perf-list-digest Saturday, June 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 009



=======================================================================
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 - Hello All
RE: FTE Perf - Hot motor
Re: FTE Perf - Hot motor
Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions
FTE Perf - 390 Comparison
RE: FTE Perf - Hot motor
RE: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions
Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
Re: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions
Re: FTE Perf - Hot motor
Re: FTE Perf - Hello All
Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
Re: FTE Perf - New member intro
FTE Perf - 60s FORD Performance - Engine Power Potential
RE: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:04:36 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Hello All

yeh, i got some info for you - they are listd in my 1994 catalog too.

sorry, but that's all i know. did you try calling a large company like
summit or jegs's to see if they have any info? did you try the ford
motorsports tech line? i think the number is in the catalog.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Chris Samuel[SMTP:fourmuelz email.msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 1:51 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Hello All


I am looking for some/any information on some old SVO Cylinder Heads.
These
heads were last seen in the 1994 SVO Catalog; they carried the part
numbers:
M-6049-C302 and M-6049-C302B. They were sold bare and priced $622 Ea.
in 1994. They are listed by part number on the 1995 SVO Catalog but at
least in my copy they are not in the catalog, I have not seen these heads
referenced since 1995.

Thankz All
CS
79 Bronco




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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:10:48 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Hot motor

i don't know if i would recommend it for a first build, but a rebuilt solid
bottom end and a modern supercharger are immensly effective at giving the
302 "wheezer" (sorry, but i am used to 460+ cubes) a boost of energy. but,
i do feel a very solid bottom end would be in order and of course this
would most likely be more expensive than the mods you listed as it includes
some of them like a cam, pistons. but the upside is that you might get a
even quicker truck for your money!

otherwise, yes, a cam and intake, headers are all good places to start and
the TFS heads would help alot. but matching all componants to work
together is the hard part. sorry i am not more familiar with the newer
smallblocks and computer controls.

sleddog



- ----------
From: Ezekial[SMTP:derrick galstar.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 3:18 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Hot motor

Hello
I am new to this list but not to the truck one.
But anyways, here is my questions.

I have a 88 F-150 with a 302 auto, 3.08 rear, long bed. I am looking
for something to get it faster, like down to a 15sec 1/4 mile if
possible. I have been considering boring it out to a 306, putting TFS
twisted wedge heads on in, new cam, TRW forged pistons, headers and true
dual exhaust and a shift kit in the tranny. Posi track out back too.
I was wondering if this sound the most cost effection and easiest way of
getting my truck faster without hacking into any of the electronics
other then getting the comp re-programed with the new stuff added. Any
ideas will be helpful in getting the most power for the buck. This
would be my first engine build with the help of my cousin (mechanic).
So I am just getting into all this stuff and have always loved fast
cars.
Thanx in advance
Derrick
== 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 07:53:18 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Hot motor

I don't know small blocks but it would seem that getting your rear end ratio
up to where that little engine's rpms could be used would be a first step.
Judging from the mods you're considering, I'd also think you could bolt on
one of the aftermarket blowers for about the same price without disturbing
your processor controls or drivability.

George

I have a 88 F-150 with a 302 auto, 3.08 rear, long bed. I am looking
for something to get it faster, like down to a 15sec 1/4 mile if
possible. I have been considering boring it out to a 306, putting TFS
twisted wedge heads on in, new cam, TRW forged pistons, headers and true
dual exhaust and a shift kit in the tranny. Posi track out back too.
I was wondering if this sound the most cost effection and easiest way of
getting my truck faster without hacking into any of the electronics
other then getting the comp re-programed with the new stuff added. Any
ideas will be helpful in getting the most power for the buck. This
would be my first engine build with the help of my cousin (mechanic).
So I am just getting into all this stuff and have always loved fast
cars.
Thanx in advance
Derrick
== 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 08:02:04 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

Most stock converters are rated at 15-1800rpm (it's a murky subject as
differences are generated by additional torque, etc.) and a cam with a power
curve starting at 2000rpm would be a little slow off the line.

George


>When you say your friend's 460 was soggy off idle with the 280 magnum,
>your saying that the cam was a bit much, or, more specifically, that it was
>ground to perform better in the upper end of the 1500-5500 rpm range,
right?

