Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...

61-79-list-digest Monday, March 1 1999 Volume 03 : Number 069

=======================================================================
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 - Steering column disassembly...
FTE 61-79 - Re: C6 for F600
FTE 61-79 - 5-Speed conversion
FTE 61-79 - Ad Info
FTE 61-79 - '66 NOS Grill
FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...
FTE 61-79 - Emissions and major model modifications
FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves
FTE 61-79 - tailgates
FTE 61-79 - DurasparkII into 69F100
FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves - dragging
FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...
Re: FTE 61-79 - tailgates
FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit
FTE 61-79 - RE: The Rain
Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: The Rain
Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit
Re: FTE 61-79 - 5 Speed transmission
FTE 61-79 - Help! 460 BIG PROBLEM
Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit
Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit
FTE 61-79 - WD-40
Re: FTE 61-79 - WD-40
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
FTE 61-79 - Coil springs and other stuff
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 ho adn cruisomatic tranny
Re: FTE 61-79 - WD-40
Re: FTE 61-79 - Help! 460 BIG PROBLEM
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumper, More & 1 FS
FTE 61-79 - Re: 5 Speed transmission, FTD61-79 V3 #68
Re: FTE 61-79 - DurasparkII into 69F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - WD-40
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ignition System "Possessed"
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 5 Speed transmission
Re: FTE 61-79 - The Rain
FTE 61-79 - Door Sag

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:02:15 EST
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...

In a message dated 3/1/99 12:54:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, hartwell

vt.edu
writes:

> He advised a strap on turn signal and getting the button that was added to=
> the dash to work. =20
>
This is a "fix" but are you going to be satisfied with a Jerry-rigged setup.

> 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?

How mechanically inclined are you? As far as special tools: The only
"special" one you need is the wheel puller and you can make that (see the tech
articles on this site).

You never mention the year of your truck so I'll assume that you are
referring to the 68 mentioned in your tag line. The trick to getting the horn
button off is to press it down and "gently" turn it. I can remember which way
now. But it will be very easy to determine because it does not take much of a
twisting action. Only like a fraction of a turn then it will simply lift up.
This exposes the steering wheel nut. You will need a 15/16" socket to remove
it. Then the wheel puller comes in to play now. There was a thread recently
about changing a turn signal assembly for 73-79. The process is essentially
the same. It isn't really that hard. Just take your time or find a "friend"
who is experienced.

I hope this helps.

~~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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 23:15:25 +1100
From: Margaret Haines
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: C6 for F600

Technical information on the differences between C6 gearbox used in 1975 F600 compared with an F100 -
number of clutch plates etc...

Also needed picture and code number of universal used on tailshaft at C6 gearbox end of F600 drive line.

I am converting an F600 to an automatic and using a 400M engine.
My 1975 truck manual (ford) does not have this information.

>

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 06:43:14 -0600
From: ballingr

ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 5-Speed conversion

> 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

The only one I've ever seen was in the big trucks. The Clark 208. It
has a 1 1/2 inch imput shaft so you have to get the right clutch. I
don't know about the rear yoke, but you can always get a driveshaft
built. The bolt pattern into the bellhousing is the same as the NP435
and T-18-19-98. It's a big, heavy sucker. I'd like to put one in my
'65.

They go for around $500 used around here, you might find one for less in
your neck of the woods. Does anyone have a good one to sell?

I'd bet that an NV4500 (they came behind the 460 and Navistars, and in a
lot of Dodges) could be adapted fairly readily too. But I don't know
this. If I ran across one priced right I'd think about it.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 07:25:41 -0600
From: ballingr

ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ad Info

>
> The link would be free, as long as the other site has a recipricol
> link. For the banner, there really isn't a way to give a full time
> banner because we'd have to:

Just a couple of questions:

What length of time are the exposures on the rate sheet based on?
Weekly, monthly?

Do I need to send my own graphics or just the info I want on it? I have
an animated logo I've made that I'd likely need to resize a little and
put it on a banner.

