61-79-list-digest Monday, November 16 1998 Volume 02 : Number 524



=======================================================================
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 - re: 351m/c6 is in! - Tailshaft too long!! Help!
FTE 61-79 - 4V 351C manifold -Caution!
FTE 61-79 - Re Choke not working in cold
FTE 61-79 - RE Radius Arms.
RE: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351m/c6 is in! - Tailshaft too long!!
FTE 61-79 - water pump sealer
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's first road trip
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need Help... quick!!!
FTE 61-79 - choke tubes
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79-apreciate ALL the advice.
Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough
FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods
Re: FTE 61-79 - Thanks - 390
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C 4V Manifold
FTE 61-79 - Master cylinders
Re: FTE 61-79 - Aux. Fuel Switch
FTE 61-79 - disc brakes
FTE 61-79 - Rear end
Re: FTE 61-79 - cab mounts
Re: FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods
RE: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - Front Differential
RE: (Archive Copy) Re: FTE 61-79 - Need Help... quick!!!
FTE 61-79 - COUPLING ASSEMBLY 79 F-250 4X4
Re: FTE 61-79 - COUPLING ASSEMBLY 79 F-250 4X4
FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough
FTE 61-79 - #$%%$# # bronco brakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough
FTE 61-79 - Power Steering for '71 F100 4x4
FTE 61-79 - Replacement Radius Arms For 79 Bronco!
FTE 61-79 - CJ Heads
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M rebuild
FTE 61-79 - Driveshafts/tranny mounts
Re: FTE 61-79 - #$%%$# # bronco brakes
RE: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough
Re: FTE 61-79 - New to list, several questions
FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure
Re: FTE 61-79 - Replacement Radius Arms For 79 Bronco!
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure
FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure
FTE 61-79 - Body lift question
FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 Air filter ??'s
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 Air filter ??'s
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure
FTE 61-79 - FW: ISA Shocks For 79 Ford Bronco, Please, Please, Please.....
Re: FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods
FTE 61-79 - dana 44 & 60 installation set up tip
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE Radius Arms.
Re: FTE 61-79 - water pump sealer
Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough
Re: RE: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's first road trip

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

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

Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 23:23:55 -0500
From: pickup65 juno.com (Jon E Purut)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - re: 351m/c6 is in! - Tailshaft too long!! Help!

>>> I hear transmission shops shorten/lengthen them, and i'm curious if
anyone has had this done and how much it ran them.

I had a drive shaft lengthened when I put in a T18. Cost around $150.00.
If you are having it shortened then it will be less since they just cut
your existing tube. To lengthen you must buy a new tube and that is
expensive.
___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:51:44 -0500
From: "Mr. Paul R. Boudreault"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 4V 351C manifold -Caution!

There's a guy out of Massachusetts that has 351C 4-V intakes that
came out of
mustangs and he's pretty cheap. He's helped me alot and is honest. You can
give him a try. His name is Jim and his email is Boss351 aol.com


Hi all.

Does anyone know for sure if the 2V heads will accept, (correctly I mean,
ports stuff like that.) With my 351M this was a concern. (For stock Ford
4V manifold that mates up to the 4V heads, etc...)

If this is a concern, (cause I do not know for sure).

I would recommend an after market replacement, or wait and install the 2V
for now.

Anybody able to help out a fellow Ford buff with a used manifold?

(BTW if you want I could check a few sources on other list that I am on.)

Later,

"Paul"


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:56:29 -0500
From: "Mr. Paul R. Boudreault"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re Choke not working in cold


Only other
prob is my trucks unwillingness to start in the 18 degree temp, due to the
fact that my choke is not hooked up. Anyone out there have the tubes that
go
from the choke housing to the intake manifold? I could use em really bad.
Alright I've yapped long enough, see ya on the roads.


Have you considered a manual choke, (Kits are available everywhere pretty
cheap.) If ya don't have any luck you might try this even temporarily.

Later,

"Paul"


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:07:15 -0500
From: "Mr. Paul R. Boudreault"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE Radius Arms.

Hi Jeff.

I appreciate the offer but just before I read your message on this another
person emailed me with an offer for another pair, and I made a comment to
purchase them from him.

I will keep you in mind though if for some reason these do not pan out.

The price you quoted is quite fair by the way, (and less than what I agreed
to, but a deal is a deal right?)

Thank you, very much.

"Paul"

PS do you have other parts? Cause I might need something else. (You can
bank on it cause I am rebuilding a 79 Bronco who's last owner must have had
a thing for driving behind road salting trucks!)




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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:21:23 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: RE: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351m/c6 is in! - Tailshaft too long!!

>driveline to hook up. Will that work?
>or will the fan be moved too close to the radiator?
>
There are several sizes of fan spacers available, so if you have a tall one
already, moving it forward may just require a move to a shorter one ...
scour junk yards for originals, or buy after market uni-fit things if you
want..

Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:17:19 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - water pump sealer

Jeff,

I always use Indian Head brand gasket sealer on water pump jobs. It comes
in a small brown bottle that has a swab for an applicator. There may be
other brands that have the same formula. This type of sealer isn't good for
high temperature applications, but it works well where fluid needs to be
sealed. I usually apply it to both sides of the gasket and all of the
bolts. It is important to put sealer on the bolts that go into the water
jacket, otherwise your installation will leak, you'll decide that the
bbolts need tightening and you'll break them off. I also use Indian Head on
valve covers, pans, timing chain covers, etc. but only steel to steel or
steel to iron, never on steel to aluminum. It won't strech enough to allow
for different expansion coefficeints. There used to be some stuff called
K&W Coppercoat that was pretty good for this type application too, but
Indian Head is real cheap, I think it's about $1.75 for a small bottle. It
goes a long way.


- -John

jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:23:03 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's first road trip

>fact that my choke is not hooked up. Anyone out there have the tubes that go
>from the choke housing to the intake manifold? I could use em really bad.

Check the HELP section of your local auto parts store, they have some that
you can bend yourself, we put that on my 74 and it worked great ... got a
holley w/electric now, so I can't remember if I've hooked it up still or
taken it off...at any rate it should be pretty cheap from HELP too...


Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:36:51 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need Help... quick!!!

Thanks for your message at 05:45 PM 11/13/98 -0800, jeffd. Your message was:
>Your welcome,
> Never heard of a 410. What truck did this come in?

It never came in a truck (that I know of) from the factory, but it will
certainly drop right into any, especially on with an existing FE block. It
actually came in the '66-'67 (I'm not absolutely sure of this second
number. Someone correct me) Mercury. It is a 390 with a 428 stroke.
>
>> >The trans will from the 390 will fit ,332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 427, 428.
>>
>> Add the 410 to this list.
>>

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:39:06 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - choke tubes

Darrell,

I made new choke tubes out of copper tubing rather than steel tubing. I
only needed the ones that went from the intake manifold to the carb choke
unit. It won't last as long, but it was real easy to do and I had plenty of
copper lying around. I sealed the slip in ends with RTV. Let the RTV sit
overnight before operating the engine more than long enough to move the
truck over a little. It has been about three years since I did this and it
is still working great. It also cured my winter start problems.

Copper will not take shear stress like steel will. DO NOT USE COPPER ON ANY
VITAL SYSTEM.


- -John

jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:41:06 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79-apreciate ALL the advice.

Thanks for your message at 06:58 PM 11/12/98 -0600, Ronald E Werts. Your
message was:
>I like Deacons attitude
>" Who's laughing? Asking before jumping into it, saved you from
>unnecessary damage. Everyone who likes fixing things has escalated minor
>repairs to need a new one, many times. It goes with the territory.
>Design Engineers love hiding bolts for some reason. I bet there's a
>bonus for them if it's found a part's replaced do to their hidden bolt."
>

Anyone remember the hidden bolt on a flathead V-8 water pump? I wonder
how many shade tree mechanics that drove crazy (besides me).

I thought of this while driving to work this morning in my '62 Unibody (FTE
content).
Dennis L. Pearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:47:56 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

At 11:00 AM 11/15/98 , you wrote:
>I have a 302 in my 79 F150, it is running extremely rough, I thinkj the
>timing is off. How can I change or check the timing? I know this is
>propably simple, but I'm stuck right now without any manuals or anything
>right now. I'm trying to get it running alot smoother. TIA
>
Well if you're sure its the timing you should be able to do it "by ear"
... or until it smooths out .. another thing to check is the plugs, be sure
they're gapped correctly (what is it for the elec. ignition? 35 is points
isn't it?)

Hope this helps ...

Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:48:08 -0600
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods

>Also is there any difference between the hoods of the various passenger
>truck models of that era, i.e what will interchange? All 65 F150-250
>including CS? Maybe the 66's as well?
>
'61-'66 F-Series hoods are all the same AFAIK.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:49:54 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Thanks - 390

Thanks for your message at 11:07 PM 11/14/98 -0600, juredd - Justin
Reddell. Your message was:
Can someone tell me if there is anyway to tell the difference between the
two motors without tarring it down?

Is this some new way to prevent rust? Will ordinary roofing tar work?


1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:55:35 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C 4V Manifold

Thanks for your message at 10:35 AM 11/15/98 EST, RKocsis627 aol.com. Your
message was:
>There's a guy out of Massachusetts that has 351C 4-V intakes that came out of
>mustangs and he's pretty cheap. He's helped me alot and is honest. You can
>give him a try. His name is Jim and his email is Boss351 aol.com


Trouble is if they are original equpment 351 Mustang 351C 4-V, They won't
work on a 351C with the 2-V heads. Only an aftermarket 4-V will work.

By the way, my 351C 2-V can still get me into plenty of trouble, but I'm
doing mainly street driving, not much highway...



1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:53:39 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Master cylinders

Rich,

Don't take this wrong, but are you sure that G*C had a proportioning valve?
Most dual reservoir master cylinder systems that I have seen on GM products
have a junction block where the pressure warning light sensor goes, but
that is all it does. Did the G*C happen to have an antilock brake option? A
couple of cars had the warnig light sensor in the master cylinder, I think
on the bottom (CRS strikes again). If these blocks were indeed
proportioning valves, then you could swap across manufacturers, provided
they would bolt up. But that also means it wouldn't make any difference,
you would still need the proportioning valve.


