61-79-list-digest Wednesday, July 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 389



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100
FTE 61-79 - 351W in place of 351M
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C
FTE 61-79 - A Question About Brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100
FTE 61-79 - whole sheebang
FTE 61-79 - chrome clips
FTE 61-79 - Oil Pump Screens
FTE 61-79 - RE:Front Discs
FTE 61-79 - Radius Arms
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Electric lines to garage - for working on old Ford Trucks
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W in place of 351M
FTE 61-79 - master cylinder colors
FTE 61-79 - Removing crank
FTE 61-79 - 3 Phase
Re: FTE 61-79 - Removing crank
FTE 61-79 - machine work
FTE 61-79 - Re:COMING SOON - 68-72 BODY SIDE MOLDINGS
FTE 61-79 - crank journals
FTE 61-79 - Re: FTE 61-79 351W Rebuild
Re: FTE 61-79 - crank journals
Re: FTE 61-79 - A Question About Brakes
FTE 61-79 - Even more 2150 carb talk
FTE 61-79 - If it's not one thing it's another
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Was 410 rebuild, Now 390 Rebuild
FTE 61-79 - truck show
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Was 410 rebuild, Now 390 Rebuild
Re: FTE 61-79 - Dead "M"
FTE 61-79 - > I have a 66 F100 with a 240-6, and a 4 spd tranny-granny gear. I have the
FTE 61-79 - Re: 351C
FTE 61-79 - RADIATOR HOSE PROBLEM
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W Rebuild
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W in place of 351M
Re: FTE 61-79 - machine work

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:49:13 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100

Another solution to the 240 six is the 300. I believe they are the same
block. I don't understand why so many people are having Vaporlock probs on
their sixes. My brother has a 300 in his 84 F-150 and we also live in Vegas,
we've never had a problem. His even has that screwy carb that was combination
carb and FI. The stupid thing has a throttle position sensor!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:57:57 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100

Date sent: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:33:22 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100

> My 66 F100 has the 240 six with a Warner T-18 4 Speed. I am going to
> replace it with a 390FE. All you have to do is move the Stanchions back,
> Ford was kind enough to pre drill the mounting holes in the cross member
> for you. Drop the engine in, bolt everything up, replace the Radiator with
> a "V-8", read larger, Radiator. Simple easy swap.

Won't you also have to get an FE bell housing?

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 Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:31:24 -0700
From: gpark cymer.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351W in place of 351M

Steve's buddies rebuild of the 351W got me wondering about swapping out the
351M for a 351W. I just can't get the hoo-poo's out of the M that I need.
What's involved in making a 351W fit into my 77 F150? Will my C6 still
bolt up?


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:38:24 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C

>From: GMPACHECO aol.com
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C
>
>Here are some numbers I found on the engine ( metal tag )
>
>351C 72-5
>F19 K604S
>Don't know what that means ? is it actually a 72' ?
>
>Also on the manifold it has...
>a big # 4 then
>DIAE-9425-DA
>
>supposedly this engine came out of a 71' Mustang !!

Yo Mike:

The D1AE casting number was used for 2V Cleveland-style engine components.
It was used on early M-blocks (400) and both M-block and Cleveland cylinder
heads, and probably on other parts as well (such as the intake manifold).
On a Cleveland, it indicates a late production engine that would have been
installed in a 1971 or later car (or Ranchero).

I don't know how to interpret the engine tag, though. Perhaps someone w/ a
reference could do that? It might indicate 1972 production, which would
contradict the '71 Mustang source claim (could have been a '72 Mustang,
though).

An excellent source of specifications and information on Cleveland engines
is the book "How to Rebuild Ford V8 Engines" by Tom Monroe, published by HP
Books, ISBN 0-89586-036-8. It covers all 335 and 385 series engines. I
recommend it highly.

Good luck w/ your engine.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:38:51 EDT
From: BlueOval77 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - A Question About Brakes

Hi all. This question may seem a tad out of place since it concerns an '88
model, but I know there are some really knowledgeable guys on this list and my
friend has no where else to turn, so...

A friend of mine has an '88 F-250 4x4 on which the front brakes will heat up
and become useless simply by driving the truck a distance of over 10 miles at
a time. The brakes do not have to be touched for this to happen and when it
does, he has to pull over to the side of the road and either wait for them to
cool down or pry the calipers apart before resuming.

