61-79-list-digest Thursday, August 6 1998 Volume 02 : Number 394



=======================================================================
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 - ADMIN: Change of policy with email addresses
FTE 61-79 - "63 292 Engine Color
FTE 61-79 - RE: PS - box interchange
FTE 61-79 - Re: IN-CAB FUEL TANK PROBLEMS
FTE 61-79 - re:CHROME PLATING ON PLASTIC PARTS
[none]
FTE 61-79 - Brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
FTE 61-79 - FE heads
FTE 61-79 - Deals
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
FTE 61-79 - Color
FTE 61-79 - Fuel starvation
FTE 61-79 - mixed bag
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
Re: FTE 61-79 - Deals
Re: FTE 61-79 - Brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
Re: FTE 61-79 - Brakes
FTE 61-79 - 76 F250
Re: FTE 61-79 - mixed bag
Re: FTE 61-79 - 76 F250
FTE 61-79 - PS BOX INTERCHANGE
FTE 61-79 - Seat belts
FTE 61-79 - engine swaping
Re: FTE 61-79 - mixed bag
Re: FTE 61-79 - Seat belts
FTE 61-79 - yet another PS question
FTE 61-79 - New Jersey new lift law, final version (LONG)
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
Re: FTE 61-79 - yet another PS question

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 00:50:06 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Change of policy with email addresses

Concerning the email sent out last week about the sale of
email accounts on FTE:

Business accounts will **not** be available. A business
with " ford-trucks.com" as part of its address implies
that FTE is part of that business. Imagine what would
happen to FTE's name if a business with our site address
started screwing customers!

Regards,
Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 03:14:00 PDT
From: "David Thornton"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - "63 292 Engine Color

Thanks for the responses to my question. The Ford Red valve covers and
intake with an unpainted block sounds right to me. Unless anyone here
has more information I'll go that way. I've owned this truck since the
mid 1970's and the color was a reddish-orange top-end with an unpainted
block when I bought it. The oil-bath air cleaner is black and appears
original. The cover of the valve covers and intake appear to almost be
Chevy Orange. Could the original Ford color have this much orange in
it? Anyone else have any more information on this or on any other
under-hood detailing?

Thanks Again,

Dave T.

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

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

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 23:14:16 -0400
From: pickup65 juno.com (Jon E Purut)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: PS - box interchange


from 73-79
interchange with the one on my '69?>>>>>


Yes it will but you will need to change to a shorter steering column
also. I took the power steering box off my 1977 F150 and put it on my
1965 F100. It was a bolt in operation.

Jon E. Purut
Pickup65 juno.com
JCPurut worldnet.att.net
Visit my site http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~JCPurut

1964 F500 Face lift in progress
1965 F100 Taking off the road for engine swap
1965 F100 Lots of pieces
1977 F150 On the road again
1970 Mustang Fastback


_____________________________________________________________________
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, 4 Aug 1998 23:26:17 -0400
From: pickup65 juno.com (Jon E Purut)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: IN-CAB FUEL TANK PROBLEMS


the fuel pickup tube in an in-cab tank on 68-72's plugging up somehow>>>>

(snippage)

Jerry that may be me. Following is a copy of my post:

On my 65 F100 the behind the seat gas tank sprung a leak. I replaced it
with a tank that I got from the junk yard. I started having the same
problems you describe immediately after the change so I knew the problem
was the junk yard tank. I drained the tank then took it out for a better
inspection. I flushed it out with water from a garden hose and everything
looked nice and clean inside. When I tried to force water down the pickup
tube it would not flow into the tank like I expected. The pickup tube was
clogged. I attached a length of flexible but strong wire to a drill and
ran it up and down inside the tube to clean it out. I got quite a bit of
gunk out and noticed some of the crud was like a fiberglass filter
material. Ford must have put a filter packing in the end of pickup tube
to help strain the fuel. Unfortunately the tube is spot welded in place
so it can not be removed to clean. This could be your problem.

