From: owner-perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com (perf-list-digest)
To: perf-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: perf-list-digest V2 #277
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 Thursday, October 28 1999 Volume 02 : Number 277



=======================================================================
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 - towing help
FTE Perf - What year 460s?
Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
RE: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
RE: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
FTE Perf - RE: towing help
FTE Perf - Re: aftermarket intakes for 300
FTE Perf - ADMIN: New policy
Re: FTE Perf - ADMIN: New policy
Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
FTE Perf - Tire sze change.
Re: FTE Perf - Tire sze change.
FTE Perf - Crate Engines
Re: FTE Perf - Tire sze change.
Re: FTE Perf - Crate Engines
RE: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:05:49 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - towing help

> I have a 1984 F-150 4x4 with 33" tires.
> my question is are the frames on 1/2 ton through 1 ton trucks
> that different
> I am considering putting the 10.25in rear end in my truck with the dual
> wheels
> and then adding the dually bedsides to add towing capability to my truck.
> will it bolt up and will it help, will the 1-ton springs bolt on good.

You'll have to do some measuring, in earlier years the 1/2 and 3/4 tons had
different frame widths in the rear .. this could cause problems for you, but
a quick tape measure will tell you if it will work or not.

Also I have been informed by someone who knows such things (Azie) that the
dual rear wheels are different from dually rear ends ... that is to say the
backing plate distance is the same on a dually as it is on the lighter duty
trucks, but the dual rear wheel trucks run a narrower rear end because they
don't have to worry about hitting a standard bed.

For the dually bed, all you really need are the fiberglass extensions that
cover the wheels ... I think this is also a legality thing, that you have to
have the wheels under the car somehow ...

> the 1/2 ton
> frame pleanty strong for towing a 3horse trailer and firewood and also
> towing the occasional "Bobcat" bulldozer with an electric braked
> trailer??

I would imagine it would be, but the bobcats are deceptively heavy, I'd
think you'd have problems even moving it with the wrong gear ratio ... if
you are going to be doing this stuff regularly you'd probably be ahead to
invest in getting a 3/4 ton at least ...

> I know of a lot of 80's F-250 's with 351W and t-18 trannies like mine so
> are they that different in power capability? And would a short
> wheelbase rig
> with dually wheels look okay or just very stupid??
>


It would look pretty weird in my book, but it also wouldn't do too good at
towing I don't think ... generally a longer wheelbase handles the loads
better, not exactly sure why, but the stability I'm sure is increased by
having more distance between the wheels ...

> Also my braking is very vague.
> And rather than looking into rebuilding my 1/2ton brakes
> is there an upgrade to a lot more heavier duty brakes??
> that can brake a lot bigger and heavier load more efficiently??
>

3/4ton, just seems like that's what you really want/need ... I think you'll
be much happier to just get one and use it for the towing and stuff ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:17:20 -0700
From: "James D"
Subject: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

Hey, I was looking into building a high performance street legal 460, and
was wondering what years would be the best? I heard that the 71 was good
because of the high compression, but I have no idea. What I basically want
is a very torquish engine that is pretty even throughout the RPM range. At
my local junk yard there is an late 60s Lincoln with a 460 in it, and am
thinking that it would be a good engine to use. I would buy new intake,
carb, cam, pistons, ect.... Basically just the heads and the block is all I
would use, maybe the crank too. Any recomendations on this would be
appreciated. I am planning on eventually getting an early 70s fastback
torino or maybe a convertable torino, but I think they are going to be VERY
hard to find. I know some of them came with 460s, so I don't think the
conversion would be to bad. For now though, I would probably break it in in
my e-150 van. Im sure it wouldint be street legal in a 79, but there are
always ways around that:) Thanks for the info

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:49:45 -0400
From: "Gerald Ash"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

