61-79-list-digest Thursday, March 4 1999 Volume 03 : Number 075



=======================================================================
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 - ADMIN: Supernationals and FTE attendance there.
FTE 61-79 - 400M Performance
FTE 61-79 - Power steering additive
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
Re: FTE 61-79 - getting electrical shocks too/ fords dont like water
Re: FTE 61-79 - other engines
FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?
FTE 61-79 - 79 4x4 resto
RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
FTE 61-79 - Re: other engines, FTD61-79 V3 #74
FTE 61-79 - Gear 'n 'bolt
FTE 61-79 - Keep that Y!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Thunderstorm over my Hood Emblem...
FTE 61-79 - Gear 'n 'bolt
FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!
FTE 61-79 - Re: Milk & Oil
Re: FTE 61-79 - Gear 'n 'bolt
FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical Shocks at the Truck body
Re: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Milk & Oil
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades
Re: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!
RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
RE: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: other engines, FTD61-79 V3 #74
Re: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!
FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
FTE 61-79 - 3/4ton-1/2ton 4x4 shackles?
FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M Performance
FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question
FTE 61-79 - 73 factory bedrails?
FTE 61-79 - to the m-block devotee (dave)
FTE 61-79 - P.S. and Alternator Brackets

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 06:09:57 -0700
From: "Miska, Richard L (Rick)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Supernationals and FTE attendance there.

For those of us who cant make it, I hope the others take lots of
pictures!!!! I will be there next year!!!

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 07:11:59 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M Performance

>
> 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.

I ran into this once on a swap. I swore to the guy that there's no way
his small block pattern C-6 would work with the 400 he was swapping into
his truck. We went out and traded for a 460 C-6 and lo and behold...
the taste of shoe leather. I couldn't explain it, but I'm just glad the
old boy hadn't sold his tranny.

> 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.

I've always wondered if the dry intake contributed to the difficulty the
335 series had dealing with excessive heat. When you dissassemble one,
it's a beefy casting. Has a great rod ratio. And a sonic check will
reveal that the bores are not much thinner than most other engines. The
castings were released a little green, and short some nickel, but 20,000
miles of normal use should of stress-relieved them enough to be pretty
fair castings. It just seems that there's no where for the heat to go
but into the head or around the upper bores. I had an idea once of
drilling a passage in each head and fabricating a cross-over running
into a high-flow aluminum heater core type device(big tubes and inlet
and outlets) with a small cooling fan that would run at 210 or so. It
would provide alot of relief I'm sure.

All this talk about M blocks makes me want to make an important point.
If I was building a bracket car I'd look hard at this engine. You can
massage the heads or install some 351C 4v's, use the latest model C-6's
(F350's still had them into the 90's didn't they?) and the heat issues
wouldn't be a problem, you aren't running that long. 351C cams? Can you
say hairy? Valvetrain? Bulletproof parts are made for them. The
M-block would be great for dropping into a Mustang or Cougar, without
gaining all that much weight in the nose. They have been greatly
undersold for performance, and I don't know why. Towing and racing are
two different things, you can't condemn an engine for not being able to
do it all.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 06:15:46 -0700
From: "Miska, Richard L (Rick)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power steering additive

My father was watching one of the auto shows the other day on tv, and he
told me one of them did a thing on a power steering additive.

Its supposed to free up stuck valves/checkballs/etc that make it a little
harder to turn one way more than the other. It also revives seals and stops
leaks.

Does anybody know what its called, and what show it was on????

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:29:53 -0500
From: "Brent_Cole"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure

You are correct, I didn't spec the spring correctly. I have located the
catalog and the valve closed pressure is 138 lbs at a spring height of
1.85". The open pressure is 377 lbs at a spring height of 1.25. That
calculates out to 398 lbf/in. The engine builder's concern is not with the
cam but with the valve stem it self. He told me he as seen this type of
spring pull stock valves apart. I don't know if I believe him or not. Any
new info now that I have the correct specification on my springs?

Thanks for the reply

Brent





SHill48337 aol.com on 03/04/99 12:00:11 AM

To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
cc: (bcc: Brent Cole/Federal-Mogul)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure




In a message dated 3/3/99 6:46:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Brent_Cole FMO.com
writes:


(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 believe 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 >>

The value you have given is in the form of a spring rate almost. A spring
rate is Pounds Force per inch. Your valve will never open an inch so
practically this number allows one to compare springs by looking at their
spec
sheets. 150 is far too low for a spring rate as they are usually 300+.
However if this is the value at the installed height (valve shut) of 1.810
inches, your mechanic is right it is high, twice normal, as the stock
specification is 76-84, and low if it is the open value, which spec is
240-266. Ask your mechanic what this value represents. If as you said
your
springs are double coil with a damper then I think it is reasonable to
think
150 might be the installed shut value. The higher value valve springs like
these allow your engine to enter the 6000 RPM+ area. But, if your rebuild
kit
specified these springs I can only guess these will work with your cam.
One
thing to keep in mind the increased pressure puts more stress and wear and
the
valve train in general (timing chain, cam lobes, lifters, push rods, and
rocker arms). If you are not going for high RPMs you might want to rethink
the double coils. Just a thought. I installed a Comp Cam 268 with Comp
Cams
recommended matched springs (single coil with damper) and they were
stronger
than stock at around 110, valve shut. Engine will go to 6000, but I limit
it
to 5500. I want it to last at least 100,000 miles. Good Luck Maybe
others
will have comments on this too.
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html




