From: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com (perf-list-digest)
To: perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list-digest V2 #149
Reply-To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


perf-list-digest Friday, June 18 1999 Volume 02 : Number 149



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE Perf - Really dumb question!
FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers
FTE Perf - Re: holley carbs/ linkage Q's and Id #'s
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers
Re: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers
FTE Perf - Re: Holley part numbers
RE: FTE Perf - Re: holley carbs/ linkage Q's and Id #'s
Re: FTE Perf - Re: holley carbs/ linkage Q's and Id #'s
FTE Perf - Back Pressure Part 1.
FTE Perf - BP Part 2.

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:27:47 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Really dumb question!

> Holley carbs suck for daily street use. If you enjoy tinkering with
>it every week then by all means keep it otherwise get an Edelbrock or
>Carter. Every Holley 4 BBL I've ever had required constant attention
>(The 2 BBLs were awesome though!) I wont purchase another.
>
Wow Tim, you always manage to stir things up don't you ? Didn't you start
the auto vs. manual debate on the off-road list ? :)

Anyway I'll have to take an opposing view here ...after fighting with my 2V
all the time I ended up with a Holley 4V ... on my daily driver. I've
heard lots of people complain about how awful the carb is for off roading
and anything that's off camber or bumpy ... but I've never had that problem
... the only problems I've had with it is that the choke is goofy
(electric), but then every car I've had ('cept the 96) has had a goofy
choke... and one time there was something in the fuel bowl that stuck the
valve, caused it to flood out all the time. In cleaning that out I was
able to even re-use the same gaskets (kids don't try that at home, a leaky
carb is never safe)

After tinkerin with it for a year or so, I was able to just bolt it onto my
390 and it was very close to tuned already ... didn't need more than a
little tweak to the idle mixture to get my vacuum up a bit (though the cam
bleeds off most of it :)

Anyway that's my experience with the carbs


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: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 07:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Privratsky
Subject: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers

Has anyone installed an aftermarket muffler on a V10?

The guy at the muffler shop says that every muffler
he's tried makes the V10 sound like a popcorn machine.

Any input would be appreciated.

Keith P
99 F250 SD SC LWB V10 4.30

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:27:02 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers

>Has anyone installed an aftermarket muffler on a V10?
>
>The guy at the muffler shop says that every muffler
>he's tried makes the V10 sound like a popcorn machine.
>
The V10 is going to sound different no matter what, you're just feeding
more cylinders through it ... though I've never heard a Viper or Ram that
sounded like a popcorn machine ... besides it'll definitely be unique ...
I'd just pick a nice big pipe to run (3" ?) and try a good borla or
flowmaster muffler ... remember it'll never sound like a V8, but it'll sure
have people wondering :)


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: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:26:59 -0700
From: "Steven Salas"
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: holley carbs/ linkage Q's and Id #'s

William Zellmann asked about where to put the ball stud on his new Holley .
There should be another hole that will accept your ball stud on the arm, I
have rarely had to use the big 1/2" hole for a ford application, it will be
a little closer to where the shaft itself meets the arm. You will lose a
little leverage in this position but Iv'e never had a problem using it.
I'm going to have to disagree with Tim Turner about Holleys. I have owned
both Carter and Holley carbs and each have their advantages but I feel the
Holley is the better carb. I have a 780 cfm vac secondary holley on my '69
390 f-250 that I put on straight out of the box (four and a half years
ago)and have had to do nothing more than adjust the idle mixture screws. I
have always felt that the Holley made better power overall and up until
recently this was just my opinion, however my brother's shop just added a
chassis dyno and I have had the opportunity to compare the Carter, Edelbrock
and Holleys back to back on several occasions and the Holley continues to
come out on top, and usually all the way across the rpm range. Sure the
Holley is a mess when it comes to changing jets and the power valves are
sensitive to thru the carb backfires, but Holley solved the power valve
problem several years ago with a check ball and all the carbs in the last
five years or so have this protection built in. I think Summit Racing also
offer a kit to retrofit the check ball to the older carbs as well.
Ben asked about how to ID holley carbs: There should be a number following
the word LIST on the front of the choke horn. This is the number you need
to figure out wht you have. If you want to send me your list #'s I have a
Holley "bible" that will tell you what you need to know about them. I don't
think all the Holleys used the same fuel filter, I think its going to depend
on the type of fuel bowl your carb has. Best Regards, Steve
Salas



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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Privratsky
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers

Thanks. That leads me into another question. Ever
heard of the Spin-Tech Muffler?

