61-79-list-digest Wednesday, June 17 1998 Volume 02 : Number 344



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 61-79 - for Jim Hurd
Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list
FTE 61-79 - Balancers
FTE 61-79 - Re:Jet sizes
Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk
RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list
FTE 61-79 - Econoline sources was: New to the list
FTE 61-79 - dana full floater
Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater
FTE 61-79 - Hard Start
FTE 61-79 - Re: Locked Brakes
FTE 61-79 - Re: Decals
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Jet sizes
Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk
Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk
FTE 61-79 - Re: Re: Re: FTE 61-79-removing decals
FTE 61-79 - Sway bar for '65
FTE 61-79 - Re: '64 F100 ( I think).
FTE 61-79 - Fwd: F Ford trucks
Re: FTE 61-79 - Dana 44 usage?
FTE 61-79 - RE: fuel guage
FTE 61-79 - Re: Fuel gauge
FTE 61-79 - Re: Slow Tuesday
FTE 61-79 - Timing Troubles??
FTE 61-79 - Want to add A/C
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Re: Re: FTE 61-79-removing decals

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - for Jim Hurd

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Marko Maryniak wrote:

>
> >Jim in Central NY
> >'79 F-150 (302!)
> >'92 Topaz (3.0l)
>
> Hey, Jim, welcome back!
>
Thanks Marko. (Now if I can just keep up with the volumn of e-mails!)


>
> As you may know, I am doing a frame-up resto on a 67 mercury 250 4x4 (I put
> my 71 chassis under a 67 body) and have had a 410 mercury built (390 with
> 428 crank)for the occasion. The engine came stock with an Autolite 4100

If you want to go "first class" with an Autolite, contact Jon Enyeart
of Pony $ Carburetor$, Inc. I think they now have a Web page.

> 480 cfm. I have a Holley List 6919AAA from before, that you helped me set
> up. I'll be running tri-y headers.
>
> The Holley tends to use some considerable gas on my 360, and I'm wondering
> if a one-stage power valve would help rather than 2-stage as it has now.

The two stage power valve will *usually* give you better fuel
mileage, as it lets you jet the cruise just a little too lean,
with the first stage of the power valve adding a little fuel
for part throttle power, and the second stage for full throttle.
(First stage fuel flow is limited by the orifice in the power
valve, while second stage fuel flow is limited by the PVCR (Power
valve channel restrictor) in the metering block.)

> I'm also wondering if you can see if Holley recommended more or less this
> same carb for a 410 mercury marauder engine, or if that's not listed maybe
> a 428. I would like to set it up as an alternate to the Autolite if that
> doesn't work out.

Holley specifies a list # 0-4452-1 for late '60's Ford's, Mercury's,
and Ford Trucks with the 390, 428, or 429. This carb, like your
# 6919, is a 600 CFM 4160 vacuum secondary emission carb. It is jetted
just a tad richer than the 6919, and comes with a 125-85 (8.5")
single stage power valve.

>
> Look forward to hearing from you.
>
>
> marko in vancouver
> marko dsm.ca
>
Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:52:06 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list

> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 11:32:04 -0700
> From: Marko Maryniak
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list

> IMHO. Azie, Gary, Sleddog (how bout putting a 460 in that van!),
> Bill, Stu (bless his memory!)Jeff, Deacon, Steve, M-block Dave, and
> whoever else I forgot (oh yeah, Jim Hurd!) will be sure to give you
> tons of the best advice available for any price.

460 in a mid engine 63? Where's he going to put the gas pedal? Or
the seat for that matter.......:-) Good thing about them is the
engine bay is completely exposed and you can sit while working on
them. Bad thing is you have to be pretty carefull when pulling them
:-)

Nothing wrong with vans......I loved my 75, 4x4, 460 powered van but
he's gone forever now........:-( Still have his heart and feet and
legs in my treasure pile waiting for a new project tho :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hooo!

- -- Gary --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 15:18:28 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Balancers

It is a lot, and I don't really understand why. If it were really firing
at that point, it seems like it would run into trouble on the advance,
not to mention run funny at idle. It doesn't. There's no vibration, so I
can't imagine a slipped balancer(it's about an inch off from where it
should be) I can't imagine someone installing a timing gear that far
off. Edelbrock says that it's been installed retarded, but would that
make that big of a difference in the timing? That's a new one on me. I
could see a few degrees, but 15? The relationship of the two would have
to be about an inch different. Mine's a '75 or '76 balancer.

