61-79-list-digest Friday, November 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 535



=======================================================================
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 - New member/Wiring
FTE 61-79 - 400M?
Re: FTE 61-79 - TROUBLES....AND MORE TROUBLES
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M?
FTE 61-79 - Popping noise during deceleration
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cargo light for '69
FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)
Re: FTE 61-79 - Popping noise during deceleration
FTE 61-79 - 79 F-250 in Barrow, Alaska
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 F-250 in Barrow, Alaska
Re: FTE 61-79 - Popping noise during deceleration
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)
Re: FTE 61-79 - pushrods
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)
FTE 61-79 - FREE PARTS FOR SALE
FTE 61-79 - Emission Control 1977 F-100
FTE 61-79 - Happy Thanksgiving!
FTE 61-79 - Wanted: Setup and plow for 1971 F-250
FTE 61-79 - HOW DO I POST?
Re: FTE 61-79 - HOW DO I POST?

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:13:03 -0800
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New member/Wiring

Joe's Question:
>Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:57:30 PST
>From: "Joe Swinko"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - new member/wiring
>
>Hello all. I am a new member and I own a 1966 custom cab F-100. The
>previous owner installed a 351W/FMX combo.I needed to get a steering
>column from a 74 or so Ford, to go with the auto trans. Anyways, my
>truck needs rewired. I was wondering what was the best aftermarket fuse
>block or harness would be the best choice for my truck. Please keep in
>mind I plan to make some improvements over the next few years (bigger
>engine ;^) power windows, sound system). Also, I need a wiring diagram
>for a 66 and/or the 1972 351W/FMX. Any help would certainly be
>appreciated.
>
My response:
I have a 66 F100 with a horrible harness. We've looked everywhere and no
one seems to make an aftermarket harness. I have an E-mail pall who bought
a kit and I'll connect you to him if you are interested. Also, I have a
complete set of shcematics. Send me a private E-mail with your address and
I'll get you set up!
Tim
66 F100 2wd
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:52:19 -0600
From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M?

Ox said;
>They are identical except for the crank and the rods.
OX

Hi all......Happy Thanksgiving!

The 351M/400 rods are the same..........pistons and crank are different.

later,
dale c
'79 f-150 351M

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:10:40 EST
From: LouviersFr aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - TROUBLES....AND MORE TROUBLES

Check your flexplate, (flywheel) it may very well be cracked or loose. I would
strongly recommend pulling the transmission oil pan and looking for metallic
particles in the oil. If you have a lot of miles on the trans put the oil in
a VERY CLEAN container and put it back in. Some automatics don't do very well
with all new fluid in them. They have a habit of slipping afterward. If the
oil pan is a thin metal type make sure you take a ball peen hammer and with
the pan on a flat surface flatten the bolt holes so when you reinstall the pan
it wouldn't leak around the bolt holes. Good Luck.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:37:29 -0500
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M?

Dale and Donna Carmine wrote:
>
> Ox said;
> >They are identical except for the crank and the rods.
> OX
>
> Hi all......Happy Thanksgiving!
>
> The 351M/400 rods are the same..........pistons and crank are different.

OK, I was close :-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:36:18 -0700
From: dan & Cheryl Ledford
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Popping noise during deceleration

While addressing another subject, someone mentioned "popping"
(backfiring) while decelerating and related it to a vacuum leak. I have
the same problem with my '70 F100 (360, 4bbl). It backfires whenever
the throttle is closed under load; for example when downshifting or
sometimes even between shifts when I come off the gas.. Otherwise the
engine runs great. I figured it must be an air leak somewhere but I
sure can't find it. Any other possible causes? Adjusting the timing
either way doesn't seem to affect it. Annoying.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:55:29 -0800
From: "jeffd"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cargo light for '69

On my 68 Camper Special, it is the first position to the right of the
steering column.

