perf-list-digest Saturday, January 30 1999 Volume 02 : Number 023



=======================================================================
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: Spacers
FTE Perf - 302 heads on a 351W
FTE Perf - Carb heat
FTE Perf - Newbie
FTE Perf - spacer
FTE Perf - Spacer
FTE Perf - Chambers
Re: FTE Perf - Spacer
Re: FTE Perf - Chambers
Re: FTE Perf - Carb spacer
FTE Perf - RE: Spacers
RE: FTE Perf - Chambers
RE: FTE Perf - spacer
RE: FTE Perf - RE: Spacers
Re: FTE Perf - 302 heads on a 351W
Re: FTE Perf - Chambers
Re: FTE Perf - Newbie
RE: FTE Perf - spacer
FTE Perf - Superchargers
RE: FTE Perf - spacer
RE: FTE Perf - Superchargers
Re: FTE Perf - pistons
Re: FTE Perf - Superchargers
Re: FTE Perf - Superchargers
RE: FTE Perf - Superchargers
FTE Perf - 351M/400
Re: FTE Perf - 460 Probs....
Re: FTE Perf - pistons

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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:02:32 -0700
From: Drew Beatty
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Spacers

William:

FWIW, I have the Mororso 1" phenolic spacer (part # 64930) under my
Edelbrock and it works great. I have a manual choke, but I don't see a
problem with an automatic opening up. If you have a new motor, it will
generate plenty of heat. The exhaust gas crossover passage in the intake
manifold will get heat to it. You won't lose any low end at all.

Drew Beatty
dcbeatty rmi.net

>Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:07:01 -0600
>From: William S Hart
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Spacers



>Do I want my carb insulated? I know its a good thing for summer driving
>and racing and all that, but I've never boiled the gas in the carb (even
>when it over heats), and I do need to drive it in the winter. Actually
for
>now that's the truck's main job is driving in the winter, the newer stang
>gets to hibernate. I can build a wood one, no problems there (those tools
>are around), but machining an aluminum one is not really a viable option
>for me, so I'll probably end up buying one. I want low end torque, that's
>the goal, just wnated everybody's recommendations ... so what would you
>recommend ?

>Thanks,
>wish
>73ish F-1?? 4x4 360-->390
>96 Mustang GT

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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:58:06 -0600
From: "Smith, Brian"
Subject: FTE Perf - 302 heads on a 351W

List,
I know these will fit however I am going to have to drill out the head bolt
holes (302 uses 1/2" bolts, 351 used 5/8"). Am I in any danger of drilling
through a water jacket?

Brian H. Smith
1959 TR3
1972 Spitfire IV
1977 TR7
Lake Charles, LA
1967 F100.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:33:32 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Carb heat

William Hart writes: >>Do I want to isolate it from the heat ? I like my choke
to open in the
winter ... I'm funny about things like that .

The heat soaked up thru the aluminum spacer will not effect the choke. It gets
its heat through a tube from the exhaust manifold (or in some engines from the
exhaust crossover in the intake manifold) to the black round plastic thing on
the side of the carb. The heat that the aluminum spacer transmits to the carb
may make it a little prone to boil out the fuel left in the float bowls, but I
doubt you could notice it. It also is supposed to help atamize (sic) the fuel
as it passes thru, hence the water passage. I doubt you could notice it either
way, but you might.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:44:08 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Newbie

Bryan writes: >>This will be helpful when I put the 427 HR motor
together for my '64 Galaxie.

First off - WELCOME to the list.
Don't know too much about the knowledge of some of us about the technical stuff
related to TODAYS racers (speaking of me personally), but there is a wealth of
knowledge here from some of the other members.

HR being Hi-rise???
Got any of those old side oiler 427's laying around that you need to get rid
of??? Any Cammers??/

I'd be interested in either.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:47:19 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - spacer

Sleddog writes: >>otherwise, a standard 4hole holley pattern 1 or 2" spacer will
be fine. 1" may be better.

Naw. Low end grunt remember - Not WOT Horsepower. 2" is better for what he
wants.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:56:16 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Spacer

William Hart writes: . >>does anyone know what the cars actually used
Preformed heater hose. Similar to the upper and lower radiator hoses.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.



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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:06:55 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Chambers

Bryan writes: >>The 4V combustion chamber (closed chamber) is much
better and less prone to detonation unlike the standard 2V heads (open
chamber).

