From: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com (61-79-list-digest)
To: 61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: 61-79-list-digest V3 #236
Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


61-79-list-digest Tuesday, July 6 1999 Volume 03 : Number 236



=======================================================================
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 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?
FTE 61-79 - C6 ATF
FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland
FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18
FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18 more info
FTE 61-79 - Stumbler
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mild RV cam for a 352
Re: FTE 61-79 - '66 F-100
RE: FTE 61-79 - somewhat OT: Changing the auto trans filter
Re: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18
FTE 61-79 - Re: T-18 or NP 435
Re: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?
FTE 61-79 - bed liner
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 390
FTE 61-79 - 534 engine
Re: FTE 61-79 -
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?
Re: FTE 61-79 - First MPG Test Results
Re: FTE 61-79 - power steering rebuild
Re: FTE 61-79 - Preliminary Success in IVR Replacement
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: NC tint laws
Re: FTE 61-79 - Smokin Joe Camel
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland
Re: FTE 61-79 - Smokin Joe Camel
FTE 61-79 - New Carb
Re: FTE 61-79 - New Carb
Re: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18 more info
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 390
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland
FTE 61-79 - F100 Tranny Swap - Request for info
FTE 61-79 - Re: door panels
Re: FTE 61-79 - New Carb
Re: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18 more info
Re: FTE 61-79 - '66 F-100
Re: FTE 61-79 - T-18 or NP 435
FTE 61-79 - jerky deceleration
Re: FTE 61-79 - jerky deceleration
FTE 61-79 - I must be nuts,,, I bought that old F-100... sent the money today.
Re: FTE 61-79 - New Carb
FTE 61-79 - Fuel Supply
Re: FTE 61-79 - bed liner
Re: FTE 61-79 - bed liner
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Supply

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 04:34:01 -0400
From: "Sean R. Kerns"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?

Hi,

I asked this before, and it kind of degraded into an
argument about emissions testing, but the fact still remains
that I've got a '79 F-250 4x4 with a much older (say,
'68-'70) transplanted 429-4v and no emissions equipment on
it at all that's going to be be due for registration on
August 5th, and has to get E-checked here in Ohio, so I'm
still looking for help and info, esp. if you've gone through
this, and extra especially if you've gone through it in
Ohio.
So, some questions:

1) Where can I find out what emissions equipment this
vehicle would've had with the closest engine to a 429 (a
460?) in '79?
2) Ohio has a repair cap of $300 if the thing absolutely
will not pass, but the description also says that "tampering
related repairs do not count toward this option". Obviously
the vehicle has been tampered, so how much can they expect
me to pay to "untamper" it? They suggest going after the
previous owner for repair costs, but I bought the thing from
Kentucky 10 years ago. I don't think I'm gonna get any money
that way. I really put part of the blame on the State of
Ohio, since they didn't bother checking my truck for
emissions equipment when I brought it into the state. All
they cared about at the time was that the VIN matched...
3) If I have to buy equipment and put it on, it seems to me
the most expensive would probably be cats. Does anyone know
what a set of the cheapest cats I could get might cost,
installed? A guess?
4) What are all those guys with '74-'79 Camaros and TransAms
and so forth doing? They damned sure don't all have cats on
'em?? [Background for those not in Ohio - prior to a couple
of years ago, when the new E-check test was instituted, the
State of Ohio didn't require any testing at all for anything
older than 1980 - now all of a sudden, they're interested in
stuff up to 25 years old.]

Thanks in advance. I'm just trying to keep my truck on the
road. I am all for emissions, and not tampering, and all
that, but I didn't tamper with it. This whole situation just
has me frazzled.

Thanks,

Sean
'79 F-250 4x4
Cincinnati, OH

- --
Sean R. Kerns (aka Snake)
e-mail: music bloodspoint.com
Bloodspoint Studio - Home of Stalking Horse
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bloodspoint.com
"You're in a band... That's like a business class ticket to
cool, with complimentary mojo after takeoff..."


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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 03:54:43 -0500
From: "Larry Brown"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?

Basicly, if the engine was not offered, then it will not pass. Most
inspection stations that I have experance with check the VIN to see what
engine is supposed to be under the hood and that is what they look for
(although there are always those few stations that just do a cursory check
and do not take the time to do a complete check).
It mostly depends on who does the inspections, the state run or a privatly
owned garage licensed to do them.
Try and visit some of the local boneyards and see if you can find a
emission decal off of a similar engine (429/460)on something you can
transplant to your truck, it might work.
good luck.
Larry

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Sean R. Kerns
To: Ford 61-79 List
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 3:34 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?


