perf-list-digest Friday, July 31 1998 Volume 01 : Number 046



=======================================================================
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 - Explorer Pinging
FTE Perf - RE:Pinging Explorer
FTE Perf - 3.8 in What?
FTE Perf - Address correction
FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection
RE: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection
Re: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection
Re: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:28:46 -0400
From: "J. A. Knapper"
Subject: FTE Perf - Explorer Pinging

Which engine do you have? The 4.0L OHV engine has a nasty habit of
developing an intake vacuum leak that will give you pinging problems.
Usually the cylinder that causes the problem is #5, it may show signs of
oil burning on the spark plug. An easy check for a mechanic to do is to
check the torque on the manifold bolts. I'm not sure of the spec, but
have the torque checked like the manifild is being installed, and if any
of the bolts are not up to the spec, I'd have the manifold gaskets
replaced. The 4.0L also likes to carbon up quite a bit, try some
combustion chamber cleaner first.
Jim Knapper
Ford of Canada
Light Truck Tech Specialist
1968 F100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:18:43 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - RE:Pinging Explorer

> As for dealers being in the parts replacing business, well the factory
> warranty covers defective parts and the time it takes to replace them. They
> HATE paying diagnosis time and consequently the dealers have to jump
> through a number of hoops to get the factory to pay for it and then they
> still come under the baleful eye of the auditor. Parts swapping is quicker,
> less risky and more profitable. I don't claim this is right, it's simply
> the way it is.

It isn't honest or fair to anyone. The customer or the guy doing the
work.

As far as fly-by-night independants go I agree 100%. My brother-in-law
redoes a lot of other peoples work, and yes even some dealer work
(putting on my foil suit).

I prefer to deal with an independant myself, only and if only, they are
well experienced, ethical and are staying up with the latest technology.
These requirements are hard to verify, so I see why people just go to
the dealer and take their chances. TV shows like Dateline have worked
very hard to make us believe that independants are all crooks. I feel
bad for all of the honest guys that like Brad that are working their
fingers to the bone and not getting the respect they deserve.
- --
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: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:20:07 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - 3.8 in What?

> Explorers with 3.8s? 3.0 yes, 4.0 yes, 5.0 yes, 3.8 I don't think so. BTW
> Ford does have a recall for replacing head gaskets on the 3.8s in
> Windstars. So regardless of mileage there wouldn't be any charge.

I was speaking of the 3.8 aluminum headed Mustang.
- --
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: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:22:59 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE Perf - Address correction

It hasn't happened in a while till today but there's a guy at ford with the
address GPETERS who's getting tired of forwarding my mail :-( Make sure
you put the "3" on the end when mailing me direct or it will go to him, please
:-)

I hope he isn't involved with systems or higher management because the mail
is not ford business related and could cause some flak.

My address is GPETERS3 and is used for profs mail as well. Apparently
the other peters is not on the email system and the network automatically
diverts it to profs. Once I have a truck list address I may change my handle
so this doesn't happen but meanwhile please take note :-)

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: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:19:03 -0700
From: "Gates, Markham"
Subject: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

Hello Steve,

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:06 you wrote:

> "...Perhaps a good water injection setup is in order?
> I used to use one on high compression air-cooled motors with very
> good results...
>
> Steve "
>
> Do they still make water injection systems? If so where can I get
> one? I understand they are rare if not non-existent.
>
The reason I ask (and you can skip this if you don't want or need to
know why) is because I'm currently building a 429 for my 55 F-100
(street rod - no towing - probably no racing either). It was (is) a '68
4V from a T-bird and had an advertised CR of 11:1. I wanted this to be
a fairly hot motor so I wanted to keep the stock CR. When I told the
builders that, they all cautioned me about the high CR. (One even
refused to build it with that CR and insisted that it be reduced to 9:1
or less. I don't think so!)

I am aware of the bad gas that exists today, but I felt I could get away
with the high CR for a couple of reasons. Primarily because of what Pat
Ganahl said in his book "Ford Performance", that Ford 429/460 quench
heads allow CRs up to 11:1 despite the bad gas. Secondly, if I have any
detonation problems I can always use octane boosters or water injection.

Now, when I said that to one builder, he said "Yeah, you can get away
with 11:1 in a light car but not a 3300 pound truck, and they don't make
water injection anymore because it washes away the oil film and causes
valve guides and cylinders to wear too quickly. Your only option is to
use octane boosters which may or may not do the job."

