perf-list-digest Wednesday, April 14 1999 Volume 02 : Number 086



=======================================================================
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 - Flatheads vs OHV vs OHC vs ???
Re: FTE Perf - Flatheads vs OHV vs OHC vs ???
FTE Perf - Performance
Re: FTE Perf - Performance
RE: FTE Perf - Performance
FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.
Re: FTE Perf - Performance
RE: FTE Perf - Performance
FTE Perf - rebuild etc.
Re: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.
FTE Perf - OHC
Re: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.
Re: FTE Perf - OHC
Re: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
FTE Perf - Gas
Re: FTE Perf - Gas
FTE Perf - Re: Speed rules...
FTE Perf - Mod enginez
FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?
RE: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:37:11 -0500
From: George Ramsower`
Subject: FTE Perf - Flatheads vs OHV vs OHC vs ???

I am having a terrific time watching the posts on the OHC vs
OHV/pushrod thread.

This brings me back to the fifties when overhead valve engines were so
controversial. The die hard flat head engine buffs thought the overhead
valve engines were not going to keep up.
When the rodders tried to make the OHV engines run faster, they just
couldn't get the power from them, that they were getting from the flat
heads. But they were using the same technology on both engines.
On flat head engines, to get maximum flow, you had to shave the valve
face to make it real thin. This way, you could lift it higher without
hitting the head, and thus more flow because it was farther off the seat
and generated less turbulence entering the combustion chamber. This was
one mod that actually slowed down the OHV engines. In the seventies, it
was discovered that a thicker valve actually improved flow on an OHV
engine. Technology is wonderful, and only improves in time with
experimentation and broken parts.

The overhead cam engine.. hmmmm

If you took a standard Windsor engine, and modified it to accept an
overhead cam, that used the original combustion chamber/valve
arrangement, made the cams deliver the same exact profile, you would see
no performance difference, until you began spinning for maximum RPM.
It's obvious that OHC engines have less mass in the valve drive line,
and would be easier to keep the valves following the cam. Floating
valves is a major issue at extreme RPMs and this is what OHC is all
about. Most people on this list find this is not news at all.

Now, when we look at a four valve engine with overhead cams we have a
whole other book to write. The flow of four valve engines is very
different. Generally the flow is better at higher RPMs than what is
possible with two valve designs. The valves, being smaller and lighter,
are once again easier to keep following the cam profile without using
suspension coils to keep them in line. Four valve heads, designed for
maximum air flow, will not develop low RPM torque as well as a two valve
engine designed for lower RPM torque. It only makes sense. TWO smaller
intake valves have a greater area than ONE larger valve because you can
fit the smaller ones in the same space. Imagine if it were feasable to
make a valve design that was shaped like a "D" this would take half the
combustion chamber and the other valve would take the other half. Talk
about getting the combustion chamber some exposure to the outside!!!!!!
Four valve designs is all about maximizing the given area available. At
lower RPMs, the velocity of the incoming air charge, and exaust gasses
will be slower, and you WILL lose torque at these speeds.
To get more power from these engines, you will need to spin them
faster. At 12 thousand RPMs, you will see some velocities that are
pretty good for power. And at 12 thousand RPMs, you will need a lower
gear ratio at the drive line. Imagine an engine that develops the same
torque at 12k RPM as does another engine that makes the same torque at
6K RPM. Take the faster engine, use a gear ratio that has twice the gear
ratio, and the torque is multiplied at the rear wheels. The faster
engine will run circles around the slower one. Horsepower is the amount
of work done in a given time. Torque is not. You can develop 500 ft/lbs
of torque at zero RPMs if you use a long cheater pipe on a large wrench.
But it's not going to get you very far down the road unles you begin
actually turning it. This is when it becomes horsepower. 500 ft/lbs of
torque at zero RPMs results in ZERO horsepower. Make it spin and
horsepower is developed.

If you want only low RPM torque, then a two valve engine is easier to
work with. If you put overhead cams on the same engine, then you can use
smaller valve springs, and this will reduce the overall stress on the
valve train, resulting in longer lasting parts, or more cheaply built
parts to live as long.

The concepts are too involved to cover here on this list, but suffice
it to say that an over head cam engine with four valves will still be
making plenty of torque at RPMs that would destroy a pushrod engine.
This results in a system that will be faster. And speed is what it's all
about.

