perf-list-digest Saturday, April 3 1999 Volume 02 : Number 075



=======================================================================
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 - Emissions
Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD
FTE Perf - ADMIN: Pigeon Forge F100 Supernationals
Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD
Re: FTE Perf - A/F monitor
FTE Perf - Re: A/F monitor.
FTE Perf - Re: 4x4 V-10 Auto with auto hubs

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 06:48:37 -0700
From: "James Draughn"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Emissions

>"J.S.H." wrote:
>>
>> "I don't know about other states, but here in Connecticut,
>> >the emissions system is a joke.
>> >
>> >To wit: 1988 Ranger, 198K on the motor, no tune up in
>> >50K at least, negative oil changes (just added oil when
>> >needed for at least 50K, knocking like a banshee and
>> >no cat converter passed the "test" no sweat.


>Buy a Chevy.. I *hate* to see a Ford abused like that.

I don't think a Chevy could do that.:)


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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 06:14:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD

I had and loved my '85 Bronco II. I also looked at
upgrading, but something to consider is the added
weight of the larger engine. I could go nearly
anywhere in my Bronco simply because it weighed so
little - no sinking in mud or snow! Something to
consider...




- --- Tim Turner wrote:
>
>
> Thomas Caswell wrote:
> >
> > I have a 1986 Bronco II 4WD which has over 150,000
> miles on the
> > odometer.
>
> 156,000 on my 85 B-II
>
> > still runs pretty well, but I think that I may be
> living on
> > borrowed time.
>
> I *know* I am...gas mileage is poor and oil
> consumption is high.
>
> > Because the body and frame are still in such
> excellent
> > condition, I am considering installing a 5.0 V8 in
> it when this engine
> > finally dies.
>
> I'm redoing mine because I just plain *LIKE* the
durn
> thing! :-)
>
> >
> > I have a few questions about this procedure, and
if
> you have any
> > experience with this swap or a similar one, I look
> forward to your
> > feedback!
>
> First let me say I haven't done one, but have done a
> LOT of research
> about it. I'd suggest going to the web site of
> 'Advance Adapters' and
> getting the brochure about this swap; from what I've
> seen they have the
> best solution IMHO.
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.advanceadapters.com/Ford/Ford.html
>
> Just on the dreaming side you might want to check
out
> this link as
> well.. 429 Ranger! Also good info on the swaps.
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/TOCOOL4U26/myranger.htm
>
> >
> > 1. Is it worthwhile to seek out a late-model 5.0
> with EFI and emissions
> > components, or is the added complexity more
trouble
> than it's worth?
>
> It runs better, hood clearance for the carb/air
> cleaner isn't an issue.
> emissions are clean and derivability is excellent.
> Also lots of high
> performance goodies available.. Be aware though
that
> I'm proficient in
> FI diagnostics so the complexity isn't an issue in
my
> application.
>
> >
> > 2. From what I have read, I will need to replace
my
> stock automatic
> > (w/OD) transmission, with a C4 which will need
some
> aftermarket
> > modifications in the area of the bell housing,
tail
> housing, flywheel,
> > and possibly the torque convertor. What is the
> optimal automatic
> > transmission set-up for this application?
>
> Check the Advance site, I think they have workable
> solutions for OD but
> I may be wrong. In general their products dont
> require much (usually
> none!) in the drive line modifications.
>
> >
> > 3. My Bronco II has the electronic 4WD system.
Will
> the front and rear
> > axles and the stock transfer case hold up under
the
> additional stress of
> > a V8? If not, what are some viable alternatives?
>
> Run 'em until they go!
>
> >
> > 4. How much easier does a 2 inch body lift make
the
> V8 installation? Is
> > it far more difficult to do the swap without it?
If
> I were to install
> > the lift, what additional changes would be
required
> to the suspension?
>
> MUCH easier especially if you have A/C on the
> firewall. No mod's
> required for a straight body lift ($100 or so) as
the
> suspension points
> dont really change that much for a small body lift.
> It might be worth
> looking into a small suspension lift at the same
time
> though as it will
> have new and heavier front springs ($300 or so).
>
> >
> > 5. Is there anything that I'm forgetting? The idea
> of this project has
> > really got me excited so any information that you
> could share would be
> > extremely valuable!
>
> Much patience and if you go the EFI route you'll
need
> the
> computer/wiring harness and possibly the fuel pump
> and sending unit from
> the donor vehicle. Expect seemingly small obstacles
> to take more time
> than they look. ;-)
>
> Most of all.. check into your state's emission laws
> BEFORE you do it; in
> my state the vehicle *must* have had that engine as
> an option to pass
> inspection and this is why I'll stay with the anemic
> 2.8 and modify it
> as I see fit.
>
> Tim
> == 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: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 09:40:22 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: Pigeon Forge F100 Supernationals

