61-79-list-digest Thursday, July 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 360



=======================================================================
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 - Strongest ford parts
FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton lower coil spring pad fix
FTE 61-79 - Re: My Ugly Bed
Re: FTE 61-79 - Strongest ford parts
FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5
Re: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5
FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab
FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Stinks
FTE 61-79 - Question on Dealer Installed A/C
FTE 61-79 - Pwr steering whine
FTE 61-79 - brake pull, overheating, oil
RE: FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab
Re: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5
Re: FTE 61-79 - Strongest ford parts
Re: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 57-63 (?) 8' "Style" Side Bed Needed
FTE 61-79 - RE Compression Ratios
FTE 61-79 - On the subject of Transmissions-
FTE 61-79 - Adjustable timing (In Cab)
Re: FTE 61-79 - 69 Camper Speical info
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Note to digest members
Re: FTE 61-79 - 67 Wiring Schematic
FTE 61-79 - New 99 F150 information
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE Compression Ratios
Re: FTE 61-79 - 67 Wiring Schematic
Re: FTE 61-79 - 67 Wiring Schematic
FTE 61-79 - RE: Bunch of '73 F250 questions
FTE 61-79 - change of ATF
RE: FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab
RE: Subject: FTE 61-79 - 57-63 (?) 8' "Style" Side Bed Needed

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 10:10:48 -0700
From: "Douglas W. Hack"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Strongest ford parts

A little over a year ago I read an article in an off-road mag about the
strongest parts for 4-wheel drive trucks. This was not the usual puff
piece for over-priced new aftermarket stuff -- saying everything was
great and you should refinance the house. This article talked about the
original factory options and what could be swapped, and what was the
strongest and best. It called junk, JUNK.

Unfortunately I've lost the mag. If anyone has this sort of
information, either from print or personal experience with a wide
variety of Ford parts, I'd like to hear about it.

Specifically, which are the strongest, widest-ratio manual transmissions
and/or transfer cases. Years and ID numbers? I'm building a tow
vehicle based on a 78 F250. I've been told that the old wide-ratio
4-speeds are a better bet than any of the newer 5-speeds - is this so?
Although this is going to remain a 2-wheel drive truck, I'm considering
using a 4-wheel drive transfer case to get the low range, and combine it
with a highway-ratio differential, trying to get a stump-pulling low,
and a economical cruise. Any comments?
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:17:43 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton lower coil spring pad fix

Michael R. Masse wrote:
>
> Ox,
> Sorry I have no advice for your steering problem, but you had
> mentioned earlier
> that you had tweaked your lower spring mount to get the spring
> straight. Could you elaborate a little on what you did?
>

The center part of lower spring pad is relativley flat. I cut out a
1/8 inch plate in a circle to fit under the center of spring pad. Since
spring pad and radius arms are not perfeclty flat, you must bend plate a
little, off the center, to make it meet up with spring pad. If you bend
it more than you need to, you end up with clearance between the plate
and outer edge of bottom, center part, of spring pad. I held inner edge
of plate against spring pad and welded it on. The other side now had a
gap, which I filled in with weld and welded a couple more passes for
kicks. You now have a spring pad that mounts higher on the outer edge
then it used to. Since spring pads almost always bend on outer edge,
this helps raise it back up. This ended up not being enough for me, so
I welded another 1/8 plate, 1/2 cirlce to outer edge on each side. this
did the trick.

OX

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 12:28:50 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: My Ugly Bed

> Hey, I've seen those beds before. My cousin has one on a '65 F350. But his
> is a 9 ft. bed. Are there many 9' beds around? Thanks.

'65 was the last year for them, and I've seen very few even before that.
- --
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: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:28:26 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Strongest ford parts

Douglas W. Hack wrote:
>
> A little over a year ago I read an article in an off-road mag about the
> strongest parts for 4-wheel drive trucks. This was not the usual puff
> piece for over-priced new aftermarket stuff -- saying everything was
> great and you should refinance the house. This article talked about the
> original factory options and what could be swapped, and what was the
> strongest and best. It called junk, JUNK.
>
> Unfortunately I've lost the mag. If anyone has this sort of
> information, either from print or personal experience with a wide
> variety of Ford parts, I'd like to hear about it.
>
> Specifically, which are the strongest, widest-ratio manual transmissions
> and/or transfer cases. Years and ID numbers? I'm building a tow
> vehicle based on a 78 F250. I've been told that the old wide-ratio
> 4-speeds are a better bet than any of the newer 5-speeds - is this so?
> Although this is going to remain a 2-wheel drive truck, I'm considering
> using a 4-wheel drive transfer case to get the low range, and combine it
> with a highway-ratio differential, trying to get a stump-pulling low,
> and a economical cruise. Any comments?

