perf-list-digest Thursday, January 21 1999 Volume 02 : Number 014



=======================================================================
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 - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
FTE Perf - ADMIN: Pigeon Forge show
RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore -- more
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
FTE Perf - A Rant on Testing.
FTE Perf - Whatz a henweigh?

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 05:29:42 PST
From: "Doug Ridder"
Subject: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

I am in the process of designing a motor to put in the truck that I haul =
my pulling truck arround with. I am looking for alot of useable torque =
and Hp especially in the 2- 3000 rpm range. I have been tossing arround =
a couple of Ideas that I hope everyone here can give me some help with.

It has always been my theory that the longer the stroke the more torque =
(everything else being equal). And that with more torque comes more hp. =
I have two different short block senarios that I have been thinking abou=
t and I don't have any way to prove to myself that one is better that the=
other. I have plugged them both into desk top dyno, but since it calcul=
ates everything based on cylinder volume and both options are essentially=
the same c.i.d. it gave me the same results on both combinations.

Combo #1 Rebuild the 460 that I currently have to 468 cubes with a .040 =
over bore.

Combo #2 Buy a 370 truck motor and one of the new cast steel cranks with =
a 4.3 stroke length. Bore the block to 4.155. It will make 466 cubes.

I plan on using a stock set of 460 heads with enough port work to remove =
the major obstructions and increase air speed without increasing port siz=
e. An alum intake will also be used probably an edelbrock preformer. =
It will be a custom grind cam shaft designed to make power where I want =
it. The compression will be 10 - 10.5 to 1.

I am relatively excited about the possiblilties of combo #2 but I don't =
have anything to back up or justify the extra expence except for my own =
theories.

Can anyone add any light to this concept?

Doug

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:27:30 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

>pulling truck arround with. I am looking for alot of useable torque and Hp
>especially in the 2- 3000 rpm range.

Aren't we all ? :) I think it comes from having a truck, you just want
more torque :)

>It has always been my theory that the longer the stroke the more torque
>(everything else being equal). And that with more torque comes more hp.

Well your theory is generally correct. There are 2 ways to make torque,
increase the force on the lever arm (crank) or increase the lever arm
length. This makes sense because what is torque? Its force*distance, so
increasing either should increase torque, but since you can only get so
much force from today's gasoline before you get pinging, then you are
pretty much stuck with changing the distance (stroke). In theory it is
possible that this will not change hp. Hp is a couple of big conversion
factors based on time and torque. Ever wonder how those rice burners get
such cool HP numbers with their little dinky engines ? Simple, they spin
them really fast, this gives a better HP rating, but does very little for
the low end torque. I can't think of any great examples right now, but
I've done the math and it works out ... Maybe 360 vs 390 ... lots more
torque in the 390 on the low side, but the hp difference is only 5 or so
... so on the high side the speed factor takes over and the stroke becomes
less important.

>I have plugged them both into desk top dyno, but since it calculates
>everything based on cylinder volume and both options are essentially the
>same c.i.d. it gave me the same results on both combinations.
>
Never trust a computer's answer, it is always based on estimations ... I
can probably dig up some of the equations its using to make its estimations
and we can figure out where its going wrong ... though that would be a lot
of work ... it could also be a lot of fun ... lemme know in a private email
if you want some of the equations and such ...

>Combo #1 Rebuild the 460 that I currently have to 468 cubes with a .040 over
>bore.
>
Increase in both torque and hp, but more noticeably the hp unless you up
the compression ratio at the same time ...

>Combo #2 Buy a 370 truck motor and one of the new cast steel cranks with a
>4.3 stroke length. Bore the block to 4.155. It will make 466 cubes.
>
I don't know how far over this is, but it sounds like a lot of torque
waiting to happen, though not sure about revving and overall hp. If you're
looking to increase the hp in the 2-3000 range then you need to increase
torque to increas the hp (since speed is fixed).

>I plan on using a stock set of 460 heads with enough port work to remove the
>major obstructions and increase air speed without increasing port size. An
>alum intake will also be used probably an edelbrock preformer. It will be a
>custom grind cam shaft designed to make power where I want it. The
>compression will be 10 - 10.5 to 1.
>
As long as you can run that compression without pinging on the gas you've
got I'd say go for it. I'm workin on a 390, and can see the possibilities
for cams and all that are much greater on the 460 side ....

