61-79-list-digest Monday, June 7 1999 Volume 03 : Number 194



=======================================================================
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 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
FTE 61-79 - WAS wheel bearing grease NOW wide wheels.
FTE 61-79 - timing/tuneup suggestions
FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??
FTE 61-79 - Hot starting problem SOLVED!
Re: FTE 61-79 - building a 390 GT out of a 360
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 SWAP WON'T START
Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 Head Swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - Dizzy without a light
Re: FTE 61-79 - Hot starting problem SOLVED!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
FTE 61-79 - Tech Page?
Re: FTE 61-79 - PCV for 69 F250 with Holley 1850
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Dizzy Update, Timing Specs
FTE 61-79 - 240 and a C6
FTE 61-79 - Headlight switch knob
FTE 61-79 - Re: 302 Head Swap
FTE 61-79 - RE:302 Head Swap
FTE 61-79 - Tech page for a C4
Re: FTE 61-79 - Headlight switch knob
FTE 61-79 - 5.0 engine ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 5.0 engine ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Braking issues
Re: FTE 61-79 - Help! Wont start when hot, also leak from thermostat housing
Re: FTE 61-79 - Wheel bearings :-(
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 302 Head Swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
FTE 61-79 - timing
FTE 61-79 - C6 Ratios
FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's
FTE 61-79 - Part needed for 67-72 Pickup
FTE 61-79 - Repair Books

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 01:40:09 -0700
From: Jeffrey Osier-Mixon
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

I have a '68 F100 longbed with a '70 390. A T-18 gives me about 17mpg on
average, not bad for a truck this size, but still pretty awful
pollution-wise. I'm considering moving to a less ozone-depleting fuel,
possibly CNG. Not this year, mind you, but sometime, possibly...

I had also given some thought to electric, but with a truck this heavy I'd
reach diminishing returns with number of batteries vs. weight pretty early,
probably less than 80 miles per charge. Not worth the trouble.

Has anyone tread this path before with an older F? Any advice?

Thanks

Jefro

- --
Sua matriz um ganso, e seu pai faz eggrolls para um vivo.


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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 04:05:53 -0700
From: John Lord
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

I recommend propane, propane, propane. I have converted my 74 F-250 4x4
with a 351w (the engine was a project in itself) Also i converted a 77
Crysler New Porker with a 440cu, and i am currently converting an 84
ranger 4x4 with a 2.3 turbo to solve preignition. later this year i am
to do my fathers 67 Merc F-250 with a 390.

Propane is more commonly found than natural gas (at least where i am) It
is only 10% less powerfull than gas, compared to natural gas at 25%.
the 10% can be made up for by bringing up your compression to 10 to 11.5
to 1. Because propane is about 105 octane.

Also you never have to worry about bad gas, cold starting, the carb
freezing in the winter, if you offroad the propane mixer (carb) doesnt
mind the abuse.


I can go on for ever....... I love the stuff.

Jeffrey Osier-Mixon wrote:
>
> I have a '68 F100 longbed with a '70 390. A T-18 gives me about 17mpg on
> average, not bad for a truck this size, but still pretty awful
> pollution-wise. I'm considering moving to a less ozone-depleting fuel,
> possibly CNG. Not this year, mind you, but sometime, possibly...
>
> I had also given some thought to electric, but with a truck this heavy I'd
> reach diminishing returns with number of batteries vs. weight pretty early,
> probably less than 80 miles per charge. Not worth the trouble.
>
> Has anyone tread this path before with an older F? Any advice?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jefro
>
> --
> Sua matriz um ganso, e seu pai faz eggrolls para um vivo.
>
> == 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, 7 Jun 1999 04:45:13 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - WAS wheel bearing grease NOW wide wheels.

Wish wrote:
>snip>

And now everyone knows why you don't put those dorky tires that stick
waaaaay out to the sides on your car ... this is what happens ... you burn
up wheel bearings. Do you think the guys who put these tires on know that
? Probably not, they just think it makes their car look "cool" which I
guess is all in the eye of the beer holder ...

Anyway thanks for provin my point Tony :)

I say:
YES!!! I know what you are talking about. Wide wheels on a 4x4 are one
thing but the "hot wheels" look so popular with kids these days makes me
want to puke! The only good thing about the look is that these idiots won't
have a driveable car for very long. And if they do force any distance out
of their tourtured cars then maybe we can thin out the gene pool a little.
STUPIDEST thing I ever saw was a T(riceburner)a 4-runner that had 13 inch
wheels, extralow profile tires that were extra wide AND the truck had a LIFT
KIT! Looked like a cat trying to balance on a beach ball!

Sorry for the rant but ;0) "I'm feeling MUCH better now!"
Tom H.

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 06:53:22 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - timing/tuneup suggestions

>> I'm considering using this method and wanted to hear your opinions
before I install a new dizzy on a new 390 4bbl with 69 428 CJ/SCJ/Police cam
specs.

You asked for it. My opinion is to use an inductive pickup, powered timing
light with a xeon strobe tube to set the timing to spec. Paint the mark on
the harmonic balancer and the pin or degree marker with white or silver
paint. Testor's model paint works great for this. IMHO any other method is
strictly guess work and is only good to get you by if you are stranded or
desperate.