He has had all of the brake components replaced a couple of times (to
include the brake lines) with the exception of the master cylinder. It only
happens with the front brakes (disc) - not the rears (drum).

Can anyone shed some light on this problem?

John
91 Mustang GT
77 F-150 Ranger 4x4
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:00:10 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100

At 12:57 PM 7/29/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Date sent: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:33:22 -0700
>From: Keith Srb
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61 - 79....66 F100
>
>> My 66 F100 has the 240 six with a Warner T-18 4 Speed. I am going to
>> replace it with a 390FE. All you have to do is move the Stanchions back,
>> Ford was kind enough to pre drill the mounting holes in the cross member
>> for you. Drop the engine in, bolt everything up, replace the Radiator with
>> a "V-8", read larger, Radiator. Simple easy swap.
>
>Won't you also have to get an FE bell housing?

Yes, I forgot about that. All of the 390's I have been looking at have the
bell housing attached to the motor. Some even still had the T-18 bolted
on. Sorry.

I am trying to find a cheap parts truck that I could drive home and then
dismantle.

Later



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

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:52:05 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - whole sheebang

Mike, too bad it's so far from Texas to Seattle. I need a door and fender.
I hope I can find a deal like you did!!!

- -John

jmlagron tenet.edu
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6, bashed in left side
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:17:51 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - chrome clips

Sorry, I forgot who was removing chrome from their windshield, but I had a
thought. On several vehicles, especially rusty ones, the clips broke
instead of simply releasing. Just didn't want you to think you had done
something wrong if this happens to you. Also, someone invariably tried to
stop a leak and there is usually some type of sealer down behind there
preventing proper release, too. A friend of mine made a tool. I bought a
cheapo one at the local HiLo for about $3 several years ago. I had seen
lots of them for around $20 and wouldn't pay it. Mine has a blue plastic
handle like a screwdriver handle. I think it was made by Hollywood Custom
or something similar. I have seen other versions made of stamped steel.
They all work the same and and worth owning.


- -John

jmlagron tenet.edu
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6, bashed in left side
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:58:43 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oil Pump Screens

> When I put the pickup tube on, it looked like new to me. I did not
> flush it out, but I did not see any debree inside the end of tube or at
> the screen end. The oil pan was extremely clean for 150K miles. I'll be
> very surpirsed if oil pump has junk in it (then again, I was surprised
> that it was oil pump to begin with :-). I will put in a new pickup if I
> fix motor, just to be sure.

The most important thing to look for on the screen is if it's pulled
away anywhere around it. They are made to collapse when the screen gets
clogged, allowing unscreened oil to go to the pump. The screen can be
clean, but if it's been collapsed you need to get another one.
- --
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:13:08 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:Front Discs

> May be true of the 2wd, but I parted out a '75 4X4 that had drum brakes and
> closed knuckles on the front. I still have the axle.

I think that the F250 4X's used this axle and drum brakes until '77 1/2.
Does anyone know what year the 250 4X's got recirculating ball steering?
I think it was also '77 1/2.

I'm still considering upgrading my steering and brakes and springs
someday, but I hate to spoil the originality of it. It's a tough call.
- --
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:25:26 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Radius Arms

> Also does anyone know of a quick or easy way to replace the radial
>
> arm bushing?

Easy mentally or physically? Mentally it's no challenge, just get some
good quality parts and torque them to specs.

Physically, it's another story. You have to knock the heads off of the
rivets that attach the rear bushing bracket to the frame. Some guys
torch them, but that will weaken the bracket and possibly the frame. An
air chisel and drill is best. Don't forget to use leather gloves and
goggles, those rivet shards can put out an eye. After you've done that
it's a simple matter to replace them. Use the best bolts you can find
to reattach the brackets. A 4X4 shop should carry them.
- --
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:27:45 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Electric lines to garage - for working on old Ford Trucks

From: sdelanty sonic.net
Date sent: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:33:50 -0700
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Electric lines to garage - for working on

> wire size You need. Send me the numbers if You want and I'll crunch 'em
> for You, and You can just tell the guys "string it with this size" and
> write 'em a check. No need to wait 6 months to not get an answer from
> them, it's not 5 minutes worth of 6th grade math...

