perf-list-digest Saturday, January 23 1999 Volume 02 : Number 016



=======================================================================
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 - Welcome!
Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine
Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine
Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
FTE Perf - Yes, it is time for Congrats
RE: FTE Perf - 370 engine
FTE Perf - Re: Cervini hood
FTE Perf - FE CYL blocks
Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - Re: Cervini hood
FTE Perf - 300ci measurements (was: Stroke vs. Bore)
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
Re: FTE Perf - 300ci measurements (was: Stroke vs. Bore)
Re: FTE Perf - Yes, it is time for Congrats
Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore
FTE Perf - Engine Spec List

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 06:37:24 -0500
From: The Neighbors
Subject: FTE Perf - Welcome!

Bill Zellman wrote: "I'm a new subscriber, and thought I'd introduce
myself and ask a few questions.

I regret to say that I'm not a long-time Fordophile. Not long ago, I
bought my first Ford since the early 1960's, a 1982 F-100 short-bed with
a 300 I6 and 3spd + OD manual trans."

Bill, my one and only Ford truck prior to buying the one I call Grover
2 years ago was the '57 F100 I learned how to drive in back in '74. So
while I may be a tad younger than you, it took quite a few years and one
REALLY bad Ch*vy truck for me to wise up and get a Ford! Welcome to FTE!
I don't know a lot about hopping up a 300, but I'm with you about
keeping it. I've never heard anything bad said about that engine. I'm
pretty certain you'll find enough experts (not me) and enthusiasts to
help you out here.
- --
Don Neighbors
'54 F250 Named Grover

"Any dropped tool or part will automatically fall into the most
inaccessible part of the vehicle."

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 99 06:19:06 PST
From: "Doug Ridder"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine

As I understand it the 370 is just a small bore 385 series motor. It use=
d the 429 crankshaft at 3.59 stroke and it a the same bore as the 390 FE =
with 4.05. It was produced exclusively for the big 2 ton and up trucks. =
so it has all the same charistics of any other Truck motor. Beefier cyl=
inder walls and a steel crank. To my understanding it has two bolt mains=
and most all of the 429 and 460 parts will interchange. I am sure it =
has the large front crank snout so if you use a tipical passenger car typ=
e crank you will need to change out the timming cover.

Doug

- ----------
> What are the specs of the 370 engine? Does it have 4 bolt mains, cross
> bolted, thicker water jackets, etc? I have never seen one of these,
> basically I am wondering if a 385 series crank will fit in the mains =
and
> clear
> everything. If so, it would probably lend itself to a killer bottom
> end. If not, it would make good ballast.
>
> later
>
> Dan Shade
>
> =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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:30:27 -0600
From: Steve Randa
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine

Has anyone tried fitting a 92-96 Cervinis hood to there pre-87 truck. I'm
assuming the hood bolts on the very same way but the front end of the
earlier hoods were more chiseled looking. Thought that could be built up if
someone were good at fiberglass. Do you think the hood latch would be
different?

Steve Randa

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 09:45:02 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine

>Has anyone tried fitting a 92-96 Cervinis hood to there pre-87 truck. I'm
>assuming the hood bolts on the very same way but the front end of the
>earlier hoods were more chiseled looking. Thought that could be built up if
>someone were good at fiberglass. Do you think the hood latch would be
>different?
>
This would look very odd I would think, the 92 trucks had the body change,
where the front became more rounded ... wow just dug up some pictures, they
are closer than I thought, though I would expect either the center to hang
over the grille too far, or the edges to be too far back for the fenders...
assuming the hood latch lines up...I would guess they're similar, though as
for being the same ... dunno ... anyone got pics of a 92+ my roommate has
an 86 we can compare that way ...


