Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:00:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V1 #174
Reply-To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-digest Thursday, August 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 174



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1979 And Older Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: 351C Horsepower Question [sdelanty sonic.net]
Re: Peculiar gasoline question. [sdelanty sonic.net]
Installing Solid Axle [JonP27604 aol.com]
Re: fordtrucks-digest V1 #173 [Nick ]
Re: ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback [bfwinstead
RE: 351C Horsepower Question [Dan Wentz ]
Re: ADMIN: Too many digests? [Dan Wentz ]
RE: peculiar gasoline question [sdelanty sonic.net]

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:20:49 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: 351C Horsepower Question

>I was just looking through an old Chilton's manual when I noticed something
>odd. In 1971 the 351C 2V was rated at 240 HP, which is about what I'd
>expect. But then in 1972 (the year I have) HP was only 164!!! Did they
>add a bunch of emissions stuff in 72 to rob over 70 horses? Or did they
>start measuring HP some other way? I mean, 76 horses is a lot--where did
>it go?

Hi Dan,

Little of both... By the early 70's smog equipment and lower compression
ratios were taking their toll on HP.

However, there was also a change in how the numbers were obtained.
The following quote explains it pretty well.
The HP numbers quoted are for an FE428CJ...

> The following quote comes from the article "Cobra Jet: Making of
>a Legend", published in the October 1993 issue of Fabulous Mustangs and
>Exotic Fords. It is attributed to Bill Barr, an engineer in Ford's
>Cobra Jet Engine Group.
>
>"Previously, we would advertise 'Engineering A-Curve' power. That was the
>maximum output you could get out of an older engine with looser clearances
>than a new one, with dynamometer headers. That was the 'A' power curve.
>Then there was the B-Curve, which was the engine with no accessories. The
>C-Curve included backpresure, accesories and everything. Uniqueto the
>Cobra Jet, we started advertising the B-Curve power rather than the
Engineering >A-Curve.
>The 428CJ was capable of approximately 400 hp (A-Curve), 325-335 hp
>(B-Curve), and 310-320 (C-Curve). NHRA and others immediately factored the
>car for match racing."

One of the reasons I've heard for the change in ratings was that
insurance companies were freaking out over the HP numbers the late
60's muscle cars were making.

Don't know if it's true or not, but....

Happy motoring,


Steve Delanty
1971 F100 FE390

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:20:53 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: Peculiar gasoline question.



>Could be. But is it possible that it is a more *efficient* motor fuel? I am in
>Colorado and they force us to use this crap gas with MTBE added to it. I guess
>it's extra oxygen. They used to switch to it only in winter but now I guess
some
>gas stations are using it full time so they can charge the higher price full
>time.

Yes, MTBE can reduce performance and /or mileage.

Here's the deal as I understand it from the gasoline faq and from
members of the DIY_EFI list.

MTBE (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether) is an oxygenate. Oxygenates raise
the octane of gasoline (a good thing) and slightly reduce the amount
of unburned HC's in the exhaust. (also a good thing)

However, the problem is that because a percentage of Your fuel is now
oxygen it causes the motor to run leaner.

With modern EFI setups, the O2 sensors detect this leanness and
compensate for it by widening the injector pulswidths to richen things
back up again. The net result is that more fuel is burned, so gas
mileage goes down, altho HP should stay the same.

With a carburetor, it just plain old makes You run leaner unless You
rejet to compensate.
If You are running too rich already, MTBE fuels will make You run better.
If You are running right on target, MTBE will make You go lean.
If You are running at the ragged edge of "too lean" like many 70's
smogged/carbureted vehicles are, the You will go so lean that the....

---

To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.