perf-list-digest Saturday, February 20 1999 Volume 02 : Number 044



=======================================================================
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 - Exhaust hump(lump)
FTE Perf - Exhaust porting
FTE Perf - Exhaust porting
Re: FTE Perf - RE: mufflers (correction)
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
FTE Perf - 429/460 Headers
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:
RE: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting
Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance
Re: FTE Perf - stroker
Re: FTE Perf - stroker
RE: FTE Perf - stroker
Re: 400 history, was: FTE Perf - Re
Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting
Re: FTE Perf - stroker
Re: FTE Perf - RE: mufflers (correction)/flames
FTE Perf - 460
FTE Perf - 460 thanks

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:10:07 EST
From: Metalsped AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust hump(lump)

Can you remove the hump in the exhaust port and still have it pass emmisions?
Also I didn't see what engine has this hump(460?)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:14:01 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting

Sleddog writes: >>
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.

Yes !!! Please do. My Tech IS person says I should be able to read (see) them
with no problem.

Thanks,
Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:53:25 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting

Sleddog, Bryan, Dennis, and Jeff:.

Thanks to all for responding to my questions concerning the Hump(bump) in the
upper portion of the 429/460 heads. It just so happens that I have a set of the
old D0VE heads that some jerk let freeze and burst, so I am going to start
honeing (good choice of word) my skills on these heads in trying to remove the
hump(bump). I'll try to let everyone know, once I've completed the task. I
sure don't want to make my good heads useless by cutting out too much metal and
getting into water jacket someplace, so I'll get some experience on the old
useless ones first. This is a long drawn out project, so don't expect results
in the very near future.
Those pics will be very valuable I think, for giving me some ideas of what to do
before I get into it

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 07:21:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: mufflers (correction)

Could you give us a few details?




- ---Clemstang1 AOL.COM wrote:
>
> 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
>

==
Ryan Reinke
Computer Tech Support
Broadband Associates Inc.

11066 Rodeo Circle Rural Route 2
Parker, CO 80138 Byron, NE 68325
(303)805-3946 (402)236-8795
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:28:08 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

Genlee97 AOL.COM wrote:
>
> 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

They also done one recently with a 351 W using a 400 crank 420hp and 450
lb ft torque!
This is what intend to build!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:15:04 -0800
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: FTE Perf - 429/460 Headers

Hi,

Anyone out there interested in a brand new set of Ford Power Train Stage 1
429/460 headers? I bought them, they don't fit my clip and I can't return
them.

I had them built with a 3/8 flange and they cost $360. Sell for $275.

contact me off line at DMO1 pge.com if your interested. Have pictures.
Dennis
55 F100

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:49:11 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance was: Re:

Steve Tymchyshyn wrote:
>
> 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

I looked in the catalog and I did not see any 400 pistons sorry! They do
however have the 351C pistons, or if you like e-mail them and see if
they can tell you if the 400 pistons exist the are a very informidable
shop! http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.racerwalsh.com the website does not contin much so just
e-mail them from there Hope they can help
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:36:21 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting

cutting a head in half can be very helpful for more serious porting, but
for the hump removal i don't think there should be any problems to worry
about.

sleddog

- ----------
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com[SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 9:53 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting

Sleddog, Bryan, Dennis, and Jeff:.

Thanks to all for responding to my questions concerning the Hump(bump) in
the
upper portion of the 429/460 heads. It just so happens that I have a set
of the
old D0VE heads that some jerk let freeze and burst, so I am going to start
honeing (good choice of word) my skills on these heads in trying to remove
the
hump(bump). I'll try to let everyone know, once I've completed the task.
I
sure don't want to make my good heads useless by cutting out too much metal
and
getting into water jacket someplace, so I'll get some experience on the old
useless ones first. This is a long drawn out project, so don't expect
results
in the very near future.
Those pics will be very valuable I think, for giving me some ideas of what
to do
before I get into it

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, 19 Feb 1999 12:06:31 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE 61-79 - 400 performance

>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"

Yo Beater Bob:

The first generation (1971-1974) M-block engine tags I have seen say only
"400 CID." There was no "M" designation used before the 351M was
introduced in the 1975 model year.

After the 351M was introduced, the engine tags say "Engine family: 351M/400
Displacement: 351 CID (or 400 CID)." Later still, when Ford started
phasing in metric engine designations, the 351M was referred to as the
5.8M, which differentiated it from the 5.8W (351 Windsor) engine. The 400
was referred to as simply 6.6. I have never seen the "M" designation
applied to the 400 in any official Ford literature. (Not to say that it
wasn't ever done, just that I've never seen it. :-)

I have, however, seen the 351M referred to as a "351 Cleveland" in some of
Ford's 1975 and 1976 marketing literature for Torinos. The following web
page has an interesting example of this:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.classicar.com/clubs/fairlane/s&h1.htm

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:17:43 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - stroker

>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

Yo Chris:

What would be the point of using 400 rods? Changing only the rod will not
change the engine's stroke or displacement, it will only change the
position of the piston relative to the crankshaft (move it higher or lower
in the bore, depending on the change in rod length). If you want more
displacement, you need to change the stroke, which means changing the
crankshaft.

>From: Bryan G Sheffler
>Subject: Re: FTE Perf - stroker
>
> 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.

