perf-list-digest Thursday, April 15 1999 Volume 02 : Number 087



=======================================================================
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 - What a Truck!!
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
Re: FTE Perf - Mod enginez
Re: FTE Perf - OHC
FTE Perf - OHC's and multiple valves
FTE Perf - FE intakes
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
FTE Perf - Has anyone.....
Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings
Re: FTE Perf - OHC
Re: FTE Perf - Re: Speed rules...
Re: FTE Perf - Has anyone.....
RE: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's
Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings
RE: FTE Perf - OHC's and multiple valves
FTE Perf - New lightning (was: OHC)
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings
Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings
FTE Perf - Horsepower v/s Torque explained......AND understood !
Re: FTE Perf - New lightning (was: OHC)
Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings
Re: FTE Perf - Mod enginez
Re: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's
Re: FTE Perf - 84 2.8
Re: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's
FTE Perf - carb into fuel injected, 85 ranger
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
Re: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:53:23 -0400
From: The Neighbors
Subject: FTE Perf - What a Truck!!

Have any of you seen that '40 Ford pickup in this month's "Street
Rodder"? Ooooooohhhhh! 100% Ford, to boot!
- --
Don Neighbors
'54 F250 Named Grover

"Any dropped tool or part will automatically fall into the most
innaccesible part of the vehicle."

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:26:22 EDT
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

Gang,
I hate to bring this up..., The Cyclone was the fastest truck in the 1/4 not
the Typhoon which was Blazer based. The fastest truck ever produced, limited
run or not, was the first or second year runs of the Dodge "Little Red
Truck/Warlock". I believe those years were 1978/1979. Those trucks had all
the short run and top end. Look it up in the back issues of Car and Driver
and/or Truckin Magazine. Even if they were ugly as sin with the gaudy semi
style stacks out the bed sides....uuggghhhh!
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:19:34 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Mod enginez

>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.
>

Uhm... no lights came on ? I find that hard to believe, most guys can't
cut the MAF post out without tripping the check engine lite. As for others
melting down, the only one's I've really heard of are running about 9psi on
their blowers and didn't get a chip to straighten the fuel mixture out. It
sounds to me like there might have been some other problem other than an O2
sensor ... these engines have really gotten a bad rap because of people
looking so hard for problems.


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, 14 Apr 1999 08:25:52 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC

>So that gives 300hp for the V10 but guess what the new Licncoln
>Navigator gets a 300 hp 5.4L.

Yes, but the Lincoln is running a DOHC 5.4 to get that 300 ... Just a hunch
you wouldn't really want to hook up quite the same things to it, remember
torque is the answer to a truck's power problems.


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!

Aren't they fun ? They think a nice light pickup will do really well, and
it will, if you can get traction! I've even surprised a few with my tired
old 360...can't wait to see what the 390 will do to them (no one will race
my 'stang :(


>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!

The typhoon was quick ... what 0-60 in 6 seconds, but I doubt it had the
top end to go along with it. Not to mention it was quite a bit smaller,
does it even fall into the truck category ? j/k, but seriously it was a
compact pickup, so Ford's claim could still stand based on full size
trucks. Someone mentioned the lil-red express and the warlock. I've seen
a few of these. One with a built 360 was pretty mean, but I can't say that
stock they really impressed me much. Guess I've never seen them run, but I
never expect a lot from a stock late 70's vehicle either ...


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.

Lame for a supercharged motor ? Didn't we have the discussion about
maximum outputs and stuff once before ? there's always room for
improvement. Not to mention stock for stock, you'd be giving those new GT
drivers a darned good run for their money, maybe even beating some of them.
I'd say 14.4 for a truck is fairly not bad, then add in that its a stock
truck! .... now if they only came in 4wd ....

:)


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, 14 Apr 1999 09:43:42 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE Perf - OHC's and multiple valves

George Ramsower writes a wondrful article including:

>> 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.

I'm not very technically educated to the makings of multiple valves and OHC's,
but several years ago I noticed that IHC (now Navistar) had multiple valves(V8
and intakes only I believe) in one of their Diesels. Don't remember which one
and have no idea if it is still in production or not, but the point is this:
Diesels do not turn High rpms(in relation to Gas), but the mechanic that was
working on this particular engine said it was much stronger than any other
engine in its class. Does anyone here know the history of this engine??? Does
it not relate to "flow" and low rpm torque?? How does it differ from the
multiple valve arrangements above that are for only High RPM flow??

