61-79-list-digest V3 #249

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 #249
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 Saturday, July 17 1999 Volume 03 : Number 249

=======================================================================
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 - Who swapped a c6 in there 67-72 4x4???
FTE 61-79 - 300 split exhausts vs. headers.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:
FTE 61-79 - GVW Pkgs & Wheel Bases & Eng Avail
FTE 61-79 - Bounced Mail?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
FTE 61-79 - Need help with axle swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need help with axle swap
FTE 61-79 - brake/turn signals
FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
FTE 61-79 - Submerged
Re: FTE 61-79 - Submerged
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?
Re: FTE 61-79 - turn signals don't c*ncel
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?
FTE 61-79 - stuck dist
Re: FTE 61-79 - turn signals don't c*ncel
FTE 61-79 - '64 CrewCab Update & Unibody in Junkyard
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine swap (460 for 302)
FTE 61-79 - starting problems
Re: FTE 61-79 - 78-79 Bronco prices ...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Wooo Hoooo!!!, another reason 78's Bronco's RULE!!!!
FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 distributor
Re: FTE 61-79 - Submerged
Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine swap (460 for 302)
FTE 61-79 - exhuast for a 352
FTE 61-79 - Re: More 300 split headers
FTE 61-79 - Re: tires
FTE 61-79 - what is this hole in my manifold ?
FTE 61-79 - Re: More 300 split headers
Re: FTE 61-79 - stuck dist./bloody knuckles
FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
FTE 61-79 - Submerged
FTE 61-79 - Door locks.

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:28:23 -0400
From: Joe & Jen DeLaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Who swapped a c6 in there 67-72 4x4???

Looking to talk to someone that swapped in a c6 auto trans in a 67-72
4x4 ....
Joe

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:44:43 -0500
From: ballingr

ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 300 split exhausts vs. headers.

The late model manifolds are pretty good. Headers might bring a little
more power, but they introduce a lot more problems, especially if they
are near the starter. I'd go with the manifolds if they will fit your
engine. I've not fooled with the 300 enough to say if they will or not.

The Q-jet would be an excellent choice of carb for what you're doing.
Setting the air-valve is a little tougher on a smaller engine. You'd
likely want one that uses both a primary and secondary pull off. The
primary works for the choke, the secondary one cracks the air-valve a
little when you step into it, then lets it drop open. It will smooth
out the secondary engaement enough that it won't either bog or spit. On
my FE I don't have the secondary pull off, and I have my air valve set
to drop quickly. I modulate it with my foot, and on occasion I'll make
it spit from letting it fall too quickly, but most of time it just
wails. If you are putting it on a Holley maifold, Mr. Gasket makes an
adapter. BTW, the carb I have is off an '81 305 G*C. It has an
electric choke, and I've had it on both a 289 and on my present 360 or
390 (I still don't know for sure which it is, and don't care because I
am getting ready to screw together a Hoss 390 for it)and it works well
on both. My new engine may require a little more carb work to get it
right.

> Folks,
> Which would produce better mileage and pulling power; a set of headers or
> a set of the late model factory split exhaust manifolds on a 300 six?
> This would most likely be used with an Offie dual port intake and a small
> four barrel carb (Q-jet maybe?) . Any cam testimonials/recommendations?
> I'm on a hardware scrounge kick.
> Thanks,
> Brett
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:13:30 -0500
From: ballingr

ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

> I've seen diesels have as much torque as 900ft-lbs, with only 200-300 hp
> before, i don't know if this is true with all diesels but, i always assumed
> they made alot more torque but not as much hp as gas engines.

The reason that is is that a big truck doesn't need that much HP. HP
acts to maintain momentum at speed. A truck has weight and gears to do
that. Torque is the most important because it gets everything
underway. Weight helps maintain the truck's momentum. Shorter
intervals between gears allow the engine to stay within a narrow band
causeing a more efficient use of the available power. These two things
allow the engine to have a narrow power band.

A big truck engine in a little truck won't apply itself to the different
use as well. You blow through the torque band with no load(1000 to 1800
rpms), and since the truck doesn't have gears and weight to maintain
momentum, the performace will be a major dissapointment. A lighter use
engine needs more horsepower and a torque band in the middle range more
(2000 to 4000 rpms) to keep the "seat-of-the-pants-o-meter" happy.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:18:52 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:

Thanks for your message at 11:52 PM 7/15/99 -0400, Tony Marino. Your
message was:
>GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>8-)
>
>Tony
I think the thing to say is CONGRATULATIONS!

>chinacat wrote:
>
>> im getting married sat. wish me luck
>> see ya in a week!

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:33:49 -0400
From: tfreeman

murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:

I know this is off topic, but I believe it is "Congratulations" to her and "Good
Luck" to him!

