perf-list-digest Thursday, March 25 1999 Volume 02 : Number 066



=======================================================================
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: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - High Octane
RE: FTE Perf - 460 headers
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - High Octane
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions
FTE Perf - Re: Important head question!!!!
FTE Perf - SB Chevy Cooling.

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:42:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

Does anyone else on the list have a 4.6 engine? I seem
to be coming up short on finding bolt-on performance
parts.

A cherry bomb, exhaust tips and a K & N have helped a
lot, but it drags getting off the line. I want to be
careful with my mods since I don't want to sacrifice my
mpg - currently anywhere from 15 to 18!

TIA

Ryan Reinke
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:56:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - High Octane

So can someone tell me if I am correct or just nuts - I
have had my 4.6 for just a short time, but I can tell
the difference between the low and high octanes when I
set the cruise in overdrive. It seems to loose speed
and has even shut off once, whereas the higher octane
maintanes closer to the correct speed when climbing
hills.


- --- "Thomas J. Teixeira" wrote:
> At 06:38 PM 3/23/99 -0800, canzus seanet.com wrote:
>
> > No, the knock sensor won't allow you better
> performance from
> >higher octane fuel. The simple explination is;
> higher octane fuel
> >is less likely to detonate in a higher combustion
> engine than low
> >octane fuel. If you don't have a 9.5:1 compression
> engine, you
> >don't need to run 92 octane fuel. In other words,
> if it's running
> >fine on 89, why waste the money? You won't be
> gaining anything
> >in your 2.8L.
> >
> > Steve & the Rockette
>
> The engine computer CAN advance the spark slightly
> more with high octane
> fuel and the knock sensor. However, this apparently
> doesn't do anything at
> wide open throttle. See
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.shotimes.com/SHO3gas.html for an
> explanation of this for a different Ford/Yamaha
> engine.
>
>
> Tom Teixeiramailto:tjt world.std.com
> 94 Taurus SHO 5-speedNESHOC/SHO Registry
> '66 Mustang convertible (200 cid
> auto)http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://world.std.com/~tjt
> '35 Ford Pickup (flathead V8)
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:23:22 -0800
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 460 headers

One note about Summit. They have more to offer than what is shown in their
catalog. I just purchased some headers for my 429 from them. They weren't
in the catalog, but I knew Hooker made them. I happened to have a part
number, but they went ahead and verified it with their Hooker catalog. Two
day turnaround and great service.

So if you don't see it, ask for it.

DMO 55 F100

> ----------
> From: perf-list ford-trucks.com[SMTP:perf-list ford-trucks.com]
> Reply To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 9:04 PM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 460 headers
>
> Ok, thanks man. I'll have to braek out the ole Summit catalog.
> >
> > At 06:48 PM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > >I am having a pretty hard time finding some good 460 bbl headers for my
> 79
> > >1/2 ton 4X4. Anyone know where I can get some inexpensive, quality
> > >headers?
> > >
> > >-Justin Farcas
> > >
> > >
> > >1979 Ford F150 4X4 460 "Big Daddy Torque" --
> > >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> > >
> > >
> > Jeg's and Summit both had header for my 78... They weren't listed in the
> > catalog, but they had them when I called. I think Jeg's had Hooker's
> and
> > Summit had Hedman headers. I already have header on my truck but they
> are
> > rusty and I was gonna replace em if they were cheap, but no such luck.
> I
> > think the Hookers were $349, and the Hedman's were $389. The ones on my
> > truck now are Hooker's and they are made in about 3 or 4 pieces. That
> may
> > explain why they are so expensive. Oh yeah, those AREN'T stainless
> either....
> >
> > The two best times to go fishing are when it is raining, and when it is
> > not...
> > == 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: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:33:48 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

>Does anyone else on the list have a 4.6 engine? I seem
>to be coming up short on finding bolt-on performance
>parts.
>
Yup...in my Mustang GT ...

