61-79-list-digest Monday, March 8 1999 Volume 03 : Number 080



=======================================================================
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:

FTE 61-79 - 351 as 427 well maybe
FTE 61-79 - 400M S-P-2P
FTE 61-79 - 351W to 427..Build it if you want.
Re: FTE 61-79 - flexplate?
FTE 61-79 - 360 to 460 swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W to 427..Build it if you want.
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 460 swap
FTE 61-79 - Looking for Ford Enthusiasts to join our team!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 460 swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M S-P-2P
Re: FTE 61-79 - url
FTE 61-79 - Re: 351 as a 427. WAY LONG!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body
Re: FTE 61-79 - Going to the "Recycling yards" tomorrow
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 as a 427. yeah right
FTE 61-79 - Headers
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!
FTE 61-79 - Prothane bushing woes
RE: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant
RE: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!
FTE 61-79 - '64 ignition switch
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body
FTE 61-79 - 351m400 cant get enough of that .....
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 as 427 well maybe
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body
FTE 61-79 - Camper lights? / Cam Duration FEs
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body

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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 07:03:33 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351 as 427 well maybe

> YES and NO!
> It is for my Van right now, maybe if you had bothered to read it carefully
> you would have read what I put.
> My plans are to eventually put it into maybe a old Ford Mustang.
>
> You would have been alot more help to explain some of my questions instead
> of try to kill my idea.


I don't mean to be a killjoy, I'm only saying that you can put together
a big-block that will put out power at a strong level you will actually
use. The magazines will try to sell you this idea that these exotic
stroker motors are the best thing since sliced bread, but what they
don't get across is that you're spending alot of money just to bring a
small engine up to a semblance of what a big-block (that dosen't have to
use those expensive aftermarket parts they're pushing) will produce. It
will never be as flexible.

If weight and space are an issue, the stroker can be a way to consider.
You also would want to consider the subject of use. If you're drag
racing it more than you're driving on the street, then higher rpm
powerbands and steep gears will work. Otherwise you will be
dissappointed.

I've always wanted a 427 SOHC in a '63-'64 Galaxie. That would be the
most impractical daily driver on earth, but what a ride! If this
combination is what you want in the same context as my "sock motor car"
then that's cool, go for it. It just wont be the most effective truck
engine you could choose.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 07:07:45 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M S-P-2P

> Don't know what an S-P-2P is but the only manifolds I've seen listed from
> Edelbrock for the 400 in the past 6 years are the non EGR and EGR
> Performers.


This would have been back in the late '70's, and I only have fuzzy
memories from back then...;-)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 08:56:42 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351W to 427..Build it if you want.

Just a couple of thoeretical points that I'd like to make here regarding
the thread on the 351W stroked to 427 cubic inches.

First, I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert, but I can make a few
observations based my experience, and reading and observation of
combustion and mechanical theory. Everyone has their own hierarchy of
needs, and I don't wish to impose mine on anyone. But these are my 2
cents, ignore them if you want.

A given engine design has built in a fixed value that determines the end
of all variables in mechanical structure. It's the deck height. When
stroke is increased from the original design, the variables of
compression height of the piston, and connecting rod length must be
adjusted accordingly. The relationship of the coneecting rod to the
stroke is called the LR Ratio by many builders, and is condidered to be
an important determination of the mechanical and power charachteristics
of a given engine. When stroke is increased, to maintain the similar
mechanical characteristics of an engine, you have to lengthen the con
rod. If you can't adjust the compression height of the piston enough to
allow this, then the ratio will change downward.

The optimumum LR is generally considered to be 2:1. There haven't been
many engines that have that, but the closer you can get the better.
Why? The piston speed with a "good" or "long" LR will be slower with
less inertial load, have less friction due to angular swing, and have
better combustion due to the longer hang time close to TDC. Benefits
are longer life, a higher rpm limit, less harmonic vibration to deal
with, and the more stable combustion to tune for. Long life is the most
relevent to daily usage in my book. It's less so in a race motor
though. A short rod engine can theoretically breath better and can
likely produce roughly the same power, (depends on the frictional losses
due to angular swing) but it's less combustion efficient, and wont live
as long. But now we're at the next point.

You increase the stroke and shorten the rod, and get your better
breathing if (big if) the relationship of cylinder shape, bore to
stroke, remains roughly constant, and the cylinder heads are capable of
feeding the displacement. By capable I mean having both the total
capacity and sufficient velocity to fill the cylinder shape. Most
radical stroker engines have a small bore to stroke relationship, which
isn't condusive to good breathing, and utilize a cylinder head designed
for the original cubic inch displacement. The 351W has some very good
aftermarket heads available, so that helps, but still may not be able to
fill those deep cylinders fast enough. The small bores also act as a
shroud to the natural desire of the mixture to spread out as it enters
the cylinder as it would in a larger bore. The bottom of the stroke,
especially if you have much int/ex overlap at the beginning will be dead
and wasted. There won't be much more mixture than you had originally
with the shorter stroke. Unless you add forced induction, that would
help to a degree. Of course in comparison to the long LR engine the
blower would help it just as much so they still aren't equal. And you
add that weight and you're into big-block territory again.