- -John

jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:58:28 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Aux. Fuel Switch

Thanks for your message at 08:11 AM 11/15/98 PST, Randy Benart. Your
message was:
>Hi,
> Yes I can use it I have a 79 F350 that has a Aux. tank and no switch.
>
> Randy
I have a '66 F250 with a switch and no aux tank. I didn't realize it
until I crawled under the truck to check some wiring. Sure glad I didn't
decide to fill both tanks. That would have been somewhat embarrassing...


Dennis L. Pearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:05:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - disc brakes

>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:11:15 -0800
>From: "Southerland, Rich"
>Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - master cylinders
>
>True that 4 wheel disc is available in the Expeditions, Explorers, Crown
>Vics, Marquis, and the Lincoln line, most if not all of these are ABS
>equipped vehicles. This may be a dumb question, but does the fact the
>vehicle is ABS equipped make a difference in the master cylinder
>construction versus non-ABS vehicles?

Rich,
The new Super Duty trucks have disc brakes all the way around(been dying to
order one) rear ABS standard and full ABS optional. I ordered my '95 Special
Service Crown Vicky without ABS and it has 4 wheel discs. Does a dang fine
job of stopping without it too.

I didn't want the hassles and expenses of an ABS system failing or going bad
plus I never did like the way they felt on my Blown V6 - 90 Cougar XR7 when
I went from 90 to nothing in a hurry.

Stu
Nuke GM!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu
71 resto in progress......getting painted today!!! yippee!!!!

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:04:28 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rear end

Daniel Jenkins writes: >>1FE AB 7FA
3L25 9 388D

3L25 = 3.25:1 Limited slip.

Don't know about the rest of the #'s.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:11:36 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - cab mounts

At 07:03 PM 11/14/98 , you wrote:
>Does anyone know where to get a new set of cab mounts (the metal parts) for a
>78 F-250????
>
I found some at the local auto parts store ... they had 2 books and I made
them drag out the book with the good stuff in it...the body shop was
impressed with the gauge of steel, but a bunch of cutting had to be done on
the floorboards to get them to fit.


Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 07:12:58 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods

Thanks for your message at 08:48 AM 11/16/98 -0600, John Strauss. Your
message was:
>>Also is there any difference between the hoods of the various passenger
>>truck models of that era, i.e what will interchange? All 65 F150-250
>>including CS? Maybe the 66's as well?
>>
>'61-'66 F-Series hoods are all the same AFAIK.
>

Levi might have a hood or two. Where in the Pacific NW are you? We are in
Kennewick, WA.


Dennis L. Pearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm Levi's Cars & Trucks
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:48:51 -0800
From: Jim Pliss
Subject: RE: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - Front Differential

Scott,
I tried a limited slip up fron and had terrible time with it in snow. I
personally changed to an ARB air locker works great in the fron although I
do have a spicer power lok limited in the rear works excellent

- -----Original Message-----
From: BDIJXS aol.com [SMTP:BDIJXS aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 3:40 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - Front Differential

Hey Scott,

I just went through my 44 and thought I would pass on what little I know.
If
you have to get a new carrier, why not consider a limited slip unit? Might
not
cost that much more that a stock one. Or, you should be able to find a
stock
R/P at any junkyard for pretty cheap, but if you want new, I wouldn't blame
you.

I just happened to know a mechanic who was trained in putting diffs
together....it is really an art...and takes quite a bit of patience. The
real
key is having the right tools like a bearing holder for a hydraulic press,
a
hydraulic press (you'll probably have to take the bearings off a few times
until you get it right), air tools, etc. Unless you are pretty well
equipped,
it might just be best to have somebody do it....sorry if this sounds
negative,
but having gone through two Danas (front and rear), I was always really
glad
that my friend was doing it and not me....

Let us know how it goes...

Colorado Jeff





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


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:45:45 -0800
From: Jim Pliss
Subject: RE: (Archive Copy) Re: FTE 61-79 - Need Help... quick!!!

Jeff,
Most 4WD units from 67 to mid 77 i think F250 used a 410 ratio rear and a
409 ratio front most of the pre 75 i beleive used a dana 60 rear end with
16 spline axles (weird huh) and either a dana 44 front axle or a dana 44 HD
also called the 3500lb optional axle and the pre 74 models used a closed
knuckle front end

- -----Original Message-----
From: jeffd [SMTP:jeffd cari.net]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 5:45 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: (Archive Copy) Re: FTE 61-79 - Need Help... quick!!!

Your welcome,
Never heard of a 410. What truck did this come in?