In either case, I wish them both well!

- -Ted

Thanks for your message at 11:52 PM 7/15/9
>GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Tony
I think the thing to say is CONGRATULATIONS!

>chinacat wrote:
>
>> im getting married sat. wish me luck
>> see ya in a week!

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:31:24 -0400
From: "Marvin Meyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - GVW Pkgs & Wheel Bases & Eng Avail

I recently found my dad's sales brochure to the 1976 ford truck line up. He
bought our 76 new it's a Ranger XLT 150 supercab (still in the family). Any
ways the wheel bases where as follows;
stylesides 117,133,140 for reg cab
stylesides 139,155 for super cab(sc)
stylesides 150,166.5 for crew cabs
flairsides 133 for reg cab
The list becomes a little more complicated as you breakdown in F-series'

Engine availability was 300,302,360,390,460
GVW Pkg.'s were as follows;
Reg cabs; 4600-10000#
SC 5200-9300#
Crew Cab 6200-8200#

If any one would like info on the 76 brochure I'd be glad to E-mail
particulars directly
*NOTE; Canadian sales Brochure*

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:37:21 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Bounced Mail?

List: I apologize for this but....

Garry Bowling,

My reply to your tire question, did you get it?

- -- 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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:53:53 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

non-turbo. It is an 84. It has two horsepower ratings, 160 and 180.
>This is the 160. The diesel in my pickup is an 85 6.9 L also by

Geeze, that's in the ballpark of what my 351 generates. I thought a 534
would be a 400-500hp monster.

- ------------------------------
One other thing you should realize. Your 351 makes that hp at somewhere
between 4500 and 6000 RPM. You don't spin a big diesel that tight more than
once ;0). I don't believe they go much faster than 2000. So for a fair
comparo imagine what your motor makes at 2000 (usually where the dyno test
starts) and then compare it to the torque and HP ratings of that monster.
For confirmation listen close the next time a big rig pulls away from a
stop.

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:57:01 -0400
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Need help with axle swap

Hello group,

well its 100 degrees here in PA and i just mounted a 79 f-150 dana 44
under my
68 f-100 4x4..now here's the problem..it seems like the axle sits too
far to the pass
side..while looking from the front you can see a notice of the front
tire
sticking out more then the rear...also the front drive shaft will now
hit my headers...
Should i have used the 68 not sure what its called the linkage that
goes from the frame mount to the axle mount??Is there anybody on the
list that has done this swap in a 67-72 truck???Thanks in advance
Joe
68 f-100 4x4

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:25:16 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need help with axle swap

>side..while looking from the front you can see a notice of the front
>tire
>sticking out more then the rear...also the front drive shaft will now
>hit my headers...
>Should i have used the 68 not sure what its called the linkage that
>goes from the frame mount to the axle mount??Is there anybody on the
>list that has done this swap in a 67-72 truck???Thanks in advance

The track bar should probably come from the 68 to be sure it was the right
width, you should also check the locating point for the axle side of the
track bar, if that's in a different spot you will have the same problem. I
think there are adjustable bars available, so this might be something to
look into ...

Also remember that the front wheels may be a bit wider than the rears just
because of the way the trucks are designed ...

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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:32:15 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - brake/turn signals

>>Or I could always epoxy another separator below the new lightbulb.....
hhhhmmmmmmm...... I could just cut a slot in the rear of the light asembly
and insert a piece of stiff plastic to block off the white lense area.
Any ideas?

Yes, exactly that. Either a solid piece of plastic or a piece of red lense
inserted above the backup area. The solid would block off the area, the red
lense would allow the whole thing to show red from the turn signal/brake,
but still show white from the backups. A mirrored coating of some type on
the backup side of the divider would probably make the backups brighter,
too. I figure a hacksaw ought to cut about the right width of slit.

I have this notion that I should probably pick up an extra tail light unit
or two to experiment on.

If you know where a 65 to 68 C

dill

c is, look at the construction of the
tail light assemby. It is an education in getting the right color of light
to shine out the right lense at the right time.

- -- John
jlagrone

qwk.net

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:51:14 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Submerged

If you decide to keep it, change ALL of the fluids. Replace all of the
filters. Have a trusted transmission shop check the transmission out while
the pan is down for the fluid change. Drain all gas tanks and possibly have
the insides coated. Change the charcoal canister. Rebuild the carb. Blow out
the fuel lines. Be sure the intake manifold isn't full of water. Replace the
catalytic converter. Check all light assemblies inside and out for water
accumulation/seal destruction. Drain the speedometer cable housing. Drain
the air conditioner/heater fresh air intake duct work. drain the rear
corners of the cab. etc., etc., etc.........

