61-79-list-digest Tuesday, February 16 1999 Volume 03 : Number 052



=======================================================================
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:

Re: FTE 61-79 -361/391 FT/FE differences
FTE 61-79 - Phase One - 360FE engine rebuild
Re: FTE 61-79 -361/391 FT/FE differences
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: 66-77 Bronco owners on the List
FTE 61-79 - Re: 78 F-150 Amber Rear Turn Signals
FTE 61-79 - Horn no worky
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions
FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q
Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F-150 Amber Rear Turn Signals
Re: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q
FTE 61-79 - Horn
FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle
FTE 61-79 - Re: Horn
FTE 61-79 - FE Engine ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Engine ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - What is that noise????
Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F-150 Amber Rear Turn Signals
FTE 61-79 - '65 F100 Power Sterring Conversion Results
FTE 61-79 - 400 shorty headers
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Engine ID
FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!, FTDV3 #51
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 shorty headers
Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle
Re: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q
FTE 61-79 - Swap Meet this next weekend..
FTE 61-79 - Ford Motorsports Engine/Performance Catalog
FTE 61-79 - 67 Horn Ground
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford Motorsports Engine/Performance Catalog
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Posting instructions
FTE 61-79 - KB pistons
FTE 61-79 - LOOSING JUICE
Re: FTE 61-79 - LOOSING JUICE
FTE 61-79 - steering col bearings
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!, FTDV3 #51
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:06:36 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -361/391 FT/FE differences

At 01:07 AM 2/15/99 EST, you wrote:
>What were they thinking when they did the 361/391 and a 461???

In 1958 and 1959, Ford produced a 361 FE for cars. Offered as the "Police
Power Option". It was the first FE to use the 4.05 bore like yesterdays
360, 390 and 410 do. (I still say they should have built nothing but
427's, 428's and an occaisonal 410!!)

361FT and 391FT had a little different casting on block and crank in
certain areas but were used for medium and heavier duty truck applications
and perhaps a tow motor or two. As I understand it, they had the same
displacement as 360's an 390's. They are known as FT's not FE's even
though they are as close to being full blooded brothers as engines can be
yet different enough several parts will not interchange. The intakes,
cranks, heads (blah blah)are a little different etc. All of this was done
to help distinguish an FE from an FT *and* to provide a heavier duty motor
to the public. I have only seen one FT (never intentionally looked for
one) and cosmetics are the same, I know internally they are a little
different.

461......you got me!! Never heard of the 385 series Medium truck
engine......anyone else??


There is a whole lot more to the 361/391 story than I described above.
Ford also built a 330MD, 330HD, 359, and a 389 including the 361/391. All
FT's.
From Christ's book, "How To Rebuild Big-Block Ford Engines" page 3

"Both engine families share external dimensions and some parts." blah blah
blah....
"Medium and heavy duty trucks used the FT, which was produced from
1964-1978. There
were also many marine and industrial applications throughout this time,
using both FE and FT engines."
on page 32:
"FT engines use a larger distributor shaft bore...." blah blah blah
Two other notables things to mention about the FT blocks, they were: page32
".....cast of high grade alloy iron with magnesium, silicon and other
additives to improve durability."
Also, (page 33) the number 105 (cast in a mirror like image) can be found
where 352 normally would be found on an FE block.
HD block have additional main-bearing support and thicker main bearing webs.

I could go and state all the differences but hate to waste the band width.
Think long and hard before buying one for street duty or using parts to
interchange. Some items like the crank from an FT can be used in an FE as
long as the crank has been modified. I would buy Christ's book mentioned
above, it is a priceless tool for FE / FT engines.

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:26:22 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Phase One - 360FE engine rebuild

Okay ladies and gents, "Today" is the big day. I am taking my engine to
Nashville to meet up with list memeber Jim E. and then to the engine
builder he recommeneded. From what I can gather, We have found a quality
guy in Tennessee to do
engine/machine work. Should have the short block and heads back by March
15th. Later on tonight I will give a specific run down of what is
happening with the engine. May the machinest gods smile upon my block this
month.

I mentioned in a post to CJ about Dove aluminum FE heads that I would post
his address.
I was wrong about the stroked aluminum 575 cid FE sohc motor.....it's not
40,000 ollars but rather $41,250.00.
Sorry!

