perf-list-digest Friday, January 1 1999 Volume 01 : Number 189



=======================================================================
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 - Re: ford 3-2 manifolds
FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows again!!
FTE Perf - Dist.
RE: FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows again!!
RE: FTE Perf - Dist.
Re: FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows again!!

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 08:14:27 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: ford 3-2 manifolds

NUTCH11 AOL.COM wrote:

> 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
> expensive
> now. i think the t-bird was the flat one because of the low hood can't
> remember for sure .
> saw an ad in hemmings today for 3-2 ford $1,000 with rebuildable carbs, i
> don't know which one. if your looking for performance though , i'd stick to a
> good 4-barrel.
> to much adjusting linkage etc.
> nutch
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

This one is flat. It is laying on a shelf with the carbs attached and all the
tops of the carbs were level. All the mating surfaces were nice and clean ( not
nicked up) and it looked as if it had been sitting in a garage for the last 20+
years. No fresh oil and lots of dust. All the carbs seemed to be free( no
sticking parts that I could see). It didn't have the linkage or fuel rail. It
was really neat to see one and be able to pick it up with one hand ;)
- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon
ICQ# 19575234

99 Contour SE Sport
63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:54:05 PST
From: "Bryan Snyder"
Subject: FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows again!!

To all,

Ca...Ca...Can't we all just get along?? Seriously, for those who
brought up the heat issue, the KB unit is one of the most efficient SC
out there (even rival turbo's in many regards) and runs at comparatively
low temps. I have made a template for my hood to put 2 low profile ram
air scoops in my hood, I have not made up my mind whether they will be
used to fill engine compartment with cool air or use for full ram air
effect to the intake.

I should also make it clear that I'm not building a pulling truck,
a drag racer and will not be using slicks, wheely bars etc. Pickups, by
nature are lite in the rear and it is difficult to get lots of traction
without massive tires, a soft suspension (which mine sure doesn't have!)
and some more weight in the rear! My reason for wanting this much power
at a low rpm is for roll-on acceleration at low rpm's for passing, trail
crawling, and trailer towing. There will be no line-locks, power braking
etc., the truck is not set up for racing and could not be competitive
against one that is. SO, that once again makes the drivetrain issue
moot. It seems when a person wants lots of power that people
automatically attach timeslips and lap times to the reason you want it
and forget about practical applications.

I hope this clears things up a little...Jeeezzz!,
Bryan
P.S. I hope no one feels personally attacked by my comments, it is not
my intention for making them.

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 12:07:49 -0600
From: "Douglas McLaughlin"
Subject: FTE Perf - Dist.

I have been subscribed to this list for a few months now and have realized
that I don't know as much as I thought. Some of you guys sound like college
professors and alot of you give me the impression of years of experience.
Enough brown-nosing, on to the question. A friend of mine knows a guy with
a high performance distributor for a 351. I have a 460, will it fit? Also
The 460 I got was supposedly from a special ordered 75 T-bird. He junked the
car years ago so I can only go on his word. I got the engine pretty cheap so
even if he lied I'm not hurting financially I am just wondering how to
verify the year and if it is a 75 is this a good year? Thanks,

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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:53:47 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows again!!

i would like to say i understand what your reasons are for not wanting to
beef the drivetrain. no problem at all, i was just saying what my
experiences are. also, i would like to add, that i have busted gearsets
when *releasing* the throttle! the reverse side of the gears gave way. a
problem with big tires, heavy rims, and a an engine that cuts power
quickly.

traction will break parts, but even without it you may find that there is
sufficient stress applied to the parts from the acceleration forces
(suddenly spinning up the tires) to do damage. i am not trying to convince
you to build a beefier driveline. just some thoughts.

