jowilker, It has the 292 but needs rebuilt. I got a 302 w/ c4 for free. I'm going to put it in the truck. Cost to much to rebuild the 292. Was wondering if I would be better off with a c6 instead of the c4

 

Simple physics. It takes a certain amount of energy (fuel) to push a certain mass (the truck) down the rooad a certain speed. A properly tuned carburator can be just as efficient as EFI.

EFI, however, usually has better drivability.

 

If you want a good balance of power and fuel economy get the 351w. Use a (flame suit on) Quadrajet (or edel q-jet knock off) on a GOOD intake. THe q'jet is a very good carb that can easily attain 20mpg in a smallblock. It has small primaries for normal drivng, but be carefull with the pedal, the secondaries are HUGE and you WILL be able to watch the gas gauge go down if keep your foot in it.

 

__________________
bgsuarez
66 F-100 CC LB
302 C-4

Hey Haaser,

My longbed 66 Slick has a 1975 302 with a mid lift Crane cam, 600cfm Holley coupled to a 67 vintage C-4 (rebuilt). The engine/transmission combination moves the truck along with ease. Plenty of power I love small block fords, very reliable engine.

Brian
__________________
bgsuarez
66 F-100 CC LB
302 C-4

 

I traded my 352 2 bbl which got 10 mpg no matter what for a 5.0 EFI w/ AOD out of a
T bird. I put a used 5.0 GT cam, injectors, throttle body and pulleys on it in addition to some mild porting and gasket matching. I initally had 3.25 gears and immediately started getting a solid 15-19 mpg in my daily highway commute depending on traffic and etc. I once got 21 mpg but haven't been able to repeat it. The 5.0 will never have the torque of a big block, but it has towed and carried some pretty heavy loads without grousing. I have since put in a set of 3.50 gears and the mileage has not suffered. In fact the engine is now working closer to its power band at 70 mph. With the 3.25s, I was turning 1600 rpm at 60/1800 at 70. Now its 1900 at 60 and 2100 at 70. There is no longer that lugging feeling on grades from the OD. I calculated that 3.73 to 3.89 gears would put me in the ideal power band in OD. The 352 was rated at somewhere around 208 hp, the 5.0 GT motor is rated at 225 so the horsepower is a wash. The torque is what moves you. The 5.0 GT motor is a torque motor, 285 ft. lbs. You can cheap out by not paying a premium for a Mustang motor, Crown Vics, Lincolns, Merc. Gran Marquis, and etc. used the 5.0 motor. Get an 1986 or newer motor. I think they were all roller cam motors after that. Get some used stock or aftermarket parts from the Mustang sites but your own GT motor for less. I got the Tird motor and AOD for $300 & got the wiring separately. For my next project, I just bought a whole wrecked Crown Vic and get it all.

I agree the 351W is a great compromise for mileage and torque. Whatever you choose, try to go fuel injected. It is not as hard to do as you might think. It consistently produces better mileage, less emissions, and headaches. Look in this forum at the number of carb. issues people have.

 

Hello

My grandpa has a 351 windsor. It is out of a crown victoria. Its a lower miler and has been stored in a shop for over 10 years. The original car got crashed by sombody. I don't think it has TBI or SEFI but I havent looked to close. I beleive it is carburated. What are the horsepower and torque numbers and this engine. It has an automatic transmission. I think I read somwhere this engine has E5 heads. Are these good heads? Also would this have a EO4D transmission? This engine has emissions crap and I will be removing this. What would be some good performance upgrades for this engine. Would a earlier set of 351 heads be good. I'm on a budget and i need to be able to run farm fuel which is 87 octane so my compresion will have ti be 8.5/1 or 9.0/1. Im looking for a strong motor with 17 mpg. It doesen't have to pull anything and I want good stop light to stop light power. Alot of the miles will be hi-way. Thanks P.S I found a 4.6 SOHC with a five speed. It comes out of a 1997 and the truck hit a bould and wrecked the chassis but the engine is good. How impssoble is the swap. This is my dads 97.

