61-79-list-digest Wednesday, September 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 459



=======================================================================
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:different axle ratios
FTE 61-79 - Re: Torque converter
FTE 61-79 - Re: rebuild dry
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: rebuild dry
FTE 61-79 - Assembly lube, rings, abrasives

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:29:06 PDT
From: "bill comstock"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:different axle ratios

just wondering; how can the axle ratios be that different without some
fancy transfer case/tire size alterations (i know ive seen some
combinations like higher ratio front and higher flotation tires for mud
running, but they would tear u-joints on hard ground or pavement due to
uneven torque)
interested to know how driveable truck is

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:35:23 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Torque converter

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, am14 chrysler.com wrote:
>
> Bill Hart writes: >>Anyway I was wondering if you were all running stock
> converters, or higher stall speeds or what, I've seen a lot and read a lot,
> but still not sure what's best.
>
> For mostly stock usage a hi-stall converter is worthless. They are for the
> Drag racer and maybe the rock crawlers. The stock converter is sufficient
> for normal heavy duty useage.

I thought the rock crawlers also wanted a very low stall convertor? So
that if they have to use power to get over something their engine RPM
doesn't have to come up and they go rocketing off the other side into a
tree or something...

I'd like to know because I intend to build one someday.

Now the mud boggers I can see using high stall...

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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:41:30 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: rebuild dry

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, "Bill Beyer" wrote:
>
> Well the bearings better NOT move inside the rods or caps, but as far as
> "dry installation" goes I was strictly referring to the rings & cylinder
> walls. Conventional wisdom does say that too much lube in the cylinders can
> prolong the time it takes the rings to seat and sometimes prevent it
> completely necessitating another teardown.

Now I'd have to say I disagree here because as soon as you fire it up,
if all is well and you have prelubed with a drill motor or something,
within a few revolutions plenty of oil is going to be flying off the
crank and into the bores. Everything I have seen says not to use
assembley lube in the bores because it is too slick, made more for cams,
but to use motor oil instead. My preference is to use assembley lube
for everything but the bores which recieve motor oil.

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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 01:26:17 -0500
From: "Dennis Witthuhn"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: rebuild dry

have you thought about using motor assembly lube (a white grease) or stp oil
treatment? i have used the stp to build several engines and have never had
any problems and it doesn't drain off like motor oil will
- -----Original Message-----
From: Vogt Family
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 12:51 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: rebuild dry


>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, "Bill Beyer" wrote:
>>
>> Well the bearings better NOT move inside the rods or caps, but as far as
>> "dry installation" goes I was strictly referring to the rings & cylinder
>> walls. Conventional wisdom does say that too much lube in the cylinders
can
>> prolong the time it takes the rings to seat and sometimes prevent it
>> completely necessitating another teardown.
>
>Now I'd have to say I disagree here because as soon as you fire it up,
>if all is well and you have prelubed with a drill motor or something,
>within a few revolutions plenty of oil is going to be flying off the
>crank and into the bores. Everything I have seen says not to use
>assembley lube in the bores because it is too slick, made more for cams,
>but to use motor oil instead. My preference is to use assembley lube
>for everything but the bores which recieve motor oil.
>
>Birken
>== 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, 23 Sep 1998 01:04:58 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Assembly lube, rings, abrasives

Well, while we're all at it, I might as well throw in my $.02 also...

Assembly lube: I had the good fortune to work with a man for a couple
years who was a most excellent diesel mechanic. He also had a big fondness
for mopar hemis and built some very fast rides.
His favorite assembly lube for fresh engines was 20 or 30 weight 2-stroke
motorcycle oil. 2-stroke oil is sticky enough to stay on moving parts long
enough to protect until the engine oil can get circulated to all the parts.
It provides good lubrication at much higher temps than regular motor oil.
It's light weight enough to wash out easily and completely once the motor
oil starts circulating around. It leaves less deposits in the combustion
chamber when it burns out than regular motor oil does.

I've rebuilt a dozen or more industrial diesels, maybe 40-50 industrial gas
engines, and a bunch of automotive gas engines using 2-stroke oil for lube
and I've always had good success with it...
I shy away from using any grease type lubricants on stuff because it doesn't
always wash out nicely and dissolve and can end up as little hardened heat
baked
lumps that plug up little oil passages.
The only exception to the grease is the special cam assy lube that usually
comes with a new cam. Gotta use the right lube on that cam...

Cast vs Moly rings: Chrome moly rings are harder than cast iron and will
usually last longer in a new engine. I always use chromoly rings when I put
a fresh motor together. But... it may not be a good idea to put chrome moly
rings in a used engine that isn't being bored out. Chrome moly rings can take
a *very* long time to seat correctly in a cylinder that is out of round or
tapered... which most high mileage cylinders will be unless they are being
bored out. In a cylinder that's just getting honed and a fresh set of rings,
I almost always use cast iron rings. They'll take a good seat much more quickly
than chrome moly rings will in a used cylinder.
And always lube pistons/rings well before assembly. Don't be doing that dry
assembly thing. That stuff needs to be lubed good at start up if you want it
to last a long time. *Maybe* it's O.K. for sprint or drag car motors that are
gonna get rebuilt on a real regular basis anyway. it certainly makes engine
assembly a less messy job if you don't oil 'em...

Abrasives: Uhhh, no thanks...
I liked the post about the chevy bulletin that said to pour bon-ami down
the carb with the motor runnning. Sounds like good advise. If I had a
chevy I'd probably pour a bunch of abrasives down the carb till it was
dead, then go buy a Ford...
Using abrasives may help seat rings, but it kinda gives me the creeps.
You really don't want any vertical scratching in the cylinders, and it's
gotta be rough on that nice 35 degree crosshatch you work so hard to put
in those cylinder walls. I really don't want a lot of abrasive getting
into the ring lands and abrading that area for me either.
And since you're working with a motor that doesn't have good ring seal,
you know that a bunch of abrasive is gonna make it past the rings with
the blowby gases and end up in the oil to abrade more stuff.

I've heard of people doing it before and claiming it helped seat rings, but
I don't think it's something I'd do to a motor that I cared much about.

My opinions, usual disclaimers, etc...


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

All that I needed to know in life, I learned by
killing smart people and eating their brains.


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

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

End of 61-79-list-digest V2 #459
********************************....


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.