perf-list-digest Monday, April 12 1999 Volume 02 : Number 084



=======================================================================
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 - V10 Ford?
FTE Perf - RE: HELP ME IDENTIFY AN FE...
FTE Perf - EFI for 400
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?
RE: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
RE: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
Re: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
Re: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
FTE Perf - headers
Re: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
Re: FTE Perf - headers
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?
FTE Perf - ADMIN: Web site updates

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:42:58 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?

Gee, All this OHC bashing brings me to one question, Has every one
forgotten the 427 SOHC?????? By the way, Pontiac's OHC straight six of
the 60's was really a pretty good little motor!!!! I guess it all boils
down to personal preference.

Well said and with that I leave this subject alone. I know some people
are getting tired of hearing about it. Sorry for such a long drug out
debate!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:05:40 -0500
From: Paul M Radecki
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: HELP ME IDENTIFY AN FE...

>>I JUST BOUGHT A 70 F100 4X4. I WAS TOLD THE MILL WAS NOT ORIGINAL, AND
IT
>>WAS A 428. IT SURE LOOKS LIKE THE 390 IN MY OTHER F100.

Welcome to FE, the real modular V8. If your motor is not original, it
could be anything (including some weird combinations that the factory
never built). Most FE parts interchange, so a rebuilder could have put
together any number of combinations based upon what he wanted from the
motor or merely upon what parts he had lying around. You'll learn the
most by measuring the stroke, as the 360, 390, and 428 each used a
different crank. The 352/360 stroke is 3.50", 390/406/427 is 3.78", and
the 410/428 is 3.98". Check out How To Rebuild Big Block Ford Engines by
Steve Christ (availiable from Summit or wherever you buy books) or go to:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/fe.html

lordjanusz juno.com
'94 F150 300ci
'73 F100 FE (not original, and no I haven't measured the stroke yet)
___________________________________________________________________
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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:43:16 -0500
From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
Subject: FTE Perf - EFI for 400

>Any one got the phone number for Auburn Performance?
>Bryan

Bryan,
check out;
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.gothorsepower.com/sb.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.speedbrain.com/

APE phone number and address are at the first link.
later,
dale

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?

At 04:09 AM 11:4:99 -0400, you wrote:

>forgotten the 427 SOHC?????? By the way, Pontiac's OHC straight six of
>the 60's was really a pretty good little motor!!!!

*Pretty good* little motor??
It was a great motor, I had a '68 Firechicken with one.
Used to beat up on most of the small block V8 crowd,
it had a 4bbl, split cast iron headder, 10.5:1 compression,
and 215hp/240ftlbs torque stock. Plus there was quite
a few hi-po parts available for it, like side draught carbs
tubular headders, and hotter cams, its a pity they became
unpopular.


While at the swap meet in Portland there were a great deal
of Ford parts for sale, unless you were looking for Y-block
bits and pieces. My brother and I cruised the entire meet,
he was looking for slicks for his Nova, I was looking for a
a 4bbl intake for the 292, the only manifold i found was a
cast iron unit for a 312, bought it anyway. Also found a set
of 312 exaust manifolds. The guy I bought them off lives
right here in Bellevue Wa.
Seems silly to drive all the way to Portland just to buy
something I could have bought just down the street...........

Steve & the Rockette
'63 F100 soon to be 4bbl and dual exaust.....


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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:44:09 -0400
From: Brad Smith
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

