61-79-list-digest Friday, June 12 1998 Volume 02 : Number 339



=======================================================================
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 - (Fwd) Cams
Re: FTE 61-79 - Vin #
Re: FTE 61-79 - Edlebrock Cam and Timing
FTE 61-79 - Air Compressor for early Bronco
FTE 61-79 - RE:Heat Stoves
FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing
FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Out of town.
FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco
RE: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing
RE: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing
Re: FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco
FTE 61-79 - New to list...but please help
Re: FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco
FTE 61-79 - More on Those (Unprintable) Kingpins
FTE 61-79 - Re: Re: '65 Ford truck POWER STEERING
FTE 61-79 - bad news for me-seeking advice
FTE 61-79 - No Subject
FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 f-100 AKA "Cinderella"
FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS
Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS
FTE 61-79 - Re: Rollover
FTE 61-79 - Re: Heat stoves
Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS
Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Heat stoves
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 f-100 AKA "Cinderella"
Re: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carbs
Re: FTE 61-79 - More on Those (Unprintable) Kingpins
Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing
RE: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing
Re: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing
Re: FTE 61-79 - bad news for me-seeking advice

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:01:29 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - (Fwd) Cams

> From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 14:41:45 -0500

Sent this to the bronco list, couldn't remember which list Bill is
on, sorry :-( We had a system problem last night and it got returned
with no address so I had to guess :-)

> IVO (BTDC)-8d (or 8d ATDC) IVC (ABDC)22d
>
> EVO (BBDC)37d EVC (ATDC)-13d (or 13 BTDC)

The intake should be opening well before TDC and the exhaust should be
left open well after the TDC for scavenging but I can't say at what
precise degrees. I'd guess a good 20 degrees in both cases though
like you did.

> What I consider the perfect torque cam:
>
> IVO (BTDC) 24d IVC (ABDC) 60d
>
> EVO (BBDC) 60d EVC (ATDC) 24d
>
> Duration:
> 264d in. and ex. at .006 lift
> Lobe Seperation:
> 108d
> Intake Centerline:
> 108d
> Lift:
> .480 in both in. and ex.

These numbers look like low end torque, RV type power band to me
except for the lobe separation. I would think 112 would be better for
bottom end but you may lose a bunch at the top, not sure.

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 06:53:18 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Vin #

What did he say...?

Thanks for your message at 11:52 PM 6/10/98 EDT, GMPACHECO aol.com. Your
message was:
>What was the address for the Vin decoder I fold this plate behind my seat
when
>I removed it tonight, anyway this is what it reads
>
>
>STUBNITZ-VINC-71
>C7TB8164700C 931
>
>Thanks in advance..
>
>Mike in Seattle
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:27:19 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Edlebrock Cam and Timing

Dale and Donna Carmine wrote:
>
> >Speaking of cams and timing. I have to do a timing chain on my stock 78,
> >351M.
> > Is there any benefit to
> >adjusting cam timing with a stock cam? The chain I'm getting allows 4
> >deg either way.
>
> Hi OX,
> I'm not sure how much the cam was retarded on the 351M, if anyone knows it
> would probably be Dave R.
> I'm very interested to hear how much difference you see with this change.
> I was planning on waiting to do my timing set until I could afford a cam,
> but if it produces big results it might be worth doing now. make sure you
> report back with results.

I'm adding 4 bbl man and carb at the same time, so I won't really
know how it affected everything.

OX


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:43:58 EDT
From: BRONCOFNTC aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Air Compressor for early Bronco

Need help installing Air Conditioning compressor into early Bronco for trail
airing of tires. Considering swapping all accessories to later serpentine
style belt but don't have the $. Already have a 82' compressor but need
brackets for a 302 engine. Will brackest from a late model 5.0 fit the 74'
302. Any help greaty appreciated. TIA (:}
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:07:49 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:Heat Stoves

I have an electric-choke Quadrajet. It seems to need to close up the
operating temp gap to mix properly in the transitional temp area. 60 to
70 degrees esp when damp, and the late part of cold weather warm-up seem
to mess with it's little head.

