61-79-list-digest Monday, June 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 350



=======================================================================
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 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt
Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Toggling 2 to 3
FTE 61-79 - engine weights...
FTE 61-79 - new url for painters/wannabe painters
RE: FTE 61-79 - Best $6000 I ever spent :-)
Re: FTE 61-79 - Intake rakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
RE: FTE 61-79 - engine weights...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc
Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt
Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc
Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Weights
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
FTE 61-79 - Funky Tranny shift 2/3
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
FTE 61-79 - Power Steering Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
FTE 61-79 - Axle shims
Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc
Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc
RE: FTE 61-79 - engine weights...
FTE 61-79 - 3 on the tree

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:16:57 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

> From: sdelanty sonic.net
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 23:15:02 -0700
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

> > Steve, you you mind sharing your calculations with one who is
> > somewhat "mathamatically impaired"?

Use the inverse sin: 37" = triangle hypotenuse, amount to drop the
spring = triangle end so divide the amount to change by the length of
arm and find the inverse sin function (2nd function on a calculator)
to get the angle.

If you know the angle multiply the length by the sin of the angle
and you get the drop.

> I measured the length of the I-beams as 37" from pivot to center of
> lower spring perch, and 48" from pivot to center of tire tread.

> I'm gonna start by shortening my loaded spring height by about
> 1.25", to give about 1.9 degrees less positive camber. I'm shooting
> for about 0.5 degree of positive camber, or maybe a little less

3/4 degree tops is what I'm remembering but I would guess the 78 "I"
beam system would have similar camber numbers since a front end has
to have certain characteristics to preserve the tires and make the
steering work. I bet there isn't a 32nd differnce in camber over the
whole series of twin "I" beam trucks over the years.

What can change is the total camber measured at full lock from one
suspension type to the other due to caster changes and suspension
articulation etc..

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:27:48 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt

> From: "Bill Beyer"
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt
> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 13:43:12 -0700

> become the hardest substance known to man and will eat drills bits
> at a fantastic rate as well as destroying drills, workbenches,
> garage walls, tool boxes, etc.

I thought I was the only mechanic on the surface of the earth that
could destroy a tool box or put holes in the walls when something
totally unrelated broke..............:-) (not with a drill either
:-))

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:36:13 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Toggling 2 to 3

> Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:09:52 -0500
> From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Toggling 2 to 3

> problem. A dirty governor will cause hunting. If the cooler wasn't
> cleaned out really good after the rebuild, it will clog it up. Have
> your trans man who did the work flush it out for you. If it were
> mine I would make the builder make any adjustments, so he's

Good point Bill, the governor on the C-6 is VERY sensitive to dirt.
I won't go into the details of why I know this :-(


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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: jniolon uss.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - engine weights...


starting the build on a 460...will have stock heads/crank etc...

but hypereutectic pistons/intake etc.

I'll record the weights as I go and post as soon as complete

My info says 750-800 lbs complete...for a 460 (stock)...
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: jniolon uss.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - new url for painters/wannabe painters


a friend from another list passed along this address for paint
questions/answers...

www.horizonweb.com/wwwboard/spray_101/wwwboard.html

got some good info in painting, products, techniques etc...

some of you might need... thought it might help

john

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:04:47 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Best $6000 I ever spent :-)

i am sure you have freinds willing let you work on their trucks!

sleddog

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3 ford.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 4:04 AM
To: bigbroncos unix.off -road. com
Cc: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Best $6000 I ever spent :-)
Just thought I'd share my happynes
with Y'all :-) At this rate I'm going to run out of work to do on my
vehicles before I retire and won't have anything to do :-(



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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:09:46 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Intake rakes

At 10:03 AM 22/06/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Marko writes: >>If you were lucky enough for your $45 to have found a
>Thunderbird TRI-POWER from the early 60's (64 included I think) you would
>note that this manifold kept all carbs parallel to the crank, whereas the
>Galaxie/Starliner/Sunliner 406/427 tri-power manifold had rake to it.
>
>So what you are saying is that the intakes were "body specific". I find
>that amazing. Can this be verified in some books someplace???
>
>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.
>
Azie,

See "Super 60's Fords" by John Smith (his real name!) where he refers to
the '63 T-Bird with tri-power option.

