61-79-list-digest Friday, August 14 1998 Volume 02 : Number 400



=======================================================================
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 - LOWERING REAR OF '70
FTE 61-79 - '73-'79 Crew Cabs
Re: FTE 61-79 - '73-'79 Crew Cabs
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location
FTE 61-79 - Re:Lightning Wheels
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location
FTE 61-79 - Dumb transmission question 85 Ranger into 66 F-100
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location
FTE 61-79 - RE: Central Texas FTE's
FTE 61-79 - Relocating tank
FTE 61-79 - King Pins?
FTE 61-79 - Calling all Central Texas FTEs
Re: FTE 61-79 - King Pins?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford Prevails again! 360
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Coils
Re: FTE 61-79 - King Pins?
FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual
FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
RE: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
Re: FTE 61-79 - Calling the central Texas FTEs
Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:32:11 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - LOWERING REAR OF '70

instead of flipping the axle, why don't you just look into longer shackles?

JUMPINFORD AOL.com
73 F-250 RangerXLT Camper Special
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:25:26 -0700
From: Keith Smothers
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '73-'79 Crew Cabs

I'm considering buying a crew cab. I don't have 20K - 30K for a new one
so the search is on for a used one. My brother in law says I should
look for a 73 to 79. Comments?

I would like to find out what options were available during what years,
etc. I know that I want a 4wd, short bed, and automatic. Is there a
web site or book that would detail other options?

Is there a certain year that is better/worse than others?

Is there any engine/tranny combinations I should look for/stay away
from?

Thanks in advance for the help.

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:53:10 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - '73-'79 Crew Cabs

>I'm considering buying a crew cab. I don't have 20K - 30K for a new one
>so the search is on for a used one. My brother in law says I should
>look for a 73 to 79. Comments?
>
>I would like to find out what options were available during what years,
>etc. I know that I want a 4wd, short bed, and automatic. Is there a
>web site or book that would detail other options?
>
Did they make a crew cab short bed these years ? w/4wd? I can't remember
ever seeing one, but to show my age I can't remember them new either sorry
can't help you there...
Do you mean extended cab or do you really want the 4door ?

>Is there a certain year that is better/worse than others?
>
I guess I'd recommend you get a 76 or later, that gives you disc brakes and
integral power-steering systems. Trying to find parts for the older ones
is gettin tougher all the time.

>Is there any engine/tranny combinations I should look for/stay away
>from?

For a truck that big, definately not less than a 351 4V, probably not less
than a big block if you want to haul it loaded in 4wd. You'll definately
want lots of torque on the low end.

Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my experience with a 74ish reg.
cab, long bed.

Bill
Just my 2cents

Bill

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
for truck make it ..../Trucks/truck.html
for car make it ..../Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:12:20 -0500
From: "Oscar Johnson"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location

Al,

My 71 Ranger F250 has both tanks; one in the cab and one under the bed.
I have never smelled gas from the in-cab tank; I guess it just depends on
how tight your connections are.

O.T.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Allan J. Bremer
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 5:34 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location


Hello,

The 65 F-100 with a 352C and a C6 that I just bought has it's fuel
tank removed and laying in the bed of the truck. It used to be behind
the seat but it was removed and the hole was body worked over.

I'm not sure that I like the location of the fuel tank to be in the
bed. I've had others tell me that usually if the tank is behind the
seat you can smell gas inside the truck. Is that usually true?

Can a tank be placed under the truck? I think I would like it back
behind the seat again. Where's the best place?

Thanks...

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


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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 21:54:03 -0400
From: "Ronald D. Miller"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:Lightning Wheels

Ihave a set of used wheels and tires from a Lightning pickup. If
interested, the party who was looking for a set may email me off the
list. Thanks

Ron Miller
akraft shentel.net

P.S. I'm racing this week end. Will answer next week.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.auto krafters. com

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 20:50:37 -0600
From: "Michael White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location

- -----Original Message-----
From: Allan J. Bremer
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 4:40 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location


Hello,

The 65 F-100 with a 352C and a C6 that I just bought has it's fuel
tank removed and laying in the bed of the truck. It used to be behind
the seat but it was removed and the hole was body worked over.

