perf-list-digest Friday, December 4 1998 Volume 01 : Number 161



=======================================================================
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 - Gear Ratio
RE: FTE Perf - My trucks #'s - got some of them
FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection
FTE Perf - ADMIN: A note on language
RE: FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection
RE: FTE Perf - Need opinions
RE: FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection
FTE Perf - 390 buildup.
FTE Perf - rear end ratios
FTE Perf - Rear end ratio #.
Re: FTE Perf - My trucks #'s - got some of them
FTE Perf - finally got my carb!!
Re: FTE Perf - PO'ed
Re: FTE Perf - finally got my carb!!
Re: FTE Perf - 390 buildup.
Re: FTE Perf - Rear end ratio #.
Re: FTE Perf - 390 buildup.

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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 05:52:23 -0600
From: "Mike Morton "
Subject: FTE Perf - Gear Ratio

The numbers could be telling you your gears are 5:1. My 55 came stock with a
six cylinder and it takes right at 5 turns of the driveshaft to turn the
tire over once. I know the rear end has never been apart. Jack your back end
just off the ground, put the trans in neutral, and put a mark on the
driveshaft. Now turn your drive wheel one revolution and count how many
times the driveshaft turns. Should get you real close. I don't know the
numbers on the tag as I have never looked. I don't plan on leaving it back
there anyway.
>
>
> I went out with some more grease off stuff, a toothbrush, and a
> rag............ polished that rearend tag right up....... there is no
> evidence
> of a "3" at all..............Just a 50.......
>
> -Shawn
> 79 F-150 4x4, 351M - " 'ZILLA "
> Cambridge, NY

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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 06:08:01 -0600
From: "Mike Morton "
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - My trucks #'s - got some of them

it's being replaced with a 9 inch that has disc brakes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCSSportz AOL.COM [SMTP:CCSSportz AOL.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 4:53 PM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - My trucks #'s - got some of them
>
> In a message dated 12/2/98 5:14:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mmorto wgc.woodward.com writes:
>
>
> there anyway. >>
>
> Why not? Is it 4x4, or no? I guess you are looking for higher
> speeds.......I
> would like them too, but still with the 5.0:1 gears, I have 36" tires so
> it
> lowers it a little, and i can still get the speeds, and I can go anydamn
> where
> I want to :o)
>
> -Shawn
> & 'ZILLA
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> ww.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 07:26:57 EST
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection

OK Gentleman (I can use it with clear mind here),
I t has come time for the moment of cam selection for my 5.0L. I have been
given many opinions and I would like to add the knowledge of the post list to
my decision making process. I am leaning toward either the Ford MOTORSPORT
E303 or B303. I have been told that with my minor mods (chip, pulleys, KnN
Filtercharger, heads, shift kit, headers, catback exhaust, Highflow Y-pipe and
gears going in will be 3.73) that both of those cams would be kind of
"radical" and I may not like either one of them. Although I have checked both
of them out in friends stangs and haven't heard anything really racy with
either one. Both sounded relatively smooth with just a hint of a rumble at
dead idle. I am looking to make this motor ready for a whipplecharger so
everything that I do has to build up to that and still be streetable until it
goes on. What do you think?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 08:04:57 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: A note on language

This email is not targeted at any individual, rather it
is presented to all list members as a friendly reminder.

Over the past several days, there have been postings on
some of the groups containing inappropriate language.
While my language in my personal life isn't always as
clean as it should be, I maintain (and so does Keith Srb,
admin of several of the lists) a standard on the lists
so that they'll be appropriate for all audiences.

I want to remind everyone that we have people from all
walks of life and all age groups on our lists. Ford
Truck Enthusiasts does not censor content nor moderate
message activity. However, because we are a forum
available to the public, we do have filters in place to
reject emails containing certain words.

Getting around these filters with ***, --- and other
such characters defeats the purpose of the filters.
While saying "I made an *ss of myself" is appropriate,
using the "s" and "f" words is not. Although the TV
networks don't have the highest standards, they do
maintain some standards. So the rule of thumb is if
they don't say it on afternoon TV (ie, when the kids
are watching), then it doesn't belong on FTE.