I prefer to get as much torque as is possible at a lower engine speed
(in MY truck), because the engines live longer. I think this is
important to all of us that have limited funds to keep "fixin" broken
engines.

I expect if low RPM power was king, and two valve push rod engines were
better, then the guys on the formula one circuit would still be using
them. But it ain't so.

I apologize for taking so much bandwidth here, but I just had to get my
two... no four cents in. :)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:13:31 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Flatheads vs OHV vs OHC vs ???

At 07:37 AM 4/13/99 , you wrote:
> I am having a terrific time watching the posts on the OHC vs
>OHV/pushrod thread.
>
>This brings me back to the fifties when overhead valve engines were so
>controversial. The die hard flat head engine buffs thought the overhead
>valve engines were not going to keep up.
> When the rodders tried to make the OHV engines run faster, they just
>couldn't get the power from them, that they were getting from the flat
>heads. But they were using the same technology on both engines.
> On flat head engines, to get maximum flow, you had to shave the valve
>face to make it real thin. This way, you could lift it higher without
>hitting the head, and thus more flow because it was farther off the seat
>and generated less turbulence entering the combustion chamber. This was
>one mod that actually slowed down the OHV engines. In the seventies, it
>was discovered that a thicker valve actually improved flow on an OHV
>engine. Technology is wonderful, and only improves in time with
>experimentation and broken parts.
>

I wondered if anyone would jump in with this. I was hoping someone would
since it was a bit before my time, so I couldn't make any personal
experience statements ...


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: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:39:18 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Performance

Sleddog writes: >> The reasons for this might be the problems incurred with the
OHC head design. NOT that it uses OHC, but the actual design of the ports, and
combustion chamber. I do beleive though that if ford engineers would take the
time to study the modern motorcycle engine they may find how to get alot more
from the motor, from the factory, without loosing relibility, or streetability.


Well said, my man, WELL SAID.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:10:33 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Performance

am14 daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>
> Sleddog writes: >> The reasons for this might be the problems incurred with the
> OHC head design. NOT that it uses OHC, but the actual design of the ports, and
> combustion chamber. I do beleive though that if ford engineers would take the
> time to study the modern motorcycle engine they may find how to get alot more
> from the motor, from the factory, without loosing relibility, or streetability.
>
>

Don't forget one thing though.... you'll be lucky to get
60,000 miles out of a modern motorcycle engine before
its in need of a rebuild. In order to achieve the power,
these engines are spun at very high RPMs resulting in
fast wear.

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:43:19 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Performance

I have a few bikes that pushed mileage farther than that. With proper oil
changes, valve adjustments and maintanance, they last for as long as any
big engine. Even though they are spun fast, they are also lighter, with
short stroke ratios. This reduces stress cosinderably. Thay also
generally appear to have better bearing sizes relative to the engine size.
Manufacturing tolerances are better too, at least from japan.

and for example, my one bike can be ridden all day never exceeding 4000
rpms, with a 8000rpm redline. My 77 f-150, with 460 saw past that on a
regular basis on the street, especially on the highway, but redlined at
about 6500 rpm. I think the 460 was being under more stress in that case.

Every bike i have ever seen that didn't make it to high mileage without
needing a rebuild, was from abuse, or lack of proper care. most truck
engines appear to be the same reason.

i feel ford should study the ZX-11 engine. Riding this bike, you never
need to use the rpm potential. it makes power, usable strong power, right
from idle to about 4500 rpms. everything past that is more power than most
people can handle, and just a whole lota fun.

sleddog

Don't forget one thing though.... you'll be lucky to get
60,000 miles out of a modern motorcycle engine before
its in need of a rebuild. In order to achieve the power,
these engines are spun at very high RPMs resulting in
fast wear.

Ken





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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:41:15 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.

A friend of mine unwittingly pointed something out to me ... the trucks
have a much taller intake for the 4.6 than the 'stangs do ... I have a
Cobra hood (the car is a GT, just the hood and stuff isn't) ... I was
wondering if that nice tall intake would fit under my hood or not ? Anyone
know the height of their intake from some reference point I can easily
measure on my GT ?

