Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?


1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks Discuss the Dentsides Ford Truck

Reply
 
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #16  
Old 05-25-2014, 09:12 AM
redroad's Avatar
redroad redroad is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 2,273
redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Good job ! I have a special place in my heart for the FE motors my first Ford truck had a 390 4 barrel and it was the 1st motor I ever built and I still run a 390 in one of my 1976 highboys but when fuel went above $3.50 a gal. for 87 octane I started playing with the 300 six motor .. I have had for a number of years a 300 that I run on propane for a stationary electrical backup generator ..

Here's some 300's in F100's to listen to


Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-25-2014, 10:44 AM
blue04.5's Avatar
blue04.5 blue04.5 is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,020
blue04.5 is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Mckoloum I'm looking forward to your project. I suggest you do what you've been wanting to for a long time and build the 390. An American V8 sings a sweet tune that no straight six can replicate. I'm not bashing the six because it's a good motor just saying you can't help wanting what you want. Good luck bud.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-25-2014, 10:58 AM
mikeo0o0o0's Avatar
mikeo0o0o0 mikeo0o0o0 is offline
Post Fiend
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Davenport, Fl
Posts: 10,147
mikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to beholdmikeo0o0o0 is a splendid one to behold
I haven't been following this thread until now. Welcome to FTE mckoloum, lots of good people here.
Nice looking truck and a good start to a project.
Where in "sunny Florida" are you located?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-25-2014, 11:04 AM
redroad's Avatar
redroad redroad is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 2,273
redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue04.5 View Post
Mckoloum I'm looking forward to your project. I suggest you do what you've been wanting to for a long time and build the 390. An American V8 sings a sweet tune that no straight six can replicate. I'm not bashing the six because it's a good motor just saying you can't help wanting what you want. Good luck bud.
You can't want MPG and a 390 at the same time unless you get both
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:13 PM
Rogue_Wulff's Avatar
Rogue_Wulff Rogue_Wulff is offline
unregistered user
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost
Posts: 8,462
Rogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to behold
There is an option for an "off-the-shelf" 5 speed, but it's not cheap.
New Process (Chrysler) and Muncie (GM) formed New Venture Gear in the early 90's, and made several 5 speed truck transmissions that found their way into both GM and Dodge pickups.
The most common, is the NV4500. As one of the few 5 speed truck transmissions ever built (for a production truck) with a separate bellhousing, it can be adapted to fit nearly any engine, in 2wd or 4wd configuration. This is accomplished with either a custom bellhousing, or a spacer/adapter to bolt the NV trans to the stock bellhousing.
The NV4500 is a rather robust trans, as the HD version was used in Dodge trucks behind both the V10 and Cummins diesel. However, they do have one weakness, the nut holding the 5th gear on the back of the mainshaft can back off, and if this happens, the gears can be damaged, and 5th gear can become unusable. There are fixes for this issue, so they should be considered if one decides to try this conversion.

Link to one (of many) sites that offer info on conversions. It specifically mentions the FE about 1/2 down the page.
New Page 1
__________________
1980 F-150 300 I6, C6 & 9" rearend. Cummins 5.9L/ NV4500 5 speed swap in the works
1974 F100 Ranger XLT 390, C6 3.25 axle. Dad bought it new.
1983 Mazda RX7 1.1L Rotary.
1984 CRX 35 MPG go kart
1995 Mazda B2300 (undercover Ford)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:18 PM
mckoloum mckoloum is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 90
mckoloum is starting off with a positive reputation.
You are right Blue,
I know it is going to hurt my wallet with the MPG but for me the V8 is a part of the American history! When you are a kid and you see all those movies like Bullit, Two Lane Blacktop or Vanishing Point, like me you need to have a V8.
I had a 1995 Bronco, with the 5.8L. engine, it was my daily driver and it really hurt me driving 45 miles/day! Now I missed it...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:20 PM
mckoloum mckoloum is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 90
mckoloum is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks Mike,
I am in the West Palm Beach area.
You are right I find some help in here really quick, it help a lot to have all of you guys ready to share your knowledge, Thanks to all of you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:25 PM
mckoloum mckoloum is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 90
mckoloum is starting off with a positive reputation.
Thanks for the info Rogue,
I just looked at the link, this will be a nice modification.
My budget is really low, trying to keep the cost as low as I can, I might stick with my 3 speed for now.
I also read you can improve the mileage by putting the right part in the engine, what you guys think will be best combination, for low budget!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:41 PM
redroad's Avatar
redroad redroad is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 2,273
redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
The FE motor is the most expensive of Ford motors to rebuild but it was worth it to me .. You will have to decide whether your budget can hold up ..
For example on a budget but still wanting the motor to perform I might choose these heads

