61-79-list-digest Monday, March 1 1999 Volume 03 : Number 068



=======================================================================
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 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Looking for info on 72 "Custom Sport" 4wd
FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - kinda long
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
FTE 61-79 - RE: 400 Intakes
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: 400 Intakes
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Engine Colors
FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - dragging
FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - kinda long
FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - kinda long
FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumper, More & 1 FS
Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumper, More & 1 FS
FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...
FTE 61-79 - 5 Speed transmission
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...
FTE 61-79 - Rockwell Axle

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:28:18 -0600
From: "John R. Austin"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question

It does. Thanks.

- -----Original Message-----
From: cannandale netpointe.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, February 27, 1999 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question


>AC voltage means alternating current, where there is no negative or
>positive side of a wire, the voltage is positive, then switches to
>negative. Houses run on this, at a 60hz, which means it does this 60 times
>a second. When it comes to what you are doing, the distrutor makes and
>breaks the connection, so the meter reads it as AC voltage, becase its not
>steady, all you have is DC going from whatever voltage to 0 and back again,
>it never reverses. DC of course stands for direct current, so it does none
>of this. I could go into why it has to pulse for the coil to work and
>everything, but... :)
>
>Hope that helps your undertanding a little bit..
>
>cannandale
>
>
>At 09:57 AM 2/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>Thank you. I think. I'm not sure what you said but it sure sounded good.
>>John
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Pat Brown
>>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>>Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 5:25 PM
>>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
>>
>>
>>>John wondered:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>Well, the neg side of coil should be a square wave from 0 (points closed)
>>>to 12 volts (points open). It sounds like you're using a multimeter,
which
>>>is most likely calibrated to read RMS volts of a sine wave input.
Measure
>>>a square wave, all bets are off. Measure a square wave with a short duty
>>>cycle, and things will get really tiny. If you have a true rms voltmeter
>>>(probably not, unless you paid big money for it), the voltage would read
>>>12*(percent duty cycle/100%)
>>>
>>>I suspect the two volt reading they specify is for their particular
>>>multimeter, and a short duty cycle electronic ignition.
>>>
>>>In summary: Look elsewhere.
>>>--
>>>Pat Brown
>>>Sebastopol, California
>>>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>>
>>
>>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>>
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 07:41:50 -0800 (PST)
From: JP Morgon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

A 71 400M? If my memory is correct those didn't appear until later in
the 70's, and only in trucks. Either way if your certain you have a
400M I wouldn't go with the Performer RPM. The RPM is made for higher
RPM power and not as much low end torque. The lowrise performer would
be a better choice, unless of course you want a high RPM motor. The
performer and a cam with a duration of around 212-218 at .050 lift
would create a lot of torque down low. Don't over cam it though thats
easy to do when picking out a cam. Also get higher compression
pistons of around 9 to 1 that will help over all power and keep it
running on pump gas.

JT


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 08:00:42 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Looking for info on 72 "Custom Sport" 4wd

Josh Assing wrote:

>
>
> I have the vin, etc if someone knows how to decode it.
> VIN: F10YRH15881
> F103 TRANS AXLE
> G A1
>
> Any info, insights, thoughts, etc would be great.
>
> Thanks!
> -josh

Someone said that F10 is a 2 wheel drive truck. The vin should be F11 and
the model number should be F110,111,112 or 113 not F103.

See if you can pick some numbers off the truck anywhere else or the titile.

- --
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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:39:19 EST
From: Brazzadog aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - kinda long

OK, I got clarification on this. Sorry it took so long but I wanted to make
sure I got it right. If you saw the other guys typing style you'd understand
my confusion. I will try to paraphrase and translate his response below.
Bear in mind that to the extent that not all brake systems are identical there
may be some differences between this and Ford's brake system. That said, if
there are differences, I'm unaware of them. Maybe someone else will spot
something. This discussion revolves around swapping out front drums for later
model discs from a similar vehicle and finding that the discs are dragging.
It is also assumed that the disc calipers were rebuilt before installation.

