61-79-list-digest Thursday, June 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 346



=======================================================================
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 - intake ID, etc.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
FTE 61-79 - 63 F-100
FTE 61-79 - Re: Broken exhaust manifold bolts
FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt
FTE 61-79 - merc tailgate
FTE 61-79 - Engine weights: an FTE challenge.
FTE 61-79 - re:Help!/Advise/Shoulders to Cry on!
FTE 61-79 - Electric Choke
FTE 61-79 - ez-outs
FTE 61-79 - FE Cams
FTE 61-79 - Intake ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine weights: an FTE challenge.
FTE 61-79 - 410 balance
FTE 61-79 - AUXILLARY FUEL TANKS & SWITCHES
FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock 1405
FTE 61-79 - RE: FE Fan & Fan Pulley removal
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Fuel gauge
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Cams
Re: FTE 61-79 - AUXILLARY FUEL TANKS & SWITCHES
Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine weights: an FTE challenge.
Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk
Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
Re: FTE 61-79 - 410 balance
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
FTE 61-79 - Stupid Owner trick
Re: FTE 61-79 - ez-outs
FTE 61-79 - Question on brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - Stupid Owner trick
Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:36:45 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - intake ID, etc.

>
>At 07:42 AM 6/17/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Hey all. I just picked up a Ford 4v intake for $45. I was wondering if
>>someone could assist me in identifying the vehicle it came on originally.
>>
>>C4S E 9425A
>>
- -snip-

>Drew,
>
>C4SE means, literally, 1964 Tbird Engine
>the 9425 is the casting id no. for an intake manifold
>A means no change level, so that manifold is the same as how they designed
>it, no changes.
>
>Heard something awhile ago though... :( I heard T bird intakes aren't
>interchangeable, as the T bird engine sits flat and a truck engine for
>example sits on a backwards rake. This means the angle of the carb flange
>is basically flat for the tbird manifold, and raked for the other applications.
>
>I could be wrong, but that's what I read somewhere....
>
>marko in vancouver
>marko dsm.ca
>

Marko,

Your comment got me curious since I picked up a medium riser
4bbl intake at the Pigeon Forge show so I just checked it out.
Its raked. The angle isn't too steep so I suppose and flat
manifold would work. Or as an alternative, someone could get
a 4v spacers and have it machined to the correct angle.

Ken Payne

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:44:24 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

>according to car craft march 98 issue ford engine weights:
>these weights include everything ready to run except bellhousing:
>260-302w= 460lbs
>boss302= 500lbs
>351w = 525lbs
>351c&boss 550lbs
>351/400m =575lbs
>352-428 FE=625lbs
>429-460 =720lbs
>
>these weights were with cast iron parts no aluminum.
>
>seems like the boat anchor is the 335 series.

Interesting. I broke them down to "weight per CID" for fun and got this:

302 = 1.52 lbs/CI
B302 = 1.66 lbs/CI
W351 = 1.50 lbs/CI
C351 = 1.57 lbs/CI
M351 = 1.64 lbs/CI
M400 = 1.44 lbs/CI
FE352 = 1.78 lbs/CI
FE360 = 1.74 lbs/CI
FE390 = 1.60 lbs/CI
FE428 = 1.46 lbs/CI
429 = 1.68 lbs/CI
460 = 1.56 lbs/CI

I dunno how much the intake manifold weighs for any of these except the FE,
but an aluminum FE390 intake shaves over 50 lbs off the stock motor which gets
it down to 575 lbs for a weight/CI of:

FE352 = 1.63 lbs/CI
FE360 = 1.60 lbs/CI
FE390 = 1.47 lbs/CI
FE428 = 1.34 lbs/CI

On a lbs/CI basis, in stock trim the heaviest is only about 20% more than
the lightest, or roughly +/-10% from average.
I suspect if they *all* had aluminum intakes, the spread would be much
narrower.
In the hands of a competant builder I don't think there's *any* boat anchors
in the lot...

Steve
Homepage: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty/

Opportunity may knock only once, but temptation
leans on the doorbell.

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:49:39 -0700
From: "Jason Moore"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 63 F-100

I have a "63 with a 292 right now and am looking to put in a 351c with a
c-6 tranny. Does anyone \know if I can use my original front suspension, or
do I have to clip it. Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.