As an aside, how would I get our own URL ex: www.morad-radiators.com?
That would be a necessity. I've seen the dot.com ads, but I wondered
what all of it entails. I plan to use a "formmail" "CGI script" to
process quote forms that I'll follow up on with an e-mail if we don't
have a product, and a phone call if we do. It would be nice to just zip
everything up and post it like I do with my home page(sent to my ISP
webmaster), but I have a feeling that it won't be that simple without it
costing alot more than it should. Do I need to run my own server(seems
like overkill) and procure my own scripts? I don't think it will be a
high traffic site, but I want to someday put at least selected areas of
our catalog and secure ordering in. Your advice as the voice of
experience?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:38:29 -0600
From: "James Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '66 NOS Grill

couldn't help but suspect someone on the list might be interested in this
item on ebay:

nos ford truck grill , new , mint 1966 (Item #70533791)

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=70533791

As of Monday am, the bid was 205.

Jim E.

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:25:41 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves

I am definitely not an expert on Ford brake systems, but here is my
understanding of the functionality of the proportioning valve.
1. As mentioned, the pressure differential switch is supposed to let you
know when pressure falls below a specified limit in either the front or
rear system.
2. Disc brakes require a higher volume of hydraulic fluid to function than
drum brakes do. The slave cylinders are much larger on the disc calipers.
This is the reason for the differing sizes of reservoirs. On pickups there
is practically no weight on the rear when the truck is empty. If you stomp
the brakes, the rear wheels will lock, possibly causing loss of control.
The proportioning valve is supposed to limit the delivery of hydraulic
fluid in such a manner as to prevent premature rear lockup. If there is a
sudden surge in pressure on the front system, the same cylinder that
activates the warning light slides to limit the rear brakes. The front
system has a higher volume, bigger reservoir, more pressure so it wins. It
is a kind of poor man's ABS that was designed before there was a computer
controlled ABS system. (ABS=Antilock Brake System) It won't prevent 100% of
premature rear locks, but it helps.

Other errata: Disc brakes have no return springs, no adjusters. They are
usually called self adjusting but this is a marketing spin as they are
really no adjusting. As the pads wear out, more and more fluid remains in
the slave cylinder, keeping the pads close to the rotor. They are also
usually called free floating. If your caliper mounts are not properly
lubricated or for some other reason the caliper binds and doesn't float,
you will wear out one pad long before you wear out the other. That's why
they have funny mounting bolts.

- -John

jlagrone

ford-trucks.com
Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 11:56 PM
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.

First 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.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:39:33 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Emissions and major model modifications

>>Have several friends that have gotten there
tag's in another town!

Some folks in the major metropolitan areas in Texas did that for a while to
get around emissions testing. There is now a big fine if you get caught and
if you lie about where your vehicles live, your insurance is no good.

- -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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 07:54:05 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - tailgates

Thanks for your message at 09:06 AM 3/1/99 -0600, James Petty. Your message
was:
>What are some experiences with buying replacement tailgates?
>I've looked in local salvage yards with no luck, so I'm now looking
>at Auto Krafters.
>

I'm just wishing I could even find a replacement for my '62 Unibody...at
least you have a choice.

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: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:16:06 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit

Jeremy,

I don't know what the Haynes manual says, so I hope I am being repetitive.
First either burn up as much gas as you can or siphon out as much as you
can. The emptier the tank the better.

1. Disconnect both battery cables. Don't let anyone smoke within 50 feet of
the truck while you are playng with the gas tank. Don't be bashful.

2. I assume you have a rear tank and a front frame rail tank. You should be
able to remove either tank without jacking up the truck. If you do decide
to raise the truck, raise all four wheels equally. You need a floor jack
and some scrap wood. For the rear tank a 2 foot by 2 foot piece of half
inch or greater plywood works well, for the front tank a 3 foot 2x4 or 2x6
will work. Place the wood on the jack saddle so that it is balanced. Jack
it up against the tank in what you think is the middle so that the tank
will be balanced too (you hope). Barely touch the tank. Don't risk
collapsing it or bending it. Here's the deal. If the tank were empty,
almost anyone could handle it with enough hands. Do you know how much gas
is still in there? Do you know how much your empty tank weighs? Are you
built like Arnold S.? The last thing you want is for a tank full of
gasoline to come crashing down on you.

3. Disconnect the filler hoses. There should be a metal band around the
rubber run of hose where it clamps to the metal tube. Plan on replacing
these with stainless steel clamps if someone hasn't already done so. Some
trucks have a smaller return line in this area. Disconnect it, too.

