61-79-list-digest Monday, June 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 349



=======================================================================
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 - My Ford needs a Dentist
RE: FTE 61-79 - My Ford needs a Dentist
RE: FTE 61-79 - My Ford needs a Dentist
FTE 61-79 - C-6 Toggling 2 to 3
FTE 61-79 - RE: engine weights
FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - Question on brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze
FTE 61-79 - Away for a Week
FTE 61-79 - Chicago Latex Products -- Was: My Ford needs a Dentist
FTE 61-79 - tranny fluid temperature
FTE 61-79 - Paint
FTE 61-79 - stolen truck
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze
FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
Re: FTE 61-79 - 63 F-100
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
FTE 61-79 - E-Z Outs
FTE 61-79 - re:Help!/Advise/Shoulders to Cry on!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100
FTE 61-79 - Re: Weights
FTE 61-79 - Best $6000 I ever spent :-)
FTE 61-79 - question on 73-75 A/C
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Cams
FTE 61-79 - Intake rakes
FTE 61-79 - GT390/428CJ cams
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze

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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:27:23 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: FTE 61-79 - My Ford needs a Dentist

Are there any dentists on this list? I'm looking for sources for alginate
and stone for making molds of the runners in FORD intakes and heads (and
combustion chambers and piston tops). Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mike

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:41:02 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - My Ford needs a Dentist

try:
latex for port molds:

Chicago Latex Products
312-893-2880

I don't know if they are still in business or not...

sleddog
- ----------
From: Mike Schwall[SMTP:mschwall texas.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 1998 9:27 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - My Ford needs a Dentist

Are there any dentists on this list? I'm looking for sources for alginate
and stone for making molds of the runners in FORD intakes and heads (and
combustion chambers and piston tops). Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mike


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:50:19 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - My Ford needs a Dentist

At 08:41 PM 6/20/98 , you wrote:
>try:
>latex for port molds:
>Chicago Latex Products
>312-893-2880
>I don't know if they are still in business or not...
>sleddog

I saw an add in a magazine that had latex by the gallon for $100 a pop.
'lil too steep for me. I'll give the number a try and see what they want
for it.

I haven't messed with it in a few years, but I'm hoping dental alginate and
stone is cheaper.

Thanks,

Mike

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:09:52 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Toggling 2 to 3

> If the kickdown lever is adjusted wrong or caught on something so
> it's held down it could have this effect or the modulator might if
> you either have a bad vac line to it or the modulator is bad. Low
> oil level will do this also but you said you checked that, right?

Are your shifts erratic? The modulator will advance or delay the shift
point depending on the setting. As Gary said, check the line first, and
the kickdown for free movement, lube the pivot points as necessary. When
I've had a modulator suddenly give trouble it was accompanied by fluid
running out when I pulled the hose, and erratic upshifts. It didn't
hunt. If it leaks fluid, replace it. If it doesn't, turn it in a half
turn and drive it a little around the block and note any change. If it
gets better go another quarter in and try it again. It willl probably
shift funny if you have to go much further. You may have to go out with
it. Use the same procedure, and keep track of it's original position. If
there's no improvement put it back. To be truthful, I think that the
kickdown, a valve body glitch or the most likely, a dirty governor is
your problem. A dirty governor will cause hunting. If the cooler wasn't
cleaned out really good after the rebuild, it will clog it up. Have your
trans man who did the work flush it out for you. If it were mine I would
make the builder make any adjustments, so he's responsible for the
outcome.
- --
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: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:21:10 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: engine weights

> Naw.........she's on a diet. That's the problem, we got rid of the
> Toledo scale a while back and I tried to use the bathroom scale she's
> down to now.............:-) (hope she doens't see this post :-( )

No peace in that home, and no forgiveness,
You done made a mess in the nest,
You gonna hafta get loud and a little bit mean,
And show em all whose the best,

You got the misdirected e-mail blues.

Da DA Da DA Da DA DA DA DAH DAH!!!

Some girl sent me naked pictures of her self a while back (unsolicited,
really..)and SWMBO happened to get the e-mail first...It was a
leeeiiiittle bit chilly in here for a while...
- --
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: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:52:17 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

Hey folks, I'm getting tired of my '71 F100 eating the outside corners
of the tires up, and I'm getting geared up to "adjust" the front camber.
The only catch is my crappy chiltons book doesn't have a camber spec.