- ----------
> From: Dennis Pearson
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need Help... quick!!!
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:29 AM
>
> Thanks for your message at 09:01 PM 11/10/98 -0800, jeffd. Your message
was:
> >The trans will from the 390 will fit ,332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 427, 428.
>
> Add the 410 to this list.
>
>
>
>
> 1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
> 1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
> 1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
> I shortened this to only FT's
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:21:22 -0800 (PST)
From: b clark
Subject: FTE 61-79 - COUPLING ASSEMBLY 79 F-250 4X4

any body familiar with ford steering? the shaft that connects the
steering sector with the colum shaft, it has a bad u-joint. the ford
dealer only sells the whole shaft, and it's priced outrageously.
anybody have a better idea. any info would be helpful. thanks
bill clark





_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:57:53 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - COUPLING ASSEMBLY 79 F-250 4X4

There's a company called Borgeson Universal that claims to have replacement
shafts for Ford (and other) trucks. They offer a free catalog. I've never
used them but have heard good things about them. They may offer the u-joint
only.

Standard caveat: I don't work for them.

(860) 482-8283

- ----------
> From: b clark
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - COUPLING ASSEMBLY 79 F-250 4X4
> Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 8:21 AM
>
> any body familiar with ford steering? the shaft that connects the
> steering sector with the colum shaft, it has a bad u-joint. the ford
> dealer only sells the whole shaft, and it's priced outrageously.
> anybody have a better idea. any info would be helpful. thanks
> bill clark

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:09:33 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

>I have a 302 in my 79 F150, it is running extremely rough, I thinkj the
>timing is off. How can I change or check the timing? I know this is
>propably simple, but I'm stuck right now without any manuals or
>anything
>right now. I'm trying to get it running alot smoother. TIA

Here's what I remember from my few timing sessions.

1. Disconnect the vacuum advance
2. Hook the light up to the #1 cylinder.
3. (optional) clean the timing marks off and use chaulk (or liquid paper)
to mark your "set point". For a 352 I think its 8 degrees, I don't know
about a 302.
4. Start it up and shoot the light, try to keep the light "straight on" the
marks, in other words, do not point light from a wierd angle.
5. If timing is off, shut off the engine and loosen the distribtur nut (i think
its a 9/16) enough to turn the distributor body. Start the motor up again
and slightly rotate the distributor until you get your mark.
6. Reconnect your vacuum advance.


Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:18:14 -0500
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - #$%%$# # bronco brakes

Well my brakes on the pickup were sticking so I had to take the whole thing
apart and free up the linkage in the booster. In the process I discovered that
it is identical to the bronco as is the proportioning valve and as are the
calipers and basic configuration of the caliper mounts (even though it's 2wd).

At this point I have no clue why one is absolutely fine and the other really,
really, really stinks ??# $#%^$# !!

Brakes on the PU now work as always, very well....?? Since the MC on the
bronco is a rebuild and the one on the PU is stock (20 years old) and since
the Proportioning valve on the bronco was seized when I took it apart the
problem could be one or both of these or I could still have air in the system
in spite of all my attempts to get it all out. The PU has always been easy to
bleed and I never had to pull the proportioning valve pin to do it either. The
bronco seems to be defying all efforts to get the mush out and this morning I
actually had no brakes on one end or the other without pumping them
so.....?? I know, check rear adjustment, bleed, etc, etc, etc, etc....

I wonder if blazers.....naw, bad idea :-)


Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:19:41 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

At 11:09 AM 11/16/98 , you wrote:
>>I have a 302 in my 79 F150, it is running extremely rough, I thinkj the
>>timing is off. How can I change or check the timing? I know this is
>>propably simple, but I'm stuck right now without any manuals or
>>anything
>>right now. I'm trying to get it running alot smoother. TIA
>
>Here's what I remember from my few timing sessions.
>
>1. Disconnect the vacuum advance

Don't forget to plug the line so you don't have a vacuum leak!

>2. Hook the light up to the #1 cylinder.
>3. (optional) clean the timing marks off and use chaulk (or liquid paper)
>to mark your "set point". For a 352 I think its 8 degrees, I don't know
>about a 302.

For most V8 applications 6 or 8 is a good place to start, depends on your
cam and such. My truck likes 6-10, the cam in the Cougar LOVES 12-14 ...
of course the gas doesn't like that so much :) Just don't set it on 0. A
friend did that in his 5.0 GT, he said it would scream up to 30mph, but
wouldn't do any more than that even in OD.

>4. Start it up and shoot the light, try to keep the light "straight on" the
>marks, in other words, do not point light from a wierd angle.
>5. If timing is off, shut off the engine and loosen the distribtur nut (i
>think
>its a 9/16) enough to turn the distributor body. Start the motor up again
>and slightly rotate the distributor until you get your mark.

Mine was 1/2, just an FYI. Whatever you do, don't put your hands anywhere
near the moving parts ... I know I'm stupid, but I always set mine with the
engine running, but am EXTREMELY careful not to A) grab the top of the
distributor (ZOT!) or B) get my hands near the fan/belts. If this is your
first time tryin such a thing, shut it off and do it right, no sense
getting hurt because your hand slipped!

>6. Reconnect your vacuum advance.
>

Some other things to remember, be sure the truck is warmed up so that the
choke is opened ... might not be an issue where you're at, but it was cold
this weekend, so I had to be sure that I had the low idle. You also want
to be sure you're running at the low setting that your truck normally idles
at, otherwise the centrifugal advance will take over and you'll set it too low.

