61-79-list-digest Thursday, August 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 424



=======================================================================
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 - axle vent hole - Dana 70
Re: FTE 61-79 - Question on Welders
Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six
FTE 61-79 - Van parts
FTE 61-79 - Carpeting Update ALSO HUMP HEIGHT!
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE:Carpeting
Re: FTE 61-79 - diff vent
FTE 61-79 - engine ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - chrome plating in California
FTE 61-79 - Uns*bscribe
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Member web contributions
FTE 61-79 - Re: Suggestions needed for Radius rods
FTE 61-79 - 66 F350 Backfires When Letting Off Accelerator
Re: FTE 61-79 - 66 F350 Backfires When Letting Off Accelerator
Re: FTE 61-79 - 66 F350 Backfires When Letting Off Accelerator
FTE 61-79 - Power Steering
Re: FTE 61-79 - Thrashed Spindles.
FTE 61-79 - Bellhousings 335/385 series
FTE 61-79 - 460 swap
FTE 61-79 - Vent hole
FTE 61-79 - Radial - Bias
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 bellhousings
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 bellhousings
Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six
[none]
Re: FTE 61-79 - Uns*bscribe
FTE 61-79 - Re: 7.3 Deisel
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 7.3 Deisel

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:10:11 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - axle vent hole - Dana 70

>
> This may sound really stupid, but on my spicer 70, where is the vent hole?
> I have a drain plug in the bottom and a fill plug on the cover about 2/3
> of the way up. I don't see a vent hole. What purpose does this vent hole
> serve? Where is it?
>
Dana and Spicer are the same thing. On the Dana 60 as in the Ford 9" the
vent hole is incorported into the holddown bolt for the brake hose flex
line to the left of the center "pumpkin". I am betting the 70 is the same
also. Perhaps a previous owner/service geek replaced the vented bolt with
a regular bolt? Look where the flex brake line splits into 2 steel lines
going out to each wheel. There is a brass junction block there bolted to
the axle. The bolt should have a hole thru the center of it and a nipple
for a hose to be attached (this is to put the inlet up near the frame to
keep water out). If there is just a regular old bolt there then you have
most likely found your vent - it is "plugged" and you will need a new
vented bolt.

_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:11:23 -0600
From: "Nils Gore"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Question on Welders

Gasless mig welding is okay with flux core wire, but it's messier than with
gas.. That is, the weld is not as clean. You have to deal with more splatter
and slag. (Which might not be a problem if you're going to sand it back down
anyway.)


Nils Gore

- ----------
>From: Joe & Jen DeLaurentis
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Question on Welders
>Date: Tue, Aug 25, 1998, 7:00 PM
>

>I was wondering if anybody has worked with the gasless Mig welders or
>also called Flux Core wire welding....Can it be used to do body work
>ie. welding repair panels????
>Joe
>== 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: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:10:38 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six

I have to agree with you. The 300 in my brothers 84 F-150 is indestructable.
It's got close to 200,000 miles on it and it'll still bark the tires. I think
it'll be good for another 75 or 100 thousand.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:16:03 -0500
From: Albert Evitts
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Van parts

Van





Van Guys: I need an opening rear window for the passanger side rear
door on a 78 van preferably Privacy Glass. Junk yards here wont sell
much off vans as they use them to store stuff in the yard. TIA

Al







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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:29:13 -0400
From: "Ken Schneider"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Carpeting Update ALSO HUMP HEIGHT!

Here is an update on the carpeting situation...

I emailed Auto Custom Carpets, they said is was possible that I received a
bad cut of carpet, and that I should be expecting a phone call from a
represenative who then would issue me a call tag, and send me out a new
batch.

I received the call today, and the lady asked me if I had an automatic. I
said yes. She said is it a C6? Yep. She said the the rep at the F-100
Supernationals gave me the wrong one. The C6 tranny has the large hump, not
the small hump. She is shipping me out another now...

Till Later...