Jeff

- ----------
> From: J Elliott
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cargo light for '69
> Date: Monday, November 23, 1998 7:35 AM
>
> Can anyone tell me;
> 1. Where was the cargo switch located on a '69?
> 2. On 67-72 trucks with a spare tire holder mounted inside the bed (holds
> tire vertical - styleside), does anyone have one installed that they can
> measure to location of for me, and tell me if it is a bolt-in bracket,
etc.
> etc.?
> 3. On '69 genre, when they came (such as camper special) with auxillary
fuel
> tank, where was it located, and was it's filler neck in a flush-mount
door
> arrangement like later trucks?
>
> Jim E.
>
>
>
> == 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: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:10:05 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)

In a message dated 11/26/98 8:58:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dcarmine inetnebr.com writes:


dale c
'79 f-150 351M
>>

Can anyone tell me the difference in performance among the three 351 Motors I
know the Modified (Michigan), Cleveland, and Windsor, What I don't know is
which one is the "best"............I have the 351M, and was called one of the
"bad ones" by a 351C runner, so it is all in the eye of the beholder, but any
advice on my M, or anythind pertaining to the 351'a would be appreciated.

Thanks Again,
-Shawn (the newbie)
'79 F-150 4x4 and I have to start adding 351M :o)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:14:40 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Popping noise during deceleration

In a message dated 11/26/98 11:39:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ledford AZstarnet.com writes:


the throttle is closed under load; for example when downshifting or
sometimes even between shifts when I come off the gas.. >>

It may sound nuts, but check your muffler for a hole - I had found this
problem in my Dad's little Mercury Lynx, it had the same symptoms you
describe, and I did find a hole in the muffler, threw a new one in, and it was
fixed. My Dad's getting more power, better gas mileage, and he says his engine
is just doing better all together..........It can't hurt to take a look.

Good Luck,
-Shawn (This is the last time I'm calling myself the newbie)
'79 F-150 4x4 351M
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 8:19:59 -0900
From: "Daniel Bevington"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79 F-250 in Barrow, Alaska

I usually read the digest but now I have a question. I am
in the process of rebuilding my truck and am considering
putting bigger wheels on so I can drive it down the coast
on the beach, and launch our boat easier because our ramp
is constantly getting destroyed. Can anyone offer
suggestions about what I should be considering? Thanks, Dan
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:26:53 -0800
From: "Sam Weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 F-250 in Barrow, Alaska

Barrow...
Cool. Well actually cold huh? Cold I guess.
So how many Alaskan's are ther on this list?
-srw

Sam Weatherby SWeatherby uswest.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://insert.com/sammy ICQ # 18354914
'70 Mustang Grabber Sportsroof
'93 F-150 XLT Lightning
'98 FXD Super Glide
- -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Bevington
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, November 26, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79 F-250 in Barrow, Alaska


>I usually read the digest but now I have a question. I am
>in the process of rebuilding my truck and am considering
>putting bigger wheels on so I can drive it down the coast
>on the beach, and launch our boat easier because our ramp
>is constantly getting destroyed. Can anyone offer
>suggestions about what I should be considering? Thanks, Dan
>== 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: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 12:58:56 EST
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Popping noise during deceleration

Could be exhaust, either between the manifold or possibly if you have glass
paks or thrush exhaust they could be shot..just from my experience.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:14:06 -0500
From: Lord_Xaenon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)

At 12:10 PM 11/26/98 EST, you wrote:

>Can anyone tell me the difference in performance among the three 351 Motors I
>know the Modified (Michigan), Cleveland, and Windsor, What I don't know is
>which one is the "best"............I have the 351M, and was called one of the
>"bad ones" by a 351C runner, so it is all in the eye of the beholder, but any
>advice on my M, or anythind pertaining to the 351'a would be appreciated.

The 351C was produced between 1970 and 1974. The 400 was produced between
1971 and
approx 1983, the 351M replaced the 351C in 1975 and was produced through approx.
1983. The 351C was never offered in F-series or E-series trucks (although
it was
used in Ranchero).

The 351M and 400 are virtually identical, except for pistons and crank.
Although
they are based upon the 351C design, the cylinder block of the 351M/400 is
taller
and wider and uses unique motor mounts and a 429/460 bellhousing bolt
pattern. Also,
the 351M/400 has larger main bearings than the 351C. Camshafts will
interchange, and
so will 2-bbl cylinder heads. You can bolt 351C 4-bbl heads on a 351M/400
block but
good luck finding an intake to work with them.