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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:40:56 -0500
From: David Wadson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - getting electrical shocks too/ fords dont like water

> someone a little bit ago mentioned geting shocked when his rad hose
>blew it seems whenever im leaning over the front of my truck and rest
>my bear arms across the steel frame i guess bulhead or whatever its
>called truck body i get a tingle kinda shock or sometimes often i
>touch the trucck and get like a static shock kinda like dragging your
>socks on a carpet then nailing someone anyone have any ideas ???

It was the middle of winter, -35 degrees Celsius, 9 at night and I had just
fixed a toasted starter. Took me 3 days to get that starter off the i6 that
I had in the truck - top bolt rusted to the bellhousing, stripped the head
and had to cut it off with a Dremel. Had to climb right into the engine
compartment and lie on top of the engine, arms dangling down...

Anyways, as the truck sat there for 3 days in the freezing cold (why does
the temperature plunge as soon as something breaks and needs fixing?), my
rad started freezing up. My test drive of the new starter was going greater
until my engine heated up and the coolant tried to circulate. I happen to
glance at my temperature gauge, see it skyrocketting and then BAM! It was
like a shotgun blast in the cab and before I could finish saying "Oh crap,
what the heck was that?" steam was everywhere.

It was like on the X-Files...as I open the hood a big cloud of steam pours
out enveloping the whole front end of the truck. I had left the headlights
on so I had the two beams of light piercing through the thick cloud of
smoke. They were what caused the tingling feeling as I stood leaning on the
grill looking into the gaping hole in my upper rad hose. As soon as I
killed the lights the hair on my neck fell back down...

In summary, if you're truck is shocking you when it's wet, you probably
have a short or something in your electrical you might want to take care
of...


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: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 08:24:37 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - other engines

At 08:03 PM 3/3/99 , you wrote:
>how come you never hear anything about these other blocks
>361,391,389,401,475,477,534, are the like rare or not common myself
>id love to have that 534 in my truck where do i get one and what is a
>401 to the 400 ?

Most of these are FT engines, that is they were used in the F600's and
such. Just did some research and found out my 390 is based on the FT
motor, got the backwards cast 105 in the front of it, also though the thing
looked a little beefier in the main area than the pics on www.wrljet.com
indicated they would be ... so I guess I win, not gonna argue with a nice
tough block.

Does anyone know if the V on the bottom of the driver's side water pump
mout in the block is an FT thing ? My 360 and 390 both have them, but the
gaskets and water pumps never match up to it ... then in the book I noticed
that none of the car block have the V, its round just like the other side ...


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

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 08:46:27 -0600
From: "Jamey Moss"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

John R. Austin wrote:

> Does anyone happen to know what the knob 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.


The "knob" is just a rectangular extension of the plastic sliding vent
door. The 67-72 trucks all have the same driver's side vents from what
I've seen, and it's just a square-ish piece of plastic that slides
forward to block the opening or toward you to unblock the hole. The
knob is just an extra part of the molded plastic door that sticks out to
allow you to hold onto something.

Mine broke off and I found a replacement at a salvage yard for cheap.
You should be able to find one easily because I don't think they are hot
items and most of the junkyard trucks I've seen still have them. The
biggest pain in removing the vent is to get the one or two screws out
that are blocked by the emergency brake.

If you're still confused or can't find one near you, let me know and
I'll check my catalogs and parts book and see if I can find a drawing to
scan in or a part number.


Jamey Moss
ra4001 email.sps.mot.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.prismnet.com/~jamey/f100/


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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:00:27 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351W, What heads?



> At 09:39 AM 4:3:97 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >I hear that 351c heads work really well for helping the Winsdor. Do they
> >just bolt on, or do there need to be modifications?
>
> I would check the archives for the little disertation I gave about
> installing
> 351C heads on a Windsor block. I wouldn't use the high zoot 4bbl heads
> on a 351W, just the cost of them is prohibitive......
>
> If you can't find the info in the archive, e-mail me directly, and I'll
> rewrite
> it. Maybe a tech article in the making??
>
Better yet, go to this web page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordfan.org/351.htm



> Steve & the Rockette
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:05:09 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79 4x4 resto

Yes, I believe that the radius arms are interchangeable from left to right....

