Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:00:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V1 #174
Reply-To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-digest Thursday, August 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 174



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1979 And Older Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: 351C Horsepower Question [sdelanty sonic.net]
Re: Peculiar gasoline question. [sdelanty sonic.net]
Installing Solid Axle [JonP27604 aol.com]
Re: fordtrucks-digest V1 #173 [Nick ]
Re: ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback [bfwinstead
RE: 351C Horsepower Question [Dan Wentz ]
Re: ADMIN: Too many digests? [Dan Wentz ]
RE: peculiar gasoline question [sdelanty sonic.net]

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:20:49 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: 351C Horsepower Question

>I was just looking through an old Chilton's manual when I noticed something
>odd. In 1971 the 351C 2V was rated at 240 HP, which is about what I'd
>expect. But then in 1972 (the year I have) HP was only 164!!! Did they
>add a bunch of emissions stuff in 72 to rob over 70 horses? Or did they
>start measuring HP some other way? I mean, 76 horses is a lot--where did
>it go?

Hi Dan,

Little of both... By the early 70's smog equipment and lower compression
ratios were taking their toll on HP.

However, there was also a change in how the numbers were obtained.
The following quote explains it pretty well.
The HP numbers quoted are for an FE428CJ...

> The following quote comes from the article "Cobra Jet: Making of
>a Legend", published in the October 1993 issue of Fabulous Mustangs and
>Exotic Fords. It is attributed to Bill Barr, an engineer in Ford's
>Cobra Jet Engine Group.
>
>"Previously, we would advertise 'Engineering A-Curve' power. That was the
>maximum output you could get out of an older engine with looser clearances
>than a new one, with dynamometer headers. That was the 'A' power curve.
>Then there was the B-Curve, which was the engine with no accessories. The
>C-Curve included backpresure, accesories and everything. Uniqueto the
>Cobra Jet, we started advertising the B-Curve power rather than the
Engineering >A-Curve.
>The 428CJ was capable of approximately 400 hp (A-Curve), 325-335 hp
>(B-Curve), and 310-320 (C-Curve). NHRA and others immediately factored the
>car for match racing."

One of the reasons I've heard for the change in ratings was that
insurance companies were freaking out over the HP numbers the late
60's muscle cars were making.

Don't know if it's true or not, but....

Happy motoring,


Steve Delanty
1971 F100 FE390

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:20:53 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: Peculiar gasoline question.



>Could be. But is it possible that it is a more *efficient* motor fuel? I am in
>Colorado and they force us to use this crap gas with MTBE added to it. I guess
>it's extra oxygen. They used to switch to it only in winter but now I guess
some
>gas stations are using it full time so they can charge the higher price full
>time.

Yes, MTBE can reduce performance and /or mileage.

Here's the deal as I understand it from the gasoline faq and from
members of the DIY_EFI list.

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) is an oxygenate. Oxygenates raise
the octane of gasoline (a good thing) and slightly reduce the amount
of unburned HC's in the exhaust. (also a good thing)

However, the problem is that because a percentage of Your fuel is now
oxygen it causes the motor to run leaner.

With modern EFI setups, the O2 sensors detect this leanness and
compensate for it by widening the injector pulswidths to richen things
back up again. The net result is that more fuel is burned, so gas
mileage goes down, altho HP should stay the same.

With a carburetor, it just plain old makes You run leaner unless You
rejet to compensate.
If You are running too rich already, MTBE fuels will make You run better.
If You are running right on target, MTBE will make You go lean.
If You are running at the ragged edge of "too lean" like many 70's
smogged/carbureted vehicles are, the You will go so lean that the
thing runs like sh!t.

Most of the discussion I've seen on the DIY_EFI list seems to indicate
that if You are spot on with regular fuels, that You will need to
richen up 5-8% with MTBE fuels. Expect a corresponding drop in mileage.

>I knew right away when they would switch over to it as I seemed to use more gas
>for the same amount of driving. I was thinking that maybe I could mix some of
>the good gas with more of the crap gas (say, 10:1 or something) and get more
>mileage from a tank.

The more You can dilute the MTBE with regular fuel (to dilute the
oxygen content) the better, but I doubt it's economically worthwhile.
You'd probably have to add 25-50% non-MTBE fuel to do much real good.
You are probably better of to just rejet the carb to run good with
the MTBE fuel and except the 5-10% mileage loss, unless You get a
special deal on the 112. (or any non-MTBE fuel)

>My truck was designed to use higher octane gas I believe. I
>have been using about 85 octane.

