61-79-list-digest Monday, March 22 1999 Volume 03 : Number 097



=======================================================================
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 - Help wiiith Postings
FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear
FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 F-100 1965
Re: FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear
FTE 61-79 - Pertronix ignition
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 F-100 1965
FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 Headers??
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 F-150 4WD, 429CU
FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390
RE: FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates
FTE 61-79 - Ignition Problem
FTE 61-79 - 78 Bronco rear window
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ignition Problem
FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 1965 F - 100
Re: FTE 61-79 - 1965 F-100 engines
FTE 61-79 - Cab Swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 F-100 1965
FTE 61-79 - Re:
FTE 61-79 - Re:
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390
FTE 61-79 - Palouse Pals
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390
FTE 61-79 - Air cleaner full of oil

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 07:55:41 EST
From: GHOLSM aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Help wiiith Postings

Help, Whenever I try to post a message it never appears What's going on?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 07:45:24 -0600
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear

>
> Just one thing I wanted to point out just to make sure that your doing it.
> Make sure that you pull the vacum advance line so your measuring base
> degrees and not after the distributor has been advanced when your setting
> your timing.

This is a good point, and to go along with it, pull the cap and turn
(just till the slack dissappears) and release the rotor a couple of
times. If it doesn't snap back to it's original position, your
mechanical advance weights are stuck. This will throw your timing off
and make it suck down the gas under cruise, as you are setting it for
initial start-up timing. If you set it to where it doesn't drink gas
you'll have too much timing at idle, and detonation under light load.

If the advance is OK, then put a vacuam gauge on a manifold vacuam port
and set the distributor to the highest vacuam reading. Go for a drive
and if it pings, back it off just hair at a time until the ping goes
away. Also let it get good and warm and see how well it cranks over
after shutting it off for a couple minutes. If it drags, and you know
your starter is good, back it off a hair at a time until it cranks
right.

I've had to run as much as 25 deg of initial timing to get my truck
running right, and found when I pulled the front cover that the cam had
been advanced. I expected it to be retarded, but it was advanced. I
set to straight -up. It now runs good at 10-12 BTDC, and I also run the
advance off of manifold vacuam. It's heavy, and low geared, running
around towm. so I can't brag on the mileage. But I know by the way it's
running ( taking off in second with any thing more than "soft-pedaling"
it goes ZIIING, and you have to grab third in 25 feet, I need to gear it
up badly!) that it's right.

Lot's of luck, keep us posted.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 15:03:52 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 F-100 1965

Hi all,

I asked a little while ago about the front of a F-100 from 1965, maybe I
didn't explain what I meant so others could understand it.

Here it comes:

This truck has one grille
http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1965_f100.html

And this truck has a different grille
http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1965_f100_7.html

Can anyone enlighten me in this matter.


Bill Brox



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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 15:13:41 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear

Dr. g. eng. Ballinger,

Have you ever found an electronic timing light that could give a more
precise timing than your ear ?


Bill Brox




- ----------
> From: William L. Ballinger
> To: Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear
> Date: 21. mars 1999 14:45
>
> >
> > Just one thing I wanted to point out just to make sure that your doing
it.
> > Make sure that you pull the vacum advance line so your measuring base
> > degrees and not after the distributor has been advanced when your
setting
> > your timing.
>
> This is a good point, and to go along with it, pull the cap and turn
> (just till the slack dissappears) and release the rotor a couple of
> times. If it doesn't snap back to it's original position, your
> mechanical advance weights are stuck. This will throw your timing off
> and make it suck down the gas under cruise, as you are setting it for
> initial start-up timing. If you set it to where it doesn't drink gas
> you'll have too much timing at idle, and detonation under light load.
>
> If the advance is OK, then put a vacuam gauge on a manifold vacuam port
> and set the distributor to the highest vacuam reading. Go for a drive
> and if it pings, back it off just hair at a time until the ping goes
> away. Also let it get good and warm and see how well it cranks over
> after shutting it off for a couple minutes. If it drags, and you know
> your starter is good, back it off a hair at a time until it cranks
> right.
>
> I've had to run as much as 25 deg of initial timing to get my truck
> running right, and found when I pulled the front cover that the cam had
> been advanced. I expected it to be retarded, but it was advanced. I
> set to straight -up. It now runs good at 10-12 BTDC, and I also run the
> advance off of manifold vacuam. It's heavy, and low geared, running
> around towm. so I can't brag on the mileage. But I know by the way it's
> running ( taking off in second with any thing more than "soft-pedaling"
> it goes ZIIING, and you have to grab third in 25 feet, I need to gear it
> up badly!) that it's right.
>
> Lot's of luck, keep us posted.
> == 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, 21 Mar 1999 10:49:50 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Pertronix ignition