Only a little soggy, 460's make a lotta grunt down low. I think the rpm
range Comp. Cams gives for the 280 magnum is from 2000 - 6000 rpm and he
noticed the power was a little off below 2000. In a lighter vehicle, or one
with more rear end gearing or more converter it might not have been
noticeable. It wasn't a horrible hesitation but it was there. He purposely
went to the 280 because the motor was coming out of the truck and going into
a newer Mustang and would be getting headers, shorter tires, more gear, more
stall in the converter, different intake and carb. I personally think the
280 is too small for what he has planned.

A previous cam that ran real well and was more suited to the whole
combination was a Cam Dynamics grind (0.508 lift, 210 deg .050, 110 deg
lobe centers). It pulled hard down low and continued pulling up over 5000.
He had a problem with retainers bottoming on the guides and ended up
flattening a couple of lobes. He switched to what he thought would be a
bigger Crower grind (.498/.526 lift 210/220 duration at .050, 112 deg
centers) and got noticeably less power and a pinging problem thrown in for
good measure. Crane bought Cam Dynamics a while back and still carries the
old Cam Dynamics grind for FE motors - my friend liked that cam so well that
he bought one of those and was going to have a local cam grinding company
duplicate it onto a 460 stick.

> My hope is to find something that will maximize power throughout this rpm
>range. I just want to put some guts in the truck where, as someone here
>said, folks think that just because it's a truck it's supposed to be slow.

For what it's worth that F150 4x4 with the Crower cam and a set of 10" by
26" slicks ran 14.7's at over 90mph in the quarter. Not too bad for an old
wood hauler with a relatively stock 460.

Dave





== 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ryan Tourge
Subject: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions

I am considering installing a Borla exhaust system on my '98 Ranger 3.0L.
Should I expect a decrease in fuel economy?
Is their anything else I need to do other then bolt it on? I assume the
computer will take care of the rest.

Thanks

~
Ryan Tourge rtourge superior.net
- -------------------------------------------
CCCCCC FFFFFFFFF DDDDDD
CCC CCC FFFFFFFF DD DD
CC FFF DD DD
CC FFFFFF DD DD
CCC CCC FFF DDD DD
CCCCCC FFF DDDDDDDD

Chestertown Volunteer Fire Company
- -------------------------------------------
Firefighter EMS First Responder

~

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:03:38 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - 390 Comparison

> I enjoyed and appreciated your excellent information on cams but,
> bleeding blue, must comment on a comparison of the P*tiac and 390 Fairlane.
> I owned a '63 1/2 Ford R code during that era and lusted for a Thunderbolt.
> The FE engine, in Mustang 428CJ configuration, dominated the muscle car drag
> racing class even after the Boss 429, lodged in a bloated Mustang, was in
> production. P*tiac had one muscle car piece to offer and a performance
> comparison with a 390 Fairlane was like picking the ugly girl because you
> knew she would....... Sorry ladies. Hot Rod wasn't thick with advertisers at
> that point so perhaps commerce had something to do with publishing
> decisions. I won't mention the Cobra. Anyway, thanks again for your info.
> It's nice to subscribe to a list which has such great resources.


I bleed blue myself. The comparison I'm making is in the cruiser-weight
mid-size class(400 cid) This is the class that defined the muscle-car in
it's purest form. An R-code 427 Galaxie was expensive(I'd give my left
nut to have one)and used special parts, and should be considered the
first salvo of the muscle war, but like it or not, it isn't. A CJ
Mustang isn't in the same class as a Goat, it is 28 more cubes and is
500 lbs lighter. The '66 427 Medium-Riser Fairlane would be the
elephant-gun of the class, but see, we're going into a different class
of rig here. A T-Bolt, come on mow. My dream car is a '64 Galaxie with a
SOHC motor in it, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I have
always wished that Ford had pumped up the 390GT Fairlane instead of
focusing entirely on the big guns. All it needed was the CJ heads, and
an aluminum intake. I've seen this combination built with nearly all
factory parts:


'66 Fairlane 390 4 bbl 335 hp C-6 3.50 gears

Low-Riser or CJ heads (The 390GT heads will accept the larger valves and
with a little clean up will perform just as well, I've been told by
circle-track guys)

Medium-Riser 4-bbl intake

Hooker Headers and 2 1/2 pipes out the back

Oiling system modified for high-rpm use:

Drill main passage from filter adapter to main galley to 1/2 inch.
Restrict oil to the rocker stands
Install screw in galley plugs sealed with thread sealer

Replace rod bolts with the best available, CJ rods would be better, but
I've seen the 390 rod live as long as you avoid high rpm deccelleration,
which you should avoid anyway.


