61-79-list-digest Monday, December 14 1998 Volume 02 : Number 559



=======================================================================
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 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion
[none]
FTE 61-79 - Carburetor Problem?
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 1975 F150 Steering Column
FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family
FTE 61-79 - RE: 1975 F150 Steering Column
FTE 61-79 - front diff swap
FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Torque Rings
FTE 61-79 - heater core eggs
FTE 61-79 - time machine
Re: FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion
Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap
FTE 61-79 - One sick 429 in a F350
FTE 61-79 - The more I learn....
FTE 61-79 - Re: 1968 Rev Monster
FTE 61-79 - Ford Vs Chevy
Re: FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family
Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby
Re: FTE 61-79 - time machine
Re: FTE 61-79 - The more I learn....
Re: FTE 61-79 - heater core eggs
Re: FTE 61-79 - One sick 429 in a F350
Re: FTE 61-79 - time machine
FTE 61-79 - 2 Sp rear
Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clicking noise in cyclinder
Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap
FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford Vs Chevy
Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow
FTE 61-79 - Re: brands
FTE 61-79 - 460 truck oil pan
Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow
Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion
FTE 61-79 - 8 lug wheels same for Ford and C***Y Trucks?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 8 lug wheels same for Ford and C***Y Trucks?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M Rebuild/pistons
Re: FTE 61-79 - full floating pins
Re: FTE 61-79 - full floating pins
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M
Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby
Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow
Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby
Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow
FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 truck oil pan
FTE 61-79 - weight
Re: FTE 61-79 - rear gas tank swap
FTE 61-79 - Aux tranny

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 04:49:07 PST
From: "James Varela"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion

I have a 65 ford F-100 and want to change the brakes to disk. Can anyone
tell me what year's are interchangeable with mine.

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:14:51 -0500
From: "Parsons, Raymond"
Subject: [none]

Hey all:
I had the fuel pump go out on my 67 F250 C/S (352, 500 CFM 2V) on Friday.
It began about 2 miles from home, so I did make it home. About halfway from
where it started lugging, it died but restarted easily. Right after
restarting, it hesitated, then surged; this caused a rather large backfire
and a large cloud of black smoke out the exhaust. It ran ok the last mile
home. I replaced the fuel pump and it runs fine at an idle, but hesitates
on acceleration. Did I damage the carburetor (Holley 2V),?

Also; can someone tell me what gauge the wire is that runs from the ignition
switch to the starter relay (brown wire); I am having a hard time coming up
with a wiring diagram.

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:22:32 -0500
From: "Parsons, Raymond"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Carburetor Problem?

Hey all:
I had the fuel pump go out on my 67 F250 C/S (352, 500 CFM 2V) on Friday.
It began about 2 miles from home, so I did make it home. About halfway from
where it started lugging, it died but restarted easily. Right after
restarting, it hesitated, then surged; this caused a rather large backfire
and a large cloud of black smoke out the exhaust. It ran ok the last mile
home. I replaced the fuel pump and it runs fine at an idle, but hesitates
on acceleration. Did I damage the carburetor (Holley 2V),?

Also; can someone tell me what gauge the wire is that runs from the ignition
switch to the starter relay (brown wire); I am having a hard time coming up
with a wiring diagram.

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:29:48 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 1975 F150 Steering Column

>The piece your need to remove the two small screws that mount the switch
>for the neutral start indicator from the column. After you remove the
>piece you can remove the spring steel pointer from the column by sliding a
>small screwdriver under it and popping it out.
>
What??? You mean that little piece that moves the neutral starter safety
switch, just pops out!?? I've been driving around for the last 5 years
without backup lights because I thought I had to replace the column ... did
I misunderstand something ?


BTW 460 SCJ ?? Lemans rods from a 429 or what ?


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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:03:23 PST
From: "b hp"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family

What V8 bigblock engines were used in Ford trucks and cars during
1964-65?

This would be general applications. Do these engines fall under the FE
category? This question started because my friend has a bigblock motor,
no visible tags..from a 64 or 65 sedan. I'll try to get the
model..Galaxie or Custom? I am looking at this page
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines and find these engines listed under
bigblocks "385" Big Block Family 429, 429 Cobra Jet, 460, Boss 429, 370
truck. I realised I know very little about these motors..Perhaps it is
time to compile an engine list..yeah project #...


Bruce
65 Mercury F-100 (M-100??) 2WD P/U 240 |6


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:10:49 -0700
From: Randy Collins
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 1975 F150 Steering Column

William S Hart wrote:

What??? You mean that little piece that moves the neutral starter safety
switch, just pops out!?? I've been driving around for the last 5 years
without backup lights because I thought I had to replace the column ... did
I misunderstand something ?

Yup, it's spring steel. It just pop (unsnaps?) out.

BTW 460 SCJ ?? Lemans rods from a 429 or what ?