4. If you can get to the sending unit, unplug it.

5. If you are working on the rear tank, note the position of brake lines,
emergency brake cables, and the differential breather hose. Make sure none
of these are in the way as the tank comes down. Either move them aside or
make plans to avoid them on the way down.

6. Put lots of WD40 or equivalent on the strap bolts. Note where the nuts
are on the bolts. Remove the nuts, alternating sides. At some point the
weight of the tank should transfer to the jack and you should be able to
remove the straps. Remember which one goes where. They are usually just
alike, but better safe than sorry.

7. SLOWLY lower the tank with the jack using one hand to work the jack and
one hand or some other limb to balance the tank. A good assistant can come
in handy here. Remember to disconnect the sending unit as soon as you can
reach it and avoid all of those other lines mentioned before.

8. When you have cleared the truck you can roll the tank out If it doesn't
clear when the jack hits bottom, lift the tank over onto a piece of
cardboard or some other suitable padding so that you can slide it out from
under the truck. Don't drag the bare tank on the driveway. Can you say hole?

9. Like Haynes says, reverse procedure to install.

Good luck!!!

BTW, my front tank registers goofy like yours does. The rear tank registers
correctly. Both use the same dash guage. Someone earlier was asking about
aftermarket sending units. I wonder if there is some way to use the arm
from the original with the aftermarket sender and float? This may not be
doable.

- -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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:30:37 -0700
From: "Richard Currit"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: The Rain

>Talked to a friend last night who asked me >to get you folks' input. 1981
>F100 that runs well, except when it rains. >High humidity-no problem, =
just
>when it's raining. He says even when his >lawn sprinkler happens to hit =
his
>truck, it will hardly start. He can splash it >through standing water - =
no
>problem. He's replaced plugs, points, rotor, >rotor cap. In fact he's =
just
>replaced the engine with a rebuilt 300 - >same problem. Any ideas on what =
he
>should try next.

Back in my youth, when grandma still cooked for the logging camps in =
Western Washington, and my Dad and Uncles still logged, The loggers would =
hose down the Distributor cap and plug wires with WD-40 to keep the =
insides dry. Worth a try, if it works you can then look for a more =
permanent fix.

High Plains Richard
'72 F-100

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 08:39:19 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit

Thanks for your message at 10:16 AM 3/1/99 -0600, John LaGrone. Your
message was:
>Jeremy,
>
>I don't know what the Haynes manual says, so I hope I am being repetitive.
>First either burn up as much gas as you can or siphon out as much as you
>can. The emptier the tank the better.

WHOA! A tank full of fumes will explode much more easily than a tank
plumb full of fuel. The best thing is to get it empty, then fill it full
of water, forcing any fumes out of the tank. It will be heavy, but the
fumes are the dangerous factor, here.
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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 08:40:23 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: The Rain

Thanks for your message at 09:30 AM 3/1/99 -0700, Richard Currit. Your
message was:
>
>Back in my youth, when grandma still cooked for the logging camps in
Western Washington, and my Dad and Uncles still logged, The loggers would
hose down the Distributor cap and plug wires with WD-40 to keep the insides
dry. Worth a try, if it works you can then look for a more permanent fix.
>
Just how long has WD-40 been around?
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: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:42:38 -0500
From: David Wadson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit

>3. Disconnect the filler hoses. There should be a metal band around the
>rubber run of hose where it clamps to the metal tube. Plan on replacing
>these with stainless steel clamps if someone hasn't already done so. Some
>trucks have a smaller return line in this area. Disconnect it, too.

Those are a funny size clamp - the largest I could find at the hardware
store (short of buying a chunk of jumbo pipe with the clamps) was about 3"
diameter. I think the gas tank filler hose is something like 4". Really
helps to have an old one when you go shopping for new clamps...