 

The 4.6 would be more difficult, requiring custom motor mounts and lots of wiring for the efi. Pluse you will need to plumb a fuel pump and return line for the efi.

If your on a budget I would sugest nabbing that 351w and stick that in there. A good intake manifold and a nice carb like a stealth dual plane and a holley in the 650 range would get you on the road and you can change heads and stuff later. The tranny may be a little weak to handle the M-100 but you could put a c-6 small block type in there and never have tranny issues!

My old prerunner 65 had a 351w with a c-4 and it worked great, moved that old truck nicely!

 

Hello

Ya this 351 is carburated. What are the specs and are the E5 heads it has good? What would the performance be with a new intake manifold, carb, headers and the emissions removed. What I would like to do with this engine is a rv type cam, headers, edelbrock air gap manifold, carter 525 CFM carb, 3 angle vavle cut, removing the thermactor bumps, port and polishing. Are would it be cheaper to find a earlier set of windsor heads and swapping them on. I'm on a budget and I want 250 hp. How much power can a stock 351 windsor bottom end handle? What is the stock compression for this engine? I the compression
reletivitly low because I will use 87 octane farm fuel. What should I do with the automatic transmision for linkages. Just run it up throught the floor board with a floor shifter. P.S How much would a ealier set of windsor heads be and how difficult to find.

 

With the mods your talking about I would say you would get your 250hp easy,
The e5 heads would be just like a 302 head ,early heads would be better.
The bottom end will not be a problem ,the main caps are strong in stock form.
The 351w is a good pick!

 

I would run the 351 with the heads that are one it. I would upgrade to a good 4 barrel carb. you are going to need to find exhaust manifolds anyway so go with headers. an AOD will get you more millage but the C-4 is easier to hook up no computer needed. The C-6 is bullet proof butt needs more horses to run.

 

Contrary to the consensus here & against the wishes of hassers' Dad I find my 385 series, 460 CID has the best economy of engines I've tried, and most mentioned here.

Its' overall average is 17mpg with 31.5" Steel Belted Radial Tires, an HO Modified C-5 A/T and 3.00:1 9" 4 pinion "open" rear. I suppose the "slight" Air Dam helps some too. I'm turning 2475.0 @ 70Mph and can run a 12.60 with DOTs & some tune/ trim work. I will add this 460 is not OEM stock, but rather more like an RV Spec engine with an eye on low end to midrange performance.
I'm working on MAFS/ EFI for 385 series engines. When/if I ever get it up & running I believe I'll improve my overall efficiency by 6 to 8 mpg & performance by 30% MOL.

Idea is to provide enough power in form of raw torque so an engine need not "work" at 100% output, except on full, hard demand. On normal demand the smallest possible output increase you can get away with & yet still move your vehicle effectively yields greatest efficiency in the end.
There are several formulas which can determine efficiencies when applied, but the most critical formula is BSFC, or formula for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. A desired amount of power needed/wanted is what determines quantity of fuel/pounds per hour
such applied performance output requires.

As mentioned above Aero, as well as combined Inertial, Rollling Resistance, Frictional & Coefficients of loss are key factors, others exist also, but these are the critical or gross factors to be considered.

If it is determined that it takes X power to move a vehicle through the air, down the road at a given speed, the idea is to design a power train that delivers that amount at lowest possible percentage of output. If my 66 req's 125 HP to move it along @ 70 mph
& my engine makes 500 HP then I am running at 25% of full output when I am riding at 70. But if my engine makes 250HP then I'm running at 50% full output at 70mph.

Altho both outputs are power level rates & BSFC dictates amount of fuel each requires in theory, bigger engines making greater power, when built, trimmed, tweaked & tuned correctly will always outperform smaller ones, and that's a fact of life. As their output percentage rises fuel efficiency drops, it's simple function/ fact of physics.

Obviously a big engine making 100% output eats far more fuel than a small engine at 100% output. But a big engine at 25% out put might use 15%- 20% less fuel than a small engine at 50% output.