James,
Yes the 1970 engine is the best one so I have been told. Check out the
factory HP and torque ratings for the years you are interested in. I am in
my third build of a 460 Hoss and I use a 9.1:1 flat top piston. The others
were bad spark knockers as the comp. ratio was above that and had a dish in
them to preignite the gas. A probem that can be delt with at the expensive
gas pump. I would of course use the double roller cam timing chain set a 0
degrees. The key that I have found to make horse power is to get your
grinder out and go inside the exhaust port and get the egr bumps ground
away. You can tell the difference in true mashing the peddle then. If you
are going to use a alum. intake manifold I want to purchase the factory
piece from you if it is a year modle that is 1970 or earlier. I have just
used a cam from Comp Cams that makes the 460 lope at idle but have tons of
torque, yes tire burning torque, it is the Xtreme Energy Cams Comp Cams new
Xtreme Energy series takes full advantage of current valve train
configurations along with the latest developments in camshaft lobe designs
to provide the most response and power Torque Monster
These cams are designed just for 4x4's. These cams will give you
tremendous off idle torque, great throttle response and big torque
throughout the operating range.
Ford 429-460
34-231-4..........210° .....218°........... .505 ... .505........$117.95
34-235-4..........218° .....266°........... .505 ... .515........$117.95
34-239-4..........226° .....234°........... .544 ... .564........$117.95
34-243-5..........234° .....244°........... .564 ... .570........$139.95
I used the 34-235-4 and wish now I had gone even bigger. The best camshaft
I have ever put in a 460. I used Ford Power Train shorty headers.
Now I am from Georgia and don't know what smog legal is all about but this
will give you some jump.
Point again to remember:
TRW FLAT TOP PISTONS 9:1 comp ratio no higher.
Grind off exhaust nodes and clean exhaust ports on heads.
Weidland intake manifold.
0 degree the cam unless the intake duration .050 is greater than 225 then
retard one notch.
Hope this helps, it is always just my opinion but it works and there isn't
tons of money to spend.
Gerald


- ----- Original Message -----
From: James D
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 1:17 AM
Subject: FTE Perf - What year 460s?


> Hey, I was looking into building a high performance street legal 460, and
> was wondering what years would be the best? I heard that the 71 was good
> because of the high compression, but I have no idea. What I basically
want
> is a very torquish engine that is pretty even throughout the RPM range. At
> my local junk yard there is an late 60s Lincoln with a 460 in it, and am
> thinking that it would be a good engine to use. I would buy new intake,
> carb, cam, pistons, ect.... Basically just the heads and the block is all
I
> would use, maybe the crank too. Any recomendations on this would be
> appreciated. I am planning on eventually getting an early 70s fastback
> torino or maybe a convertable torino, but I think they are going to be
VERY
> hard to find. I know some of them came with 460s, so I don't think the
> conversion would be to bad. For now though, I would probably break it in
in
> my e-150 van. Im sure it wouldint be street legal in a 79, but there are
> always ways around that:) Thanks for the info
>
> == 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, 27 Oct 1999 12:28:50 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

> I am planning on eventually getting an early 70s fastback
> torino or maybe a convertable torino, but I think they are going
> to be VERY
> hard to find. I know some of them came with 460s

Hard to find is an understatement of sorts ... there were only 2000 GT
'verts in 70 and even fewer in 71 I think ... those are just GT's, but even
the others are hard to come by, especially here in the midwest ...

I'm not sure what you mean by "came with 460s" though, as I don't think they
did, or at least not til the mid to late 70's ... 429's yes, 460's ... I
haven't seen it yet (doesn't mean they didn't, just that I haven't seen it)
... at any rate since the 429 and 460 share so many components it should be
NO problem to do that swap ...

I've got some beautiful pics at home of a 70 429SCJ Torino ... black jade
... fast back ... perfectly restored ... it was an awesome car...


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:50:04 -0700
From: "O'Connell, Dennis M"
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

James,

I didn't know they put 460's in early torinos. I have a 429(same block and
heads) from a 71 bird in my 55. For the 429, that year seemed to be the
cutoff on compression. I believed it dropped after that. My 429 has been
bored(30 over), balanced, ss valves, smog bump removed from exhaust port,
comp cam, hooker headers, edlebrock performer manifold with a 750cfm carb,
unillite distributor(not real satified with it) and pro coil, high volume
oil pump, and a 9 quart pan.

I ran the specs into one of those computer dyno software packages and it
came out to around 500HP. I don't know if it's true, but it's got tons of
torque from about 1500 rpm on up. Haven't raced it yet, haven't figured out
how to get the tires to hook up(I'm running 288's in the 9" rear.).

If you want complete hp, check out Ford SVO's aluminum 460 crate motor, 600+
horspower.

