Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Gez! .132" in the hole is pretty bad. From my experience if you can't do things that will get you at least a 1/4 of a point increase in compression then the effort involved is just not worth it. I know! I have heard that some rebuilder pistons have reduced compression height to compensate for incre...

Keeping a forum free from spam is an onerous task. We do appreciate your efforts.

On the Studebakers I work on, 1-degree negative caster is the most common, as this makes non-assisted steering and parking lighter. There is not enough adjustment to get most of them to zero, much less 1-degree positive. I've built tapered spacers to install between the A-arm cross pins and the fram...

The cost becomes a factor in all of this. I have a friend who used to be into the ecomodding. He said he tallied up all he had spent on mods to improve fuel economy, and he never broke even on the fuel cost saved. . . . It's counter-productive. It's also counter-productive to friendships to rub fol...

Another point that might be looked at that is not engine related and is many times overlooked is rotating weight. Rims and tires can sap up a noticeable amount of power. You might not have much choice on tires, but lighter rims might be doable. For true. Taking my life in my hands here referencing ...

Maybe QualCast.

https://qualcast.net

Just watch what the winners are running. They've already solved the multi-variable regression analysis.

You do realise those two objectives on a petrol engine are in conflict, look at how LS engines have been specced over the last 20 years, they don't have good low speed torque considering their capacity, they do get good fuel economy, when you need power you rev them and ignore the fuel consumption....

The 2.8, Cologne (Germany) engine, has no similarities to the 4.0, which is a up grade of Fords first American "Metric" engine, the 3.8. If we stay here long enough, we'll all be wrong about something; this is yours. The Cologne V6 has evolved through engine displacements of 1.8, 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6...

If the 2.8 is like the 4.0 they used a bazillion of in the Rangers in later years, there's BIG gains available. So, if your 2.8 is anything like the 4.0 litres, which I'd imagine it is, there's a fair gain to be had. Not a fan of the 2.8 or 2.9 versions. They all have cracked cylinder heads. In my ...

Spammer comes here, posting in the wrong section even.

Those who can, do; those who can't become consultants.

Yes the valve size is certainly not an issue. It is far bigger than the port, which is why the flow curve is so weird, basically flatlined at .300" lift. Porting would help much more than valve size, but hugely hard to get in there. The intake valve is so large it overhangs the bore and hits it! Tu...

Most of these guys are using a DCR of 7.0:1 for 87 octane builds and typically don’t adjust timing much. That puts me at about 8.5:1 static for the cam I will be using. My machinist thinks that would be a mistake and I should be in the 9’s. With all due respect to Wesman07, he has his own reasons a...

BobbyB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:00 am Currently rebuilding a 2.8 ford V6 for an 83 ranger 4x4 truck with 4 speed manual transmission. . . . 2 barrel carb

There are some 2-bbls of that vintage like half a QuadraJet; small primary, large vacuum secondary. Which carb will you be using?

Carb or EFI? It makes a difference.