I think this is the only instance that this occurred. I could be wrong
though, there are various car and truck manifold applications identified by
the part/casting number. But those might all have the same rake, I dunno
bout that.


marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:15:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: JIM HURD
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to enter the detailed explanation! Some
good scoop there!

My crummy Chilton's (I say crummy, because of numerous obvious mistakes)
shows for '70-71 F-100, 150 2WD, the following:

Caster .5 to 5.5 degrees, 3 degrees preferred
Camber .5 to 2.5 degrees, 1 degree preferred
Toe-in 3/32"

Some interesting other info: My '79 Light Truck Shop Manual shows the
correct camber settings based on ride height (the distance between the
top of the I-beam and the bottom of the frame horn.) For a 3.00" to 3.25"
ride height, it shows the minimum camber at -1.5 (max +1/8). Increasing
the ride height to 4.00" to 4.25", the minimum camber should be 0 (max
1 5/8). This one inch in ride height changes matches exactly your
calculated camber change for 1 inch change in spring (ride?) height.!
Go to the head of the class!!!

Now here is my experience with wearing the outside edges of the front
tires on a twin I-beam. I will *try* to keep it short. Ordered truck in
fall of 1978 and took delivery in Dec '78. Had a slight pull to the right.
Of course, dealer says that's the crown in the road. After 34k miles,
right front tire is pretty much wasted. Took it to a good front end shop in
the city: Owner (heavy german accent...thought I was at a Mercedes shop)
says the only way to fix it is to bend the I-beam cold. He said Ford says
not to do that, but to replace the I-beam. He said he had replaced a number
of I-beams, and they end up with the same camber as the original I-beam.
So I said, "bend it!" He chained the front end down and applied some mean
force with electric powered hydraulic jacks...dimmed the lights in the whole
building.
After that it drove like a different truck, and picked up almost a mile
to the gallon of gas. So I went out and bought a new set of Uniroyal radials
and put 126,000 miles on them! (Only rotated them three times!) They were
down to about 3/32", but were showing signs of dry rot cracking so I took
them off after 10 years and bought a new set of 15X7" wheels (that my wheel
covers fit) and a new set of 70 series tires. Took the truck to one of those
chain alighment places (why I did that I'll never no!) and they said I needed
a new drag link...the long one that has the three joints. So I had them install
it and check the alignment.
The new wheels and tires didn't seem to roll as good as my old Uniroyals.
I guess some tires have more rolling resistance than others. Anyways, at
12,000 miles I go to rotate my tires, and the outside fronts are wore down
to 6/32", while the insides are at 10/32", on tires that were only 12/32"
when new. So I checked my FORD shop manual, and it says that if the outside
edge of one front tire is worn, you most likely have a camber problem, BUT,
(and this was a BIG but,) if both front tires are worn on the ouside edge,
you more than likely have a toe problem!
So I get out my tape measure, and measure the toe-in. I measured it THREE
times. It was exactly 1/2"! Never should have gone to that front end align-
ment place without double checking there work!)
Cranked the toe back to 1/16" and now my new tires roll *almost* as well
as my Uniroyals. (I have a hill on the interstate that if I kick it out of
gear at 55 mph at the top, I am rolling about 62-63 mph at the bottom, where
my Uniroyals would usually be in the 63-64 mph range. Have to kind of take
an average because a slight change in wind or if traffic is near by, it can
affect the speed by quite a bit.) I also reccommend getting a little tool
for measuring tread depth. Mine has a dial that works kind of like a dial
indicator, and I stick and record each tread groove each time I rotate the
tires. (I have been called a 'turd polisher' by some!)

