Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

61-79-list-digest Saturday, May 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 304

=======================================================================
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 - California get together
Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: California Get-Together
Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
FTE 61-79 - RE: '68 360 heater hose routing
FTE 61-79 - stuck dist.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: California Get-Together
Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Whippin' Post, back around to carbs...
FTE 61-79 - Spread-bore Adapters
FTE 61-79 - headers
FTE 61-79 - Automated VIN Decoder
FTE 61-79 - Intake manifolds
Re: FTE 61-79 - Intake manifolds
Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
FTE 61-79 - Frame Prep & Coating
Re: FTE 61-79 - Spread-bore Adapters
FTE 61-79 - *^#* Headers

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:43:39 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

At 02:25 PM 22/05/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 01:09 PM 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> Hey, don't make the CA get together too far south, we No. CA guys wanna
>> play too!
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>How about making it some place close to an airport so I can fly in from
>Arizona. O.K.
>
>Later

How about Vancouver?????

(actually even Vancouver WA would be very fine)

marko 8^]

= 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 14:44:52 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

At 02:25 PM 22/05/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 01:09 PM 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>> Hey, don't make the CA get together too far south, we No. CA guys wanna
>> play too!
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>How about making it some place close to an airport so I can fly in from
>Arizona. O.K.
>
>Later
>
>
>Keith Srbherbie

netvalue.net

Um, Keith, I was thinking and what's the point of flying to a Ford Truck
Meet???
Unless you have a jet engine mounted in the bed of yours!

(deacon where are you when we need you?)

marko in vancouver

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

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 15:52:48 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

At 02:44 PM 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 02:25 PM 22/05/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>At 01:09 PM 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey, don't make the CA get together too far south, we No. CA guys wanna
>>> play too!
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>>How about making it some place close to an airport so I can fly in from
>>Arizona. O.K.
>>
>>Later
>>
>>
>>Keith Srbherbie

netvalue.net
>
>
>Um, Keith, I was thinking and what's the point of flying to a Ford Truck
>Meet???
>Unless you have a jet engine mounted in the bed of yours!
>
>(deacon where are you when we need you?)
>
>marko in vancouver

Well, because I am not as interested in the trucks as a I am meeting some
more of the people on the list. Don't get me wrong, the Trucks are still
important. But I used all of my vacation time up when I went to Pigeon
Forge, so I need to try and keep the time away from work down if I can. At
least until July, when I get some more vacation time.

Later
Keith

= 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 18:53:24 -0400
From: DC Beatty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: '68 360 heater hose routing

Hey guys, could this hose be run over to the =

carb to make the automatic choke work??

Just an idea,

Drew Beatty
1967 F100 352 (soon to be 390)
1974 Maverick 302

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 08:21:07 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '68 360 heater hose routing

>On the other side of the heater core there is
>a "T" fitting. The "T" is between the radiator,
>heater core and the off shoot connects to the
>carb. adapter. Strange! I don't think it's right,
>especially since none of the '68's I looked at
>at the Forge had this configuration. If anyone
>can shed some light I'd appreciate it.
>
>Ted,
>I checked my '68 and it is just like you say. The hose from the=

water
>pump to the heater core has a Tee in it and it goes over to the back of
the
>carb spacer. Then it comes out of the carb spacer and joins another Tee=

on
>the manifold where the other heater hose, the one with the heater valve =
in
>it, enters the manifold. The manifold on these engines is wet so the
water
>is most likely to cool the carb and prevent percolation. Hope this help=
s
you.
_
_| ~~. 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 18:53:27 -0400
From: DC Beatty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - stuck dist.

Robert:

The 390 I picked up to replace my 352 was like this. I had to pound it ou=
t
with a rubber mallet. =

It was just stuck in there from age and heat. The seal was dry and crispy=

from being in there
for 30 years. =

Drew Beatty
1967 F100 352 (soon to be 390)
1974 Maverick 302

>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

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:14:42 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: California Get-Together

At 03:25 PM 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
>From: Marv Miller
>>I, too, am in California, and I voted long ago to support the Deekster
>>for ORGANIZER! Sorry, guy, YOU'RE IT, 'cause (FTE content) you got
>more
>>FORD TRUCKS than I.
>
> OK Marv, the rest of these guys have an excuse but you've met me and
>know this isn't an act. You know first hand the only grasp I have on
>reality is, I know I have no grasp on reality. You of all people should
>be telling the list that me and Tommy Chong share a close resemblance.
>:] This is being planned by Ken, Keith and John,,, Hey wait a minute,
>Miller is a common name but I smell a rat! "/ Anyway I only offered to
>help these guys out if I could. I feel Ken, Keith and John have things
>well in control.
>
>Deacon

Wait a minute, I didn't know I had anything to do with planning this dog
and pony show. I thought I was just along for the ride!