> Hi,
>
> I asked this before, and it kind of degraded into an
> argument about emissions testing, but the fact still remains
> that I've got a '79 F-250 4x4 with a much older (say,
> '68-'70) transplanted 429-4v and no emissions equipment on
> it at all that's going to be be due for registration on
> August 5th, and has to get E-checked here in Ohio, so I'm
> still looking for help and info, esp. if you've gone through
> this, and extra especially if you've gone through it in
> Ohio.
> So, some questions:
>
> 1) Where can I find out what emissions equipment this
> vehicle would've had with the closest engine to a 429 (a
> 460?) in '79?
> 2) Ohio has a repair cap of $300 if the thing absolutely
> will not pass, but the description also says that "tampering
> related repairs do not count toward this option". Obviously
> the vehicle has been tampered, so how much can they expect
> me to pay to "untamper" it? They suggest going after the
> previous owner for repair costs, but I bought the thing from
> Kentucky 10 years ago. I don't think I'm gonna get any money
> that way. I really put part of the blame on the State of
> Ohio, since they didn't bother checking my truck for
> emissions equipment when I brought it into the state. All
> they cared about at the time was that the VIN matched...
> 3) If I have to buy equipment and put it on, it seems to me
> the most expensive would probably be cats. Does anyone know
> what a set of the cheapest cats I could get might cost,
> installed? A guess?
> 4) What are all those guys with '74-'79 Camaros and TransAms
> and so forth doing? They damned sure don't all have cats on
> 'em?? [Background for those not in Ohio - prior to a couple
> of years ago, when the new E-check test was instituted, the
> State of Ohio didn't require any testing at all for anything
> older than 1980 - now all of a sudden, they're interested in
> stuff up to 25 years old.]
>
> Thanks in advance. I'm just trying to keep my truck on the
> road. I am all for emissions, and not tampering, and all
> that, but I didn't tamper with it. This whole situation just
> has me frazzled.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sean
> '79 F-250 4x4
> Cincinnati, OH
>
> --
> Sean R. Kerns (aka Snake)
> e-mail: music bloodspoint.com
> Bloodspoint Studio - Home of Stalking Horse
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bloodspoint.com
> "You're in a band... That's like a business class ticket to
> cool, with complimentary mojo after takeoff..."
>
>
> == 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: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:44:30 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?

In a message dated 7/6/99 4:39:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
bpmusic choice.net writes:

> ) Ohio has a repair cap of $300 if the thing absolutely
> will not pass, but the description also says that "tampering
> related repairs do not count toward this option". Obviously
> the vehicle has been tampered, so how much can they expect
> me to pay to "untamper" it?

This could be symantics (as is the case with most regulations ), but
"tampered" suggests that someone jerry-rigged the emissions equipment to
defeat it or defraud someone (ie, a common one is removal of the cat guts and
reinstalling it). Your truck was not "tampered" with but rather "Modified"
for performance reasons, right?

I am not in favor of advocating to spend an extra $300 for the
E-check if you don't have to. However, trying to put emissions decals on
your truck seems like that might constitute fraud to circumvent the visual
check. You may want to re-read the regulation as to the penalty.

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (I need factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hometown.aol.com/tbeeee
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 07:24:05 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - C6 ATF

Jason,

All C6 transmissions built for 1975 and earlier vehicles use Type F ATF. C6
transmissions built for 1976 and later were designed to use Dexron. So you
and your dad are both using the correct ATF, assuming the C6s are original
to the model years you listed.

Transmission fluid expands when heated. The only proper way to check the
fluid is to follow the directions that apply to your truck. Most automatics
specify the following: The tranny should be at operating temperature. The
usual suggestion is a 10 mile drive, not all highway, not all city. The
truck should be on level ground. Some should be checked in Drive, some in
Park, with the engine running. My 79 says Park. You should pull the stick
and wipe it clean. Reinsert it all of the way. Wait 5 seconds and remove it.
The fluid should be in the operating range on the dipstick. Sometimes
transmission fluid is hard to see, so make several tries if you are in
doubt. There also should be no bubbles, no silvery or glittery sheen, no
black particles, and no burned smell. ATF shoulld be red and easily seen
through. It is next to impossible to get an accurate reading on a cold
transmission. BTW, the add marks on a transmission dipstick are for a pint
(half quart) not a full quart like an engine oil dipstick. It is very
important to NOT overfill an automatic transmission.

If your fluid is low or dirty, it is possible to starve out the pump causing
slippage and other poor performance, including early failure. A change of
the fluid and filter does wonders for transmission performance.

- -- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 07:31:40 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland

>>They easy way to tell is to put the pedal to the
metal. If you hear wheels squealing its a Cleveland.

Oh, goodie! I have a 351M Cleveland!

- -- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:51:34 -0400
From: "Serian"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18

> So my question is what is the difference between the two trannys?

Both the NP435 and the T-18 look very similar, and are used for
similar applications. There is very little difference from the
perspective of driving them; both are heavy duty 4 speed, non
overdrive manual transmissions for light trucks (I have not seen
either of these transmissions stock in a passenger car). Both
transmissions are synchronous in gears 2,3,4 and non synchro
in 1st and reverse; first gear is a crawler gear, and you can
usually start out an empty truck in 2nd.
I have a NP435 in my '83 F150 and a T-18 in my '79 Bronco ...
they are darn hard to tell apart; the best identifier is where the
backup light switch screws into the transmission, or scrape off
the grease and dirt and look for a mfr. ident. :-)

> Also what trannys mount to a 400 auto & manual.

