1981 Mint 400 Flareside Race Truck

[grumpin]

Nothing Special wrote

Do you know if there is any difference in front springs between an '85 F-250 and a '97 F-250?  As you might remember, I used to have an '85, and I loved the truck, but I was really glad to switch to the ride of the '95 F-150 I got next.  The rear was bad, but the front really wasn't good either.

Now I have my '97.  It's a crew cab with a fiberglass topper, so it has more weight on the rear axle than the standard cab '85 had (with an aluminum topper very occasionally).  And it has a 460/E4OD so there's more weight on the front than the '85s 351/NP435.  But the '97 rides SO much better than I remember the '95 riding.  Maybe it's just the weight, but I wonder if the spring rate is different.

Big Blue has the 460, and I'd guess the ZF5 he's getting will be closer in weight to an E4OD than an NP435.  So maybe if you get the rear dialed in he'll smooth out a lot.  But it might be worth looking into springs for a newer TTB F-250

That's interesting, I had a 94 F250 with the 460 and E4OD, I knew the PO and he had the extra leaf installed in the front.

I always joked that in the winter when you went across the"ruts" in the road, you had to reach down and pick your teeth up off the floor. That thing rode rough. I mentioned to the Po that I was thinking of trying new shocks, and he said you'll probably find a steel bar in where the shocks go!

[Nothing Special]

I don't know how much my shocks are doing.  The truck had about 160K on it when I bought it.  I don't know if a PO ever replaced them, but I know I haven't touched the shocks.  But there's enough friction (and little enough travel) in the suspension that it doesn't seem like it needs better damping.  New shocks might hurt the ride!

But that would make it much like my '85 that still had the original shocks when I sold it at ~180K.  It's problem was that the springs (and therefore the shocks) hardly ever moved, so I don't think new shocks would've helped there either.


And a correction to what you quoted me saying above.  I meant to say that my '97 (F-250HD) rides better than my '85 (F-250HD also).  I didn't mean to say it rides better than my '95 (F-150).

[grumpin]

With that extra leaf in the 94, my 86 rides better. And they're both super cabs with the longer wheelbase.

And saying it rides better is probably not saying too much. HD suspensions don't ride well.

I did just put bigger tires on my Bronco, that helped quite a bit. Not nearly as "squirrelly" as it was with stock size tires. They are 31 10.50 15's.

[Nothing Special]

grumpin wrote

....  And saying it rides better is probably not saying too much. HD suspensions don't ride well....

No one riding in my '97 F-250HD would think they're riding in a Lincoln.  But we take it on a lot of long-ish trips (80 - 200 miles) and no one's complained about being beat up.  In fact quite a few people express surprise that it rides and drives so well for a big old truck.  And I know my wife wouldn't dread riding in it out to Colorado.

[Gary Lewis]

A year or so ago I rode in an early 2000's F350 diesel and was amazed at how well it rode.  Dramatically better than Big Blue.  But, it was a crew cab, so did have a longer wheelbase, although you could extend BB's frame a bunch and it'll still be brutal.  

[grumpin]

Nothing Special wrote

grumpin wrote

....  And saying it rides better is probably not saying too much. HD suspensions don't ride well....

No one riding in my '97 F-250HD would think they're riding in a Lincoln.  But we take it on a lot of long-ish trips (80 - 200 miles) and no one's complained about being beat up.  In fact quite a few people express surprise that it rides and drives so well for a big old truck.  And I know my wife wouldn't dread riding in it out to Colorado.

True, on the freeway I really like the truck, the long wheelbase makes for a nice ride in my opinion. My sister rode back to California from Illinois with me and really liked the truck.

On the rough roads though...

[Nothing Special]

Gary Lewis wrote

A year or so ago I rode in an early 2000's F350 diesel and was amazed at how well it rode.  Dramatically better than Big Blue.  But, it was a crew cab, so did have a longer wheelbase, although you could extend BB's frame a bunch and it'll still be brutal.  

My '02 F-350 CCSB diesel rode about the same as my '97 F-250 CCSB 460 on average.  But the front of the F-350 was a little softer (it would wallow up and down a few times on a bigger bump) and harsher in the back than the F-250.

