61-79-list-digest Wednesday, July 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 379



=======================================================================
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:

FTE 61-79 - Re: '65/'66 Interiors
FTE 61-79 - Power windows : One more time
FTE 61-79 - Re: R-12 cost..
FTE 61-79 - engine loses power
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: '65/'66 Interiors
FTE 61-79 - Re: Gear oil vs motor oil...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: '65/'66 Power Brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power
Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?
Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?
FTE 61-79 - sway bar
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: R-12 cost..
FTE 61-79 - Needy Trucks
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Holley Tweaks
Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?
FTE 61-79 - Transfer case oil
Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power
Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power
FTE 61-79 - Re: CALLING ALL CHEMISTS (LONG!)
Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?
FTE 61-79 - oil in transfer case
FTE 61-79 - serial numbers
FTE 61-79 - Newbie again re: 67 Ford
Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power
FTE 61-79 - Slapped around
FTE 61-79 - Re: RADIATORS - KRAGENS -
Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine stantions for 1970 F100 (towers)
FTE 61-79 - Trouble removing fromt axle
FTE 61-79 - Brackets
FTE 61-79 - found a 79 Bronco for $400 F/S
FTE 61-79 - The snowball effect
Re: FTE 61-79 - serial numbers

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:42:58 -0500
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: '65/'66 Interiors

Brian,
I sent this one once, but forgot to change the subject line. Anyways, there is nothing much left that is original
on my truck. As as far as my interior goes, the dash is original. Thats all! But, you are in luck. There is a
guy who has what looks like a '63/'64 F100. I see a solid axle under the front end, but its not a unibody. It has
the same body as a '65/'66. Maybe I can get a hold of him and see if I can get him on the list.

A neighbor of mine is checking with family in Arkansas to see if they will give their '48 F1 (?')to me. Its
sitting out behind the barn, but he says its in great shape and runs. So, I may change trucks.

- -=DENNIS=-

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:48:34 -0500
From: "FXDWG"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power windows : One more time

Someone has to have PW in there truck......
I have a 79 F-250 Supercab that I would like to put power window's into. I
junked out a 80 bronco and it had power window's and power lock's. Will this
fit? Are the guts the same between years? And are the switchs the same? If
not can it be made to work with out hacking everything up? I would like it
to look as close to stock as possible. Also what about the wiring harness ,
is
it the same?
Thank's


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:01:39 -0500
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: R-12 cost..

Just for convesation I got a different GOV today. Three or more times larger than the one I had. Its not a Ford
either. However, I will tell you that it is advertised as the largest SUV and only one in its class.

The A/C wasn't working well and a decision had to be made ... convert it to 134 or recharge it with the R12. It
was recharged since R-12 here in Northern Louisiana is down to $20.00 per pound. The blowing air temp in this
large vehicle, in today's 100 degree heat, got down to 45 according to our mechanic. He said the price of R-12 was
the lowest he has seen it all year.

So, remember you may not have to convert to 134.

- -=DENNIS=-

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 20:13:21 -0700
From: bertolina juno.com (NineteenSixtyFive F100)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power

I've been having problems with my 1965 F100. It has the original 240 6
cyl. engine in it with the manual 3 speed transmission. The following
problem has been occurring on a fairly regular basis: When the truck is
fully warmed up and usually traveling between 35 and 55 mph the engine
loses power and will no longer accelerate. Sometimes I'm able to "ride it
out" and power resumes before I lose too much speed. A couple times, I
have had to pull off the side of the road, shut the engine off and
restart it hoping that will resolve the situation. One time the engine
restarted easily and the truck ran fine. Today, it was difficult to
restart and difficult to keep running once started...it ultimately
cleared up and was fine for the rest of the 20-30 mile trip.
The truck has had recent change of spark plugs, timing adjusted, new
spark plug wires. The fuel filter is fairly new and the fuel pump has
good flow. Any ideas as to what it might be? It acts like a 1985 Honda
Accord I used to have when I was climbing up a pass...turned out the fuel
filter was clogged.
Thanks for any thoughts you have.
Roberta in Tucson AZ with a 1965 F-100 custom cab long bed, rust free

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:26:58 EDT
From: Toydually aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: '65/'66 Interiors

Hi Dennis,

That would be great. Let me know.

Thanks,

Brian
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:31:32 -0500
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Gear oil vs motor oil...

Hey Marko!

