|
|
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 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 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 Sent: Saturday, June 20, 1998 9:27 PM To: 61-79-list 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 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 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 == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 21:21:10 -0500 From: ballingr 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 == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 20:52:17 -0700 From: sdelanty 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 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 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 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 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 == 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 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 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 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 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 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 Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need a camber spec for '71 F100 On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 sdelanty > > 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 > To: 61-79-list > 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 Sent: Sunday, June 21, 1998 3:36 PM To: 61-79-list 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 > 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 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 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 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 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 \( 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 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 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 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 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.
|