61-79-list-digest Wednesday, December 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 542



=======================================================================
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 - 360-390 help please
FTE 61-79 - Breaker- less points system
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!
Re: FTE 61-79 - ammeters
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!
FTE 61-79 - RE: cab mount question
FTE 61-79 - Sag?
FTE 61-79 - RE.clicking and flickering
FTE 61-79 - New member, New Truck, Bunch of Q's
FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 semi-float 5 lug
Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them
FTE 61-79 - RE. Help, my timing is way off
RE. FTE 61-79 - F-100 Steering wheels
Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them
Re: FTE 61-79 - Sag?
FTE 61-79 - RE: Dana 60 semi-float 5 lug
[none]
FTE 61-79 - RE: cab mounts
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them
Re: FTE 61-79 - 5 lug 16.5s -
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
FTE 61-79 - Re: Ack! Electrical Problem
Re: FTE 61-79 - 5 lug 16.5s -
FTE 61-79 - Sawzall Solves It All!
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
FTE 61-79 - Breaker-less points system
FTE 61-79 - Sawzall Solves It All! Or How Big Is That Spring?
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue
FTE 61-79 - Vacuum advance question
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 18:30:05 -0800
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help please

Justin wrote:
I am new at this so please forgive me if I screw this question up. I have
recently purchased what I thought was a 390 HP motor. All I can say is I
need some help here. I have taken a number (2TA) off of the crank and
given it to a friend of mine and in his parts book it showed up to be a
crank for a 360 motor. Can anyone out there tell me if this is so or even
if you can tell anything about this motor from the crank. What makes the
difference between a 360 or 390. Heads, the crank the bore size. What? I
have paid way to much money for this motor to find out that it is a 360
instead of a 390 HP. I just need to find some way to tell if this motor is
truly a 390 with out destroying it. I also have a number off the block.
It came of the LH side behind the dip stick.

My response:
The 360 stands for C.I.D. (Cubic Inch Displacement)and not H.P. (Horse
Power). The main diference between a 360 and 390 CID engine is the stroke.
The bore (4.05") and thus the piston are the same. The crank and rods are
different to make up for the change in stroke. If you don't have the
engine apart, the only way to determine the difference (if the engine tag
is missing) is to try to measure the stroke. Can anyone help me on this out
there?
Tim
66 F100 swb
w/352 (360 with 4" pistons)

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 18:51:58 -0800
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Breaker- less points system

Bruce,
I also installed a Petronix electronic ignition system in my 66 with a 352
V-8. I have not had any problems either. The engine runs better and
smoother. If you have any more questions please contact me.
Tim
66 352 F100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:01:30 -0500
From: Lord_Xaenon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!

The D4TE indicates a cylinder block for a 1974 truck engine. The block was
identical for 360 and 390, so no sweat there. In fact, the block is identical
to the 390 engines used in the 1965-1971 cars. Oh, there might be some minor,
long-forgotten, means-nothing revision of some sort...don't worry about it.

>The connecting rods seem to have different part numbers on them ... is this
>normal ? One of them is C7AE (and a number/letter I can't read now)

I wouldn't worry too much about that. The part number deciphers to a
1967 full-size Ford; the only FEs available that year were 390s, 410s, 427s,
and 428s, which all used the same-length con-rods, and only the 427 and
428 PI engine had special rods. If it were a 360 rod, it would have an
older number (likely C4AE), or a truck number (CxTE or DxTE). That RA652 B
number is probably just a production control code or some other internal
thing at the foundary or the machine shop.

>Okay the C7 doesn't bother me, actually like seein 60's part numbers (67
>right?), but the other bother's me ... is that a replacement part number ?
>Are there numbers front and back ?
>
>And to add to things, I was checking the pistons to see if they were for a
>bored out engine, scared to death I was gonna find a 60 stamped on them,
>instead I didn't find anything except 410 cast next to the wrist pin. Why
>would 410 be on the side of a 390 piston ? I thought we had a discussion
>that said these were different pistons, would this just make an incredible
>compression ratio then ?

