what about a turbo an gt40p heads ?

 

My guess is that the OP didn't want the complexity (real or perceived) of a forced-induction setup. If the the engine is already out for a rebuild, sticking to a naturally-aspirated setup would be one way to greatly improve base performance while containing costs (long-block costs would be almost identical, but the forced-induction setup would add the costs of the kit and any fabrication that was necessary). If downtime is an issue, the OP may be considering a 1-for-1 swap (351W-out, 357/408W-in), in which case a turbo setup would be greatly more complicated (more costly and adds downtime for fabrication and fitting).

The simplest forced-induction setup for the 351W would be a belt-driven supercharger; for a truck, something like what Ford did with the supercharged (5.4 modular platform) Lightning or the Ford GT might be the hot ticket. The twin-screw compressor is much more street-friendly than the Roots-style compressor and is relatively efficient at conditions of light load and part throttle. The downside is there aren't (afaik) any Whipplecharger setups for the 351W -- which means ordering pieces and figuring out how to put them together. It's no big deal if you're doing a project, but it's a huge deal if it's your daily drive.

Turbo Technology out of Tacoma, WA (I think they used to be Turbo Engineering, but maybe not) makes twin-turbo kits for the Mustang; when I had my 1989 SHO, I considered letting them (TE) do a turbo kit for it, but they wanted $3500 up front and my car for "3 weeks, minimum" -- but that just wasn't in the cards for me: I'd have had to ship my car across the US, and back, and I wasn't thoroughly comfortable with someone else ragging on my car while sorting it out. OTOH, their results were stunning. A set of their stainless steel turbo headers for the 302W in a Mustang (could probably be used on a 351W, but might have fitment issues on the OP's truck) are $3000 per set, with a note on their site that says "Due to the varying cost of components, All Turbo System’s and Parts are subject to change without being updated on site! Please call for current pricing on any item here." OUCH!

The build the OP has been considering, at least as far as I understand it, is for something that will have the grunt being sought, run on pump gas, fit in pretty much the stock envelope as far as packaging goes, be a simple install, and not break the bank. Nowadays, one has to factor-in how well an investment will hold its value: even though the AFR 165 heads that I've been recommending aren't the least expensive, and some other heads come close in terms of the power they unlock, I don't think there's a better long-term investment-vs-return than the OP will get with the AFR 165 heads. The added efficiency and power are just bonuses.

Yes, the OP could go with used parts and save a bundle -- maybe. There's always the risk of buying someone else's headache. Everyone seems to be thrilled with AFR 165s and AFR 185s on the street -- in terms of reliability, longevity and power, etc., etc.; for this application, the 165s are (imho) the best possible fit. If he was building a Lightning for the drags or something like that, I'd definitely be on-board for forced induction and 700+ horsepower -- but for a 4x4 that isn't being built as a race truck, 400-450 horsepower (XE262H cam in a 357 with AFR 165 heads) is way, way plenty of power for a streetable 4x4.

 

i'm thinking more along the lines of my 351 in my project dually. Just looking for ideas an other build info w/o building a $4-6k motor

 

In adjusted dollars, it's not that much (a 2011 dollar is worth about 53 cents from 1988) -- or, stated differently, if you were spending 4-6k "1988" dollars you could shell out between $7,597.19 and $11,395.79 in "2011" dollars. But yeah, I know what you mean: you're like everyone else still getting paid in 2011 dollars but having 1988 (or worse) expenses.

A 3.3-liter (or larger) Whipplecharger should do reasonably nicely. I think if you look around, you can find 3.6-liter versions -- something in that range should fit the bill performance-wise, but unless you use "racer-surplus" parts, I think the price tag is going to be pretty hard to do.

If you're going to have the engine apart, you might consider AFR heads and high-ratio rockers with a stock cam, a decent intake and headers -- and attention to oil the details (couldn't resist). That would keep your investment down while providing lots more pick-up (again, couldn't resist).

If you search around, there are occasionally some rippin' deals; I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

wireflight,
You have answered SO many of my questions about 351W's on this thread! Thank you.