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:25:42 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - engine weights...

i got a whole 460 in parts (almost. still waiting for some parts) that i
can weigh, but i don't seem to have a bathroom scale. wonder where it
went? bet she's hiding it from me!

anyway, it will be a 521 cube motor with concreted block. i'll see what i
can do.
sleddog




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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:20:38 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

At 05:50 PM 21/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello to one and all,
>
Hi, and welcome to the list.

>I have just signed onto this sight in the hopes of getting some
>information on the re-building of my pick-up.
>
>I have a 71' F-100, 240 CID, 3 on the tree. I am looking to
>replace/re-build from the radiator to the rear axle.
>
>Some of the difficulties I am currently having are:
>
>Engine is a bit under powered(acceleration).
>
You might try installing a 300 six rather than your 240. If I am not
mistaken, your bellhousing and engine mounts shud be the same, and you
could even get by with your present radiator if it is sufficiently h.d.
The 300 six will give you huge gobs of torque you never knew existed. Not
much on the V8 rumble side of things, but on the whole you will get better
fuel economy, and very strong performance from a bulletproof engine. You
will have tons of low-end for your offroading exploits.

>Difficulties upshifting/can not downshift at all without double
>clutching.
>
Sounds like worn/cracked synchros to me. You're not talking about first
gear, are you?

>On the top end, I run out of RPMs but still have some power left.
>
You could have valve problems, maybe you have a 1-barrel carb meaning you
just don't have much room up there (not enough cfm)

>I am considering installing a 360, with a four speed and maybe changing
>the rear end out. I do not do much "heavy work" but the truck does do
>a lot of playing in the dirt.
>
Do yourself a favor and avoid the 360. It is an okay engine, god knows it
makes lots of power, but not after you've driven a 390! FYI a 360 and a
390 are almost the same engine, just the crank is different (longer stroke)
and the pistons too, (oh yeah, and the connecting rods). Basically the 360
is a 4.05" bore and a 3.5" stroke, the 390 is a 4.05" bore and a 3.784"
stroke. Same block, same everything else. The 390 makes way more power
for the gasoline buck. But if you're not totally v8 inclined, go with the
300 six.

>I would really appreciate any recommendation for configuring this
>truck. See I'm a converted GMC own and I'm not really up on the Ford
>performances yet. No Spamming please!

It's okay, everybody makes mistakes once in awhile.

marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:31:29 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc


>While we are on the FE engine (again), I will ask this question: I have an
>opportunity to pick up a 66 Merc Parklane with a 410. Is this engine as
>strong and reliable as the 390? This is a 390 with a longer stroke,
>correct?

YES YES YES!!!!!!! I'm sure Azie will tell you too, the 410 creates, in
Azie's words, "strange amounts of torque". Like 440 lb-ft. The 410 is a
390 with a 428 crank in it, so 4.05" bore and 3.984" stroke.

I got a post from a guy when I was thinking of buying one for my truck. I
forget who it was but one of the things he told me was, "I tow my 27"
bayliner like it isn't there."

The real beauty of the Merc engine, aside from the performance, is the
awesome pent-roof valve covers. You'll probly get a 4100 Autolite with
that engine too.

Is this one in running condition? I had to rebuild mine but it didn't cost
any more than a 390. Parts are readily available cause most of them are
390 parts. Some dealers won't have a proper listing for the pistons though
cause they're slightly different than 390 pistons. Silvolite makes pistons
for the 410. Engle makes a good cam (so I'm told) for this engine too. My
builder recommended it, I can post the specs but it's somewhere around .490
lift and 265 degrees or so, if that makes any sense. I'll find the cam
card and post it up.

It is backed up with a MercoMatic with a "leak somewhere "(the
>owner's diagnosis). I'm wondering if ths would be a likely candidate to
>fill the large gaping hole in the engine compartment of my "other '62"
>truck? Is this tranny generally worth messing with? I believe it is the
>same as the Cruise-o-matic. I'm trying to remember my skimming of previous
>FE discussions (which I admit not paying enough attention to since I was
>not an FE owner). Does the C-6 bolt right up?