You lose quite a bit of efficiency in the stroker due to the combination
of poorer combustion, higher friction, and poorer breathing due to the
poor bore to stroke relationship. (it's offset some by the inherent
better filling of the short LR charachteristic) You lose length of life
and have a lower rpm limit, more friction eating up power, and more
harmonic vibration to deal with. The parts to make this engine live are
expensive.

What's wrong with doing up some heads for a 351W and keeping your stock
stroke? The 351W is a versatile engine in it's own right. If you build
to go up into the 4500-5000 rpm torque band they can make 450-475 lbs
ft, and around 475-500 hp around 6200-6500 rpms.

And you haven't spent all of the kid's college money to build it.

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:22:25 -0500
From: "Ted & Sarah Freeman"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - flexplate?

Bill,

I think it was me. The flexplate that came with the 428 Crank I bought is
different. Instead of being solid metal with a seperate ring gear on the
outer edge, it is a solid ring gear with about 3" of steel on the outer edge
with a metal "webbing" that bolts or rivits (I'd look but it's at the shop
right now) to the ring and then bolts to the end of the crank. (Sorry for
the long sentence). As soon as I get it back I'll post it on my web site
and let you guys take a look at it.

- -Ted
- -----Original Message-----
From: bill comstock
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Sunday, March 07, 1999 4:42 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - flexplate?


>hi all,
>
>Not sure who posted, but could you clarify the flexplate described,
>sounds like ones used on a D*dge for lockup torque converter
>applications. These were supposedly for distribution of the stress load
>on the crank to flexplate bolts. Wasn't aware Ford ever used such a
>setup. Am I not understanding the description?
>
>______________________________________________________
> >== 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: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 07:40:07 -0800
From: "Jacques and Barbara DeKalb"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 460 swap

Barry;

I have used the early seventies Torino mounts for this conversion. The
mounts need to be swapped side for side and about 3/8" ground from one
corner to clear the pan. The mounting bolt will be in the right place to
use the stock towers and to line up the transmission cross-member, at least
with a C-6. Check the parts store catalog of motor mounts and look at the
pictures for '70-'72 Torino mounts. It's the only one withh the single
bolt. They run about $7.50 each side and they're all you need. If you
can't find them, e-mail me.

Jacques, Bend, Ore

'65 F-250 Crewcab, 429, C-6, SNB
'68 F-250 Crewcab, 390, C-6, SNB
'75 F-250 Crewcab, 4X4, 429, C-6, SNB
and some other FT's

In a message dated 3/6/99 11:10:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fishin4bass hotmail.com writes:


will the 460 set down on the 360 frame mounts or do I need to do some
parts scrounging

Barry Mitchell
Kansas >>

There is not a simple answer for this one. If you do not mind the
transmission mount being off about an inch on the cross member, and you can
readily move the cross member the answer is no. However, L&L Products makes
new towers and rubber mounts that will keep the transmission cross member in
line, around $215. But, if you just get the rubber mounts ($115) and use
them
on your existing towers and deal the tranny cross member, you probably can
save a few dollars. And in a pinch and what I have done in years gone by is
to use the FE mounts, 2 holes line up on the 460 block, drill a hole in the
original mount for a 3rd and use 3 bolts instead of 4 to connect to the
engine. (Not a preferred method, but worked for me) Hooker sells new towers
but you have to find all of the Ford stock mounts and stuff for a say a 78
truck, this would have cost about $250 or more by the time I got all the
Ford
parts new. My current truck conversion uses the L&L tower and mount combo.
I
like the idea of complete engineering. Chances are the Mercury has a large
alternator. This will not fit in its current location on the 460 in your 74
4x4(it has to be raised to clear the frame). You will have to modify and or
build a new alternator bracket, or buy one for this conversion from L&L
($128
a bit spendy, I use it). But, perhaps the best bet might be a mount kit in
the fall 1998 PAW catalog page 1095 that claims to make a correct conversion
without changing towers and contains all of the parts you will need for only
$109. Maybe some one on the list can comment on this kit. It can become
a
real brain bender without some tips. Good Luck
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: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:43:45 EST
From: My427Stang aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W to 427..Build it if you want.

You are spot on with the idea of rod ratio and cyl head limitations, which is
an issue on a high rpm racer. First, for the rod ratio, my magic number has
always been 1.7:1, not 2, not sure where I got it, one of those things you
tuck away when young, but I believe the stroker 427 is right around there if I
remember right. As for the displacement, it comes from a max bore and the
stroke, not all stroke. I beleve the combo with stock bore is something like
406, which I would do before I built a one use grenade for the street.

The head issue is very valid for the hot rodders and high RPM, a small bore
will shroud the valves, hurting airflow even with valves at their max size.
But keep in mind the use of this vehice. Its a van, which is limited on engine
chioces, he may find a 460, which honestly I think would be a better choice.
Other than a 460, all that was in them was 302/351W, he doesnt have the luxury
of just bolting anything in. So in that text, a 460 would take a new
transmission, all kinds of brackets and linkage, belts hoses, radiator may
have different outlets, exhaust. Big money when all added up.