I have always wondered why Ford simply abandoned the 400 for 4x4 truck applications (rather than continue updating it to support emissions). That fact alone has made me reticent to consider the ever-popular 408 stroker version of the 351, considering the low deck height in comparison to the factory 400. I figure there must be some reason they extended the block, and assume it has something to do with the rod:stroke ratio.

I'd be quite happy with the torque figures you quoted on a 351W with AFR 165 heads and shorty headers. Is it reasonable to assume that an intake manifold with the longest runners that will fit under the hood is best for low-end power? And, if so, would the stock 4bbl Holley, stock cam, and stock bottom end support all the additional stresses resulting from the enhanced breathing?

 

You're welcome. I joined with the hope that I would be able to share helpful information, and while there are lots of younger members that doubtless know more than I about a lot of things, I suppose there is some advantage to being an oldie.

As an automaker, Ford has principal responsibility to its shareholders. Those facts hugely complicate drivetrain and other specific decisions. The original "SBC" GM blocks were softer than Ford blocks, but GM produced the 400 in its low-deck block with a 1.484:1 rod:stroke ratio, larger mains and a siamesed cylinders. Yes, it used a 3.75-inch stroke in its 4.125 bore, but it also did that with a production ring stack while using old-school piston tech -- meaning the top ring was farther down than it would have to be using modern piston tech and that the piston was taller than modern tech indicates it needed to be. Those decisions together defined what rod length (5.565) would fit.

The 400 SBC seems to have been introduced principally "in anticipation" of rating changes (from gross to net power) and in response to the anticipated effects of emissions compliance, all balanced against costs of production and marketing on one side and sales (or potential sales) on the other. It isn't entirely "design by bureaucracy," but it's close -- and it affected all the automakers. Here is a somewhat biased version of the rationale driving Ford to introduce the 400. Despite what is articulated through that particular link, I think it is more important to realize that the SBC was produced from 1970-1980, and the "335-series" 400 Ford was produced from 1971-1979. That tells me the 400-inch demographic disappeared.

From the perspective of what changed in their respective cylinder blocks in meeting the 400-inch demographic, GM saved money by keeping its 400 in the same packaging size as the 350, at the expense of producing a special block: although externally nearly identical, the 350 used 2.45-inch mains and a 4-inch bore with independent cylinders; the 400 used 2.65-inch mains and a 4.125-inch bore with siamesed cylinders. Ford saved money by simply adding height to its deck, at the expense of packaging interchangeability, and boosted the mains to 3-inch instead of 2.75-inch.

GM's reputation was somewhat injured by problems arising from steam pockets trapped in the siamesed-cylinder block, but relief holes solved that problem and successive production units were reliable; in 1974, GM introduced the 4V 400 and it discontinued the 2V version the following year. SBC heads from that era were remarkably good -- but what else would you expect from a company that got its start making speed equipment for Fords?

Yup: Art and Louis Chevrolet (and Gaston) put the heat in Model T Fords -- especially with their multivalve SOHC and DOHC conversions, but that's a whole other story that predates even me! My guess is that Ford simply conceded the hotrod territory to GM during that era; it already had the 4V Cleveland head (which it used to remarkable advantage on the 302B and 351B engines), it had the Australian (commonly "3V") head, but it didn't make a hi-performance version of the 400.

Even with 2-inch throws and tall pistons, the 400 Ford had a 1.645:1 rod:stroke ratio (the first-generation 350 SBC had a 1.6379:1 rod:stroke ratio). GM's LS9 (638-hp supercharged 6.2-liter) uses a 6.098 rod and a 3.62-inch stroke for a 1.6845:1 rod:stroke ratio; the LS7 (505-hp "427" or "7.0-liter") uses a 6.067 rod and a 4-inch stroke for a 1.51675 rod:stroke ratio. Ford's new DOHC-32V 5.0 uses a 150.7-mm connecting rod and a 92.7-mm stroke for a 1.62567:1 rod:stroke ratio. The 5.4-liter Ford modular engine (550-hp 2011 Shelby GT500) uses a 105.8-mm stroke and a 169.1-mm connecting rod for a 1.5983:1 rod:stroke ratio.

