perf-list-digest Thursday, December 31 1998 Volume 01 : Number 188



=======================================================================
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 - Re: FE 3 duce intake?
FTE Perf - re: 1999 4X4
Re: FTE Perf - re: 1999 4X4
FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows
RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows
RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows
FTE Perf - RE: RE: Ranger 5.0 buildup- Danger opinion follows
FTE Perf - RE: Danger Opinion follows! and another..and clarification of the first
RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows
FTE Perf - F-150 Maint for 1988 2W
Re: FTE Perf - F-150 Maint for 1988 2W
Re: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows
FTE Perf - Re: ciae cylinder heads
FTE Perf - Re: ford 3-2 manifolds

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:51:28 -0500
From: "The Freeman Family"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: FE 3 duce intake?

Don,

I paid $125 just for the intake. No carbs, linkage or fuel log. I checked
with Pony Carbs and they wanted $1300 for the whole deal rebuilt or right
around $1000 for everything minus the manifold.

Later,

- -Ted
________
Hey you all

What is the going price for a 3duce aluminium intake for an FE going for.
This one is dirty but has the carbs on it. I don't want to get soaked in
the
deal so where would be a good price range?

Thanks

Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net



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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:02:16 -0500
From: "J. A. Knapper"
Subject: FTE Perf - re: 1999 4X4

> I have a hunch that most of the parts on a Ford truck from the factory will
> have Ford part numbers all over them. The x-fer cases are still Borg-Warner I
> think ... the transmissions are Ford, built by ... hmmm..used to be Borg, but
> they sold off to Tremec for the manuals, don't know about autos, probably a
> Ford thing ...

The manual trannys in F series under 8500 gvw have been Mazda made since
the intro of the 5 speed around 88 or so. The Tremec mentioned above is
used in the Mustang only. The auto is a 4R70W for all 1999 applications,
except for F250light duty equipped with the 5.4, and California 5.4
models as well.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:11:01 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - re: 1999 4X4

>The manual trannys in F series under 8500 gvw have been Mazda made since
>the intro of the 5 speed around 88 or so.

Well guess it shows that I haven't been paying attention lately :)


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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 07:36:27 PST
From: "Bryan Snyder"
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

Dear Tim,

Thank you for the link it was very informative and I will order the
manual that they have. I was disapointed to not see my post I wrote last
night in response to Muel, maybe the mail is just backed up and it will
appear later, It was long and I really don't want to write it again.

In a nut shell, I have concluded that Muel must be a Democrat because
his solution to solving problems seems to be just throw alot of money at
it and expect it to fix it self. (no offense meant to Muel, just a
little fun.)

I have conversed with Strange Engineering, Moser Inc and Currie Ent. all
said my axles should hold up fine with the right parts with no prob, as
MANY drag vehicles are running the 8.8 with WAY more power and traction
than I will have. Muel should take a look at the James Duff companies
page there is a ranger owned by their production manager that has an 8"
rear and a DANA 28, both smaller than mine and running 300HP and beats
the hell out of it (jumps over moguls and such) at magor races some
televised (one is upcoming on TNN. Mine should hold up no prob.

I have also contacted Kenne Bell, he is sending me his catalog, info
pack, and dyno charts of combos that are as siminlar to what I want to
do as possible. He says with good planning and parts I can get what I
want spending only a FRACTION of what this other gentleman says I should
spend and that with the right chip that can recompute part and WOT
settings the Stock for computer can more than compensate. All this with
good reliabilty and street manners if assembled correctly and balanced
and blueprinted. The power I want is well within reason for a two bolt
block with a main stud girdle and good fasteners, granted and aluminum
SVO block and 4 valve aluminum ARAO heads ($4000 for basic assebled
heads! )would be pretty trick!! Please read my other post if it comes up
ok, it has more.

Thanks to all, it is my sincerest hope I can prove some of you wrong,

Bryan

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:15:11 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

and these companies told me my 9" rear would hold up too. then when it
wouldn't, wanted to sell me more parts, more parts, more expensive parts,
more expensive parts......

just something to think about. you see, i was running under 500hp, and had
limited traction on the street. sure, there are drag racers runing 9"
rears with over 1000 hp and big MT slicks that hook up real hard and they
don't break em much. but i did. just because someone ese makes light duty
parts work for them, doesn't mean that you can without breakin lotsa parts
first. they learned by breaking them alot most likely.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Bryan Snyder[SMTP:rangerstx hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 10:36 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

Dear Tim,

- ----snipped------

I have conversed with Strange Engineering, Moser Inc and Currie Ent. all
said my axles should hold up fine with the right parts with no prob, as
MANY drag vehicles are running the 8.8 with WAY more power and traction
than I will have. Muel should take a look at the James Duff companies
page there is a ranger owned by their production manager that has an 8"
rear and a DANA 28, both smaller than mine and running 300HP and beats
the hell out of it (jumps over moguls and such) at magor races some
televised (one is upcoming on TNN. Mine should hold up no prob.