Ken

68 F100 360/C6/3.25

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:28:49 EDT
From: JRethford aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE:Carpeting

In a message dated 8/25/98 8:53:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
garrya bellsouth.net writes:


Garry Bowling >>


Garry, this is totally off topic put kinda weird. Your last name is the name
of a local carpet store here in my town.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:41:38 -0500
From: "JAMES MERLO"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - diff vent

I found it, I didn't know that is what it was.
Thanks
Jim

- ----------
> From: John LaGrone
> To: Ford Trucks 61-79
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - diff vent
> Date: Wednesday, August 26, 1998 8:05 AM
>
> I don't think anyone else answered the purpose of the vent hole. It
allows
> for expansion and contraction of the air inside. Without a vent hole the
> diff would generate enough heat to cause excessive pressure on your
seals.
> Presto!, a nice drip on your driveway. The vent on my 2WD has a hose that
> loops up by the rear tank. I have seen vents that look like a metal cap
> pressed on a bolt sticking out of the top of the axle housing. I like
this
> type better as mud daubers do not find them attractive for building
condos.
>
>
> -John
>
> jlagrone ford-trucks.com
> 1979 F150 Custom 351M C6, bashed in left door, new left front fender
> 1988 Towncar 5.0 EFI E4OD
> Macintosh G3/233 minitower (The software box said Windows95 or better, so
I
> bought a Mac.)
> 1979 MC under restoration (my son loves old cars, too!!!)
>
> Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!
>
>
> == 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: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:55:05 -0500
From: "JAMES MERLO"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - engine ID

I appreciate Gary's response to my earlier question about using a 351M/400M
bellhousing behind a 460 - basically NO.

How do I ID a 351M from a 400M? Where do I look on them? I may be
abandoning the 460 motor and trans transplant, although I have a feeling
that it is purely a money issue (I can get it if you are willing to pay
enough)

How do I tell the difference between a NP435. T18 and T19?

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:02:52 -0700
From: John MacNamara
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - chrome plating in California

I had come across this recommendation on a prior email so can't vouch
personally.
Verne's Chrome. 213 754 4126 in Gardena Ca.

Regards
John

78 F250 4X4 Supercab

jniolon uss.com wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> I understand there is an excellent plating shop...somewhere in S. Cal
> but my sources can't remember the name or location now.. does anyone
> have a source and name they will share
>
> TIA
>
> John
> == 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: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 18:37:28 -0500
From: Jim and judi Windle
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Uns*bscribe

Uns*bscribe

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 19:47:34 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Member web contributions

FTE's web site is kinda stale. It will be undergoing a face lift
soon. If you'd like to contribute any of the following for the
update:

1. Book or magazine review
2. Tech article. This can range from simple to complex. If you
installed a K&N on your 98, added a shift kit to your ride or
raised it 2 feet - almost anything you have to give, we'll
use.
3. Information or programs, click "misc" on the site for examples.

As usual, you retain the copyright and we'll take if off the site
if at some time in the future you ask us to.

Send submissions to:
kpayne ford-trucks.com

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 16:27:37 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Suggestions needed for Radius rods

From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Suggestions needed for Radius rods
Date sent: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 08:39:34 -0500

> Okay, I will unabashedly show my ignorance. What exactly are the C
> bushings? I have run across the term recently, and find no reference to
> them in the limited manuals that I have. I am going to replace the radius
> rod and I-beam bushings, but what are the C's? (I know that the bushing
> manufacturer calls them out as separate from the ones I am doing).
- ---------------------------------------------------
They are a 4X4 only part. They go between the front axel and the radius
arm. You mention "I beam" so I assume you have a 2 wheel drive so you don't
need the C bushings. If you have a shop manual check the exploded view of
the front end of a 4X4 and you'll see why they call them "C" bushings.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:31:46 -0400
From: Bill Templeton
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 66 F350 Backfires When Letting Off Accelerator

My 66 F350, 352 engine backfires when letting off accelerator. Engine runs
fine otherwise. The carburetor does not have an dashpot.) Any=
recommendations?