I'm not sure that I like the location of the fuel tank to be in the
bed. I've had others tell me that usually if the tank is behind the
seat you can smell gas inside the truck. Is that usually true?

Can a tank be placed under the truck? I think I would like it back
behind the seat again. Where's the best place?

Thanks...

+
+AL+

............
Sounds like you just have the tank, and nothing else. You could get all
the items you needed at the local scrapyard for cheap, but I'd buy a new
fill hose and cap, and mount the tank in the original location. There is
supposed to be a spring inside the large fill hose (coil spring in the form
of a funnel). If this item is not in place, then when you fill up with fuel,
you'll be filling the tank too full (not enough backpressure). The fuel will
expand inside the tank as the sun heats things up, and it will leak out the
cap, then run down the outside of the fill neck and into the cab (deforming
the fill tube grommet along the way).

Michael
SLC, Utah

69 F250 360 auto
69 F250 CS 390 T18 Posi 3.54








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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 14:44:02 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dumb transmission question 85 Ranger into 66 F-100

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 21:38:45 -0500
From: Bill Adams
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dumb transmission question 85 Ranger into 66 F-100

Anybody know off-hand if an 85 4 speed with o-drive transmission from a
Ranger will bolt up to a 66 352?

- - --

Bill Adams
1966 F-100 Custom Cab, 352 V8, PS, AC, Long bed
1961 F-100 Unibody, 223 and a three on the tree!

If you mean one of the late model mid-size Rangers I don't think I would do
it even if it would bolt up (which I don't think it easily would). I think
those trannys were built by Mazda and not designed for the torque load an FE
(in any condition) would generate. Also I had a bad experience with an 87
ranger 5 speed. The shift lever came off in my hand one day!!! The housing
for the shift lever is a plastic part and after 5 or so years it cracked.
What a PITA to drive that way.

Tom H.


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:19:45 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100, Fuel Tank Location

I had a gas odor when I bot my 72 with the tank in cab, it was the filler hose
( its rubber) and as it gets old it cracks thus the smell of gas, it was a
easy fix, bot a piece of rubber tubing and just cut it to right length.

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 23:48:13 -0400
From: "Kerry Walker"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Central Texas FTE's

Man, I would love to. But I have so many irons I can't even see the fire
anymore. I keep looking for that tunnel so maybe I can find that light
everybody keeps talking about.
The company I work for just got bought out by another company. They have
been " downsizing " and expanding product lines and sales at the same time.
Now my 12 hour shift 3 and a 1/2 days a week has turned into 7 ( or if I'm
lucky just 6 ) days a week. That on top of trying to keep my wife supplied
in cages for the stray cats she keeps dragging home, repairing my mom's
tractors( Ford content ) so she can sell them, trying to get my '93( Ford
content ) ready to sell, getting my '68( Ford content ) ready to drive,
selling my welding business, starting an internet advertising agency, and
all the normal curve balls life throws at us, my meager allotment of days
off is pretty much booked up. Maybe some other time.


Kerry Wichita Falls, TX




'93 F-350 Crew Cab 7.3 " Old Blue " ( Hail damage poster truck )
'68 F-100 LWB Mongrel Rod hand-me-down
'92 Acura Integra SWMBO's ( Itty bitty )


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:21:40 -0500
From: "James Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Relocating tank

Okay, since someone raised the question, I will throw in my version of it.
I have a 69 F-100 LB Fleetside, 360, C-6. I also would like to have the room
behind the seats, and have been pondering this modification.
This truck has dual exhausts running off of stock manifolds. If I change the
engine, or rebuild as 390, I might go to headers. The exhaust pipes run
inside the frame, exiting towards the center in the rear. The spare tire
mount did not come with the truck (yep, another one laying in the back.)
Already I would like to get the spare under the truck, but the exhaust is an
obstacle I think (I have not had a chance to look at an original tire mount
on one.)
I like the idea of the tank being in the rear also, but it seems to me the
side mount towards the front would be easiest (plus possibly allow dual
tanks, which would let you adjust "ballast" depending upon loading,
passenger or not, etc.).
I have seen some comments here and there on the list about tank retrofit,
so, it boils down to, given everyone's experience, what is the best way to
do this, using junkyard parts ( I assume scavenging from later Ford's would
be best fit), and what suggestions about exhaust routing and spare mount?
BTW, I have never noticed a gas smell with tank in cab.