>Can anyone add any light to this concept?

Hope that helps a little bit

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 17:04:55 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: Pigeon Forge show

Fellow FTEs:

Ford Truck Enthusiasts plans to attend the 21st annual F100
Supernationals in Pigeon Forge, Tennesee this year. Don't
let the name fool you, this show features not only older
F100s but also new trucks too (last year was the first year
for new trucks). Over 800 Ford trucks were featured. This is
the largest Ford truck show in the country and its a blast.

Last year we had 30 list members attend the show. We have
more than twice as many list members this year and hope to
have 100 in attendance. If you're interested in going, send
an email to me (kpayne ford-trucks.com) and I'll add you to the
email list.

We're working on a group discount for the hotel and a
Saturday breakfast. We're hoping to have a pavillion at the
local park too. Peggy is getting in contact with the promoter
to get a booth.

We're going to have a bulleting board featuring several list
member trucks. This is a good way to show your truck if you
can drive it there. If you want your truck featured, whether
or not you attend the show, send a picture to:

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Attn: PF Show Photo
PO Box 422
Lilburn, GA 30048

Include a detailed description of the truck.

The show dates are Thursday, May 13th until Sunday, May 16th.
Many vendors are there as early as Monday. We plan to be there
starting Wednesday.

Last year was great and helped to solidify many friendships
amoung list members. We hope to see you there!

Sincerely,
Ken Payne
Admin

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:37:30 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

why not put the 4.3" crank into the 460 and get 514 cubes? you will
increase torque even more especially if you drop in bigger intake/exhaust
with 30 deg seat on intake.

i think both your combos will make similiar numbers, but i think the long
stroke will make it a little lower in the rpm range, and feel crisper on
the bottom but will loose interest in spinning over 4000 or so (just a
guess here)

sleddog

- ----------
From: Doug Ridder[SMTP:ridder socket.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 8:29 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

I am in the process of designing a motor to put in the truck that I haul my
pulling truck arround with. I am looking for alot of useable torque and Hp
especially in the 2- 3000 rpm range. I have been tossing arround a couple
of Ideas that I hope everyone here can give me some help with.

It has always been my theory that the longer the stroke the more torque
(everything else being equal). And that with more torque comes more hp. I
have two different short block senarios that I have been thinking about and
I don't have any way to prove to myself that one is better that the other.
I have plugged them both into desk top dyno, but since it calculates
everything based on cylinder volume and both options are essentially the
same c.i.d. it gave me the same results on both combinations.

Combo #1 Rebuild the 460 that I currently have to 468 cubes with a .040
over bore.

Combo #2 Buy a 370 truck motor and one of the new cast steel cranks with a
4.3 stroke length. Bore the block to 4.155. It will make 466 cubes.

I plan on using a stock set of 460 heads with enough port work to remove
the major obstructions and increase air speed without increasing port size.
An alum intake will also be used probably an edelbrock preformer. It will
be a custom grind cam shaft designed to make power where I want it. The
compression will be 10 - 10.5 to 1.

I am relatively excited about the possiblilties of combo #2 but I don't
have anything to back up or justify the extra expence except for my own
theories.

Can anyone add any light to this concept?

Doug





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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:38:50 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore -- more

just wanted to add:
check the list archives for the perf list and the 62-79(???) list.
this topic has been covered before.
also, as i can see it so far:
cubic inches no matter if it is made by bore, or stroke, has the same
possible maximum torque. it is how the rest of the engine actually works
with the bore/stroke ratio that matters.

assuming the same heads, intake, cam, etc, a shorter stroke will want to
rev more to reach that maximum torque because of the breathing capacity of
the engine. a longer stroke will put more breathing demands on the rest of
the engine and therefore will peak earlier. that said:

bigger bores are more efficient (ignoring the cumbustion efficiency, only
looking at breathing and mechanical efficiency) than longer strokes. the
bigger bore allows for better breathing thru the valves. friction
increases less with a bigger bore than a longer stroke. rod ratio is
changed with a bigger stroke, toward the "worse".

bigger bores are generally cheaper to achieve up to the point of needing a
performance block, which you do not need for the size you want.
replacement parts are cheaper with biger bores (pistons are much cheaper
than stroker cranks.