The beauty of the stroker Windsor is not the "perfect motor" benefit, but the
ease to bolt it in to what he has, find good performance parts cheap, and the
great increase in torque. I personally would find a crashed 460 from a 3/4
ton, but if I were to do this job for a customer who insisted, I would build
the stroker with stock or .030 over bore. A 280 ish duration cam, a mid range
351 intake like the Peformer RPM (low to mid with the added displacement)
9.5:1 compression or so, and port the heads mildy with the stock size valves
to help flow without shrouding the valves. My recommendation would probably
build a torquey 350-375 horse, and I'd think it would be a joy in the van.

Again I would find a stock 460 myself, but this would be a nice running van
with a mild stroker, not a 13.5 compression wild screamer, and remember what a
van dipstick looks like, cant really throw a 428 or even a 400M in there,
there arent even dipsticks to use never mind any other fancy van specific
stuff.

Just my 2 cents - Ross
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 11:21:53 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 460 swap

In a message dated 3/7/99 7:50:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jakenbarb bendcable.com writes:


mounts need to be swapped side for side and about 3/8" ground from one
corner to clear the pan. The mounting bolt will be in the right place to
use the stock towers and to line up the transmission cross-member, at least
with a C-6. Check the parts store catalog of motor mounts and look at the
pictures for '70-'72 Torino mounts. It's the only one withh the single
bolt. They run about $7.50 each side and they're all you need. If you
can't find them, e-mail me.

Jacques, Bend, Ore
>>
Wow, this is great, wished I had known that long ago. Thanks,
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 12:12:09 -0500
From: "Ronald D. Miller"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Looking for Ford Enthusiasts to join our team!

From: "Ronald D. Miller"
To: fairlane dfwmotorsport.com
Subject: Looking for Ford Enthusiasts to join our team!
Date: Sun, Mar 7, 1999, 12:00 PM


Continued growth at Auto Krafters, Inc., a leading supplier of classic Ford
parts has created a need to hire additional people to supplement our
winning team. If you are interested in a confidential interview please
email me your resume. We are located in the beautiful rural Shenandoah
Valley of Virginia. We offer a competetive compensation package including
paid health insurance and 401K. We are located within easy driving
distance of several Nascar tracks if you're a racefan and 2 hours from
Washington DC if you like the city. We currently have openings in sales of
new and used classic Ford parts, customer service representive, warehouse
receiving manager, and used parts dept. mechanic. Check out our web site
at www.auto krafters. com Thanks, Ron Miller, President Auto Krafters,
Inc.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 09:42:23 PST
From: "barry mitchell"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 460 swap

Thats why I jioned the list, there is always a mouse that knows how to
get the cheese with out springing the trap

Barry

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:08:57 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M S-P-2P

Well unfortunately in the late 70's I was still racing Ch*vys so I wasn't
into blue ovals tho' I did help a buddy rebuild the 360 in a 71 F-250 that
he got for free 'cause it kept blowing the oil filter off the engine.

- -----Original Message-----
From: William L. Ballinger
To: Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Date: Sunday, March 07, 1999 5:08 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M S-P-2P


>
>
>This would have been back in the late '70's, and I only have fuzzy
>memories from back then...;-)



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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 10:27:43 PST
From: "Don Coady"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - url

URL stands for "Uniform Resource Locator", its a standard protocol which
allows a computer to locate the server and file requested.

>I don't know what FE means but URL is the address for web pages. Like
>www.infoseek.com is an URL, unless it has another meaning also.


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

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

Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 14:06:24 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 351 as a 427. WAY LONG!

I just cant help it.
So, I apologize to you all.

What we have here, is failure to communicate... Heard that somewhere...
In response to this:

> Now that is with a 351W, if I where to get a crank and make it into 427,
> would that help with torque/horsepower alot? 466lbs or torque at 7500 rpm
> sounds pretty damn nice, and if it where a 427 it seems to me that it
would
> do over 500 lbs or torque, and somewheres around 700 HP, ALL IN A SMALL
> BLOCK!!! But am I missing something here? I know I would end up spending
> thousands upon thousands of dollers for this. Would 13:8 to 1 comp run on
> prem pump gas? Or does it take alcohol or something?

Mr. B, wrote this (which I cut up):

"What you're talking about here is not a streetable combination. Look at
the rpm level. There's no gas in the world that would support that kind
of compression under the varied load conditions of street driving. "

Prompting James to write this (which I also cut up):

"It is for my Van right now,
My plans are to eventually put it into maybe a old Ford Mustang."
"You would have been alot more help to explain some of my questions instead
of try to kill my idea."

I read it like this, James (no offense James) Still a "Grasshopper" wants to
build an engine that has a lot of cubes and makes big power. He wants to
eventually drop it into a Mustang. Someday... Right now he has a Van, so
that is where it will go until then. He would like to do it for a
shoe-string budget but is willing to concede that it will cost "Thousands".