When I'm ready to do it I'll give you a shout :-)


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 Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:49:06 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W in place of 351M

From: gpark cymer.com
Date sent: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:31:24 -0700
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351W in place of 351M

> Steve's buddies rebuild of the 351W got me wondering about swapping out
> the 351M for a 351W. I just can't get the hoo-poo's out of the M that I
> need. What's involved in making a 351W fit into my 77 F150? Will my C6
> still bolt up?

Mounts and tranny. The tranny has the big block pattern so you have to find
a case for a small block and swap in the parts or just swap trannys but you
may have the wide ratio version which is worth keeping. Mounts would have
to be swap mounts probably, not sure if the M is similar enough that the
stanchions will fit the W mounts or not.

A simpler alternative might be to get a 400 crank and pistons and swap them
in instead. Then put a 360 degree Offy manifold and Rochester carb on it
and ..........:-)

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 Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:43:00 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - master cylinder colors

I painted my mc flat black and my booster glossy black. Both were
originally unfinished (au naturele?). I used household Krylon in the spray
can. Both have held up well for about two years. BTW, I also painted the
inside of my bed flat black. I don't haul much and when I do I'm careful.
Scratches are easy to fix (and cheap). Several people have asked me where I
got my bedliner. What bed liner? Krylon also makes an Ultra Flat Black that
I used on my rear bumper. Disclaimer: I am not connected to Krylon in any
form or fashion.

- -John

jmlagron tenet.edu
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6, bashed in left side
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:41:24 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Removing crank

Joe DeL: writes: >>So I decided to pull the engine and have it on the
stand! Now can i remove the main caps and the piston bottom caps and remove
the crank and do it like this???Or will I screw up the bearings????


Yes you can, but you will need at least two people to help you hold the
rods out of the way when you re-install it. Don't want any scratches on
the journals. Be very careful.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:57:08 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 3 Phase

Steve writes: >> Too bad, I've got a nice 4000lb 3-phase chain hoist that
would be real sweet for moving truck parts around the garage...

Take that 3 phase down to your local large compressor rebuild place and
work out a swap for a single phase 220V of sufficient hp. Should be able
to do it. I did,

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:58:42 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Removing crank

From: am14 chrysler.com
Date sent: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:41:24 -0400
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Removing crank

> Yes you can, but you will need at least two people to help you hold the
> rods out of the way when you re-install it. Don't want any scratches on
> the journals. Be very careful.

Azie, did you see my post on this? The tubes work really well :-)

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 Hoooo!

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:09:41 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - machine work

William Ballinger writes: >>Any reccomendations on machine work, what
works or doesn't

This is "flame war" types of questions, but I'll give you my opinion
anyway. It all depends on what you want and are willing to spend.
I like a balanced engine, so I usually get the rotating mas of parts
balanced. Sometimes I mill the heads just enough to clean them up. Also I
have machined the block deck, but these things are more for the all out
performer. Daily drivers are much more forgiving than all out dragster
engines.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 98 16:21:15 -0400
From: "Ronald D. Miller"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:COMING SOON - 68-72 BODY SIDE MOLDINGS

These moldings are the Body SIDE moldings which refers to the upper
moldings. The lower moldings which are refered to as rocker moldings
have been available for approx. a year at $325.00 per vehicle. Attaching
hardware is not included.

Thanks,
Ron Miller,
Auto Krafters, Inc.
800-228-7346
www.auto krafters. com
>
>you wrote:
>>Here's a quick note about new reproduction body side moldings for 68-72
>>F-series trucks coming soon.
>(snip)
>
>Is the upper, the lower, or both?
> _
> _| ~~. John Strauss
>
>Are these side molding s towards the bottom, not in the middle ??
>Mine are at the bottom, but I have seen several fords that have them in the
>middle ?
>
>Mike in Seattle
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:27:55 EDT
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - crank journals

Does anyone feel that there would be a problem with a newly-ground crankshaft
that is 0.040" under (main) and 0.020" under (rod)?...

I've seen cranks at 0.030" before, but never 0.040".....are bearings available
(FE)?