I've heard these two terms used for the last couple of decades and I don't have
a clue. Would someone explain to me in detail the meaning of "Closed" and
"Open" chambers. I assume it has to do with combustion chamber compression, but
that is measured in volume (CC's in particular). So someone clue me in.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:20:06 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Spacer

At 08:56 AM 1/29/99 , you wrote:
>William Hart writes: . >>does anyone know what the cars actually used
>Preformed heater hose. Similar to the upper and lower radiator hoses.

Anyone wanna take odds on whether that'll work or not ? Sounds expensive,
but if it'll work maybe I'll give it a shot, we'll just have to wait and
see what happens.

Thanks,
wish
73ish F-1?? 4x4 360-->390
96 Mustang GT

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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:06:56 EST
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Chambers

I'll give her a go. A closed chamber would be like The D0VE heads on a 460,
just enough room for the valves to operate, I believe 72 cc. Open champer are
where the y have all kinds of metal removed to decrease compression, say like
my D4VE heads at a whopping 96 cc.

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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:01:10 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Carb spacer

Thanks for your message at 06:00 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Steve & Rockette Leitch.
Your message was:
>At 08:28 AM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > You forgot to mention the '63 Mercury's with the 390, I had one that had
>this spacer. I'd bypass it in the summer, and hook it back up in the winter.
> Just as a "by the way", it was an ex-police chief car, very fast for it's
>time,
>I drove it for a couple years, then one day out in Eastern Washington,

Was this Colfax by any chance? If is is, I know someone who would like to
talk to you...
Dennis L. Pearson

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson.index.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:02:39 -0500
From: Paul M Radecki
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: Spacers

A thought on carb spacers: why not make several wooden ones in
different heights and shapes, and experiment? Once you find the
configuration that puts the power where you want it, buy/make an
identical plastic spacer and install that one permanently.

lordjanusz juno.com
'94 F150 300ci

TIMING LIGHT (n): A stroboscopic instrument for illuminating grease
buildup.


___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:16:57 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Chambers

closed chambers have quench area.

sleddog

- ----------
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com[SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 10:06 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Chambers

I've heard these two terms used for the last couple of decades and I don't have
a clue. Would someone explain to me in detail the meaning of "Closed" and
"Open" chambers. I assume it has to do with combustion chamber compression, but
that is measured in volume (CC's in particular). So someone clue me in.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:16:03 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - spacer

every engine is different. each one will respond better to either longer
or shorter, 4 hole, cloverleaf, 3 hole, or open spacers. my experience so
far indicates that general trends can be seen, but nothing is deffinate.

the trend seems to be taller spacers for more top end. more plenum volume
for top end (open styles) the difference would not be noticeable i don't
think between a 1" or 2" spacer on his engine. and i think the 1" is more
appropriate. increasing runner length helps build low end, but increasing
plenum volume increases top end. spacers do not increase runner length.

BTW, i think when i put a 2" open spacer on my 460 (not my puller) it
rewarded me with an extra 500 rpm on top, and no noticeable loss anywhere -
on a high rise dual plane intake.

sleddog

- ----------
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com[SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:47 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - spacer

Sleddog writes: >>otherwise, a standard 4hole holley pattern 1 or 2" spacer
will
be fine. 1" may be better.

Naw. Low end grunt remember - Not WOT Horsepower. 2" is better for what
he
wants.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


== 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, 29 Jan 1999 12:24:19 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - RE: Spacers

this is the generally accepted way of doing it. but most people will buy
the multitude of spacers and go from there.

problem is, most often the difference is not really noticeable between say
a 1" and 2" 4 hole spacer. depends on the engine and its performance
level.

this makes it difficult. the pros do it on the dyno. me, on my puller i
just assume i have the best part by increasing plenum volume as much a
possible and smoothing the flow.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Paul M Radecki[SMTP:lordjanusz juno.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 12:02 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: Spacers

A thought on carb spacers: why not make several wooden ones in
different heights and shapes, and experiment? Once you find the
configuration that puts the power where you want it, buy/make an
identical plastic spacer and install that one permanently.

lordjanusz juno.com
'94 F150 300ci



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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:25:05 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 302 heads on a 351W

Brian,
By drilling the 302 head bolt holes out to the 351 size you will not
hit the water jacket. What kind of 302 heads are you using? If they are
not any of the GT-40 type, you'll loose power on a 351 as apposed to a
set of pre-77 castings.

