600-650 reliable efficient hp?? - Page 2 - 460 Ford Forum
460 Ford Forum  
Go Back   460 Ford Forum > Tech Topics > Engine Tech

Engine Tech A place to discuss all 385-series engine tech and theory.

460Ford.com is the premier 460 Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 09-23-2013, 06:07 PM
CarsByCarl's Avatar
CarsByCarl CarsByCarl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO.
Posts: 4,367
CarsByCarl Driving a Ford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torinoman View Post
I figured the TFS would be the prime choice but I already have a set of ported P51s....

On a side note, has anyone actually put their hands on the new AFR heads?
Sell the P51's and get the right head.

I'm scheduled to have my hands on the new AFR's in approx 40 days.

__________________
Your one stop shop for BBF engines and parts
Master dealer for Lunati, Diamond, Probe
Warehouse distributor most other speed parts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 09-23-2013, 06:23 PM
TommyK TommyK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: CT
Posts: 238
TommyK Driving a Ford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torinoman View Post
And you answered none of my questions.

Is Torino vs Z06 apples and oranges? Sure! But I think its still a legitimate question to pose. How efficient can these motors get? How streetable reliable and efficient can a well thought out combination be? I don't think its ridiculous to pose these questions.
I don't think the premise is ridiculous at all. I was just having trouble with the example cited.

On the old Innovate forum there was a sticky wherein the resident guru (Tuner) talked an owner of a Charger with a stroked 440 (512 ci?) through the tuning of a Holley 870 SA which ultimately resulted in something like 17 or 18 hwy mpg. He did not have anywhere near 550 RWHP though.

If you are serious about mpg use a performer rpm manifold and bolt a Quadrajet on there.
__________________
1973 Mustang Convertible
460 D0VE-C Heads w/CJ size valves, Lunati voodoo 227/233 cam, Edelbrock performer rpm manifold, FPA headers, Holley 950 HP carb, C6 w/2500 stall converter, 3.50 trac lock
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18  
Old 09-23-2013, 06:44 PM
The Mad Porter's Avatar
The Mad Porter The Mad Porter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA.
Posts: 5,927
The Mad Porter First On Race Day
Default

Based on personal experience with my 460" LTD I would say that a goal of 550 to 600 HP crank with a manual OD transmission, EFI and High compression / thermodynamic efficiency could easily net 18 MPG with careful tuning of both AF ratios at cruise and ignition timing.

I am getting 14+ mpg with 3.5 gears, 3000+ stall convertor and a carefully tuned HP 950 built by comp carbs for the application. Idle feed restricters and air bleeds are all tunable on the aforementioned carburetor.

Up until about 50 MPH I am cruising on the transfer slots in the carb and can easily tune the cruise A/F to a target of 14.5 to 1. Above that I am starting to pull from the main well / booster venturis and the AF ratio goes from the 14's to the high 12's low 13's A/F. This is simply a matter of the airflow needs of the engine at 2750 to 3000 rpm at highway speeds. I can lower the float level on the primary side to delay main well fuel flow however I compromise drive ability at that point. A larger engine would of course make good economy harder to attain with a carb given the additional air flow needs at cruising speeds.

If I were to use a self learning EFI system set to cruise at stoic / 14.7 to 1 with a manual OD and or a locking automatic like the E4OD I would certainly expect to be near 18 MPG with a reasonable foot.

I am running 11 to 1 static c/r, 9.3 to 1 DCR, 220+ psi cranking with .039" quench distance with the DUAL QUENCH SCJ-A castings. I mention these heads because I feel that the minimal timing requirements of these castings plus the dual quench pads offer better octane tolerance vs the other std valve location offerings. at 460 inches I do not feel that the port cross section is too large given the amount of torque these castings make even at lower rpm windows.

I dont know if the new AFR offerings have a revised chamber and valve locations with dual quench pads...

I run 30 degrees total timing in by 2600 rpm and add 20 degrees vacuum advance in conjunction with the leaner cruise A/F's while on the transfer slots...