It's entirely possible that a previous owner of the engine put together the
equivalent of an old Mercury-only engine, produced from 1966-1967. It was
410 cubic inches, but otherwise almost identical to a 390. It was rated at
something like 330 horsepower, if memory serves. I'm not saying that
is the case, but it's certainly worth looking into.

What was done was Ford stuck a 3.98 inch stroke crank into a 390 block.
The con-rods are identical to the 390, so the pistons are unique to the
410 (and very hard to come by these days. I would measure the stroke
if possible. The 390 has a 3.78 inch stroke; the 410 has a 3.98 inch
stroke). If it turns out that this is a 410 and you want to have it
rebuilt, I would take great pains to save those pistons.

>As for the heads, those also seem to have mis matched numbers ... one is
>5M15 the other seems to be CSM8....

5M15 sounds like a production date code. "5" being either 1965 or 1975, the
"M" being December (Ford skipped "I"), the "15" being the fifteenth day of
that month. That other number, could it possibly be C6ME? If so, it's all
the more likely you have a 410. A Dec 15th production date would fall right
in line for the 1966 model year. Both heads SHOULD have a Ford-type prefix
number on them somewhere (usually in the rocker arm area).

>Is this all normal and I'm being paranoid, or have things been juggled
>around a bit on this engine. Everything looked pretty good, no excessive

It sounds like the engine was apart at one time or another. I'd measure
the stroke to see if you have a 390 ci engine or a 410. The difference
between the two is only .2 inches, so measure carefully.

Incidentally, the 410 is a slightly torquier engine, due to the longer stroke
and extra cubes. If this is what you have, you've done pretty good, even if
it's a "home-brew" and not a factory original. FE parts are almost as inter-
changable as those of the small-block Ch*vy.

One word of warning: if you have a 410, it has a different balance scheme than
the 390s do; I believe it and the 428 are both externally-balanced.

Keep me posted!

Mark


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:01:34 -0500
From: Lord_Xaenon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ammeters

At 10:53 AM 12/1/98 -0800, you wrote:
>John wrote:
>>I am going to throw in my 2 cents on this thread, too. If you really want
>>to know what your charging system is doing, get a volt meter. An ammeter is
>>absolutely worthless IMHO. Look at any late model car or truck equipped
>>with factory gauges. It has a volt meter. A volt meter tells you very
>>quickly if you are under charging, over charging, or not charging.

To clear up a misconception:

The only thing you need to be concerned with regarding the ammeter is
not its actual reading, but its behavior. It should show a big charge
just after starting the engine, then gradually work down toward the
center. After that, it should remain just SLIGHTLY on the "charge"
side....if it does that, everything is working correctly. If it stays
far to the charge side, it's overcharging, and the only way it can do
that is if the regulator holds it wide open; i.e, high charging system
voltage. If its below the centerline, it's discharging, and that's
either because there is too much load or because the alternator or
regulator has failed; i.e, low charging system voltage.

As for why trucks are equipped with a voltmeter rather than an ammeter:
its cheaper because they don't have to run that heavy wire all the way
into the cab and back out. They can run a light wire, right from the
ignition switch, and ground the other side, so it's simpler to install,
too.

A voltmeter is better for "at a glance" checking, but for diagnosis of
a developing problem, I'd rather have the ammeter. A voltmeter just
looks at the charging system voltage: a alternator working correctly
but with a dying battery will show up normal. Likewise a good battery
with a "marginal" alternator. An ammeter is better for pinpointing
which component is likely to betray you. A no-start condition occuring
after noting the ammeter behaving normally would automatically point
to a battery or starting system problem. A voltmeter would not tell
you that. Also, in some cars (like my old Horizon), the markings on
the voltmeter are very vague and you have to kind of take it on faith
that the 1-1/2 inch range between the high and low marks is "normal."
Yeah, the regulator went south and the gauge still showed "normal."
Naturally, this would be less of a problem with a better-quality
voltmeter.

Of course, if you want to cover ALL the bases, you can do what I've
done and install both.

> Still, it would be nice if the ammeters on the Ford trucks worked
> right from the factory, cuz even that would be more useful than the
> big nothing you get with the stock gauge...

Yes, I'll agree with you there. Most factory ammeters are a joke.

Mark.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:17:23 -0500
From: "The Freeman Family"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!