>A cherry bomb, exhaust tips and a K & N have helped a
>lot, but it drags getting off the line. I want to be
>careful with my mods since I don't want to sacrifice my
>mpg - currently anywhere from 15 to 18!
>
Check http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/800.html

He's got some cool stuff out there ... also might check the tech boards at
www.corral.net and mustangworld.com


Just my 2cents

wish

Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/links.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford 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: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:35:15 -0500
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

Try SVO, they are bringing a lot of stuff out for the 4.6.

Bryan

On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:42:40 -0800 (PST) Ryan Reinke
writes:
>
>
>Does anyone else on the list have a 4.6 engine? I seem
>to be coming up short on finding bolt-on performance
>parts.
>
>A cherry bomb, exhaust tips and a K & N have helped a
>lot, but it drags getting off the line. I want to be
>careful with my mods since I don't want to sacrifice my
>mpg - currently anywhere from 15 to 18!
>
>TIA
>
>Ryan Reinke
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
> >
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
>http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

___________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:58:50 -0500
From: Brad Smith
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

At 07:42 AM 3/24/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>Does anyone else on the list have a 4.6 engine? I seem
>to be coming up short on finding bolt-on performance
>parts.
>
>A cherry bomb, exhaust tips and a K & N have helped a
>lot, but it drags getting off the line. I want to be
>careful with my mods since I don't want to sacrifice my
>mpg - currently anywhere from 15 to 18!
>
>TIA
>
>Ryan Reinke
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
> >
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
What gear ratio rear end are you running? You may want to step up to a
3.73 if you are looking for off of the line performance. But first, find
out what the ratio is, and if it is something like 2.73, then you could go
somewhere in between and not sacrifice your mileage too bad.
Of course you could always add a 12 lb. vortec, and for about $3000 you
would have no more performance woes....

The two best times to go fishing are when it is raining, and when it is
not...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:41:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

What is SVO?


- --- Bryan G Sheffler wrote:
> Try SVO, they are bringing a lot of stuff out for
the
> 4.6.
>
> Bryan
>
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:42:40 -0800 (PST) Ryan Reinke
> writes:
> >
> >
> >Does anyone else on the list have a 4.6 engine? I
> seem
> >to be coming up short on finding bolt-on
performance
> >parts.
> >
> >A cherry bomb, exhaust tips and a K & N have helped
> a
> >lot, but it drags getting off the line. I want to
> be
> >careful with my mods since I don't want to
sacrifice
> my
> >mpg - currently anywhere from 15 to 18!
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >Ryan Reinke
>
>_________________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Get your free yahoo.com address at
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> >http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> >
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:11:05 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

>What is SVO?
>

It stands/stood for Special Vehicle Operations, now they are the name used
when distributing high performance parts from Ford (or Ford Motor Sports
(FMS)) ... they were credited with the SVO Mustang ( a nice turbo 4 from
the mid 80s ), and have evolved in to the SVT (Team), which is reponsible
for the new Cobra's. Your local parts store should have a catalog, or you
can get one from any number of places (including the dealerships) for about $5.


Just my 2cents

wish

Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/links.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford 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: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:16:28 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

Ryan Reinke wrote:
Does anyone else on the list have a 4.6 engine? I seem
to be coming up short on finding bolt-on performance
parts.

A cherry bomb, exhaust tips and a K & N have helped a
lot, but it drags getting off the line. I want to be
careful with my mods since I don't want to sacrifice my
mpg - currently anywhere from 15 to 18!


Dont take this personally but get a pushrod motor!!!!!!!!

Check with some of the Mustang aftermarket companies they should be able
to help you. But if you looking for off the line power(torque) you are
going to need considerable mods for that little engine in that heavy
truck!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:20:30 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - High Octane

So can someone tell me if I am correct or just nuts - I
have had my 4.6 for just a short time, but I can tell
the difference between the low and high octanes when I
set the cruise in overdrive. It seems to loose speed
and has even shut off once, whereas the higher octane
maintanes closer to the correct speed when climbing
hills.
No, the knock sensor won't allow you better
performance from higher octane fuel. The simple explination is;
higher octane fuel is less likely to detonate in a higher combustion
engine than low octane fuel. If you don't have a 9.5:1 compression
engine, you don't need to run 92 octane fuel. In other words,
if it's running fine on 89, why waste the money? You won't be
gaining anything in your 2.8L.