I think carl is on the right track as is backed up by my personal experiences.

I am making close to 550 crank HP with the 3 pattern roller cam and larger carb so I again agree that the MPG criteria is plausible...

I have contemplated the new FAST wide band EFI for exactly this reason.

One last consideration here is abundant airflow with minimal cross section at modest valve lifts paired with careful camshaft design. keep duration minimal for the power expected.

I would have some doubts about a 650 Hp combination NA making the grade due to the long duration cam needed however if Static c/r is increased to keep DCR high it might just get close.




S
__________________
Scotty J. "AKA" The "Mad Porter"
"EMC 2006" 3rd place finisher
Ported BBF iron head specialist & Aluminum heads from all sources.
Custom ground cams
See our products in the Vendor for sale section

http://R-H-P.biz

"ReinCarNation High Performance" (253)-988-6648


http://www.facebook.com/SMJRHP#!/SMJRHP

Last edited by The Mad Porter; 09-23-2013 at 06:52 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19  
Old 09-23-2013, 06:55 PM
torinoman torinoman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dallas, tx
Posts: 289
torinoman Driving a Ford
Send a message via AIM to torinoman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarsByCarl View Post
Sell the P51's and get the right head.

I'm scheduled to have my hands on the new AFR's in approx 40 days.

But the P51s are so pretty!

Is that when they are scheduled to be released or just when you're supposed to get them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyK View Post
I don't think the premise is ridiculous at all. I was just having trouble with the example cited.

On the old Innovate forum there was a sticky wherein the resident guru (Tuner) talked an owner of a Charger with a stroked 440 (512 ci?) through the tuning of a Holley 870 SA which ultimately resulted in something like 17 or 18 hwy mpg. He did not have anywhere near 550 RWHP though.

If you are serious about mpg use a performer rpm manifold and bolt a Quadrajet on there.
I completely understand the questioning of the comparison I was trying to make. My point was more to question how far we can push the limits of these motors. Most people are only concerned with how much power can they make and few people ask how efficiently can we do it.

Can a 429 or 460 make 600-650hp AND deliver 20mpg with factory reliability? If not how close can you get? Seems to me that its probably more attainable than most people would assume
__________________
'71 torino gt m-code
now- 460 w/roller cam
one day w/t56
anyone wanna donate to my cause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20  
Old 09-23-2013, 07:15 PM
torinoman torinoman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dallas, tx
Posts: 289
torinoman Driving a Ford
Send a message via AIM to torinoman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Porter View Post
Based on personal experience with my 460" LTD I would say that a goal of 550 to 600 HP crank with a manual OD transmission, EFI and High compression / thermodynamic efficiency could easily net 18 MPG with careful tuning of both AF ratios at cruise and ignition timing.

I am getting 14+ mpg with 3.5 gears, 3000+ stall convertor and a carefully tuned HP 950 built by comp carbs for the application. Idle feed restricters and air bleeds are all tunable on the aforementioned carburetor.

Up until about 50 MPH I am cruising on the transfer slots in the carb and can easily tune the cruise A/F to a target of 14.5 to 1. Above that I am starting to pull from the main well / booster venturis and the AF ratio goes from the 14's to the high 12's low 13's A/F. This is simply a matter of the airflow needs of the engine at 2750 to 3000 rpm at highway speeds. I can lower the float level on the primary side to delay main well fuel flow however I compromise drive ability at that point. A larger engine would of course make good economy harder to attain with a carb given the additional air flow needs at cruising speeds.

If I were to use a self learning EFI system set to cruise at stoic / 14.7 to 1 with a manual OD and or a locking automatic like the E4OD I would certainly expect to be near 18 MPG with a reasonable foot.

I am running 11 to 1 static c/r, 9.3 to 1 DCR, 220+ psi cranking with .039" quench distance with the DUAL QUENCH SCJ-A castings. I mention these heads because I feel that the minimal timing requirements of these castings plus the dual quench pads offer better octane tolerance vs the other std valve location offerings. at 460 inches I do not feel that the port cross section is too large given the amount of torque these castings make even at lower rpm windows.

