61-79-list-digest Friday, February 19 1999 Volume 03 : Number 055



=======================================================================
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 - Power from a 400
FTE 61-79 - FW: Fixed a driveability problem.
FTE 61-79 - FW: RE: What is that noise
Re: FTE 61-79 - Springs
Re: FTE 61-79 - Help id Motor and other parts
FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats
FTE 61-79 - Homepage ?
FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
FTE 61-79 - Lincoln Woes.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Lincoln Woes.
Re: Re: FTE 61-79 - Springs
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
RE: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
FTE 61-79 - alignment bushings for dana 60 front
FTE 61-79 - '62 F-100 Clutch repair
FTE 61-79 - 300 c.i. 6 info wanted, FTDV3 #54
Re: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?
FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats...was: 400 shorty headers
Re: FTE 61-79 - Help id Motor and other parts
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
FTE 61-79 - Header from a mid 70's into a 69
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats...was: 400 shorty headers
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats...was: 400 shorty headers

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:33:39 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power from a 400

Steve wrote


On a recent "junking" trip I was able to purchase a 79 F-150 with a 6.6L
(400cid) mated with a rebuilt C6, and loads of extras I am going to strip
and sell.

When I purchased the truck I didn't look close enough and thought it was a
351, and had a pretty good idea of how I was going to maximize my ponies.

However, I've heard that the 400 is a low compression engine and may have
difficulty getting the power I want (325hp - 350hp).

I am looking for suggestions, before I open it up for machining.

- ----------------------
My reply:
Steve,
Good news. Go to the library and look up some back issues of Hot Rod
magazine. Last summer I believe. They featured an article on a 400M
buildup. The buildup was cheap

You've already stated the basic premise of the build up -- increase the
compression. They also went with a specific cam shaft. I can't remember
the rest of the details but I do know there were not a lot (any) of
exotic/expensive parts. Also as per the hot rodder's mantra "There is no
replacement for DISPLACEMENT!!"

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:36:42 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FW: Fixed a driveability problem.

> Hello all,
> Fixed an annoying problem I've had for a while. My 76 390FE would be real
> cold blooded until I drove it a while. It had a real bog just off idle.
> It was to the point that I had to be really careful who and what I pulled
> out in front of!! After it warmed up no problem. After we moved to Maine
> last November I had to replace the radiator due to a persistant leak (had
> it fixed TWICE finally said NO MORE). The new radiator matched the old
> one and it is HUGE!! Truck still cold blooded but no leaks. Swapped the
> thermostat for a 195 degree and MAN WHAT A DIFFERENCE!! The truck gets
> warm much quicker in about a mile vs 10-12 miles before. ALL bog,
> driveability problems are long gone and I love it. Also the temp guage
> now runs in the mid rage, used to hug the low end of the normal scale. I
> guess the old thermostat was holding no back pressure or opening at a low
> temp. Anyway I'm glad it's better now.
>
> I'm posting this for anyone who can benifit from it.
>
> Tom H.
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:37:23 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FW: RE: What is that noise

> ------------------------------
> AZ Eric wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> MY REPLY:
> WAG: Whistling in you carburetor. Could be a vacuum leak but mine does it
> and I can find no leak. Kind of sounds like I have some sort of forced
> induction. Try listening under the hood while the engine is running and
> see if the sound is coming from the carb area. Try taking the air cleaner
> lid off see if it gets louder. Lastly on a DESERTED road get up to speed,
> clutch it and shut off the motor let the motor stop spinning and see if
> the noise goes away. I've heard some people report this if a passage in
> the carb is partially blocked. Almost impossible to find. Good luck.
> Let us know what you find.
>
> Tom H.
> 76 Supercab (Nicest one in Maine!!)
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:22:40 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Springs

>I have been told the springs will settle some so not to worry. My question
>for you is, how does the stance look from the side. Nice and level all the
>way around?

Oh yeah! Its beautiful ... I can actually see a gap between the fender and
the tire now, not only that, its very close to the gap in the back!


I added Superlift 2 inch front leveling springs and a 4" block
>to the rear instead of the stock 3 inch block. I have nothing on the
>chasis except a bed and cab and won't have an engine and tranny in until
>probably March sometime. I am chomping at the bit to see how her stance
>will be when done. i am aiming for level all the way around!
>BTW- It was very easy installing the springs and blocks without any body
>parts on! :)
>
As long as you have matched all the components closely, and the chassis
isn't bent (I really doubt yours is Stu), then I would guess it should ride
level, or really close to it. I wouldn't worry about it til I got the
engine/tranny and cab on ... then if its not closer to level, I'd start to
wonder a bit. The springs in the front aren't too hard to replace with the
cab and such on, so I wouldn't worry about getting it all together and
having to replace things.