Jim Elliott



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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 07:25:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - King Pins?

I have been slobbering over an extremely nice 72 F-100 2 wheel drive that is
very very original including paint. It has a bruise here and there but all
minor. 360 C6
no power steering, drum brakes and a solid rust free body. The fella wants
2500
for it which is high but I feel it is a solid dependable daily driver and
probably worth that. (i drive 3 miles a day to a from work)

My big question is, when I am making a turn at slow speeds (I haven't tried
a hard turn at high speed......yet) it feels as if the front wheels are
wobbling like they may fall off. I never had problems with this with my
other 71 2 wheel drive which was sold a few years ago.......Could this
indicate a worn out set of King Pins???????


Diagnosis please!

If so, someone give me a ballpark figure of a reasonable cost for
replacing them at a shop. I live in a rural area and usually everything,
cost of living wise, is inexpensive.

BTW- John "the instigater" Miller, anytime you are ready to venture to West
Tennessee to help with the 71 4x4 resto, feel free!

Stu
Nuke GM!
visit my homepage courtesy of Tony Marino
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:32:58 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Calling all Central Texas FTEs

>Is there any interest in the FTEs in the central Texas area meeting labor
day
>weekend? It seems there are a few Austin subscribers, a San Antonio
>subscriber, and I'm in Houston. I am going to Ausitn for the UT game
labor day
>weekend and wondered if some of ya'll want to meet for a while Saturday
>morning.
>
Yes, I am in. I am in Austin and will be attending the UT game.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 07:05:54 -0700
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - King Pins?

From: Stu Varner

>I have been slobbering over an extremely nice 72 F-100... The fella
wants 2500

What happened to you not having money for a computer and leaving for the
summer! Oh I see, we're not as important as getting another Effie. Ok,
fine then. {:[

>for it which is high but I feel it is a solid dependable daily driver
and

I also feel it's a tad high.

>My big question is, when I am making a turn at slow speeds (I haven't
tried
>a hard turn at high speed......yet) it feels as if the front wheels are
>wobbling like they may fall off.

Here in California the front wheels don't feel like their going to fall
off our solid dependable daily drivers. But hey, things could be
different in Tennessee. :]


>Could this indicate a worn out set of King Pins???????

It could! Jack up the front and check to see what's loose.

> If so, someone give me a ballpark figure of a reasonable cost for
>replacing them at a shop.

What! Are you made of money? Just kidding Bro. You could pull the I
beams and take them to a machine shop and they press the old ones out
and the new ones in.

I know you didn't ask but I'm giving you my opinion anyway. $2500 is a
little high already. Add front end work which could get up near a grand
to have done is getting way too high a price IMHO. I don't know this for
sure I've never had to have front end work done to my truck and I
haven't seen the truck you want. I'm just giving my opinion to a long
time friend. I know when I want something I can make concessions I know
better than making. :]

Deacon
deconblu gte.net http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
==============================================
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm
==============================================




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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:05:24 PDT
From: "Ethan Hawke"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford Prevails again! 360

I don't race it professionaly, My truck is a daily driver. I just race
it at the lights, against all the inner city people of Minneapolis

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:14:45 PDT
From: "Ethan Hawke"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Coils

Tom

I've had the coil for some time and i notice it leak about 2 months a
go, while i was putting it in the truck (I was not using it for some
time because i thought i was going to sell the truck), Then as i started
the truck up i hear aloud pop. She was acting like there was not enough
gas, It would stomble when i gave it any gas. It turned out to be the
contacts in the distributor were dirtier then N. Minneapolis. So i
cleaned them, Since i but the coil in i can't seem to keep them clean.