I believe the 410 rod and 390 rod are slightly different. I believe (after
reading past post and condsidering building a true 410) the pin height on
the piston is higher on a true 410 and used a slightly longer rod. A 410
can be made with 390 rods and pistons, but I believe the true 410 had
slightly more torque due to the pin height location.

A 360, 390 and 410 share the same bore. A 360 had non "slipper" skirted
pistons, the 390 has skirted pistons (otherwise identical to the 360) and
the 410 had skirted pistons with different wrist pin location.

I believe this is true based on what I "learnded" form the 410 post a month
or so ago.

Hope this helps!

- -Ted

- -----Original Message-----
From: Lord_Xaenon
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!


>The D4TE indicates a cylinder block for a 1974 truck engine. The block was
>identical for 360 and 390, so no sweat there. In fact, the block is
identical
>to the 390 engines used in the 1965-1971 cars. Oh, there might be some
minor,
>long-forgotten, means-nothing revision of some sort...don't worry about it.
>
>>The connecting rods seem to have different part numbers on them ... is
this
>>normal ? One of them is C7AE (and a number/letter I can't read now)
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about that. The part number deciphers to a
>1967 full-size Ford; the only FEs available that year were 390s, 410s,
427s,
>and 428s, which all used the same-length con-rods, and only the 427 and
>428 PI engine had special rods. If it were a 360 rod, it would have an
>older number (likely C4AE), or a truck number (CxTE or DxTE). That RA652 B
>number is probably just a production control code or some other internal
>thing at the foundary or the machine shop.
>
>>Okay the C7 doesn't bother me, actually like seein 60's part numbers (67
>>right?), but the other bother's me ... is that a replacement part number ?
>>Are there numbers front and back ?
>>
>>And to add to things, I was checking the pistons to see if they were for a
>>bored out engine, scared to death I was gonna find a 60 stamped on them,
>>instead I didn't find anything except 410 cast next to the wrist pin. Why
>>would 410 be on the side of a 390 piston ? I thought we had a discussion
>>that said these were different pistons, would this just make an incredible
>>compression ratio then ?
>
>It's entirely possible that a previous owner of the engine put together the
>equivalent of an old Mercury-only engine, produced from 1966-1967. It was
>410 cubic inches, but otherwise almost identical to a 390. It was rated at
>something like 330 horsepower, if memory serves. I'm not saying that
>is the case, but it's certainly worth looking into.
>
>What was done was Ford stuck a 3.98 inch stroke crank into a 390 block.
>The con-rods are identical to the 390, so the pistons are unique to the
>410 (and very hard to come by these days. I would measure the stroke
>if possible. The 390 has a 3.78 inch stroke; the 410 has a 3.98 inch
>stroke). If it turns out that this is a 410 and you want to have it
>rebuilt, I would take great pains to save those pistons.
>
>>As for the heads, those also seem to have mis matched numbers ... one is
>>5M15 the other seems to be CSM8....
>
>5M15 sounds like a production date code. "5" being either 1965 or 1975,
the
>"M" being December (Ford skipped "I"), the "15" being the fifteenth day of
>that month. That other number, could it possibly be C6ME? If so, it's all
>the more likely you have a 410. A Dec 15th production date would fall
right
>in line for the 1966 model year. Both heads SHOULD have a Ford-type
prefix
>number on them somewhere (usually in the rocker arm area).
>
>>Is this all normal and I'm being paranoid, or have things been juggled
>>around a bit on this engine. Everything looked pretty good, no excessive
>
>It sounds like the engine was apart at one time or another. I'd measure
>the stroke to see if you have a 390 ci engine or a 410. The difference
>between the two is only .2 inches, so measure carefully.
>
>Incidentally, the 410 is a slightly torquier engine, due to the longer
stroke
>and extra cubes. If this is what you have, you've done pretty good, even
if
>it's a "home-brew" and not a factory original. FE parts are almost as
inter-
>changable as those of the small-block Ch*vy.
>
>One word of warning: if you have a 410, it has a different balance scheme
than
>the 390s do; I believe it and the 428 are both externally-balanced.
>
>Keep me posted!
>
>Mark
>
>
>== 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: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:31:57 -0500
From: William King
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: cab mount question