Be prepared to have repeated electrical/electronic problems due to
connections that have been wet. Be prepared for premature drive train
failure. Personally, I would hire a lawyer and get a different truck. If
anyone else tries to save it and then sell it later, it should come up as
salvage or rebuild. This warns a future owner that it has been totalled. If
you salvage it yourself, sell it and don't tell the buyer it has been under
water, you are asking for a lawsuit.

Call any bodyshop in Galveston or Houston or Florida that has been around
for several years. they can tell you about cars that have been submerged
because of hurricanes.

- -- John
jlagrone

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?

After some intense investagations I have found that my 64 does indeed have a
352 in it, but it is (to my dismay) a 66 352. My vin # tells me that the
stock motor should be a 292.So for all the knowadgeable guys here on this
list, you were right. I probably would have known otherwise without
investagating this,thanks...........
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:25:11 EDT
From: WEDIVE247

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - turn signals don't c*ncel

That collar thats on the back of the steering wheel is what cancels the
signals.It is supposed to have a rounded pin type thing molded to it. How did
yours get broken ? I have an extra if you need it let me know off list.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:43:18 -0400
From: tfreeman

murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?

Sorry to here about the transplant....I was hoping you were right and had a "one
of".

Still the 352 is a good engine!

- -Ted

After some intense investagations I have found that my 64 does indeed have a
352 in it, but it is (to my dismay) a 66 352. My vin # tells me that the
stock motor should be a 292.So for all the knowadgeable guys here on this
list, you were right. I probably would have known otherwise without
investagating this,thanks...........

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:45:15 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - stuck dist

>> I'm using the front passengers
side wire as #1. I must be doing something wrong?
Brian
77 351M

Brian,

That is #1 on a 351M. I just went out to the truck and looked. Front on the
driver's bank is #5.

Now I have lost the rest of what you said, so forgive me if I ask what you
have already covered. You do have the vacuum lines disconnected and plugged
as the underhood data sheet instructs, right?

- -- John
jlagrone

murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - turn signals don't c*ncel

Mine has a metal dowel molded in the wheel that cancels the turn signal.

- -Ted

That collar thats on the back of the steering wheel is what cancels the
signals.It is supposed to have a rounded pin type thing molded to it. How did
yours get broken ? I have an extra if you need it let me know off list.

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:10:58 -0700
From: "Jeff Carver"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '64 CrewCab Update & Unibody in Junkyard

Well, here'e the latest on the '64 CrewCab project.
Yes, it has escalated from a replace springs job,
to a project, now that I'm getting a new brake
system out of this.

I asked for new rubber brake hoses, but the steel
lines broke during disassembly, and the wheel
cylinders and master were needing replacement too.
I've been nickle and dimeing the brake parts for
a few years, and never quite got them working right.
Now that a better mechanic is working on it, one
who recognized the problems, I'll be ready to stop.

Of course, if I'd known I needed all new stuff, even
I could have done that. However, did ya know that
there were three types of front brake cylinders
used in the '64 era? It took the mechanic a few
calls to find someone who knew that and could
determine which one I had.

I'm now into this spring replacement, new brakes
and such to the tune of about $1800, and that still
doesn't include new tires and wheels! But it's
still better than the downpayment on new truck.

At one wrecking yard I checked out a '63ish unibody
inline 6 truck with no major body damage, with a
tailgate that was in decent shape, even tho it had
another truck placed on the bed in the yard.
Interior shot, but overall the truck was fairly
complete. Make a nice project for someone looking
for a unibody.

Drop me a line if you are interested. It's the
same truck that has the 9" rear end, so I won't
just publically announce where it's at, yet. I
need to make sure I don't need the right axle.

The truck has been generating a lot of interest
at the shop, with people asking if the owner would
be interested in selling. NO WAY!

Had the truck in the family too long, way too
functional, and way cheaper than a new one, and
so very much different.

Brian, got the wheels, thanks, the check's in the
mail.

Jeff
'64 F100 CrewCab

Get your FREE Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://my.lycos.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:14:14 -0500
From: "Corey Johnson"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?

hey! whats wrong with a '66 352

tfreeman

murphyfarms.com wrote:

> Sorry to here about the transplant....I was hoping you were right and had a "one
> of".
>
> Still the 352 is a good engine!
>
> -Ted
>
> After some intense investagations I have found that my 64 does indeed have a
> 352 in it, but it is (to my dismay) a 66 352. My vin # tells me that the
> stock motor should be a 292.So for all the knowadgeable guys here on this
> list, you were right. I probably would have known otherwise without
> investagating this,thanks...........
>
> == 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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:35:08 -0400
From: tfreeman

murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?