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:51:25 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE Perf - FE intakes

Well I started cleaning up the intake I plan on putting on my 390. Thought
I'd do a comparo between the 2 that I had (both 4V's I also have a 2V, but
its sitting on the 360).

The one I plan on using is a C5AE intake, from a 65 Galaxie 390. The other
I had was a D5TE intake. Setting them next to each other I about kicked
myself ... I could have sworn the C5 intake was much taller, but it was the
same height! The major difference was the egr hole for the D5 intake.
Flipping them over revealed the same pans underneath, an extra dent at the
back of the intake that serves no obvious purpose was also on the C5 intake.

But wait! Those intake ports look different. Measuring them revealed the
intake height was about 1.75 inches on the D5 ... on the C5? almost 2 full
inches! Wow, that's a heck of a difference ...

Anyway thought I'd pass this along to you guys ... the main differences
then are :

1) firing order on back of manifold for rear hinging hood
2) port size, nearly 1/4"
3) extra hole for EGR on newer one
4) dimple on rear of C5 intake, purpose unknown.

This will hopefully appear on my rebuild page someday. I also got pictures
so hopefully you guys can see the differences without actually hauling
these intakes around ... hey that's why my backs sore today I bet ... wow
now I feel better ... :)

Laters


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, 14 Apr 1999 10:19:25 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

FLR150 AOL.COM wrote:
>
> Gang,
> I hate to bring this up..., The Cyclone was the fastest truck in the 1/4 not
> the Typhoon which was Blazer based. The fastest truck ever produced, limited
> run or not, was the first or second year runs of the Dodge "Little Red
> Truck/Warlock". I believe those years were 1978/1979. Those trucks had all
> the short run and top end. Look it up in the back issues of Car and Driver
> and/or Truckin Magazine. Even if they were ugly as sin with the gaudy semi
> style stacks out the bed sides....uuggghhhh!

Thanks Wayne I was going to correct that but I thought someone else what
catch one...I am sure the Typhoon is second though! What was the top end
on those Dodge...I though 140...that is what the new Lightning is listed
as also...what was top end on the Syclone? I am sure the can go past
140, they may have a limiter though, like the previous Lightnings which
when removed should also reach the 140 mark!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:20:48 -0700
From: Margit Walden
Subject: FTE Perf - Has anyone.....

Has anyone had experience with trickflow heads. they sound like the best

after market aluminum heads for the price. The ford svo catalog says
the rear sump oil pan requires mods to use a h.v. oil pump. Does anyone

know what mods are nesassary? Will it all work with the svo windage
tray??


Bronco Buster

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:14:59 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings

>I'm not very technically educated to the makings of multiple valves and OHC's,
>but several years ago I noticed that IHC (now Navistar) had multiple valves(V8
>and intakes only I believe) in one of their Diesels. Don't remember which one
>and have no idea if it is still in production or not, but the point is this:
>Diesels do not turn High rpms(in relation to Gas), but the mechanic that was
>working on this particular engine said it was much stronger than any other
>engine in its class. Does anyone here know the history of this engine???
Does
>it not relate to "flow" and low rpm torque?? How does it differ from the
>multiple valve arrangements above that are for only High RPM flow??
>
This might come down to the displacement thing again too ... it may not run
may revs, but if the pistons are big enough, even at low revs you will have
huge intake velocities, which creates inertial force problems, so by
opening up the intake side (the slow side) you will allow it to get a
better charge in. A large engine at low revs versus a small engine at high
revs may actually have very similar intake and exhaust velocities simply
because of the displacement ... the equation used for sizing a carb even
shows this :

Engine Size (CID) X Maximum RPM / 3456 = CFM 100% VE*

If you can make up for CID with RPM, then you will end up with the same
flow rate ...

Anyway that's just my dabbling, I should've paid more attention in my
tractor power class, but I kept the book and occasionally read it ... found
this interesting last night :

75-80% Volumetric efficiencies are assumed for gas engines (yes race cars
do better than 100)
85-90% for diesel motors ...