Jay (and anyone else who was asking),
I tossed a pair of the JC Whitney cab mounts (front) into my 68 2wd
F100 about two years ago. They didn't take long to install (they
bolt on) and they made my front clip level with the front bumper again.
Overall I'm ambivalent about their quality. First, one of them has
bent a bit, which let the front clip droop again on one side. I wasn't
impressed with the thickness of the metal in them. Second, I strongly
suggest priming, painting, AND coating your cab mounts BEFORE you put
them on. Once installed they have enough gaps to trap water, dirt, and
road salt between the floor-boards and the mount. No wonder they rot
out so quickly. I coated mine with black roof-tar, and they're holding
up well (crease and all).
If I had to do it over again, I'd go back to JC Whitney, but you get what
you pay for. They weren't great, they weren't sucky, they were just "OK."

Good Luck
Ohio Bill
1968 Torino GT (429 4V 4speed)
1968 F100 (360 4V 4speed)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:34:09 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sag?

Has anyone noticed on trucks like my '65 it often looks like the frame is
sagging in the middle?
I suspect this is due to worn, or bent rear cab mounts and front bed mounts.
Anyone?
-srw

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 16:57:04 -0800
From: "The Zahns"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE.clicking and flickering

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:46:04 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - clicking and flickering

I had a similar problem several years ago in my 71 F350 while driving home
from central L.A. The headlights would dim up and down and the dash light
too. There was a clicking relay type sound from the right side of the dash.
I found that when I replaced a fuse for the cluster (5 amp +-) the problem
stopped. I don't know why but I think that there must have been some cross
wiring and when the fuse blew the circuit tried to work it's way through a
relay backwards to finish the circut and created the problem. Pretty stupid
sounding Hay? But two years later I heard the same clicking sound and knew
exactly what it was, changed the fuse and bingo the problem stopped again.
What is blowing that fuse anyway???? Oh well there only 25 cents each, I'll
just keep a few on hand.
FredZ

Johnson writes: >>Driving home last night (71 F250 Ranger XLT CS 360 2V
C6) my dash lights went out and the headlights were flickering accompanied
by electrical relay sounding clicks/noises from the right side of my dash.
The truck has the AC unit under the dash on right side. Since I have had
the truck, I have noticed that I get a click from that location when I turn
the headlights on. Any ideas?

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:01:29 -0800 (PST)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New member, New Truck, Bunch of Q's

I've had a 1974 F-250 Supercab for a couple of years now.
The motor is a rebuilt 390 with about 5,000 miles on it. It
has an RV cam, Edelbrock Performer carb. and intake, and
Walker/Dynomax headers. It passed it's last smog test (WA)
with flying colors. It is a workhorse, but I miss having 4WD
(had a couple of **yotas).

I love the '73-'75 body style and I have just bought my dream
truck. It is a 1974 F-100 Ranger XLT Longbed 4WD with a 360
or 390, C6, NP203 w/part time kit. The body is in pretty good
shape with some minor surface rust and all of the trim present
except for the pieces around the taillights. The tailgate is
in bad shape. I went over the body with a magnet and couldn't
find any bondo to speak of other than a little bit under the
left taillight. The undersides of the cab and bed have no
rust at all. The owners manual was in the glove box!

Anything that is better is coming off the F-250 and going on
the F-100 including the motor. I hope to keep the 250 in
running condition so I can sell it.

Planning my next move has brought up a number of questions
that I hope some list members may be able to help me with.

Disk Brakes

A PO put front disks on it but apparently didn't know about
the need for the proportioning valve. I don't know how long
he was driving it around like this. Would the damage from
the brakes dragging be isolated to the pads and rotor or
could heat have ruined something in the calipers? The truck
stops really well and the rotors don't seem to be warped.
What should I look for?

Shift Kit

The PO also installed a shift kit using the "stage II" parts.
I guess this is street/strip calibration. It shifts really
hard and does not feel good for the driveline or particularly
good for slippery conditions like ice. What is the concensus
on this?

If I want to go back to "stage I" (RV calibration) can I buy
another kit and do it over? Do you have to do any drilling
in the valve body when installing a kit in a C6? If so is
the hole that is drilled any bigger for stage II? How hard
would it be to swap the entire stock valve body from the 250?
Is the valve body the same for 2WD/4WD C6 transmissions?