- --- William S Hart wrote:
> >Has anyone installed an aftermarket muffler on a
> V10?
> >
> >The guy at the muffler shop says that every muffler
> >he's tried makes the V10 sound like a popcorn
> machine.
> >
> The V10 is going to sound different no matter what,
> you're just feeding
> more cylinders through it ... though I've never
> heard a Viper or Ram that
> sounded like a popcorn machine ... besides it'll
> definitely be unique ...
> I'd just pick a nice big pipe to run (3" ?) and try
> a good borla or
> flowmaster muffler ... remember it'll never sound
> like a V8, but it'll sure
> have people wondering :)
>
>
> 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
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:04:17 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - V10 Mufflers

At 01:37 PM 6/17/99 , you wrote:
>Thanks. That leads me into another question. Ever
>heard of the Spin-Tech Muffler?
>
I haven't ... if I had to guess I'd say they use some spiral shaped louvers
in glass packs ... I can see where that would make it sound like popcorn
... if you stick with a brand name I would think you'd be more likely to
get a better sound ... though I'm sure there are good ones, I'd look at
anything that wasn't brandname pretty close before saying it was okay to
put on my truck ...


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: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:45:47 -0500
From: Phil DeSanto
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: Holley part numbers

- -Subject: FTE Perf - Holley carbs
>
>I picked up 4 holley carbs a couple of weeks ago(2-4bbl's 2-2bbl's), and
I
>would like to know more about them. Are the model numbers stamped on
them
>some where? I'm trying to find out the cfm, how old they are and if they
are
>worth keeping ??

Ben, the Holley numbers are usually on the airhorn at the front of the
carb. It's like an
R-1850-A, or 4412, 4776, etc. [ they could be longer though ] If you
want, send me the numbers off list. I have an old Holley Master catalog,
and they may be in there. It looks like a New York City phone book !
Good luck, Phil, 64 F-100 ( old parts guy, from when we had books, NOT
terminals)
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 15:34:21 -0500
From: "Baldwin, Dave (CPCP Design)"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - Re: holley carbs/ linkage Q's and Id #'s

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Salas [mailto:fishmasterfred email.msn.com]
> ...
> I'm going to have to disagree with Tim Turner about Holleys.
> ... I have a 780 cfm vac secondary
> holley on my '69
> 390 f-250 that I put on straight out of the box (four and a half years
> ago)and have had to do nothing more than adjust the idle
> mixture screws. ...

I had this same 780 cfm on a 383 Dodge of the same vintage for 8 years,
and never had a problem with it. Adjusted the idle mixture when I put
it on, and never had to mess with it again.

I have always felt that the Holley was beautiful in it's simplicity: none
of those damned metering rods and needles that other carbs are bristling
with. Mess with some multi-carb Weber setups with the infinite combinations
of emulsion tubes, etc. Or better yet some of those SU or Strombergs!
Then you learn to appreciate Holleys!

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:37:58 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: holley carbs/ linkage Q's and Id #'s

Steve wrote...

> There should be a number following
> the word LIST on the front of the choke horn. This is the number you need
> to figure out wht you have. If you want to send me your list #'s I have a
> Holley "bible" that will tell you what you need to know about them
>
.........

I would like to know more about the book you call the Holley "bible". I
currently have only one book about Holley carbs tittled "Super Tuning and
Modifying Hollley Carburetors" by Dave Emanuel with ISBN # 0-931472-08-3 and
I would really like a larger reference book because I've been buying up 4bbl
Holleys and have a few in stock that I can't identify. I've been paying $20
for any complete Holley 4bbl and less for damaged or missing items, and I'm
sure glad that there are people who don't like Holleys... hehe

Does this "bible" have an ISBN number?

Danger



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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:14:02 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - Back Pressure Part 1.

