Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six offering

61-79-list-digest Thursday, December 10 1998 Volume 02 : Number 554

=======================================================================
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 - shipping peanuts
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six offering
FTE 61-79 - Recovery of stolen vehicle
Re: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats
FTE 61-79 - 6 cylinder engine in 64 F100
FTE 61-79 - 300 six offering
FTE 61-79 - Rag Joint
RE: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats
FTE 61-79 - static
Re: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats
Re: FTE 61-79 - static
FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?
Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?
Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?
FTE 61-79 - list split
Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster
FTE 61-79 - RE: Static charge / EE / Flipping seats
Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?
FTE 61-79 - Re: Interesting anti-theft
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Chat
FTE 61-79 - Re: Interesting anti-theft
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Static charge / EE / Flipping seats
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Static charge / EE / Flipping seats
Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
FTE 61-79 - Re: intrument cluster
FTE 61-79 - Re: Rag Joint
Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
FTE 61-79 - FE390 flywheel ring gear
Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
Re: FTE 61-79 - Recovery of stolen vehicle
FTE 61-79 - the rag joint itself should
Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster
Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster
Re: FTE 61-79 - 71 to 72 model seat differences
Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE390 flywheel ring gear
FTE 61-79 - RE: Stolen Truck Returned 20 Years later
Re: FTE 61-79 - shipping peanuts

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 07:56:34 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - shipping peanuts

Larry writes to David: >>Could these egg-like balls be a shipping peanut
that got busted up going through the water pump?

Larry has hit on a very likely point here. I'd venture to guess he is
right and that the remainder of the 'chopped up' shipping peanuts are in
your heater core. Try back flushing the core by reversing the flow thru
the core with the family garden hose. Might want to remove both hoses and
flush it both ways a couple of times to make sure.

Good luck.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:06:02 EST
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 300 six offering

>Actually... What was the last year for the 240?

In trucks, 1973 (allegedly it was still available until 1979, but I can't find
anything to support that).

Mark.
- ----------------------------------------------
All the references I have say that the 240 ci. was only offered until
1974--Perhaps "left-overs" continued to be installed as special order, etc.

Thom B.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/index.htm

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:15:36 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Recovery of stolen vehicle

Jeff writes: >>Story in the Sacramento Bee today about a family
who's '67 Ford truck, stolen in 1976, was returned to them by the police.

Maybe I still can have hopes of my '74 being returned. It was stolen in
Oct '77. I had just completed a mild upgrade from 360 to 428SCJ with
several mods. Only drove it one time. To work. Haven't seen it since,
but sure would like to.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 06:03:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Arlene Mason
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats

I was just thinking about this, my Dad and Grandfather's '65's had
seats that flipped forward. My '77 does and even a '71 Ranchero that I
had, the seat flippped. My Brother had a '74 and his did.... Just a
thought.

Arlene

- ---Larry Brown wrote:
>
> I have had Ford trucks in '69, '70, 71, and '75 models and all had the
> standard behind seat fuel tank and the seats flip foward. I do not
think I
> have seen a Ford truck seat that did not.
> Just my experance of course.
> Larry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John LaGrone
> To: Ford Trucks 61-79
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:46 AM
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats
>
>
> >My theory is that it had something to do with the gas tank being
behind the
> >seat. If you had a gas tank in the cab, the original seat probably
wasn't
> >hinged. If the tanks were elsewhere, then the seat probably was
hinged.
> >Again this is theory, but it holds true on GM trucks.
> >
> >
> >-John
> >
> >jlagrone

inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:09:07 -0600
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 300 six offering

>Actually... What was the last year for the 240?
>
According to the Ford Pickup Red Book it was 1974.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss

inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:04:43 -0500 (EST)
From: jdklaers

mailhost.magicnet.net (PredFan)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rag Joint

Folks:

A question about steering "rag joints" or rather, the whole connection
there.....

The rag joint is sanwiched between two metal plates. Those plates are
"wavey". Should the two plates be matched so that they fit snugly together
or should the two "high" points be bolted together leaving space between
them?

Am I making any sense at all?