David Wadson - wadsond

air.on.ca
"PS2" - 78 F100/302/C4

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 08:54:11 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 5 Speed transmission

Al Evitts wrote:

> 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

If you do a search of the old list postings under Clark you should come up
with some information you need. The Clark is an old transmission used in
HD truck for about 30 years and comes with all kinds of different gear
sets.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon

pacific.net

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:02:44 -0500
From: cannandale

netpointe.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Help! 460 BIG PROBLEM

Driving home from school today, i noticed my oil pressure kept dropping,
and then i looked at my temp guage, and it wasnt even regersting (im using
aftermarket guages). So i fugured i blew a radiator hose er something
since the temp sender just sits in the water. Poped the hood, and there
was oil all over the place around the oil fill cap, it had blowen it out,
not a whole lot though. I checked it, and it was 3 qtz. low! i just
checked it yesterday! started it and smelled the exhaust, and no sign of
burning oil, or antifreeze, reved it, and no black or blue smoke.

I just re-uilt this engine about a month ago and have since put about 1000
or so miles on it, could it be a blown head-gasket causing blow-by?
because i pulled out the dip-stick and it was covered in oil almost
half-way up the stick, so i know there is blow-by, just not enough to pop
the stick out. But where did 3 quarts go? It sure didnt blow that much
out. the drain pul leaks a little bit, but no 3 quarts. Could the pcv be
letting oil trough. I have it hooked to the bottom of my edlebrock carb,
so its getting direct vacum, and i know its pulling a little bit though it
because there is some oil in the hose. But is that caused by the blow-by?

Im shooting for a blown head gasket between the oil drains from the head to
the block and a cylinder, but i cant see that either. The engine is
running excellent except for that, no missing, shaking, studdering,
starting, anything.

it makes no sense! i guess i'll through a compression tester on it later,
any ideas would help!

cannandale
'78 F250 4x4, 460 (ack)

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:27:16 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit

Been kinda following this post (already worked on mine twice, the behind
the rear axle type), I was able to do the job myself without jacks at all
... but I knew the tank was dry too ... using blocks I was able to put it
in (was impatient, could've waited for Dad, but he was impressed when he
got home and it was almost done) ... anyway if you have a class III hitch,
you may need to take one side of it loose for the rear ... mine overlaps
just enough to cause me problems, no big deal for me, its just 3 bolts, but
some are welded in ... that could pose a problem...

Something to watch out for.

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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:30:50 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas tank and fuel sending unit

>WHOA! A tank full of fumes will explode much more easily than a tank
>plumb full of fuel. The best thing is to get it empty, then fill it full
>of water, forcing any fumes out of the tank. It will be heavy, but the
>fumes are the dangerous factor, here.

Good point, no one around us smokes, so when I did mine, we just ran it dry
and did the work in a well ventilated area (read front yard). One time we
did it in a garage, but that was both double doors open and a beautiful day
with a little breeze to keep things moving ... never had any real problems
with the fumes hanging around long ... always kept the doors and windows
open (of the garage, not the truck!)

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: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:08:12 EST
From: JUMPINFORD

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - WD-40

In a message dated 99-03-01 11:48:12 EST, you write:

>

Not sure how long its been around, But I know it was developed either by or
for the US Govt. They sprayed it on the ICB's (those Russian bound suckers)
to prevent rust. The WD actually stands for water displacement. I swear by
this info as it was a question on Jeopardy. :-)

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:37:47 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WD-40

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.octane.com/WD40/index.html#anchor2579647
If you realy want to know...

Sam Weatherby http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://insert.com/sammy
SWeatherby

UsWest.Net A-SamWe

Microsoft.com
'70 Grabber Sportsroof Mustang
'93 F-150 XLT Lightning
'98 HD FXD Super Glide
'65 F100

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:40:24 -0500
From: TracyJones

cinergy.com
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

> ----------
> From: don[SMTP:donb

ficom.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 1999 11:44 PM
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
>
> Well, after reading all the posts on the 400 , it just so happens I happen
> to be rebuilding one as we speak. It is a 1971 400 M that was in a Ford
> Galaxie apparently and I am putting in my 79 F-150.
>
Hey Folks

Didn't the early (pre '72 or '73) Modifieds have a small block bellhouse
pattern?

Tracy

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:42:44 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering column disassembly...

Joe Hartwell wrote:
>

>
> 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,
>

Here's a quote from a catalog I've got. Sorry guys, I've been reading again:"You can do a lot of the work on your truck yourself, if you would try. I know you've heard it said " You should let a professional do it" Well, where do you think those professionals started. THINK ABOUT IT."
Sales pitch? I don't think so. So far everything I've done to my truck has been a learning experience. In fact, I have to correct the same problems on my '64 F-250.

