Build 1978 FJ40 Mustard Yellow - almost perfect thread.

Member Build Threads

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Man those tires tuck just right …….

A little pre tune 0-60. I think it’s about a second slow because the speedo is still 2-3 mph slow.

3701178B-4422-4995-9BAC-EC278B6A8E71.webp


Headed to HQ tomorrow to let ETAF do his wizardry before dyno day

9A76202A-0BF9-4BDA-BC8B-EEA2028D1387.webp
 
We're looking forward to watching the progress of the red 45. Are you starting a new thread for that or continuing the one on the 45 page?
 
@drewst
Lifelong40Fan said:
We're looking forward to watching the progress of the red 45. Are you starting a new thread for that or continuing the one on the 45 page?
Click to expand...

John will likely start a new thread. This build has me scratching my head wanting all 40 series to drive and ride this good but with that truck I don’t want to toss the baby out with the bath water.

We are going to huddle up on it in 10 days and make a plan to move forward
 
My shackle reversed 45 swb rides much, much smoother than my 40. But I'm sure my 40 also rides much rougher than the mustard you've been working on.
 
A10Driver said:
Awesome, what's the numbers?
Click to expand...

Aight….here is the raw numbers to the wheels.

49DDE0E3-E50A-4FBF-B877-446CC388D35D.webp


Keep in mind, stock CRANK number is 125 Hp.

If you do the math, this is a 40% increase in HP

If you compare this motor to the Warthog that we compared to a stock/used 2F you see the torque numbers are the same but the HP is 20 less.

This truck has a mild cam build verses a more aggressive cam that’s in the Warthog. Peak HP came in lower in the powerband. This was by design. Also, the difference in 4.11 and 3.70 gears makes up about 11 hp

The blue line here is the stock carbed 2F

68 HP to the ground on that one

3ADF584D-6E8D-4077-A402-973D8E76BE73.webp
 
wngrog said:
Aight….here is the raw numbers to the wheels.

View attachment 2822841

Keep in mind, stock CRANK number is 125 Hp.

If you do the math, this is a 40% increase in HP

If you compare this motor to the Warthog that we compared to a stock/used 2F you see the torque numbers are the same but the HP is 20 less.

This truck has a mild cam build verses a more aggressive cam that’s in the Warthog. Peak HP came in lower in the powerband. This was by design. Also, the difference in 4.11 and 3.70 gears makes up about 11 hp

The blue line here is the stock carbed 2F

68 HP to the ground on that one

View attachment 2822840
Click to expand...
Mosley’s website says they’re not taking orders currently. Does anyone here know the specs on the build so I can replicate it locally? Thanks in advance.
 
firefighterjed said:
Mosley’s website says they’re not taking orders currently. Does anyone here know the specs on the build so I can replicate it locally? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I know Cam has a ton of time in the science side of these builds with the machine shop that does his heads, the crank place and the cam shop. I doubt he wants to put all that work out for anyone to use but that’s up to him.

Basically you have a 2F bored to take 1.5 Toyota pistons, a custom ground cam and a head with LS valves shaved down to increase compression. This one has 175# compression.

 
wngrog said:
I know Cam has a ton of time in the science side of these builds with the machine shop that does his heads, the crank place and the cam shop. I doubt he wants to put all that work out for anyone to use but that’s up to him.

Basically you have a 2F bored to take 1.5 Toyota pistons, a custom ground cam and a head with LS valves shaved down to increase compression. This one has 175# compression.

Click to expand...

Are you restricted to certain octane fuels?
 
firefighterjed said:
Are you restricted to certain octane fuels?
Click to expand...
Good question.

Look at the Warthog Dyno line. It’s really straight. No jags.

Mustard has a good line but you can see slight jags in it.

Warthog had 93 octane. 11* advance
Mustard had 87 octane. 11* advance and had a slight ping.

We put 10 gallons of 93 in it and the ping went away.

You can run 87 but the advance needs to be slightly lower.
 
Nice broad torque curve with the new engine too. You mention 175# compression, which I assume is cranking compression. Do you know what the static compression is? Just curious since it needs better fuel and wasn’t sure what you can get away with on these engines and Cam’s cylinder heads.
 
After the late night Summer Ave back street drag racing and running her to and from the speed shop for the dyno pulls, I can safely say that this is the standard by which other 40 builds should be judged. The ride quality (unmatched by any other leaf spring truck I have driven), comfort, power, and handling are all totally dialed. If you are in search of a formula to apply to a current/future build, look no further.
 
Last edited:
wngrog said:
Good question.

Look at the Warthog Dyno line. It’s really straight. No jags.

Mustard has a good line but you can see slight jags in it.

Warthog had 93 octane. 11* advance
Mustard had 87 octane. 11* advance and had a slight ping.

We put 10 gallons of 93 in it and the ping went away.

You can run 87 but the advance needs to be slightly lower.
Click to expand...
I may install a third tank at the house for higher octane. My current tanks are each 280 gallons. I could probably get away with half that size for high octane and just call it the Mosley tank.
 
Last edited:
jomelo said:
I may install a third tank at the house for higher octane. My current tanks are each 280 gallons. I could probably get away with half that size for high octane and just call it the Mosley tank.
Click to expand...
Considering what’s down the line, this is an excellent idea :grinpimp:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom