perf-list-digest Wednesday, November 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 137



=======================================================================
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 - 60's History
Re: FTE Perf - 60's History
FTE Perf - 60's History
RE: FTE Perf - 60's History
RE: FTE Perf - 60's History
FTE Perf - 60's History
Re: FTE Perf - NP435 install, 78 bronco
FTE Perf - Locker or not to locker?
FTE Perf - Trans
RE: FTE Perf - Locker or not to locker?

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:04:14 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - 60's History

Ford finally got it's act together in the big cars on the street in '64
with the 427 Galaxie, it's too bad GM (or good depending on how you look
at it) didn't stick to the agreement that they'd limit their HP street
efforts to big cars like Ford and Mopar did in '64. Ford still had a
full frame, where the Mopars didn't, that's why the 425 hp Fords had
such a hard time with the Mopars. The 409 did well on the street,
because I think that GM did a better job of marketing them for youthful
owners. Imagine a '62 2dr sedan Biscayne stripped down to nothing but
teeth, that's what the kids wanted, and that's what GM gave them. Ford
and Mopar went for the older, more affluent crowd by putting the high
performance into higher line cars. Mopar and Ford realized their
miscalculation too late, the torch had passed to mid-size performance by
then. In '64 Ford didn't even have a mid-size car capable of running a
big-block on the street. McNamara screwed that one up too. (folks from
the '60's know what his biggest screw-up really was, remember the film
footage of coffin after coffin being unloaded?)

Racing was another story, the 409 held it's own aginst Ford (but
couldn't beat the Mopars) until Ford came out with the High-Riser. The
High-Riser had some teething problems, but once the durability caught up
with their glorious power even Mopar had to step it up to their Hemi to
be competitive. Of course Ford had to put these engines in the Fairlane
(custom-built for racing) to be dominant, since the big cars were
plagued with those fat thighs. Until Chevy came out with their
"pocupine motor" they were hurting, and even after they did, they still
didn't have what it took to dominate. They quietly withdrew from racing
and focused on putting their heavy hitters on the street.

That's why GM got so much adoration on the street (Mopar was able to do
both), and Ford didn't. If Ford had done the same, the history of
street performance would have been different. My rememberances of
street racing was that when you came up a against a home-built big-block
Fairlane you'd better look out, if he had a 427 you'd likely be toast.
It's too bad that car didn't get built in large numbers from the
factory! Until they woke up and built the 428CJ in the Mustang the
streets were a tough place to take a Ford unless you built a better
bullet.


>
> 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!

- --
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 http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:14:35 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 60's History

Date sent: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:04:14 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE Perf - 60's History

> Ford finally got it's act together in the big cars on the street in '64
> with the 427 Galaxie,

In 65 you could get an aluminum body Galaxie or custom.

> Imagine a '62 2dr sedan Biscayne stripped down to nothing but teeth,
> that's what the kids wanted, and that's what GM gave them. Ford and Mopar

Not sure about 62 but in 63 chevy had a production aluminum body.

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 10:37:15 -0800
From: George
Subject: FTE Perf - 60's History

I owned and drove (street) an R Code 63 1/2 Galaxie 500 in those days. The
409 was no problem but the 413/426 Mopars were the big stick on the street.
At a stop light they'd lock the brakes, put the RPMs to it and the whole
thing would just rise up and set there. My 427 needed 3000rpm to launch
that big Galaxie and even with street slicks the Mopars using street tires
would walk away from me off the line. The speeds would get scary before I
could catch them but with the hemi, there was no hope. As mentioned in an
earlier post, most Ford R code owners lusted for a Thunderbolt but they
were reserved for high volume dealerships and big drag race names.

Ford finally got it's act together in the big cars on the street in '64
with the 427 Galaxie, it's too bad GM (or good depending on how you look
at it) didn't stick to the agreement that they'd limit their HP street
efforts to big cars like Ford and Mopar did in '64. Ford still had a
full frame, where the Mopars didn't, that's why the 425 hp Fords had
such a hard time with the Mopars. The 409 did well on the street,
because I think that GM did a better job of marketing them for youthful
owners. Imagine a '62 2dr sedan Biscayne stripped down to nothing but
teeth, that's what the kids wanted, and that's what GM gave them. Ford
and Mopar went for the older, more affluent crowd by putting the high
performance into higher line cars. Mopar and Ford realized their
miscalculation too late, the torch had passed to mid-size performance by
then. In '64 Ford didn't even have a mid-size car capable of running a
big-block on the street. McNamara screwed that one up too. (folks from
the '60's know what his biggest screw-up really was, remember the film
footage of coffin after coffin being unloaded?)

Racing was another story, the 409 held it's own aginst Ford (but
couldn't beat the Mopars) until Ford came out with the High-Riser. The
High-Riser had some teething problems, but once the durability caught up
with their glorious power even Mopar had to step it up to their Hemi to
be competitive. Of course Ford had to put these engines in the Fairlane
(custom-built for racing) to be dominant, since the big cars were
plagued with those fat thighs. Until Chevy came out with their
"pocupine motor" they were hurting, and even after they did, they still
didn't have what it took to dominate. They quietly withdrew from racing
and focused on putting their heavy hitters on the street.

That's why GM got so much adoration on the street (Mopar was able to do
both), and Ford didn't. If Ford had done the same, the history of
street performance would have been different. My rememberances of
street racing was that when you came up a against a home-built big-block
Fairlane you'd better look out, if he had a 427 you'd likely be toast.
It's too bad that car didn't get built in large numbers from the
factory! Until they woke up and built the 428CJ in the Mustang the
streets were a tough place to take a Ford unless you built a better
bullet.


