perf-list-digest Sunday, August 2 1998 Volume 01 : Number 048

Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance
Visit our web site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
with the words "unsubscribe perf-list-digest" in the body of the
In this issue:

FTE Perf - Fans/Shrouds
RE: FTE Perf - In My Experience...
Re: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection
FTE Perf - Shift Improvers & Water Injection
FTE Perf - building a 400



Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 05:56:10 -0700
From: "George"
Subject: FTE Perf - Fans/Shrouds

How close should the cooling fan be to the radiator? This application also
has a/c.

George Miller

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 11:04:34 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE Perf - In My Experience...

True, the 385 engine family, from all i have seen/read/heard/experienced is
less sensitive to detonation at higher CR. The semi-quench design, canted
valves, and possibly better cooling in the heads (?) may contribute to

My '68 460 ran on any gas, but ran best on high octane. my last one at 9:1
can run even garbage gas at full power without any problems. the '68 had
11.5:1 CR, pinged very lightly on crap gas just cruising, with 92 or better
it would sometimes complain depending on weather-etc. but mostly no
problems. that motor is sitting in garage now. sometime i would like to
tear it apart to see what it looks like - after not changing oil for a
year, running 5500+ rpms thru 3 ft of snow for 20 minutes to get firewood,
and then later, running 20-30 miles with no coolant (well, it had "a
little" coolant). it still ran when i took it out. this engine even has
the old cast rail rockers.


- ----------
From: Don & Teresa Neighbors[]
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 1998 1:05 AM
To: FTE Perf List
Subject: FTE Perf - In My Experience...

That said, however, it is also possible that the FE is much more sensitive
to low octane fuel, and you'll be able to get away with it. My money would
be on a 9.5:1 CR, though.

Don Neighbors
'54 F250 Named Grover

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 11:55:08 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: Re: FTE Perf - FTE: Water Injection

On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 wrote:
> Yeah and can you imagine a water injected, 12:1 compression, roller cammed
> 460 wtih an 871 sticking out of the hood and driving around to the local
> grocery marts in the evening where the kids hang out........:-)

No, but I can imagine the motor falling apart due to detonation before
you get there, even with water injection...that 871 would be bumping it
up to something like 17:1 dynamic...

Now with 7.5:1 static and a tight 871 or 1071, there you go...

> Probably aught to get some of the rust fixed first though......:-( As Jerry on
> the bronco list would say: "It's just not cool!" :-)

Gives character...can you say "sleeper"?

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 19:24:09 -0500
From: Jim Craig
Subject: FTE Perf - Shift Improvers & Water Injection

I got 14,500 miles on my C6 w/a B&M shift improver kit in it with no
complaints---well, only one. It doesn't shift hard enough for me. Just as
someone said, the firmness of the shift is proportional to the input torque,
along with other factors. When you start out accelerating like grandma's
Cadillac, the tranny shifts like it. If you get hard on the gas, it gets a
good bit more snappier. Now you can modify the B&M shift improvers to one
of two or three settings (I chose the firmest) and it is certainly well
worth the effort and the money. As far as the Banks option--check it out!

When we boost the compression with an injection of water, what would we need
to do about the timing?

'77 Supercab 466

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:17:02 -0500
From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
Subject: FTE Perf - building a 400

>Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:40:40 -0700
>From: "Hogan, Tom"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M in Hot Rod
>Just got this month's issue of Hot Rod. They feature a buildup on a 400M.
>468 lb-ft, 380 Hp and less than $2000. I haven't read all of the article
>yet but at the begining it describes how this engine family never had a
>chance performance wise. Basically born in the smog age, limited to 8.0:1
>compression and using early (stone age) emissions technology. No wonder
>this engine got a bad rap. All of you M-block devotees may want to check
>this out. It looks like a really sane buildup for the street. Not a high
>rpm screamer it made 380 lb-ft at 2000 rpm and over 450 at 4400.

I got a chance to read this article in Hot Rod today, (September issue).
Not bad at all, definitely worth checking out. They even used a few "used"
parts (gasp!) to keep the cost in line. Not your typical "money is no
object" Hot Rod write-up.

Basically, this motor was exactly the type of build-up that CS, Dave R, and
others have been discussing on this thread. What was exciting was the
results they got.......380HP with stock heads and cast iron exhaust
manifolds! The major difference between what they did and what was
suggested here was the method of building CR. Hot Rod cut the heads .025"
and also took some off the deck.......they didn't say how much, but they did
say the deck height varied .015" from one end to the other, so I would
assume that they took at least that much. They ended up with 9.45CR. They
used stock dish pistons (.030 over) and a comp cams x-treme energy 268 cam.

It was good to see in print exactly what the M block disciples have been
preaching here..........If you build it, the ponies will come!

dale c
'79 351M

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info


End of perf-list-digest V1 #48

+--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - Performance ----------------+
| Send posts to, |
| List removal information is on the web site. |
+---------- Visit Our Web Site: ----------+
ENDTAG; } ?>