Re: FTE 61-79 - someone on this list is also from T-Bay NWO

61-79-list-digest Wednesday, March 3 1999 Volume 03 : Number 073

=======================================================================
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 - someone on this list is also from T-Bay NWO
FTE 61-79 - Re: 460 Big Problems!
FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant
RE: FTE 61-79 - 79 4x4 resto
FTE 61-79 - V8 vs Thunderbolt Front Emblem
FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers
FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
RE: FTE 61-79 - Looking for a Holley Mile Dial
FTE 61-79 - wd 40
Re: FTE 61-79 - Transfer Cases
Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
FTE 61-79 - proportioning valve
FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves
FTE 61-79 - DurasparkII into 69F100
FTE 61-79 - 460 - Big ProBlems!
Re: FTE 61-79 - proportioning valve
FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?
RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?
RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
FTE 61-79 - Under Hood Hi-Lift jack mounting
Re: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant
Re: FTE 61-79 - wd 40
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
FTE 61-79 - 8-bolt Warn Hubs
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
FTE 61-79 - Another look at my new 1963 F-250 Utility's true condition...
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 - Big ProBlems!
FTE 61-79 - Operator's Manual
Re: FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves
Re: FTE 61-79 - Operator's Manual
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades
FTE 61-79 - Oops again!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - V8 vs Thunderbolt Front Emblem
FTE 61-79 - WD40
FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods
FTE 61-79 - Re: 5 Speed transmission, FTD61-79 V3 #69
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:30:02 -0500
From: David Wadson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - someone on this list is also from T-Bay NWO

>hey mark thought i'd respond i live in gulfport....... well i'm off to work
>this early am
>talk later.........................................T

>>I live in T-bay also email me or give me a shout 623 5229 would like
>>to shoot the s#*t on fords... mdavie

flash.lakeheadu.ca

Actually Mark is referring to Thunder Bay, Northwestern Ontario...one heck
of a long way from Tampa Bay...north of the 49th parallel. We no longer
drive dogsleds - we've switched to old Ford trucks...

Ahhh...Lakehead University - the only time my truck got towed when it
wasn't broken. Nothing like skipping out of class early, going out to the
parking lot and wondering why someone would steal a POC Ford truck...then
you remember the unpaid parking ticket...

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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 07:34:52 -0500
From: Steve Schaefer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 460 Big Problems!

>
>
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 19:44:24 -0500
> From: "Norm or Tracie Tischer"
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 - Big ProBlems!
>
> There is one thing i dont understand with all of this, why dosent it smoke?
> Its just dosent smoke, period, i ran it for hours in the drivway trying to
> get it to, reveing and letting off, letting it sit, you could just never
> see ANYTHING come out of the tail-pipes. Ive had 3 ppl watch it and they
> never saw anything. Wouldnt it be smoking oif it was the rings??
>
> I would double check the compression, like stated before. Other than that all I can do is share and experience. I had a 400M (I don't care what any one says, a 400m will work as hard as a
> 460), that ran rough, needed gaskets and was useing about 3 quarts of oil a week. I knew the cam was worn, so I started to tear it down. This motor only smoked a little when letting off the
> gas. What I found was 1 cylinder that was missing 1 compression ring and the second ring was cracked, and another cylinder that had a gasket leak between the intake port and the lifter
> valley. The intake port was darn near closed shut with oil sludge.

I hope this can give you a couple of ideas.

Steve
77 F-250
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/8663/

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 04:50:04 PST
From: "brian vance"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant

Since we are talking about steering boxes, I was wondering what
everybody used to fill the box up with. Upon removing the plug on top
of my box I observed it was empty. My shop manual states to use SAE 90
EP. I bet alot of peoples boxes are dry and they don't know any better,
until they start getting alot of play. So anyway I filled mine with SAE
50 (I had an extra quart after replacing the 80-90 in my X-fer case and
4-speed with SAE 50.) I could not find SAE 90 EP anywhere and nobody
knew what I was talking about. I called three Ford dealers in the area
and got three different answers. One said use 80-90, one said use power
steering fluid, another had no clue what I was even talking about and
asked me to bring my book in. Just curious what other people use.

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:46:49 -0500
From: "Campbell, Mark"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 79 4x4 resto

To B.T.A.K.