Lemans rods are for a 427. Mine uses the 1976 truck rods. They are the
same as the CJ/SCJ rods. My motor uses a standard 1972 2 bolt crank and
block the H/D rods, CJ/SCJ heads, Exhaust Manifolds and Crane Roller
rockers. Basically a stock modern truck 460 version of the old Cobra Jet.
Kinda like a '70's 4x4 version of the Lightning. I started the project in
August of '96. I hope to be able to fire it up in a couple of weeks.


Later,

Randy Collins
Boise, Idaho
rcollins micron.net

1975 Ford F250 4WD Supercab "Muscle Truck"
460 SUPER COBRA JET



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:12:49 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap

Hi Pete,

Does yours have the "closed" knuckles?

I THINK you might be OK up until 77, but not past the 77-1/2 (they switched to
reverse rotation, etc. then). I'm pretty sure the leaf springs on the 77 and
older were not as wide as the 77-1/2's and up, so I'm thinking the spring
perches might be a little different.

Another thought, I'm pretty sure you have a "divorced" transfer case, meaning
the driveline input is below centerline of the "pumpkin". The 77-1/2's have
the driveline entering above the "pumpkin" centerline. What I'm leading to is
that this newer style will "raise" the front driveline a few inches, possibly
causing it to interfere with stuff.

Even another thought. The older front axles have the "pumpkin" sitting about
level, meaning the output shaft is about level with the ground. The 77-1/2's
have the pumpkin sitting at a pretty steep angle.....so, there could be
driveline alignment problems...

However, I don't know for sure....

The more I think about it, the more I would stick with 77 and older....

If you want, I have both "versions" at home and can check them out, just send
me a private message if you want me to follow up.

Colorado Jeff

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:03:01 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Torque Rings

Never heard it called this.
Yes these wheels and others were not "Coined" which is what the area that is
raised right around the lug bolt hole is called.
This raised area that is on all quality wheels acts as a spring when the lug
nut is tightened. This causes a binding or locking action between the wheel
and the nut.
If you are running this type or wheel (flat or uncoined) you need to be
checking the lug nuts real often as they will loosen and damage something.
BTDT!-(

Muel


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:34:33 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - heater core eggs

David,

If your heater core wasn't stopped up, it really wouldn't matter if both
inlet and outlet were the same size. On my 79 they are both 5/8 but on some
engines (I think Roberta ran into this) one is smaller than the other. Your
inlet should run from the water pump and the outlet goes back into the
water jacket some where else.


- -John

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


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:53:47 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - time machine

If it is 1969, what computer are you guys running? The desktop PC wasn't
invented until 1976.


- -John

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


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:24:24 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family

At 09:03 AM 12/14/98 , you wrote:
>What V8 bigblock engines were used in Ford trucks and cars during
>1964-65?
>
As far as I know, most of these were FE's, these are easily identifiable by
the intake manifold appearing as half of the head when you look at the
front of the engine. The valve cover will cover the head, and part of the
intake, so this makes them pretty easy to pick out on viewing from the
front (or back I suppose)

Seems like someone said earlier that these (FE's) weren't big blocks, but I
never saw any discussion or reasons for this.

Hope this helps

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:28:24 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion

At 04:49 AM 12/14/98 PST, you wrote:
>I have a 65 ford F-100 and want to change the brakes to disk. Can anyone
>tell me what year's are interchangeable with mine.
>
See the 65-72 disc brake conversion guide in the technical
articles section of the web site.


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:34:58 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap

>Does yours have the "closed" knuckles?
>
Okay, just want to be sure I'm following all this correctly ... what
exactly is the difference between the open and closed knuckles ? And we
mean on the front axle right ?


>I THINK you might be OK up until 77, but not past the 77-1/2 (they switched to
>reverse rotation, etc. then). I'm pretty sure the leaf springs on the 77 and
>older were not as wide as the 77-1/2's and up, so I'm thinking the spring
>perches might be a little different.
>
When they switched to reverse rotation ... how does this affect the xfer
case and all that, does that mean they ran the output the other direction
from the xfer case ?


>Another thought, I'm pretty sure you have a "divorced" transfer case, meaning
>the driveline input is below centerline of the "pumpkin". The 77-1/2's have
>the driveline entering above the "pumpkin" centerline. What I'm leading to is
>that this newer style will "raise" the front driveline a few inches, possibly
>causing it to interfere with stuff.
>
This has me baffled, I thought I understood this, but apparently not.
You're sayin the pinion is below the center of the axle right ? But the
newer style its above ... this is what they mean by divorced ? How does
the term fit the definition ?


Thanks for any help.

