From: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com (perf-list-digest)
To: perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list-digest V2 #194
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 Wednesday, August 4 1999 Volume 02 : Number 194



=======================================================================
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 - FTE Perf- 4.6 performance
Re: FTE Perf - FTE Perf- 4.6 performance
FTE Perf - Re: 300 performance
Re: FTE Perf - Re: 300 performance
Re: FTE Perf - Fuel problem?
FTE Perf - Turbo on Old 6.9
Re: FTE Perf - Turbo on Old 6.9

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE Perf- 4.6 performance

Okay, so I am a little wishful - it is only a 4.6, but
it doesn't do too bad at that...

I may look into the cleaning around the intake next
weekend, but I want to find a K and N cone to replace
the factory airbox first.

Let me know if you run across any test results for the
adjuster.


> I wouldn't think they would be any different ... as
> far as components go
> ... the chips might be ... one thing I do remember
> they said helped out a
> lot was a timing adjuster, they're less than a
> hundred bucks, available
> from steeda and places like that, lets you set your
> timing to whatever you
> want it to be, seems like 14.5 or so is the best
> setting and really ups
> that low end torque, though I haven't seen any dyno
> graphs comparing them,
> they all said the sotp meter said it was great.
>
>
> 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: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE Perf- 4.6 performance

Okay, so I am a little wishful - it is only a 4.6, but
it doesn't do too bad at that...

I may look into the cleaning around the intake next
weekend, but I want to find a K and N cone to replace
the factory airbox first.

Let me know if you run across any test results for the
adjuster.


> I wouldn't think they would be any different ... as
> far as components go
> ... the chips might be ... one thing I do remember
> they said helped out a
> lot was a timing adjuster, they're less than a
> hundred bucks, available
> from steeda and places like that, lets you set your
> timing to whatever you
> want it to be, seems like 14.5 or so is the best
> setting and really ups
> that low end torque, though I haven't seen any dyno
> graphs comparing them,
> they all said the sotp meter said it was great.
>
>
> 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: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ryan Reinke
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: 300 performance

Well,
I would guess that you hit the nail on the head with
considering the trucks history - it is true across the
board for all makes and models.

As far as the 300 goes, I am trade you my 4.6... They
unfortunatly discontinued the 300 (according to my
dealer). The 300 gets great milage in the 55 to 65
range, droping off after that. It has awsome torque -
I put a neighbors (with manual) against a super 351
auto and the 300 walked away. (We loaded gooseneck
trailers with 10 to 12 tons of hay and timed from a
dead stop to the top of a hill a half mile away.)

Ryan


it's well...a pile of
> crap. This could be attributed to the fact that
> they guy we bought it from
> never took care of it, but I really don't care for
> the engine (300 straight
> six).
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:20:40 EDT
From: WJeff43 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Re: 300 performance

I just finished putting a 300/6 long block in my '79 F100. As far as torque,
you can load the truck up with cut hardwood to the top of the bed, and the
only difference in the way the truck drives is it uses more gas. I was
toying with the idea of removing some of the anti-polution equipment. Most
of it is designed into the truck. For example, the alternator and air pump
mount to the same bracket, so if you removed the air pump it would be really
obvious. Also, the EGR valve is made into the intake manifold, so if you
removed it, it would look weird. I'm also open to the idea of restoring the
equipment, but I'm not sure if it would be costly. I'm pretty sure most of
the stuff is inoperative. For example, the tubing fitting on the pneumatic
actuator that operates the opening for the exhaust to intake crossover pipe
was corroded shut. Probably hasn't worked in ten years. The truck pulls
like a mule down low, but you can really tell it runs out of breath as the
revs build. Anyone else have any input? Bill Jeffreys
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Fuel problem?

At 07:57 PM 2:8:99 -0400, you wrote:
>Well I got a chance to run my ranger at a Legends car event this week.
>It was a lot of fun except for the extremely poor performance my truck
>gave. The problem was coming out of the corners about half way down the
>straight it would lose power then pick back up just as I was coasting
>into the next corner. I had 10 gals. in my 15 gal. fuel cell so I don't
>think it was starving. It is an 89 2.3 with multiport f.i. I have the
>stock regulator on the fuel rail with a mallory 100psi elec. fuel pump
>set at 60 psi. I believe the stock regulator is set at 40 psi. the cause
>of this is driving me nuts. Any insight would help.
>
> Brett ITT 41

What kind of rpm are you seeing when it noses over?
What gear are you in? A larger set of injectors may help.
These are the first two things I would look at, just because
you've got 100psi of fuel pressure doesn't mean you've
got enough fuel. *IF* it's in the budget, try a set of 39lbs/hr
injectors.

*IF* the rules allow, try advancing the cam timing 3 to 4
degrees, that will help with top end power a bit. If you
want the cool parts check out www.racerwalsh.com(??).
I'm also curious, are you running MAS or MAP??

Steve & the Rockette
63 F100
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600, soon to be a 302
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
97 Contour, Mine

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 20:42:01 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE Perf - Turbo on Old 6.9

I have been debating for a while on the merit of a turbo on my '86 F-250
even though the motor is quite old, on the order of 250,000...nothing is
particularly wrong with it other than it uses a bit of oil, more than a
quart per 1000, and smokes a little at idle when the light hits it
right. My reasoning is that I am going to have to rebuild it sooner or
later and might as well capitalize on the extra fuel mileage sooner
rather than later. As it is I think that one overhaul is all I will be
able to get out of the motor (in its current location) because the truck
probably won't last another one. Maybe I'll use it to repower my tired
old woodsplitter, I dunno.

That being said, can anyone give me their experience with these things?
I get 16 mpg at the time being. I can see that the turbo would help in
my case because I live in mountains and the truck is almost always black
smoking when I go uphill even at part throttle due to the elevation and
calibration of the injection pump. As it stands I could live with the
power output it has now but in a very few cases a little extra would be
nice. Also, what does the kit cost? It would be nice to justify the
expense with some fuel savings. Finally, is the wastegated version any
less efficient than the old fashioned one? Mostly this project is about
efficiency.

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:00:56 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Turbo on Old 6.9

In a message dated 8/3/99 8:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, vogt oro.net
writes:


fashioned one? >>


Is there a wastegated Version of these turbos? If so, what models had this.
(Another Wild Duggan idea to follow) Id like to seeabout putting a turbo on
Tweety. I know I'll need the larger CFM, but I dont gotta worry about that.
I am getting the Projection Unit Steve had posted about a week ago. This
also solves the problem of pressurizing the Fuel bowl. I've already got the
right Comp ratio. My only probs would be things like Vacuum operated
systems, because doesnt adding a turbo eliminate vacuum? This is an un
familiar territory for me, so I dont know how it work out. Any thoughts or
suggestions?

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
....

---

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.