Ford Truck Enthusiasts has reserved a block of 40 rooms at
Days Inn Pigeon Forge for the F100 Supernationals, May 13 - 16. The
rates for the rooms are:
$34.00 + tax Sunday through Thursday
$68.00 + tax Friday through Saturday
This is a group rate, so be sure to mention Ford Truck Enthusiasts
when reserving your room. Rooms are first come, first served, of
course, and the last day to reserve at the group rate is April 15.
To make your reservation, call:
1-800-645-3079
We've also reserved tables for at least 40 people at Alan
Jackson's Show Car Cafe on Saturday at 9:00 AM for breakfast. Total
cost for the Breakfast Buffet is $8.00 per person. This price
includes tax and gratuity. To reserve your spot, email Don Neighbors
at:
grover ford-trucks.com
by April 25 so we can give the folks at Alan Jackson's a head count.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 09:34:56 -0800
From: johny
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Installing a 5.0 V8 in a 1986 Bronco II 4WD

> >
> > 4. How much easier does a 2 inch body lift make the V8 installation? Is
> > it far more difficult to do the swap without it? If I were to install
> > the lift, what additional changes would be required to the suspension?
>
> MUCH easier especially if you have A/C on the firewall. No mod's
> required for a straight body lift ($100 or so) as the suspension points
> dont really change that much for a small body lift. It might be worth
> looking into a small suspension lift at the same time though as it will
> have new and heavier front springs ($300 or so).

If you haven't already, also check out
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jamesduff.com/ Their catalog has a good description of dropping
in a V8.

Also with the body lift, make sure you get brackets for the bumpers to raise
them up appropriately. 2" of body lift isn't too much, but you also
need to pay attention to fan shroud, transmission linkage length (if automatic),

fuel fill lines.

Also, do you folks know if anyone makes a 4:1 reduction setup for the
Borg Warner 1350 transfer case in the Bronco II? Or is it better
to just go via advance adapters and bolt some other
tranfer case on? If so, which ones?

I'm a little jealous of all the *toys* available for the jeeps, in my
investigation of Rock crawler buildup of my bronco II.

(1989 Bronco II 2.9 4x4 4:10 automatic manual hubs 124K miles)

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

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

Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 13:07:15 -0800
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - A/F monitor

>> This suumer I plan on taking a trip that involves elevations between
>> sea level and 8000 feet.
>> I could just put some big jets in my AFB and go for it,but here in Reno
>> premium is $1.89 a gallon.
>
>I presume since it's got an AFB the towing vehicle does *not* have any
>computerized controls (or O2 sensor) so I'd pass. The ideal 14.7:1 is
>actually ideal for the best balance of *emissions* and economy whereas
>power needs a richer mixture (12:1?) If expense isn't a concern you
>could fit exhaust gas temperature units to the manifolds as is common
>with piston aircraft... (The EGT goes up when the mixture gets too
>lean). Unfortunately you dont have direct control of the mixture like
>you would in a plane so you'd have to either intentionally jet lean and
>richen by adding a bit of choke or do a *LOT* of testing...
>
>Maybe just carry an assortment of jets and swap 'em as needed at fuel
>stops? ;-)

The AFB (or its edelbrock clone) is a nice carb for a tow vehicle.
On my FE390 I've got the primaries at the lean edge of good driveability.
That helps keep my gas mileage up. The secondaries are jetted richer to
give good power and keep the engine from damage when the 4-bbl is open.
When the vacuum drops below 5"Hg, the metering rods raise up and richen
the mixture even further. It's a nice setup, easy to tune for decent
mileage and good power.
If you're concerned about elevation change, jet the carb to be correct
at sea level and as you go up in altitude you can stop once or twice
and drop larger metering rods in it. It takes less than 5 minutes to stop
and change the rods. With a little fancy math you could even calculate
the ideal altitude to change to the next size up metering rod...