Lots of people have guessed why Ford didn't develop the 400; I think it boils down to the inefficiency of the package: the 429/460 was about the same size and weight, had much larger bores and, therefore, would support much better breathing. The 335-series and the 385-series use nearly identical valvetrains: I can't see a really good argument being made in favor of killing a BBF over the difference in cost between the 400 and the 460 valvetrains.

In retrospect, Ford should have developed a 400W or 400B from the 351W block (without raising the deck); Ford had reliable high-output wedge heads (which it could have developed further into a 400W-HO), but even in the "worst-case," Ford could have built a Boss 400 ("400B") using the 351W block, 4-bolt mains (either 351W or 351C size, but pick one and stick with it), a 4-inch stroke and 351W rods (1.489:1 rod:stroke ratio) with a Boss 302 compression height piston and 351C-4V heads (which, naturally, should have been developed along the lines of modern aftermarket 351C heads) -- all while using technology then available.

Imagine if Ford had instead followed Chevy's large-bore path and introduced a Boss 428 (4.125-bore siamesed cylinders, 4-inch stroke) in a 351W or 351-Clevor package! And Ford should have long ago abandoned its obsession with pinching exhaust ports and folding them over (and in the case of the 351C-4V heads, of using the bottom half of the port to create a false window, but that's a whole other topic). Ford's port history is a fairly mixed bag, but a short-ratio 428 with decent compression and a healthy cam would've dominated the marketplace. For that matter, a short-ratio 400 would have, as well: put Aussie heads on it and let 'er rip!

As far as actual numbers go, and as far as actual reliability and longevity are concerned, the disclaimer "your mileage may vary" always applies. You're modifying a particular engine, which has a particular manufacturing history and (in almost every case) a unique operating history; compound those variables with differences in machine-shop equipment and operator competence, and with differences in individual assembly conditions and techniques -- and then apply the variable of the operator -- and consistency becomes far more stunning than numbers describing specific output.

A 351W in good condition, I would think, should be able to handle 430/400 without suffering remarkably shortened engine life under what I would call normal operating conditions. Stated differently: someone buys a 351W-powered vehicle (pickup, sedan, wagon or Mustang) and uses it for basic transportation, within the OEM guidelines: pretty much nothing changes as far as longevity/reliability goes; then again, what's the point in having 400+ horsepower if you don't use it?

Drag-strip starts are brutal on driveline components when contrasted against "freeway on-ramp" acceleration or even passing a slower vehicle on a 2-lane roadway (which is more stressful than simply "cruising" at an elevated speed), and having more power available (or, more accurately, having a greater power-to-drag ratio -- where drag refers to total resistance imposed by mass as well as by friction) tempts many to access a greater percentage of peak power more frequently than they would have with a lower power-to-drag ratio.

Having said all that, if I was building the engine for myself, I wouldn't hesitate to use the AFR 165 heads with the rebuilt stock short block. As far as an intake recommendation with the stock cam and 600-cfm Holley 4160 carb (an ewag, but I think that's OEM for Ford's "351W HO" in '83-'85 pickups), with the aluminum heads, I think the low-rpm power goal (in an off-the-shelf manifold) will probably best be handled by the Edelbrock Performer (not the Performer RPM); however, if I was realistically anticipating a larger engine (stroked 351W) in the future, I'd go with either the Weiand Stealth or the Edelbrock Performer RPM.

For low-RPM power, what's wrong with the factory intake? Even with aluminum heads, the stock intake isn't going to be bad at low RPM: I doubt you'd be able to notice the difference between these intakes below 2500-or-so, and at some RPM points, the stock intake might actually hold an advantage over the aftermarket aluminum pieces in terms of power output. It is conceivable that someone could fabricate a 1x4V intake that would produce a boost in low-rpm power with the OEM carburetor, that such an intake could be tuned to provide a greater benefit at low RPM, but there doesn't seem to be a market for such a product:

At 650 RPM, a gain of 8 lbs-ft is equal to less than 1 horsepower; at 2500 RPM, a gain of 8 lbs-ft is equal to roughly 3.81 horsepower.

