Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: NC Emission Testing

61-79-list-digest Friday, February 26 1999 Volume 03 : Number 065

=======================================================================
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 - Re: NC Emission Testing
Re: FTE 61-79 - 70's model 1 ton trannys
FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans
FTE 61-79 - Disk brake proportioning valve question
FTE 61-79 - Comment about proportioning valves
FTE 61-79 - Radius Arm Removal
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re. Emissions and major model modifications
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
FTE 61-79 - beer mapping
FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
RE: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
FTE 61-79 - A/C in defrost
FTE 61-79 - a/c leaks
Re: FTE 61-79 - 70's model 1 ton trannys
FTE 61-79 - Transmission ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
FTE 61-79 - HELP!!! Fuses Lights, gauges and STUFF!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Radius Arm Removal
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
FTE 61-79 - Re: - Singing C-6 Trans
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
RE: FTE 61-79 - HELP!!! Fuses Lights, gauges and STUFF!
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans
Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers
RE: FTE 61-79 - Transmission ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - 70's model 1 ton trannys
FTE 61-79 - valve cover / engine paint color - Frivolous Q????
RE: FTE 61-79 - strokes
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Radius Arm Removal
RE: FTE 61-79 - valve cover / engine paint color - Frivolous Q??? ?

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:36:05 -0500
From: "Ted & Sarah Freeman"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: NC Emission Testing

Actually, not all of NC requires emission testing. Only the Metropolitan
areas do, I believe it's county by county.
I live in the sticks and I still get the blue standard inspection sticker,
not he Blue, Red Diagonal one. Move on out here to the country. We'll be
glad to see ya.

- -Ted
- -----Original Message-----
From: HARLEY A PUTNAM
To: ford truck list
Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 12:58 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: NC Emission Testing

>>I don't know what state you are from, but here in NC they require
>emmissions inspections on all vehicles since 77. I have a 78 F-150 that I
>have put a hopped up 429 P.I. in, so needless to say I have a terrible time
>every year. This year they are inacting a computerized system that mails
>you a ticket if you fail to get an inspection by the time on your sticker.
>But what I have found out is that you can get "Custom Vehicle Status" where
>thewy actually issue you a new VIN, and you only have to have safety
>inspection. Might want to check on that in your state. Otherwise the cab
>swap will work, but seems like a pain just to get around emmissions.
>
>The two best times to go fishing are when it is raining, and when it is
>>not...
>
>
>
>Well, the only error I saw here is that in NC the emissions testing begins
>on model year 1975.
>
>As for the thing about fishing.....couldn't have said it better myself!!
>:-)
>
>The Dirtyman
>
>== 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, 26 Feb 1999 08:14:42 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 70's model 1 ton trannys

Michael Masse wrote:
>
> My guess would be a T18
>

or a NP435.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:53:58 -0600
From: Don Yerhot
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Okay, what's the deal? We put 351C 2 barrel heads on 351W's and jerryrig

intake manifolds to work. We also take 400M cranks, machine the heck out

of them, buy expensive pistons, and install them into 351W's. Am I
missing something here? Why not just start out with a 400M? It seem's to

me that we could end up with basically the same thing for alot less $$$.

Or is there some inherent problem that I'm not aware of with 400M's?
Up here 400's are readily available for pretty good prices.
Ken, I enjoy the hell out of the list!! And you guys down in Texas, come

up to Minnesota. We measure the mileage by shot's of Peppermint
Schnapp's. (At least in the winter, the beer freezes to easy 8-)

Fomodon,
65 F250-351W
84 F150-300-6

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:06:30 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans

>Recently the C-6 Transmission in my truck (1972 F-250, FE 360) has started
>get hi pitched "howling" or "whaling" sounds. The sounds are not constant.
>They last for about 30 seconds to a minute and then go away. Increasing or
>decreasing speed, unless I come to a stop, doesn't effect the noise much.
>Shifting gears doesn't affect it either. I changed the fluid and filter.
>The fluid I drained was in perfect condition, it was bright and clear with
>Any suggestions?

Are you sure its the tranny ? You don't say your truck is 4wd, but if it
is, this sounds like a similar sound to my sister's transfer case right
before it went out ... it was an idler shaft. Her case is quite abit
different than yours (ours?), but if you have 4wd, might be something to check.

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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:18:04 -0800 (PST)
From: draco

pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Disk brake proportioning valve question

I am going to be plumbing my front brakes this weekend. To update
you, when I bought the truck it had front disks on it but a drum
brake proportioning valve. It did have a disk brake master cylinder
but some numbskull had hooked it up backwards with the big reservoir
going to the back brakes.

I got a proportioning valve from a '79 F-150 and I found the '80's
trucks have a handy little bracket that mounts the valve just
above the frame. I could easily mount it on the inside of the
frame, but I don't want to take a chance on getting too close to
the headers.