At 01:46 PM 4/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Just short responce...
>Torque is dependant upon more things than the stroke, and the cam.
> Consider that more importantly is this, the quality and quantity of
>avaialble fuel to burn.
>Now, in general, but not always, the newer OHC engines, especially the 4
>valve heads, have larger ports and valves and breath very well at higher
>engines speeds. unfortunatly, though these ports will flow air well at
>higher engine speed (meaning higher charge velocities in the port and
>through the valve) their design limits the ability to breathe well at lower
>engine speeds. These engines may make great overall power, but feel
>sluggish at the bottom. The 4 valve heas also often suffer from poor
>charge motion in the cylinder (tumble/swirl) and sometimes terrible overlap
>problems like the chrysler hemi has where the intake charge comes in the
>intake valve and shoots straight accross the cylinder out of the exhaust
>valve. Poor charge motion also reduces the efficiency of the burn,
>lowering torque, especially at lower rpms - the area that we feel torque
>when we drive.
>
>One more point. I have found as a driver, that 2 engines, one carbed, one
>EFI, where the EFI engine is supposed to be a more powerful engine, the
>carbed engine many times is more fun do drive because it responds they way
>i expect it to. my foot moves, the power output changes. Many efi cars i
>have driven semed very luggish at the bottom end even though they were
>reported as having more torque in that area than a similiar pre EFI
>car/truck.
>
>Sleddog
>
>----------
>>From: Brad Smith[SMTP:rbsmith unity.ncsu.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 10:21 PM
>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
>
>You get torque from the stroke, and if the cams are doing
>their job of getting the valves open, and more effeciently at that, how can
>you say the motors aren't capable of producing the torque?
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>

What I was trying to say is that the OHC engines are capable of making the
torque, though they may not make it from the factory. You say the OHC
engines "design" prevents them from breathing well at low end... How so,
cam design? Granted, these motors are built for high RPMs, b/c they can
handle it, so where do you want that power curve, near the top end...
Again, that doesn't mean they are not capable of making the low end power.
As far as I am concerned they can breathe just as well at low end, with the
right cams. This kinda defeats the purpose of having a motor that can push
7000 RPMs, but I was just getting sick of hearing that these motors "aren't
capable" of making the torque.

Brad

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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:46:25 -0400
From: Brad Smith
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

At 01:46 PM 4/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Just short responce...
>Torque is dependant upon more things than the stroke, and the cam.
> Consider that more importantly is this, the quality and quantity of
>avaialble fuel to burn.
>Now, in general, but not always, the newer OHC engines, especially the 4
>valve heads, have larger ports and valves and breath very well at higher
>engines speeds. unfortunatly, though these ports will flow air well at
>higher engine speed (meaning higher charge velocities in the port and
>through the valve) their design limits the ability to breathe well at lower
>engine speeds. These engines may make great overall power, but feel
>sluggish at the bottom. The 4 valve heas also often suffer from poor
>charge motion in the cylinder (tumble/swirl) and sometimes terrible overlap
>problems like the chrysler hemi has where the intake charge comes in the
>intake valve and shoots straight accross the cylinder out of the exhaust
>valve. Poor charge motion also reduces the efficiency of the burn,
>lowering torque, especially at lower rpms - the area that we feel torque
>when we drive.
>
>One more point. I have found as a driver, that 2 engines, one carbed, one
>EFI, where the EFI engine is supposed to be a more powerful engine, the
>carbed engine many times is more fun do drive because it responds they way
>i expect it to. my foot moves, the power output changes. Many efi cars i
>have driven semed very luggish at the bottom end even though they were
>reported as having more torque in that area than a similiar pre EFI
>car/truck.
>
>Sleddog
>
>----------
>>From: Brad Smith[SMTP:rbsmith unity.ncsu.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 10:21 PM
>To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
>
>You get torque from the stroke, and if the cams are doing
>their job of getting the valves open, and more effeciently at that, how can
>you say the motors aren't capable of producing the torque?
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
Oh yeah, about the carb vs. EFI, I had a guy at a place that runs a dyno
once tell me he was yet to see a FI system that made the horsepower of a
carb... I think he's pretty credible, b/c thats all he does all day long is
run cars through on a dyno...