Hope this helps

Jon E. Purut
Pickup65 juno.com
JCPurut worldnet.att.net
Visit my site http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~JCPurut

1964 F500 Face lift in progress
1965 F100 Taking off the road for engine swap
1965 F100 Lots of pieces
1977 F150 on the road again
1970 Mustang Fastback



_____________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 9:27:45 +0000
From: tfmf211 murphyfarms.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:CHROME PLATING ON PLASTIC PARTS

The only company that I know that replates plastic parts and details them is

MR. G's Fasteners out of Texas. I currently don't have a URL (if they have
one)
or thier address. I'll try and find it again and post it.

They rechromed and detailed my A/C registers and speedo surround in my
'70 Torino GT. I was happy with the work.

Later,

-Ted

_______________
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: CHROME PLATING ON PLASTIC PARTS
> Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 10:30 PM
>
> I seem to remember a very long time ago reading something about the
bright metal chrome plating on plastic dash parts , but I guess I wasn't
paying enough time reading it at the time to remember any of it.
> Is there a way to re-new this plating ? Has anyone found a
company that
> will put on a new coating ? I thought for sure Eastwood would have
> something but their catalog doesn't show it.
> If there is no replating, is there anything else one could do
to make it
> shiny again ??
>
> Jerry
> 1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW
> 1970 F100 (ret)
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 9:27:44 +0000
From: tfmf211 murphyfarms.com
Subject: [none]

> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: CHROME PLATING ON PLASTIC PARTS
> Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 10:30 PM
>
> I seem to remember a very long time ago reading something about the
bright metal chrome plating on plastic dash parts , but I guess I wasn't
paying enough time reading it at the time to remember any of it.
> Is there a way to re-new this plating ? Has anyone found a
company that
> will put on a new coating ? I thought for sure Eastwood would have
> something but their catalog doesn't show it.
> If there is no replating, is there anything else one could do
to make it
> shiny again ??
>
> Jerry
> 1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW
> 1970 F100 (ret)
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:08:55 -0400
From: bymybrick juno.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brakes

I have a '73 F-250. The front disc brakes do not seem to be braking with
the rear drums. In reverse braking on a dirt path, the back wheels will
slide, but not the front. I have replace the master cylinder, bled all
the lines, and everything seems to be in working order. I just do not
have the stopping power that I should have, especially when pulling my
boat. Could the problem be in the proportioning valve? As far as I can
tell, that has never been changed.
Thanks
John
Buy brick and save trees!

_____________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:42:53 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

>Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 13:13:12 -0400
>From: luxjo thecore.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Valley pan intake gasket/factory cam psecs
>
> Also, the 78, 351M factory cam specs are
>
>Lobe lift .235 I/E
>Theortical valve lift at zero lash- .4065 I/E
>
>How do I compare this to aftermarket cam spec's?

Yo OX:

According to the Monroe book, the cam specs you gave are for a 351M car
cam. The 351M truck cam should have 0.250" lobe lift (I&E) and 0.433" lift
at the valve.

You can compare the lift on aftermarket cams to the lift on the factory
spec cam, but without knowing the lobe duration of the factory cam (which I
can't find any definitive specs for, either), it's pretty hard to make an
apples-to-apples comparison. As Sleddog said, duration is a more
significant comparison of the performance characteristics of different
cams.

The only duration info I have been able to dig up on factory cams is from
an old Crane catalog where they listed a stock replacement for the
D4AZ-6250-A cam (which was used in mid-late '70s 400s in cars). The Crane
specs are 192/198 degrees 0.050" lift, 0.427"/0.433" gross lift, 110 deg.
lobe separation. Even the mildest aftermarket "performance" cams have more
duration than this!