If we plug longevity, acceleration, off idle response & other motive requisites into our equations we discover, lower percentage of available power used during all operations/ demands, in relation to Maximum Availablle Power Output used at full demand the more efficient and cheaper an engine runs. The key to making that gain however is keeping our foot out of it most of the time. Most folks like to hammer their big power makers just because they can. Hammering or heavy footing kills the efficiency almost as bad as underpowering a vehicle in the first place.

So smaller is not necessarily better and often can be worse because of it's limited output potential, speaking in street terms of course. My point is rather than guessing, supposing & assuming we can engineer a plan & build a system accordingly. It's more work in mental terms, but less work and less expensive than trial & error guess work is.

Anything anybody runs with a carburetor will return less than 20mpg and most return less than 15mpg. The addition of Tuned port EFI with Mass Air Logic can push those numbers up 25%- 30% meaning 25 to 27 mpg on high side, 18 to 20 mpg on the low.
But everybody has an attitude about EFI and What Logic it may run and so on.

FBp

 

Hello

FordBoypete isnt a 460 a huge engine for a F-100. My uncle put one in his 65 and tweaked the chassis. My dad has owned many 460 in his day and none of the got over 10 mpg but they were powerful. What all did you do to your engine and your truck to get that fuel economy. I could never convince him of that. Truly I dont drive and tromp the gas all the time but a 460 is just such a huge engine. What type of transmission do you have and how much money did your engine build up come to. I could see how that engine produces good fuel economy because of how slow it turns. OH well but a 351 is a more viable option lets say. I still havent got info on much power that 351 has and if it has a C4 or a E4OD transmission.

 

It's really due to a lot of applied design & engineering before turning wrenches, doing work, and puting things together without real forethought. Most hobby stuff is built in the ilk of throwing stuff together rather than studying and learning about it first. Time spent beforehand in preparation comes back manyfold in successes after completion.

Engine is a D1VE Block with D3VE Heads, and D1VE Cast Iron Intake. EGR bumps are modified & sealed off. RV Cam approx 282-292 with 12 degree centerline separation &
.535 lift at zero. I had alloy med rise intake & headers but took 'em off & went back to Cast Iron OEM Intake & Truck Type Cast Iron Log Exhaust Manifolds to return some system backpressure. Lower RPMs do not have great flow characteristics. It's a 2.25" system to mufflers, 2.0" out the back. It has turbo mufflers & "H" Style Equalizer with 1.5" dia' pipes to control reversion.

It's Duraspark Breakerless Ignition & OEM Distribuitor with some light mods, advance
curve, cap, rotor & and plug wire type/size are some. I run +198F T-Stat, Motorcraft 780 CFM Vacuum Secondary 4V carb, a windage tray, Cloyes Accu-Roll roller timing set
Johnson anti pump lifters (big valves in 460s ya know). Engine is blue printed to OEM spec. It's also dynamically rebalanced, uses premium parts rather than common ones.

It drives a modified [as in "built and bullet proofed"] C-5, 3 spd A/T from a E350 that had 4.9L (aka 300CID I-6) engine & 14 passenger capacity. It's a wild low gear ratio & common intermediate & hi gear ratios, has a shift kit, some OEM Hi Per Goodies, a non locking small T/C w/ very low Stall Speed. I run double coolers with this set up too.

I run single drive shaft into a 31 spline, 4 pinion, 9inch FoMoCo, open legged, rear end.
I also have traction devices, different shocks modified F250 Suspension components & run 12 X 31.5-15 DOT Cheaters on 10inch rims if I run it, or 10X31.5 -15 Steel Belted Hiway Tread Radials on the street. I also run a 2inch airdam under my front bumper in front of front anti sway bar ( BTW I disconnect front ASB to run the 1/4) and tilt the tailgate rather than lay it flat so it spoils more, creating greater rear down force after
"1st break speeds" [ over 60 there are basically 3 break speeds uder 200mph, 60, 120 and 180, or every 60mph More or less. Break speed is when aero effects make some of their more noticeable changes on surfaces & performance of things going through the atmosphere ]. Although I knock on the door of the 2nd break speed, I have not done anything to address it because it's not sustained, it's in the traps and over "qwik".

