61-79-list-digest Saturday, February 13 1999 Volume 03 : Number 049



=======================================================================
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 - here
FTE 61-79 - Re: 75 f250 crew cab 4x4
FTE 61-79 - split and 65 F100 brake lights
FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions
FTE 61-79 - Re: Spousal cleaning protection. was - Mark's Web page - Q-tips
FTE 61-79 - First tilt wheel
FTE 61-79 - To split or not to split - that is the question
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions
FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Spousal cleaning protection. was - Mark's Web page - Q-tips
Re: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail
FTE 61-79 - Re: overcarburated / edelbrock 625
FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!
FTE 61-79 - list split
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!
FTE 61-79 - Temp
FTE 61-79 - antimony mindspring.com
FTE 61-79 - 65 brake light. Dont read if you get too much mail and don't have a similar year truck.
RE: FTE 61-79 - Temp
Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp
Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp
Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp
FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp
RE: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp
FTE 61-79 - RE: 65 brake lights
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 65 brake lights
FTE 61-79 - What is that noise????
Re: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail
Re: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 65 brake lights
FTE 61-79 - Dove heads
FTE 61-79 - RE: Edelbrock 625 bogging
Re: FTE 61-79 - Dove heads
Re: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?
FTE 61-79 - No List Cops
FTE 61-79 - Was 3/4 ton rear brake seals/ Thanks!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Was 3/4 ton rear brake seals/ Thanks!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 05:43:39 EST
From: DR11AGON aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - here

Does anyone have a 1973-1979 ford f100 sstandard cab, shortbed for sale, or
>know of where there is one for sale. I am looking for something cheap, i
just
>want a body and frame to transplant a drivetrain into, so at least the front
>suspension should be intact. I am looking for it in 4x2, NOT 4x4.
>Thanx for any help
>Derek
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:07:38 EST
From: FORDTRKNUT aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 75 f250 crew cab 4x4

Most likely the truck is an F-250. I am interested (if your not) in buying
one, if your not going to purchase it. I live in New Jersey and can travel
some to get it. Just let the list know whats up!! Thanks...Wayne
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 06:29:15 -0800
From: Michael Siron
Subject: FTE 61-79 - split and 65 F100 brake lights

I'm one who voted to split the list because I have trouble keeping up =
with my mail. Here are a few more comments that resulted from applying =
a little thought to it. (This is not a second vote, just a thought =
process.) I've been reading the digest for a year or so. Many of the =
posts contain a full thread, as people use the "chain reply" method to =
answer posts, so the messages get longer and longer. That makes the =
digest harder to search for the items that interest me. I don't know =
how you educate people not to do that, but it would help.

I changed yesterday so now I get both the digest and individual posts. =
I'll try it like that for a while to see which works best. So far, I =
think seeing the individual posts is more effective, because it's easier =
to scan the mail list and delete the items I don't have time to read, =
than to scroll through the digest. Also, my mail reader lets me sort =
them in the order I want to see them.

The camaraderie issue is very important, and it would be diminished in a =
narrower list. One of the things I like best about this list is that if =
someone tells me my head is full of used C**vy oil, I don't take =
offense, because I feel like I'm part of a special group and I've =
learned that it's all said in a spirit of friendship and common =
interest. That's something I don't often see in other lists.

So, the nice thing about this is that if my vote doesn't win, I'll still =
be happy. And if my vote does win, and the list splits, and it doesn't =
work out, our hallowed administrator can always recombine them into one =
list again. That wouldn't be a problem, would it? Heh heh.

Now, on to a question I tried to post a couple of days ago. I must have =
done something wrong because I never saw it in the list and never got an =
answer. My problem is that the brake lights on my 65 F100 only work =
when the ignition is on. I assume the wires must be connected wrong =
somewhere, but I've tried tracing the wires and haven't found the =
problem. I ordered a wiring book from the FTE store, but maybe someone =
can guide me in the right direction even before the book arrives. I've =
been piddling with this truck for a year and I'm getting impatient to =
get it to pass inspection and get it back on the road. I guess I've =
been too busy reading to work on it, you think?

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:20:50 -0600
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions

Clare Waterman wrote:
>I am interested in getting my heads reworked- I'd like to hear the
>rundown of what you had done/what price you paid.
>thanks
>Clare M. Waterman-Storer, Ph.D.