Bryan

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:52:30 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Chambers

Azie,
The term "open" or Closed" refer to the shape of the chamber. The
"open" chambers are large round chambers. The "closed" chambers are much
smaller, less "open" area around the valves. The "open" chamber
actually lets the head breath a little better since the valves are less
shrouded, but this design is very prone to detonation in "Cleveland"
motors.

Bryan

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:40:43 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Newbie

List,
Thanks for the warm welcome from all. YES HR meaning High-Riser!
The '64 will primarily be street driven, although 11 sec time slips are
my goal. I just love the way the HR motors looked. Towering up through
the engine bay. To quote Steve Christ "Few engines perform as well as
they look-but the 1964 427 does!" Azie I don't have any extra 427
anything. I've been piecing together my 427 HR the last year. All I
need is a block, preferably a center oiler. Side oilers are nice, but
not necessary if you are not going to be racing or spending all day at
6000+. And then there is the cost, they are just to expensive. I only
know a little also, most of my friends are screwing around with GM
products, basically the orange ones!!! My buddy has a nice tunnel rammed
Chevelle, I can't wait tosurprise him!!!!!

Bryan

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:49:10 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - spacer

Thanks for your message at 12:16 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Sleddog. Your message was:
>the trend seems to be taller spacers for more top end. more plenum volume
>for top end (open styles) the difference would not be noticeable i don't
>think between a 1" or 2" spacer on his engine. and i think the 1" is more
>appropriate. increasing runner length helps build low end, but increasing
>plenum volume increases top end. spacers do not increase runner length.
>
>BTW, i think when i put a 2" open spacer on my 460 (not my puller) it
>rewarded me with an extra 500 rpm on top, and no noticeable loss anywhere -
>on a high rise dual plane intake.
>
This may seem antithetical to the Performance concept, but I am always
aiming for optimum performance from my 351c 2V.
Would the use of a spacer appreciably increase the performance on a 2V ?
Theoretically, at least, it should. Now I've got something else to keep me
from doing the household chores--experimenting with carven wooden carb
spacers!
Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:30:51 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: FTE Perf - Superchargers

Has anyone on the list put a banks supercharger on their truck?

I am curious how much it helps acceleration at high altitudes, not so much
for pulling heavy loads which is what they are typically used for.

How many other modifications to the drive train would I have to make to
handle the extra power at the rear wheels of a '95 F-150 5.8L? If any? I
have the heavy duty tow package and the E4OD.

I ran into a guy who pulled a used one off of a Bronco of the same year and
the same motor and wants to sell it for 2700 bucks installed, they go for
around 3500 new so it may not be such a good deal for a used one. Plus I am
afraid once I put it on I would be going through a automatic transmission,
bearings, rings, valves, and anything else that gets in the way. I would be
conscious of the fact it places a huge load on the drive train if I ever
installed it.

Anyone with experience in this would be helpful. Chances are I won't buy it
but I am very tempted to not pass it up if it is a good deal.

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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:42:45 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - spacer

if you have a single plane intake i would feel it would (most single planes
need more plenum volume IMHO), but on a dual plane my best guess is maybe.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dennis Pearson[SMTP:dpearson ctc.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 12:49 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - spacer

This may seem antithetical to the Performance concept, but I am always
aiming for optimum performance from my 351c 2V.
Would the use of a spacer appreciably increase the performance on a 2V ?
Theoretically, at least, it should. Now I've got something else to keep me
from doing the household chores--experimenting with carven wooden carb
spacers!
Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA






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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:58:44 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Superchargers

It's not a banks, it's a Vortech, sorry :(

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Giddens, Scott [SMTP:sgiddens ball.com]
> Sent:Friday, January 29, 1999 11:31 AM
> To:perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:FTE Perf - Superchargers
>
> Has anyone on the list put a banks supercharger on their truck?
>
> I am curious how much it helps acceleration at high altitudes, not so much
> for pulling heavy loads which is what they are typically used for.
>
> How many other modifications to the drive train would I have to make to
> handle the extra power at the rear wheels of a '95 F-150 5.8L? If any? I
> have the heavy duty tow package and the E4OD.
>
> I ran into a guy who pulled a used one off of a Bronco of the same year
> and
> the same motor and wants to sell it for 2700 bucks installed, they go for
> around 3500 new so it may not be such a good deal for a used one. Plus I
> am
> afraid once I put it on I would be going through a automatic transmission,
> bearings, rings, valves, and anything else that gets in the way. I would
> be
> conscious of the fact it places a huge load on the drive train if I ever
> installed it.
>
> Anyone with experience in this would be helpful. Chances are I won't buy
> it
> but I am very tempted to not pass it up if it is a good deal.
>
> Scott Giddens
> == 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, 29 Jan 1999 12:00:54 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - pistons

>From: Bryan G Sheffler
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - pistons
>
>There is another cylinder head alternative to the 2V
>or 4V heads. The Australian Cleveland head has
>the 2V ports and valves with the 4V combustion
>chamber.