If you can advance your timing then run high octane gas you will gain
some power...but you will need a computer chip to do that in your truck!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:33:30 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

>Dont take this personally but get a pushrod motor!!!!!!!!
>
While you're at it, might as well swap in the new chevy motor with the
aluminum pushrods ...

But if you looking for off the line power(torque) you are
>going to need considerable mods for that little engine in that heavy
>truck!

Sorry Chris, it may not keep up with your Lighning (that's why there's a
new one for 99w an OHC engine ...), but it does have a long stroke for such
a small motor, not to mention with the nice tall intake in the truck and
the addition of some nice headers, this motor should handle a truck in day
to day stuff quite easily ... not to mention rev like no push rod you've
ever seen ...

I know the old motors are nice and fun (love my FE), but with the new
emissions requirements, and the general green feelings, the OHC is the only
way to go, so much less mass to move up and down, makes it run/rev so nice
and smooth, and rev ... and rev ... and rev ...

I just think its time we stop bashing these motors when it seems quite
obvious that they are around to stay, the only company not using them is
chevy, every one else has a couple of ohc engines, just that Ford is a
couple steps ahead by using them in almost their entire line now.

What do they have that is still a pushrod ? The 3.8 stang V6? The 5.0
Explorer/Mountaineer... that's all I can come up with right now in the US
market, maybe there's a couple more, but not too many ...

Sorry, I'll get off my soap box for now ...

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:06:14 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 4.6 suggestions

Dont take this personally but get a pushrod motor!!!!!!!!

While you're at it, might as well swap in the new chevy motor with the
aluminum pushrods ...

But if you looking for off the line power(torque) you are
going to need considerable mods for that little engine in that heavy
truck!

> Sorry Chris, it may not keep up with your Lighning (that's why there's a
> new one for 99w an OHC engine ...), but it does have a long stroke for such
> a small motor, not to mention with the nice tall intake in the truck and
> the addition of some nice headers, this motor should handle a truck in day
> to day stuff quite easily ... not to mention rev like no push rod you've
> ever seen ...
>
> I know the old motors are nice and fun (love my FE), but with the new
> emissions requirements, and the general green feelings, the OHC is the only
> way to go, so much less mass to move up and down, makes it run/rev so nice
> and smooth, and rev ... and rev ... and rev ...
>
> I just think its time we stop bashing these motors when it seems quite
> obvious that they are around to stay, the only company not using them is
> chevy, every one else has a couple of ohc engines, just that Ford is a
> couple steps ahead by using them in almost their entire line now.
>
> What do they have that is still a pushrod ? The 3.8 stang V6? The 5.0
> Explorer/Mountaineer... that's all I can come up with right now in the US
> market, maybe there's a couple more, but not too many ...
>
> Sorry, I'll get off my soap box for now ...

I wasn't bashing the motor, but I am saying the 4'6 doesn't make enough
torque for off the line acceleration! yeah it will do for everday
use...which doesn't not include off the line acceleration The new 99
Lightning will but only due to the fact its supercharged. I can add a
supercharger for 2500 and have a faster truck, better handling and
braking and still cost less, I like the new Lightnings...not enough to
get rid of mine for one though. I am sure the new motors have plenty of
potential.
Just my opinion and I am sticking to it....
Ford is still lacking in the power department....I watched a show that
tested the new 260 hp mustand and the new 305 hp Z28, At the rear wheels
the mustang made a measley 216hp...while the underated Z28 made
286hp...so in reality the Z is making about 330-335...with a pushrod
motor!!!!!! I surely hope Ford gets its act together... Event he new
Cobra only make 320
Chris
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:12:08 -0600
From: Ezekial
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Important head question!!!!