Tune up steps:
1. replace any parts that don't function
2. Clean and gap or replace spark plugs (do the whole set)
3. replace points and condensor if so equipped
4. replace rotor and distributor cap
5. replace spark plug wires if needed (again, do the whole set)
6. replace air cleaner
7. Set dwell angle with a dwell meter
8. Set timing with a timing light
9. adjust carb using a tachometer
10. set curb idle using a tachometer
11. Look for a Chebbie to eat your dust

- -- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 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, 07 Jun 1999 09:12:16 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??

Can anyone explain this to me?

OX

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1056_bill_19990528_amended_sen.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:30:59 -0400
From: john.e.turpel bellatlantic.COM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hot starting problem SOLVED!

It was the negative battery cable after all...
Well I know I said I already checked it thouroughly and cleaned the connections
at the engine and at the battery.
Note that I also have a #10 gauge backup ground cable to the frame. However the
main cable is one of those that you cut you own length
and then bolt the connector to the cable with a clamp. Well I noticed it was
corroded under the clamp and under the sheathing. I cut about an inch off and
stripped it and reconnected it. VROOMM! It fires up real strong even before I
can get the key turned all the way!
I had also tightened down the carb, but I think it was the battery cable.

For the record, before it was fixed, it usually turned over basically normally
but only for 4 or 5 cranks. after each retry to start it would crank fewer and
slower until a click.

The only other thing I havent already mentioned was the fact that the problem
showed up suddenly. within 3 days it went from no problem
to never starting when hot.
Also, in addition to what I percieved as MILD green corrosion in the wires mesh
in the battery cable showed signs of spark burns and were somewhat brittle. I
figure that moisture or shorting at the connection caused sparks, ruining the
connection and causing my hot starting problems. in addtion to that there was
rust on the underside of the clamp ( cable itself is prbably only three years
old.)

See my previous posts for further symptoms.

The question remains... Would it not start when hot basically because of the
starter being hot?

Thanks All!



Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 09:06:18 -0700
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hot Starting

John,
Saw your response and I've added the warped flywheel to the chart. Don't
know if it was related to slow turn over or not. Would appreaciate if
someone would report in and let us know if this was a real fix or just a
hunch and if it turned slow. John, also you reported that your truck turns
over slowly when how. I think that is the key to the problem. I had a 56
Chubby that turned over slow when I shut it down and would't start intill
it cooled. I did discovered that if I parked it on a hill I could pop the
clutch it would fire off. That real embarrassing on a date!

Hot starting- slow turn over Hot starting- normal turn over
antifreeze buildup Vaporizing fuel
Bad ground at starter??? Bad ground at starter???
Warped Flywheel??? Warped Flywheel???

If the guy that experienced the ground problem would report in and let me
know if it turned over slow or normal, I can put it in the proper column.


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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:35:40 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - building a 390 GT out of a 360

>Hi I have a 1971 360 and I want to make a good 390 out of it. I bought a
>pair of 390 GT heads (C7AE, C6AE) and bought a new 390 crank and rods. I am
>great while. I want some good get up and go and to have a nice mild rumble
>from it. Please post any ideas or you can E-mail me at commodore uswest.net

Well if you want to take the time to check out my web page you can see how
my 390 came out, I have a few hundred miles on the rebuild so I don't
really know how much power I'm makin on the top side. Its got a nice
smooth idle, and I've had lots of people comment on how "tough" it sounds.
A good friend of mine works on stock cars (modifieds I think) and he just
kept shakin his head as he sat there and listened to it purr ... he didn't
really think I could do it :) actually he did, just not that quickly.

Anyway the link is:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/rebuild.html

Or check out all the new truck pages by hitting
ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/truck.html

I actually broke things out a bit so you don't get such long pages in one
sitting


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:38:34 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 SWAP WON'T START

> I replaced a 429 in my 71 F350 with a 460 that I rebuilt. The problem is
>that it won't start. It is getting spark and gas. One problem is that when
>I try to start it the starter cranks for a couple of rotations and then get
>slower and slower. It sounds like a dead battery so I kept charging it but
>the same results.
> timing
>is very close as far as I can tell. It won't turn over long enough for me
>to check it with a timing light but I know that the piston is on a
>compression stroke and the rotor is pointing at the #1 cylinder. Could it
>be so tight that the starter doesn't have the power to turn it over?

I would double check the timing, set the balancer at TDC and then set the
distributor at the #1, mine was doing the same thing when I went for my
390, I recognized it instantly as an advance problem (you just know after
it happens a couple times), retarded the thing back to near 0 and it fired
right up. Didn't set the timing til after cam break in and everything,
just as long as it runs okay you should be fine.


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:42:53 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 Head Swap

>I'm swapping the heads on my 302 with 351w heads. I know it can be done but
>I need to get it done in a weekend and I need to know a.) What type of
>rocker arms should I use? (302 or 351w)

Not sure it matters on this, they should be the same, or very similar ...
take a close look at them and then decide....


b.) What type of pushrods should I
>use?