Yes. Any FE c6 will bolt up. You need an FE c6 though, cause the
bellhousing is not the same for the FE c6 and other c6's.

>At last, maybe I can participate in the numerous FE discussions on FTE!

Just you wait till you drive one!


One thing you may wanna check: find out what was in your truck in the
first place for an engine, and compare weights. It was probly something
heavy though, as the small block didn't exist back then....


marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 09:48:59 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt

Nope and I have the scars to prove it!

BTW I do have a welder friend who uses the pulse electricity method to
vaporize the metal that someone else on the list mentioned. It does take a
special attachment to a MIG but boy does it get busted studs/bolts out in a
hurry while at the same time using massive amounts of power! Whatta
combination!

- ----------
> From: Gary, 78 BBB
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt
> Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 4:27 AM
>
> I thought I was the only mechanic on the surface of the earth that
> could destroy a tool box or put holes in the walls when something
> totally unrelated broke..............:-) (not with a drill either
> :-))

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:06:16 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc

At 9:31 AM 22/06/98 -0700, I wrote:

> I
>forget who it was but one of the things he told me was, "I tow my 27"
>bayliner like it isn't there."
>

Now, before any of the rest of you get hold of this, I'll just point out
that if it really was a 27 INCH bayliner, then it wouldn't have to be
towed, would it? You could put it on the seat beside you or, if you had
somebody with you, it could be put in the box.

I meant 27 FEET. Actually, it was either 21, 23, or 27. But it was a
Bayliner, not a Chris-Craft or some other make.


marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:22:52 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc

It was probably a 21' Bayliner but it still musta had an inboard motor so
it probably tipped the scales at close to 3K with trailer.

- ----------
> From: Marko Maryniak
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc
> Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:06 AM
>
>
> I meant 27 FEET. Actually, it was either 21, 23, or 27. But it was a
> Bayliner, not a Chris-Craft or some other make.
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:27:16 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

> From: shaggrat ix.netcom.com
> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 17:50:36 -0700
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

> I am considering installing a 360, with a four speed and maybe
> changing the rear end out. I do not do much "heavy work" but the
> truck does do a lot of playing in the dirt.

As long as you are switching from 6 to 8 you may as well get an
engine that's cheap to build and keep fixed up. I suggest the 351W
or if you like power a 460 or 429. Anything you do will require
several new parts and mounts and exhaust so why go with an FE when a
W will be no more trouble to install but much easier to find parts
and mix and match performance parts for?

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:40:33 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Weights

>Seems like a strange game, but what the heck, I'll play.
>
>Edelbrock Performer 390 intake manifold, with vac, water fittings, temp.
>sender, w.o. bolts, carb, or any gaskets - 25-1/4 lbs
>
>Mr. Gasket adaptor, cat. # 1932, to put q-jet on above square 4 manifold, w.
>bolts, gasket 1-1/2 lbs.
>
>Q-jet, used, dry, with gasket, this one is 7029268 (Yeech, bowtie stuff)
>9-1/8 lbs
>
>Holley spread bore double pumper (marked 12R5395B on base) dry, w. gasket
>12-3/8 lbs

Thanks Jim, they've been added to the list. Wow, those holley double
pumpers must be cast iron...

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:40:30 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

>Steve,
> For 71 F100,250 Maximum 2 1/2 degrees positive
> Minimum 1/2 degree negative
>
> Cheers,
> Doug


Thanks Doug. What a wide range... I guess Ford doesn't much
care what the camber is. "Just stand the tire more or less upright is
close enough..."

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:27:15 -0700
From: gpark cymer.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Funky Tranny shift 2/3

Thanks for all the replies to my question about the indecisive 2/3 shift
toggle.
I pulled the vacuum line of the modulator, and fluid dripped out, so I
guess it's suspect.
Why does fluid get in here?
Is it supposed to?
I don't think these things cost a lot. I guess I'll try a new one.

thanks again.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:31:38 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

>>I have a 71' F-100, 240 CID, 3 on the tree.
>> I am considering installing a 360, with a four speed and maybe
>> changing the rear end out. I do not do much "heavy work" but the
>> truck does do a lot of playing in the dirt.