Regards,
Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:31:10 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection

if your freinds changes are similiar to yours, their experience is close to
what you will see. in my opinion cam companies are generally very
conservative. but i really have no experieance with those cams, or the
302.

sleddog

- ----------
From: FLR150 AOL.COM[SMTP:FLR150 AOL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 7:26 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection

OK Gentleman (I can use it with clear mind here),
I t has come time for the moment of cam selection for my 5.0L. I have been
given many opinions and I would like to add the knowledge of the post list
to
my decision making process. I am leaning toward either the Ford MOTORSPORT
E303 or B303. I have been told that with my minor mods (chip, pulleys, KnN
Filtercharger, heads, shift kit, headers, catback exhaust, Highflow Y-pipe
and
gears going in will be 3.73) that both of those cams would be kind of
"radical" and I may not like either one of them. Although I have checked
both
of them out in friends stangs and haven't heard anything really racy with
either one. Both sounded relatively smooth with just a hint of a rumble at
dead idle. I am looking to make this motor ready for a whipplecharger so
everything that I do has to build up to that and still be streetable until
it
goes on. What do you think?
== 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: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:37:29 -0600
From: "Baldwin, Dave"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Need opinions

OK.

This is where I saw the $150 GT40 iron heads (bare). Turns out these are
GT40P heads, which were newly introduced to power the Explorer's 5.0L in (I
believe) 1996. From what I recall, the it was re-engineered to have better
flow characteristics with smaller valves. I think the last version of the
5.0L in the Explorer was rated in the neighborhood of 215HP. The smaller
valves, and probably ports should produce an increase in velocity which
should help the low-end torque for truck applications. Have not driven a
5.0L Explorer with or without the GT-40P heads, so I can't give a "seat of
the pants feel" opinion. I thought about getting a set for my F-150SC,
since it needs a low-end torque infusion BAD! They also have the head with
all new valve gear (dont know if that includes rockers) for $350. Here's
the address:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.tiac.net/users/goape/sford.htm

Regards,
Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX

- -----Original Message-----
From: Genlee97 AOL.COM [mailto:Genlee97 AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 9:39 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Need opinions


I would like to know where all of these bargains are
== 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: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 13:36:07 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: Cam Selection

At 10:31 AM 12/3/98 , you wrote:
>if your freinds changes are similiar to yours, their experience is close to
>what you will see. in my opinion cam companies are generally very
>conservative. but i really have no experieance with those cams, or the
>302.
>
>sleddog
>

One thing to keep in mind is that a 5.0 Mustang weighs in at quite a bit
less than most trucks (missed the opening of the thread, so if this is for
a Ranger ignore this paragraph). As a result they're happy with just shy
of 300 ft-lbs of torque. Some will be over that, and quicker as a result,
but its possible you will up your horsepower, but also move your torque out
of your useable range. Maybe you've already taken all of this into
account. I've driven several years of 5.0, and I have to say as far as
truck style engines go, the 82 was my favorite, peak torque was down at
2400, so it had lots of grunt. My friend had an 87 with its torque at 3500
(or 3200 can't really remember, but quite a bit higher), I couldn't get
that thing to launch smoothly to save my life, always seemed like I had to
rev too high to get the torque I wanted.

I also have to agree with sleddog, the cam companies do rate their cams
pretty conservatively. When my dad was getting a cam for his Cougar, he
went down the list til it said "not for street use" and got the one before
that. He was expecting quite a bit of lope and maybe a little peaky
engine. What we got (after I tuned it all up) was a perfectly smooth
idling, great running street engine. Its great, don't get me wrong, just
that we don't drive this very often, so a high lift, long duration, lots of
rumble and lope cam would have been great, he just got worried when it said
"not for street use"


Hope this helps a little at least...

Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:47:19 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE Perf - 390 buildup.

Hello all, I'm a recent subscriber to the Performance list, but have been
on the 61-79 list for quite a while now. I figured this would be the place
to get some answers for my current project.