Anyone think this might actually help my power/torque ? I was thinking the
longer runners are straighter, which would lead to an increased velocity
and hence increased torque and power, but this may only be on the top end.
it may also be negated if the runners are considerably smaller in diameter
than the 'stang piece is... the 'stang piece is also plastic, which doesn't
leave me with lots of confidence since the 96's are known for cracking.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated


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: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:55:40 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Performance

Sleddog wrote:
>
> I have a few bikes that pushed mileage farther than that. With proper oil
> changes, valve adjustments and maintanance, they last for as long as any
> big engine. Even though they are spun fast, they are also lighter, with
> short stroke ratios. This reduces stress cosinderably. Thay also
> generally appear to have better bearing sizes relative to the engine size.
> Manufacturing tolerances are better too, at least from japan.

Sleddog,

I really hate to disagree with you on this one. I've owned several
motorcycles and the best I ever got out of an engine is 120,000 miles
before a rebuild was due. I take really good care of my bikes, oil
changes at 2,500 miles (the high RPMs cause greater shearing of oil
hence the short milage intervals between changes) and valve lash
adjustments every 7,500 miles. This bike was a Honda Silverwing,
which is a 650 V-twin (similar to the Motoguzzi). This bike, being
a touring motorcycle, is the last thing I'd abuse. Interestingly
enough, this bike used push rods. All my overhead cam bikes required
replacement of the cam chain well before 60,000 miles.

>
> and for example, my one bike can be ridden all day never exceeding 4000
> rpms, with a 8000rpm redline. My 77 f-150, with 460 saw past that on a
> regular basis on the street, especially on the highway, but redlined at
> about 6500 rpm. I think the 460 was being under more stress in that case.
>
> Every bike i have ever seen that didn't make it to high mileage without
> needing a rebuild, was from abuse, or lack of proper care. most truck
> engines appear to be the same reason.

What is high milage? Few motorcycles will ever see 200,000 miles.
The same can not be said for car engines. Nowadays people expect
200,000+ from a car. Every Escort I've owned has made it past that
mark easily.

> i feel ford should study the ZX-11 engine. Riding this bike, you never
> need to use the rpm potential. it makes power, usable strong power, right
> from idle to about 4500 rpms. everything past that is more power than most
> people can handle, and just a whole lota fun.
>
> sleddog

Granted, motorcycle engines make lots of HP per cc, but they are
also very high maintence. Oil changes twice as often as cars,
clutches every 30,000 miles, manual value adjustments every
7,500-15,000 miles, timing adjustment every 10,000 miles, spark
plugs every 7,500 miles, cam chains every 40,000 miles (sometimes
more, sometimes less), new chain every 15,000 miles, etc....

Motorcycles are sort of like the old VW Beetles, they are reliable,
but you're constantly maintaining them to keep them this way.
People won't put up with engines these days that require so much
of their time.

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:07:48 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Performance

well, we certainly do have some different experiences! I am not arguing,
but i must say that some things depend on the bike.

My 84 honda 700 nighthawk is a 4cyl, turns over 10,000 rpms. It needs the
following in maintence:
tires,
engine oil,
oil filter,
air filter.

gear oil for the shaft drive hypoid i have changed, but it came out like
brand new. no valve adjustments - ever - they are hydraulic lifters under
a OHC. Plugs, never changed and looking/working fine. no cam chain
adjustments ever made, or ever needed. original chain still.

cable adjustments are limited to throttle and choke, and then it is mostly
set once and done. Never needed to do anything with the fluid for the
clutch or brake cylinders.

Although mine does not have high mileage (like 100,000+), i have ridden
with many people that have the same bike and at over 100,000 miles, they
have only had to do 2 extra things with their bike - one is new rear
shocks, and the other is new fork oil, and seals perhaps (i didn't ever
ask).

i will admit that a big block ford will run longer, and farther under
severe abuse. but i do disagree that people expect high mileage from a
car, or anymore even a truck.

Very few people, when looking at the whole market, keep ther vehicles long
enough to require any major work due to high mileage. This of course is an
opinion based on my experiences, and may differ for other people.

and for what is is worth, i had a KZ440 that i used to street race. I
consistantly ran it past the redline, and after 40,000 miles of severe
abuse and not much reguler maintenance it still ran like the day i got it,
with 20,000 or so miles on it already. I have had better luck with bike
engines than anythig else, except my ford 460 big blocks.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Ken Payne[SMTP:kpayne ford-trucks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 3:55 PM
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Performance

Granted, motorcycle engines make lots of HP per cc, but they are
also very high maintence. Oil changes twice as often as cars,
clutches every 30,000 miles, manual value adjustments every
7,500-15,000 miles, timing adjustment every 10,000 miles, spark
plugs every 7,500 miles, cam chains every 40,000 miles (sometimes
more, sometimes less), new chain every 15,000 miles, etc....

