61-79-list-digest Thursday, August 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 412



=======================================================================
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 - re:How To Remove Ignition Switch?
Re: FTE 61-79 - That SOB
Re: FTE 61-79 - That SOB
FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
Re: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
FTE 61-79 - Re:
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE 70 F-100
Re: FTE 61-79 - That SOB
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
FTE 61-79 - 70 F-100
FTE 61-79 - Re: that SOB
FTE 61-79 - Mobil 1 - Long WAS: oil
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Universal joints
FTE 61-79 - Hardened valve seats
Re: FTE 61-79 - baling wire
FTE 61-79 - Funny noise
Re: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V
Re: FTE 61-79 - Disk brakes for '61 F-100 2wd
re:Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny Identification
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cosmoline
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE:Mystery Solved-Disaster avoided Now Vacuum tuning.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
FTE 61-79 - RE:Mystery Solved-Disaster avoided Now Vacuum tuning.
[none]
Re: FTE 61-79 - Hardened valve seats
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:58:30 -0500
From: cannandale netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re:How To Remove Ignition Switch?

the way i remember doing it was the same as the last reply, just put the
key in, then the wire in the top little hole, then turn to acc. and
then pull the barrel out..


cannandale


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:21:56 EDT
From: A4T1RAT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - That SOB

where are you located ??
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:35:09 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - That SOB

From: "Ethan Hawke"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - That SOB
Date sent: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:03:29 PDT

> Un fortunately everything good must come to an end.
> My Dad is getting ride of the truck. The junk yard well only give me $50

Location? Where the heck is the truck?

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:41:11 -0400
From: "Parsons, Raymond"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V

My brother in law is rebuilding his 66 352 and is running low on funds.
He has a 500 cfm 2V carb that he is considering using as opposed to
buying a 4V and manifold. I have a 67 352 w/4V and love it. He is
building his almost identical to mine; 10.5:1 pistons, SpeedPro cam
(slightly longer duration than rv cam), race prep on block and heads, ss
valves, high volume oil pump, balanced to within 1 g. He is running out
of funds (SWMBO) and is curious as to whether the 2V will work; it is
going to be used to pull a 6k lb car trailer.
Ray
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:47:17 -0500
From: Jim Pointer
Subject: Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

>Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:47:30 +0000
>From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
>
>From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
>Date sent: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:01:28 EDT
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
>
>> The new Ford engines (4.6,5.4, and the V-10) are all ohc.
>
>So I guess I can't use my Pete Jackson drive on them eh? Does anyone=20
>know EXACTLY why they call them modular? Supposed to utilize some of=20
>the same components, which ones? I can picture tranny flange, oil pan
front=20
>cover, some cylinder heads, maybe pistons or rods???

I think it also refers to the ability to manufacture them with much of
the same
machinery, meaning common bore centers and sizes, things like that,
which
obviously reduces the tooling costs for the whole family of engines.

Jim Pointer

GeoAccess=AE, Inc.
Client Support Team
jimp geoaccess.com
800.678.8737 x231

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:55:07 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

>From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy
>
>snip
>
> I can't think of any engines now days that use over
>head cams except in line 4 and 6 cylinders. All V
>engines I'm familiar with have only one cam in the
>valley which runs both heads through push rods.

Yo Gary:

No way, dude! You haven't been keeping up w/ Ford's products lately, have
you? They don't even make a pushrod engine any more, in any
cylinder/number configuration.

All Ford V6s are OHC now (both double and single), as well as the V8s and
even the glorious Triton V10! The Mustang Cobra has a 4.6L DOHC V8
nowadays.