>
> Each of the timing covers I've looked at has the pointer in the same spot.
> Wow, 25 degrees sounds like a lot. YOu may have the, well now how exactly
> would that work? WOuld it be the cam that was out? Certainly not the
> distributor or you'd never get the thing to run right unless the
> distributor was set right to the cam.

- --
Come on over to my Back Porch
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ldd.net/scribers/ballingr
Ballinger
ballingr ldd.net
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:17:19 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:Jet sizes

Jim,

I've talked to ponycarburetors before and they just don't seem very
friendly. I'm sure they know what they are doing, but for a guy like me
who's clear across the continent, they are not very accommodating. They
almost made me buy the i.d. book just to identify my 480 cfm Autolite!

For example, I had a question whether to go electric or heated choke on
this application, and the lady on the other end of the line just gave a
curt "wouldn't recommend it" without any sort of an explanation, even when
I asked her for one. I know everybody has to make a living but I found her
to be short with me, and in my books that just isn't nice.

Phone Carpenter's sometime and you will get the opposite treatment, those
guys are so nice down there it isn't even funny.

Anyway, I've pretty much rebuilt the autolite myself, checking clearances
and everything, and concours coating it. I am still deliberating whether
to go automatic heated choke or electric. I'm trying to decide if it makes
any difference if I use an electric choke, and this is why: the auto.
choke uses a piston in the housing which is drawn down by vacuum. But this
piston is designed to bleed a bit of air, which it gets from the heat riser
tube. So during normal operation, the engine is drawing a little bit of
hot air thru the heat riser all the time. Now, if I changed this to an
electric choke, I'd need the proper housing I think, or I'd have to plug
the heat riser tube connection on the housing. Would this cause some
weirdness in the choke, or would it still work normally? Would manifold
vacuum be able to pull down the piston properly, so that on cold starts the
choke would stay half open? Has anyone done such a conversion and does it
work?

Since I am running headers, it would be real nice to have an electric choke.

> Holley specifies a list # 0-4452-1 for late '60's Ford's, Mercury's,
> and Ford Trucks with the 390, 428, or 429. This carb, like your
> # 6919, is a 600 CFM 4160 vacuum secondary emission carb. It is jetted
> just a tad richer than the 6919, and comes with a 125-85 (8.5")
> single stage power valve.


Jim, could you give me the jet sizes too? I could just go out and buy
them, and the power valve, and recalibrate the Holley.

Cd you give me accel pump settings too? I'm sure the secondary spring is
black just like my existing carb, no?


thanks,

marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:24:38 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk

>From: JIM HURD
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk
>
> I suspect that the original Motorcraft 2150 pn your 351M
>has the 1.21" venturi. Does the Mustang carb also have
>the 1.21" venturi, or is it the smaller 1.08" venturi?

Yo Jim:

Both my truck carb and the Mustang carb have the 1.21" venturis. I haven't
been able to figure out why the Mustang carb is rated for a higher flow
than the truck carb. 1982 was the first year of the 5.0L HO engine and the
revival of the Mustang GT name, and it was the only year w/ a 2V carb.
83-85 Mustang GTs used a 4V Holley.

The main differences between the truck carb and Mustang carb are:

- - Truck carb has fixed metering through booster venturis w/ no metering
rods. Mustang carb uses metering rods actuated by a cam on the throttle
shaft.

- - Truck carb has external vacuum nipple on power valve cover. Mustang carb
has internal vacuum passage under carb base.

- - Mustang carb has way bigger primary jets, #59 vs #53 for truck carb.

Both carbs use the same acc pump diaphragm and power valve, according to
the aftermarket parts books I've looked at.

Does anybody out there have any more info about these Motorcraft 2150
Mustang GT carbs?