John

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 07:24:48 -0700
From: "Miska, Richard L (Rick)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats

I have a 1976 Crew Cab (4-door). My front seat does not fold forward at
all, and my rear seat is the same as a standard flip-forward seat. I have a
in-the-cab gas tank. It is possible to have a non flip seat from a crew
cab, because they bolt to the floor the same as a flip seat.

Rick

> ----------
> From: Larry Brown[SMTP:lbrown53

shreve.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 12:12 PM
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats
>
> I have had Ford trucks in '69, '70, 71, and '75 models and all had the
> standard behind seat fuel tank and the seats flip foward. I do not think I
> have seen a Ford truck seat that did not.
> Just my experance of course.
> Larry
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John LaGrone
> To: Ford Trucks 61-79
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 9:46 AM
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats
>
>
> >My theory is that it had something to do with the gas tank being behind
> the
> >seat. If you had a gas tank in the cab, the original seat probably wasn't
> >hinged. If the tanks were elsewhere, then the seat probably was hinged.
> >Again this is theory, but it holds true on GM trucks.
> >
> >
> >-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
> >
>
> == 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: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:30:15 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - static

It has been awhile since physics class, but I do remember a little about
static electricity. The damage occurs when the static decides to move.

1. Lightning is the result of the discharge of static electricity.
2. You can build a static charge of positive or negative depending on what
materials you rub together. One combination we used was cat fur and a
rubber rod. No metal.
3. The other combination was a metal rod and I don't remember what we
rubbed it with.
4. Shuffle your feet across the rug on a dry winter day, then touch your
spouse. No metal needed.
5. Put your arm near the picture tube on your TV while it is on and watch
the hair stand on end. No metal needed.

I'm done. Fire when ready!!

- -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: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:46:11 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - flipping seats

'71 Ranchero that I
>had, the seat flippped. My Brother had a '74 and his did.... Just a
>thought.
>

Our 70 Ranchero has a Torino seat in it (ashtrays in the back of the seat
give this away), also storage behind the seat, along with the spare tire
... just a hunch that storage and spares are good reasons for folding seats
...
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: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 08:52:08 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - static

>It has been awhile since physics class, but I do remember a little about
>static electricity. The damage occurs when the static decides to move.
>
Well looks like someone finally got it ... seems like someone was
mentioning it yesterday too, sorry for all the confusion, being an EE
(Electrical Engineer) my officemate was just being smart because there
won't be a spark if the electricity is static, that is it won't move, where
as the lightning you describe is a discharge, hence a movement of electricity.

According to the original comment it would also be prudent on flat bed
trucks to be sure that your filler tube is grounded to the body, not just
fill by holding the tube up with the rubber insulator at the bottom of it
... because the truck would have a floating ground, the static would build
up, and (unless you're dragging the exhaust pipe) the shortest distance
(hence lowest voltage discharge) will be across that gap which is in the
gastank ... really a bad place for a spark ..

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 09:03:39 -0500
From: adam.hicks

ppctx.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?

I'd like to start this post by stating that I'm probably nuts.

Now that that's out of the way, I was driving down a long straight
road after having my engine rebuilt a few weeks ago, and could have
sworn that around 85-90mph my transmission shifted into 'another'
gear, and it wasn't 3rd. I NEVER drive me truck this fast (it has
some pretty shady looking cracked tires on it) but did this once
just to see if it would go (and it would have kept going and
going...) Is this possible? Could there be a sort of overdrive
gear that I've never noticed due to a linkage(?) problem somewhere?

Again, I might be nuts, but I was with my brother, and he noticed
it as well.

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 09:48:30 -0600
From: "Michael Masse"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?

What do you have for a carb? If it's a 4bbl, maybe it was from your =
secondaries kicking in.

>>> 09-12-98 8:03:39 AM >>>
=20
road after having my engine rebuilt a few weeks ago, and could =
have=20
sworn that around 85-90mph my transmission shifted into 'another'=20
gear, and it wasn't 3rd. Could there be a sort of overdrive=20
gear that I've never noticed due to a linkage(?) problem somewhere?
=20
=20

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:44:27 EST
From: JUMPINFORD

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?

Do you have a lockup torque converter? If not is it possible that at that
speed the converter went to 100% efficiency? I know most are only about 95%
efficient. I dunno, I'm just guessin.

