FTE Perf - F100 lift

perf-list-digest Friday, April 16 1999 Volume 02 : Number 088

=======================================================================
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 - F100 lift
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
Re: FTE Perf - Has anyone.....
Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning
FTE Perf - Suspension Question
FTE Perf - 2.3 engine swapout
FTE Perf - Re: Mod Enginez
Re: FTE Perf - Re: Mod Enginez
FTE Perf - Forwared for FLR150

aol.com
RE: FTE Perf - Suspension Question
Re: FTE Perf - Suspension Question
RE: FTE Perf - Suspension Question
Re: FTE Perf - Suspension Question
Re: FTE Perf - Performance
Re: FTE Perf - Speed rules...
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:55:40 EDT
From: WJeff43

AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - F100 lift

I have a '79 F100 2wd, and as you may know, the wheels are way up in the
fender wells. I went to the local off-road guys, but they said because of
the steering column being one-piece, if you do a body lift the steering wheel
ends up in your lap. How about suspension spacers? Does anyone make a kit
to lift this truck 3" or so?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:19:11 EDT
From: FLR150

AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

In a message dated 4/15/99 2:04:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bubba-g500xl

juno.com writes:

that fast!!!"
>>
If any of you travel through Texas a lot, look out on the I-10 as you cross
from LA to TX. There is usually a trooper sitting there radaring, and guess
what he drives? I don't think the FBI were the only ones who tinkered with
those cars.
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 18:28:27 -0700
From: Margit Walden
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Has anyone.....

forgot to give what will be under the trick flow heads(if i buy them). the
engine is a 351w . flat top je. pistons prepped stock rods, arp bolts,
balanced. the cam will be approx 220-230 dur., .500-520 lift, edelbrock perf.
rpm. manifold(wiend stealth ?) 750 edelbrock carb. it's all going in a 70
bronco. 4 spd. close ratio top loader,4.88 gears detroit in the rear, power
lock up front and 33" good year m/ts.

broncobuster

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:15:37 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - OHC + New Lightning

> 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.

This car was released but only a few of them...they werre called GNX!!!
Ring a bell to anyone. They were awesome. Even though it was a
BU....ICK!!!!!!!

Yeah I have seen numerous vechicles when they hit their cutoffs...I had
an Escort Gt and from the light any of these mention cars would kill me
put for top end I could run beside them and they would hit their
limiters and off I went...That would make me mad!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill
Subject: FTE Perf - Suspension Question

Ok, here the situation.. I have 1964 F100 1/2 ton short bed.. front
suspension is '77 Volare, rear is stock (with overload leafs) springs..
this set up dropped the front end about 3".

I currently have this drive train: '76 302 (tired)/ rebuilt C4 / 9"
with 3.25 gears..

I am installing a '70 351W (slightly warmed up - mild cam, 4bbl,
headers (or '69 stock exhaust manifolds)).. will get a lot warmer as I
change cams, heads, etc, in the near future.

Tire size currently: P235/75 15..

Now here is the problem... with the old 302... I smoke the tires (hell
on a hot day in San Antonio, I can light them up taking off in second)
if I get in any hurry when the light changes to green...

I know I am getting no weight transfer because of the mix match of
suspensions front to rear.. when I put 351W in it, it will only get
worse... (embarassing when a 68 toyota 4 banger beats you off the line
'cause you are sittin and smokin')..

Looking for suggestions beyond weight in the bed, tubbing the rear and
puttin on drag slicks.. am pondering a four bar rear suspension or a
mono leaf, to soften up the rear (as well as drop it down some).. yes,
I intend on puttin on bigger tires, but I know that wont be the entire
solution..

and by the way.. this truck is still and will be a daily driver...

I appreciate any thoughts/suggestions on this...

Bill in Texas
'64 F100 shortbox

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 22:59:18 -0400
From: luke wells
Subject: FTE Perf - 2.3 engine swapout

I have a 96 ford ranger 2.3 and was wanting to swap out to a 4.0 of
some year. What is the best year to get and what mods would I need to
complete this (exaust change, motor mounts,etc).