- -------snipped--------

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 10:40:32 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

>don't break em much. but i did. just because someone ese makes light duty
>parts work for them, doesn't mean that you can without breakin lotsa parts
>first. they learned by breaking them alot most likely.
>
>sleddog


And vice-versa ... why not start out cheap, if it doesn't work, then
upgrade ... if it does work, then you're not out anything ...


Just my 2cents

Bill

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:03:39 PST
From: "Bryan Snyder"
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: RE: Ranger 5.0 buildup- Danger opinion follows

>
>Dear Chris,
>
> I thank you for your opinion. Although I have little experience
>with Ford performance engines, I do have hands on knowledge of engines
>and transmissions, perhaps not as much as you but it is not a subject
>new to me. I tend to only put credence in articles that have reputable
>source(s) such as Kenne Bell, Ken Duttweiler (I had a 84 GN that I
>rescued from a idiot who blew the original engine trying to outrun the
>cops.) etc. who can be contacted and have questions asked of them. It
>was after more than four years of research and yes...magazine reading
>that I decided to put a 5.0 in my ranger. Although I do not have a dyno
>at my disposal, I am a compulsive researcher and try to pick everyone's
>brains and read EVERYTHING I get my hands on. I do not agree with your
>statement "Believe nothing that you read in a magazine", I do however
>believe you should take what they say with a grain of salt. You say my
>drivetrain will not take the abuse, I do not agree, the Dana 35 is only
>used when traction is limited, off pavement where tires are free to
>spin. If you can't get traction all the power in the world won't break
>it. Secondly, look at many of the street legal "drag" cars at races or
>at photos in mags, you will see many run beefed 8.8s and these are cars
>that run 11 sec times. I have talked to Currie Ent. and Strange Inc.
>about my 8.8 and both thought my goal was not unreasonable given proper
>parts, I will call Moser Engineering about it later this week. If you
go
>to the James Duff web page you will see an article about their head
>production managers racing Bronco II, he is running a 300HP NA 302 with
>a 8" rear (smaller than mine) and a Dana 28 (also smaller and weaker
>than mine) offroad in major racing events. I have exchanged emails with
>him and he is scheduled for several more large races, one to be
>televised on TNN in the near future. I have spoken with Kenne's tech
>dept. in CA and they said what I wanted was very doable and is sending
>me his catalog, info pack and some recent dyno charts of some setups
>that are as similar to what I want as he can find. It will however
>takes 9-11lbs of boost and a minimum of 94 octane with long rods and a
>good chamber design and a remapped computer. I also asked if it would
>require an add-on computer or such, he said "no, it should be with in
>the computer capability once mated with a chip that can alter all
>setting from part throttle to WOT. As you said you prices were
guess's,
>and VERY high ones in many cases. I have shopped around and found very
>high quality parts at much more reasonable prices, $800 for
injectors?!,
>$1000 for headers?!. It's going in a truck not a Pro Stock! You are the
>only person I have ever heard of recommend a $2300 cpu for an engine
>making only 400-450 lbs of torque, guys who drag race with 1200HP twin
>turboed nos injected cars yes, but a little old supercharger running
>10lbs of boost? It seems your taste runs deep into wine and cheese
>territory where money flows like water and you can afford to mess-up
>until you get it right. Mine runs along hotdog and pepsi taste, that is
>why I ask people questions like I did on the list, to find tidbits of
>wisdom or little known know how. I have to admit, at first I was
>offended by what seemed to be an excess of sarcasm and hints of
>superiority in you message but I calmed down, settled in and prepared
to
>defend my position. I will thank you for you input, it is such
responses
>that inspire people to dig deeper and look harder at what they want out
>of their plans and ideas. And lastly, I must apologize for this long
>"note" and it's grammatic deficiencies, I always did do lousy in
>highschool and college english!!
>
>Thanks and best wishes,
>Bryan Snyder
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:31:47 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: Danger Opinion follows! and another..and clarification of the first

- -> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 22:21:16 -0500
- -> From: Tim Turner
- -> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: Danger Opinion follows! and another..
- ->
- -> Chris Samuel (thaz me :-) wrote:
SNIP
- -> > Turbos are THE way to go as you will build the same power plus the
- -> > power lost to the Blower drive!
- ->
- -> But I thought his main objective was LOW end torque; I certainly don't
- -> want to wait for a turbo to spin up the boost after the demand is
- -> required as opposed to the (slightly) quicker response of the SC.. (Or
- -> am I behind the times RE: latest turbo setups?) Not to mention the
- -> ungodly amounts of extra heat you'll be generating in a VERY tight
- -> engine compartment with two Turbos in a Ranger.
SNIP