FWIW i knew a guy who had a 9" rear hold up under more power than i have on
the track. driving style may have something to do with that.

also, i have heard of many 8.8 rears taking abuse from high traction high
power cars/trucks. it can be done. i don't doubt it. but as a for
instance. IF the 8.8 does break it is generally cheaper to use a 9" than
build the 8.8" to take the power, or so it seems to me.

as for automatically adding timesplips etc when someone wants power, i
don't do that. but most often it has been my experience that the guys that
build for the track break less, and the ones that build for the street
break more often - for whatever reason i do not know. maybe the street
guys don't realize the abuse real street driving gives a vehicle. even if
driven generally "calmly" or smoothly.

anyway, good luck with your build. underhood tamps can be controlled and
things like header wrap and coatings help alot. (wish they were in my
budget!)

enjoy and keep us posted on ow things go.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Bryan Snyder[SMTP:rangerstx hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 1998 12:54 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows
again!!


To all,
- -------snipped--------

I should also make it clear that I'm not building a pulling truck,
a drag racer and will not be using slicks, wheely bars etc. Pickups, by
nature are lite in the rear and it is difficult to get lots of traction
without massive tires, a soft suspension (which mine sure doesn't have!)
and some more weight in the rear! My reason for wanting this much power
at a low rpm is for roll-on acceleration at low rpm's for passing, trail
crawling, and trailer towing. There will be no line-locks, power braking
etc., the truck is not set up for racing and could not be competitive
against one that is. SO, that once again makes the drivetrain issue
moot. It seems when a person wants lots of power that people
automatically attach timeslips and lap times to the reason you want it
and forget about practical applications.

I hope this clears things up a little...Jeeezzz!,
Bryan
P.S. I hope no one feels personally attacked by my comments, it is not
my intention for making them.






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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:56:20 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Dist.

75 is not a great year. the cast in numbers should read on block side

D5

for 75, but they may read D3 or D6.

the heads are the same.

if the dist is from a cleveland or a M motor i think it fits the 460 if my memory serves me right.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Douglas McLaughlin[SMTP:dougmc1 galesburg.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 1998 1:07 PM
To: perf
Subject: FTE Perf - Dist.

I have been subscribed to this list for a few months now and have realized
that I don't know as much as I thought. Some of you guys sound like college
professors and alot of you give me the impression of years of experience.
Enough brown-nosing, on to the question. A friend of mine knows a guy with
a high performance distributor for a 351. I have a 460, will it fit? Also
The 460 I got was supposedly from a special ordered 75 T-bird. He junked the
car years ago so I can only go on his word. I got the engine pretty cheap so
even if he lied I'm not hurting financially I am just wondering how to
verify the year and if it is a 75 is this a good year? Thanks,

== 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, 31 Dec 1998 13:14:14 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Ranger 5.0 build-up ideas- danger opinion follows again!!

> I should also make it clear that I'm not building a pulling truck,
>a drag racer and will not be using slicks, wheely bars etc. Pickups, by
>nature are lite in the rear and it is difficult to get lots of traction
>without massive tires, a soft suspension (which mine sure doesn't have!)
>and some more weight in the rear! My reason for wanting this much power
>at a low rpm is for roll-on acceleration at low rpm's for passing, trail
>crawling, and trailer towing. There will be no line-locks, power braking
>etc., the truck is not set up for racing and could not be competitive
>against one that is. SO, that once again makes the drivetrain issue
>moot. It seems when a person wants lots of power that people
>automatically attach timeslips and lap times to the reason you want it
>and forget about practical applications.
>
>I hope this clears things up a little...Jeeezzz!,


I agree with you totally here. We just got our first big snow here
yesterday. Riding around with my sister a little bit reminded me of my
goal for my truck. She's got a 91 250 4x4, its not even close to enough
power for me, but it is a good solid truck. What its lacking in power it
makes up for in finesse, I'm hoping I can get my tempermental 360 out of
here in the next month or so and get the 390 I'm working on to be
consistent if nothing else. Its also pushing me more and more to fuel
injection. Her little 5.0 just hums under there, and always starts at the
turn of a key. I love to screw around with too much power, but in reality
I don't race, I don't tow, all I do is put it in 4 and drive around in the
snow (when its here), the rest of the time its just a 2wd like everything
else. Anyway sorry to keep adding on, just thought I'd let you know there
were others of us who are looking for more power and performance, but still
need a street vehicle when we're done.


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....

---

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.