As you see, there's no thing, or few things, making a difference. It's combination of all things designed & engineered to work together in very balanced & harmonious ways toward a common end objective or objectives.

I'll add to that, as in most cases, there is no major, secret breakthrough that is able to revolutionize performance or efficiencies, it's the combo, how well all those "Ducks" are lined up, how well they are cared for, how much attention someone has invested in the details of their wellbeing.

Okay so now I already said too much, huh?

On the frame thing, I ran a 460 in my OEM frame and never had any problems with it. I did use OEM Script Mounts. I re-installed all my X Members too and all that. Also I run fixed, link style, traction devices rather than slappers or center links. I can't really understand how he gimped a frame with a 460, without having made an error of some sort. Presently I'm running a 1979, Heavy F150, SWB, trailer special, frame & brake set up. It's more like an F250, but has the 5.5 on 5 lug pattern with the 13.5" rotors and F250 style calipers. A 460 with a C-5 A/T is not as heavy as an FE with A C/6 and it produces much more power across it's range, at better efficiency, as I said earlier in this thread.

I also doubt your Dad will gofor this set up, unless he does a bunch of research and reading on the subject, which probablly isn't going to happen any time soon. I had a Dad too, and I also am a Dad, and A Grandad too. Only thing is, I was an instructor & I learned a long time ago technologies are constantlly changing and to keep up with it I began to challenge my students to prove me wrong in front of the rest of the class. It was the only way I could keep up because I didn't have the time to study the field raise a family & have a job too.

So when someone proved me wrong in class, we all learned from it, including me the instructor. If it turned out they were mistaken instead we still all learned from it. Open mindedness is what that takes. Strange as it may seem, our making mistakes & being wrong is how knowledge advances in the dynamic of time. Too bad as a rule most of the Dads have long lost curiosity open mindedness provides. It then becomes simply a case of their way or No Way, or atleast it was with my Dad, "back in the day".

enuff

FBp

 

Hello

That was how do you say, enlightening. Thanks fo the post. Man a setup like yours would definatly be nice. I really nice setup for me would be a 351 cleveland 2 barrel but finding one of those would be difficult. That would return good fuel economy. What would a 400 with a 4 speed be like. I have a 400 with EGR of course and I also have a 4 speed. If I swapped early cleveland heads would that be good? 400 don't have much fuel economy though. The 351 windsor still seems like the most viable option. All I have is 2000 dollars and that seems big until you realize the costs. Oh well I wish my dad would of kept his 429 that was a really good engine. It was in his service truck. I'm worried with the 351 windsor that it will be really gutless because of the EGR and stuff. And the cost to get that powerful or at least not gutless would be high. Oh well we will see. Give me your opinions on engines that have been in your guys trucks and tell me about the fuel economy.

 

Haaser,
I do not hold a very high opinion of 351M/ 400 series engines for several reasons. 1st is notoriously weak lower ends. This can be corrected of course by re-routing oil flow delivery back to mains/rods 1st where most engnes have it instead of lifters & cam 1st.

But that doesn't solve poor fuel mileage, wide configuration, shortage of "go fast" & performance improving parts, nor heavy mass for such light cubic inch displacement. Plus all in all when finished, it's still only 351M/ 400. Why do you suppose FoMoCo only made these not so good engines for a few short years, in the '70s? The 70's were a black mark on American Automotive Production, what sustains after all 70s car junk has just about vanished is stuff from 60s & earlier, or late 70s & early 80s onward. I ask you to think about that. It's when I walked from a fairly good career position and a life goal in total disgust at Detroit in General, and the powers that were in Livonia & Deerborn. I agree in comparasion betweem 351W & 351M/ 400 there is no comparison.
I point out a 351W is a late 60s engine, like 302, FE, 385s, 300, etc.
{I don't want to hear from folks who squeezed 700 HP out of a 351M/ 400, yes I know it can be done but for that kind of effort & cash one could have a real engine. . . .}