Instrument Cluster

The 250 has ammeter and oil pressure gauges, the 100 has idiot
lights. I have the correct senders on the motor but will the
wiring harness be the same so I can just swap clusters?

Instrument Voltage Regulator?

The fuel gauge reads 1/2 when empty and full when 1/2. The
Temp gauge pegs when you turn the key on whether you ground
the sender or not. Does this sound like the regulator is
shorted? Where can I get a new regulator. The kid at the
local NAPA never heard of it. I waited about 10 minutes to
talk to the older guy, lost my patience and left. He knows
heck of a lot and likes to talk.

Saddle Tank

The 250 has an auxiliary saddle tank which is going on the 100.
Would the wiring harness in the dash of a truck that did not
come with one have the wires for the fuel gauge switch? Will
I find wires under the truck for the sender?

Rear Lift Blocks

There are a couple of blocks between the leaf springs and the
axle. They are about 2" thick and have the "wings" that point
toward the differential. I have seen these on other Ford
trucks. Are they original? This truck has the blocks,
overload springs above the leaf springs, and air-shocks.
The backend is really bouncy but I can deal with that later.

Guess that's enough questions for now.

Mark
draco pacifier.com
'74 F-250 Supercab
'74 F-100 4X4
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:56:40 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 semi-float 5 lug

Hey Ox,

It was 30 spline....the interesting thing was that the 72 full floater I put
in had only 16 spline axles....after a big search for discontinued Dana axles
with the correct length and spline count, I finally went with a set of custom
made axles....they weren't very much more expensive than the Dana units would
have cost if they were available. I went by the junkyard today and looked
around, but the axle appears to be gone....I kept trying to give it
away......and you are right, it would be a nice upgrade for a Bronco or
Jeep.....

Oh well!

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 17:04:34 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them

CCSSportz aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/1/98 5:29:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> duckdon pacific.net writes:
>
>
> and 69
> in the center) so that would put the tranny from a 69 truck which goes along
> with
> the non origional engine idea. >>
>
> Yeah, the shifter tower is right on top of the tranny - So you are saying that
> my tranny is from a 69??? How can that be?
>
> -Shawn

Someone with some tools took the trany out of a 69 and installed it in your
truck. It might have been a replacement for a broken trany or when the engine
was replaced if it really was replaced.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon
ICQ# 19575234

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:12:33 -0800
From: "The Zahns"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE. Help, my timing is way off

Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:31:24 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Help, my timing is way off

The gear on the bottom of your distributor could have sheared off the roll
pin and you won't be able to turn it by hand. You have to remove the
distributor, and them punch out the roll pin or knock off the gear and then
replace the roll pin. This happened to my 71 F350 w/ 429 v8 and a Mallory
distributor. I would set the timing and it would drive fine until I put a
load on it, like climbing a hill and them bingo no spark. The gear looked
fine to me and I couldn't turn it. That was the only thing it could be.
FredZ

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 17:40:04 -0800
From: "The Zahns"
Subject: RE. FTE 61-79 - F-100 Steering wheels

Pred-Fan
In my 71 F350 the steering wheel is 16"
FredZ

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:37:22 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them

In a message dated 12/1/98 8:06:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
duckdon pacific.net writes:


truck. >>

No kidding, jack A$$...........
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:35:04 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Sag?

In a message dated 12/1/98 7:40:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SWeatherby uswest.net writes:


sagging in the middle?
I suspect this is due to worn, or bent rear cab mounts and front bed mounts.
Anyone?
-srw >>
front cab mounts too!!!!

- -Shawn
'ZILLA
You know the rest...........
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:41:51 -0700
From: Drew Beatty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Dana 60 semi-float 5 lug

Hey Ox, I have one that came stock on my '67. I didn't even know it until Colorado Jeff dialed me in to the info.

Hope this helps.

Drew Beatty
dcbeatty rmi.net

>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 23:42:50 -0500
>From: luxjo thecore.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 semi-float 5 lug

>Hi all

>Can anyone tell me what years had this axle?