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:00:10 -0800
From: "Wiltzius, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - list split

Ken,
Here is my $.05 worth

A LOT of similarities between early 60's trucks and late 60's rigs
including body styles up to 66 and engines all the way up to the 70's
For instance I have a 62 F113 with a 360 /4spd from a 69 F250.
I would need to keep both lists if the 60's were split.

So split it by decades
pre 59 - 60 thru 69 - 70 thru 79 etc.

Tom
Reno,NV

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:26:24 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster

>In my '79 F-150 the oil, temp, and fuel gauge needles go all the way over
>to one side until they hit and stop when the ignition switch is on. I tried
>another instrument cluster that I knew worked but still the same. Checked
>fuses too. Also where is the ground for the instrument cluster? Any help
>would be appreciated. Thanks to Pat Brown for helping me out, because now
>my dash lights work!!

You might check the voltage regulator and see if that is causing the
problem. It seems weird that all your gauges are grounding out. On my
truck sometimes people decide to plug the wire for the sending unit on the
second gas tank that I don't have into the transfer case, this results in a
grounded gauge when I put it in 4wd ... You might try unplugging one of
the gauges (the temp is easy to reach) and see if the gauge moves at all,
that will be sure that the grounding is in the instrument panel or not...

Just my 2cents

Bill

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 08:27:41 -0800
From: "Wiltzius, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Static charge / EE / Flipping seats

Static charge is caused any time there is moving non conducting "fluid" in a
tube or hose.
gasoline is one of those fluids as is dry grain. That is why grounding is so
important in grain elevator operations.
As was pointed out by someone earlier, plastic does not allow the charge to
bleed to ground so it can build up
until the ionization point of the air is exceeded and viola! a flashover or
spark occurs. And as we all know, gasoline vapors
ignite very well with a spark.

As an elecrical engineer I think your EE friend needs to get out more!!

I have a 62 F113 with gas tank in cab - seat flips forward.

my $0.10 worth

Tom
Reno,NV

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 17:40:14 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?

Did you notice any drop in engine speed ? If not, I would guess it was more
of a hickup than a overdrive.

If you have a real bad luck it may be that you pressed the trottle more
than usual, means harder accelleration and have had a slip in third shift.
So, when the engine reached more of it's peak rpm the slip could go away
when the car reached the same speed as it should have at the given engine
speed. This could be noticed as a forth shift just in the moment the clutch
is locking due to less torque demand.

Just a guess from my side, but before I rebuilt and modified my A4LD tranny
I could bet I had 5 or 6 shifts on the Aerostar. After reading a lot about
the tranny, doing the rebuild, the modification, and then drive the car
after I realized a great deal of strange things that happened before.

A clutch slip has fooled more than one person.

Bill

- ----------
> From: adam.hicks

ppctx.com
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - C-6 Transmission 4 speed?
> Date: 9. desember 1998 15:03
>
>
> I'd like to start this post by stating that I'm probably nuts.
>
>
> Now that that's out of the way, I was driving down a long straight
> road after having my engine rebuilt a few weeks ago, and could have
> sworn that around 85-90mph my transmission shifted into 'another'
> gear, and it wasn't 3rd. I NEVER drive me truck this fast (it has
> some pretty shady looking cracked tires on it) but did this once
> just to see if it would go (and it would have kept going and
> going...) Is this possible? Could there be a sort of overdrive
> gear that I've never noticed due to a linkage(?) problem somewhere?
>
>
> Again, I might be nuts, but I was with my brother, and he noticed
> it as well.
>
> Ideas?
> Adam
> == 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, 10 Dec 1998 03:33:17 +1100 (EST)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Interesting anti-theft

Shutting off the fuel supply sounds like a great idea, however it
would be better if a small supply of fuel was still available so the
vehicle could be moved a short distance. The reason is, if someone
breaks into your vehicle, breaks glass and destroys wiring etc. but
doesn't get it started then it is vandalism not theft. Both insurance
and police response will be different between these two cases. If a
supply of fuel (more than in the carb float bowl) were available then
the thief could get into traffic and be visible when the vehicle
quits. The vandal will not hang around long looking for the cause of
the problem, but the abandoned vehicle will attract the attention of
the police in a hurry. There are aftermarket anti-theft devices that
do just this. Now all you need is a way to blow the horn when the fuel
runs out.