My question is, the bracket mounts the valve at a weird angle. It
is tilted to the side about 10 degrees and angled down in front about
30 degrees. I am pretty sure this would not be a problem but I
figured I would ask just in case. The truck I took the bracket out
of didn't have the valve on it, so I didn't notice the angle.

Anyone have any ideas on this?

Mark in Southwest Washington
www.pacifier.com/~draco
- --
'74 F-100 4X4
'74 F-250 Supercab
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:19:58 -0800 (PST)
From: draco

pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Comment about proportioning valves

As a side comment I have been struggling with why disk brakes with a
drum brake proportioning valve cause the brakes to drag. I believe
it is because the disk brake proportioning valve has a sort of check
valve built into it which takes a certain amount of pressure to
overcome. The height from the calipers to to the master cylinder is
about 3-4 feet and I believe the pressure caused by this difference
in height is enough to drag the brakes.

Does this seem reasonable?

I am hoping that the height of the valve is not too critical since
the '79 I took it out of had it inside the frame and I am mounting
it above the frame.

Mark in Southwest Washington
www.pacifier.com/~draco
- --
'74 F-100 4X4
'74 F-250 Supercab
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:00:45 EST
From: BDIJXS

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Radius Arm Removal

Dane,

I found the trick to these is to use a come-a-long anchored near the front
bumper and then around the axle...you can ease the axle forward and the radius
arm will come right out of there. Be sure to first remove the track bar,
though (at least one end). While you are at it, are you replacing the rear
radius arm bushings? I didn't seem to have to loosen the spring bolts, but if
you can't get the slack you need, you may need to do this....

Also, do you need a new pitman arm? You said that the front end was loose. The
pitman arms for the 76-77 1/2-ton 4x4's have a ball joint built into it. I
just happen to have a spare that is almost brand new.....let me know.....

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:32:21 -0800 (PST)
From: JP Morgon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

The reason for putting Clevland heads on windsor is to get the good
head design of the Clevland and the good oiling design of the 351
block. Putting a 400 crank in a 351W is a way to get more cubes with
out a bigger engine. Also there have been some casting problems with
the M series engines, and offten the cleveland block is prone to
cracking. The problem is how expensive all this gets. I was planning
on building a 351 Clevor, I could find pistons but no one had a
manifold for it any more that I could afford. And after some research
I decided that a good set of aftermarket Windsor heads would out flow
the C head. Now I won't need a special intake, pistons or headers to
make this thing work.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:11:29 -0500
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

I just called Bush Performance and they want $400 for the clevor intake .
Kind of steep.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:JP Morgon [SMTP:kellymotorsports2

yahoo.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 26, 1999 7:32 AM
> To:61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
> The reason for putting Clevland heads on windsor is to get the good
> head design of the Clevland and the good oiling design of the 351
> block. Putting a 400 crank in a 351W is a way to get more cubes with
> out a bigger engine. Also there have been some casting problems with
> the M series engines, and offten the cleveland block is prone to
> cracking. The problem is how expensive all this gets. I was planning
> on building a 351 Clevor, I could find pistons but no one had a
> manifold for it any more that I could afford. And after some research
> I decided that a good set of aftermarket Windsor heads would out flow
> the C head. Now I won't need a special intake, pistons or headers to
> make this thing work.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >
> == 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, 26 Feb 1999 08:53:31 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re. Emissions and major model modifications

Thanks for your message at 12:32 AM 2/26/99 EST, Clemstang1

aol.com. Your
message was:
>While I was sandblasting my frame on my 73 I found the identification numbers
>on the passenger side on the upper portion of the frame under the cab
section.
>Come to find out they didn't match my VIN number on my door! The owner that
>had the truck before me had another door put on the truck when he painted it
>and didn't change the VIN tag. Never had any trouble getting tags for it.
Also
>change my door off of my other 79 with a 75 door that I had. The 75 didn't
>have to have a cat and had a lesser emission reading (hated to cut a $200
>exhaust system up) never had a problem passing or getting tag's for it.
>
>Jeff
What state are you in? It's Colorado, isn't it? Just curious. The
Washington State Patrol in our area has a reputation of being very picky
(and knowledgeable about where to find VINs). I have a feeling that the
tolerance for swapped body parts/VIN tags varies a lot from location to
location, as well as from state to state. I just need to find the right
inspection point when I get the Marquis/Truck together (I have quite awhile
to work on this problem).
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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:41:14 -0500
From: "Brent_Cole"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Petersen Publishing has a magazine (single issue) out titled "Engines". In
that mag they have one of these creations with a listing of sources for
intake, headers, pistons, kits, etc etc. They also discuss what
advantages/disadvantages this combo has. If you don't have this mag I
would suggest getting it, very helpful! It is just one magazine in a
series of special issues. I also have puchased one from the series about
camshafts and valve train, it has everything you ever wanted to know (even
a couple of articles on 4x4 cam selection) Check it out.

