perf-list-digest Thursday, January 14 1999 Volume 02 : Number 009



=======================================================================
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 - Proportioning Valve
Re: FTE Perf - Re:AOD trans, which one?
FTE Perf - Help!!
FTE Perf - Re: 5.0 Rangers in California?
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 5.0 Rangers in California?
Re: FTE Perf - Warning: Major Rantage!!
Re: FTE Perf - are Metrinch wrenches any good?

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:22:09 -0800
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: FTE Perf - Proportioning Valve

I have a 55 F100 with a 70/71 T Bird clip on the front. That means Disc
brake front and drum back. I've installed a adjustable proportioning valve
for the back brakes.

My question is, does anyone know if I can get rid of the
metering/proportioning valve that came with the clip and just use the
adjustable valve I installed? The valve I'm talking about is the one that
acts as junction between the lines from the master cylinder and the front
and back brake lines.

Thanks

DMO1 pge.com
55 F100

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:00:38 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re:AOD trans, which one?

>
>>I'm looking to drop a 351 in my 57 F100 and because
>>of the 3:70 gears I want to use an automatic OD trans.
>>My question is which one and what year should I
>>use, no racing, just an occasional trailer to pull.
>>I'm gonna be running a carb and no computer, and
>>I want the simplest way out.
>
>You might check the early to mid 80's trucks ... not too
>many of them with 351's came with an od, but I would
>think there would be some 302's out there....if not there,
>then check the 'stangs, the 5.0's were runnin AOD's
>with the carb (not the AODE) ... and those should bolt
>right up,

Yo Bill & LOBUCK:

The only source I know of for a factory original 351W w/ a non-computer
overdrive is the Crown Victoria Police package from 1980 through 1986. The
CV Police cars used a carbureted 351W w/ the AOD transmission. The carb
they used was that funky Motorcraft 7200VV variable venturi unit, but you
could grab a factory 4V manifold and Holley from a 351HO in a truck or
Bronco.

The 351HO was produced from 1983 (I think) until 1985 on all trucks and
full-size Broncos, and continued on F250HDs and F350s through 1987. I
don't know which automatic(s) was available w/ the 351HO, but I have seen
an F250 w/ the 351HO and a C6.

You can run the AOD tranny w/out a computer, and you can set up the 351HO
to run w/ just a DuraSpark-type electronic ignition, although the 351HOs
came equipped w/ the EEC-IV system from the factory.

BTW, if you're near Canada, there was also a Canada-only trailer towing
Crown Vic option that included the 351W and AOD combo. Same setup as the
US Police package.

Good luck.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 01:45:09 -0500
From: "David M. Ackerschott"
Subject: FTE Perf - Help!!

Good afternoon, I have a few questions i need help with and i know how
knowledgable this list is so here they are:
I want to hop up my motor a little bit
it's 1971 351 Cleveland it has the stock 2 barrel card and manifold
with 2 barrel heads, Does anyone know what the compression should be??
What kind of cam would make the motor sounds good and run a little
better
i don't want race, i will be driving daily, around town and on the
freeway. So should REplace the cam and put a four barrel carb and
headers
what do you think?? I need to replace the valve seals so i am going to
pull the heads and clean up my pistons also......any help or input would
be great, i'm new at this.. the motor will be going in my 1953 ford f100
pickup.......thanks dddavid
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:57:46 -0800
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: 5.0 Rangers in California?

On 11 Jan 99 12:34:57 MST, Tim Clevenger wrote:
>
> Anybody out there drive a Ranger with a 5.0L or 5.7L in California? Please
> e-mail me off-list. I'm interested in hearing about your setup, any install
> problems you ran into, and what it's like getting smogged every two years.
> I'm interested in dropping a 5.0 and 5-speed into my '83 Ranger.

Not exactly what you were looking for, but I was in a class with a
fellow as he went through the rigamarole to get his Toyota with 4.3L
Chevy motor (I know...) smogged...there is no way a basic smog shop has
the authority to do the initial swap. You must take it to a place
called the "Referee". The way he described it, so long as the engine is
from the same or later year, has the stock controls and stock exhaust,
and passes smog from its own model year, the Referee will allow it. He
puts a new sticker under the hood which then allows any smog check
station to smog the car. Questions? Ask me.

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 99 17:22:58 PST
From: don neomagic.com (Donald Paauw)
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 5.0 Rangers in California?