Dave R. (pushrod M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:04:26 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V

From: "Parsons, Raymond"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V
Date sent: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:41:11 -0400

> My brother in law is rebuilding his 66 352 and is running low on funds. He
> has a 500 cfm 2V carb that he is considering using as opposed to buying a
> 4V and manifold. I have a 67 352 w/4V and love it. He is building his
> almost identical to mine; 10.5:1 pistons, SpeedPro cam (slightly longer
> duration than rv cam), race prep on block and heads, ss valves, high
> volume oil pump, balanced to within 1 g. He is running out of funds
> (SWMBO) and is curious as to whether the 2V will work; it is going to be
> used to pull a 6k lb car trailer. Ray

Number one, he should be using a standard oil pump unless he has race
clearnced the bearings (about 0.003") If he hasn't the relief valve will be
open all the time and eventually cause problems and if he has then he should
be considering 20W50 synthetic race oil to keep the bearings full of oil along
with the hi volume pump. Ask the guys again about plugging the lifter
gallerys on the FE's. I don't recall the procedure off hand but that will go a
lot further to protect the engine than a hi vol pump :-)

The 2v will work fine up to about 5k rpm or so. Cfm only restricts the max
rpm the engine can produce and thus, since HP is a function of speed the HP
as well. It has absolutely no affect on low rpm running torque and in fact
may even increase it over a larger 4v carb depending on primary venturi size
comparison. If he needs to rev the poop out of it in the lower gears to pull
the trailer then he will notice a loss, otherwise no :-) Where you usually see
the difference is passing in a lower gear where the engine needs to run 5-6k
to pass some poop head that wants to race. The extra rev range comes in
handy there :-)

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:27:14 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

From: "Dave Resch"
Date sent: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:55:07 -0600
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

> No way, dude! You haven't been keeping up w/ Ford's products lately, have
> you? They don't even make a pushrod engine any more, in any
> cylinder/number configuration.

MAN! I guess I'm going to have to fill my barn up with REAL engines so I'll
have something to work with when I'm old and grey. I sure don't want to
play with watch parts or buzz saw engines that self destruct in 50k miles.
Too bad they don't have that technology in real engines. Even the V-10 is
only 415 cubes.......they'll have to add two more cylinders before I buy into
it :-) OTOH, they could just bring back the 427 OHC cobra engine. That
might even make a convert out of me (if it had tri power instead of EFI that is
:-))

I know you can make big power with little engines but they just don't have
the same "ear candy" appeal. I was inside my barn when my neighbor's
nephew came over to their house in his 78 bronco (a work in progress, every
body part had a different color) and the ground shook with the resonance of
the 3" pipes that 460 was huffing through. There was absolutely no mistake
that it was a BB. You can really tear up the asphalt on a comosackie 3
cylinder 2 stroke too but it don't have the same gorgeous thumpity thump as
a 1200cc harley.

My daughter's 4.2 V6 has good power for such a small engine but it sounds
like it's going to blow up before the super intellegent, all inspiring computer
tells it to shift(on 3 maybe?) You can't be the boss with these new trannys, it
takes the all intellegent computer a long time to decide if it should give you
permission to run the stupid thing the way you want to. Stomping on the gas
and then letting off won't make it shift, cussing won't make it shift and there's
no shifter to make it go UP into the next gear so you are stuck with the super
intelligent, almighty computer shift pattern. Can you tell I'm in love???

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:49:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

>MAN! I guess I'm going to have to fill my barn up with REAL engines so I'll
>have something to work with when I'm old and grey. I sure don't want to
>play with watch parts or buzz saw engines that self destruct in 50k miles.
>Too bad they don't have that technology in real engines. Even the V-10 is
>only 415 cubes.......they'll have to add two more cylinders before I buy into
>it :-) OTOH, they could just bring back the 427 OHC cobra engine. That
>might even make a convert out of me (if it had tri power instead of EFI
>that is
>:-))

Okay, I was gonna let this pass, but since my other car is a 96 GT Mustang
with the SOHC engine in it, I don't think I can bite my tongue any longer,
so bear with me here.

watch parts or buzz saw engines that self destruct ? I assume you're
talking here about the smaller displacements and such, but have you looked
at the OHC 8's ? The head on my 4.6 is probably twice the size of that on
my truck ... then again I am running an FE so I guess its not a fair
comparison there ... Anyway there's a reason they can rev as high as they
do ... they don't have to worry about throwing all the extra weight from
the rocker arms, lifters and push rods around. This actually makes them
more efficient and provides the same amount of power. Granted they don't
do it from the factory, but when has the factory ever maximized performance
on a full production car (I know I'll get nailed on that, but I follow
Mustangs pretty close and have never seen them maximize in FULL production,
just spinoffs)?
Anyway what was it I saw posted on the Mustang group ... 470 some hp from a
4.6 with 32V and OHC ... okay it was supercharged, but still, the power
potential is there.