Brent

JP Morgon on 26/02/99 10:32:21

To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
cc: (bcc: Brent Cole/Federal-Mogul)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

The reason for putting Clevland heads on windsor is to get the good
head design of the Clevland and the good oiling design of the 351
block. Putting a 400 crank in a 351W is a way to get more cubes with
out a bigger engine. Also there have been some casting problems with
the M series engines, and offten the cleveland block is prone to
cracking. The problem is how expensive all this gets. I was planning
on building a 351 Clevor, I could find pistons but no one had a
manifold for it any more that I could afford. And after some research
I decided that a good set of aftermarket Windsor heads would out flow
the C head. Now I won't need a special intake, pistons or headers to
make this thing work.

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

== 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, 26 Feb 1999 11:02:02 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - beer mapping

>>Dont you guys have backroads there??????

Not between Big D and Fort Worth. Our back roads would be what a lot of
states I've been in call highways. Down here it has to be paved and you
have to be able to get all four wheels on at the same time, otherwise it is
known as off-roading. ;-) If it doesn't have a stripe down the middle,
whoever is biggest and going fastest has the right of way.

- -John

jlagrone

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:14:25 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question

>>Anybody put an aftermarket cruise control on a '67 F100 or something
similar. I bought one, installed it, can't get it to work.

My 79 had an after market cruise on it when I got it. It didn't work. It
kept throwing the magnets off the drive shaft. I tried glue, tape, plastic
tie down strips. When I got the pickup unit close enough to read the new
magnets, then loaded firewood, it hit on the driveshaft and threw the
magnets off again and made one &#!! of a racket. I think I spent as much
money trying to make that one work as I would have spent on a new one and I
never did get it to work. The dogs liked all of the test drives. If I ever
add a cruise control again, I'm taking a factory job off a donor and making
it work.

- -John

jlagrone

oldwest.net (John Rollf)
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans

Thanks for the suggestion, but my truck is a 2 wheel drive, got any other
ideas?

Thanks,
John Rollf

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:owner-61-79-list

ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of William S Hart
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 7:07 AM
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans
>
>
> >Recently the C-6 Transmission in my truck (1972 F-250, FE 360)
> has started
> >get hi pitched "howling" or "whaling" sounds. The sounds are not
> constant.
> >They last for about 30 seconds to a minute and then go away.
> Increasing or
> >decreasing speed, unless I come to a stop, doesn't effect the noise much.
> >Shifting gears doesn't affect it either. I changed the fluid
> and filter.
> >The fluid I drained was in perfect condition, it was bright and
> clear with
> >Any suggestions?
>
> Are you sure its the tranny ? You don't say your truck is 4wd, but if it
> is, this sounds like a similar sound to my sister's transfer case right
> before it went out ... it was an idler shaft. Her case is quite abit
> different than yours (ours?), but if you have 4wd, might be
> something to check.
>
>
> Just my 2cents
>
> wish
>
> Links
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/> ~wish/links.html
> '73 1/2 ton 4x4
> Ford
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/truck.html
> '96 Mustang GT http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/mustang.html
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:19:38 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Don Yerhot wrote:

>
>
> is there some inherent problem that I'm not aware of with 400M's?

This is taken from " Ford F-Series Pickup; Owner's Bible" By Moses Ludel
"The lighter weight 351W engine shares many of Ford's small-block 289/302 features. For increased stamina, the 351W has larger main bearing journals and a more rugged block than the 302/5.0L V-8.
Ford's 351M/400 modified engines were a unique stop gap design , an attempt to create a large powerplant around the 351W. The 351M/400 had a short history in F-series models. As a truck engine, the 400 could not rival the big block design of the 460 V-8, and Ford soon dropped the 400 from its light truck engine list."
If I remember right my dad had a '77 supercab that had one in it. He wound up sucking a valve and trashing the whole thing.
This Moses Ludel slams the 351M/400 a couple of more times in the book. But never really gives any particular problems.
I think it all boils down to a small block trying to act like a big block and it just can't cut it for the demands of a truck.

Ted
Bellevue,OH

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:25:10 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

FMS and Summit both sell 351W/392 stroker cranks for under $600. You could
spend more than that at the machine shop.
There is plethora of Aftermarket Windsor heads available. This would allow
you to choos from many manifolds also.
You would also be able to go to EFI if you really got crazy.
-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, 26 Feb 1999 12:41:11 -0500
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