Dan Lee
'53 F100
351C-4V
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 13:00:16 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Chat

Notes on our web chat:

1. Windows95-Netscape will sometimes beep in versions prior to
4.0b3 when you hit the enter key.

2. Unfortunately, the implementation of earlier (pre 4.0) Java
on the Macintosh browsers leaves a lot to be desired. These
Macintosh versions of Netscape have some serious memory
problems. An article discussing some of the problems with
these versions can be found at:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.news.com/Rumormill/Archives/rum10_11_96.html

Newer versions should work, but may have performance problems.

3. AOL uses a proxy server to access the Internet. The vast
majority of ISPs don't. With a proxy server, you are not
connected directly to the Internet. Chat will not work
with many proxy servers (including AOL's) and some
firewalls.

4. For PCs: To use it, you must be running Internet Explorer
3.0 (or later) or Netscape Navigator 3.0 (or later), or
another Java-enabled browser. For best results, we highly
recommend Internet Explorer 3.02 and Netscape 3.01, both
of which contain crucial bug fixes over their 3.0 versions.

5. Netscape Navigator 3.0 users (Standard or Gold versions):
You may very well experience a browser crash. This is due
to a memory leak problem in the Navigator software -- not
the Java code. We recommend upgrading to at least version
3.01.

6. Netscape 3.x browsers on Linux have major Java problems.

7. Sometimes Internet Explorer 4 acts flakey (crashes).

8. When the telnet version is released (soon), you can use
telnet to chat instead of your browser. This may work
with AOL too.

9. If AOL does not work with telnet, we may consider adding
HTML CGI chat. This option will only be available if we
can afford to upgrade our server because HTML CGI chat
places an enormous load on the system.

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:21:40 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking

bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Interesting anti-theft

>>If a
supply of fuel (more than in the carb float bowl) were available then
the thief could get into traffic and be visible

Seems like the fuel in the carb would be enough for that.

I would prefer NOT having any fuel to move the truck, cause once it dies,
who knows what will happen or where the truck may end up (ditches,
sidewalks, into other cars...). I am unsure if even a visible thief would
get caught.

Unless there was severe vandalism, I wouldn't bother filing an insurance
claim. No reason giving them a reason to raise my rates for something
that wasn't my fault...
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:34:10 EST
From: JUMPINFORD

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Static charge / EE / Flipping seats

In a message dated 12/9/98 9:35:05 AM MST, TWiltzius

SPPC.com writes:

>

Do I have to say it?

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 10:54:31 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Static charge / EE / Flipping seats

JUMPINFORD

aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/9/98 9:35:05 AM MST, TWiltzius

SPPC.com writes:
>
> >
>
> Do I have to say it?
>
> Darrell Duggan
> 74 F-350 "Tweety"

A 4x4! :-)

YWIA

- --
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: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:20:30 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops

>From: luxjo

thecore.com
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
>
> If you remember we were talking about cams
>and V/P clearance a while back. Hopefully, I'll
>be doing my 400 build this winter. I'd like to get
>it up to 9.0:1 and was wondering about having
>the heads shaved. Would this be enough to
>increase comp that much.

Yo Ox:

Depends on how much you shave the heads. Since the shape of the combustion
chamber in the heads is not exactly cylindrical, I don't know of a
convenient way to calculate the change in compression ratio for a given
amount of head shaving, but you can calculate it pretty easily for block
shaving (since the cylinder is a simple geometric shape). You can estimate
the change in compression ratio produced by shaving the heads if you assume
that the first few 0.01" of the combustion chamber (moving up from the
block mating surface) is essentially cylindrical.