One thing I will give you is that the low end torque of the long stroke
engines is not there with these, but if you notice the Lincoln Navigator
seems to have quite a bit of low end with the new 5.4 DOHC engine ....


>
>I know you can make big power with little engines but they just don't have
>the same "ear candy" appeal. I was inside my barn when my neighbor's
>nephew came over to their house in his 78 bronco (a work in progress, every
>body part had a different color) and the ground shook with the resonance of
>the 3" pipes that 460 was huffing through. There was absolutely no mistake
>that it was a BB. You can really tear up the asphalt on a comosackie 3
>cylinder 2 stroke too but it don't have the same gorgeous thumpity thump as
>a 1200cc harley.
>
Okay there's no lope to them, they have this funny computer thing that
causes them to feed all cylinders fairly evenly, but have you heard the new
ones with 3" pipes and no cats ... they're not quiet. How did Old Cars
Weekly put it about the Saleen ... "Its not Ford or Chevy, just nice"


>My daughter's 4.2 V6 has good power for such a small engine but it sounds
>like it's going to blow up before the super intellegent, all inspiring
>computer
>tells it to shift(on 3 maybe?) You can't be the boss with these new
>trannys, it
>takes the all intellegent computer a long time to decide if it should give
>you
>permission to run the stupid thing the way you want to. Stomping on the gas
>and then letting off won't make it shift, cussing won't make it shift and
>there's
>no shifter to make it go UP into the next gear so you are stuck with the
>super
>intelligent, almighty computer shift pattern. Can you tell I'm in love???
>
Aren't learning tranny's fun ... maybe you should unplug the computer for a
few hours (to reset it) then drive it before your daughter does ... maybe
it'll do better for you then ... though she'll probably hate it.

Sorry Gary, I used to feel the same as you, but these new engines are
really a lot nicer than I thought they would be.

Don't knock it til ya tried it

Bill
'96 Mustang GT
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 mutt

either at ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marv Miller
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:

Recently somebody wrote:

>Hi! I am in the process of rebuilding my 240 that has been bored out 60
>over. It is a '67' model and I was just wondering what the best type and
>brand of motor oil to put in it?(I want the engine to last a long time!) I
>live in the Fort Worth, Texas region so it is usually in the 100+'s. Any
>help will be appreciated!

Since this is the middle of the hottest season DFW has seen, use 20W-50
Valvoline Racing oil from the beginning. Change only the filter at 100
miles, and add a quart. Change the oil and filter again at about a thousand
miles.
From there on out, change the oil and filter every three thousand miles, no
matter what, (except using 10W-30 when things get colder). If you keep the
cast-iron mass under about 250 degrees F, the engine should easily last a
hundred thousand miles with no problems that are lubrication related.

- -Marv-

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:14:22 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

Date sent: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:49:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

> Sorry Gary, I used to feel the same as you, but these new engines are
> really a lot nicer than I thought they would be.
>
> Don't knock it til ya tried it

Ok, I'll give you the engines but I don't want any vehicle I can't shift when I
want to.............:-) Mechanical things can be tinkered with till they do what
you want but computers that are sealed and valve bodies that only respond
to computer input will never set right with me, sorry. The old method
worked and worked very, very well. The new method DOES NOT WORK,
period! I haven't had a computer controlled vehicle that I liked yet. They all
want to run 6k rpm in low if you give it any gas at all and when you let off it
just sits there. I can set my C-6 up to bang second IF I want it to AND shift
nice and soft if I want it to on the same setup. You can make a computer
one shift hard or soft but not when you want it to. It's a conspiracy I tell
you.............:-( Give me a vacuum modulator and a mechanical governor any
day :-)

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 16:35:15 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE 70 F-100

Thanks for the advise, I know what you mean regarding the missing or damaged
pieces, seems like everytime I order from Autocrafter's or Mac's something has
been discontinued.. My 72 just seems to suck up the money, its starting to
look good, and I just started working on my 351C-2V.