>As long as you are switching from 6 to 8 you may as well get an
>engine that's cheap to build and keep fixed up. I suggest the 351W
>or if you like power a 460 or 429. Anything you do will require
>several new parts and mounts and exhaust so why go with an FE when a
>W will be no more trouble to install but much easier to find parts
>and mix and match performance parts for?

B-B-But Gary, the FE just bolts right in. I swapped a 240 for an FE in
my '71 F100, and it just drops in like the factory intended it to be
there.. (Hey, I guess they did!)

The exhaust, radiator and gas pedal have to be changed to put any V8 in,
but that's it for the FE. The motor mount pedestals simply unbolt and
get moved back 2-1/4" to a new set of holes that Ford was kind enough to
already drill in the frame. The only "special" thing I had to do to make
the FE work in place of the 240 was to lenghten the oil pressure sender
wire about 4"...

I really doubt the 460 is THAT easy to plug in. Garden variety FE parts are
just as cheap and available as 460 stuff, it's only when You want FE exotica
that the parts get expensive.
If You want/need 500+HP than a 460 is certainly the way to go, but If You are
only looking for 300-350 *cheap and easy* HP, why not use a stock 390 with
decent cam, intake and headers and save Yourself the hassle of making mounts,
and also save an extra 100 lbs on the front of a already very nose heavy truck?

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:54:00 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

> From: sdelanty sonic.net
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 11:31:38 -0700
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

> B-B-But Gary, the FE just bolts right in. I swapped a 240 for an FE
> in my '71 F100, and it just drops in like the factory intended it
> to be there.. (Hey, I guess they did!)

Ok, not ever having done the swap I assumed the mount would be
totally different like they are on newer ones. In this case I agree
with you, go for the 390 :-)


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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:38:50 -0500
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power Steering Question

Hello. I am new to the world of Ford trucks, so glad I found the postings
here. I have a '69 F-100 short-bed with automatic, power steering, and
either a 360 or 390, that is as yet indeterminate. (Engine tag gone, much
belief of previous owner trail it is a 390, obviously not original intake or
manifold, so who knows if engine is original or not.)
The question: The truck pulls to the right, but checks out ok on alignment.
The previous owner was told it was a steering gear getting ready to go. This
does not make sense to me. I happened to notice while doing other work,
that if I started the truck, front wheels off ground, centered, they would
immediatel spin to a hard lock to the right, as if the power steering was
driving them to the right. Re-center the wheels and they return to the
right. Not being a power-steering person normally, is this normal? Assuming
not, what are the probable causes. The truck does not need any appreciably
greater force to be steered left than right, just that the wheels will
always steer towards the right.
I cannot reason out why a power steering unit should drive the wheels
harder in either direction than the other.

Hope someone has some insight...

InkDezJim email.msn.com




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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:00:12 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

>Use the inverse sin: 37" = triangle hypotenuse, amount to drop the
>spring = triangle end so divide the amount to change by the length of
>arm and find the inverse sin function (2nd function on a calculator)
>to get the angle.
>
>If you know the angle multiply the length by the sin of the angle
>and you get the drop.

Thanks Gary, I don't use it very often and always have to go look
it up. Then it takes me another 20 minutes to find the calculator
that has the right buttons on it... (-:

>> I'm gonna start by shortening my loaded spring height by about
>> 1.25", to give about 1.9 degrees less positive camber. I'm shooting
>> for about 0.5 degree of positive camber, or maybe a little less

>3/4 degree tops is what I'm remembering but I would guess the 78 "I"
>beam system would have similar camber numbers since a front end has
>to have certain characteristics to preserve the tires and make the
>steering work. I bet there isn't a 32nd differnce in camber over the
>whole series of twin "I" beam trucks over the years.