Do you want it to be able to use 87 octane fuel?

Do you have kids ?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:46 PM
Rogue_Wulff's Avatar
Rogue_Wulff Rogue_Wulff is offline
unregistered user
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost
Posts: 8,462
Rogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by mckoloum View Post
I also read you can improve the mileage by putting the right part in the engine, what you guys think will be best combination, for low budget!
There's not much you do to improve the MPG with an FE. But, there's also not much you can do to hurt the MPG either, so you might as well make it run good.

That said, building a 390 with ~9.5:1 CR and a mild-ish cam (like comp H268) can net better MPG than a stock (dog) 360/390. This obviously requires driving with a bit of throttle restraint........
Easy way to get that CR range, is use stock 360 pistons (in the correct overbore as needed) on 390 rods/crank. The 360 used a piston that was originally built for the 390, but since it stopped more .100 away from the head, the CR (in the 360) was in the low 8:1 range. The same piston on 390 rod/crank, gives 9.3-10:1 CR depending on head CC.
__________________
1980 F-150 300 I6, C6 & 9" rearend. Cummins 5.9L/ NV4500 5 speed swap in the works
1974 F100 Ranger XLT 390, C6 3.25 axle. Dad bought it new.
1983 Mazda RX7 1.1L Rotary.
1984 CRX 35 MPG go kart
1995 Mazda B2300 (undercover Ford)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-25-2014, 01:53 PM
redroad's Avatar
redroad redroad is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 2,273
redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue_Wulff View Post
There's not much you do to improve the MPG with an FE. But, there's also not much you can do to hurt the MPG either, so you might as well make it run good.

That said, building a 390 with ~9.5:1 CR and a mild-ish cam (like comp H268) can net better MPG than a stock (dog) 360/390. This obviously requires driving with a bit of throttle restraint........
Easy way to get that CR range, is use stock 360 pistons (in the correct overbore as needed) on 390 rods/crank. The 360 used a piston that was originally built for the 390, but since it stopped more .100 away from the head, the CR (in the 360) was in the low 8:1 range. The same piston on 390 rod/crank, gives 9.3-10:1 CR depending on head CC.
So what money you would be saving on building a higher compression ratio motor for MPG? you immediately lose on the added price of 91 octane fuel or at least part of it.. Now that sounds reasonable I'd go with 9.0:1 max
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-25-2014, 02:23 PM
mckoloum mckoloum is offline
Junior User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 90
mckoloum is starting off with a positive reputation.
Redroad, funny you show me this link, I saw those but the description said it will not fit the 8 bolt manifold without drilling 4 new holes? And those are with the CJ valve.
Does having the CJ valve or stock valve will change anything in MPG?
No I don't have kid, why?
Being able to put 87 will be a nice thing.

Rogue if I understand I should stay below the 9.5:1 compression ratio. And the compression ratio is one of those thing I can't figure out yet, I understand the CC from the head and cylinder chamber play a role in it, but does the camshaft have an incidence on the CR?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-25-2014, 02:38 PM
redroad's Avatar
redroad redroad is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 2,273
redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mckoloum View Post
Redroad, funny you show me this link, I saw those but the description said it will not fit the 8 bolt manifold without drilling 4 new holes? And those are with the CJ valve.
Does having the CJ valve or stock valve will change anything in MPG?
No I don't have kid, why?
Being able to put 87 will be a nice thing.