And that's what it took to beat a Goat with a Fairlane. The 2.03/1.56
heads couldn't get the job done, and if you ran up to 5500 with a stock
one you were likely to oil down main street on the ride home on the
tow-hook. Been there and done that.

My Poncho was '70 LeMans Sport with a '69 Ram-Air III 400 and the NHRA
Stock cam, which was a little more radical than the Ram-Air III one. I
had the factory aluminum intake and a 750 Carter AFB, with a 4-speed and
3.31 gears. It was a running S.O.B. But it wouldn't take the Fairlane
built above at least on a straight road, so I can say with real
certianty that that's all the 390 needed to dominate in this class.

The FE is my favorite engine of any ever made, I've seen them do
everything, but my point was that Ford didn't realize that people wanted
a cheap hot engine without exotic parts(until the 428CJ came out). It's
a shame that they didn't because they had the best one of all time to do
it with. Now, I wish to make no offense to my freinds here and I
apologize to anyone who is offended by this thread, but this has been my
experience in the matter, and my fist hand experience. An argument must
stay to a strict form and be defined as closely as possible, this I've
tried to do on this post. I know that Ford made the greatest super-cars
of all time, but they missed the boat on the one that should have been
the definition of the class, the Muscle-Car.



- --
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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:28:06 -0500
From: "Mike Morton "
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Hot motor

You might also want to consider using a small nitrous system. Still
relatively
cheap and there to use when you want it. Shut it off when you don't
> -----Original Message-----
> From:George [SMTP:maga55 ix.netcom.com.wgcinet]
> Sent:Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:53 AM
> To:perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE Perf - Hot motor
>
> I don't know small blocks but it would seem that getting your rear end
> ratio
> up to where that little engine's rpms could be used would be a first
> step.
> Judging from the mods you're considering, I'd also think you could
> bolt on
> one of the aftermarket blowers for about the same price without
> disturbing
> your processor controls or drivability.
>
> George
>
> I have a 88 F-150 with a 302 auto, 3.08 rear, long bed. I am looking
> for something to get it faster, like down to a 15sec 1/4 mile if
> possible. I have been considering boring it out to a 306, putting TFS
> twisted wedge heads on in, new cam, TRW forged pistons, headers and
> true
> dual exhaust and a shift kit in the tranny. Posi track out back too.
> I was wondering if this sound the most cost effection and easiest way
> of
> getting my truck faster without hacking into any of the electronics
> other then getting the comp re-programed with the new stuff added.
> Any
> ideas will be helpful in getting the most power for the buck. This
> would be my first engine build with the help of my cousin (mechanic).
> So I am just getting into all this stuff and have always loved fast
> cars.
> Thanx in advance
> Derrick
> == 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:18:58 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions

the computer should adjust AFAIK. i myself would expect an increase in
fuel economy because a more efficient engine will always use less fuel to
do the same work. unless of course it runs better enough that you really
use the power more for the shear enjoyment :)

sleddog

- ----------
From: Ryan Tourge[SMTP:rtourge superior.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 7:26 AM
To: Ranger mailing List; Performance mailing list
Subject: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions

I am considering installing a Borla exhaust system on my '98 Ranger 3.0L.
Should I expect a decrease in fuel economy?
Is their anything else I need to do other then bolt it on? I assume the
computer will take care of the rest.

Thanks

~
Ryan Tourge rtourge superior.net
- -------------------------------------------
CCCCCC FFFFFFFFF DDDDDD
CCC CCC FFFFFFFF DD DD
CC FFF DD DD
CC FFFFFF DD DD
CCC CCC FFF DDD DD
CCCCCC FFF DDDDDDDD

Chestertown Volunteer Fire Company
- -------------------------------------------
Firefighter EMS First Responder

~

== 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:02:34 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

That software has some real quirks in it.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sleddog
To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 10:19 AM
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam


try the comp cams camquest program too., go to their website - url?
download it and see what happens.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Bill Beyer[SMTP:bbeyer pacifier.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:03 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

You might also want to contact Crane cams, they have a website with allot
of good info. I've used their cams on...ahem...other makes of engines with
good luck. Their URL is http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cranecams.com/index2.htm

- ----------
> From: dcbeatty
> To: 'perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
> Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 6:07 AM

>
> Thanks again. Any other advice/recommendations are appreciated.
>

== 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:07:23 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

Yeah I d/l'd it awhile back and didn't find it real useful.