> OX

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:48:02 -0700
From: Drew Beatty
Subject: [none]

Sorry if I missed some of this, but do you have the pan off? If so, a 390
will have slipper-skirts on the pistons to allow for crankshaft clearance.
The 360 will have an even piston skirt.

The 390 crank should read 2U or something on it, while the 360 is 2T.

I hope it works out for you. And FWIW, the guy probably didn't know any
better and wasn't trying to intentionally rip you off.

Drew Beatty
dcbeatty rmi.net

>Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 00:03:52 -0500
>From: Lord_Xaenon
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390

>At 02:34 PM 11/30/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I was told that the only way to tell the difference between a 390 and a
360
>is the length of the push rods and the crank. If I get the casting # off
>the push rods this should tell me if I have a 390 or 360. Is this right?
>Even if the casting # off of the crank shows to be for a 360 (which it
does)
>it could have been destroked to work in a 390. Is this correct? Which
>means that the push rods are the only thing left to tell the difference.
>Correct?

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 19:59:34 -0700
From: Drew Beatty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: cab mounts

Jeff:

Are you needing just the rubber pieces and attaching metal hardware? If so, Dennis Carpenter offers them for $80 a pair.

At first I thought you were talking about the piece of metal that welds to the bottom of the cab. What year is yours again??

Later,

Drew Beatty
dcbeatty rmi.net


Hey Don,
>Yes, this is what I found out....and since the metal pieces were crushed
>together, the little bit of rust in there froze them up, meaning that several
>of the washers did not survive the removal process....know what I'm saying? I
>guess I need to find a kit with all the metal parts included.....anyone know
>of such a thing? Ford says they can order new mounts, but they can't tell me
>if the metal parts are there....

>Colorado Jeff

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:16:00 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

Mail traffic is making it fairly obvious that this list
is going to have to be split up soon. I've discussed
a couple of options with some list members via private
email.

One good idea is the following:

Take the pre61 list and make it a 56 and earlier list.
Make a new list covering the 57-64 and the 61-79 list
would then cover 65-79.

Your opinions are welcome.

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:31:28 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360-390 help Please!

At 19:17 1/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I believe the 410 rod and 390 rod are slightly different. I believe (after
>reading past post and condsidering building a true 410) the pin height on
>the piston is higher on a true 410 and used a slightly longer rod. A 410
>can be made with 390 rods and pistons, but I believe the true 410 had
>slightly more torque due to the pin height location.
>

For your info;

352 rod length = 6.540"
390, 406, 410, 427, and 428 rod length = 6.4890"
The 360 isn't listed in this book...... and we probably can
suspect the reason.......
The "book" you ask?
Ford Motorsport SVO Performance Equipment.....

Steve & the Rockette...




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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:37:10 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

Thanks for your message at 10:16 PM 12/1/98 -0500, Ken Payne. Your message
was:
>One good idea is the following:
>
>Take the pre61 list and make it a 56 and earlier list.
>Make a new list covering the 57-64 and the 61-79 list
>would then cover 65-79.
>
>Your opinions are welcome.

I would rather see the 61-66 body style stay in one group if possible.
That would make the 67-79 a group. Just a suggestion. You've done such a
great job so far, Ken, that I'm sure whatever you end up doing will be
fine. In a way it's a shame to se it split, but I, too, can see the volume
of messages coming. Reading them all, I'm just getting too damn smart for
my own good...




Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

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

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:37:57 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them

CCSSportz aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/1/98 8:06:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> duckdon pacific.net writes:
>
>
> truck. >>
>
> No kidding, jack A$$...........

This is what I get for forgetting a smiley ;)

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon
ICQ# 19575234

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:44:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Farcas
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 5 lug 16.5s -

I'm looking for exactly the same thing. I've got 33" x 16's right now,
and with a 7" lift they look like slicks....