The specs I've been getting from people are like -1/2 to +2-1/2d
which seems like a HUGE range to me. After playing with it on TurboCAD
and seeing what a big difference 1 degree makes in the tires attitude
relative to the road, I can't imagine what's up with those specs.
I measured mine at about +2-1/4d camber, still within spec, but You can
stand in front of the truck and *see* that the tires are standing on
their outside corners!
I'm gonna try for something in the 0 to +1/2 degree range and see
how that goes..

I'll probably cut the springs down this afternoon.
Thanks to everyone who sent specs...

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:00:16 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

At 12:15 PM 6/22/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Steve,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to enter the detailed explanation! Some
>good scoop there!

>1 5/8). This one inch in ride height changes matches exactly your
>calculated camber change for 1 inch change in spring (ride?) height.!
> Go to the head of the class!!!

Oooh, go to the head of the class? Thanks!
Usually I just get "shut up and get back under the truck!" (-:



> So I get out my tape measure, and measure the toe-in. I measured it THREE
>times. It was exactly 1/2"! Never should have gone to that front end align-
>ment place without double checking there work!)

Yeah, i have trouble trusting the monkeys at most alignment shops, so
I always do it myself. The toe in on mine is pretty close to correct, so
it's gotta be camber that's eating my tires up.

> I also reccommend getting a little tool
>for measuring tread depth. Mine has a dial that works kind of like a dial
>indicator, and I stick and record each tread groove each time I rotate the
>tires.

Got one, thanks. Rarely use it tho, cuz my tire wear is pretty easy to
assess visually. )-:

> (I have been called a 'turd polisher' by some!)

Hehe, me too, but my friends are always envious cuz I've got the shiniest
turds in town... (-:

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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:36:11 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Axle shims

Now that you smartypantses (couldn't come up with a better plural than
that) have brought out the heavy artillery on alignment, maybe you can help
me out a bit.

Since I am doing a frame-up resto on my truck I have taken my springs off
my axles. My truck's chassis is a 71 f250 4x4 with dana 44f and 60r.
There are two pot-metal shims under the springs on the front axle (one on
each side), I guess for setting the height of the pinion, and indirectly
the camber angle (is that right, or is that caster, I can never tell which
is which). I recall your discussions on u-joint lubrication and having the
angle set one degree off. Is this important here?

Now, the back axle has none of this, it just bolts together with the U
bolts, no shims back there.

Can somebody explain to me how to put this thing back together? Thanks


marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:02:04 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc

Thanks for your message at 09:31 AM 6/22/98 -0700, Marko Maryniak. Your
message was:
>
>>While we are on the FE engine (again), I will ask this question: I have an
>>opportunity to pick up a 66 Merc Parklane with a 410. Is this engine as
>>strong and reliable as the 390? This is a 390 with a longer stroke,
>>correct?
>
>YES YES YES!!!!!!! I'm sure Azie will tell you too, the 410 creates, in
>Azie's words, "strange amounts of torque". Like 440 lb-ft. The 410 is a
>390 with a 428 crank in it, so 4.05" bore and 3.984" stroke.

>The real beauty of the Merc engine, aside from the performance, is the
>awesome pent-roof valve covers.
Saw them. Loved them. I'm a Mercury guy at heart, anyway. I envy you
Canadians and your Mercury trucks!

You'll probly get a 4100 Autolite with
>that engine too.
>
>Is this one in running condition?
Runs smoothly, has plenty of power and doesn't smoke (at least not from
what I've seen so far).


>lift and 265 degrees or so, if that makes any sense. I'll find the cam
>card and post it up.
OK. I'm learning more abouts cams and lifts, etc from this list.

>
> It is backed up with a MercoMatic with a "leak somewhere "(the
>>owner's diagnosis).
Yes. Any FE c6 will bolt up. You need an FE c6 though, cause the
>bellhousing is not the same for the FE c6 and other c6's.