302 style, the 351 is a different size physically so the pushrods should be
longer for the 351.

c.) What type of head bolts should I use?

New ??? :) Only one size will fit the block, so those are the one's
you'll have to use...


I know I need 351w
>valve covers but will my 302 intake fit?

I didn't know you needed 351W valve covers ... are you sure we're talkin
Windsor here ? I always see the W's listed as the same valve covers for
all the W motors ... haven't played with many 302's, but never noticed any
huge differences ... never looked real close at the height either I guess
... you MUST use the 302 intake, the 351 intake will be about an inch too
wide, maybe only 1/2" but definitely too wide!


If anyone has done this please let
>me know.
Never actually done this, but been in and around a few 351W's. Only 302
I've been in was a 5.0 truck motor with FI and everything on it.


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:46:32 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Dizzy without a light

> I'm considering using this method and wanted to hear your opinions
>before I install a new dizzy on a new 390 4bbl with 69 428 CJ/SCJ/Police cam
>specs.
>
When installing a new cam in a motor, the factory specs are toast. The
different cam will want a different timing setting than spec'ed by the
factory. One way to set the timing is use a vacuum gauge (or tach) and set
it with as much vacuum (or revs) as you can get, then see how much pinging
you have, back it off a couple degrees at a time until you don't have any
... then maybe add one and see if it pings or not ... this may take a
while, but once you get it, WRITE IT DOWN! That way you can get that
timing set again more quickly and use the timing lite to set it.


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:50:12 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Hot starting problem SOLVED!

>The question remains... Would it not start when hot basically because of the
>starter being hot?
>
No, it was because of the wire being hot ... warmer wires don't conduct
electricity as well as cold ones ... can't remember why right now, but I'm
sure there's an equation one of the EEs
knows that can prove it ... a sure sign that the wires are the problem,
when you get this hard to start thing, go grab the cables, if they're hot
to touch you aren't getting the juice through like you should be ... don't
burn yourself. Sorry I didn't remember this sooner, your comment just
reminded me ...


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:57:14 -0500
From: cannandale netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

ive been thinking of converting my 460 to propane, but ive heard that it
eats up valve seats. but i cant say because I really dont know anything
about it..

what kinda milage increase could this give compared to cost? what is the
average cost? how in the world do you convert it??

cannandale
'78 F250 4x4, 460
=20

At 07:14 AM 6/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I recommend propane, propane, propane. I have converted my 74 F-250 4x4
>with a 351w (the engine was a project in itself) Also i converted a 77
>Crysler New Porker with a 440cu, and i am currently converting an 84
>ranger 4x4 with a 2.3 turbo to solve preignition. later this year i am
>to do my fathers 67 Merc F-250 with a 390.
>
>Propane is more commonly found than natural gas (at least where i am) It
>is only 10% less powerfull than gas, compared to natural gas at 25%.
>the 10% can be made up for by bringing up your compression to 10 to 11.5
>to 1. Because propane is about 105 octane.
>
>Also you never have to worry about bad gas, cold starting, the carb
>freezing in the winter, if you offroad the propane mixer (carb) doesnt
>mind the abuse.
>
>
>I can go on for ever....... I love the stuff.=20
>
>Jeffrey Osier-Mixon wrote:
>>=20
>> I have a '68 F100 longbed with a '70 390. A T-18 gives me about 17mpg on
>> average, not bad for a truck this size, but still pretty awful
>> pollution-wise. I'm considering moving to a less ozone-depleting fuel,
>> possibly CNG. Not this year, mind you, but sometime, possibly...
>>=20
>> I had also given some thought to electric, but with a truck this heavy=
I'd
>> reach diminishing returns with number of batteries vs. weight pretty=
early,
>> probably less than 80 miles per charge. Not worth the trouble.
>>=20
>> Has anyone tread this path before with an older F? Any advice?
>>=20
>> Thanks
>>=20
>> Jefro
>>=20
>> --
>> Sua matriz =E9 um ganso, e seu pai faz eggrolls para um vivo.
>>=20
>> =3D=3D FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info=
http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>=3D=3D 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, 7 Jun 1999 09:57:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford76 webtv.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tech Page?

Does anyone know of a tech page that I can get detailed instructions on
a tranny change for my C6.

Julia MacLaren
76 F250
460
Hollied

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:57:04 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PCV for 69 F250 with Holley 1850

>1) I'll be using a Holley 1850 which has a 3/8" PCV outlet on the passenger
>side towards the rear which leads to just below the throttle plates.
>2) The carb spacer also has an outlet at the rear for PCV which is 5/8".
>3) I'll be buying a chrome air cleaner and K&N filter to go with it (may or
>may not have fittings for PCV).
>
My answer for this would be to use one of the PCV ports for the PCV (the
carb one maybe) and the other for the power brakes ... that way you know
you'll have good vacuum for them (I like brakes:), and you will be sure
you're not getting ported vacuum on the brakes.