I went to a standard transmission rebuild shop here in Shreveport, Louisiana and asked what I should put in my NP435 in
my '65. At that point it was empty. That 435 came out of a '77 F100. I was told to use 90W gear lube. I asked if I
could use Slick 50's version of it. He answer was yes that it would not hurt it one bit. However, he did say the best
Gear Lube he has seen was made by Shell Oil, but it cost more.

So, I went and put the Slick 50 90W Gear Lube in the transmission. That damn stuff is thick. I haven't had any
problems, except...learning that I can't speed shift the 435 the way I want. Oh well ...it is a truck...shaped like a
brick on a small V8...guess I should just cruise in it instead....

I wonder..get the '62 Ranchero put the small V8 in that with a C4 and dump a 460 in the '65 F100 to fill the engine
compartment...maybe goe with a C6 so I do not have to shift it anymore..????? dreaming on.....

- -=DENNIS=-

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:40:30 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: FTE 61-79 - CALLING ALL CHEMISTS (was motor oil in transfer case)

All right you guys, we've had this discussion before and we're gonna have
it again, I guess.

About 2 mos ago I posted a question which I got a "shrug of the shoulders"
kinda response. My question was, my original manual for my 67 says to use
SAE 50 wt engine oil for the transmission (T-18 and/or 435) and to use it
also in the transfer case. (snip)

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:56:21 EDT
From: Trs2000 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: '65/'66 Power Brakes

Thanks for the feedback. I was playing around with the booster setup today.
I'm going to punch a hole in the rod from the booster so I can get the pedal
to bolt in. As for the Alignment with the Clutch pedal- I forgot to mention
it's an automatic. I'll let you know how it worked. So far the booster was a
direct bolt in except for the lining up the linkage at the pedal.


Dennis
66f100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:59:09 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power

I had the same problem in my Escort. I would drive around town fine, but as
soon as I got on the freeway it would really sound bad. I went through the
usual fixes, new fuel filter, fuel pump, replaced the rubber fuel lines and
went nuts when that didn't fix it. I was about to set fire to the car when I
decided to drop the tank. What I found was the screen on the pickup tube was
plugged. I just yanked it off and the car has been fine since, although I go
through fuel filters a little faster than normal now
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:59:49 EDT
From: Trs2000 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?

Thanks for the tip. By the way, Do you know what the fe motors are in liters.
5.7 etc.?

Thanks again


Dennis


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:08:45 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?

Quick method for finding liters from cubes is to divide the cubes by 60.4=
and=0Ayou will get liters, Its not exact, but pretty close

Example 302 =F7 60.4 =3D 5.0
351 =F7 60.4 =3D 5.8=0A

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:41:59 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - sway bar

Just installed a sway bar on the front of my 72 F-100, boy what difference,
Do you think a rear sway will help that much more, I'm not sure if I need it
?? What do you think ?

Mike in Seattle
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:44:08 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: R-12 cost..

> It
>was recharged since R-12 here in Northern Louisiana is down to $20.00 per
pound.
> The blowing air temp in this
>large vehicle, in today's 100 degree heat, got down to 45 according to our
> mechanic. He said the price of R-12 was
>the lowest he has seen it all year.

$20 a lb? Wow, that is coming down...
Guess I should sell all those cans of R-12 I've got stashed in the
garage before the price gets too low. Hehehe... (-:

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

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:48:47 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Needy Trucks

> The first thing my mechanic did when he first looked at the truck, was to
> check the frame. He said the frame was good.
> I trust him - it's his business, he's not a car dealer. I've dealt with
> him
> for about 5 years now. However, I've not shopped around.
> But, he doesn't give his services away, so those labor charges sure add
> up.

Restoration is expensive. There is no way around it. Labor is the most
expensive part of the job.

I've done a little of it myself, and let me tell you, it's hard earned
if it's done right. That's the key, though. If it's not done right it
isn't worth $2. If your'e doing a musclecar, you can blow $4000 just
bringing the dirty side back to new. I worked as part of a restoration
on a '65 tri-power GTO that cost over $10,000. A truck should be a
little more reasonable, and $4000 could pretty well restore it if you do
some of the work, provided that the floors are good. '67-72's rust
badly in the front cab mounts, the center (side to side) crossmenber,
and the cab corners. They rust because of mud caking in there, not just
road salt or sea air. If yours is a rust free original, it's rare.
That's not to say that southrun's don't have a rust freedom advantage,
they are less likely to be in the salt, but if those mounts haven't
been cleaned out regularly they'll be gone.

