RW> Advertising hoopla...
 
No doubt, but tasteless.
 
RW> Not nearly as much as the Olds.
 
I knew people in my home town who owned Oldsmobiles all their lives and
wouldn't drive anything else.  One of my late ex gfs did.  She also liked a
lot of things I like and she was multi-lingual.
 
RW> That was a bone of contention between my dad and my uncle. Dad owned
RW> Oldsmobiles and my uncle owned Buicks (except in the days when they owned
 
I liked the '53 Buick Roadmaster.  My bil's dad, who was a doctor and a
Col. in the Army and who passed through Dachau when the war ended (another
story), had one and it is a nice riding car.  It had to be because it was
so heavy.
 
RW> Chevys and Fords)...My dad said if you want to work on cars all the time,
RW> buy a Ford, my uncle said if you want a fast car, buy a Ford (that was in
RW> the days of the flathead). I bought a Ford and found out that they were
RW> both right. I never did buy into their hype between the Olds and Buicks,
RW> sticking to Chevys after I had worked on too many Fords.
 
You already know the tale of my '57 Bel Air.  What I ended up doing to the
engine was akin to installing a Corvette engine with 10.5:1 CR.  I had
three dueces (not stock after we modified them) atop it.  It sounded like a
tugboat at idle, but once the attained speed was at least 40MPH, the sound
was magical.
 
RW>RN> Have you ever done a valve job on a flat head Ford V-8?
 
RW> Yeup. c1959, right after I graduated from high school.
 
Some fun, huh?
 
RW> You did it the hard way. I had the advantage of a valve and seat grinder
RW> (my girlfriend's father owned a parts store with an automotive machine
RW> shop). I bored the block .100 over, put it together, only to find that
RW> the pistons and rods weren't compatable. I had used Mercury rods with
RW> Ford pistons, which made the pistons stick out of the block by 1/8 inch.
 
Back in the late Fourties-early Fifties we did everything the hard way.
 
RW> To correc that, I bought Ford rods and everything worked just fine. That
RW> little flathead could beat a 55 chevy I was familiar with.
 
Just how familiar are you with the '55?  Do you now own it?
 
RW> No, it was based on the fact that the radiator was mounted lower than the
RW> engine and to help keep the engine cooler in the head area. The LT-1 is a
RW> fantastic performance engine, but the reverse flow killed most of the
RW> cars it was in. I've owned two, but I'd never buy another one.
 
I wonder what Motor Trend had to say about that?
 
RW> Not me. I think cars and computers go together like milk and chocolate
RW> cake.
 
What I like about the Mark VIII is the lamp controls.  The lamps come on
automatically at dark and off when the engine is shut off and a couple of
other things.  Other than that and what you mentioned about controlling the
fuel mixture, I can do without.
 
RW> i.e. there's no other way to have your cake and eat it too, as in 325
RW> rear wheel HP and 25 mpg all in one package...
 
I don't know what the torque is at the rear end, but I'll look it up.
 
RW> Just think how much better that would have been with a computer to
RW> control the air fuel ratio at all engine speeds.
 
Not too good with a carbuter, but with that humonguous Rochester fuel
injection system sitting in the place where a normal intake manifold would
be, then yes, it would be a welcome addition.
 
RW> 3/4 race! Today they don't use such terms...they talk about duration,
RW> lift, seperation degrees, etc.. I used a 3/4 race cam in the flathead I
RW> built (above)... Don't ask me about the particulars though.
 
I'm stuck in 1950s lingo.  (-:  I haven't kept up with that stuff past the
age of 40, being only interested in what John Force is doing.  My oldest
son likes to watch 500 mile races like the Indy 500 and that type of racing
puts me to sleep.
 
RW>RN> Any engine that is over 250 HP is okay in my book.
 
RW> HP is over-rated. Look at the torque specs and you can get a better idea
RW> of how any given engine will perform. My Z28 engine makes 305hp to the
RW> back wheels (that's about 345hp at the flywheel), but it also makes 325ft
RW> lbs (about 375 at the flywheel) of torque at the back wheels. Meanwhile,
RW> your factory rated 250hp 4.6L engine makes only 280ft lbs of torque at
RW> the flywheel. Torque moves objects, HP keeps them moving.
 
It still surprises me when I accidently push too hard on the gas pedal. 
See desc below:
 
===
Powertrain Options and Availability
The Mark VIII is the recipient of the finest of Ford powertrains, the DOHC,
32-valve 4.6-liter V8. First placed in the Town Car, the aluminum-block
engine also powers the Lincoln Continental, Ford Crown Victoria,
Thunderbird, and Mustang. Two separate versions make their way under the
hood of the Mark VIII. The basic engine delivers 280 horsepower at 5500 rpm
and 285 pound-feet of torque at 4500 rpm. Select the optional LSC version
and you find the 290 horsepower version with a torque rating of 290
pound-feet at 4500 rpm. The extra power results from a true dual exhaust
system, which reduces back pressure. The only available transmission is an
electronic 4-speed overdrive automatic.
===
Mine is not the LSC.
 
RW>RN> It is, but it's about half the length of my little finger.  I think
RW>RN> it's yellow.
 
RW> Yes, it's supposed to be yellow...and so should your engine oil dipstick.
 
It was hard to find.  I gave up looking for it and my daughter's husband,
in an act of humanity (unusual for him) showed me where it was.
 
 
Regards,
 
Roger

... Well, at least I'm improving my cold tolerance.
--- D'Bridge 3.31