Anyone got the camber spec for a '71 F100 they can send my way?

Thanks much,

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: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:56:02 -0700
From: Vogt Family
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Question on brakes

On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 Marko Maryniak wrote:

> Just an afterthought: I wouldn't recommend reaming out the stud holes in
> the drums cuz you might easily make them too big. The purpose is partly to
> create a tight sandwich and having the drum rattle against the wheel studs
> is not a good idea.
>
> Actually, I found that the problem of where the drums got stuck was not
> where the studs press thru, but in the center where the seam between the
> drum and the hub is. That's where there's a tight fit, and it's supposed
> to be tight to keep the drum centered. Clean that area up of rust, but
> don't file it or anything. You might want to line the hub/drum mating
> surfaces with a little never-seize or something, but the fit will always be
> a snug one by design.

Yes, I know what you are talking about. On my '61 4wd the studs are
definitely pressed through, the star shaped portion extends through the
drum flange. The center is not too tight. However, I did a '67 2wd
that was as you describe. However, if you only ream it out enough so
that it's still an interference fit, but comes off with only minor
beating and swearing without removing the hub again, the wheel will hold
it so it doesn't rattle. Ch*vys did it for years, and my '61 has
suffered no ill effects. However the 223 only has the power and RPM
range to go about 50 mph.

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:37:11 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

Steve: I have it here in the book just have to find a way to send it your way
!!!, I can try to take a picture of the graph then send it to your e-mail, it
should be the same as my 72 ? I have the shop manual..

Let me know
Mike in Seattle
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:03:14 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

>Steve: I have it here in the book just have to find a way to send it your way
>!!!, I can try to take a picture of the graph then send it to your e-mail, it
>should be the same as my 72 ? I have the shop manual..

Yeah, it's probably the same as a '71. A graph?? I was just expecting
an optimum camber value in degrees and minutes...

My truck sits much too high in the front (lousy featherweight FE's) and
has *way* too much positive camber.
It's my intention to shorten the springs to achieve the correct camber,
and I've calculated that shortening the springs 1" changes camber
aprox 1.55 degrees. Now I need to know what "optimum" camber I'm shooting for.

Thanks much for any light You can shed on the subject...





>Let me know
>Mike in Seattle
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>

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: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 10:06:03 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze

Hey, I just finished up my headlight upgrade and Steve it did wonders!
Tanks a lot for the great idea.

I came right off the high beam switch and was going to completely
eliminate the old wires but if I do that then I loose my little red High
beam indicator light in the dash. What I need is someone who has there
dash apart or a schematic of a 63's wiring to find out what color wire
it is that goes to the high beam indicator light.

If that doesn't pan out I might get a nice "Bright" LED and wire it up
there right off the switch. Or Steve, how about a digital readout that
says HI or LOW [:

I pretty much finished up my rear spring swap. I removed my heavy, old,
heavy, worn out bushings, heavy rear springs and installed a set off of
a 77 F150 including the hangers. While I was at it I flipped the rear
shackle and got the rear axle centered in the wheel opening, it worked
out well. Since rivets would be too hard to install I used Grade 8,
1/2" nuts and bolts. I wasn't sure what the breaking point was for
factory rivets so I tried to go a little bigger in the bolt department.

The one thing that still bugs me is that the rear passenger side of
truck still sits 1" lower than the drivers side. When I changed the
spring I guessed it was worn out shackle that caused it to be lower.
Guess not. I checked 4-5 times before I drilled holes and the passenger
side is still lower. Does anyone else have or had a truck that sits
lower in one corner? Did you find a fix?


- --
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.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 12:29:46 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Away for a Week

I will be away from home for the rest of the week. I'll be back Friday. I
didn't want anyone to wonder why I'm not replying to their mail.


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: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 14:08:25 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Chicago Latex Products -- Was: My Ford needs a Dentist

I found their web site:


http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://user.mc.net/~spartan/cl.htm

Mike


_____________________________________________

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 16:44:05 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tranny fluid temperature

hello,

does anybody know what temperature ATF SHOULD be run at? i have info on
life expectancy at different temps, but too cold may not be good either.
anyone?