That means the diesel will need more intake than the gas if they are the
same size, but that's also a generalization.

We also had the long stroke = more low end torque conversation ... As the
stroke to bore ratio goes up, the friction/rev goes up, so that means a
longer stroke motor will have more friction ... so even if a longer stroke
does produce more torque, it will still have more friction to over come
which is why these peaks occur lower.

Also found part of the reason for the smaller displacement engines
producing more power on lower grades of gas ... you can bump the
compression ratio higher with a smaller bore, this increases thermal
efficiencies, which increase the power ... This kind of explains the theory
behind the modular motors to me, they have long strokes with small bores,
and run higher compression ratios (aluminum heads don't hurt this either),
so they are able to make more or similar power from less displacement...
add to that the efficiency of the ohc and you can get some really flat
curves because you have reduced the inertial weight that the motor has to
accelerate ...


Anyway that's just my ramblings on things ...
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, 14 Apr 1999 10:37:24 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC

So that gives 300hp for the V10 but guess what the new Licncoln
Navigator gets a 300 hp 5.4L.
Yes, but the Lincoln is running a DOHC 5.4 to get that 300 ... Just a
hunch you wouldn't really want to hook up quite the same things to it,
remember torque is the answer to a truck's power problems.

You are correct there, no arguments from me!

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!

Aren't they fun ? They think a nice light pickup will do really well,
and it will, if you can get traction! I've even surprised a few with my
tired old 360...can't wait to see what the 390 will do to them (no one
will race my 'stang :(

I test drov one kept hearing so much about them what a disappointment,
first of they just seem over rated. Okay off line the line the will
willing smoke the tires, get out on the street doing 55 and nail it, it
just doesn't move. Then a couple of weeks later I finally got one beside
me a the light...I have had 5speed 5.2L Dakotas stay closer than he did.
Though I have mentioned this to other R/T owners they seem to agree but
after they break in the get alot better. The Indy full size trucks are
fun to beat to, along with most mustang owners and the look of Z owners
when they can't get away until 75 mph! I LOVE MY TRUCK.

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!
The typhoon was quick ... what 0-60 in 6 seconds, but I doubt it had the
top end to go along with it. Not to mention it was quite a bit smaller,
does it even fall into the truck category ? j/k, but seriously it was a
compact pickup, so Ford's claim could still stand based on full size
trucks. Someone mentioned the lil-red express and the warlock. I've
seen a few of these. One with a built 360 was pretty mean, but I can't
say that stock they really impressed me much. Guess I've never seen
them run, but I never expect a lot from a stock late 70's vehicle either
...
They ran low to mid 15s from the factory...and I think I remember
something about 140 top end...I find this hard to believe with a 3 speed
auto! They also got 8mpg..makes me feel good about my 13...LOL
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.

Lame for a supercharged motor ? Didn't we have the discussion about
maximum outputs and stuff once before ? there's always room for
improvement. Not to mention stock for stock, you'd be giving those new
GT drivers a darned good run for their money, maybe even beating some of
them. I'd say 14.4 for a truck is fairly not bad, then add in that its a
stock truck! .... now if they only came in 4wd ....

You would think the new lightning with a supercharger would outrun the
old with a S/C but just a S/C alone puts most stock Lightnings into the
13s. And you still have lots of cash left over.On top of that the new
Lightnings handle well especially for a truck but not as good as the old
one, and they take longer to stop! And lastly alot harder to
modify...the most obvious modifiaction would be to upgrade the
supercharger pulley..but it is pressed fit and if you ever take it off
they will know and there goes that warranty. OTOH hand I have heard
that Ford though about making it AWD but realizing that did not have the
parts to do this and it would cost a fortune to make it then done away
with the idea.

What I would like to see is the Tremor concept brought to life...but
only D*dge has enough courage to build something like that!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:51:23 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: Speed rules...

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.

I haven't driven a 99 and I know the power is SUPPOSE to be up but I
have driven a 98 extended cab 2WD wit hthe 5.4L and I was not at all
impressed. It cruised nice on the Highway but it was a sluggish off the
line. At 260hp and 345 ft lbs tq it i rated more powerful then the old
Lightnings....RACE ONE! Then you see what I mean by over rated...FYI the
original Lightning was rated at 240hp and 340ft lbs tq.