Dove Manufacturing
P.O. Box 1003
27100 Royalton Road
Columbia Station, OHIO 44028
tele: 216.236.5139
fax: 216.236.3582 The area code might be 330, they may have changed it
since this catalog came out a few years ago.

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:25:53 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -361/391 FT/FE differences

In a message dated 2/15/99 7:16:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, varners usit.net
writes:

> Some items like the crank from an FT can be used in an FE as
> long as the crank has been modified. I would buy Christ's book mentioned
> above, it is a priceless tool for FE / FT engines.
>
I would also recommend this book to any FE/FT enthusiast. It helped me
through my last rebuild on an FT 391 in my F-900. It has every stage of the
rebuild described in exquisite detail. Pointers, tolerances and
identification of parts, etc. Well worth every penny.

~~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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:53:32 -0500
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: 66-77 Bronco owners on the List

Jacques: when you say exterior trim, are you talking about the aluminum
trim that goes along the side and the back of the tail gate?

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Jacques and Barbara DeKalb [SMTP:jakenbarb bendcable.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 13, 2015 2:44 PM
> To:Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> Subject:FTE 61-79 - Re: 66-77 Bronco owners on the List
>
> I had my fling with the older Broncos and the only "goody" I have left is
> a
> full set of the exterior trim for the top. I don't need them, if anyone
> is
> interested.
> Jacques
> Bend, Ore: Where Ford crew cabs are exempt from inspection!
>
>
>
> == 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, 15 Feb 1999 09:12:17 -0500
From: William King
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 78 F-150 Amber Rear Turn Signals

John,
I vote for option B.
I put a pair of little Saab blinker lights on my front fenders
(behind the front wheels. They flash w/ the blinker and let people
know I'm going to sideswipe them). I tapped into the directional
wire in the engine compartment. You could tap into yours, then run
a wire along the frame (attached to wiring harness w/ cable ties)
back to your backup (*ahem* amber directionals now) lights.

>Just something I'm thinking of. Put the back up lights underneath rear
>bumper, using cheap auxiliary lights. Put amber bulb in the back up light
>assembly, with obvious wiring changes. BUT, this would mean brake & turn
>signals would flash amber. HOWEVER, J.C.Whitney sell a "module" for
>approx. $3.95 to use with 3d brake lights. It "filters" the turn signal
>so your 3d brake light does not FLASH with turn signals on cars WITHOUT
>separate rear turn signals. What I need is the opposite....filter the
>BRAKE light out. Anyone know if this or similar modules works if
>reversed? Option B, of course, is to lay a separate cable from front.
>Wonder where I would have to tap in and cut wires? Idea is a more
>modern, but "factory" look. . Comments? One module or two? Or ??

>John in Indianapolis

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:13:42 -0600
From: John Strauss
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Horn no worky

>When I got my '67 F100, there was an extra button mounted that was used for
>the horn. I'm trying to get the regular button on the steering wheel to
>work. I pulled the steering wheel and found when I grounded the horn brush
>(little copper pellet looking thing that had a spring attached and fit down
>into a shaft) that the horn would blow. Apparently the problem is right in
>the steering wheel area. I haven't yet been able to figure out how pushing
>the horn button on the steering wheel is supposed to ground that horn brush.
>This is kind of complicated to write about but I hope someone can understand
>what I'm saying and have an idea.
>
I am going to assume you have a factory steering wheel here. When you
remove the horn bar, there should be a little button sticking out of the
steering wheel. If so, touch that to ground and see if it honks. If not,
you will need to get one. If it is there but no honk, remove the steering
wheel again and turn it over. There is a metal ring on the back that is
held on by three screws. This is what the button on the column touches to
transfer the line to the steering wheel. If the ring is not there, you
will need to get one from the junkyard.

You are most likely missing either the ring or the steering wheel button or
both. If it is an aftermarket wheel, then all bets are off.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:30:48 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions

> In the case of valve recession, with an adjustable valve train like the
>FE's your ok, With other engines like the 351w the hights are critical,
>the lifters can only take up so much before the bottom out and the valve
>stays open. (or with new seats, top out and give valve train noise.)


Hmmm...I've got a 360 a 390, and a couple 351's (okay the 351's are Dad's,
but one was mine and we did head work on it) ... none of them had
adjustable valve train ... unless you count hydraulic lifters as adjusters ...
I wondered if that was part of what was makin things run kinda goofy when I
got it ...

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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:39:02 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q

I've contacted KB-Silv-o-Lite about the hypereutectic pistons they
offer. They didn't have any for a 390 in their catalog.