there's even more to consider, but you may want also to think about using
an offset ground 460 crank (4.15") you can get about 500 cubes using the
stock 460 bore, or a .030 over bore.

increasing cid will give you more torque, and move the operating rpm range
lower, both are your goals. the offset ground stock crank is cheaper than
the 4.3" SVO crank. but then you will need to get the right bearings and
rods. but getting a cast iron offset crank kit from someplace like engine
systems will still be cheaper than the cast steel 4.3 crank i think.

and don't worry about the strength of the cast crank. it can take alot
more abuse than most people will ever be able to give it. i know one that
took around 900hp and stayed together. mine is still together with about
750hp or so. i can turn over 7000, 8000 this year i hope, and the other
one ran over 9000 rpms. he used aluminum rods though, i am using steel -
it does make a difference.

there is no doubt that a long stroke engine can make gobbs of torque, but
it must be done right. heavy flywheel, the right cam, crisp carberation,
and head work that compliments the long stroke. with a 460 head that may
only need to be cleaning up the ex port, minor bowl work (polishing) and a
30 deg intake seat i think will give great improvements. i personally feel
the CJ or PI valves would help alot, but i can't claim any personal
experience with that kind of combo.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Doug Ridder[SMTP:ridder socket.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 8:29 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore



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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:38:13 -0700
From: Robert N Kuhns
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

This is one of the best ideas for your interest in building torque. I have
read every article I can get my hands on for ford 460 family. The combo is a
real puller. Also try adding a Sleath intake manifold to the combo. This will
add a little to the package.(40-75hp 30-75 torque) Checkout Comp. Cams. , and
the different cam makers. I have a Mellin MTF-3 cam in my ford 460 in my 79
4x4 F150 . All the numbers I run in my dyno program so this cam to have a very
good profile even over the brand name cams. This cam tops out at about 4700
rpms. Check out the Edelbock home page for they have a package setup that
should also meet your needs. For a straight 460 build up I recommend a 9.5
comp. ratio this will let you run up this highest passes, ( Colorado ) with
little to no ping, with a good ignition setup.



Sleddog wrote:

> why not put the 4.3" crank into the 460 and get 514 cubes? you will
> increase torque even more especially if you drop in bigger intake/exhaust
> with 30 deg seat on intake.
>
> i think both your combos will make similiar numbers, but i think the long
> stroke will make it a little lower in the rpm range, and feel crisper on
> the bottom but will loose interest in spinning over 4000 or so (just a
> guess here)
>
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: Doug Ridder[SMTP:ridder socket.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 8:29 AM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
>
> I am in the process of designing a motor to put in the truck that I haul my
> pulling truck arround with. I am looking for alot of useable torque and Hp
> especially in the 2- 3000 rpm range. I have been tossing arround a couple
> of Ideas that I hope everyone here can give me some help with.
>
> It has always been my theory that the longer the stroke the more torque
> (everything else being equal). And that with more torque comes more hp. I
> have two different short block senarios that I have been thinking about and
> I don't have any way to prove to myself that one is better that the other.
> I have plugged them both into desk top dyno, but since it calculates
> everything based on cylinder volume and both options are essentially the
> same c.i.d. it gave me the same results on both combinations.
>
> Combo #1 Rebuild the 460 that I currently have to 468 cubes with a .040
> over bore.
>
> Combo #2 Buy a 370 truck motor and one of the new cast steel cranks with a
> 4.3 stroke length. Bore the block to 4.155. It will make 466 cubes.
>
> I plan on using a stock set of 460 heads with enough port work to remove
> the major obstructions and increase air speed without increasing port size.
> An alum intake will also be used probably an edelbrock preformer. It will
> be a custom grind cam shaft designed to make power where I want it. The
> compression will be 10 - 10.5 to 1.
>
> I am relatively excited about the possiblilties of combo #2 but I don't
> have anything to back up or justify the extra expence except for my own
> theories.
>
> Can anyone add any light to this concept?
>
> Doug
>
> == 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, 20 Jan 1999 11:50:18 EST
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

Well If your lookin for torque, if you can find one build a 410 or 428. Both
have the same wicked stroke. But these arent the easiest to find. Another
Variation is something I want to put together. Its a 351w bored to accept
M*par 360 pistons, ona modified 351c crank. Add 351c heads and it works out
to be somewhat of a 427 semi hemi. I know the possibilty is there, Ive seen
the mopar piston and 351c crank used, and I hear that the 351c heads can be
used. I say try it out, and see what ya get. Anyone have any info on this?