I hope we don't get this 35m/400M flame going again but I've had both
engines in three 78 trucks and the two 400m's I removed for 460's and the
351w in my 2wd worked perfect and was very happy with it's power.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Ted Wnorowski [SMTP:wnorowski

onebellevue.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 26, 1999 9:20 AM
> To:61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
> I hope we
>
> Don Yerhot wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > is there some inherent problem that I'm not aware of with 400M's?
>
> This is taken from " Ford F-Series Pickup; Owner's Bible" By Moses
> Ludel
> "The lighter weight 351W engine shares many of Ford's small-block
> 289/302 features. For increased stamina, the 351W has larger main bearing
> journals and a more rugged block than the 302/5.0L V-8.
> Ford's 351M/400 modified engines were a unique stop gap design , an
> attempt to create a large powerplant around the 351W. The 351M/400 had a
> short history in F-series models. As a truck engine, the 400 could not
> rival the big block design of the 460 V-8, and Ford soon dropped the 400
> from its light truck engine list."
> If I remember right my dad had a '77 supercab that had one in it. He
> wound up sucking a valve and trashing the whole thing.
> This Moses Ludel slams the 351M/400 a couple of more times in the
> book. But never really gives any particular problems.
> I think it all boils down to a small block trying to act like a big
> block and it just can't cut it for the demands of a truck.
>
> Ted
> Bellevue,OH
>
>
> == 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, 26 Feb 1999 12:49:10 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers

While I'm awake and thinking about it. Has anyone ever heard of Barden Bumper in Woodland, CA?
I have a '64 250 with what was called a camper package. It was built to match up with 5 or 6 slide- in camper shells. The suspension and everything was beefed up to help haul this extra load. Anyway, the step bumper on it has a 2" Reese type receiver and is for the most part incorporated right to the frame . It also is kind of built right into the bed of the truck along the sides of the box.
Has anyone ever seen or heard of this style or this company before? I've already done a few searches on the web and didn't come up with much. Any help would be appreciated.

Ted
Bellevue.OH

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:59:08 -0800
From: "Brandt, Chris"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Can't help but take a shot at old Moses here. First he contradicts himself
in the book under the camshaft selection section by saying he has found
excellent towing and economy with the 400 when given the right cam....In
most truck applications towing and economy are the Holy Grail. Second, his
"bible" series of books are cookie cutter formula books that the man has
done for several other brands and it looks like a word processor game with
the search and replace function, ie remove the word jeep and replace with
ford... I have followed his stuff for a while now, he is knowledgeabe and
does offer some good sound advice, but I have trouble trusting a FORD bible
with JEEP pictures for a bunch of the technical examples ! As far as the
400M goes take a good look at the configuration of that motor, you have:
1. The longest stroke of any readily available Ford.
2. One of the best head designs ever offered in a pushrod motor.
3. A great rod to stroke ratio.
4. Valve sizes that The Ch$%y guys have wet dreams about.
5. Relativly light weight for the displacement.

The short comings. most notably the oiling problem, and lack of compression
are easily remedied at rebuild. Talking of the oiling issue, have any of you
guys out there ever have a major failure that can be blamed on this ? I have
never heard of a non-race application ever really destroying anything that
can be directly linked to oiling. Looking for answers on this one.

Chris Brandt
78 F250 4X4

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Ted Wnorowski [SMTP:wnorowski

onebellevue.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 26, 1999 9:20 AM
> To:61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
>
>
> Don Yerhot wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > is there some inherent problem that I'm not aware of with 400M's?
>
> This is taken from " Ford F-Series Pickup; Owner's Bible" By Moses
> Ludel
> "The lighter weight 351W engine shares many of Ford's small-block
> 289/302 features. For increased stamina, the 351W has larger main bearing
> journals and a more rugged block than the 302/5.0L V-8.
> Ford's 351M/400 modified engines were a unique stop gap design , an
> attempt to create a large powerplant around the 351W. The 351M/400 had a
> short history in F-series models. As a truck engine, the 400 could not
> rival the big block design of the 460 V-8, and Ford soon dropped the 400
> from its light truck engine list."
> If I remember right my dad had a '77 supercab that had one in it. He
> wound up sucking a valve and trashing the whole thing.
> This Moses Ludel slams the 351M/400 a couple of more times in the
> book. But never really gives any particular problems.
> I think it all boils down to a small block trying to act like a big
> block and it just can't cut it for the demands of a truck.
>
> Ted
> Bellevue,OH
>
>
> == 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, 26 Feb 1999 10:08:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

OK, I'm going to hop on the argument here... I've got a 400M in
my truck. It's not a bad motor, per se. It's a bit underpowered (I thnk
from the factory it puts only about 150hp), but it has servedits purpose
well. It's been VERY reliable for me and has lasted almost 15000
trouble-free miles for me. YMMV, but I'm pleased with it. I can't
compare it to a 351W, though. Never owned one of them. :)

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel H. JenkinsFood for thought: John Milton
djenkins

honors.unr.eduwrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
Honors Programwife died he wrote _Paradise_
University of Nevada, Reno_Regained_...

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:06:38 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - A/C in defrost

Pat Brown writes: >>Now, what year did FoMoCo start running the AC in the
defrost position?
I suspect late '70s, but that is just a guess.

My sons '79 F350 4X4 with factory A/C doesn't, but all my MOPARS do, even back
to the '74.