Steve
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty

"There are no stupid questions... just stupid people."

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

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:56:06 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: A/F monitor.

Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:37:36 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - A/F monitor

SNIP
I presume since it's got an AFB the towing vehicle does *not* have any
computerized controls (or O2 sensor) so I'd pass. The ideal 14.7:1 is
actually ideal for the best balance of *emissions* and economy whereas
power needs a richer mixture (12:1?) If expense isn't a concern you
could fit exhaust gas temperature units to the manifolds as is common
with piston aircraft... (The EGT goes up when the mixture gets too
lean). Unfortunately you dont have direct control of the mixture like
you would in a plane so you'd have to either intentionally jet lean
and
richen by adding a bit of choke or do a *LOT* of testing...

Maybe just carry an assortment of jets and swap 'em as needed at fuel
stops? ;-)

Tim
_______________________________
I can give some limited information on the O2, EGT issues.
These are just my conclusions based on my research and experiences,
agree or not as you see fit.

Over at the race shop the gentlemen that operate the Dyno have more
hours logged with these two monitoring systems then anybody I know of
(well over 20 years of Dyno experience each). The Dyno has dual Lambda
systems (Horiba) UEGO, 8 Channel O2, and EGT. They have virtually
eliminated the EGT as a testing or monitoring tool. The problem is that
there are so many things that can and do affect the output signal form
an EGT that have nothing to do with A/F Ratio. For example the A/F R can
be perfect and if a load is placed against the engine the EGT will rise
which would be interpreted as a lean condition, however the A/F R can
still be perfect. Adding fuel will reduce the EGT at the expense of
Power and MPG. This type of inaccuracy, and the fact that the Thermocouple
is one temperamental device, known to fail for no apparent cause leads me to
a zero recommendation. Yes, I know that they have been used in Aircraft
forever, they fail there too BTDT. My own experiences with these devices
over the last 15 years have shown me conclusively that EGT for other then a
gross indicator is useless. The UEGO's are the only way to go for absolute
accuracy, however at over $600 each they are just a bit out of my price
range for daily use. The O2 sensor however is cheap $35 or so; relatively
accurate, and more so then the EGT by a factor of 100; significantly more
reliable then a T/couple will ever be.

The "inaccuracy" of the O2 sensor comes from it's misapplication, or
more correctly miss-understanding how it works by the market place. The
O2 sensor delivers a variable voltage based on a comparison of the
amount of Oxygen on the sensor side and on the outside. If you test O2
sensors, you will find that they are to a degree individuals in their
output. This variation is vary narrow, but it does exist.
As used by most ECM/ECU they operate as a binary type device. The ECU
looks for 0.47VDC if it sees it, the A/F R is at 14.7:1. Less and the
ECU compensates; more and it compensates the other way. This change in
state happens almost instantaneously. The A/F R on an injected engine is
constantly bouncing high low due to lag in every system.
When we use these O2 sensors as a readout and not a switch we can
induce inaccuracies if we are not careful. Virtually all of the
commercially available units use the same circuit and IC (LM3914, or
LM3914C). The Gage head is no more then a relative reading device, it
compares the voltage from the O2 sensor to a reference voltage and then
lights up the light that the designer has specified. There is a
controversy as to weather the O2 sensor is linear in its operation, or
when it is not at 0.47VDS, what exactly does it mean?
In reality this controversy is irrelevant. What you are interested in
knowing is am I lean just a little or am I lean a whole Bunch? Most
people wont do the calculations to correct exactly for the amount that
they are off of Stoch. So who cares! Just go up or down a jet or two and
presto your back in the ballpark.
The gauge unit can be built for about $15 excluding the housing. I have
built several and tested them against the commercial units and have
found them to be quite acceptable and most often exactly the same read
out. There is a output chart that supposedly gives you an output voltage
to A/F R relationship, I have it filed somewhere... In testing this
information has proven to be amazingly close, however not exact. I believe
that this is where the rumors of inaccuracy come from. The gentlemen at the
race shop have a calibration system for O2 sensors and have tested virtually
every manufacturers O2 sensor , from 1 wire to 4 wire. Their conclusion is
that an O2 sensor is an O2 sensor; until you get to the UEGO's.
The critical thing is the location of the sensor in the exhaust system.
It must be located as close to the port as possible, and not too close.
The reason for this is that an O2 sensors output is temperature
dependent (operating temp is generally above 600 F). This is the reason
that the Dyno Headers have the O2 taps about 6 inches out from the port.
(FWIW the output of an O2 sensor is also pressure dependent, something I
have never read anywhere but witnessed during the calibration process on the
Dyno.) I have however always installed them in the collectors or in the
pipe just after the end of the manifold. My reasoning is that it is a
convenient place and it is after the junction of the ports. I do run
dual systems on dual exhaust as that way I can monitor the total of the
engine, and not just one side, or one cylinder.
When combined with a vacuum gauge you have a monitoring system that is
capable of giving you real time information on the operation of your
engine.
So why are O2 sensors not used in Piston Engine Aircraft? The simple
answer is Lead. Ave-gas has many times more lead in it then Auto-gas.
O2 sensors will live on a steady diet of leaded auto-gas contrary to
popular belief, they wont live as long on Ave-gas. There is your
reason.
What is a UEGO? A UEGO is a "Universal Exhaust Gas Oxygen" sensor.
This is a wide-range air-fuel ratio sensor, that is extremely sensitive
and is temperature compensating to give a read out of the composition of
the exhaust gas regardless of temperature. Something that an O2 sensor
can not do.