I dont know if the new AFR offerings have a revised chamber and valve locations with dual quench pads...

I run 30 degrees total timing in by 2600 rpm and add 20 degrees vacuum advance in conjunction with the leaner cruise A/F's while on the transfer slots...

I think carl is on the right track as is backed up by my personal experiences.

I am making close to 550 crank HP with the 3 pattern roller cam and larger carb so I again agree that the MPG criteria is plausible...

I have contemplated the new FAST wide band EFI for exactly this reason.

One last consideration here is abundant airflow with minimal cross section at modest valve lifts paired with careful camshaft design. keep duration minimal for the power expected.

I would have some doubts about a 650 Hp combination NA making the grade due to the long duration cam needed however if Static c/r is increased to keep DCR high it might just get close.




S
Great info Scott, thanks for chiming in.

Whats a 3 pattern cam?

You mentioned using SCJ heads, Carl suggested TFS and etc. So you feel the benefits of the chamber outweigh the larger ports for this scenario, would you agree with him that P51s are just too large for this though?

Also wouldn't better flowing heads be able to make more power with less cam duration? So wouldn't a lot of this ride on utilizing heads that flow a ton at low/mid lifts with a highly efficient chamber to use the smallest possible cam and the most compression?

Also, what kind of intake would work best? Dual plane or a tall single plane or other?

You mentioned dynamic compression, whats the most you can run on pump gas. I know 11:1 is about the limit of static compression and pump


thanks!!!!
__________________
'71 torino gt m-code
now- 460 w/roller cam
one day w/t56
anyone wanna donate to my cause?

Last edited by torinoman; 09-23-2013 at 07:49 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21  
Old 09-23-2013, 08:08 PM
The Mad Porter's Avatar
The Mad Porter The Mad Porter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA.
Posts: 5,927
The Mad Porter First On Race Day
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by torinoman View Post
Great info Scott, thanks for chiming in.

Whats a 3 pattern cam?

You mentioned using SCJ heads, Carl suggested TFS and etc. Do you feel the benefits of the chamber outweigh the larger ports for this scenario?

Also wouldn't better flowing heads be able to make more power with less cam duration? So wouldn't a lot of this ride on utilizing heads that flow a ton at low/mid lifts with a highly efficient chamber to use the smallest possible cam and the most compression?

Also, what kind of intake would work best? Dual plane or a tall single plane or other?


thanks!!!!
I had a juice roller cam ground with 228 degrees intake duration on the corner cylinders and 224 degrees on the center cylinders to address to differences in total intake runner length and the rpm at which the different runner lengths tune. The exhaust duration is 234 and the lobe seps are 110 / 112 to keep intake closing point the same on all 8 intakes. ICL is 106/108 respectively. Lifts are .600" / .620". This is a testing exercise based on our Engine masters line of thought and research / speaking with randy malik to confirm the line of thinking.

I chose to use solid roller lifters to avoid the angularity hassles associated with juice roller lifters. Lash is 0 cold and opens to about .005" hot. The juice roller lobes in conjunction with my 1.8 comp rockers gave me the lift I wanted. Solid roller lobes offered too much lift at the duration I needed and the limits of the beehive springs max lift.

High quality, high low and mid lift flow rates of the bowl worked SCJ's peaking at less than .600" lift and the highly efficient chamber imo offset the slightly larger port cross sectional area of the intake port. As evidenced by my HP numbers and smallish duration cam specs the SCJ heads require less cam duration to meet a specific target HP than many of the other offerings. 10 to 13 less so far as I can see.

In other words as you stated and I stated above. Highest possible static and dynamic compression coupled with abundant airflow at usable lifts utilizing the smallest duration cam necessary to make the targeted power.