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:10:32 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

>Well If your lookin for torque, if you can find one build a 410 or 428. Both
>have the same wicked stroke. But these arent the easiest to find.

Good point I guess I assumed he was starting with a vehicle that had a 460
in it, so it would be a simple swap that way ...


Another
>Variation is something I want to put together. Its a 351w bored to accept
>M*par 360 pistons, ona modified 351c crank. Add 351c heads and it works out
>to be somewhat of a 427 semi hemi.

What is the advantage of the Mopar pistons ? Do they have some different
shape to them ? Or a different compression height ? What do you use for
rods ? 351C ?


>the mopar piston and 351c crank used, and I hear that the 351c heads can be
>used. I say try it out, and see what ya get. Anyone have any info on this?
>
With all the aftermarket Windsor heads I would think you could find some
suitable ones so you wouldn't need to worry about all the mess of putting C
heads on ...


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, 20 Jan 1999 12:48:14 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

i think you are getting off track, he said low rpm torque. like real low,
below 3000 rpm. big slow turning engine high torque engines mean big
cubes, and heads, intake, etc, appropriate for that kind of performance.
like the 385 series. no doubt an FE can do it. but he already has a 460.

BTW, the stealth intake may be good much better than the edelbroke, but i
do know it turns over 6500 r's on the 460 i had it on. the increased flow
velocity of the edelbroke may be better suited for the low rpm range he was
looking for

sleddog

- ----------
From: William S Hart[SMTP:wish iastate.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 12:10 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

>Well If your lookin for torque, if you can find one build a 410 or 428.
Both
>have the same wicked stroke. But these arent the easiest to find.

Good point I guess I assumed he was starting with a vehicle that had a 460
in it, so it would be a simple swap that way ...


Another
>Variation is something I want to put together. Its a 351w bored to accept
>M*par 360 pistons, ona modified 351c crank. Add 351c heads and it works
out
>to be somewhat of a 427 semi hemi.

What is the advantage of the Mopar pistons ? Do they have some different
shape to them ? Or a different compression height ? What do you use for
rods ? 351C ?


>the mopar piston and 351c crank used, and I hear that the 351c heads can
be
>used. I say try it out, and see what ya get. Anyone have any info on
this?
>
With all the aftermarket Windsor heads I would think you could find some
suitable ones so you wouldn't need to worry about all the mess of putting C
heads on ...


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, 20 Jan 1999 14:19:20 EST
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

In a message dated 1/20/99 9:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, wish iastate.edu
writes:


shape to them ? Or a different compression height ? What do you use for
rods ? 351C ? >>

I read about this build up in an issue of Mustang somethin or other. I'm not
sure as to why they used the Mopar pistons, but I do know they used the 351c
rods.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 17:44:32 PST
From: "Doug Ridder"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

The truck that I am putting the motor in allready has a 460 in it and I =
have alot of good 460 valve train and other parts that I am going to put =
in it. Altho I am a fan of the FE series motor I don't think that is wha=
t I am looking for here.

I am trying to put together a VERY low rpm motor as a matter of fact I =
don't care if it cannot get over 4000 rpms. I am towing big loads down =
the highway where the engine tipically runs about 2000 - 2500 rpms and =
this is the range where I want most of my power. It doesn't do any good =
to have a 500 hp motor if you have to rev it to 5000 rpms to get when you=
are pulling a load down the hwy. I am looking for the most power at the=
lowest rpm's so that my power is right in the "normal" operating range =
of the motor and still get 10 + miles/gal.

Stroking out the 460 is a great idea but I don't really want to feed all =
those cubic inches.

I plan on doing the necessary port work to make the heads flow at high =
velocity and low rpms. I am considering even epoxying the intake runners=
depending on how the flow numbers work.

The svo 4.3" crank has big ford journal sizes. I hope to be able to find=
a combination where I can use a stock set of ford rods and a set of 400 =
chevy pistons(4.155 bore is the same as a +.030 400 chevy). This would =
make the combo cheaper than an offset ground ford crank where I would hav=
e to buy chevy rods and ford pistons plus I get the extra .15 " of stroke=
.