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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:25:44 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Help id Motor and other parts

> One last thing. Does anyone have a listing for the different
>intakes that were made. So far I have a total of 3 different 4v
>intakes. The one in my truck now the one on the 360 and the one on the
>FT. All 3 look similar on the outside but what makes them different?
>
You've got the book by S. Christ, so you can see the same stuff I can
listed in there. One of the things that makes them different is the inside
diameter of the ports. This wouldn't necessarily show up on the outside
since the difference is around 1/4" Another difference might be the way
the EGR is hooked up. The 65 manifold I have, has no provisions for EGR
(duh I suppose), while the 76 I have has the 4 carb holes, plus a hole to
the right for the EGR system. I'm missing the baseplate for this one
though, so I can't really tell you what that should look like.


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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:38:29 -0600
From: "Jamey Moss"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats

Darrell Duggan wrote:

>Anybody ever think about gutting your cats? My dads 88 E-350 was runnin pretty
>poor, we found out that the cats had gotten plugged, so he went nuts
with a
>long bar and beat all the porcelain out of em. Now there are just
empty cases
>in the system. When we go to smog he sees the cats, just doesnt know
they are
>hollow.


I also did this once on a car. It had three catalytic converters
inline, and I punched out the first two smaller ones and replaced the
third with an aftermarket hi-flow cat. The emissions were then at least
as good as stock and it performed quite a bit better (much better than
having clogged cats like it used to, anyway).

BTW, if you do decide to take the emission laws in your own hands and
punch out the ceramic on your Ford truck's catalytic converter, be
careful when you do so. As I understand it, some of the chemicals in
the converter can be dangerous if inhaled, so either wear a respirator
or put it in a large bucket filled with water and break it up under
water to keep the potentially dangerous dust out of your lungs.


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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:11:37 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Homepage ?

Don't know how many of you pay attention to web pages, but if you're bored
sometime and want to see what I'm tinkerin with, check out

www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

Its got info on both my truck and my car, along with a page of links which
you may or may not find helpful. Also I am taking suggestions for other
links to add, if you'd like to see your page there, lemme know.

For those of you who have email systems that prefer links written
differently, try this :

Night and Day

Lemme know what you think, about the truck, the car or the site in general.


Thanks,
wish
73ish F-1?? 4x4 360-->390 http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/truck.html
96 Mustang GT
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/mustang.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:29:07 -0800
From: Al Evitts
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

JT: IMHO the 35lW is the only way to fly. Never saw a 351C that didn't
run hot, no parts are available in comparasion to the Windsor on and
on. The engine has been out of production for over 20 yrs and only the
Austrailian version was really used for serious performance work.
Nascar guys get about all you canuse out of the Winsor and all the Ford
Off Road folks have gone to later versions of the windsor 5.0 or 35l.
Init's day it was a bear let it rest in peace. Your heart and wallet
will appreciate it. FWIW

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:40:15 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

Ummm...you better check your sources. The 351C was THE hot NASCAR engine for
quite awhile. In fact I've heard that current Winston Cup motors are more
closely related to the C than to W.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Al Evitts
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com ;
kellymotorsports3 yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 8:37 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W


>The engine has been out of production for over 20 yrs and only the
>Austrailian version was really used for serious performance work.
>Nascar guys get about all you canuse out of the Winsor and all the Ford
>Off Road folks have gone to later versions of the windsor 5.0 or 35l.
>Init's day it was a bear let it rest in peace. Your heart and wallet
>will appreciate it. FWIW
>



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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:37:16 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?

Just checking to see if anyone here lives near Pullman, Washington....I'm
headed there this weekend for a few days....I'll buy breakfast, but your truck
has to be running! How far is this from the Kennewick men?

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:37:47 -0800
From: "Robert Houlne"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

I would have to say the Windsor is a awesome engine. I had it on my 77'
F-250 4x4 as well as my 1988 F-250 4x4. My 77' had over 230,000 miles on
it.