> My green 69 also has an 1850 on a 390 4bbl but no carb spacer. The
>passenger side valve cover cap has a 5/8" fitting and hose leading to the
>air cleaner, and the drivers side cap with PCV valve plugged into it and
>3/8" hose leading to the carb. Is this the correct PCV routing without a
>carb spacer?
>

Sounds correct whether you have a spacer or not ... seems a bit backwards
as mine has the driver's side as the oil fill hole with the fitting and the
pass. side with the pcv plugged into a grommet on the valve cover. Though
both valve covers are identical under the gromit/filler cap, so as long as
they are hooked up you should be good to go...

> The spacer also has a 5/8 inlet in the front and a 5/8" outlet in the
>back for engine coolant. Should I find another spacer to put on my green 69?
>How important are these spacers?

These spacers may be helpful in keeping carb temps under control. If you
live in the mts I know people are running larger spacers because its easier
to boil the gas in the carb at higher elevations ... so while my gf's
brother is runnin a 2" phenolic spacer, I'm running only the stock 3/4" (?)
spacer, he's in WY I'm in IA ... neither of us have vapor lock problems...

I also have the coolant lines on my 390, got the intake/carb/spacer from a
65 galaxie, hooked those lines up when I put the 390 in. I'm anticipating
great performance this winter as the carb should stay warmer once things
get up to temp ... maybe between that and the 180 deg thermostat (instead
of 160), I'll actually get my choke to shut off this year !


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 08:59:34 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Dizzy Update, Timing Specs

>If you don't spin the distributor back, then the engine pings and knocks
>and is hard to start (slow cranking, too much advance) Spin it back, no
>problem.

How far back are you spinning from this point ? If you work your way back
slowly til you don't get the ping/knock or hard start then that's where you
should leave it. Judging by wrecked trucks while handy for initial,
probably isn't the greatest for final settings (you have to wonder why
they're there ...) Invest in a vacuum gauge or tach and timing light,
you'll feel much better about the results then ... and you can use the
vacuum/tach to set the carb too.


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 09:00:25 -0500
From: "Eric Washburn"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 240 and a C6

Is there anyway I can mount a C6 to my '67 240? Right now I have the Ford
3-spd manual. If so, can ya'll help me as to what I need to do to put it on?
Any help would be appreciated.


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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:03:20 -0400
From: Benjamin Lange
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Headlight switch knob

Does anyone know how to remove the plastic headlight switch knob on a
1977 F250?
I found that the wiper control knob has a little spring clip to hold it
on but the headlight knob does not. Any information is appreciated.
Thanks.

Ben

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:20:21 -0500
From: Johannes Fluetter
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 302 Head Swap

I was pretty sure you needed a custom intake - one made for the job. In fact, I
think you can get them from Ford Motorsport or Offenhauser.

J.Fluetter

William S Hart wrote:

> >I'm swapping the heads on my 302 with 351w heads. I know it can be done but
> >I need to get it done in a weekend and I need to know a.) What type of
> >rocker arms should I use? (302 or 351w)
>
> Not sure it matters on this, they should be the same, or very similar ...
> take a close look at them and then decide....
>
> b.) What type of pushrods should I
> >use?
>
> 302 style, the 351 is a different size physically so the pushrods should be
> longer for the 351.
>
> c.) What type of head bolts should I use?
>
> New ??? :) Only one size will fit the block, so those are the one's
> you'll have to use...
>
> I know I need 351w
> >valve covers but will my 302 intake fit?
>
> I didn't know you needed 351W valve covers ... are you sure we're talkin
> Windsor here ? I always see the W's listed as the same valve covers for
> all the W motors ... haven't played with many 302's, but never noticed any
> huge differences ... never looked real close at the height either I guess
> ... you MUST use the 302 intake, the 351 intake will be about an inch too
> wide, maybe only 1/2" but definitely too wide!
>
> If anyone has done this please let
> >me know.
> Never actually done this, but been in and around a few 351W's. Only 302
> I've been in was a 5.0 truck motor with FI and everything on it.
>
> Just my 2cents
>
> wish
>
> Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/links.html
> '73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/truck.html
> '96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/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, 07 Jun 1999 09:18:41 -0500
From: Don Yerhot
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:302 Head Swap

Piece of cake swap: Use the rockers that come with the heads, there are
only 2 styles that I know of, stud mounted (Rail type) 68-77, and
bolt-on, 78 and up. The pushrods have to match the rockers, so for
example if you have 69 heads, then you have to use the early 302 style
pushrods. The 302's also use a smaller head bolt, I believe a 7/16,
while the 351 heads are drilled for 1/2 bolts, so you'll have to use a
hardened washer to take up the space. Torque to 302 specs. The valve
covers and intake from your 302 will work just fine. Good Luck!

Don
65 F250-351W
74 F100-351W

Snip
be done but
I need to get it done in a weekend and I need to know a.) What type of
rocker arms should I use? (302 or 351w) b.) What type of pushrods
should I
use? and c.) What type of head bolts should I use? I know I need 351w
valve covers but will my 302 intake fit? If anyone has done this please
let
me know. I do know my way around a 302 but I've never tried this
before.>>

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:23:13 +0800
From: "David and Cherie"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tech page for a C4

Can anyone suggest a Tech page for working on a C4 tranny?????