Seriously, I think It would be hard for me to help plan a get-together in
CA since I live in AZ and have only been to CA once in my life. I am
clueless, about a lot of things, but I won't have any idea where to have
this get-together. I might be able to help in some ways, but I think we
need someone in CA to be the point man for this get together. Then again,
I could be total wrong, it has happened before. :)

Well then again maybe I can get the ball rolling a little. Let me talk to
Ken, and I will get back to you.

Later

Keith

= 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 16:15:25 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

- ----------
> From: Marko Maryniak
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together
> Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 2:43 PM
>
> At 02:25 PM 22/05/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >At 01:09 PM 5/22/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey, don't make the CA get together too far south, we No. CA guys
wanna
> >> play too!
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >
> >How about making it some place close to an airport so I can fly in from
> >Arizona. O.K.
> >
> >Later
>
>
> How about Vancouver?????
>
> (actually even Vancouver WA would be very fine)
>
> marko 8^]

I'll second that motion!
= Ford Truck Enthusiasts ==============================================
Send posts to: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Whippin' Post, back around to carbs...

Deacon wrote:
>The Carter and Edelbrock
>had price, parts availability and driveable setup out of box
>installation in their favor. Not that he had anything bad to say about
>Holley, it just didn't match the numbers of the other two. He pointed
>out that all carbs need setting up to get the best performance and
>having the parts readily available is a must.

That last sentence is the key! ANY carb needs to be set up correctly
for the motor that it's on! It *may* be close right out of the box, but
there's almost always room for improvement.
Make sure that jets and parts are readily available and reasonably priced
before You buy a carb!
I bought the edelbrock "tuning kit" for mine, which includes a good selection
of main jets, metering rods, and metering rod springs in a nice plastic box.
Not a bad deal for about $30.

Steve

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

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Spread-bore Adapters

I think I remenber that someone said that the spread-bore adapter on the
split-plenum Performer defeats the purpose of the Q-jet carb. I'm not
looking to argue about it, but I would like to discuss the theories
involved. My belief in this combination is based solely on my own
experience, so there is no scientific basis in what I'm saying. I would like
to open a dialog on it if no one minds.

Mine is working like a charm. It runs great and has resonable economy. I can
make it spit if I stab the throttle too quickly, but I don't have a
secondary vacuam break and pretty light spring pressure on the air-valve. If
you push it down at a resonable rate it slurps it up like a kitty cat at the
cream bowl. So well that I have to be careful not to hurt my lifters. The
Mr.Gasket adapter pushes the secondary flow forward into the front of the
plenum. I would think that it would create turbulence and help atomization,
but as I said I'm no expert here.

My experience with this combinatiom on the street has been that it is a very
good setup (cheap too)for all around use. If I were pulling a sled with no
street work I'd run a double-pumper Holley. But for everyday use I've not
looked any further.

All that said, I still would like to keep an open mind about it. I've
inherited the Performer on both the 289 in the 'Stang that I originally put
the carb and adapter on, and the FE on the truck. If I were to invest in a
manifold, I'd likely want a real spread-bore manifold too. The carb I've had
forever, so the combination was really put together out of pragmatism more
than "The Ultimate Performance" goal. It's served me very well, and I
recommend it if you have a Performer already on your engine. If you're
buying a manifold I'd seek out a spread bore manifold. I've seen the same
adapter with a Thermoquad on a stock FE 4V intake on a '74 F250, and was
also impressed with it, it would be a dirt cheap improvement in my book with
either the Thermoquad or Q-Jet.
Come on over to my Back Porch
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ldd.net/scribers/ballingr
Ballinger
ballingr

ldd.net

= 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 19:20:13 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - headers

Can't resist posting my 2 cents worth, I went over to Stan's to have him
build a Tri-Y setup for my 4wd Chev. van 6 or 8 years ago, got a nice job at
a fair price, well made of heavy material and fit well. The tri-y design is
more compact than the 4 into 1 so blocks off a lot less engine area. They
are local to me which was handy. I occasionally drive by in my Ford truck
(Ford content) and would like to get a tri-y setup for the 390 work truck,
one more cracked ci exh. man. and I will torch off all that cast iron and
get something that will last.