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:10:00 -0700
From: "Smith, Lincoln Douglas"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list

> ----------
> From: Marko Maryniak[SMTP:marko dsm.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 11:32 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list
>
> Marko and List,
>
> [added after finishing the email]
>
> Sorry this letter is a little long, but seems like I had to tell SOMEONE
> about it. I am sure you know what I mean!
>
> [end]
>
>
> >COOL!
>
> Ya, I am pretty excited. I have been looking for a van project since
> September 97. I have just graduated from UVic (May), and I wanted to get
> a van that I could fix up over time, and would have some style when I was
> done. Sort of the "Van I Got When I Finished School". I am not in need
> of a car and had no real pressure to find one, so I did a lot of looking,
> and not a lot of buying. I started this van-interest-thing on a VW splity
> kick, but soon got won over by the looks of the Ford vans of the 60's. I
> wanted to get a van that I could quickly get up to a daily runner and get
> the body to a point where it was not deteriorating or better. Over time I
> would work on the interior and getting those items like door seals, knobs,
> light covers, ashtrays, ect. The van the I bought is actually quite
> complete that way (bonus).
>
> I had a friend who knows a lot about fixing up old cars to come out to
> this farm to have a look at it. He went over everything and gave his seal
> of approval, with a few caveats. Like I said it is quite complete. It is
> not running, but my friend believes that a past owner knew what they were
> doing when they stored it because the rad was drained and a few other
> things looked like they been done in preparation for sitting (not seized).
> There is a little rust, but not bad for a '63. Most is along the panels
> between the wheels down low (fairly flat shape to panels.., easy to
> reproduce); Wheel wells are great; doors are incredible, real solid and
> hung well; rear floor is solid, and was protected with plywood; front
> grill needs a little work, but all chrome and insignia is there and
> undamaged (Mercury). The springs are a little tired, and needs new
> bumpers, but... overall pretty good shape.
>
> The guy I got it off, took the van (in payment for work) form an old guy
> who was planning to fix it up. The old guy was a family friend, and was
> ill and couldn't do the work he had planned. So in the back of the van is
> some spare parts he had started to collect. Engine cowling/cover; two
> rear doors; rear-end; automatic transmission and steering column; couple
> of tires and wheels; box of misc. goodies; retracting sidestep; rebuilt
> master cylinder. All this for 300 (Americans can knock off 40%), and
> the cost of trailering it to Victoria (under 100 ). I guess the old
> guy was planning on converting it to automatic. I will not be doing that
> conversion... what could I get at a wreckers for the transmission and
> column? The guy that I bought it from didn't have it up for sale. I just
> saw it sitting there when I was driving by and asked what he wanted for
> it.
>
> My plans are to trailer it to my place in Victoria. I will really go over
> it and clean it up completely, get the wheels off and redo the brakes. I
> will get some used tires for running around (current tires have been
> sitting some time on flats and the sidewalls are in poor condition). Redo
> hoses. Once I get that done My friend will come over to tweak the brakes,
> check the work, and help me get it started. Next thing is to replace some
> floor rot in the front (not too bad). The same friend said that if I
> cleaned it up, cut out the sections, bought the tin, he would weld in the
> new floor sections and then I could clean them up and seal them. He is
> also willing to help with the body work... with advice, and welding.
>
> >Econolines are awesome. Parts can be a little rare but not too bad, I
> have
> >a repro parts catalog for some hard to get stuff.
>
> Does the company have a webpage... where can I get a copy. I have sent
> away for a parts catalog specific to Econlines 61-67 (Mac's Antiques). I
> have also been looking for makers of body panels for the van, just to
> check it out, and get some idea of what costs might be like compared to
> doing the tine work myself (with help form that indispensable friend)...
> is there such a thing for older models?
>
> >Neil and I share a shop in Ladner. We shud exchange phone nos (private
> >email) for those emergency-type situations (I'm lying here under my truck
> >and I can't seem to figure out how the so and so goes together...).
>
> That would be great for me and I would REALLY apreciate it, but I don't
> think I have much to offer to you. Like I said in my first post, I am new
> to this type of work. I am very mechanically inclined, but have not
> worked on autos before. I have limited tools, but I have budgeted for
> some purchase. About all I do have is enthusiasm, time, and my mechanical
> inclination. My friend, has offered to help with the costly tools and
> procedures (welding, engine lift / stand, ect.). This will be very
> helpful since at this point I do not want to have to buy or rent some of
> the higher cost tools for one use.
>
> [SNIP] ... will be sure to give you tons of the best advice
> >available for any price.
>
> I am very excited about the knowledge available through the list. It is
> funny that you answered the mail so fast, because I had already placed one
> of your posts to the list in my saved mail folder to get your personal
> address from it at a later date. I figured that since you were so close
> (Van) that I would send off a mail to you to say hi, and start up a
> correspondence.
>
> >Welcome to the list!
>
> Thanks, for the welcome.
>
> Linc
> Victoria, BC
> Canada
> linc uvic.ca
> 250-381-6531
>
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:35:40 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Econoline sources was: New to the list

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://bs.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Companies/Automotive/Parts/Makes_an
d_Models/Ford/

You might also want to try the above link.