Forget about resale, that's for newer stuff. If you buy a needy truck
and pay somebody to restore it properly, you won't get your money out of
it. You'll have to justify owning it for another reason, like the one
that motivates us to bust our knuckles on these old S.O.B.'s in the
first place. A love of the breed. Some people like ugly dog's. We
like tired old Ford trucks, and do our best to drag them kicking and
screaming into the modern age. We put away the Dockers and Polo shirts
and put on those grease stained old Dickies or some old jeans and an old
comfortable shirt and get some "skunk juice"(gear oil) on our hands. I
get a real kick out of tearing something down and putting it back
together with new parts and paint. I can't fix everything, my
brother-in-law (helluva bud, but gets $30 an hour for his involvement
and he's worth every penny) is around to do that. But I've found that I
can fix most of it myself and enjoy it.

Now if you do all (or most) of the work yourself then you might come out
of it moneywise (if you write off most of your time), but keep in mind
that you can spend a fortune on the little stuff. It really adds up.
I've been to auctions and saw stuff like a '48 Ford F1 meticulously
restored, absolutely perfect that only went up to $7300. The guy had
over $11,000 in it. He kept it, he said he really didn't care but I
know he felt a little bad about it.

You'll have to be resourceful. If you pay someone to find your parts
and or refurbish stuff that whould normally be thrown away you'll pay
through the nose. That's probably where you can save money. Paint your
own small parts, polish up your trim, scrape and degrease everything. A
truck can be a little more function, and less perfect and still be neat
to drive, than a musclecar. Preserving everything is the most important
thing. Good rubber seals, open and functional drains, good structural
integrity and paint underneath. That's where a restoration should
begin. A huge savings comes in the simplicity of the interior. Compare
it to the cost of restoring a sixties D*dge musclecar interior. It will
blow you away.

Good luck, you've found the best source of info anywhere, these guys
here are the greatest.



- --
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:42:45 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Holley Tweaks

>> As for the off-idle bog, why not try a different accelerator pump
>> cam and/or discharge nozzle.
>

I have found that the "white accel pump cam #218", placed in position #1
(smallest squirt posible), works great for most engines between 350-400
cubic inches (SLC Utah at 4,400 ft). This cam seems to work well with a "#25
tube type discharge nozzle". I'm not saying it is the very best posible
configuraion for all aplications, but it does seem to work quite well.
..........

>It's possible to run your idle mixture too lean as well or to jet it
>too lean and have these problems but the thing that's supposed to
>control this is the transition slot and circuit. Holley makes about
>100 primary metering blocks which are all interchangeable and they
>have different intermediate circuits. If you get the right tech guy
>you may be able to find one more suitable.
>

Although I always seem to have a few (dipped, zipped, and boxed) holley 4
barrels around ($20 reward, dead or alive), and most parts can be
interchanged between models, I have not experimented with changing the
primary metering block. I have removed the secondary metering plate and
replace it with a metering block (allows for adjustable secondaries).
Changing from a side inlet float bowl to a dual feed center inlet can also
be done without to much trouble.

>In the mean time you might try changing the accellerator link
>position or the things mentioned above but I didn't have much luck
>changing these on the 460. Sometimes it's a combination of
>mismatches that is hard to over come or a tuning problem as I noted.
>


"accellerator link position" makes me think you are talking about an
Autolite carb. (cam #, and position?)

BTW: my knowledge of Holley carbs comes from a book called "Super tuning and
modifying Holley carburetors" (performance, street, and off-road
applications) written by Dave Emanuel. This book has lots of nice photos as
well as good info.

Michael

69 F250 360 auto
69 F250 CS 390 (Holley 1850), T18, Posi 3.55




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:58:06 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?

>Thanks for the tip. By the way, Do you know what the fe motors are in liters.
>5.7 etc.?

Divide cubic inches by 61.02 to get liters.
352 = 5.768L
360 = 5.9L
390 = 6.39L
427 = 7.0L

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

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:01:19 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Transfer case oil

As I remember, most gear drive transfer cases use 90 wt. gear oil, chain
drive cases use the lighter engine oil to properly lube the chain. My
full-time 203 with chain always got 30 wt motor oil as that is a lot easier
to find than the 50 wt some claim it needs. It lasted a long time and is in
the garage now waiting to go into another project. The similar 205 gear
drive case uses the 90 wt and some of the aftermarket manuals get this all
confused. This is all IMHO, YMMV, and I will duck now and await the
rejoinders.