Manual: NP435 4 speed, T-18 4 speed, Ford 3.03 3 speed,
Clark 4 speed OD; and I seem to recall a 5 speed that was
used on newer models .. ZF something or other .....

Automatic: The C6 is the most popular; Ford also used the
FMX and CW transmissions on that size engine in some
applications. The FMX was used in passenger cars more
often than in trucks, though it was used in some models
(the F100 4x2 comes to mind offhand). According to the
auto manual I have, the CW was used in only some select
models of full size passenger car with the 351M/400.


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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:07:43 -0400
From: "Serian"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18 more info

Stu says:
> Only first gear is not synchroed in an NP 435, not sure about a T-18.
> Anyone??
> The NP 435 should have reverse over to the right and down.
> T-18 should have reverse over to the left and up.
> I think there were a few T-18's that had the same shift pattern
> as an NP 435 but I have never seen one like that.
> I may be way off here. Anyone??

Hmm ... the T-18 I have in my Bronco has the same shift pattern as
the NP435; perhaps Warner made 2 versions of it ? These
transmissions were used not only by Ford, but by other auto
makers as well ... either that, or a lot of do-it-yourself folks liked
the NP435 and T-18; I have seen a number of them in not-Ford
trucks in the boneyards.

> They are both bullet proof and super tuff tranny's.

They are both heavy behemoths, too. Built to last, though,
and will probably outlast anything you put them into.

> I prefer the NP 435 myself but would take a free T-18 in a second.

I found that the NP435 in my F150 shifts smoother than the
T-18 in my Bronco ... the NP435 shifter glides into position,
and the T-18 shifter gives a soft "click" sound when shifting.
They both work perfectly, though. I like the NP435 better,
too, but sure wouldn't pass up either of 'em. Wouldn't trade
it in for an automatic, either.

> Both tranny's would mount to a 400 if you have the right bell housing.

I dunno 'bout the newer bell housings, but the '79 and prior
ones are cast iron for this series bolt pattern.



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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:03:31 -0400
From: "J. Doss Halsey"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Stumbler

John,

A _hard_ stumble as you describe can be caused by ignition (electrical)
problems. If you have ruled out air and fuel, the only way I know to catch
an intermittant problem like that is to go through the ignition system one
component at a time. Once I replaced (one at a time) the cap, rotor,
points, wires, and coil before I got to a bad condensor which was the cause
of just the symptom you describe.

Doss Halsey
'68 F250 Camper Special

>Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 07:37:20 -0500
>From: "John R. Austin"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - The Stumbler
>
>1967 F100 w/300 I-6. Had it tuned wonderfully using vacuum guages (great
>advice from this group) Ran super for a couple of weeks. All of a sudden it
>has started to stumble at acceleration, REALLY stumble. Have rechecked
>timing, plug wires, looked for loose plugs. Where do I look first (next)?
>Thanks,
>John

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:25:40 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mild RV cam for a 352

> I'd try something like a Comp Cam 260H. You should be able to use new
>stock Ford valve springs without worrying about coil bind or not enough
>spring pressure. Always use new lifters with a new cam.
> It'll give a smooth idle, with good low to midrange torque increase.
>Throttle response will be good. However, with the multitude of cam
>manufacturers out there, you have quite a few choices to work with.

My 390 has the Melling equivalent of the Comp 272 I believe ... it was a
bit cheaper, but the cam is awesome, I ended up a step higher than even the
higher of the two I was looking at and still love it ... headers, if you
can swing them will also help immensly, especially with the cam.


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:29:59 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - '66 F-100

>Where within the halls of Ford Truck Enthusiasts is the appropriate
>place to list this truck for sale? '66 F-100 Custom Cab w/ whatever V-8
>it is that has "D2TEAA" stamped on the heads, a transplanted C-6, nearly
>original interior, 75K original miles, very little rust, only a couple
>dents, w/ 60's era aluminum slotted mags and 255-60-15 tires? Where
>should I look to find out what to sell this for? It's running a little
>rough, and life is such that like it or not, I'm better off selling it
>and paying bills than I am watching it grow older and paler while I grow
>older and broker. It's a sad decision indeed to have to make.... any
>thoughts? Thanks for the directions in advance :)
>

I'm sorry to hear you'll have to part with an FE ... the D2TE heads are
from a 360/390 motor, no way that I know of to tell without doing the dowel
trick... (pull a spark plug, use a dowell other measuring device, roll the
motor over by hand to see what the total stroke is)

As for places to see what its worth, you might check out a hemmings motor
news or Old Cars Price guide ..usually a little high, but will give you a
ball park at least ...


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 06:40:48 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - somewhat OT: Changing the auto trans filter

Thanks for your message at 05:23 PM 7/2/99 -0700, Southerland, Rich. Your
message was:
>Around 110K it was slipping pretty badly going into O/D. As a last ditch
>effort, I changed the filter/fluid and added a can of K&W Trans-X. It
>hasn't slipped since. Normally I laugh at those "mechanic-in-a-can"
>products, but it worked well for me.

As it did for me...Good stuff (not cheap, though). Normally I don't post
"I agree" posts, but sometimes it's good to know a product worked well for
more than one person...