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:15:07 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure

Brent: Typical open spring pressure for stock springs would be somewhere
between 200 to 300 lbs. you have an extra 100 lbs of pressure on your valve
train. Do you really need these springs for a truck motor, that seldom
would exceed 5000 rpm's? I think your mechanic is asking you if you really
need these racing springs.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Brent_Cole [SMTP:Brent_Cole FMO.com]
> Sent:Thursday, March 04, 1999 5:30 AM
> To:61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject:Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
>
>
>
>
> You are correct, I didn't spec the spring correctly. I have located the
> catalog and the valve closed pressure is 138 lbs at a spring height of
> 1.85". The open pressure is 377 lbs at a spring height of 1.25. That
> calculates out to 398 lbf/in. The engine builder's concern is not with
> the
> cam but with the valve stem it self. He told me he as seen this type of
> spring pull stock valves apart. I don't know if I believe him or not.
> Any
> new info now that I have the correct specification on my springs?
>
> Thanks for the reply
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>
> SHill48337 aol.com on 03/04/99 12:00:11 AM
>
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> cc: (bcc: Brent Cole/Federal-Mogul)
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/3/99 6:46:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Brent_Cole FMO.com
> writes:
>
>
> (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 believe 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 >>
>
> The value you have given is in the form of a spring rate almost. A spring
> rate is Pounds Force per inch. Your valve will never open an inch so
> practically this number allows one to compare springs by looking at their
> spec
> sheets. 150 is far too low for a spring rate as they are usually 300+.
> However if this is the value at the installed height (valve shut) of 1.810
> inches, your mechanic is right it is high, twice normal, as the stock
> specification is 76-84, and low if it is the open value, which spec is
> 240-266. Ask your mechanic what this value represents. If as you said
> your
> springs are double coil with a damper then I think it is reasonable to
> think
> 150 might be the installed shut value. The higher value valve springs
> like
> these allow your engine to enter the 6000 RPM+ area. But, if your rebuild
> kit
> specified these springs I can only guess these will work with your cam.
> One
> thing to keep in mind the increased pressure puts more stress and wear and
> the
> valve train in general (timing chain, cam lobes, lifters, push rods, and
> rocker arms). If you are not going for high RPMs you might want to
> rethink
> the double coils. Just a thought. I installed a Comp Cam 268 with Comp
> Cams
> recommended matched springs (single coil with damper) and they were
> stronger
> than stock at around 110, valve shut. Engine will go to 6000, but I limit
> it
> to 5500. I want it to last at least 100,000 miles. Good Luck Maybe
> others
> will have comments on this too.
> Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
> == 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: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 15:05:36 GMT
From: cdailey newsguy.com (Chad Dailey)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: other engines, FTD61-79 V3 #74

Mark--

The 361, 389, and 391 are part of the FT Ford Truck engine family,
closely related to the FE Ford Edsel engine family. Lots of parts
interchange between them, so aftermarket support can be considered.
Heavier duty trucks (1 ton and above) generally were the recipients of
these medium duty engines.

The 401, 475, 477 and 534 are an engine family unto themselves, called
the Super Duty. They were installed in heavy duty trucks (I think 1
1/2 ton and above). They are uncommon, as they never saw duty in
passenger trucks, AFAIK. You probably won't find much for parts in
the aftermarket, other than OEM replacement pieces. You might have
problems with transmission compatibility as well (anyone know the
bellhousing pattern?). They are big, heavy, and strong engines. If
you really want one, I'd look in yards that have big trucks in them,
like a semi yard.

The 400 (M-block) is in the 335 engine family, and shares some
interchangeability with the Windsor family. Dave Resch is *the man*
on the list for info on these engines. The bellhousing pattern (with
one exception) is the same as the 385 series engine.

BTW, if you really want 500+ cubes in your truck, I'd go for a stroker
kit in a 460. Lots of aftermarket support, easier to adapt to a light
truck. Honkin'-double-throw-down-rip-snorting-bad- $$ combo. Talk to
sleddog on the performance list for info on this swap.

Chad

On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 05:31:31 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 02:03:58 +0000
>From: "MARK DAVIES"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - other engines
>
>how come you never hear anything about these other blocks=20
>361,391,389,401,475,477,534, are the like rare or not common myself=20
>id love to have that 534 in my truck where do i get one and what is a=20
>401 to the 400 ?

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:28:04 -0500
From: dci scican.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gear 'n 'bolt

Not only does my '61 F100 have the thunderbolt & gear on the hood, but
on the chrome horn ring and on both sides of the original rubber mat
(just a bummer that the floormat is torn badly on the driver's side,
tho). :-(

The same holds true for "MY" 1963? parts truck (I don't technically own
it -the junk yard does, but I seem to appreciate it more than they do!)
;-) Hope this helps.