Jason Moore
Travis AFB, California

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:09:28 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Broken exhaust manifold bolts

Last time I broke an exhaust manifold bolt off (upper bolt, right?) I was in
a hurry and drilled it in place as best I could until I could get the next
smaller size bolt through, then just used long bolt and nut to hold the
manifold. Not exactly the route for a show truck but worked pretty well to
get me back on the road, then next time I had the valves done I drilled and
picked out the rest of the old bolt, chased it with a tap and came out
pretty good. If I had messed up the threads I would have helicoiled the
hole.

As has been mentioned here and there, loosen those bolts with the engine hot
and reinstall with anti-sieze. The manifold bolts I have don't come all the
way through the tapped holes in the head and I have been pressing a big daub
of anti-sieze goo into the holes to cover the ends of the bolts and kind of
seal them. It seems to help.

Jim




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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:12:44 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt

On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Joe DeLaurentis wrote:
> I need some help with the removal of a exhaust manifold bolt on a 390
> head..It snapped flush with the head(of course it couldnt leave me
> something to get a hold of with vise grips :( Anybody?

>From watching a guy do this, I learned from him that FE exhaust bolts
are prone to breaking beacuse they are open ended, meaning air and water
can get to them from the back side (at least the top row is). This
causes rusting and siezing. Contrast this with most other engines, like
my Chevy 350 which I can remove with an open end wrench (when it needs
work, which is often... *#$ Chevy) or on my 429 which I was able to
remove all but one without breaking, because I stupidly put the impact
wrench into forward.

The solution that the guy used was ingenious but less than elegant.
Since he was installing headers, he drilled out the ones that broke
flush, and put nuts on the ones that broke at the head, like a stud. I
don't like it any more than you do, but it worked.

Another poster mentioned torching out the bolts. I have never done this
particular thing, but I do know that when torching off a nut and bolt,
the heat transfer is low enough that the nut goes first and leaves the
bolt intact, threads and all, shooting loads of large hot gobs of metal
down your neck. Also, cast iron is significantly harder to cut than
steel and the mass of the head may carry away enough heat to keep it
from burning. When you do cut cast iron with a torch, more of the metal
is blown away with the oxygen jet than is oxidized. I bet by putting
the torch on it you could get the bolt red without making the flange red
at all. If you do decide to do it this way be very careful when tapping
it out, the iron oxide is very hard and will mess up tools.

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:23:40 -0700
From: Aaron Jacobson
Subject: FTE 61-79 - merc tailgate

Marko.
I found that ever elusive tailgate for that guy here in Comox
with the 65 Merc.Seems when I went down to pick up my windshield there
was one amongst the pile of beautifull old Ford goodies this guy has
collected over the years.Anyhow if you need any rare goodies this guy
might just have them.He seems to have just about every rare gadget
around.You just can't be in a hurry!!I think he roots around for days
and knows he has one but has to find it.
For Linc S. Might be able to find some goodies for that 63 Merc van.
Thanks again for all the good advice from all of you on the list on the
windshield replacement.I was able to pull the old one out with the
rubber and the chrome still attached.Seems the fishing line trick works
well.I then installed the rubber with the chrome still attached to the
new windshield,gently placed it it place and with a lot of patience and
help from SWMBO applying pressure it popped right into place.Only tools
required were two flat tip screwdrivers and about 6 feet of good 30lbs
fishing line.
Thanks to the list I now have a new windshield,no more vibrations from
the hanger bearing and a happier 65 f250.Now the search continues with
the fuel guage.
Jake in B.C.
65 f250 camper special(flat black and still going)
351c
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:33:47 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Engine weights: an FTE challenge.

Hey group,
Since the "engine weights" thing comes up fairly often, and since FTE has
well over 2000 members and I expect that in any given month at least a
couple people are rebuilding their engine of choice, how about if we try
and get an accurate engine weight data base going for the FTE website...?

If folks that have their engines apart would grab those bathroom scales and
weigh some major components, blocks, heads, manifolds, crank, rods, etc and
post the results to the list, it shouldn't be to hard to figure out what
various Ford motors really weigh...