Why not just use a NP435 or Borg warn T-18/19. They are supposed to be
identical, but the NP435 case looks stronger and I'm told the NP435 had
a lower first gear, like 6.68 vs 5.86 for T-18/19. the T-19 had a
synchronized first gear. The bigest problem I see is the jump to second
is a big one and the older trannies shift slow. They should handle
anything you have as they came behind 460's in 1 ton trucks. I have
wheeled the one in my 78 bronco with lockers and 38" tires very hard
with no problems. You won't need a transfer case with that low a first
gear.

OX

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 10:26:17 -0700
From: "Douglas W. Hack"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5

My 78 F250 has 16.5 rims and will need new tires soon. I've been told
that the 16.5 tires are hard to find, expensive, and that the truck
won't handle as well on the pavement with the 16.5 rims. Can this last
part possibly be true? Are there any advantages to the larger rims, or
should I just junk them and get 16's? Anybody in Northern California
with a really cheap set of steel 16's available?
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 11:04:57 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5

At 10:26 AM 7/1/98 -0700, you wrote:
>My 78 F250 has 16.5 rims and will need new tires soon. I've been told
>that the 16.5 tires are hard to find, expensive, and that the truck
>won't handle as well on the pavement with the 16.5 rims. Can this last
>part possibly be true? Are there any advantages to the larger rims, or
>should I just junk them and get 16's? Anybody in Northern California
>with a really cheap set of steel 16's available?

I bought a brand new set of 16.5's a year ago for my 74 F250. The tires,
mounting and balancing for all four tires was around $400.00 at Discount
Tire. My 74 Handles fine on the pavement, wet or dry.


Keith Srbherbie netvalue.net
Performance List Admin in Training.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ

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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:11:23 -0400
From: "Melayne Arnold"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab

I'm new to the list and just bought a 66 longbed, 352 auto.
Bought it here in Mass., but originally from KS (have the owner's
manual w/ original owner info typed in!) I have a couple of
questions. On the ID numbers, the consecutive build number is
780420 - when was this built? Also, the paint code is BM, body
style C81, transmission C, gear ratio 17, and DSO of 53. Can

Hale,

According to my source, build # 780420 was made in November 1964, BM paint
code is for Wimbleton White and Caribbean Turquise, Body Type 81 is
conventional cab, transmission C is 3-speed Ford (light duty), gear ratio 17
is Ford rears with 3.25, and DSO 53 is for Kansas City. Hope this helps.


Stoney

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:23:25 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Stinks

> In May there was a thread about getting the kickdown to work on an
> Edelbrock 4v. I searched the archives and didn't find a conclusion on the
> subject. Is there anybody out there that has done this and made it work?
> I'm using it on a 390 in a 1967, so the kickdown is a solid rod, not the
> cable. Should I expect problems getting it to work? Is the E-brock adapter
> a waste of money?
>
> I'm trying to plan ahead for the day I drop the motor in. I don't want to
> be dinking around when I should be driving it.
>
> Thanks again for any ideas,

That's one of my pet peeves with the Edelbrock carbs. You get this bare
carb, either jetted for a 305 or a 454 Ch*vy, nothing in between, with
no kickdown or throttle hookup. To set it up for anything you have to
spend more money for their "setup kit". That's B.S. If they sell me a
carb for a 390 it should be set up (jetted, rodded, and with all
necessary appendages for a choke and kickdown) for that application,
especially if they make a "kit" to adapt it! I can make a junkyard dog
work just as well for 1/10 the money if I don't mind adapting
everything to work!

I've gone to their BBS at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.edelbrock.com and read some of the
issues posted there,(I recommend that you post your question there and
sit back for a good laugh) and to be truthful, for a company that
dominates the performance industry as they do, their quality control,
application specific marketing, and customer service stink. A guy asked
(on the BBS) why the carb setups are so incomplete. The Tech reps answer
was "Adapting things to your application is just good old fashioned
hot-rodding..." Yeah buddy, to me that only applies to finding an old
dump truck with a 6-7-1 blower on it and making it work on mine. It
doesn't apply to a fuel metering device that's sold to fit my
application at twice what it's worth.