In a nutshell, 400 for a complete rework is in the ballpark. I have turned
Stu on to my machinist here, so, in future posts I will let Stu's somewhat
anal-retentive vehicular tendencies form the critique of his work. His
prices for doing this are (approximately)

Simple Valve Job (grind) 2-angle - 70.00, 3-angle 110.00 (prices for both
heads)

The BIG money comes in seats and guides. If you want hardened seats, it is
12.50 per seat plus parts, so about 14.50 to 15.00 per seat. New Bronze
guides will run about 100 - 120 with parts. Sooooooo....

2-angle valve job with new hardened seats and guides = about $410.

Now, on the issue of seats: He finds that FE's are notorious for pounding
the seats to where the valves are recessing into the heads. He does not feel
that hardened seats are necessary (despite the hype, and I agree) in most
engines, however, if your seats are bad anyway, it may be worth the extra
money to go ahead and go to hardened. He will also declare that of all the
engines he works on, Fords are the most difficult for replacing seats.

I have found his pricing to be fair and competitive, with high quality, in
the past.

Jim E.



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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:27:42 -0600
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Spousal cleaning protection. was - Mark's Web page - Q-tips

>Careful--there are specific statutes which vary from state to state
designed
>to protect annoyed spouses when household facilities are to used for parts
>washing....a "bathtub full of solvent" (aside from the obvious hazards) has
>been known to cause divorce in some cases.

Ahem. I speak from experience that using the dishwasher as a parts washer is
not usually looked upon with high favor. This is just one more reason I have
chosen to remain without the legal restriction of wedlock.

Jim E.





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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:30:47 -0600
From: "J Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - First tilt wheel

Can anyone tell me when tilt wheel was first offered on F-series?

Jim E.



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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:52:12 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - To split or not to split - that is the question

John LaG. writes: >>Leave FTE 61-79 List alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do believe John wants to leave the list as is....

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:10:31 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions

>Now, on the issue of seats: He finds that FE's are notorious for pounding
>the seats to where the valves are recessing into the heads.

BTDT ... still wondering how I didn't bend any pushrods...


He does not feel
>that hardened seats are necessary (despite the hype, and I agree) in most
>engines, however, if your seats are bad anyway, it may be worth the extra
>money to go ahead and go to hardened.

This is probably true 90% of the time. The only people who will see
problems will be those who regularly run hard, things like towing and
racing. Those (like me) who are just commuters and occasionally drop the
hammer a little bit, probably won't see the need for the hardened seats.
Personally I like the peace of mind knowing that if I do end up hauling
something, as long as I keep an eye on that heat gauge the thing isn't
going to bang its heads to death.



He will also declare that of all the
>engines he works on, Fords are the most difficult for replacing seats.
>
Interesting ... since the heads all look the same from the bottom, do they
just put them in differently ??


Just my 2cents

wish

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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:12:14 -0600
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail

To all you folks griping about too much mail, it would seem to me the
OBVIOUS answer is to get into digest mode. I usually get only one digest a
day (today two because of all the grousing about the list split) and I
cannot see how that is too much mail. It takes me all of about 10 minutes
to go thru it. A great way to start the day!

I say NO to the list split.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:03:29 -0800
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Spousal cleaning protection. was - Mark's Web page - Q-tips

J Elliott wrote:

> Ahem. I speak from experience that using the dishwasher as a parts washer is
> not usually looked upon with high favor.

But what about using the clothes washer to clean shop rags. It sure
leaves a "ring around the collar" (not to mention the laundry tub).

Tim Bowman
71 F100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 07:06:54 -0800
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail

John Strauss wrote:
>
> To all you folks griping about too much mail, it would seem to me the
> OBVIOUS answer is to get into digest mode.

John:

I'm not certain that it's OBVIOUS to use digest mode. I used to do
that, but I filter my mail and can read it MUCH faster than in digest
mode. It's also easier to file materials I want to save.

Tim Bowman
Burien, WA
71 F100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:02:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: overcarburated / edelbrock 625

An Edelbrock 625 should be fine on a 377 cu in motor. It sounds like
you are too lean, and it is a lean bog. You may have vacuum leaks. Do
a vacuum test. You can make the mixture richer on an edelbrock by
changing the Rods or jets or both. A tuning kit is available from
Edelbrock.