429 is a 385 series engine so are 377 & 385. 429s share same block & heads year for year pretty much, so in essence 429s are destroked 460s or 460s are 429 strokers. I do have an old article from an old Super Ford Magazine on how to make a 351W into a 427CID Stroker engine using 351M/ 400 crank, 300 (4.9L, I-6) rods & custom pistons. Some of these FoMoCo SBs put out big power. Not what you want to run "squeeze" on however, nor blower or turbo because there is a potential for Block Flex in 351W when webbing/supports are modified to fit the 400 crank in it. Still 400, 475 HP & 400lb/ft out of a SB is sort of an "engine coup" in itself.

You should be able to get a well thought out, well built, 351W to put out an honest 350lb/ft torque and 375 - 400 HP in street design. I mean Yates, Roush & Ernie Elliot get 700 HP out of NASCAR style 351Ws all day long, but only for one event tho'.

I'm spouting this HP & that HP for conversational purposes. I urge you to worry less about HP, concentrate on Torque instead. In realm of Physics/ Engineering HP is little more than arbitrary, theoretical, number set, based on function of applied torque on a given load towards amount of work done in a specific time frame. Net end result or the product of that equation will be theoretical "Horsepower".

This pure math does not recognize horses are individuals, not all horses have similar power & unlike Pi, which remains a constant 3.14179**** horse strength varies from horse to horse, thus it's a bad standard to use. What's more as RPMs/ speed increase torque drops off, whille HP rises, so you see where this is headed?

I mention this point since as speed increases, inertial & gravitational forces decrease, even tho' Aero Force may increase. But how many horses do you know that run at 60 mph let alone in 325mph range in 4.6-or so seconds. . . . .?

Re-Cap>
I would design a 351W to produce around 400 lb/ft in its' ideal midrange RPM scale at full throttle. I would also design it so my redline was under 5K RPM with a 2800-3500 RPM midrange, and a fair amount of torque (40-60%) in 2450-2650 RPM, then gear my Slick, so I'm running what is equivalent, averaged, speed of what most of my driving is or will be, with my engine in 2450 to 2650 RPM range, more or less.

Presume the average Slick weighs in at a nominal 4000 lbs. Engine makes 400 lb/ft at WOT (wide open throttle). Most driving is done below 60 mph. It means force:weight ratio at flywheel = 1 lb/ft to 10#wgt. Or 1 to 10 @ WOT & Max/ Peak Torque output. 1/2 peak output becomes 1:20. So Max @ WOT = 10% & 1/2 power @ moderated throttle =5%. These are very workable numbers which should get reasonable economy.

As for AODs If you cruise interstates mostly, for long periods & distances, I can see that, but if most of your driving is not on long runs then forget AOD idea. AOD & there are a few of them, all are not known for strength unless "tweaked". They should be disengaged below certain speeds or internal damage to thrust washers, bearings, and planetaries can result. Most say 40mph is break point. Engines with avg power make little torque at 40mph so down & up shifting going on at very bottom of engine power band range. That = in & out of OD. It's not what AOD, E4OD A4OD etc are about. It's also going to make torque converter lock and unlock and lock and so on.

You can run a C-4 or a C-5. If you want to be certain, upgrade building them above OEM specs. Use an extra "air" cooler. Take care of either well, they will do you fine. In comparison a C-6 A/T takes approx 2X the power to operate of a C-4 Or C-5 A/T. If you make (HP thing again) 200 HP and a C-6 takes 20HP to operate effectively that's 10% of your flywheel power lost. 200 becomes 180. If you make 400 HP it= 5% loss. If you make 400 HP & run C-4 or C-5 it's 2.5% loss, see how it works? Would you rather give up 10% or 5% or 2.5%? Guess which 1 eats into your overall efficiencies most?

Have a great Christmas Haaser. . .

FBp