If I wanted to change something and I was on an extremely tight budget, I'd swap-in high-ratio rocker arms (making sure beforehand that I had enough piston clearance with stock ratio rockers to justify the purchase). The 1.7:1 ratio is available almost everywhere that sells stuff for the Windsor SBF (get quality pieces by a reputable manufacturer, from a reputable vendor); higher ratios are available, but word on the street is that they require a lot more effort to assemble properly (and they're pricey "race parts," anyway).

I'd invest in an adjustable premium double-roller timing chain set (not the insanely-expensive billet stuff, but a good high-quality piece that wasn't going to give me any trouble down the road). And I'd degree my cam (a kit can get expensive, and I personally like large-diameter degree wheels, but I think it's money well-spent if you want it done right) for 2 important reasons: (a) so that I'd have a valid baseline for future cam ideas, and (b) to make sure the engine went together the way I intended it to.

Next, I'd probably add tubular exhaust headers; I'd get stainless steel if I could afford it (ceramic coated stainless steel, if I could), and shorties are fine for most applications. Consult with the header maker about your specific application, though, as I've heard some can cause interference problems with crossmembers and stuff; some websites include the maker's fitment notes. A quick search at Summit shows only full-length headers available for the 351W in a 1984 F-150 4x4; most are 4-into-1; Doug's offers a tri-Y setup.

If I was definitely going to build a stroker or at least a hot 351, I'd probably go for a 1.625-inch tube; if I was realistically going to stick with the stock cam and carb, I'd consider the 1.5-inch tubes. I wouldn't get anything thinner than 16-gauge (14-gauge is thicker, and it's what I'd prefer). The headers I saw listed come with either a 2.5-inch or a 3-inch collector; either is likely plenty big. Be aware you will probably have to re-tune your carb when you switch to aftermarket exhaust headers.

I would wrap my header tubes with a thermal barrier, from (primary) flange to (collector) flange. With such insulated long-tube headers, I might be tempted to try 1.7:1 rockers on the intake valves and 1.6:1 (stock ratio) rockers on the exhaust valves. The 351W-HO cam specs that I ran across show valve lifts of 0.444/0.452 (intake/exhaust), with an advertised duration (not to be confused with duration at 0.050) of 206/221 degrees, respectively, and a 115-degree LSA. The 1.7:1 intake rockers would boost intake duration slightly and would increase intake-valve lift to nearly 0.472 inch.

I'm not sure whether the insulated long-tube headers would provide the sort of extraction I was looking for with the 1.6:1 exhaust rocker ratio, but I think it would be an interesting experiment -- and with all the clearances pre-verified, I could always switch to 1.7:1 rockers on all valves. Depending on how committed you are to improving low-end power with the stock cam, you could even experiment with 1.6:1, 1.65:1 and 1.7:1 rocker ratios -- using one ratio for intakes and one ratio for exhausts:

A) 1.60/1.60 (LIFT ~ 0.444/0.452) Stock Ratios
B) 1.60/1.65 (LIFT ~ 0.444/0.466)
C) 1.60/1.70 (LIFT ~ 0.444/0.480)
D) 1.65/1.60 (LIFT ~ 0.458/0.452)
E) 1.65/1.65 (LIFT ~ 0.458/0.466)
F) 1.65/1.70 (LIFT ~ 0.458/0.480)
G) 1.70/1.60 (LIFT ~ 0.472/0.452)
H) 1.70/1.65 (LIFT ~ 0.472/0.466)
I) 1.70/1.70 (LIFT ~ 0.472/0.480)

I don't have a map of the cam lobe profiles, so I can't make any reasonable guesses regarding which combination might work best for you. There are general rules: you don't want the intake charge flowing into the exhaust manifold during overlap, and you don't want to induce either a stall or a reversion in the intake flow -- but those principles are pretty obvious.