Just as a little background, I've got a 73ish 4x4 1/2 ton. Currently its
got an old 360 with a C6 and a converted transfer case (full->part time).
PS ... PB ... that's about it.

I use this truck every day during the winter/spring so that I don't need to
get salt on my car, and it has been by daily driver for the last 5 years or
so. I just put a 4V on the 360, that woke it up a lot, but I still want
more torque. I don't pull much with it (people out of a ditch is about
it), don't race ... (well not it, and not legally if I do). Pretty much
just want a really cool engine to go in the really cool truck ... okay so
some people will argue both points, but I think you get the idea.

I have a 390 sitting totally disassembled in the garage. I was told it was
a 76, and it looks to be that way, the block is a D4TE (74 truck engine),
the heads are D2TEA?( 72 part number, with build dates of Dec. 75), the
rods are C7AE (67 full size car), and the pistons are just cast with a 410
near the wrist pin. I can't find a casting number on the crank, which
baffles me because you NEED one so you know what its for right ? I
measured and it looks like its 3.78 inch stroke, so it is a 390 crank, but
I would like to find the casting number to be sure, anyone know where to
look? I've already checked everything I can think of, and I just can't
find it.

My guess is that someone rebuilt it with older connecting rods and pistons
from a 410 to increase the compression ratio, but that's just a guess.

My goal for this engine is to have a nice strong engine that has way more
torque than I will ever need, down where any gas pedal action brings it to
bear. Okay so that's probably a little unrealistic, but I would like nice
low torque (

My big debates for now are
a) compression ratio ? was thinkin 10.5 or less, but now with gas the way
it is, maybe 10 is a better idea ?

b) heads : porting ? polishing? hardened valve seats? Would the heads I
have already have hardened valve seats ? porting, I know you don't want
the ports too big and reduce the torque, are they too small or too big
already? I'm sure stock will be fine, but I'd rather make them optimum
since I don't have to mess with emissions stuff ... same for polishing,
any advantage here ?

c) intake: single 4V, dual plane I think .... is it worth it for an
aluminum, say Edelbrock, or will one of the stock ones work (I have the one
for it,and one from a 65 galaxie)?


Any thoughts or help anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated. I
read all the stuff that I think might pertain to me in the least, so if you
post about this, I'm sure I'll get it.


Thanks a bunch.
Bill

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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:10:30 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - rear end ratios

Someone writes: (And yes I forgot who already) >>The numbers could be
telling you your gears are 5:1. My 55 came stock with a
six cylinder and it takes right at 5 turns of the driveshaft to turn the
tire over once. I know the rear end has never been apart. Jack your back
end
just off the ground, put the trans in neutral, and put a mark on the
driveshaft. Now turn your drive wheel one revolution and count how many
times the driveshaft turns. Should get you real close. I don't know the
numbers on the tag as I have never looked. I don't plan on leaving it back
there anyway

Don't forget - both rear wheels have to turn an equal amount(one
revolution) - not just one. The spider gears are usually 2to1, but I
wouldn't bank on that.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 16:05:40 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Rear end ratio #.

Shawn writes: >>I went out with some more grease off stuff, a toothbrush,
and a rag............ polished that rearend tag right up....... there is no
evidence of a "3" at all..............Just a 50....

Take a 9/16" wrench out there and take the bolt out that is holding the tag
on. Examine the tag very good under good light. The 3 is probably under
the washer or head of the bolt.
I think sleddog is right. Never saw a 5.0 rear in a 9". 5.44 and 5.11 and
560 something is the only 5's ratios I've ever seen. 6.13 is the lowest
ratio I've seen. (And they weren't from Ford.)

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 20:26:12 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - My trucks #'s - got some of them

But the 1st 2 digits of the 2nd line (according to the books at the shop
anyway ) denote the ratio with a 'L' added for limited slip so it
should be 35 for a 3.50 No real way to tell without physical
measurement I guess.