For the power required I feel an RPM dual plane will start to hold you back at about 600 HP though when port matched at the roof the additional airflow gained should allow another 25 to 40 HP with in the same architecture while still maintaining strong low and midrange torque for good cruise economy. Though a torquer 2 will offer additional peak HP it will also give up torque under the curve making it less efficient at cruise rpm if economy is a key consideration. EFI can offset this to an extent but I feel that the rpm air gap might well be a better option as well at 460 inches with its slightly larger runner cross section.

I feel EFI is going to be a key player here as well as OD.

As a side note my combo pulls like a freight train to 6300 rpm where the msd digital rev limiter is set. I feel that the beehive springs help a bunch when it comes to valve train stability. I have not dyno'd the new combo on a chassis dyno yet to establish the new HP peak rpm. The original combo peaked at 5650 and rolled over at 5900 to 6000 with the 219/227 voodoo...

The P-51's are overkill IMO... The SCJ's with bowl work offer better low and mid lift flow with less cross sectional area. By design the P-51's offer killer flow at higher lifts at the expense somewhat of low and mid lift flow that the SCJ's are so well known for.

I am running 9.3 / 9.4 dcr with no problems and in order to keep thermodynamic efficiency on par you would need to maintain that dcr by increasing static c/r if you were to utilize a longer duration cam.


S
__________________
Scotty J. "AKA" The "Mad Porter"
"EMC 2006" 3rd place finisher
Ported BBF iron head specialist & Aluminum heads from all sources.
Custom ground cams
See our products in the Vendor for sale section

http://R-H-P.biz

"ReinCarNation High Performance" (253)-988-6648


http://www.facebook.com/SMJRHP#!/SMJRHP

Last edited by The Mad Porter; 09-23-2013 at 09:26 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22  
Old 09-23-2013, 09:26 PM
86f350 86f350 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
86f350 Driving a Ford
Default

I've considered converting my truck to EFI using an EEC-IV from an 89-93 fox body mustang. Use a TwEECer to change the firing order, displacement, MAF transfer and voila, EFI big block with adaptive learning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23  
Old 09-23-2013, 09:32 PM
torinoman torinoman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dallas, tx
Posts: 289
torinoman Driving a Ford
Send a message via AIM to torinoman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Porter View Post
I had a juice roller cam ground with 228 degrees intake duration on the corner cylinders and 224 degrees on the center cylinders to address to differences in total intake runner length and the rpm at which the different runner lengths tune. The exhaust duration is 234 and the lobe seps are 110 / 112 to keep intake closing point the same on all 8 intakes. ICL is 106/108 respectively. Lifts are .600" / .620". This is a testing exercise based on our Engine masters line of thought and research / speaking with randy malik to confirm the line of thinking.

I chose to use solid roller lifters to avoid the angularity hassles associated with juice roller lifters. Lash is 0 cold and opens to about .005" hot. The juice roller lobes in conjunction with my 1.8 comp rockers gave me the lift I wanted. Solid roller lobes offered too much lift at the duration I needed and the limits of the beehive springs max lift.

High quality, high low and mid lift flow rates of the bowl worked SCJ's peaking at less than .600" lift and the highly efficient chamber imo offset the slightly larger port cross sectional area of the intake port. As evidenced by my HP numbers and smallish duration cam specs the SCJ heads require less cam duration to meet a specific target HP than many of the other offerings. 10 to 13 less so far as I can see.

In other words as you stated and I stated above. Highest possible static and dynamic compression coupled with abundant airflow at usable lifts utilizing the smallest duration cam necessary to make the targeted power.

For the power required I feel an RPM dual plane will start to hold you back at about 600 HP though when port matched at the roof the additional airflow gained should allow another 25 to 40 HP with in the same architecture while still maintaining strong low and midrange torque for good cruise economy. Though a torquer 2 will offer additional peak HP it will also give up torque under the curve making it less efficient at cruise rpm if economy is a key consideration. EFI can offset this to an extent but I feel that the rpm air gap might well be a better option as well at 460 inches with its slightly larger runner cross section.

I feel EFI is going to be a key player here as well as OD.