Don't know how often you guys set your timing, but since I've got points
still I end up settin it at least 2 or 3 times a year after adjusting them,
then having something major go wrong and having to do it again later ...
this month it was the timing chain that took a dive, we'll see what it is
in the spring (hopefully I can make it that long)!


Just my 2cents

Bill

Auto Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/cars.html
'73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Trucks/truck.html
'96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Cars/mustang.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:17:21 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power Steering for '71 F100 4x4

Hey Frank,

There is some effort involved in this swap. What you need are:

Steering box from 76-79 F-150 or 78-79 Bronco.
Power Steering Pump/related brackets, pulleys, hoses.
Torch
Big Drill

Basically, you'll need to cut out a small access hole in your front cross
member to get the front bolt of the steering box on.

You'll also need to modify your steering shaft by adding a new ragjoint
(plastic probably) and changing the length.

If you think you have the gumption to get the stuff above together, send me a
private message and I can give you more details...

All I know is that it was the BEST modification I ever did to the truck...

Colorado Jeff





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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:17:15 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Replacement Radius Arms For 79 Bronco!

Hey Paul,

I'd check the junkyards....I'm pretty sure the F-150 arms will work as
well....

You'll probably have to do a little searching for the end caps from a quad
shock setup , but they'll bolt right up....Don't forget to look for the upper
mounts as well. The holes should already be drilled in your frame to accept
these. Instead of extended radius arms (is there such a thing?), you'll need
the drop-down frame brackets (I used Superlift) to keep the camber and
steering correct.

The one hassle I had was the front shock bracket on the driver's side that
also provides the tracking arm pivot. I found one from a Bronco, then had a 3"
to 4" piece welded on and a new hole drilled for the track arm. You'll want to
do this so the axle doesn't "pull over" to the left with the lift kit....

Let me know if you need more details!

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:27:04 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - CJ Heads

Dale Frenz writes: >> some 429CJ heads would be nice

Dale you might be interested in a set of PI heads from Houston, Tx. Try R
Hoyt at Rhoyt micro.ti.com. He had a pair ready to bolt on of Casting #
D2OE's. They are much better for trucks than the CJ, so I've been told.

I was interested kinda, but I couldn't talk my son in to it. We have
several 460's running and a couple in pieces, but aren't willing to part
with any of them just yet.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.




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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:45:46 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M rebuild

>From: mclough page.az.net (Michael Clough)
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351M rebuild
>
>I was wondering if I could get some input about
>rebuilding, etc. Should I try to find a 400 and rebuild
>that? I just want to have a stock truck that will tow
>the occasional boat or at least will pull my trailer up
>a hill.

Yo Mike:

I would recommend the 400 because it uses the same block as the 351M, so
it'll be a drop-in swap, and it has a few more cubes to make power. You
can convert your 351M into a 400 by just changing the crankshaft and
pistons. A stock rebuild on a 400 will give a little better low-end torque
than the 351M gives, IMHO.

> I also read something about restrictors
>to put in the block to help increase oil pressure.

Actually, I think that's something people do for the FE engines. I've
never heard of such a thing for the M-block (351M/400) engine.

>It has never had any oil pressure when warm. I have
>even run straight 50w during the summer and it drops
>off the gauge when idling and warmed up.

Classic signs of worn out main crank bearings.

Good luck w/ your truck.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:43:47 -0800
From: "Douglas W. Hack"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Driveshafts/tranny mounts

> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351m/c6 is in! - Tailshaft too long!! Help!
> Well i just got done sitting the engine and tranny into my truck
> and i noticed where the output shaft and transmission
> mounts have ended up..just a tad to far out to connect to
> the driveline and trans mount to crossmember. I hear transmission shops
> shorten/lengthen them, and i'm curious if anyone has had this done
> and how much it ran them. Or, is there a short driveline section
> i can take from another vehicle? Also if i will have to drill new
> crossmember
> holes or is there a "swap mount" i can use.
>
> Ugh, always something else :^(
> Shawn Donkin
> '68 F100 2wd 351m/c6

I'm going to have to deal with something similar with my '78 F150 as I'm
taking out a 351m/c6 and putting in a 400/T18. The engines are really
the same block, but the tailshaft length on the c6 is incredibly
longer. Once I have the engine/tranny set so I can get a decent
measurement and know what I'm looking for, I'm going to a wrecking yard
(or three) and look for a stock front shaft of the correct length. If
that doesn't work I'll consider it a great excuse to have an over-length
front cut down and the entire driveline reconditioned and balanced. The
shops that do this don't charge all that much in my experience/opinion.
I've seen incredible reductions in vibration and noise from balancing
driveshafts. I'm swapping a complete F250 drivetrain into a F150 and
the driveshafts and U-joints are much beefier from the F250.

