perf-list-digest Friday, February 19 1999 Volume 02 : Number 043



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
FTE Perf - Homepage ?
RE: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FTE Perf - 400 performance was: Re:
FTE Perf - Flames out the tailpipe
FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
RE: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
RE: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FW: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
FTE Perf - Compression ratio-300 I6
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
RE: FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
FTE Perf - Re:Ford GT- 40's
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance
FTE Perf - stroker
Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
Re: FTE Perf - RE: mufflers (correction)
Re: FTE Perf - stroker
Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
FTE Perf - Re:
Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:55:22 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

As mentioned before there are no after market pistons made for the 400M,
but cleveland pistons can be used with a little modification. another
option is to have the heads shaved. I think it only takes 0.025 inches
of shaving to get a comp. ratio of 9.4:1, I will check up on that and
get back to you.
Thats it for now, is this info all correct guys??


I THINK racer walsh carries pistons for the 400 as well as most ford
engines includes 4 and 6 cylinders If interested i will check my catalog
this evening!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:11:37 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE Perf - Homepage ?

Don't know how many of you pay attention to web pages, but if you're bored
sometime and want to see what I'm tinkerin with, check out

www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

Its got info on both my truck and my car, along with a page of links which
you may or may not find helpful. Also I am taking suggestions for other
links to add, if you'd like to see your page there, lemme know.

For those of you who have email systems that prefer links written
differently, try this :

Night and Day

Lemme know what you think, about the truck, the car or the site in general.


Thanks,
wish
73ish F-1?? 4x4 360-->390 http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/truck.html
96 Mustang GT
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/mustang.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:56:17 -0700
From: Steve Tymchyshyn
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

It would be greatly appreciated if you would check on racer walsh pistons
for me. It is the preferable route for me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Garr&Pam [SMTP:garrpam netgsi.com]
> Sent:Thursday, February 18, 1999 7:55 AM
> To:perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
>
> As mentioned before there are no after market pistons made for the 400M,
> but cleveland pistons can be used with a little modification. another
> option is to have the heads shaved. I think it only takes 0.025 inches
> of shaving to get a comp. ratio of 9.4:1, I will check up on that and
> get back to you.
> Thats it for now, is this info all correct guys??
>
>
> I THINK racer walsh carries pistons for the 400 as well as most ford
> engines includes 4 and 6 cylinders If interested i will check my catalog
> this evening!
> Chris
> 94 Lightning #381
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:12:30 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 400 performance was: Re:

If he does he doesn't mention it on his website. He does mention 351C parts
which as mentioned in numerous posts will fit by simply having the rods
bushed.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Garr&Pam
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:


>
>I THINK racer walsh carries pistons for the 400 as well as most ford
>engines includes 4 and 6 cylinders If interested i will check my catalog
>this evening!



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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:12:08 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Flames out the tailpipe

William Hart writes: >>A sparkplug in the tail pipe, with some creative wiring,
should do the
trick ... check out the local hot rodders ... most of them will have some
idea how to do this, who knows they may even have a kit or two laying
around ...

Brings back memories of my '51 Merc. I had a sparkplug in each tailpipe and an
old "T Model" coil wired up in the trunk with a control button under the dash.
I could throw flames around 15/20 feet out the rear tail pipes. Just get up some
rpm's - cut the ignition off and hit the button - raw gas through the exhaust
system would ignite at the sparkplugs in the tailpipes. Awsome looking.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:49:41 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

Dennis O'C. writes: >> Recently had the heads reworked and the smog bump
removed from the exhaust port.

Can someone draw this old man a picture of this hump(bump)??? I've rebuilt
several 429/460's and the only hump(bump) I can locate is in the upper portion
of the exhaust port about 1" inside the port edge. Is this the hump(bump) to be
removed??? Do you grind out the whole hump(bump). It seems fairly large, and I
don't want to get into some other part of the head that would deem them useless
by grinding out too much metal. I'm contemplating adding a few Horses to one of
my engines and if I can add horses this way, it seems cheap enough..

What was the purpose of this hump(bump) anyway in the original casting???