Eric 'Stitch'
"Happy Days"
1961 F100 Unibody w/'59 292ci Y-block


> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:04:00 -0800
> From: "Brzezinski, Jeff"
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Thunderstorm over my Hood Emblem...
>
> Whoa! All I did was say how much I liked the Thunderbolt emblem on my '63
> F-250 with the 292... I didn't expect it to raise a controversy.
>
> I gotta say, mine looks like it's been there the whole 36 years... and quite
> a few folks have been saying that their pre-65, 292 trucks have the
> thunderbolt emblem. I believe the guy who wrote that the emblem changed for
> V-8's after '65 is right.
>
> Jeff
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:30:17 -0500
From: dci scican.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Keep that Y!

Hey Jeff,

> All the switch knobs are there, and they all work, but are missing their
aluminum-dot centers.

My '61 F100 has white (maybe creme?) plastic inserts. All the parts
trucks I've seen these past couple of years are the same, too. I've
never seen aluminum-dots (this doesn't mean that I'm right, tho - just
what I've seen).

> And yes, there are cutouts for the aftermarket radio and dreaded door-speakers.

I have a virgin set of door panels that came with my truck so I found a
junked truck that had the previous-owner-made-cutouts that I bought for
a few bucks at the local 'yard. (AFAIK, the door panels are
interchangeable for quite a few years). I'm going to use the cut up set
for speakers for my truck, and I'll still have the good originals just
in case... You could likely just keep your eyes peeled for an un-cut set
if you don't like the doorspeaker setup. I'll keep an eye out for you
here in So. Indiana and let you know if I find another set.

>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.

Yeah! Another Y-block guy!! Keep that old engine! There is so much
info here on this site, but subscribe to the pre-'61 list too, since the
Y-block came out in '54. There's so much info available on the Y-block
that you'll have no problem keeping it running. Just ask. BTW, Street
Rodder has started a year long build up of a Y-block starting in the
January '99 issue. And there's a mail list, sponsored by another
person, that is just dedicated to Y-blocks. And, and,..... ;-)

>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.

Indeed, even more reason to keep the Y alive since you have a spare.
I've got a spare Y-block on my engine stand too that I'm gonna hotrod a
bit. I've got an old Offy tripple-duece intake to go with a HD crank,
C0TE heads, ... still looking for 3 Strom 97's......
ARRR!> I haven't started tearing this engine down, tho, since I've
still been concentrating on my truck. Good luck with yours and keep in
touch. Us Y-block guys (and gals?) gotta stick together lest we'll get
run over by the M, W, and 460 folks! ;-D

Eric 'Stitch'
"Happy Days"
1961 F100 Unibody w/'59 292ci Y-block
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 07:29:08 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Thunderstorm over my Hood Emblem...

Thanks for your message at 08:04 PM 3/3/99 -0800, Brzezinski, Jeff. Your
message was:
>Whoa! All I did was say how much I liked the Thunderbolt emblem on my '63
>F-250 with the 292... I didn't expect it to raise a controversy.

Well, I don't feel it's really controversial, either, just another Ford
Enigma...another Mystery of Life...


>I gotta say, mine looks like it's been there the whole 36 years... and quite
>a few folks have been saying that their pre-65, 292 trucks have the
>thunderbolt emblem. I believe the guy who wrote that the emblem changed for
>V-8's after '65 is right.

Could be. The V8 emblem on one of my 62s doesn't look like anything as far
as dating it.
I better not jump to conclusions on the original engine of a truck on the
basis of the hood ornament. Back to the old VIN for more reliable data...



Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:28:04 -0500
From: dci scican.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gear 'n 'bolt

Not only does my '61 F100 have the thunderbolt & gear on the hood, but
on the chrome horn ring and on both sides of the original rubber mat
(just a bummer that the floormat is torn badly on the driver's side,
tho). :-(

The same holds true for "MY" 1963? parts truck (I don't technically own
it -the junk yard does, but I seem to appreciate it more than they do!)
;-) Hope this helps.

Eric 'Stitch'
"Happy Days"
1961 F100 Unibody w/'59 292ci Y-block


> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:04:00 -0800
> From: "Brzezinski, Jeff"
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Thunderstorm over my Hood Emblem...
>
> Whoa! All I did was say how much I liked the Thunderbolt emblem on my '63
> F-250 with the 292... I didn't expect it to raise a controversy.
>
> I gotta say, mine looks like it's been there the whole 36 years... and quite
> a few folks have been saying that their pre-65, 292 trucks have the
> thunderbolt emblem. I believe the guy who wrote that the emblem changed for
> V-8's after '65 is right.
>
> Jeff
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 15:51:38 -0500
From: William King
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!