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:40:56 -0800
From: "The Zahns"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - One sick 429 in a F350

Hello All,
Last summer my truck was parked while waiting for a new transmission.
After the transplant was complete I started having some shifting early
problems that are better now. After that I noticed that it would run rough
in the mornings and then when warm would idle ok. The gas mileage got bad
so I checked for vacuum leaks and replaced several hoses.
My question for today is because the truck died on me this morning as I
left for work. I got about 60 feet from my curb when it died. I am used to
it running rough when I start out so I just started to go and usually within
a mile it get better. It's the worse when I start out. After that it just
wouldn't start. I changed the distributor cap on the Mallory Unilite
because there was some corrosion on the contacts and that sometimes makes it
run rough. No improvement. Then I changed the fuel filter which sometimes
clogs up but that usually causes a problem first when driving up steep
hills, which I do twice a day. No improvement. My neighbor stopped by to
help. He is a Jaguar mechanic. I moved the distributor around a bit and he
played with the accelerator linkage and it started. I reset the timing and
it runs now. While timing it I noticed that the light didn't flash evenly.
Every 8 to 10 rotations it would miss a beat or two. I don't think that
this is normal and maybe there is another problem in the coil or the
distributor. What do ya all think???

thanks in advance for all you opinions.
FredZ

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:41:52 -0500 (EST)
From: jdklaers mailhost.magicnet.net (PredFan)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - The more I learn....

...the less I know.

Each time I talk to someone on this list and each time I see a truck that
looks like mine, I get the uneasy feeling that maybe my truck isn't the
same year and model that I'm led to believe.

A little history. I bought my "71" F-100 from a young kid. It was a mess.
While doing the initial restoration just to get it road worthy, I found
that many of the parts that I got from the parts store for a '71 were
wrong. For example, the only brake shoes that fit my truck are for a '69
Bronco.

Last month I bought a '69 F-100 from a guy for parts and the body looks
almost identical. The only difference being the front grill.

There is also some question about the correct steering wheel.

My title says 1971 but something seems amiss. Today I saw one parked at a
McDonalds and I asked the guy about it and he said it was a '68. It looked
exactly like mine in the front.

I have no idea if it's an F-100, 150 or what!

Help....

John


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:57:34 -0500
From: William King
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1968 Rev Monster

Nabo,
There are three things you could do:
1. The cheapest "solution" is to put bigger (i.e., taller) tires on
the rear. These will lower your highway RPMs at a given speed, however
they will also make your speedometer and odometer inaccurate. Check out
the RPM calculator on the FTE webpage and see if taller tires would be
significant for ya.
2. You could swap in a lower rearend. You didn't say what RPMs you
were running at a given speed, but my 68 F100 w/ 360, 4 speed, and 3.25
rear end pulls 2,000 RPMs at 60 mph. Your rear end should have a metal
tag with your rear end ratio stamped on it.
3. You could switch to a 3+1 tranny, but this is probably the hardest thing
to do. I recall Mike in Seattle did this. Basically, it's a 4 speed tranny,
but 3rd gear is 1:1, and 4th gear is an overdrive.

>I have a '68 F-100 with a 360 c.i. engine and a three-speed manual
>transmission on the column. The truck seems to be geared very low; when
>I get on the interstate, the engine is hollerin' at 70 mph. Is there
>anything I can do to get some more top-end speed out of it?
>Nabo

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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:59:57 PST
From: "Jerald Merrick"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ford Vs Chevy

Now Now Guys and gals, Lets give the Chevys some credit. With out
Chevys we would not have anything to pull back to the grage, or pass at
the drag strip, or cush at monster truck shows, or make pickup box
trailers out of. Now appalogise to the Chevy guy, and thank him for
driving his peace of sh*t Ch%#y.
J. A. Merrick
Wyoming
Mr. Ranger

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:08:13 PST
From: "Jerald Merrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family

I think that in 64, and 65 that Ford was still using the 352, 390, and
the 428 for their bigger cars like the Galaxie, and LTD. These are
FE's.
J. A. Merrick
Wyoming
Mr. Ranger

>From owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com Mon Dec 14 07:07:22 1998
>Received: (fordtruc localhost) by ford-trucks.com (8.8.5) id KAA19435;
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:04:01 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from hotmail.com (f231.hotmail.com [207.82.251.122]) by
ford-trucks.com (8.8.5) id KAA19409; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:03:52 -0500
(EST)
>X-Authentication-Warning: ford-trucks.com: Host f231.hotmail.com
[207.82.251.122] claimed to be hotmail.com
>Received: (qmail 18495 invoked by uid 0); 14 Dec 1998 15:03:24 -0000
>Message-ID:
>Received: from 142.13.30.115 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
> Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:03:23 PST
>X-Originating-IP: [142.13.30.115]
>From: "b hp"
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Big Block Family
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 07:03:23 PST
>Sender: owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>
>What V8 bigblock engines were used in Ford trucks and cars during
>1964-65?
>
>This would be general applications. Do these engines fall under the FE
>category? This question started because my friend has a bigblock motor,
>no visible tags..from a 64 or 65 sedan. I'll try to get the
>model..Galaxie or Custom? I am looking at this page
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines and find these engines listed under
>bigblocks "385" Big Block Family 429, 429 Cobra Jet, 460, Boss 429, 370
>truck. I realised I know very little about these motors..Perhaps it is
>time to compile an engine list..yeah project #...
>
>
>Bruce
>65 Mercury F-100 (M-100??) 2WD P/U 240 |6
>
>
>______________________________________________________
> >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:28:17 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby