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:11:08 -0600
From: "Robert F. Davis"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

AZ Eric,
I don't know where you got your research info about 400's, but what I'm
about to tell you came from FORD's own
"Off Highway Parts" book. AKA the O.H.O. book, published about 1972 or
1973. (for only $1.50). Anyway it's full of good info on ford engines,
specs & mods & such.

According to them (FORD),
the 400-2V had a 9.0:1 cr in '71
and a 8.4:1 cr in '72
And just to straighten out a few other things there is only 1(that's ONE)
true Cleveland, the 351C, the other so called Clevelands are known as
"Modifieds", such as the 351M & the 400M.
The modified engines had a taller deck height (a little over an inch) and a
longer rod (.8 in longer).
This longer rod length in creased the piston "dwell" around TDC, thereby
increasing the opportunity of detonation, but did make better low end
torque than a shorter rod engine. Plus the fact that the main bearing
journal diameter was 1/4 in. larger, (better load carrying, but increased
friction). Which is exactly why they were mostly put in trucks.

The: 351C was 4.00" bore x 3.50" stroke, 5.78" rod length & 9.206" deck
height
351M was 4.00" bore x 3.50" stroke, 6.58" rod length &
10.292"-10.302 deck height
400M was 4.00" bore x 4.00" stroke, 6.58" rod length &
10.292"-10.302 deck height

The: 351C was manf. from 1970 to 1974
351M was manf. from 1975 to 1985
400M was manf. from 1971 to 1981

I hope this helps you,

"Beater" Bob Davis
'92 Bronco 302/E4OD
'72 F-100 360/C-6
'56 F-100 Panel 460/C-6
'40 Merc Coupe 351C/AOD
'40 Merc Conv. 239 flathead/3onthetree

At 08:37 PM 02/17/99 MST, you wrote:
>I have a 400M and have done some research on them. also had a big
>discussion on them a few months ago. The 400M never came with anything
>higher than a 8.23:1 comp. ratio, except for a few rumors about an
>engine made in 73....anyway, they also come with 2v heads, same that the
>clevelands use. The heads are sufficent since the intake ports are
>larger than most 2V ports, they also have 2.somthin inch intake valves
>and 1.6 inch exaust valves. They flow pretty well.
>They were extremly "under cammed" from the factory since they were made
>as smog engines(low emmission engine)A new cam would do you good, comp
>cam's x-treme energy has a good model for hot rodding, a more moderate
>cam should be used for off roading. If you go with a new 4bbl manifold
>and carb, try to keep the cfm's of the carb around 600 so the manifold
>velocity stays at a reasonable level, gives good torque. As mentioned
>before there are no after market pistons made for the 400M, but
>cleveland pistons can be used with a little modification. another option
>is to have the heads shaved. I think it only takes 0.025 inches of
>shaving to get a comp. ratio of 9.4:1, I will check up on that and get
>back to you.
>Thats it for now, is this info all correct guys??
>AZ Eric
>'79 Bronco, 400M/T-18/np-205
>a4wheelin_mudder hotmail.com
>
>______________________________________________________
> >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:28:20 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

Actually there's only 1 (that's ONE) 400, it's not a 400M it's simply a
400. And it does have Cleveland heads. The M designator is applied to the
351 c.i.d. motor since there were 3 of them all being produced at the same
time.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert F. Davis
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:


>And just to straighten out a few other things there is only 1(that's ONE)
>true Cleveland, the 351C, the other so called Clevelands are known as
>"Modifieds", such as the 351M & the 400M.



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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:56:57 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

You need to remove only the part that protrudes into the port. It is there
for the thermactor emmisions airpump crap. some will have holes in them,
and some won't. Don't worry about the holes, they have little effect on
the exhaust flow.

Azie, i can send you 2 jpegs also. they help show what to do, or at least
what the final port should look like. let me know if you want me to send
them. they are 684k combined.

My understanding is that removing this bump is good for 25 hp on a mild
street engine even if done by an inexperienced porter.

later
sleddog

- ----------
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com[SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 11:49 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

Dennis O'C. writes: >> Recently had the heads reworked and the smog bump
removed from the exhaust port.