As long as I am hiding under the desk, the gear oil smells bad due to the
sulphur compounds that help it handle the high pressures between teeth of
final drive gears (lower speed, lots more torque, lots more gear tooth
pressure trying to squeeze out the oil). These compounds probably aren't
needed and wouldn't stand up to the temperatures in engine use. Again IMHO.

Jim



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:08:53 -0700
From: marko
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power

Roberta:

It sounds to me like either a fuel filter problem, some crud in your tank
that's restricting the fuel pickup, sticky needle valves in your carburetor
floats, dirt floating around in the float bowl and occasionally clogging the
jets of your carburetor, or an air leak into a fuel line (seriously!)
causing a loss of fuel pressure, and a kind of vapor lock leading to fuel
starvation, or at least aerated fuel moving thru the pump.

This last one is kinda weird but it DOES happen. I had a rock dent a fuel
line on my 78 cougar once and after I put a new set of plugs wires ignition
box cap rotor carburetor kit fuel filter and fuel pump on it I still had the
same problem. Found out it was a little stone dent in a fuel line that bled
air into the system.

Fix the cheap things first. No, actually check the cheapest things first
that are bound to be in good repair. This problem most certainly does not
sound electrical.

Good luck,


marko in vancouver
marko dsm.ca

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:18:28 -0700
From: marko
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power

Just another quick thought on this:

If you are sure about the fuel filter and the fuel line, then it may be the
needle valve and its seat are sticky/not functioning, affecting the float
bowl fuel level in your carburetor.

Lemme think now: On the 240, you have a 1-barrel carb, and there's an
inline fuel filter just ahead of the carb, right?

So there isn't one between the fuel pump and the gas tank, right? Hm, this
would mean that, unless a gum n varnish buildup in the carburetor are to
blame, the next probable cause of this would be some junk in the fuel
line/gas tank from the pump *back*.

The key is to check the fuel system portion by portion, eliminating things
in a stepwise way.

I know how annoying this problem is, cause it's intermittent. When you want
to diagnose it, it disappears for awhile. When you think you've fixed it, it
says "hello". If nothing else, you have my sympathies!


marko in vancouver


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:15:16 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: CALLING ALL CHEMISTS (LONG!)

Marko demanded:
> All right you guys, we've had this discussion before and we're gonna have
> it again, I guess.
>
> About 2 mos ago I posted a question which I got a "shrug of the shoulders"
> kinda response. My question was, my original manual for my 67 says to use
> SAE 50 wt engine oil for the transmission (T-18 and/or 435) and to use it
> also in the transfer case. The manual says to use gear oil in the rearend
> and frontend (mine is a 4x4 obviously). In the winter, it recommends
> changing to 30 weight in both tranny and case.

As does my '70 manual, and the sticker inside the glove box. But alas, my
truck was built in . . . . . Ontario, Canada.

> Now, normally people say to use gear oil in their transes and cases. But
> recently Bill Ballinger said that he let OUT some oil from his 435 and the
> gears don't clash anymore.

Yea, but how many of them LOOK at the manufactures specifications? I remember,
working in a garage a few decades back, having to be very careful. There were
cars that used ATF in manual trannies (Chrysler comes to my fuzzy mind). I
had to read the lube book about the particular car I was servicing before
adding any fluid to rear end or tranny. Can't remember who printed it, but
it had lube specs, and a diagram indicating lube points for most cars / light
trucks.

> My question is, if gear oil was around back then, why didn't they recommend
> it for use in the transfer case/tranny??? Does gear oil, being so thick,
> create some kind of turbulence in the transmission making it not operate
> efficiently? Does gear oil protect better?