Although changing the intake is at that point a logical next step, I'd probably wait and change the heads and intake at the same time -- and I wouldn't do that until I had enough stashed in my "oh crap" fund to cover a really nice set of pistons. As always, when I put the valvetrain back together, I'd double-check (and maybe quadruple-check) valve-to-piston clearances. There's always a chance that the OEM pistons won't work, and you might not be able to get back the difference with a return to the factory rocker ratio -- which means either flycutting the stock slugs or purchasing a set of aftermarket pistons (that also might have to be flycut).

Check your clearances with the high-ratio rockers if you're intending to keep them (which I would), but install the stock rockers and run the engine like that for the first 1000 miles after the head swap (you'll want to change your oil and filter at that point, anyway). Get the oil analyzed at that point, to see how your engine is wearing.

Yeah, "1000 miles" sounds like a lot, doesn't it -- but look at it this way: it's 25 hours at an average of 40 miles per hour under conditions of varying load. That is a very brisk average pace for most automobiles that operate on public roads: I had a fleet of diesel trucks, and long (435 miles each way) uninterrupted trips via interstate (mostly 70-mph) resulted in actual drive-time average speeds (not including any loading or unloading, or driving around a parking lot, etc.) within a tenth or two either side of 45 mph. Short trips have a lower average speed (because a greater percentage of the trip is devoted to accelerating and decelerating), and stop-and-go driving results in even slower average speeds.

Alternatively, you could break everything in on a dyno -- but if you've got the change for a proper dyno run-in, you can probably afford to do the whole upgrade at once. A thousand miles is nothing.

 

with pauls desktop dyno, can that combo be run with SD ?

 

To the OP: after wireflight's advice & info, I did some research, because I've been looking at different options for my own '86 351W HO (F250 4x4 8600lb GVWR C6 w/4.10's). Your rear-end, transmission and intended use might be different than mine, so I've posted what I've found so far here:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spre...9OQ2c&hl=en_US
with dollar figures and part numbers.

For me, because I run at high revs, I'm favoring the non-stroker approach. This is because I can get 350-400hp out of the stock bottom end. If I stroked it, I'd have to slow it back down at cruising speed for fuel economy, which would involve a 5-speed swap or a gear vendors OD ($2995). I don't see the point in doing any of that.

Even if I spend big bucks on an AFR head, I can keep the budget under control by sticking with the stock intake and stock carb (both of which can be changed later without removing the engine).

I plan on towing about 6 or 7,000 pounds, plus another 1000 pounds or so in the bed of the truck in the form of tools, extra fuel, spare tires, etc. The trailer has a fair amount of frontal area, so I expect to be needing the RPM's to fight wind resistance (another reason to shy away from the strokers, as this will suck more gas than a stock bottom end).

All of this was necessary to determine my next step: whether to rebuild the carburetor, or get a new one. I'm leaning toward a rebuilt Edelbrock, and figuring out a way to close off the EGR window because I know I'm probably going to spring for the intake once I put an engine together.

 

Because of my 4.10 axle ratios and unwillingness to change both front and rear, plus replace the speedo gear, I need maximum efficiency (mpg) and power at ~2800-3200 RPM.

While I agree with you that Ford engineers have more to worry about than just the best possible combination for the intended use, such worries were not limited to shareholder returns. And they're not stupid people (I'm sure I'll get a lot of flack for that, but oh well). The '86 3/4 ton intake was designed to meet emissions while avoiding the need for an expensive power-sapping catalytic converter. As we all know, EGR systems are an emissions fig leaf. The same number of pollutants end up in the air per mile driven, but the number of particles per million in any given snapshot of exhaust gasses drops. In the meantime, you end up caking and clogging your combustion chamber in a way that causes the engine to burn less efficiently sooner down the road. So, I figured that an aftermarket intake without EGR would be free of this Hobson's choice.

I find that understanding the reasoning behind engineers' decisions helps me make better decisions for modifying their setup. I have little patience for the "bigger/more is better" paradigm that infects the thinking of most shade-tree mechanics (I don't use the term pejoratively -- as I am one -- but I take most advice from my colleagues with a grain of salt). This is the reason I asked you about the 408 setup. In an E40D/TPI world (where a wider throttle opening = more efficiency), this mod would make lots of sense. In a carburetor world, high swirl, velocity and vacuum = better efficiency in both mpg and peak power (and, ironically, emissions).