The problem with the dragging discs is not the PV(proportioning valve). For 4
drum systems there is no PV but rather a pressure differential switch(PDS)
that serves as a warning device if either the front or rear lines lose some
pressure. The problem is in the OEM drum/drum master clyinder(DDMC). Where
the brake lines screw into the DDMC there is a residual valve(RV) which keeps
some predetermined amount of pressure in the lines, say 10 lbs or so. This is
to compensate for the high tension of the brake shoe return springs that would
otherwise drive the fluid back into the DDMC and move the shoes too far from
the drums. So if you swapped to front discs but kept the DDMC, (rather than
using the disc MC from the disc donor vehicle which contains no RV) 10 lbs of
pressure would be kept in the front pistons causing unintended pad to rotor
contact and resulting in overheated fluid, prematue wear, and hardening of the
seals due to heat.

If you wanted to keep the DDMC you would have to remove the RV's from it and
then install an OEM PV which is actually a combination valve(CV). The CV
contains an RV, PV, and LV(limiter valve). The LV delays pressure to the
front pads so the linings can make contact with the drums and the same time
the pads do. The LV in the CV only works on the front discs because the pads
are closer to the rotor than shoes would be to drums. The RV in the CV only
works on the rear drums and holds about 10 psi in the rear lines. The PV
part of the CV maintains balance (created by the LV) between the front and
rear brakes so the pads don't do all the work. The easiest thing to do is get
the disc MC and CV off the same donor vechicle. Otherwise you can get a disc
MC from the donor vehicle (that you took the discs from) and use an adjustable
PV from a speed shop, you can use OEM front brake lines and PDS. Disconnect
the electrical connection for the warning switch on the PDS and plug the
outlet for the rear line. Then run a new rear line from the disc MC to the
adjustable PV and install an external RV between PV and rear brakes.

I hope this helps. My head is swimming a little. If this doesn't answer your
original question, feed it to me again (I don't keep digests very long) and
I'll take another stab at it.

Ben Williams
'71 Wagoneer


Mark wrote:

>This sounds more like the person was trying to explain what
>the valve does for disk brakes. I believe what you are
>describing here is the job of drum brake adjusters.
>
>To me what needs to happen at the caliper is for there to be
>a small amount of pressure in the cylinder when the brakes are
>not applied to keep the pads near the rotor. But not enough
>to heat the brakes or wear them prematurely. When the brakes
>are applied, fluid needs to flow through the proportioning
>valve to the calipers, but when released, the fluid needs to
>flow back the other way basically unrestricted so that the
>pressure can drop back to the low point.
>
>I guess I am probably thinking about this too much, but I would
>like to understand it since I am altering my braking system.




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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 08:45:19 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

A couple of things, Edelbrock doesn't even make a Performer RPM for the M
series and you just can't find higher compression pistons unless you have
them custom made. So you either have to shave the block/heads or put in 351C
flat top pistons and bush the rod ends for the smaller wrist pins.

- -----Original Message-----
From: JP Morgon
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?


>A 71 400M? If my memory is correct those didn't appear until later in
>the 70's, and only in trucks. Either way if your certain you have a
>400M I wouldn't go with the Performer RPM. The RPM is made for higher
>RPM power and not as much low end torque. The lowrise performer would
>be a better choice, unless of course you want a high RPM motor. The
>performer and a cam with a duration of around 212-218 at .050 lift
>would create a lot of torque down low. Don't over cam it though thats
>easy to do when picking out a cam. Also get higher compression
>pistons of around 9 to 1 that will help over all power and keep it
>running on pump gas.



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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:25:45 -0500
From: cannandale netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question

I said that wrong, the distrubutor just direcnts the flow of current to the
plugs, the voltage you are reading comes from the points or electronic
ignition..