Some guy on eBay has 20 of these to sell. Check it out here.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=79816543&tc=search


Ted


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:15:57 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 F-100 1965

Bill Brox wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I asked a little while ago about the front of a F-100 from 1965, maybe I
> didn't explain what I meant so others could understand it.
>
> Here it comes:
>
> This truck has one grille
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1965_f100.html
>
> And this truck has a different grille
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1965_f100_7.html
>
> Can anyone enlighten me in this matter.
>
> Bill Brox

It could be anything from a late production build that used the 66 grill or
the owner changed the grill out after an accident. Ford is known for using
whatever parts they had on hand. If they had parts leftover from the 64
year that would work on the new 65 they would use those. If Ford ran out
of the 65 parts but already had the stock of 66 parts they would start
using those.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net

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


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:05:42 -0800 (PST)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 Headers??

cdidear clearsil.net wrote:
> I have '74 with a 390 and I'm slightly interested in headers. Are
> they worth the $$ and the install?

It is purely a personal choice. I think you will gain some power,
they sound really good and I find they are actually easier to seal
up to the head than stock manifolds. They can also be cheaper to
buy than stock manifolds if you have to replace them. Depending
on where you live you also have to make sure you are legal. Some
states require you to keep the single exhaust because that was
orignal.

Headers are not maintenance free, however, and you have to tighten
them up regularly.

The thing is with headers you can never tell if they are going to
fit so you have to make sure you get them from a place that will
take them back. Typically they have to look brand new to return
them. (No evidence of being installed.)

You also have to consider the cost of the exhaust system. I had
a dual exhaust system custom built with some cheap turbo mufflers
for $250.

Is your '74 a 4WD or 2WD? I have one of each with 390's and put
headers on the 2WD but have had a heck of a time finding anything
for the 4WD that I like.

> Also where would I get them. I've looked in the summit catalog and
> I havent seen any for a 390.

Summit carries lots of things that are not in the catalog. You
just have to call and ask.

The Dynomax headers on my 2WD were ~$80 and fit with no problems
at all. That doesn't necessarily mean if you buy them you are
guaranteed to have no problems. I bought a set of Dynomax ceramic
coated headers for the 4X4 and they did not fit. If they were
painted headers, I could have dinged on them a little with a
hammer and they would have been fine. Summit took them back, no
questions.

Stay tuned because I have a set of "Block Hugger" FE headers on
the way, this time not from Summit. Block Huggers are very short
with the collectors above the oil pan flange, facing down, and
very close to the block, hence the name. They are supposed to be
here next Friday. I have a feeling they are going to work out
real good.

Sorry if this was kind of long, but I am right in the middle of
getting the motor back in and doing the exhaust on the 4X4 so I
am a little over-stoked.

Mark in Southwest Washington
www.pacifier.com/~draco
- --
'74 F-100 4X4
'74 F-250 Supercab

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:22:29 -0500
From: Norm
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79 F-150 4WD, 429CU

Turns out - so very uncharacteristic of this money
>pit (yes - it's green) - it's the distributor cam gear pin sheared. (thank
>god) Now - any suggestions why?

Well i have a few ideas on the subject for ya!
First and most usual cause of this problem is a hunk of old burned valve
stem seal getting caught in the pumps drive gears! I have had that happen
to me on more than one occasion running older big blocks! I also have seen
this happen where it would actually bend the dist hold down also! I would
pull the pan and check it over carefully as well as pull the pump for a
visual! The factory Ford pumps screens have a hole in then that will allow
small bits and pieces to get through and into the pump! If you have a
aftermarket scren than that is not near as likly to happen! Now i know you
said the pump is fresh so without more backround I can't say that this is
your problem but it may be worth a looksee!
Norm


.

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:53:50 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390

People says that the 352 4V use more gasoline (means lower mileage) than a
390 2V, but how about a 352 2V used in the trucks ?

Bill



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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:48:31 -0600
From: Jeff Lester
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Timing by ear

> > Just one thing I wanted to point out just to make sure that your doing it.
> > Make sure that you pull the vacum advance line so your measuring base
> > degrees and not after the distributor has been advanced when your setting
> > your timing.

Well, just went back and did it again. Set the timing at 12 BTDC, with vacuum
plugged, and the total initial advance, with vacuum, ended up at 24 BTDC.