Can someone draw this old man a picture of this hump(bump)??? I've rebuilt
several 429/460's and the only hump(bump) I can locate is in the upper
portion
of the exhaust port about 1" inside the port edge. Is this the hump(bump)
to be
removed??? Do you grind out the whole hump(bump). It seems fairly large,
and I
don't want to get into some other part of the head that would deem them
useless
by grinding out too much metal. I'm contemplating adding a few Horses to
one of
my engines and if I can add horses this way, it seems cheap enough..

What was the purpose of this hump(bump) anyway in the original casting???

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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:04:18 -0800
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

Azie,

I can't speak from the technical side, but what Im talking about is the
large bump in the exhaust port where the valve passes through. My
understanding is that it was put in there to reduce emissions. Remove is
not really correct in that the bump is reduced and smoothed so that the port
is less restrictive. I've heard quotes of 10 to 20HP just from this work.

How much to take out and smooth I'm sure one of the 460 guys will be able to
say.

I know Sleddog is developing gobs of horsepower in his pull truck. I would
guess he would have had the same work done.

Dennis

> ----------
> From: perf-list ford-trucks.com[SMTP:perf-list ford-trucks.com]
> Reply To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 8:49 AM
> To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
>
> Dennis O'C. writes: >> Recently had the heads reworked and the smog bump
> removed from the exhaust port.
>
> Can someone draw this old man a picture of this hump(bump)??? I've
> rebuilt
> several 429/460's and the only hump(bump) I can locate is in the upper
> portion
> of the exhaust port about 1" inside the port edge. Is this the hump(bump)
> to be
> removed??? Do you grind out the whole hump(bump). It seems fairly large,
> and I
> don't want to get into some other part of the head that would deem them
> useless
> by grinding out too much metal. I'm contemplating adding a few Horses to
> one of
> my engines and if I can add horses this way, it seems cheap enough..
>
> What was the purpose of this hump(bump) anyway in the original casting???
>
> 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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:10:42 -0600
From: "Robert F. Davis"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

If there is only one, then why do the data tags on the engine say "351C" or
"351M" or "400M"
If you think this is not so, just look at the little decal on the valve
cover of one of 'em.
And the 351C was FIRST. and it was produced in the Lincoln/Mercury foundry
in Cleveland, OH
When FORD changed the deck heights & rod C to C length, they always
referred to them as "MODIFIED"
I have a copy of the story of the release of the 351C.
It was in the August 1969 issue of CAR CRAFT, page 15

Thanks for your interest,

"Beater" Bob Davis


At 09:28 AM 02/18/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Actually there's only 1 (that's ONE) 400, it's not a 400M it's simply a
>400. And it does have Cleveland heads. The M designator is applied to the
>351 c.i.d. motor since there were 3 of them all being produced at the same
>time.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert F. Davis
>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 9:10 AM
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
>
>
>>And just to straighten out a few other things there is only 1(that's ONE)
>>true Cleveland, the 351C, the other so called Clevelands are known as
>>"Modifieds", such as the 351M & the 400M.
>
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:59:20 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FW: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

>From: Robert F. Davis [mailto:rdavis hot1.net]
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
>
>This longer rod length in creased the piston "dwell"
>around TDC, thereby increasing the opportunity of
>detonation, but did make better low end torque than
>a shorter rod engine. Plus the fact that the main bearing
>journal diameter was 1/4 in. larger, (better load carrying,
>but increased friction). Which is exactly why they were
>mostly put in trucks.

Yo Beater Bob & Eric & Steve:

While it's possible that rod length and dwell at TDC could be a factor in
spontaneous autoignition (pinging or knocking), I believe a more likely
cause of this problem in M-block engines is the open combustion chamber
with inadequate quench area. A piston with more flat (non-dished) surface
area on the top would increase the quench area and probably reduce the
tendency to ping.

In the case of the 400, better low end torque is more a result of the long
stroke than it is rod length. The 400 has the longest stroke of any Ford
pushrod V8 engine, and it was originally designed for and used in full-size
passenger cars (LTDs, Galaxies, and Customs). In fact, the 400 was used in
cars for 6 years before it was first used in trucks. The 400's low rpm
torque made it ideal for providing decent performance in a luxo-barge, and
those same characteristics proved well suited to truck applications.