> > CCSSportz aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 12/1/98 1:08:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, luxjo thecore.com
> > writes:
> >
> > >
> >
> > OX,
> > I just want a cheap used set of 4 oversized tires that'll fit on some rims
> > that I can get cheap, or my 15" rims..........36" or bigger because I have the
> > 36" back there now and they look small as it is........
> >
>
> Cheap and 36" tires are mutually exclusive. National tire has Coyote
> radials with AT type tread for 131$ ea. It's a 315-85R15, which is 36"
> dia and 11.4 section width. They also have a buckshot mudder in the same
> size for 138$ ea. If you want cheaper than that, post to the offroad
> mailing list and look in your local truck shoppers that list used tires
> and stuff. Cheapest 38 is Super Swamper 38 X 12.5 X 15 161$ ea.
>
> OX
>
> > Can you help me find a set?
> >
> > -Shawn
> > 79 f-150 4x4, 351M - " 'ZILLA "
> > Cambridge, NY
> > == 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: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:56:53 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

Ken Payne wrote:

> Mail traffic is making it fairly obvious that this list
> is going to have to be split up soon. I've discussed
> a couple of options with some list members via private
> email.
>
> One good idea is the following:
>
> Take the pre61 list and make it a 56 and earlier list.
> Make a new list covering the 57-64 and the 61-79 list
> would then cover 65-79.
>
> Your opinions are welcome.
>
> Ken Payne
> CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Excuse my interjection to the list. I just hate it when people throw $'s
at me ;)

IMVHO a list split in the fashion above make the most sense. Almost all of
the mechanicals are similar between 57 and 64. 65-79 also share lots of
parts with a few exceptions that are few and far between mostly related to
HD or 4x4's. I make a motion to put it to a vote.

P.S. Never forget your ;-)

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon
ICQ# 19575234

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:44:15 -0600
From: "James Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Ack! Electrical Problem

Thanks to all that have replied to this post, I appreciate it. Unfortunately
I am traveling this week (as I am most) so I cannot do anything with this
info till Friday or Saturday. BTW, just because I express 'thanks' does not
mean the thread has to end if others have further input on the subject. I
seems to point out the sketchy, or, at least 'open-for-interpretation' info
available on the subject.

On Dec. 1 Steve D. wrote:

> So the blk/org wire is a ground connection between the
> alternator body and the regulator body? Wow... no
> wonder it got smoked when connected to the stator output...

Well no s**t! chuckle. I already figured that one out from the feedback,
that I was running power right to ground on that hookup. My only amazement
is that it took as long as it did to smoke it. Obviously Ford had not
discovered Kapton insulation.

On Dec. 1 Steve D. furthered purveyed his standard philosophical signature:

> Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to
> recognize a mistake when you make it again.

Well, hopefully it will not be needed for an AGAIN on this one. If so,
someone slap me, OK?

Jim E.



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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:29:29 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 5 lug 16.5s -

In a message dated 12/1/98 10:47:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ae571 seorf.ohiou.edu writes:


and with a 7" lift they look like slicks.... >>

Justin,
You have the rims already........... I can get all the sets of 36" I can
ever want for 50-75 bucks per tire - used, military take off Hummer tires, all
with atleast 50% tread, most have more. Some have almost 100 % tread but have
been plugged.......Once they need to be plugged the Military won't use them
anymore.........

Let me know where you live...

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 22:23:14 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sawzall Solves It All!

Taking a lead from "Busted in Montana", I've been looking for Sawzall
applications while doing an F-250 4x4 restoration.....and finally found one!

While installing a lift kit, I had to remove to old leaf shackle bushings from
the frame. While I was able to use a gear puller to get the rubber center out,
I was still left with a thin metal bushing (I'm sure it was part of the rubber
bushing when it was originally installed) that wouldn't budge with hacksaw,
the hammer and punch, or even with quite a bit of profanity. However, with
just a little persuasion with the Sawzall, all it took were two cuts about
1/2" apart and it fell right out....a handy little trick to remember while
working on leaf springs....

Thanks, Montana! Did you ever find your shock bolt for that F-150 spring
tower????

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:08:36 -0800
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

>Ken Payne wrote:
>
>> Mail traffic is making it fairly obvious that this list
>> is going to have to be split up soon. I've discussed
>> a couple of options with some list members via private
>> email.
>>
>> One good idea is the following:
>>
>> Take the pre61 list and make it a 56 and earlier list.
>> Make a new list covering the 57-64 and the 61-79 list
>> would then cover 65-79.
>>
>> Your opinions are welcome.
>>
>> Ken Payne
>> CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Don Grossman replies:
>IMVHO a list split in the fashion above make the most sense. Almost all of
>the mechanicals are similar between 57 and 64. 65-79 also share lots of
>parts with a few exceptions that are few and far between mostly related to
>HD or 4x4's. I make a motion to put it to a vote.