= 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 21:55:26 -0500
From: "Michael R. Masse"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Automated VIN Decoder

Gang,
There's seems to of been a LOT of interest in my vin decoder as of
late, so I've been putting a lot of time into it lately. If you've
tried it before, the axle codes didn't work, but now they do as of this
evening, and it's
been exanded to work with years 70 through 80 as opposed to 76 through
80 like before. Please help me debug this thing by trying it out and
letting me know if it gives back information you think is incorrect.
The URL is
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.medicine.wisc.edu/~mrm/bronco and click on the button for the
VIN decoder.

My next step is to add all of the 60's information, but I've run into
a snag. The decoder looks at the consecutive sequence number of the vin
to figure out what year the vehicle is, and the problem is that
according to my references, 67 and 76 both could have the same sequence
number. In fact it looks as if vehicles of these two years could have
the exact same vin number. Does anyone have any in depth reference to
Ford vins that could help me out here?? Is the information I have just
a typo?

According to the Ford Pickup Redbook, '67 used sequence numbers:
A00,000 through B81,999

and in '76 the numbers were:
A00,001 through D25,000

My Hollander's only goes back to 70, but it had the same information for
the 76 year also. The weird thing is that in 75 the sequence was
v20,001 to X40,000
then it goes back to A00,000 in 76 and then in 77 it jumps to
X80,000. Something just seems weird, but that's from two different
sources. If I can just get this figured out, I can add everything down
to '46 and everything up through '88.

-Mike
'78 Bronco
= 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 19:43:23 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Intake manifolds

John Macnamara,

Thanks for the manifold pictures from FPP, really illuminating! These guys
have a 2 plane manifold that they make with the divider "lowered 1" to
improve top end performance".

Here I was worried I didn't have an adaptor that would continue the divider
up to the base of the carb and leave a 1/2" gap, they want to sell me a
setup with a 1" gap and claim it is a wonderful thing. I was overcome by
the irony of it all. Obviously I worry too much.

Since I can't afford the gas for top end power, I want to have good (great)
low end torque and IMHO that I must maintain the divided system to get it.
Think it is worth making an adaptor? I wonder.

Forgot to sign my last blast,

Jim - up near Seattle

'67 snb w. 390, C6
'74 dumping flatbed work truck
'65 F-600 dumping flatbed

= 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 20:21:08 -0700
From: John MacNamara
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Intake manifolds

Jim Cron wrote:
>
> John Macnamara,
>
> Thanks for the manifold pictures from FPP, really illuminating! These guys
> have a 2 plane manifold that they make with the divider "lowered 1" to
> improve top end performance".
>
> Here I was worried I didn't have an adaptor that would continue the divider
> up to the base of the carb and leave a 1/2" gap, they want to sell me a
> setup with a 1" gap and claim it is a wonderful thing. I was overcome by
> the irony of it all. Obviously I worry too much.
>
> Since I can't afford the gas for top end power, I want to have good (great)
> low end torque and IMHO that I must maintain the divided system to get it.
> Think it is worth making an adaptor? I wonder.

Jim: I would suggest you ask that question to either Gary or Sleddog.
They are much more technical than I am. I do know that PAW makes an
aluminum spacer with the divider built such that it fits down in to the
plenum. So obviously there is a need for this.

I was wondering if they had made some stock manifolds since the catalog
came out. Maybe I'll contact them after the holidays and give you guys
an update if they have something closer to stock.

I sure like the look of their manifolds, first rate. By the way, I
bought some of their roller rockers,end stands etc. and their stuff is
1st rate.

If you need more info, feel free to contact me.

Thanks again
John
= 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 21:27:22 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - California get together

Marko Maryniak wrote:

> Um, Keith, I was thinking and what's the point of flying to a Ford Truck
> Meet???
> Unless you have a jet engine mounted in the bed of yours!
>
> (deacon where are you when we need you?)
>
> marko in vancouver

COOL! An FTE Jet Truck!

