Re: FTE 61-79 - Brake master cylinder question

61-79-list-digest Friday, May 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 302

=======================================================================
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 - Brake master cylinder question
Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
Re: FTE 61-79 - Proposed legislation
Re: FTE 61-79 - Proposed legislation
FTE 61-79 - Cubic inches
Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
Re: FTE 61-79 - new engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - 410 Merc
Re: FTE 61-79 - re:re: Carbs open plenum spacer
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Hello
Re: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carb
Re: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carb
FTE 61-79 - Distributor problems
FTE 61-79 - Misaligned Oil holes in FE
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Hello
FTE 61-79 - 462
FTE 61-79 - Brazilian Fords
FTE 61-79 - Re: your truck

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:00:30 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Brake master cylinder question

Deacon wrote:

> From: Mark Goods
> >I have a new brake master cylinder to put on my 68 F100. I've been told
> to
> >"bench bleed"the cylinder before putting it on the truck. I don't own a
> >vice or anything to hold it while I bleed it. Can some of you please
> tell
> >me other ways to bleed the cylinder, perhaps while mounted on the
> truck.
>
> Install it then bleed it before connecting the lines. That's the easiest
> way IMHO.
>
> Deacon
> deconblu

gte.net
>

Basically what you do is during the installation of the MC is cut your
wrist open from here to about there making sure that the MC and lines get
covered in sticky red fluid....

Install the master cylinder as usual but not connecting the main brake
lines yet. Run some short lines front the outlets to the reservoir and
fill with fluid. Pump away until no more air bubbles are produced then
install your main brake lines.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon

pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:04:51 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

John Miller wrote:

> > From: Deacon
>
> >you don't put a
> > manic depressive in charge of fun Friday. It's just not a >wise thing to
> > do. They can help, but if their in charge and things go >wrong, there's a
> > good chance they'll be spotted in a high place with a high >powered
> > weapon. So that makes me a helper! :)
>
> I'm not too worried unless you convince Steve to teach you his skill of
> designing complex electronic circuits... Then I wouldn't open any packages
> as doorprizes.... :)

Can anybody say UniDeacon?
- --
Don Grossman
duckdon

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:56:59 -0700
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Proposed legislation

From: John LaGrone
>Cheez and thought Texas was the only state with a screwed up
legislature.

California takes the blue ribbon for screwed up legislature. How about
Smog Check II getting put on hold. Yes, the smog nazis motherload is
having trouble. You want to see the prima donna air heads we have to put
up with? Read this http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://smogcheck.ca.gov/000154.HTM . Oops, they have
the requirements for bringing an out of state vehicle into California at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://smogcheck.ca.gov/MOVING.HTM . What a trip. Whoever it was that
said only the $300 smog impact fee was required was correct. If the
vehicles engine sticker is federally certified, no problem. Here is what
they say

- -------------- snip --------------
A federally certified vehicle may be registered in California as long as
it has all of the emissions equipment which was on the vehicle when it
was first sold. The equipment must all function correctly. If the car
has missing, disconnected or tampered emissions parts, you will not be
able to register the car here until those deficiencies are corrected.
Do not attempt to add additional emissions control equipment to your
federally certified vehicle in order to bring it to California; do not
attempt to make this vehicle conform to California standards. However,
you may wish to get a tune up if your car is running rough or has not
been adjusted to factory specifications for some time. Regular
maintenance will help you pass your Smog Check.
- ------------- paste -----------------

What a trip ay! So I stand corrected. I can't remember the details but
they said something about registering a California car out of state then
moving back to California and they were charged the $300 Smog Impact
Fee. Someone got screwed! Check it out. The $300 Smog Impact Fee is only
if the vehicle is federally certified and newer than 1975. If it's older
than 1975 or California certified there is no Smog Impact Fee.

I never said I was never wrong. :)

Deacon
deconblu

gte.net
=============================
Nuke the unborn baby whales.
=============================
Deacon's
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Proposed legislation

Don Grossman wrote:
>
> BDIJXS wrote:
>
> > Hey John,
> >
> > I've been on the post office wall for so long already anyway.....
> >
> > Do you have any details on that proposed bill about the altered vehicles
> > (such as number, etc.)? I'll be sure to check in with my congressman......
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Colorado Jeff
>

I thought that bill was killed by the offroad groups and SEMA last
fall. I was told "we" won and that Co. was going to adopt Ca. fairly
liberal frame/body heights.

Here is a some messages I archived from last fall. Check out teh
"joke" message at the end.