Now, I take everything most hot-rod engine builders tell me with a grain
of salt because they all tend to be "Chevy-centric". But the fact is
they still know more than me since I am a beginner with V-8s. All my
experience prior to this project has been with Jaguar engines.

So, what do you think? Should I listen to these guys or just go for it?
Anybody out there have some experience like this? Any advice at all
would be welcome.

BTW, it occurred to me that you could use dry-film lube on valve stems
and piston skirts to offset the rapid wear. But if H2O injection is not
available, it's all academic.

Thanks in advance and sorry about the ramble.

Markham Gates

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:57:49 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

i don't know about the h20 injection, but you can get the performance you
want with 10:1 or even 9.5:1 CR. my last build was at 9:1 and runs well.
and can use 87 octane at WFO with no problems.

IMHO use race gas instead of octane boosters if detonation is a problem.
at $4 a gal it ain't cheap, but it works better - but shelf life is
sometimes short.

i can't see how water washes away the oil film. it don't take the oil off
anything else without detergent or solvants.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Gates, Markham[SMTP:Markham.Gates PSS.Boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 1998 12:19 PM
To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
Cc: 'sdelanty sonic.net'
Subject: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

Hello Steve,

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:06 you wrote:

The reason I ask (and you can skip this if you don't want or need to
know why) is because I'm currently building a 429 for my 55 F-100
(street rod - no towing - probably no racing either). It was (is) a '68
4V from a T-bird and had an advertised CR of 11:1. I wanted this to be
a fairly hot motor so I wanted to keep the stock CR. When I told the
builders that, they all cautioned me about the high CR. (One even
refused to build it with that CR and insisted that it be reduced to 9:1
or less. I don't think so!)

I am aware of the bad gas that exists today, but I felt I could get away
with the high CR for a couple of reasons. Primarily because of what Pat
Ganahl said in his book "Ford Performance", that Ford 429/460 quench
heads allow CRs up to 11:1 despite the bad gas. Secondly, if I have any
detonation problems I can always use octane boosters or water injection.

Now, when I said that to one builder, he said "Yeah, you can get away
with 11:1 in a light car but not a 3300 pound truck, and they don't make
water injection anymore because it washes away the oil film and causes
valve guides and cylinders to wear too quickly. Your only option is to
use octane boosters which may or may not do the job."

Now, I take everything most hot-rod engine builders tell me with a grain
of salt because they all tend to be "Chevy-centric". But the fact is
they still know more than me since I am a beginner with V-8s. All my
experience prior to this project has been with Jaguar engines.

So, what do you think? Should I listen to these guys or just go for it?
Anybody out there have some experience like this? Any advice at all
would be welcome.

BTW, it occurred to me that you could use dry-film lube on valve stems
and piston skirts to offset the rapid wear. But if H2O injection is not
available, it's all academic.

Thanks in advance and sorry about the ramble.

Markham Gates

== 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: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:32:10 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

- -----Original Message-----
From: Gates, Markham
To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
Cc: 'sdelanty sonic.net'
Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:21 AM
Subject: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection


Hello Steve,

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:06 you wrote:

> "...Perhaps a good water injection setup is in order?
> I used to use one on high compression air-cooled motors with very
> good results...
>
> Steve "
>
> Do they still make water injection systems? If so where can I get
> one? I understand they are rare if not non-existent.
>
The reason I ask (and you can skip this if you don't want or need to
know why) is because I'm currently building a 429 for my 55 F-100
(street rod - no towing - probably no racing either). It was (is) a '68
4V from a T-bird and had an advertised CR of 11:1. I wanted this to be
a fairly hot motor so I wanted to keep the stock CR. When I told the
builders that, they all cautioned me about the high CR. (One even
refused to build it with that CR and insisted that it be reduced to 9:1
or less. I don't think so!)

I am aware of the bad gas that exists today, but I felt I could get away
with the high CR for a couple of reasons. Primarily because of what Pat
Ganahl said in his book "Ford Performance", that Ford 429/460 quench
heads allow CRs up to 11:1 despite the bad gas. Secondly, if I have any
detonation problems I can always use octane boosters or water injection.

Now, when I said that to one builder, he said "Yeah, you can get away
with 11:1 in a light car but not a 3300 pound truck, and they don't make
water injection anymore because it washes away the oil film and causes
valve guides and cylinders to wear too quickly. Your only option is to
use octane boosters which may or may not do the job."