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: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:48:24 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18

In a message dated 7/6/99 8:53:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
serian flashmail.com writes:

> the best identifier is where the
> backup light switch screws into the transmission, or scrape off
> the grease and dirt and look for a mfr. ident. :-)

There is also a difference in how the shifter attaches. The NP-435 used pins
which engaged and locked in a spring loaded "cap" while the T-18 used a
screw on cap. I have pictures of the top covers for these two trannies on
my web page under "transmission identification."

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (I need factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hometown.aol.com/tbeeee
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:24:38 -0600
From: "Grady M. Shock"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: T-18 or NP 435

Apologies the correct address is
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.medicine.wisc.edu/~mrm/bronco/vinform.html
- -Grady Shock



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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:34:52 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?

You're kind of in a deep hole right now. The fact is the biggest engine
offered in your truck was a 400 which had cats. If they are very strict and
can figure out that the 4X4s never had a big block then you aren't going to
have much choice other than going to a referee and pleading your case. BTW
"tampering" includes changing an engine. Now if they let you slide on the
fact that a 460 was offered in the 4X2 trucks then you should be in better
shape since the 460s didn't have cats on them even in CA until the mid 80s.
In that case you'd need to find out what emissions equipment was on the big
blocks, probably something like EGR, evap, A.I.R., and get it put back on
your motor.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Sean R. Kerns
To: Ford 61-79 List
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 1:34 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Emissions Equip. Originally on a '79 F-250 w/ 460?


>Hi,
>
>I asked this before, and it kind of degraded into an
>argument about emissions testing, but the fact still remains
>that I've got a '79 F-250 4x4 with a much older (say,
>'68-'70) transplanted 429-4v and no emissions equipment on
>it at all that's going to be be due for registration on
>August 5th, and has to get E-checked here in Ohio, so I'm
>still looking for help and info, esp. if you've gone through
>this, and extra especially if you've gone through it in
>Ohio.
>So, some questions:
>
>1) Where can I find out what emissions equipment this
>vehicle would've had with the closest engine to a 429 (a
>460?) in '79?
>2) Ohio has a repair cap of $300 if the thing absolutely
>will not pass, but the description also says that "tampering
>related repairs do not count toward this option". Obviously
>the vehicle has been tampered, so how much can they expect
>me to pay to "untamper" it? They suggest going after the
>previous owner for repair costs, but I bought the thing from
>Kentucky 10 years ago. I don't think I'm gonna get any money
>that way. I really put part of the blame on the State of
>Ohio, since they didn't bother checking my truck for
>emissions equipment when I brought it into the state. All
>they cared about at the time was that the VIN matched...
>3) If I have to buy equipment and put it on, it seems to me
>the most expensive would probably be cats. Does anyone know
>what a set of the cheapest cats I could get might cost,
>installed? A guess?
>4) What are all those guys with '74-'79 Camaros and TransAms
>and so forth doing? They damned sure don't all have cats on
>'em?? [Background for those not in Ohio - prior to a couple
>of years ago, when the new E-check test was instituted, the
>State of Ohio didn't require any testing at all for anything
>older than 1980 - now all of a sudden, they're interested in
>stuff up to 25 years old.]
>
>Thanks in advance. I'm just trying to keep my truck on the
>road. I am all for emissions, and not tampering, and all
>that, but I didn't tamper with it. This whole situation just
>has me frazzled.



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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 09:42:49 -0500
From: "Rusty Nail"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - bed liner

Wondering if any of you have used spray in or brush in bed liners. If so
what are your opinions, I'd like to use a new brush in product that I saw
recently, looks like it would work really slick.

thanks for any input.

rusty in kcmo
'77 400m explorer
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 07:52:11 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 390

>do one better, slap a 428 crank, rods and 410 pistons in and you'll have a
410.
>I hope to have my 410 together by the end of summer. My 410 started life
as a
>very tired 360.

What are the upgrade possibilities for a 351M? What parts would I need? I
know of course the 400 but can you go any bigger? I know a guy with a '72
or so bronco who turned his 351W into a 427, 429 or something in that
neighbourhood. Right now it's running fine so I'd be a fool taking it apart
but when the time comes..

Actually I still have to determine it really is a 351M and not a 400. I
blindly trusted the valve cover but after all this talk about different
cranks, who knows..



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

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 07:54:20 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 534 engine

Does anyone here know more about the 534? It was mentioned in an emissions
list posted here awhile ago. Sounds like a beast, did any of you ever see
one?

Bas.


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

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:38:38 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -

>He (or maybe she?) was still working for Ford truck on the 74-79s. They
>designed the heater core box that has to have everything pulled from inside
>the cab. :-(

I changed the heater core on my '78 with no problem. Well it was tight
because because somebody put a (nice) carpet in it. But after loosening up
the dash it came right out. Do you have A/C? That's what makes things
complicated.


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

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:45:27 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative fuels, anyone?

>I don't know what grade of propane is used in the netherlands but in the US
>the reverse is true about engine life. The gas burns so clean it doubles the

But then you need different valve seats or something...? The only reason
you'd really want it in the netherlands is because it is about the same
price as gasoline here. At least it used to be, if more people start using
it I expect it to go to the same $4-$5/gal as gasoline is now.