As far as the Suburban versus Navigator...what were tow ratings from the
factory, I am just asking I have a hunch that the Suburban carries a
significant i advantage I may wrong though. The Surbuban is often used
to work...I have never seen a Navigator doing anyhting other than
driving, there is nothing wrong with that just that you probably got to
trucks aiming to do to different things!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:58:10 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Has anyone.....

Margit Walden wrote:
>
> Has anyone had experience with trickflow heads. they sound like the best
>
> after market aluminum heads for the price. The ford svo catalog says
> the rear sump oil pan requires mods to use a h.v. oil pump. Does anyone
>
> know what mods are nesassary? Will it all work with the svo windage
> tray??

Trick Flow requires special additions...you have to use what they
reommend..that doesn't mean they are bad..just take more time and money
to set up! Edelbrock seems to have the superior head for quality, while
the TFs may make a little more power, the edlebrocks cost less are
better quality and with a little work can give the same numbers as TFs,
and you get to use the pushrods and rockers of your choice instead of
having to stay with TFs recommendations! I have ask this question on the
Lightning list so it is not my personal experience just the info I got,
I was also told if I was going all out to get Canfield heads...they are
pricey though!
What are you putting them on?
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:10:00 -0700
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's

With my 429, I decided I wasn't going to look at gas mileage after I put the
750 CFM carb on it. I'll take "hang on power" to gas mileage any day.

DMO
55F100

> ----------
> From: Sleddog[SMTP:kevkem epix.net]
> Reply To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:39 AM
> To: 'perf-list ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: RE: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's
>
>
> What if i told you my one ford uses a few gallons to get on the trailer,
> off, 300 ft at WFO, and back on the trailer again?
>
> sleddog
>
> btw, my street 460's never got more than 10 mpg.
>
> == 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, 14 Apr 1999 11:14:28 -0400
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings

Another reason for the smaller bores, a bore over 4" produces increased
emissions. I read that in an article when Dodge first brought out thier
V10. It was better from an emissions stand point for Dodge to add two
cylinders and keep the bore displacement down then to build a large V8
with a bore over 4".

Bryan

snipped
>Also found part of the reason for the smaller displacement engines
>producing more power on lower grades of gas ... you can bump the
>compression ratio higher with a smaller bore, this increases thermal
>efficiencies, which increase the power ... This kind of explains the
>theory
>behind the modular motors to me, they have long strokes with small
>bores,
>and run higher compression ratios (aluminum heads don't hurt this
>either),
>so they are able to make more or similar power from less
>displacement...
>add to that the efficiency of the ohc and you can get some really flat
>curves because you have reduced the inertial weight that the motor has
>to
>accelerate ...
>
>
>Anyway that's just my ramblings on things ...
>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

___________________________________________________________________
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, 14 Apr 1999 12:40:15 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - OHC's and multiple valves

I am just speculating here, but diesels need alot of swirl in the chamber
for good ignition, burn, and efficiency. The 2 intakes may have different
cam timing to achieve help in those areas. Also, if it was a forced
induction engine that can help too.

Another possibility is that is was a long stroke, small bore engine. With
a single intake the vavlve area would be severely limited even for low
rpms, 2 valves would help that.

And one more, most important point. Diesels are a whole nother animal.
They always flow the same volume of air, at a given rpm (without a turbo
that it). they are not throttled like a gas engine. They actually need
better breathing all the time for low load efficieancy. Note the large
exhaust pipes on modern deisels like the summins ram for example.

sleddog

- ----------
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com[SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 9:43 AM
To: Perf-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE Perf - OHC's and multiple valves

I'm not very technically educated to the makings of multiple valves and
OHC's,
but several years ago I noticed that IHC (now Navistar) had multiple
valves(V8
and intakes only I believe) in one of their Diesels. Don't remember which
one
and have no idea if it is still in production or not, but the point is
this:
Diesels do not turn High rpms(in relation to Gas), but the mechanic that
was
working on this particular engine said it was much stronger than any other
engine in its class. Does anyone here know the history of this engine???
Does
it not relate to "flow" and low rpm torque?? How does it differ from the
multiple valve arrangements above that are for only High RPM flow??

Azie
Ardmore, Al.