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:58:31 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Mod Enginez

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

SNIP
>>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.
SNIP

>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

Well you may find it hard to believe but... Ford didn't!
Fact of the matter is that in this case it is Ford that is looking hard!
So I'm guessing that there is a problem.
This engine was out of warrantee by 6k miles.
Like I said this is not the only one that has bit it that I know of.

The P/rod -VE- OHC debate is entertaining; and yes, it do sound like every
new engine -Vs- Old engine debate. The old engines always fade, yet, some
take many decades to do so... FE's come to mind when the 429/460's came out.

Muel

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:24:47 -0400
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: Mod Enginez

In reply to that the quickest production that, I know of, car uses a
flat 6...go figure! It runs 11.9s in the quarter, its the posche 911
turbo S...And the fastest top speed of American made cars belongs to the
all mighty Viper that uses a whopping 8.0L(no replacement for
displacement may apply here) V-10 which some versions can touch 200MPH!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:54:43 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: FTE Perf - Forwared for FLR150

aol.com

Forwared for FLR150

aol.com

wh*ch
> > holds less and (to my eye) looks worse aerodynamically. >>
>
>Erston,
HEY, HEY, HEY! No need to go bashing a Ford Trademark styling cue. Secondly,
if think the Flareside bed is useless, you need to come work with me for a
couple of days. I have had 20 bags quikcrete, 40 sheets of drywall, and 20
rolls of insulation strapped into mine and with a tool box to boot. I have
moved myself and others with my truck. Granted you may lose 3ft side to side,
but the looks and actual style are far my appealing IMHO!
Later,
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
"Hazardous Material"

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:22:00 -0700
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Suspension Question

Bill,

I'll be very interested in the responses you get. I have a 55 with a 429
that's pumped a little. The rear end is around 2:88 and the front is a
thunderbird clip with the bumper 6 1/2 inces off the gound. Rear has reverse
eye springs and reverse shackels. To try and get a little traction I put 31
inch tall 285/70 tires in the back and a fuel cell. Didn't make much of a
difference. It's still light em up any time I'm not careful. Mine is also
a daily driver and in the dry it's not to big a problem. I'm just thinking
that when it gets wet it's going to get very very loose.

I have to admit the loosey feeling is fun!

Dennis
55F100
Calif.

> ----------
> From: Bill[SMTP:gypsybilll

yahoo.com]
> Reply To: perf-list

ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 7:42 AM
> To: perf-list

yahoo.com]
> Reply To: perf-list

ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 7:42 AM
> To: perf-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Perf - Suspension Question
>
>
> Ok, here the situation.. I have 1964 F100 1/2 ton short bed.. front
> suspension is '77 Volare, rear is stock (with overload leafs) springs..
> this set up dropped the front end about 3".
>
> I currently have this drive train: '76 302 (tired)/ rebuilt C4 / 9"
> with 3.25 gears..
>
> I am installing a '70 351W (slightly warmed up - mild cam, 4bbl,
> headers (or '69 stock exhaust manifolds)).. will get a lot warmer as I
> change cams, heads, etc, in the near future.
>
> Tire size currently: P235/75 15..
>
> Now here is the problem... with the old 302... I smoke the tires (hell
> on a hot day in San Antonio, I can light them up taking off in second)
> if I get in any hurry when the light changes to green...
>
> I know I am getting no weight transfer because of the mix match of
> suspensions front to rear.. when I put 351W in it, it will only get
> worse... (embarassing when a 68 toyota 4 banger beats you off the line
> 'cause you are sittin and smokin')..
>
> Looking for suggestions beyond weight in the bed, tubbing the rear and
> puttin on drag slicks.. am pondering a four bar rear suspension or a
> mono leaf, to soften up the rear (as well as drop it down some).. yes,
> I intend on puttin on bigger tires, but I know that wont be the entire
> solution..
>
> and by the way.. this truck is still and will be a daily driver...
>
> I appreciate any thoughts/suggestions on this...
>
> Bill in Texas
> '64 F100 shortbox
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> >
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:57:40 -0400
From: Bryan G Sheffler
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Suspension Question