I'll start with: a D1TE 2-bbl FE intake manifold weighs 78 lbs.
A D1AE FE head (bare) weighs 43 lbs.

Anyone else got parts they can weigh?

If You'll send me the weights, part #'s and what motor they come from, I'll
keep a list and post them up on my website. Maybe if we can get a good
complete list together then Ken will put them up on the FTE site...

Anyone?

Steve
Homepage: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty/

Opportunity may knock only once, but temptation
leans on the doorbell.

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:13:29 PDT
From: "steve hoyt"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:Help!/Advise/Shoulders to Cry on!

From: Hammell, John
To: FORD TRUCKSSubject: Help!/Advise/Shoulders to Cry on!
Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 8:55AM
- --snip--
A few months back, I had to replace the shift
selector/ lever collar, and truth be told, when I put it all back
together I wasn't happy with the way the the collar engaged with the
turn signal collar, but it worked and the turn signals (at the time)
still worked and I was back on the road!! Now, when I brought this
truck I believe the guy said he replaced the steering arm bracket(?)
which looks new, and also the rag joint(?). Now I know manual steering
takes a little more effort than power obviously, but this truck always
seemed to be a little to "stiff/tight".... there's a couple of words for
us married folks to live by!! (wow! I still have some sense of humor
left!) Anyway, talk about digressing, the point I'm trying to get to is
that I went to take off the other day, and the lever selector seemed to
be stripped! The lever would not engage with the linkage and allow you
to select any gear(P R N D 2 1)!
I removed the steering wheel to see if the collar was damaged, but could
find nothing. It seems like the collar that rides between the outside
column the length of the actual steering shaft, which the shift
selector collar also fits over, and the steering wheel stem which on the
other side of the fire wall has an arm coming off it and connects to the
shift rod, well it seems as if there is something broken/disconnected in
that part of the column. I am able to shift gears manually by moving the
shift rod that comes off the collar, but somehow there is something
broken or disconnected in this part of the column! I know this is tough
enough to read and make sense of, but it's even tougher trying to
explain it without seeing it!!
##%$$%%^(curses!!!!!)
- --snip--

Had the same problem in the 72 I had way back when. Changed out the
column twice and had it "rebuilt" with new bearings once. After getting
stranded for the third time pulled off the shift handle and put in a
Hurst floor shifter kit, no more problems. I know this probably isn't
what you wanted to hear, but on the bright side the one I had rebuilt
did last about 2 years. My truck rusted apart shortly after the Hurst
install, but what do you expect for a $70 truck?

Steve Hoyt
62 F100 Unibody 292v2



Steve Hoyt

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:54:20 -0400
From: "Don & Teresa Neighbors"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Electric Choke

Marko 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..."
Marko, I put an electric choke on my '63 Mercury station wagon a while
back because the original choked had wigged out on me, and I happened to
have an Autolite carb laying around in my lonely and neglected spare parts
pile. It worked great! I don't remember what the part number was, but it
came off an early '70s Ford truck. I just put the new choke where the old
one was and wired it up to the power supply to the coil. No problems yet!

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: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:32:43 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ez-outs

I stopped by a friend's machine shop the other day,and he was working on
a 390 head. Asked him what he was doing. He said he was drillling out 3!
ez-outs. Seems the fellow who owns them was a little stubborn, dont you
think?

> If you want to try the ezyout first you still should center the hole
> in the bolt very carefully so you can finish drilling it out if
> needed and for god's sake, don't break the ezyout or there will be no
> more drilling :-(

- --
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: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:49:41 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE Cams

How different are the two in specs, I've always thought they used the
same cam, since they sound so much alike? I would definitely like to run
a solid cam on a hot one(over 5500 rpms). I've bent a few pushrods in my
day with "juicers". Another advantage is that you can increase the oil
pressure to the bottom end when you block those thirsty hydraulic lifter
passages.

> I personally think that is the 2nd best stock Hydraulic cam for the FE.. I
> think the best stock hydraulic FE cam is one of the 428CJ cams from '68,
> '69, vintage. I've owned both and ran both in the same vehicles with no
> other changes, and the CJ made much better times in the 1/4 mile and there
> was no noticeable difference in economy on the street. Now if you want to
> go to solids, the '67 vintage 427 is the best, with the '61/'62 HP versions
> of 390/406 2nd.