Azie

Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:07:49 PST
From: "Don Jones"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - a/c leaks

> no Freon it doesn't work so well...anybody know some backyard tricks
to
> finding the leaks so I can go have it charged?

Soapy water works good at finding large leaks.
I have a "sniffer" at work that looks like a propane torch with length
of rubber hose attached to it. To use it, you light the torch and run
the open end of the tube over the places you are checking for leaks. if
it "sniffs" refrigerant then the flame turns from blue to yellow.
AKAIK this kind of leak tester only works with the "older" gasses like
r-12, 22 and 502. You can probably get one from a place that sells
supplies for commercial refrigeraton systems.
If your a/c has been leaking for quite some time then its possible that
there is no gas left to leak out and you wont find any leaks.
Back when freon was cheap and safe for the environment you would simply
charge the system up with freon and then look for leaks. Current
practice is to use an inert gas (usually nitrogen) while leak testing.

Don Jones
70 f-250 4x4 ~FORDZILLA!!~
85 f-150 sc~~~ for sale~~~

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:10:26 EST
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 70's model 1 ton trannys

In a message dated 2/26/99 8:22:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, luxjo

thecore.com
writes:

> >
> > My guess would be a T18
> >
>
> or a NP435.
>

The original post referred to a Borg-Warner tranny being in the truck. As
you probably know the NP-435 is a 4-spd made by New Process Gear. I have
scanned images of two tranny top covers from these two transmission types for
anybody that is unsure of how to tell the difference between 4-spd tranny's
from these manufacturer's. Here is the address:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/Trans-Types.html

~~Thom B~~
1967 F-250 FE 390 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, 26 Feb 1999 13:21:28 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Transmission ID

Brad Smith writes: >>Hi, I've got a 78 F150 that I bouht with a Borg-Warner 4
speed in it. Th
guy told me that the tranny came out of a one ton truck, and I was
wondering if anyone out there knows what specific tranny this was. I am
planning on replacing bearings, seals and what not in the thing, but I need
to know what I am looking for. I've got it bolted up to a 429 if that
helps you to figure it out what tranny it is.... Any help would be
appreciated.

Could be T18 0r T-19 if it has the "super low" 1st gear(both of these trannies
have the shifter going straight down into the transmission). Could be a "Car"
type if it has close ratio gearing, in which case it would be a T-10 or Super
T-10(both of these have the shifter bolted to the transmission on the drivers
side and uses exposed rods to move exposed levers on the drivers side of the
tranny to accomplish shifting). Three different rods/levers.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:28:38 -0800 (PST)
From: brian michael logan
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers

Hey Ted.

Barden Bumber is a big brand name where I come from. I grew up in
Northern California (Redding, CA) and most Ford trucks had a Barden
bumper. From what I know, they're heavy, diamond plate and nearly
indestructable. Nice step for campers too.

Can't say for sure, but it seems like they were a dealer option? Anyone?

I don't know if they're still in business, but from my younger days, a
Barden Bumber was a welcome accessory to any Ford. I remember want-ads
that used it as a selling point.

My '67 still has the factory chrome no-step bumper with no place for a tow
ball.

> While I'm awake and thinking about it. Has anyone ever heard of
> Barden Bumper in Woodland, CA?
> Has anyone ever seen or heard of this style or this company before?
>
> Ted
> Bellevue.OH

_____________________________________________________________________________
B r i a n M i c h a e l L o g a n

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:34:10 -0500
From: "Campbell, Mark"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

I too have installed a 351W in the place of a 300, in my 78 4x4 F150
Ranger, it works great!
Mark

- -----Original Message-----
From: John MacNamara [mailto:jmacnam

nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 12:41 PM
To: '61-79-list

ford-trucks.com'
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

I hope we don't get this 35m/400M flame going again but I've had both
engines in three 78 trucks and the two 400m's I removed for 460's and
the
351w in my 2wd worked perfect and was very happy with it's power.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Ted Wnorowski [SMTP:wnorowski

onebellevue.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 26, 1999 9:20 AM
> To:61-79-list

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - HELP!!! Fuses Lights, gauges and STUFF!

Ok, I need some advice here. I've got a '79 F-!50. The break lights don't
work. The turnsginals don't work. Left back up light doesn't work, the right
one does, and the gas gauge reads FULL...ummm, unfortunately even when it is
not. The das lights don't work. The head lights do work, brights and dim, and
the bright light indicator on the dash works. Everytime we put a fuse in for
the non working parts, they blow. We are being told we probably have a ground
short. Ok, my question is a ground short in WHAT? Do all these things connect
all together or what? And Some peopel have told us to loo in the steering
column, some say in the door frame, so same in the rear of the truck. I kinda
need an idea of where to start..ANY ADVICE would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:36:27 PST
From: "Dane Berthelsen"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Radius Arm Removal

Hi,

Some of you had some good points to the question I posted yesterday on
how to remove the radius arm - thanks a lot. However, my problem is I
don't know how to move the axle forward in order to pull the radius arm
free from the axle. The arm sets pretty tight between the rear end where
it is attached to the frame and the front end by the axle. I have
removed to four bolts and removed the front bracket, removed the coil
springs, dropped the axle all the way down to the floor with the jack
stand under the frame up front by the radiator, but I still can't get
the arm free from the axle. And, if I should manage to push the axle
forward, will I have a problem pushing it back when I want to install
the radius arm again.