W/ a 4.00" cylinder bore, you reduce the clearance volume by 0.126 cubic
inches (2.07cc) per 0.01" reduction in cylinder height. Nominal clearance
volume in the 400 is 6.79 ci. Swept volume (based on 4.00" bore) is 50.27
ci, which produces 8.4:1 compression ratio by the following formula:

SV/CV+1 = CR

50.27/6.79 + 1 = 8.4

This is all based on nominal values for stock components (including
stock-type pistons). To increase the compression ratio to 9.0:1 just by
reducing the clearance volume, you'd have to get the clearance volume down
from 6.79 ci to 6.28 ci (about half a cubic inch). If you use the figures
above (0.126 ci per 0.01" shaved), you'd have to shave the block by about
0.04" to get the compression ratio you're looking for. According to the
Monroe book, that's well w/in the M-block's decking limit of 0.056" (based
on the stock-type piston design w/ 0.056 deck clearance).

That said, I must say that I am not keen to shave either the block or heads
to achieve increased compression, especially when there are so many
aftermarket 351C pistons that you can use in the 400 that will give you a
wide range of compression ratios. If you select a 351C piston with an
appropriate compression height (which affects the deck clearance), you can
almost guarantee no piston/head and piston/valve interference problems w/
stock valve train components and reasonably high lift cams.

>Also, how would shaving the head play into
>the max .490 cam lift you said I could og before
>I would need new valve springs?

If you shave either the block or heads, you must compensate for the
decreased height w/ non-stock push rods. Assuming you can exactly match
the push rod length to the amount of shaving, the maximum valve lift limits
should not change. As a rule of thumb, though, I would recommend changing
the valve springs when you change to a higher lift cam. I know Comp Cams
offers a "kit" that includes the camshaft, lifters, and springs, and I
would guess that Crane and other cam manufacturers offer similar kits.

>One final question, what do you think of cams
>rated off idle or 500 RPM to 4500 RPM. This truck,
>at this point, only sees severe off-road duty
>(deep mud) and driving back and forth to the
>trails

When selecting a cam, I think it's important to know exactly how you will
use the engine. If you have a tachometer, you can use it to determine your
engine's rpm range for the types of uses you put your truck to. What kind
of rpms are you turning while deep mudding and where do you want the torque
peak?

On my truck's emissions sticker, it lists idle at 650 rpm, but I think of
"off-idle" as about 1K rpm, for all practical purposes. Frankly, I don't
think you'd lose any significant low end power w/ a cam "rated" at 1500 rpm
on the low end of its range, particularly if you advance the cam about 2-4
degrees from the manufacturer's spec (which will effectively move the cam's
optimum rpm range down). Just keep in mind that cams w/ an rpm range that
starts at over 2-2.5K are designed for high flow rates that your engine may
not be capable of at lower rpms w/out serious modifications.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 11:53:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: intrument cluster

Ben wrote:
> In my '79 F-150 the oil, temp, and fuel gauge needles go all the way over
> to one side until they hit and stop when the ignition switch is on. I tried
> another instrument cluster that I knew worked but still the same. Checked
> fuses too. Also where is the ground for the instrument cluster? Any help

Your symptoms are of a bad instrument (or gauge) regulator. On the
67-72 trucks, the regulator is is on the cluster, swapping the cluster
should have helped (assuming a good regulator on the second). I don't
know where the regulator is on a 79.

> Thanks to Pat Brown for helping me out, because now
> my dash lights work!!

Cool. glad we could help.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:17:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Rag Joint

John writes:
> A question about steering "rag joints" or rather, the whole connection
> there.....
>
> The rag joint is sanwiched between two metal plates. Those plates are
> "wavey". Should the two plates be matched so that they fit snugly together
> or should the two "high" points be bolted together leaving space between
> them?

Without going home and looking at mine, the rag joint itself should
be nice and flat. Unless a body lift has been installed, then you
may have a 'universal' rag joint, which can take up a slight amount
of mismatch in the angle of the two steering shafts. My joint became
wavey due to a bad thrust bearing at the bottom of the steering
column. With no thrust support at the bottom, the shaft was slowly
pulled up toward me (driving) by the spring behind the steering
wheel. After a while, my horn quit working due to a gap opening up
between the wheel and the column. After some quick troubleshooting,
I decided my column had slipped down. So I loosened the retainer
bolts at the bottom of the dash, and pulled the column back up towards
the wheel. Which, put even more stress on the rag joint, and REALLY
made it look funny. You've just got to have a good thrust bearing at
the bottom of your column!
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:14:29 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops

>From: "Bill Beyer"
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
>
>If you read the buildup on the 400 in Hot Rod
>mag they shaved the heads .025 to get the
>9.45:1 CR with stock .030 over Kb Silv-0-Lite
>pistons.