Now, I take everything most hot-rod engine builders tell me with a grain
of salt because they all tend to be "Chevy-centric". But the fact is
they still know more than me since I am a beginner with V-8s. All my
experience prior to this project has been with Jaguar engines.

So, what do you think? Should I listen to these guys or just go for it?
Anybody out there have some experience like this? Any advice at all
would be welcome.

BTW, it occurred to me that you could use dry-film lube on valve stems
and piston skirts to offset the rapid wear. But if H2O injection is not
available, it's all academic.

Thanks in advance and sorry about the ramble.

Markham Gates


I've wondered about his book. The edition I read had a 385 series built for
marine use, which seems like an apples to oranges comparison for car/truck
applications. Most of the hot boats I've been around have to use water
passage restrictors to keep the operating temp up in a normal range.

If you're building a big block slammed rod, you might run into the same
problem a friend of mine experienced; underhood heat. It can provide you
cruise nights with boiled brake fluid, vapor lock and detonation. His
interior engine temp, cooled by the radiator and electric fans, was right at
190 degrees. The engine compartment heat, no way for cooler air to enter
with almost zero ground clearance and those rigs were made with decent sheet
metal, created a super hot fuel mixture entering the manifold runners.
Percolation at idle was a major issue. The fan ducting to solve everything
was big bucks and a hassle.

I've never heard of water injection washing oil. Is there a new water I'm
not aware of? If you're not going to put your ride under a load by towing or
racing with it, you can probably get away with the c/r. I see lots of
'Birds, Marks and Town Cars of that vintage driving around on a regular
basis and most appear to be unrestored condition drivers. I personally
couldn't refrain from getting on it every chance I had.

George Miller

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 21:54:55 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

>> "...Perhaps a good water injection setup is in order?
>> I used to use one on high compression air-cooled motors with very
>> good results...


>> Do they still make water injection systems? If so where can I get
>> one? I understand they are rare if not non-existent.
>>

>Now, when I said that to one builder, he said "Yeah, you can get away
>with 11:1 in a light car but not a 3300 pound truck, and they don't make
>water injection anymore because it washes away the oil film and causes
>valve guides and cylinders to wear too quickly. Your only option is to
>use octane boosters which may or may not do the job."

I don't think there's any problem with oil washing on a properly
managed water injection system. Oil doesn't wash off that easily,
and You don't need to use that much water to get the job done.
You want a nice fine mist, and the water should only be on when it's
really needed, and no more water than necessary to do the job.
I dunno where to buy H2O injection systems these days, and when I had
mine (15 years ago) they were pretty expensive.
I made my own...
It was a 2 stage setup with the first stage coming on with engine
vacuum below about 8" (adjustable) and second stage coming on with
engine vacuum below 2" (adjustable).

In order for water to be injected, the following conditions had to
be met:
1) Engine had to be running. (I used engine oil pressure switch to detect)
2) Engine manifold vacuum had to below 8" for 1st stage or 2" for second.
3) Throttle had to be more than about 1/2 open (magnetic reed switch
on linkage)

Water was supllied from a 2 gallon tank and pumped to about 30 psi
with a small electric pump. A pair of electric solenoid valves
controlled the 2 stages of water flow, and was sprayed into the motor
thru stainless spray bars in 3/4" thick aluminum spacers under the carbs.
The spray bars were the hardest part to get together, since it was for
two 2-bbl carbs on independant runner manifolds, and I had to make 4
identical spray assemblies. )-:
A V-8 would be much easier...

The high pressure pump, vacuum switches, and 12v solenoids were all
surplus yard stuff and cost maybe $40.
The spray bars were home made, and cost me several weekends of time
to get right...

Mine worked real well. I built mine to eliminate control on a 10.6:1
compression 150+HP air cooled VW motor in a '67 bus, and it did a
fine job. I ran it periodically at the Baylands drag strip (R.I.P.),
and put about 70,000 rather spirited street miles on it before I sold it.
I had the heads off at about 55,000 to fix an oil leak, and the cylinders
and valve seats and guides were still in good shape. The cylinder
heads were very clean and free of carbon.

I liked water injection, it really took care of my detonation
problem, and allowed me to run more timing in the mid rpm range and
pick up a bunch of midrange torque without grenading my motor.

Alcohol can be used in place of water also...

If You have a high compression motor with a detonation problem and
can still come up with a decent water injection system these days,....


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.