Dan Lee
'53 F100
351C-4V (Carter 750cfm)
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:50:14 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!

I've been wondering why Ford came up with the 360. It was only offered
in trucks so I was thinking there could be a reason they did it. Would
having a shorter stroke than the 390 give it more torque at lower rpm's?
Would the pistons having longer skirts enable them to dissipate heat
better? Not that it's been a major focal point in my quest for knowledge,
but I have pondered on the reasoning Ford did it.
I would also like to request that all the list be merged back into one
list. I wasn't happy with the first split and there have been far too many
that followed. Not to mention, ours is the only list that gets split. I fear
one day they'll be requesting a list for Deacon, Stu, Dennis, Tony, a couple
of Bill's and others that add to the personality of this list. :] I do
agree with Brian that some of our members need to trim their replies! If at
the end of a message there is:

>> == 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

more than one, isn't trimming their reply. Not to be a list cop, just
pointing out an area needing improvement. "]

Later!


Deacon Blues
deconblu ford-trucks.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~deconblu/


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:47:41 -0500
From: j arnold
Subject: FTE 61-79 - list split

I travel back and forth to Texas constantly and usually SWMBO or my son
will down load my mail for me to triage when I get home. This week I left
Tuesday, got home at four this morning and had over 150 messages, all but
one FTE. (Sorry, Ken. I'll try to get mom to download more often when I'm
gone) It only took an hour of my time to go through them, some I only
skimmed, but I looked at all.
Point. If this list is too much trouble then start one that will be run the
way you want it run. I'm more than happy with Ken's system and the
personality that this list has developed because of it. Loads of knowledge
and a real character that is friendly and invites people from college
professors to high school kids to participate. I can't imagine what Ken
invissioned when he started this, but it has become something that I would
hate to see changed or lost, and, for better or worse it revolves around
the 61-79 list. Don't split.

Stoney

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:04:20 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!

> I've been wondering why Ford came up with the 360. It was only offered
>in trucks so I was thinking there could be a reason they did it.

I've always wondered that too, and you prompted me to actually do a little
research (the Red Book was sitting right next to me). The engine lineup
for 67 is listed as (F-series only) : 240, 300, 352
For 68 we get : 240, 300, 360, 390

I cannot claim how accurate this is, but it would appear that they were
looking for something to replace the 352. It just looks like a good
stepping stone to the 390, for those who don't want to go all the way to
the monster (of its day), but would like a V8 ... which might also explain
its rather shallow breathing (2V ...really ....)


Would
>having a shorter stroke than the 390 give it more torque at lower rpm's?

Nope, exactly the opposite, generally speaking (I'm sure there's cams out
there that can change this, but stock for stock ...)

>Would the pistons having longer skirts enable them to dissipate heat
>better?

Probably, but that doesn't have a major effect on efficiencies with as
little area as you're removing ...


Maybe this has something to do with it, maybe there's a lurker on the list
who was there and can tell us ?

:)

Just my 2cents

wish

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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:37:39 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Temp

Someone wrote: >>The fact that you have a 160 deg. thermostat does not dictate
your operating temp.


Say what?????????

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:01:43 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - antimony mindspring.com

>>It gets up to about 205-210 at an idle and down around
180-190 when driving on the open road

When diagnosing a cooling system problem, I ask:

My 352 usually is about 180 all the time, so I think you may be a little hot **if**
the gauge is correct as alluded to earlier.

Make sure your timing is set correctly. Are you off the factor settings trying to
get more performance out of the motor?

Make sure you have the right amount of coolant. Sometimes air pockets can get
trapped in there and cause problems.

Is your fan belt turning the fan as it should at idle?

Try blasting the heater to see if that helps at idle. That will give you a bit more
radiator and may help a bit.
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:06:17 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 65 brake light. Dont read if you get too much mail and don't have a similar year truck.