In the late '70's trucks there are usually two or three different
mounting holes for the crossmember on the frame, and the stock tranny
mount has offset holes so it can be reversed for different
applications. The aftermarket replacement mount I purchased from Kragen
has a continuous slot, instead of the offset holes. I'm expecting this
to be very handy when it comes to dealing with mounting the
transmission. There were also several different stock crossmembers for
different years and applications. I'll probably be using the
crossmember that came with the manual transmission. Usually there is
some combination of stock components that will do what you need, but
drilling a couple of holes can be an easy solution if it doesn't weaken
the component.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:00:55 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - #$%%$# # bronco brakes

>
>I wonder if blazers.....naw, bad idea :-)
>
>
>Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


Bad thoughts Gary!
Bad thoughts.
-srw

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:37:21 -0800
From: Jim Pliss
Subject: RE: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

You have the mechanics of it down pat the timing im not sure about but
check to see if the timing mark is moving around alot. A loose timing chain
can give you problems also

- -----Original Message-----
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu [SMTP:bkirking bcm.tmc.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 9:10 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com;
Subject: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

>I have a 302 in my 79 F150, it is running extremely rough, I thinkj the
>timing is off. How can I change or check the timing? I know this is
>propably simple, but I'm stuck right now without any manuals or
>anything
>right now. I'm trying to get it running alot smoother. TIA

Here's what I remember from my few timing sessions.

1. Disconnect the vacuum advance
2. Hook the light up to the #1 cylinder.
3. (optional) clean the timing marks off and use chaulk (or liquid paper)
to mark your "set point". For a 352 I think its 8 degrees, I don't know
about a 302.
4. Start it up and shoot the light, try to keep the light "straight on"
the
marks, in other words, do not point light from a wierd angle.
5. If timing is off, shut off the engine and loosen the distribtur nut (i
think
its a 9/16) enough to turn the distributor body. Start the motor up again
and slightly rotate the distributor until you get your mark.
6. Reconnect your vacuum advance.


Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 12:24:48 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to list, several questions

>From: Bigwink1 aol.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - New to list, several questions
>
>snip other questions
>
>And can someone please
>tell me the difference between the 351W, 351C,
>and my engine, the 351M?

Yo Wink:

The 351W is a member of the 90-degree small block family that also includes
the 289 and 302 (5.0). The 351W has a taller deck height than the 302 and
longer stroke (3.50" vs 3.00"). The 351W was introduced in the 1969 model
year and it was produced through the 1996 model year.

The 351C was the first engine in a new design family known as the 335
series (sort of a little brother of the big-block 385 series). The 351C
uses cylinder heads based on the design first created for the Boss 302.
The 351C has a larger and heavier block than the 351W, but it shares the
4.38" bore spacing and 4.00" bore diameter of the 302/351W small blocks, as
well as the 3.50" stroke of the 351W. The 351C also uses the small block
bell housing bolt pattern on the rear of the block. The 351C was
introduced in the 1970 model year and it was produced through the 1974
model year.

The 351M is a "de-stroked" adaptation of the 400, which itself was a
long-stroke variant of the 351C. Introduced in 1971, the 400 was the
second design in the 335 series, and it was the last new pushrod engine
designed by Ford. The 400 uses the same cylinder heads as the 351C. The
400 has a larger block w/ a taller deck height than the 351C to accommodate
its 4.00" stroke. The 400 crankshaft uses larger main bearings like the
351W, w/ the same size rod journals as the 351C and 351W.

The 351M was introduced in 1975, after the 351C went out of production.
The 351M uses all the components of the 400, except the crankshaft and
pistons. The 351M has a 3.50" stroke (just like the 351W and 351C) and
unique pistons w/ a taller compression height to make up for using the same
rods with a shorter stroke. The 351M was produced until the end of the
1982 model year, when all M-block (351M/400) production ended.

Both M-block engines were factory options in trucks (and Broncos) from 1977
through 1982.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:46:54 -0600
From: Richard Cherico
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure

Here's my deal-I've got about 14k miles on a 360 that I rebuilt a little
while back. It sees a lot of highway driving but lately the oil pressure
has dipped down significantly. It was generally 55-60 3000 RPM and about
15 900 RPM. Now it is about 13 900, 35 2000, and 45 3000+. I built it
with a high volume oil pump I remember. Any suggestions? I've poked
around with the stethoscope and don't hear any rods or mains (yet)...
bigric tamu.edu

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:05:51 -0500
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Replacement Radius Arms For 79 Bronco!

BDIJXS aol.com wrote:
>
> Hey Paul,
>
> I'd check the junkyards....I'm pretty sure the F-150 arms will work as
> well....
>

Yes, they will

> You'll probably have to do a little searching for the end caps from a quad
> shock setup , but they'll bolt right up..

There are at least two different hole spacings between the front and
rear holes for lower spring pad mouting. Swapping around endcaps may
require redrilling of spring pads. Even swapping a whole different
radius arm may require redrilling lower spring pad 9if you don't swap
them also). If lower spring pads are not bent (towards outer edge of
spring, very common), then get them with the arms. My 78 had one shock
in front and one shock in back. The drivers side had the shock in front,
if you get real desperate, you can use a drivers side radius arm cap on
the passenger side to get the cap with the hole in it. This will also
require drilling holes for the brackets on the radius arm of drivers
side (you can steal brackets off pasenger side radius arm on any 78-79)
bronc. Either way you will need upper brackets.

IMO, quad shocks are too much shock. It stiffens things up
considerably, too stiff when used with aftermarket offroad shocks.