As a side note my combo pulls like a freight train to 6300 rpm where the msd digital rev limiter is set. I feel that the beehive springs help a bunch when it comes to valve train stability. I have not dyno'd the new combo on a chassis dyno yet to establish the new HP peak rpm. The original combo peaked at 5650 and rolled over at 5900 to 6000 with the 219/227 voodoo...

The P-51's are overkill IMO...

I am running 9.4 dcr with no problems and in order to keep thermodynamic efficiency on par you would need to maintain that dcr by increasing static c/r if you were to utilize a longer duration cam.


S
Very interesting idea on the cam selection. What were your goals with that motor that led you to running that small cam? How long have you been running that setup? What intake are you using? You should start a thread about that setup, thats pretty cool

Can you explain why the torker would loose efficiency compared to a dual plane? Also, I guess this means a victor or mafia intake would be just way out of place in this exercise? Whats the max power level on an air gap??

You mentioned having OD, I have a T56 that I'm running so at highway speeds it'll only see about 1800rpm

About the P51s being overkill, is that because of the power level goals here are attainable with "lesser" heads or because the P51 ports are too big? It seems to me that with what these heads are flowing it would be easy to make 600-650hp with a baby cam. Is the larger port very detrimental in this exercise?

What do you think your engine would pull to with out the limiter?
__________________
'71 torino gt m-code
now- 460 w/roller cam
one day w/t56
anyone wanna donate to my cause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24  
Old 09-23-2013, 10:25 PM
86f350 86f350 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
86f350 Driving a Ford
Default

This thread has good tech on using the mustang PCM on a big block.

http://www.460ford.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99644

The TwEECer is a great tuning device and the RT model can data log in real time with a wide band 02 meter. If you're after good economy I highly recommend using a mustang computer from a manual transmission car and tuning the rest with the TwEECer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25  
Old 09-23-2013, 11:38 PM
The Mad Porter's Avatar
The Mad Porter The Mad Porter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA.
Posts: 5,927
The Mad Porter First On Race Day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torinoman View Post
Very interesting idea on the cam selection. What were your goals with that motor that led you to running that small cam? How long have you been running that setup? What intake are you using? You should start a thread about that setup, thats pretty cool

Can you explain why the torker would loose efficiency compared to a dual plane? Also, I guess this means a victor or mafia intake would be just way out of place in this exercise? Whats the max power level on an air gap??

You mentioned having OD, I have a T56 that I'm running so at highway speeds it'll only see about 1800rpm

About the P51s being overkill, is that because of the power level goals here are attainable with "lesser" heads or because the P51 ports are too big? It seems to me that with what these heads are flowing it would be easy to make 600-650hp with a baby cam. Is the larger port very detrimental in this exercise?

What do you think your engine would pull to with out the limiter?
The build information is in the car build section under project 12.99 LTD.

Cam selection was for good street manners and drive ability for a large heavy car 4350 with me in it. Build for torque in your intended rpm window and the hp will follow.

I have a C-6 in it now as stated in my first post.

The P-51 ports are too big for the small displacement and HP goals we are talking about here. You have to remember that port velocity is very important hence the reason we match port cross sectional area to displacement and rpm range.

The single plane T2 would be down on torque below the peak and less torque at cruising speed means more throttle opening. This is typical in the single vs dual plane intake comparison. The center runners on the T 2 are very short. Long runners build torque which is needed for cruising in OD at 2 K or less.

I have slowly increased the limiter and settled on 6300 as safe for short bursts with stock rods. Would it pull higher? I will test that on a chassis dyno when I establish a HP peak rpm. Regardless the beehive springs will be about done at 6500 regardless...