What I am really after is a streetable motor that will efficiently pull =
a 10,000 + lbs. trailer down the hwy and still be able to past all the =
sports cars in the middle of the hill with out shifting down!------------=
- - or well at least as close as I can get.
Doug

- ----------
>
> i think you are getting off track, he said low rpm torque. like real =
low,
> below 3000 rpm. big slow turning engine high torque engines mean big =

> cubes, and heads, intake, etc, appropriate for that kind of performance=
.
> like the 385 series. no doubt an FE can do it. but he already has a =
460.
>
> BTW, the stealth intake may be good much better than the edelbroke, but=
i
> do know it turns over 6500 r's on the 460 i had it on. the increased =
flow
> velocity of the edelbroke may be better suited for the low rpm range =
he was
> looking for
>
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: William S Hart[SMTP:wish iastate.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 12:10 PM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
>
> >Well If your lookin for torque, if you can find one build a 410 or 428=
.
> Both
> >have the same wicked stroke. But these arent the easiest to find.
>
> Good point I guess I assumed he was starting with a vehicle that had =
a 460
> in it, so it would be a simple swap that way ...
>
>
> Another
> >Variation is something I want to put together. Its a 351w bored to =
accept
> >M*par 360 pistons, ona modified 351c crank. Add 351c heads and it wor=
ks
> out
> >to be somewhat of a 427 semi hemi.
>
> What is the advantage of the Mopar pistons ? Do they have some differe=
nt
> shape to them ? Or a different compression height ? What do you use =
for
> rods ? 351C ?
>
>
> >the mopar piston and 351c crank used, and I hear that the 351c heads =
can
> be
> >used. I say try it out, and see what ya get. Anyone have any info =
on
> this?
> >
> With all the aftermarket Windsor heads I would think you could find som=
e
> suitable ones so you wouldn't need to worry about all the mess of putti=
ng C
> heads on ...
>
>
> 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
> =3D=3D FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq=
.html
>
>
>
>
> =3D=3D 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, 20 Jan 1999 21:47:20 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

i think you got it under control. i think the long stroke choice sounds
good. but valve notches in the pstons need to be watched if you are using
non ford replacement part. the stock intake or the edelbroke or similiar
will work i think. talk to your valve job person and some other people,
about a 30 DEG intake valve seat.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Doug Ridder[SMTP:ridder socket.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 8:44 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore



The svo 4.3" crank has big ford journal sizes. I hope to be able to find a
combination where I can use a stock set of ford rods and a set of 400 chevy
pistons(4.155 bore is the same as a +.030 400 chevy). This would make the
combo cheaper than an offset ground ford crank where I would have to buy
chevy rods and ford pistons plus I get the extra .15 " of stroke.

What I am really after is a streetable motor that will efficiently pull a
10,000 + lbs. trailer down the hwy and still be able to past all the sports
cars in the middle of the hill with out shifting down!------------- or well
at least as close as I can get.
Doug

- ----------


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:31:07 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

Doug Ridder wrote:
>
>
> It has always been my theory that the longer the stroke the more torque

Correct to a degree; I believe it's the longer the stroke the better the
LOW end torque is, I presume that's why you'll see the 300 6 Cyl. in so
many 250/350/SD series trucks as that thing is TALL! Short strokes are
good for high revving HP (especially in combo with a small bore and
mulitple small valves). Good examples would be a Harley Vs. a Jap bike;
gobs of low end pull for the Hog, and awesome power in the upper RPM for
the ricers.

Here's Scenario (3) for you: 300 with cam/header/manifold from Clifford
&/or Offy :-)

Tim Turner/Manic Mechanic
Custer Auto Repair
Wilmington NC
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:30:34 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - A Rant on Testing.