TIA
sleddog

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 17:24:23 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Paint

Forwarded for:

Hi folks,

I tried to post a web address about painting and messed up the post. Well
here goes again.... If you are interested in painting your truck or need
information on paints and prep. work there is a web site that I think will
nterest you. It is located at
www.horizonweb.com/wwwboard/Spray_101/wwwboard.html
I hope you like that site as well as I did. It has a question and answer
format and it shows some of the topics that have been discussed over the last
several month.

Ken L.

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 18:21:42 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - stolen truck

Forwarded for: "Frank Kayser"

Could you please post a notice for me...
on wednesday my 1994 F350 dually turbo-diesel was stolen in the
Ottawa, Ontario area. The plate reads "MR FIX" could anyone who sees
this truck please mail me Phazer15 Hotmail.com or Fkayser Sprint.ca

Thanks i love my truck and would love to get it back...
"Frank Kayser"


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 20:12:56 EDT
From: OldTrux aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze

In a message dated 98-06-21 13:00:57 EDT, you write:


truck still sits 1" lower than the drivers side. >>

Thats so when the driver sits behind the wheel it will level out!
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 17:50:36 -0700
From: shaggrat ix.netcom.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

Hello to one and all,

I have just signed onto this sight in the hopes of getting some
information on the re-building of my pick-up.

I have a 71' F-100, 240 CID, 3 on the tree. I am looking to
replace/re-build from the radiator to the rear axle.

Some of the difficulties I am currently having are:

Engine is a bit under powered(acceleration).

Difficulties upshifting/can not downshift at all without double
clutching.

On the top end, I run out of RPMs but still have some power left.

I am considering installing a 360, with a four speed and maybe changing
the rear end out. I do not do much "heavy work" but the truck does do
a lot of playing in the dirt.

I would really appreciate any recommendation for configuring this
truck. See I'm a converted GMC own and I'm not really up on the Ford
performances yet. No Spamming please!

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze

On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Don Grossman wrote:


>
> I pretty much finished up my rear spring swap. I removed my heavy, old,
> heavy, worn out bushings, heavy rear springs and installed a set off of
> a 77 F150 including the hangers.

Is there a way to tell if my rear bushings are worn? (I *think*
my truck wanders a bit more than it used to, and I am wondering if
it isn't coming from the back end.)

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 sdelanty sonic.net wrote:


>
> My truck sits much too high in the front (lousy featherweight FE's) and
> has *way* too much positive camber.
> It's my intention to shorten the springs to achieve the correct camber,
> and I've calculated that shortening the springs 1" changes camber
> aprox 1.55 degrees. Now I need to know what "optimum" camber I'm shooting for.

Steve, you you mind sharing your calculations with one who is
somewhat "mathamatically impaired"?

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:11:05 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

????????????????????????????????????

- ----------
> From: shaggrat ix.netcom.com
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck
> Date: Sunday, June 21, 1998 5:50 PM

>No Spamming please!
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How to remove broken exhaust bolt

At 10:12 PM 17/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Joe DeLaurentis wrote:
>> I need some help with the removal of a exhaust manifold bolt on a 390
>> head..It snapped flush with the head(of course it couldnt leave me
>> something to get a hold of with vise grips :( Anybody?


Here's my fave way, go to your local machine shop supplier,
(take your manifold with you) and get a jig bushing the correct
size ( 5/16 X 13/32 ??) . Remove head, re-install manifold, place
bushing in manifold bolt hole, and run the drill through. Tap the
hole with the appropriate thread, re-install head, etc....


Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

At 01:29 PM 18/6/98 -0400, you wrote:

>
>and even the M's, and W's and FE's can do quite well. IMHO the w's
>drawbacks are not enough cubes,

with the right block, and the right crank, the W's will make
454 CI's, aint that enough for a "small" block??

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re-building my Truck

At 05:50 PM 21/6/98 -0700, you wrote:


>Some of the difficulties I am currently having are:
>
>Engine is a bit under powered(acceleration).

How many miles on the engine?

>Difficulties upshifting/can not downshift at all without double
>clutching.

Either synco's in the trans, or worn out shifter bushings.

>On the top end, I run out of RPMs but still have some power left.

Valve springs, too much blow by...

>I am considering installing a 360, with a four speed and maybe changing
>the rear end out. I do not do much "heavy work" but the truck does do
>a lot of playing in the dirt.