Colorado Jeff
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:43:03 EDT
From: BlueOval77 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: FTE 61-79 351W Rebuild

Steve: Besides the Edelbrock Performer manifold and your cam of choice, you
may want to think about going with Rhoads hydraulic lifters. They boost low
end torque by 25% while giving you a smoother idle and allowing you to run a
slightly hotter cam without losing any bottom-end.

I am building a 351W for my 77 F-150 4x4 with the above plus a Rhoads VVT 211
cam and a Holley 650 double pumper. Good luck in your rebuild!

John
91 Mustang GT
77 F-150 Ranger 4x4
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:46:21 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - crank journals

Man, I wouldn't put a crank in that was more than 0.010/0.010.

- ----------
> From: BDIJXS aol.com
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - crank journals
> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 1:27 PM
>
> Does anyone feel that there would be a problem with a newly-ground
crankshaft
> that is 0.040" under (main) and 0.020" under (rod)?...
>

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:58:46 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - A Question About Brakes

The only thing I can think of that would cause this is calipers that aren't
releasing. Does your friend do a lot of off roading? I've seen mud thick
enough to stop calipers from releasing. If he doesn't, at least make sure
that all the friction places the caliper slides on are properly lubricated.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:24:48 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Even more 2150 carb talk

Yo Gang:

OK, I have some preliminary performance results from the Mustang carb swap.
I'm posting this to both the performance list and the 61-79 list, since it
seems like it might be relevant to both lists. (Sorry for the duplication
to multi-list subscribers.) Sorry for the length if you're not interested.

First the basics so you know what I'm talking about:

1980 F250 4x4, 6750 GVW (approx 5100# w/ accessories, tools, fuel, driver)
351M, stock cast iron intake, stock cam (4 degrees retard), stock DuraSpark
II ignition w/ Mallory ProMaster coil and Accel 8.8 spiral core wires,
stock exhaust manifolds w/ stock single cat and custom single 2.5" exhaust
system w/ Dynomax muffler
NP435 tranny, 3.50/3.55 gears in Dana 60 full-floater rear
LT235/85R16 tires at 65psi

Original stock carb: Motorcraft 2150 2V #E0TE-BSA (300-325 cfm rating)
New carb (stock '82 Mustang GT): Motorcraft 2150 2V #E2ZE-BAA (369 cfm
rating)

So far, mileage is up significantly from the stock truck carb (which only
had about 17K miles since its previous rebuild), and that's even w/ my
twitchy , fun-lovin' right foot. Average over last 500 miles w/ the old
carb was 10.2 mpg. First tank w/ the Mustang carb produced 12.7 mpg (1/3
highway, 2/3 city driving). Second tank was a less impressive (but still
improved) 10.8 mpg w/ all city driving. Again, if I could keep my foot out
of it, I'm sure it would be even better.

I just got the new e-test a couple weeks ago and the results were
interesting there, too. I have to go back over the last 3 tests to get a
valid picture, because last year, I just got all the vacuum/emissions stuff
working on the engine before I went in for the test. Last year was the
first test I've had w/ a working EGR system, and the EGR trashed the
emissions at higher rpm.

The Colorado e-test for '81 and older vehicles (back to '73) is just a
visual check (AIR pump, cat, filler neck restriction, etc.) and a tail pipe
sniffer looking for CO (%), HCs (ppm), and CO2 (%) at idle and approx 2500
rpm. Standards are set only for CO and HCs at idle. (Idle must be under
1000 rpm; they don't check timing.) Standards for my 1980 truck (under
8500 GVW and w/ catalyst) are 1.5% CO and 400 ppm HCs.

I must say that since I first bought the truck and it would barely pass
emissions (poor CO and terrible HCs), it has always run much cleaner than
the standards. The worst emissions I've seen since I started maintaining
the truck were the 2500 rpm HCs (217 ppm) and CO (1.55%) w/ the EGR system
hooked up last year.