In pondering the HP to dollar spent thread that has been thoroughly kicked
around here for the last little bit I find that there are from my
perspective several intertwined components missing.
The first is the pure misinformation that is so prevalent in the
"Automotive Aftermarket".
I understand how the above average consumer would after a time be unable
to distinguish between Fact and Hype. With out direct access to both an
engine Dynamometer and an honest experienced operator; the above average
consumer has no means to verify the published results. Further the consumer
is not aware of the intricacies of conducting a scientific Dyno test, so
they are not capable of determining the validity of such a test.
The second is a direct result of the first; just how is the actual testing
of the product performed. Just because a number is generated while testing
something on a Dyno (or any other piece of test equipment) does not make it
a real number.
Just how did they get that Dyno Number? Did they use pump gas that you can
easily find off the race track? They are getting better lately about
telling you what the air conditions were but if not: what altitude, what
temperature, humidity, vapor pressure, and etc...
The trick is to ask just exactly where their test number was generated at
and how? A little English in to the Dyno and presto you get a bogus number
but an impressive one! It is like playing pinball, and as long as you don't
"Tilt" you can manipulate the table and so the results. Except that when
Dyno testing you don't want to manipulate the test equipment or the test;
you want to know results of the test straight up.
So how do you manipulate a Dyno?
Easy things are to lower the intake air temperature, increase the humidity,
increase the Octane rating of the fuel. The one that simply kills me; is to
only use the biggest number that is displayed on the Dyno readout! It is
the number that you would like to use... But it is often not real! When a
Dyno test is performed the engine is run against a load. When the load is
removed the power number will momentarily jump up. Depending on just where
the load is removed and just how it is done a real big number will be
generated!
Is it repeatable?
Is in fact real?
In both cases no.
For a Dyno test to be valid it must be conducted scientifically. The engine
is run and a base line power output is established. Then the engine is
adjusted and the engine is run again under the exact same conditions as the
base line. What ever the change is, is noted and then the engine is returned
to the base line set-up and re-run. If the baseline is not repeated then the
validity of the improvement is suspect; as something changed and affected
the baseline performance. Just how many times have you read this in the
magazines?
If a Dyno test is conducted in this simple manor it will be repeatable on
any Dyno anywhere. The draw back is that this type of testing takes time
and with Dyno time regularly exceeding $100 an hour it is expensive!

As an engine builder I have a choice; I can lie, or omit information or, I
can tell the truth and supply all the information.
Personally I must be confident that the power numbers that I quote are
accurate. If I tell you my customer that I will deliver you a 351 that makes
500 horses it had better at least make that much! This is for my own ethics
and piece of mind. Most people have never driven a wizzmobiele with 500
horses and so would never know if I am lying, but I will know.

Muel


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:29:46 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Whatz a henweigh?

So what does a horsepower cost?
In my "Wine and Cheese" world I crew on a World Class White Water Jet Boat.
Our engine is in the mid 500 CI range. It is covered with Turbochargers,
Intercoolers, and a bunch of electronics. It makes over 1000 Horses (the
exact number I'll not reveal to the competition; suffice it to say it's big)
If you add up what the long block costs and the intake system, and the
electronics you get something like $30,000.00 give or take a grand or two,
without labor. Divide the dollars by the power and you get $30.00 for each
horse; it's more! But...
Recently a friend bought a "Crate Engine" it makes about 320 horses and
cost $3200 less Carb and Exhaust, or $3800 running. Divide Dollars by power
and you get $11.87 quite a comparative bargain on the surface of it.
Let's just for giggles add the minimal components that are required to
operate the Crate Engine at maximum output for the length of a typical river
race. We will need a dry sump, balanced rotating assembly, forged pistons,
main studs, new head bolts, and some miscellaneous Hoses & bit's-n-pieces
add say: $4500* to the $3800 purchase price for $8300 total. The power
output did not increase so now do the same calculation and we get $25.93. Or
close to the same as the Race Boat engine. But wait a sec! We didn't get any
more power and we are at the same level of spending as the race engine. True
and you can now run it as hard as the race engine! Reliability is what was
gained.
What changes when we get to "Do It Yourself" power?
To build a High-pro small block in my neck of the woods (if you know what
your doing) will run on the average $15-2000. If we split that and say $1750
we should be able to get about one horse per cubic inch (single 4BBL,
naturally aspirated). This is $2050 less then the Crate Engine and makes 30
more horses. Do the same calculation again and the dollar per horse is $5.00
and this is a real good price. So lets race this engine! Add the $4500
(from my example above) to the $1750 for $6250 divide that by the 350
Horsepower output and you get $17.85.
....


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.