- --
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: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:40:54 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Question on Dealer Installed A/C

>
>Anybody have any info on 67-72 Dealer installed A/C????i just pulled
>a factory A/C system and a Dealer installed one too.. I like
>the dealer installed one it lets you keep your original glove box...
>And fits around the blower motor and original heater core..anybody
>out there with one like this????I would like to hear from you..
>
I have an ARA unit in my '68 F250. What do you want to know? If yours has
a "Ford" blue oval on it and goes all the way across the dash you might try
to talk to Jamey Moss, he just pulled one out of a '72 Ranger XLT.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 15:05:15 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Pwr steering whine

OX writes: >>The fluid was completely drained and refilled. It is
currently filled correctly. I also jacked up the front end to check for
binding. I can rotate steering back and forth by hand without to much
resistance.

What might cause a power steering system to crap out just from
changing the fluid? Does the PS system need to be bled?

Air in it somewhere, or pwr steering belt too tight. You mentioned
resistance when trying to steer, so I suspect air. Jack it up so that
both front wheels clear - crank it up and turn the steering wheel from lock
to lock about 3 or 4 times - recheck fluid and add as necessary. This
usually gets all the air out but you may have to repeat once.

Good luck

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:05:14 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - brake pull, overheating, oil

Karl,
My 79 F150 2WD pulls slightly to one side on a hard brake. It has a
dislocated proportioning valve. Pulling to one side can be caused by brake
fluid or oil on the pads or shoes, worn drums or rotors, misadjusted shoes,
or anything else that would cause unequal pressure on the same axle. If one
wheel locks prematurely, then that wheel has too much friction. If one
wheel never locks or locks very late, then that wheel has too little
friction. Do your testing somewhere where you won't get rear-ended and you
have plenty of room to skid around. You don't need to go very fast and
gravel or dry dirt may yield clues faster than pavement. Sometimes an
observer from a safe distance can spot things that you can't see from the
driver's seat.

Mike,
No offense intended here, but when you put the fan on the outside to blow
air, it was a pusher, not a puller, right? I know you did this right, but
someone else considering an electric fan may not think of this aspect. By
the way, not all mechanical fans rotate the same direction either. Someone
else suggested as a cure for city overheating to replace the clutch with a
spacer. I don't think that this is possible on most clutch units due to the
way that the fan bolts to the clutch with a bigger diameter bolt circle.
Even if you could do it, the fan would cause turbulence at highway speeds
and possibly overheating. (I've read a few more digests and someone else
mentions this possibility.) I know, older cars had neither cluch nor flex
fan, but most of them didn't have air either and none of them had pollution
control. If you eliminate the clutch, you pretty much need to go to a flex
fan. I prefer stainless steel, but other people swear by the fiberglass
ones.

In everyone's general direction:
Most temp sending units are in the block, but head temps usually become
critical much sooner. I know of several big block Ch v# s that were put
together with the head gaskets inverted or reversed (they looked right, but
weren't). The result was no water circulation to the heads. The temp gauge
never budged, but the heads overheated causing the exhaust valves to sieze.
That causes chrome moly pushrods to punch nice little holes in the rocker
arms just before the engine quits running. I have owned several vehicles of
various make that had separate head temperature sensors.

One last story. I changed the oil in my son's Monte Carlo. I drained
exaclty one quart from the crank case. I know the engine had oil pressure
and wasn't knocking because I was the last one to drive it. Without
re-igniting the oil war, this is another reason that I swear by Havoline
30HD.


- -John

jmlagron tenet.edu
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6
1988 Towncar 5.0 EFI AOD
Macintosh G3/233 minitower (When speed counts, count on Macintosh)
1979 MC under restoration (my son is rebellious, but he loves old cars!!!)

Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!


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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:27:01 -0500
From: Jim Pointer
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab

>Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 10:12:19 EST
>From: HALE neesnet.com
>I'm new to the list and just bought a 66 longbed, 352 auto.
>Bought it here in Mass., but originally from KS (have the owner's
>manual w/ original owner info typed in!) I have a couple of
>questions. On the ID numbers, the consecutive build number is
>780420 - when was this built? Also, the paint code is BM, body
>style C81, transmission C, gear ratio 17, and DSO of 53. Can
>anyone interpret these for me?