I run 35x12.5x15's BFG A/T's mounted on 15x8 in Jackman wheels on my
1978 F-150 4x4 Ranger. The tires rub (not sure here) the radius arms
that mount to the frame and front axle but only when the steering wheel
is turned all the way, other than that they don't rub and they come
about 1 1/2 inches from the fender opening during a turn. They don't
rub in the wheel well either. I rarely have purpose to turn the wheel
that hard and usually give myself a wide girth when turning. I have the
quad shock set up in front and there is a difference between the mono
and double perch types. I personally like the rake (being lower in the
front), but like so many have stated, it's a personal choice.

Good luck
Florida Mark
Yellow 1978 F-150 4x4 Ranger Stepside

- -----Original Message-----
From: B.T.A.K [mailto:btak

mail.nucleus.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:39 PM
To: 61-79-list
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79 4x4 resto

I am starting a frame-up restoration on my 79 F150 4x4, since I have not
owned this truck very long I have a few questions...

1) The front end of the truck sits a few inches lower than the back, and
the
back has a 3 inch block between the axle and the leafsprings. Is the
front
end low because of sag in the springs or is it just the way it came from
the
factory new? Will new springs level the truck or do i need something
else

2) The truck has the single shock setup on the front, what is the
largest
size tires that can be put on without any clearance problems. Will
those
BFG 33x12.5R 15 fit?

3) Are the left and right radius arms interchangeable?

== 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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 14:01:35 -0000
From: "Jeff Carver"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - V8 vs Thunderbolt Front Emblem

While at a wrecking yard I found a '65 F250 Camper Special
and grabbed the front emblem thinking it was the same as mine.

I then checked, my original hood '64 F100 has the Thunderbolt emblem.

This lends credence to '65 being the Year of Change of Emblems,
rather than defferences in engines.
Makes sense as the side ones changed location that year also.

Jeff
'64 F100 CrewCab
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

> I think the thunderbolt hood emblem was originally for 6-cylinder trucks. Am
> I correct, Anyone ?
>
I thought the same thing, my '64 250 originally had the 292 in it.
It has the ring gear and lightening bolt on it. I guess the '61-'66
emblem was used on '61-'64 6-cylinders and V-8's. It wasn't until
'65 that V-8 trucks actually had a V-8 on the emblem.

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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:02:48 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Barden Bumpers

I'm not familiar with the Barden brand, down here we have a brand called
Ruffneck. From the way the descriptions have been, the design is similar. I
remember a lot of those bumpers in the mid 60s early 70s that bolted to the
fender right behind the rear wheel well. It looks strong, but in reality if
you do something that will bend your bumper, it will also bend your
fender(s). I personally would avoid any bumper that joined to the body's
sheet metal.

- -John

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:32:09 -0500
From: "Brent_Cole"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure

From: Brent Cole

ILGW on 03/03/99 09:32 AM EST

To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
cc:
Subject: 460 Valve spring pressure

I am building a 1978 460 for my F250 and I purchased the recommended
(recommended by the manufacturer of the engine kit) dual valve springs with
dampers. My machine shop installed them but said the pressure was a little
on the high side for stock valves. He said they were running around 150
lbf/in. I am running standard hydraulic lifters (included in the same kit)
and an RV cam (again in the same kit), 3 angle valve job and 9:1 pistons.
So who should I belive the catalog from which I ordered (Federal Mogul
Performance Catalog, Engine Kit MHP-178) or my machine shop? Anyone have
any info on the valve spring pressure with stock valves or any experience
with double coil spings your suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks
Brent Cole

1979 F250 4X4, 460, C6, NP205, 4.56 Dana44F & 60R with Detroits, Mint
Green - Project Truck
1976 F150 2x4, 400M, C6, Parts Truck for Project Truck
1974 F100 2x4, 302, FMX, - Hauls parts from Parts Truck to Project Truck,
(doubles as last resort parts truck)

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:45:06 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

The different compression between the 2v (9:1) and the 4v(9.5:1) is probably
due to different pistons, then.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:luxjo

thecore.com [SMTP:luxjo

thecore.com]
> Sent:Tuesday, March 02, 1999 5:21 PM
> To:61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
>
> John MacNamara wrote:
> >
> > The intakes are 1.85 and the exhausts are 1.54 "'s.
> >
>
> The 2v valves are the same size. I have a set that I pulled off a 351W
> I took out of my 69 Galaxie. It was a 2 bbl motor.
>
> OX
> == 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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 08:51:24 -0600
From: Don Yerhot
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

>From what I've been able to find out, the 69 to 74 heads were the same.
The 69 4 barrel engine just had higher compression piston's, I believe
they were 10.5 to 1. The one big difference beside's the valve sizes was
the fact that they used 8 bolts on each side for the intake manifold
instead of the 6 used on 75 and later heads. So keep that in mind when
looking for intakes. I believe that both Edlebrock and Offenhauser have
them available. Hope that helps.