Thanks for the info everyone had for me.
Today I saw the heads and matched them up to my stockers. Believe it or
not there was hardly any diffences. The older heads had slightly bigger
valves. On the upper intake portion of them the water jackets have a
hump in the bottom corner with a bolt whole, and the valve springs,
valves, and rocker arms are different. Other then that we didn't notice
anything else, even the outsides are almost identical. I am not sure
but I think on the older ones, the exhaust port is very slightly larger
but not sure. These I could have got very cheap, but there is no way I
could have used them without a complete rebuild. So I decided to play
around with mine and do a little bowl blending, and gasket matching
myself and then down the road sometime pick up a set of good aftermarket
heads. As for the thermacitcor crap, true there wasn't that on the
head, but I'm taking all that smog |t off my truck before it goes back
in. I am also getting headers, duals, and flowmasters so there will be
NO WAY in hell it would ever pass emissions, don't small towns kick butt
:)

- --
1993 Ford F-150 4x4 Off-Road, ext.cab short bed, 351(5.8)
3.55 gears, 31x10.5 Daytona Stag LT
1988 Ford F-150 2wd 302(5.0) auto, long bed-reg cab
Has been totaled and I am re-building it
Was my Grandpas truck, so theres sentimental value
It had the meanest factory 302 I have ever seen
1966 Mustang Fastback 289HP heads, 302block, Holley 4bbl,
EB intake, chrome headers-duals w/ super turbos,
4sp toploader, 9' rear 3.73 locked, Crager SS wheels
( F O R S A L E $7500 )
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.galstar.com/~derrick/index.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.galstar.com/~derrick/cars.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:36:22 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - SB Chevy Cooling.

Boy, I'll bet that subject line got your attention!-)
Sorry, It's late...
- -> From: William S Hart

- -> > As a side note, has any body else noticed some similarities
between the FE and Chevy's new LS1 Corvette engine?
SNIP
- -> The exhaust port thing kills me ... supposedly they went to the
even spacing for better heat dissipation and hence better efficiency, but
they didn't go to OHC because they didn't feel it would increase the
efficiency enough! Okay, I know I didn't see the studies, but from my
limited knowledge of thermodynamics and mechanical engineering, I have to
wonder how much heat they really think they are dissipating by moving the
exhaust ports!
SNIP

The first rule in building Race or High Pro engines is to know the
competition.
This knowledge can often mean the difference between winning and losing.

The two center exhaust ports on the SBC being semi-Siamese creates a
hot spot that can produce localized over heating, gasket failure, and
detonation, when run at high output levels for sustained periods of time (or
lean, or crap gas, ETC).
This heating is caused not just by the port exits but the adjacent
exhaust valve locations.
There has been an effective and well known fix for a long time, of
tapping the coolant at this point to change the flow and reduce the temp. By
equally spacing the exhaust ports al-la FORD; GM was able to spread the
thermal loading across the entire head, reduce the localized temperatures in
this area by 200+ degrees in some cases, (generally the temperature drop was
more modest being only a hundred, or so) eliminate the external plumbing,
which would have cost much more in production then changing the castings
(which they were doing anywayz). There are other benefits also like
air/fuel mixture requirements becoming more even for all cylinders
(emissions) and not blowing out exhaust manifold gaskets etc...

There is something to be learned here and that is that the characteristics
of cooling systems are not what most people think! There have been several
good SAE papers dealing with this issue (no, I don't have the numbers). The
bottom line is that there is POWER in that FORD Design.

If any of this it leads you to looking in to the SB Ford head and
learning just what a POS it is in regards to cooling you will find out just
where to look for more power when you want to build over the low thermal
limit generated by Fords misguided design. It may also help to explain the
advent of the Modular engine design.

As to the OHC issue; OHC has some definite advantages over push rod
layouts.
Most of the advantages occur at relatively high RPM's and or loose
their advantage when applied to a "V" type engine; by this I am referring to
ease of manufacture and reduced complexity. They are supposedly more
efficient mechanically, but I doubt that you can feel it in the seat of you
pants in the operational RPM range of a typical 5.0L up V8. From a....


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.