Gear oil is designed to protect in extreme pressure situations. Think about
the amount of pressure on a gear tooth transmitting all that torque from your
nice fresh Marauder 410:-). It works great to protect gears under those
conditions, and it will work great in your tranny to protect the gears under
those same conditions. BUT, you have conflicting needs in your trans. Synchros
need friction to operate. If there isn't any friction between the ring & cone,
you can't synchronize the speed of the shifters, then you can't shift except
by luck and/or skill. Stick an extreme pressure oil in your syncros, it makes
shifting tougher. So, a compromise is in order. The gear teeth don't need
all that protection all the time, 99% of the time a trans is in high gear,
locking in and out together. the gears are coasting, only transmitting
enough torque to overcome their own friction. A lighter, non-extreme pressure
lubricant can be used here, which will get forced from contact surfaces in
the syncros. Metal to metal contact then ensures syncro action, one surface
is made of a soft sacrificial metal (brass sync ring) to spare the wear from
the other (possibly more expensive) part.

OK? Sounds good for trannies? Now, lets look at transfer cases. Hmmmm. Kind
of out of my ball park. I've never had one apart, but my baby bronco has one.
My owner guide (1987 Bronco II) specifies - ready for this - DEXRON II. This
is a warner 13-50 case. Ahhhh, but a quick check in my manual reveals an oil
pump is used to lube this unit, driven from the rear shaft. That way the gears
are protected when towing behind your F-250 for long distances. It's really
hard to pump 140 weight oil around a cold transfer case. Different system,
different requirements, different solution.

> What is it about gear oil anyway that makes it stink so bad?

Ahhh, that would be "Eue de Gearoil". That's there to make sure you
take three or four showers before going to bed. Otherwise, you'll end up
on the couch. Unless, of course, you sleep alone anyway:-)

> If it's so good, why don't we run our engines on it?

Again just different requirements, different lube system. Sure, a timing chain/
gearset would benefit from an EP lube, but what about oil consumption? Do you
really want to run an engine with oil that would resist being wiped down off
the cylinders? That is, assuming one could be designed that could be pumped
through the crankshaft at low temperatures.

> Now, don't give me no bunk answer like "oh it is just for ease of shifting
> in winter". There HAS to be a good reason why Ford recommended the engine
> oil for the trans/tcase. And in order to put the winter answer to bed once
> and for all wud someone who lives in the Deep Hot South please check their
> 67-72 manual to see if it also recommends the engine oil.

That would be my bunk answer, and I stand by my bunk! Well, maybe it was poorly
explained bunk. Any syncro tranny will shift easier with lighter oil, thinner
oil for cooler temperatures accomplishes this. As I originally typed, the
sticker on the glovebox states "IF COLD WEATHER HARD SHIFT IS ENCOUNTERED CHANGE
OIL TO WINTER TYPE SAE 30". Cold, thick oil is hard to squeeze out of the syncros.

> I am also interested to find out if thicker oil reduces whine, or not. Cud
> be a myth you know.

I suppose it would depend on the cause of the whine, a heavier oil, provided
it can flow over the teeth properly, should quiet down normal helical gear
noise. Poory meshed worn gear teeth, as in the case of the counter shaft being
worn, probably won't be helped much. As the shaft wears, it allows the cluster
gear to drop away from the mainshaft, accelerating gear wear, more noise, etc,
until the shaft bearings disintegrate.

Hoping this helps,
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:39:42 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PS brackets for 352?

Don Grossman wrote:
> Trs2000 aol.com wrote:
> >
> > I have a 66 352 fe motor in my f100 and I am looking for the ps brackets to
> > complete my conversion. I heard a 390 or 460 pump/brackets should be the
> > same. Does anyone know what year I should look for?

> Look for a pickup with an FE under the hood. The truck brackets are a better
> fit than the car setup if you want to add air conditioning or compressor. Any
> 352, 360, 390 will do.

That's what I did, I just pulled (Well, Steve pulled the brackets,
Thanks Steve!)
everything off a '70 F-100 for my '70 F-250. The bracket numbers are:

C5SA-3D515-A: Main bracket, with pump mount, adjustment slots.
C77A-30511-B: Support bracket.

Both are heavy, cast (iron?/steel?)

Sigh. My steering column is too long :-(. Guess what I'm going to find
next . .

Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:09:34 -0400
From: "Kerry Walker"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - oil in transfer case

Yes, motor oil ! A few years ago I had a '72 GMC Jimmy( 383 Stroker, NP
205 --wish I still had it ). I was at the dealers parts counter getting MORE
parts for it and b.s.ing with one of the mechanics and noticed some kind of
fluids and capacities chart on the counter. Under NP 205 it said to use 40 W
. I asked the mechanic about it and he said the heavier gear oils couldn't
get to the little roller bearings in the case. I went home and put the oil
in it( the previous owner was running 90 W ) and I did notice a slight
increase in power.
I never bothered to check fuel mileage. It was not a daily driver so I
didn't see the point in that. And my old lady hated "that da** peice of sh**
"enough without her knowing it wasted gas money too.