>
> >>A little heat would do the trick but not from the air cleaner housing.
> :) What source are you using to heat up the choke unit itself? On a
> Ford with headers you can run 1/4" copper tubing from the choke unit and
> wrap it around one of the header tubes 2 or 3 times, and leave the end
> open. This approximates the function of the heat pipe hole in the stock
> exhaust manifold.

- --
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

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:21:02 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing

>From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edlebrock Cam and Timing
>
>>Speaking of cams and timing. I have to do a timing chain on
>>my stock 78, 351M.
>> Is there any benefit to adjusting cam timing with a stock cam?
>> The chain I'm getting allows 4 deg either way.
>
>Hi OX,
>I'm not sure how much the cam was retarded on the 351M, if anyone
>knows it would probably be Dave R.
>I'm very interested to hear how much difference you see with this
>change. I was planning on waiting to do my timing set until I could
>afford a cam, but if it produces big results it might be worth doing
>now. make sure you report back with results.
>Anyone else out there done this with a stock cam??

Yo Ox and Dale:

I have read in different books (including both Monroe and Ganahl) that cams
were retarded 8 degrees, starting in '72 or '73 on several different
engines. Also, according to Monroe, cam timing even varied year to year
during the '70s among the 385 series (429/460) engines. I don't know for
sure, but I'd bet 8 degrees was a fair assumption.

I have heard that cam retarding was done by re-positioning the alignment
button on the end of the cam, where it bolts to the cam drive gear. From
what I have been able to discern looking at parts numbers, it seems that
cam retarding was done by changing the keyway on the crank sprocket. When
you look at factory part numbers for timing sets, camshaft sprocket part
numbers for many 335/385 series engines never changed from 1970 to 1979
(D0AZ-A). Crank sprocket numbers changed in '73 (from C8SZ-A for all to
D2VY-A on 385 series engines and to D5AZ-A on 335 series engines). Truck
M-block engines use yet a different crank sprocket (D7TZ-A) w/ the original
D0AZ-A cam sprocket and a 0.5" chain, while car M-blocks use a narrower
13/32" chain w/ D3AZ-A cam sprocket and D5AZ-A crank sprocket.

As for advancing the stock cam, I have done that on my truck and it seemed
worthwhile, especially in low-end punch. When I installed the Cloyes
double roller set, I advanced the cam 4 degrees from where it was w/ the
existing timing set. (I was thinking it was 2 degrees, but when I looked
up the instruction sheet, it says the alternate keyways are plus or minus 4
degrees.) My engine was rebuilt long ago, before I owned the truck, but
the timing set I found in it was the factory stock set (maybe even the
original set w/ 150K miles on it?) w/ the D7TZ-A crank sprocket. BTW, that
old timing set seemed to have at least 4 degrees of slop in it!

Advancing the timing 4 degrees made a noticeable, seat o' the pants
difference in acceleration and low-rev responsiveness. I couldn't say,
however, just how much was the cam timing change and how much was simply
getting rid of all the slack in the old timing set. I don't know if I'd
consider it a "big" improvement, but it was an improvement. Supposedly,
any M-block timing chain w/ over 50K miles on it is worn out anyway. I
don't think I'd go in unless I was doing something else in the vicinity,
like replacing the water pump, which is when I did it.

One thing to keep in mind for anyone looking for a replacement M-block
engine, the truck engines (starting in 1977) have a better stock cam than
the car engines. The truck engines use the same stock cam in both 351M and
400, whereas the car engines use different cams, the 400 having higher lift
on both valves. The truck cam is better still than the car 400, w/ even
higher lift on the intake valve. I don't have any specs on the lobe
duration of any factory stock M-block cams, though.

More than you wanted to know....

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:20:16 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing

I posted questions about my cam (#2106)on the Edelbrock BBS. This was
their reply.