GO FOR IT!!!!!!

Ted
Bellevue,OH

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:17:12 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Yo Gang:

As a devout M-block devotee, I want to make a few observations on the 400/Clevor
thread. Sorry I missed out on it this weekend.

>From: Don Yerhot
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
>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 $$$.

This is the bottom line. If you have an M-block engine, there are several
options available for performance enhancement at less cost than stroking a 351W
or adapting Cleveland heads to a Windsor block . The stroker kits I have seen
cost at least $2500 for just the short block. There are additional expenses
involved w/ the Clevor hybrid, the intake manifold in particular. I can assure
you that for $2500, you can build a rip-snortin' 400 that makes as much or more
torque than any stroker or Clevor hybrid, and furthermore, it will be a reliable
150K mile engine outlasting the others by years.

AFAIK, the strokers and Clevor hybrids are intended for lightweight
applications, such as a Mustang. In a real-world truck application, where the
torque available below 3K rpm pretty much determines the usefulness of the
engine, the only way you can get more power than a well built M-block is w/ a
460 big block.

>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.

Actually, JP's last statement is the main point. If you have a vehicle that
came w/ (or was available w/) a 351W or 302 as the largest engine option from
the factory, a Clevor or Windsor stroker might be a viable option for more power
in a convenient package. OTOH, if your truck came w/ an M-block (or was
available w/ an M-block option, i.e., 1977-1982), the only reason to switch to a
351W from an M-block is to save weight (about 100 lbs) in the front end.

>Also there have been some casting problems
>with the M series engines, and offten the
>cleveland block is prone to cracking.

The only documented casting problem I have ever seen in M-blocks was w/ the pre
March, 1977 problem w/ the water jacket in the block. All of Ford's mid- to
late-'70s (post FE) engine castings (blocks and heads) are purported to have
core shift problems, but this alleged problem is not unique to the M-block.

As for Cleveland or M-block fracturing and oiling problems, these are mostly
rumors and high performance folklore. Other than freak incidents (which can
happen w/ any engine) I have never heard of either an oiling problem or a block
failing in either Clevelands or M-blocks at less than 7000 rpm. If you plan on
sustained engine speeds in excess of 6500 rpm, or maybe momentary bursts around
8K+ rpm, you'd be better off w/ a seriously built 302, 351W, or 385 series
(429/460) big block.

>The problem is how expensive all this gets.
>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.

And how much do those aftermarket W heads cost? By the time you get a Windsor
head to outflow even the puniest M-block head (351C 2V ports and valves), you're
another $1K into it! That's another reason that the lowly M-block has such vast
untapped power potential.

>From: Ted Wnorowski
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
[part of quote from Moses' Ford Bible]
> 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."

Much as I hate to disagree w/ a guy named Moses writing a book entitled "Bible,"
I have to take issue w/ a couple of his points. First off, I have no idea what
he means when he says that the "modified" engines were created around the 351W.
The 351M was a stop-gap design to replace the 351C when 351C production ended in
1974. There were rumors that the 351M was created by dropping a 351W crankshaft
into the 400 block, but if you look at what it takes to modify a 400 crank to
fit a Windsor block for a stroker, that's obviously not true. The 400 was a
unique design that was introduced in the 1971 model year. The 400 has the
longest stroke of any Ford pushrod V8, it was the ultimate development of the
335 series engine design (which started w/ the 351C), and it was the last
pushrod V8 Ford ever designed.

The relatively short production life of all the 335 series engines (1970 to
1982) was the result of a confluence of sad events: tightening emissions
controls in the late '60s/early '70s, the OPEC embargo that drove petroleum
prices to increase by 400% in less than two years, and Ford's withdrawal of any
corporate support for automotive high performance beginning in 1972.

Although the M-block's history in F trucks was brief (1977 to 1982), it was
profound. Until the 1983 model year, the 400 was the largest engine ever
offered in a 4x4 Ford truck.

>From: "sam weatherby"
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?
>
>You would also be able to go to EFI if you really got crazy.