Fomodon
65F250-351W
69F100-300-6

Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

i've always been told there is a difference, but i don't think so i have
seen
both 2v and 4v heads for 69, they both have casting #c9oe, and i think
the
70's are the same D00E, of course i've never checked valve sizes, port
sizes
etc,
maybe someone else has more input.
jeff grant

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:52:28 -0500
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

No definitely not, the 351w head belongs to the 289/302 family of v8's and
the 351m,400m and 351c are a family separate to themselves.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:MARK DAVIES [SMTP:mdavie

flash.lakeheadu.ca]
> Sent:Tuesday, March 02, 1999 5:59 PM
> To:61-79-list

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - wd 40

Garrell D. writes: >>Dont say that Az! Ive used it several times for finding
stubborn vacuum
leaks, just spray the suspected areas, if the idle changes PRESTO found the
leak. Maybe they should call it Cure All.

Yes, and I also know folks that use it all the time, but that doesn't make ME
want to use it and certainly not to recommend someone else use it. If a stray
spark ever gets to it, I hope you have a suitable fire extinguisher handy, and
are still able to use it.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 09:32:21 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Transfer Cases

>Has anyone ever attempted to rebuild a NP 203 Transfer case? Do they make
>a bearing/seal/gasket kit for the rebuild? How long to actually do the
>rebuild... I've had the T-case out before so I know how long R&R takes, but
>some rebuild info would be nice... Thanks!

Never done this myself, but when I had it done I had to take it to a
different shop. The tranny shop that I trust with everything couldn't get
the parts! They found one shop in the Quad Cities (IA/IL) that had the
stuff and said they would put their gaurantee behind him, so that's where I
took it. At any rate be sure you've got all the parts before you start
would be my suggestion ... are you putting a part time kit in ?

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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 09:29:51 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

At 08:51 AM 3/3/99 , you wrote:
>From what I've been able to find out, the 69 to 74 heads were the same.
>The 69 4 barrel engine just had higher compression piston's, I believe
>they were 10.5 to 1. The one big difference beside's the valve sizes was
>the fact that they used 8 bolts on each side for the intake manifold
>instead of the 6 used on 75 and later heads. So keep that in mind when
>looking for intakes. I believe that both Edlebrock and Offenhauser have
>them available. Hope that helps.
>

Hmm...I was always under the impression that the 4V heads were more
desireable, maybe its just one of those myths that's been goin around for
so long everyone believes it ...

As for the bolt thing, when I bought my first car (69 Cougar 351W), it had
a Holley Street Dominator intake manifold on it, with some oversized holley
carb (this car proved there is such a thing as too much carb, it sucked
below 2500 revs). Anyway the manifold only had the 6 bolts, we were a
little surprised to have to dig up more bolts when we put a 2V manifold
back on. Now I know when the change over was, thanks guys!

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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:33:43 -0600
From: John LaGrone
Subject: FTE 61-79 - proportioning valve

wish,

I don't know the answer to the size question for sure, but a smaller MC
could be the problem as it would not deliver the correct amount of fluid
without travelling farther. Another possibility is that your proportioning
valve is stuck to one side and not functioning properly.

Now I just answered my own question. My proportioning valve is stuck so
that the two sytems are not isolated. I re-engineered the MC to compensate
and my brakes work great. This also means that all of the discussion about
compensators and pressure maintainers, etc. has to be bogus or I wouldn't
have brakes at all.

- -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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:16:19 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - proportioning valve

>Now I just answered my own question. My proportioning valve is stuck so
>that the two sytems are not isolated. I re-engineered the MC to compensate
>and my brakes work great. This also means that all of the discussion about
>compensators and pressure maintainers, etc. has to be bogus or I wouldn't
>have brakes at all.
>
>-John

Glad I could help .... ??? :)

Brakes ? Who needs brakes ? :)

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: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:39:48 -0700
From: "James Draughn"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?

I have posted here before asking what I could do to get more power out of a
351 Winsdor and the help was great. Now what I would like to know is what
would make the biggest difference in horsepower/torque in upgrades? Would
heads make the biggest difference? Or Intake or exaust? I am very new to
the performance scene and am learning alot. So far I have 8.9-1 compression
pistons and a cam that the machinist said would help a little, but it
wouldint be of any use to go higher with the cam because the Engine can't
breath. However, he said that I could up the horsepower in a 351 modified
easily. I am so confused, I get the feeling he don't really have any idea
what hes talking about. If I where to get heads for this Winsdor (out of a
79 ford van by the way), what should I look for? Would I have any luck at a
junk yard for rebuildable heads I can use that would help up the HP/Torque?
I hear that 351c heads work really well for helping the Winsdor. Do they
just bolt on, or do there need to be modifications? What are the chances of
finding 351c heads at a junkyard, pretty much no chance? In the ford
manual I got from the parts store it said that the 351W in my van put out
like 135 HP stock. That seems very, very low to me, how is it they are some
of the best engines for power when they are some of the lowest in HP stock
form? Thanks for your guys input.