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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:11:00 EST
From: WJeff43 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

Please educate me to the particular configuration you are speaking of (from
Clifford). I also have a 300/6. The 300/6 has a 3" bore and a 3" stroke. Is
this considered a "long stroke" motor?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:22:54 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

At 11:11 AM 1/22/99 , you wrote:
>Please educate me to the particular configuration you are speaking of (from
>Clifford). I also have a 300/6. The 300/6 has a 3" bore and a 3" stroke. Is
>this considered a "long stroke" motor?


Actually this is called a "square" motor because the bore and stroke are
matched ... there's also over square and under square, but I can never
remember if its the bore is longer on over or under...


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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:48:35 EST
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - Yes, it is time for Congrats

Well Folks,

I was sittin here readin through all this mail, adding my lil bits when
inspiration hit me. All my life I've loved Fords. Defending them to the
bitter end no matter what. Only once have I drivin a non-Ford for more than a
week, and I regret that to this very day. But enough about that. I wanted to
say thank you to all you wonderful people. I have learned so much from this
list. I thought I knew everything, ok I still do, but now its because of you
folks. I wonder if it was somethin more than chance that I stumbled on to the
site. I was stoked from the get go. Somewhere I can talk about horsepower
and not have to hear "throw a 350 in it" or "Ford? HAHAHA" We've always been
a bit of the underdog, some folks know this when they try to find ways to hop
up an FE, or a 351. But we've bonded and now we are unstoppable. We can
build a 292 that'll smoke a hemi! We can diagnose a problem at the stroke of a
key. And dare I say it, we could find a way to Drive to Hawaii to celebrate
year 3! Ok I'm getting carried away. I'm just glad that you pioneers decided
to put this together. Everywhere I go I spread the word of FTE. I've introd
new members, first person I can think of is Wayne Foy. We were talkin Fords
for awhile, and as soon as I found FTE, I mailed him a link and he was a
member tuut sweet. I'm glad I'm here, and I think some of you are too. I was
quite surprised to see my name mentioned by Mr Ballinger. Ok Time to cut this
off, but thanks to Ken, Peggy, Azie, Sleddog, Dave R, all the Bills, CO Jeff,
and Stu (cant forget Stu, NUKE GM right?) and everyone else out there. Yall
are great!

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:11:19 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 370 engine

i would like to jsut mention, that a 4-bolt main is not really required.
in fact many builders think a stud girdle is stronger than a 4-bolt main.
the 460 block is a very strong piece.

although mine showed signs of capwalk when i got it, over 8 yrs of use
(before me) it should when producing over 800 hp, and turning over 8000 rpm
too often. a friend with a svo block (4-bolt) said his showed sings of
capwalk also, but he turned over 9000 rpm. niether block or crank broke
due to block weaknesses, although the svo block did have a big hole in the
side from a rod breaking...it is now fixed.

i think you'd be inmpressed with what can be done with a stock block, and
at the cost of an SVO block it is cheaper than building a stock 4-bolt
block up for those applications where the 4-bolt bottom end would be
helpful. the SVO block comes with improved oiling and a thicker cylinder
wall that can be bored to something like 4.500 without the need for
concrete.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Doug Ridder[SMTP:ridder socket.net]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 9:19 AM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine

As I understand it the 370 is just a small bore 385 series motor. It used
the 429 crankshaft at 3.59 stroke and it a the same bore as the 390 FE with
4.05. It was produced exclusively for the big 2 ton and up trucks. so it
has all the same charistics of any other Truck motor. Beefier cylinder
walls and a steel crank. To my understanding it has two bolt mains and
most all of the 429 and 460 parts will interchange. I am sure it has the
large front crank snout so if you use a tipical passenger car type crank
you will need to change out the timming cover.

Doug

- ----------
> What are the specs of the 370 engine? Does it have 4 bolt mains, cross
> bolted, thicker water jackets, etc? I have never seen one of these,
> basically I am wondering if a 385 series crank will fit in the mains and
> clear
> everything. If so, it would probably lend itself to a killer bottom
> end. If not, it would make good ballast.
>
> later
>
> Dan Shade
>
> == 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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:37:17 -0600
From: Steve Randa
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Cervini hood

I called Cervini and they said NO WAY(same thing Belltech said about my
lowering kit...Wrong!). By the end of the conversation they admitted they knew
of one local guy but couldn't remember anything about him. I don't see why they
don't make them for our years. Hell, they make them for the '82 S-10!??