I've been told by Zollner Pistons, the company that has done most of the
R&D on piston alloys used by all companies today, that hyperuetectics
are not reccommended for older applications because of a greater
tendency for these engines to detonate due to less sophisticated fuel
and ignition management. They cannot take detonation at all, and a cast
piston would be better for my application.

Bill Hays, a fellow list member was advised by a machinst that they
should be avoided. The machinist dropped a hypereutectic and a cast
pistoon from shoulder height. The hyper shattered into a dozen pieces,
the cast one was only dented slightly. That sounds like brittleness to
me.

Keith Black pistons use a special kind of heat treating that is
suppposed to make them nearly indestructable. They even say that their
Silv-o-Lite (hyperteutectic, not cast) line is not to be used for
towing, but that the K-B (as long as you open up the top ring gap
sufficiently and keep the the compression down) is good for it.

I wish to hear about anything anyone has read or heard on this subject.
I'd been led to believe, by the auto press, that hypers were the only
way to go for street use, that they were stronger, more stable etc.
Sounds like the good old cast is good enough for anything the hypers are
good for unless you have a computer controlled vehicle with FI.

> I bought a set of Keith Black hypereutectic pistons($265) and Crower solid
> steel roller rocker arms($288) for my 460. I have just installed them. If
> they run as good as they look, it will be awesome. I also recommend spending
> the extra $$ for the good rocker arms.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:47:43 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F-150 Amber Rear Turn Signals

>Just something I'm thinking of. Put the back up lights underneath rear
>bumper, using cheap auxiliary lights. Put amber bulb in the back up light
> assembly, with obvious wiring changes. BUT, this would mean brake & turn
>signals would flash amber. HOWEVER, J.C.Whitney sell a "module" for
>approx. $3.95 to use with 3d brake lights. It "filters" the turn signal
>so your 3d brake light does not FLASH with turn signals on cars WITHOUT
>separate rear turn signals. What I need is the opposite....filter the
>BRAKE light out. Anyone know if this or similar modules works if
>reversed?

You wouldn't need to hook it up backwards, you should be able to splice
into the turn signal circuit for the amber portion, then AFTER the splice
put in the module to prevent the regular turn signal from flashing ... same
principle, just different light ... there may be a problem if the flash is
caused by applying voltage to the opposite side and creating a 0
difference, but I would guess this isn't the case you'd have to experiment
to find out for sure ... send me a private email if you'd like more info as
I don't think I can keep this very short ...



ps. thanks for the idea, my backup lights don't work (stupid column broke)
... now I have an idea what to do with them :)


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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:56:07 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q

>I wish to hear about anything anyone has read or heard on this subject.
>I'd been led to believe, by the auto press, that hypers were the only
>way to go for street use, that they were stronger, more stable etc.
>Sounds like the good old cast is good enough for anything the hypers are
>good for unless you have a computer controlled vehicle with FI.
>
Lets start here ... the Modular crowd has the hypereutectic pistons in
their vehicles. When they put on blowers and don't hop up the computer
correctly they get some nasty pings. Most people I think have survived
this, however there are cases where excessive ping will blow the piston
appart...not usually a good thing. I would think if you kept your cam mild
and compression ratios reasonable, you could get the eutectic's to work
just fine for street applications ... if it starts pinging though, back the
timing off and keep the grade of gas up.


>Bill Hays, a fellow list member was advised by a machinst that they
>should be avoided. The machinist dropped a hypereutectic and a cast
>pistoon from shoulder height. The hyper shattered into a dozen pieces,
>the cast one was only dented slightly. That sounds like brittleness to
>me.

It is, I was gonna look up the properties of the eutectic's, but haven't
gotten the old MSE book out ... the brittleness is what causes the piston
to blow apart when its pinging. Kind of ironic that the cast piston didn't
shatter too because they are nearly as brittle compared with forged ...


>Keith Black pistons use a special kind of heat treating that is
>suppposed to make them nearly indestructable. They even say that their
>Silv-o-Lite (hyperteutectic, not cast) line is not to be used for
>towing, but that the K-B (as long as you open up the top ring gap
>sufficiently and keep the the compression down) is good for it.
>
This goes back to the pinging thing ... quite a bit can be accomplished
with heat treating, and maybe those special pistons would be a better
choice for your older motors that are getting a little ping no matter what ...