>
> 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!

- --
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 http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 13:50:01 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 60's History

- ----------
From: William L. Ballinger[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:04 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - 60's History

(folks from
the '60's know what his biggest screw-up really was, remember the film
footage of coffin after coffin being unloaded?)

um, i need to ask, who and what???

sleddog


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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 14:09:20 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 60's History

i think one important part of history that is still true today is that of
factory/aftermarket support for the consumer.

GM has always had good aftermarket and on and off again factory support for
the consumer, and always fazctory support for the big racers.

mopar has always had excellant factory support and half decent aftermarket
support for those building a high perf engine, since the early wedges and
early hemis. heck, the early hemi right now has more support than does the
ford FE or any other engine of that time due to the vintage fuel racers
running now. they even make a great hemi block now.

ford, has had less of both factory and aftermarket support, at times
consentrating on european racing like lemans, and such. Their racing
effort technology didn't make it to the streets like the chevy and mopar
stuff did. chevy and mopar also concentrated on american racing.

this is off course, from the perspective of a 29 year old, i wasn't around
then...

sleddog




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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:19:34 -0800
From: George
Subject: FTE Perf - 60's History

'Nam. The big blocks there could get you killed. McNamara was a typical
automotive cost per unit manager and related that, with extensive pie
charts and statistical mumbo-jumbo, into a rationalization called 'body
count'. He believed selling cars was the same as war - all numbers and the
one who killed the most won. Ford content; Typical lack of consumer
consideration with heavy spin on product.

George Miller

- ----------
From: William L. Ballinger[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 11:04 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - 60's History

(folks from
the '60's know what his biggest screw-up really was, remember the film
footage of coffin after coffin being unloaded?)

um, i need to ask, who and what???

sleddog

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:11:42 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - NP435 install, 78 bronco

>From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
>Subject: FTE Perf - NP435 install, 78 bronco
>
>snip
>
>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.

Yo Gary:

Maybe the previous owner lost some bell housing to engine block bolts, too.
When I did the clutch last year on my 351M/NP435 truck, seems like there
were 6 bolts holding it together. Two of the bolts went through that
inboard clutch pivot bracket that bolts to the back of the bell housing, so
maybe you're forgetting about (not counting) those? Since the M-block and
460 share the same bell housing mounting, they should have the same number
(if not size) of bolts.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 19:58:02 -0500
From: "Mr. Paul R. Boudreault"
Subject: FTE Perf - Locker or not to locker?

Hi guys.

Well I just took the rear diff out today, and with a couple of days all that
will be left is a bare bones frame. Anyway right now I have "open" or
conventional diffs both front and rear. (31 inch GSA Goodyear tires, 3.5
ratio Ford nine inch rear, 3.5 ratio Dana 44 (reverse) front) I figure
since I am here anyway I would change the gear ratio to 3.73 and put either
Lockers, (Gearless locker in the front), or trak-lock components in.

My big question is - what is recommended. I like to do serious 4-wheeling
but the Bronco has to be "streetable" also. Maybe a locker in the rear, and
a "trak" in the front? Etc....

Any input would be appreciated.

Alternative 2.

Just swap out both front and rear for Dana 60's.

Note I also need to change the Carrier housing as the one on the diff is
pretty badly corroded. Any one that I should be looking for? (1979 Ford
Bronco.)

Thanks in advance,

"Paul"



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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 17:34:57 -0800
From: George
Subject: FTE Perf - Trans

Anybody on the list have any experience or knowledge of putting the EOD4
trans behind an early modified 460? With transfer case? If feasible, can
that trans be built to accept the abuse levels the C6 will sustain?

TIA

George Miller

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:04:27 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Locker or not to locker?

i found that the detroit locker i had in my 77 f150, 33" muds, 460, c-6,
was very streetable to me. had a posi in front, and also at one time a
torsen gleason before i destroyed it.

i vote locker wether yu keep the 9" or go with dana 60's. the torsen
gleason is marketed under a different name now and i recommend that one as
long as you do not put too much power into it like i did. other wise it
depends on your personal thing you know, i would run a posi in front if
you need to run snowy streets in 4wd alot, but a locker of any type if you
don't need that snow ability.

the locker reduce steering ability on snowy roads. the posi does too, just
not as much. the torsen gleason type won't effect steering ability at all.
just my experience.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Mr. Paul R. Boudreault[SMTP:pboudreault sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:58 PM
To: 'Ford CHAT'; 'Off Road Disgest List'; Bigbroncos-Digest (E-mail);
Perf-List-Digest (E-mail)
Subject: FTE Perf - Locker or not to locker?

Hi guys.

Well I just took the rear diff out today, and with a couple of days all
that
will be left is a bare bones frame. Anyway right now I have "open" or
conventional diffs both front and rear. (31 inch GSA Goodyear tires, 3.5
ratio Ford nine inch rear, 3.5 ratio Dana 44 (reverse) front) I figure
since I am here anyway I would change the gear ratio to 3.73 and put either
Lockers, (Gearless locker in the front), or trak-lock components in.

My big question is - what is recommended. I like to do serious 4-wheeling
but the Bronco has to be "streetable" also. Maybe a locker in the rear,
and
a "trak" in the front? Etc....

Any input would be appreciated.

Alternative 2.

Just swap out both front and rear for Dana 60's.

Note I also need to change the Carrier housing as the one on the diff is
pretty badly corroded. Any one that I should be looking for? (1979 Ford....


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.