Motorcycles are sort of like the old VW Beetles, they are reliable,
but you're constantly maintaining them to keep them this way.
People won't put up with engines these days that require so much
of their time.

Ken





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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:34:53 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE Perf - rebuild etc.

Just an FYI for those of you following along on the rebuild stuffs ... I've
updated the rebuild page
(http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/rebuild.html), still no pics, but
there's a link to it from my truck page now too.

Also have started on a tuneup and front spring install pages, both are in
the early stages and have very few pics, but you are welcome to take a peek
at them if you would like to.


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: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:17:38 EDT
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.

In a message dated 4/13/99 3:42:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wish iastate.edu
writes:


have a much taller intake for the 4.6 than the 'stangs do >>
Hey Wish,
I believe of any of the EFI vehicles, you will find that the truck has a
taller intake on it than the car motor version. This is to make the runners
longer which in turn promotes torque. And yes the taller intake should fit
since you have the cobra hood.
My friend has a 96 also and he has done something similar, but since he is
running in the mod motor shootout for the FFW series, I cant divulge much
more or I'll have to hunt you down and kill you! ={D
Later,
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:20:17 -0700
From: "J.S.H."
Subject: FTE Perf - OHC

"At any rate, expecting a maximum power motor its first year out is just
as ridiculous, as there is not nearly as much real world testing of such
a motor when compared with the one that's been around for 30 years."

I read in a trade journal today that the 2000 v-10 is going to have
15-20 more horsepower than 99s.Proves your point.
BTW from what I understand the new Lightning is the fastest truck ever
produced and considering this is a Truck list,I couldn't care less how
fast a new ca#$%* is.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:27:03 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.

>Hey Wish,
>I believe of any of the EFI vehicles, you will find that the truck has a
>taller intake on it than the car motor version. This is to make the runners
>longer which in turn promotes torque. And yes the taller intake should fit
>since you have the cobra hood.
>My friend has a 96 also and he has done something similar, but since he is
>running in the mod motor shootout for the FFW series, I cant divulge much
>more or I'll have to hunt you down and kill you! ={D

Oh come on ... please ? The nearest drag strip is hours from here, all I
do is autocross, so he'll never even know! :)

Thanks for the info though, I appreciate it, just want to be sure that the
truck one won't hit the hood if I do decide to go that route.


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: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:15:59 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC

I read in a trade journal today that the 2000 v-10 is going to have
15-20 more horsepower than 99s.Proves your point.
BTW from what I understand the new Lightning is the fastest truck ever
produced and considering this is a Truck list,I couldn't care less how
fast a new ca#$%* is.

So that gives 300hp for the V10 but guess what the new Licncoln
Navigator gets a 300 hp 5.4L. And GM is sure to step up their current
300hp 6.3L V-8. And Dodge is suppose to have a sport truck with a
powertech 4.7L V-8 making hp somewhere near that range. I like
competition though...I really love eating those little R/T Dakotas up!
Being a Lightning fan I wish that were true...but you must of forgotten
about something caled a Typhoon! Made by that other comapny twin turbo
intecooled V-6! OTOH the new Lightning only runs 14.4s that is kinda of
lame for a supercharged motor. All of us Lightning guys were expecting
something more especially for 30K!!! I will not be buying a new one.
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:19:41 -0400
From: "Thomas J. Teixeira"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 4.6 intake.

At 02:41 PM 4/13/99 -0500, William S Hart wrote:
>A friend of mine unwittingly pointed something out to me ... the trucks
>have a much taller intake for the 4.6 than the 'stangs do ... I have a
>Cobra hood (the car is a GT, just the hood and stuff isn't) ... I was
>wondering if that nice tall intake would fit under my hood or not ? Anyone
>know the height of their intake from some reference point I can easily
>measure on my GT ?
>
>Anyone think this might actually help my power/torque ? I was thinking the
>longer runners are straighter, which would lead to an increased velocity
>and hence increased torque and power, but this may only be on the top end.
>it may also be negated if the runners are considerably smaller in diameter
>than the 'stang piece is... the 'stang piece is also plastic, which doesn't
>leave me with lots of confidence since the 96's are known for cracking.
>
>Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated

Longer intake runners will generate more torque at low RPM but less at high
RPM. The intake on the Yamaha engine in the SHO (and also in some of the
Duratec engines in the Contours) have both long and short intake runners
and the engine computer keeps the short runners closed at low RPM to get
the best of both.