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:28:42 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?

>like 135 HP stock. That seems very, very low to me, how is it they are
some
>of the best engines for power when they are some of the lowest in HP stock

Lightning's are rated at 245 hp. With a nice braod torque curve.
What year is your van?

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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:45:43 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?

>351 Winsdor and the help was great. Now what I would like to know is what
>would make the biggest difference in horsepower/torque in upgrades? Would
>heads make the biggest difference? Or Intake or exaust? I am very new to
>the performance scene and am learning alot. So far I have 8.9-1 compression
>pistons and a cam that the machinist said would help a little, but it
>wouldint be of any use to go higher with the cam because the Engine can't
>breath.

The thing I've always heard is that the engines can't breathe, when they
say this they mean from either side exhaust and intake. The exhaust is
probably the best starting point for most applications, if you can open
things up a bit, headers, hi-flo cats (if required by app and state),
larger pipes, all that stuff will really reduce the back pressure and help
the motor breathe. Be careful of going too far or you'll lose your low end
torque, but I think that the people on this list can probably make good
recommendations. Another side to open up is the carb side, if you can get
the air out, but not in,it won't help you much, so a nice aftermarket
manifold will help things, probably a nice dual plane with a little bit of
rise on it. All this depends on how far you want to go with the motor, if
you're going to be racing all the time, then a little taller manifold and
probably an open plenum (as opposed to 4 hole) will do you good, if you are
going to just drive it around town, then you should stick to getting your
parts for the lower rpm stuff ... As for cam, well that's usually best
done after you get your intake and exhaust, just so you can get the flow
you need from it ... though since you have the cam, maybe buying the parts
to optimize its range will work ... its really up to you and what you want
to do with it ... there are lots and lots of parts out there for the
302/351 engines, so just relax and do some research til you find what you
think you want/need ... the people on this are always willing to help ...
you also might check the performance list, and the archives to see if
someone's already done what you are asking about, maybe the answers are all
tucked away ...

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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:53:33 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

"John MacNamara" on 03/03/99 07:52:28 AM

Please respond to 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com

To: "'61-79-list

ford-trucks.com'"
cc: (bcc: Dave Resch/SYBASE)
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

No definitely not, the 351w head belongs to the 289/302 family of v8's and
the 351m,400m and 351c are a family separate to themselves.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

nortelnetworks.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MARK DAVIES [SMTP:mdavie

flash.lakeheadu.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 5:59 PM
> To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
>
> would these heds work on a 351m400 block i know its been talked about
> in the last little while but i cant rem what was said
> == 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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 12:02:12 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?

James Draughn wrote:
>
> If I where to get heads for this Winsdor (out of a
> 79 ford van by the way), what should I look for?

They would not be any different than the one's you have now, possibly
worse. What year is your current motor?

> I hear that 351c heads work really well for helping the Winsdor. Do they
> just bolt on, or do there need to be modifications? What are the chances of
> finding 351c heads at a junkyard, pretty much no chance?

By the time you get them,rebuild them and get a custom intake for them,
you could get a used complete set of late model GT40 casts or alum or
edlb's or a bunch of others.

In the ford
> manual I got from the parts store it said that the 351W in my van put out
> like 135 HP stock. That seems very, very low to me, how is it they are some
> of the best engines for power when they are some of the lowest in HP stock
> form?

If it is a 79, the HP ratings were at a low point for everything out
there. All the motors were choked due to emission regs, but they didn't
have the modern EFI to get power and minimal emissions.

OX

>
> == 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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:33:49 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads

Re: my previous post. Oooops! Sorry about that, clicked the wrong button (Send
instead of Save).

>From: "John MacNamara"
>Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
>
>No definitely not, the 351w head belongs to the
>289/302 family of v8's and the 351m,400m and
>351c are a family separate to themselves.
>
> From: MARK DAVIES [SMTP:mdavie

flash.lakeheadu.ca]
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - For Sale: '69 4v 351W heads
>
> would these heds work on a 351m400 block i know its been talked about
> in the last little while but i cant rem what was said

Yo John & Mark:

The 351W heads will theoretically work on an M-block, just like the 335 series
(351C/351M/400) heads will work on a Windsor block (the hybrid Clevor). I think
Windsor heads used two different sizes of head bolts, but the M-block uses the
larger of those two sizes, so to swap the W heads onto an M-block, you'd need W
heads w/ holes for the larger-size head bolts.