I don't have a lot of experience with fixing cars and maybe I'm too
careful and afraid of breaking something or not being able to put it
back together again, so please bear with me, if this is considered a
piece of cake to fix, but I enjoy it.

Thank your for any advice - a lot of good information on this list.

Dane

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:42:09 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Sorry folks, I'm new around here and I certainly don't want to get a flame war started. I just thought about what I had read and seeing dad come home heartbroken because his favorite thing next to mom had died.
I'll also have to pay closer attention to what I'm reading.

Again, I apologize.
Ted

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:53:34 -0600
From: "John R. Austin"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question

This is still in reference to cruise control. This thing is supposed to get
its speed signal from the negative side of the coil. They told me to measure
AC voltage at this point. If I'm reading the scale right, it is developing
20 volts AC. They said that it should be more like 2 volts. Does anyone know
what that correct AC voltage should be. If I am actually developing 20
volts, any ideas why?
Thanks again,
John
- -----Original Message-----
From: John LaGrone
To: Ford Trucks 61-79
Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 11:25 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question

>>>Anybody put an aftermarket cruise control on a '67 F100 or something
>similar. I bought one, installed it, can't get it to work.
>
>My 79 had an after market cruise on it when I got it. It didn't work. It
>kept throwing the magnets off the drive shaft. I tried glue, tape, plastic
>tie down strips. When I got the pickup unit close enough to read the new
>magnets, then loaded firewood, it hit on the driveshaft and threw the
>magnets off again and made one &#!! of a racket. I think I spent as much
>money trying to make that one work as I would have spent on a new one and I
>never did get it to work. The dogs liked all of the test drives. If I ever
>add a cruise control again, I'm taking a factory job off a donor and making
>it work.
>
>
>-John
>
>jlagrone

ford-trucks.com
>1979 F150 Custom 351M C6 (Henry)
>http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
>Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:58:36 -0600
From: "James Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: - Singing C-6 Trans

John Rolf wrote:

>Recently the C-6 Transmission in my truck (1972 F-250, FE 360) has started
"whaling" sounds

Cool! Does it point itself nose down while it sings? Has the filming of the
National Geographic special started yet? Maybe Ken could liscense the tapes
and sell online as a way to raise money to support the site........

Jim E.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:20:24 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Ted:

Nothing you said. DaveR gets offended a little bit when people not the "M"
motors. He's had good luck with his and is perfectly happy with them. I've
always used my trucks for towing things and need good torquey motors which I
found the 400M not. I had a camper on my 2wd(351) and towed a dunebuggy
and trailer and worked fine. My big trucks are 4wd and the extra 1000 lbs
of weight needs the 460 IMHO to tow properly. I spent some money back in
87 to upgrade the 400 with a cam 4bl carb and intake and it worked a little
better but not good enough for me.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Ted Wnorowski [SMTP:wnorowski

onebellevue.com]
> Sent:Friday, February 26, 1999 10:42 AM
> To:61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
> Sorry folks, I'm new around here and I certainly don't want to get
> a flame war started. I just thought about what I had read and seeing dad
> come home heartbroken because his favorite thing next to mom had died.
> I'll also have to pay closer attention to what I'm reading.
>
> Again, I apologize.
> Ted
>
>
>
> == 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, 26 Feb 1999 12:03:57 -0700
From: "Miska, Richard L (Rick)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - HELP!!! Fuses Lights, gauges and STUFF!

Make sure harness didnt get hot, melt, and put wires together. Also, check
your instrument cluster, membrane, etc. Even though some clusters look the
same, they dont always have the same pinouts. Rick

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kitin10

aol.com [mailto:Kitin10

aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 11:36 AM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - HELP!!! Fuses Lights, gauges and STUFF!