> This is a good point, and to go along with it, pull the cap and turn
> (just till the slack dissappears) and release the rotor a couple of
> times. If it doesn't snap back to it's original position, your
> mechanical advance weights are stuck. This will throw your timing off

Mechanical advance was ok.

> and make it suck down the gas under cruise, as you are setting it for
> initial start-up timing. If you set it to where it doesn't drink gas
> you'll have too much timing at idle, and detonation under light load.

"... too much timing at idle..." is that with functional mechanical and vacuum
advances? I would be willing to sacrifice at little oomph for the best MPG. Most
of my daily commute is spent at 60-70 MPH.

> If the advance is OK, then put a vacuam gauge on a manifold vacuam port
> and set the distributor to the highest vacuam reading. Go for a drive

You lost me. I know how to measure manifold vacuum, and pull a measured
vacuum on the distributor's vacuum advance. Do I set the distributor to the
measured vacuum, with the distributor vacuum advance disabled?

[snip]
> I've had to run as much as 25 deg of initial timing to get my truck
> running right, and found when I pulled the front cover that the cam had
> been advanced. I expected it to be retarded, but it was advanced. I
> set to straight -up. It now runs good at 10-12 BTDC, and I also run the
> advance off of manifold vacuam. It's heavy, and low geared, running
> around towm. so I can't brag on the mileage. But I know by the way it's

I want to say that my van (1 ton) is getting in the neighborhood of 8 MPG.
I use a heavy right foot at anything less than 60 MPH.

> running ( taking off in second with any thing more than "soft-pedaling"
> it goes ZIIING, and you have to grab third in 25 feet, I need to gear it
> up badly!) that it's right.
[snip]

Speaking of gears, anyone have the ratio's for a 78 C6? What RPM should
I be aiming at with a cruising speed of 60-70 MPH? The info I saw on
Dynatrac's website indicated 2800-3000 RPM, in general. The van has
BFG AT 33's and 3.73's. If I am not already undergeared (which I think I
may be), will I be with 35's? I'm guessing that I will be. If I use the formula
on their site, 4.10's are the way to go with 35's at 70 MPH. What do you
think?

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:16:02 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates

The following updates have been made to the Ford Truck Enthusiasts
web site.

1. New pictures in the 1915-1947, 1948-1952, 1961-1966 and 1997+
pictorial sections (note, we're still behind with the pictorials
and have about 20+ more trucks to add).

2. Events guide updated.

3. New links added to links page (we still have another 10 to add).

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 13:32:15 +0000
From: mdennis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ignition Problem

I am very much in need of some h*lp on my 79 F150 4x4 daily driver.
It will start and run only when the key is turned all the way on (starter
position). When it is turned back to run, it will quit running. Here is what
I have done. R&R'ed the c6 about a month ago. I noted then the neutral
safety switch was not hooked up, don't know why (wires were clipped when I
bought the truck). One day last week it would not start. I turned the key on
and jumped it across the selanoid and it started and ran. I replaced the
selanoid, this did not fix the problem so I replaced the ignition switch in
dash. Still did not fix the problem. I crawled under the truck and found the
wiring harness that should have been wired to the transmission was wrapped
around the front drive shaft. (Neutral safety switch and back up lights I
believe). It pulled out of the plug up on the firewall but wasn't attached to
the tranny anyway. Ok, I took a jumper wire and jumped the red wire with
blue stripe which I though was the neutral safety swithch wire and it started
normally with the key. Drove it for several days with no problem until now.
But it left me stranded last night because it would not keep running. I got
up this morning and it started normally and ran about a mile and the problem
began again. It will start and run as long as it is in the start position but
quit running when in the run position. Any suggestions? Did I mess something
up by jumping across this neutral ignition switch wire? I am a little
desparate because this is my daily driver and I am unemployed at this time.
Can't aford to take it to anybody and don't know anybody who can figure this
out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Mike
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:47:05 -0500
From: "PmctBaker"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 78 Bronco rear window

hey all,

I need some advise on a 1978 bronco custom rear electric window. does
anyone have a diagram, or schematic you could send me? the window is stuck
in the up pos. the switch on the heater controls does nothing, but shows
continuity. the wires going to the switch check OK. the key switch on the
rear door does nada, but click like a micro switch. but only on one side of
the switch. im hoping the motor is OK, but priced one at $70, so im going to
take the inside of the door off, but would like any tips you all may have.
or a diagram would be fantastic.

thanks for your help.
mike baker
pmbaker your-net.com

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:57:54 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ignition Problem

1.Bad ignition switch.