One technology that has come a long way since 1986 is aluminum production. With modern (computer aided) smelting and casting techniques, I get the benefit of such complexity without having to install it on my vehicle. So I'm slowly getting sold on aftermarket aluminum heads. So, my strategy now is leaning toward running the best-breathing carb setup I can muster and let it rev (as the engineers intended), but keep the butterflies as close to closed as possible for everyday driving. I want maximum velocity through the carburetor itself, but as smooth airflow as possible after that so the air/fuel mixture doesn't come out of suspension before hitting the combustion chambers.

But as Sandyrun found out when talking to RHS, this presents a new dilemma. Just because you CAN go bigger doesn't mean you SHOULD. If he has an E4OD, I can see the logic behind stroking his motor to a 408, with an AFR185 head to support the ultimate mass airflow demands. The setup will probably provide him with similar fuel economy as a stock 351 stroke with a 1:1 final drive, while still providing some extra oomph on demand. What mystifies me is why (in a truck) he would consider a radical cam. Why not just spec the appropriate dwell for the new piston sweep and let the stroke do its thing? Another thing: you'll RARELY hear from an aftermarket vendor that stroking an engine increases piston speed, and unless you slow the thing down on steady-state cruising, your crank and mains will suffer increased wear.

What's your advice on 3-4,000 RPM with a stock bottom end, and AFR 165 heads? Would there be any benefit to an Edelbrock performer intake over the stock? How about the carb? Does the increased breathing warrant a switch to a 650 or 750 cfm?

 

I'm trying to not be nasty, but you have so far in this thread made several comments of which I simply am unable to make logical sense. For instance, you indicated that you are reluctant to even consider the “ever-popular 408 stroker version of the 351(W)” exactly and only because Ford, in your words, “simply abandoned the 400 for 4x4 truck applications (rather than continue updating it to support emissions);” I can find between such premise and conclusion no logical connection.

I realize most people care little for grammar and even less for grammarians, and for such cause I was willing to entertain the notion that the thought actually expressed was different from the thought you intended. Truly, it is not my intent to offend, but if we cannot agree on matters of perspective, then what hope have I of helping you? It is for that reason that I have blunted my foil and approached these concerns with such delicate tenderness. It is also for courtesy towards the others in this forum that I have withheld thorough redress.

I really hope that's an attempt at sarcasm. This is, after all, a thread in the Ford Truck Enthusiasts forum: you'd be hard-pressed to find an audience less hostile to the idea that Ford's engineers aren't stupid.

Concerning its development of the 335-series, whether Ford had reached the point of Pareto efficiency is for us a matter of vain speculation. Regardless whether accurate, among the representations in popular myths is the conclusory representation Ford's decision to retire its 400 was based on that engine being unable to meet emerging emissions regulations.

Although commonly construed to indicate impossibility, the described myth could reasonably mean either of three things: further improvement of the Ford 400 with respect to emissions compliance (a) was altogether impossible, (b) was impossible to achieve while retaining a competitive output, or (c) was possible, but not cost-effective when contrasted against other options. Items (b) and (c) are all about economics: only item (a) concerns the limits of technology and materials. Sensible people believe the ultimate answer is either (b) or (c), or some combination thereof.

Any discussion of the Ford 400 not specifically related to the OP's question is far afield from the proper development of this thread. Having so stated, the Ford 400 existed only because Ford believed it could economically sell those engines for a net gain of money. Every excuse for the compromises that were designed into that engine proceeded directly, exactly and ultimately from that foundational and fundamental truth; there was not then, there is not now and there will never be any other basic reason for the existence of the Ford 400.