Windsor engines (and all other 90-degree small blocks) use a "wet" manifold,
which means that coolant flows through the intake manifold (from the cylinder
heads). All 335 series engines use a "dry" intake manifold w/ no coolant
flowing through it, and 335 heads have an extra water passage at the ends where
coolant returns from the head to the block.

The main adaptation you'd need to make going either way (335 head on W block, or
W head on 335 block) is for the cylinder head water passages. The modifications
necessary to adapt a 335 series head to a Windsor block are considerably simpler
than those required to adapt a W head to a 335 series block.

Using W heads on an M-block is virtually unheard of because the M-block heads
have bigger valves (2.04"/1.66" vs. 1.85"/1.54") and bigger ports and there is
no real performance advantage to switching from an M-block head to a W head.
The only possible improvement to be had w/ a Windsor head is a smaller
combustion chamber, and thus a higher compression ratio, but there are easier
ways to achieve that on an M-block w/out all the hassles of adapting a Windsor
head.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:03:21 -0900
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Under Hood Hi-Lift jack mounting

Some friends on another list had asked how I mounted a 60" Hi-Lift under the
hood of my 78 Bronco. I thought someone on FTE might also be interested. By
all means stop on by and have a look. It seems to work well for me.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mosquitonet.com/~bronco78 follow the link to the "Tech
Article's"

See ya.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:17:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant

Brian wrote:
> Since we are talking about steering boxes, I was wondering what
> everybody used to fill the box up with. Upon removing the plug on top
> of my box I observed it was empty. My shop manual states to use SAE 90
> EP. I bet alot of peoples boxes are dry and they don't know any better,
> until they start getting alot of play. So anyway I filled mine with SAE
> 50 (I had an extra quart after replacing the 80-90 in my X-fer case and
> 4-speed with SAE 50.) I could not find SAE 90 EP anywhere and nobody
> knew what I was talking about.

"EP" = Extreme pressure, aka hypoid gear oil. Your standard 90w
gear oil should work just fine.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:32:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - wd 40

Azie wrote:
[Don't spray wd40-in an engine compartment! Boom!]

> Garrell D. writes: >>Dont say that Az! Ive used it several times for finding
> stubborn vacuum
> leaks, just spray the suspected areas, if the idle changes PRESTO found the
> leak. Maybe they should call it Cure All.
>
> Yes, and I also know folks that use it all the time, but that doesn't make ME
> want to use it and certainly not to recommend someone else use it. If a stray
> spark ever gets to it, I hope you have a suitable fire extinguisher handy, and
> are still able to use it.
>

Speaking of starting fluid, I 'Started' my shop vac one day:-)

The top bearing was a little noisy, so I shut it off and put a
squirt of wd-40 in it (Hey, it was right there). Well, a shop
vac has a motor with brushes, they spark. When I turned it back
on (a few seconds later) WHOOOOMP. Boy was I surprised, not hurt.
- --
Pat Brown aka Wiley Coyote (Blink-Blink)
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:40:13 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

>From: TracyJones

cinergy.com
>Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
>
>Didn't the early (pre '72 or '73) Modifieds have a
>small block bellhouse pattern?

Yo Tracy:

There was an oddball 1973 400 that used the small block bell housing bolt
pattern. It's casting number was D3AE-B (the only M-block w/ a D3 casting
number). It was used only in 1973 Torinos with the 400 engine and an FMX
automatic transmission. All other M-blocks use the 385 series (429/460) bell
housing bolt pattern.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:58:26 -0800
From: Vogt Family
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 8-bolt Warn Hubs

I was wondering if there is any place that still has those Warn hubs
with the 8 bolts through them. I'm not opposed to the 6 bolt ones, but
I like the positive engagement of the 8 bolt (will not turn to "lock"
unless teeth are in, no springs) and I also like to keep my truck
original. It is a '61 F-100. Anyone?

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:15:51 -0700
From: "Miska, Richard L (Rick)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

Dave,

I have an edelbrock manifold for an M, but cant remember if its rpm. Is
what this guy says true? Rick

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bill Beyer [mailto:bbeyer

pacifier.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 1999 9:45 AM
To: 61-79-list

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:49:56 -0800
From: "Brzezinski, Jeff"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Another look at my new 1963 F-250 Utility's true condition...