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:36:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: STHIBODE spf.fairchildsemi.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater

Sorry for the year/list mismatch but this question applies to full floaters
in general.

Question on a 1985 Dana 61 full floating rear axle on an 85 f250...

When servicing brakes or anything that requires drum/hub removal on a full
floater is it necessary to repack the wheel bearings with grease upon
installation? Is the already 90W covered bearings enough lubrication for
reassembly?

thanks in advance,
Steve
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:43:08 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater

At 05:36 PM 16/06/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Sorry for the year/list mismatch but this question applies to full floaters
>in general.
>
>Question on a 1985 Dana 61 full floating rear axle on an 85 f250...
>
>When servicing brakes or anything that requires drum/hub removal on a full
>floater is it necessary to repack the wheel bearings with grease upon
>installation? Is the already 90W covered bearings enough lubrication for
>reassembly?
>
>thanks in advance,
>Steve

Not unless you cleaned them. But in my experience it's hard not to take
the axle apart and remove the bearings and not have them dirty. It's good
practice to pack them, even tho after awhile they get lubed in gear oil
anyway.

If you are using new bearings, however, they should be packed for sure.

marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 17:49:04 -0400
From: "Ron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hard Start

I think it is the fuel dribbling down in the intake from the carb.
Sometimes the float will start to stick or is set wrong and causes a slight
amount of fuel to dribble into the intake, flooding it. Trash in the fuel
will cause the needle not to seat, even the very tiny stuff. A dirty air
filter will do the same at times. I also agree with the choke not opening
fully, as a possibility. A old set of plugs with the gap too wide from use
will do it too. A weak spark will cause it at hot temp. Worn cylinders
will do it too.


North Carolina Ridge Runner Ron



== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:01:59 -0400
From: Schottsweb webtv.net (George Schott)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Locked Brakes

To all who gave replies and help I thank you. The problem was easy I
guess if you think about it the problem was the rod between the power
booster and the master cylinder it was too far out I guess from the
factory ( got it from Auto Zone no affiliation) so I tightened it up
then there was'nt enough brakes you really gotta play with that thing to
get just the right feel. Anyway thanks everyone.

Duke's
Fine 69
F-100
302
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:34:32 -0400
From: William King
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Decals

Since this thread is almost dead (but we've driven
sleddog out into the rain with a high-wattage hair
dryer to remove stickers) I'll throw my .02 in.
I used to work with a bunch of older women who swore
by 'Skin So Soft' (the skin softener). They had
a list of about 50 things 'Skin So Soft' would do
(I only recall: removing stickers, and as a mosquito
repellent). I just thought it was scary that a
skin softener could do so much (perhaps if I used
'Skin So Soft' instead of 10w40 next time...hmmm).
Anyway, I recall some coworkers removing stickers with
it, and that it worked well (the stickers were on
powder-coated steel).
BTW, I'm not affiliated w/ 'Skin So Soft' in any way.
Ohio Bill
1968 Torino GT (429 4V 4speed)
1968 F100 (360 4V 4speed)
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Jet sizes

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Marko Maryniak wrote:
>


> Anyway, I've pretty much rebuilt the autolite myself, checking clearances
> and everything, and concours coating it. I am still deliberating whether
> to go automatic heated choke or electric. I'm trying to decide if it makes
> any difference if I use an electric choke, and this is why: the auto.
> choke uses a piston in the housing which is drawn down by vacuum. But this
> piston is designed to bleed a bit of air, which it gets from the heat riser
> tube. So during normal operation, the engine is drawing a little bit of
> hot air thru the heat riser all the time. Now, if I changed this to an
> electric choke, I'd need the proper housing I think, or I'd have to plug
> the heat riser tube connection on the housing. Would this cause some
> weirdness in the choke, or would it still work normally? Would manifold
> vacuum be able to pull down the piston properly, so that on cold starts the
> choke would stay half open? Has anyone done such a conversion and does it
> work?
>
> Since I am running headers, it would be real nice to have an electric choke.
>
I converted my MotorCraft 2150 to an electric choke because of my
headers. If I remember correctly, the electric choke came with a
brass cap that went inplace of the insullated tube that went down
to the hot air box on the exhaust manifold. Seems to work fine.