> EDELBROCK TECH edelbrock edelbrock.com Wed Jun 10 16:02:55 PDT 1998
> Bill Ballinger (parts 1-3) It really sounds like the cam is retarded a tooth or so. The problem you are
> suffering from is a perfect example of that. The only other thing that can be a possibility would be
> that the damper is out of alignment with the timing marker. There is not much else that could be
> causing that except if the engine is really worn out. Thanks-Edelbrock


Just for poots and giggles I ran a few simulations on my Desktop Dyno
with my cam and found the following:

Straight Up: 440lbs ft 2000rpm 317hp 4500rpm

- -8 degrees: 428lbs ft 2000-2500rpm 334hp 4500rpm

- -12 degrees: 418lbs ft 2000rpm 341hp 5000rpm


When you advance the cam even 4 degrees it kills it dead. What I get
from this is that retarding it -8 makes it more like a "normal" cam. The
cam is so extremely torque biased that it doesn't even match the stock
cam "straight up". If I were installing it I would retard it -8. Does
any one know how I can tell how retarded my cam is without pulling the
cover? I'm inclined to say -12, how many teeth would that be? Remember
I'm having to run 20-25 derees of initial timing to get 16 hg of vacuam.

Something else surprised me, on simulating a 360 it did this:

Straight Up: 407lbs.ft. 2500-3000rpms 316hp 4500rpm

- -8 degrees: 398lbs. ft. 3500(it made 392 at 2000 and still made 396 at
4000) 339 hp 5000rpm

- -12 degrees: 388 lbs ft 3500 (didn't drop below 380lbs ft from 2000 to
4500rpms) 342 hp 5000 rpm

The 360 is quite strong IMHO with this cam at esp. at -8.

If the cams being retarded explains everything and I'm not hurting
anything runnning it that way, I'll be satisfied and leave it alone.

- --
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

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:17:52 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Out of town.

I will be out of town through Sunday. Any admin requests or
subscription problems will be dealt with on Monday. Please
be patient, I'll have 1,000+ emails by Sunday evening and it
will take some time to deal with them.

Thanks,
Ken Payne, CoAdmin
Ford Truck Enthusiasts


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:24:26 -0500
From: "Bruce M. Bratton"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco

My son has an 84 Bronco. Put a new starter in it and worked for short
while, then would not engage. Turned motor a bit and engaged. Thought
it might be the flywheel. Took flywheel off and is fine. Any ideas?
Thanks, Bruce

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:32:05 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing

one thing about the desktop dyno, right from the Desktop dyno book, is that
there is alot of error in the calculations at the first rpm point because
of broad assumptions. that error is supposed to be out by about 3000-3500
if i remember correctly, but at 2500 it is still there. so watch out with
these torque cams on this program.

although what you show here looks like the proper results from retarding a
cam, it is just a warning.

i have seen some really funky curves from that program at the bottom end
when trying to find what that program sees as the "perfect" cam for an
engine.

sleddog



- ----------
From: William L Ballinger[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 4:20 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing

Just for poots and giggles I ran a few simulations on my Desktop Dyno
with my cam and found the following:

Straight Up: 440lbs ft 2000rpm 317hp 4500rpm

- -8 degrees: 428lbs ft 2000-2500rpm 334hp 4500rpm

- -12 degrees: 418lbs ft 2000rpm 341hp 5000rpm

Ballinger
ballingr ldd.net




== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:23:40 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing

good point, sloppy cam timing is a big power/economy loss. that is one
reason why a good vibration dampener is a power builder in more modified
engines. yes, it helps crankshaft reliability and decreases crank
bending/twisting, but it smooths out the cam timing and actually lets the
cam do it's intended job at the correct valve timing events.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dave Resch[SMTP:dresch sybase.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 3:21 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing


BTW, that old timing set seemed to have at least 4 degrees of slop in it!