Thanks to all who responded to my first post. I've sent for those catalogs.

Now, I guess my use of the word "Original" wasn't right. It seems
completeness is a big part of being original. I was asked about the
interior. My truck is missing the headlining and rubber floor mat. All the
switch knobs are there, and they all work, but are missing their
aluminum-dot centers. The map-pocket is intact, but the plastic trim has a
broken section. And yes, there are cutouts for the aftermarket radio and
dreaded door-speakers. The speedo and guages work fine. It never had a clock
or a tach, the panel isn't punched-out. The bench-seat is surprisingly good,
with a heavy vinyl that has turned to some indescribable color. There's even
a clean copy of the original 1963 Owner's Manual in the glovebox!

The exterior is very good. The only rust is under the battery tray and some
minor on the bed floor. It's been in California since it was sold. I've now
noticed some overspray, so it was repainted the original baby-blue a long
time ago. I've no way to know for sure, but the only paint on the utility
bed is the baby-blue, so I think the truck was delivered with the utility
bed. Over-all, I'm thrilled about the general condition of my new truck, but
it IS a truck that's been used for work for 36 years! Prices vary around the
country, but I think I finally got a good deal at $1000.

I may postpone that engine-swap indefinately... After correcting the
ignition wiring, the old 292 starts instantly, hot or cold, and has plenty
of torque to skip the granny-gear and take off in 2nd. Adjusting the brakes,
replacing a center link, and repairing the stops on the peadals has made it
much more pleasant (and safe) to drive.

I was given a spare 'rebuildable" 292 in the deal. This is another reason
for me not to be in a hurry to change the drive-train. I can tinker on this
engine, maybe have the shop machine some unleaded valve seats.

Oh-oh... I'm starting to ramble. Thanks for the interest and the help,
Jeff

I have those photos I can email...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 15:29:21 -0500
From: cannandale

netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 - Big ProBlems!

I havent gotton out to check the compression yet because it has got pretty
freakin cold since yesterday, and we have the boat in the garage (dad wont
take it out). Anyways, i got a new thermostat because mine has to be stuck
or broken, the engine temp never raised above 110 after 30mins of driving.
so i heard a pretty good spark knock. After looking under the hood and
getting ready to install it, but decided against it because its COLD. I
noticed it had been blowing some oil out the filler cap and around the
dip-stick, not a whole lot, but some. I drove probally 60 miles with it
today, and it didnt lose any oil, checked to see if it was smoking on big
hills and such, nothing.

I dont think i have any valve problems, because like i said b4, i checked
the engine vacum while it was running at 500rpm and then at 1000, then at
1200, it never had a drop of vacum, if it wasnt seating, i would have a
sudden loss of vacum when that valve should be opening. Also I have
listened the exhaust (no cats, just cherry bombs, and true dual), listened
very carefully and never heard anything unusual, and usaully with that open
of exhaust you can hear about whats going on with the exhaust valve train,
sounds great. im going to bundle up some and go out in a little bit and
pull the plugs, see if theres any fouling and check compression...

cannandale
'78 F250 4x4, 460

At 10:35 PM 3/2/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>You have definately got something unique here... May not be smoking, or
>burning oil until you put a load on it... Have you driven it anymore since
>the incident? Do you have Cats? they may be aiding in preventing the
>smoke.
>This may be completely crazy, but see what you think... Maybe you have an
>intake valve not seating completely, and the oil lubricating the top end of
>the engine is seeping through it, mixing with enough gas so you don't see
>the burning oil, and seating enough to keep it from running bad. Big
>blocks are notorious for breaking valve springs, but mine ran like crap
>when I broke a valve spring. Maybe you've got a broken spring, or
>partially broken spring. If you check for this check carefully, because it
>can be hard to see if it is broken if it isn't in real bad shape. Even
>when it felt like my truck was about to fall apart, the broken valve spring
>wasn't obvious... I hope for your sake this is the prob, and that would
>cause a loss of compression too... Pull the valve covers and get to
>checking... 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
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:00:01 -0800
From: "Hill, Stephen M AETT:EX"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Operator's Manual

I just joined the list. I own a 1969 Ford F250 Ranger, Camper Special, with
100,000 miles. Good runner, very little rust. I hope I can get some
advice from this list on keeping it on the road.

I have an original operator's manual for a 1967 Ford and Mercury Truck,
Series 100 - 350 for sale. If anybody is interested, please let me know.

