Talk:Ford FE engine/Archive 1

Bbl?

What does bbl mean?
Bobblewik 10:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's auto-jargon for "barrel" and refers to the number of throttle bodies in a carburetor. I'll do something about that.--Stephen 13:01, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Carburetors don't have "throttle bodies", they have venturi. A 4 barrel carb is also called a 4V carb and you'll see a lot of references to 4V Cleveland engines meaning Ford 335-series engines with manifolds meant to accept 4V carbs and the matching heads to handle the increased flow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.3.74 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, carburetors DO have a throttle body. Well, more that they ARE a throttle body. The blades reside underneath the venturis. The whole assembly is a throttle body. If a carb wasn’t one, there would be no means to modulate engine speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.246.2.80 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wondered about that before and I would never have guessed. I suppose I could have found out by doing a search. I see that there are 43 pages with 'bbl', although not all refer to barrels. It also appears to be used in references to oil.Bobblewik 14:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The references to oil also mean 'barrels', I'd imagine, in the 'barrels of oil' sense. It seems to be a rather odd and un-obvious abbreviation. —Morven 16:12, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect info

Technicallly from my knowledge of the FE family, the only FE that can truely be called a Y-block was I do believe the 427 sideoiler. The Side oiler had extended skirts brining it the name Y-block.

NOT incorrect, ALL FE's had the extended skirt design, top oiler, side oiler, industrial and marine versions, ALL.

Also, mention should perhaps also be placed (unless i missed it) to included the 361/360i & 391/390I, the industrial variants. I don't have much background on them other than were used in equipment and various industrial activites such as generators...Feedloadr 13:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cammer power rating?

Given the technology available in the 1960s, as good of a design as the 427 "cammer" might've been, the power numbers stated, specifically "615 hp (458 kW) at 7,000 rpm with a single four-barrel carburetor, and 657 hp (490 kW) at 7,500 rpm with dual four barrel carburetors" seems to be rather more than a naturally-aspirated engine of the era was capable of, particularly given that this was an engine available by Ford to an average customer over the counter. Does anyone have any hard evidence to back up these numbers?72.236.162.51 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What heads are these?

Hi Can anyone tell me what heads I have? PT # EDC 6090E Thanks ford

You have a pair of early 352 or 361 Edsel cylinder heads. This is a good thing. Flip them over and you will most likely find the combustion chamber is machined smooth rather than left rough after casting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A58pacer (talk • contribs) 06:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I removed the templates

I cleaned up the beginning of this article as the requests for citations and facts was excessive. If reentered, they will promptly be removed.

Thanks, Mngmnt—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.246.2.80 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not a part of Wikipedia "mngmnt", you are an unregistered editor. Removing templates without properly addressing the reasons why they were applied is considered vandalism. Threatening to commit vandalism again in the future is not a productive thing to do. Please remember to add a level-2 heading when you start a new topic on an article's talk page, and to sign your comments on talk pages properly. Thank you for being a coöperative Wikipedian. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Update141.246.2.80, you have received warnings on your talk page for your inappropriate removal of valid templates and tags. If you do it again, you will very likely find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

This article contains a great amount of information, much of which requires only minor improvement in format and/or (especially) citation per Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and reliability. I've gone through and started the cleanup, removing obvious and tagging likely original research. I have also reworked text that didn't conform to the requirement for the neutral point of view to be maintained, and removed personal essay, editorial, and how-to text. I've also fixed most of the inconsistent and improper units, and removed commercial text and an external link not allowed by Wikipedia's policy on external links. There are a lot of people interested in these engines, and knowledgeable about them. The tags at the top of the article will alert those interested that this is a good place to dig in their shovels and work on improving the article. With the improvements highlighted here, this article could eventually attain Featured Article status. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, in the future, use the Sandbox feature. Your editing mashed the tables into the text.