Here are the sniffer e-test results from the last 3 years:

1996 (approx 6K miles since carb rebuild, no EGR)
at idle (897 rpm) 0.01% CO, 42 ppm HC, 12.7% CO2
at 2500 (2474 rpm) 0.02% CO, 19 ppm HC, 11.7% CO2

1997 (approx 12K miles since carb rebuild, w/ EGR working properly)
at idle (892 rpm) 0.04% CO, 59.3 ppm HC, 13.34% CO2
at 2350 rpm 1.55% CO, 216.9 ppm HC, 11.43% CO2

1998 (w/ fresh Mustang carb, no EGR)
at idle (906 rpm) 0.03% CO, 50.5 ppm HC, 12.91% CO2
at 2383 rpm 0.23% CO, 44 ppm HC, 11.45% CO2

I'm throwing in the 1997 test just for grins. I think the wild results w/
the EGR system hooked up are interesting. A more direct comparison of the
two carbs is the '96 and '98 reports.

The Mustang carb is jetted richer than the old truck carb (Mustang #58 vs
truck #53), and has a richer high-speed metering system. I believe that
accounts for the Mustang carb's 20% higher HC emissions at idle and 220%
higher HC emissions at 2500 rpm. CO is also higher w/ the Mustang carb (10
times higher at high rpm), but there are so many other things that affect
CO output that I think the difference may not be significant. Even though
the Mustang carb shows a little more HC emissions than the original truck
carb, it is well w/in the standard for this year truck and still pretty
clean. I think I may have the idle mixture screws a little too far out,
and if they were tweaked, HC emissions at idle might get back down to the
same level as the old truck carb.

So how does it run?

Two thumbs up from the old "seat-o-the-pants" dynamometer! Just swapping
in the 5/8" phenolic spacer that came w/ the Mustang carb really seemed to
open up the stock M-block's top end. Before the spacer, it seemed to run
out of breath at about 3200 rpm. W/ the spacer alone added to the stock
carb setup, it would rev to 4K easily (seemed to have some left above that)
and throttle responsiveness seemed improved throughout the rev range.

The new carb increased throttle response even more. (Some of that because
the Mustang carb has a shorter throttle lever than the truck carb, so an
equal amount of pedal travel produces more degrees revolution of the
throttle shaft.) W/ the Mustang carb, a little nudge on the pedal produces
a noticeable surge at almost any rpm. The engine "feels" smoother at the
higher revs (over 3K) than it did w/ the old truck carb. Maybe that's
because the high-speed metering system is more sophisticated in the Mustang
carb, and it seems to feed fuel to the engine a lot better at high rpm than
the truck carb did. The acc pump lever (on the throttle shaft) is also a
lot different on the Mustang carb. The lever travels farther before it
hits the stop. The truck carb would max out the acc pump by about 55-60%
WOT, the Mustang carb continues to pump up to about 85-90% WOT. The lever
length looks similar, so discharge rates are probably similar, but the
total discharge volume is probably greater w/ the Mustang carb.

In low gear (2nd on the NP435), nailing the pedal will get the engine to
rev well past 4K rpm (to 4250 or so) and produce fairly brisk acceleration
all the way from 0 to 30 mph! I haven't tried measuring a 0-60 time, but
w/ the revs I'm getting out of the M-block now, I'll bet I could do it w/
just one 2-3 shift on the old NP435.

This is still a mostly stock, 170K miles old M-block, so I'm reluctant to
push it too hard (at least until I can finish building my next 400). Even
so, just having substantial power up past 3K rpm is a real treat for me.

Costs:
Used Mustang carb E2ZE-BAA: $45.00 (incl. shipping, phenolic spacer, and
assorted emissions doo-dads)
Carb tune-up kit: $21.50 (mostly gaskets, power valve, acc pump diaphragm,
needle/seat, etc.)
New carb float: $8.50
Can of Berryman ChemDip: $12.00
Stainless all-thread for homemade carb studs: $3.75

TOTAL out of pocket: $90.75

Bang for the buck on the ol' Dave-O-Meter: 99.5%

Dave R. (smilin' M-block devotee :-)


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marc Stine
Subject: FTE 61-79 - If it's not one thing it's another

Trying to get old patch put back together to pass inspection on Friday
(nothing like waiting till the last miniute I tell ya). Annyhow after I
got all of the majior stuff done (brakes, exhaust, etc.) I tried to work
out some wiring problems (tail light and brake light on the drivers
side.). I managed to get the turnsignals working, taillights, reverse
lights. But the kicker is the drivers side brake light isn't working
(properly that is). I think I have a broken wire some where cause after
playing around a bit it worked, then after I put it all back together it
dosen't work!!! I guess I have some wire replacing to do tonight and
probablly tomorrow, got to get it done by Fri. to stay legal!! I tell ya
if it's not one thing it's another.