The 351M was developed by reducing the stroke of the 400 using a unique
crankshaft and pistons w/ the 400 rods in the 400 block. The 351M entered
production the year after the 351C was discontinued, probably because Ford
couldn't meet the demand for engines in this displacement class with only
its 351W production capacity.

> 351M was manf. from 1975 to 1985
> 400M was manf. from 1971 to 1981

The 400 was used in cars from 1971 to 1979 and in trucks (including FS
Broncos) from 1977 to 1982. The 351M was used in cars from 1975 to 1979
and in trucks from 1977 to 1982. Both M-block engines (351M/400) went out
of production after the 1982 model year.

AZ Eric said:
>The 400M never came with anything higher than
>a 8.23:1 comp. ratio

As Bob correctly pointed out, the 400 had a 9.0:1 compression ratio in its
first year of production, 1971. Thereafter, 400 compression was 8.4:1.
The difference was a result of switching from a flat-top piston to a dished
piston, thus increasing the clearance volume. The 351M had an 8.0:1
compression ratio throughout its production.

>As mentioned before there are no after market
>pistons made for the 400M, but cleveland pistons
>can be used with a little modification. another option
>is to have the heads shaved. I think it only takes
>0.025 inches of shaving to get a comp. ratio of 9.4:1

You would have to shave the heads a lot more than 0.025" to get 9.4:1
compression ratio with stock 400 dished pistons. Keep in mind that the
shape of the combustion chamber is not exactly cylindrical, and therefore
it would be hard to calculate the actual change in volume achieved by
shaving the heads. You can, however, calculate the change in volume easily
for block shaving, and you can guesstimate the change in compression ratio
produced by shaving the heads if you assume that the first few 0.01" of the
combustion chamber (moving up from the block mating surface) is essentially
cylindrical.

W/ a 4.00" (stock) cylinder bore, you reduce the clearance volume by 0.126
cubic inches (2.07cc) per 0.01" reduction in cylinder height. Nominal
clearance volume in the 400 is 6.79 ci. Swept volume (based on 4.00" bore)
is 50.27 ci, which produces 8.4:1 compression ratio by the following
formula:

SV/CV+1 = CR

50.27/6.79 + 1 = 8.4

To increase the compression ratio to 9.4:1 just by reducing the clearance
volume, you'd have to get the clearance volume down from 6.79 ci to 6.07
ci. If you use the figures above (0.126 ci per 0.01" shaved), you'd have
to shave the block by about 0.057" to get the compression ratio you're
looking for. According to the Monroe book, that's just about at the
M-block's decking limit of 0.056" (based on the stock-type piston design w/
0.056 deck clearance).

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:02:45 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

The letter after the c.i.d. on the data tag stands for the plant where the
block was cast hence C for Cleveland, W for Windsor. I would venture a guess
that the M stands for Michigan since that's where the blocks were cast.
However, the point is a 400 is a 400 is a 400. No need for a designator just
like it's not a 302W or a 390C.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert F. Davis
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:


>If there is only one, then why do the data tags on the engine say "351C" or
>"351M" or "400M"
>If you think this is not so, just look at the little decal on the valve
>cover of one of 'em.
>And the 351C was FIRST. and it was produced in the Lincoln/Mercury foundry
>in Cleveland, OH
>When FORD changed the deck heights & rod C to C length, they always
>referred to them as "MODIFIED"



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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:40:54 -0500
From: "Jeff Colwander"
Subject: FTE Perf - Compression ratio-300 I6

8.4:1 Per the Chilton's manual

Jeff
Full Throttle 'Til You See God... Then Brake!!
ICQ# 22909943 AOL IM: SGTSL2
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.xoom.com/no_rice

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:21:56 EST
From: Metalsped AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

I believe that the "M" in question stands for modified.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:35:10 -0500
From: J Cope
Subject: FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters

Does anyone know where in eastern Mass I can get a K&N oil filter? I've been looking pretty hard to no avail...
BTW, I drive an 88 BII.
Thanks!