____________________________________________________=20

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Bill Templeton=20
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 300 Wickliffe Lane, West Union, SC 29696=20
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Tel: (864) 638-0141=A0=A0=A0 Fax: (864)=
638-4900=A0=A0=20
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E-Mail:=A0 temple carol.net =A0=A0=A0=
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.carol.net/temple/
____________________________________________________=20

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:35:27 EDT
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 66 F350 Backfires When Letting Off Accelerator

leaky exhaust maybe ??

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:35:47 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 66 F350 Backfires When Letting Off Accelerator

check for an exhaust leak. That lets air in to the system and ignites the
unburned fuel.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:49:55 EDT
From: Bato125 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power Steering

Is there any way I can jimmy rig my 66Ford F-250 2wd with power steering using
only parts off of 70 model fords from junkyards?Any advice is appriciated.
Thanks
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:59:19 -0700
From: Blaine Strong
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Thrashed Spindles.

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:
>
> From: "Chris Samuel"
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Thrashed Spindles.
> Date sent: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:35:31 -0700
>
> > There are M/Spray processes that do not require the inter-pass temperature
> > to be higher then 6-7000F.
>
> I knew about this process but had no details so didn't mention it since I
> didn't think it would do the job anyway, as you say. The high temp process
> does work well but not on hardned spindles, mainly drive shafts with mostly
> take torsion loadings that I've seen it used on with success and they usually
> get flame hardned and tempered before use which is less accurate than part
> heat treating in a furnace or induction hardening which is most likely what
> they use on spindles.
>
> > If you can not find a new, or at least better condition spindle which is
> > the only real fix.
>
> I totally agree, spindles are not something to take chances with yet, as I said,
> if it will support the races then you can probably get away with using it as is
> but don't try to fix it. Strength isn't an issue here but spinning the inner race
> is a very real concern.
>
> > Industrial Hard Chrome Plating. Take them the spindle and a set of new
> > bearings. They will grind the OD of the spindle to remove any sharp edged
> > damage and then Chrome it oversize. Then the spindle must be "baked" at
> > 4000 (I think) for some period of time to release the hydrogen that is the
> > cause of hydrogen enbrittlement
>
> We use hard chrome on spindles that have no loadings but need a hard
> surface and we have them rechromed hundreds of times so they must have
> some way to prevent the brittleness as you say but I'm not familiar with the
> whole process and yes it is expensive for this application. The grinding
> process alone will eat up most of the savings. Chrome is extrememly hard to
> grind true and requires a lot of fussing. Expensive wheels and lots of light
> cuts etc..
>

Gary:

I appreciated the input from you, and I believe it was Chris?
Anyway I would be the person to do the grinding. I have done a lot of
grinding on chrome, and nickel, and chrome grinds a lot easier than
nickel. I have not talked to the plater to see what the cost is between
the two processes. My boss figured about a hundred bucks. If I do go
with the chrome, I'll bake it in my oven, but it's too hot here in
Phoenix to do that right now. I know that chrome is harder, but nickel
is really dense, which gives it impact resistance, which is the type of
load on that area of the spindle (unless you spin a bearing). Besides
in MY situation, if the nickel doesn't work, I can try the chrome.
Since the machining cost is non-existant (I work for a really cool
lady), it's not that big of a deal.
I just don't want to spend $50.00 at the wrecking yard for a marginal
piece, or have a catastrophic failure from an improper repair.
Again, thanks for the input.

Blaine


> == 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: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:26:04 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Bellhousings 335/385 series

Jim Merlo writes: >> It would seem to me since the 351M/400M use
the same bellhousing pattern, that if a 351M/400M motor/trans combination
was found, this bellhousing could be used. At leas this seems to open up
the possibilities for 460 bellhousings. Does this make sense? Is this
accurate?