Oh gurus,
Here I go again. I'm now getting a white, milky-like
substance on my FE's oil dipstick. I first checked for
an udder on the oil pan (maybe Bessie just needs to be
milked?). No udder, so I assume it's water in my oil.
1. Am I right in this conclusion?
BESIDES a blown head-gasket, where else could water
(I presume it's anti-freeze) be getting into my oil?
When I peer into my radiator, I don't see scum, oil,
bubbles, or the Tidy Bowl Man. I would expect at least
one of them if I had blown a head-gasket. I am not
blowing an excessive amount of water vapor from my exhaust
either (I would expect that from a blown head gasket too).
Is it possible to have a small rupture in a head gasket
(that would allow anti-freeze leak into oil, but not ruin
compression or let antifreeze into the cylinders)?
Seems like a leaky intake manifold gasket could let
antifreeze leak into the oil too. Yes? No?
2. Is it possible that the water is coming from
an 'outside' source besides anti-freeze? I am not
running PVC now (just one crankcase breather). I
can't imagine enought water vapor getting into the
engine (via the breather) and then condensing inside
the engine. I always thought an engine's operating
tempreture was sufficient to vaporize what little water
vapor entered the engine. Yes? No?

B/c it's an FE, I know the waterpump hasn't worn thru the timing
cover to form a leak, so I know that isn't the problem.
Am I missing some other source of water (provided it is water in
my oil, and not FE milk).
Ohio Bill


1968 Torino GT (429 4V 4speed)
1968 F100 (360 4V 4speed)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:03:21 -0800
From: "Brzezinski, Jeff"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Milk & Oil

The water in your oil could be from condensation. Have you had much wet
weather? Change your oil. Use 30wt, which absorbs more moisture (old Oil
Company seminar data...) If the water's gone after the change, you're cool.

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 08:15:04 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gear 'n 'bolt

Thanks for your message at 10:28 AM 3/4/99 -0500, dci scican.net. Your
message was:
>Not only does my '61 F100 have the thunderbolt & gear on the hood, but
>on the chrome horn ring and on both sides of the original rubber mat
>(just a bummer that the floormat is torn badly on the driver's side,
>tho). :-(
>
>The same holds true for "MY" 1963? parts truck (I don't technically own
>it -the junk yard does, but I seem to appreciate it more than they do!)
>;-) Hope this helps.
>
>Eric 'Stitch'
>"Happy Days"
>1961 F100 Unibody w/'59 292ci Y-block

I see by your signature that your engine is a transplant V8. Was the '61
truck originally a V8?
How about the '63? V8 or 6?
By the way, let me know when you're ready to replace that steering wheel
(all I need is the chrome ring for my '66--but then it wouldn't be
original, darn!)


Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:09:48 -0800
From: "Brzezinski, Jeff"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical Shocks at the Truck body

This COULD be First-Year, Basic Service-Station stuff. Make sure the
Negative Batery Cable is attached to the engine or tranny, rather than the
body. You don't want the body to be the primary circut.

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:26:55 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!

>Here I go again. I'm now getting a white, milky-like
>substance on my FE's oil dipstick. I first checked for
>an udder on the oil pan (maybe Bessie just needs to be
>milked?). No udder, so I assume it's water in my oil.

Yup, pretty good bet, I had similar problems with mine ...


>1. Am I right in this conclusion?
>BESIDES a blown head-gasket, where else could water
>(I presume it's anti-freeze) be getting into my oil?

Dunno, a blown gasket is about the only place, other than a cracked block
or heads ... any sign of overheating ?

>When I peer into my radiator, I don't see scum, oil,
>bubbles, or the Tidy Bowl Man. I would expect at least
>one of them if I had blown a head-gasket. I am not
>blowing an excessive amount of water vapor from my exhaust
>either (I would expect that from a blown head gasket too).
>Is it possible to have a small rupture in a head gasket
>(that would allow anti-freeze leak into oil, but not ruin
>compression or let antifreeze into the cylinders)?

This is what happened with mine, just the white stuff first, thought it
odd, but it wasn't losin much antifreeze if any, then one day I looked down
and there was a puddle formin under the truck, antifreeze was leakin out
the back of the head gasket between the 7th and 8th cylinders.


>Seems like a leaky intake manifold gasket could let
>antifreeze leak into the oil too. Yes? No?

Sure why not ... anything's possible with those old FE's ... but as long as
you have that 65lb intake off ... why not pull the heads and head gaskets
just to be sure ?

>2. Is it possible that the water is coming from
>an 'outside' source besides anti-freeze? I am not
>running PVC now (just one crankcase breather). I
>can't imagine enought water vapor getting into the
>engine (via the breather) and then condensing inside
>the engine. I always thought an engine's operating
>tempreture was sufficient to vaporize what little water
>vapor entered the engine. Yes? No?
Again its possible, but not likely, unless you have the hood off and
nothing protecting the carb from rain and junk ... don't know too many cars
like that ... tractors yes, cars/trucks no.