The 351C uses the same engine mounts as the 351W or the 302; the bellhousing
bolt
pattern is also shared with the 351W. A 351C could be fitted to any truck that
originally had a 302 or 351W with minimal changes, but I'm not certain why you'd
want to.

The 351M/400 isn't "bad" per se, it just isn't really considered a
"performance"
engine like the Cleveland was. It was never offered in a 4-bbl configuration,
although some sales literature listed a 400 4-bbl in 1971. I've never seen one,
nor have I ever found a listing for it in the Ford parts catalogs (I used to
be a
parts counterman at a Ford dealership).

Bottom line: if your truck is equipped with a 351M/400, you could hop it up
a little
bit with parts available from Edelbrock. They make an intake designed
specifically
for the original 2-bbl heads but it will accept a 4-bbl squarebore
carburetor. It'll
give you about a 5,000 rpm rev with their Performer cam. With a 400, that's
worth
about 275-300 horsepower, more if you can get the compression up a bit.
Look for
about 225-250 out of a 351M. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but
351M/400's
strong suit is low-rpm torque, not high-rpm horsepower.

The biggest flaw in the 351M/400 is its large main bearings, they will caust
problems
with high rpms unless you do some work to it. The reason is the oiling
system is an
exact clone of the 351C, which was never stellar to begin with (Tell THAT
to your
351C buddy!). The 351C could deal with it because of its smaller bearings,
but in
the 351M/400, it's a problem.

If you are serious about beefing up the powertrain in your truck, I would
recommend
swapping in a 429 or 460, or at least swapping to a 351W. All three of
these engines
have better performance-parts availability. If you go 351W, you'll have to
swap out
the C6 (if you have an automatic) as well, since the bellhousing is integral
to the
trans case and won't work with the 351W. The 429/460 actually makes more
sense from
a performance standpoint, because it'll allow you to keep your existing
automatic
trans, plus the cubic inches really help out when it's time to get underway.
Also,
the cylinder bores of the 429/460 are huge; they have plenty of room for big
valves.
A stock 1968-1972 vintage 460 produced 360 horsepower at under 5,000 rpm,
and ran
smooth enough that they were used in Lincolns (the 460 wouldn't find its way
under
Ford and Mercury hoods until about 1973 or 1974). A mild hopup on one of those
beasties could easily yield over 400 horsepower.

If you go 351W, it has advantages of being less expensive than the 429/460,
plus there
is a great deal of parts available from just about every performance vendor
known to
man. A 351W can be stroked for over 400 cubic inches, and you can get
high-flow
cylinder heads and deep-breathing intakes to push that mill to over 6,000
rpm if need
be, though I would recommend choosing parts that build low-rpm torque rather
than
high-rpm power in an F-series truck.

I hope this information helps. Happy Thanksgiving, and happy motoring.

Mark


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:23:21 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - pushrods

Sorry, I shot off my mouth before I had the full picture. After I made my
below response I checked the book to make sure I did not put out bum dope.
When I checked the book it struck me what the real question was. During 68-69
standard length was 8.70, 69-72 standard length was 8.67, and 72-up is 8.62.
All of these of these can be had in the plus or minus .060 version. My first
though as to why they made these changes was they increased the deck height,
but as you can see the push rod got shorter not longer. Additionally the deck
increases were made in 72 1/2 and 72. I know the rockers changed in that
period also, so there must be a combination of reasons for the three standard
lengths. If someone has the full story I would like to know.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460

Yes, there are three of them for the series 385 engine. There is the standard
pushrod length, then there is one .060 shorter and one .060 longer than
standard. These are readily available from Ford. They are color coded but I
do not remember which one is which.
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460

How many different lengths of pushrods were factory stock for the 385
series (429/460)?????
I'm not interested in the 429 super CJ as it was mechanical
lifters!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think I know for sure there were 2 but I believe there were 3.
TIA
Azie
Ardmore, Al.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:26:29 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)