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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 09:30:48 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Headlight switch knob

>Does anyone know how to remove the plastic headlight switch knob on a
>1977 F250?
>I found that the wiper control knob has a little spring clip to hold it
>on but the headlight knob does not. Any information is appreciated.

If you reach around and feel the switch you should find a little button on
it ... press this button and pull the knob out ... it will come out with a
long triangular shaft on it ... your lights will also come on ... if you
push it back in gently then they should shut off without locking the knob
back in place ... it may take a couple tries to get used to doing this ...
there may also be a pic of it in the delay wiper section of the how to: on
the FTE site ...


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:20:07 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 5.0 engine ?

Want to thank all for the help you have given me on my 74 f350.

You knew this was coming. BUT... I have a few question on another too be
project.

My son is getting his license and we're looking at a 80's mustang 5.0.

Its got the motor missing and polution stuff gone to. It has a standard trans.

the trans. and bell housing look to be one. Will a older 302 (70's) bolt up
to this? Or maybe a v6 from a 86 ltd II. And what kind of inspection
problem would
I have in Texas with the 302 setup.


Thanks

Larry




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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:25:10 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 5.0 engine ?

>My son is getting his license and we're looking at a 80's mustang 5.0.
>Its got the motor missing and polution stuff gone to. It has a standard trans.
>the trans. and bell housing look to be one.

There are lots of 80's mustangs with 5.0's some factory some not, we really
need to nail down what year you're looking at first. There were very few
81 5.0's, mostly because they didn't make them, they made a 255 instead...
the next year was a GT with 2V 5.0 and such ... then add a 4V the next
year, then duals in a year or two ... oh yeah auto's started comin with CFI
in 84 or so ... 85 was a roller block if I remember right with a 4V carb on
the manual and injection on the auto ... then 86 was EFI for all of em ...
etc...etc...

Will a older 302 (70's) bolt up
>to this?

It should ... as will 351's and 289's ... :)

Or maybe a v6 from a 86 ltd II.

Maybe ...have to check bolt patterns ... though a V6 would be a GREAT motor
for one of those cars since they have a good amount of power and are quite
light, makes for a great handling, good accelerating car... it'd be a real
monster in auto-x :)

And what kind of inspection
>problem would
>I have in Texas with the 302 setup.
>
no idea ...
Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 13:15:38 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Braking issues

>I am not familiar with gravity bleeding. What would I need and how do
>you do it? I was imagining a container of brake fluid hung really high
>with a line coming down to a cover clamped on the MC and am now thinking
>that might not be a bad way to do it.
Just open the bleeders, that's all you have to do. The fluid will start
running automatically. It helps if you get the cap off the MC for obvious
reasons :) .. somehow this did not work with my old MC, it did not "leak"
at all. I stored it in a box while it was full of fluid and with the output
ports not plugged. As of today there still is hardly any leakage.
Apparently it works only with some MC's.

Bas.


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

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 14:03:15 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Help! Wont start when hot, also leak from thermostat housing

>I live in Virginia Beach Virginia and proudly own a 79 ford f100 shortbed
with
>rebuilt 302 motor (almost 2 years old) which suddenly developed
>problems with starting when hot.

The solenoid is on the passenger side fender well, correct? Kind of next to
the battery. Perhaps your problem is a bad ground at the fender. This has
caused me a lot of problems. Not with starting but with my voltage
regulator, which is also grounded on the fender. It would blow up at long
trips, say 300+ miles a day, and just boom the voltage to 20 volts or
something. The battery started boiling and sprinkled the whole engine
compartment with acid, no fun. Four regulators later I added a ground wire
from my regulator directly to my alternator. For the last 5000 miles or so
it's been keeping up great, including 1000 miles driven in 2 days. Since I
never had problems when driving around town, I thought maybe you have a
similar problem. Corrosion quite often causes erratic ground problems.

>Replaced starter, solenoid, battery. Cleaned and checked all connections. Any
>other suggestions? Im puzzled by the fact that it starts up fine cold and
runs
>GREAT hot OR cold.

That's good, a bad engine is worse than a bad starter.

>When the engine is hot (by hot I mean regular temp (around 190)) and I try to
>start it, it will do one of the following in random order
>1.)start right up
>2.)turn over for several seconds before starting

I had 2) also with hot starts. After rebuilding the carb last winter it
always started right up, although it seems that when everything gets super
hot and you turn it off, after a minute or so the gas starts boiling in the
carb and then it needs to crank a few turns to get rid of the excess gas.

>3.)make a click sound
>4.)make a click, wait a second then turn over and start.

Can you tell whether the click is just in your dash or also under the hood?
With my '78 bronco it seems that there are two relays. When I disconnect
the lead to the main starter relay (or leave the automatic trans in gear) I
still hear a click under the dash when attempting to start. When I
disconnect the battery I don't hear the click. If you can determine whether
or not the relay on the fender works in case 3 you are closer to the solution.

>One guy told me to check at night for any sparks around the motor especially
>the distributor but there were no sparks. I have not opened up the
distributor
>cap
>to check inside there. Would the distributor act up when hot? would coil.

You can always open the distributor and see if something os black or
burned, but if it really was messed up the engine would simply run bad
altogether. Don't try to start your engine with the cap off though, that's
very unhealthy for the ignition system.