The cam that Hot Rod claimed to use in their 400 build-up was the Comp Cams
Xtreme Energy 268 (part #32-000-5). Specs were cited as 224/230 degrees
0.050" lift, 0.524"/0.529" gross lift, 110 deg. lobe separation. This must
be a new product because my 1997 Comp catalog shows no Xtreme Energy cams
for the M-block engines.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 14:55:27 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

Dave Resch wrote:
>

> > Also, the 78, 351M factory cam specs are
> >
> >Lobe lift .235 I/E
> >Theortical valve lift at zero lash- .4065 I/E
> >
> >How do I compare this to aftermarket cam spec's?
>
> Yo OX:
>
> According to the Monroe book, the cam specs you gave are for a 351M car
> cam. The 351M truck cam should have 0.250" lobe lift (I&E) and 0.433" lift
> at the valve.
>

I have the Ford 78 truck shop manual and thats what they list?? The
Hanes Ford truck manual I have lists the ".433" lift for a 78, 400 and
the 79 351M/400. It lists the 78 351M as having the smaller cam. It's
out now, so I guess I can mike it :-).

> You can compare the lift on aftermarket cams to the lift on the factory
> spec cam, but without knowing the lobe duration of the factory cam (which I
> can't find any definitive specs for, either), it's pretty hard to make an
> apples-to-apples comparison. As Sleddog said, duration is a more
> significant comparison of the performance characteristics of different
> cams.
>

I ended up getting the Crane Powermax with these specs

adv dur dur .050 Gross lift RPM range

260/272 204/216 .493/.524 1500-4500


I picked it cause it had the lowest operating range of any cam.


> The only duration info I have been able to dig up on factory cams is from
> an old Crane catalog where they listed a stock replacement for the
> D4AZ-6250-A cam (which was used in mid-late '70s 400s in cars). The Crane
> specs are 192/198 degrees 0.050" lift, 0.427"/0.433" gross lift, 110 deg.
> lobe separation. Even the mildest aftermarket "performance" cams have more
> duration than this!
>
> The cam that Hot Rod claimed to use in their 400 build-up was the Comp Cams
> Xtreme Energy 268 (part #32-000-5). Specs were cited as 224/230 degrees
> 0.050" lift, 0.524"/0.529" gross lift, 110 deg. lobe separation. This must
> be a new product because my 1997 Comp catalog shows no Xtreme Energy cams
> for the M-block engines.
>

Sounds like a lot of duration for that lift, but what do I know???


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:11:18 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE heads

Steve D writes: >>Early ('65 and earlier?) 352 heads have the larger
ports, just
like the 428CJ heads. They can be dressed with the larger CJ valves
to create 428CJ style heads on a budget.
I have an excellant article submitted to Fordnatics by Dave Schouweiller
a couple years ago on FE heads. I tried to contact Dave about a year ago
to get permission to repost the article to Fordtrucks, but wasn't able
to get hold of him, so I'm rather hesitant to repost the article to the
list...
If You would like a copy of his very good article, let me know and I'll
send You a copy privately.

I wasn't the one you were writing to, but you sure stirred my interest. I
have a 391 FT short block that is rather well worn, and have been wondering
what I might do with it. I'm told it will bore to the 428/406 bore
(4.130"). I also have access to three sets of '64/'65 352 heads, Now all
I need is the crank assy and pistons. which I just might can afford.

Please send me a copy privately: AM14 chrysler.com

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:16:05 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Deals

Tim writes: >>I bought the trans. yesterday but haven't taken the cover
off yet
shifts in/out of each gear and spins free
but like I said badly needs front bearing
I guess for $50.00 I can't complain if its a 3+1 or
straight 4.

Ever since I bought my 66 f100 running for $450
the deals just keep comin, I'm not complaining

Tim Sherva

Just where the heck do you live??????? Might I come visit?????? I just
might want some of these "deals" also. If you run across any "deals" you
aren't interested in, please share.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:19:19 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

From: luxjo thecore.com
Date sent: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 14:55:27 -0400
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

> I picked it cause it had the lowest operating range of any cam.

I was thinking this way too for a while but after discussing it on the lists and
reading a bit more about cam specs and how they affect the engine
performance I've come to the conclusion that, as sled dog has said that you
can usually go a bit bigger than the range you think you want because the
other stuff you do to the engine to perk it up will give you so much torque
you will still have plenty at the low end even though, relative to the max
output you won't be pulling very hard. It will still be pulling harder than the
stock engine in most cases unless you get really crazy.