Tom Teixeiramailto:tjt world.std.com
94 MTX 69K, 91 SHO+ 89KNESHOC/SHO Registry http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://world.std.com/~tjt

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:05:49 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

Garr&Pam wrote:
>
> I read in a trade journal today that the 2000 v-10 is going to have
> 15-20 more horsepower than 99s.Proves your point.
> BTW from what I understand the new Lightning is the fastest truck ever
> produced and considering this is a Truck list,I couldn't care less how
> fast a new ca#$%* is.
>
> So that gives 300hp for the V10 but guess what the new Licncoln
> Navigator gets a 300 hp 5.4L. And GM is sure to step up their current
> 300hp 6.3L V-8. And Dodge is suppose to have a sport truck with a
> powertech 4.7L V-8 making hp somewhere near that range. I like
> competition though...I really love eating those little R/T Dakotas up!
> Being a Lightning fan I wish that were true...but you must of forgotten
> about something caled a Typhoon! Made by that other comapny twin turbo
> intecooled V-6! OTOH the new Lightning only runs 14.4s that is kinda of
> lame for a supercharged motor. All of us Lightning guys were expecting
> something more especially for 30K!!! I will not be buying a new one.
> Chris
> 94 Lightning #381
> NLOC #238

You think even a dealer will get one for 30k? I believe the 'fastest
truck' claim was made on top speed. With 14.4s, what's in the rearend?

30k will buy a low mileage original Lightning and the other half could
be used to make say a fierce early model Bronco with a crate 560HP 460.
Or....

30k for essentially a great toy ain't change to most people. But better
than Daimler/Chrysler's offering; in the 40s. My biggest thrill was to
see Ford put a performance oriented truck on the market. Even though
it's a limited marketing tool, the success could push Ford's future
performace efforts closer to the 'do' pile. Or the aftermarket for mod
engine performance parts.

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:13:09 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: FTE Perf - Gas

92 octane is now $1.87/gal in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia and
Nevada. Today. At 7MPG, my 460 is requiring lots of gas stops.

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:27:40 -0400
From: Brad Smith
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Gas

At 06:13 PM 4/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
> 92 octane is now $1.87/gal in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia and
>Nevada. Today. At 7MPG, my 460 is requiring lots of gas stops.
>
>George Miller
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
I hope the Southeast doesn't see this anytime soon, I can still run 92 for
~ $1.15/gal. My 8 mpg 429 can't stand $1.87/gal!!! This is a problem we
should all get used too though.. ~ 24 years of crude left, and ~ 16 years
of oil shale (which will be a much more expensive refining process). I
hope ours toys don't go by the wayside.... And for many of us, our jobs as
well!

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: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:09:04 -0500
From: Sven Setterdahl
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Speed rules...

> Everyone has their thoughts and to see the light you have to hear both
> sides! No offense takne here, but I did notice you own an OHC!!! J/K
> I think anyone that has an opinion on this should jump in.
> Something else that bothers me though is that Fords factory ratings seem
> to be high and GMs seems to be under rated.
>

Why is it that when facts are placed squarely in front of somenone's face, they
will flat out ignore them if they don't agree with the person's opinion? Below
is a quote that I read on this very list showing the dyno results from a test of
the GM 5.3, Dodge 360, and Ford 5.4L. Which engines factory ratings are overly
optimistic?!?

Every Ford modular engine out does it's replacement in every sense, except for
the 6.8L/460 class. More horsepower, more torque, much broader powerband. Have
any of you naysayers actually looked at the '99 5.4L torque curves? Very flat.
Peak torque is somewhat of a misnomer since it's not a peak like you are used to
seeing. It rises sharply until around 2000rpm and then gradually increases until
is hits the top and then gradually decreased until peak horsepower is achieved,
then drops off.


[quote]
Chris,

Strangely enough, EVERY SINGLE TEST I've seen that has placed the Dodge 8.0
against the Ford 6.8 has concluded that the Ford is faster, both loaded and
unloaded. EVERY ONE! And that is with 1200cc less displacement and a "lower
power rating".