First, the trimmed orginal post to satisfy list cops :-)
>> the brake lights on my 65 F100 only work when the ignition is on

Same with my 66. Why is that a problem? Do you normally drive your truck with
the ignition off?
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:11:42 -0800
From: "Brandt, Chris"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Temp

The thermostat opens at 160 ish degrees but does not have ultimate
authority of the operating point of the engine. The ability of the radiator
to cool given ambient and operational parameter controls the steady state
operational temperature. The operation temp would be 160 IF the radiator had
an exterme amount of excess capacity or ambient temps are really low. Think
of it this way, if you set the thermostat in your house at 65 and it is 100
outside your house will be warmer than 65, (no A/C). The furnace will not
kick in untill the house temp is cooler than 65. The thermostat really only
affects a cool engine, not a warm one, assuming that there is limited
radiator capacity. You can't fix an overheating engine by altering the
thermostat. You may not notice overheating as quickly, but the thermal
loading will not be changed.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From:am14 daimlerchrysler.com [SMTP:am14 daimlerchrysler.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 12, 1999 10:38 AM
> To:61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:FTE 61-79 - Temp
>
> Someone wrote: >>The fact that you have a 160 deg. thermostat does not
> dictate
> your operating temp.
>
>
> Say what?????????
>
> Azie
> Ardmore, Al.
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:20:14 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp

In a message dated 2/12/99 1:54:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:

> Someone wrote: >>The fact that you have a 160 deg. thermostat does not
> dictate your operating temp.
>
I wrote that.....as I understood the original post the writer seemed to be
suggesting that his engine should be running cooler simply because he put a
160 deg. thermostat in as opposed to the higher temp one that had been in
there.

Actually, quite the contrary can happen. By having a colder thermostat the
engine may not cool as efficiently causing it to actually run at a higher
temperature. Sounds odd I know but that is how I understand it works.

~~Thom B~~
1967 F-250 4wd
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/index.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:32:19 -0500
From: Tony Marino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp

Ok, I was the one who said I put a 160 degree thermostat in my engine to
make it run cooler, and it allow the metering aspects of the huge carb on
my 300-6 not be as fickle during temperature changes outside. I should
also have mentioned that I am running a 400M 3 core radiator on my 6, AND I
have Autometer Sport Comp gauges to monitor the temperature of the engine.
I have a HUGE excess capacity because of this radiator, and it allows me to
run at approx 165 degrees normally. when I had the small (original)
radiator and the 180 deg thermo in, on the expressway tachin' up to 3,200
rpm for any time would start to overheat the engine, that's why I went to
the larger radiator. Then I ran a constant 180. about a month later I put
the 160 in and saw the temp drop to 165. Personally I would trust my
gauges, and my method of testing.. I KNOW I trust the driving difference!
8-) but welcome any opionions to the contrary!

Tony
tony pscico.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/~tony


At 02:20 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 2/12/99 1:54:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:
>
>> Someone wrote: >>The fact that you have a 160 deg. thermostat does not
>> dictate your operating temp.
>>
>I wrote that.....as I understood the original post the writer seemed to be
>suggesting that his engine should be running cooler simply because he put a
>160 deg. thermostat in as opposed to the higher temp one that had been in
>there.
>
>Actually, quite the contrary can happen. By having a colder thermostat the
>engine may not cool as efficiently causing it to actually run at a higher
>temperature. Sounds odd I know but that is how I understand it works.
>
>~~Thom B~~
>1967 F-250 4wd
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/index.htm
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:18:40 -0500 (EST)
From: jdklaers mailhost.magicnet.net (PredFan)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp

This is all very informative. So how do I know if I have the correct
thermostat? I have reasn to suspect that I don't.

John

>In a message dated 2/12/99 1:54:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:
>
>> Someone wrote: >>The fact that you have a 160 deg. thermostat does not
>> dictate your operating temp.
>>
>I wrote that.....as I understood the original post the writer seemed to be
>suggesting that his engine should be running cooler simply because he put a
>160 deg. thermostat in as opposed to the higher temp one that had been in
>there.
>
> Actually, quite the contrary can happen. By having a colder
>thermostat the
>engine may not cool as efficiently causing it to actually run at a higher
>temperature. Sounds odd I know but that is how I understand it works.
>
> ~~Thom B~~
>1967 F-250 4wd
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/index.htm
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:32:25 -0600
From: mudbug ibm.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?

First - I 've been on the list well over a year and have gained alot uf
useful knowledge from it - haven't posted much since my oil pressure
troubles and brake troubles finally went away - thanks to input from the
list.