Brad

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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:55:16 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

well, actually it would be better to say that OHC engines in general, are
less capable of being tuned for good cylinder filling and efficiency at
lower engine speeds. There is potential for the future though, as auto
makers are discovering ways of improving the designs. Especially in the
area of 4 valve cylinders. Here thru special cam timing, and non-similiar
ports and some newer ideas in the area of combustion chamber shape there
are improvements coming. So far though, if you want to build low rpm
torque and response, i have seen nothing that can compare to small port big
blocks properly built. I agree than OHC engines could make torque down
low, just saying that so far, they have not lived up to the potential that
is there. And we may never see the real potential come about as the demand
for it is low. Real work trucks are only a very small potion of the total
sale of trucks in the USA.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Brad Smith[SMTP:rbsmith unity.ncsu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 1999 6:44 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

What I was trying to say is that the OHC engines are capable of making the
torque, though they may not make it from the factory. You say the OHC
engines "design" prevents them from breathing well at low end... How so,
cam design? Granted, these motors are built for high RPMs, b/c they can
handle it, so where do you want that power curve, near the top end...
Again, that doesn't mean they are not capable of making the low end power.
As far as I am concerned they can breathe just as well at low end, with the
right cams. This kinda defeats the purpose of having a motor that can push
7000 RPMs, but I was just getting sick of hearing that these motors "aren't
capable" of making the torque.

Brad




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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:21:03 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

And, sadly for for performance minded people, that market is being
served by the diesels. They provide torque, reliability and cost of
operation which current gas rigs can't meet. I often wonder if
performance engine development won't become stagnant with the newer
engines due to most R&D money going to satisfy the smog nazis.
The modular engines have been out for several years and we haven't seen
near the aftermarket performance market offerings enjoyed with past
designs. Fortunately, there's still plenty of old iron around and every
enhancement one could desire to make them produce brutal torque/HP.
Daimler/Crysler's planned future entry into NASCAR could stir the
modular pot. The pushrod engine is no longer what most Americans are
driving and NASCAR is market driven.

George Miller

Sleddog wrote:



Real work trucks are only a very small potion of the total
> sale of trucks in the USA.
>
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: Brad Smith[SMTP:rbsmith unity.ncsu.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 1999 6:44 PM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC
>
> What I was trying to say is that the OHC engines are capable of making the
> torque, though they may not make it from the factory. You say the OHC
> engines "design" prevents them from breathing well at low end... How so,
> cam design? Granted, these motors are built for high RPMs, b/c they can
> handle it, so where do you want that power curve, near the top end...
> Again, that doesn't mean they are not capable of making the low end power.
> As far as I am concerned they can breathe just as well at low end, with the
> right cams. This kinda defeats the purpose of having a motor that can push
> 7000 RPMs, but I was just getting sick of hearing that these motors "aren't
> capable" of making the torque.
>
> Brad
>
> == 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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:39:58 -0400
From: Brad Smith
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

At 05:21 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>And, sadly for for performance minded people, that market is being
>served by the diesels. They provide torque, reliability and cost of
>operation which current gas rigs can't meet. I often wonder if
>performance engine development won't become stagnant with the newer
>engines due to most R&D money going to satisfy the smog nazis.
>The modular engines have been out for several years and we haven't seen
>near the aftermarket performance market offerings enjoyed with past
>designs. Fortunately, there's still plenty of old iron around and every
>enhancement one could desire to make them produce brutal torque/HP.
>Daimler/Crysler's planned future entry into NASCAR could stir the
>modular pot. The pushrod engine is no longer what most Americans are
>driving and NASCAR is market driven.
>
>George Miller
>
>Sleddog wrote:
>
>
>
> Real work trucks are only a very small potion of the total
>> sale of trucks in the USA.
>>
>> sleddog
>>
>> ----------

I agree, and hope to see more aftermarket parts available for these mod.
engines too... maybe after they are out of warranty :) As far as Nascar
goes, I don't really see that happening any time soon. How many cars do
you see on the market that still run carburetors? NASCAR still does, and
probably always will (I hope!)... But who knows, with the kinda RPMs those
things can turn, it may happen. Just a footnote, Ford tried to run a OHC
motor in NASCAR to compete with the Hemi, but NASCAR changed the rules upon
completion of the engine (a 427 I think).
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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:27:55 -0400
From: Dan Shade
Subject: FTE Perf - headers

I have seen discussions on types of mufflers and such in the past, but I
don't recall types of headers being discussed. I am looking into a set
of headers, and am trying to decide between Dynomax, and Hooker, and
whether or not to ceramic coat or not. My experience in the past has
always led to the hammer-fit method when working with headers, does one
company make better fit headers than another.