Good post Tim. I've been on this list for a little over a year and believe
it or not this is the first real Ford vs Chevy debate that has been on the
61-79 list in that time. At least that I can recall. I echo your sentiments
and I keep hoping that this thread will just die off...soon

- ----------
> From: Tim Neasham
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby
> Date: Sunday, December 13, 1998 9:16 PM
>
> Now, my request. Can we skip the "Ford Vs. Chevy" debate? It's never
> going to end, and it's never going to do any good.
>
> It's akin to debating religion. You aren't going to convince someone
> one way or the other by saying mine's better than yours. Whether you
> say it once, or a million times, nothing changes.
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:30:56 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - time machine

I don't know what brand but it's wood burning.

- ----------
>
> If it is 1969, what computer are you guys running? The desktop PC wasn't
> invented until 1976.
>
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:42:29 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - The more I learn....

>A little history. I bought my "71" F-100 from a young kid. It was a mess.
>While doing the initial restoration just to get it road worthy, I found
>that many of the parts that I got from the parts store for a '71 were
>wrong. For example, the only brake shoes that fit my truck are for a '69
>Bronco.
>
>Last month I bought a '69 F-100 from a guy for parts and the body looks
>almost identical. The only difference being the front grill.
>
This is true for those years as far as I've seen ...

>My title says 1971 but something seems amiss. Today I saw one parked at a
>McDonalds and I asked the guy about it and he said it was a '68. It looked
>exactly like mine in the front.


Well, what's your VIN ? There are links to VIN decoders, that should tell
you your year and body style and all that. Assuming, of course, that it
hasn't been changed drastically.

Mine translates to a 73 F100 4x2 w/360, but I have an obvious 4x4, and
according to the part numbers its a 74 running gear, I knew some of that
when I bought it though, so there weren't too many surprises. I can see
where things would get confusing if you thought you got an original truck
and things were turning out different.

Check the www.ford-trucks.com for a link to the vin decoder. (your
insurance card should have the VIN on it if you have it with you, just to
save you a trip to the truck)


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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:44:31 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - heater core eggs

>inlet should run from the water pump and the outlet goes back into the
>water jacket some where else.
>

The inlet for the heater runs from the intake manifold, and the outlet
should run to the suction side of the water pump, otherwise you'll have
no flow through the heater core.......

Steve & the Rockette



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:47:23 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - One sick 429 in a F350

>left for work. I got about 60 feet from my curb when it died. I am used to
>it running rough when I start out so I just started to go and usually within
>a mile it get better. It's the worse when I start out. After that it just

I moved the distributor around a bit and he
>played with the accelerator linkage and it started. I reset the timing and
>it runs now. While timing it I noticed that the light didn't flash evenly.

I had a similar problem, ended up there was junk holding the float open and
gas was leaking into my rear throttle's on the carb. I could hear it
running out after the truck had cranked a while, so it might be something
worth checking on yours (if you have a 2V there's no point in checking the
rears I guess, but the fronts could leak too)



>Every 8 to 10 rotations it would miss a beat or two. I don't think that
>this is normal and maybe there is another problem in the coil or the
>distributor. What do ya all think???
>

Do you still have points in it ? I'd look at those, and be sure I had good
wires between the coil and dist. and the dist. and plug. Just to be sure
of things ... also might check the gap on the plug, along with the
condition of the plug to see if there's oil there ...


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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:47:27 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - time machine

At 08:53 14/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>If it is 1969, what computer are you guys running? The desktop PC wasn't
>invented until 1976.
>

My fathers company had a "small" computer, It was called a 4SQ, it took
up the better part of a 12'X12' office.....

Steve & the Rockette



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:37:17 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 2 Sp rear

Doss Halsey writes: >>I am asking for the big hardware here. I have a
friend who just bought a '73 F-600 Dump. He is in the market for a two
speed rear end and a power steering unit. He tells me that the engine is a
333. I don't know that one, but I'll look into it further.

I have one in a '73 F700 that has been sitting for 4 years. Was in good
operating condition when the truck was parked. Was a fertilizer spreader
truck and was quite rusty in body, so we canabalized (?) it for the parts
needed on another truck under the spreader.

Also have a Clark 5sp(model 285V23) tranny that is good. The Power
steering box is gone.

Before I price it, let me know if you are interested enough to come get it.
I live right on the Tn, Al. stateline, 2 miles East of I-65.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:52:33 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap

BDIJXS aol.com wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> Does yours have the "closed" knuckles?
>
> I THINK you might be OK up until 77, but not past the 77-1/2 (they switched to
> reverse rotation, etc. then). I'm pretty sure the leaf springs on the 77 and
> older were not as wide as the 77-1/2's and up, so I'm thinking the spring
> perches might be a little different.

Her is what I know ( very little by some standards ;)
Some of the earlier LD 3/4 fronts were reverse rotation in 74-6 while the HD
stayed standard rotation.
The front spring width is the same from 57-79 so a swap of any of those axles can
be done.