OX

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:28:48 -0800
> From: "Roger Brown P.E."
> Subject: Colorado Suspension legislation
> To: Offroad

off -road.

com
>
> Scott wrote:
> >>
> The new law eliminates all the garbage from the old law, as well as from
> the proposed law, and basically says that we can have frames not more
> than
> 31" off the ground (measured between the wheels, at the lowest point of
> the
> rails) and body lifts of not more than 5" (five inch body lift? Safe?)
>
>
> Sounds about like the California DMV regs:
>
> VEHICLE CODE SECTION 24008.5. (a) No person shall operate any motor
> vehicle with a frame height or body floor height greater than specified
> in subdivisions (b) and (c).
>
> (b) The maximum frame height is as follows:
>
> Vehicle Type Frame Height
>
> (1) Passenger vehicles, except
> housecars ...................... 23 inches
>
> (2) All other motor vehicles,
> including housecars, as follows:
> Up to 4,500 pounds GVWR ........ 27 inches
> 4,501 to 7,500 pounds GVWR ..... 30 inches
> 7,501 to 10,000 pounds GVWR .... 31 inches
>
> (c) The lowest portion of the body floor shall not be more than five
> inches above the top of the frame.
>
> (d) The following definitions govern the construction of this
> section:
>
> (1) "Frame" means the main longitudinal structural members of the
> chassis of the vehicle or, for vehicles with unitized body
> construction, the lowest main longitudinal structural members of the
> body of the vehicle.
>
> (2) "Frame height" means the vertical distance between the ground
> and the lowest point on the frame, measured when the vehicle is
> unladen on a level surface at the lowest point on the frame midway
> between the front axle and the second axle on the vehicle.
>
> (3) "GVWR" means the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating, as
> defined in Section 390, whether or not the vehicle is modified by
> use of parts not originally installed by the manufacturer.
>
> - --
> Roger Brown, P.E. mailto:rogerb

sgi.com
> +1.650.933.1898 (vmail) +1.650.932.1898 (fax)
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://reality.sgi.com/rogerb/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:23:53 -0700
> From: "Darrell D. Murray"
> Subject: Federal Government, New Regs
> To: Offroad

off -road.

com
>
> A new law before congress is addressing the concerns the government is
> having over how well crash survivors of SUV's and Set up 4x4's have over
> the regular passenger car. They plan to ban any future modifications to
> SUV's and other 4x4's plain and simple. They also plan to require that
> SUV owners place the following warning(s) on the outside of their
> vehicles, similar to the firearms warnings stamped on modern guns and
> the like. It is rumored that this is what the warning will say.
> "Warning! If you're driving a regular compact passenger car you can
> expect the following results upon a traffic collision. Serious injury
> or even death! It is best to avoid impact with these vehicles at all
> costs! Especially avoid failing to yield, stopping short, unsafe lane
> changes or other driving behavior that would cause a collision with
> these vehicles. Also if you are a pedestrian, be advised impact with a
> steel bull bar bumper will hurt more than with the plastic foam filled
> bumpers found on most stock SUV's. So don't Jay walk! If you're
> involved with a collision with a SUV please contact this number and file
> a special government report listing your injuries or cause of death, so
> we can further show cause to regulate these SUV's making our highways a
> safer place to commute." If you haven't figured it out this is a joke
> for now. However, there are bills before congress right now that will
> ban any further OWNER MODIFICATIONS to YOUR vehicle. Check with you
> local Federal elected reps and ask where they stand and voice you
> opinion on the subject. Dead is Dead. Whether you're hit by a VW, SUV
> or a Semi. It's another way to attack our rights and freedoms. Stand
> up to them and tell them NO WAY! There are states that also have
> legislation before them as well off the top of my head Colorado and New
> Jersey, to Ban Owner Mods. It's coming in the back door so keep your
> eye's open.
> Darrell D. Murray, President
> AZ.L.R.O.C/R.R.R.
>
> ------------------------------
= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cubic inches

Ron writes: >>I thought the 239 V8 was the first OHV engine?

It was -

least in cars and small trucks. Introduced in 1954 239 for cars
- - 255 for trucks and Mercurys. that was identical to the previous years
flathead size if I'm not mistaken. I really don't know what the Lincoln
had that year, but it was a derivative of the Y blocks, I think. The
smoothe head design was introduced in '68 I believe as 383 for Mercury and
430 for Lincoln. This may not be exact, but is close.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:35:54 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - new engine

At 11:04 PM 21/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>Just ran across a good deal! I found a 1960 thunderbird 352 police
>Interceptor motor running in the T-Bird, the owner just backed it into a
>ditch at 90 miles an hour. A few mods and a good tear down, and Ill finally
>have a 350hp stock replacement for my trusty 360-2V in the 72 Truck. Picked
>up the engine by doing a brake job on the guys Mazda. Everything was there
>from the carb to pan! ( I always liked the old iron better than the newer
>stuff!)
>Forest

Hey Forest!