Marc
79 F150 4X4 300 8' bed
79 F150 4X4 351M Short Bed Flare Side (to be finished REAL soon)



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:44:50 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Was 410 rebuild, Now 390 Rebuild

- -----Original Message-----
From: William L Ballinger
>
Let's see, a 12 pak of tall Beasts... maybe
>he'd lean on the counter and tell me what I need to do at those critical
>junctures....
>
>Any reccomendations on machine work, what works or doesn't?
>
>
>--
>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

When I rebuilt my 390 (my first engine rebuild), the machinist said to
be very carefull when installing the new rocker shaft assemblies. One of the
four bolts that hold the shaft in place is slightly longer than the other
three. This longer bolt should be placed where the oil passage+bevel are
located. It might be a good idea to let the machinist supply all the parts,
and have him install the new cam bearings as well. Something has been
mentioned recently about NOT using the cork gasket the goes on the end of
the intake manifold. I wasn't a list member when I built my 390, and used
this cork gasket. The resulting oil leak at the rear of the manifold did not
make me a happy camper! Use high temp RTV for the ends of the intake (and
everywhere else except heads?). Another thing I did was to use "Copper Coat"
or "Copper Spray-a-Gasket" on both sides of the head gasket (Felpro complete
gasket set "KS 2307"). The "Felpro" rear main seal is probably one of the
simplest to install and the vavle cover+oil pan gaskets are NOT cork. I
found that the cheap timing chain set was difficult, if not impossible to
install (couldn't fit new pin into new cam or gear), but an Erson double
roller had a great fit. Be sure to check the rocker covers for warpage, and
carefully staighten if needed.
Good luck and watch out for those machined edges, they are sharp!

Michael

69 F250 360 auto
69 F250 CS 390 T18 Posi 3.54 (4,000 miles on new engine)




== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:29:44 -0500
From: Jim McCarty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - truck show

Somehow, a few weeks back, something stuck in my mind that there was a
truck show about the middle of August in Fort Worth that was going to
have about 70 Ford trucks on display - classics, customs, etc...

I don't know where I got that idea. Does anyone know of such a show in
the Fort Worth (maybe Dallas?) area in mid-August?

Jim McCarty
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:32:53 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Was 410 rebuild, Now 390 Rebuild

I made an error on my last post. The new cam came with the pin which fit
the cam nicely. It was the cheap timing set which wouldn't fit the pin. The
Erson double roller had a perfect fit.

Michael


== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:55:01 -0400
From: james oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Dead "M"

Dave Resch wrote:
I believe that after about 100K miles, w/out some basic
> refurbishing, your opportunity to make significant performance improvements
> w/out risking catastrophic failure is severely diminished.
>
> Fortunately, if you have a decent hardened oil pump drive shaft, the weak
> link is the cam/dist gear interface.

oil pump shaft seems OK

> You do get chunks in the oil pan, but
> once the cam and dist stop, the engine stops running and you don't get
> starved and scored bearings and journals.
>
> I'll second Gary's advice to drop the pan and see what's in there. I'd bet
> most of the chunks are in the pan or sitting on top of the dead pump.
> After you drop the pan, take out the pump and its drive shaft (or what's
> left of it) and pull out the dist. From there, you should be able to clean
> out even the small chunks and examine the cam's dist drive gear.


I took distr out, cam gear is missing a tooth. Distr gear is missing 3
teeth.


The cam
> gear is stronger than the dist gear, and if the cam gear survived w/out too
> much damage, you could go w/out replacing the cam.
>
> I really can't recommend just putting a new cam into a 150K mile M-block.
> If the cam dist gear is toast, I'd lean toward a overhaul/rebuild/replace
> scenario.