Mr. B, an "Old Salt" (Smile Bill) is thinking BTDT! Here we go again! Not
Realistic! All of which is true! No Doubt About It!

Problem is that is that hard to "Salt" a "Grasshopper"!
Though they are dee'lisious when roasted at the track!-)

Now Let's us take a look at the issues.
Grasshopper asks us what do you think about:

> Now that is with a 351W, if I where to get a crank and make it into 427,
> would that help with torque/horsepower alot?

I believe we all would agree that the answer to this is, yes.

> 466lbs or torque at 7500 rpm sounds pretty damn nice, and if it where a
427
> it seems to me that it would do over 500 lbs or torque, and somewheres
> around 700 HP, ALL IN A SMALL BLOCK!!!

I do-be-do-be-do believe that we can see "Magazine Syndrome" and or "Desk
Top Dyno Dementia" in this statement. Why? Because the power numbers are so
specific "466lbs of torque" and "700 HP, ALL IN A SMALL BLOCK!!!"
We can surmise that Grasshopper has no idea what 700HP Small Block costs to
build, feed or maintain; let alone drive! But even the Old Salt's, if they
are honest would love to have that kind of power on tap! Yet, time has a
cruel way of thrusting reality into fantasies! So before we roll our eyes
let'z look at the next question.

> But am I missing something here?

Of course Grasshopper is missing something, many something's in fact. Yet,
there is hope for our Grasshopper, as is evidenced by his asking the
question in the first place!

> I know I would end up spending thousands upon thousands of dollars for
this.

We can save Grasshopper by answering: Yes you will about $8000.00 excluding
the exhaust system and also not including the parts that you break while you
learn how to get to 700HP in a "W" Block. BUT you can do it!! That is the
beginning of the way long answer that Bill gave the short version of.

> Would 13:8 to 1 comp run on prem pump gas?

The answer to this question is simply NO. But here again look at what
Grasshopper has presented us: "Or does it take alcohol or something?"
We can not just dismiss poor Grasshopper he displays too much promise.

Yes you could run this on Alky but due to that fuels burn and BTU qualities
you should kick the CR up above 14:1. To run it on Gas you need a Race Gas
and outside of tracks like Daytona, Indy, Firebird, it don't come from a
pump, sorry.

So here we have a grasshopper that deserves our consideration before we just
squash em!
Bill is correct in what he says.
To reliably get these numbers you need a Block strong enough to handle that
kind of power. That is not going to be a Factory Production Small Block IE:
one that was put in a Car/truck.
But what does it take?
The simple answer is a Big Block You can get a solid 500Lb/Ft by 500HP for
under $3k or even less if you DIY. But that is not what Grasshopper was
asking about. So back to the stroker Small Block.
Most of the 351 Strokers are built on "Offset Ground" or modified 400
Crankshafts. Both of these crankshafts are made of Cast Iron. Generally
500HP is a good stopping point for a Small Block(SB) cast iron Crankshaft.
Most of the stroker kits also use reworked production Connecting Rods, Here
again there are limits as to just how much you can expect a rod to put up
with. Most SB Rods are ok up to 6000 RPM and again 500 or so horses. The
longer the stroke the lower the RPM's that you can get away with.
So if you want to build this engine for the long run you need a Bullet Proof
Block, Can you say NASCAR, Grasshopper? That is the quality level that you
need. The crank to go to 7000RPM is a custom made piece that FORD never made
and the Connecting Rods are too! The Pistons have to come from JE, Wysco,
ETC, but I'm guessing that there is nothing unexpected there.
The cylinder heads are another story. To make this kind of power makes
selecting them easy. First they must be Aluminum, this is for cooling
properties. And second they are not made by FORD. They will be stuffed with
all kinds of fancy parts like Ti Valves Etc, Etc, Etc. Air flow
characteristics will be critical, and to feed 427CI at 7000RPM is going to
be a trick with the bore being relatively small, here again the Big Block
shines.
To get this engine to rev to 7k RPM and make power is going to require a
roller Camshaft and I don't mean like what the factory used. Valve lifts are
going to be in the 0.700 inch range and that's the reason of the Ti valves
in them Alum heads. Intake is going to be temperamental at best but you can
figure on a thousand CFM or more in the Carb, I'd spec a BG unit. The
manifold is going to have to be a Wilson, or perhaps a Sheetmetal unit.
Injection? Well at this level just call Kinsler and pay em what they ask,
just kiss DIY-EFI good bye.
There will be about a grand in the ignition with the distributor and boxes,
etc., more if EFI!
As I said $8000.00 easy.
Can it be done for less?
YEP! Sure it can! It is done in all the Magz, all the time, and they know
all there is to know! Me? I'm just someone who knows what I can and can't
do.