Dave R. (M-block devotee)




== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:42:04 -0400
From: "David Butts"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco

Is the engine full of gas? Literally, if you pull the plugs, will the
engine turn over, and gas shoot out the cylinders?

been there :-(
- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce M. Bratton
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 5:23 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco


>My son has an 84 Bronco. Put a new starter in it and worked for short
>while, then would not engage. Turned motor a bit and engaged. Thought
>it might be the flywheel. Took flywheel off and is fine. Any ideas?
>Thanks, Bruce
>
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:48:24 -0400
From: "Daniel R. Gerow"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New to list...but please help

Hello all,


I recently purchased a '78 F-150 and I've been doing
work to it regularly. Its been lifted by about 6 inches total and has
35"
BFG's. I live in Massachusetts, and I need to find out if anyone knows
off-hand or could point me to someone who knows the laws regarding
height limitations on trucks. Now, I have been in contact with State
Troopers, local police, people at the Registry and the DOT and so far I
have got about 6-8 different answers. I have had problems with this
situation before with my Bronco (i'll never learn). If anyone has any
info, even if it is for another state, I would really appreciate it.
Thank you in advance.

Daniel R. Gerow

- --
- ---------------------------------
Daniel R. Gerow
WSHL General Manager
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.stonehill.edu/wshl
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://wwww.stonehill.edu/~dgerow
- ---------------------------------


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:19:20 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 84 Bronco

>My son has an 84 Bronco. Put a new starter in it and worked for short
>while, then would not engage. Turned motor a bit and engaged. Thought
>it might be the flywheel. Took flywheel off and is fine. Any ideas?
>Thanks, Bruce
>

Do you still have old starter. If so check to make sure it bolts up
the same way. Sometimes you get a starter from a slightly different year
and it needs to be shimmed (shoudln't, but it happens). Also, I assume
you have tested starter on ground to verify it's kicking in and
spinning. Is it spinning at all? You may have just gotten a bad rebuild.
It happens!!

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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:52:37 -0400
From: "Don & Teresa Neighbors"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - More on Those (Unprintable) Kingpins

It seems I've added the Post '61 list at the right time. Some time in the
near future I will be replacing the kingpins on my '54 F250. Now that I've
read about 2 very good ideas for removing the pins, I have to ask: How do
you get the bushings out? How do you install the new ones? Or is this a
task best left to the local machinist?

Don Neighbors
'54 F250 Named Grover
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:49:57 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Re: '65 Ford truck POWER STEERING

>Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:15:13 -0400
>From: "Ken Schneider"
>Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fwd: '65 Ford truck POWER STEERING
>
>Are there any difference in column lenghts between the ford gear box and
the
>bendix gear box?
>

When I put PS in my '67 the yard had both a Ford and a Bendix, I chose the
Bendix as length from mounting holes to rag joint flange was about the same
as the manual box. The Ford box was quite a bit longer so I knew I would
have to change steering shafts to use it. The Bendix dropped in pretty well
and I used the column I had but had to cheat it up a bit. The whole thing
went together pretty well but had to go through a couple of pumps to get a
good one, and found out later that the box was not very good either so
replaced that with another Bendix. FINALLY, have good box and pump and the
whole system works very nicely. It was worth the effort. Good luck.

Jim Cron





== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:07:47 -0400
From: DC Beatty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - bad news for me-seeking advice

Hey list. =


I swapped out my 352 with the broken ring with the 390 I got used. It ran=

ok, but when it warmed up it started rattling pretty bad. I'm thinking it=
's
a bad wrist pin bushing. I had a piss-poor weekend, that's for sure. This=

is what I get for trying to cut corners. =


Anyway, today I dropped the 390 off at the machine shop for a full rebuil=
d
(what I should have done in the first place, right?), because I don't hav=
e
the time or resources to devote to it right now. It'll cost me more than =
I
have-around $1000 to $1800 but I'll deal with it. =


I'm wondering what I should do for a camshaft. Basically it will be a
daily-driver motor, nothing fancy, but I would like plenty of power acros=
s
all rpm ranges. I'd like to be able to pull mountain passes with ease as
well as blast down the highway at 85 mph without problem and with power t=
o
spare. I'm not much up on camshafts, but will the stock cam be sufficient=

for my intended usage or should I go for something else? =


Also, I'm looking to convert the lowly 2bbl to a 4bbl. I'm real leery of
aftermarket manifolds from what I've read on the list. I'm looking for
recommendations and average prices. I plan on using a Carter or Edelbrock=

carb if I can't find an Autolite 4bbl. What model # and cfm should I be
looking for? =


Thanks in advance for the help or suggestions.