__________________
Scotty J. "AKA" The "Mad Porter"
"EMC 2006" 3rd place finisher
Ported BBF iron head specialist & Aluminum heads from all sources.
Custom ground cams
See our products in the Vendor for sale section

http://R-H-P.biz

"ReinCarNation High Performance" (253)-988-6648


http://www.facebook.com/SMJRHP#!/SMJRHP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26  
Old 09-24-2013, 07:02 AM
Imtruckinup Imtruckinup is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern maryland
Posts: 408
Imtruckinup First On Race Day
Default

Torino.......to answer some of your questions.....and any body can correct if I'm wrong but....as far as the AIR GAP max hp goes....don't know the max hp..but I can tell you I'm pushing 642 hp at 5700 rpm and 670 ft lbs at 4300 rpm.....while maintaing ove 600 ft lbs from 2500 - 5000 rpm and 19 in of vacuum with a SCJ ported air gap with p51 heads and a smaller cam

As far as SCJ vs p51....the p51 do flow more air but the SCJ has a smaller cross section....the goal is to flow the most amount of air AND keep the smallest cross section you can....smaller cross section keeps your air velocity up and crams/sucks more air into your cylinder for a given displacement. Because of the high air speed.....producing more tourqe...and for what you want tourqe is what your after...SCJ SHOULD be more street friendly..and I feel a SCJ head is a far better choose for your intentions...... I've never been real good at explaining things...sorry if I don't make sense. ..maybe of the big dogs can better elaborate. ..i went with the combo that i did because i like to experiment and try new things....lmao hence. P51 heads small e r cam and a dual plane..and was told by many that this is a "stupid" combo...but you never know whats gonna happen till you try it....but i also spend alot of time thinking about the combo and how this part would affect that part and tried to compliment it the best i could....lot of prep work......I can also give you a cut sheet of my build if you like so you can compare if you like...just let me know
__________________
Damn girl... You look better than a new set of mud tires
1993 f350 38's 5 speed. Toy

521 p51 headed pump gas street motor
639 hp at 5600 rpm
670 ft/lbs at 4300 rpm

Last edited by Imtruckinup; 09-24-2013 at 07:34 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27  
Old 09-24-2013, 02:18 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 66
BlueAngel First On Race Day
Default

I'll throw this in for what it's worth. I had a rebuilt well-running stock 89 460 EFI in my offroad buggy for many years, with all new injectors and sensors. It was factory MAP set-up with multiport, but bank fired injectors. I recently built and installed a 545 with the new torker II EFI and 234/244, 0.562/0.581 lift cam, and I went with mustang EEC-IV computer, which has multiport but sequential injectors, and I was surprised to get a noticably better fuel economy from the new motor.
__________________
George
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28  
Old 09-24-2013, 05:57 PM
86f350 86f350 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
86f350 Driving a Ford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
I'll throw this in for what it's worth. I had a rebuilt well-running stock 89 460 EFI in my offroad buggy for many years, with all new injectors and sensors. It was factory MAP set-up with multiport, but bank fired injectors. I recently built and installed a 545 with the new torker II EFI and 234/244, 0.562/0.581 lift cam, and I went with mustang EEC-IV computer, which has multiport but sequential injectors, and I was surprised to get a noticably better fuel economy from the new motor.
Stop that....youre making me second guess my carb setup
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29  
Old 09-24-2013, 06:06 PM
torinoman torinoman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dallas, tx
Posts: 289
torinoman Driving a Ford
Send a message via AIM to torinoman
Default

Thanks for the input guys.... now I kinda wonder what i could possible hope for if I went ahead and built the 545 I was planning while still aiming for high efficiency with a carefully chosen cam and super tight quench area and eventually efi
__________________
'71 torino gt m-code
now- 460 w/roller cam
one day w/t56
anyone wanna donate to my cause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30  
Old 09-24-2013, 06:10 PM
torinoman torinoman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: dallas, tx
Posts: 289
torinoman Driving a Ford
Send a message via AIM to torinoman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86f350 View Post
Stop that....youre making me second guess my carb setup
Yeah, I might be able to get done with my build if I could make up my mind
__________________
'71 torino gt m-code
now- 460 w/roller cam
one day w/t56
anyone wanna donate to my cause?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the 460 Ford Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.