cannandale

At 07:36 AM 2/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>It does. Thanks.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cannandale netpointe.com
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>Date: Saturday, February 27, 1999 10:37 PM
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
>
>
>>AC voltage means alternating current, where there is no negative or
>>positive side of a wire, the voltage is positive, then switches to
>>negative. Houses run on this, at a 60hz, which means it does this 60 times
>>a second. When it comes to what you are doing, the distrutor makes and
>>breaks the connection, so the meter reads it as AC voltage, becase its not
>>steady, all you have is DC going from whatever voltage to 0 and back again,
>>it never reverses. DC of course stands for direct current, so it does none
>>of this. I could go into why it has to pulse for the coil to work and
>>everything, but... :)
>>
>>Hope that helps your undertanding a little bit..
>>
>>cannandale
>>
>>
>>At 09:57 AM 2/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>
>>>Thank you. I think. I'm not sure what you said but it sure sounded good.
>>>John
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Pat Brown
>>>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>>>Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 5:25 PM
>>>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Adding Cruise Control - Question
>>>
>>>
>>>>John wondered:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>Well, the neg side of coil should be a square wave from 0 (points closed)
>>>>to 12 volts (points open). It sounds like you're using a multimeter,
>which
>>>>is most likely calibrated to read RMS volts of a sine wave input.
>Measure
>>>>a square wave, all bets are off. Measure a square wave with a short duty
>>>>cycle, and things will get really tiny. If you have a true rms voltmeter
>>>>(probably not, unless you paid big money for it), the voltage would read
>>>>12*(percent duty cycle/100%)
>>>>
>>>>I suspect the two volt reading they specify is for their particular
>>>>multimeter, and a short duty cycle electronic ignition.
>>>>
>>>>In summary: Look elsewhere.
>>>>--
>>>>Pat Brown
>>>>Sebastopol, California
>>>>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>>>
>>>
>>>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
>== 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: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 11:02:54 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 400 Intakes

- -> From: "don"
- -> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

SNIP
- -> The trouble I seemed to be having is finding an Intake Manifold. The 400
- -> uses the Cleveland 2 barrel heads and these are not easy to but In. man.
- -> for. If ANYONE has any suggestions as to which manifold I should use I
would
- -> really appreciate it. So far all I have seen is the Performer manifold ,
I
- -> wanted the Performer RPM.......
- -> donb ficom.net

Don.
The only intake manifolds readily available for the 400&351M other then the
stock 2BBL; are just like the Edelbrock Performer, dual plane's. This
manifold type works well on stock engines giving this engine a much needed
boost in breathing abilities and a corresponding Torque and Horsepower
increase; the increase is not huge but noticeable if the Carb is set up
correctly. Add a set of headers, a good exhaust system, and a mild cam and
the manifold has reached its limits, 5500 RPM is about it. You can add a
spacer under the Carb to crutch it some, I found that a 4 hole 1" thick
worked well under a 600-650CFM Carb. This would allow the engine to freely
rev to about 5800 RPM while not softening the bottom-end much. To go over
this you need an open Plenum spacer about 2" thick.
But what do you do when you want power in the 2500-6500 RPM range?
Weiand makes a set of adapters that will allow you to bolt on Cleveland
Manifolds. Now you can run any manifold that was available for the
Cleveland... But you don't want to get carried away for a street strip type
engine. Weiand also makes a 2BBL Cleveland Single Plane Intake that works
well on the 400. Generally unless your going racing the single plane 4BBL
manifolds will make the engine just a tad lazy on the bottom-end, where the
Weiand 2BBL X-cellerator just gives power!
The adapters are not just a bolt em on an go as there is some fitting that
must be done. In my case the fitting took a TIG welder, and die grinder!
The end results also pushed the Carb through the hood of my 79 Bronco!
But hey the holes there so now I wonder if SWMBO would notice a Tunnel
Ram...

Just my opinion.
Muel


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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:34:23 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

I replaced the camshaft too.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Bill Beyer [SMTP:bbeyer pacifier.com]
> Sent:Saturday, February 27, 1999 1:32 PM
> To:61-79-list
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
> Two words: Compression Ratio, Camshaft Selection. (OK, four words)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John MacNamara
> To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
> Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 11:30 AM
> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
>
> >Ted:
> >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.
>
>
>
> == 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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:39:52 -0500
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: 400 Intakes