- --
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: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:12:43 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Intake ID

Drew writes: >>C4S E 9425A

That would be 1964 FE. I think they were used across all FOMOCO products,
not just the T'bird., but I'm not certain of this.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:16:55 -0400
From: "John Miller"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine weights: an FTE challenge.

- ----------
> From: sdelanty sonic.net
> Hey group,
> Since the "engine weights" thing comes up fairly often, and since FTE
has
> well over 2000 members and I expect that in any given month at least a
> couple people are rebuilding their engine of choice, how about if we try
> and get an accurate engine weight data base going for the FTE
website...?


BRAVO Steve, great idea, I'll see what I can come up with, and how about
some weights for aftermarket componets too.

John Miller, FoMoCoNUT Gibralter.net
96 F-350 Reg Cab XLT, 4x4, 460 w/ A4OD, My Baby "Baloo"
75 F-100 Reg Cab Ranger, 2wd, 360, C6, Daily Driver "Lucy"
and "always" looking ! ! !
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:38:21 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 410 balance

Marko writes: >>My own 410 front pulley was, oddly, zero balanced. It's
interchangeable with my 360, and I was floored by that, I asked my machine
shop the same question you asked me.

Seems the piston weight is lower in a 410 than a 428 so you only have to do
the flywheel/flexplate, not the pulley.

I'd be interested to know different prior to firing mine up, if you can
come up with something!

I don't have any books to refer to, I was merely going from memory. You
are very possibly correct and my memory is playing tricks on me. Go to
your local FOMOCO parts Guru that you have a good repor with, and look up
p/n's for the 390 and the 410 for 1967 and see if they are different. This
would be a 1st clue. If the p/n's are the same, then they would have to be
balanced the same. If the p/n's are different, then I would be hesitant -
something is different, and it could or could not be the balance.

While you are there, look up the p/n for the '68 428(t'bird - not CJ)!!!!
If it is the same as the '67 410, then guess what!!! If not, then you may
very well be correct.

You had your complete assy balanced, didn't you???

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:09:44 EDT
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - AUXILLARY FUEL TANKS & SWITCHES

Hey Jerry,

I've been running three tanks in mine for years, one cab tank and two saddle
tanks. I can carry roughly 55-60 gallons. I use a manual 3-way valve on the
floor next to the driver's side. I always liked the manual setup because I
never really trusted an electronic unit to switch every time. There may not be
any problem with the solenoid types, but you know how electronics are....

Anyway, I also then mounted a rotary switch on the dash and hooked up the
wires from each of the sending units to it so that the level in the tank you
want is displayed by the gage. This pointed out another reason I liked this
"dual manual" setup was that I could check the fuel in other tanks without the
fuel valve operating. This may not be a big deal for only two tanks, but I
have found it useful for three.

By the way, all of the sending units are the same (1969).

Hope this helps...

Colorado Jeff






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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:09:50 EDT
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock 1405

Hey Drew,

I have one of these carbs, and it works real well here in Colorado. I put in
the spring-loaded needle valve and swapped rods once or twice. Be sure to buy
the tuning kit for it as well (around $50). The instructions are excellent....

Good Luck,

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 9:44:10 +0000
From: tfmf211 murphyfarms.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: FE Fan & Fan Pulley removal

Gary/Marko,

Thanks for the info! I thought I had really lost it (my
mind, that is) for a little while. My new fan shroud
should be here soon and now I'm ready for it. I'm
putting on a new idler pulley for my new/used
A/C and get the shroud on, then all I'll need to do
is charge the A/C system. Cold air in that old rig
will be nice in the "Dog Days of Summer".
Thanks again, guys!