According to my sources
(http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/8824/truckid.htm):
Consecutive # 780240=Dec 65
Color BM=Turquoise/White
Body C81=Unclear
Trans C=3 speed light duty manual
Gear ratio 17=3.25 to 1

> The orig. wheel covers and horn button are missing. This is a
> Custom Cab - anyone know what the originals looked like when I go
> looking for parts - did the horn button carry the "ring gear and
> lightning bolt" logo?

If it would help, I have a digital camera and could take a picture of
the
steering wheel ring and e-mail it to you. I'm not sure if my wheel
covers
are original or not, so that might not be too helpful. Congratulations
on
the purchase--best-looking trucks ever made, in my opinion. That
oughta start a flame war.

Jim Pointer
66 F100 Custom Cab

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 12:52:33 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5

Douglas W. Hack wrote:

> My 78 F250 has 16.5 rims and will need new tires soon. I've been told
> that the 16.5 tires are hard to find, expensive, and that the truck
> won't handle as well on the pavement with the 16.5 rims. Can this last
> part possibly be true? Are there any advantages to the larger rims, or
> should I just junk them and get 16's? Anybody in Northern California
> with a really cheap set of steel 16's available?

What's that old phrase " Poppy Cock". 16.5"s handle just as well as
16"s. Why not go all the way with 17's, making a comeback you know.
- --
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: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:31:41 -0700
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Strongest ford parts

At 10:10 AM 7/1/98 , Douglas W. Hack wrote:
>Specifically, which are the strongest, widest-ratio manual transmissions
>and/or transfer cases. Years and ID numbers? I'm building a tow
>vehicle based on a 78 F250. I've been told that the old wide-ratio
>4-speeds are a better bet than any of the newer 5-speeds - is this so?
>Although this is going to remain a 2-wheel drive truck, I'm considering
>using a 4-wheel drive transfer case to get the low range, and combine it
>with a highway-ratio differential, trying to get a stump-pulling low,
>and a economical cruise. Any comments?

The New Process NP-435 (wide ratio) and NP-445 (close ratio) were heavy duty 4-speed boxes used by Ford and Dodge on their heaviest duty pickups behind motors up to 460 cubes. They are widely available, incredibly tough, and relatively easy to service and get parts for. Many of the newer 5-speed overdrives are less stout. Ford has been using two ZF units since 87? The unit sold with I-6 and 302s is rather flimsy, but there's a bigger one used with the diesels and 460s that holds up fairly well (though it won't take the abuse that the NP-435s would.)

Dodge and GM have used the NV-4500, a five speed replacement (literally) for the NP-435 since maybe 1992. It is a similar form factor (designed that way) and very tough. Available in close and wide ratio versions, it can be sourced from Advance Adapters ($$$) or possibly used/rebuilt by now.

1999 Ford and Dodge 1-tons or HD 3/4s with diesels are using the new NV-5600, a six speed OD unit rated for 600 lb-ft of input torque. It is significantly longer and heavier than the NV-4500 but allows these trucks to run fully-rated versions of their engines for the first time. Pre-1999 diesels from Navistar and Cummins were significantly derated to keep from tearing the drivelines apart on light duty trucks.

Imagine the 550 lb-ft of output from a floored turbodiesel hitting your U-joints and carrier gears after a 6.75:1 gear reduction!





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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:50:01 -0700
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 16 versus 16.5

At 01:52 PM 7/1/98 , Don Grossman wrote:
>> My 78 F250 has 16.5 rims and will need new tires soon. I've been told
>> that the 16.5 tires are hard to find, expensive, and that the truck
>> won't handle as well on the pavement with the 16.5 rims. Can this last
>> part possibly be true? Are there any advantages to the larger rims, or
>> should I just junk them and get 16's? Anybody in Northern California
>> with a really cheap set of steel 16's available?
>
>What's that old phrase " Poppy Cock". 16.5"s handle just as well as
>16"s. Why not go all the way with 17's, making a comeback you know.

16s and 17s have a different bead lock design than the 16.5 rims. Supposedly, it works better at the very low pressures used by some offroaders.



