't return my call. Typical aftermarket.
== 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, 27 Jul 1998 18:32:34 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Resch
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!


>From: "George"
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Professor? NOT!
>
>I've also heard that multi-viscosity oils are not good
>for the combustion process and since older stock
>Ford engine valve seals don't have the best rep for
>doing their job, would you recommend going to a
>single viscosity oil?
>
Yo George:

That may be true of other (older) Ford engines, but I've heard the opposite
about valve seals in M-block/Cleveland heads. Several engine builders I
know have told me the most common problem w/ Cleveland-type heads is worn
valve guides caused by too little lubrication because the neoprene disc
valve seals work too well. A common (but somewhat expensive) cure for this
problem is to ream out the original valve guide passage and install
silicon-bronze valve guide inserts. The silicon-bronze supposedly has
decent self-lubricating properties that allow it to function well for many
K miles and tolerate the lack of oil.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

Total agreement. Several years ago a racer convinced me to have the bronze
inserts done on cast iron BB Ford heads and eliminate that concern. More
expensive, yes, but one less thing to worry about when considering the total
investment. I'm more curious about the pros/cons of viscosity polymers as
additives versus non-additive oil. Got to be a trade-off in there somewhere.

George Miller

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:58:28 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Oil

Subjected to multi snips
From: "George"

I've also heard that multi-viscosity oils are not good for the combustion
process and since older stock Ford engine valve seals don't have the best
rep for doing their job, would you recommend going to a single viscosity
oil?

No. But that is a qualified no... Changing the seals on a running engine is
a major pain, so shut the engine off and it is only a minor pain... But if
that is all that is necessary then that's what I would recommend doing. If
the engine is just living out the last days of it's life before a rebuild;
then go ahead, and run the single Wt. oil.
So These are MY reasoning...
Anytime you pump anything it takes power.
The thinner the viscosity the less power required.
The Multi oil provides faster lubrication when cold.
The Multi oil provides better lubrication when hot.
The Multi oil is generally easier to find.
The Multi oil goez on sale more frequently.
Sometimes those old seals can be revived, not that I would ever do this;)
but 100 Mi before the next oil change add 1 QT of ATF and a new filter then
run until the regular oil change. Do this for 4 or five times and see if it
brings back the seals. What ever effect this has it will be temporary... Not
that I would know by experience you understand.
But then I would never add a Qt. of 0W-30 to the Auto. Trans Fld. ether...

Oil is funny stuff, Too much, Too little, Too hot, Too cold, they will all
break you.
CS


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:03:31 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Octane Too Much?

Octane.
"A practical measure of a fuel's resistance to knock..."
"This property is defined be the fuel's octane number. It determines whether
or not a fuel will knock in a given engine under a given operating
conditions: the higher the octane number, the higher the resistance to
knock."
"Internal Combustion engine Fundamentals" John B. Haywood....


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.