perf-list-digest Tuesday, November 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 136



=======================================================================
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 - NP435 install, 78 bronco
Re: FTE Perf - rebuilding C-6
FTE Perf - Combustion chambers
FTE Perf - Exhaust
FTE Perf - driveshafts
FTE Perf - Exhaust
FTE Perf - C-6 O'haul
RE: FTE Perf - Combustion chambers
FTE Perf - Combustion chambers

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 06:42:21 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE Perf - NP435 install, 78 bronco

Well, I have a whole tool box drawer full of nuts and bolts, hope I can
remember where they all go :-) I got my tranny out now and on the bench
and Rick's tranny is on the jack (makeshift add on to my engine hoist) but I
still have to get the bell housing off and replace the throw out bearing and
pilot bearing. Went pretty smooth except for the cross member. The most
convenient spot to set the hoist on is the radius arm backet which is also
attached to the cross member and the weight squeezes the brackets together
so the cross member can't by pushed out so I had to drop it down on my tall
jack stand to take the weight off the front hoist arms (if you think I did this
wihout some trepedation, think again!) Problem is the ears won't line up
with anything else so I always use the brackets but in this case I needed to
find another way to lift it. Anyway the stupid bolts in the top of the cross
member (this one mounts to both top and bottom of the frame) are "under"
the sheet metal of the floor with no access so you have to slide a 9/16 open
end in there to hold it while you "attempt" to get the nuts off with a long
extension and Ujoint..........not fun :-( Then you have to push the bolts out
of the way so you can move the cross member but remember the floor is in
the way :-(

Had to remove the seat so I could pull up the carpet since the last owner put
the carpet over the shifter boots. If I put that old rotten carpet back down
(temporarily to keep the noise down) the boots will be on top and maybe
even the tranny cover. Sure make things nice to be able to pull the tranny
cover to get to things. That's the way a truck should be IMHO :-)

On the bright side my tranny has some ominous crunching and rattling in it
when you turn the imput or output shafts where Rick's is Smoooooth :-)
The homemade tranny jack is definitely an improvement over strong arming
and the lift makes life more fun. I'm hoping to have it back together tonight
but probably won't have time to button it all the way up till tomorrow.

BTW, the bolts that hold the bell housing on are kind of small, there are only
4 and the bellhousing to the engine bolts appear to be smaller than those on
my 460 (I thought they were the same) but I'll know tonight when I take it
off, maybe it's just the head size that's different. Seems odd that a solid,
manual tranny which take a lot more shock than the auto would have more,
rather than less bolts in it.



Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:36:05 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - rebuilding C-6

From: "Tom Ewing"
Subject: FTE Perf - rebuilding C-6
Date sent: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 20:32:14 -0800

> Can anyone recommend a book and or video on rebuilding my 1969 C-6
> automatic? I'm an average "shade tree" mechanic with the necessary tools

My 79 Peterson's repair manual served me well. I haven't seen another one
like it unfortunately. The shop manuals should have what you need, they
cover the manuals in great detail, havn't looked at the autos yet so I'm
guessing.

It is not brain surgery and I didn't use a single special tool but having some
rounded picks to dig the "O" rings out with is helpfull and snap ring pliers
too, inner and outer ($20 at auto zone). You need a "very" clean bench,
covered with rags to keep the tools and parts from falling off and moving
around, about 8 feet long would be good to keep all the parts lined up the
way they came out. KEEP IT CLEAN! This can't be stressed enough. One
piece of grit in the governor plunger and it's scrap :-(


Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:43:14 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Combustion chambers

Jerry Whited writes: >>It's there.Look In Spec's Then Vin Code G&J MEL
Family The cause of their demise was that silly what could they have been
thinking Combustion Chamber in the cylinder

If I'm not terribly mistaken the 1958 Ch*vy 348 was of this same combustion
configuration, and it ran rather well. In 1961 it became the 409. Gained
quiet a reputation for its abilities to "GO". The "beach Boys" had a hit
song about the 409.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:01:12 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust

Colorado Jeff writes: >>Anyway, I've been running headers on my 4x4 for
many years, and am thinking about switching back to stock exhaust manifolds
and dual exhaust while installing the 428 engine. I was hoping to get a
quick idea from people as to whether they think the headers really make
THAT much difference in the low (less than 3000 RPM) range....its just that
the stock manifold are so simple and take up so much less room than the
headers....

I've never ran headers on a truck, but I want to pass this along anyway. I
raced cars from the early '50's till 1973. Every time I installed a set of
headers I lost low end torque and driveability. I never measured the
difference, but it was very noticeable. I would venture to say that the
stock manifolds would probably be better at 3000rpm and below.
Driveability and performance.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:05:34 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - driveshafts

Colorado Jeff writes:>> Since I'm swapping in a 205 for my little Dana 20
(or 21, can never remember) and have to modify the drivelines anyway, why
not just skip the carrier bearing setup and make it the one-driveshaft
setup?

Single piece drive shafts are acceptable up to 6'. Many who lift their
trucks prefer the two piece to get another U-joint in there to help
eleviate the steep angles caused by the lift.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:06:45 -0800
From: George
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust

Colorado Jeff writes: >>Anyway, I've been running headers on my 4x4 for
many years, and am thinking about switching back to stock exhaust manifolds
and dual exhaust while installing the 428 engine. I was hoping to get a
quick idea from people as to whether they think the headers really make
THAT much difference in the low (less than 3000 RPM) range....its just that
the stock manifold are so simple and take up so much less room than the
headers....