TT

Sleddog wrote:
>
> i would think that the '3.' is missing and it really is a 3.50.
>
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: Tim Turner[SMTP:manic1 bellsouth.net]

>
> CCSSportz AOL.COM wrote:
> >

> > Rearend Tag:
> > ?DM-CN 8MB
> > 50 9 361A
> >
>
> Huh? The '50' on the second line should denote a 5.0:1! (But then my
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:46:45 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: FTE Perf - finally got my carb!!

hey all,

i finally bought a carb for my puller! got a good deal too! got a 6" tall
k&n, spare carb parts and jets, spacer, safety plate, lines, all for one
low price, and the parts are like new, and the price was under 600.00

the carb is a dominater with annular boosters, flows 1225 cfm according to
the guy who built it. it has alcohol seats in it (the float bowl valve
thingys that let the fuel in) and other mods that put it on par with the
new improved holley units or better.

finally enough carb to let my motor roar. that teensy tiny 750 vacuum carb
was nothing but a restriction.

these carbs are huge! looks like it could suck my hood right into it! (a
few monthes ago the motor tried to suck the airfilter right into it.
turned a 3" tall element into a 1" tall element.)

can't wait till my first pull next seson!!

sleddog

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

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:03:50 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - PO'ed

CCSSportz AOL.COM wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/2/98 10:41:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:
>
>
> 62 years old and if I give my word on anything, then it is a contract and I
> will follow thru with whatever the agreement was(is) or die trying. My
> father would have beat me half to death if I'd done otherwise and he found
> out about it. >>

>
> There's not many around like that anymore.......... I don't want to turn this
> into a moral thing but it kind of is. I mean I am 16 years old, and there
> just aren't "any" of the younger generation who still hold true to this.

*ANY*? I know there's at least a few left.. Saddening that lawyers
will be in more demand and a 'word' becomes nothing but a collection of
letters.

BUT.. this IS a FORD list and I digress unless someone can connect this
topic to Ford business practices..

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

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 18:58:02 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - finally got my carb!!

Thanks for your message at 06:46 PM 12/3/98 -0500, Sleddog. Your message was:
>hey all,
>
>i finally bought a carb for my puller! got a good deal too! got a 6" tall
>k&n, spare carb parts and jets, spacer, safety plate, lines, all for one
>low price, and the parts are like new, and the price was under 600.00
>
>the carb is a dominater with annular boosters, flows 1225 cfm according to
>the guy who built it. it has alcohol seats in it (the float bowl valve
>thingys that let the fuel in) and other mods that put it on par with the
>new improved holley units or better.
I just signed on to the performance list...I guess I can see the
difference from the 61-79 list...1225 cfm? Yes!!!



Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 19:05:56 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 390 buildup.

At 14:47 3/12/98 -0600, you wrote:


>rods are C7AE (67 full size car), and the pistons are just cast with a 410
>near the wrist pin.

Rods for all FE's are the same lenght except the the 352, what you have
to look for in the rod deparatment is football shaped rod bolt heads.
If they aren't this shape, they're the car rods, except for GT390's, which
had the same HD rods as the "normal" truck rods.

Also; for the one with the mis-represented FE, You can just go out and
buy a set of pistons and a crank for a 390 and do the assembly yourself,
the piston pins are full floating, so a machinist is not required to press the
pistons onto the rods.......


Steve & the Rockette....




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

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

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 19:06:30 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Rear end ratio #.

>I think sleddog is right. Never saw a 5.0 rear in a 9". 5.44 and 5.11 and
>560 something is the only 5's ratios I've ever seen. 6.13 is the lowest
>ratio I've seen. (And they weren't from Ford.)

Azie;

The lowest gear ratio you can get from Ford SVO is 6.33:1, not what
you'd call a street gear ;^)

Steve & the Rockette





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

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

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:59:49 -0800
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 390 buildup.


>Also; for the one with the mis-represented FE, You can just go out and
>buy a set of pistons and a crank for a 390 and do the assembly yourself,
>the piston pins are full floating, so a machinist is not required to press the....

---

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.