>
>B/c it's an FE, I know the waterpump hasn't worn thru the timing
>cover to form a leak, so I know that isn't the problem.
Aren't FE water pumps cool ? :)



Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:30:39 -0600
From: "John MacNamara"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Milk & Oil

I was going to mention the same thing. When my truck sits for awhile i get
the drops of water on the end of the dipstick and it's also milky but when I
change the oil it's pure oil so wouldn't worry about it unless the oil is
all milky.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From:Brzezinski, Jeff [SMTP:jbrzezinski rusd.k12.ca.us]
> Sent:Thursday, March 04, 1999 8:03 AM
> To:'61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
> Subject:FTE 61-79 - Re: Milk & Oil
>
> The water in your oil could be from condensation. Have you had much wet
> weather? Change your oil. Use 30wt, which absorbs more moisture (old Oil
> Company seminar data...) If the water's gone after the change, you're
> cool.
>
> Jeff
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:36:37 -0600
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 upgrades

>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,
>
So you were running FE valve covers on a 302 ? Does that work the other
way ? Anyone know ? Can I actually get cheap 302/351 valve covers to put
on my 390 ???


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

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 11:43:38 -0500
From: Brad Smith
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!

At 03:51 PM 3/4/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Oh gurus,
>Here I go again. I'm now getting a white, milky-like
>substance on my FE's oil dipstick. I first checked for
>an udder on the oil pan (maybe Bessie just needs to be
>milked?). No udder, so I assume it's water in my oil.
>1. Am I right in this conclusion?
>BESIDES a blown head-gasket, where else could water
>(I presume it's anti-freeze) be getting into my oil?
>When I peer into my radiator, I don't see scum, oil,
>bubbles, or the Tidy Bowl Man. I would expect at least
>one of them if I had blown a head-gasket. I am not
>blowing an excessive amount of water vapor from my exhaust
>either (I would expect that from a blown head gasket too).
>Is it possible to have a small rupture in a head gasket
>(that would allow anti-freeze leak into oil, but not ruin
>compression or let antifreeze into the cylinders)?
>Seems like a leaky intake manifold gasket could let
>antifreeze leak into the oil too. Yes? No?
>2. Is it possible that the water is coming from
>an 'outside' source besides anti-freeze? I am not
>running PVC now (just one crankcase breather). I
>can't imagine enought water vapor getting into the
>engine (via the breather) and then condensing inside
>the engine. I always thought an engine's operating
>tempreture was sufficient to vaporize what little water
>vapor entered the engine. Yes? No?
>
>B/c it's an FE, I know the waterpump hasn't worn thru the timing
>cover to form a leak, so I know that isn't the problem.
>Am I missing some other source of water (provided it is water in
>my oil, and not FE milk).
>Ohio Bill
>
>
>1968 Torino GT (429 4V 4speed)
>1968 F100 (360 4V 4speed)
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
You would not necessarily be able to see lots of water coming out of the
exhaust if you have a blown head gasket. Has your engine been particularly
hot? If so it is pretty likely that you blew a head gasket. May want to
have the heads magnafluxed if you are getting a lot of water into the
oil... Hope it's just a head gasket for your sake!

Brad
1978 F150 4X4 429
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: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:46:54 -0500
From: "Brent_Cole"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure

I went with the manufacturer's recommendation on the springs. They even
spec'ed the springs for the truck (RV) cam. The engine builder's concern
lies with the stock valves being damaged. No I probably don't need
anything over the stock springs but I want the entire engine package to
function as the manufacturer recommends. The max valve lift for my intake
is 0.486 that comes to an open intake spring pressure of 398 * 0.486 =
193.5 lbs, exhaust valve lift 0.512" * 398 = 203.75 lbs so aren't these
rates close to stock? If the rates on the actual springs are higher than
the book specifications where should I draw the line. Say don't go over
250 lbs or 225, at what pressure should I be concerned?


Thanks
Brent





"John MacNamara" on 03/04/99 10:15:07 AM

To: "'61-79-list ford-trucks.com'"
cc: (bcc: Brent Cole/Federal-Mogul)
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure




Brent: Typical open spring pressure for stock springs would be somewhere
between 200 to 300 lbs. you have an extra 100 lbs of pressure on your
valve
train. Do you really need these springs for a truck motor, that seldom
would exceed 5000 rpm's? I think your mechanic is asking you if you really
need these racing springs.