Accurate. I have 2 different vehicles running with 460 engines with
bellhousings from 400's. Both carry NP435's.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:34:32 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 swap

Jim Merlo contact me privately if you need any info on your contemplated
upcoming engine swap of the 460. I've done 3 so far and I think I can help
you with a few things.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.
AM14 Chrysler.com


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 09:39:00 -0400
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Vent hole

Jim Merlo writes: >>This may sound really stupid, but on my spicer 70,
where is the vent hole? I have a drain plug in the bottom and a fill plug
on the cover about 2/3 of the way up. I don't see a vent hole. What
purpose does this vent hole serve? Where is it?

I'm not sure of this, but it is probably on one of the axle tubes near one
side or the other(close to the spring mount).Very top of housing. Some are
vented through the bolt(hollow) that holds the brake line connector(where
the brake lines join the axle and split off toward ea wheel.)

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:27:17 -0400
From: "Mr. Paul R. Boudreault"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Radial - Bias

I'm pretty sure this was discussed a while back, but, I can't remember the
> conclusion of the discussion. I'm wondering if it would be ok to run
> radials in the front and bias in the back, or vice versa. These are 38"
> mud tires on a 76 F250 4x4 that does see highway quite a bit.


If your going to pursue this route be prepared for one set of wheels to give
a lot more quickly than the other. (It has been awhile but I believe that
radials tend to "scream" before they let go and bias ply tend just to give
without warning. That would off course be on hard road surfaces at highway
or so speeds, cornering, etc.) You should check with your local
State/Provincial authorities about how legal this is. Here in Ontario it is
a "no no". We wouldn't want to break the law, right? :)

Hope this helps,

Mr. Paul R. Boudreault
Retired RCAF/CAF
Proud owner of 79 Bronco, (the ongoing project vehicle!?)
pboudreault sympatico.ca


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:38:52 -0500
From: Jim Henjum
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 bellhousings

The difference between the 351/400 and 460 from my experience and what several
people have told me is that the crank sticks out about 1/2" further in relation
the the bellhousing on a 460. The bellhousing will bolt up, but becomes
smaller for fitting a clutch. For this reason, I had to go with a diaphram
clutch since it's skinnier that the normal 3-finger clutch. I also had to use
a 390 flywheel since the 460 never had a 4-speed until it was externally
balanced in '83 or so. The 390's fit the bolt pattern on the 460's crank;
351/400's don't. The starter came from a 351/400 and so far seems to fit the
390 flywheel fine. (no skips or broken teeth). Azie, you might have some input
on this since you've done it before (and I'd like to hear how you did it).
Thanks

Ross Henjum

1975 F250 4x4 460 NP435 "married" NP205

JAMES MERLO wrote:

> Over the past several weeks, I have read comments about the shortage of
> bellhousings for 460 motors. It would seem to me since the 351M/400M use
> the same bellhousing pattern, that if a 351M/400M motor/trans combination
> was found, this bellhousing could be used.
> At leas this seems to open up the possibilities for 460 bellhousings. Does
> this make sense? Is this accurate?
>
> I am further thinking that with this approach, one would have to determine
> if the transmission behind the 351M/400M was durable enough. I mention
> this because in a 5 second scan of Hollander we found that 351M
> bellhousings, for the particular year we looked at were not shown as
> interchangeable with the 460. I attribute this to the difference in
> transmissions - the guy at the yard said it was because the 351/400M didn't
> share bellhousing patterns with the 460. I didn't want to push the point
> with him - my source of knowledge is this group on this issue.
>
> I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as I will soon be in the
> acquisition mode.
>
> On a related item, what are the distinguishing marks to differentiate the
> T18/T19 and NP435? Do the bolt up interchangeably to bellhousings?
>
> Jim Merlo
> == 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: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 23:13:03 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 bellhousings

i used a 351 m bellhousing and a 390 flywheel behind my 460, someone had told
me to use two block plates to space it out alittle, so i did and it works
excellent, my tranny is a t18.