I didn't see anything on the chart about different viscosities for summer
and winter. I ran year round on the 40 W with no problems, but then the
previous owner(s) probably ran it for years with the 90W with no problems.

Has anybody tried to talk to a Ford mechanic about this?



Kerry
netwalker2000 worldnet.att.net

'93 F-350 Crew Cab 7.3
'68 F-100 LWB mongrel rod in the making


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 03:17:51 -0400
From: "Kerry Walker"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - serial numbers

Hey guys,
I went to O'reilly's to pick up stuff for the front end on my'68 F-100.
They had all the suspension stuff and I got it. But when we started looking
up the steering stuff the book started talking about up to this serial
number and after this serial number. What numbers are they talking about and
where are they located at?
I know they are probably just right there under my nose with a big red
flag. So will somebody stop giggling and tell me where they are at?


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 05:07:56 -0500
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Newbie again re: 67 Ford

You wrote:

>Yep, I agree $4,000 is a lot of money, hence my research:-) Thanks so much
for the thoughts so far.

Recently I sold my inspected 1990 3 cylinder Chev Sprint for $1500. That's
as cheap as you will probably get for an inspected car.
Yesterday I saw a For Sale ad on a 69 Chev 3/4 ton, 350 automatic.
65,000 miles. The asking price was $5,800.

Hey, has anyone stopped to question whether these prices are or ?
If they are , then discount them all by 25-30% for US, and they seem not
so bad.

Jim Elliott



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:10:35 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - engine loses power

>
>Lemme think now: On the 240, you have a 1-barrel carb, and there's an
>inline fuel filter just ahead of the carb, right?
>
>So there isn't one between the fuel pump and the gas tank, right? Hm, this
>would mean that, unless a gum n varnish buildup in the carburetor are to
>blame, the next probable cause of this would be some junk in the fuel
>line/gas tank from the pump *back*.
>
>The key is to check the fuel system portion by portion, eliminating things
>in a stepwise way.
>
>I know how annoying this problem is, cause it's intermittent. When you want
>to diagnose it, it disappears for awhile. When you think you've fixed it,
it
>says "hello". If nothing else, you have my sympathies!
>
>
>marko in vancouver
>

The previous owner of my 69 F250 CS had let it sit outside for many years
without any gas caps! After removing the fuel tanks and dumping out what
items I could (sending unit in fragments, and lots of children's toys!), I
decided to have them professionaly cleaned by a local radiator shop. Even
with this having been done, I've still been a bit woried about a dirty fuel
system, so I installed a "transparent" inline fuel filter (Purolator
Pro-Fuel Filter) just before the fuel pump (which has non-transparent
filter) in order to get an idea of the fuel tank (and line) condition.

Trust..... but verify!

Michael

69 F250 360 auto
69 F250 CS 390 4bbl T18 Posi 3.54


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:05:54 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Slapped around

Pat Brown writes: >>and if I make a silly guess Marko will slap me around


Been there - Done that.

Azie
Ardmore, Al


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:08:48 -0400
From: "Jerry"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: RADIATORS - KRAGENS -

> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:29:21 -0700
> From: Pat Brown
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Kragen's, Was: RADIATORS - GETTING CLOSER
>
> Jerry wrote:> > Thanks guys - ...for all that replied with pricing info,
it is much appreciated. If there is one thing I have to do before I
croak.....I have to see one of
these *kragen* stores. incredible prices. Wow !
Can't find any in Florida though.
>
> Large chain out here, aka "Checker Auto Parts", and "Shuck's Auto Supply"
elswhere. Have either of those in fla?