>Is the engine itself bad?

I doubt it. If you advance your timing too much it is tough on the starter
but in any case it should still crank. Maybe with mechanical engine
problems it might "lock up" but that would not be erratic. erratic problems
are usually electrical.

> I thought of a broken wire but wouldn't a broken wire act up when cold?
when >wire cools it would contract and separate. A hot wire would just get
bigger.

Well, that's a thought.. plastic expands as it gets hot and I suppose it
may lead to the broken wire loosing contact. You would be the first person
I know of to have a problem like THAT though :)

>intermittent making it very difficult to diagnose. The oil shows no signs of
>antifreeze in it.

Phew.. otherwise you would have to talk to your rebuilder!

>I thought of some kind of vapor lock is this possible?

Then the engine would still crank, it just wouldn't start.

>Its on there as tight as possible and after the third try the leak is very
slow,
>maybe about 1 drop
>every hour. I used a gasket from the auotparts store that was that prefab
>cardboard
>of some sort as well as some orange high heat silicone.
>One time, after the thermostat slipped between the housing causing major
>leakage, I got a tip and used a string tied onto the thermostat and pulled

Hmm, I replaced my thermostat with no problems. I think I did not even
replace the old gasket. My 351M has the thermostat in horizontal position
so that makes installation a lot easier. A friend of mine also has the 302
and he altually cracked the housing because the thermostat was inbetween
it. Hahah, I couldn't believe it, he kept tightening it because it leaked
and when he took it back of you could really see an imprint of the
thermostat in the housing. If you have to use THAT much force to get
something to seal it should ring a bell. I usually use a gasket AND the
silicone stuff. Make sure you put it around the bolts as well. Works for me..



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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 10:04:21 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Wheel bearings :-(

>I had to say this, just because me and wheelbearings don't coexist peacefully
>anymore in my '78.... Either I'm the worst wheel bearing grease packer in the

Ahh, one of them went on my '78 bronco too. I bought the vehicle last
summer and the front end had been working quite peacefully. Then I had some
dirt in my bead because of 4wd activities so I took it to a gas station to
have it fixed. The monkey who did it jammed the wheel on there without too
much care and pushed one of the studs inside! And that on a thursday night.
He said the mechanic could fix it the next morning so I took a taxi home.
When I came back the next morning the mechanic said he could fix it - for
$70!! No freaking way are they going to make money on me like that. I had
it towed to another shop and had THEM fix it, and repack the bearing at the
same time. It turned out that my hub was indeed worn out, which is why the
stud could be pushed inside. Funny though this never happened to me...

Then next weekend I repacked the other side myself. A month later the truck
started vibrating worse and worse, and whenever I put it in 4wd the left
front started squealing and grinding, probably the u-joints. Also I had
brake problems. Vibrations are hard to diagnose, and the same goes for the
brake system, so I took it to a 4wd shop friends of mine had good
experiences with. He (Chuck) found out my rotors were warped (still not
sure how that happened), and the bearings that the shop did earlier were
just about to break down on me. My side was fine. Further investigation
learned that they had grease in them and were not over-torqued, but water
had come into the bearings, so whether or not the guy at the shop was at
fault, I don't know. He may have used cheap grease. I know he did replace
the seal. The u-joints in the axle were indeed the source of the squeal,
they were ejecting rust and all the bearings were gone!

It definately paid off to listen to my vehicle, if any of these had
actually failed they for sure would have left me stuck some place..



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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:43:20 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??

Looks like they want to hang another smog device off of California vehicles
vs. crushing them...hard to tell with the legalese.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: James Oxley
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 6:12 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??


>Can anyone explain this to me?
>
> OX
>
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1056_bill_19990528_a
mended_sen.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, 7 Jun 1999 10:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ca. Mandatory car crushing??

Ox asks:

> Can anyone explain this to me?
>
> OX
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1056_bill_19990528_amended_sen.html

I'll shoot, but, I'm shooting from memory, so I may have some
details wrong. Amongst the gobbledegook, the state legislature
is trying to please a) The Feds b) The people, in the order of
whomever is screaming loudest, or withholding the most money.

A few years back, the state tried to institute a new smog
check program, over the threat of the feds withholding highway
funding if we didn't. The feds were whining that is was just
too easy for anyone to get around the bi-annual smog checks.
There was a $200 limit on the repairs, beyond that a waiver
was granted, or, if you knew that right person, you could
just buy a smog certificate. The new program was to close
down the existing network of inspection stations (generally,
service stations and/or repair shops), and replace them with
'Official State Smog Stations'. These stations would do full
dyno tests, and COULD NOT do any repairs. Here in Sonoma
county, that would mean replacing several hundred smog inspection
sites with TWO! Along with this, non-compliant cars would be
labled as gross pollutors, and could be seized and crushed.

Well, the people were pissed. And, the laws were revised :-).
Among the changes were: Existing stations remained open,
certificates are now electronically transmitted so that you
can't buy one at the flea market. Repair limits were increased
to $600-$700, I believe you can only get one waiver (you have
two years to fix or get a new car). 1973 and earlier cars are
now exempt :-)! You can still have your car labled as a gross
polluter, but most shops abort the test before it gets this
far, unless you managed to pick a shop having a bad day :-(.