So the Merc-o-matic is basically scrap metal, right?
>
>Just you wait till you drive one!
I've had numerous 390's (in cars) over the years and one 360 (I won't go
there), oh yeah and at least one 352 comes to mind.
I've always had good experiences with the FE (the 360 wasn"t THAT bad).
Somehow I ended up with 302s and my real love, the 351C (I haven't done the
swap with the 429 into the Mustang yet).

>
>One thing you may wanna check: find out what was in your truck in the
>first place for an engine, and compare weights.

The previous owner did the unthinkable--that's right a GM (Pontiac, I
think). I got the truck and gave the engine back. Sort of like taking in
a sick animal and trying to nurse it back to health. Or more like a major
organ transplant. Of course, it'll mean motor mounts, etc. And this will
be the third vehicle on my list of projects, so it will probably mean a big
ugly Parklane parked in my back yard next to the Marquis, across from the
62 truck (how does my wife put up with me?).

I believe I can get the whole car for $500. Actually the body is not bad,
with some rust (it came from somewhere near the salt water, like Paulsbo,
WA, something like that.)

The guy should give it to me, since he's my father-in-law.


1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1970 Marquis 429
1973 Mustang 302 (tired)
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
!962 Unibody short box (shell) just parked the trailer in my backyard.
It's gonna be a convertible!

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:28:07 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re: 410 Merc

At 03:02 PM 22/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Thanks for your message
Don't mention it. Your email sofware is very polite!

>Saw them. Loved them. I'm a Mercury guy at heart, anyway. I envy you
>Canadians and your Mercury trucks!

nyah, nyah! Seriously, they are pretty nice, but the steering wheel and
cluster still say "ford"!

>Runs smoothly, has plenty of power and doesn't smoke (at least not from
>what I've seen so far).

Oh boy. You shud really enjoy it. Have you considered headers?


>So the Merc-o-matic is basically scrap metal, right?

Dunno. Maybe not, I know nothing of Merc-o-matics. Is this like an FMX or
something? or is it just the Mercury name for a c6?

>Somehow I ended up with 302s and my real love, the 351C (I haven't done the
>swap with the 429 into the Mustang yet).

Yeah. About the only thing I'll trade my truck for is a pantera with a
351C, or maybe, just maybe a 427 Cobra, esp. the Daytona Coupe version. I
say maybe cause I doubt anyone would trade me for my truck!

>The previous owner did the unthinkable--that's right a GM (Pontiac, I
>think). I got the truck and gave the engine back. Sort of like taking in
>a sick animal and trying to nurse it back to health. Or more like a major
>organ transplant. Of course, it'll mean motor mounts, etc. And this will
>be the third vehicle on my list of projects, so it will probably mean a big
>ugly Parklane parked in my back yard next to the Marquis, across from the
>62 truck (how does my wife put up with me?).

Yeesh. At least you did the right thing with it.

>I believe I can get the whole car for $500. Actually the body is not bad,
>with some rust (it came from somewhere near the salt water, like Paulsbo,
>WA, something like that.)

Probly rusted from sitting in the tall grass! The rain rusts cars more
than the salt air around here. BTW where are you located?

> The guy should give it to me, since he's my father-in-law.

My ex-girlfriend's dad once cheated me out of my 71 bu*ck sk*l*rk (with
bu*ck 350bb, nice motor actually) for 200 bucks. And it was pretty solid
too, 70,000 miles, new rad, new tires, etc. I was kinda broke back then.
Never trust them in-laws, or in-laws to be, I always say!

>1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
>1970 Marquis 429
>1973 Mustang 302 (tired)
>1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
>!962 Unibody short box (shell) just parked the trailer in my backyard.

Good luck with the project!


marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 15:45:36 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - engine weights...

>i got a whole 460 in parts (almost. still waiting for some parts) that i
>can weigh, but i don't seem to have a bathroom scale. wonder where it
>went? bet she's hiding it from me!

She probably doesn't want You to get it greasy again!
If You can find it, weigh up the goods and let me know! Please
include part #'s when You can.
Thanks!

....


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.