>Not exactly what you were looking for, but I was in a class with a
>fellow as he went through the rigamarole to get his Toyota with 4.3L
>Chevy motor (I know...) smogged...there is no way a basic smog shop has
>the authority to do the initial swap. You must take it to a place
>called the "Referee". The way he described it, so long as the engine is
>from the same or later year, has the stock controls and stock exhaust,
>and passes smog from its own model year, the Referee will allow it. He
>puts a new sticker under the hood which then allows any smog check
>station to smog the car. Questions? Ask me.
>
>Birken
>
Is there a way to find out the allowable emissions for a given vehicle
type and year? (Other than getting a smog test & seeing the printout).

Also, the stock dual cats & mufflers from the '89 donor Mustang won't
fit in my '88 4x4 unless I do some very wierd interleaving of pipes.
My plan is to go to a 3" single system with a huge cat & a stainless
steel motorhome muffler if it will fit (I like a quiet ride). I'm hoping
this will be cleaner than the original and a single 3" system should
have better flow than a twin 2" but not as much a a twin 2.5". As far
as exhaust dynamics, I don't know what effects I'm causing but I'm pretty
much constrained by the available space. Any comments would be appreciated.

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:00:12 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Warning: Major Rantage!!

Dave Resch wrote:
>
> >From: Tim Turner
> >Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 302 or 351?
> >
> >In NC there must have been that engine available and
> >all emission controls in place etc.
>
> Yo Tim, et al:
>
> You have hit on one of my pet peeves.
>
> The problem you described, i.e., not being allowed to switch in a cleaner
> later-model engine because it wasn't available from the factory in that
> specific vehicle, even though its emissions would be cleaner, is actually
> caused by an EPA interpretation of a federal law (42 USC 7522 a-3-A).

In SOME states you have the option of retitling the vehicle as
'new/homebuilt' but that's for the people involved to decide. I think
I'll stay (mostly) stock in my rebuild (ARRGH.. my 1st POV to be stock
after major work). Depending on the state you MIGHT be required to go
through testing for a retitle but I think the majority just
'rubber-stamp' it due to the small number involved.

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:15:31 -0500
From: Tim Turner
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - are Metrinch wrenches any good?

Sleddog wrote:
>
> FWIW, i design hydraulic and hand wrenches, sockets, drives, torque
> converters and accessories, and this is how i feel about it.
>
> driving on the flank is good, for the nut. period.
>
> snap-on and others have been doing for a while, it is not a new idea. i
> just in fact did a 4 1/2" socket the other day using a modified flank
> drive.

Works like a charm.. There IS a difference between the cheap sockets
and what I buy on tool trucks for (gulp!) 4x the price.. Maybe there
*IS* some rationale to my spending 25% OF my weekly check paying the
'tool-pushers'.

>
> driving on the flats, is NOT good for the socket. it increases the stress
> on the thin walls many times (depending on the actual design), and helps
> lead to sockets getting "bigger" (craftsman sockets do this alot) or
> breaking.

Never thought about that, but I can sure see it! I blast sockets of all
brands, but I sure replace the cheap ones with good ones as they go.
I'm still lucky to get 6 months out of a 6Pt. 15mm Snap-On 3/8 though.
(To some degree my fault as 3/8 is my preferred drive and I'll 'pipe'
the ratchet in a heartbeat.)

>
> but, a socket that is made for more than one size of socket is not good.
> for example (from SAE and DIN):
>
> dimension accross flats for a 1/2 nut is .489-.500
> the socket dimension is .504-.510
>
> for a 13 mm nut is .512-.502 and
> the socket dimension is .513-.521



> so if it does work with both sizes there must be a compromise made, like
> maybe tolerancing the socket for the larger sized nut. now, it may
> actually engage the nut, but will be engaging it very slightly on the
> corners of the nut, which leads to rounding the corners and then lotsa
> cursing and screaming...
>
> BTW, i chose the 13mm and the 1/2 inch as it is a common sized inch and
> closest metric size - even though 13mm is not as common as a 12 or 14mm
> nut.

Or 11mm & 7/16"

>
> so, although i do beleive that they will work most often, i think there is
> a limitation as the the actual abilities.

Thanks.. I've viewed the 'info-mercial' with skepticisim and am happy to
see it somewhat refuted. Sure I might use a 14 on a stubborn 9/16 and
etc but that's NOT the norm) use the RIGHT tool for the job until it
doesnt work. :-)

>
> one other smaller problem, is that flank drive sockets DO NOT work on 12pt
> nuts such as those found all over my pulltruck engine from ARP, and inside
> on the rods, etc. these nuts MUST have a correct size 12pt hex socket to
> be tightened/loosened properly.

Good point.. (12 of 'em? ) I'll stick with my boxes full of
Snappy/Mac/Matco.

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


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.