There was an edelbrock performer with carb for sale last week at ebay but
didn't think anyone was interested. I'll keep an eye out for the next one.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Chris Samuel [SMTP:fourmuelz email.msn.com]
> Sent:Sunday, March 28, 1999 11:03 AM
> To:A 61-79 FORD TRUCKS
> Subject:FTE 61-79 - RE: 400 Intakes
>
> -> From: "don"
> -> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
>
> SNIP
> -> The trouble I seemed to be having is finding an Intake Manifold. The
> 400
> -> uses the Cleveland 2 barrel heads and these are not easy to but In.
> man.
> -> for. If ANYONE has any suggestions as to which manifold I should use I
> would
> -> really appreciate it. So far all I have seen is the Performer manifold
> ,
> I
> -> wanted the Performer RPM.......
> -> donb ficom.net
>
> Don.
> The only intake manifolds readily available for the 400&351M other then
> the
> stock 2BBL; are just like the Edelbrock Performer, dual plane's. This
> manifold type works well on stock engines giving this engine a much needed
> boost in breathing abilities and a corresponding Torque and Horsepower
> increase; the increase is not huge but noticeable if the Carb is set up
> correctly. Add a set of headers, a good exhaust system, and a mild cam and
> the manifold has reached its limits, 5500 RPM is about it. You can add a
> spacer under the Carb to crutch it some, I found that a 4 hole 1" thick
> worked well under a 600-650CFM Carb. This would allow the engine to freely
> rev to about 5800 RPM while not softening the bottom-end much. To go over
> this you need an open Plenum spacer about 2" thick.
> But what do you do when you want power in the 2500-6500 RPM range?
> Weiand makes a set of adapters that will allow you to bolt on Cleveland
> Manifolds. Now you can run any manifold that was available for the
> Cleveland... But you don't want to get carried away for a street strip
> type
> engine. Weiand also makes a 2BBL Cleveland Single Plane Intake that works
> well on the 400. Generally unless your going racing the single plane 4BBL
> manifolds will make the engine just a tad lazy on the bottom-end, where
> the
> Weiand 2BBL X-cellerator just gives power!
> The adapters are not just a bolt em on an go as there is some fitting that
> must be done. In my case the fitting took a TIG welder, and die grinder!
> The end results also pushed the Carb through the hood of my 79 Bronco!
> But hey the holes there so now I wonder if SWMBO would notice a Tunnel
> Ram...
>
> Just my opinion.
> Muel
>
>
> == 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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:28:56 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Engine Colors

Regarding Jim's comments on Stu's query of Ford blue engine paint colors.

>Regarding all the conversation on "Ford Blue" for engine blocks initiated by
>Stu's question:

> If we knew the whole truth, it would probably be that for years, about
>every 2-400 gallons of blue paint there would be a color shift. It would all
>be "kinda-sorta" the same color, so, as long as you are in the ballpark, I
>would not get too twisted about it.

Hey buddy, I gotta get "worked up" over something!!!!

> Now Stu, on the other hand, given his excessively retentive nature,

Thank you Jim, I will take that as a BIG compliment!!

> hehehe Sorry bub, couldn't resist.

hehehehehe

I will use the Plastikote 205 blue for the engine. However, I will make
sure I get a case
from the same batch though to ensure QC! Good idea Jim! Thanks for
contributing to my anal retentive
disorder!! My threapist will not like you much after that idea!

hehehehe

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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:01:07 -0800 (PST)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - dragging

Thom wrote:
> As I understand the problem without a proportioning valve the
> disc brakes will drag because the system has put too much
> pressure into the system when the pedal is depressed and
> residual pressure remains trapped in the front system.

OK, now you lost me. With front drums there is no proportioning
valve. When the pedal is released, fluid flows right back up
to the master cylinder 1) because the pressure has dropped, and
2) because the springs retract the shoes and compress the wheel
cylinder.

Now you slap on disks, calipers and a disk brake master cylinder
and the brakes drag. The fluid flows back because of the drop
in pressure and there are no springs to retract the caliper so
it stays where it is. What is there to trap residual pressure?


Generally I am too lazy to stop and think the whole thing
through, but I am really beginning to think it is gravity
so here goes.

I don't remember the actual numbers, but atmospheric pressure
which is 14.7psi = ~32ft column of water. That means, and I
measured this, the vertical distance between the calipers and
master cylinder at 2.5ft produces a pressure of 1.1psi. The
difference in density of brake fluid and water comes into it,
but I don't know what the density of brake fluid is. I doubt
it is less dense than water.

The caliper piston looks to be about 2.5" dia. which is an area
of 4.9 square inches. So the force on the pads due to gravity
is 1.1psi x 4.9in^2 = 5.4lbs which I think would drag the
brakes.

I am envisioning the rotor and caliper assembly turned on it's
side with half of an 11lb bowling ball sitting on the piston.
I think it would be a difficult to turn the rotor by hand which
is how it is (was) on my truck. The few times I drove it in
this condition, I didn't feel like the brakes were slowing the
truck down any, but they would get really hot and you could
smell them.

Of course I could have made a fatal error in the above since
this is not really my area, but it looks right to me.

> Another common cause of disc drag is caused by improper
> adjustment of the pushrod between the booster and the master
> cylinder.