Later
dan

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:39:07 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Push Rod vs. OHC

Brad Smith wrote:
>
> At 05:21 PM 4/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >And, sadly for for performance minded people, that market is being
> >served by the diesels. They provide torque, reliability and cost of
> >operation which current gas rigs can't meet. I often wonder if
> >performance engine development won't become stagnant with the newer
> >engines due to most R&D money going to satisfy the smog nazis.
> >The modular engines have been out for several years and we haven't seen
> >near the aftermarket performance market offerings enjoyed with past
> >designs. Fortunately, there's still plenty of old iron around and every
> >enhancement one could desire to make them produce brutal torque/HP.
> >Daimler/Crysler's planned future entry into NASCAR could stir the
> >modular pot. The pushrod engine is no longer what most Americans are
> >driving and NASCAR is market driven.
> >
> >George Miller
> >
> >Sleddog wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Real work trucks are only a very small potion of the total
> >> sale of trucks in the USA.
> >>
> >> sleddog
> >>
> >> ----------
>
> I agree, and hope to see more aftermarket parts available for these mod.
> engines too... maybe after they are out of warranty :) As far as Nascar
> goes, I don't really see that happening any time soon. How many cars do
> you see on the market that still run carburetors? NASCAR still does, and
> probably always will (I hope!)... But who knows, with the kinda RPMs those
> things can turn, it may happen. Just a footnote, Ford tried to run a OHC
> motor in NASCAR to compete with the Hemi, but NASCAR changed the rules upon
> completion of the engine (a 427 I think).
> The two best times to go fishing are when it is raining, and when it is
> not...

I wonder if GM didn't get ahead of Ford Performance Development with the
Aurora? It would have to be a major risk taker at the Ford senior level
to bring up the subject of OHC high performance engines, dual this time,
after that failure.

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:48:48 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - headers

>From my experience and what I've learned on the lists, it usually
depends on what truck and engine combo you're running. Somebody usually
has personal experience or knows somebody using many of the
applications.

George Miller

Dan Shade wrote:
>
> I have seen discussions on types of mufflers and such in the past, but I
> don't recall types of headers being discussed. I am looking into a set
> of headers, and am trying to decide between Dynomax, and Hooker, and
> whether or not to ceramic coat or not. My experience in the past has
> always led to the hammer-fit method when working with headers, does one
> company make better fit headers than another.
>
> Later
> dan
>
> == 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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:42:22 -0500
From: Sven Setterdahl
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?

>
>
> Still no match but lets look at the track times this shows who is making
> the power. And from the numbers I seen the all mighty ford V10 in a 2wd
> drive F350 cant even keep up with the dodge V10 3500 4X4. The 5.4L
> powered Fords get wasted by GMs new 5.3L(?) Z28s still outrun Cobras and
> GTs, and guess what thegas mileage is about the same if as the pushrods,
> one of the benefits of the new motors was better gas mileage supposedly,
> I don't see it! If anyone has an example of the new OHC outrunning any
> comparable vechicle let me know!
> Chris

Yes the Dodge 8.0L V10 has more power than Ford's 6.8L V10, but how many
transmissions and rear ends are you willing to replace to have that extra
power?

The only test that I've seen that a Chevy "wasted" a Ford was GMs rigged test
showing the 6.0L blowing away an F150. The dyno numbers show the 5.4L gets
more horsepower and torque to the wheels than either for the competitions'
comparable engines. BTW, the 5.4L will have 275HP for 2000 and keep it's
torque advantage. The 6.8L will most likely get 300HP and I can't remember the
torque increase (the info was on Blue Oval News a while back, but I can't find
it now.)

Yes the mileage is about the same, but power output is increased. You're
getting more power from the same amount of fuel. Fuel efficiency is not just
measure in miles per gallon.

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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:13:30 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: Web site updates

The following updates have been made to the web site:....


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.