perf-list-digest Wednesday, December 9 1998 Volume 01 : Number 166



=======================================================================
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 - Long rods
RE: FTE Perf - Long Rods
FTE Perf - More Long Rod
Re: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4
RE: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4
Re: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4
FTE Perf - Re More Long Rod

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

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:06:23 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Long rods

dave,
the longer rod engine, stroke and pin offset being equal, will have a
slower piston speed in the top, and faster in the bottom of the bore. the
mean effective piston speed is equal, but the accelerations are more evened
out between the top and bottom of the stroke.

go:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/7273
or i think the FTE site may still have it, and download the rod ratio
spreadsheet i made long ago. it ain't the best thing around, but you will
be able to see the difference changing rod lengths has on the piston.

looking at the output of this sheet is where i figured out that cam timing
is effected (both the mechanical limits, and the theoretical best profile)
and the intake and exhaust breathing capabilities.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dave & Debby Anderson[SMTP:danders uswest.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:25 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Long rods

>Intake systems will need to be reviewed as the long rod can create a
>stronger intake signal allowing the use of bigger Carbs.


Chris - I thought that the increased dwell at TDC of a long rod produces a
weaker intake signal than a short rod? The memory's a little fuzzy but I
seem to remember reading somewhere that part of the reason the 4V 351
Cleveland could get away with the size of intake ports it had was the
relatively short rod (at least compared to the 351W) that pulled the piston
down quickly from TDC. Maybe I'm confusing intake signal with port
velocity.

Dave



== 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: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 09:57:50 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Long Rods

my opinion is the chamber shape and material is most important. this
includes haeds and pistons. port shape is also important here as it is the
first step in developing a good turbulant mixture in the chamber.

coatings. although i have not immersed myself in the coating frenzy, i
have heard many good things from people who have actually used the DIY
coatings. of course, they ran into problems too, but when the application
stayed, the difference was noticeable.

also good spark and fuel control are essential, and a GM knock sonsor type
device would be a good thing, as not all detonation/preignition can be
heard.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dale and Donna Carmine[SMTP:dcarmine inetnebr.com]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 1998 11:13 PM
To: perf-list
Subject: FTE Perf - Long Rods

Muel said;
>Some engines are long rod engines such as the 460 and 351M.
>Many engines (IME most) will require higher octane fuel due simply to the
>increased pressure.

In the December Hot Rod windsor build-up. They claim to be running 11:1 CR
on 87 octane!
Now that gets my attention!
So what is the key??
Long Rod?
Aluminum heads?
custom pistons? (combustion chamber shape)
Computerized spark and fuel?

Obviously all of these things contribute to being able to run low octane
fuel......which one's make the most difference if I can't afford to do it
all.

later,
dale c

== 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: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 07:12:35 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - More Long Rod

High Compression on pump gas: Biggest influences are Alum. Heads Good for 1
full number and EFI good for 3/4 of a number. Long rods & Custom parts Heads
Pistons, Etc. (and the Mag name!) are good for the rest.

At low RPM the short rod can give a stronger signal due to its faster
movement at the top of the stroke. But the peak intake charge velocity
occurs at
+/-79 ATDC so at higher RPMs the lag time factors in and the air flow that
you are looking for is more at full lift and both are flow critical on the
closing side.

Got to go to work sorry this is short.
Muel


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

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 08:15:10 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4

Yeah this subject has been discussed several times on the 61-79 list and
the last time I recall someone swore on a stack of bibles or somethin' that
they have seen a 1980 F250 4X4 with a stock 460 so I just hedged my bet a
little. The point I was tryin' to make was that pre-80 there were NO
F-series 4X4 trucks with factory 460s. Thanks for the info...

- ----------
> From: Dave Resch
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4
> Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 9:43 AM
>
>
> Yo Bill:
>
> Actually, the 460 was not offered by the factroy in a 4x4 until 1983,
after
> the M-blocks were discontinued. Until 1983, the biggest factory engine
you
> could get in a 4x4 was the 400.

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

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:04:32 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4

Was not the 460 available in '72 cars?

Scott

> pre-80 there were NO
> F-series 4X4 trucks with factory 460s. Thanks for the info...
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 10:31:43 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4

Yes in Lincolns and also in 4X2 trucks (I don't think in 72 tho') just not
in 4X4s.

- ----------
> From: Giddens, Scott
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 460 in 4x4
> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 10:04 AM
>
> Was not the 460 available in '72 cars?
>
> Scott
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 19:52:58 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re More Long Rod

I goofed!

- -> But the peak intake charge velocity occurs at +/-79 ATDC so...

Realized it when I got to work. Rewrote it at lunch. Mailed it home.
Didn't get here!(
I'll post it as soon as I get it home!

Look for the next installment.
Same truck time.
Same truck place.

Until then: 79 ATDC is not max. Intake Charge Velocity it is Max Piston
Velocity.

What can I say??

Muel


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

------------------------------....


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.