If I'm gonna rebuild/replace, I'd like to go 460. I'm still waiting on
a friend to check part numbers and see if 351M man trans flywheel is the
same as 460 man trans flywheel. Rebuild costs would be about the same
and the only other true costs I can see are 460 motor 350$, motor
mounts, 99$, radiator, 350$, and rad shroud/exh hookup (couple bucks).
The main reason I might stay "M" is I have a lot of new parts in mine
like wat pump, MM mounts, fuel pump, int manifold ect.... which will
prob be needed on 460 also. Decisions, Decisions!!????;-)

but in a normal engine
> w/ "normal" bearing clearances, the excess pressure blows past the pressure
> relief valve (if it's working properly) and increases the oil pump's load
> on the engine, all of which is transmitted through the oil pump drive shaft
> from the distributor shaft.


Guess I'll just use a stock oil pump then.

> I understand you can tweak the pressure relief
> valve to maintain reasonable oil pressure and lighten the load on the
> cam/dist gears somewhat, but that's only appropriate as a stop-gap for an
> engine w/ way worn out bearings and serious oil pressure problems. OTOH,
> If I was in that boat, I'd limp along on low oil pressure until I could
> afford to do a proper rebuild or drop in a suitable replacement engine.

I can see and agree with all your points. Aside from somewhat low oil
pressure at idle, this motor ran great. Good power and no oil burning.
Considering an eldb cam/lifters is only 116$, I may just give it a shot.


Thanks for all the info.


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

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:51:08 -0700
From: bertolina juno.com (NineteenSixtyFive F100)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - > I have a 66 F100 with a 240-6, and a 4 spd tranny-granny gear. I have the

>Hi,
>I have a 66 F100 with a 240-6, and a 4 spd tranny-granny gear. I have
>>the same problem with the vapor lock and was wondering what a good
>engine size would be to replace the 240. I don't want to change the
>tranny. (snip snip)

>My 66 F100 has the 240 six with a Warner T-18 4 Speed. I am going to
>replace it with a 390FE. (snip snip)

Sounds like vapor lock may be common on the 240 six in warmer climates.
It is yet to be determined if that's what caused the loss of power
problem I described in the message I sent ~1 week ago with my 1965 240
six. I have tried a few of the great list member suggestions but haven't
had enough driving time with it to fully determine whether it is "cured".
The fuel filter associated with the fuel pump has been changed, the gas
line that goes from the fuel pump over to the carb has been insulated,
carb float should be O.K. with recent carb kit & I have switched over
to one of the auxiliary gas tanks...no problems to date since these
modifications were made.

Just wondering if other list members that still have a 240 six in their
trucks and live in a climate where temps exceed 90 degrees experience
vapor lock type problems? Is the desire for more power one of the main
reasons for xchging this engine? The 240 six in my truck still has good
compression and I would like to get alot more use out of it before
thinking about swapping engines. I've even gotten used to the 3 speed
manual transmission...1st manual I've ever driven!

Roberta in Tucson AZ with 1965 F-100 custom cab long bed w/240 six and no
rust in sight in this hot dry place,

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 13:46:27 -0400
From: pickup65 juno.com (Jon E Purut)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 351C

Another difference. 4v 351C has 4 bolt mains.

Jon E. Purut
Pickup65 juno.com
JCPurut worldnet.att.net
Visit my site http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~JCPurut

1964 F500 Face lift in progress
1965 F100 Taking off the road for engine swap
1965 F100 Lots of pieces
1977 F150 Putting on the road to use as daily driver
1970 Mustang Fastback

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:02:28 -0400
From: "Jerry"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RADIATOR HOSE PROBLEM

Taking a few days off from work this week, I thought this would be a good
time to install my NEW 4-core radiator.
What a monster ! ! ! I must have measured it about 15 times to make sure
it would fit in the engine compartment. I would have sworn I got the wrong
one.
By the way, the actual price I had to pay for this one was $ 260.00. Best
price from a Ford Parts Dept selling Modine's.
Heres the problem. Since I have a 351W in the 69, now the hose diameters
are larger on the rad.
Without checking the complete inventory of the parts houses tomorrow, is
there a quick and easy way to get some hoses that fit? ? Is there any
application that uses odd sized inlet and outlets with a 4-core ?
Jerry
1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW + 4 core and seven years
ago........
1970 F100 (ret)

Jerry
1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW
1970 F100 (ret)

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:03:37 EDT....

---

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.