Second - Are there any other '66-'77 Bronco owners on the list , or
anybody w/ early Bronco parts in there stash of goodies they might wanna
sell ( or have me haul off to help w/ Spring cleanup - hahaha ) ?

My truck is a 1974 w/ a 302 , 3 speed column shift , P/S , manual brakes
w/ mid 70's F250 MC that really stops the truck ) , Factory L/S 9 inch
rearend , and a '76 factory disc brake Dana 44 front axle ( open carrier).

Later -

Geoff



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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:58:00 -0600
From: "Steve Schmeckpeper"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp

I usually stick 'em in a pan of water on the stove with a thermometer and
watch to see when they open up, and if it's open all the way :)
Smeck
- ----- Original Message -----
From: PredFan
To:
Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp


>This is all very informative. So how do I know if I have the correct
>thermostat? I have reasn to suspect that I don't.
>
>John
>
>>In a message dated 2/12/99 1:54:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>>am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:
>>
>>> Someone wrote: >>The fact that you have a 160 deg. thermostat does not
>>> dictate your operating temp.
>>>
>>I wrote that.....as I understood the original post the writer seemed to be
>>suggesting that his engine should be running cooler simply because he put
a
>>160 deg. thermostat in as opposed to the higher temp one that had been in
>>there.
>>
>> Actually, quite the contrary can happen. By having a colder
>>thermostat the
>>engine may not cool as efficiently causing it to actually run at a higher
>>temperature. Sounds odd I know but that is how I understand it works.
>>
>> ~~Thom B~~
>>1967 F-250 4wd
>>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/index.htm
>>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
>== 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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 14:57:54 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?

Yes, I have a 74 Stroppe that i'm converting to front discs. Best place to
look for parts for broncos is in the classified section of www.bronco. com .
I haven't seen any talk on this list for the early broncos but there is a
chat room and list server over at www.bronco. com . There are a lot of
knowledgble people on the list.

Later

John

78 F250 4x4 Supercab 460
74 Stroppe
67GT500



Thanks
John MacNamara

805 577 2536 wk
805 577 2768 fx
805 526 3464 hm
ESN 495-2536
jmacnam nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:mudbug ibm.net [SMTP:mudbug ibm.net]
> Sent:Friday, February 12, 1999 12:32 PM
> To:61-79-list
> Subject:FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?
>
> First - I 've been on the list well over a year and have gained alot uf
> useful knowledge from it - haven't posted much since my oil pressure
> troubles and brake troubles finally went away - thanks to input from the
> list.
>
> Second - Are there any other '66-'77 Bronco owners on the list , or
> anybody w/ early Bronco parts in there stash of goodies they might wanna
> sell ( or have me haul off to help w/ Spring cleanup - hahaha ) ?
>
> My truck is a 1974 w/ a 302 , 3 speed column shift , P/S , manual brakes
> w/ mid 70's F250 MC that really stops the truck ) , Factory L/S 9 inch
> rearend , and a '76 factory disc brake Dana 44 front axle ( open carrier).
>
> Later -
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
> == 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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:38:43 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!

- -snip-
> I would also like to request that all the list be merged back into one
>list.

Ain't gonna happen! If we had one list with all 4000 members, you're
looking at about 200-300 messages on that list per day. On an average
day, 10-20 email addresses go bad and start bouncing email. Multiply
that number by the number of daily emails and this is what I will
be greeted with when I get home:

15 bad addresses * 250 emails = 3,750 daily bounces that I have to
download and process. FTE will fold before I put myself through
that!

>I wasn't happy with the first split and there have been far too many
>that followed. Not to mention, ours is the only list that gets split.

The 61-79 list is not the only list that has been split:

1. 80up was split into 80-96 and 97up
2. small truck list was split off from both the 80-96 and 97up list
3. pre61 list was split into 48-60 and pre-48

>I fear
>one day they'll be requesting a list for Deacon, Stu, Dennis, Tony, a couple
>of Bill's and others that add to the personality of this list. :] I do
>agree with Brian that some of our members need to trim their replies! If at
>the end of a message there is:
>

Growth is inevitable and must be managed. If need be, I'll start
enforcing trimming of replies but I want to avoid that.

Ken

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 15:49:53 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!