Drew Beatty
1967 F100 on a trailer without a motor looking sad
1974 Maverick 302 on the road looking sad


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:25:31 EDT
From: RDbanesjr aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - No Subject

I've asked about leaky carbs here before and I've also asked about vapor lock.
A thought occurred to me this afternoon, could the vapor lock (build up of
heated and expanded air in fuel line) cause the leaky carb? If the build up of
vapor made its way to the carb could it then force gasoline to permeate the
gasket? Just a thought.

Dug in La.
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:31:42 -0500
From: tygre iglobal.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 f-100 AKA "Cinderella"

Does anyone out there have the technical schematics for this truck? I have
the shop manual but I need more detailed information such as bolt sizes and
visual perspective for reassembly. When I got the truck the previous owner
had completly broken it down to diagnose the motor. What I was left with
was cardboard boxes of scattered parts in the bed of the truck. I have had
the 223 moter rebuilt and have reconditioned most of the other components.
My problem is that I did not see the parts in their original places and I
think I am missing several bolts and maybe even a few brackets. Can anyone
help "Cinderella" dance again?

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:34:34 -0400
From: "."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS

After reading about all the kingpin "adventures", I think I just figured =
out why ball joints got so popular in so many vehicles !
(what I haven't figured out is why my e-mails have an 'equal sign" =
after each line. Does anyone know why ?)
The slight wandering condition I have had for about a year I had always =
attributed to the over-height springs I installed (also about a year =
ago) but I guess now I have to consider my pins are actually worn =
causing it. =20
If I heard all of you that answered about the kingpins correctly, the =
pin is tapered and only can be pushed out from the top out the bottom. =
IS THIS POSITIVELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, REALLY TRUE, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, =
DISCLAIMERS OR EXCUSES ? ? ? ? ? ............or is there more of a =
chance that the pin is symmetrical from top to bottom? ? 1969 vintage.
After hearing about Steve's special press, and always thinking of a way =
to do less work, I was going to put together a little gizmo that would =
mount on the bottom of the pin so that the weight of the truck could be =
let down with a jack onto it to assist the pin in sliding up. =
Obviously, this won't work if the pin is tapered the other way.
Has anyone ever tried this before ? ? .....on a 69 F350.
....by the way, Steve....the 10 LB didn't work any better that the 5. =
It actually felt like it was mocking me!
Jerry
1969 F350 Dually 12" reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW AC etc etc

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:46:21 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS


>(what I haven't figured out is why my e-mails have an 'equal sign" after
each line. Does anyone know why ?)

Something is odd with whatever email program You use.
I always get *two* copies of each of Your messages, one "normal" one and
one that my mail program doesn't know what to do with. The first one downloads
fine as normal text, but the second always gives me an "ugly mail" message and
asks if I want to "download as text", "leave on server", or "delete".
If I choose to download it, then it's full of equal signs and weird junk.
It kinda sucks because it stalls the download of all my other messages until
I tell it what to do with Yours...
I rarely have this weirdness with anyone's mail but Yours, but once in a while
someone else does it. Yours *always* do it.
What email program do You use? Is it sending MIME encoded stuff?

>If I heard all of you that answered about the kingpins correctly, the pin
is tapered and only can be pushed out from the top out the bottom. IS THIS
POSITIVELY, WITHOUT A DOUBT, REALLY TRUE, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, DISCLAIMERS OR
EXCUSES ? ? ? ? ? ............or is there more of a chance that the pin is
symmetrical from top to bottom? ? 1969 vintage.

The pins on my '71 are just straight pins with *no* taper. I pressed them
from the bottom and forced them out the top.
If Yours are anything like mine, then the weight of the truck is insignificant
compared to the force required to get them out... )-:

It's funny to have a 10 lb hammer laugh at You, isn't it!



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

Opportunity may knock only once, but temptation
leans on the doorbell.