But besids that The only other additions have been a dist. cap out of
a 351, 9mm spark plug wires, and a kill switch, It still uses the
capacitor off of the old coil.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:10:42 -0700
From: Marko Maryniak
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - King Pins?

At 07:25 AM 14/08/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I have been slobbering over an extremely nice 72 F-100 2 wheel drive that is
>very very original including paint.

If you continue slobbering on it you will eventually rust that original
paint! Or, is this some sort of new way of 'spit polishing' >:-[

>It has a bruise here and there but all minor.

Sounds like you've got your beer glasses on again.

360 C6
>no power steering, drum brakes and a solid rust free body. The fella wants
>2500
>for it which is high but I feel it is a solid dependable daily driver and
>probably worth that. (i drive 3 miles a day to a from work)

I RIDE MY BICYCLE FARTHER THAN THAT EACH DAY!!!! AND THIS IS CANADA, WHERE
IT SNOWS 11 MONTHS OF THE YEAR AND THE OTHER MONTH THE MOSQUITOES ARE AS
BIG AS BIRDS!

Seriously, Stu, 3 miles? The truck wouldn't even get warmed up by the time
you got there. If you insist on driving buy a motorbike or a Metro or
something that won't belch so much CO and NOx during the trip. Or ride
your bike.
>
>My big question is, when I am making a turn at slow speeds (I haven't tried
>a hard turn at high speed......yet) it feels as if the front wheels are
>wobbling like they may fall off. I never had problems with this with my
>other 71 2 wheel drive which was sold a few years ago.......Could this
>indicate a worn out set of King Pins???????

Maybe, but you can usually see worn kingpins when the truck sits. Like
Deacon says, jack it up and wiggle some stuff in there. Could be loose
wheel bearings too. Whatever it is, it sounds dangerous.

>
>Diagnosis please!
>
> If so, someone give me a ballpark figure of a reasonable cost for
>replacing them at a shop. I live in a rural area and usually everything,
>cost of living wise, is inexpensive.

I agree with Deacon. $2500 US (now some twenty grand Canadian!) is way too
much to pay for a 27 year old pickup that works decent with bad kingpins.
You didn't say how many miles, either. I got my 67 Mercury 2wd for $2300
Canadian with original 352, original paint (holly green), virtually no
rust, original carpet, no dents, 110K miles, perfect kingpins, and merely a
worn slipyoke.

You can do better!

>
>BTW- John "the instigater" Miller, anytime you are ready to venture to West
>Tennessee to help with the 71 4x4 resto, feel free!
>
>Stu
>Nuke GM!
>visit my homepage courtesy of Tony Marino
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu

BTW I never did get your private reply on the resto. Howzit goin?


marko >:-]




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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:53:32 -0700
From: "Douglas W. Hack"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual

I would like to hear some well-considered calm technical discussion on
the relative merits of automatic versus manual transmissions for
heavy-duty pickups that are used for towing in hilly country -- from
those who have used trucks heavily, particularly if you've experienced
both.

To start the discussion: I think an automatic is easier to drive
smoothly and quietly around town and on the freeway, but when I think of
a truck, I think of gears. My current preference is for selecting the
gear I want when I want it and not paying the 10% efficiency price of
the torque converter and the extra cooling load that comes with it.
Some people think the torque converter is a big advantage over a clutch
in getting a heavy vehicle combination rolling. Seems to me that a low
enough first gear and large enough engine would take care of that.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:25:57 -0700
From: gpark cymer.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

I'm looking into a carb for my 77 351M F150. along with a cam, manifold,
and headers.
anyway, Holly says their 4160 is legal for vehicles that a 4 barrel was
optional from the factory. Does anyone know if this is the case for my
(still) hapless 351?

Also, I know the 460 is the way to go for goo-boo hoo-poo, but until I do
that, I wanna just make this 351 go. Then I can redo a 460 at my leisure.
I want low-end grunt for haulin the fish boat. That 400M that Hot Rod
rebuilt had only something like 70hp at the rear wheel! No wonder my
motor feels a little weak. I got some cosmetic stuff coming from
Autokrafters this weekend. It will be nice not to have 95db of wind noise.
And visors that don't fall down every 3 miles.