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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:12:48 -0700
From: Brian Koss
Subject: Subject: FTE 61-79 - 57-63 (?) 8' "Style" Side Bed Needed

Able Truck Wrecking in Hayward California has the bed you need. It is on a
'64 4x4 they have in their yard. I was there last week looking for a cab
for my truck Didn't find a cab but found two good door pockets with intact
plastic trim for for a 1966 truck for only $15.


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

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:07:37 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE Compression Ratios

Dale wrote:
- ---------------------------------------------------
I have read that building a motor with longer connecting rods and a modified
combustion chamber shape can allow higher compression ratios on pump gas.
Can anyone explain the theory behind this? Anyone actually done this?
later,
dale c
- ------------------------------------------------

Dale, There was a discussion about this a while back. Check out the
archives. Also, old issues of Hot Rod magazine have discussed this. They
have done a C**** and a 351W Ford with long rods. "The engine Chevy should
have built" and "The engine Ford should have built" are the articles. The
theory as I understand it is a longer rod allows the piston to dwell at TDC
longer developing more pressure on the piston. The engine is less prone to
detonation so higher compressions are possible. With a longer rod the angle
between the rod and a verticle line through the crank is less. This
produces less side load on the piston. The optimal rod to stroke ratio is
said to be 2.2:1.

I haven't tried this yet but I would like to build my own version, a 427 FE
block (larges bore available) 360 crank (shorter throw crank), 7 inch rod
(where can I get that?), piston to fit (shorter compression height) and run
a compresson around 11.0:1. This bore and stroke would yeild about 393
cubes.

Any other input on this combo?

Tom H.



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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 19:21:18 -0400
From: Tony Marino
Subject: FTE 61-79 - On the subject of Transmissions-

Hey all-

I was leafing through my '78 shop manual a few weeks ago trying to locate
the number for a thrust bearing in my tranny and noticed that Ford also has a
NP-532. I'd never heard of that transmission, it is a 5 speed, looks to be
the same case as a NP-435, and according to the part numbers, takes the
same output shaft. Has anybody heard about this transmission? What did it
come in? Was the 5th gear taller than the NP-435? Curious- I know my '78
could use an extra shift on the top end!

Tony

>The New Process NP-435 (wide ratio) and NP-445 (close ratio) were heavy
duty 4->speed boxes used by Ford and Dodge on their heaviest duty pickups
behind motors >up to 460 cubes. They are widely available, incredibly
tough, and relatively >easy to service and get parts for. Many of the
newer 5-speed overdrives are >less stout. Ford has been using two ZF units
since 87? The unit sold with I-6 >and 302s is rather flimsy, but there's a
bigger one used with the diesels and >460s that holds up fairly well
(though it won't take the abuse that the NP-435s >would.)

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:09:36 PDT
From: "Dave Walbeck"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Adjustable timing (In Cab)

Hi All, Just got done reading an article in "Petersen's 4Wheel &
Off-Road " about an adjustable ignition timing control from MSD
Ignition.
I had previously asked the list if there was any way to adjust timing
through the Duraspark ignition system and everyone came to the
conclusion it was not possible. Well MSD has solved that. They have a
setup that replaces the factory Duraspark module (fender mounted) with
one that looks like the Ford one, but with wiring coming out of it that
runs into the cab to an adjustable dial. All you do is swap the module,
run the wires to the cab, mount the dial, set dial where desired (They
recommend at 7 1/2 degrees ) adjust timing to factory specs. and you'll
have 7 1/2 degrees of advance or retard for towing and pulling. I called
MSD and they told me it was about 195.00 but that a local speed shop in
my area should have it for 30 to 40 percent
cheaper.

Dave Complete and Total FORDNUT, Highboy Nut, & FE Nut Too!!!!!!


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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:07:34 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 69 Camper Speical info

At 09:15 PM 6/30/98 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm pretty new to the list it's been a big help.I recently bought a 1969 Camper Speical
>W/low mileage, is there anyway to tell if it's a true C/S. When I start it in the AM the
> oil pressure is right up there, but as it warms up it drops down to just above the L
>on the guage. It goes right back up wheh I'm going down the road.It dosn't knock or rap
>when it drops.Should I trust the factory guage?It's got the 360 it came with. Thanks
>Mikey in Fla.

I'd definately get a pressure guage and check it out. You
don't want to find out the hard way that the factory guage
is right! If you get to it in time and the compression
is good you can get away with just replacing the bearings,
which won't even require taking the engine out.