Yo Bryan:

Humbug, I say! AFAIK, no automotive component was ever "intended to take
anything more than stock power output," whether that's a lot or a little.

The redline on later model (more conservative truck applications) M-blocks
was 5.5 to 6K rpms. I would expect the stock rods to be good for at least
that much. I have revved my stock 351M over 5K rpms many times, and it's
just now starting to get a little rod knock at 165K miles.

I have seen the stock M-block rods hold up to more than twice the "stock
power output" (which has always been pretty wimpy for these engines).
These engines are a lot more stout than many people give them credit for.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:36:45 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - stroker

Hey Dave, I did some extensive research on the 'net yesterday on M
blocks...wow talk about the Rodney Dangerfield of engines...these babies get
NO respect! Not only the misconceptions & misinformation flying around on
some of the other mailing lists which shall remain nameless (can you say
horseflesh?) but the downright hostility towards these engines amazed me!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Resch
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - stroker


>
>Yo Bryan:
>
>Humbug, I say! AFAIK, no automotive component was ever "intended to take
>anything more than stock power output," whether that's a lot or a little.
>
>The redline on later model (more conservative truck applications) M-blocks
>was 5.5 to 6K rpms. I would expect the stock rods to be good for at least
>that much. I have revved my stock 351M over 5K rpms many times, and it's
>just now starting to get a little rod knock at 165K miles.
>
>I have seen the stock M-block rods hold up to more than twice the "stock
>power output" (which has always been pretty wimpy for these engines).
>These engines are a lot more stout than many people give them credit for.



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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:43:24 -0700
From: "Miska, Richard L (Rick)"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - stroker

Hey Brian,

Nobody knows em better than Dave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Hey Dave, I did some extensive research on the 'net yesterday on M
blocks...wow talk about the Rodney Dangerfield of engines...these babies get
NO respect! Not only the misconceptions & misinformation flying around on
some of the other mailing lists which shall remain nameless (can you say
horseflesh?) but the downright hostility towards these engines amazed me!


>
>Yo Bryan:
>
>Humbug, I say! AFAIK, no automotive component was ever "intended to take
>anything more than stock power output," whether that's a lot or a little.
>
>The redline on later model (more conservative truck applications) M-blocks
>was 5.5 to 6K rpms. I would expect the stock rods to be good for at least
>that much. I have revved my stock 351M over 5K rpms many times, and it's
>just now starting to get a little rod knock at 165K miles.
>
>I have seen the stock M-block rods hold up to more than twice the "stock
>power output" (which has always been pretty wimpy for these engines).
>These engines are a lot more stout than many people give them credit for.



== 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, 19 Feb 1999 14:09:04 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: 400 history, was: FTE Perf - Re

>From: Bryan G Sheffler
>Subject: FTE Perf - Re:
>
>The 400 was designed to replace the 390 in Fords
>engine line up. The 429/460 was designed to replace
>the 428's.

Yo Bryan:

If you look at the similarity of engine displacements between the FE 390
and the 335 series 400, you might think that, but if you look at the
chronology it's not so clear cut. The last year a 390 (or any FE engine)
was used in a passenger car was 1969. By 1969, the 351 Windsor was
introduced and the 385 series (429/460) had already been introduced in the
previous model year (1968) in Lincolns and Thunderbirds. The 400 wasn't
introduced for two more model years (1971), so if it was intended as a 390
replacement, it was belated.

Until the introduction of the 400, there was a big gap in passenger car
engine displacements from 351 to 429 cid. After the 400's demise in 1982,
there was an even bigger gap in Ford truck engine displacements from 351 to
460 cid.

> 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).

Indeed, the 400 is one of the 3 engines in the design family known as the
"335 series." The other engines in this family are the 351C and 351M. The
385 series engines (429/460) share several design similarities with the 335
series, particularly the canted valve arrangement.

BTW, I agree w/ your theory on the origin of the 351M as a production
stop-gap.

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:35:31 -0500
From: "gpeters3"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Exhaust porting

Azie, remember, Smoky says.........you can't add any power by lowering the
ports......so all mateiral should come off the top of the port, only
smoothing is allowed on the bottom :-) But you already know that right?

Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco lover, Gary

>sure don't want to make my good heads useless by cutting out too much metal
and
>getting into water jacket someplace, so I'll get some experience on the old


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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:13:08 EST
From: Ang774969 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - stroker

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:28:07 EST
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - RE: mufflers (correction)/flames

Yes, Please let us in on your way to hook this up. I used to know a guy in
Daytona that had a small line and fuel pump hooked up and of course had the
obligatory spark plugs hooked up to ignite it all. I personally don't like the
fact of just driving along and then shutting off my truck to make a fire show.
If you do that wrong on an EFI motor, you'll be having a huge fire show, right
under your hood, from the backfire of pressure built up in the motor from a
quick shut off like that, then trying to turn the key back on. Did that exact
thing on a buddies Stang....bad scene walking home with a pissed off friend.
Just my coins,
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside Supercab
"Hazardous Material"
Wayne's Flareside Page
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:40:40 EST
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - 460

Ok folks, real quick question. I have the valve covers off and Im trying to
identify my heads. I dont see any D?VE #'s, or anything close. Only one I
know of for sure is a big 201 cast into it. Exactly where is the date code
stamped?

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety" (awaiting Aluminum valve covers)
== 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.