So there you go Grasshopper. The long answer to your basic question. I
didn't address the issue of Drivability, Practicality, Functionality. I only
addressed the mechanics from my perspective. I personally like an over
cammed temperamental Beast of an engine, most people don't. I know people
that have built "W" Block strokers and they are impressive and work well;
but most limit the RPM's to 5500 RPM maximum and that is not where they
actually run them, that is usually about 3500-5000 RPM. They also generally
have spent more money then a comparable powered Big Block would have cost.
So you have to ask WHY? The answer is simple they didn't want the weight of
the Big Block in their Ranger or Mustang. This for handling not for drag
racing. For drag racing or in a boat you should be able to easily get a
thousand horse 460 for that kind of green, and it will be easier to drive to
boot!

My opinion on you proposal is that you should start buying the parts for
your 427 and not plan on putting it in you van. If this is your first custom
engine build you should drop your RPM requirement to about 5000 RPM and to
get your 700HP give it a shot of Giggle Gas! Don't do anything other then
keep your van running, and start looking for that Mustang! Then sell the van
and drive the Mustang. Remember that the first rule of going fast is
stopping, so start building up the Mustang with the rear axil and the
breaks. Then the suspension to handle the power and the roll cage, and, and,
and... When you have everything else completed Drop in the engine last. By
this time you will have enough "Seat Time" to know the Mustang and will
hopefully be able to actually use the power.

James sign on to the Perf list and we can go into your ideas in detail, no I
did not do that here!


I thank you all for your patience and now return you to your
previous discussion of dash vent knobs:-)

Muel



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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 13:18:05 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body

Thanks for your message at 05:16 PM 3/5/99 -0500, Campbell, Mark. Your
message was:
>Building on Larry's comments...
>
>Electrical shocks CAN be generated by the seat covers themselves, the
>material that some are made from is very condusive to static,

...especially when rubbed against double-knit polyester...:-)

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: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 13:23:44 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Going to the "Recycling yards" tomorrow

Thanks for your message at 07:34 PM 3/5/99 -0800, canzus seanet.com. Your
message was:
>
>>
>>Yes (eternally optimistic) I need a tailgate in perfect shape for A
Unibody!
>>
>
> I'll have a look at my secret fave wrecking yard out in Grays Harbor, I'll
>be out there tomorrow to check on our "beach house". He has 3 Uni's
>sitting around his place........

Gasp! You wouldn't be saying that just to get my hopes up, would you?
I'll be waiting....

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: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 13:30:56 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 as a 427. yeah right

Thanks for your message at 08:06 AM 3/6/99 -0600, William L. Ballinger.
Your message was:
(having that much horsepower on the street is akin to stuffing a tube
>sock down the front of your pants before going out, it's for vanity's
>sake only),

I love a good analogy. Thanks for that one...
Dennis L. Pearson

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 18:04:20 -0800
From: "John Webster"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Headers

Well this is my first attempt to post, so please bear with me. I have a
'77 F150 4X4 that I dropped a 460 in after my 351M grenaded. I first used a
set of L&L motor mounts (they worked great). I picked up a set of Hooker
Super Comp headers for my year of truck. Tried everyway possible but the
drivers side would not fit. Called Hooker and they said I required their
motor mounts. So I got them (this requires removing your stock perches and
using Hooker mounts with FOMOCO 460 mounts parts). After all that they still
wouldn't $%&* fit. The stock number checks out but they claim my truck is an
early '77 and that's the problem. So does anybody know of a set of
reasonably priced headers for this application and is anyone interested in a
set of new Hooker Super Comps for a '771/2-'79. One other question, does
anyone know of a good set of ladder bars for the same. I run 33" tires with
a 4:11 and the axle wind-up is terrible when you nail it. Thank-you for any
help.

John

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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 21:24:31 -0500
From: cannandale netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!

im running stock 4.10:1 gears, c6 and torque convertor, which does
absolutly anything i need the truck to do. No problem pulling a 25'
gooseneck, anyways.. I went and looked and yes the heads are D3VE-A2A,
those are DOVE's, I just figured they was dove or a type of dove, since it
had 3 out of 4... :) If not, are they good heads? I looked around in some
catalogs i have for the KB206 piston, but never could find them, just the
flat top's, wheres the next place to look? all i have is jegs and summit.

In the manifold, I was looking at going with the matching cam, makes it
simple.