You'd be better off with a 390, It'll get better torque and fuel econ...

>I would really appreciate any recommendation for configuring this
>truck. See I'm a converted GMC own and I'm not really up on the Ford
>performances yet. No Spamming please!

You came to the right place, but we'll need more info on your
present combo, like whats the rear gear? what size tire are you
running? 2WD or 4WD? long bed or short bed?

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 19:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 63 F-100

At 09:49 PM 17/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
> I have a "63 with a 292 right now and am looking to put in a 351c with a
>c-6 tranny. Does anyone \know if I can use my original front suspension, or
>do I have to clip it. Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.


Hey Jason,
you should get a 351C in a late model Mustang oil pan. Then its
a basic bolt in. Just make sure the pans scallop is above the axel...

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 22:58:37 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

no :) 454 cubes is not enough! now, 800 cubes in a luminum block. . . .

but really, talking the standard cube sizes, and the ability to easily and
cheaply get more cubes. the M can get 400 cubes cheap, the W is not so
cheap anymore. and a 302 block is even more limiting to the cube size with
its low deck height. that's all i mean.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Steve & Rockette[SMTP:canzus seanet.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 1998 3:36 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:engine weight

At 01:29 PM 18/6/98 -0400, you wrote:

>
>and even the M's, and W's and FE's can do quite well. IMHO the w's
>drawbacks are not enough cubes,

with the right block, and the right crank, the W's will make
454 CI's, aint that enough for a "small" block??

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!

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




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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:06:13 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steve's headlight craze

hurdj VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Don Grossman wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I pretty much finished up my rear spring swap. I removed my heavy, old,
> > heavy, worn out bushings, heavy rear springs and installed a set off of
> > a 77 F150 including the hangers.
>
> Is there a way to tell if my rear bushings are worn? (I *think*
> my truck wanders a bit more than it used to, and I am wondering if
> it isn't coming from the back end.)
>
> Jim in Central NY
> '79 F-150 (302!)
> '92 Topaz (3.0l)
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


A rear steer effect could be one of the symptoms. If you are getting that
much play in them a good close look will tell you if they are worn out or
not.
- --
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.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 21:25:54 -0700
From: Doug Neely
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

Steve,
For 71 F100,250 Maximum 2 1/2 degrees positive
Minimum 1/2 degree negative

Cheers,
Doug


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 22:36:32 PDT
From: "steve hoyt"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - E-Z Outs

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:32:43 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ez-outs

William L Ballinger said:
I stopped by a friend's machine shop the other day,and he was working on
a 390 head. Asked him what he was doing. He said he was drillling out 3!
ez-outs. Seems the fellow who owns them was a little stubborn, dont you
think?

- - --
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

Seems to me that Shadetree Mechanic had a show on a couple months ago
and advertised a cool new tool which is used to unscrew broken e-z outs.
Maybe someone else on the list can remember some more about them, like
who makes them and how much they cost. Seems like it would be cheaper
to buy the special tool than a trip to the machine shop, not to mention
the down time on your ride.

Steve Hoyt
'62 F100 Unibody 292v2


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 22:49:59 PDT
From: "steve hoyt"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:Help!/Advise/Shoulders to Cry on!

Steve, thanks for the suggestion, and believe it or not your not the
first
person to "steer" me in this direction. I did entertain the idea, that
was
untill I found this company out of Houston TX. called Mr. Column, who
for
between $100-300 bucks depending upon how sophisticated your column
is(tilt,cruise,all that good stuff) will rebuild it like new, paint it
with
original color, and yes even "Guarantee" it, well I guess I should type
what
it actually says on their site, "come with a limited lifetime
guarantee".
So with a $100.00 deposit off I sent it, UPS with a blessing and a
prayer!
By the way, how did that Hurst shifter look in your truck, and wasn't it
kind of "far" to reach to shift(although if it automatic, guess there's
not
much shifting!)

Thanks for your help!!