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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:25:36 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

The 351M/400 never came with a factory 4V, that's why you'll never see a
factory manifold for 'em. The 400 in HR mag was pretty tired when they
measured the hp at the rear wheels. I'm sure by the time they finished it
measured quite a bit more at the rear wheels.

As far as this !#%$^& 460 thing goes, I'm gettin' a little tired of
hearin' how the ONLY way to go is to slam a 460 in everything that moves!
It's starting to remind me of the bowtie brigade and stuffin' a SB Ch*vy in
anything with more than 2 wheels.

I've heard folks on this list say that there's no challenge to makin' a
bowtie go but it takes brains and imagination to make a Ford go fast. Well
how 'bout adding a little caveat that says that this doesn't apply to 460s
since evidently they are the ultimate friggin' motor right outta the crate!

You want a challenge? How 'bout building a fire breathin', tire meltin' M
and smokin' some of these 460 guys.

- ----------
> From: gpark cymer.com
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 1:25 PM
>
> I'm looking into a carb for my 77 351M F150. along with a cam, manifold,
> and headers.
> anyway, Holly says their 4160 is legal for vehicles that a 4 barrel was
> optional from the factory. Does anyone know if this is the case for my
> (still) hapless 351?
>
> Also, I know the 460 is the way to go for goo-boo hoo-poo, but until I do
> that, I wanna just make this 351 go. Then I can redo a 460 at my
leisure.
> I want low-end grunt for haulin the fish boat. That 400M that Hot Rod
> rebuilt had only something like 70hp at the rear wheel! No wonder my
> motor feels a little weak.


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:58:39 -0700
From: John MacNamara
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

Bill Beyer wrote:

>

Good luck Bill, you will need it!!!!

>
>
> You want a challenge? How 'bout building a fire breathin', tire meltin' M
> and smokin' some of these 460 guys.
>
> ----------
> > From: gpark cymer.com
> > To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
> > Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 1:25 PM
> >
> > I'm looking into a carb for my 77 351M F150. along with a cam, manifold,
> > and headers.
> > anyway, Holly says their 4160 is legal for vehicles that a 4 barrel was
> > optional from the factory. Does anyone know if this is the case for my
> > (still) hapless 351?
> >
> > Also, I know the 460 is the way to go for goo-boo hoo-poo, but until I do
> > that, I wanna just make this 351 go. Then I can redo a 460 at my
> leisure.
> > I want low-end grunt for haulin the fish boat. That 400M that Hot Rod
> > rebuilt had only something like 70hp at the rear wheel! No wonder my
> > motor feels a little weak.
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:58:31 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual

At 01:53 PM 8/14/98 , you wrote:
>To start the discussion: I think an automatic is easier to drive
>smoothly and quietly around town and on the freeway, but when I think of
>a truck, I think of gears. My current preference is for selecting the
>gear I want when I want it and not paying the 10% efficiency price of
>the torque converter and the extra cooling load that comes with it.
>Some people think the torque converter is a big advantage over a clutch
>in getting a heavy vehicle combination rolling. Seems to me that a low
>enough first gear and large enough engine would take care of that.
>Douglas W. Hack

I vote for a manual tranny. With a manual, it will never wear out (if PM
is done on it). You get near zero power loss with it, and you control the
shift points and when to downshift/upshift. With an automatic, there is a
lot of power loss due to the viscous coupling of the engine's power output
- - no direct link to the rear wheels, and the tranny (or computer) and your
foot decides when the thing shifts gears. You already mentioned the extra
cooling load.

If the truck is geared right, you don't really need a big engine. A good
solid 4 speed overdrive manual trans, low rear end gears (3.70-3.90:1) and
a moderate sized V-8 (351 or 360/390) that is setup with a power band in
the 1500/2000-5500 range will work very well. With enough gear you can get
a sewing maching motor to move a freight train.

Automatics are for cars, and that is where they should stay, IMHO.