Lord_Xaenon wrote:
>
> At 12:10 PM 11/26/98 EST, you wrote:
>
> >Can anyone tell me the difference in performance among the three 351 Motors I
> >know the Modified (Michigan), Cleveland, and Windsor, What I don't know is
> >which one is the "best"............I have the 351M, and was called one of the
> >"bad ones" by a 351C runner, so it is all in the eye of the beholder, but any
> >advice on my M, or anythind pertaining to the 351'a would be appreciated.
>
> The 351C was produced between 1970 and 1974. The 400 was produced between
> 1971 and
> approx 1983, the 351M replaced the 351C in 1975 and was produced through approx.
> 1983. The 351C was never offered in F-series or E-series trucks (although
> it was
> used in Ranchero).
>
> The 351M and 400 are virtually identical, except for pistons and crank.
> Although
> they are based upon the 351C design, the cylinder block of the 351M/400 is
> taller
> and wider and uses unique motor mounts and a 429/460 bellhousing bolt
> pattern. Also,
> the 351M/400 has larger main bearings than the 351C. Camshafts will
> interchange, and
> so will 2-bbl cylinder heads. You can bolt 351C 4-bbl heads on a 351M/400
> block but
> good luck finding an intake to work with them.
>
> The 351C uses the same engine mounts as the 351W or the 302; the bellhousing
> bolt
> pattern is also shared with the 351W. A 351C could be fitted to any truck that
> originally had a 302 or 351W with minimal changes, but I'm not certain why you'd
> want to.
>
> The 351M/400 isn't "bad" per se, it just isn't really considered a
> "performance"
> engine like the Cleveland was. It was never offered in a 4-bbl configuration,
> although some sales literature listed a 400 4-bbl in 1971. I've never seen one,
> nor have I ever found a listing for it in the Ford parts catalogs (I used to
> be a
> parts counterman at a Ford dealership).
>
> Bottom line: if your truck is equipped with a 351M/400, you could hop it up
> a little
> bit with parts available from Edelbrock. They make an intake designed
> specifically
> for the original 2-bbl heads but it will accept a 4-bbl squarebore
> carburetor. It'll
> give you about a 5,000 rpm rev with their Performer cam. With a 400, that's
> worth
> about 275-300 horsepower, more if you can get the compression up a bit.
> Look for
> about 225-250 out of a 351M. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but
> 351M/400's
> strong suit is low-rpm torque, not high-rpm horsepower.
>
> The biggest flaw in the 351M/400 is its large main bearings, they will caust
> problems
> with high rpms unless you do some work to it. The reason is the oiling
> system is an
> exact clone of the 351C, which was never stellar to begin with (Tell THAT
> to your
> 351C buddy!). The 351C could deal with it because of its smaller bearings,
> but in
> the 351M/400, it's a problem.
>
> If you are serious about beefing up the powertrain in your truck, I would
> recommend
> swapping in a 429 or 460, or at least swapping to a 351W. All three of
> these engines
> have better performance-parts availability. If you go 351W, you'll have to
> swap out
> the C6 (if you have an automatic) as well, since the bellhousing is integral
> to the
> trans case and won't work with the 351W. The 429/460 actually makes more
> sense from
> a performance standpoint, because it'll allow you to keep your existing
> automatic
> trans, plus the cubic inches really help out when it's time to get underway.
> Also,
> the cylinder bores of the 429/460 are huge; they have plenty of room for big
> valves.
> A stock 1968-1972 vintage 460 produced 360 horsepower at under 5,000 rpm,
> and ran
> smooth enough that they were used in Lincolns (the 460 wouldn't find its way
> under
> Ford and Mercury hoods until about 1973 or 1974). A mild hopup on one of those
> beasties could easily yield over 400 horsepower.
>
> If you go 351W, it has advantages of being less expensive than the 429/460,
> plus there
> is a great deal of parts available from just about every performance vendor
> known to
> man. A 351W can be stroked for over 400 cubic inches, and you can get
> high-flow
> cylinder heads and deep-breathing intakes to push that mill to over 6,000
> rpm if need
> be, though I would recommend choosing parts that build low-rpm torque rather
> than
> high-rpm power in an F-series truck.
>
> I hope this information helps. Happy Thanksgiving, and happy motoring.