Too bad they stopeed making all the good engines, the line of motors they
should have in the new trucks should be 300 , 302 , 351W, 460, 7.3 Liter
Diesel.

anyway, my vote is for the Windsor,
cya
Robert Houlne
- -----Original Message-----
From: Al Evitts
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com ;
kellymotorsports3 yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 8:38 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W


>JT: IMHO the 35lW is the only way to fly. Never saw a 351C that didn't
>run hot, no parts are available in comparasion to the Windsor on and
>on. The engine has been out of production for over 20 yrs and only the
>Austrailian version was really used for serious performance work.
>Nascar guys get about all you canuse out of the Winsor and all the Ford
>Off Road folks have gone to later versions of the windsor 5.0 or 35l.
>Init's day it was a bear let it rest in peace. Your heart and wallet
>will appreciate it. FWIW
>
>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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:56:39 -0500
From: "Norm or Tracie Tischer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

JT: IMHO the 35lW is the only way to fly. Never saw a 351C that didn't
run hot, no parts are available in comparasion to the Windsor on and
on. The engine has been out of production for over 20 yrs and only the
Austrailian version was really used for serious performance work.
Nascar guys get about all you canuse out of the Winsor and all the Ford
Off Road folks have gone to later versions of the windsor 5.0 or 35l.
Init's day it was a bear let it rest in peace. Your heart and wallet
will appreciate it. FWIW

I will agree that parts are plentifull for the W. And that the C. has been
out of production for years...And overall the W may be the better choice for
a trk motor!! But I personally know of plenty of real strong Clevlands...I
have a buddy with a 4bbl Clevland in his jeep CJ and I have never seen it
get warm..as per normal use...And it would take one hell of A Windsor to
make the power that his Clevland does! And thats just my honest opinion!
Norm

ntbdra jvlnet.com
Da Horse (&/or Tracie-DaMare) on bigbronco chat
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=231

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:11:07 -0500
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

Ummm...you better check your sources. The 351C was THE hot NASCAR engine
for
quite awhile. In fact I've heard that current Winston Cup motors are
more
closely related to the C than to W.


You can buy the 351W short block similiar to the one that NASCAR
uses(except it doesn't have a 4 bolt main) from SVO for 1695! It is
diffently a windsor....I don't know where you heard that from.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.alternativeauto.com/351w_svo_block.html
check out this link for more info...
Chris(will put his W up againt any C)Kelly
94 Lightning #381
NLOC #238
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:10:57 EST
From: MUDDYFORD aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Lincoln Woes.

I own a 1982 Lincoln Towncar w/fuel injected 302. It had sat for about 3 years
when I bought it. also have '81 Towncar for parts. I drained the old gas from
the tank and line, changed the fuel filter, oil and filter, and spark plugs.
It'll turn over and try to crank, and eventually it'll start and run anywhere
from a few seconds to a minute or two, and die, if you try to pump the
accelerator to keep it runnin' it dies faster like it's floodin' out or
something. It has the fuel injected carbuerator looking thing instead of a
true throttle body. I'm gonna check the ignition system this afternoon,
thought I'd ask the list for any suggestions while I was taking a lunch break.
Somebody had took the carb looking thing (I hope somebody on the list knows
the true name for this thing) apart so all I got was the pieces. Just got the
parts car from a friend about a week ago, and took the carb off of it and put
it on the car. I really need some help on fixing this car w/ minimal cost, due
to the fact that the motor in my 1976 F-250 has a rod knocking and needs a
serious rebuild but due to money it'll haft to wait. And I need a vehicle to
drive back and forth to work when I get my driver's license the end of March.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:23:58 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Lincoln Woes.

>I own a 1982 Lincoln Towncar w/fuel injected 302. It had sat for about 3 years
>when I bought it. also have '81 Towncar for parts. I drained the old gas from
>the tank and line, changed the fuel filter, oil and filter, and spark plugs.
>It'll turn over and try to crank, and eventually it'll start and run anywhere
>from a few seconds to a minute or two, and die, if you try to pump the
>accelerator to keep it runnin' it dies faster like it's floodin' out or
>something. It has the fuel injected carbuerator looking thing instead of a

I think you mean the Variable Venturi carb, I've heard about it but never
seen it (thank someone important). The symptoms you have can be caused by
a weak fuel pump ... there is enough pressure to prime the car, but not
enough to keep it running, definitely not enough to accelerate the engine.
If you have an electric fuel pump, turn the key on and see if you can hear
it whining, the whining should stop after a few seconds when the line is
pressurized, if not, this could be the problem. If you have a mechanical
pump, disconnect the line from the carb, pack a bunch of rags and stuff
around the open line, maybe put the end of the line into a bottle that is
tilted, whatever you can do to contain the gas, but have someone crank the
engine, if you don't get some good spurts of fuel, its probably a weak or
bad pump. This last part is extremely dangerous, don't smoke or anything
while you're doing it. I also wouldn't do it with an electric pump, though
I know guys who have ( I guess those plugs that you can put in the hose fly
a long ways if you do).