Yo Bryan:

There are 3 different Australian Cleveland-type heads with the small
ports/valves. The Aussie 302C head has really small chambers (58cc) that
would produce about 10.1:1 compression ratio in an otherwise stock, late
model 400 w/ dished pistons.

The early Aussie 351C 2V head has the same size chambers as the stock
M-block head (78.4cc) and would produce no change in the stock 8.4:1 CR.

The late Aussie 351C 2V head has slightly smaller chambers (73.7cc) that
would produce about 8.73:1 CR in a stock 400.

By comparison, the American 351C 4V heads (early) have 62.8cc chambers and
later 351C 4V heads have 75.4cc chambers. In a stock 400, the early 351C
4V heads would give you 9.6:1 CR and late 351C 4V heads would give you
8.6:1 CR.

Considering the high cost of acquiring the rare Aussie heads, I think you'd
be better off just using readily available, inexpensive 351C pistons to get
the compression ratio you want.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:28:10 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Superchargers

Giddens, Scott wrote:
>
> Has anyone on the list put a banks supercharger on their truck?
>
> I am curious how much it helps acceleration at high altitudes, not so much
> for pulling heavy loads which is what they are typically used for.
>
> How many other modifications to the drive train would I have to make to
> handle the extra power at the rear wheels of a '95 F-150 5.8L? If any? I
> have the heavy duty tow package and the E4OD.
>
> I ran into a guy who pulled a used one off of a Bronco of the same year and
> the same motor and wants to sell it for 2700 bucks installed, they go for
> around 3500 new so it may not be such a good deal for a used one. Plus I am
> afraid once I put it on I would be going through a automatic transmission,
> bearings, rings, valves, and anything else that gets in the way. I would be
> conscious of the fact it places a huge load on the drive train if I ever
> installed it.
>
> Anyone with experience in this would be helpful. Chances are I won't buy it
> but I am very tempted to not pass it up if it is a good deal.
>
> Scott Giddens
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


ANY supercharger will also need the transmission reworked to handle the
extra power. That is not a good price in my opinion, for one you could
install it yourself, they are not very difficult, and you could pickup
up a powerdyne S/C for 2600 or a Vortech for 3000 NEW!!! This are the 2
common ones found on Lightnings and there is reason, The fastest ones
all seem to running Vortechs. I know a guy who just sold a used
powerdyne for 1200!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:29:31 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Superchargers

Giddens, Scott wrote:
>
> It's not a banks, it's a Vortech, sorry :(
>
> Scott
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Giddens, Scott [SMTP:sgiddens ball.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 11:31 AM
> > To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: FTE Perf - Superchargers
> >
> > Has anyone on the list put a banks supercharger on their truck?
> >
> > I am curious how much it helps acceleration at high altitudes, not so much
> > for pulling heavy loads which is what they are typically used for.
> >
> > How many other modifications to the drive train would I have to make to
> > handle the extra power at the rear wheels of a '95 F-150 5.8L? If any? I
> > have the heavy duty tow package and the E4OD.
> >
> > I ran into a guy who pulled a used one off of a Bronco of the same year
> > and
> > the same motor and wants to sell it for 2700 bucks installed, they go for
> > around 3500 new so it may not be such a good deal for a used one. Plus I
> > am
> > afraid once I put it on I would be going through a automatic transmission,
> > bearings, rings, valves, and anything else that gets in the way. I would
> > be
> > conscious of the fact it places a huge load on the drive train if I ever
> > installed it.
> >
> > Anyone with experience in this would be helpful. Chances are I won't buy
> > it
> > but I am very tempted to not pass it up if it is a good deal.
> >
> > Scott Giddens
> > == 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

See what he will take just for S/C and install it yourself if possible!
How old is it and how many miles does it have on it!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:11:49 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Superchargers

Thanks Chris,

I wasn't too sure about the price. Vortech's web site says they want 3599
bucks for them "retail", what ever that means, I considered it a hard price
since it was not listed as "list" That is for the complete system,
everything you need except the transmission upgrade.