I want it for a daily driver, my 72 is getting miles on it (20K last year),
and its just about show condition, no use using that except I sure do get alot
of looks...

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:13:03 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - That SOB

At 11:03 AM 8/20/98 PDT, you wrote:
>Hi Everyone
>
>Un fortunately everything good must come to an end.
>My Dad is getting ride of the truck. The junk yard well only give me
>$50 So if anyone needs any thing out of a 76 F250 XLT w/360 C6. let me
>Know. EVERYTHING WORKS. Except the head on the passangers side is
>sqrued up, and the ammeter is not working. cheap
>

Where are you located?



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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:41:14 -0700
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

At 12:55 PM -0600 08/20/98, Dave Resch wrote:

>All Ford V6s are OHC now (both double and single), as well as the V8s and
>even the glorious Triton V10! The Mustang Cobra has a 4.6L DOHC V8
>nowadays.

Nope. Ford actually still makes OHV V6 engines. The 3.8L in the Windstar
and Mustang, the standard 4.0L in the Ranger and Explorer, the 3.0L in the
Taurus, Ranger, and Windstar, and the 4.2L in the F-Series are all still
OHV engines. The 4.0 has spawned a set of SOHC cylinder heads (a la the 427
SOHC) for the mid-line Explorer engine. With this set of heads, it puts out
almost as much power as the top-line 5.0 OHV V8 that is still available on
(only) that truck.

The OHV 5.0L V8 is still available on the Explorer. The Powerstroke Diesel
V8 on the SD F-series is still OHV, and I hear Ford of Europe is still
using a pushrod 4 on its cheaper cars like the Ka.

The pushrod is still around...but its days are definately numbered.

Later,
Rob Bryan


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:45:44 PDT
From: "gene gardner"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 70 F-100

I paid $500 for my 70 F-100 in West Texas -- it had hail damage (dented
hood and roof, cracked windshield) and some rust from sitting (mostly
the bed). It was straight and sound with a rebuilt 240 ci that ran great
until some shadetree wizard left paper towels in the oilpan after a pan
gasket change (I now have a 300). It DOES have a chattering clutch that
I haven't solved yet (see archives) but after spending about $1000 on
replacing parts, mostly as preventative maintenance, I think I've got a
keeper. Oh, I forgot: it's got some front end "wander" with a touch of
wobble. (Guess I've just gotten used to some of these little touches ...
) Bottom line: 950 is in the ballpark, all depends on rust and immediate
repairs. Take a good mechanic with you and pay him to give it the
once-over.

An Aside to REST OF THE LIST: Thanks for all the helpful info ...

Gene Gardner
genegow hotmail.com
Hermosillo, Mexico (by way of West Texas)

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:33:46 -0500
From: lordjanusz juno.com (Paul M Radecki)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: that SOB

Ethan wrote:
>
>Un fortunately everything good must come to an end.
>My Dad is getting ride of the truck. The junk yard well only give me
>$50 So if anyone needs any thing out of a 76 F250 XLT w/360 C6. let me
>Know. EVERYTHING WORKS. Except the head on the passangers side
>is
>sqrued up, and the ammeter is not working. cheap
>

Where do you live, Ethan? (and the FTE vultures descend...)
lordjanusz

'94 F150 (300ci)
'73 F100 (needs a lot of parts...)
'97 Saturn (SWMBO's)

_____________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:38:54 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mobil 1 - Long WAS: oil

At 03:15 AM 8/20/98 , you wrote:
>Date sent: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:11:35 -0500
>From: Mike Schwall
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - oil
>
>> such as Mobil 1 (if you call Mobil 1 a true full synthetic oil). Then
>
>You knew you were going to get this question didn't you? Whatdayamean
>"If"?? I thought it was fully synthetic? Maybe that's why Amsoil is double
>the cost?
>-- Gary --