>
> Another thought, I'm pretty sure you have a "divorced" transfer case, meaning
> the driveline input is below centerline of the "pumpkin". The 77-1/2's have
> the driveline entering above the "pumpkin" centerline. What I'm leading to is
> that this newer style will "raise" the front driveline a few inches, possibly
> causing it to interfere with stuff.

True. The raised pinion will in effect shorten the front drive shaft needed but
if you were also going with a 2-3" lift you would be fine. With no lift the
drive shaft might be over compressed of the exhaust might get in the way.


- --
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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:51:38 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clicking noise in cyclinder

>sounds like 'one' of the cylinders. I don't know the cylinder numbers but it
>sounds like it's the one on the right, 3rd one back, facing the truck.
>
Just an FYI everything I've seen is measured left and right from the
driver's seat, so sounds like you're talking about the left bank of
cylinders ... I think this is number 7 if I remember right ... but usually
a click in one cylinder isn't because of anything unique to that cylinder
(unless you know its different for some reason)


>When ever I hear clicks like that in engines I always first think that it's
>low on oil or it's the valves or rocker arms but usually when I hear that
>noise it's in all the cylinders. This noise is noticeably coming from one
>location.
>
If its clicking like its low on oil, its probably a lifter tapping ... best
thing to do is replace the lifters, but sometimes they work themselves free
with additives (we had a discussion about this a while ago, don't remember
the outcome)

>My first thought is that it may not be firing because of a bad plug,
>distributor cap, or something like that.
>
This would be a miss right ? So that would be really noticeable as in loss
of power and running rough ... quite a bit different than low on oil ...

If you think its a certain cylinder, try unplugging that wire and see if it
runs different, if so, then its probably firing.



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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:55:17 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap

William S Hart wrote:

> This has me baffled, I thought I understood this, but apparently not.
> You're sayin the pinion is below the center of the axle right ? But the
> newer style its above ... this is what they mean by divorced ? How does
> the term fit the definition ?
>

Standard rotation the pinion is below the center of the axle and reverse rotation
the pinion is above.

A divorced transfer case is one that is mounted by itself on the frame. There
will be a short drive shaft between your transmission and your transfer case.

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

- --
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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:27:28 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow

David Wadson writes: >>Question for you guys - why does the interior
heater work great with the hoses connected one way, but not the other? I
can never visualize the physics behind why having the hoses hooked up
backwards would make it blow cooler..

Don't make sense to me. Should work equally well either way.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:58:39 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford Vs Chevy

We were talking about a list split right. Here is a good place for one a
debate list. I look at FTE as a place for information. If I wanted into a
F vs. C vs. D vs. ect debate I would still be in the newsgroups.

$.02
- --
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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:04:14 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap

Hey thanks .... a couple more to be sure I'm clear on this ...


>Standard rotation the pinion is below the center of the axle and reverse
>rotation
>the pinion is above.
>
So they're just running off of the othe rside of the pinion or what ? they
say reverse rotation, but is it spinning the opposite direction ? Wouldn't
this be bad for things like xfer cases swapping around ?

>A divorced transfer case is one that is mounted by itself on the frame. There
>will be a short drive shaft between your transmission and your transfer case.
>
I was confused by the last post that seemed to think this would make a
difference in the front axle stuff ... why would it as long as you have the
right driveshaft to start with (which I'm assuming you do since the truck
is running ...) ???



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:06:23 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow

>Don't make sense to me. Should work equally well either way.
>
I didn't think so at first, but you're right. On newer stuff sometimes
there's a restrictions in the heater hose to slow things down in the core
and let you actually get heat out of it (just remembered this, so maybe you
can look into it for yours ???) but even this shouldn't matter which way
its run 'cause the flow doesn't care what direction it goes through the
core, there's no one way valves in it are there ?



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: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 09:27:53 PST
From: "Park Hunter"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: brands

Okay, I'll throw in my two bits of controversy...

I think the two best looking trucks to come out of the '60s were the
61-66 F100 and the Internationals of the same era. I've got a '64 F100
flatbed, and I used to own a 64 IH Travelall (Suburban of its era). Both
of 'em in crappy physical and mechanical condition.

IH's basic mechanical components (engines, transmissions, axles, etc)
were industrial strength. The Travelall had 179,000 highly abused miles
on it when I bought it and still could out-pull anything else on the
road. (The ad read "$10,000 - but I will deep discount at least 95%")
Bodywise, I've never seen an IH that wasn't rusty. The doors never seem
to fit right either. And it's a bugger to get replacement parts even as
simple as a water pump (tried three from the parts store before they
found the right one).

Proposed to my wife one moonlit night in the Travelall. She still claims
the toxic exhaust fumes overwhelmed her better judgement.

As for the Ford -- I'm enjoying a truck that's easier to get parts for
and is still tough. Plus the doors aren't falling off! :^)

I really hate to 'diss any brand, even Ch**y. They've all got their
foibles and good points. Still, part of the fun of old vehicles is
talkin' up the good guys and raggin' on the other brands.