My '08 F-250 CCSB 5.4L was the best riding and handling truck I've had (significantly better than my '95 F-150 SCSB).  I hated that truck for other reasons.

[Rembrant]

More Bullnose Flareside love on the FB Rally page;).

[Rembrant]

And some Blue Oval catching some serious air! Love seeing that front suspension in action (and this one a 4x4 too).

[Gary Lewis]

I think I like the Bullnose pic better.  I've always been afraid of "getting air" as there's the inevitable landing.  And in the case of that one it doesn't look like it'll be very soft.  

[grumpin]

Gary Lewis wrote

I think I like the Bullnose pic better.  I've always been afraid of "getting air" as there's the inevitable landing.  And in the case of that one it doesn't look like it'll be very soft.  

 But, doesn't that Aeronose look like it's having fun!

[Gary Lewis]

Yes, they should have painted a smile on the grille.  Hmmmm, that reminds me of 'Mater.

[Rembrant]

Another nice one showing a Flareside Bullnose catching some air! (In case there are any of you that don't see these on Facebook). You certainly don't see spectators that close to the action anymore. PS: What were they typically running for engines in these trucks, doesn't anybody know?



Quoted from the pic:

"Great shot of Dave Shoppe and his class 8 Ford at a mid 80’s MINT 400. This popular spectating spot was located about a mile off the start line and went under I-15 north of Las Vegas. Maybe a Vegas local can chime in but my guess is the existing off ramp to the new Las Vegas speedway? Anyways, after the 1985 MINT 400, the course moved to the Primm area until 1989. By then the BLM made the “underpass” a non spectator spot ☹️. Photo Credit unknown, if it’s your shot let me know so I can give you credit. Do YOU have a shot from the Underpass? Let’s see it!"

[Gary Lewis]

Cool shot!  I can't imagine the landing though.  

[Rembrant]

Gary,

Any idea what they ran for engines and trannies in these trucks in that era? I'm thinking they must have been hopped up 351w with 3spd auto trannies? Really curious what set-ups they ran. I know they were 2wd...at least many of them in these pics are...but they weren't running a lazy 302 2bbl and 3.08 diff like in my truck...lol.

[Gary Lewis]

No, I don't know what engines and transmissions they ran.  But I'd bet it was something like a 351HO and probably the C6.  But that's just a guess.

I tried searching for the info but didn't find anything that helped.

[Rembrant]

I see in the early 1980's and before, class 8 was the 2wd trucks (and class 4 was 4x4). Looks like they were combined sometime later on...later 1980's maybe.
Anyway, found some basic info...that they had to have full frames and the appearance of a bed. No coilovers, but if they did have stock style suspension (like coil springs and twin I-beams) they could run as many shocks as they wanted. Engines had to be from the same manufactured as the truck, and the transmissions had to be a stock style. No specifics other than that.

[Rembrant]

All I found was one of Ivan Stewart's old trucks restored (and a dent, not a Bull). A 78 or 79?

Listed as having an 8:1 compression 400 with an estimated 350 HP and 400 ft/lbs TQ, and an Auto trans. Gary, you'll be pleased to know that the article said it had a "400M", but I just called it a 400....

[Gary Lewis]

Well done, Cory!

However, I'm a bit suspicious about the horsepower and torque ratings.  Dad's engine hit 400 HP and 500 ft-lbs with 10.5:1 compression.  In addition, it was running aluminum heads.  So I'm having a hard time believing the 350 HP rating - unless they really wound that thing up.  Dad's cam was spec'd to give power at low R's, so maybe they used the large flow capacity of the 335 Series heads and really spun that thing.

[Nothing Special]

Rembrant wrote

....  Listed as having an 8:1 compression 400 with an estimated 350 HP and 400 ft/lbs TQ, ....

Gary Lewis wrote

....  I'm having a hard time believing the 350 HP rating - unless they really wound that thing up.  Dad's cam was spec'd to give power at low R's, so maybe they used the large flow capacity of the 335 Series heads and really spun that thing.

350 hp and 400 ft-lb means the horsepower peak is significantly below 5252 rpm.  The formula for calculating horsepower is torque (in ft-lbs) times rpm divided by 5252.  So I'm thinking the estimation is generous.