> > Holley specifies a list # 0-4452-1 for late '60's Ford's, Mercury's,
> > and Ford Trucks with the 390, 428, or 429. This carb, like your
> > # 6919, is a 600 CFM 4160 vacuum secondary emission carb. It is jetted
> > just a tad richer than the 6919, and comes with a 125-85 (8.5")
> > single stage power valve.
>
>
> Jim, could you give me the jet sizes too? I could just go out and buy
> them, and the power valve, and recalibrate the Holley.
>
The 4452 comes with a 63 in the primary side, while it's
secondary metering plate has a .073" restriction, which is
about the same as a No. 70 jet.

> Cd you give me accel pump settings too? I'm sure the secondary spring is
> black just like my existing carb, no?
>
The 4452 has a .031" squirter, same as your #6619. The 4452
comes with a purple secondary spring. (Gotta *feed* that 410!)

>
> thanks,
>
> marko in vancouver
> marko dsm.ca

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:54:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Dave Resch wrote:


>
> The main differences between the truck carb and Mustang carb are:
>
> - Truck carb has fixed metering through booster venturis w/ no metering
> rods. Mustang carb uses metering rods actuated by a cam on the throttle
> shaft.
>
> - Truck carb has external vacuum nipple on power valve cover. Mustang carb
> has internal vacuum passage under carb base.
>
> - Mustang carb has way bigger primary jets, #59 vs #53 for truck carb.
>
> Both carbs use the same acc pump diaphragm and power valve, according to
> the aftermarket parts books I've looked at.
>
> Does anybody out there have any more info about these Motorcraft 2150
> Mustang GT carbs?
>
> Dave R. (M-block devotee)
>
>
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 22:00:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk

On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Dave Resch wrote:
>
> Both my truck carb and the Mustang carb have the 1.21" venturis. I haven't
> been able to figure out why the Mustang carb is rated for a higher flow
> than the truck carb.

The two carbs may have different style boosters. Trucks tend to
have slightly larger boosters to improve signal strength when
lugging down. The huskier booster may reduce the flow.

>
> The main differences between the truck carb and Mustang carb are:
>
> - Truck carb has fixed metering through booster venturis w/ no metering
> rods. Mustang carb uses metering rods actuated by a cam on the throttle
> shaft.
>
> - Truck carb has external vacuum nipple on power valve cover. Mustang carb
> has internal vacuum passage under carb base.
>
> - Mustang carb has way bigger primary jets, #59 vs #53 for truck carb.
>
> Both carbs use the same acc pump diaphragm and power valve, according to
> the aftermarket parts books I've looked at.
>
Thanks for the run down on the two carbs. (The truck carb probably
uses the much larger jets, as the needles fill up part of the hole.)

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz 3.0l)
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:57:12 -0700
From: "William E. Riley"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Re: Re: FTE 61-79-removing decals

Its me again to remove a bumper sticker use something we all have in the
garage wd40 its quick and almost painless and it doesn't require
electricity

later
bill

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:02:03 -0700
From: "William E. Riley"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sway bar for '65

I recently put a sway bar on the front of my 65 and i was wondering if
anyone out there has done this and if so did they encounter any problems. I
have about 500 miles since this addition and so far so good

thanks for any feed back

bill

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:20:15 -0500
From: "Nils Gore"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: '64 F100 ( I think).

Don Grossman wrote:

>You can look for another vin on the passenger side frame rail inside the
>engine compartment to compare the vin#s. With a truck that late in the
>production run and so close to the next model year some of the parts might
>have been for the 65. Some of the bigger features would be if the truck
has a
>solid front axle or the TTB coil sping set up. Does the cab have a step
just
>inside the doors? Are the rear cab mounts inside the frame rails or
outside?
>Is the engine really a 292? or do you have something else.

I appreciate your response to my questions about my 64 F100.

I checked the few things you suggested, and it does appear that maybe some
of the cab parts are from 1965: There are steps inside of the doors; the
rear motor mounts are outside of the frame rails; the front axle is a solid
I-beam type; it has front leaf springs, not coils. I believe my driver door
and its VIN number plate are original.