And when it comes to Dodge's V8 gas engines, turn out the lights! Check
these chassis dyno figures out from truck trend:

Chevy 5.3L, OHV, 3.73
r/min hp ft/lb
3000 123 214
3500 145 217
4000 169 220
4500 182 212
5000 178 188

MFR rating 270 5000, 315 4000

Dodge 5.9, OHV, 3.92
r/min hp ft/lb
3000 143 249
3500 171 257
4000 190 250
4500 194 228
5000 176 187

MFR rating 245 4000, 335 3200

Ford 5.4, SOHC, 3.55
r/min hp ft/lb
3000 159 280
3500 184 277
4000 207 269
4500 206 240
5000 167 176

MFR rating 260 4500, 345 2300

Strange. OHC is putting MORE _torque_ to the ground...at a LOWER r/min, with
TALLER gears than either of the pushrod engines.
[quote]

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:41:14 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Mod enginez

I have to drop in on the OHC engine debate.
These engines are the Fords of the future of that there is no doubt.
Today however, they have a long way to go.
Ok I'll admit that I have some prejudice. The pure bone stock Mod. engine in
my dad's Tbird melted down a week ago!
Why?
O2 sensor failed engine went lean; pistons melted!
Ok, there were several systems that failed in order to have this happen
because there were no indicator lights that came on, on the dash.
But this is not the first of these engines that I know of that has bit the
dust recently.
I'm guessing that Ford knows that they have a problem as they have been
stepping up and replacing them even after the warrantee period has expired.
Can these engines make power I have read about it, but never yet have I seen
it. That is because I don't know anyone that has bothered to build one.
Simply put the dollar spent to unit of power produced is not cost effective.
YET!
The day will come but for now...
If you like tech, for tech's sake, then this is the engine for you.
I happen to like power! Dollar for dollar these engines just don't do it.

Muel.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:46:07 -0500
From: "Robert F. Davis"
Subject: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's

Not to be nosy, but just what kind of trucks are you guys driving to get such
low/poor fuel mileage ??
I had a friend who put a 460 in a FORD 1ton Crew Cab dually a few years back,
and used it to tow a 36ft travel trailer and he got 7mpg, which BTW was a big
improvement over the 5mpg he got with the 390.
I've had a 429 & a 460 both in the same truck, a 56 F100 panel, and they
each gave
10-14 mpg, depending on how i drove. The 429 was the best on mpg & power
(lower ET's) over the 460. The 460 has better low end torgue (an advantage
of cu.in.)
One summer I drove to Colorado & back (approx 2500mi) & pulled a car
trailer (empty)
the whole trip AND averaged 9.9 mpg.
SO tell me what kind of cam(s) & carburetion you use. Inquiring minds want
to know !!

"Beater" Bob

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:32:51 -0700
From: "Rob Bryan"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?

> Funny I was looking through a Motor Trend today are they were comparing
> SUVs and the Navigator had the highest rear end ratio at 3:27 but had
> the lowest overall ratio so it is not geared higher at all.

I have that one right here in front of me. According to this copy of MT, the
Nav has 3.73 gears (and the 17" tire package). When combined with the
4R100's overdrive gear, the FD ratio is 2.65:1. The only truck geared taller
there was the Range Rover, which with 3.54 axle gears had a FD of of 2.58:1.
You really need to get your glasses checked if you believe that that article
said that the Nav is geared the shortest.

> 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 last head-to-head test I saw was in MotorTrend, and the V10 Ford posted
faster acceleration times than a Dodge V10. Both unloaded and loaded. I'd
say that that is more than keeping up.

>The 5.4L powered Fords get wasted by GMs new 5.3L(?)

Yes, it is 5.3L, and you must be caught in some pushrod reality distortion
field as the data doesn't back that up.

> Z28s still outrun Cobras and GTs, and guess what thegas mileage is about the
same if as the pushrods,

Not this year it doesn't (at least the Cobra). And compared to the Cobra,
the Z28SS only has an acceleration advantage over 60MPH where the better
aerodynamics of the Camaro body starts playing a role. And let's not forget
that that SS has 1.1L more displacement and lower gearing (3.42 vs 3.27).
That is with the data in the latest Road & Track, if you care to check.

>If anyone has an example of the new OHC outrunning any....


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.