Later,

-Ted
'68 F-100 360 and soon AIR!=20
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 08:22:18 PDT
From: "Jay Branscome"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Fuel gauge

When I fill it up it goes to the middle of the red line on full and just
a little left of the red line on empty. Usually I'll fill it up when I
hit 1/4 tank but it has read the same way for several monthes now so I
think I'm safe.
>Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:49:41 -0700
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>From: marko
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Fuel gauge
>Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>
> Replaced both of them. When
>>both old ones were on there a full tank of gas would read at just over
>>3/4 and would run out at the left edge on the empty side. (Yes I ran
>>with a gas can in the bed for three days waiting to see how far the
>>guage would read before it died) After the single one burned out it
read
>>at the full mark and has even after I replaced them. Hope this clears
it
>>up.
>
>Where does it show empty now??
>
>
>marko in vancouver
>marko dsm.ca
>
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:05:06 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Cams

>> I personally think that is the 2nd best stock Hydraulic cam for the FE.. I
>> think the best stock hydraulic FE cam is one of the 428CJ cams from '68,
>> '69, vintage. I've owned both and ran both in the same vehicles with no
>> other changes, and the CJ made much better times in the 1/4 mile and there
>> was no noticeable difference in economy on the street. Now if you want to
>> go to solids, the '67 vintage 427 is the best, with the '61/'62 HP versions
>> of 390/406 2nd.

Hmmm, everything I've read says that the 428CJ cam is the same part number
as the GT390. Somewhere I've got an article that talks about stock FE cams
and gives specs and part # for the GT390/428CJ cam. If I can find it I'll
post it...

Steve
Homepage: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty/

Opportunity may knock only once, but temptation
leans on the doorbell.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:01:24 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - AUXILLARY FUEL TANKS & SWITCHES

You wrote:
- ------------------------------


> 1. Up to 1977, you could have 3 tanks, i.e. 1) in-cab, 2) mid-frame,
and 3)
> aft-frame mounts. (During 1978, Ford eliminated the cab tank)
QUESTION:
> What kind of switch controls 3 tanks and 3 sending units? What does
it
> say on it, etc.
> 2. Part B of question above: If the switch only says it controls 2
tanks
> i.e. main & aft, how do you tell how much fuel is in the cab tank by
> itself, or the mid tank by itself ? ? ?
> Any info would be extremely useful and appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

- ----------------------------
1. I didn't think that you could get 3 tanks on one truck. I have had a
76 crew cab and currently have a 76 super cab and both had the aux tank.
Both trucks were/are a two tank setup. The crew cab main tank was in
the cab. The supercab main tank is at the end of the bed over the spare
tire. In both trucks the aux tank is at the front of the bed in the
middle of the truck. The crew cab had a cover for the hole at the back
of the bed but no tank there. I always thought the hole was there if
the bed was to go onto a supercab. I believe standard cab trucks with
two tanks are set up like the crew cab. The super cab did not have an
incab tank because it would interfere with the rear seating.

2. In both trucks I have dealt with the switch only had to control two
tanks. I have seen some aftermarket tanks that got around the
solenoid/switch problem by plumbing them into the existing tank
effectively increasing its volume. It had to be monted at about the
same level as the original tank so gas would flow in and out of it. You
then just fill the original and the gas would flow into the aux at the
same time. Maybe you could do something like that. I would check the
height of the middle and aft tanks and plumb the system to draw fuel
from the lowest tank and fill the highest tank. I don't know if there
would be a problem with tank vents and such.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:05:08 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine weights: an FTE challenge.

>> Hey group,
>> Since the "engine weights" thing comes up fairly often, and since FTE
>> has well over 2000 members and I expect that in any given month at least a
>> couple people are rebuilding their engine of choice, how about if we try
>> and get an accurate engine weight data base going for the FTE website...?

>BRAVO Steve, great idea, I'll see what I can come up with, and how about
>some weights for aftermarket componets too.

Yes, weigh those aftermarket parts too so we know how much weight savings to
expect from various aftermarket stuff!

Some tranny weights would be cool too...

Drag those bathroom scales to the garage!

Steve
Homepage: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty/

Opportunity may knock only once, but temptation
leans on the doorbell.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - More 2150 carb talk

On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Dave Resch wrote:

>
> > 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.)
>
> I've compared the jets side by side, and the Mustang carb's are bigger.
> I'm guessing it was jetted richer for performance? What are the needles
> you referred to?

Sorry. *Metering rods*
>
> Since you have a Motorcraft 2150 also, Jim, maybe you can answer another
> question for me. Is there any kind of coating or plating on the booster
> venturi assembly, or is that gray color just oxidized metal?