John Hammell
67F250 Camper Special

Hope it all works out well. The Hurst kit didn't look too bad, it was a
kit specifically for trucks, so it had a longer handle. Looks were not
important on this truck though. The bed was replaced before I got it
with an ugly wooden one, the cab mounts were rotted through, rust holes
in the floor, leaked (I wish Ford could make a good rear main seal, or
at least one that was easy to change) and burned oil to the tune of
about a quart every 4-5 days. The majority of the exhaust system
fell/rusted off the first day I had it. It had a miss and a knock in
the engine as well. The kids in my wife's daycare used to call it
Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang because of the unique sounds it made coming
down the road, normally heard well before it was seen. For all of it's
uglyness it never let me down. I took some razzing at work for it until
it hit -40 one day and I found myself to be the only one at work. After
a few call my truck and I spent all day jump starting everyone else.

Steve Hoyt
'62 F100 Unibody 292v2




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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 23:15:02 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100

>> It's my intention to shorten the springs to achieve the correct camber,
>> and I've calculated that shortening the springs 1" changes camber
>> aprox 1.55 degrees. Now I need to know what "optimum" camber I'm
shooting for.


> Steve, you you mind sharing your calculations with one who is
> somewhat "mathamatically impaired"?
>
> Jim in Central NY

Uh oh... now I'm in trouble. I didn't know this test was gonna require us
to show our work...

Actually I was too lazy to try to remember the formulas (high school was SO
long ago), or to go look it up in one of "those books over there", so I plugged
the suspension dimensions into turbCAD and let it do the dirty work for me...

I measured the length of the I-beams as 37" from pivot to center of lower
spring perch, and 48" from pivot to center of tire tread.

Starting with the spindle parallel to the road as the 0" reference point,
I changed the spring height an inch at a time and turboCAD spit out the
following data:

-4" = 6.170degrees (negative camber ) [0.861"]
-3" = 4.635degrees ( "" ) [0.647"]
-2" = 3.094degrees ( "" ) [0.432"]
-1" = 1.548degrees ( "" ) [0.215"]
0" = 0.0 degrees (spindle parallel to road) [level]
+1" = 1.548degrees (positive camber) [0.215"]
+2" = 3.094degrees ( "" ) [0.432"]
+3" = 4.635degrees ( "" ) [0.647"]
+4" = 6.170degrees ( "" ) [0.861"]

The last column, in brackets was the part that bothered me...
If You have an 8" wide tire tread that is totally "rigid" with no flex
at all (like a flintstone wheel), and You tilt it at an angle so that
only one corner touches the ground, the other corner would be
off the ground by the distance noted in brackets.
It's no wonder that twin I-beam suspensions eat the corners of tires
when the ride height is changed even an inch or 2 from ideal!

Based on all that junk and some other measurements I took, I think I'm
gonna start by shortening my loaded spring height by about 1.25", to give
about 1.9 degrees less positive camber. I'm shooting for about 0.5 degree
of positive camber, or maybe a little less since I can shim the lower spring
perch to bring it back up as much as 1 degree if necessary.

The real test is to see what my tires think of all my theories and math.
They're seriously hating life right now so they should be happy I'm
trying to do something about 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: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:17:52 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Weights

Seems like a strange game, but what the heck, I'll play.

Edelbrock Performer 390 intake manifold, with vac, water fittings, temp.
sender, w.o. bolts, carb, or any gaskets - 25-1/4 lbs

Mr. Gasket adaptor, cat. # 1932, to put q-jet on above square 4 manifold, w.
bolts, gasket 1-1/2 lbs.

Q-jet, used, dry, with gasket, this one is 7029268 (Yeech, bowtie stuff)
9-1/8 lbs

Holley spread bore double pumper (marked 12R5395B on base) dry, w. gasket
12-3/8 lbs

These weights with a fairly high quality Chatillon brand 25 lb spring scale.

BTW, enjoyed the stock car story, Bill.



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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 08:04:35 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Best $6000 I ever spent :-)

Well, I don't want to keep you guessing so I'll tell you it's the
lift :-) Yesterday I went out at 9 am and dug up my wifes schrub row
around the house so I could put the plastic and stone down to empty
the truck so I could work on it. I also put up her bird bath on her
flower mound in the back yard.