Bill,
I would put a set of leaf spring traction bars on it, like the ones
from Lakewood with the "J" bolts. I agree with you that you need to
soften the rear suspension up a bit. I don't think that you really need
to tub it, just try to find the widest tire that will fit in the wheel
wells. If you could fit them in the wheel wells, P255/60-15 or 275/60-15
would look real cool and give you a much need increase in footprint. I
would also put some looser shocks up front. I had a Ranger with a 351W
and off the line it was hard to hook up, but once it got
going...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way, the Ranger had 255/60's on the
back, although they stuck out a bit, it looked real cool. Of course,
smoking the hides off these looked impressive also!!!

Bryan

___________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:40:31 -0400
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Performance

Sleddog wrote:
>

>
> 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.

Hmm.. Now I've got to jump in.. I didnt work on very many vehicles
today but here's a summary.

1) Grand Prix 68K Miles Timing chain (stupid a$$ Quad-4..)
2) Blazer 158K Tranny a while back, pinion seal today
3) Mitsu Mighty Max 164K Needs engine and carb (Tows heavy loads with a
2.0L)
4) Volvo Diesel 256K Broken P/S bracket
5) Nissan Quest 122K A/C work and electrical problems (Kids and drinks..
bad mix inside a van!)

The *original* owner might not keep it that long but the next 1-3 do.
Of course these are probably the people that can least afford major
repairs compared to the 1st owner.. I routinely see vehicles in excess
of 170K miles and quite a few with 200K+. (Of course I see the pigs
with 75K and no oil pressure or worse from no maint. but that's another
story..)

>
> 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.
>

My father got 300K+ out of the Mazda GLC and is up to 189K on the
Festiva all with nothing than normal service and replacement items; My
BSA grenaded pretty quick as did my CB-350 & 450..

Given how few people actually do the full 30, 60 & 90K services
suggested by the OEMs I'd hate to see what would happen if cars/trucks
needed the maint. of bikes!

ANYways.. I'll stop here before I get into full swing. ;-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:47:45 -0400
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Speed rules...

Bryan G Sheffler wrote:
>
> I guess GM
> figures that the Corvette should always be top dog in HP. I guess it
> needs to have something.

A decent death after 1983 would have been nicer than the fate it's had.

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 22:09:18 -0400
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Ford?

"C. K. Hartline" wrote:
>

> On the side, my 83 Chevy van just bit the dust...they put a new carb on it,
> and swore up and down it just idled rough, though I kept telling them there
> was a vacumn leak.

With a new carb it shouldn't have without another problem..

> They kept adjusting the transmission 'vacumn advance?'
> and now suddenly, they find the vacumn leak and the transmission won't
> upshift anymore...it might also be pointed out that the transmission fluid
> now has stuff suspended in it, despite changing it twice including the
> converter.

I doubt the vacuum leak killed the tranny, but the 'adjusting' might not
have been so appropriate. :-(

> It's stuff like this that puts the ol' 41 on hold just a tad bit
> longer. And though as a mechanic's son, I don't like to point fingers, I
> really felt like the mechanic's on this one didn't know their hiney from a
> hole in the ground.

Point away.. The sooner the riff-raff are weeded out the easier it'll
be on me.

> If I could still work on 'em, I'd have found the leak
> myself and maybe saved myself the aggravation of a transmission rebuild.
> Then again, it may have just been time for it anyway. Gut says no though.

Hard to say, but I'm sure the extra tinkering on the trans didnt help.

>
> The basis for using a Triton V-10 is because, well...it gripes me when all
> these fellas take these pretty Fords and shove cheap Chevy stuff under them.

A-damn-MEN!!! A nice pretty t-bucket or newer and you realise it's a
Great Mistake engine in it.. .
....

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.