I really don't know if it is coated or not.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:44:01 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater

>From: luxjo thecore.com
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater
>
>Don Grossman wrote:
>
>> I might be wrong on this one but isn't the 61 the semi-floater
>> light duty they used for a while?
>
> I have seen a dana 61 full floater from an 81, F-350. It was
>supposedly used from 80 on up to allow a different gear brake,
>so I'm told. It is pretty much the same as dana 60, but is 5/8 inch
>offset for pinion gear location.

Yo Don:

The Ox is right. The Dana 61 was a variant of the standard full-floating
model 60 with a redesigned differential housing that allowed numerically
lower gear ratios (3.50 and down) for economy. The Dana 61 was first used
on '70s Ch*vy trucks, and I believe it is much more common on GM trucks
than Fords.

The semi-floating Dana 60 you're thinking of is the model 60-2. It uses a
very similar center housing and the same carrier and axle tubes as a
standard Dana 60, but different side gears (adapted for retainer clips),
different spindles w/ internal bearings, and semi-floating type axle
shafts. The 60-2 axle shafts were made with both 8-lug flanges and 5-lug
flanges for use in both F250s and F100/150s. You can identify a 60-2 by
the "60-2" cast into the exterior surface of the center housing. Some have
it cast into one of the webs (like most standard model 60s) and some have
it cast directly on the housing body.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:59:22 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

>From: NUTCH11 aol.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
>
>according to car craft march 98 issue ford engine weights:
>
>snip
>
>seems like the boat anchor is the 335 series.

Yo John:

Who you callin' a boat anchor? I'd say that, going by power-to-weight
ratio, the FE and 385 series are the boat anchors (relatively speaking, of
course, we all know that the Real boat anchors are those engines w/ bow
ties).

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:08:11 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 410 balance

At 09:38 AM 18/06/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>You had your complete assy balanced, didn't you???
>
>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.

Yeah. But my engine builder told me that my balancer was starting to crack
and I shud get another one, and any zero balanced one would do. He told me
NOT to get one from a 428.

I compared it with the 352 one I have and they are identical.

BTW for Bill Ballinger:

Bill, I checked and the timing marks are on the same spot, roughly 4:30 if
you were on a clock face (maybe 5 o'clock?).


marko

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:29:56 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

aw, give it up dave! we all now that the 335's don't have any power! ;)
now you all know i believe that the 460 has the most potential for real
power. but really, no ford V8 engine is a boat anchor! (until after the
rods bust out the side of the block at least)

i was trying to stay out of this one, but some one had to pick on the big
blocks. just remember, when you are making real power, all that mass
really keeps the parts together, inside the engine. thin castings don't
hold up too well to building more power than they were designed for. did
any ford engineer really think that the 460 would end up being 565 cid and
making 1000+ hp on gasoline at over 9000 rpms? (with a stock block!)

and even the M's, and W's and FE's can do quite well. IMHO the w's
drawbacks are not enough cubes, the M's is not enough aftermarket support
and the FE's is expense, and the really good pieces are the rarest parts.
the weight is the penalty with the 460.

later,
sleddog

- ----------
From: Dave Resch[SMTP:dresch sybase.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 12:59 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

>From: NUTCH11 aol.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
>
>according to car craft march 98 issue ford engine weights:
>
>snip
>
>seems like the boat anchor is the 335 series.

Yo John:

Who you callin' a boat anchor? I'd say that, going by power-to-weight
ratio, the FE and 385 series are the boat anchors (relatively speaking, of
course, we all know that the Real boat anchors are those engines w/ bow
ties).

Dave R. (M-block devotee)





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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:24:49 -0500
From: "Michael R. Masse"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Stupid Owner trick

This one beat's drilling a hole in your radiator.