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:10:09 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Note to digest members

Just wanted the digest members to know that the list
server is no longer sending out a daily digest for
this list at 4:00 am. Of all the lists, this one
generates enough traffic that a daily digest doesn't
need to be forced. Sometimes (yesterday), the traffic
isn't high enough. You aren't missing anything, I'm
just trying to keep our load as low as possible and
our archives smaller.

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:27:35 -0400
From: Jim Freyburger
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 67 Wiring Schematic

Ok,,, this is crazy,, How many of us need the schematics for a 67 F100...
Don't bother answering,,, its probable a bunch..
Lets pick a wire all of us figure out what the hell color it is and I'll draw the
damn thing.
I need one to,, and its driving me up the wall.. I know just run a wire for 90 of
the stuff but I would like to keep some things clear

RDbanesjr aol.com wrote:

> When you find the schematics for the '67 f100 could you pass them my way, TIA.
>
> Dug in louisiana
> '67 swb 240
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 23:44:03 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New 99 F150 information

I got this a couple of days ago and thought some of the list members
would find it useful:

>
>WWW.FordWorldNews.Com will release information on the 99 F-150 on 01
>July
>
>

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 23:43:47 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE Compression Ratios

latest issue of drag racing monthly has a very good article on rod lengths
and piston pin offsets by david vizard..

a 7" rod can be bought from crower and others, but it is a custom rod -
look for prices in the $1,200 range (steel, less for aluminum). a big bore
little stroke FE should be one hot engine, especially if you use the bores
maximum size to put as big a valve that will fit and use good
heads/intake/cam/etc. probly be a high rpm screamer!

sleddog


- ----------
From: Hogan, Tom[SMTP:Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 7:07 PM
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE Compression Ratios

Dale wrote:
- ---------------------------------------------------
I have read that building a motor with longer connecting rods and a
modified
combustion chamber shape can allow higher compression ratios on pump gas.
Can anyone explain the theory behind this? Anyone actually done this?
later,
dale c
- ------------------------------------------------

Dale, There was a discussion about this a while back. Check out the
archives. Also, old issues of Hot Rod magazine have discussed this. They
have done a C**** and a 351W Ford with long rods. "The engine Chevy should
have built" and "The engine Ford should have built" are the articles. The
theory as I understand it is a longer rod allows the piston to dwell at TDC
longer developing more pressure on the piston. The engine is less prone to
detonation so higher compressions are possible. With a longer rod the
angle
between the rod and a verticle line through the crank is less. This
produces less side load on the piston. The optimal rod to stroke ratio is
said to be 2.2:1.

I haven't tried this yet but I would like to build my own version, a 427 FE
block (larges bore available) 360 crank (shorter throw crank), 7 inch rod
(where can I get that?), piston to fit (shorter compression height) and run
a compresson around 11.0:1. This bore and stroke would yeild about 393
cubes.

Any other input on this combo?

Tom H.



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




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

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

Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 00:07:17 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 67 Wiring Schematic

At 11:27 PM 7/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
> Ok,,, this is crazy,, How many of us need the schematics for a 67 F100...
>Don't bother answering,,, its probable a bunch..
>Lets pick a wire all of us figure out what the hell color it is and I'll draw the
>damn thing.
>I need one to,, and its driving me up the wall.. I know just run a wire for 90 of
>the stuff but I would like to keep some things clear
>
>RDbanesjr aol.com wrote:
>
>> When you find the schematics for the '67 f100 could you pass them my way, TIA.
>>
>> Dug in louisiana
>> '67 swb 240

Nah, too much trouble. I have a brand new wiring diagram for 67 F100-F750.
Shows not only the diagrams but the layouts in the truck (3D!). I can't
photocopy them (they're copyrighted) but I can pick up a couple (the printer
is just 5 miles away) and mail them. He has 49-68 diagrams and they sell for
about $5-$7 (I think).

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:35:13 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 67 Wiring Schematic

Do you have any access to Schematics for a 72?
Mike in Seattle
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 00:41:10 -0700
From: "Jim Cron"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Bunch of '73 F250 questions

Gregg Wilson,

I have a '74 F250 Camper Special so will reply to some of your questions.
Some of these list guys really know the Ford stuff so I am sure they will
set me straight if I err.

With the Camper Special package you get some really good dual piston front
brakes and (on mine) sway bars front and rear. Be sure to tell them you
have dual piston calipers if you need front brake stuff.