My regret is that the torque cam won't let the engine rev so in second gear
I'm limited to about 75 or 80 mph which is not fast enough when some yo yo
is trying to race you when you pass him. I have an unfortunate stubborn
streak in me that won't allow someone to dictate to me how fast or slow I
drive, that's for me to decide and if you get in my way I'll pass you or run
you off the road depending on how low my blood sugar happens to be at the
moment so my next build will have much more top end for sure. Won't use
it much but it will be there if I need it. I will say that in the last 4 or 5 years
driving 60 miles round trip 6-7 days per week I have only had this problem a
few times but that was a few too many to suit me :-)

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:21:56 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Color

Jerry writes: >>Hey Guys -
> I hear what you are saying but...... what do the show trucks use as a
color or finish when they are being judged in a show?
> ( Is there such a thing as a truck show ? ? ?)

Personal taste I guess. I would try to keep it natural, and just a couple
of weeks ago I saw some paint that was "cast iron" color. Can't remember
the particulars, but I tried it on something (just a tad) and sure enough
it looked like new cast iron.

There are such things as truck shows. Pigeon Forge, for instance was
something to behold.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:29:54 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Fuel starvation

Jerry writes: >>Some time ago, someone wrote to advise of a problem with
the fuel pickup tube in an in-cab tank on 68-72's plugging up somehow.
If you're still out there, I would like to know if you ever got it
unplugged and/or how you solved the problem.
I think I have the same problem but mine only occurs when you let the
tank
run down near empty. Fill it up , then it runs OK.

You just might have a pinhole in the pickup tube a few inches above the
bottom and letting it suck air when it gets low of fuel.

Just another idea!!!

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:35:11 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - mixed bag

Bob writes: >> Much
to his suprise, there were not two bearings the same size on
any of the mains. I think he had something like .009 to .022
bearings. The .022 even eliminated it from being used for a
core on a re-ground crank.

I'd be surprised too. I'd probably have heart failure. This is
ridiculous. Not saying it isn't so, but am saying it is ridiculous. There
must be some standard somewhere - even for the General.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:37:12 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:
>
> From: luxjo thecore.com
> Date sent: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 14:55:27 -0400
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs
>
> > I picked it cause it had the lowest operating range of any cam.
>
> I was thinking this way too for a while but after discussing it on the lists and
> reading a bit more about cam specs and how they affect the engine
> performance I've come to the conclusion that, as sled dog has said that you
> can usually go a bit bigger than the range you think you want because the
> other stuff you do to the engine to perk it up will give you so much torque
> you will still have plenty at the low end even though,

Keep in mind, I will be running 35's on the street and 44's offroad with
3.5 gears. I don't think reving to high is gonna be a problem:-). 44's
are 50% larger than the 30's it came with stock, hence my new gear ratio
is an effective 2.33:1. Good thing for that 6.68 first gear. 4th gear
will be an .67 overdrive with the 44's.


> My regret is that the torque cam won't let the engine rev so in second gear
> I'm limited to about 75 or 80 mph which is not fast enough when some yo yo
> is trying to race you when you pass him.

I won't have that problem, I'll just drive over him ;-)

I have an unfortunate stubborn
> streak in me that won't allow someone to dictate to me how fast or slow I
> drive, that's for me to decide and if you get in my way I'll pass you or run
> you off the road depending on how low my blood sugar happens to be at the
> moment

Man after my own heart, hehehehe!!!

so my next build will have much more top end for sure. Won't use
> it much but it will be there if I need it. I will say that in the last 4 or 5 years
> driving 60 miles round trip 6-7 days per week I have only had this problem a
> few times but that was a few too many to suit me :-)

When you up for retirement?


OX


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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:43:23 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Deals

> Just where the heck do you live??????? Might I come visit?????? I just
> might want some of these "deals" also. If you run across any "deals" you
> aren't interested in, please share.
>

I did pretty good this year. Got an extra T-18/NP205 for 125$ and 2
Dana 60 fronts for 400$. Also found an awsome U-pull-it place where all
rears are 60$.