I couldn't locate a VIN number on the frame as you suggested, but in
looking for it I discovered that someone has made some modifications to the
front end, including the fame where the leaf springs hook onto it, the
front motor mount bracket and the bumper attachment. There are a few
homemade looking welds in there [looks like MY welding ;-) ].The 2 front
fenders, grill, the bumper and the shroud behind the grill are definitely
NOT part of the original truck.

I pulled the engine out today. It was all taken apart when I bought it. I'm
not sure if it's a 292 or not. I power-washed the crud off of it but still
haven't found conclusive labelling on the block that clearly states "292".
My knowledge of these motors is insufficient at this point to know for
sure. It does have the exhaust cross-over pipe which the 292 had; my sense
is that it probably is a 292.

I also found a broken piece of cam shaft (3 lobes long) in the bottom of
the oil pan, and one of the rods is thrown. I'm thinking I won't fool
anymore with this motor. I'm fixing the truck for my wife to drive and need
to add P/S and A/C; possibly an automatic transmission. My rational side
tells me to get a more modern engine, and make that fit into this truck
given the updates I need to add.

I drive a '73 F100 w/ a 302. It's been real good to me, and runs well; I
might try to get another 302 and put that in the '64.

I just added P/S to my '73. It wasn't hard to do after I finally found the
parts. ( A 3-speed standard shift steering column for power steering is a
rare bird in Mississippi. I had to get one "imported" from Kansas City.)

Any idea if my thinking is reasonable? Any advice or thoughts anyone can
share?

Nils Gore
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:10:48 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Fwd: F Ford trucks

Forward by "executive decision":

From: Scott
Subject: FTE Pre61 - share your story

Had this e-mail sent to me and if you would like to help out then
please e-mail me with your story, wm_69 yahoo.com
Scott


experience with your F Ford truck. Stuff like; how I got my first F
truck,
my Grandma's old F Ford, how I fell in love at a Ford truck roundup,
my most memorable F Ford moment.

I have a publisher. Now I need stories. All published authors will
receive a Free copy of this classic book.

Thanks,

Judy Scott>>


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:51:56 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Dana 44 usage?

On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Joe DeLaurentis wrote:

> When did the dana 44 become standard usage in the F-100 4x4's???
> I know with the early broncos the 44 wasnt used till late 1971...
> Were the pickups the same????also are dana 30's radius arms the same
> as dana 44's?????

I have a Dana 44, closed knuckle in my '61 F-100. The casting is not
the same externally as a '71 Bronco I looked at, though. The "44" is
cast on the lower right web looking at it from the front cover like a
Chevy. It does not have the big I-beam style web running back to the
pinion shaft lwhere you would find the "44" on a Bronco or Scout.

Need any more info? I'll get my lazy butt out of the chair and go
look...

Birken T. Vogt - KE6DLT
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:47:36 -0700
From: Tom&Carol Hogan
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: fuel guage

- ------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:00:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - fuel guage


I would start by checking for 12V power,


- -----------------------------
Good, except there won't be 12V at the fuel guage. There is a voltage
regulator that operates by making and breaking the circuit. This is
done to reduce the power dissipated by the coil in the guage movement.
What will be seen is a pulsating voltage swinging between 0 and 12V. If
you use a digital meter you probably won't be able to read the voltage
because it is contstantly changing. It could have failed. I had one
fail and oil, temp and gas read a reduced value.

Good luck
Tom H.

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:34:28 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Fuel gauge

Hi All. I'm playin' the 'digest catchup game' again. Oh well, it
gives Gary something to read in the morning . . .

Jay Branscome wrote:


> My 65 used to do the same thing while the rest of the guages were fine.
> Pulled the dash panel plate off looking for a bad wire and found that
> Ford had put 2 resisters there in the gauge instead of just one. Pull
> one off that looked bad and havent had a problem since. The resister was
> located cented of the backside of the dash panel.

Could you elaborate on this Jay? I poked around on my truck (70 F250)
and couldn't find any extra resistors. Or, does anyone have a wireing
diagram that would show this?, I feel an article about gauges for the
website coming on :-)


Matt Cozad wrote:
>
> I thought all old ford trucks were like that! I don't personally know
> anybody that owns an old ford truck with an accurate fuel gauge.

Hi Matt. I'm Pat. And I have an old Ford truck with a fuel gauge
that operates correctly. Is e-mail personal enough? :-) But, on the
other hand, my '68 F-100 would only hit 1/4 tank before it started
sputtering . . .