By Citations, do you mean page numbers from the 200+page books referenced at the end of the article? By How-To text, do you mean the notation within the article that, for example, tunnelport, high-riser and SOHC heads can not be used on blocks that do not have a minimum bore of 4.23" due to valve sizing and spacing? Why was the word 'later' removed from before Cobra? Early Cobra's used the smallblock Ford engines (260, 289). It was only the LATER Cobra's that were equipped with the FE. Most GT-40's also came with smallblocks, it was a select few that got the 427, and then only with dry-sumps and bundle-of-snake headers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.238.82 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that my edit munged the table placement, but reverting the wikification of the article was not appropriate. The templates and tags are a tool that will accelerate the improvement of the article, they are not a judgement of inadequacy on your part or anyone else's...please remember we're all here to coöperate for the improvement of Wikipedia, and don't take templates and tags personally.

The sandbox feature is not relevant to this sort of issue; I should've looked more closely at the formatting by means of the preview feature. The article contains no citations at all, it merely has two books listed at the bottom under "References". That's better than no references at all, but only just barely. Please follow the links contained in the templates at the top of the article, as well as the ones contained in the inline tags, to read and understand the reason why those tags and templates are applicable to this article.

Please also read WP:NOT for a detailed explanation of why "what'll fit what" swap and race engine buildup instructions and guidelines do not belong in a Wikipedia article. The word "later" was removed because the writing was vague and unclear. If you can improve the assertion by making it clearer and documenting it, by all means please do so, but again, a massive revert is not warranted or appropriate. The information on the GT-40 you've written here is interesting. If you've got a reliable source for the info, please include it! Also please remember to sign your comments. Thanks for being a coöperative Wikipedian. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the information regarding "what'll fit what" is to address the limitations of the engine block, going back to the first table showing that the FE was a medium sized block, unlike the blocks it was competing against during the horsepower wars. The block was absolutely bored to the maximum at 4.23" in order to fit the larger valves, ports and chambers of the tunnelport, high-riser and SOHC heads. It was a thinwall block, very light for it's size at 7 liters of displacement.

I still don't understand what you want for citations. The books referenced are detailed encylopedia's about the engine in and of themselves. Is this article just supposed to be the Cliff Notes edition of them?

How do I sign this edit? All I see is an 'edit summary' box. Do I need to be a computer programmer? Insert HTML code or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.242.110 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I went through your edit and made some changes, added a reference source, referred to the reference source within the body of the piece, but I still have serious questions about what you are looking for citation-wise:

"the corners were thicker all down the wall of each cylinder[vague]. Many 427s used a steel crankshaft and all were balanced internally. The 427 was the only production Ford big-block engine equipped with forged pistons, and forged connecting rods were also part of the package.[citation needed]"

You call the statement about the cloverleaf casting "vague". Why? This is a documented design feature written about and pictured in every one of the referenced books.

Why is a citation needed for the details regarding the pistons and rods used when this is part of any rebuild manual, not to mention listed in every one of the referenced books, over and over and over? How many page citations do you need? How do you cite a page from a reference book? Do we need a citation that this engine had 8 cylinders and that those 8 cylinders were arranged in a "V" configuration?

Perhaps you could read your references and clarify by example what you're looking for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.102 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of what I want for citations, it's about what Wikipedia requires. A citation is needed for any/every assertion that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and it must be a proper citation — a fully-detailed footnote — and not just a casual mention of where you read it. Please read WP:CITE for detailed instructions on how to cite using the <ref> ... </ref> tags. No citation will be needed for assertions that could not realistically be challenged, such as the FE engine having 8 cylinders arranged in a "V" formation. Remember, the standard by which contributions are evaluated on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability, and there are clear criteria for what is and isn't a reliable source of information. As frustrating as it can be sometimes, what you or I or anyone else knows (or thinks he knows, or says he knows) is not relevant. It's what we can prove that matters.

I understand your reasoning for including the "what'll fit what" language, but it does not belong in a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. When thinking about what to include and how to phrase it, please keep in mind this is an encyclopædia article we're writing, not a how-to page or a tips 'n' tricks guide or a technical article.

The statement about the cloverleaf casting is tagged as vague because "The corners were thicker all down the wall of each cylinder" is vague. Which corners of what were thicker down the entire cylinder wall?