I'll try and dig up some numbers this week and see what the MSE books have
to say about the subject since I've been wondering this myself.


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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:24:44 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Horn

Hi John,

In my 69, the horn quite working right when the space between the back of the
steering wheel and the horn button got too wide. I think this might have to do
with the column bushings getting worn. If you see you have a pretty large gap
(meaning that the "pellet" is not touching the contact ring on the back of the
wheel) you may look and see if you can "push" the wheel/shaft into the column.
Seems like there was a clamp or something at the bottom of the column where it
came through the fire wall that you could "slide up" and tighten up the slack
in the bushings.....

Hope this helps,

CJ

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:25:00 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle

Hi Jim,

I have a hunch it won't fit. I think in 73 the 1/2 tons switched over to the
3" wide rear springs with a different spacing between the perches also.
However, if you measure and find that the 73's did indeed have the 2-1/4"
springs (I'm pretty sure your 65 does as does my 69), then you might be in
luck. Maybe make a few measurements and let us know you find out...

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:29:02 -0500
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle

BDIJXS aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> I have a hunch it won't fit. I think in 73 the 1/2 tons switched over to the
> 3" wide rear springs with a different spacing between the perches also.

I thought it was late 77 that they switched all that

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:12:45 -0600
From: "Jamey Moss"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Horn

John R. Austin wrote:

> When I got my '67 F100, there was an extra button mounted that was used for
> the horn. I'm trying to get the regular button on the steering wheel to
> work. I pulled the steering wheel and found when I grounded the horn brush
> (little copper pellet looking thing that had a spring attached and fit down
> into a shaft) that the horn would blow. Apparently the problem is right in
> the steering wheel area. I haven't yet been able to figure out how pushing
> the horn button on the steering wheel is supposed to ground that horn brush.
> This is kind of complicated to write about but I hope someone can understand
> what I'm saying and have an idea.


I believe the way the (pre-73) horn is wired is that the horn button is
connected to the horn relay through one wire in the steering column.
When the horn button is pressed, it shorts to ground, completing the
circuit and turning on the relay for the horn. For this to work, the
contact that the horn shorts to when it's pressed must be a good ground.


The usual problem with horn wiring that I've seen is that the shorting
wire at the rag joint where the column meets the steering box under the
hood is loose or broken. With this wire open, the steering shaft is
floating (not grounded), so when the horn is pressed it does not contact
a good ground to complete the circuit and turn on the horn relay. The
outer part of the steering column is grounded because it's bolted to the
firewall, but the horn makes contact to the steering shaft, and that's
what has to be grounded for the horn to work.

Since the wire to your horn is apparently working (when you ground it
the horn works), you should be able to fix your horn by insuring that
the steering shaft is grounded (shorting wire at rag joint with clean
connections). Also be sure that the point that the horn contacts at the
steering wheel is nice and clean, and that the horn can press far enough
to make good contact.

BTW, unless you want people coming out of the house every time you play
around with the wiring and honk the horn, you can disconnect the horn
and wire a test light in it's place that you can see from inside the cab
(or just listen for the relay to click).

Also, if you don't already have it, you can buy a complete wiring
diagram for your 67 F100 for $6 at the FTE website (Thanks Ken!). Check
out
http://www.motorhaven.com/?product=WiringDiagramManuals&cart_id=6910510_26583
FWIW, although the wiring manuals only go up to 67, I stripped down a
72 F100 and so far everything I've checked on it matches the 67 wiring
manual too.


Good luck and email me if you have any questions,

Jamey Moss
ra4001 email.sps.mot.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.prismnet.com/~jamey/f100


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:07:19 PST
From: "b hp"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE Engine ID

I am still trying to figure out the size of my mystery engine. It
originally came out of a Canadian built 1964 Meteor. It is an FE block,
(bigblock?) the intake manifold extends under the valve covers. It looks
like the engines pictured on this page:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/fe.html
(minus the shiny bits)(the oil filter points towards the ground and it
has a built in coolant reservoir) It does not have an engine ID tag but
the door VIN tag gives an engine code of GE. The transmission is a stock
three speed and it has a 8.8 or 9 rear end.

I am trying to figure out the economics of rebuilding this engine and
upgrading my truck's powerplant. Although I have been advised to think a
351.

Apart from pumping a cylinder to find out the cubes anyone got a clue as
to what size it could be?