If, as you propose, Ford “simply abandoned the 400 for 4x4 truck applications (rather than continue updating it to support emissions),” it was only because Ford believed that was the most economical course of action concerning the development and application of the Ford 400; there was not then, there is not now and there will never be any other basic reason for such abandonment. If you believe otherwise, then you are mistaken: Ford's fiduciary duty is to its stockholders; by law, shareholder welfare is the ultimate deciding factor in every decision Ford (or any other corporation) makes.

This is not a matter of picking at nits:

If you don't understand the most important cause for those engineers' decisions -- if you don't realize that everything they did was in an effort ultimately related to, overshadowed -- indeed dominated -- by shareholder economics, how can you hope to ever divine their calculus? Without such basic understanding, any conclusion you reach cannot be any more principled or precise than a blind guess; worse, a holistic view of your comments thus far strongly suggests (again, I am tempering my language so as not to offend) that you are impelled to your such conclusion by romantic prejudice rather than by critical and dispassionate contemplation.

I confess this is the most hilarious comment I have read in a very long time; I don't know anyone able to make sense of it, unless it is construed in the context of social engineering -- meaning that you derive benefit from the mere fact that such technology exists, regardless whether you personally take advantage of it. If such was your intent to convey, then I apologize for having misread you: that sentiment is in this age incredibly noble. Else, I have no idea what your such words might mean.

Think not that being regarded as a shadetree mechanic is a disparaging appellation: as Newton might have observed, the mechanics of shade-trees can occasionally lead to the discoveries of genius.

Warmest regards; I'll address your specific concerns with somewhat improved focus in my next post.

 

Wow. I was just tossing out ideas in a brainstorming kind of way, which is what I thought was the whole purpose of a forum. I didn't expect to have my nose rubbed in my own (apparently) used-dogfood ideas.

I apologize to the OP for confusing the issue unnecessarily.

 

Possible New Thread
In automotive forums, I haven't seen instances of forum administrators selectively relocating posts from one topic to another, but I've seen it done in software forums to facilitate topic organization and help attract resources focused on a particular issue, so that specific questions answered don't ultimately get lost in a cloud of “general information.” I don't know whether FFE administrators use software providing them with such ability, but they may be able to relocate the portion of this thread dealing with concerns other than the OP's question. Your comment dated “07-24-2011, 01:38 AM” provides context important to that thread.

Don't beat yourself up about learning, but don't let prejudice for particular ideas keep you from seeing what is truly important. Light cannot exist without dominating darkness, and it only actually exits to the extent that it supplants darkness. As you age, you will discover those words become increasingly applicable across a wider variety of topics; eventually, you have to decide whether you're willing to continue to learn the lessons that life teaches. Like any other competition, life is brutal: either you win (and reap the spoils of victory), or you lose (and suffer the ignominy of defeat). In this forum, I'm not so much a competitor as a trainer: I'm hoping to give the next generation of competitors the information they need to win.

What Combination Is Best For Me?
I was well along the way to composing an entire book in answer to this question when I realized how much information I was packing into the answer. It doesn't help to characterize all sorts of stuff that may not be applicable to your particular ride. If you can, please post a pic (or a link to a pic) of the loaded truck-and-trailer combination. If you can take that pic on level pavement, it's better, but even if it's in your yard, we should be able to get some decent recommendations for you.

The main things I need to know starting out are (a) the exact tire on your truck and (b) the exact tire on your trailer. If you're running a mix, please specify each tire separately, and indicate where it is located in the combination. By "exact tire," I mean to indicate *all* the identifying info from the manufacturer (everything I would need to know to go out and get an exact copy of that particular tire – brand, model, size ... *everything*.

Also, if it is possible for you to tow the loaded combination over level ground for a few miles at a steady speed, I need you to do that, and post back with the RPM indicated on your tachometer. It would be super great if you were using, for instance, a SunPro, VDO or other premium-quality aftermarket tach – but what we want isn't always what we have to work with, and as long as both the speedometer and the factory tach give high precision (repeatability) and neither wanders around, we should be okay.

Preliminary Testing
Do not do anything that is either unsafe or illegal.

GenerallyWeightsDimensionsDataSpeedsTimingCapturing The DataAdditional Thoughts