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:22:09 EST
From: My427Stang aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: FTE 61-79 - Springs

To Stu and anyone who is doing the coil spring thing. Once you get the whole
truck together, measure from the frame to each wheel, and make sure the axle
is centered. If it isnt, you may have to lengthen or shorten the track rod, OR
raise or lower the mount to center it. As you raise the truck, the axle will
shift toward the driver's side. And with that, it will affect track if not
centered. The difference is handling is significant. I made a lowered mount
for mine (4 inch softride) and it drives as straight and tight as my 97 F150
4x4. The other thinng I did, although not recommended unless you are VERY
confident in welding, I lengthened my pitman arm for quicker steering. My
technique was to cut the arm, add pieces for the length, and I drilled it for
5/16th pins to hold it, before I welded it. The finished result was a strong
piece even before the weld, and after I ground it clean it looked stock, but
made for much quicker steering.

The other player for guys with lift, is to make sure the king pin inclination,
I know no pins, but thats what we call it around here, is correct. You may
have to put the poly C-buching in to get caster correct again. With these
changes, mine drives better than it did stock, and has lasted for a long time
(over 8 years)

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:28:30 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?

About two hours from Kennewick to Pullman , as I recall. A little far to
drive (and two-lane almost all the way) for breakfast. The Tri-Cities
(Kennewick-Richland-Pasco)is always too far from everywhere and hardly
anone "passes through" our town, at least anyone that I know. The funny
thing is that I have never personally met any of the FTE guys from
Kennewick. You'd think we'd at least have a beer (root?) together...

Anyway, have fun in Pullman.


Thanks for your message at 12:37 PM 2/18/99 EST, BDIJXS aol.com. Your
message was:
>Just checking to see if anyone here lives near Pullman, Washington....I'm
>headed there this weekend for a few days....I'll buy breakfast, but your
truck
>has to be running! How far is this from the Kennewick men?
>
>CJ
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:30:35 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

Thanks for your message at 10:29 AM 2/18/99 -0800, Al Evitts. Your message
was:
>JT: IMHO the 35lW is the only way to fly. Never saw a 351C that didn't
>run hot,

I could send you a photo of mine. It doesn't run hot.


Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:34:23 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

>Chris(will put his W up againt any C)Kelly
>
Let's see --WC--Water Closet?


Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:16:25 -0800
From: Eric Sneed
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?

Not to far from Pendleton!
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Dennis Pearson [SMTP:dpearson ctc.edu]
> Sent:Thursday, February 18, 1999 12:29 PM
> To:61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?
>
> About two hours from Kennewick to Pullman , as I recall. A little far
> to
> drive (and two-lane almost all the way) for breakfast. The Tri-Cities
> (Kennewick-Richland-Pasco)is always too far from everywhere and hardly
> anone "passes through" our town, at least anyone that I know. The
> funny
> thing is that I have never personally met any of the FTE guys from
> Kennewick. You'd think we'd at least have a beer (root?) together...
>
> Anyway, have fun in Pullman.
>
>
> Thanks for your message at 12:37 PM 2/18/99 EST, BDIJXS aol.com. Your
> message was:
> >Just checking to see if anyone here lives near Pullman,
> Washington....I'm
> >headed there this weekend for a few days....I'll buy breakfast, but
> your
> truck
> >has to be running! How far is this from the Kennewick men?
> >
> >CJ
> >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
> >
> >
> Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA
>
> 1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
> 1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
> 1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
> I shortened this to only FT's
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:24:24 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

Sorry I should've been more specific. I was referring to head design/flow
patterns. That's where the power is.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Garr&Pam
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, February 18, 1999 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W
>
>
>You can buy the 351W short block similiar to the one that NASCAR
>uses(except it doesn't have a 4 bolt main) from SVO for 1695! It is
>diffently a windsor....I don't know where you heard that from.
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.alternativeauto.com/351w_svo_block.html
>check out this link for more info...
>


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:58:14 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: FTE 61-79 - alignment bushings for dana 60 front

Hey all

I just ordered a new catalog from Specialty products Co. Not sure when
they came out, but they now have caster/camber plastic offset alignment
bushings for dana 60 front ends. They have up to 1 degree for the top
bushing and another 1/2 degree bushing for the lower joint. I should
have my 99 cat in hand soon with part numbers.

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:23:56 GMT
From: cdailey newsguy.com (Chad Dailey)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '62 F-100 Clutch repair

Hi all.

Dropping a few (OK, a bunch of) lines for my buddy Jay that's having a
bit of trouble with his '62 down in Key West. From what he is able to
tell me over the phone, it sounds like the throwout bearing has
decided to give up the ghost. He will be needing to drive the truck
back here to Nebraska, so he needs to get this right and reliable.
BTW, this is believed to be the original untouched clutch assembly.