The only car crushing that I'm aware of now is being done by
large corporations buying pollution credits. The corp will set
up a 'buy your clunker' process, were they will buy your
licensed gross polluter for $700-$1000. The car is then
crushed, and said company gets to expell a few hundred or so
more pounds of stuff into the air. These buy backs are usually
conducted with a knowledgeble auto enthusiest around to ID
possible rare or desired Ford Trucks (FTE content), which
are purchased and resold somehow.

It looks to me that they are evaluating setting up funding
to repair cars rather than toss them, and perhaps adding
more control systems to pre-EFI cars? The state realizes
they are spending X dollarsto reduce emmisions by Y pounds,
can the money be better spent by repairing the 'gross polluters',
which typically belong to the people who can least afford to
buy a new car, or even repair their existing cars?

BTW, starting in 2003, all autos/trucks 30 years and older will
be exempt from smog inspections.
- --
Pat Brown
Back from Cabo San Lucas, were the Tequela reserves are just fine :-)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 12:45:44 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

John Lord wrote:
>
> I recommend propane, propane, propane.
\

Just what all is involved in a propane conversion and what is the
approximate total cost?
Jason
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

> I have a '68 F100 longbed with a '70 390. A T-18 gives me about 17mpg on
> average, not bad for a truck this size, but still pretty awful
> pollution-wise. I'm considering moving to a less ozone-depleting fuel,
> possibly CNG. Not this year, mind you, but sometime, possibly...
>
> I had also given some thought to electric, but with a truck this heavy I'd
> reach diminishing returns with number of batteries vs. weight pretty early,
> probably less than 80 miles per charge. Not worth the trouble.

A co-worker recently drove his 93 Ranger conversion in for the
first time, with a mini truck and 32 optima batteries (series/
parallel, 192 volts!), he's _hoping_ for a range of 80 miles.
Realistically, he figures 60 miles with aged batteries.

He did a beautiful conversion, you can check out some photos
at:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/4936/070.html
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 13:54:17 -0500
From: Johannes Fluetter
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 302 Head Swap

Oops, I've got my motors swapped around - if you put Cleveland heads on a Windsor
block, then you need the intake - Links is absolutely right.

John F.

Johannes Fluetter wrote:

> I was pretty sure you needed a custom intake - one made for the job. In fact, I
> think you can get them from Ford Motorsport or Offenhauser.
>
> J.Fluetter
>
> William S Hart wrote:
>
> > >I'm swapping the heads on my 302 with 351w heads. I know it can be done but
> > >I need to get it done in a weekend and I need to know a.) What type of
> > >rocker arms should I use? (302 or 351w)
> >
> > Not sure it matters on this, they should be the same, or very similar ...
> > take a close look at them and then decide....
> >
> > b.) What type of pushrods should I
> > >use?
> >
> > 302 style, the 351 is a different size physically so the pushrods should be
> > longer for the 351.
> >
> > c.) What type of head bolts should I use?
> >
> > New ??? :) Only one size will fit the block, so those are the one's
> > you'll have to use...
> >
> > I know I need 351w
> > >valve covers but will my 302 intake fit?
> >
> > I didn't know you needed 351W valve covers ... are you sure we're talkin
> > Windsor here ? I always see the W's listed as the same valve covers for
> > all the W motors ... haven't played with many 302's, but never noticed any
> > huge differences ... never looked real close at the height either I guess
> > ... you MUST use the 302 intake, the 351 intake will be about an inch too
> > wide, maybe only 1/2" but definitely too wide!
> >
> > If anyone has done this please let
> > >me know.
> > Never actually done this, but been in and around a few 351W's. Only 302
> > I've been in was a 5.0 truck motor with FI and everything on it.
> >
> > Just my 2cents
> >
> > wish
> >
> > Links http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/links.html
> > '73 1/2 ton 4x4 Ford http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/truck.html
> > '96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/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



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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:56:29 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

As an admirer of fine workmanship and imagination I'm impressed. As a
certified gearhead and fan of internal combustion engines...well my mama
always told me if you can't say anything nice...

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Pat Brown
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?


>A co-worker recently drove his 93 Ranger conversion in for the
>first time, with a mini truck and 32 optima batteries (series/
>parallel, 192 volts!), he's _hoping_ for a range of 80 miles.
>Realistically, he figures 60 miles with aged batteries.



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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:20:45 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - timing

Bas van der Veer wrote what I have put in quotes:



"I am using a connection which comes straight off the passenger side of the
carburator. If I hold my finger over it, I only feel a vacuum when I punch
the gas. "

This is referred to as ported vacuum. It is supposed to provide access to
manifold vacuum after the throttle butterflys have been opened to the point
that the port is connected to the manifold vacuum. This is to allow the
vacuum advance to come into play after the vehicle is in motion and the
engine has reached an rpm above idle. When the engine is idling then there
is no vacuum advance. As you have probably noticed that when the timing is
advanced at idle the motor rpm increases. More about that later.