OX

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:06:41 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Brakes

From: bymybrick juno.com
Date sent: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:08:55 -0400
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brakes

> I have a '73 F-250. The front disc brakes do not seem to be braking with
> the rear drums. In reverse braking on a dirt path, the back wheels will
> slide, but not the front. I have replace the master cylinder, bled all the
> lines, and everything seems to be in working order. I just do not have

With an empty pickup truck I would expect the rear end to lock up first due
to being lighter. If you adjust the braking so that the rear end doesn't lock up
on dirt empty you will have no rear braking at all on pavement with a heavy
load. You have to find a good compromise. Do you have a hard pedal with
reasonable free play? The proportioning valve could be bad but the front
end may still have some air in it too. My 78 trucks are the hardest to bleed
I've ever dealt with and if the master cylinder has air in it you will really have
problems. This seems to be the hardest part to get bled. If both caliper
pistions move freely and with roughly the same effort then I'd guess air in
front lines or proportioning valve. I had a tight piston on one side and it
definitely made it pull hard to the other side since that piston didn't move as
much or as easily.

I put an after market valve on mine which is adjustable but still haven't found
the right spot to make it brake well on all surfaces. This morning coming to
work through some construction one tire seemed to be on something
slippery and locked up with very little effort but the others weren't slowing
me down much as I approached a traffic light. Pumping didn't help so I just
kept it down and woke up all the neighbors with one squalling tire. I'll play
with the valve a bit tonight and let you know how it comes out :-)


Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 16:11:28 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

From: luxjo thecore.com
Date sent: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 15:37:12 -0400
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

> When you up for retirement?

Could have retired 3 years ago but I have too many toys, bills, family
members (two are women)........may not ever retire :-( If I ever do though
you will all be seeing me at some point cuz I'm going to make it to Moab and
Pigeon Forge and that swap thing in Penn and........:-)

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:50:41 -0500
From: "casper.ghost"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Brakes

I have seen the proportioning valve cause simular problems.

Keith
- -----Original Message-----
From: bymybrick juno.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 12:22 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brakes


>I have a '73 F-250. The front disc brakes do not seem to be braking with
>the rear drums. In reverse braking on a dirt path, the back wheels will
>slide, but not the front. I have replace the master cylinder, bled all
>the lines, and everything seems to be in working order. I just do not
>have the stopping power that I should have, especially when pulling my
>boat. Could the problem be in the proportioning valve? As far as I can
>tell, that has never been changed.
>Thanks
>John
>Buy brick and save trees!
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>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

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 19:01:23 -0500
From: "casper.ghost"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 76 F250

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_008D_01BDC0A3.70B8BF80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have a 76 F250 with a 460 engine. I have put P275 70/16 tires all =
around. The truck road walked slightly before, but is very bad now. The =
only thing I can think of is the caster angle, but there is no way to =
change it( very easily). Any suggestions?

FYI, I put this F250 on a 79 F150 short frame, with everything but the =
frame and bed coming from the F250. It road walked before the =
transition, so that doesn't appear to be a problem.

Keith

- ------=_NextPart_000_008D_01BDC0A3.70B8BF80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






http-equiv=3DContent-Type>



I have a 76 F250 with a 460 engine. =
I have put=20
P275 70/16 tires all around. The truck road walked slightly before, but =
is very=20
bad now. The only thing I can think of is the caster angle, but there is =
no way=20
to change it( very easily). Any suggestions?
 
FYI, I put this F250 on a 79 F150 =
short frame,=20
with everything but the frame and bed coming from the F250. It road =
walked=20
before the transition, so that doesn't appear to be a =
problem.
 
Keith

- ------=_NextPart_000_008D_01BDC0A3.70B8BF80--

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 19:03:48 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - mixed bag

>Bob writes: >> Much
>to his suprise, there were not two bearings the same size on
>any of the mains. I think he had something like .009 to .022
>bearings. The .022 even eliminated it from being used for a
>core on a re-ground crank.
>
..........

>I'd be surprised too. I'd probably have heart failure. This is
>ridiculous. Not saying it isn't so, but am saying it is ridiculous. There
>must be some standard somewhere - even for the General.
>
>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.
>
..........