Aackk!! 85 octane?? What are You burning, kerosene?
I've not seen anything less than 87 here in CA.
85 is pretty low stuff, You could very well be having detonation problems
with that junk. Subtle detonation isn't always audible.
85 is too low for any 70's ford motor I've seen.

I'd try a decent quality 89+ octane fuel and see if that helps before
I started mixing expensive 112 octane with 85 octane lighter fluid...

FWIW, we have MTBE fuel in CA, and I can get away with 87 octane in my
FE390, altho 89 octane lets me push the timing a little more and runs
a little better. I've tried a variety of higher octane fuels and fancy
stuff, but once I get above 90 octane, further octane increase makes no
difference in performance.
My motor is quite low compression (8:1), and I spent a little time
removing sharp edges and potential hot spots in the cumbustion chamber
before assy. I've also spent some time getting the edelbrock jetted
correctly for the fuels I use.

If I can find a second Garret T-4 at the auto wreckers I expect my
octane requirements to got up quite a bit.. (-:

Happy motoring,

Steve Delanty
1971 F100 FE390

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 23:42:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: JonP27604 aol.com
Subject: Installing Solid Axle

Why am I wanting to go backward in time? I guess the same reason Ford
did when they made the Solid Axle an opton on late model F350's and called
them Super Duty (look for them on any Ford New Truck lot). When you do a lot
of hauling or towing the front of the truck is lifted causing to much
positive camber on the front tires with IFS systems. This causes the tires to
wear mainly on the outside edges. If that is all you use the truck for (i.e.
tow trucks) then count on spending a wad on tires since they wear out faster.
In fact, reintroducing the solid axle was Fords responce to complaints from
tow truck operators for this very reason.

I will use the truck for some trailer towing but also I think it will
just look "Baaaaaadd." Think of it as "Retro Custom"


Jon E. Purut
JonP27604 aol.com

1965 F100 Daily Driver
1965 F100 Parts Truck Hoping To Revive As F350 Super Duty
1970 Mustang Fastback
1993 Escort Wagon (wifes car)




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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:16:53 -0700
From: Nick
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-digest V1 #173

Looking for a Ford logo hood ornament, for a '57 F100... thanks for any
help.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:05:03 -0500
From: bfwinstead
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback

Ken Payne wrote:

> 5. New voting form for a split into 3 lists! I've received
> a few emails about the possibility of this. It was
> suggested that we split along these lines:
>
> a) 1959/60 and older trucks
> b) 1960/61-1979 trucks
> c) 1980 and newer trucks
>

> Please let me know what you think, either via the list or send
> private email to me. I especially want to hear about what everyone
> thinks about a 3rd (and possibly 4th) list. Be patient if you
> expect a response, given the history of these types of issues
> my mailbox will probably get flooded.
>
Ken --
I'd like to see a '73-'79 list. Seems a little too specific, though.
Thanks -- Bryan

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 22:33:25 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
Subject: RE: 351C Horsepower Question

>the first thing to do is find out if the engine itself changed, or if only
>the advertised HP changed.

I'll do that. Makes sense to lose that much through the drivetrain. So
when I read the Edelbrock ads claiming to give me 400 HP if I use their
manifold, carb, cam, heads, headers, exhaust, and click my heels 3 times
really quick they'd probably be talking about HP at the flywheel, right?

~Dan

1992 Ford Mustang LX
1950 Ford F1, 351C-2V
Check out my F1 page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 22:37:02 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Too many digests?

>The digest is very configurable. How to you guys/gals like the
>frequency of it? Too often? You'll also notice that a digest
>always comes at 4:00am, I can't change this.

It's fine for me, Ken.

~Dan

1992 Ford Mustang LX
1950 Ford F1, 351C-2V
Check out my F1 page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:39:40 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: RE: peculiar gasoline question

>
>
>This is great! Anyone w/ a web browser and an interest in gasoline
>internal combustion engines would be well served to read this!
>
>A Note to Ken: You might want to consider a link to this site from the web
>page. I believe it is just as informative as the "Snake Oil " articles you....


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.