Rogue if I understand I should stay below the 9.5:1 compression ratio. And the compression ratio is one of those thing I can't figure out yet, I understand the CC from the head and cylinder chamber play a role in it, but does the camshaft have an incidence on the CR?
Will the CJ size valve give better mpg ? Not to much I would say but it will make the engine breath better and run more efficiently .. Where you will notice it is when you step on the accelerator .. The 12 bolt pattern for exhaust will only matter if you are going to try and use a stock exhaust manifold .. You can get headers for the 390 with a 12 bolt flange .. Kids means no money for toys .. My kids grown and out of the house .. now the grandkids are almost driving age .. I've been working on a F250 for/with Grandson number 1 so it's ready when he's old enough ..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-25-2014, 02:43 PM
Rogue_Wulff's Avatar
Rogue_Wulff Rogue_Wulff is offline
unregistered user
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lost
Posts: 8,462
Rogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to beholdRogue_Wulff is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by redroad View Post
So what money you would be saving on building a higher compression ratio motor for MPG? you immediately lose on the added price of 91 octane fuel or at least part of it.. Now that sounds reasonable I'd go with 9.0:1 max
With proper ignition timing, you can still run 87 octane in a 390 with 9.5:1 CR. Of course, much higher than that, and 91 can become required.

The 74 I have, has a 390 with 360 pistons, a factory 390GT/428CJ camshaft, with D2 heads (9.3-9.5:1 CR), and it runs fine on 87 octane with the timing set a couple degrees back from optimal. Optimal timing, it prefers 89 octane, but can still handle the cheaper stuff. It's been this way since Dad built the engine some 25 years ago...... About 3 years before my youngest kid was born.
__________________
1980 F-150 300 I6, C6 & 9" rearend. Cummins 5.9L/ NV4500 5 speed swap in the works
1974 F100 Ranger XLT 390, C6 3.25 axle. Dad bought it new.
1983 Mazda RX7 1.1L Rotary.
1984 CRX 35 MPG go kart
1995 Mazda B2300 (undercover Ford)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-25-2014, 02:58 PM
redroad's Avatar
redroad redroad is offline
Posting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pa.
Posts: 2,273
redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.redroad is gaining momentum as a positive member of FTE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue_Wulff View Post
With proper ignition timing, you can still run 87 octane in a 390 with 9.5:1 CR. Of course, much higher than that, and 91 can become required.

The 74 I have, has a 390 with 360 pistons, a factory 390GT/428CJ camshaft, with D2 heads (9.3-9.5:1 CR), and it runs fine on 87 octane with the timing set a couple degrees back from optimal. Optimal timing, it prefers 89 octane, but can still handle the cheaper stuff. It's been this way since Dad built the engine some 25 years ago...... About 3 years before my youngest kid was born.
That sounds good .. On my 76 highboy I still tow with it on occasion so I needed to keep the CR down but the heads were reworked for CJ size valves keeps exh. temps motor temps down when it's workin .. It still has truck duties
Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2014, 02:58 PM
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
360 vs. 390....piston talk! Fellenz 1961 - 1966 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 23 12-08-2014 05:51 PM
best cam for 390 FE???? 1976f150dude 1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 20 11-19-2014 06:03 AM
Yet another new guy SuperSabre 1961 - 1966 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 10 12-28-2010 02:32 AM
390 crankshaft idenification sled_man4ever 1967 - 1972 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks 11 11-26-2002 12:32 PM
The 360 to 390 build mikeeep FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428) 12 10-19-2002 01:00 PM


Go Back   Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Older, Classic & Antique Trucks > 1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


Participate In The Forums

Create new posts and participate in discussions. It's free!

Sign Up »





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 AC1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Statement - 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.

vbulletin Admin Backup