"The line was originally routed through some sort of temperature
switch on the "thing" the upper radiator hose connects to. Intake manifold
vacuum was routed there as well. Since there was no vacuum whatsoever
(cold, warm, any rpm) on the other side of the switch I bypassed it. Does
anybody know what this switch is supposed to do? I figured it is something
that reduces emissions at a cold start."

I assume the "thing" is the thermostat housing. The switch you referr to is
indeed a temperature switch. The way it operates is to connect the center
port to either the upper or lower port depending on the coolant temperature.
The upper port should be connected to the ported vacuum connection on the
carberator. The lower port should be connected to manifold vacuum --
probably on a tree at the back of the intake manifold. When the coolant
temp is low the vacuum advance is connected to the ported vacuum (upper
port) and as stated there will be no advance at idle. If the advance has
been set to factory specs then the idle speed will be low. If the coolant
temp goes up above the switches limit (engine warm stop and go traffic, air
conditioner running etc.) then the vacuum advance is connected to the
manifold vacuum. Again if the timing is set to factory this will increase
the idle speed and increase the fan speed more air flow across the radiator
more coolant flow through the engine this should help cool the motor that is
warm and idling. If the motor is at speed then this will have no effect on
the overall performance of the motor because off idle the ported vacuum and
manifold vacuum should be the same.



"I tried using my manifold vacuum but that pulls the ignition to about 30
BTDC right at idle, that can't be right.

Unfortunately I do not have the vacuum diagram for this engine. But frankly
the vacuum advance does not seem to be doing a whole lot. If I look at my
timing while cracking open the gas, it only advances after a second or so.
Does anybody know some backyard mechanic type of tests I can do to find out
more about this?"

What year/engine combination is this? It sounds like the 390 in my 76 and
if so the above discussion covers the entire vacuum circuit. It sounds to
me that your vacuum advance is working properly. You connect it to manifold
and advance goes to 30 (it advances). When connected to the port the
behavior sounds correct. Think about what is happening here ( you can
verify with a vacuum guage connected to manifold vacuum) At idle the
throttle butterflies are closed you have 8 large cylinders sucking against
that restriction and you have the highest vacuum reading you will probably
get from that engine. When you open the butterflies the restriction in the
intake tract is reduced allowing more air flow (this is what you want
because you wanted to increase motor speed right?) At the instant the
butterflies open the engine speed has not increased so therefore the air
flow has not increased. With less restriction the vacuum drops
dramatically. As the engine speed increases if the butterflies are held
constant the vacuum will rise again as the airflow goes up and the open
butterflies (at any position including wot) eventually become a restriction
again and vacuum rises. This vacuum drop is immediate at any increase in
the opening of the throttle butterflies. To test the switch try blowing
through the center port (engine off) and see which port the air comes out
of. To verify operation remove the switch and heat it in a pan of boiling
water and see if the switch changes which port is connected to the center
port.

Sorry for the long post but hope it helps.

Tom H.



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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:20:48 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - C6 Ratios

What are the numerical ratios of the wide ratio gearset available for the
C6?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:19:21 EDT
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's

I recently (yesterday) bought a 79 f-250 4x4 , the body is in pretty good
shape and theres no rust holes in the bed floor, the exterior sides of the
bed however are covered in tiny rust spots, none bigger than a dime and most
smaller than that. They seem to be mild surface rust, none are rusted
through,,, yet. the only other rust on the bed isabove the rear wheel
openings where an inch or less is rusted away. I was planning on finding a
new bed with less rust spots on the sides but since they arent rusted through
i was wondering if that was really necesary. i plan to paint the truck
within the next 3 months and cut out the wheel opening and install
replacement panels if i keep the bed. My question is this. if i strip the
paint and sand the rust spots down, maybe even chemically strip it, will
those spots come back to haunt me after ive spent my money getting the truck
painted?
the door skins are also rusted at the very bottom, should i get new doors or
just new door skins?
one more question, both axles are 8 lug and i was told that they may be dana
60 axles, anyway to tell for sure? thanks for any help you guys can give,

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:36:36 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's

Could be 60's more likely rear 60 and front 44 tho'. Check the #'s on the
tags or the casting #'s on the top of the web by the pumpkin to see for
sure.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 12:27 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's





>one more question, both axles are 8 lug and i was told that they may be
dana
>60 axles, anyway to tell for sure? thanks for any help you guys can give,



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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 15:39:03 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 rust and axle q's

IanBoss69 aol.com wrote:
>
> I recently (yesterday) bought a 79 f-250 4x4 , the body is in pretty good
> shape and theres no rust holes in the bed floor, the exterior sides of the
> bed however are covered in tiny rust spots, none bigger than a dime and most
> smaller than that. They seem to be mild surface rust, none are rusted
> through,,, yet. the only other rust on the bed isabove the rear wheel
> openings where an inch or less is rusted away. I was planning on finding a
> new bed with less rust spots on the sides but since they arent rusted through
> i was wondering if that was really necesary. i plan to paint the truck
> within the next 3 months and cut out the wheel opening and install
> replacement panels if i keep the bed. My question is this. if i strip the
> paint and sand the rust spots down, maybe even chemically strip it, will....


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.