When I took breaks I worked in the garage on a jack stand that works
with the lift at full lift to steady the vehicle for tough jobs and
is also low enough to fit under a low slung axle to raise it for
mounting the shock etc.. Got to use another of my new toys, the chop
saw for that job and it was really slick. If you do much of that
kind of stuff don't wait till you can afford one, get it now and it
will pay for itself in time and rotten welds in one job, trust me :-)

Put the Pu on the lift and worked on the right rear shock mount which
had completely broken off and discovered that at rest with all weight
on the suspension the shocks are at full extension??? Then I
remembered the 3" or so of additional spring I had stuck in there
which explained some of the problem. Anyway it's tacked in place,
got to finish welding it in tonight because my welder cable (power)
wasn't long enough to make it all the way to the hoist (about 20'
short). Guess I'll need some new shocks, probably give RTC a call
:-)

Then in my spare time I pulled the right rear axle and replaced the
bearing which I had been dreading but with all the gear out of the
garage and into the barn and the truck itself in the barn I had lots
of room to work on my makeshift press and that axle bearing was one
of the easiest I've ever done. I lowered the truck to chest level
for the axle work, raised it up to max for the brake release and
readjustment part of the job and let it back down to pull the axle
and put it back in at eye (slighltly lower but you get the idea)
level so I didn't have to do any bending at all. Even put the tire
back on at that level and it was great :-)

Went to bed about 10 pm and couldn't sleep cuz I was so excited about
all the fun I had all day :-) Just thought I'd share my happynes
with Y'all :-) At this rate I'm going to run out of work to do on my
vehicles before I retire and won't have anything to do :-(



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!
9000#, in ground vehicle lift, Woooo Hooo!

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 08:10:29 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - question on 73-75 A/C

>
>When did Ford get away from under Dash A/c and go with vents in the
>dash????Or were there underdash units up till 75???
>
Dash vents were employed starting in 1973.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 06:28:24 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Cams

Thanks for your message at 03:45 PM 6/17/98 -0400, am14 chrysler.com. Your
message was:
>William Ballinger writes: >> I'm also going with a stock 390GT
>cam. No better street cam for the FE, even in a truck!
>
>I personally think that is the 2nd best stock Hydraulic cam for the FE.. I
>think the best stock hydraulic FE cam is one of the 428CJ cams from '68,
>'69, vintage. I've owned both and ran both in the same vehicles with no
>other changes, and the CJ made much better times in the 1/4 mile and there
>was no noticeable difference in economy on the street. Now if you want to
>go to solids, the '67 vintage 427 is the best, with the '61/'62 HP versions
>of 390/406 2nd.
>

While we are on the FE engine (again), I will ask this question: I have an
opportunity to pick up a 66 Merc Parklane with a 410. Is this engine as
strong and reliable as the 390? This is a 390 with a longer stroke,
correct? It is backed up with a MercoMatic with a "leak somewhere "(the
owner's diagnosis). I'm wondering if ths would be a likely candidate to
fill the large gaping hole in the engine compartment of my "other '62"
truck? Is this tranny generally worth messing with? I believe it is the
same as the Cruise-o-matic. I'm trying to remember my skimming of previous
FE discussions (which I admit not paying enough attention to since I was
not an FE owner). Does the C-6 bolt right up?

At last, maybe I can participate in the numerous FE discussions on FTE!
1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1970 Marquis 429
1973 Mustang 302 (tired)
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
!962 Unibody short box (shell) just parked the trailer in my backyard.
It's gonna be a convertible!

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:03:38 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Intake rakes

Marko writes: >>If you were lucky enough for your $45 to have found a
Thunderbird TRI-POWER from the early 60's (64 included I think) you would
note that this manifold kept all carbs parallel to the crank, whereas the
Galaxie/Starliner/Sunliner 406/427 tri-power manifold had rake to it.

So what you are saying is that the intakes were "body specific". I find
that amazing. Can this be verified in some books someplace???

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 10:17:55 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - GT390/428CJ cams

Steve D writes: >>#C6AZ-6250-A Application: 67 390/428, and 69 390GT.
Duration: 256/256 Lift: .438" Overlap: 37d

Hmmm, that doesn't look particularly performance oriented...
The GT390 cam I'm familiar with is the second one listed:

#C6OZ-6250-B Application: 66/68 390GT, 68/70 428CJ.
Duration: 270/290 Lift: .481"/.490" Overlap: 46d

*That's* the cam I think of when someone says "GT390/428CJ", and
the only cam listed here for the 428CJ.

I must surely have been comparing the 1st version of the GT390 cam with the
2nd version 390GT/428CJ. I had a noticeable difference in 1/4 times at any
rate. I later wound up running an optional cam C8AZ-6250C, which is....


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.