OK, Sam makes a good point. If you want to go w/ EFI, that would be a reason to
switch from an M-block to a 351W. The M-block cannot be easily adapted to a
feedback engine control system because it injects air from the Thermactor
directly into the exhaust ports, and consequently, it cannot be easily fitted w/
an O2 sensor to measure lean/rich conditions.

>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.

Obviously, the production lifespan of an engine and the variety of applications
it has (or had) are big factors in determining the aftermarket support for high
performance options. By either measure the 351W beats the M-block (27 years vs.
11 years of production and a half-dozen or so applications vs. 2 or 3).

OTOH, there aren't a lot of things you need to replace in an M-block to make it
perform, and a lot of what you do need to replace are components that are shared
w/ the 351C (pistons, camshaft, valve gear, etc.). As Steve L. mentioned, the
number of aftermarket parts available isn't necessarily a reflection of the
engine's performance potential.

Dollar for dollar, a 400 will give you more torque than a 351W. Because of the
soundness of its basic design, the 400 doesn't need a lot of hyper-exotic
components or expensive technology to get serious torque at lower rpm than the
Windsor.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:17:49 -0500
From: "Campbell, Mark"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Coil springs and other stuff

Hey,

I was looking for a set of front coil springs for my 1978 4X4, the
drivers side is sagging some. I saw an add in a catalogue for "JEFF'S
BRONCO GRAVEYARD", was just wondering if anyone had any experience with
them??? I had a few other small items of need also, molding, door seals
etc... I have been to the local dealership and the prices, even with my
cousin working there and if it is a stocked item, is high. Is there a
good place to go to on the web or write to for after market or OEM
parts. I'd like to work through some options, so where is your favorite
place to order Ford parts????

Thanks...

Mark
Yellow 1978 F150 4X4 Ranger Stepside
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:20:42 -0800
From: Las Vegas Internet user
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 ho adn cruisomatic tranny

First, to all those who have helped me diagnose the small problems with my
truck online,
Thank YOU , very much

Second I have found out that I do not have to rebuild my 390 or replace it,
It is running great, a little low on one cylinder's compression, but
livable.
Anyway, a co worker of mine was going to let me have an engine tranny combo
for $500.00.
engine is '64 galaxy 390, he says HO, Police car back then I guess.
tranny is same year, Cruisomatic. both have been rebuilt, and not run since,
if you are seriously interested, respond to
Moores

vegasnet.net.
It is now on the local market so will go soon.
thanks again and later guys

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 15:31:50 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WD-40

>In a message dated 99-03-01 11:48:12 EST, you write:
>
>>
>
>
>Not sure how long its been around, But I know it was developed either by or
>for the US Govt. They sprayed it on the ICB's (those Russian bound suckers)
>to prevent rust. The WD actually stands for water displacement. I swear by
>this info as it was a question on Jeopardy. :-)

hehehehe, I am still laughing about Alex asking that one on Jeapordy!
It also works great as a starting fluid. Used it frequently starting
diesel engines on
gasoline/diesel barges years ago when we were out of ether.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:43:30 -0900
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Help! 460 BIG PROBLEM

You have the right diagnostic idea, Compression tester. Sounds like a head
gasket or.... and I know you do not want to hear this but.. Broken ring, or
at least one cylinder that has rings not sealing..The compression test will
show whats what.

Erik Marquez
78 Bronco
bronco78

mosquitonet.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mosquitonet.com/~bronco78
bronco78 on the BB chat

- -----Original Message-----
From: cannandale

netpointe.com
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 8:08 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Help! 460 BIG PROBLEM