Thanks
John MacNamara

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent_Cole [SMTP:Brent_Cole FMO.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 5:30 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
>
>
>
>
> You are correct, I didn't spec the spring correctly. I have located the
> catalog and the valve closed pressure is 138 lbs at a spring height of
> 1.85". The open pressure is 377 lbs at a spring height of 1.25. That
> calculates out to 398 lbf/in. The engine builder's concern is not with
> the
> cam but with the valve stem it self. He told me he as seen this type of
> spring pull stock valves apart. I don't know if I believe him or not.
> Any
> new info now that I have the correct specification on my springs?
>
> Thanks for the reply
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>
> SHill48337 aol.com on 03/04/99 12:00:11 AM
>
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> cc: (bcc: Brent Cole/Federal-Mogul)
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 Valve spring pressure
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/3/99 6:46:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Brent_Cole FMO.com
> writes:
>
>
> (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 believe 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 >>
>
> The value you have given is in the form of a spring rate almost. A
spring
> rate is Pounds Force per inch. Your valve will never open an inch so
> practically this number allows one to compare springs by looking at their
> spec
> sheets. 150 is far too low for a spring rate as they are usually 300+.
> However if this is the value at the installed height (valve shut) of
1.810
> inches, your mechanic is right it is high, twice normal, as the stock
> specification is 76-84, and low if it is the open value, which spec is
> 240-266. Ask your mechanic what this value represents. If as you said
> your
> springs are double coil with a damper then I think it is reasonable to
> think
> 150 might be the installed shut value. The higher value valve springs
> like
> these allow your engine to enter the 6000 RPM+ area. But, if your
rebuild
> kit
> specified these springs I can only guess these will work with your cam.
> One
> thing to keep in mind the increased pressure puts more stress and wear
and
> the
> valve train in general (timing chain, cam lobes, lifters, push rods, and
> rocker arms). If you are not going for high RPMs you might want to
> rethink
> the double coils. Just a thought. I installed a Comp Cam 268 with Comp
> Cams
> recommended matched springs (single coil with damper) and they were
> stronger
> than stock at around 110, valve shut. Engine will go to 6000, but I
limit
> it
> to 5500. I want it to last at least 100,000 miles. Good Luck Maybe
> others
> will have comments on this too.
> Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html




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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:01:07 -0600
From: "Brothers, Robert"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!

Bill,

When I swapped out my worn out FE (360) with somebody elses
not so worn out FE, I put my old intake manifold on. In the
process I didn't get the gasket sealed well and had exactly
this result.

The leak was at the left rear of the manifold where the head
and intake meet. By removing the valve cover I could see where
water was building up then entering the oil through the push
rod holes.Removed the intake, put on new gaskets with
"sufficient" sealant, and no more leaks.

Wish you luck
Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William King [mailto:kingw bgnet.bgsu.edu]
> Seems like a leaky intake manifold gasket could let
> antifreeze leak into the oil too. Yes? No?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:07:20 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: other engines, FTD61-79 V3 #74

Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: other engines, FTD61-79 V3 #74
>
>snip very interesting truck engine info
>
>The 400 (M-block) is in the 335 engine family,
>and shares some interchangeability with the
>Windsor family.

Yo Mark & Chad:

Just to clarify the interchangeability issue. The M-block shares almost no
interchangeability w/ the Windsor engines. The only possible component you can
interchange between the M-block and a Windsor is the cylinder head, and then
only w/ significant modifications to either the cylinder head or engine block
(depending on which way you go) and an expensive custom intake manifold.

The M-block has the most in common w/ the other engine type in the 335 family,
the 351C. Many internal components are interchangeable between the 351C and the
M-block, including pistons (351C & 400), camshaft, timing set, and valve train
(including lifters, rocker arms, valve springs and valves). The 351C 2V
cylinder head is virtually identical to the M-block cylinder head, so of course,
all the valve gear attached to the head is interchangeable between the 351C 2V
and any M-block.

After the 351C, the engine type that shares the next most common components is
the 385 family (429/460) big blocks. All 335 family engines use the same
distributor as the 385 family and the same rocker arms. Seems like a few other
components are shared too, but I can't remember them now.

I am not familiar w/ the Super Duty engines, but a common theme I have seen in
the 361/391 FT engines and the (385 family derivative) 370 truck engine is very
low compression (less than 8.0:1), which allows the engine to be "lugged" at low
rpm w/out much danger of pinging. The other characteristic of very low
compression is relatively low power output, so even that monster 534 is probably
barely wheezing out 200 horses. OTOH, the 534 probably coughs out 300+ lb/ft
torque at 650 rpm idle.

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:06:42 EST
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Milk and oil. Yum!

My 8 Escort did this during the winter months. It would show up as a milky
streak on the dipstick. It was normal condensation that had built up because
I only drove half a mile to work, half home. Half to school, and half home.
For 3 months the car never even got warm. If you have this type of scenario,
best bet is to let it warm up a lil more.

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:34:08 -0600
From: "John R. Austin"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

Thanks for your reply but I think this is different that you describe. There
is a metal ear that sticks out. It has a hole in it that looks like a knob
should be attached. Does any of this sound familiar?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jamey Moss
To: oslc itexas.net ; Ford Truck List

Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Knob - Question


>
>John R. Austin wrote:
>
>> Does anyone happen to know what the knob 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.
>
>
>The "knob" is just a rectangular extension of the plastic sliding vent
>door. The 67-72 trucks all have the same driver's side vents from what
>I've seen, and it's just a square-ish piece of plastic that slides
>forward to block the opening or toward you to unblock the hole. The
>knob is just an extra part of the molded plastic door that sticks out to
>allow you to hold onto something.
>
>Mine broke off and I found a replacement at a salvage yard for cheap.
>You should be able to find one easily because I don't think they are hot
>items and most of the junkyard trucks I've seen still have them. The
>biggest pain in removing the vent is to get the one or two screws out
>that are blocked by the emergency brake.
>
>If you're still confused or can't find one near you, let me know and
>I'll check my catalogs and parts book and see if I can find a drawing to
>scan in or a part number.
>
>
>Jamey Moss
>ra4001 email.sps.mot.com
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.prismnet.com/~jamey/f100/
>
>
>-
>


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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:40:13 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 3/4ton-1/2ton 4x4 shackles?