How far off would it have to be to cause problems?

I measured mine at .973", higher than the .931-.946" Rob
posted but not by much. Since it was off I went ahead and
adjusted it to .940".


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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:03:25 -0800 (PST)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - kinda long

Ben related from another's posting:
> The problem is in the OEM drum/drum master clyinder(DDMC). Where
> the brake lines screw into the DDMC there is a residual valve(RV)
> which keeps some predetermined amount of pressure in the lines,
> say 10 lbs or so. This is to compensate for the high tension of
> the brake shoe return springs that would otherwise drive the fluid
> back into the DDMC and move the shoes too far from the drums.

I am having a hard time with this. To me, using pressure to
position the brake shoes in their released postion would not be
very repeatable. A mechanical stop in combination with a
mechanical adjuster, either automatic or manually adjusted would
be better and I thought this was how it worked.

In any event, I have a disk brake master cylinder and my front
brakes are dragging.

> If you wanted to keep the DDMC you would have to remove the RV's
> from it and then install an OEM PV which is actually a combination
> valve(CV). The CV contains an RV, PV, and LV(limiter valve).

I think this is something that really contributes to the
confusion. Everyone refers to these things as proportioning valves
when they are really (in the case of our Fords) Metering Valve,
Pressure Differential Valve, and Proportioning valve, each with a
specific and distinct function. The problem is when you say
combination valve, it is not descriptive of what it does. When
someone describes what a proportioning valve does, they are
usually only talking about one of these three functions.

> The LV delays pressure to the front pads so the linings can make
> contact with the drums and the same time the pads do.

I have heard this difference in timing explation before. I think
it makes sense although applying the front brakes first would be
much more desirable than the other way around.

> The RV in the CV only works on the rear drums and holds about 10
> psi in the rear lines.

At this point, I feel like I have about 10psi in my brain. I
don't think our Truck's Combination Valves have residual valve.

> The PV part of the CV maintains balance (created by the LV)
> between the front and rear brakes so the pads don't do all the
> work.

Finally, something I understand completely. I am going to have
to save your message and chew on it some more later. I do want to
get my brakes plumbed up and bled before the end of the day.

Thanks for the information. What kind of Ford is a Wagoneer? :)

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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:05:18 EST
From: Brazzadog aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Comment about proportioning valves - kinda long

In a message dated 2/28/99 1:03:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
draco pacifier.com writes:

> I am having a hard time with this. To me, using pressure to
> position the brake shoes in their released postion would not be
> very repeatable. A mechanical stop in combination with a
> mechanical adjuster, either automatic or manually adjusted would
> be better and I thought this was how it worked.

It is repeatable because the pressure works against the return spring. The
strength of the return spring will basically not change to much until the next
rebuild. In essence it functions as a mechanical stop when combined with the
RV.

> In any event, I have a disk brake master cylinder and my front
> brakes are dragging.
>
> > If you wanted to keep the DDMC you would have to remove the RV's
> > from it and then install an OEM PV which is actually a combination
> > valve(CV). The CV contains an RV, PV, and LV(limiter valve).
>
> I think this is something that really contributes to the
> confusion.

You are probably right, although semantics don't bother me much cause I have
to work with mental images in my head or I'm lost. Near as I can tell all the
parts of the two "combination valves" function the same way but have different
names.

> Thanks for the information. What kind of Ford is a Wagoneer? :)

I guess I didn't get that edited out huh? Oh well, I'm caught. It's a piece
of a Ford otherwise known as a Jeep. I have a '71 with what are basically
Ford parts from the spindle out - I think. There are alot of wrinkles to iron
out yet. I'm working on swapping in an open knuckle front axle with discs
while maintaining the 5 on 5.5" stock rims rather than going to the 6 bolt
Chevy pattern that the disc equiped axles came with. They were basically Ford
from the knuckle out with Chevy discs stuck on. Over the years Jeep used more
GM and Ford parts than they did "Jeep" parts. My stock carb is a Motorcraft
2100. Motorcraft alternators were also stock on the Wagoneers for awhile so I
can now swap alternators, voltage regulators and carbs between my Wagoneer and
my F-250. Later Wagoneers used Duraspark ignitions so once I make that swap
they'll have that in common as well. Don't ask me why I didn't just buy a
Bronco cause I'm wondering that as well. Actually I couldn't find one that
was worth the asking price and that I could afford. First choice would have
been a '78 Bronco but old Wagoneers are very cheap.