The rear brakes are a pain in the butt to service but IMHO better your sweat
than your money, especially considering how eager your mechanic is to do it.
You have to pull the axles (easy but messy), then you need a special large
socket to remove the nuts that hold the wheel bearings. Will cost $20 or so
from a good auto parts store. Bend back the ear(s) on the locking plate
that secure the outer nut, remove nut, locking plate, second nut. Pull the
outer wheel bearing (messier, but not brain surgery) and then the hub and
drum assembly. Pull it straight out with as much support as you can give it
so the seal isn't damaged. I have to check the brakes pretty often as I
can't really see anything through those little slots and if they wear out,
well, the drums are pretty expensive.

I keep a seal or two on hand so if I find a bad one or have to pull an inner
bearing I will have a replacement. I have had some trouble with the bearing
nuts. They are separated by the locking plate which tabs into a slot on the
spindle. When the nuts jam together, removing the outer nut sometimes spins
both and shears off the tab on the locking plate, which kind of makes it
useless. I ordered some spares, and now put a dab of grease on the outer
side of the plate which seems to help.

I have also had some difficulty sealing the axles, they can leak and leave a
really pretty pattern of radial oil streaks all over the rims. The metal
seals on mine are pretty beat up. I coat them both sides with silicone
gasket seal and it works out fine.

I may have discouraged you, don't mean to. Pop them suckers open and see
what you have got going on in there.

Jim Cron

You wrote:

>Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:37:00 -0700
>From: "Wilson, Gregg"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - New to list: Bunch of '73 F250 questions
>
>Background: I recently got a '73 F250 Camper Special (390 2bbl, totally
>stock) that my dad has had since '78; I used to drive it around '80-81
snip>>
>2) What does the Camper Special package entail? I assume it entails
>rear suspension overloads. Anything else?
snip>>
>
>4) I have a slight rear brake "noise". My brake guy (same as front-end
>guy) looked through the inspection holes and said there was plenty of
>meat left, and it was probably just some rust or crud from sitting that
>will work itself out with driving it. However, when I indicated that I
>would still like to pull the drums and take a look for myself, he said
>that it was "a bitch", and pulling the axles aside, I would need
>specialty tools to work on these brakes. Does anyone have any
>experience and insight with this? My Chilton's manual doesn't indicate
>anything terribly stress inducing.
>
>This is enough for now. Thanks for your consideration in advance.
>
>Gregg Wilson
>'73 F250 Camper Special




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

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:57:13 -0500
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - change of ATF

Has anyone had experience with changing from type F in a late '60's C-6 to
Dexron/Mercon III? I have seen some info that indicates the only difference
will be smoother (gentler) shifts. On the other hand, reading between the
lines makes me think there could be some 'slippage' with the later type. I
am curious since the price of type F has escalated in my area in the last
few months to twice that of D/M III, and I am getting ready to do a total
fluid/filter change.



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

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

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 07:45:42 -0600
From: "Branscome, Walter, J. SSG"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab

Get any truck magazine, order several of the catalogs from the back and
you can get anyhting you want for your truck. The steering horn on my 65
CC is chrome with 3 spokes that match the spokes on the steering wheel
and a ring about 2 inches smaller that the whell the center peice is
black and has Product of the Ford Motor Company on the outside and the
Ford logo in the center. Hope this helps and welcome to the list

> ----------
> From: HALE neesnet.com[SMTP:HALE neesnet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 9:12 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 66 Custom Cab
>
> I'm new to the list and just bought a 66 longbed, 352 auto.
> Bought it here in Mass., but originally from KS (have the owner's
>
> manual w/ original owner info typed in!) I have a couple of
> questions. On the ID numbers, the consecutive build number is
> 780420 - when was this built? Also, the paint code is BM, body
> style C81, transmission C, gear ratio 17, and DSO of 53. Can
> anyone interpret these for me?
>
> The orig. wheel covers and horn button are missing. This is a
> Custom Cab - anyone know what the originals looked like when I go
>
> looking for parts - did the horn button carry the "ring gear and
> lightning bolt" logo?
>
> Should I be thinking about replacing the original oil bath air
> filter? It seems like a pain to maintain - is a swap to a paper
> element pretty easy? Anyone know of sources for original-type
> upholstery?
>
> This is a great list, and I'm looking forward to learning lots
> about my new baby!....


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.