Somebody disquised as added:
> The fuel gauge is a variable resistor. It will produce 0 resistance
> (ohms)when full and about 100 ohms (based on my 66) when empty, with
> a linear range in between (1/4 tank = 25 ohms, 1/2 tank = 50, 3/4 =
> 75...).

Yup. But, see below.

> Your problem could be incorrecty power supply, incorrect resistances
> from your sender, mal adjusted float arm (already suggested), extra
> resistances in the line connecting the sender and gauge (already
> suggested), or incorrectly calibrated gauge (perhaps the needle is
> just bent?).

Yup.

> I would start by checking for 12V power,

Remember kids, the instrument regulator doesn't supply a straight
12 volts to the gauges.

> then remove the sender and measure the resistance with the float
> at both the stops. Then remove the gauge wires, hookup the sender
> and repeat the measurement. This will tell you if there is a problem
> in the line between (such as the extra resistor). If things are good
> (0 ohms empty, 100 full) after that, I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whoops, typo here, carefull now!

All this talk about fuel gauges sent me out to my truck last night.
Besides, my right turn indicator wasn't working on the dash (dirty
contact).

Like I told Matt, mine works great. I had just filled up on my way
home (about 10 miles from home), and the needle was sitting just a
hair below the "F" mark. I pulled my back seat forward (crew cab),
and measured the sending unit. 10 ohms. Then, in order to verify that
I needed a little resistance to read properly, I shorted the sender.
The needle then pegged, off scale, WAY above the "F". It would be
interesting to know if each was 'tweaked', at the factory, with extra
resistors as Jay found.

I also found and measured my instrument (gauge) regulator. Remembering
that someone here had torn the flex circuit trying to remove this, I
left it connected and put my voltmeter on the output. As expected, the
voltage was swinging back and forth between 12 and 0 volts. This is
a chopper regulator. If you look at the output with a digital voltmeter,
you can expect to never get the same reading twice (unless you have a
really good dvm with a positive / negative peak detector). I wanted to
put my scope on this, but my power went out! I looked around, but
couldn't find any resistors as Jay found (I couldn't pull my dash
completely, wires to tach are too short!)

Bill Ballinger added:

[A whole bunch of great advice about cleaning, and
restoring everything as original snipped]

Best suggestions I've seen yet, make sure everything is clean and
tight, BEFORE you start bending anything. I hate to have to bend
something back, Murphy doesn't like that! (SNAP!)

Pat Brown
The sun is out in sunny, warm (high 80's) Sebastopol, California
Long Live El Nino~! El Nino~ is Dead! ( Watch out for La Nina~ )


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 23:58:02 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Slow Tuesday

Gary, thinking aloud, writes:

> Well here I am on a Tuesday, all alone in the world, my voice coming
> back to me as an echo in the wilderness..........

[snip]

> Whoaaaaaaaaa, wake up! What about the HD list?#$%$# !##$$ Ok, so
> I may have to do a few other things in between to keep my marriage
> intact :-(

Carefull with that Honey-Do list Gary. Everytime I finished something,
two more got added! So, I didn't finish anything. SWMBO caught on,
and started declaring half-finished projects completed :-)

FTC: The sun is out, the sky is blue (that should set Deacon off),
and I'm off next week. I'm going to load up the Crew Cab, hook up
the boat, and let my FE 360 work as it was intended - off to the lake!
The heck with this commuting stuff!

Pat
Sebastopol, California where it's still Tuesday, barely . .

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 06:22:31 -0400
From: "Don & Teresa Neighbors"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Timing Troubles??

Daniel wrote: "Recently it has been starting very hard when it is warmed
up, ie - go to the store, shut it off, run in, come out 5 minutes later and
it cranks forever."
Sounds like vapor lock to me, Daniel. My experience with advancing the
timing too far has never caused hot starting problems like you describe. It
usually will crank several times, then the engine will just stop turning
over for a beat. Let me guess: Your problems didn't really start until it
warmed up?

Don Neighbors
'54 F250 Named Grover

"Any dropped tool or part will automatically fall into the most
innaccesible part of the vehicle."

kyneighbors kih.net


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:26:23 -0400
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Want to add A/C

Hey Group,
with the purchase of this 67 390(which has an A/c compressor) I thoght....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.