- ----------
> From: George
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
> Date: Saturday, June 27, 1998 11:02 AM
>
> That software has some real quirks in it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sleddog
> To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
> Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 10:19 AM
> Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam
>
>
> try the comp cams camquest program too., go to their website - url?
> download it and see what happens.
>
> sleddog

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 11:09:45 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions

As long as it's cat back the computer will take care of any changes. You
should probably see in increase in mpg unless you get too fond of the cool
sound it makes and keep your foot in it more.

- ----------
> From: Ryan Tourge
> To: Ranger mailing List ; Performance mailing
list
> Subject: FTE Perf - Borla Exhaust Questions
> Date: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:26 AM
>
> I am considering installing a Borla exhaust system on my '98 Ranger 3.0L.
> Should I expect a decrease in fuel economy?
> Is their anything else I need to do other then bolt it on? I assume the
> computer will take care of the rest.
>
> Thanks
>
> ~
> Ryan Tourge rtourge superior.net
> -------------------------------------------
> CCCCCC FFFFFFFFF DDDDDD
> CCC CCC FFFFFFFF DD DD
> CC FFF DD DD
> CC FFFFFF DD DD
> CCC CCC FFF DDD DD
> CCCCCC FFF DDDDDDDD
>
> Chestertown Volunteer Fire Company
> -------------------------------------------
> Firefighter EMS First Responder
>
> ~
>
> == 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: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 14:37:35 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Hot motor

Ezekial wrote:
>
> Hello
> I am new to this list but not to the truck one.
> But anyways, here is my questions.
>
> I have a 88 F-150 with a 302 auto, 3.08 rear, long bed. I am looking
> for something to get it faster, like down to a 15sec 1/4 mile if
> possible. I have been considering boring it out to a 306, putting TFS
> twisted wedge heads on in, new cam, TRW forged pistons, headers and true
> dual exhaust and a shift kit in the tranny. Posi track out back too.
> I was wondering if this sound the most cost effection and easiest way of
> getting my truck faster without hacking into any of the electronics
> other then getting the comp re-programed with the new stuff added. Any
> ideas will be helpful in getting the most power for the buck. This
> would be my first engine build with the help of my cousin (mechanic).
> So I am just getting into all this stuff and have always loved fast
> cars.
> Thanx in advance
> Derrick
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

Try getting rid of those dog 3.08.....some 3.73 or maybe 4.10 would be
nice! That would be a major improvement by itself I think.
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:08:07 -0700
From: "Dave & Debby Anderson"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Hello All

Have you looked at Dave Williams page on small block heads? Its at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/42/FORDHEAD.HTM

It's got some basic info on the C302 and C302B heads and he indicates they
are out of production, which I think you already knew.

Dave

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:24:52 -0700
From: "Dave & Debby Anderson"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

The Comp Cams program appears to make a selection based more on intended
usage than what you've actually got for parts - then you get a long list of
things they'd like you to replace in order for their recommendation to work.
Oh well, at least it's free.

I do like the cam timing calculator in the utilities area. It seems to be
very accurate at predicting opening and closing events.

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:51:22 -0700
From: "Darryl A. Regan"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - New member intro

Date sent: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - New member intro
Send reply to: perf-list ford-trucks.com

> At 12:41 PM 25/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hello all. I just joined the list a couple of minutes ago. Thanks George for
> >turning me onto this list and Kieth for the instructions!! Anyway I own a 78
> >Bronco with a decently built 460. 86 motor, stock heads, edelbrock performer
> >intake, edelbrock 750 carb with electric choke, DUI ignition system and a
> >somewhat mild cam.
>
>
> I hate to tell you this, the 86 heads are a better choice for a big time
> port and polish job than the earlier heads. Check the archives for the
> article I wrote to sleddog, about a year ago, or I can try to find the
> original story in Super Ford mag, but that might take a while....
>


The 86 heads don't offer the higher compression without even more work though. And I am
not getting new pistons any time soon.


dar6 jps.net
78 Bronco Ranger XLT (460 powered)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 16:00:37 -0500
From: "wild.bunch"
Subject: FTE Perf - 60s FORD Performance - Engine Power Potential

I think we can all agree that Ford lovers wished that more inexpensive
performance equipment would have been available at the street level. Ford
focused on high visibility racing victories in the 60s: Indy,
LeMans/Sebring, and NASCAR, and little 427 exotica reached the masses until
68. The 428 CJ head was Medium Riser based, and Boss 302 technology began to
be commonly available in 351 Clevelands at the end of the decade (385 series
motors began coming on, too). Pollution issues caused this move to be too
late.