Steve

William S Hart wrote:

> >Has anyone tried fitting a 92-96 Cervinis hood to there pre-87 truck. I'm
> >assuming the hood bolts on the very same way but the front end of the
> >earlier hoods were more chiseled looking. Thought that could be built up if
> >someone were good at fiberglass. Do you think the hood latch would be
> >different?
> >
> This would look very odd I would think, the 92 trucks had the body change,
> where the front became more rounded ... wow just dug up some pictures, they
> are closer than I thought, though I would expect either the center to hang
> over the grille too far, or the edges to be too far back for the fenders...
> assuming the hood latch lines up...I would guess they're similar, though as
> for being the same ... dunno ... anyone got pics of a 92+ my roommate has
> an 86 we can compare that way ...
>
> Bill
> == 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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:52:59 -0800
From: "Steven Salas"
Subject: FTE Perf - FE CYL blocks

Hello All , I am currently building a 428 for my 69 F250 and I was hoping
that some of you experienced Fordophiles could point me in the right
direction. This is my first HP ford engine(I used to be a ch*vy guy but I
finally saw the light). I understand that there are some things that you
can do the oiling system in the FE blocks to make them live longer. I am
using the 105 block and have a set of CJ rods and a 1UB crank,my next
purchases will include forged pistons a fliudamper and probably a set of
Edelbrock performer alum. heads. With the amount of money I have involved in
this project I am looking to make sure this motor will live for a good
while. If any one could ad any info to this project,I'm sure this list
could help. My ears are open. Thanks in advance! Steve



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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 99 11:03:32 PST
From: "Doug Ridder"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine

If you need a 4 bolt cap I just purchased a set of 4-bolt caps to convert=
a D1ve block to 4 bolts. I tried the main cap girdle last year and wasn=
't very happy with the results as I was seeing quite a bit of main walkin=
g on numbers 2 and 4 with the girdle after only 20 - 30 passes at 7600 =
- - 8400 rpms. I am not sure that these 4-bolt caps will be much better =
but I am sure that they cannot be any worse. I bought my set from Engine=
Systems, they are blue thunder caps and cost $350.00 for the set of 3. =


- ----------
>
> i would like to jsut mention, that a 4-bolt main is not really required=
.
> in fact many builders think a stud girdle is stronger than a 4-bolt =
main.
> the 460 block is a very strong piece.
>
> although mine showed signs of capwalk when i got it, over 8 yrs of use =

> (before me) it should when producing over 800 hp, and turning over 8000=
rpm
> too often. a friend with a svo block (4-bolt) said his showed sings =
of
> capwalk also, but he turned over 9000 rpm. niether block or crank brok=
e
> due to block weaknesses, although the svo block did have a big hole in =
the
> side from a rod breaking...it is now fixed.
>
> i think you'd be inmpressed with what can be done with a stock block, =
and
> at the cost of an SVO block it is cheaper than building a stock 4-bolt =