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:50:06 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Rollover

A few days ago, "Dennis K. Austin" , wrote:

> In the case of the English Ford he said
> "how did it land?" and I replied "upside down!" He said "where was
> all the oil?" And in both cases when coming to a rest both engines
> were still running...sort of..lopping. Guess the oil pump is dry
> like that.
>

Man, I had several (English) Ford Cortinas when I was in High School.
I had a hard time keeping them running when they were right side up :-)

Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:18:13 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Heat stoves

Gary wrote:
>
> The electric choke eliminates all this mess and comes off sooner than
> exhaust heated ones will anyway. The Rochester is available with
> electric choke so you can probably call edlebrock and get the parts.
>

I put a JC Whitney electric choke conversion on my '70 FE360 about ten
years ago, haven't touched it since! I do still have the heater hose
running over the choke housing, also. Of course, you know, it doesn't
really get cold in California :-)

Pat Brown
Sebastopol, "Still $%^&#& #& Rainin' but Warm" California


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:34:27 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS

> From: sdelanty sonic.net
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:46:21 -0700
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS

> It's funny to have a 10 lb hammer laugh at You, isn't it!

What I really hate is when it decides to come back at you with the
same force you sent it out........:-(

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 07:54:00 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS

> From: "."
> To: "'61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com'"
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - THOSE DARN #$%*+ KINGPINS

> bottom? ? 1969 vintage. After hearing about Steve's special press,
> and always thinking of a way to do less work, I was going to put
> together a little gizmo that would mount on the bottom of the pin
> so that the weight of the truck could be let down with a jack onto
> it to assist the pin in sliding up. Obviously, this won't work if

When the pins are worn you can be reasonably sure the rubbers are too
so the easy way to handle this and to get your truck in repairable
condition for later is to remove the radius arms and "I" beams and
take them to a shop to have them pressed out. If the press operator
has any experience at all he can pop them right out for a reasonable
fee and they can even ream the new bushings for you (but make sure
the reamer is experienced).

When you get home all you have to do is install the new busings with
anti-seize on the rubber and all metal interfacing parts and bolt it
together. Next time you take it apart it all comes apart with your
fingers :-) Make sure you anti-seize the pin when you slide it into
the "I" beam and the lock pin as well, you can't put too much of this
stuff on it IMHO.

You can make a doo dad to take them out but you still have to be able
to change the rubbers and ream the bushings so in the long run, since
you only have one truck (I assume) it would be less hassel to have it
pressed out in most cases. Keep in mind that when you pound on it
you also flatten out the end and upset the steel there so it won't
pass through the "I" beam and will have to be filed down to get it
out anyway. Pressing is definitely the way to go if you can.

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 08:02:34 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Heat stoves

> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:18:13 -0700
> From: Pat Brown
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Heat stoves

> hose running over the choke housing, also. Of course, you know, it
> doesn't really get cold in California :-)

It definitely gets cold in MI and my electric chokes have done pretty
well but I find that with any carb and choke arrangement I have to
adjust it for summer and winter. I believe it's possible to set it
up once and have it work for both but everything else on the engine
needs to be right as well so it always gets up to 180-190 degrees
operating temp no matter what. I've decided that that is why my
choke doesn't always do what I want. When the engine is cold, more
fuel drops out so you don't get the mixture you think you are etc..

The spread bore on my 460 and the Holley on the 351M seem to work
with no adjustments but both of these engines are warm blooded
compared to others I've had so they stay near center on the temp
gauge year round. All my other fords have been very cold blooded and
ran cold in the winter.

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 09:41:33 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 f-100 AKA "Cinderella"

> From: tygre iglobal.net
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 f-100 AKA "Cinderella"
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:31:42 -0500

> have reconditioned most of the other components. My problem is that
> I did not see the parts in their original places and I think I am
> missing several bolts and maybe even a few brackets. Can anyone
> help "Cinderella" dance again?

I'm thinking junk yard trip.......may have to find some in the yards
to look at and get some ideas and also the parts you need. Since
different applications of the same engine in the same year have
differing braketry it would be difficult to say. The Helms
service manual (official ford) should have several pictures of
different versions of all the parts though, my 78 does and in quite a
bit of detail.