Dennis
55F100

> ----------
> From: James D[SMTP:myph enol.com]
> Reply To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 10:17 PM
> To: perf-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE Perf - What year 460s?
>
> Hey, I was looking into building a high performance street legal 460, and
> was wondering what years would be the best? I heard that the 71 was good
> because of the high compression, but I have no idea. What I basically
> want
> is a very torquish engine that is pretty even throughout the RPM range. At
> my local junk yard there is an late 60s Lincoln with a 460 in it, and am
> thinking that it would be a good engine to use. I would buy new intake,
> carb, cam, pistons, ect.... Basically just the heads and the block is all
> I
> would use, maybe the crank too. Any recomendations on this would be
> appreciated. I am planning on eventually getting an early 70s fastback
> torino or maybe a convertable torino, but I think they are going to be
> VERY
> hard to find. I know some of them came with 460s, so I don't think the
> conversion would be to bad. For now though, I would probably break it in
> in
> my e-150 van. Im sure it wouldint be street legal in a 79, but there are
> always ways around that:) Thanks for the info
>
> == 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, 27 Oct 1999 15:27:25 -0500
From: Paul M Radecki
Subject: FTE Perf - RE: towing help

>>I have a 1984 F-150 4x4 with 33" tires.
>>my question is are the frames on 1/2 ton through 1 ton trucks that
different
>>I am considering putting the 10.25in rear end in my truck with the dual
>>wheels
>>and then adding the dually bedsides to add towing capability to my
truck.
>>will it bolt up and will it help, will the 1-ton springs bolt on good.
Is
>>the 1/2 ton
>>frame pleanty strong for towing a 3horse trailer and firewood and also
>>towing the occasional "Bobcat" bulldozer with an electric braked
trailer??
>>I know of a lot of 80's F-250 's with 351W and t-18 trannies like mine
so
>>are they that different in power capability? And would a short
wheelbase rig
>>with dually wheels look okay or just very stupid??
>>
>>Also my braking is very vague.
>>And rather than looking into rebuilding my 1/2ton brakes
>>is there an upgrade to a lot more heavier duty brakes??
>>that can brake a lot bigger and heavier load more efficiently??

So, why not just trade in the F-150 for an F-350? That would be
easier and better, and the cost to trade up to a 1-ton of the same
vintage as your half would most likely be less than the cost of the parts
you have listed. There is a difference in frames, and it is significant.
When I tow a 2-horse box behind my F-150, the frame twists enough that
the rear hatch on my bed topper pops open. A short wheelbase truck
towing a heavy pull-behind trailer (as opposed to a gooseneck rig) will
also become unstable in gusty winds. I would suggest trading up to a
nice used F-350 (longbed, extended cab, big block dually) that's designed
to do the job you intend for it to do. Remember, you're hauling live
cargo back there!

lordjanusz juno.com
'94 F150 300ci
'73 F100 FE in pieces
___________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 15:39:32 -0500
From: galaxie63 juno.com
Subject: FTE Perf - Re: aftermarket intakes for 300

> "Gene Baker" wrote:
>I've got a question for you inline 6 guys. Does some one make a
>replacement or an adapter, so he can put a 2 barrell carb on his
truck?......
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------------------
Gene- I don't have a Clifford catalog handy, but I thought at one time
they made a 2bbl. intake for the 300 that would accept a Holley or
Motorcraft carb. If not, I know they make a 4bbl. intake, and you could
run a small Holley 4bbl, or use an adapter to run a 2bbl. They have a web
site also, so you could look there. I don't have access, or I'd send a
link. If Tony ( Cessna ) Marino is out there, he'll chime in too. He
likes those "dimensionally challenged " 6 holers. LOL :-) Good
luck, Phil
___________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:36:16 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE Perf - ADMIN: New policy

ADMIN: New policy ---- Please read!

As many of our old-timers may remember, we started a
policy of filtering out all special character formatting
and HTML in emails posted to the list.

This policy was put in place over 2 years ago because
many people where using email software that could not
handle such items correctly (mostly Unix email software).
This made life easier for those users but there was and
continues to be a tremendous burden on the list admins
and many users who post for first time.

There are many reasons for these burdens:

1. Many first time posters have font and/or color
settings in their email software. Their first post
gets rejected by our list server and they receive
an email detailing how to change the settings in
their software.

2. For each of the instances of item 1, either Keith
Srb (admin of three of the lists) or I have to
****manually**** send the instruction email.