Yeah, I was waiting for someone to ask this. To make a long boring
technical discussion short, Mobil 1 uses a synthesized hydrocarbon base
(same hydrocarbon base used in regular dino oil, except it was made in a
lab not by nature). "True" synthetic oil uses a diester or polyester
(polymer) base. It's very hard to get technical information on what type
base synthetic manufacturers use. I emailed Mobil 1 and asked if they use
a synthesized hydrocarbon base or a diester base. Below is the reply:
__________
Mr. Schwall,

Thank you for contacting Mobil.

Synthetic motor oil is specially formulated using synthetic base stocks
- - polyalphaolefins and esters.

Polyalphaolefins (PAOs) are made by chemically knitting molecules of
ethylene (2 carbon molecules ) into carbon chains of uniform length and
shape. The PAOs are then combined with an ester (a compound formed from
the reaction of alcohol with certain acids). This results in a lubricant
that remains liquid and slippery under the widest possible range of
engine conditions.

If you have any additional questions, you may contact us at our E-mail
address: lubes ffx.mobil.com or by phone at 1-800-ASKMOBIL.
_________
What gets me is they don't say Mobil 1 uses this base or not, just
"synthetic motor oil..." On the Mobil 1 web site under the Mobil 1 motor
oil heading, they don't disclose the base used. Under the gear oil
heading, however, they disclose they use a synthesized hydrocarbon base.

The only true 100% synthetic diester/polyester (polymer) base oils that I
know of are from NEO, Torco, and Red Line (can be found on their web
sites). That is why they cost more (over $5 more) than regular off the
shelf Mobil 1, Castrol synthetic, Quaker State synthetic, etc. They use a
lower quality synthesized base to keep the cost down so consumers will buy
their "synthetic oil". It is in fact synthetic oil, I'm not saying it's
not, but the point is the quality and type of synthetic base.

I personally use Mobil 1 10W-30. I have no reason to pay the extra money
when I don't need the higher quality oil. I do have NEO 75W-90HD in my new
rear end (new bearings, 3.89:1 gears, and TruTrac), however. I will also
have it in my manual trans after I rebuild it.

Mike

_____________________________________________

Email: mschwall texas.net or mike fordfan.org
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mschwall.home.texas.net
FORD FAN PAGE: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordfan.org

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:46:27 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Universal joints

At 04:09 AM 8/20/98 , you wrote:
>Date sent: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:59:56 -0500
>From: Mike Schwall
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Universal joints
>
>> also broke. Somehow the grooves that hold the ujoint cup retaining clips
>> broke off. It's amazing what a little bailing wire and JB Weld will do in
>> emergencies.
>
>Aren't the grooves in the bearing cups? and then replaced with the new
>Ujoint? I must be picturing the wrong part?

Not in this case. This was the ujoint on the tranny end, not the rearend
end (one piece dirveshaft) The tranny side uses clips to hold the caps in,
the rear ujoint uses the clips and U bolts to hold the caps in. The ujoint
comes with the clips, but the part that broke was the transmision yoke
where the clips go to keep the caps from falling off/out. Cornfusing,
isn't it. :)

Mike

_____________________________________________

Email: mschwall texas.net or mike fordfan.org
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mschwall.home.texas.net
FORD FAN PAGE: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordfan.org

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:47:05 -0500
From: "Oscar Johnson"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hardened valve seats

Hey guys,

I've been on the list for a couple of weeks and have seen some great
information being passed; thanks to all of you for that.

I have a 71 F250 Ranger XLT 2WD CS with 360/C6 that I bought last year
from the original owner with 19,000 miles on it. It looks good with just
some surface scratches on the paint (mostly in the bed); the interior is
spotless with the original upholstery, radio, etc. I only need a rear
bumper, an insert for the tailgate, and probably new paint to get it in
almost new condition.