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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:50:09 +0000
From: Erston Reisch
Subject: FTE Perf - New lightning (was: OHC)

Chris wrote:
> 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.

That's stock, but I think there is a lot of potential for the beast to go
faster: with the 5.4l intercooled supercharger setup, I think the aftermarket
is going to start boosting the hell out of the things. Combine this with a
rear end gear change and some street/drag tires and I think it'll be even
faster.

My biggest beef is the damn thing comes with the useless flareside bed, which
holds less and (to my eye) looks worse aerodynamically. If I got one, I would
want the styleside... not that I'll blow $30k on a vehicle anytime soon.

- - Erston ('90 F-150 XLT-L, standard cab, short styleside)



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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:59:09 EDT
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

In a message dated 4/14/99 10:14:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
garrpam netgsi.com writes:


on those Dodge...I though 140...that is what the new Lightning is listed
as also...what was top end on the Syclone? I am sure the can go past
140, they may have a limiter though, like the previous Lightnings which
when removed should also reach the 140 mark! >>

I'll have to find the article again to give exact numbers. I believe it was
in the 150 range for the Lil Red Truck. These trucks though made by Mopar
(Many Odd Parts Assembled Ridiculously) were the fastest American made
production vehicle for that year...even smashing the Corvette in horsepower
and performance. Now the Syclone on the other hand was similarly built and
geared like the Grand National(S10 with the GN drivetrain) so as with the GN
the top end was weak..I believe they topped out at 125 if my actual buttmeter
remembers right(My neighbor had one...sweet little truck), but then again the
computer tinkering age hadn't really kicked in yet. I'll have to call my
buddy and see if he ever beefed up the turbo and did the chip.
Later,
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:03:05 EDT
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings

OK Gang,
I wasn't going to play my trump card yet, but since this thread has gone on
for over a week now (EEEGADS)! I will contact my friend who is one of the
Supervisors in the FOMOCO Factory (the one that blew up by the way) for the
Tooling and Machining division. If anyone can give some in depth info on
these heads and motors, it would be him. I'll email him all these threads and
then post his comments to the list...cool?
Later
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:14:05 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings

>Tooling and Machining division. If anyone can give some in depth info on
>these heads and motors, it would be him. I'll email him all these threads and
>then post his comments to the list...cool?

Fine by me, but no sense losin a friend by drowning him in email, so if you
don't it won't bother me either.


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, 14 Apr 1999 17:37:14 -0500
From: Phil DeSanto
Subject: FTE Perf - Horsepower v/s Torque explained......AND understood !

>
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 unless 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.

Thank you George Ramsower ! This topic was discussed at length here a
while back, but your definition is by far the most easily understood .
___________________________________________________________________
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, 14 Apr 1999 20:20:44 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - New lightning (was: OHC)

Erston Reisch wrote:
>
> Chris wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's stock, but I think there is a lot of potential for the beast to go
> faster: with the 5.4l intercooled supercharger setup, I think the aftermarket
> is going to start boosting the hell out of the things. Combine this with a
> rear end gear change and some street/drag tires and I think it'll be even
> faster.
>
> My biggest beef is the damn thing comes with the useless flareside bed, which
> holds less and (to my eye) looks worse aerodynamically. If I got one, I would
> want the styleside... not that I'll blow $30k on a vehicle anytime soon.
>
I myself like the looks of the stepside..used to own a Splash but it
just was too slow! I just drive though and have no intention upon
working my truck! I can see where that comes into play...I am sure the
aftermarket will come on with the Lightnings. The stepside may not be as
aerodynamic as a style side...but I bet it has less drag then the
original? Anybody do this for sure?
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:23:45 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC's, multi valves and engine design ramblings

Tooling and Machining division. If anyone can give some in depth info on
these heads and motors, it would be him. I'll email him all these
threads and then post his comments to the list...cool?
Fine by me, but no sense losin a friend by drowning him in email, so if
you don't it won't bother me either.