2.Bad coil resistor, if the car is equiped with one.


Both things can be caused by a shorted wire to the transmission, means the
shortening could have almost destroyed them, and after some few days they
have finaly quit.



Bill



- ----------
> From: mdennis
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ignition Problem
> Date: 27. august 1956 14:32
>
> I am very much in need of some h*lp on my 79 F150 4x4 daily driver.
> It will start and run only when the key is turned all the way on (starter
> position). When it is turned back to run, it will quit running. Here is
what
> I have done. R&R'ed the c6 about a month ago. I noted then the neutral
> safety switch was not hooked up, don't know why (wires were clipped when
I
> bought the truck). One day last week it would not start. I turned the
key on
> and jumped it across the selanoid and it started and ran. I replaced the
> selanoid, this did not fix the problem so I replaced the ignition switch
in
> dash. Still did not fix the problem. I crawled under the truck and
found the
> wiring harness that should have been wired to the transmission was
wrapped
> around the front drive shaft. (Neutral safety switch and back up lights I
> believe). It pulled out of the plug up on the firewall but wasn't
attached to
> the tranny anyway. Ok, I took a jumper wire and jumped the red wire
with
> blue stripe which I though was the neutral safety swithch wire and it
started
> normally with the key. Drove it for several days with no problem until
now.
> But it left me stranded last night because it would not keep running. I
got
> up this morning and it started normally and ran about a mile and the
problem
> began again. It will start and run as long as it is in the start
position but
> quit running when in the run position. Any suggestions? Did I mess
something
> up by jumping across this neutral ignition switch wire? I am a little
> desparate because this is my daily driver and I am unemployed at this
time.
> Can't aford to take it to anybody and don't know anybody who can figure
this
> out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Mike
> == 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, 21 Mar 1999 22:43:09 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 1965 F - 100

Does anyone know the lenght, width, and weight of a F-100 1965 (352
engine)


Bill Brox





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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:11:25 EST
From: BUDDHA02 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1965 F-100 engines

I just recently purchased a 1965 f-100 and it has 300 - 6 in it, was told that
was the stock engine for that year.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:19:24 -0600
From: "ben"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cab Swap

I am swapping the cab on my 1979 F-150 4X4 and have a few questions. First,
the doner cab has a/c and I don't want anything to do with it, what is
involved in converting it to non a/c. I have all the parts for it on the
"bad" cab. Also the doner cab is a super cab and mine isn't, it is a
regular cab with a 8ft bed. I am aware of the fact that the cab mounts are
different and the box won't work anymore, but are there any concerns with
the doner cab being off a 2wd and my frame being 4wd? I know the tranny
tunnel is different, anything else? The wiring is a problem too, the doner
is a 1977 F-250 Camper special w/460, mine is a 1979 F-150 w/400. Any
problems with the harnesses swapping? And lastly, any body want a frame for
a 1977 F-250 camper special? It's got the Dana 60 and all that neat stuff,
all I want is enough to cover the cost of the truck. Email me for more info
on that one. Thanks for all the help I hope to get!

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:10:41 -0700
From: white micron.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE 61-79 F-100 1965

The second grill in question is not stock on 65'. Looks like it was
cannibalized off '66. IMHO


> Hi all,
>
> I asked a little while ago about the front of a F-100 from 1965, maybe I
> didn't explain what I meant so others could understand it.
>
> Here it comes:
>
> This truck has one grille
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1965_f100.html
>
> And this truck has a different grille
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1965_f100_7.html
>
> Can anyone enlighten me in this matter.
>
>
> Bill Brox
>


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:35:06 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:

In a message dated 3/20/99 11:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bigtracks hotmail.com writes:


Burt: I still have the whole 429. Have the whole car (71 Tbird fastback
coupe). My concerns are the spec sheet on the 429 says 10.5 compression
which is high for any kind of fuel. I had a 70 with high comp 390 and
427 med riser heads and it was a bear to keep running on pump gas. I
didn't want to repeat the experience so I thought that perhapse the open
chamber heads would give a more reasonable CR. I could go the other way
with the small chamber heads but I wanted to make an attempt at being
smog legal. The small chamber heads have no egr.
Steve Potratz, Moscow Idaho. >>