Ok, I need some advice here. I've got a '79 F-!50. The break lights don't
work. The turnsginals don't work. Left back up light doesn't work, the right
one does, and the gas gauge reads FULL...ummm, unfortunately even when it is
not. The das lights don't work. The head lights do work, brights and dim,
and
the bright light indicator on the dash works. Everytime we put a fuse in for
the non working parts, they blow. We are being told we probably have a
ground
short. Ok, my question is a ground short in WHAT? Do all these things
connect
all together or what? And Some peopel have told us to loo in the steering
column, some say in the door frame, so same in the rear of the truck. I
kinda
need an idea of where to start..ANY ADVICE would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!!
== 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, 26 Feb 1999 11:40:25 -0800 (PST)
From: JP Morgon
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

I don't mean to say the Modifieds & Clevelands arn't good engines for
a everyday street engine or if built correctly a racing engine. But
as a performance engine the 351W has it over them as far as the number
of parts out there for them, as well as the cost differances.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:09:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Singing C-6 Trans

> Recently the C-6 Transmission in my truck (1972 F-250, FE 360) has started
> get hi pitched "howling" or "whaling" sounds. The sounds are not constant.
> They last for about 30 seconds to a minute and then go away. Increasing or
> decreasing speed, unless I come to a stop, doesn't effect the noise much.

[snip]

> Any suggestions?

Hey John,

Check your cooler lines out - you may have a pinched line
or failing hose, with the restriction causing the howl.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:39:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers

Ted asks:
> > While I'm awake and thinking about it. Has anyone ever heard of
> > Barden Bumper in Woodland, CA?
>
And Brian Replied:
> Hey Ted.
> Northern California (Redding, CA) and most Ford trucks had a Barden
> bumper. From what I know, they're heavy, diamond plate and nearly
> indestructable. Nice step for campers too.

You mean someone else makes these bumpers also? :-)

I'll second Brian's post, and add that 'Barden' has
become a sort of generic term term for a heavy duty
bumper around here.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:46:02 -0500
From: "Campbell, Mark"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Transmission ID

Hey,

Can anyone help me with this Borg-Warner 4 sp question. When I down
shift to 3rd, and let the truck slow down in the gear, the shifter will
eventually pop out of gear, I'm not a transmission guru, but would like
a pointer as to where to start looking first. So the question is why
does it pop out of gear like it does? Maybe this'll help too, the tranny
has 143,443 miles on it.

Florida Mark
1978 F150 Ranger 4X4

- -----Original Message-----
From: am14 [mailto:am14

daimlerchrysler.com]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 1:21 PM
To: 61-79-list
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Transmission ID

Brad Smith writes: >>Hi, I've got a 78 F150 that I bouht with a
Borg-Warner 4
speed in it. Th
guy told me that the tranny came out of a one ton truck, and I was
wondering if anyone out there knows what specific tranny this was. I am
planning on replacing bearings, seals and what not in the thing, but I
need
to know what I am looking for. I've got it bolted up to a 429 if that
helps you to figure it out what tranny it is.... Any help would be
appreciated.

Could be T18 0r T-19 if it has the "super low" 1st gear(both of these
trannies
have the shifter going straight down into the transmission). Could be a
"Car"
type if it has close ratio gearing, in which case it would be a T-10 or
Super
T-10(both of these have the shifter bolted to the transmission on the
drivers
side and uses exposed rods to move exposed levers on the drivers side of
the
tranny to accomplish shifting). Three different rods/levers.

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, 26 Feb 1999 13:45:09 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 70's model 1 ton trannys

TBeeee

aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/26/99 8:22:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, luxjo

thecore.com
> writes:
>
> > >
> > > My guess would be a T18
> > >
> >
> > or a NP435.
> >
>
> The original post referred to a Borg-Warner tranny being in the truck. As
> you probably know the NP-435 is a 4-spd made by New Process Gear. I have
> scanned images of two tranny top covers from these two transmission types for
> anybody that is unsure of how to tell the difference between 4-spd tranny's
> from these manufacturer's. Here is the address:
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/tbeeee/page/Trans-Types.html
>

Sorry bout that, all I saw was a 1 ton 4 spd in a 70's truck.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:42:51 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - valve cover / engine paint color - Frivolous Q????

Well gang, eventually, I knew I would have to do it. For those of you
FTE'ers who could care less and feel this kind of question is wasteful,
read no further. These "frivolous questions" were an argument for
splitting the list a few days ago. Some purists, such as myself, who wish
to accurately and authentically preserve our trucks want to know the answer.

Here goes:

I will be getting my engine back from the engine builder (short block) in a
matter of days and I will need to paint my engine, valve covers, etc. the
correct Ford blue engine paint. I have posted the question to Fordnatics
and one person, a Mustang enthusiast, replied with a specifically vague
answer. His reply was as follows:

>I can't directly answer your question, but I can give you a little more
>information.
>
>My '71 with a 240 six, is painted dark corporate blue, so that color was
>still in use in '71.
>
>My '70 Torino Cobra with a 429 is painted another color blue that is
>different than the commonly seen Ford Medium blue. It is the factory paint.
>The color is somewhere inbetween the med. blue and the dark corp. blue.
>
>My '71 429 engine from a Mustang is the Ford Med. Blue.
>
>So, all three Ford blues were apparantly in use in this time frame.
>
>The "unknown" shade of blue is very difficult to find, but I did find it. I
>bought some several years ago to paint my intake. Unfortunately, I cannot
>remember the brand. I bought it at a local autoparts store, and it was one
>of the major spray paint brands. I do remember that it was simply labeled as
>"Ford Blue".
>
>Hope this helps a little.