Mike

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:14:31 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

At 02:25 PM 8/14/98 -0700, you wrote:
>As far as this !#%$^& 460 thing goes, I'm gettin' a little tired of
>hearin' how the ONLY way to go is to slam a 460 in everything that moves!
>It's starting to remind me of the bowtie brigade and stuffin' a SB Ch*vy in
>anything with more than 2 wheels.

I am glad I am not the only one who is tried of hearing "put a 460 in it".

There is a company in Atlanta that stuffs Chevy Engines into a modified
motorcycle frame, and then adds a lot of Harley Parts to it. They have to
be the ugliest bikes I have ever seen. Bowtie Brigade strikes again!

>I've heard folks on this list say that there's no challenge to makin' a
>bowtie go but it takes brains and imagination to make a Ford go fast. Well
>how 'bout adding a little caveat that says that this doesn't apply to 460s
>since evidently they are the ultimate friggin' motor right outta the crate!
>
>You want a challenge? How 'bout building a fire breathin', tire meltin' M
>and smokin' some of these 460 guys.

Or and FE. Gotta love them FE's too. :)

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: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:37:09 -0500
From: "Woosley, Chris"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual

The statement "they will never wear out" is not quite accurate.
Synchronizer rings do wear, it's the nature of their purpose. That's why
they are made of softer material than the synchronizing hubs. And yes,
an auto does generate more thermal load, but it also has much more fluid
to be utilized as a heat sink. They both have clutches that wear; the
standard needing replacement more frequently than the auto, but at a
reduced cost. The standard allows for engine braking when going
downhill; the auto allows the engine to rev closer to peak torque when
overcoming a large initial load (such as starting on a hill while
towing, or crawling over obstacles when 4 wheeling). The standard does
allow total control over gear selection, but the auto can be controlled
beyond simply adjusting throttle position. The auto does circulate it
fluid via a pump and filter whereas the standard relies on the dip and
swirl method. Nothing worn with this method for distributing the oil,
but it does not filter it.
I personally enjoy driving both. They both have assets and concessions.
It really depends on driver preference. In a perfect world, a standard
is more durable than an auto. But what happens to the guts of that
standard (or the engine when redline is exceeded) on a missed shift. An
auto does safeguard against such an incident( tranny failure not
withstanding, since either will allow such an event to occur if, for
example, the input shaft breaks).

Just a few observations, no conclusions suggested or implied. Like I
said before, it's all about driver preference.

Chris Woosley
M-D/TOTCO INSTRUMENTATION
manufacturing engineer
cwoosley cp.varco.com
(512) 340-5594 fax (512) 340-5225


- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Schwall [mailto:mschwall texas.net]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 4:59 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual


At 01:53 PM 8/14/98 , you wrote:
>To start the discussion: I think an automatic is easier to drive
>smoothly and quietly around town and on the freeway, but when I think
of
>a truck, I think of gears. My current preference is for selecting the
>gear I want when I want it and not paying the 10% efficiency price of
>the torque converter and the extra cooling load that comes with it.
>Some people think the torque converter is a big advantage over a clutch
>in getting a heavy vehicle combination rolling. Seems to me that a low
>enough first gear and large enough engine would take care of that.
>Douglas W. Hack

I vote for a manual tranny. With a manual, it will never wear out (if
PM
is done on it). You get near zero power loss with it, and you control
the
shift points and when to downshift/upshift. With an automatic, there is
a
lot of power loss due to the viscous coupling of the engine's power
output
- - no direct link to the rear wheels, and the tranny (or computer) and
your
foot decides when the thing shifts gears. You already mentioned the
extra
cooling load.

If the truck is geared right, you don't really need a big engine. A
good
solid 4 speed overdrive manual trans, low rear end gears (3.70-3.90:1)
and
a moderate sized V-8 (351 or 360/390) that is setup with a power band in
the 1500/2000-5500 range will work very well. With enough gear you can
get
a sewing maching motor to move a freight train.

Automatics are for cars, and that is where they should stay, IMHO.

Mike

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:54:23 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

Anything but a 460!!!