The article is definitely not supposed to be just a Cliff's Notes version of a book or two. Good question! Article text should be largely original, but supported by verifiable, reliable sources as defined in the links already given. More sources are better than fewer sources; it's problematic when an article has only one or two sources referenced.

Please follow my earlier suggestion and click the links embedded in the tags and templates and in my earlier comments in this thread here. By doing so, you'll quickly and easily get most of your questions answered and learn what's requested, required, expected, allowed, and prohibited on Wikipedia. For example, if you'll click the sign your comments link in my earlier post to this discussion, you'll learn that the way to do so is to add four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (but without the spaces between them) at the end of your comment on a talk page, before hitting "Save". Wikipedia automatically interprets the four tildes in a row (with no spaces between them) as a signature and adds the date, time, and your ID. Thanks for engaging in discussion here on the talk page! --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Write and properly annotate your own article. I think you're a jerk. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.27 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't give up! You've obviously got a great deal of interest and insight into this topic. On Wikipedia, there is no "my own article" or "your own article" — this is a community-based coöperative project, not a competitive one. But without sticking to Wikipedia's standards, any effort put into the article is wasted, which is a shame. The rules are easy to understand, and easy to follow. Please try to understand that they apply to everyone equally: you, me, and everyone else. This isn't to say they should be used to beat people over the head; they shouldn't. It's just worth remembering that the rules work in everyone's favour when they're followed. Please try not to take the rules' existence or enforcement personally. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I worked for a project manager who thought because he was the team leader, that all glory, and no actual work, was his. You are reminding me of him. I believe a team leader should be knowledgeable about the project and able to contribute to the work. I don't see any contributions coming from you except complaints, whining and whips.

Whip yourself. See how good the article winds up. Especially now that you've trashed it. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.241.58 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a team leader or supervisor or anything else other than an editor, just like you. Initiating an effort to bring an article up to Wikipedia's standards does not constitute "trashing" the article. Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

“Specific models that used FE engines include the AC Cobra MKIII”

With your editing, the Shelby Cobra becomes the AC Cobra MKIII, whatever that is. The MKIII is a Shelby GT-40.

“It was simply a 332 with 4 in (102 mm)stroke, bored to 3.5 in”

With your slipshod editing, the spacing in the above phrase is incorrect as well as the punctuation.

“360.7 in³ or 5.91 L displacement, was introduced in 1968 and phased out at the end of the 1976 year run.used in the”

More inconsistent units and incorrect punctuation and spelling, which were not present before you “edited” the article.

“the 410, like the 428, required external balancing[citation needed]”

I provided the citation requested, but you deleted the referenced source, and the citation.

“familiarly known as the Cammer[citation needed]”

I provided the citation requested, but you deleted the referenced source, and the citation, for the above two examples, as well as for numerous other requests for citations. You seem to be deliberately sabotaging my attempts to provide you with citations.

Do you have a problem with a citation from a published book, with an ISBN number, that I cited down to the page number?

You are a classic whiner. You can harp and criticize and find flaws, but what exactly are you adding to the project?

I’m waiting to see. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.60 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You provided no citations at all, merely conversational notes like For citations and more on the "Cammer", begin reading at page 42 in "Muslecar & Hi-Po Engines Ford Big Block ISBN 1 85520 1062 Published by Brooklands Books, parenthetical comments like (citation of page 11, "Muslecar & Hi-Po Engines Ford Big Block ISBN 1 85520 1062 Published by Brooklands Books), unsupported hearsay assertions like "FE" is an acronym for 'Ford-Edsel' per Jim Dove of Dove Performance Engineering who purchased the original FE tooling from Ford Motor Company when factory production ceased in 1976. You also added a great deal of unsupported POV material not suitable for Wikipedia articles, such as This series of engines [...] were all known for excellent torque and durability which is the reason for the long life of the engine family in general and the sales success in particular.