>Driving home from school today, i noticed my oil pressure kept dropping,
>and then i looked at my temp guage, and it wasnt even regersting (im using
>aftermarket guages). So i fugured i blew a radiator hose er something
>since the temp sender just sits in the water. Poped the hood, and there
>was oil all over the place around the oil fill cap, it had blowen it out,
>not a whole lot though. I checked it, and it was 3 qtz. low! i just
>checked it yesterday! started it and smelled the exhaust, and no sign of
>burning oil, or antifreeze, reved it, and no black or blue smoke.
>
>I just re-uilt this engine about a month ago and have since put about 1000
>or so miles on it, could it be a blown head-gasket causing blow-by?
>because i pulled out the dip-stick and it was covered in oil almost
>half-way up the stick, so i know there is blow-by, just not enough to pop
>the stick out. But where did 3 quarts go? It sure didnt blow that much
>out. the drain pul leaks a little bit, but no 3 quarts. Could the pcv be
>letting oil trough. I have it hooked to the bottom of my edlebrock carb,
>so its getting direct vacum, and i know its pulling a little bit though it
>because there is some oil in the hose. But is that caused by the blow-by?
>
>Im shooting for a blown head gasket between the oil drains from the head to
>the block and a cylinder, but i cant see that either. The engine is
>running excellent except for that, no missing, shaking, studdering,
>starting, anything.
>
>it makes no sense! i guess i'll through a compression tester on it later,
>any ideas would help!
>
>cannandale
>'78 F250 4x4, 460 (ack)
>
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:52:15 -0800 (PST)
From: JP Morgon
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Dave,

By no means was I saying pitch the M's in the garbage. First of all
and most inmportant I have to look at it from my point of veiw. I
have a 302 in my truck, an easyway to get power with very few mods.
to the vehicle is to drop in a 351W. I thought long and hard about a
460 but came back to the 351W because I would still have almost as
much room on both sides to wrench on the thing and better mileage.
The problem I found with the Clevor get up is the price and
availablity for a manifold, $300-400 just for a manifold, and now I
need custom headers to get the thing going. Thats why I decided on
the aftermarket heads.

Everybody here gets to defensive when a comment is made about
something. So what if someone doesn't think the M's are the best
engine in the world. I could careless if someone didn't like the
Windsors, its not the end of the world. Were all talking about Fords
here not Chevy on Ford thats a different story:). Granted I have a
Chevelle which is odd with how I never cared much for Chevys, but I
look at it this way if it looks good and runs good who cares if its a
Chevy, Ford, Mopar ,221,351W,M,C,FE,or 385(alphabetical and numerical
order of course) . Its someones pride and joy, thats what matters.

JT

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:03:10 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

>From: "don"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
>
>Well, after reading all the posts on the 400 , it just
>so happens I happen to be rebuilding one as we
>speak. It is a 1971 400 M that was in a Ford
>Galaxie apparently and I am putting in my 79
>F-150.

Yo Don:

If you want to maintain emissions legality and preserve the EGR function, there
is only one aftermarket intake manifold choice, the Edelbrock Performer #3771.
Unfortunately, you'll have to cough up another $50 or so for the 4V EGR adapter.
That adapter allows you to use any standard square bore 4V carb and use the
stock Ford EGR valve.

Good luck w/ your truck.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:12:43 -0600
From: "Oscar Johnson"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumper, More & 1 FS

Jeff,

I'm looking for a rear bumper for my 71 F250; the original owner did not
buy one. Tell me more about it, and where is it located? I am in Prattville,
AL.

Regards,
O.T. Johnson

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 00:41:40 GMT
From: cdailey

newsguy.com (Chad Dailey)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 5 Speed transmission, FTD61-79 V3 #68

Al--

According to my '68 shop manual, I show several 5 speeds that were
offered in F-100's to F-600's: the Clark 280-VO overdrive, the Clark
282-V and 285-V direct drive, the New Process 541-FO overdrive, and
the New Process 541-F and 541-FD direct drive. There are a bunch more
for the F-700 thru 1000 series, but the chance that one used an FT
series motor diminishes on those trucks (okay, maybe F-700's might
have one with an FT/FE).

I have heard of people hooking up the Clark's to FT/FE engines, have
heard nothing of the New Process trannys. I have also heard of an
Allison tranny of some breed being installed behind a 390, no other
details. None of the trannys are easy to find (at least around here).

All of these tranny's will probably survive *anything* you cold throw
at them. They are super heavy duty, big, and heavy.