He sounds as confused as I. Any Die Hard FoMoCo people out there know the
correct answer to this question?? If I am unable to locate or identify the
correct engine color, I will use #205 blue, which is a medium blue. I have
compared all Ford engine paint colors to the original paint colors on my
engine and none match exactly. The #205 medium comes the closest. Any
takers???

I am positive the engine has never been painted or rebuilt since it was new
so I know the current paint is the factory color.
So, Which one is it??????

Inquiring mind(s) want to know.

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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:51:42 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - strokes

>400M goes take a good look at the configuration of that motor, you have:
>1. The longest stroke of any readily available Ford.

Well I finally broke down after having seen this claimed about several
engines and power from the new ones and all that jazz. At any rate, here's
what I found for stroke length of Ford Motors, some from www.wrljet.com
some from carpoint.msn.com

Here's what I got from wrljet.com
335series4.00, 3.50(400, 351M/C)
FE3.98, 3.78, 3.50, 3.30(410/428, 390, 360/352, 332)
385series3.85, 3.59(460, 429)
Windsor SB3.50, 3.00, 2.87(351, 302, 289/260)

And for the new motors we come up with :

4.63.54
5.44.16
6.8(V10)4.16
PSD4.18

In the end we whine about low torque numbers from the modular motors ...
its not because of the stroke!

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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:36:50 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Ted Wnorowski wrote:
>
> Don Yerhot wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > is there some inherent problem that I'm not aware of with 400M's?
>
> This is taken from " Ford F-Series Pickup; Owner's Bible" By Moses Ludel
> "The lighter weight 351W engine shares many of Ford's small-block 289/302 features. For increased stamina, the 351W has larger main bearing journals and a more rugged block than the 302/5.0L V-8.
> Ford's 351M/400 modified engines were a unique stop gap design , an attempt to create a large powerplant around the 351W. The 351M/400 had a short history in F-series models. As a truck engine, the 400 could not rival the big block design of the 460 V-8, and Ford soon dropped the 400 from its light truck engine list."
> If I remember right my dad had a '77 supercab that had one in it. He wound up sucking a valve and trashing the whole thing.
> This Moses Ludel slams the 351M/400 a couple of more times in the book. But never really gives any particular problems.
> I think it all boils down to a small block trying to act like a big block and it just can't cut it for the demands of a truck.
>

Yeah, whatever!!!. My 150K, 351M pulls my 6900 lb Bronco around with
800 lbs worth of tires pretty well. Not a speed demon, but gets the job
done and does not complain.

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

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

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:04:36 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Radius Arm Removal

Dane Berthelsen wrote:
>
> And, if I should manage to push the axle
> forward, will I have a problem pushing it back when I want to install
> the radius arm again.

You can yank on that puppy pretty hard without damaging anything.
Normally, once you've gone this far, the weight of the axle makes it
fall right off the radius arms. You may want to put jack stands under
the radius arms and take the weight slowly off the axle. It should break
free on it's own.

As for getting it back. It can be tricky keeping the pinion part of
differential up while trying to line up the radius arm mounts with the
radius arms, but it is do-able. The pinion want to keep dropping,
forcing the mounts to rotate. Sometiems I stick a small jack stand or
floor jack under the pinion flange.

It gets a little harder if you are installing new "C" bushings,
especially urethane, as you have to force the axle in place and force
the caps over the axle. Luckily, the radius arm bolts are pretty long,
so you can suck them up a little at a time, alternating between them.
If you are putting in new urethane offset C bushings, make sure you get
them aligned that they are the same configuation on both sides.

OX

>
> I don't have a lot of experience with fixing cars and maybe I'm too
> careful and afraid of breaking something or not being able to put it
> back together again, so please bear with me, if this is considered a
> piece of cake to fix, but I enjoy it.
>
> Thank your for any advice - a lot of good information on this list.
>
> Dane
>
> ______________________________________________________
> > == 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, 26 Feb 1999 17:06:48 -0500
From: "Campbell, Mark"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - valve cover / engine paint color - Frivolous Q??? ?

To Stu,

I have used the #205 Blue on two rebuilds, like you said, it comes
closest to the blue on the block before it's stripped. Maybe the #205
is the correct shade, and just maybe it'll look right after the paint is
heated and cooled a few times. Go for it, be careful and try not to let
the paint run, I got one and unfortunantly it's visible.

Mark
78 F150 Ranger 4X4

- -----Original Message-----
From: Stu Varner [mailto:varners

usit.net]
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 4:43 PM
To: 61-79-list
Subject: FTE 61-79 - valve cover / engine paint color - Frivolous Q????

Well gang, eventually, I knew I would have to do it. For those of you
FTE'ers who could care less and feel this kind of question is wasteful,....

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.