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 23:25:49 -0400
From: Tony Marino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six

Well Rob,

I'm probably the biggest supporter of the 6 on this newsgroup I suppose
from what I read, A lot are FE guys', a lot are M-class guys, and some are
460 gurus, but I currently have 4 trucks, all with I-6's ranging from
12,000 miles to 210,000 miles. One has a 4bbl carb, dual exhaust setup (my
fun/pulling truck), the others are stock, and I took my '93 F-150 4x4 from
Ohio to Montana and back in 4 days towing 2,000lbs of trailer there, and
7,000lbs back (bought a truck (with a 6 of course!) in the 5,000ft altitude
mountains, and let me tell you something, I asked A LOT of an F-150,
especially a newer model one, but whoever says' a six can't pull- and hold
it's own? I'd have to argue!!! (this is not an invitation to an engine
war, just my own viewpoints and opinions, please guys, don't jump on this! 8-)

So yeah, I stick up for the 300!!!

Tony M.
tony pscico.com
www.pscico.com/~tony (how's come stu's page looks better than mine when I
made his!!! (grin))


At 11:09 AM 8/26/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I was wondering how many of you have or have had a Ford truck with the 300
>six. My personnel experience with the engine has been great. I think it is
>the greatest and most reliable engine ever build, way more than some
>japanese car.
>
>Anyway I would like to here from you!!
>
>Robert
>
>
>
>== 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: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:59:41 PDT
From: "Don Jones"
Subject: [none]

>>I was wondering how many of you have or have had a Ford truck with the
300
six. My personnel experience with the engine has been
great.

I have a 300 in my '85 f-150. It has 200,000 km on it and hasn't needed
anything except a carb job in the 6 years i have had it.
I had an '86 f-150 302/EFI before that and it would overheat every
time at the same speeds and the same road and load (8 foot camper and
16 foot boat)
I used it to tow my 4x4 f-250 50 miles through very hilly country on
80 degree day .....no overheating just had to slow down going up the big
hills.

Don Jones, Northern Ont, canada
85 f-150 supercab ~for sale~~:-)
70 f-250 4x4 ~FORDZILLA~

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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:28:53 +0000
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Uns*bscribe

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

why?

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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 01:29:39 -0400
From: "Kerry Walker"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 7.3 Deisel

Don Grossman said :

>Anyone have any good experience with 7.3 diesels? Not just >swapping them
but
>in everyday use.


I've got a '93 F-350 Crew Cab with the 7.3. I bought it used 3 years ago, it
had 100k miles on it then. It's been a very dependable hauler and daily
driver. Lots of torque and decent fuel mileage to boot. As long as you keep
the fluids and filters changed, they will last forever.

Be aware that Harvester goofed on the waterjacket. There is a spot in the
jacket that is prone to cavitation and will eventually eat a hole thru the
cylinder wall. I forget which cylinder it is. In the literature Ford sent
me, they said it might be a problem on trucks with more than 100k miles. And
they gave a part # for a lube to put in the coolant to stop the wear. So if
you want a used one( who can afford a new one? ), get one that has been
running with the lube or that has been sleeved already. Or be prepared to
sleeve it yourself.

In 3 years I have had to replace the low pressure fuel pump, glow plugs,
valve cover gaskets, and the vacuum pump. Oh, and 2 new batteries every
year.

A 460 will do everything a 7.3 will do, but it will use twice as much fuel
doing it. And the oil burner doesn't have an ignition system or carb to wear
out or adjust.

I know everyone has heard a diesel cooling system story. Those things are so
overbuilt( diesels run hotter than gas motors anyway ), I routinely leave
mine running in the parking lot with the air on while I go grocery shopping
or eat lunch. And I live in North Texas, 110 degrees is just another summer
day. Just so the Dr. Pepper I leave in the console doesn't get hot.

It's not the best diesel in the world, but I think they are damn fine
motors.






Kerry Walker



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


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.