I've never ran headers on a truck, but I want to pass this along anyway. I
raced cars from the early '50's till 1973. Every time I installed a set of
headers I lost low end torque and driveability. I never measured the
difference, but it was very noticeable. I would venture to say that the
stock manifolds would probably be better at 3000rpm and below.
Driveability and performance.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

Don't know what classes you were racing in but would think your engines
were built for high RMP performance. With wide cam separation lobes, long
intake valve duration and high lift. 3,000 RPM or higher would be the
bottom of your power curve. Headers or any other enhanced (beyond stock)
exhaust would increase that upper RPM range performance (the objective) and
lessen the lower range drivability. In many all-out race applications,
engines are built to start the power curve at 5,000 rpm and the low end
performs like a WWII fighter aircraft at idle.

To address the original post, it depends on how the engine was built to
perform. I believe any enhanced exhaust, when used in conjunction with
other modifications for the intended power band, aids performance by
assisting exhaust flow. I've ridden in and driven a number of before/after
headers small and big blocks and in every instance the 'seat-of-the pants'
dyno says better; much better. There's also a very nice sound
consideration. Manufacturers ignore headers due to the cost and assembly
line nightmare factors.

George Miller

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:15:50 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - C-6 O'haul

Tom Ewing writes: >>Can anyone recommend a book and or video on rebuilding
my 1969 C-6 automatic? I'm an average "shade tree" mechanic with the
necessary tools to get the tranny out and up on my bench, but I don't have
any specialized tools regarding automatics. I don't plan on making a
career out of rebuilding automatics, so I don't want to invest in a lot of
specialized tools or go back to college either. Is it brain surgery? or
can one hope to have some success here with a reasonable effort.

Tom I've been doing Auto's for as long as I can remember,(I'm an old man
now, so I don't remember very well) but the C-6, I haven't been in in
roughly 10 years. The Darn thing is heavy and cumbersome, but as far as I
can remember, no special tools are required to take it out of vehicle and
apart. You must know that you should take the torque converter out with
the tranny, otherwise you have a problem to start with. If I'm remembering
correctly, there is a seal (O'ring type) hidden in the tail shaft,
otherwise it is fairly straight forward for replacing all the seals, rings,
and clutchpacks. An exploded view is a must for me. I still keep
everything in an orderly line as I take it apart, and
clean/overhaul/replace each clutch pack and each gear assy in an orderly
fashion and then place it back in the original order.
I feel anyone with average mechanical skills and reading comprehension and
a desire to learn can do it.
Any FOMOCO shop manual of the years the C-6 was an option (car or truck) in
the particular vehicle would be best, but most any manual is sufficient.
I've looked briefly at those Autozone has, and they seen fairly good. I've
never used one in depth though. Major difference in car/truck application
is only in the length of tailshaft - otherwise they are the same I believe.

Good luck.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:48:37 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Combustion chambers

though it ain't a ford, i'd rather have what the lil ol lady from pasadena
had - a shiney new super stock dodge! but then again, a little duece cuope
with ford power would be bitchin'

BTW, the 409 was a runner for the time i understand, but it had a lot of
mods for it since it was used in stock car racing of the day. ford was
still competitive though!

sleddog "just history, i wasn't even alive then."

- ----------
From: am14 chrysler.com[SMTP:am14 chrysler.com]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 10:43 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Combustion chambers

Jerry Whited writes: >>It's there.Look In Spec's Then Vin Code G&J MEL
Family The cause of their demise was that silly what could they have been
thinking Combustion Chamber in the cylinder

If I'm not terribly mistaken the 1958 Ch*vy 348 was of this same combustion
configuration, and it ran rather well. In 1961 it became the 409. Gained
quiet a reputation for its abilities to "GO". The "beach Boys" had a hit
song about the 409.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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




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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 19:37:43 -0800
From: George
Subject: FTE Perf - Combustion chambers

The 348 was a Chev truck engine that was put into passenger car service
in''58 and evolved into the 409. The Chrysler 413 wedge and then 426 Hemi
auto in basic stripped two door Plymouth/Dodges smoked everything including
the Ford 406. Then came the Thunderbolt.......I saw an ad for #100,
restored to original for only $85k. Wouldn't that be a daily driver to pull
up next to at a traffic light. Heh heh.

George Miller

though it ain't a ford, i'd rather have what the lil ol lady from pasadena
had - a shiney new super stock dodge! but then again, a little duece cuope
with ford power would be bitchin'

BTW, the 409 was a runner for the time i understand, but it had a lot of
mods for it since it was used in stock car racing of the day. ford was
still competitive though!

sleddog "just history, i wasn't even alive then."

- ----------
From: am14 chrysler.com[SMTP:am14 chrysler.com]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 10:43 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Combustion chambers

Jerry Whited writes: >>It's there.Look In Spec's Then Vin Code G&J MEL
Family The cause of their demise was that silly what could they have been
thinking Combustion Chamber in the cylinder

If I'm not terribly mistaken the 1958 Ch*vy 348 was of this same combustion
configuration, and it ran rather well. In 1961 it became the 409. Gained
quiet a reputation for its abilities to "GO". The "beach Boys" had a hit
....

---

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.