===========================================================
M. Park Hunter, Information Systems Coordinator
Metropolitan School District of Warren County
1222 South St. Rd. 263, West Lebanon, IN 47991
765/893-4525 (phone) 765/893-8354 (fax)
phunter_msdwc hotmail.com
"To err is human. To really screw up, you need a computer!"
===========================================================


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:40:08 -0600
From: sjacobi fd9ns01.okladot.state.ok.us
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 truck oil pan

Does anyone out there know who might sell a new oil pan for a 460 with the
drain spout on the front? All the catalogs I have seen only have the car
460 oil pans with the drain on the side.

Thanks,

Steve


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:36:47 -0600
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow

I agree with Bill, should make no difference at the heater core.
But like a earlier comment one hose needs to run to the water pump to
use the pump as a circulator. If you happen to run them both to the
manifold there will be little or no flow
.



At 11:06 AM 12/14/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Don't make sense to me. Should work equally well either way.
>>
>I didn't think so at first, but you're right. On newer stuff sometimes
>there's a restrictions in the heater hose to slow things down in the core
>and let you actually get heat out of it (just remembered this, so maybe you
>can look into it for yours ???) but even this shouldn't matter which way
>its run 'cause the flow doesn't care what direction it goes through the
>core, there's no one way valves in it are there ?
>
>
>
>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
>
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:49:13 -0700
From: "Michael Connor"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - front diff swap

>The front spring width is the same from 57-79 so a swap of any of those
axles can
>be done.

This brings up a question I've had about frame widths of the 3/4 ton
pickups. Can't speak
for the front, but I know the width of the rear changed around 77 or so.
Some backround info - I have a 77 F250 4WD Hiboy, manufactured in February
of 1977. In March
of 77 Ford changed to the 77 1/2 model, doing away with the Hiboys. I have
the 19
gallon in-cab fuel tank, but my bed has a filler door on the drivers side
rear. There is
no gas tank or filler neck in the rear-just the door. You open it up and
look at the inside
of the bed. I thought it would be an easy addition to add the rear tank, so
I went to
the wrecking yard and picked up the filler neck and hoses for the filler
door. But alas,
when inquiring about the tank I discovered there was no tank that would fit
my frame.
If I recall, my frame is around 34'' wide and the only rear tank available
was for a
37" frame or thereabouts. Checking the width of my daughter's 78 Bronco
showed
her frame to be wider than mine. dunno if it has to do with the difference
between the
Bronco or what. Anybody with a 76 truck have a rear tank? How wide is your
frame?

Maybe we should all measure our vehicles and comprise a data sheet of our
findings; I
know I'd appreciate knowing about all the differences. I'd be willing to
comprise the data
if you guys want to send it to me.

Sorry to ramble off-topic; reading and learning from what other guys are
doing invariably
brings up questions about other related stuff for me.:-)



Best,

Mike
Phoenix, AZ



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:03:45 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion

We used parts from a '75 I think.
Check the length of the I-beams.
We didn't but afterwards were wondering if we could have just swapped them
that way.
-srw

Sam Weatherby http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://insert.com/sammy
SWeatherby UsWest.Net A-SamWe Microsoft.com
'70 Grabber Sportsroof Mustang
'93 F-150 XLT Lightning
'98 HD FXD Super Glide
'78 Monarch
'65 F100

- -----Original Message-----
From: James Varela
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 4:50 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 65 F-100 Brake Conversion


>I have a 65 ford F-100 and want to change the brakes to disk. Can anyone
>tell me what year's are interchangeable with mine.
>
>______________________________________________________
> >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:06:20 -0800
From: "Matt Tobin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 8 lug wheels same for Ford and C***Y Trucks?

I have a friend who is giving me a set of 8 lug 16.5" slotted aluminum mag
wheels off of his C***Y truck. I would like to install them on my '70 Class
C Motorhome/E-300 chassis, to replace the factory 16.5"/8 lug wheels.

Will they fit?

Thanks,

Matt

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:11:34 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 8 lug wheels same for Ford and C***Y Trucks?

At 12:06 PM 12/14/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>I have a friend who is giving me a set of 8 lug 16.5" slotted aluminum mag
>wheels off of his C***Y truck. I would like to install them on my '70 Class
>C Motorhome/E-300 chassis, to replace the factory 16.5"/8 lug wheels.
>
>Will they fit?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Matt
>

Have you tried measuring the lug spacing from your truck and
his?