cannandale
'78 F250 4x4, 460

At 12:52 AM 3/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 3/6/99 7:40:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>cannandale netpointe.com writes:
>
>
> So I figure im going to do a true rebuild this time (not just new bearings
> and re-done heads). Anyways, heres what I have decided on, and what I have
> questions about.
> >>
> Just some thoughts on this subject. First if there is an A2A on the head it
>is likely a D3VE-A2A, which has 91 cc combustion chambers. Those KB pistons
>are excellent, however the 10.2 compression is right on the edge of being too
>high for cast iron heads on pump gas. Especially if you are going to make
the
>truck work (pull sustained loads). Aluminum heads will work at that ratio on
>pump gas, they resist knocking better due to their enhanced cooling
>characteristics of the combustion chamber. The cam probably should be
>factored on some mean RPM of the engine, which is a result of your final gear
>ratio. If you have a ratio of 4.11:1 or lower (meaning bigger numbers) I
>think something like a 268 or a 270 cam would work nice. You seem to be
>leaning toward the Edelbrock Performer manifold, you know they make a matched
>cam to go with that manifold, I know one person who is successfully using
that
>combo. He keeps smoking his tires. I think his cam is closer to stock than a
>268. When you get into cams some brands are rated .050 open on the valve,
>this does not allow a very good paper comparison of a cam rated on the seat.
>The piston you are talking about is the KB137 Flat Top. I recommend going to
>the KB206 with a 15cc dish, it will give you a 9.2:1 compression with the
91cc
>heads. That will give you a safe reliable all around engine with a lot of go
>(still probably have to use 92 octane). An enhancement you might try, is
>using the Comp Cams variable duration lifters, similar to Rhoads lifters, but
>without the noise. This will enhance low RPM torque providing you are
using a
>268 or higher cam. If you want that high compression you will have to spend
>big bucks to get the components ie aluminum heads, special cam, in the cab
>timing control, or a lot of octane boost to keep it from burning a hole in
>your KB pistons. Getting a good quality timing chain is worth it, these
>things stretch rapidly, when you tear the engine down you will not want to
>believe how much it has loosened up in just a few miles. If you are just
>starting down this road, then I am sure you will have many more questions.
>There are many other combinations I have not touched on, hopefully some of
>list members will give you some more thoughts.
>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: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 22:22:41 -0500
From: "Timothy R. Anderson"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Prothane bushing woes

Hi all,
I'm at the point in my restore project ('67 F-100)
where I'm installing the front suspension. =

I got a set of Prothane #85-95578 bushings for
the radius arms (this is a 2wd) but they didn't
fit quite right. The package states that they =

will fit F-100-250/Bronco 66-79. Has anyone
else tried to install these an a similar rig? I
ended up getting them to work after some
modifications. Basically, they all needed to
be shortened up to get the I-beam geometry
right and the castle nut on far enough to let
the cotter pin in. I was just curious as to what
others may have tried. If anyone else is or
has had a problem getting them to fit, I'd be
happy to provide the measurements and
any other info that might be useful.

Tim in Anchorage
'67 F-100
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 20:53:44 -0700
From: johnmicki oldwest.net (John Rollf)
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant

The steering box on my '72 is filled with grease, it has been that way since
I bought the truck. I have been trying to find out if this is correct also.
Does it matter if it is a power-steering box or a manual box? Mine is a
manual steering box. I haven't found much on this subject either.

John Rollf

1972 Custom F-250, FE-360 2x4

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Gene Gardner
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 2:51 PM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant
>
>
> Talking about gearbox and lubricant -- the one on my '70 was
> leaking oil so
> I replaced it with another from the boneyard (which still had some slop).
> Then an old-timer told me my box needed grease, not oil, and that was why
> the other one leaked the oil. True or false? In any case, I guess grease
> would be better than nothing if it were leaking oil and you didn't want to
> spend hundreds on a new gearbox.
>
> Gene Gardner, 70 F100 (300 six)
> Texican Teacher, Hermosillo, Mexico
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:05:41 -0600
From: Stu Varner
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - steering box lubricant

At 08:53 PM 3/7/99 -0700, you wrote:
>The steering box on my '72 is filled with grease, it has been that way since
>I bought the truck. I have been trying to find out if this is correct also.
>Does it matter if it is a power-steering box or a manual box? Mine is a
>manual steering box. I haven't found much on this subject either.
>

>John Rollf

Grease should be in them not gear lube.

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:15:55 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!

In a message dated 3/7/99 6:31:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannandale netpointe.com writes:

absolutly anything i need the truck to do. No problem pulling a 25'
gooseneck, anyways.. I went and looked and yes the heads are D3VE-A2A,
those are DOVE's, I just figured they was dove or a type of dove, since it
had 3 out of 4... :) If not, are they good heads? I looked around in some
catalogs i have for the KB206 piston, but never could find them, just the
flat top's, wheres the next place to look? all i have is jegs and summit.
In the manifold, I was looking at going with the matching cam, makes it
simple.
cannandale
'78 F250 4x4, 460 >>

To understand the casting number such as D0VE, the D indicates 1970's the zero
makes it 1970 which has 75cc combustion chambers, which are small (higher
compression) compared to the D3VE's, which have the 91cc combustion chambers
(lower compression). The third character in this series is the car line for
which this part was originally released, the 429/460 was originally designated
for the Lincoln cars "V" is the code for Lincoln. The fourth character
indicates, which Ford engineering department, ie, chassis, engine, body, etc.
Of course the Ford engineering department is engine, thus E. The A2A is the
change level or modification that casting has undergone..... I think you have
a good plan going with the Performer combo for manifold, cam and valve train.
The reason I mentioned the gear ratio is to alert you that at highway speeds
your RPM is getting up there with the low ratios and you might benefit from
something more radical than an RV cam. If you go the Performer way do not be
concerned as that combo will give you good performance at the higher RPMs. I
have a KB performance pistons catalog (#CAT.005). It lists the KB206 on page
48 and it says you get a 9.2:1 compression ratio with the 91cc heads. Go to
your local parts supplier and ask to look at their catalog, it will show a
picture and give all of the specs. Then if you decide that is what you want
call Summit and they will order it for you at a much cheaper price than you
can get it locally. Summit can only put so many things in their catalog, but
they are more than willing to get just about anything you can think of. They
have gotten me a large number of things that are not in their catalog at their
discount. Keep on Truck'n
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:47:07 -0500
From: j arnold
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!