> block up for those applications where the 4-bolt bottom end would be =

> helpful. the SVO block comes with improved oiling and a thicker cylind=
er
> wall that can be bored to something like 4.500 without the need for
> concrete.
>
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: Doug Ridder[SMTP:ridder socket.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 9:19 AM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 370 engine
>
> As I understand it the 370 is just a small bore 385 series motor. It =
used
> the 429 crankshaft at 3.59 stroke and it a the same bore as the 390 FE =
with
> 4.05. It was produced exclusively for the big 2 ton and up trucks. =
so it
> has all the same charistics of any other Truck motor. Beefier cylinder
> walls and a steel crank. To my understanding it has two bolt mains and
> most all of the 429 and 460 parts will interchange. I am sure it has =
the
> large front crank snout so if you use a tipical passenger car type cran=
k
> you will need to change out the timming cover.
>
> Doug
>
> ----------
> > What are the specs of the 370 engine? Does it have 4 bolt mains, cro=
ss
> > bolted, thicker water jackets, etc? I have never seen one of these,
> > basically I am wondering if a 385 series crank will fit in the mains =
and
> > clear
> > everything. If so, it would probably lend itself to a killer bottom
> > end. If not, it would make good ballast.
> >
> > later
> >
> > Dan Shade
> >
> > =3D=3D FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/f=
aq.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: Fri, 22 Jan 99 11:10:18 PST
From: "Doug Ridder"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

I think you need to check your measurements on the 300 I6 because if it =
is a 3" bore and a 3" stroke it would only be 127 c.i.d. If you have a =
SVO catalog laying arround it will list the measurements of that motor =
in the back of the book. It don't have mine here right know or I would =
look it up for you.

Doug

- ----------
> Please educate me to the particular configuration you are speaking of =
(from
> Clifford). I also have a 300/6. The 300/6 has a 3" bore and a 3" stro=
ke. Is
> this considered a "long stroke" motor?
> =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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:55:28 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: Cervini hood

At 12:37 PM 1/22/99 , you wrote:
>I called Cervini and they said NO WAY(same thing Belltech said about my
>lowering kit...Wrong!). By the end of the conversation they admitted they knew
>of one local guy but couldn't remember anything about him. I don't see why
they
>don't make them for our years. Hell, they make them for the '82 S-10!??
>
Probably something to do with S-10's using the same hood for who knows how
many years, and also the performance image ... the S-10's have the popular
350 swap where they need the hood clearance. The 92+'s have Lightnings and
are still new enough people hare hopping them up ... the pre 92's (there
are exceptions, please don't flood me with them) are getting to the point
that the typical buyer doesn't want it, its too old, and the ones before
that don't have fuel injection or anything deemed cool by the aftermarkets
of today ... while not entirely true I'm sure, they probably will make
more selling S-10 hoods for 350 conversions than for the typical Ford full
size which can fit a hopped up 460 under the stock hood...

If you do need the info I might be able to tell you what the differences
are ... need to make a
run to the scrap yard anyway ...



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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:03:05 -0800
From: Erston Reisch
Subject: FTE Perf - 300ci measurements (was: Stroke vs. Bore)

List,

>From Chris's excellent post (thanks again!), I quote the following:

4.9L,4917cc,300ci: 4.00X3.98 (I assume bore/stroke), 8.8:1 CR, Y

..it's pretty close to square, btw.

- - Erston (90 F-150 XLT-L, 300ci/E4OD, 2WD)



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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:31:42 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

Haynes manual shows 4.00 x 3.98


- -----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ridder
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore


>I think you need to check your measurements on the 300 I6 because if it is
a 3" bore and a 3" stroke it would only be 127 c.i.d. If you have a SVO
catalog laying arround it will list the measurements of that motor in the
back of the book. It don't have mine here right know or I would look it up
for you.


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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:53:20 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

that's so close to square it can be called square. .020" is like an extremely worn, but still running engine ;)

sleddog

- ----------
From: Bill Beyer[SMTP:bbeyer pacifier.com]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 3:31 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

Haynes manual shows 4.00 x 3.98


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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:18:32 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 300ci measurements (was: Stroke vs. Bore)

Erston Reisch wrote:
>
> List,
>
> >From Chris's excellent post (thanks again!), I quote the following:
>
> 4.9L,4917cc,300ci: 4.00X3.98 (I assume bore/stroke), 8.8:1 CR, Y
>
> ..it's pretty close to square, btw.
>
> - Erston (90 F-150 XLT-L, 300ci/E4OD, 2WD)
>
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