Stephen Hill
(250) 744-3009
Stephen.Hill

gems7.gov.bc.ca

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:10:27 EST
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - proportioning valves

In a message dated 3/3/99 4:12:40 PM !!!First Boot!!!, jlagrone

ford-
trucks.com writes:

I've done a lot of brake jobs over the last 30+ years on lots of brands.
The return springs on drum brakes do indeed pull the shoes back against the
metal stops. >>

I agree. I like to even test mine before I install the drum. CAUTION: do
not try this at home. If you are not gentle you will cause the wheel cylinder
to expand beyond its designed travel and fluid will force the plunger/rubber
seals right out. Ask me how I know.

Your return springs should immediately return the shoes to the stops. If not
the shoes are either binding mechanically or the fluid is not returning to the
resevoir.

~~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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:17:46 -0600
From: "John R. Austin"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Operator's Manual

how much?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Hill, Stephen M AETT:EX
To: '61-79-list

ford-trucks.com'
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 3:16 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Operator's Manual

I just joined the list. I own a 1969 Ford F250 Ranger, Camper Special, with
100,000 miles. Good runner, very little rust. I hope I can get some
advice from this list on keeping it on the road.

I have an original operator's manual for a 1967 Ford and Mercury Truck,
Series 100 - 350 for sale. If anybody is interested, please let me know.

Stephen Hill
(250) 744-3009
Stephen.Hill

gems7.gov.bc.ca

== 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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:43:36 -0500
From: "Leslie O Mehaffey"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades

Hey to all the Fordies, I am just wondering if ya'll can give me some
manufactures names that make hedders for a 302. My truck is a 79 F-150 and I
got a remanufactured engine and on the tag it said 65-78 302 without smog or
polution controls. I am now adding some dress-up and preformance parts to it
now. I have added a Edelbrock Preformer 302 intake and 14" air cleaner and
got a Mr. Gasket chrome dipstick and wiring looms and here pretty soon I am
going to get a Edelbrock 650cfm 4 barrel carb and a set of Accel plug wires
and I might add a set of new plugs. I have put some pictures of my truck on
my web page recently...the address is
www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/6725/index2.html If you got time you ought
to check it out, it'll take a few minutes to load but it is worth it. And in
the last picture, I took off those "Power By Ford" valve covers off cause
they sit lower than the original ones that had the Ford oval stamped on the
top. They started knocking and i figured out what it was and i was gonna put
the original ones back on and i compared them and was amased at how taller
the ones with the oval on them were. Hope ya'll like and I'll talk to ya
later,

Virginia Jeff
79 F-150 302

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:11:25 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

>I have an edelbrock manifold for an M, but cant
>remember if its rpm. Is what this guy says true?

Yo Rick:

He is correct. E'brock does not make a Performer RPM for the M-blocks.

Thanks for your offer. I haven't taken any pain meds since Sunday morning, and
I'm doing ok now. Work is getting pretty busy now. I have a big deadline
coming up in a couple weeks, so I don't think I can afford any "relapses" next
week. Too bad, because I'd love to go.

Took about an hour to swap out the alternator, even having to take off the smog
pump and get it out of the way first. Piece of cake. That's what I love about
these old trucks.

Later dude

DR

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 14:18:10 -0800
From: John Lord
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades

Headman headers makes a great shorty tuned header for the 302 / 351w
they are expensive. They are made as a bolt on replacement for late
model mustangs and they use a standard exaust flange instead of a
collector so they are less prone to leaks. If you are interested i can
get you the part #

I have a set in on my 351w in my 74 F-250 4x4 crew cab.

YOU CANNOT USE THEM IF YOU HAVE A STANDARD TRANSMISSION. (unless you
want to convert to a cable operated clutch, although i now have the
smoothest clutch in an old ford)

Leslie O Mehaffey wrote:
>
> Hey to all the Fordies, I am just wondering if ya'll can give me some
> manufactures names that make hedders for a 302. My truck is a 79 F-150 and I
> got a remanufactured engine and on the tag it said 65-78 302 without smog or
> polution controls. I am now adding some dress-up and preformance parts to it
> now. I have added a Edelbrock Preformer 302 intake and 14" air cleaner and
> got a Mr. Gasket chrome dipstick and wiring looms and here pretty soon I am
> going to get a Edelbrock 650cfm 4 barrel carb and a set of Accel plug wires
> and I might add a set of new plugs. I have put some pictures of my truck on
> my web page recently...the address is
> www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/6725/index2.html If you got time you ought
> to check it out, it'll take a few minutes to load but it is worth it. And in
> the last picture, I took off those "Power By Ford" valve covers off cause
> they sit lower than the original ones that had the Ford oval stamped on the
> top. They started knocking and i figured out what it was and i was gonna put
> the original ones back on and i compared them and was amased at how taller
> the ones with the oval on them were. Hope ya'll like and I'll talk to ya
> later,
>
> Virginia Jeff
> 79 F-150 302
>
> == 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: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:37:33 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oops again!