When I disassembled my 390 for rebuild, I noticed the main bearing caps
had 2 sets of numbers stamped into them (one large, and one small). After
installing fresh bearings on the caps (+ fresh crankshaft), It was
impossible to reassemble exactly as it was disassembled. It was a perfect
fit when I switched the cap locations around to the "other set of numbers",
which pointed all arrows in the same direction.
Is this a common practice to switch cap positions (and reverse direction
of arrow) in order to compensate for worn crankshaft + bearings? That is the
reason for the "jumbled up caps" (2 sets of numbers + reversed arrows),
isn't it?

Michael
SLC, Utah

69 F250 360 auto
69 F250 390 T18 Posi 3.54


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 21:36:38 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 76 F250

I would love to offer an opinion, but "road walked" is a term I don't
understand. Please explain with a bit more detail.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:02:37 -0400
From: "Jerry"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - PS BOX INTERCHANGE

> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:00:59 EDT
> From: CATLN7 aol.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 61-79 - PS - box interchange
>
> >Hopefully a simple one: Will the Ford integral power steering box from
73-79
> >interchange with the one on my '69?
>
> Yes, if you have 2WD.

I can second this too. 75 worked on my 69 F350.
Jerry
1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW
1970 F100 (ret)


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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 00:51:40 -0400
From: Mike and Colleen
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Seat belts

I just purchased a 1970 F-100 that has no seatbelts in it. I would
really like to put 3 point belts in and was wondering if anyone here
has done this, or has any good ideas. Thanks in advance.

Mike Gast


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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 08:21:59 -0400
From: Roy Pringle
Subject: FTE 61-79 - engine swaping

On a 1979 F-250 4X4 what would u have to change to put a 460 in
place of a 351 or 302??? Is it possible to put a AOD
transmission behind the 460???

Da_Fixer

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:04:22 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - mixed bag

From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - mixed bag
Date sent: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 19:03:48 -0600

> When I disassembled my 390 for rebuild, I noticed the main bearing
> caps
> had 2 sets of numbers stamped into them (one large, and one small). After
> installing fresh bearings on the caps (+ fresh crankshaft), It was
> impossible to reassemble exactly as it was disassembled. It was a perfect
> fit when I switched the cap locations around to the "other set of
> numbers", which pointed all arrows in the same direction.

Rod caps generally have numbers stamped into them but main caps ganerally
have them embossed in the casting process. When they are machined they
are bolted in place and align honed to ensure perfect alignment and after that
must be put back in the same location and in the same orientation or the
bores won't match up. I'm not sure what you encountered but the embossed
numbers should go from front to back in numerical order with arrows
pointing to the front of the engine based on the ones I've looked at. I can't
imagine why they would mix them up since it almost guarantees that the bore
edges will not match exactly??

Greed is the Creed of the Breed
that did away with the Steed
Visteon, Delphi..........:-(

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 09:10:28 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Seat belts

Please let me know, I would like to also put some in my 72', I have a 76 that
I'm parting out and it doesn't look like they will mount right, the upper
attachment is bolted into a recessed hole..


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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:34:14 -0500
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - yet another PS question

Thanks to all who offered response on my problem of the power steering
driving wheels to the right side. (69-F-100, FE block). I think it was Phil
who suggested the need for a different shim for the spool valve.
Well, I rebuilt the box, ($32 for seal kits from Ford, no, you cannot
buy the shim separately, or apparently at all, now) and it appears that the
shim was the key, that someone had been in it before, and the (2-notch) shim
was placed on the wrong side of the input shaft bearing to have any effect.
I could not get a clear diagram, but noodled it out by passing low-pressure
air through the ports, and using a strip of aluminum foil to indicate flow,
putting the shim in different positions, till the flow appeared about equal.
It seems to have worked, the wheels do not drive to either side now when
running, wheels off the ground. I do have a different symptom though, a
"jerkiness" to the power steering as you turn through the travel (wheels on
the ground, both directions). I tried the normal, check belt tension, system
appears to be well-bled, no foaming, etc. I relieve some of the pressure on
the sector shaft adjustment screw, and it seems to have helped some, but not
entirely (did not have any specs on this setting for reassembly).
Comments or suggestions?