Mopar really was a hero in my book for distributing performance parts widely
at this time. Their 67 440 HP/906 head was directly based on the 62 Letter
300, and came on everything from 2v Newport boats to Super Bees. They sent
their performance stuff to the masses. sb scrub motors were a situation
similar to the 390 GT heads: the big valve fulie heads had the same ports as
the lesser motors (the 62 327 is the basis for 60s-70s sbc heads) and just
needed larger valves for an improvement. But, the castings came on all
motors, so were widely available.

The power potential of the FE vs the Pontiac (400/428/455, at least) is also
something for which there is common ground. The results of racing pretty
much bear this out. Pontiac gave the sincerest form of flattery to Ford
(imitation) by using the tunnel port concept from 427s and Trans Am 302s in
their Ram Air V motors. (I will note that some che*y fans will claim that
Ford copied the canted valve design of Boss 302/335/385 motors from BBC, but
concept of canting the intakes toward the port originated in the Chrysler
"Polysphere" design of the 50s - another example of GM selective memory.)
The oiling problem of FEs is common knowledge, as is the fix, by now.

This 70s air flow test of stock heads gives an interesting performance
potential gauge of 60s-70s engines. I'm going to include only a few figures
for comparison. I recognize that head flow alone is not the sole indication
of how much power an engine will produce. Intake and carburetion are also im
portant issues, as is the design of the exhaust system. But head flow is,
IMHO, an important indication of performance potential, given that manifolds
and carburetors are much more easily changed. Note that these flow readings
are taken at 5" of water, which is different from our current convention of
28" of water. I'm going to throw in a few other engines just for grins!
(numbers in cfm 5" water)

SOHC Ford: 150 in, 105 ex
Mopar Hemi: 150 in, 90 ex
B B Che*y: 144 in, 90 ex (Cast Iron, Rectangular Port, Open Chamber)
B B Che*y: 130 in, 85 ex (Oval Port, Closed Chamber)
427 Ford: 125 in, 75 ex (Medium Riser)
427 Ford: 120 in, 75 ex (Hi Riser)
Mopar BB: 120 in, 75 ex No description of which casting was flowed)
Ford 429: 115 in, 75 ex (No description of which casting was flowed)
390 Ford: 110 in, 70 ex (described as "Standard 390/428" heads, 2.04 in
valve, 1.57 ex)
Pont S D: 105 in, 70 ex (Super Duty)
Buick St I: 97 in, 80 ex
Pont R IV: 97 in, 66 ex (the tester notes that it is very easy to gain 15-20
cfm on the exhuast.)
Pont 455: 85 in, 68 ex
Olds 455: 84 in, 63 ex
Buick 455: 80 in, 70 ex

The small block figures are pretty intriguing also. This stuff makes great
bench racing, but is not always directly applicable to the street. However,
my experience is that the general trends of performance potential are
certainly identified. For instance: only foolish people trifled with a Buick
Stage I without thinking about it, or that SOHCs (vs Hemis) were really
coming on in funny cars when the engines were factory based. Also, once
exotica is separated, why there's not much to differentiate the street
performance of FE Fords, 383/440 Mopars, Oval Port BB Che*ys, and a lot of
the ohter muscle cars. the weight of the car and the skill of the
driver/mechanic still is a major consideration when the rubber meets the
road. The reasons for this can be seen in these figures.

I'm not conviced that I'm "comparing apples to oranges" any more than any
one else in this discussion, but agree than in our varied experiences there
is certainly room to draw many divergent and subjective opinions. I'm not
sure that it all matters that much, since informed people usually agree that
the FE is a tremendous engine; the only one to take on european machinery on
its home ground and win since the 1921 Duesenberg. None the less, the
discussion is great fun anyway.

One final note: Having had 348 hp 389s, I can tell you from many thousands
of miles of experience, they were not world beaters. They were a reflection
of their late 50s heritage, and couldn't hold a candle to their 400-428
successors as a performance engine (much less a 351 Mustang one nite).

tim (wild.bunch)

PS: My 64 GTO weighed 3460# with 1/2 tank of gas at the CO-OP scales.

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

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

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:49:57 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: FE Cam

i didn't think the program was useful for me (all it told me for my new
motor was to call for a custom cam grind) but i thought it may be more
useful for smaller engines.....

---

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.