>> I've been wondering why Ford came up with the 360. It was only offered
>>in trucks so I was thinking there could be a reason they did it.
>I've always wondered that too, and you prompted me to actually do a little
>research



> Would
>>having a shorter stroke than the 390 give it more torque at lower rpm's?
>
>Nope, exactly the opposite, generally speaking (I'm sure there's cams out
>there that can change this, but stock for stock ...)
>
>>Would the pistons having longer skirts enable them to dissipate heat
>>better?

Here's my Theory:
Don't know about the pistons dissipating heat better but it seems to me
Ford wanted to go to a standard 4.05 bore for all (90% plus anyway)FE's at
the time and the 352 crank (know to us as a 360 crank) was plentiful from
all the 352's that had been built in the previous 7 or so years. Standard
bore size probably meant easier machining at the plant. They could make
the 90 plus percent of FE blocks with a 4.05 instead of some with a 4.00
bore (352) and some with a 4.05 bore(390). There might even be a
perception of less cubes meaning better fuel economy in the 360 over the
390. Even if it has been debated the 390 will give better fuel economy
than a 360. Who knows? I don't wish to debate it, just one gripe of the
360/390 fuel economy argument. Moving on.

>
>Probably, but that doesn't have a major effect on efficiencies with as
>little area as you're removing ...
>
I have no idea what Ford was thinking. They simply should have built all
FE's as 428's or 427's. Maybe a 410 for better fuel economy?? ;^)

How does that sound Deacon?

Stu
Nuke GM!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu
waiting for my OWN list!! hehehehe
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 13:48:26 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!

There are very little mechanical differences between the 65-79 trucks.
I would want to be on a list like that.
perhaps compiling a faq of sorts for the different lists will help cut down
traffic by covering often asked questions.
-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
'65 F100

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Payne
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!


>-snip-
>> I would also like to request that all the list be merged back into one
>>list.
>
>Ain't gonna happen! If we had one list with all 4000 members, you're
>looking at about 200-300 messages on that list per day. On an average
>day, 10-20 email addresses go bad and start bouncing email. Multiply
>that number by the number of daily emails and this is what I will
>be greeted with when I get home:
>
>15 bad addresses * 250 emails = 3,750 daily bounces that I have to
>download and process. FTE will fold before I put myself through
>that!
>
>>I wasn't happy with the first split and there have been far too many
>>that followed. Not to mention, ours is the only list that gets split.
>
>The 61-79 list is not the only list that has been split:
>
>1. 80up was split into 80-96 and 97up
>2. small truck list was split off from both the 80-96 and 97up list
>3. pre61 list was split into 48-60 and pre-48
>
>>I fear
>>one day they'll be requesting a list for Deacon, Stu, Dennis, Tony, a
couple
>>of Bill's and others that add to the personality of this list. :] I do
>>agree with Brian that some of our members need to trim their replies! If
at
>>the end of a message there is:
>>
>
>Growth is inevitable and must be managed. If need be, I'll start
>enforcing trimming of replies but I want to avoid that.
>
>Ken
>
>== 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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:07:50 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Temp

In a message dated 2/12/99 4:07:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
eeschm sol.ee.lsu.edu writes:

> I usually stick 'em in a pan of water on the stove with a thermometer and
> watch to see when they open up, and if it's open all the way :)
> Smeck
Excellent advice. I have seen many times where so called new ones out of the
box didn't work.

~~Thom B~~
1967 F-250 4wd
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/index.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:02:51 -0800
From: Michael Siron
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 65 brake lights

Driving with the ignition off? I've been known to do that, sure. =
Haven't you? I especially remember a certain night in a '36 Do*g* =
sedan, back in the summer of '69, but that's another story.

Actually, I don't have a problem with it, but I think the mechanic might =
when I take the truck for state inspection. They don't normally do the =
inspections with the ignition on. Unless someone can assure me that it =
came from the factory like that, I would like to fix it to avoid the =
inspection / re-inspection process. I know this is a minor problem =
compared to most that I see posted, but it's important to me. Can =
anyone on the list assure me that Ford built it that way, and that it =
will pass inspection in Missouri?

Again on the subject of the split, I mentioned that I'm experimenting =
with using the full-list approach instead of the digest. I have to say =
that it is much better, easier to read and follow. Based on that =
finding, I will unsubscribe from the digest, stick with the full list, =
and change my vote to keep the list intact, so no more hate mail, =
please.