When you encounter errors in nomenclature, spacing, and punctuation, it's best to go ahead and fix them rather than complaining about them on the talk page. Again, however, you mustn't remove fact tags without addressing the reason they're there. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What a hypocrite! I provided citations, references, added the reference to the list at the bottom of the article and you just blithely deleted it all.

"When you encounter errors in nomenclature, spacing, and punctuation, it's best to go ahead and fix them rather than

complaining about them on the talk page."

Well then, you had the citations all typed in, maybe the formatting wasn't up to your standards, so why didn't YOU fix them rather than whining about them on the talk page? You spent all that time entering superscript 3's after "in", why couldn't you format the citations, that had all the information needed, to suit your high standards?

Ditto the references to living people. In a COOPERATIVE endeavour, you'd leave the citation, and use the talk page to suggest how BETTER to reference a living person that would fit Wikipedia's standards. Instead, you just whine some more and do a wholesale deletion. Ditto the request for a citation in support of current aftermarket suppliers of the engine. Maybe you would CONTRIBUTE some insight as to how to best present those citations so as not to fall afoul of Wikipedia's Commercial references qualms?

You are just plain being UNCOOPERATIVE and willfully obstructionist. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.118 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not dealing with a question of "my" standards or "my" requirements, but rather with Wikipedia's standards and requirements. I didn't write them. I've provided you with numerous links where you can learn how to cite references properly; you seem to be willfully ignoring them for some reason, and now you are essentially stating you will not follow the rules and expect me (or someone else) to clean up the messes you intend to carry on making. That's certainly not coöperative. You do make a good point regarding formatting citations rather than deleting them. I'll go back and re-add them in proper format this time, but please keep in mind it's not enough just to toss out a half-reference and rely on others to format it correctly. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this for cooperation: We provide the facts and you do all the weird formatting and computer programming and tags and stuff that we have no interest in learning for a one-time use here? Just list here all the citations you want, maybe a 1,2,3... list that we can tie back to the article and we'll tell you what page of the reference books to find it on.

Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.220.136 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not coöperation, and it's not how Wikipedia works. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the very definition of cooperative team work. That is indeed how Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to work. What you are really saying is that is not how YOU work.

Which just gets us back to my old team leader. Same thing, wanted to review the team's work, find ONE thing wrong and it was a shower of confetti. Didn't want to even correct spelling on drafts, just "that's wrong, fix it!". And then off to his 5 hour lunch.

So nothing has been gained, no compromise will be allowed, no cooperation, and all we're left with is a defaced article.

And why are you editing MY comments on this page? Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.48 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

TO ALL. It is my opinion that this persecution has arisen due to Scheinwerfermann's personal feelings about me. I am very sorry for bringing this one down on your heads.

I don't know that there is anything to be done about it. He will never be satisfied.

I'm sorry.

Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

What is original research?

Material counts as original research if it:

* introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea; * defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions of existing terms; * introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or

* introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

What is not original research? Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election by candidate, it is not original research to include percentages alongside the numbers, so long as it is a simple calculation and the vote counts all come from the same source. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.

The above blocks of text added to start a discussion with Scheinwerfermann with regards to his interpretation of the above, how it affects this topic and why he has followed my edits (based on my I.P. address) to harrass me.

I hope he responds in a new manner, that is, not a copied template response, but with actual original thought.

Again, to all those who have worked many years getting this FE article to where it WAS, I apologize for bringing it to the attention of Scheinwerfermann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

64.107.58.130, I have no personal feelings about you, nor am I harassing or following you. It's good to see that you're reading Wikipedia policy. Take especial note of the part you quoted that says

Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal.

It's not clear how you think the passages from WP:OR support your apparent view that the FE article was not in need of serious cleanup, which it was (and still is). If you'll read the links provided earlier in this thread, as well as those embedded in the tags and templates on the article, you should have no difficulty understanding that the changes I made to the article are toward its improvement, not its degradation. Let's all try and keep it about the material, stay civil, and refrain from personal attacks. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know the rule or procedure governing harassment by editors.