JC

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:38:17 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

>From: Steve Tymchyshyn
>Subject: [none]
>
>On a recent "junking" trip I was able to purchase a 79
>F-150 with a 6.6L (400cid) mated with a rebuilt C6, and
>loads of extras I am going to strip and sell.
>
>When I purchased the truck I didn't look close enough
>and thought it was a 351, and had a pretty good idea
>of how I was going to maximize my ponies.

Yo Steve:

As Bill B said, if it was a 351, it would probably have been a 351M, and
not a 351C, since the 351C was never installed in F trucks by the factory.
You have more performance potential w/ a 400 than a 351M. In fact, one of
the best things you can do for a 351M is convert it into a 400. All you
need for that is a 400 crankshaft and 400 pistons. All other 351M and 400
parts are the same.

The only way to be sure you have a 400 is to take off the oil pan and
identify the crankshaft. The engine ID stickers on the valve covers may
not be correct, since valve covers are easily swapped. Look for a casting
mark on the front crankshaft counterweight. The casting mark for a 400
crankshaft is 5M, 5MA, or 5MAB. If the mark you find is 1K, you have a
351M.

>However, I've heard that the 400 is a low compression
>engine and may have difficulty getting the power I want
>(325hp - 350hp).

With the stock 8.4:1 compression ratio, you will have difficulty getting
the power you want. If you increase the compression ratio to 9.0-9.5:1 and
put in a decent cam, you will have no trouble getting that kind of power.

The best way (IMHO) to raise the compression ratio in a 400 is to use
Cleveland-type pistons. There are lots of standard production, aftermarket
Cleveland-type pistons to get almost any compression ratio you want. The
only modification required for this is to bush the small end of the rod to
make up for the 0.063" smaller Cleveland wrist pin. I believe this is a
less intrusive modification than shaving the block or heads and it doesn't
carry the additional problems of correcting pushrod length and modifying
the intake manifold's mating surfaces.

Once you increase the compression ratio, you can look at camshafts and find
one that gives the power band you want for your engine application. I'm
partial to M-block cams w/ intake duration 0.050" of 210 to 224 degrees,
exhaust duration 0.050" of 218 to 230 degrees, lobe separation min. 110
degrees, and gross lift of 0.490" to 0.530". If you go w/ higher than
0.490" valve lift, you'll need non-stock valve springs.

To really take advantage of the improved breathing potential of higher
compression and a decent cam, I would suggest a very mild porting
(basically just "gasket matching" type) to clean things up a little,
especially on the exhaust side, and I've heard and read that polishing the
chambers will help reduce the notorious M-block tendency to ping.

BTW, I would do all of these things before getting a 4V carburetor. Many
M-block owners have been disappointed w/ the minor performance improvement
derived from slapping a 4V carb and aftermarket manifold on an otherwise
stock M-block. Once you do all these other things, then a 4V carb will be
most worthwhile.

Good luck w/ your truck.

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:47:22 -0900
From: "Ben Everitt"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters

I live in Alaska, but I know that the Local NAPA stores can order them for
us now. This supposedly is a new addition to their ordering capabilities.

Ben
- -----Original Message-----
From: J Cope
To: Off Road Mailing List (E-mail) ; Small
Trucks Mailing List (E-mail) ; Performance
Mailing List (E-mail)
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 1:36 PM
Subject: FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters


Does anyone know where in eastern Mass I can get a K&N oil filter? I've
been looking pretty hard to no avail...
BTW, I drive an 88 BII.
Thanks!

JC

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:04:43 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

Does anyone know of a 400 crank for sale. For those who don't know this
crank also fits 351 W and makes one hell of a stroker motor!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:57:11 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - K&N Oil Filters

Any mail order catalogue like summit or jegs should be able to get them for you, and deliver to your door.

sleddog

- ----------


Does anyone know where in eastern Mass I can get a K&N oil filter? I've
been looking pretty hard to no avail...
BTW, I drive an 88 BII.
Thanks!

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:07:33 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

P.A.W. sells 'em reconned w/bearings for $143.95

- -----Original Message-----
From: Garr&Pam
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:


>Does anyone know of a 400 crank for sale. For those who don't know this
>crank also fits 351 W and makes one hell of a stroker motor!