The factory air works well; the transmission leaks a little, but also
seems to operate fine. I have a question about the engine: since I bought
the truck, I have been adding Bardahl Instead-O-Lead to each 19 gal tank of
89 Octane gas that I put in the truck; the original owner just used regular
unleaded since the time that regular leaded was discontinued. Should I
worry about putting hardened valve seats in or will the heads be ok if I
continue to use the lead additive? The truck just turned 30,000 miles. I
also plan to replace the carburetor later on; is it important that I replace
it with the kind (Autolite I think) that is on it or would one of the
aftermarket ones that Autozone sells be ok?

I drive the truck every day and will probably pull a fifth wheel travel
trailer with it later on. The E-mail on transmission coolers this week was
very helpful since I think I will need one for towing. Thanks again for all
the info.

O.T. Johnson
Prattville,AL

71 F250 Ranger XLT 2WD/CS 360/C6
82 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce (Rustbucket)
92 Volvo 960 (Wife won't let me drive it)

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 17:57:50 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - baling wire

At 08:38 AM 8/20/98 , you wrote:
>Mike writes: >> It's amazing what a little bailing wire and JB Weld will
>do in emergencies.
>
>Where in Gods earth did you find baling wire??? We've been on baling twine
>so long around here that baling wire is extinct. Wish I could find a roll
>of it. That stuff was used to hold everything together around the farm when
>I grew up.
>
>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.

Want a roll? Never seen twine used. All I have seen used in south Texas
is bailing wire.

Mike

_____________________________________________

Email: mschwall texas.net or mike fordfan.org
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mschwall.home.texas.net
FORD FAN PAGE: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordfan.org

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 20:06:57 -0500
From: jedolson juno.com (JOHN E DOLSON)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Funny noise

> > My truck just starting making this kind of funny rattling noise
> > lately. It sound slike two pieces of metal vibrating. At first I
thought
> > it might be a loose exhaust clamp or hanger, but they are all in
place. It
> > happens usually at around 30mph or when I floor the motor. IT also
seems


I have a similar problem on my 1976 F150. On my truck the rattling noise
is the lower rear portion of the front fender, the bolt that connects the
fender to the cab is loose. It could also be that the hood bumpers are
worn or broken causing the hood to vibrate.


_____________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 21:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V

On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Gary, 78 BBB wrote:

> From: "Parsons, Raymond"
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 2V vs 4V
> Date sent: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:41:11 -0400
>
> > My brother in law is rebuilding his 66 352 and is running low on funds. He
> > has a 500 cfm 2V carb that he is considering using as opposed to buying a
> > 4V and manifold. I have a 67 352 w/4V and love it. He is building his
> > almost identical to mine; 10.5:1 pistons, SpeedPro cam (slightly longer
> > duration than rv cam), race prep on block and heads, ss valves, high
> > volume oil pump, balanced to within 1 g. He is running out of funds
> > (SWMBO) and is curious as to whether the 2V will work; it is going to be
> > used to pull a 6k lb car trailer. Ray
>


> The 2v will work fine up to about 5k rpm or so. Cfm only restricts the max
> rpm the engine can produce and thus, since HP is a function of speed the HP
> as well. It has absolutely no affect on low rpm running torque and in fact
> may even increase it over a larger 4v carb depending on primary venturi size
> comparison.

This is an interesting issue. Will a 500 CFM two barrel carb outflow
say, a 600 CFM 4-barrel carb. My understanding is that it probably
would, since 2-barrel carbs are rated at 5" hg, while 4-barrel carbs
are rated at 1.5" hg. Anybody have any real life experiences they
would like to share?

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Disk brakes for '61 F-100 2wd

At 08:58 PM 19/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Was it you who said that you were working on a disk brake conversion for
>the '61 pickup?
>
>Blaine Strong

Yes I am...

Having a little trouble getting disks without the hubs in
the area I live, I'm planning to use the stock hub with the
drum removed, a late model disk, a custom caliper bracket,
and a Ch*vy caliper. I also plan to use a late model master
cylinder, or maybe a hydro boost from a Lincoln.......


Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: re:Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny Identification

>AOD's only fit the small block Windsor(302 and 351) bolt patterns. There is a
>version for the 3.8 V6, but I have never looked at one closely.


That AOD ( 302/351W) will fit the 3.8L, the 300-I6, the late70's
250, and I think the 240-I6 also.....

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cosmoline

>
>JP5 and a rag and brush works wonders too :)
>
>John Miller

So does 1/2 a can of brake kleen.....

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE:Mystery Solved-Disaster avoided Now Vacuum tuning.

>dwell is hard to set on a ford because there is no adjustment door, you have
>to take the cap off and guestimate, trial and error kind of thing? Anyone?
>

Naw, not to difficult, I connect the meter, and just use the
starter to turn the engine with the cap , rotor and plugs
out of the engine. WFM

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eye candy

> You can really tear up the asphalt on a comosackie 3
>cylinder 2 stroke too

My 8 yo nephew at the drags; "That sounds like a dirt bike"
My response "Thats an H3 750 Kawasaki"
9 seconds later I looked at him, his eyes just about fell out.

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 22:58:52 EDT
From: CATLN7 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:Mystery Solved-Disaster avoided Now Vacuum tuning.

>Gary wrote:With points, dwell is controlled by the point gap. As I recall
>dwell is hard to set on a ford because there is no adjustment door, you have
>to take the cap off and guestimate, trial and error kind of thing? Anyone?

That's the method in Chilton's. I've always done it with two screwdrivers
(blade type) and a remote starter switch. Take the distributor cap and rotor
off and place out of the way. Remove the coil to distributor high tension
wire. Connect the dwell meter up to the distributor post on the coil then
ground and power lead if applicable. Connect the remote starter switch. Set
parking brake/block wheels if manual trans then put in neutral, Automatic can
stay in park. Check for any rotating parts that may get you (i.e., cooling
fan, etc..). There will be a notch on the fixed arm of the breaker points and
another notch in the breaker plate the points mount to. That's where the
adjustment screw driver will go. The other screwdriver is used to loosen the
lockscrew just enough so you can move the fixed arm. With the Ignition switch
in the "ON" position, activate the remote starter switch. Adjust the fixed
arm for specified dwell angle then tighten the lockscrew. Reassemble and
double-check while engine is running. You will also have to reset initial
timing after changing dwell angle setting. Don't leave the ignition switch on
any longer than you have to or you may burn-up the points. On the 302 ideal
is about 28 degrees (spec is 24-30 degrees) FE spec is 26-31 degrees. 240/300
sixes spec is 35-40 degrees.

Chris Thompson
67 F100 302/C4 finally!!!
68 Cougar DGS 302/C4
82 Merc LN7 1.6L/4sp
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 23:06:40 -0400
From: pickup65 juno.com (Jon E Purut)
Subject: [none]

Gary, check out

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordworldnews.com/index.html/ford_v10.htm

This is a Ford World News site that shows how a V10 is assembled. It also
tells a little about the modular concept.

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 I like this truck
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: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 23:31:20 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Hardened valve seats

At 05:47 PM 8/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey guys,
>
> I've been on the list for a couple of weeks and have seen some great
>information being passed; thanks to all of you for that.
>
> I have a 71 F250 Ranger XLT 2WD CS with 360/C6 that I bought last year
>from the original owner with 19,000 miles on it. It looks good with just
>some surface scratches on the paint (mostly in the bed); the interior is
>spotless with the original upholstery, radio, etc. I only need a rear
>bumper, an insert for the tailgate, and probably new paint to get it in
>almost new condition.

Nice ride.

>
> The factory air works well; the transmission leaks a little, but also
>seems to operate fine. I have a question about the engine: since I bought
>the truck, I have been adding Bardahl Instead-O-Lead to each 19 gal tank of
>89 Octane gas that I put in the truck; the original owner just used regular
>unleaded since the time that regular leaded was discontinued. Should I
>worry about putting hardened valve seats in or will the heads be ok if I....


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.