If interested you can see it at:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckperformance.com

Part Number Style Year Model Finish Price
4FC218-038S S-Trim 87-95 5.8 F-Series Polish 3599.95

The guy at Autosuds Truck Accessories is the guy who offered it. He claimed
he repoed it after he heard the truck would be repoed and it was not very
old so he would carry the warranty on it. Banks has a transmission upgrade
kit, at least I think that would be the one that would work.

I think I will offer him 1700 bucks for it installed with a transmission
upgrade and if he scoffs at it then he can keep it. I want a good deal if he
is not sure the condition of it and that is all I am getting from my tax
return anyway.

It sure looked cool as hell, all polished and shinny, and I would love to
see the look on some guys face as my truck pulled away from his sports car
going up the mountain pass at 12000 ft elevation like he was standing still.

The only thing I would like to know is what am I looking at in the way of
lifetime and service on it. It looked like a piece of high tolerance
equipment that would have bearings that get lots of wear and tear. I doubt
he will go for it but won't hurt to try.

Scott

Chris wrote:
> ANY supercharger will also need the transmission reworked to handle the
> extra power. That is not a good price in my opinion, for one you could
> install it yourself, they are not very difficult, and you could pickup
> up a powerdyne S/C for 2600 or a Vortech for 3000 NEW!!! This are the 2
> common ones found on Lightnings and there is reason, The fastest ones
> all seem to running Vortechs. I know a guy who just sold a used
> powerdyne for 1200!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:42:30 -0600
From: George Ramsower
Subject: FTE Perf - 351M/400

I just joined this list, but I have been hanging out on the 61-79 list.

I have a 400 in a 78 F-150. About four years ago, the old 351M was
tired and I rebuilt it using a reman. short block from a rebuilder in
Austin, TX. The swap from 351M to the 400 cost a whopping $25
difference. Beat me with a stick and MAKE me buy it!!

I have to tell ya, the fifty cubic inches is the answer to the doggy
351M. I did a lot of asking and shopping, bought a Performance cam and
an Edelbrock Performer manifold, adapted a Q-Jet carb, with a
non-metallic spacer 1/2".
I have never actually timed this truck on the strip, nor have I ever
did a 0-60mph test to see the difference but my old petuty tells me it
more than doubled the power over the original engine.

I sometimes take a trip with my 25' travel trailer. On highway 281N
from San Antonio, with the original engine, I sometimes could not exceed
45mph flat out in passing gear when going up the little hills up there.
Now, with the 400, I can maintain 60mph, without downshifting!
My mileage went from 15 mpg with the 351M/2bbl Autolite to 12mpg from
this 400.

I saw the article last year on the 400 and they used the same cam and
manifold. They didn't lie or exagerate. This thing really flies, and
with the 3.25 gear and 31.00 tires, I can really tear up the open roads
now. It really likes to run about 70-80 mph, but I don't get much
opportunity to see this. The power curve just climbs right on up as the
rpm increase, but I'm afraid to take this engine past about 5200. But it
feels like it could go forever. I bet the 4v heads really would hurt it,
as in it's current configuration, I can see how I would lose a lot of
bottom end torque with the bigger heads. I have thought than even the 2v
intakes could be a little smaller.

I am considering adapting a GM throttle body injection system to this
engine. I can't see how this would be too difficult. I will use my own
computer, so I KNOW it will be Y2K compatible.
hehe.

This reman shortblock came with flat top pistons. Do you suppose they
adapted the 351C pistons to it to save $$. If so, I'm happy about it.
Works good but requires the mid grade gasoline, when I use a total
advance of 35 degrees.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:08:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Farcas
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 Probs....

79 F150 4x4 3 spd auto, rebuilt 460 w/ 4k miles,7 inch lift, 33 x 12.50
tires...

> > What is it again?
>
> ----------
> >
> > Doh!!
> > Well, looks like I'll have to spend some cash. actually, I'm thinking of
> > selling the beast. Know anyone that would be interested in a truck that
> > could be described as "Bigfoot"?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your message at 05:22 PM 1/28/99 -0500, Sleddog. Your message
> > was:
> > > >nope, a compression tester is a necessity. although i used to test mini
> > > bike engines using the "thumb method".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > While holding the plug wire with the other hand, right? :-)
> > > Dennis L. Pearson
> > >
> > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson.index.html
> > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
> > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
> > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
> > > == 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....


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.