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

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

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 1999 17:00:18 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - First MPG Test Results

> After traveling 378 miles breaking in a new 390 with 10:1 compression in
>my 69 F250 with 4bbl Holley C6 and 3.73 gears, I stopped to get gas and was
>surprised when I only needed 28.3 gallons which works out to 13.35 MPG. It
>would be interesting to compare the data on MPG that some of the list
>members have gathered on these heavy F-series trucks.

I get about 12 mpg with my '78 bronco, 351M, C6 and 120k miles on it. Looks
like we're both in good shape :)

This guy who posted earlier that he was getting 17 mpg.. maybe he lives in
canada? they have 4.54 liter gallons vs 3.78 .. also he may have a standard.

> What effect would headers have on MPG and the compression ratio compared
>to the stock manifold? I was also thinking of installing a set of Hooker
>Competition headers along with a high flow dual exhaust that exited behind

I doubt that a better exhaust will get you a better mileage. If your engine
breathes better you get more power but it also gets more fuel :)



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

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

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 17:45:06 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - power steering rebuild

>I am a living witness to the validity of the advice in your shop manual. I
>did succeed after several trips to machine shops and hours with the parts
>books getting the right parts. Do not try to rebuild it yourself. Since

I didn't - also because I have only one vehicle. IF I start the job I have
to finish it before being mobile again. Plus, the steering is very
important and just the added safety is worth the extra money. I got a A1
cardone, they're said to be really good. It's got lifetime warranty and I
got it for $260. The list price is some $550 so this should be a good deal.

>I've been down this road I suspect the $28 is just the sector shaft bushing
>and seal. That is no-way likely all you will need. There are valves,
>pistons, and a truck load of little bitty balls in the body of that thing.
>Not a job for a first timer. Even the new bushing has to be reamed to fit
>the shaft and the shaft may be worn too much.

That thing was original and is 22 years old so yeah, it probably needs more
than just a bushing :)

>Here is what I suggest, call or E-mail Northern Auto Parts Warehouse, Inc.
>Phone 1-800-831-0884, E-mail at northern pionet.net, home page at
>www.naparts.com and ask them for a quote. They are listing right now
rebuilt
>units for 70 to 79 F-100 to F350 for $159. and a core charge of $100, which

An F150 4x4 might fit mine, but I'm not sure. In general the whole front
end of the 77/78 F150 4x4 seems to be the same. I know the 2x4's have the
pitman arm facing the other direction.

>Rent the pitman arm puller from a rental store, they have'm. Good Luck

I rented one and the %^^$%# thing wasn't big enough so I ended up hammering
it off, to the disgust of my mechanic.. That arm looked like it is fairly
sturdy though..

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

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

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 17:55:33 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Preliminary Success in IVR Replacement

>To all it may concern, today I built and installed a new electronic IVR
>(instrument voltage regulator) to replace my malfunctioning mechanical
>one on my '86 F-250. I used a schematic and parts list that Mike Sloane

Wow, I'm amazed they still used those in '86. Must be technology from the
40s or 50s or so.


>"flexible circuit board" that is behind the instruments. It checked out
>at a steady five volts and appears to be working OK. Total cost was
>about $30. Feel free to ask if you have any questions.

This should be much more reliable than the mechanical one, but why didn't
you just buy an off-the-shelf regulator with a little heat sink? They
should also just do the job fine and you can get them for a couple $$.

My mechanical one has also been malfunctioning for awhile, the piece of
information that was missing is the voltage the instruments take. So you're
saying it is just a steady 5v?

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

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

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 18:26:38 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: NC tint laws

At 01:26 AM 6/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>NC TINT LAW
>If it was on the vehicle before June 1986, it is OK, until two years ago,
>now it has to be no less light transmittance than 35%. It is tested in
>
>Funny how all the police cars in my area are starting to be equipted with
>Limo Black (5-10% light trans) on the cruisers.

Funny indeed. Just like when you are driving the speed limit and the
cruisers fly by you even with their sirens off, and how come you never see
those guys stop at the stop signs...

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

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

Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 18:36:09 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Smokin Joe Camel

>share a common cylinder head design. None of the 335 series cylinder
heads >have a provision for circulating coolant through the manifold.

Does anybody know, what advantage is there in cooling the intake
manifold?There is no heat generated so why would you do it? Or is it to
WARM UP the manifold?

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:06:07 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland

Thanks for your message at 11:03 AM 7/4/99 -0500, Jason & Kathy Kendrick.
Your message was:
>Hey guys, is there any way to tell the difference between a 351M and a
>Cleveland, just be looking at the outside?

I've been waiting for the old "count the valve cover bolts" explanation,
but I gues I gotta be the one...
The Cleveland has eight (8) bolts holding each valve cover on...

That's the quickest way I know to tell the difference (besides performance).
Oops!