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:17:46 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 65 brake lights

Every vehicle I have driven ('95 % old Fords) have brake lights that only
function when the key is on.
-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
'65 F100

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:15:36 MST
From: "Gear Guru"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - What is that noise????

Well, here we go again, I am hearing a noise that seems to be coming
from my transmission or engine. It is similar to the whistling sound
when you blow over the top of a bullet shell. I hear it in all gears as
well as in neutral while parked. I checked my fluids in the tranny &
engine, they are fine. I have a '79 bronco with a t-18 (i think) 4
speed. Could the noise be the input shaft bearing or the clutch? It is
not constant, and mostly appears under mild acceleration, or while
idling in neutral. Very annoying and loud.
Thanks for any help.

AZ Eric
'79 Bronco custom

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:29:40 -0800
From: Steve & Rockette Leitch
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail

At 08:12 AM 2/12/99 -0600, you wrote:
>To all you folks griping about too much mail, it would seem to me the
>OBVIOUS answer is to get into digest mode.

Not really true, I would prefer a split among the 4X4/4X2 line,
I don't own a 4X4, so the posts about Dana 44 vs Dana 60 front
ends or Dana 20/21 vs NP 201/205 don't intrest me at all. Plus
I couldn't tell the difference anyway. I have enough fun facts
to know and tell rattling around in my brain case that I really
don't need any more.....

Steve & the Rockette
'63 F100, Two Wheel Drive, and happy with it......



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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:29:32 -0800
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - List split - dealing with large amounts of mail

I've withheld my opinions on the list split for some time. But now is
the time for my opinion.

All of life involves some sort of focus. Just having the FTE website
and the list server is a beginning way to bring some focus to our Ford
truck interests. Further focusing the list is very important to me.
While I appreciate those I've "met" on this list and their respective
passions for Ford trucks, I find a need to continually focus my
interest. Therefore, I am in favor of the split. If I want to follow
pre 67, I'll subscribe to that list. My interest at the moment is
67-72, and I desire that coverage. Throwing in 73-79 is okay with me
because of the many similarities. I'm somewhat like Steve and the
Rockette, I would rather split between the 4x2 and 4x4 as my interest
is 4x2. However, then I go to Mark's or Stu's webpage and see these
really nice 4x4's, and I do appreciate those neat 4x4's.

I should mention that I do follow 3 other lists (auto related but not
trucks) that are of interest so I'm receiving in excess of 100
messages a day (via DSL so downloading is not a problem). I find it
much easier to read the individual messages quickly and dispatch them
to the save folder or the great bit bucket in the backyard. I tried
the digest mode and it didn't work for me.

So when do I have time to turn a wrench after reading all of these
emails?

Tim Bowman
Burien, WA
71 F100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:55:49 -0500
From: "Phil"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 65 brake lights

I just went and checked my 66 F100 and the brake lights only work with
ignition switch on. So I would say that was how it is from factory.

Phil Beattie
66 F100 390 C6
66 F100 (no drivetrain)
79 F250 4x4 400

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:23:33 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dove heads

I read an article a while back about Jim Dove and the question of
quality came up. When he first started out, he had a third party
foundry pouring his castings. The quality on their end was a little
spotty. He didn't realize that the casting porosity was a weakness
until he got a few complaints. I think he has his own foundry now with
much better inspection guidelines(at least that was what he said he was
getting up to speed on 3 years ago)and what I've read and heard has been
very good. He has an FE head for about every mutation you want to screw
together. I'd like to have a set of his Hi-Riser heads that have
Medium-Riser size intake ports(they enter the head almost an inch higher
up), and raised and straightened(to absolute perfection)exhausts. Throw
in a cross ram injection set up, oh and while we're at it how about an
iron 500 inch capable block. While I'm dreaming, I'll have a '64
Fairlane 2 dr. sedan made up as a faux-Bolt....

FTE content.... Ford Trucks Rule!

> Jim Dove in Columbia Station Ohio?? Expensive and I have heard awesome
> quality from a few and junk from a few!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:00:59 -0700
From: Drew Beatty
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Edelbrock 625 bogging

Edelbrock carb folks:

It might matter exactly which carb you get, but I have the Edelbrock #1405
manual choke, and the rod and jet kit I got is Edelbrock part #1479. It has
every rod, jet, and spring made for the carb, and it cost me about $50
bucks. You could Billy Bob all day long changing stuff and seeing how it
works. It's beautiful!!