Chad

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:31:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>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: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:25:26 EST
From: My427Stang

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - DurasparkII into 69F100

Make sure the ignition box is grounded, I recommend drilling out the box and
using new 5/16 bolts with nuts, instead of the factory set up which corrodes
easy. If the wiring is correct, I would guess you have a ground problem, you
wont get spark without the box grounded, but a small spark will shoot through
due to backfeed. Hope this helps!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 17:35:20 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WD-40

Thanks for your message at 03:31 PM 3/1/99 -0600, Stu Varner. Your message
was:
>>
>>Not sure how long its been around, But I know it was developed either by or
>>for the US Govt. They sprayed it on the ICB's (those Russian bound suckers)
>>to prevent rust. The WD actually stands for water displacement. I swear by
>>this info as it was a question on Jeopardy. :-)
>
>hehehehe, I am still laughing about Alex asking that one on Jeapordy!
>It also works great as a starting fluid. Used it frequently starting
>diesel engines on
>gasoline/diesel barges years ago when we were out of ether.

I am amazed...I can ask ANYTHING on here and someone in the group knows the
answer...I've been on here awhile, and I still get surprised at the
knowledge-base of this bunch...

Dennis L. Pearson

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 17:40:21 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M or 351Clevor?

Thanks for your message at 03:52 PM 3/1/99 -0800, JP Morgon. Your message was:
>Everybody here gets to defensive when a comment is made about
>something. So what if someone doesn't think the M's are the best
>engine in the world. I could careless if someone didn't like the
>Windsors, its not the end of the world.

This is very well put.

But this....people will be watching you...
Granted I have a
>Chevelle which is odd with how I never cared much for Chevys, but I
>look at it this way if it looks good and runs good who cares if its a
>Chevy, Ford, Mopar ,221,351W,M,C,FE,or 385(alphabetical and numerical
>order of course) . Its someones pride and joy, thats what matters.

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: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 21:15:17 -0500
From: Brad Smith
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ignition System "Possessed"

At 03:30 PM 2/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
> I think I need an exorcist to fix this problem :) Yesterday I came home
>>from work shutoff my truck, took out the key and then noticed the truck was
>still idling. The only way I could shut it off was to stall it in gear.
> Today I went out to replace the ignition switch, which I thought must have
>been stuck in the run position. I started the truck and removed the
>electrical connector from the switch, and with the switch sitting on the
>seat beside me not connected to anything , the truck continued to run. Ok
>so it wasnt the switch.
> Next thought was that the starter relay was stuck and supplying voltage to
>the ignition coil all the time. Removed the small wires from the starter
>relay, and the engine continued to purr away.
> Then I got out my trusty voltmeter and started fault-finding. There was
>voltage at the positve of the ignition coil, truck running ignition switch
>removed. Disconnected the coil positive engine died, voltage gone. ????
>reconnected the coil still no voltage, restarted the truck voltage back
>turned key off voltage still there and engine still going, kinda like the
>energiser bunny ..... hhhmmmmm. Disconnected the ground from the coil,
>engine died voltage gone. Reconnected the ground still no voltage at
>positive terminal.
> Then after referring to the Haynes wiring diagram, I disconnected the wire
>running from the ignition switch to the voltage regulator, at the
>regulator, with the engine running, and engine died. Aha I thought the
>regulator was screwed up and somehow finding a path for voltage to the
>ignition coil. So I replaced the regulator with a spare one. Started the
>truck turned the key off and it continued running ??????
> Further checking revealed that the radio, heater, turn signals, wipers,
>fuel guage, oil pressure guage, water temp guage all didnt work with the
>key off and the engine running. Next I checked to see if the alternator was
>charging with the key off, and yes it was working just as per normal.
> I am at a loss as to what is causing this problem. Any ideas as to what I
>am missing? If I cant figure it out I will just add a "kill" switch in the
>igniton coil ground circuit, but i would really like the ignition switch to
>work as it is supposed to.
> Thanks.
>Sparky
>73F250 4X4
>390FE 2V
>"presently possessed by ignition demon"
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
You might want to try and replace the ignition module mounted on the
sidewall... Don't know if that would help, but sounds like the only thing
left in the system, unless you've got a short somewhere.... Good luck!

The two best times to go fishing are when it is raining, and when it is
not...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:24:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Koster
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 5 Speed transmission

Chad,

Do you have the gear ratios in that nice, handy-dandy manual of yours?

Dan

- ---Chad Dailey wrote:
>
> Al--
>
> According to my '68 shop manual, I show several 5 speeds that were
> offered in F-100's to F-600's: the Clark 280-VO overdrive, the Clark....

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.