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: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:14:14 -0800
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland

that would work,,,, but umm, both the cleveland and 351M and 400 use the
same valve covers

Erik Marquez
bronco78 mosquitonet.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mosquitonet.com/~bronco78
Home of the BB decal
Bronco 78 in the BB chat room
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Pearson
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland


>Thanks for your message at 11:03 AM 7/4/99 -0500, Jason & Kathy Kendrick.
>Your message was:
>>Hey guys, is there any way to tell the difference between a 351M and a
>>Cleveland, just be looking at the outside?
>
>I've been waiting for the old "count the valve cover bolts" explanation,
>but I gues I gotta be the one...
>The Cleveland has eight (8) bolts holding each valve cover on...
>
>That's the quickest way I know to tell the difference (besides
performance).
>Oops!
>
>
>
>
>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
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 10:19:56 -0500
From: Don Yerhot
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland

One other way that I noticed on my 71 Cleveland is by the motor mounts.
The 351C uses the same mounts as the 302/351 Windsors, ie, 2 bolts that
screw straight up into the block. I believe that the M's use 3 bolts,
and go in at a 45 degree angle, following the angle of the cylinders.

DonY
65F250-351W-435NP
74F100-351W-3 on-the-tree (8 ft. flareside)


bolt
pattern it's a 351M/400.>



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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 10:49:55 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Smokin Joe Camel

>Does anybody know, what advantage is there in cooling the intake
>manifold?There is no heat generated so why would you do it? Or is it to
>WARM UP the manifold?
>
In my opinion (which isn't worth much these days), the water passages would
do both. This will help in the summers here where the engine temps can get
quite high, but it will also help in the winter when the temp dips below 0.
Those of you who live in shall we say more stable climates, might not have
this problem, but here its nice to tune a carb any time of the year and
have only minor tweaks when we get to the next few months of weather ...

Isn't the midwest fun ?


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:03:42 -0400
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New Carb

I finally got around to putting my new carburetor on my 352. Holley 600cfm, manual choke, vacuum secondaries , etc. It fired right up. Got the idle set about 560-580.
I took it out last night for a shakedown cruise. WOW what a difference!
One small problem was on deceleration. I got some pretty blue flames out of the left side tailpipe. Sounded like the fireworks show uptown Sunday night.
Is this good, bad, indifferent? What do I need to adjust? Any help is ALWAYS greatly appreciated.

Ted Wnorowski
Bellevue,OH
'64 F-250
352 transplant
4 speed



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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:07:57 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New Carb

> I took it out last night for a shakedown cruise. WOW what a difference!
> One small problem was on deceleration. I got some pretty blue flames out
>of the left side tailpipe. Sounded like the fireworks show uptown Sunday
night.
> Is this good, bad, indifferent? What do I need to adjust? Any help is
>ALWAYS greatly appreciated.
>
Wow, blue flames ? They were doin that all weekend down in Des Moines
(GoodGuys nationals :) ... anyway I would guess you've got things a bit
rich ... possibly you have a hole in that exhaust side too ? I can't think
of why if it was rich you'd have it out one side and not the other ... what
sort of cam are you running?


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:24:36 -0500
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18 more info

At 09:07 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Stu says:
>> Only first gear is not synchroed in an NP 435, not sure about a T-18.
>> Anyone??
>> The NP 435 should have reverse over to the right and down.
>> T-18 should have reverse over to the left and up.

Maybe I am thinking of a T-19 ???

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: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:28:52 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 390

Never heard of a "stroked" M series which is what the 351W your buddy did.
It requires a special crankshaft, pistons etc. When you stroke a 351M you
get a 400. The stroke on a 400 is already longer than a 460 so I don't think
you can go much longer.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bas van der Veer
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 to 390


>>do one better, slap a 428 crank, rods and 410 pistons in and you'll have a
>410.
>>I hope to have my 410 together by the end of summer. My 410 started life
>as a
>>very tired 360.
>
>What are the upgrade possibilities for a 351M? What parts would I need? I
>know of course the 400 but can you go any bigger? I know a guy with a '72
>or so bronco who turned his 351W into a 427, 429 or something in that
>neighbourhood. Right now it's running fine so I'd be a fool taking it apart
>but when the time comes..
>
>Actually I still have to determine it really is a 351M and not a 400. I
>blindly trusted the valve cover but after all this talk about different
>cranks, who knows..



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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:39:32 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland

So does the M, they're the same heads!

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Pearson
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland


>
>I've been waiting for the old "count the valve cover bolts" explanation,
>but I gues I gotta be the one...
>The Cleveland has eight (8) bolts holding each valve cover on...



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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:43:15 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland

Check out this page...

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/glance.html

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Pearson
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351M/351 Cleveland


>Thanks for your message at 11:03 AM 7/4/99 -0500, Jason & Kathy Kendrick.
>Your message was:
>>Hey guys, is there any way to tell the difference between a 351M and a
>>Cleveland, just be looking at the outside?
>
>I've been waiting for the old "count the valve cover bolts" explanation,
>but I gues I gotta be the one...
>The Cleveland has eight (8) bolts holding each valve cover on...



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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:41:55 -0600
From: "Berkeley, Dan"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - F100 Tranny Swap - Request for info

Hello - new subscriber here, looking for information.