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


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:10:31 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle

luxjo thecore.com wrote:

> BDIJXS aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > I have a hunch it won't fit. I think in 73 the 1/2 tons switched over to the
> > 3" wide rear springs with a different spacing between the perches also.
>
> I thought it was late 77 that they switched all that
>
> OX

The 1/2 tons switched earlier than the 3/4 tons. Anyway we are only talking
about moving the spring perches in a couple of inches. One thing you might want
to check if you pick up a 73-79 is the wheel flange to flange distance. The new
axle might be a little wider.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net

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


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:22:07 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Engine ID

>originally came out of a Canadian built 1964 Meteor. It is an FE block,
>(bigblock?) the intake manifold extends under the valve covers. It looks
>the door VIN tag gives an engine code of GE. The transmission is a stock
>Apart from pumping a cylinder to find out the cubes anyone got a clue as
>to what size it could be?
>
I would guess its a 390, but to check this you could remove one of the
spark plugs, probably #1 and put the cylinder at TDC, then mark a dowell,
rotate the motor 180 degrees and mark the dowel again, the distance will
obviously be the stroke, that should narrow it down to a couple of engines,
which one will probably be apparent if you think its a stock motor.

The other option is to find someone who has the engine codes for 64 and see
what the GE code was, can't help you with this part, though the old motor
manuals might list this. ...


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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:24:19 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - What is that noise????

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


Does it change when you depress the clutch ? Could possibly be your throw
out bearing going out, this should change when the clutch is depressed,
when they start to go it only makes noise when the clutch is changing from
engaged to disengaged, but if it got bad enough it could be doing it all
the time...


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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:55:59 -0800
From: MC
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F-150 Amber Rear Turn Signals

William S Hart wrote:

> ps. thanks for the idea, my backup lights don't work (stupid column broke)
> ... now I have an idea what to do with them :)

I'm going to toss in my 2 pennies here. If I were you, I would leave the turn
signals the way they are. When I bought my '70 there was some funky wiring with
the turn signals. The original had been removed and a generic unit was in it's
place. Neither one worked. The generic one was set up to have the brakes and
turn signals as 2 separate lights, so I did what you guys are talking about and
replaced the back up bulbs with some amber ones. It works, but it just isn't
right. The back up light is just too small to work as a turn signal IMHO. On the
other hand, a lot of people wouldn't see it even if the turn signals were a
flood lights. When I find the time, I am going to replace the turn signal switch
and put the back up lights back the way they came and then I will go to a junk
yard and pull the headlights out of an old RX-7 or something similar with pop up
headlights and mount them upside down under the rear bumper. That should provide
me with plenty of light back there, and they will be out of sight unless I am
using them. Put them on a separate switch and away I go! Just imagine, a Ford
truck with high beam capable reverse lights! =)



- --
Matt Cozad
1994 Toyota 4Runner 4x4 "Yoda"
1970 F100 4x4 "Jabba the Truck"
1969 F100 4x4 "Spare Parts"


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:54:32 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '65 F100 Power Sterring Conversion Results

This weekend we started on the PS swap.
I learned alot and think this could be a very easy thing if I ever did it
again.
Anyone planning this swap can e-mail me for particulars.
I'll work on getting something for the tech article section soon.
-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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:34:15 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400 shorty headers

To whoever asked whether the 400 headers from FPA will be CARB approved the
answer is:

No these headers won't be carb approved. We see no need for that.

Stan Johnson
F.P.A.



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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:19:14 -0800 (PST)
From: JP Morgon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Engine ID

Did you look for the engine ID tag that should be on the coil bolt, my
302's however was on a carb stud it should tell what it is. The first
2 #'s on top are the size.


JT Kelly
Kelly Motorsports
Lakewood CO




==

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:54:30 GMT
From: cdailey newsguy.com (Chad Dailey)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!, FTDV3 #51

Dunno about the 461, never heard of one. Is it from the MEL family?
Are you possibly referring to the SuperDuty 401 family?

The 330/359/361/389/391 FT family were intended for truck use only.
They typically have reinforced blocks, forged steel crankshafts,
looser bottom end tolerances, and small port heads with larger
combustion chambers. The valve sizes are smaller than the FE family
as well. These engines are well suited to low RPM usage.

Chad

>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:07:10 EST
>From: Clemstang1 aol.com
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!, FTDV3 #49
>
>What were they thinking when they did the 361/391 and a 461???

