Bigbronco, many of the american makers gave lower numbers to the fed. governments in that era to put down with theirs continuous complaints about gas consumption and emissions. Also, i´m pretty sure the SAE methodology for measuring HP was changed from the engine output to the rear wheels output just in those days also. I think the real loss of those engines with the gen1 emissions systems would be of 10% at most (wich is a lot! but not as much as a 40-50% loss you think it is).

 

I cant speak for the 460 or most other motors, but its been well documented and done by many to put the engine back to pre-emission specs and gain alot more than 10% on 351M/400 motors (although most are built better than original specs though). I did point out in my post they changed from gross to sae net testing. However this is not the difference of power at the crank versus the rear wheels. As far as I know ford has never rated an engines output by rear wheel levels, but I am not 100% sure on that. I know my '99 f150 with a 210HP rated v6 is measured at the crank (or esle that would mean the little 6 is pumping about 250HP). Back in the early 70's when they were forced to use S.A.E. net power standards, the majority of the difference was: the engine had to use a production induction system including air filter, exhaust manifold, cats, and mufflers; and also all engine driven accesories like the alternator and radiator fan, etc. This would simulate more real-world conditions, so they couldnt cheat to boost the numbers by not using an air filter, or by running special headers for the dyno or things like that.

I am not saying its a 50% increase because I dont have specific numbers, and I dont think its that much either. But think about it, boosting your compression by a full point, timing your camshaft straight up versus the retarded setting, correcting the base timing and advance curve, and properly tuning your carb (the smog carbs were 'over-lean' to reduce CO and HC emissions), is well worth a bit more peak power, plus alot more power off peak too. Thats were alot of people dont realize the power difference. Things like the retarded camshaft dont effect peak power nearly as much (if any) as it does low rpm power (low rpm's is were the emissions outputs were tested). Infact it has been said that the retarded camshaft might not effect peak power much at all but could effect your lower rpm power by nearly 20%. Think 'area under the curve' since the peak power is only one point, and often misleading, but power is at every point the engine operates, from idle to max rpm. And all that I have pointed out here doesnt even inlude specialized pollution control systems like cats, egr, etc... robbing power (which isnt much), I am just talking about the basic operation of the motor being de-tuned.

I'll say it again; in modern systems there is probably no power gain by un-doing the emissions (like others have said will probably make it worse) and will greatly increase the pollution by doing so. But the first gen stuff was not engineered that well, and they werent scrubbers on wheels either.

 

WOW ... I wonder what you would have to say if I held title to the land next to you and decided to put in a chemical waste dump -- after all the land is in my name.

Fankly, it is thinking like yours that is the real problem here. While you own your truck, YOU DO NOT OWN THE AIR and that is what and others are forced to cough and choke on as you illegally remove your emmisions reducing devices.

Guess we should just drop you and your truck into a sealed bubble and then you can just pollute your air in there to your hearts content ... without affecting the rest of the air!

David

 

Are we in agreement the Fed gov. emission standards and regulations need to be revised due to the recent scientific data on global warming, etc.? That is, governmenr regs and rules always run 5 years behind the current science obviously.

 

I have a 79 Bronco, and what nickmobile67 said is absolutly right.
Every one knows the 351Ms or 400s in these things are pigs.... why? Smog equipment.
To pass the new laws in the late 70s Ford had to smog down the engine alot(making it a useless stock pig). The timing chain is set at a stock 4-6 degree retard, lowered compression ratio, and of coarse a bad egr set up(that doesn't help anything. They had cats to, but when I got mine it didn't have one.
I'm not against cats, as long as their not clogged(which most older trucks have, causing a loss in power and mileage).

I'm fine with new smog equitment, but they ruined the trucks in the late 70s.

 

The big problem with cats is they can clog and cause so much back pressure that they burn a valve. (Expensive) I know from experince. It happend to my 88' Bronco and a friend's Chevy truck.

 

I am in 100% agreement with MBBFord.. Smog equipment in the 70's made for poor performance and fuel mileage. I think the worst were the 73 and 74 models that were so lean that a constant lean bucking was present at alomost all engine speeds. One good thing that came in 1975 was the cats, at least the engine could be a bit richer and that helped, but really what it took was modern fuel injection / digital engine control.

I remember all of the car makers back then saying "we can't meet these emmission standards" .. well they can and they did. Of course it took a bit before things were sorted out. seems this is always the "stock" answer to emmissions, brakes, fuel economy and saftey. We just CAN"T do it, and then, if pushed into it, magicly the car makers make things happen.

Emmissions reduction happened. Even though it was stated time and time again it could not happen.

Disc brakes happened (remember when in the sixties it was stated by all three major manufactures that disc brakes were just too expensive and troublesome???)

Antilock brakes happened

Fuel economy was rising, at least until the CAFE was rendererd obsolete by goverment mandate. BUT magicly we were heading to more fuel efficient cars (and trucks) A 30 mpg rated half ton V8 truck, why yes, you could buy such a beast back in the early 80's.

Safety, wow that goes way back to 1968 when car makers stated that by having to put in telescoping steering colums along with seat belts in every car would bankrupt them. Didn't happen though, and now look at the saftey level of cars and trucks.