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:22:30 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M Rebuild/pistons

>From: "Gear Guru"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M Rebuild/pistons
>
>I would like to have higher comp ratio so i am
>going to try using 351c pistons, will pistons for
>a 72 h.o. engine w/76cc heads work? or should
>i shoot for a standard 351C (not the high output
>version)? and where can i get bushings to
>replace the larger ones in my 400M connecting
>rods? I would appreciate any help i can get,

Yo Eric:

Since the M-block heads have a slightly larger combustion chamber (78.4cc)
than the 351C HO heads, a direct OEM replacement '72 351C HO piston should
give a slightly lower compression ratio in an M-block engine. I have
successfully used the Keith Black #177 hypereutectic cast piston, which is
listed as a 351C HO replacement flat top, in a couple M-block 400 engines.
With the M-block heads, the KB177 gives a static compression ratio of about
9.25-9.3:1. IMHO, that's about as high as you ought to go if you want to
be able to use cheap gasoline (85-88 octane, depending on your altitude).

As for bushing (v.tr. to furnish or line w/ a bushing) the connecting rods,
any competent engine-building machine shop should be able to do that for
you. The M-block connecting rods do not normally have a bushing at the
small end. Since the 351C pistons use a smaller diameter wrist pin than
the M-blocks (0.911" vs 0.974"), the wrist pin hole in the M-block
connecting rod needs a bushing to accommodate the smaller 351C wrist pin.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:29:29 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - full floating pins

>From: "Robert Hutchinson"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - full floating pins
>
>Can someone please edumacate me on what is
>meant by "floating pins" when referring to wrist pins?
> I've seen it pop up a couple of times in reference
>to the 400 rebuild and using 351C pistons, and by
>bushing the rods you end up with a "floating pin",
>correct?

Yo Robert:

Wrist pins are either press-fit into the connecting rod or floating.
Press-fit pins have an interference fit w/ the connecting rod (i.e., the
rod hole is slightly smaller than the pin) so they act as a solid unit with
the connecting rod. Floating pins are allowed to rotate in the end of the
connecting rod. Floating pins require retainers (clipped in the piston) to
keep them from sliding out of the rod and rubbing on the cylinder walls.
Press fit pins require no retainers to keep them from sliding out of the
piston, since they are effectively seized in the rod.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:36:45 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - full floating pins

>Wrist pins are either press-fit into the connecting rod or floating.
>Press-fit pins have an interference fit w/ the connecting rod (i.e., the
>rod hole is slightly smaller than the pin) so they act as a solid unit with
>the connecting rod. Floating pins are allowed to rotate in the end of the
>connecting rod. Floating pins require retainers (clipped in the piston) to
>keep them from sliding out of the rod and rubbing on the cylinder walls.

They never (or rarely I should say) press fit into the piston and float on
the rod ? Just curious mostly ...

My FE has retainers in either side, and I can see that the rod is slipping
on the pin, this means that they are full floating ? Cool ... no wonder
they were a different part number, and the pistons were different ...
wonder what else I'll find ...

Still no idea where the casting number is on my crank though ... anyone got
any ideas ?

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:50:06 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M

>From: "ben"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M
>
>I replaced the engine in my ' 79 with a 400M. I
>thought I was taking out a 351M, but it turns out
>to be a ' 71 400M.

Yo Ben:

How do you know the engine is a 1971 400? Engine ID tags on non-original
engines are not necessarily accurate. The only way to identify a 1971 400
is the original factory flat top pistons, and you'd have to pull the heads
to do that.

> It was not running when I bought the truck. Almost
> all the push rods were bent and the rocker
>fulcrums were badly worn. But it was just rebuilt,
>it supposedly only ran a little while before it died.
>My Questions are, what would cause this?

If all the components were serviceable or new when the engine was rebuilt,
only severe abuse or neglect would cause this type of valve train damage.
A combination of abuse (e.g., inadequate oiling) and worn out components
re-used could account for it, though. Bent pushrods can be caused by
excessive cam lift that causes the valve springs to "go solid" or bind, but
that wouldn't account for worn out rocker arm fulcrums.

>And is this engine worth fixing?

Unless it is an unbored original block w/ the original factory pistons, it
is worth fixing no more than any other Ford engine (which is still more
than any Ch*vy engine).

>Also it has a cam of unknown origin, is there
>anyway I can tell what the specs are?

Unless you can find a manufacturer's marking or tooling number, the only
way I know is to "degree" the cam to measure the valve events and measure
the valve lift.

>Because it is in extremly good shape, due to
>the short time it ran. Could I use new lifters
>with used push rods, rockers and fulcrums
>with the cam if I can use it? Sorry for all the
>questions.

To me, an engine w/ bent push rods and worn out rocker arms is not in
"extremely good shape." With the kind of problems you describe in the
valve train, I would look a lot more closely at the rest of the engine and
make sure there are not other problems. At any rate, I would be suspicious
of any claim that an engine in this kind of shape was "just rebuilt."

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:40:33 PST
From: "Tim Neasham"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby


> ...this is the first real Ford vs Chevy debate that has been on the
>61-79 list in that time. At least that I can recall. I echo your
>sentiments and I keep hoping that this thread will just die >off...soon

Well, like I said, I'm new to the list, but I've seen arguments like
this on PC lists (IBM vs Mac vs Amiga, etc) that have turned into
all-out flame wars. I just don't want to see this turn into that.
Thanks.