"If" the AR housing is correctly sized and "If" the headers are built to
keep velocities high and "If" there are two Turbos then there will be
"almost" no turbo lag. But the top end will suffer depending on just how
high that top end is; but not as much as with a single. Also in both cases
the reason the CR is as high as I said is to compensate for the softness on
the bottom end of ether puffer.
I really didn't worry about turbo lag in my example; because to get the
specified power you are going to have to ingest a fixed amount of air and
fuel. Ok, there is a little wiggle room but not that much. With a 5.0L
displacement it can only get that much in 1 revolution. It therefore takes a
few revs to get the volume required. My best guess was that it would be over
4000 RPM no matter what was used in a non grenade engine. My software
agreed. I suppose that you could use Nitrous and get there but in a 4x4?...
Climb trees real fast???
One other thing using a small displacement blower like the KB would make too
much heat and with out an intercooler not make that kind of power. But as I
said I have no personal experience with the KB unit so I gave it the benefit
of my doubts.
It is going to be tight in that engine compartment no matter what you run
and more so at that power level so I didn't worry about it. Sheet metal is
there to be bent, removed, cut, welded, but mostly be in the way when you
start an engine swap of this nature.
As to heat. I don't want it in the engine compartment I want it in the
Turbos and so my take would be similar to sheet metal; heat exists to be
controlled and directed. Thermal barriers have come a long way; expensive
but like you observed.
Power costs how much do you want.

- -> Just my pair of Abe coins..

- -> TT/MM

And good coins too! I should have given my reasoning for 2 Turbos.
Muel


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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:40:52 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

i ended up spending way over $1000 bucks (even using alot of good used
parts and swapped parts) trying to get my 9" to work. i finally got it to
hold up to street and off roading, but truck pulling ended up finding the
remaining weak links. sure, a nodular case would have helped more, but at
a final tally of around $550 or so to replace the case with nodular and big
bearings i could easily swap in a dana 70, dana 80, or corporate 14 bolt
and not have the problems anymore.

i could also have used "soft" racing gears, but they need constant
replacement and that adds up over time too.

it is a gamble to use light duty parts from the start hoping to make them
work. at what point do you decide to use better parts - after 1 failure?
after 5 failures? my experience shows that using the strongest parts
right away is better most often. (that is one reason i used oliver rods in
my pull truck engine) of course this only works if the budget allows it
right away! (that is why almost my whole competition truck is used
parts...)

sleddog

- ----------
From: William S Hart[SMTP:wish iastate.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 11:40 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

>don't break em much. but i did. just because someone ese makes light
duty
>parts work for them, doesn't mean that you can without breakin lotsa parts
>first. they learned by breaking them alot most likely.
>
>sleddog


And vice-versa ... why not start out cheap, if it doesn't work, then
upgrade ... if it does work, then you're not out anything ...


Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Cars/mustang.html
== 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: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:26:16 EST
From: Schabla AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - F-150 Maint for 1988 2W

Greetings,

1. My gas tanks are leaking at the seams. Can they be repaired or should I
chuck them and buy from JC whitney--can get two for about $300.00. Any other
place to buy them?

2. My six cylinder EFI computer controlled engine idles at 1800 RPM. Any
ideas? Hate to take to dealer. No vacuum leaks. Help!

Thanks,

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:56:58 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - F-150 Maint for 1988 2W

>1. My gas tanks are leaking at the seams. Can they be repaired or should I
>chuck them and buy from JC whitney--can get two for about $300.00. Any other
>place to buy them?
>
Depends on how bad the holes are ... there is gastank sealant available
through Hemmings somewhere, maybe your local parts store has some too...or
if they are just pin holes or something you can also hunt them down and
possibly cover them with JB weld ...


>2. My six cylinder EFI computer controlled engine idles at 1800 RPM. Any
>ideas? Hate to take to dealer. No vacuum leaks. Help!
>
Have you checked the Idle air bypass valve? Should be a little cylindrical
thing plugged into the throttlebody ... try unplugging that and see if your
idle drops, if so, that's probably the problem. You may be able to tap it
with a wrench and get it to drop too, but that' s kind of a temporary thing ...




Just my 2cents

Bill

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

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

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:59:13 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: RE:Ford ranger 5.0 Danger opinion follows

William S Hart wrote:
>
> >don't break em much. but i did. just because someone ese makes light duty
> >parts work for them, doesn't mean that you can without breakin lotsa parts
> >first. they learned by breaking them alot most likely.
> >
> >sleddog
>
> And vice-versa ... why not start out cheap, if it doesn't work, then
> upgrade ... if it does work, then you're not out anything ...
>
> Just my 2cents

If you guys are still referring to the 8.8 I have seen much bigger hp
and torque numbers in the Lightnings and guess what they have 8.8s, and
not very many problems what so ever....but if you want to talk about
that E4OD that is another story!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:27:42 EST
From: NUTCH11 AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: ciae cylinder heads

C1AE cylinder heads were for 61-63 352 and 390 engines they had 74cc
combustion chambers. not the best 390 heads.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:34:50 EST
From: NUTCH11 AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: ford 3-2 manifolds

ford made 2 different manifolds in 3-2 configuration. one for t-bird and one
for standard cars one was flat and one was stepped ( meaning the first carb
was low
second was medium and third was highest) the t-bird was rarer and is more....


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.