All sounds good to me except that the C6 can be used with the 351W...a
few of the Lightning guys have swapped out their E4OD for C6s! Not sure
how much worked involved but I do know that they use them!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:48:54 -0500
From: Lord_Xaenon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351Mmers out there...........all you C's and W's can look too....... :o)

At 03:26 PM 11/26/98 -0500, you wrote:

> All sounds good to me except that the C6 can be used with the 351W...a
> few of the Lightning guys have swapped out their E4OD for C6s! Not sure
> how much worked involved but I do know that they use them!

Yes, that's true. However, if I remember correctly, the C6 has an integral
bellhousing, so there would have to be at least three different styles of
case depending upon which engine it's hooked to. The four major bolt
patterns for Fords are:

1. The "early" bolt pattern, used with older FoMoCo engines like
the flathead, the Y-block, the early L-M OHV V8s, the MEL, and
the FE. I believe this pattern was also used by the old pre-64
"Big Six" engines.

2. The "five-bolt" pattern used in mid-1965 and early 221, 260 and
289 engines

3. The "six-bolt" pattern used in mid-1965 and newer 289, 302, 351W,
and 351C engines. Also used by the 240 and 300 inline-sixes. I
think this pattern is still used with the current OHC engines and
most longitudinally-mounted V6 engines as well.

4. The "large V8" pattern used by the 351M, 400, 429, and 460.

You don't have to worry too much about the "five-bolt" pattern with the C6's,
because the transmission was first used in 1966...AFTER the five-bolt-pattern
small block design had been scrapped.

Mark


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 19:31:22 -0500
From: "Jerry"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FREE PARTS FOR SALE

This is the 1st Call - - - -
I have every part necessary to convert from an automatic transmission to
a standard transmission (Warner T-18) on a 68 up F-series truck.
Except the T-18 itself.
Here's the particulars: To take advantage of this you need a small block
V-8 351W or a 240 or 300 6-cyl. 302 will work but you need to buy a
different flywheel. Your driveshaft will require lengthening or R & R and
if your trans mount is in good shape you should be able to reuse it.
When I say every part, I mean every part. This includes clutch pedal,
pad, springs, rods, brackets, bolts, bellhousing, (pressure plate & clutch
disc if you
want 'em) starter, flywheel, rubber boot, clamp, screws, etc.
The items are free to a good home........you pay the UPS freight.
Jerry
1969 F350 Dually reefer 351W AOD PS PB PW AC
1970 F100 (ret)

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 22:13:19 -0500
From: Lord_Xaenon
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Emission Control 1977 F-100

I have a 1977 Ford F-100 stepside with a 300 inline-six. It has a
manual trans and a single-barrel Carter carb (no tag). It doesn't
have a smog pump or even a catalytic converter, but it does have an
EGR valve. I can't figure out where I'm supposed to hook the EGR
valve up; there isn't a ported vaccuum switch anywhere under that
hood. Am I supposed to hook it directly to a vaccuum source, and
if so, which one...carb vaccuum or manifold vaccuum?

Also, is this truck supposed to have a catalytic converter? I don't
see a restrictor in the fuel-filler neck, nor do I see any evidence
that one had been chiseled out, and nowhere on the truck does it say
UNLEADED FUEL ONLY. The truck was originally delivered in Indiana,
so it probably didn't have a California or high-altitude emission
package.

Does anyone know of a place I could get a good service manual for
this truck? I bought a Haynes but it's almost useless. I tried
to find a Chiltons but nobody seems to have them any more.

Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance,
and Happy Holidays.

Mark.

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

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

Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 13:27:29 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Happy Thanksgiving!

To all of you in FTE land, Ken and Peggy in particular,
Happy Thanksgiving!

FTC: Having a moderate family get together, I strolled outside a
few minutes ago. I have the Ford super-nationals in my front yard!

'70 F250 Crew Cab (mine), 96 EB Bronco (mine), 87 Bronco II (son's)
'92 F150 Nite (Daughter's boyfriend), '98 Explorer (Brothers), and
my dad left his '78 F250 CS at home:-(
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol,California

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:31:06 -0500
From: "Humanhunter (Blake Barr)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Wanted: Setup and plow for 1971 F-250

I am looking for a setup and plow for a 1971 F-250. It's being driven from
Texas to New Hampshire next week so if your anywhere in between we can pick
it up.

Blake Barr 603-654-3840
bbarr ....

---

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.