If all else fails maybe some on the list can take photos of their's
and make them available to the web site?

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:02:09 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Leaky carbs

> From: RDbanesjr aol.com
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:25:31 EDT
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - No Subject

> I've asked about leaky carbs here before and I've also asked about
> vapor lock. A thought occurred to me this afternoon, could the vapor
> lock (build up of heated and expanded air in fuel line) cause the
> leaky carb? If the build up of vapor made its way to the carb could
> it then force gasoline to permeate the gasket? Just a thought.

Gaskets by design are inpermeable so leakage is when it no longer
makes good contact with a surface. If the leakage is actually spill
over the float may be set too high. I've compensated for this with
some success in the past by lowering the float level but of course
there are limits :-) The accellerator pump can cause leaks too on
some designs.

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:06:03 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - More on Those (Unprintable) Kingpins

> From: "Don & Teresa Neighbors"
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - More on Those (Unprintable) Kingpins
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:52:37 -0400

> near future I will be replacing the kingpins on my '54 F250. Now
> that I've read about 2 very good ideas for removing the pins, I have
> to ask: How do you get the bushings out? How do you install the new
> ones? Or is this a task best left to the local machinist?

There are two types, the plastic ones can be replace in your garage
with no machining but the bronze ones need to be pressed out and back
in and then reamed by someone who knows how to use an expansion
reamer. I've done both types and plastic is a no brainer but I
believe the bronze are better.

As I've said in the past I believe the best way to do this it take
the "I" beams out and to a shop and while you are at it replace the
rubbers in both the "I" beams and radius arms and anti-seize
EVERYTING including the rubbers when you put it back to gether.


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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:10:30 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing

> From: "Dave Resch"
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:21:02 -0600
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing

> different cams, the 400 having higher lift on both valves. The
> truck cam is better still than the car 400, w/ even higher lift on
> the intake valve. I don't have any specs on the lobe duration of
> any factory stock M-block cams, though.

This prompts me to respond with a caution: Most OEM's will
substitute a "one size fits all" replacement part after a certain
number of years so beware if you try to get the post 77 truck cam.
Make sure it actually has the 77 truck cam specs which I'm sure Dave
can dig up for us :-)


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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:13:54 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing

> From: Sleddog
> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - M-block cams/timing
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 17:23:40 -0400

> good point, sloppy cam timing is a big power/economy loss. that is

And what goes with the sloppy cam? A sloppy dizzy and what's called
spark "scatter" although this is usually attributed to a worn dizzy
bushing it can also happen with bad gear teeth or sloppy cam timing
so you actually have two problems exacerbating each other :-)


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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:18:19 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing

> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:20:16 -0500
> From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Cam and Timing

> -8. Does any one know how I can tell how retarded my cam is without
> pulling the cover? I'm inclined to say -12, how many teeth would
> that be? Remember I'm having to run 20-25 derees of initial timing
> to get 16 hg of vacuam.

If you have a degree wheel and indicator you can pull a valve cover
and measure the crank relative to a certain opening and compare it to
the spec sheet.

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 --
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:32:49 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - bad news for me-seeking advice

> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:07:47 -0400
> From: DC Beatty
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - bad news for me-seeking advice

> I swapped out my 352 with the broken ring with the 390 I got used.
> It ran ok, but when it warmed up it started rattling pretty bad. I'm
> thinking it's a bad wrist pin bushing. I had a piss-poor weekend,
> that's for sure. This is what I get for trying to cut corners.

The rattle may well be piston slap especiall if it subsides as the
engine warms up due to the short skirts on the 390's.

> I'm wondering what I should do for a camshaft. Basically it will be
> a daily-driver motor, nothing fancy, but I would like plenty of
> power across all rpm ranges. I'd like to be able to pull mountain

In 65 they had one heck of a torquy engine and most of this may have
been due to the cam and relatively high compression. Find a book
like the HP big block ford book with these specs in it and compare....


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.