Congrats! Just remember you can only run a solid cam in that thing.

Should be scary when it's done!

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:40:58 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 410 Merc

Azie asks,

>Did you lay the main bearings in the block and notice the misalignment and
>correct this as well as drill the oil passage from the filter to the center
>galley to a larger passage????

Hell yes. But it's a little late to ask when the engine is all back together!
They worked the other way too as I understand, my 360 has a quarter million
miles on it and apart from a set of heads 100,000 ago and a back seal, it
never needed nothin on the bottom end.

Azie, on the other hand, is probably thinking I am going to drive my 4x4 to
France and run Le Mans with it.

marko ;-]

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:46:08 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re:re: Carbs open plenum spacer

Can't figure out how I can get the engine 800 miles away! :( Rats!
>Stu
>Nuke GM!

Stu, it's simple, really. Get in your tube frame (make sure it has a seat
belt), drive over there, and have them install the engine.

Then drive back and fire it up.

piece of cake.

marko ;-]

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:48:13 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Hello

At 08:41 AM 22/05/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Ish,
>
>How ya doin? I would look really hard at Stan's Headers. I put
>Heddmans on mine. There okay. We were able to get them
>in without having to raise the motor. Had to remove the starter
>to get them in, then re-installed the starter before mounting them
>on the heads. But other than that they were straight forward.
>>From what I understand about the Stan's Tri-Y's is that the
>starter doesn't become an issue. Some one who has a set
>can confirm this, but with the Heddmans you'll have to remove
>the header to remove the starter. The left pipe on the Heddmans
>don't run straight back either. I kicks towards the frame rail and
>has to be compensated for in the new pipe.
>
None of these problems with Stan's. They don't go anywhere near the
starter.

And they look awesome!

marko

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:54:15 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carb

> From: RDbanesjr
> Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:53:30 EDT
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carb

> the old carb and that helped alot, but why does it leak in the first
> place? is the tab on the float not adjusted right? or could the fuel
> pump put out to much pressure? previous owner apparently had probs
> with fuel pump since it has two elec fuel pumps that have been
> disconnected.

I had to put a regulator on my truck with electric pump which was
supposed to be self regulating to 5 - 7# but obviously it wasn't
because even with new parts and carefully set and checked float level
it would leak out the vents and this was on my 460 with spread bore
carb. I'm sure a Rochester wouldn't do that :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --
= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:06:29 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carb

At 12:53 PM 5/22/98 EDT, you wrote:
>i got a quick question for all of ya'll that know a thing or two about carbs.
>the auto choke carb i did have on the 240 had a serious vac leak plus the
bowl
>was craked so i replaced it with a manual choke carb from a junk yard (had to
>get by as cheap as i could before the wife cut off my funds). after cleaning
>and insp and a carb kit i put the "new" carb on. first thing i notied was
>this one was leaking gas also. i doubled up on the gasket with the one from
>the old carb and that helped alot, but why does it leak in the first place?
>is the tab on the float not adjusted right? or could the fuel pump put out to
>much pressure? previous owner apparently had probs with fuel pump since it
>has two elec fuel pumps that have been disconnected. any ideas that would
>point me in the right direction woudl be appreciated.
>
>dug '67 swb
>240 w/3spd

I have a feeling the two electric fuel pumps are there because of vapor
lock. My 240 in my 66 starts vapor locking when it gets up to 80 degrees.
It also doesn't help that it has an oil bath air cleaner, which helps
retain heat around the carb. One of the things I was going to try to
correct the problem was install an electric fuel pump and re-route the fuel
lines away from the engine.

As far as the reason for the carb still leaking, take the top plate off the
carb. Set it down, with the gasket side down, on a flat surface and check
to see if it has warped. I have lived in Arizona for almost ten years and
had to replace the carb 5 times on my truck because the top plate has
warped. I have had to use the two gasket method a coupe of time to get me
by until I could afford to get another carb.

Hope this helps!

Later

Keith Srbherbie

netvalue.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, Camper Special, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box,
Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Model 1100 1bbl carb, Oil Bath Air
Cleaner, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box Style Side.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"
= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:02:13 -0400
From: "Robert Hutchinson"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Distributor problems

Hey guys, speaking of distributors, I'm in the process of putting a '72 360
in my '78 F-100, and before I slapped the engine in my truck I wanted to
check the oil pump to make sure it's operational, so therefore I wanted to
remove my distributor to spin the oil pump shaft.