Gues I look at things with a somewhat skeptical eye.. too much "we can't do it" and not enough, well we can do it!

David

 

This is an interesting post. A lot of good points made on both sides. By the time most of us get these trucks half the emissions related parts are missing and the other half don't work. The cost of getting it all back to working order is pretty high to say the least.

I read one post about the "tacked on" emission devices vs. the modern day versions. I'm in agreement with this 100%. The older emissions control usually caused more harm then good. The motors start getting choked up and end up putting out more harmful stuff then a clean burning engine with no emissions control. If all the original owners would've kept on top of everything then it would be a different story.

New motors are built with the emissions control in mind, not just an add-on to an existing motor to pass that years guidelines set by the EPA when it rolls off the production line.

With the change to EFI connected to EEC it became a lot easier to clean up the combustion process compared to older carb vehicles. Look at my 82 F-150, had everything a modern day EFI motor would have related to emissions control and engine managment, but had a funky variable venturi nightmare carb and was just trouble. EFI will burn cleaner on it's own w/o someone having to manually adjust something, which keeps all the smog stuff from getting funked up. Just boils down to the age old problem of maintenance, most of the old smog systems weren't taken care of so by now they are just junk, they never really were "right" to begin with. Just a reaction by an engineer to EPA guidelines.

 

The early attempts at emissions control occurred in the early seventies, and there were several thing that happened in that time frame that led to a decrease in advertised horsepower and torque.

The first emmisions controls hitthe street, at the same time the first standard for testing engines was initiated. Before the standardization to rear wheel dyno readings on an actual vehicle, they were testing engines alone, with no power robbing accessories like alternators, water pumps, fuel pumps, or even oil pumps. It only had to make the horsepower reading once. So the early emissions controls were seen as the instant reason that the horsepower dropped twenty percent.

The same time fuel price took their first big jump, from under 20-cents to over a dollar per gallon. This led to the american manufacturers putting lower numeric axles under the cars.

Another problem, was that the Japanese who had gone to very strict emission standards before we did held patents on most of the better technology of the day. So the engineers sort of had their hands tied.

The modern stuff is well engineered and part of a total system. If I were to decide to do a complete rebuild of the drive train, I would probably change quite a few things on my 89. But for now it runs fine, and I would rather work on my 69 F250 than futz around with a good running vehicle. I can only afford so many money pits.

 

I was searching to see what, if anything, the AIR pump on my '86 Bronco was accomplishing and came across this old thread.

On a modern, fuel injected engine tampering with the emissions is foolish. Computer issues, blah, blah blah. New cars are light years ahead of twenty year old vehicles because everything is electronic. Ninety percent of people wouldn't even dream of working on a new car because of the complexity.

And we're willing to pay the "taxes" of higher initial costs and increased maintenance costs because, let's face it, everyone does want to breathe clean air. Still, government regulations have essetially reduced the lay person to oil changes and routine repairs.

But a twenty plus year old carbureted vehicle? How much is it worth to follow the letter of the law? I can't imagine what the dealer would charge to re-fit missing emissions equipment. Particularly when that money can be used to increase performance - and therefore using fuel more efficiently. Honestly, I don't know that I'd trust the EEC on an '86 Bronco to achieve optimum efficiency once I add a new carb, intake, exhaust, cam, etc.

Which is probably why most folks scrap it. You've got to take it off anyway to add headers or a manifold or new heads. No sense putting back on what may or may not have worked in the first place and is rather time consuming or expensive to repair. And to what benefit? If the vehicle passes an emissions test it satisfies the federal, state, and county requirements. So what if it doesn't have an EGR or cats? Either it passes the tailpipe test or it doesn't. The goal is the cleanest possible air at the most reasonable cost, right, not bureaucratic minutiae?

Again, like most people I am willing to bear some cost for a "cleaner" environment. The laws have been effective since the environment is about as clean as you could expect in the world's biggest, most industrialized economy - and cleaner than any time in the past thirty years. It will never be clean enough for some folks. I'm happy with the air quality in Dallas. If me and a few other scofflaws can scrap the emissions gear and still pass the county mandated tail pipe test it's good enough for me. It's not a daily driver anyway. I'd be surprised if I put 2,000 miles a year on it.

Selfish? Sure. But my selfish interests overlap with everyone else's. I hunt and fish and support keeping the ecosystem healthy. I like hanging out in the yard when it's not too hot, so I don't want to breathe smog. I've been to border towns and I don't want to live in a third world slum.

And, like most prominent environmentalists, I'm not willing to make any real personal sacrifices to achieve those goals.

Which brings us back to the complexity and cost of repairing 20-30 year old emissions equipment. It's much cheaper and easier to remove something you don't understand. Frankly, I'm not real interested in understanding it either. It's a lot simpler to diagnose and tune an emissions-free vehicle. I see no harm in simplfying the engine comparment if it's tuned properly, passes the emissions test and is within the legal limits. I've reached the limit of what I'm willing to pay for clean air, at least until I trade in my daily driver Accord for something newer. It won't be a hybrid when I do.

Lest I digress...