3. Some users are unable to correct their settings,
either because they are unfamiliar with their
email software or our standard mailing does not
software their particular software (there is no
way we can possibly cover all email software
titles).

This is not something that occurs occasionally, but
happens many times each day. FTE has grown well
beyond the size it was when the policy was started.
At that time, we had less than 1,000 subscribers.
We now have over 5,000 and the lists continue to
grow.

FTE has always been something that I care deeply
about and I've continued to offer more free services
to our users as funds have allowed. While our funding
has increased and we're no longer losing thousands
of $$$ per year on this hobby gone amuck, my available
time has remained constant.

As some of my friends that I've made through the
lists know, FTE has been cutting into my family life
for a LONG time. 90% of this time is administering
the lists.

The demographics of email users has changed considerably
since we first instated the policy. Fewer than 1% of
our visitors are using Unix software as opposed to
15% 2 years ago. Most new releases of Unix email
software now supports HTML and character formatting.

The policy is obsolete. Beginning sometime next week
we will be removing the filters.

Rest assured that users who abuse this by using loud
fonts, huge characters, etc, will be warned to tone
it down.

Additionally, since the current filters block out
any possibility of viruses getting posted to the
lists, when the filters are removed, new filters
will be put in place which will block out file
attachments such as:

JPGs, GIFs, DOCs, COM, DLL, EXE, etc...

This will prevent email viruses getting posted.

Regards,
Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:41:20 -0700
From: George Miller
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - ADMIN: New policy

Glad to hear it. Now I can consolidate my FTE email into my regular
business package.

Thanks Ken,

George Miller

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> ADMIN: New policy ---- Please read!
>
> As many of our old-timers may remember, we started a
> policy of filtering out all special character formatting
> and HTML in emails posted to the list.
>
> This policy was put in place over 2 years ago because
> many people where using email software that could not
> handle such items correctly (mostly Unix email software).
> This made life easier for those users but there was and
> continues to be a tremendous burden on the list admins
> and many users who post for first time.
>
> There are many reasons for these burdens:
>
> 1. Many first time posters have font and/or color
> settings in their email software. Their first post
> gets rejected by our list server and they receive
> an email detailing how to change the settings in
> their software.
>
> 2. For each of the instances of item 1, either Keith
> Srb (admin of three of the lists) or I have to
> ****manually**** send the instruction email.
>
> 3. Some users are unable to correct their settings,
> either because they are unfamiliar with their
> email software or our standard mailing does not
> software their particular software (there is no
> way we can possibly cover all email software
> titles).
>
> This is not something that occurs occasionally, but
> happens many times each day. FTE has grown well
> beyond the size it was when the policy was started.
> At that time, we had less than 1,000 subscribers.
> We now have over 5,000 and the lists continue to
> grow.
>
> FTE has always been something that I care deeply
> about and I've continued to offer more free services
> to our users as funds have allowed. While our funding
> has increased and we're no longer losing thousands
> of $$$ per year on this hobby gone amuck, my available
> time has remained constant.
>
> As some of my friends that I've made through the
> lists know, FTE has been cutting into my family life
> for a LONG time. 90% of this time is administering
> the lists.
>
> The demographics of email users has changed considerably
> since we first instated the policy. Fewer than 1% of
> our visitors are using Unix software as opposed to
> 15% 2 years ago. Most new releases of Unix email
> software now supports HTML and character formatting.
>
> The policy is obsolete. Beginning sometime next week
> we will be removing the filters.
>
> Rest assured that users who abuse this by using loud
> fonts, huge characters, etc, will be warned to tone
> it down.
>
> Additionally, since the current filters block out
> any possibility of viruses getting posted to the
> lists, when the filters are removed, new filters
> will be put in place which will block out file
> attachments such as:
>
> JPGs, GIFs, DOCs, COM, DLL, EXE, etc...
>
> This will prevent email viruses getting posted.
>
> Regards,
> Ken Payne
> Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
>
> == 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, 27 Oct 1999 20:45:37 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

In a message dated 10/27/99 9:15:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, myph enol.com
writes:


torino or maybe a convertable torino, but I think they are going to be VERY
hard to find. I know some of them came with 460s, so I don't think the
conversion would be to bad. >>

I have a 70 Torino GT convertible with the 429 and your right, it is VERY
hard to find. Most I know of that could possibly exist is 80. Almost all
the convertibles had 351c in em, and a few 302s tossed in for good measure.
The one I have was my dads High school car, then work bench. Body is a lil
rough, but theres no rust and only 47k miles on it!