Tim Turner and I had this thread going...
I got bizzzzzy and had to drop it for a while.
This is long, perhaps too!
>>>>> I knew it! So darn long it bounced!
>>>>> So this is part one. Of the second send

I said some time ago...
SNIP
>> Please forgive me for making a case, but... The design goal for
>> ANY and ALL Internal Combustion Piston Engines should be ZERO
>> BACK PRESSURE, if Power and Economy are the primary goals SNIP

And Tim replied...
> But factoring in emission requirements (ugh) now skews the
> picture somewhat. For most (stock or near stock) vehicles a
> small bit of back pressure is needed for proper EGR operation.
> How much you might ask; I test vehicles routinely for back
> pressure at the O2 sensor outlet and anything over 3 PSI 3000
> RPM is suspect for undue restriction.

For a street legal system about 5-PSI is typical IME; however
less, is both desirable and obtainable if your are willing to
spend the time and $$ to get it. Unfortunately it is easy to
defeat the emission system's ability to function within design
parameters if the new system is built for lower pressures as you
point out. I debated whether to note this point and decided not
to in my original post, you rightly bring it up. My original
comments were addressing performance and economy only; emissions
were left out of the picture.
If emissions compliance is a factor and the testing facility is
capable of sampling for NOX, and also requires that the system be
as factory delivered then you are not going to make any
modifications that will be affecting the system enough to drop the
pressure excessively. The Cat, is generally the most restrictive
component, assuming a good quality muffler. That last statement
eliminates almost all factory and OEM type replacement mufflers.
Again, IME, even a "High Flow" Cat that is Factory sized will
provide enough Back Pressure to operate the EGR System; even with
a high flow muffler. I am also sure that there are exceptions.

Originally I said:
>> This is due to Physics and some unbreakable laws there of.
>> Not because "I" said so.
>> Anyone that believes that Back Pressure IS necessary is welcome
>> to that belief but fact is they can-not "prove" it!
>> To do so would be breaking several Physical Laws.
>> Yet I know people that do honestly believe it.
I suppose I should amend it so...

The Engine requires no Back Pressure to run...
The EGR system requires Back Pressure...
The EGR system is required by a Bureaucratic Society
(or BS for short).
The Engine will use fuel more efficiently with out the EGR system.
There is no BS in the Physical Laws.
I think I'll stand by my statement!

This ends part one.
Stay tuned as part two is headed right at ya!

Muel.

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

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:14:25 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE Perf - BP Part 2.

Well as promised here it part two.

Tim points out:
> But.. measuring with an analog gauge 12-24" away from the
> exhaust port(s) as I do has no real correlation with the actual
> absolute pressure seen at the port(s) during the exhaust event
> for each individual cylinder.

True as the system pressure is an aggregate of all of the
pressures in the system both the high and low of the pressure
waves. System pressure is also a function of the type of
restrictions in the system. There are both restrictions to
pressure and to flow, they may not be located at the same point
in the system. To get an accurate picture you must monitor
both flow and pressure. Temperature also has a significant
influence on this system, influencing the speed of the charge.

Tim observes and poses a good one!
> I use oscilloscope patterns of the engine vacuum for diagnosis
> on occasion and I was intrigued by the vast difference
> from peak to peak that results in a 'steady' gauge when I was
> introduced to this technique. I would assume that there is a
> similar variation in the exhaust given that I *do* see a lot of
> pulsation on my back pressure gauge at idle. My question is
> since exhaust manufacturers talk about 'scavenging' and there
> are definite negative pressure cycles in the exhaust does it
> really matter if there is 1 PSI back pressure overall and the
> negative pressure events are doing the job at the right time in
> the right place(s)?