..Don't forget to look for the upper
> mounts as well. The holes should already be drilled in your frame to accept
> these.

They are

>Instead of extended radius arms (is there such a thing?), you'll need
> the drop-down frame brackets (I used Superlift) to keep the camber and
> steering correct.
>

I think you mean caster, but you can use C-bushings to maintain caster
also.

> The one hassle I had was the front shock bracket on the driver's side that
> also provides the tracking arm pivot. I found one from a Bronco, then had a 3"
> to 4" piece welded on and a new hole drilled for the track arm. You'll want to
> do this so the axle doesn't "pull over" to the left with the lift kit....

I recommned the superlift adjustable track bar. It lets you fine tune
the axle location. It's almost impossible to get the correct drop you
need from a track bar drop bracket the first time.

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:59:16 EST
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure

Oil pressure generally goes down a lil bit after a rebuild. This is due to
everything breakin in. If your concerned about it, try a thicker oil, but the
pressures you have sound fine to me.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:58:15 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure

>>360 that I rebuilt

>> It {oil pressure} was generally 55-60 3000 RPM and about
>>15 900 RPM. Now it is about 13 900, 35 2000, and 45 3000+.
>>I built it with a high volume oil pump I remember

Richard,
If I rember correctly, (although my psi's are usually in the 50's), my Ford shop
manual says oil pressure for a 352 (same series as 360) is in the 35 to 60 psi
range, so you are probably ok.

On a more technical note, it seems odd that a high volume oil pump has created
a lower pressure. Darrell Duggan has suggested a rebuild-break-in effect. I
suggest that the decrease in pressure may be due to an increase in oil velocity.
This is similar to those spray bottles that go on the end of a garden hose. The
velocity of the fluid creates a low pressure that draws the liquid from the bottle.
It's also the same effect that allows airplanes to fly. Does anyone have
experience with oil pumps to comment? How about if anyone knows if high
volume means higher velocity? Isn't the oil volume constant anyway? Know
one is adding extra oil when they put in a high volume oil pump are they?
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:14:19 EST
From: RKocsis627 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Body lift question

I have a '77 F150 Custom 2WD and would like to get more clearance for bigger
tires. Is a 3" body lift a good idea or is there a better way to make more
room? Any problems when doing one of these or are they pretty simple? What's
the biggest tire and rim I could put on then? Thanks for the help.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 15:41:14 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 Air filter ??'s

Hey all, a while back there was some discussion on air-cleaners on the
61-79 group, and someone had mentioned that the shape of the base was
important for the carb air flow. Is that unique for each engine, or does
every engine pretty much need the same thing ?

Here's the deal, I have a 360 4V with a Holley 600 on it. I'm probably a
little under carbed, but it worked quick and wasn't a step down from the 2V
I had. Anyway I'm still running the stock air cleaner on this truck (minus
the snorkel) and am gettin tired of it wheezing and plugging up a part of
the filter when the rest of it is still fine. Several people, including
all the 'stangers I talk to and my g.f.'s father, swear by the K&N's. My
options as I see them are
a) use current housing for 351 (what's on there now I just realized)
b) use original 360 housing (I think this is taller, but other than that ???)
c) use original housing and element, with smaller top similar to ram air on
mustangs
d) get open element stuff, is this standard or do I need specifically for
application ?

So anyone got any suggestions here ? or experience? K&N worth the money ?
The truck is a 4x4, but I don't do any serious off roading, unless you
count the gravel road I live on.

Thanks
Bill
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:46:11 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 Air filter ??'s

K&N's are nice, and reusable.
I noticed to yesterday they make an air cleaner lid, that is a filter, adds
alot more surface are for the air to flow through.
-srw

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S Hart
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Cc: off-road ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 1:42 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 Air filter ??'s


>Hey all, a while back there was some discussion on air-cleaners on the
>61-79 group, and someone had mentioned that the shape of the base was
>important for the carb air flow. Is that unique for each engine, or does
>every engine pretty much need the same thing ?
>
>Here's the deal, I have a 360 4V with a Holley 600 on it. I'm probably a
>little under carbed, but it worked quick and wasn't a step down from the 2V
>I had. Anyway I'm still running the stock air cleaner on this truck (minus
>the snorkel) and am gettin tired of it wheezing and plugging up a part of
>the filter when the rest of it is still fine. Several people, including
>all the 'stangers I talk to and my g.f.'s father, swear by the K&N's. My
>options as I see them are
>a) use current housing for 351 (what's on there now I just realized)
>b) use original 360 housing (I think this is taller, but other than that
???)
>c) use original housing and element, with smaller top similar to ram air on
>mustangs
>d) get open element stuff, is this standard or do I need specifically for
>application ?
>
>So anyone got any suggestions here ? or experience? K&N worth the money ?
>The truck is a 4x4, but I don't do any serious off roading, unless you
>count the gravel road I live on.
>
>Thanks
>Bill
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 13:56:41 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure

Thanks for your message at 02:58 PM 11/16/98 -0600, bkirking bcm.tmc.edu.
Your message was:
>>>360 that I rebuilt
>
>>> It {oil pressure} was generally 55-60 3000 RPM and about
>>>15 900 RPM. Now it is about 13 900, 35 2000, and 45 3000+.
>>>I built it with a high volume oil pump I remember
>
>Richard,
>If I rember correctly, (although my psi's are usually in the 50's), my
Ford shop
>manual says oil pressure for a 352 (same series as 360) is in the 35 to 60
psi
>range, so you are probably ok.
>
>On a more technical note, it seems odd that a high volume oil pump has
created
>a lower pressure.