Yo Bill:

Just shaving the heads 0.025" will not produce a static CR of 9.45:1 w/
stock-type pistons in a 400 M-block. By my calculations, just shaving the
head 0.025" would give about 8.77:1 static CR.

Assuming a bore size of 0.030" over (4.030"), each 0.01" shaved from
cylinder height would reduce the clearance volume by 0.1275 cubic inches.
Stock clearance volume is 6.79 ci (at 8.40:1 static CR), and you'd have to
reduce clearance volume to about 5.95 ci to achieve a 9.45:1 static CR.
That means you'd have to shave 0.066" from the cylinder height, if that's
all you changed. You couldn't deck the block that much w/ stock pistons,
because the stock pistons deck clearance is less than that (0.056").

The Hot Rod article also mentioned decking the block, and (somewhat
vaguely) the figure 0.015" was mentioned. That would bring total shaving
(deck and heads) up to 0.040", which would give you about 9.12:1 w/ an
0.030" overbore and stock-type pistons. If the static CR they quote
(9.45:1) is accurate, then they did more than just shave the deck and
heads.

The Hot Rod article had a number of minor inaccuracies about the M-block,
and they may have left out some details of the build up, but the article
does give a good representation of how easy it is to build up an M-block
and what kind of power an M-block is capable of.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 12:28:51 -0800 (PST)
From: TheFORDMAN

webtv.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE390 flywheel ring gear

hey all,
thanks for all the advice. sometimes
things can be a little dutch to me.
but one question, if when i attempt to do
this ring gear swap, what centers the ring gear on the flywheel? because
if i do this,
would like to do this once. that trans mission and transfer case is
quite heavy.
and it will probably take all day as intend
to do a clutch job too. thanks again.

ERIC in oregon
75 Ford F100 4x4

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 13:32:09 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops

It may be that the pistons they used have a different spec than stock. The
only ones I could find on the Silv-O-Lite web site have a CR of 7.9:1 tho'.
You have mentioned a couple of times that using 351C pistons in a 400 will
work providing some "bushing" is performed. What exactly needs to be done?

- ----------
> From: Dave Resch
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops
> Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 12:14 PM
>
>
> Yo Bill:
>
> Just shaving the heads 0.025" will not produce a static CR of 9.45:1 w/
> stock-type pistons in a 400 M-block. By my calculations, just shaving
the
> head 0.025" would give about 8.77:1 static CR.
>
> Assuming a bore size of 0.030" over (4.030"), each 0.01" shaved from
> cylinder height would reduce the clearance volume by 0.1275 cubic inches.
> Stock clearance volume is 6.79 ci (at 8.40:1 static CR), and you'd have
to
> reduce clearance volume to about 5.95 ci to achieve a 9.45:1 static CR.
> That means you'd have to shave 0.066" from the cylinder height, if that's
> all you changed. You couldn't deck the block that much w/ stock pistons,
> because the stock pistons deck clearance is less than that (0.056").
>
> The Hot Rod article also mentioned decking the block, and (somewhat
> vaguely) the figure 0.015" was mentioned. That would bring total shaving
> (deck and heads) up to 0.040", which would give you about 9.12:1 w/ an
> 0.030" overbore and stock-type pistons. If the static CR they quote
> (9.45:1) is accurate, then they did more than just shave the deck and
> heads.
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 14:20:12 -0800
From: Mike Pacheco
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Recovery of stolen vehicle

All the hard luck stories about only driving their vehicles one time......maybe
we should buy ch##ys...

am14

daimlerchrysler.com wrote:

> Jeff writes: >>Story in the Sacramento Bee today about a family
> who's '67 Ford truck, stolen in 1976, was returned to them by the police.
>
> Maybe I still can have hopes of my '74 being returned. It was stolen in
> Oct '77. I had just completed a mild upgrade from 360 to 428SCJ with
> several mods. Only drove it one time. To work. Haven't seen it since,
> but sure would like to.
>
> Azie
> Ardmore, Al.
>
> == 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: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:21:47 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking

bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - the rag joint itself should

Pat wrote:

>the rag joint itself should
>be nice and flat. Unless a body lift has been installed, then you
>may have a 'universal' rag joint, which can take up a slight

I glanced at mine after reading about the potential danger of the bolt
falling out and am pretty sure my rag joint is "wavy", and of a factory
designed kind (i.e., not just bent from bad bearings...).