- ----------
> From: Keith Srb
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 3:14 PM
>
>
> Or and FE. Gotta love them FE's too. :)
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:59:53 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

Thanks John, evidently you're one of the "if it ain't got a 460 it ain't
sh*t" brigade. Well, whatever floats your boat but I like to think I have a
little more imagination that that.

- ----------
> From: John MacNamara
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150
> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 2:58 PM
>
>
>
> Bill Beyer wrote:
>
> >
>
> Good luck Bill, you will need it!!!!
>
> >
> >
> > You want a challenge? How 'bout building a fire breathin', tire meltin'
M
> > and smokin' some of these 460 guys.
> >

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - auto versus manual

Okay, I'll bite on this one.....

>To start the discussion: I think an automatic is easier to drive
>smoothly and quietly around town and on the freeway,

I'll agree with this...

> but when I think of a truck, I think of gears.

As do I, here's why;

Back when I was working for a plumbing outfit in the
Seattle area, all our trucks had 4 or 5 speeds, they
were various years F250 4X4 CS's. When the owner of
the outfit bought a new truck (every 2 yrs whether he
needed one or not) his old one was "leased" to the
corperation, the truck I was first assigned was a '68
with a Dagenham turbo diesel and clark 5 speed 4X4
that the owner built himself. It'd climb a tree in low/low,
run 65mph flat out, loaded pulling a loaded trailer, uphill,
downhill, or along a straight level road. I wanted to buy
it off him, but he was one of those guys who won't sell.
I prefer 4&5 speed in trucks, I like to be able to run up
to North Bend with the trailer loaded and keep up with
the traffic thats running 70+mph, just by dropping a gear
and wind it out a bit........






Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

>
>As far as this !#%$^& 460 thing goes, I'm gettin' a little tired of
>hearin' how the ONLY way to go is to slam a 460 in everything that moves!
>It's starting to remind me of the bowtie brigade and stuffin' a SB Ch*vy in
>anything with more than 2 wheels.

You've stopped taking the medication, haven't you?

>I've heard folks on this list say that there's no challenge to makin' a
>bowtie go but it takes brains and imagination to make a Ford go fast. Well
>how 'bout adding a little caveat that says that this doesn't apply to 460s
>since evidently they are the ultimate friggin' motor right outta the crate!

Noone has said this, except maybe Gary......

>
>You want a challenge? How 'bout building a fire breathin', tire meltin' M
>and smokin' some of these 460 guys.

The Ford 460 is becoming the sbc of the Ford brigade, which is
kinda sad, there are millions of 400's out there, and as a "small"
block have the capability of making cubic torque, and thats whats
important to trucks, my bro and I raced one in the mid-late 70's,
used mostly stock parts from the cleavland 4V heads and pistons,
bushed little end on the stock rods, in a 3800lb 74 Torino, It was a
long ton of fun........

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

At 01:25 PM 14/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I'm looking into a carb for my 77 351M F150. along with a cam, manifold,
>and headers.
>anyway, Holly says their 4160 is legal for vehicles that a 4 barrel was
>optional from the factory. Does anyone know if this is the case for my
>(still) hapless 351?

NO, unfortunately not....

> That 400M that Hot Rod
>rebuilt had only something like 70hp at the rear wheel!

That was the starting point, before the rebuild........
My daily driver prolly has that!!


Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'63 F100 Longbox
'94 Taurus SHO - SWMBO's new car!!
and since most are listing all thier cars:
'72 Capri - Rockette's Toy, aka - SWMBO
'73 Capri - My Toy / Daily Driver
'73 MGB-GT Our Toy
'70 Torino GT My "New" Car


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:25:57 -0500
From: Jim McCarty
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Calling the central Texas FTEs

bkirking bcm.tmc.edu wrote:
>
> Is there any interest in the FTEs in the central Texas area meeting labor day
> weekend?

I live NW of Austin (Cedar Park, TX) and am interested although may be
out of town that particular weekend.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:46:35 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - carb options, 77 351M F150

- ----------
> From: Steve & Rockette....


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.