I call this harassment for several reasons:

1) One sentence deleted by you in your first edit was

Unlike the Chrysler Hemi design, the spark plugs are not centered in the combustion chamber, but are near the intake valves for easier accessibility.

This is a very telling deletion as it is what you disagreed with in our last little contretemps. Yet it is a defining characteristic of the Ford Hemi head especially when used to compare it to a Chrysler hemi head. One hemi head looks pretty much like another from a chamber view.

2) I have reviewed your talk pages, including the archived ones. You have a long history of bulldozing over previously written articles, imposing your own views over valid facts. I found the Dodge Dart article story especially enlightening...you basically created out of whole cloth a I.P. vandalism claim that no one seems to be able to find in the history.

3) In reviewing your Dodge Dart article, I find NOT ONE inline citation anywhere within the article. NOT ONE. Nowhere.

Yet here, in this article, you're looking for inline citations for virtually every line of the article?

4) I notice that another telling deletion from this article was the link to the Ford FE enthusiast's website. But the Dodge Dart enthusiasts link remains on your Dodge Dart article?

Again, I want to apologize to everyone for bringing this man down upon your article. I'm very very sorry. A word of warning---do not start editing this article, based on past history, he will use your edits to cry for an article lockdown. This means that this article is basically trashed. Again, I am very very very sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing me with someone else again. I've never debated spark plug placement in Chrysler or Ford Hemi engines with you or anyone else. (UPDATE: It appears the editor you've got me confused with is Originalname37, with whom you got in a quarrel about spark plug placement in Hemi engines on Talk: Chrysler Hemi engine) Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You also seem still not to understand that there is no such thing on Wikipedia as my article or your article. Dodge Dart is not mine, though I have contributed to it. It still has problems, as do a great many articles on Wikipedia. It does contain inline citations, and it also contains tags where more citations are needed. Nobody's interests are served if we let the unrealistic goal of instant perfection interfere with the realistic and achievable aim of steady, incremental, coöperative improvement. That's what Wikipedia is about.

Please keep in mind that your inability to discern the persistent IP vandalism that plagued Dodge Dart and other articles until that article was semiprotected does not mean it didn't exist, just that you didn't see it. It is not possible to "fabricate out of whole cloth" such vandalism; when page protection is requested, an administrator carefully reviews the article history to determine whether the vandalism is real, significant, and persistent enough to warrant protection. The semiprotection of the article is thus prima facie evidence of the nature and extent of the vandalism. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann , after reading all of your edits, and all of your comments on this board, my opinion is that you are a WikiNazi. Instead of continual posting of tags, why don't YOU try to find some citations? Eh? It's easy to be a WikiNazi - it's not so easy to actually try to edit articles, is it? You and your ilk have become all too commonplace in the last year or so. You have made yourself an enemy here, so how are you helping to improve Wikipedia? All you are is a robot citing regulations, and alienating the editors who have tried to improve this article. As a fan of the Ford Motor Company for the last 35 years, I can say that most of what I have read here is true. There has been an admirable resistance of posting rumors, cruft, and vandalism. I challenge you to become a REAL editor of Wikipedia, rather than a human bot spouting rules and regulations. -- Elaich ^talk 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Elaich, please remember to keep your comments WP:CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks like this what you've posted. We don't do that here; not only is it not allowed, it's also not helpful. It's good that you find a lot of agreeable content in this article, and as a fellow car enthusiast, I'm glad you're interested in maximising the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Remember, though, the standard for information included in a Wikipedia article isn't what we know (or what we think we know, or what we believe or prefer), it's what we can prove using acceptable sources. Unfortunately for those of us who are longtime and knowledgeable enthusiasts, our individual knowledge, belief, guesses, opinions, and preferences don't qualify as acceptable sources. Fortunately, though, the process of finding reliable support for the assertions we add to articles usually teaches us even more than we knew before. Never stop learning, eh! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hotrodsohc427.jpg

Image:Hotrodsohc427.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--Head Dragon 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Added Verification of compression, horsepower and torque values from 1971 Ford Truck Shop manuals for the 1971 360 and 390.