At 09:24 PM 3/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>im running stock 4.10:1 gears, c6 and torque convertor, which does
>absolutly anything i need the truck to do. No problem pulling a 25'
>gooseneck, anyways.. I went and looked and yes the heads are D3VE-A2A,
>those are DOVE's, I just figured they was dove or a type of dove, since it
>had 3 out of 4... :)

Just a note on the heads.Don't take this as gospel, I'm no 'guru', but my
understanding on the 385 series head numbering system is that "C" denotes
the 1960's, "D" the 1970's, etc. The "DOVE" heads talked about are actually
1970 model VE heads. The "Dove" is really "DzeroVE". Your D3VE heads are
therefor 1973 model VE heads. My personal preference has always been C8
(1968) thru DO (1970) VE heads. The D3 may be the same thing, better, or
worse, I don't know as I'm not familiar with them.

Stoney

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

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

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 23:59:53 -0500
From: cannandale netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!

Ok, i understand the casting numbers now, never had them explained. I see
where your coming from on the RPM, and what range I will be using. Right
now im cranking around 3000rpm at 55 to 60 (cheap tach, hehe). I see that
I want my performance to be around that range since thats where most of the
running occours. Yet I still want the low end torque to rip a good tree
stump (or a cheby) out of the mud.

I do want performance at driving speeds, but I do want to keep as much
low-end power as I can, I use it alot too, this is a work truck too.. So
do you think that running a more radical cam than an RV cam will not
sacriface too much low end. To tell the truth, I have as much low-end as I
would ever need right now, I have enough torque to do anything I want and
everything I do. So I could move a little up to gain driving speed power,
but I still that good-ole low end...

cannandale (dayton boyd)
ramsey, in
'78 F250 4x4, 460

At 11:21 PM 3/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 3/7/99 6:31:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>cannandale netpointe.com writes:
>
> absolutly anything i need the truck to do. No problem pulling a 25'
> gooseneck, anyways.. I went and looked and yes the heads are D3VE-A2A,
> those are DOVE's, I just figured they was dove or a type of dove, since it
> had 3 out of 4... :) If not, are they good heads? I looked around in some
> catalogs i have for the KB206 piston, but never could find them, just the
> flat top's, wheres the next place to look? all i have is jegs and summit.
> In the manifold, I was looking at going with the matching cam, makes it
> simple.
> cannandale
> '78 F250 4x4, 460 >>
>
>To understand the casting number such as D0VE, the D indicates 1970's the
zero
>makes it 1970 which has 75cc combustion chambers, which are small (higher
>compression) compared to the D3VE's, which have the 91cc combustion chambers
>(lower compression). The third character in this series is the car line for
>which this part was originally released, the 429/460 was originally
designated
>for the Lincoln cars "V" is the code for Lincoln. The fourth character
>indicates, which Ford engineering department, ie, chassis, engine, body, etc.
>Of course the Ford engineering department is engine, thus E. The A2A is the
>change level or modification that casting has undergone..... I think you
have
>a good plan going with the Performer combo for manifold, cam and valve train.
>The reason I mentioned the gear ratio is to alert you that at highway speeds
>your RPM is getting up there with the low ratios and you might benefit from
>something more radical than an RV cam. If you go the Performer way do not be
>concerned as that combo will give you good performance at the higher RPMs. I
>have a KB performance pistons catalog (#CAT.005). It lists the KB206 on page
>48 and it says you get a 9.2:1 compression ratio with the 91cc heads. Go to
>your local parts supplier and ask to look at their catalog, it will show a
>picture and give all of the specs. Then if you decide that is what you want
>call Summit and they will order it for you at a much cheaper price than you
>can get it locally. Summit can only put so many things in their catalog, but
>they are more than willing to get just about anything you can think of. They
>have gotten me a large number of things that are not in their catalog at
their
>discount. Keep on Truck'n
>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: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 23:57:34 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 BiG ProBlem - ReBuild TimE!!!