I have a 1978 F100 2wd with the 300 - 6 cyl with a carburetor and a three
speed.

I also have a 1993 F150 2wd with the 5 speed and the 6cyl engine, fuel
injected, hydraulic clutch, etc..

Question: has anyone used this more modern tranny with an older engine? The
straight 6 is a great engine but the advantages of the 5 speed are obvious.

I have questions about the clutch (mechanical vs hydraulic), flywheel, size
of clutch and pressure plate, bell housing, linkage, change of shifter from
column to floor, drive shaft, cost of adapters or other necessary parts -
anything else ?

The best solution would be a direct replacement on the same bell housing (if
it fits) and modifications to the floorboard and the drive shaft as needed.

Any information would be greatly appreciated, including alternate tranny
advice, if the 5speed is not the best choice. I prefer to keep the tranny
manual.

Thanks in advance ,
Dan

PS: I am not taking my 1993 truck apart, I will pick up whatever tranny I
decide on at my local 'used parts recycling center'.

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 13:04:33 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: door panels

Looked at some interior door panels over the weekent that I had promised to do.
They are a dark green. (money pit green??? as someone said) The passenger side
has a crack in it and a "chip" out of it. The drivers side seems to be in
excellent shape. If interested, I will give both a "Once Over" to make sure I
haven't missed anything. They are from a '77 F250 that I am parting out the
cab. Severe rust.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 13:16:23 -0400
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New Carb

William S Hart wrote:

>
> I can't think
> of why if it was rich you'd have it out one side and not the other ... what
> sort of cam are you running?
>
> Just my 2cents
>
> wish
>
>

It might have been coming out of the other side too. I probably just didn't see it. The exhaust is brand new. As far as I know it's a stock cam.

Ted



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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 13:20:29 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - NP435/T-18 more info

Stu Varner wrote:
>
> At 09:07 AM 7/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Stu says:
> >> Only first gear is not synchroed in an NP 435, not sure about a T-18.
> >> Anyone??
> >> The NP 435 should have reverse over to the right and down.
> >> T-18 should have reverse over to the left and up.
>
> Maybe I am thinking of a T-19 ???
>

Rev. is the same over and back for NP435 and T-18, at least for
78/79 vintage. Neither has synchronized first. T-19 does, but have heard
that some T-19's don't have granny first.

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

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 13:23:53 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - '66 F-100


>Where within the halls of Ford Truck Enthusiasts is the appropriate
>place to list this truck for sale? '66 F-100 Custom Cab w/ whatever
V-8
>it is that has "D2TEAA" stamped on the heads, a transplanted C-6,
nearly
>original interior, 75K original miles, very little rust, only a couple
>dents, w/ 60's era aluminum slotted mags and 255-60-15 tires? Where
>should I look to find out what to sell this for? It's running a
little
>rough, and life is such that like it or not, I'm better off selling it
>and paying bills than I am watching it grow older and paler while I
grow
>older and broker. It's a sad decision indeed to have to make.... any
>thoughts? Thanks for the directions in advance :)
>

Go to the web site, click "Classifieds."

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 13:27:36 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - T-18 or NP 435

Stu Varner wrote:
>
> At 08:34 AM 7/5/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >Guys & Gals,
> > I have a 78 F-150 400 & non snycro 4 on the floor. My assumption was
> >that it was a T-18. Just looked it up on
> >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://.medicine.wisc.edu/~mrm/bronco/ftvin.cgi and it said I have an NP
> >435. So my question is what is the difference between the two trannys? Also
> >what trannys mount to a 400 auto & manual.
>

Don't know why, but 78's seemed to come with NP435, and 79's seemed to
come with T-18's in Bronocs. I've seen it this way many times. I
replaced my seized up NP435 with a 79 T-18 (cause it was low milage and
hte price was right). 435 has 6.68 first gear, while T-18 had 6.32. No
other differences I can tell (cept, cases look a little different and
shifters mount differently).

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 10:48:47 PDT
From: gene gardner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - jerky deceleration

Hey gang: just wanted to let everyone know I'm back in the States, alive and
lurking. No biggie, but any thoughts about what might cause unsmooth
deceleration? It's not real dramatic, just that it didin't use to do it.
I've got a rebuilt carb ( put in 3 mos. ago), seems like it's been doing it
since about that time. Or could it be a driveline thing? It's a 70 F100,
300-I6 with a manual 3-speed and a Carter 1-barrel. TIA.

Gene Gardner, Texican Teacher


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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 13:13:25 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - jerky deceleration

>Hey gang: just wanted to let everyone know I'm back in the States, alive and
>lurking. No biggie, but any thoughts about what might cause unsmooth
>deceleration? It's not real dramatic, just that it didin't use to do it.
>I've got a rebuilt carb ( put in 3 mos. ago), seems like it's been doing it
>since about that time. Or could it be a driveline thing? It's a 70 F100,
>300-I6 with a manual 3-speed and a Carter 1-barrel. TIA.
>

I've always noticed that manuals decelerate much rougher than autos ...
this has a lot to do with the clutch mechanism (on an auto it will overrun
without loading the engine too much)...if its been doing it since the new
carb was put on, I'd doublecheck the tuning on the carb ... also just
general tuneup stuffs...