Steve says:
I agree with Don that it makes most sense to split along
"common mechanicals" lines, rather than "commom body style".
I'd vote to split between 64/65.
Does a third list need to be created? Traffic on the pre-61
list is pretty slow, would it be a problem to just add the extra
4 years on to the pre-61 list and end up with "pre-65" and "65-79"
lists? Or does that overload the pre-61 list to much?


Steve
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty

Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to
recognize a mistake when you make it again.
-- F. P. Jones


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 21:14:51 -0800
From: "Matt Tobin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Breaker-less points system

I installed the Pertronix Ignitor system in my 302/E-300 chassis motorhome.
It is a slick little setup. Fits right inside the Dist cap, clearances are
not critical, 2 wires to hook up, one to +coil, one to -coil. The best
fifteen minutes (No kidding) and $59.00 I've spent on this rig. I would
also highly recommend the $25.00 Pertronix "Flamethrower" coil. Looks just
like my stock coil, but provides the plugs with higher voltage, and can
eliminate some problems with the resistance wire circuit (ie. ballast
resistor).
I'm confused about your question, though. Electronic ignition will not
effect your timing. If your timing is changing as a result of dist.
vibration or whatever, you will still need to retime your engine. If you
are talking about your point gap, or dwell varying, that problem will go
away as the result of the electronic ignition replacing your points. Good
luck.
Matt

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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 21:33:06 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sawzall Solves It All! Or How Big Is That Spring?

BDIJXS aol.com wrote:

> Taking a lead from "Busted in Montana", I've been looking for Sawzall
> applications while doing an F-250 4x4 restoration.....and finally found one!
>

My FINGER!!!!

he he

I swapped out my old spring in the rear with a set off of a 77 F-150 4x4 ( 3"
wide and about 55" long). Do you think I could swap in a set off of a 250?


- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon
ICQ# 19575234

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 21:43:26 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

sdelanty sonic.net wrote

>
> Steve says:
> I agree with Don that it makes most sense to split along
> "common mechanicals" lines, rather than "commom body style".
> I'd vote to split between 64/65.
> Does a third list need to be created? Traffic on the pre-61
> list is pretty slow, would it be a problem to just add the extra
> 4 years on to the pre-61 list and end up with "pre-65" and "65-79"
> lists? Or does that overload the pre-61 list to much?
>
> Steve
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty

That is where some of the problem could come in. A large % of what I see on
the pre-61 list is along the resto-hot-rod lines while more of the people with
61-66 is how-do-I-keep-my-rig-on-the-road stuff. Not much of what I see is for
57-60. It could be the lack of members with those years. Some one such as my
self would still stay on the 65-79 list because most of my upgrade come from
those years. The look of the 60's the Tech of the 70's without the price of
the 90's. We'll just forget about the 80's ( turn head in shame)

At the rate we are going we will have our own Y2K problem. There will be 2000
list by the end of next year ;)

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon
ICQ# 19575234

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:30:01 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - My trucks #'s - got some of them

In a message dated 12/1/98 10:40:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
duckdon pacific.net writes:


your
> truck. >>
>
> No kidding, jack A$$...........

This is what I get for forgetting a smiley ;)>>

I meant to do that private e-mail. Sorry to the rest of the list.

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:09:35 EST
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

In a message dated 12/1/98 8:41:58 PM MST, dpearson ctc.edu writes:


That would make the 67-79 a group. Just a suggestion. >>

I agree with ya. Sounds like a plan if its cool with you Ken. Any particular
reason you had the other idea? I'm just curious.

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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 01:03:03 EST
From: CCSSportz aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: List split issue

In a message dated 12/2/98 12:12:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sdelanty sonic.net writes:


list is pretty slow, would it be a problem to just add the extra
4 years on to the pre-61 list and end up with "pre-65" and "65-79"
lists? Or does that overload the pre-61 list to much?....


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.