One other curiosity, when I pulled the box out, it appears someone had it
out before (probably why shim was in wrong side) and when they put it in,
had crushed the fuel line and the left front brake line between the bracket
and the frame, not tucking the lines into the recess like they should. The
brakes seem to work fine, so I left that alone as I intend to do the disc
conversion in the future (why change it twice?) but calculated that the fuel
line was down to about 20% of its original interior cross section. Figuring
that though the truck seemed to run fairly well, this must still have some
affect, I spliced in a new fuel line, making sure that I tucked it in
properly and did not crush it. Now I have apparently less fuel flowing in
the filter than before. Go figure.

Jim Elliott



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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 10:01:36 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New Jersey new lift law, final version (LONG)

The first revision to New Jersey's lift laws is here. It is not what the
state wanted, but they have there foot in the door.


Under Provision of NJAC 13:20-37.3

Under 4 inch lift, no tilt test/susp inspection needed. Total lift
includes lift from tires, suspension, and body lift combined.

1. Steering ratio must be stock and total steering must be within 1/2 a
turn of original specs

2. Headlights between 22" and 54"
(spec says all lighting equip shall meet the Society of Automotive
Engineers. Not sure if you can use Headlights in bumper, or something
like that)

3. Taillights between 15" and 72"

4. Offroad lights must be covered on road.

5. Lisc plate must be 12"-48" off ground

6. Brake lines must be protected from heat, vibration, schafing, ect..
and must be protected from being ripped off truck (SS bake lines are
illegal, even if DOT approved).

7. Bumpers must be 16" or higher (unless lower from the factory,
ie; sports cars) and extend the full width of vehcile.

(NJ has reserved judgment on bumper heights and widths until American
Association of Motor Vehcile Administrators, Model bumper height
regulation is finshed being revised. Original proposal had bumper
heights of 24" or factory, whichever was lower. I expect this bumper
height part will find it's way into the law real soon, as this part of
it is the "saftey monitors" biggest gripe).

8. Max tire dia will be 38" (actual measurment at manufacter's pressure
rating) or 6 in bigger than stock, which ever is less. (35's, possibly
36's are the biggest for bronco's)

9. All tirs must be the same size. Front tires must be 60% tread width
of rear tires. (contradictory, no???)

10. Front fenders must cover tread. Rear flaps must be in accordance
with SAE standard J682. ( I think this means 15 degrees up from back of
tire must be covered by mud flap).

11. Exposed fuel tanks must be encased.

12. Exposed exhaust systems components and any moving parts must be
sheilded.

13. Ballast must be securley fastened.

14. Releasing steering wheel in a sharp turn must sahll result in an
increase radius turn.

15. spacers to increase track width are prohibited.

16. Max lift heights

GVWR -4500 lbs 7" over orig veh height. (measured at bottom of door to
ground, supposedly, 20 or 22 inches was stock on 78 bronco, inspection
station not sure of ruling yet) .

GVWR 4500-7500 9" over orig veh height.
GVWR 7500-10000 11" over orig veh height.

17. No blocks in front suspension


As I have previously stated, NJ wanted plus or minus an inch. This is
what they settled on so they would not get an uproar. Eventually, my
guess is, you will see NO lifts in NJ if YOU!! don't start contacting
your legislators. I'm not talking calling or writing. I mean go talk to
the guy/gal. Interupt their busy day ;-). Ask them what they are doing
to repeal this. Information for this rule was gathered from the State of
Virginia and the NHTSA, but neither has proposed the strict new lift
laws that NJ has adopted.

James Oxley (OX)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 10:05:56 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block factory cam specs

I measured the cam lobe last night from the 78 351M. It was 1.665 on
lobe and 1.435, 90 degrees to lobe or a difference of .230. So I guess
78, truck 351M's had car cam.


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

------------------------------....


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.