What do you think the consequences would be in running a 550 ft-lb engine in a stock frame 50's F-100? Spaghetti? Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
I knew a fellow who put a carburetted BBC in a local OT GM product (Similar to early Camaro) and when launched the LHF wheel was 12" off the ground. Similar torque in a monocoque shell with front subframe and engine plate support. Your OEM frame was engineered to flex when driven and not be rigid. You need good cab mounts and steering as well otherwise you're feel the road feedback even more. What suspension is in the front and rear, is the frame OEM 'C' profile with X-members or modified? Boxing parts of the frame and adding a centre x-member (Or K-member) will minimise any torsional twist. Had a friend put a Rover V8 & auto in his 57 F100 and all he did was add engine mounts and an OT Jag IFS to it. Good enough for a DD.
Really depends on how the rest of the truck is built/driven. Big, sticky tires? Street tires? Drag race? Street truck? Motor plate? Boxed frame? Crossmembers? Roll bar? Ya da, ya da, ya... That said, there are a lot of Effies running warmed up 460s that are around that for torque without problems. Built correctly, I personally wouldn't be scared of a stock frame at all.
Hot Rod Cowboy is asking the right questains. FWIW years ago I had a 56 F100 with a 460 swapped in come into the shop. Whoever had done the swap removed the cross member where the old bellhousing mounts were to clear the C6 and welded ears to each frame rail to go to the motor mounts. The results were the right frame rail was twisted about 45% from the torque of that 460, the motor was tilting way over. Once I got the rail back upright I boxed it and added a full tube cross member style motor mount setup. So to answer your questain, no, I don't think a stock frame will handle that much torque without some modifications/ reinforcements. A lot has to do with how you plan on mounting the motor.
And sorry to nitpick, but the measurement for torque is pound-foot. The foot-pound, on the other hand, is a measurement of work. https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/foot-pounds-and-pound-feet-whats-the-difference/
When I was in school, it was ft-lb. pound-foot hadn't surfaced yet. When it did, we were all saying WTF are they talking about. Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
I have 6 torque wrenches in my shop. Two aerospace, a couple of Sturdevants and a Craftsman or two. They all say, "foot/pounds" or "inch/pounds" on them.
F100 frames were discussed here way back when and it seems the 1st problem is that folks chop out the cross member located roughly where the bell housing is and don't replace it. I have a 1960 F100 and if yours is similar, my model came without a tranny cross member as the original tranny cantilevered off the back of the engine. So you are down to about a radiator front cross member and a member over the diff and possibly a very back cross member and C channel chassis rails. The dam thing will twist anyways from torque or because there is not enough chassis resistance to make the suspension work right as well. Two things about that is firstly, a twisting frame stresses the cab sheet metal and soon enough you wonder why it rattles so much and you has tiny tares appearing in corners of your sheet metal etc. Secondly, nobody wants chassis twist which means your suspension is not working right. I know that is the way it was done for years, but that was to save many and probably lack of knowledge. However, you read how race car guys are always trying for a totally rigid chassis so that the vehicle will handle better and so should you be seeking this if possible, since you are introducing much more performance into this old truck. An engineering article that was posted in that previous thread I refer to suggested that the main problem with most of these old trucks was prevent chassis twist as the wheel base can be quite long and more cross members were required to help resist the leverage that is able to be exerted by a long chassis. Looking at my f100 it seemed Ford attempted to provided a degree of rigidity to these old trucks by having a degree of rigidity in the engine bay and under the cab, but left all the box area to flex at will. Look at this way, it is probably easier to build in some chassis rigidity now than have to fool around trying to make it better later when you are just not happy with what you have. Performance is not just about HP but about a degree of control and handling, just as big/better brakes maybe a consideration. May I'd suggest a phone call to Steve at Industrial Chassis Inc in Phoenix AZ for at least a chat. Check out his website as he has built a twin turbo charged 61/62 F100 and I am sure have some knowledge and even products that may be of help to you. It is about a 5 hour drive from your location. Good luck and keep us posted on your decisions.
I ran a blown LS-7 454 in my 59 Chevy truck for six years, 20k miles, back in 1990-1996. Pretty much the same chassis design as the Ford trucks of the same era, leafs front and rear, drum brakes, I beam front axle, ladder channel frame. No issues. I'm pretty sure I had a tad more than 550 ft lbs torque...
I've been in his shop several times. Great guy and a huge pool of automotive design knowledge. Your suggestion is a good one. Thanks for the reminder. Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Put a built 428 Cobra jet in a 53 Ford F100 for my boss when I worked at a Ford dealership in Az. No issues other than a steering stabilizer to stop the shakes. Even after a front end rebuild. I am sure it made at least that much torque.
The Jalopy Journal