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:00:18 -0500
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 shorty headers

Bill Beyer wrote:
>
> To whoever asked whether the 400 headers from FPA will be CARB approved the
> answer is:
>
> No these headers won't be carb approved. We see no need for that.
>

Guess after next year they won't be selling any in NJ, or many other NE
states. Don't imagine they will sell in Ca. either.

Thanks for the reply

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:37:04 -0500
From: "Phil"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 65 Ford rear axle

>The 1/2 tons switched earlier than the 3/4 tons. Anyway we are only
talking
>about moving the spring perches in a couple of inches. One thing you might
want
>to check if you pick up a 73-79 is the wheel flange to flange distance.
The new
>axle might be a little wider.


I believe the 73's and up are 1/2 inch wider, perches are farther apart and
the F100's used the 2 1/4" springs and the F150's used 3'' springs.

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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:18:56 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q

William L. Ballinger wrote:
>
> I've contacted KB-Silv-o-Lite about the hypereutectic pistons they
> offer. They didn't have any for a 390 in their catalog.
>
> I've been told by Zollner Pistons, the company that has done most of the
> R&D on piston alloys used by all companies today, that hyperuetectics
> are not reccommended for older applications because of a greater
> tendency for these engines to detonate due to less sophisticated fuel
> and ignition management. They cannot take detonation at all, and a cast
> piston would be better for my application.
>
> Bill Hays, a fellow list member was advised by a machinst that they
> should be avoided. The machinist dropped a hypereutectic and a cast
> pistoon from shoulder height. The hyper shattered into a dozen pieces,
> the cast one was only dented slightly. That sounds like brittleness to
> me.
>
> Keith Black pistons use a special kind of heat treating that is
> suppposed to make them nearly indestructable. They even say that their
> Silv-o-Lite (hyperteutectic, not cast) line is not to be used for
> towing, but that the K-B (as long as you open up the top ring gap
> sufficiently and keep the the compression down) is good for it.
>
> I wish to hear about anything anyone has read or heard on this subject.
> I'd been led to believe, by the auto press, that hypers were the only
> way to go for street use, that they were stronger, more stable etc.
> Sounds like the good old cast is good enough for anything the hypers are
> good for unless you have a computer controlled vehicle with FI.
>
> > I bought a set of Keith Black hypereutectic pistons($265) and Crower solid
> > steel roller rocker arms($288) for my 460. I have just installed them. If
> > they run as good as they look, it will be awesome. I also recommend spending
> > the extra $$ for the good rocker arms.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

I own a 94 Lightning 351W with GT40 heads and intakes, and hypereutectic
pistons. The seem to hold just fine and have been told that mild
detonation won't kill them but they will not take alot of detonation and
also have been said to be good to 750+ horsepower. Alot of the Lightning
guys are running superchargers (450hp or so) some have more and I
haven't heard of any problems!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
NLOC#238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:25:45 -0800
From: Mike Pacheco
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Swap Meet this next weekend..

There is a swap meet in Washington this next weekend, Its at the Puyallup
Fairgrounds. There is suppose to be 600 vendors there.... time to shop......hope it
quits raining..

Mike in Burien

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:54:08 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ford Motorsports Engine/Performance Catalog

Does anyone have a new Ford Motorsports catalog that may want to share a
few part numbers from?
The one (catalog) I just ordered will be 6-8 weeks and I need valve
springs pronto in 2 weeks or less.

Thanks,

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


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:07:35 -0800
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 67 Horn Ground

Hi,
I had the exact same thing on my 66 horn when I first got it. After a trip
to my local Ford dealer and a trip thru the parts books, he couldn't sort
it out for me. On inspection, I noticed that there was a small hole in the
steering wheel that led to horn ring. I cut nail (about an 8 Penny) using
the head to fit into the small counterbore and placed it the wheel. I next
ground the shank until it was the exact length. Put the monster together
and it has worked since. Granted that it wasn't original and a brass post
would conduct better; but it still works. I have another wheel that I'm
going to rebuild soon and I'll see what is supposed to be there- keep in
touch.
Tim 66 F100
352 with 3 speed and OD
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:03:18 -0600
From: "CharlesT"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford Motorsports Engine/Performance Catalog

I have a 98 catalog Stu. What's your phone number??