Are the rear shackles for the approx. 1969 4x4s the same for F-100's and
F-250's?

I was looking at maybe getting these Velvet Ride shackles, but the guy didn't
think the F-250 units (which is all they make) would work on the F-100. I'm
pretty sure the spring widths are the same (2-1/4")....

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:11:23 -0600 (CST)
From: bkirking bcm.tmc.edu
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

>> Does anyone happen to know what the knob 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.


I saw this setup once on a 60-ish Ford. The knobs were the black plastic cones
with white/yellow/creme insert, just like the other instument knobs. They were
located in the corners of the dash (one for driver, one for passanger) in the
divot that is there from the factory. I assumed this was factory but maybe not.
The knobs attached to your standard choke type cable/wrapped with
flexible steel sleeve and ran down to the cowl vents where they attached to the
hinged dog ear looking vent cover.

BTW, the cable was for pulling and PUSHING to open and close the vent. :-)
sorry I couldn't resist....
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 10:20:37 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

Thanks for your message at 12:11 PM 3/4/99 -0600, bkirking bcm.tmc.edu.
Your message was:
>BTW, the cable was for pulling and PUSHING to open and close the vent.
:-)
>sorry I couldn't resist....
Are you sure about htis?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:38:37 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M Performance

Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M Performance
>
>I've always wondered if the dry intake contributed
>to the difficulty the 335 series had dealing with
>excessive heat.

Yo Bill:

As I understand it, the main purpose of running coolant through the intake
manifold is to warm the incoming fuel/air mix (and carburetor) for better
drivability The 335 series dry manifolds accomplish this by using an exhaust
crossover passage that runs directly under the plenum.

>It just seems that there's no where for the heat to go
>but into the head or around the upper bores. I had
>an idea once of drilling a passage in each head
>and fabricating a cross-over running into a high-flow
>aluminum heater core type device(big tubes and
>inlet and outlets) with a small cooling fan that would
>run at 210 or so.

A few months back, Sleddog lamented this very problem in the 385 series big
blocks (which have wet manifolds) and contemplated the same solution.

Most of the overheating problems I've personally heard about w/ 335 series
engines involved 351Cs used in racing or some other non-standard hi-po
application, like Panteras. I knew a Pantera guru a few years ago and he used
to set up auxiliary cooling systems just like the one you described. If you've
ever seen the radiator in a Pantera and compared it w/ a truck radiator, it's no
wonder those things overheated so much. One guy w/ a twin-turbo 351C Pantera
told me that he could only go about 15-20 minutes at any speed less than 60 mph
w/out overheating.

>All this talk about M blocks makes me want to make
>an important point. If I was building a bracket car I'd
>look hard at this engine.

I knew a guy a few years back who ran 351C 4V heads on a 400 in a full-bodied
'76 Torino. Running normally aspirated w/ no funny gas, he routinely turned in
sub-10 second quarter miles, and he was notorious for dusting Rat-infested Novas
and Chevelles.

>They have been greatly undersold for performance,
>and I don't know why.

We're into pure (but I think plausible) speculation here, but I'd say it was
mostly because Ford's management rolled over and gave up on high performance
right after the 400 was born. Had Ford's corporate support for performance
continued after 1971, the 400 might have been factory-equipped w/ a decent cam
and retained its decent compression ratio (or got an even better one) and seen
some other performance development that would enable it to make a name for
itself, like all the other great pushrod V8 Ford performance engines. I think a
"Boss 400" or "400 Cobra Jet" were only a year or two away when the poor old
M-block had the rug pulled out from under it.

Just like the FE 428 that was never designed as a truck engine, the 400 can also
be built into a serious heavy hauler that tows w/ the best of 'em.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 13:37:51 -0600
From: "Jamey Moss"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Knob - Question

"John R. Austin" wrote:

> Thanks for your reply but I think this is different that you describe. There
> is a metal ear that sticks out. It has a hole in it that looks like a knob
> should be attached. Does any of this sound familiar?


No, sorry but mine was just plastic. I'll look through my 67 F100 parts
book tonight and see if I find anything like what you're talking about.



Jamey Moss
ra4001 email.sps.mot.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.prismnet.com/~jamey/f100/


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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 12:27:37 PST
From: "MARTY COLMAN"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 73 factory bedrails?

I just was given a pair of bedrails for my 73 F100, and as I was looking
at them, I found the ford logo and a ford part # that starts D3,
indicating 73. Would these rails have been put on by the factory as an
option? Or is it something that would have been sold at the dealership?
I was suprised to see the ford logo, are these common rails, or have I
stumbled upon something special? Thanks.

Marty Colman
73 F100 390

______________________________________________________
....


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.