Vary good question!
On the theoretical level if you can generate a negative
pressure: even 1 PSI on top of the exhaust valve before it opens
you will be much more successful at emptying the cylinder of
exhaust then if I have a positive pressure. If I can maintain the
negative pressure throughout the passage of the exhaust gas
pulse, I will make even more power as I can more completely fill
the cylinder for the next stroke.
Experience has shown me that anytime I can reduce the system
pressure I can make more power and get more MPG.
The pressure pulses as measured at the port are huge in comparison
to the vacuum pulses. Remember that the sound that we call
exhaust, is the sound of the exhaust gasses moving from a steady
state (comparatively) to supersonic as they pass the valve, and
not the sound of the mixture burning.
If at some point the pressure in the port/primary tube is negative
and you input an exhaust charge with a static volume of say 50
C.I. that is still expanding, still rising in temperature, and
traveling initially at or above the speed of sound; it follows
that there would be a fairly high-pressure spike.
Would 1 PSI make a difference?
A 1-PSI drop has made the difference between winning and loosing
on at least one occasion that I know of. The real question I think
would be is 1 PSI worth chasing to "you" the owner?
For most people that answer I think depends on where it occurs.
For example a drop from 7-PSI to 6-PSI would be worth the effort.
But from 1-PSI to 0-PSI May be too expensive and difficult to do,
to be justified on the street.
There is more to this story as you pointed out. If we
dramatically reduce the back-pressure we can create an imbalance
in the engine and so we will have to change the settings of, or
even the components in, the Ignition, intake system, and sometimes
camshaft.
Example if we remove the EGR system or impair it's ability to work
we cause the Air/Fuel mixture to go lean (No EGR = more air) this
lean condition often causes a misfire.
When reading a Gas analyzer a miss often shows as an increase in
HC. A high HC reading will often indicate that the engine is too
rich, however leaning it out in this case is the opposite of what
should be done.
Often when the EGR fails to function the ignition timing is
incorrect for the A/F ratio. I have heard people say that
removing the EGR causes a loss of power and on the surface it is
true. If the mixture is richened to bring the A/F ratio closer to
12-14:1 then a power gain over the operational EGR will result.
The example above is the most common result of exhaust system
improvements, the engine will lean out. Exactly where in the RPM
range this occurs will vary depending on the type of improvement;
often it occurs across the entire operating range having the most
dramatic results from peak torque and up. The engine leans out
due to a reduction in Back Pressure and to an increase in
scavenging.
The changes can be dramatic.
Removing the factory 5.8 Manifolds and replacing them with a set
of properly designed headers makes a huge difference in power to
an otherwise stock truck. The engine must be re-tuned to take
advantage of the new configuration, there is no such thing as just
bolting on a set of headers. If a free flowing exhaust system is
added along with freeing up the intake system and adjusting the
fuel delivery and ignition the full potential of the engine can be
realized. Here is the trick: if you do it rite you will have to richen the
Main and Idle systems. This mod often leads to lower
emissions, and higher mileage(if you keep your foot out of it),
with the improvement in power.

> I'm not trying to poke holes in your statements; just would like
> to know.. working on (boring!) stock engines I'm more involved
> on the first 3 cycles of the 4 cycle engine than on the exhaust
> unless it's restricted.

Boy do I hear ya on this one!
This is the usual approach of everyone from the manufacturer on
down to the average hot rodder!
The exhaust system is the last thing built and the system most
compromised by chassis and body work. It is one system that is
also vary complex in the design and construction.
The exhaust system is also still a bit of a black art in nature;
by this I mean that it does not always work the way the science
says that it should!
Lastly there is a bunch of Psudoscience, out-of-date formulas, old
hot rod myths, and just pure BS out there!
The exhaust system is expensive to optimize as the only real way to do it is
to cut, fit and test repeatedly until you find what
works!

I have built 7 systems for my Bronco, and I have one more to do.
That is 7 systems in 5 years and the new one for the new engine.
I have changed tube size, length, mufflers, Cats, configuration,
duals to single and back again!
I have been building hi-pro/race systems for a long time and I
still learn every time I do it.
Generally I don't mess with the stock stuff. There is no point in
modifying it. It is pure junk from a performance standpoint! The
switch to "Headers" was a cost saving move by the OEM's, and
didn't happen until the cost of building headers dropped below
the cost of Cast manifolds. The design is so P/Poor as to be a
joke! The system from there back is designed to emit just the
right amount of noise for that body style, and performance is
sacrificed to do it!

Whew!!
There was a spot of a rant!
In closing: Yes a lot of words, and a lot that I left out too!!
This area of engine building fascinates me, as there is so much
power potential available. I play with the system to see if I can
improve it. By doing so I learn; mostly I learn that I don't think
....


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.