My 351C runs 70-80 psi consistently. It actually scares me sometimes when
I first start it and the oil pressure indicator is off the scale...I always
tell myself that whoever built the engine must have put in a higher
velocity pump...but this is purely conjecture...Now that it has come up, I,
too, am wondering...


Darrell Duggan has suggested a rebuild-break-in effect. I
>suggest that the decrease in pressure may be due to an increase in oil
velocity.
>This is similar to those spray bottles that go on the end of a garden
hose. The
>velocity of the fluid creates a low pressure that draws the liquid from
the bottle.
>It's also the same effect that allows airplanes to fly. Does anyone have
>experience with oil pumps to comment? How about if anyone knows if high
>volume means higher velocity? Isn't the oil volume constant anyway? Know
>one is adding extra oil when they put in a high volume oil pump are they?






Dennis L. Pearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm Levi's Cars & Trucks
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:48:49 -0500
From: "Mr. Paul R. Boudreault"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FW: ISA Shocks For 79 Ford Bronco, Please, Please, Please.....

Hey All!

Thought you all might want to know this!

I know this is going to influence which shocks I buy in the near future.

Later,

"Paul" ;>)

- -----Original Message-----
From: edelbrock edelbrock.com [mailto:edelbrock edelbrock.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 5:33 PM
To: pboudreault sympatico.ca
Subject: Re: ISA Shocks For 79 Ford Bronco, Please, Please, Please.....

At 09:21 AM 11/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>I was wondering if you have given any thought to producing shocks for this
>vehicle?
>
>I know there would be a demand as I am on many mailing list for Ford
>products and specifically Ford F-series truck from 73-79 and Broncos 78-79,
>and others.
>
>If you could I would certainly buy them.
>
>Let me know what you think on this.
>
>Thanks,
>
>"Paul"
>
>
>
>We will be making them, but they will not be made till
the middle of next year.
Thanks Edelbrock Tech



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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:49:52 -0800
From: "Jeff Towne"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods

Thanks Dennis,
I am in Everett, WA. I got a line on a hood at a local yard from another
listmember (thanks Sam : -)
that I am currently following up on. The yard confirms its existence and
claims that it is in pretty good shape.
Schedule has not yet permitted me to run over there and check it out,
however.

I've just got to start limiting myself to only a dozen simultaneous
projects. Maybe that way I can actually complete one

jeff towne
65 F-250 CS
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Pearson
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - pacific nw hoods
>
>Levi might have a hood or two. Where in the Pacific NW are you? We are in
>Kennewick, WA.
>
>
>Dennis L. Pearson


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:19:54 -0800
From: hankg mtaonline.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - dana 44 & 60 installation set up tip

Since the shims setup on the inside of the carriers to adjust the
backlash and preload of bearings one way to accomplish this if you do
several is to buy new side bearings without races and hone the id of the
bearing out so it will slip on the carrier easily . slip the carrier in
and out and since your bearings don't require pressing 1)remove the side
play in the carrier to housing by placing shims on one side or another
while maintaining some gearlash(backlash).2) after side play is gone
switch shims form side to side to get the correct backlash, 3) then add
about three thousandths .003 to each side to set the brg preload. The
trick is to hone out the brgs, grab a snickers bar because you will be
there a while. But once you have done this you will be able to set one
up in no time. ... hank....
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 20:58:51 EST
From: TORO12332 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE Radius Arms.

radius arms for what yr and model?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:00:41 EST
From: TORO12332 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - water pump sealer

where do you get it t?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:04:25 EST
From: TORO12332 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

in what shape is your 79, im trying to find someone who will remove rust and
repaint mine.

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:12:08 EST
From: Dugnla aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: (Archive Copy) FTE 61-79 - 302 running really rough

if you have gear to gear timing and it jumps around, what would that indicate?
just curious cause thats what mine does and it runs pretty smooth.
doug
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 18:49:21 -0800
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Oil pressure

bigric tamu.edu wrote:
>Here's my deal-I've got about 14k miles on a 360 that I rebuilt a little
>while back. It sees a lot of highway driving but lately the oil pressure
>has dipped down significantly. It was generally 55-60 3000 RPM and about
>15 900 RPM. Now it is about 13 900, 35 2000, and 45 3000+. I built it
>with a high volume oil pump I remember. Any suggestions? I've poked
>around with the stethoscope and don't hear any rods or mains (yet)...
>bigric tamu.edu

A general rule of thumb is that you should have at least 10 psi of oil
pressure for every 1000 engine RPM. That seems to be more than sufficient
to keep them healthy for a long time.
The numbers you stated above are about the same pressure I get on my....


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.