I got my D44 front gears installed and everything else assembled, and I
was
going to break in the gears by running with the hubs locked and the T/C
disengaged. DOH! I forgot to check if the place put any fluid in. I
guess I was just too excited that the truck was back on the road after
over a month of being on blocks. Anyways, I got about 10 miles down the
road and the truck started shaking violently. I mean really violently!
I pulled over and saw that the diff was smoking really bad in the area
of the pinion. I removed the fill plug, and sure enough, it was dry.
I unlocked the hubs and went home. I opened up the cover and saw a
bunch of shavings, but the gears look okay. No big chunks. The spiders
and side gears look okay also. Then I noticed that the pinion now moves
in and out about a 1/4 inch. I removed the yoke and then the seal. The
seal was pretty much non-existant. There's a little chunk of whatever
is supposed to be inbetween the outer bearing and the yoke fused to the
bearing. What was this?? Spinning the pinion reveals that the outer
bearing cup spins in it's seat as opposed to the bearing spinning in the
cup. That's as far as I've gone. Is my housing trash now that the
bearing cup will spin?? I think that's supposed to be a press in deal.
What would cause the pinion to be able to slide in and out? Did the
inner and outer bearing cups wear the material inbetween them? I'm
screwed ain't I? If you look up the definition of "haste makes waste"
in a book of cliches it'll have a picture of me.

Doh!
DOH!
DOH!

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 12:15:49 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ez-outs

One thing I shoulda thought of, but didn't until I looked it up, is left
hand drill bits. The drilling action is useful in itself, but the
lefthandedness, together with the heat from drilling, is often enough to
break the stud free.


marko in vancouver

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:37:57 -0700
From: MC
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Question on brakes

Ok guys. The other day you helped me figure out what kind of
transmission I have (np435) and the transfer case (np203, no...Dana 24,
no...Dana 21? was that it? :).

Anyway, now I need help with brakes. The truck is a 1970 F100 4x4. I
got the back drums off and decided 1 needs replaced and 1 needs turned,
but I can't get the front drums off no matter what I do! I have been
fighting with this for over 2 hours! What gives? Yes, the adjusters
are backed all the way out. Do I need to take apart the hub too?

Help! I don't want to pay Les Schwab $325-$700+!!!!
- --
Draygo
Insert something cool here....


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:18:27 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Stupid Owner trick

Michael R. Masse wrote:

> This one beat's drilling a hole in your radiator.
>
> I got my D44 front gears installed and everything else assembled, and I
> was
> going to break in the gears by running with the hubs locked and the T/C
> disengaged. DOH! I forgot to check if the place put any fluid in. I
> guess I was just too excited that the truck was back on the road after
> over a month of being on blocks. Anyways, I got about 10 miles down the
> road and the truck started shaking violently. I mean really violently!
> I pulled over and saw that the diff was smoking really bad in the area
> of the pinion. I removed the fill plug, and sure enough, it was dry.
> I unlocked the hubs and went home. I opened up the cover and saw a
> bunch of shavings, but the gears look okay. No big chunks. The spiders
> and side gears look okay also. Then I noticed that the pinion now moves
> in and out about a 1/4 inch. I removed the yoke and then the seal. The
> seal was pretty much non-existant. There's a little chunk of whatever
> is supposed to be inbetween the outer bearing and the yoke fused to the
> bearing. What was this?? Spinning the pinion reveals that the outer
> bearing cup spins in it's seat as opposed to the bearing spinning in the
> cup. That's as far as I've gone. Is my housing trash now that the
> bearing cup will spin?? I think that's supposed to be a press in deal.
> What would cause the pinion to be able to slide in and out? Did the
> inner and outer bearing cups wear the material inbetween them? I'm
> screwed ain't I? If you look up the definition of "haste makes waste"
> in a book of cliches it'll have a picture of me.
>
> Doh!
> DOH!
> DOH!
>
> Mike
> '78 Bronco

And Double DOH!

Did you say a shop installed the gears for you, or just some place? If it
was a shop you should know what we at the FTE list would have done :)

BTW just locking in the hubs and driving around will not break in the gears
properly. With out the drive shaft putting power to the gears the gears
will only be making contact with the coast side and not the drive side.
- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 14:23:31 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater

Dave Resch wrote:

> >From: luxjo thecore.com
> >Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dana full floater
> >
> >Don Grossman wrote:
> >
> >> I might be wrong on this one but isn't the 61 the semi-floater
> >> light duty they used for a while?
> >
> > I have seen a dana 61 full floater from an 81, F-350. It was
> >supposedly used from 80 on up to allow a different gear brake,
> >so I'm told. It is pretty much the same as dana 60, but is 5/8 inch
> >offset for pinion gear location.
>
> Yo Don:
>
> The Ox is right. The Dana 61 was a variant of the standard full-floating....


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.