As far as the carb bogging down, is this on an automatic tranny? Is the
kickdown rod hooked up? That could do it. Please excuse me if I missed
something here.

>how 'bout another list for people to complain about the amount of mail
there
>is on this list, that would cut the traffic substantially.
>
>Rick Russell

Now THAT'S funny!!!

Drew Beatty
dcbeatty rmi.net


Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 15:53:41 -0700
From: "Michael Connor"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Edelbrock 625 bogging

>I am going to purchase a carter for my 460 also. Do you still have the
>part number on the spring kit? thanks
>
>Brent

>Hi Brent,

>Edelbrock Part# 1464 is for the set of 4 or 5 metering rod springs.


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:38:05 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Dove heads

I'd like to have a set of his Hi-Riser heads that have
>Medium-Riser size intake ports(they enter the head almost an inch higher
>up), and raised and straightened(to absolute perfection)exhausts. Throw
>in a cross ram injection set up, oh and while we're at it how about an
>iron 500 inch capable block. While I'm dreaming, I'll have a '64
>Fairlane 2 dr. sedan made up as a faux-Bolt....

Stole my dream car!! Dude, that's not cool!!! Sorry, can't come up with
FTE content right at the present.
Sorry.
8^)

Stu
Nuke GM! T-Bolts R us!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu



>FTE content.... Ford Trucks Rule!
>
>> Jim Dove in Columbia Station Ohio?? Expensive and I have heard awesome
>> quality from a few and junk from a few!
>== 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: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:48:20 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?

ok i'm going to ask a stupid question, what is a stroppe?

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:46:55 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Any '66 - '77 Bronco owners on the list ?

i have owned several early broncos, i have a piece of a body, and a piece of a
frame. i have a set of springs for the front, i think they are 3" lift.

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:13:07 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - No List Cops

Very eloquently spoken.

I'd like to add my thoughts here if you don't mind:

If the traffic is a problem simply go to digest mode. I get one
sometimes two digests a day. I get up in the morning, grap a cup of
sweet nectar of the gods and read the early one. If there's an evening
one I read it before I go to bed, and reply to messages in both. After
a couple of days I delete them. I wouldn't care to have 25-30 messages
to delete a day, so the digest mode makes traffic a non-issue to me. It
is a great solution.

I don't need to have the capability to just hit the reply button because
I only want to quote enough of the message to keep the thread going.
It's simple to copy and paste a line or two and then rock-and-roll. If
anyone doesn't know how to do this please let me know and I'll be glad
to help with it.


> No one is here to be a list cop. Those who complain about
> signal-to-noise ratio are creating it themselves. I disagree
> and I agree comments about the same old arguments simply
> clutters the list. Please voice your opinion with your
> vote on the web site.
>
> Ken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 21:47:38 -0800
From: "Steven Salas"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Was 3/4 ton rear brake seals/ Thanks!

Thanks to all who led me to find the mud stuck in my vent tube hose! This
list ROCKS! Steve 69 F250 390 4v
P.S. Pat Brown in Sebastapol, I live in Santa Rosa. Small world eh?



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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:31:06 -0800
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Was 3/4 ton rear brake seals/ Thanks!

Hi Steve,
> P.S. Pat Brown in Sebastapol, I live in Santa Rosa. Small world

Oh Yeah, very! Welcome to the list. Great bunch of people here -
just about anything you need.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California

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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:40:30 -0800
From: John Lord
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions

I rebuild heads as a part time occupation. and here are my opinnions.

> Simple Valve Job (grind) 2-angle - 70.00, 3-angle 110.00 (prices for both
> heads)
>

In regards to the amount of angles to the grind, In a good valve grind
the contact area must be in the right place on the valve as well as the
right thickness. This is accomplished by opening up the base or edge of
the valve seat. And a good rebuilder wouldnt try to charge more for what
is good practice. With hardened seats the lower portion of the seat is
almost always the right size and it is impossible to give a three angle
grind without recessing the valve too much. Although quite often their
is a lip of cast iron below the new seat that should be ground down for
....


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.