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:02:24 EDT
From: Bogginf350 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

look for a casting number
c8ve-c
c9ve-c
dove-c
dove-a
these are all the smaller chamber bb heads
dooe-r is the cj-scj casting
d2oe-ab is the P.I. casting
d2 + d3ve-a2a are junk.....
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 07:24:27 -0700
From: "James D"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

> I've got some beautiful pics at home of a 70 429SCJ Torino ... black jade
> ... fast back ... perfectly restored ... it was an awesome car...

I wish I could see a picture of it. I seen an 73, black fastback and it
looked very cool. It looked like it was about to leap forward and eat
something:)

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 21:30:29 EDT
From: CPortlock AOL.COM
Subject: FTE Perf - Tire sze change.

I am presently running P295/50R15 on a 9 inch rim for my rear tires on a 92
F150 Flairside. The truck is lowered and these tires have done well with one
exception. The speedomiter control is handeled by the rear wheels and My
speedomiter runs fast. The diamiter of these tires are 26.6 inches.
I am considering changing to a P275/60R15 which diameter is 28.0 inches and
will slow my speedomiter reading down. Is there any problem you know of
putting a P275/60R15 tire on a 9 inch rim?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:04:01 EDT
From: FLR150 AOL.COM
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Tire sze change.

In a message dated 10/27/99 9:31:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
CPortlock AOL.COM writes:


will slow my speedometer reading down. Is there any problem you know of
putting a P275/60R15 tire on a 9 inch rim? >>
I have a 1994 Flareside and I have the 275/60/15 mounted on 10" rims. I have
found that the Speedo runs about 2-3 mph fast on mine. I feel that is
acceptable for the switch in tire size without going in and reprogramming the
Speedo for the difference.
Later
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:12:15 -0400
From: Dan Shade
Subject: FTE Perf - Crate Engines

Who markets a good 351W or a 302 crate engine for a reasonable price?

later

dan

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:40:06 -0700
From: "James Krehmke"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Tire sze change.

I have 'em on 8.75 inch rims on the rear of my ranchero, and they fit
perfectly.

- -jwk-
- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 6:30 PM
Subject: FTE Perf - Tire sze change.


> I am presently running P295/50R15 on a 9 inch rim for my rear tires on a
92
> F150 Flairside. The truck is lowered and these tires have done well with
one
> exception. The speedomiter control is handeled by the rear wheels and My
> speedomiter runs fast. The diamiter of these tires are 26.6 inches.
> I am considering changing to a P275/60R15 which diameter is 28.0 inches
and
> will slow my speedomiter reading down. Is there any problem you know of
> putting a P275/60R15 tire on a 9 inch rim?
> == 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: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 19:40:56 -0700
From: "James Krehmke"
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - Crate Engines

Ford, who else?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Shade
To: perf
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:12 PM
Subject: FTE Perf - Crate Engines


> Who markets a good 351W or a 302 crate engine for a reasonable price?
>
> later
>
> dan
>
> == 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, 27 Oct 1999 22:53:22 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - What year 460s?

um...
excuse me?
Junk?
damn man, they're the same head, but with a bigger chamber. mill them
heads down, deck the block, or put in some single eyebrow flat tops.
that'll bring the compression right back up. Why spend extra cash for an
early head, when the later heads will work and they have a lower price tag.

PI heads can be made from later heads, just by putting bigger valves in
(check that piston clearance!). For most people that will be a better
performer than the CJ heads anyway. So, the only head worth anything more
than any later head is the CJ head, as these heads have the bigger ports
too. But then again, how many people will ever flow enough to notice
through those heads anyway. And, right now the SVO aluminum CJ heads fully
assembled and ready to roll are not too bad a price when compared to
buying, testing, rebuilding a set of early iron CJ heads.

Junk. I dunno 'bout anyone else, but my junk just works. Even my one
build at slightly over 9:1 compression works.

Oh, and one more thing. That little thermactor hole in the exhaust ports?
Don't worry about it. The early heads don't have the hole, only the lump,
but there is not a single flow restriction form having the f\hole there.....

---

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.