Ford Buddies Rule!!!!!!!!!!
79 F150 4x4
Charles Tyer
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stu Varner
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 6:05 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ford Motorsports Engine/Performance Catalog


>Does anyone have a new Ford Motorsports catalog that may want to share a
>few part numbers from?
>The one (catalog) I just ordered will be 6-8 weeks and I need valve
>springs pronto in 2 weeks or less.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Stu
>Nuke GM!
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu
>
>
>== 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, 15 Feb 1999 21:47:35 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Posting instructions

List postings to either my admin or list owner addresses
has gotten out of control. Please take the time to read
the instructions (you'll find a link to them at the bottom
of *****every***** post!) as I don't get any please dealing
with emails in my inbox that don't belong there. If you
post to my box, I'll ignore it.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:00:20 -0800
From: "J.S.H."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - KB pistons

Try http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.kb-silvolite.com/ lots of info
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:25:22 -0500
From: Shawn Flaugher
Subject: FTE 61-79 - LOOSING JUICE

I hope once again, you guys can offer some help!
Somehow, I'm loosing juice (electric) in my '71 F100 302.
So far, I've replaced - (in this order)
the:
Coil, Volt. Reg., Batt, Solenoid, Alternator.
The distributor is 1 month old, and the starter is 3 months old.
I tested the neg. ground from the Batt., and I tested good however
I'll replace that and get another solenoid tomorrow. (I know how
sometimes
solenoids are just bad from the start)(no pun intended).
On a side note, I get a pretty strong shock as I exit the vehicle on
occasion.
I know sometimes it's common, but something tells me I've got an open
circuit
somewhere.
If anyone knows of a well known culprit in this sort of problem, please
let me know!
Thanks,
Shawn

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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:56:58 -0600
From: ken f allen
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - LOOSING JUICE

got a guestion anybody got any advise i'm replaceing my 300 with a 302
and the 302 has a power steering pump should i add a power steering box
or rip of the pump.
thanks
the bean

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:10:06 -0500
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - steering col bearings

Hey all

A while back somoene rebuilt their steering col with new bearings.
Still have those part number? I have a 78, no tilt, man trans.

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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:42:45 EST
From: Clemstang1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360? What was Ford thinking!, FTDV3 #51

Could be, or I may have just made that one up but I was thinking that I had
seen one in one of my granddads old motor books. I thought it had a steel
crank but it could have just been the 460 that was put in the heavy duty
trucks. Sorry if there was any confusion over this.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:05:07 -0800
From: John Lord
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 (head) questions

You are right i stand corrected, I put a set of adjustable pushrods in a
390 and had that on my mind

William S Hart wrote:
>
> > In the case of valve recession, with an adjustable valve train like the
> >FE's your ok, With other engines like the 351w the hights are critical,
> >the lifters can only take up so much before the bottom out and the valve
> >stays open. (or with new seats, top out and give valve train noise.)
>
> Hmmm...I've got a 360 a 390, and a couple 351's (okay the 351's are Dad's,
> but one was mine and we did head work on it) ... none of them had
> adjustable valve train ... unless you count hydraulic lifters as adjusters ...
> I wondered if that was part of what was makin things run kinda goofy when I
> got it ...
>
> 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:27:05 -0800
From: John Lord
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Hyperteutectics-Q

I built the 351w i have for Propane. Im running at 11.5 to 1 compression
with Keith Black Pistons,It is running on gas right now to break the
engine in. I have Electronic ignition and have hade to change my advance
curves as well as run only the best gas (and then some) and i still have
detonation problems..... Anyways i have reached the 10,000 mile mark and
i have had a head and the pan off of to correct a broken intake bolt
problem and leaky seal. I have seen no visible problems wiht my pistons.

With most hypereutectic pistons you only have half of the skirt to cyl
wall clearance compared to other forged pistons so i figure with less
bashing about it is less likely that the damage will happen.

As a side note i owned a Crysler New Yorker with a 440 and i used
hypereutectic pistons with double the recomended clearance and 10.5 to 1
compression. It sounded like a diesel but the pistons took the abuse for
4 years. I took it apart before i sold it to Knurl the pistons (to make
the new owner happy) and the pistons looked as good as new.
It was also a propane engine.

"William L. Ballinger" wrote:
>
> I've contacted KB-Silv-o-Lite about the hypereutectic pistons they
> offer. They didn't have any for a 390 in their catalog.
>
> I've been told by Zollner Pistons, the company that has done most of the
> R&D on piston alloys used by all companies today, that hyperuetectics....


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.