Ben Williams
'78 F-250 4wd
'71 Wagoneer
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 02:21:03 -0000
From: "Jeff Carver"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumper, More & 1 FS

I'll third the comment that Barden bumpers are
synonomous with seriously sturdy bumpers on the west coast. Diamond plate, step, wrap around the bed
corner to meet with the wheel well cut-out, set for
a tow hitch, etc.

I have a co-worker who bought a really straight,
clean, original '65 F100 longbed. He quickly
replaced the stock wheels with aluminum, and the
Barden bumper with stock style chrome bumper.

I'm dancing around with him to buy his wheels/tires
to replace my oversize bald ones, and he's trying to
get me to buy his Barden bumper. We keep getting
interrupted about the time $ needs to be discussed.
Dang work, keeps interferring with Ford truck stuff!

Anyone out there interested in the bumper or the
'65 style hubcaps? I assume I can use my '64 hub
caps and the wheel is the same style.

Jeff
'64 F100 CrewCab


Get your FREE Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://personal.lycos.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:06:06 -0700
From: "Jim & Becky White"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumper, More & 1 FS

Jeff,

I'm interested in the 65 Hubcaps. Please email me individually about the
condition and size (diameter) of the caps. I'm still not sure if I have the
original wheels on my 65 because it's currently sporting the very bland
FOMOCO caps that just have the small indented lettering around the edge and
nothing else.

My truck is also set up with the diamondplate "Barden" bumper. Never heard
that name for it until this thread started. They are so common here in the
farming areas of Idaho that I was starting to think they came stock that
way. OOOh the things you learn on this site......

Thanks,

Jim
65 F100 300ci I6 longbed
white micron.net




>
>I have a co-worker who bought a really straight,
>clean, original '65 F100 longbed. He quickly
>replaced the stock wheels with aluminum, and the
>Barden bumper with stock style chrome bumper.
>
>
>Anyone out there interested in the bumper or the
>'65 style hubcaps?
>
>Jeff
>'64 F100 CrewCab
>


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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:45:39 -0500
From: Joe Hartwell
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...

Hi guys,

I have a few problems that can be easily solved if I could just get my=
steering column apart.

=46irst of all, my turn signal doesn't "click" into place. It sometimes=
falls down, activating the left turn signal. When I lift it up to activate=
the right signal, I have to hold it, or it will fall down and turn off or=
activate the left one. So, I need to replace either the plastic clicker or=
the whole switch assembly.

I also have a problem with the horn. It doesn't work. So, I suppose I need=
to replace the horn button (it has a horn button attached to the dash, but=
I'd like to have it work like new, not "rigged"). Again, I need the=
plastic shell to come off the steering column, and this is a problem=
because I can't seem to find any way to unscrew, unhook, unattach any of=
these pieces.

I'm taking a class in college on engines, and my lab instructor, a former=
mechanic, told me it was a pretty complicated procedure, and I might not=
want to tackle it, that the horn set-up was pretty complicated back then. =
He advised a strap on turn signal and getting the button that was added to=
the dash to work. =20

Is this a complicated job? Do I need a lot of special tools? Is it more=
likely I might screw up more than I would fix?

Thanks in advance for all your advice!

Joe Hartwell
1968 Ford F-100 w/ 360, 3-spd on column
1988 Ford Ranger w/ 2.0 L, 5-spd manual


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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:54:07 -0800
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...

John:

To get to the turn signal cam, you need to pull the steering wheel.
Changing the cam is relatively easy. You can either obtain a used one
with wires (threading them down the column can be a challenge or
purchase an aftermarket cam kit and solder the wire connections in
(testing them first of course). There's a thread on this topic in the
archives from a month or so ago.

I'm facing the same task, I purchased the aftermarket kit. I've
installed them before and they are not difficult. As far as special
tools are concerned, you do need a steering wheel puller.

Go for it!

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:58:05 -0800
From: Al Evitts
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 5 Speed transmission

Digesters: Is there or was there ever a 5 speed transmission that will
go on the back of an FE block (390)? I mean one that could be used on
the street or light off road work in a pick up. TIA

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:58:43 -0800
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...

Joe, one other thought. (Sorry I called you John in my other
message).
....

---

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.