Yeah I agree if he wanted to be part of this he would probably join. He
probably get enough of the questions at work!
Good idea though
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 99 17:40:01 PDT
From: don neomagic.com (Donald Paauw)
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Mod enginez

> Uhm... no lights came on ? I find that hard to believe, most guys can't
> cut the MAF post out without tripping the check engine lite. As for others
> melting down, the only one's I've really heard of are running about 9psi on
> their blowers and didn't get a chip to straighten the fuel mixture out. It
> sounds to me like there might have been some other problem other than an O2
> sensor ... these engines have really gotten a bad rap because of people
> looking so hard for problems.
>
A couple of years ago, the 4.6L in my '92 Crown Vic seized at 52k miles.
The dealer's mechanic said there was 1/2 quart of oil in it. We both check
the oil regularly and since the local dealer's shop is a disaster, we took
the car to an independent mechanic who drained out 4 more quarts. He said
he found a cracked EGR tube that was blowing on the head and thought that
was a more likely cause. After months of haggling with Ford, we gave up
and told the mechanic to put in a Ford rebuilt engine. He said one Ford sent
him was also seized on delivery, so Ford sent a brand new engine. I'm still
very pi$ off at Ford.

>
> Just my 2cents

Just my $5,000

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:54:43 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's

I started with an almost stock 429/'82 Bronco. I've since ran several
460 combinations in that rig and never got above 9mpg. Various cam
specs, always headers, aftermarket ignition, single and dual plane
manifolds, Holly/Edelbrock/Carter/Dominator carbs from 600-900cfm,
CJ/DOVE heads and always C6 with 3:50 rearend. No matter which combo,
the mpg has always been consistant. So has the performance. It's the
thrill factor; extremely addictive and blind to economic logic.

George Miller


"Robert F. Davis" wrote:
>
> 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:37:09 -0400
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 84 2.8

jon doe wrote:
>
> My friend wants to put some pep in a 84 2.8 4x4 auto . Can anyone h+lp?
>

Go to http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://racerwalsh.com and get the 4 BBl manifold and carb, maybe a
cam and research for headers; beyond that go to
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://advanceadapters.com and check the V-8 conversion.

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:59:55 -0400
From: Brad Smith
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - 7-8 MPG 460's

At 12:46 AM 4/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>
>
I'm running a pretty high lift cam(got the numbers around here somewhere),
with a Torker intake (massive air flow), Hooker headers, and a Holley 750
with vac. sec. Funny thing is I get my 8 mpg pulling or not. I pull a
boat alot, and even with the weight I get the same mileage. Kinda odd, but
Im not complaining. I think part of my problem is the cam/intake
combination that I have, not exactly perfect for each other, but I was
young and impressionable when I built the motor, and I've learned alot from
it. Don't get me wrong, she'll still pull a house down, and even get up
with the mustangs when I'm running 75 mph down the highway, I just know I
can do better, and intend to soon...

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, 14 Apr 1996 10:23:09 -0600
From: "James Draughn"
Subject: FTE Perf - carb into fuel injected, 85 ranger

There is a guy I know who wanted to know about upgrading his
engine/exaust in his ford ranger. Its about an 85, carburated. He wants to
know approx cost for turning his engine into fuel injected, and how feasible
the project would be. the engine is a a 2.6 liter, v-6 if I remember
correctly. He also wanted to know if there are any bolt on exaust
enhancments like headers and where to buy them.
thanks for your guys time.

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:25:25 -0400
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

snipped

Now the Syclone on the other hand was similarly built
>and
>geared like the Grand National(S10 with the GN drivetrain) so as with
>the GN
>the top end was weak..I believe they topped out at 125 if my actual
>buttmeter
>remembers right(My neighbor had one...sweet little truck), but then
>again the
>computer tinkering age hadn't really kicked in yet. I'll have to call
>my
>buddy and see if he ever beefed up the turbo and did the chip.
>Later,
>Wayne Foy
>'94 Flareside SC
>"Hazardous Material"
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
>http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

They were electronically limited like the GN's. As a side note. The FBI
bought a few of the GN's but had the speed limiter removed. They also
had the timer for max boost removed, meaning the engine would stay under
boost as long as the gas pedal was hammered. The regular GN's had a time
limit on the duration of boost that the engine was allowed to make. It
is really funny watching one drop out of boost on the freeway!!!!! The
top spend of these vehicle was never revealed, but the article quoted one
source as saying something like "you would not believe a Regal could go
that fast!!!"

Bryan

___________________________________________________________________....

---

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.