I will check in detail to night.

BTW truck suspension and steering is stock.
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 18:51:31 -0500
From: "The Freeman Family"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster

I've heard of this before. The oil, temp and fuel guage peg out, but the
truck runs fine. Mine did the same thing on an '97 Ranger. The ammeter did
not fluctuate nor did anything else except those three guages. My problem
was a faulty IVR. Seems to be a common problem on the '87 Ranger. I forgot
what I paid for it, but I got it directly from Ford.

Hope this helps!

- -Ted
- -----Original Message-----
From: ben
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 7:11 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster

>In my '79 F-150 the oil, temp, and fuel gauge needles go all the way over
>to one side until they hit and stop when the ignition switch is on. I tried
>another instrument cluster that I knew worked but still the same. Checked
>fuses too. Also where is the ground for the instrument cluster? Any help
>would be appreciated. Thanks to Pat Brown for helping me out, because now
>my dash lights work!!
> Email--> stevee

itis.com
>== 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: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 19:03:25 -0500
From: "The Freeman Family"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster

- -----Original Message-----
From: The Freeman Family
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, December 09, 1998 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - intrument cluster

>I've heard of this before. The oil, temp and fuel guage peg out, but the
>truck runs fine. Mine did the same thing on an '97 Ranger. The ammeter
did
>not fluctuate nor did anything else except those three guages. My problem
>was a faulty IVR. Seems to be a common problem on the '87 Ranger. I
forgot
>what I paid for it, but I got it directly from Ford.

Meant that to say '87 Ranger on both...sorry.

- -Ted

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 18:17:50 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 71 to 72 model seat differences

At 12:44 8/12/98 -0500, you wrote:

>Bobby Herring
>'64 F100 short-wide, was 292 Y-block/3speed,
>motor in pieces, make me an offer

Waddaya want for the Y-block, all of it I mean??
My 292 seems to have sprung an oil leak....

Steve & the Rockette

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

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

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 18:18:00 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - M series flat tops

>You have mentioned a couple of times that using 351C pistons in a 400 will
>work providing some "bushing" is performed. What exactly needs to be done?
>

The small end of the rod needs a bushing installed to make up
the difference in diameters of the piston pins, the 400 uses a
larger pin than the 351C....
The added benifit is full floating pins.......

Steve & the Rockette

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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 21:16:20 EST
From: SHill48337

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE390 flywheel ring gear

Eric,
There is a ledge machined into the flywheel that the ring gear sits on, it
holds the gear in its proper alignment.
Burt Hill Kennewick, WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:15:10 -0500
From: DAN & MARSHA HERRMANN
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Stolen Truck Returned 20 Years later

Great story about the gentlemen whom was reunited with his 67 Ford truck 20
years later. I can sympathize with him, I too had my F-150 Truck stolen
from me within days of completeing a 2 1/2 year restoration. I cryed for
days! It was my first "real" restoration project, a 78' F-150 Ranger XLT
two-tone blue and bone stock. My Father purchased it new, and I bought it
from him in 86'. In 88' I lead my Fathers funerl prosesion with this truck
and in 89' begain the restore.

I spent 2 months fighting my Insurance co. for a fair settlement. They
finally paid me the total of all my receipt's (Thank god I kept them all).
All my blood, sweat & tears was out the window. Two weeks after I got paid
I was cancelled by my Insurance co. This after many years with the same
company and no other claims.

Like the man in this story, I too keep in my billfold a registration card
with the VIN number on it just in case I come accross something. I also
still carry a key to it on my keychain.

People, KEEP ALL YOUR RECEIPTS on these big projects!

Dan Herrmann....

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.