Steve,
Hey, not too far away, I went to the U of I 64-67. Grew up in Reubens, Idaho
about 50 miles from there. The 10.5:1 CR is a problem, especially if you were
to use it under moderate load. It would burn holes in the pistons. If you
were to get pistons with a 25 cc dish you would end up around 9.3:1. This is
workable on 92 octane under load with a 180 degree thermostat and static
timing at 8 degrees BTDC. However, if you can not think of a good reason why
you want the higher compression then go with the 78 460 heads and like I said
they will give you about 8.5:1. And you will never have to worry about
knocking/pinging even on 87 octane. It will still have plenty of torque to
pull your truck around smartly. You need the 78 460 intake manifold as well
to set your self up for the EGR. I do not know about the Moscow area, but
here in Eastern Washington the smog stuff is not yet a concern. You can sell
those 71 heads for around $250 more or less. Those heads are the ones batted
around on the List described as the D0VE castings (hard to come by). I have
build up several 429s and 460s. In fact I have a 460 under construction right
now that I am hoping will put out 600 HP at 5500 RPM. Please feel free to ask
any questions no matter which way you proceed.
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4, also have a 75 F-100 39 4V and 1935
with a flathead
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:35:06 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:

In a message dated 3/20/99 11:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bigtracks hotmail.com writes:


Burt: I still have the whole 429. Have the whole car (71 Tbird fastback
coupe). My concerns are the spec sheet on the 429 says 10.5 compression
which is high for any kind of fuel. I had a 70 with high comp 390 and
427 med riser heads and it was a bear to keep running on pump gas. I
didn't want to repeat the experience so I thought that perhapse the open
chamber heads would give a more reasonable CR. I could go the other way
with the small chamber heads but I wanted to make an attempt at being
smog legal. The small chamber heads have no egr.
Steve Potratz, Moscow Idaho. >>

Steve,
Hey, not too far away, I went to the U of I 64-67. Grew up in Reubens, Idaho
about 50 miles from there. The 10.5:1 CR is a problem, especially if you were
to use it under moderate load. It would burn holes in the pistons. If you
were to get pistons with a 25 cc dish you would end up around 9.3:1. This is
workable on 92 octane under load with a 180 degree thermostat and static
timing at 8 degrees BTDC. However, if you can not think of a good reason why
you want the higher compression then go with the 78 460 heads and like I said
they will give you about 8.5:1. And you will never have to worry about
knocking/pinging even on 87 octane. It will still have plenty of torque to
pull your truck around smartly. You need the 78 460 intake manifold as well
to set your self up for the EGR. I do not know about the Moscow area, but
here in Eastern Washington the smog stuff is not yet a concern. You can sell
those 71 heads for around $250 more or less. Those heads are the ones batted
around on the List described as the D0VE castings (hard to come by). I have
build up several 429s and 460s. In fact I have a 460 under construction right
now that I am hoping will put out 600 HP at 5500 RPM. Please feel free to ask
any questions no matter which way you proceed.
Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4, also have a 75 F-100 39 4V and 1935
with a flathead
== 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, 21 Mar 1999 21:53:55 -0500
From: cannandale netpointe.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390

there use more gas if you use the four-barrel, if not, then there is no
diffrence..

cannandale
'78 F250 4x4, 460


At 12:56 PM 3/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>People says that the 352 4V use more gasoline (means lower mileage) than a
>390 2V, but how about a 352 2V used in the trucks ?
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>== 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, 21 Mar 1999 21:36:45 -0600
From: Jeff Lester
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Palouse Pals

Steve and Burt,

Seems the world keeps gettin smaller and smaller. I earned a BSME back in
87 from U of I. I always enjoyed the summer months in Moscow... really laid
back. The folks in Moscow were the greatest.

Take care,

Jeff Lester - Houston, Texas

[snip]
> Steve Potratz, Moscow Idaho. >>
[snip]
> Hey, not too far away, I went to the U of I 64-67. Grew up in Reubens, Idaho
> about 50 miles from there. The 10.5:1 CR is a problem, especially if you were
[snip]
> Burt Hill Kennewick Wa 1972 F-250 4x4, also have a 75 F-100 39 4V and 1935
[snip]

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 06:28:59 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390

Thanks,

So, if a F-100 has bad mileage, around 15 or so I heave heard, it comes
from the rear end gears maybe ? Or does it mean the trucks didn't have
vacuum advance on the distributors ? Or other stuff ?

Bill

- ----------
> From: cannandale netpointe.com
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 versus 390
> Date: 22. mars 1999 03:53
>
> there use more gas if you use the four-barrel, if not, then there is no
> diffrence..
>
> cannandale
> '78 F250 4x4, 460
>
>
> At 12:56 PM 3/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >....

---

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.