His truck:

1962 F-100, 292 V8, 4 speed (unidentified)

His symptoms:

Rattle/rumble when clutch is depressed at a stop, in gear. When
releasing the clutch the noise continues until the clutch is fully
released, and the truck is moving. When he releases the clutch in
neutral (stopped or moving) the noise goes away. Does it sound like
we are on the right track?

I told him that while he has the tranny out, he should:

Replace clutch disc, rebuild/replace pressure plate, replace throwout
bearing, replace pilot bearing, check ring gear/replace if necessary,
inspect flywheel for cracks, have flywheel resurfaced (ground, not
turned), and have the flywheel/disc/pressure plate combo balanced.

A concern I have is if the flywheel and pressure plate are beyond
repair, what options for parts interchange does he have?=20

While removing the tranny, either the throwout bearing hub or the
bearing itself came out with the tranny. Any concern with this? The
bellhousing is still on the truck with the rest of the clutch. What
he is looking for is any tips or tricks for disassembly / reassembly,
plus anything else you might think of.

Also, if anyone is down in the Keys area, do you know of a reputable
shop that can do his resurfacing and balancing work at a reasonable
price? Maybe you could give him a hand? He's a real nice guy,
mechanically inclined, but a bit intimidated about doing this all
alone.

Sorry for the huge post, thanks for listening.

Chad

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:38:58 GMT
From: cdailey newsguy.com (Chad Dailey)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 300 c.i. 6 info wanted, FTDV3 #54

Try checking out www.cliffordperformance.com. They specialize in 4
and 6 cylinder performance stuff.

Chad

>Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:44:19 -0600
>From: jcarbone
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 300 c.i. 6 info wanted
>
>Are there any good sites with information, performance or otherwise, for
>the 300 c.i. 6?

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:53:05 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Eastern Washington List People?

In a message dated 2/18/99 9:47:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, BDIJXS aol.com
writes:


headed there this weekend for a few days....I'll buy breakfast, but your
truck
has to be running! How far is this from the Kennewick men?
>>
Thanks for the invite, would like to show. But, will be in Seattle this
weekend. I have gathered there are several people from this area on the list.
I have only met one of them, we should probably work on that.
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:42:46 -0600
From: b.mccoy baldeagle.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats...was: 400 shorty headers

Hi Guys,

Just one word of caution. The emissions laws are in general set at
the state level as to what they require for compliance and testing.
However, the underlying law that prohibits the change of emissions
equipment is as I understand it a FEDERAL law. I don't know
about you but I sure don't want to admit to a federal rap on any
open forum like this. I don't think Ken really needs that kind of
traffic. We may want to consider the topic of circumventing
emissions as a taboo topic. Just a thought.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:37:59 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Help id Motor and other parts

adjustable rockers on a 360? are you sure its a 360?
jeff grant
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:50:43 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

i am a cleveland fan, to me it makes a better all out performance engine, and
it looks impressive, kind of has that big block look. but for a daily driver
and mild performance
the windsor is a durable engine.
i have some parts for both that are for sale. i have a cleveland 4 bolt
main block, quench chamber four barrel heads, and misc parts. for the windsor
i have a complete 69 model engine that runs good, but i would rebuild it
anyway, it has about 90,000
miles on it. i also have enough parts to build a nice windsor for mild
performance use
if anyone is interested let me know.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:57:10 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C vs 351W

the nascar engines shortblock is based on the 351 w, but they run cleveland
type heads, in my opinion the windsor has a stouter bottom end, the cleveland
has a better design head. you can install a 400 crank in a 351w and have a
400+ cubic inch small block. with the cleveland heads you could make some
serious power.

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:29:12 -0800 (PST)
From: JP Morgon
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Header from a mid 70's into a 69

What are the differences in the engine compartment and frame, anything
that may get in the way of headers, between a mid 70's 1/2 2wd with a
351m or 400 to a 69 F100 w/302 no power steering, swaped T-18 for a
Toploader. Basically what I may be doing is putting a 351C in the 69
F100 trying to find headers.

JT

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 01:01:01 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lack o' cats...was: 400 shorty headers

At 09:42 PM 2/18/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>
>Just one word of caution. The emissions laws are in general set at
>the state level as to what they require for compliance and testing.
>However, the underlying law that prohibits the change of emissions
>equipment is as I understand it a FEDERAL law. I don't know
>about you but I sure don't want to admit to a federal rap on any....


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.