If anyone still has a copy will you post it again I get afew e-mails
everyday asking for it but I did not keep a copy.
Thanks
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:59:51 EST
From: Genlee97 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Yes, it is time for Congrats

that was awesome, I feel the same way!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:28:18 EST
From: WJeff43 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

You are correct. I looked it up and it's actually 4.00 X 3.98, which is
essentially 4" X 4". I know this is considered a "square" configuration, but
is it considered to be a long-stroke motor? Mine has very little perceptable
power in any rpm range, and runs out of breath quickly. It must make pretty
good torque though, because no matter how much weight you load into the bed,
the only difference you can tell is the gas milage goes down.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 23:47:11 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

the term long stroke, and short stroke, only mean something when you are
comparing one to another for the most part. sure, a 4.500" stroke is long,
and a 2.750 would be short. but at 4" it is not really long or short
unless you are comparing it to another engine. it is long compared to most
other engines in the same CID range. but this is not the only reason the
300-6 is known as a torque engine. all other factors help it reach that
end also, like cam, heads, intake, etc.

sleddog

- ----------
From: WJeff43 AOL.COM[SMTP:WJeff43 AOL.COM]
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:28 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Stroke vs. Bore

You are correct. I looked it up and it's actually 4.00 X 3.98, which is
essentially 4" X 4". I know this is considered a "square" configuration,
but
is it considered to be a long-stroke motor? Mine has very little
perceptable
power in any rpm range, and runs out of breath quickly. It must make
pretty
good torque though, because no matter how much weight you load into the
bed,
the only difference you can tell is the gas milage goes down.
== 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: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 22:33:06 -0800
From: Erston Reisch
Subject: FTE Perf - Engine Spec List

Chris and List,

Well, I learned a new thing today: the list software does not accept MIME
attachments to posts, so when I attempted to attach your previous posting, it
bounced it back at me. :-(

Below is the text of Chris's posting. Thanks again Chris!

- - Erston




First engine codes and displacement
4.9L 4917 300 4.00X3.98 8.8:1 Y
5.0L 4942 302 4.00X3.00 9.0:1 N
5.8L 5766 351 4.00X3.50 8.8:1 H
5.8L 5766 351 4.00X3.50 8.8:1 R
6.9L 6886 ? 4.00X4.18 21.5:1 I
7.3L 7270 ? 4.11X4.18 21.5:1 M
7.3L 7270 ? 4.11X4.18 21.5:1 C
7.3L 7270 ? 4.11X4.18 21.5:1 K
7.3L 7270 ? 4.11X4.18 17.5:1 F
7.5L 7536 460 4.36X3.85 8.5:1 L
7.5L 7536 460 4.36X3.85 8.5:1 G
1987 HP TQ
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 210 3800 315 2800
6.9L 170 3300 315 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2000
1988
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 210 3800 315 2800
7.3L(M) 180 3300 345 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2000
1989
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 210 3800 315 2800
7.3L(M) 180 3300 345 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2000
1990
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 210 3800 315 2800
7.3L(M) 180 3300 345 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2200
1991
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 210 3800 315 2800
7.3L(M) 180 3300 345 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2200
1992
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 200 3800 300 2800
7.3L(M) 180 3300 345 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2200
1993
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 200 3800 310 2800
5.8L(R) 240 4200 340 3200
7.3L(M) 185 3300 360 1400
7.3L(C) 190 3000 395 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2200
1994
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 185 3800 270 2400
5.8L 200 3800 310 2800
5.8L(R) 240 4200 340 3200
7.3L(F) 210 3000 425 2000
7.3L(K) 190 3000 395 1400
7.3L(M) 185 3000 360 1400
7.5L 230 3600 390 2200
1995
4.9L 150 3400 260 2000
5.0L 205 4000 275 3000
5.8L 210 3600 325 2800
5.8L(R) 240 4200 340 3200
7.3L(F) 210 3000 425 2000
7.5L 245 4000 400 2200
1996
4.9L 150 ....


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.