Should we get some other sponsors for this?
- --
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 22:19:58 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Frame Prep & Coating

Well, the cab is coming off my 61 F-100 4x4 today, and I will begin work
on the frame. I am going to box it in between the front two
crossmembers to support the 429, and add some bracketry for power
steering. I will also knock off the rear spring mounts because I am
going to flip the shackles. I would like to know if anyone had heard of
a process where the frame is dipped in some chemical to remove the rust
and tar. Also, is there anyone who does galvainizing or some other
coating that can get inside the boxed portion of the frame.

Keep in mind that this is in muddy California, so you might also be able
to dissuade me from doing anything exotic. But I live in the mountains,
so it will see a bit of salty snow come winter.

Birken T. Vogt - KE6DLT
= 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 23:36:36 -0700
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Spread-bore Adapters

From: William L Ballinger
>I think I remenber that someone said that the spread-bore adapter on
the
>split-plenum Performer defeats the purpose of the Q-jet carb. I'm not
>looking to argue about it, but I would like to discuss the theories
>involved. My belief in this combination is based solely on my own
>experience, so there is no scientific basis in what I'm saying. I would
like
>to open a dialog on it if no one minds.

The question is will a Q-jet with an adapter work better than a
square bore on a square bore manifold. The benefit of a Q-jet is the
primary system is small and in use when demand is low. this improves
economy, The large secondary system delivers when demand is high which I
believe is only as the engine comes under load. Once up to speed they
close. So the bulk of the time the engine is being fed by the primary
system. hence delievering enhanced econamy over the square bore. The
question being, is the adapter restricting the flow of the secondary
system and reducing it's power potential to a point of it not being any
better than a square bore.
With the primary system of the Q-jet being smaller than the primary
system of the square bore and with the primary system being used most of
the time I believe it would be safe to say that there is no restriction
most of the time. At what time will there be a restriction in flow under
load. Only when the engine demand is greater than the restriction will
allow and the Q-jet would be able to deliver. Correct? With a stock
performance type application and a slight restriction, the engine demand
may never be greater than the restriction would allow. With this as my
assumption based on limited information, I theorize that a Q-jet using
an adapter would benefit performance and economy.

You are doing this Bill so there is scientific basis in what you
saying, do to your experimentation. OK so your not using that math junk
like Steve but non the less it's experimentation. :) Mine is just input
for the sake of discussion. In other words it's BS. I just like to throw
my opinions around for the sake of making noise.

Deacon
deconblu

ford-trucks.com
Send unsubscribe requests to: majordomo

ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - *^#* Headers

>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.

This is true of the Hedmans, as I'm pretty sure that's what mine are. They
stink as far as I'm concerned. I had to "massage" the pipes on the passenger
side to get even a fingers width of clearance between the header and
starter. I know that the starter will suffer anyway, I may have to wrap it.
But so far so good.
The header has to drop to change the starter, which to me is totally
unecessary with all of the room down there. I also had to get out the
"persuader" to move the drivers side collector over enough to stop an
annoying vibration caused by the collector flange hitting the leaf spring
eye bolt. I managed to get 3/16 of an inch, and then had to hammer on the
head flange and retorque everything to seal it back up. Another of my
"inheritances" that just had to be made the best of. As far as power, they
seem OK, but the improvement is probably from 3500 rpms up and sacrifices
the warm up time a little bit. I plan to add a stove and heat tube to help
some. It's a 6 and 6 situation to me. I like the extra pickup and the sound,
I have had installed 2 inch dual pipes, 6 inch OEM-style round Walker truck
mufflers and 2 inch tailpipes turning out behind the back wheels. I can
sneak in at 3:00AM and not wake anyone up, have quiet cruise, but still hear
the lope the cam makes (has kind of a ring to it)at idle. It sounds really
good, but what a lot of BS to make the headers work. If the starter lives a
couple of years I might forgive then, but that is unlikely. When I replace
them the new ones had better fit right or I'm going back to manifolds.

Questions. Does the Performer 390 have an exhaust cross passage under the
carb? I've never had mine off so I am wondering. Also I'm thinking of some
kind of pour down the carb treatment to try to improve my ring and valve
seal a little. The tailpipes are chalky, but the blow-by and cold piston
noise really bothers me. Number 8 plug is showing a black glaze on one side.
I used to use ATF. Pour it in and get it smoking good then drown it. Let it
sit for a half hour then start it up and get it under load speeding up and
....

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.