For more information there is an archived FAQ at the following address.
It is a few years old but the basic data is there.
I am not affiliated with this FAQ in any way. Thanks to Mr. Alex Smith for
keeping it on line.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~avsmith/o2sensor.html

My conclusion is different then Tim's as I would definitely recommend the O2
sensor for this purpose and would not recommend an EGT to anyone including
and most especially anyone flying an aircraft!
The more that I learn about Aircraft, and the FAA, the less I want them
anywhere near me. And I love prop driven planes particularly P-47's, P-38's
and of course P-51 Mustangs! Oh, and weren't that B-17 a awesome piece of
sculpture...

Muel


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

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

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:59:59 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: 4x4 V-10 Auto with auto hubs

The problem is as "I" see it, that while the V10/Auto will obviously bolt
nicely in to the factory frame, nothing else that you describe will.
Since you have tossed this idea out, FWIW this is what "I" would do.
First "I" would forget the truck frame.
What "I" believe you need based on your descriptions is a custom frame that
is built for the car body, IE. has the mounts for the body and is configured
to its contours. This will allow you to build the finished project look
right and not like an old car body set on a truck frame.
Then you will have to cut the floor out of the body, and the firewall
out as they will be in the wrong places for the engine & Trans/TC. Now
would be the time to build in a full roll cage which if designed right
would be virtually invisible when the project was complete, and would
add a bunch strength to the body of the car. Once you have the frame
basics laid out you will have to design and fabricate the suspension mounts.
You describe using Hydraulics to raise and lower the ride height which would
work; "I" would propose that you use Air Bags for both the springs and the
ride height, as this would allow you a simpler system overall, and provide
you with a better ride. "I" doubt that you will be able to use the factory
drive shafts as there will not be enough movement available in the splines
in the slip yokes to accommodate a significant ride height change.
You can use the factory axils as they are plenty strong. But with a custom
suspension you might consider the Dodge 1T front axil as the mounting points
for a 4-link are already there, and the factory coil spring mount would
easily connect to an Air Bag set-up.
Auto hubs are available aftermarket (WARN) but if you are intending to
"wheel" this monster you will quickly find out why they are not popular,
they disconnect when in the coast or over/run mode; so you have to get out
and lock them in. "I" think that a better set-up would be to build it as a
full time four wheel drive and not use any hubs. "I" don't think that the
gas mileage penalty would be tremendous and with the V10 well...

So from my limited perspective you would be using the engine/Trans and
Axils from a factory truck and little else.
The frame would be custom built and can be done by someone
knowledgeable, look for the local professional race chassis
builder for your frame, as they will have both the tools and experience.....

---

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.