In a message dated 3/7/99 8:22:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, SHill48337 aol.com
writes:


have a KB performance pistons catalog (#CAT.005). It lists the KB206 on page
48 and it says you get a 9.2:1 compression ratio with the 91cc heads. Go to
your local parts supplier and ask to look at their catalog, it will show a
picture and give all of the specs. >>

cannandale,
I just checked the KB web site. You have the same full catalog I have
available to you with all of the pictures and data. Go here on the net: kb-
silvolite.com/page48.htm#sect4. KB206 is there on page 48 as it is in my
catalog. It is a good site as it has a lot of technical stuff you would be
hard pressed to get else where.
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:10:26 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '64 ignition switch

I hope someone can help. Right now I start my truck by pulling out a switch and pushing a rubber start button. Effective but it bugs me.
I have a new switch and cylinder. What I was wondering is if there is a one piece connector that plugs into the back of it? Or, does each wire have a female spade connector on it?
My shop manual doesn't really show or say if there is or isn't.
Any help is always greatly appreciated,

Ted Wnorowski
Bellevue,OH
'64 F-250 352 FE

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 00:47:11 +0000
From: "MARK DAVIES"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body

my problem with electrical shocks on my truck has nothing to do with
seat covers, vinyl underware, rubing a baloon on my head , not using
bounce in the dryer, its something to do with the ignition
system,kinda like when you were a kid and your old mans beer drinking
buddy told you to pull the plug wire of the lawn mower cause the dam
thing wouldnt stop kinda shock. anyone have any logical helpful
ideas???
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 01:03:39 +0000
From: "MARK DAVIES"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351m400 cant get enough of that .....

on the subject of the 351m400 Dave, I want to make my 351m a 400
since it isnt after thinking all this time it was I picked up a
ratched 400 block today the crank is good so what do i need to
rebuild my motor and do the changeover crank, can i use the used 400
piston and buy new rings or should i look for new 400 pistons or oversized
and give my block a fresh bore, what about bearings (crank) do i
order them for a 351 or a 400 or are they the same?.. what kinda cam
should i use for my new setup im going to get the new eldebrock
intake instead of that sp-2p whatever the hell # it is and also
bearing caps should i use mine from my block or the ones from the 400
block with the 400 crank i think the heads in 77 where the same with
spring press intake/exhaust for the 351m and the 400 so i should be
ok there any and as much help is very much appreciated...

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 00:32:43 +0000
From: "MARK DAVIES"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 as 427 well maybe

Just my opinion on this subject like it matters anyhow,a few years
ago I was deep into snowmobile racing playing with a 650 polaris
motor every year i spent thousands grinding polishing boring teflon
coated pistons ceramic coated piston heads nitrous oxide the whole
nine yards , anyhow i blew this engine up so many times i gave up
the sport,the glory the wins the loses. A old guy asked me one day why
did you quit, I explained the money, the hassles,.He said to me in the
end " Kid theres no replacement for displacement". I asked what he
meant he said if you want to go faster and you want more ponies buy a
bigger sled buy a 750 or 800 dont waste you money cutting a 650 up to
make it a 800 .. i just thought this story kind fit this scenario...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 01:49:20 -0500
From: David Wadson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Electrical shocks at truck body

>my problem with electrical shocks on my truck has nothing to do with
>seat covers, vinyl underware, rubing a baloon on my head , not using
>bounce in the dryer, its something to do with the ignition
>system,kinda like when you were a kid and your old mans beer drinking
>buddy told you to pull the plug wire of the lawn mower cause the dam
>thing wouldnt stop kinda shock. anyone have any logical helpful
>ideas???


Hey now, my long-winded but humourous story of a cold winter night and a
blown rad hose provided some logical, helpful ideas. :-) Well, perhaps they
were a little lost in the fog of overheated antifreeze billowing into the
- -40 degree air. It happened over by the Health Unit building on
Balmoral...had it happened in a more populated area someone probably would
have called the police thinking it was a gunshot... :-)

Anyhow, my point that got lost in there somewhere is that you probably have
an electrical connection shorting out into the body somewhere. Not much of
a short or you would be having serious electrical problems but when the
body gets wet, it's enough that you feel the tingle when you touch the
truck. Does it happen before or after you've been driving the truck through
puddles? After and you could be splashing water up onto some wiring.
Incidentally, those plastic mud guard things in the wheel wells keep dirt
and snow from getting thrown into your door hinges, as well as keep mud and
snow from getting on the inside of your front fenders...

Also, does it happen when your lights are on or off? If it only happens
when they are on, then check if water is getting into your headlight wiring.


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


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

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

Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 01:52:52 -0800
From: "J.S.H."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Camper lights? / Cam Duration FEs

"FTE 61-79 - camper lights

"I have an 8' slide in camper that has a 12 volt lighting system.
Since the camper is longer than the truck bed, it also has tail lights
mounted on the camper. For power i ran a #14 wire directly from the
positive terminal on the battery to the rear of the truck, by
ty-wrapping it to the harness that goes to the tail lights. I put an
in-line fuse holder a few inches from the battery connection with a
20 amp fuse. " etc..

All good advice.If you are running a camper shell you can get a 2 or 4
wire plug at a RV store and mount it in the left rear stake pocket
facing forward.BTW I kept adding wires under the back of my truck
(travel trailer charge,brakes,lights,camper shell lights)until I
had a mess.I got a 4" household junction box,ran 1 large loom in from
front of truck to terminal blocks and then ran 3 smaller looms out.1 for
truck 1 for trailer plug and 1 for camper shell,cleaned it up and
made it easy to add anything else.

" I
plan to use either the smallest Lunati Bracket Master or the Crane
Power-Max 272 H10 with adjustable rockers. The engine will be right....


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.