Nope. South Florida is still coming of age. Its apparently not populated
enough with young enough people that can still lift a wrench to work on
their own stuff so no major chains move here. But......if you want parts
for FARM equipment,...whoa..do we have parts places ! ! ! You know...they
say that the Sarasota area is where all the old people go when they retire
to Fla........that is true, but what they don't tell you is their parents
live around here ! ! !
Pep boys must have felt sorry for WPB and just opened up 2 stores here. I
must say...pricing is very decent and is a tiny bit cheaper than anybody I
have nurtured a relationship with in 23 years.......but nothing like
*kragens*.
Jerry
1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW
1970 F100 (ret)

> Pat Brown
> Sebastopol, California

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:19:37 EDT
From: SuperMagot aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine stantions for 1970 F100 (towers)

In a message dated 98-07-21 16:48:15 EDT, you write:


frame) the same for every engine? 302? 460? etc? I'm looking to replace
"custom"
stantions with the correct pieces. If they're different, how do I tell the
difference between them? >>

I also have a 70 F-100 that originally came with a 240 I-6.
I put in a 460 using the same "towers", although I did need to make custom
engine mounts (based upon FE engine mounts).

My understanding that the proper way to put in a 460 is to use 460 specific
towers and mounts, but at the time I didnot have the cash.

So with reasonable certainty I can say that the towers for the 240/300 I6, 302
and FE series are the same on the 70, but you may need to move them back and
forth a little. (Most frames have multiple mounting locations). The 460 can
be made to fit on the same towers, but 460 specific towers should be used.

- - Mike
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:19:00 -0400
From: Benjamin Lange
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Trouble removing fromt axle

I was trying to remove the front driver's side axle from a '77 F250 and
ran into a bit of trouble. Actually the part I am having trouble with
is the component that the wheel bearings ride on. It appears that there
are only five nuts that hold it to the rest of the front wheel assembly
but after removing the nuts this piece will not budge. I tried
penetrating oil, tapping it with hammer and chisel, wheel puller,
all of the above, nothing will move it. As far as I can tell this piece
should just slip off. Am I missing something?
Is there something else I can try? I was told that applying heat could
prove to be counterproductive in that I may crack it. Is this true?
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Ben Lange
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:29:49 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brackets

Trs2000 writes:>> heard a 390 or 460 pump/brackets should be the
same. Does anyone know what year I should look for?

Probably about any year car or truck 390 should work (is same block style)
- - 460 is altoghther different block. Would not think it will work.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:33:58 -0400
From: Joe & Jen DeLaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - found a 79 Bronco for $400 F/S

Anybody need a 79 Bronco for parts??????If so and you live in PA/NJ
I know of one...I need the front axle anybody else need the rest???
for $400 its a deal for parts..let me know

- --
Joe
Aka. Fordguy
1968 F-100 4x4 302 Np435 Bone Stock down to the wheel covers
1970 F-250 4x4 390 Np435 The Beast
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://web.p3.net/~shoman
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:23:32 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - The snowball effect

There have been a couple of posts regarding the cost of restoration, and
I think something has not been mentioned about these spendy projects......
"the snowball effect". Haven't we all started on what was supposed to be a
very simple project, and it ended up being something much more than that?
I started my "simple project" last year by buying a 1969 F250, CS, 390
4bbl, T18, Posi 3.54, pw disc, factory air, dual tanks, and tool box for
$225 (drove it home). I've rebuilt the engine (comp cam+double roller
chain+performance headers), trans, rear end (pinion+ring gear+clutch
plates+all bearings), steering, suspension, brakes, and also replaced many
other parts since that time. The huge stack of receits talley up to over
$6,000 and I haven't even touched the body+paint yet (except for the
floorpans+cabcorners). Of course, while in the middle of all work, I found a
garaged 69 F250 360 auto with dual tanks (passed state emmisions) for $400
(bought it for the fan shroud+other hard to find items). This truck now has
"all new" steering+suspension, power disc brakes (had drums+no booster), and
a rebuilt automatic trans for a total of about $3,000. At least it won't
cost me much to convert the engine over to a 4 barrel, as I have the intake
and the carb allready.
What I really want to do now is get my hands on a mid 70's F250 or F350
4x4 (fully loaded of coarse) and do another restoration (now that I have
lots of tools+time+enough practice). This mid 70's "heavy duty" 4x4 will be
my favorite truck (must have Posi) when I'm done with it. (might go with a
429 cobra jet or 460 roller) What do you think that project will cost?
Heh.... What do you think my gas mileage will be with 370+ horsepower?

Michael

69 F250 360 auto (the power disc brakes are awesome)
69 F250 CS 390 4 bbl T18 Posi 3.54 (as strong+reliable as it is ugly)....

---

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.