Yo Gang:

I thought I was sending that last message directly to Rick. Sorry again.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)
(and putzing around w/ this &%$#!! Lotus Notes for email)

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:40:48 -0500
From: Tony Marino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades

>YOU CANNOT USE THEM IF YOU HAVE A STANDARD TRANSMISSION. (unless you
>want to convert to a cable operated clutch, although i now have the
>smoothest clutch in an old ford)

You have my attention!!!! I gotsta' know!!!!

How/what/$$$

Tony
tony

pscico.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/~tony

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:58:47 -0500
From: "Ted & Sarah Freeman"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods

Your right, the 360 rod is supposed to be between 6.5380 to 6.5420 inches
and the 390 is a little shorter 6.4860 to 6.4900 inches. I think if you use
390 rods, with a 360 crank and pistons you would have a loss in power and
compression.

Later,

- -Ted
- -----Original Message-----
From: Art Verling
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods

>I just finished a 360 rebuild and the nice machinist told me that the rods
and the crank
>were different for a 390 that was after he told me that I only had a 360
and not a 390...
>
>Art Verling
>64 F100 in Reno
>
>== 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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:12:17 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods

>Your right, the 360 rod is supposed to be between 6.5380 to 6.5420 inches
>and the 390 is a little shorter 6.4860 to 6.4900 inches. I think if you use
>390 rods, with a 360 crank and pistons you would have a loss in power and
>compression.
>

If you use 390 rods with a 360 crank the low compression will be the least
of your worries as the counter weigths will sling themselves into the
piston skirt ... probably not a good idea to mix these ...

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: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 14:03:51 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?

Dave Resch wrote:
>
> >From: TracyJones

cinergy.com
> >Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400 M question ?
> >
> >Didn't the early (pre '72 or '73) Modifieds have a
> >small block bellhouse pattern?
>
> Yo Tracy:
>
> There was an oddball 1973 400 that used the small block bell housing bolt
> pattern. It's casting number was D3AE-B (the only M-block w/ a D3 casting
> number). It was used only in 1973 Torinos with the 400 engine and an FMX
> automatic transmission. All other M-blocks use the 385 series (429/460) bell
> housing bolt pattern.
>

Hey Dave

Have you ever seen one of these buggers?

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:12:40 -0600
From: "John R. Austin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

Does anyone happen to know what the know on the driver's side vent control
for a '67 F100 looks like? I can't seem to find it listed in any of the
various catalogs.
Thanks,
John

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:17:12 -0800 (PST)
From: TheFORDMAN

webtv.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

the same as the others unless jimbob
the yugo mechanic was there
Eric
the Fordman

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 19:37:30 -0500
From: "Phil"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - V8 vs Thunderbolt Front Emblem

In 65 they started using the new V8 hood emblem to go with the 352 that
replaced the y block and sixes retained the lightning bolt and gear crest
that was used previously.

Phil Beattie
66 F100 390 C6
66 F100 (no drivetrain)
79 F250 4x4 400

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 19:43:44 -0800
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - WD40

WD40 works good when trying to start a snowmobile too!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:41:33 GMT
From: cdailey

newsguy.com (Chad Dailey)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods

John--

I'm on digest, sorry for the late reply. The 360 rods are 0.052 inch
longer than the 390 rods. You can use the 360 rods if you have a
corresponding reduction in the compression height of the piston, and
have the crank rebalanced. Alternatively, the increased rod length
may be what you are looking for in terms of increased compression.
Have your builder calculate your compression ratio change (I don't
feel up to the math right now) and determine if it is a streetable
combination with the rest of your planned engine (cam, intake, heads,
exhaust).=20

Chad

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:31:12 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:13:52 -0600
>From: JOHN E DOLSON
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 connecting rods
>
>Does anyone on the list have a set of good, usable 390 connecting rods
>they would sell for a decent price.
>I almost got sick at the machine shop this morning when I heard what
>they wanted for a new set for my 360 to 390 conversion.
>
>also, just curious, What would happen if I used the 360 rods with the =
390
>crank and pistons?
>
>If anyone has a set of theses rods please email me at jedolson

juno.com
>, I might also be interested in a 390 crankshaft or any other 390 parts.....

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.