Tim Neasham
'74 & '76 F-250
Benton City, Washington

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:53:53 PST
From: "Tim Neasham"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow


>Question for you guys - why does the interior heater work great with
>the hoses connected one way, but not the other? I can never visualize
>the physics behind why having the hoses hooked up backwards would >make
it blow cooler..

Okay, if you can't visualize physics, try hydraulics. Not saying this
is the correct answer, but think it through. Okay, you've got a closed
circut system, and you've got a designed intake and output. Imagine
hooking up your radiator hoses backwards (disregard the fan being in the
way, the wrong angles, etc.. Just think flow.) The opitmum place for
the water pump to get it's intake is the bottom of the radiator. 2
reasons: 1) Gravity forces the water down (This really works, trust me!
:) 2) Convection currents drops the coolest water to the bottom. So,
for the purpose of cooling your engine, the bottom of the radiator is
the best. Now, if you reverse the intake and output, you've got hotter
water entering your engine, and there is no gravity head pressure
"helping" the water pump.

I'm not saying this is a correct answer, just a different way of
thinking about the situation. I haven't ever opened up a water pump to
see, but is the heater "discharge" on the water pump on the discharge or
suction side of the pump? If it's on the discharge, then you'd be
pushing cooler water through the heater core. If it's on the suction
side, you'd be pulling hotter water from the top of the block through
the core, then to the water pump.

I'm not all that good with trucks, but, I'm a firefighter, so I know my
hydraulics. :)

Tim Neasham
'74 & '76 F-250
Benton City, Washington

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:56:53 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FORD vs cheby

>From our FAQ:

"No blantently off topic posts. Questions about your brother's Tempo
belong on Fordnatics, not Ford Truck Enthusiasts. Repeated offenses
of these items can get you permanently barred from the list."

Afterall we are Ford (ie, NOT CHEVY!) Truck Enthusiasts (as in "fans
of"). Discussing how much you like your Chevy is definately off-topic.

Ken Payne
Admin

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:21:54 -0700
From: "Andrew W. Ford - Speaking For Myself"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reverse flow

Tim Neasham wrote:

>
> >Question for you guys - why does the interior heater work great with
> >the hoses connected one way, but not the other? I can never visualize
> >the physics behind why having the hoses hooked up backwards would >make
> it blow cooler..
>
> Okay, if you can't visualize physics, try hydraulics. Not saying this
> is the correct answer, but think it through. Okay, you've got a closed
> circut system, and you've got a designed intake and output. Imagine
> hooking up your radiator hoses backwards (disregard the fan being in the
> way, the wrong angles, etc.. Just think flow.) The opitmum place for
> the water pump to get it's intake is the bottom of the radiator. 2
> reasons: 1) Gravity forces the water down (This really works, trust me!
> :) 2) Convection currents drops the coolest water to the bottom. So,
> for the purpose of cooling your engine, the bottom of the radiator is
> the best. Now, if you reverse the intake and output, you've got hotter
> water entering your engine, and there is no gravity head pressure
> "helping" the water pump.

I think you've got it there. The "correct" inlet would be at the top of the
heater core. Since cool water sinks below hot water, if the intake is at the
top then you get the sinking of cooler water pushing with the flow through
the heater coil.

If you reverse this, and push hot water into the bottom of the heater, as the
water
is cooled, it wants to push down, against the flow, and therefore reduce the
flow of coolant through the heater coil.

And, with more flow, you'll probably get more heat...

Regards,
78 F150 Ranger 4x4 Supercab / 351M C6

- --
Andrew Ford (602)581-4499
forda agcs.com Si vis pacem, parabellum.
Above is *my* opinion, for theirs see below...
AG Communication Systems - Expand the power of your network.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.agcs.com



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:32:31 -0700
From: Randy Collins
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 truck oil pan


Does anyone out there know who might sell a new oil pan for a 460 with the
drain spout on the front? All the catalogs I have seen only have the car
460 oil pans with the drain on the side.

This may seem obvious but if you have just need a front sump pan with the
drain plug in the front you could get a donor pan, recruit a trusty welder
and be the only one on the block with two oil drain plugs....or (slightly
harder) just move the one you have from the side to the front. This would
be much cheaper than buying a new pan.

If you don't know anyone that can do this for you...mail it to me with a 12
pack and a self addressed stamped envelope and I will do it for you.

Later,

Randy Collins
Boise, Idaho
rcollins micron.net

1975 Ford F250 4WD Supercab "Muscle Truck"
460 SUPER COBRA JET



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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:59:42 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - weight

Bill K. writes: >>I can pick up the 460 block and set it on my work bench
and I can not do that with the FE.

How about the heads?? I think the 429/460 heads are much heavier than the
FE, but I'm not sure of this. I'm just going from memory, and sometimes
that "ain't" so good. I think the two series of engines are fairly close
in total weight, and the pistons - rods cranks and such would be very
close, so the difference must be in the heads and intakes.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

------------------------------
....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.