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 20:17:31 +0200
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - I must be nuts,,, I bought that old F-100... sent the money today.

Hi all,,,

LOL,,,, I have been wondering for days if something was wrong with me,,,
sending a lot of money for a pickup, and get it on rail up here, or
actually a bit away from here, we have no rail here, the last piece of the
road it will go on truck.

Maybe they get it to the train station tomorrow.
Hope it is like it was when I was driving it at the shop....

I also wrote to Cummins and asked about putting a B engine in the F-100,
but a little later I found out that the B engine weights a lot.
900 lbs, at least the brand new QSB5.9 engine,, turbo diesel... guess that
will be far to much for the F-100...
But, I'll see what they come up with. And let you hear.


Bill Brox



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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 13:23:53 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New Carb

> It might have been coming out of the other side too. I probably just
>didn't see it. The exhaust is brand new. As far as I know it's a stock cam.
>
Is it possible its just the oil burning out of the new exhaust then ?


Just my 2cents

wish

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 13:28:48 -0500
From: "Corey Johnson"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Supply

Ok.. lets start with the history...

Back in oh lets say '92 when I moved the in cab gas tank in my '66 F-100
to the bed I noticed that sometimes my truck would stall. Upon
inspection I found that there was no gas in the carbuerator, so I put in
new mechanical fuel pump.. This fixed ot for the most part except at
higher RPM's.. So I then installed a small electric pump in addition the
the mech one(having also noticed a little vapor locking at the tank,
getting more heat being outside I guessed).

Everything went fine from there on.

In April when I rebuilt the engine I decided that the electric was more
than enough and capped off the mechanical pump leaving just the
electric.. Everything was fine from there until... LAST Thursday.
Engine died about 2 miles from home.
I tried to get it to start and noticed one of the sounds missing... No
buzz from the fuel pump...

Ok.. Time to replace. I installed a new one probably the same throughput
although a little larger in size.
Truck started right up. Kewl!..

However, when ever I have to idle for a length of time , ie. at a red
light, the truck sputters when I try to accelerate from the supposed red
light. It almost died but acts as if it was just flooded with fuel.

Could it be putting too much pressure inthe fuel bowl?

Also I do not have the oil pressure safety switch which the instructions
refer to. I never needed it before and I didnt see any need for it
now(and not too mention I have no idea of what it is or how to connect
it).
I was my understanding that it just cut-off power if the case that there
was NO oil pressure. Or is it that it varies the power to the pump
depending on oil pressure?

Any thoughts, ideas, or recommendations?


TIA,

Corey
'66 F-100


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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:16:37 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - bed liner

In a message dated 07/06/1999 2:46:02 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
rnail mmgworldwide.com writes:


what are your opinions, I'd like to use a new brush in product that I saw
recently, looks like it would work really slick. >>

I personally think spray on/brush on bed liners look like crap, but remember
that is just my personal opinion. They are cheaperand relatively easy to do
yourself, but I'd rather pay the $$ for a used plastic one. Oh well, my truck
is old and scratched anyway LOL Just my opinion.......BTW I am looking for a
used plastic bedliner in the So Cal area. Thanks y'all!

*~*~Lisa and Envy~*~*
*~*~Silly boys....trucks are for GIRLS!~*~*
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:12:34 -0700
From: "Sam Weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - bed liner

>
so
> what are your opinions, I'd like to use a new brush in product that I saw
> recently, looks like it would work really slick. >>
>
> I personally think spray on/brush on bed liners look like crap, but
remember
> that is just my personal opinion. They are cheaperand relatively easy to
do
> yourself, but I'd rather pay the $$ for a used plastic one. Oh well, my
truck
> is old and scratched anyway LOL Just my opinion.......BTW I am looking for
a
> used plastic bedliner in the So Cal area. Thanks y'all!

I haven't used the spray in, but I know some people who have...
Well The spray un stuff is quite durable, it doesn't hold moisture
underneath and doesn't wear your paint where it rubs...
It also seems stuff wouldn't slide around nearly as much.
I think they cost more than a slide in plastic liner, but I think it is
worth it.
-srw

Sam Weatherby http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://insert.com/sammy
SWeatherby UsWest.Net A-SamWe Microsoft.com
'70 Grabber Sportsroof Mustang
'65 F100



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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 12:38:07 -0700
From: "Steve Schwartz"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Supply

Hi Corey,

1) You probably DO need to regulate your fuel pressure. Add an in-line
adjustable regulator. Purolator makes an inexpensive one. Sorry I don't
know what the optimum pressure is for your setup, but it should be easy to
find by trial and error.

2) The oil pressure switch is just a safety device which cuts off the
electric fuel pump in case the engine stops, as in a crash. It must be
wired so the pump gets power from the start circuit during cranking, and
normal run power through the oil pressure switch. This can be easily
accomplished with the correct NO/NC pressure switch. Someone posted a link
recently that showed the wiring diagram. Perhaps they would repost it.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Steve....


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.