Well, the distributor WOULD NOT come out, and yes, the retainer was not
still on the base. I finally said screw it and decided to take my chances.

Any ideas on why the thing would not come out?

Robert Hutchinson
hutch297

groupz.net

1978 F-100

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Misaligned Oil holes in FE

Gary writes: >>I read somewhere that the misalignment was deliberate? The
purpose being to control the flow to the cam but in the FE engine I
understand the oil goes to the cam first so the crank then would need all
it's holes as open as possible in that case?

I have no idea why the factory produced these misalignments, but I drag
raced several FE's from 352 to 428 and in order to get the crankshaft to
survive above 6500rpm, you better open these passages up. The cam does
infact feed the mains on FE's except for the 427 side oiler and possibly
the SOHC. I know from experience that the mains(#4 and #2 I believe) will
starve if left stock. I never lost a crankshaft after doing this
modification. (By the way Holman/Moody in NC told me to do it, and they
were sponsored by FOMOCO at the time.) I had a 428 that I consistently
turned to 7500rpms and the crankshaft was never replaced. Anybody that
knows the FE will tell you that it is only good for about 6000rpms and most
likely 5500rpms, but I know better. I believe in the FE. Balance it -
make those few oil passage mods - do just a little cleanup around the
exhaust ports - run good 5/8ths" primary headers into 3" collectors of
around 30" long(yes 30" long) and get a good set of valve springs with a
cam of around .600" lift at the valve with around 312 to 324 degrees of
o'lap and an aluminum intake with a good 750cfm Carb and watch it come to
life. Won't idle - but will run like the Devil. I also blueprinted mine,
but I don't think anyone could say that this made it any faster, but then
neither did the balancing. These two just make good sense if you're
spending the rest of the money this takes.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:11:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Hello

>None of these problems with Stan's. They don't go anywhere near the
>starter.
>
>
>And they look awesome!
>
marko,
You Still all weak in the knees about these headers aren't you. (I call it
Merc truck / 410 jealousy !!) I gots to get me a set of Stan's! I just
gots to!
Stu

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:12:52 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 462

>No, the 317 OHV V8 was introduced by Lincoln in 1952. The 239 OHV V8 came
>out in 1954. The 317 saw duty in luxobarges and mediuum to heavy duty Ford
>trucks fron '52-'55. The key differences between the Lincoln engines and the
>Y-block(I'm certain that at some point they were related) is the head
>design, and the overall size of the engine, the Lincoln being much bigger.
>
Wow, that is interesting, I never knew that. I just got a book that
details all the cars of the '50s, I need to go check that out. The
pictures of the Lincoln and Mercury engines look just like a regular
Y-block so I assumed they were the same, just with different displacements.
Good info, William!
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss

inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:12:50 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brazilian Fords

> I checked out a pretty cool book from the library last night titled 53
>- -67 Ford Trucks.
>In it they had pictures of some different Ford trucks that I didn't know
>existed, like Mercury trucks made in Canada, and Ford trucks made in
>Brazil. It looked like Ford shipped down it's old parts to make some of
>these Brazilian units. The 60 model used a 53-56 cab with a 57 box. The
>62 looked like a 59 with a bizarre looking grille.
>
Oh, you're killing me! I used to have that book and I loaned it to a
friend who then lost it. I have tried to purchase it since then from many
sources but it is out of print. Lots of good stuff in there like ads from
other countries. Very interesting is how the South America trucks were
based on the 57-60 design and used the Y-block motor well into the '70s,
even including rectangular headlights in the grille. Cool book, sure wish
I could find one at a used book store or something.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss

inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ford-trucks.com with
"unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the message body.
=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:18:07 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: your truck

At 07:12 PM 21/05/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi Marko!
>
>
>The engine code is: C9AE-6015-B
>The VIN: F11BKJ51173
>Wheel Base: 115 (inches? No brainer?)
>Color: M
>Model: F113
>Body: 3 3 A (numbers weren't stamped under label)
>Axle: H3
>
>>Nice job on Stu's website, the mushroom clouds are really special.
>
Hi Tony.

F11 is a f100 4x4
B engine code means, according to the factory typo in my shop manual, a
"360-1V 6 cylinder". They mean 300 6 as an A code woulda meant 240.

K means it was made in Kansas City

J51173 is the serial number. Your vehicle was produced in calendar year
1970, in July, and is a 1970 mode. They made 30,000 trucks that month.
The first 20,000 were the last of the 1970 model production run. The next....

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.