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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:10:02 -0600
From: Phil DeSanto
Subject: FTE Perf - Re:Ford GT- 40's

>
>Can anyone give me a web site or two to show a co-worker what a GT40
>was.

Ryan, try Holmanmoody.com Great Ford only site! Lots of history
too.
___________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:26:54 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

Bill Beyer wrote:
>
P.A.W. sells 'em reconned w/bearings for $143.95
Does anyone know of a 400 crank for sale. For those who don't know this
crank also fits 351 W and makes one hell of a stroker motor!

Do you have a number or a website?
Thanks
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:26:28 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance

No website...no toll free...(818)678-3000

- -----Original Message-----
From: Garr&Pam
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:


>
>Do you have a number or a website?
>Thanks



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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:47:41 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: FTE Perf - stroker

I plan on building a stroker and have to options
First it will be a 351 Windsor
1) Use a 400 crank
2) Use 400 rods
Which one is better
which is more dependable
Thanks
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:36:38 -0800
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

If you have the time, I'd like to see the jpegs.

Thanks,

George Miller

Sleddog wrote:
>
> You need to remove only the part that protrudes into the port. It is there
> for the thermactor emmisions airpump crap. some will have holes in them,
> and some won't. Don't worry about the holes, they have little effect on
> the exhaust flow.
>
> Azie, i can send you 2 jpegs also. they help show what to do, or at least
> what the final port should look like. let me know if you want me to send
> them. they are 684k combined.
>
> My understanding is that removing this bump is good for 25 hp on a mild
> street engine even if done by an inexperienced porter.
>
> later
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com[SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 11:49 AM
> To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)
>
> Dennis O'C. writes: >> Recently had the heads reworked and the smog bump
> removed from the exhaust port.
>
> Can someone draw this old man a picture of this hump(bump)??? I've rebuilt
> several 429/460's and the only hump(bump) I can locate is in the upper
> portion
> of the exhaust port about 1" inside the port edge. Is this the hump(bump)
> to be
> removed??? Do you grind out the whole hump(bump). It seems fairly large,
> and I
> don't want to get into some other part of the head that would deem them
> useless
> by grinding out too much metal. I'm contemplating adding a few Horses to
> one of
> my engines and if I can add horses this way, it seems cheap enough..
>
> What was the purpose of this hump(bump) anyway in the original casting???
>
> 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:49:51 EST
From: Genlee97 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

Hot Rod Magazine did a motor like what you might be looking for in September
of 1998. For $2,000 they got 468 lb.-ft of torque and 380hp out of a 400m.
I think that would be the power you were looking for. Oh, and they used a 2
barrel carb.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:05:44 EST
From: Clemstang1 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: mufflers (correction)

I've done the flames out of the exhaust before with just parts laying around
the shop if your interested in making a kit let me know?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:32:53 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - stroker

Chris,
I'd stay away from the 400 rods. They were never intended to take
anything more than the stock power output. The rods were designed for
4000 RPM and under service. Simply put, 400 rods are junk for anything
other than a stock 400.

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, 19 Feb 1999 01:10:13 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

Azie,
Yes the bump/hump that you see in the exhaust port is the one to
remove. This bump seriously restricts the flow of the exhaust port. All
you have to do is remove the bump and blend it in with the rest of the
port.

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, 19 Feb 1999 01:19:30 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: FTE Perf - Re:

Bob,
The 400 was designed to replace the 390 in Fords engine line up.
The 429/460 was designed to replace the 428's. The 400 can be considered
a "Cleveland" because it shares the same cylinder head design as the
351-C 2 bbl (in fact basically the same head). The "Cleveland" motors
got their name from the plant that the motors were made at - Ford's
Cleveland Engine Plant Number 1. The 400 was never officially called a
modified when it was originally released in 1971. The 351M (a destroked
400), was created in 1975 because Ford stopped producing the 351-C's in
1974. The Windsor plant could not build enough of the 351-W's to satisfy
the demand for the 351 displacement engines. Hence Ford destroked and in
my opinion butchered the 400 to get it to displace the popular 351 CID.

Bryan

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.....


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.