There's not a thing wrong with a '66 352. I'm an FE nut. (one in the truck and
a 410 on the stand). I was hoping he was right when he said he had an original
352 in a '64 and was hoping he had a one of a kind truck since the 352 wasn't
offered till later. It just has to be a bummer when you think you have one
thing and find out you have another.

- -Ted

hey! whats wrong with a '66 352

tfreeman

murphyfarms.com wrote:

> Sorry to here about the transplant....I was hoping you were right and had a
"one
> of".
>
> Still the 352 is a good engine!
>
> -Ted
>
> After some intense investagations I have found that my 64 does indeed have a
> 352 in it, but it is (to my dismay) a 66 352. My vin # tells me that the
> stock motor should be a 292.So for all the knowadgeable guys here on this
> list, you were right. I probably would have known otherwise without
> investagating this,thanks...........

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:49:55 EDT
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 352 in '64?

In a message dated 7/16/99 4:43:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
tfreeman

murphyfarms.com writes:

> I was hoping he was right when he said he had an original
> 352 in a '64 and was hoping he had a one of a kind truck since the 352
wasn't
> offered till later. It just has to be a bummer when you think you have one
> thing and find out you have another.

I agree wholeheartedly. I too was hoping it was true.

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (in need of 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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:15:21 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine swap (460 for 302)

> 300 I-6, but that had been replaced by a 302 when I purchased the truck. A
> friend of mine has a 460 currently residing in an old Lincoln and I'm
> wondering how difficult a swap this would be. I'm told that the motor
> mounts are different as is the bell housing. What else should I be aware of
> before I consider this undertaking.

4x4's have the oil pan with the lower end on the back, while I was told
cars usually have this in the front.

And you should be aware of your local smog laws.

> He also has a 351-W for sale. I'm told this would be a pretty straight
> swap, but the lure of the 460 is pretty strong.

I can imagine, the 460 is an awesome engine.

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:29:09 PDT
From: "steve potratz"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - starting problems

Ian wrote:
> >ok i dont know why it only posted half of it, but, heres the rest I tried
>to
> >start it after the lights came on, clicked a few times, stopped, lights
>went
> >bye bye, hit the dash in frustration, lights came back on, tried to start
>it
> >again, bye bye lights, hit it again, lights back on, did this several
>times,
> >lights also came on when i fiddled with the key in the switch. im
>starting
> >to consider a rewiring project, i figure it cant get any more screwed
>up...

steve wrote:
This sounds like the infamous fuseable wire for the power to the circuit
box. Ford used a wire that would fuse at certain amperages(do not know the
rating). When this blows some guys don't replace it with the right wire or
do not solder it in place. As corrosion happens eventually the connection
is no good but it happens gradually. It is infuriating because it is hard
to find and inconsistant. You open the hood or giggle a wire and the dome
light comes back on, but when you hit the starter it goes out. I have also
experienced this with a bad main cable or post. The ground idea wasn't too
bad but it would have other wierd symptoms like the radio comming on when
you turn on the turn signals etc. The fuseable wire is at the solenoid. New
rigs actually have a core with a tag on it that says fusible link.

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.msn.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:38:47 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 78-79 Bronco prices ...

>
> took me 4 days to find this one, I must have been really lucky..
> >>
> Hell yes you were lucky. Took me over a year and a half to find a truck that
> would do what I wanted. Glad I didnt buy the first thing I saw though, Cuz
> Tweety has turned out to be a great truck.
I almost bought a early 70s grand cherokee. I found a bronco but it had a
huge lift and it was apparently done wrong because I could turn the
steering almost half a turn before it would go anywhere. Also it was not
running very strong, and it barely made smog. They wanted $3500, no way..
Then I found this bronco, asking $2900, took it for a drive, 10 minutes
later I was handing the guy 25 $100 bills.

But yeah now that I've been here for a year I still have seen only a few
(good) 78-79 broncos and none of them were for sale!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:46:08 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Wooo Hoooo!!!, another reason 78's Bronco's RULE!!!!

> Just got off the phone with the EPA. Seems that up to 78, anything
> over 6000 lb GVWR was classified as heavy duty, pertaining to engine
> emission certifications. Turns out that heavy duty engines were

Cool, my 78 bronco is 6100lbs GVWR. Maybe that's why the California state
referee I went to did not make an issue of it not having cats. So does
that mean you can also put an OLDER 460 in it? Do you know if California
has different laws?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:45:11 -0600
From: "oxleygf

msn.com"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1964 distributor

Ok Ford Truckers, help me out if you can. I'm in dire need of a rebuildable
distributor for a 1964 Ford Pickup, F100, 223 Six Cylinder engine.

From what I understand, it's a one year only. The difference in the '64 and
previous years is the size of the shaft that drives the oil pump. From
somewhere around 57 through 63, the hexagon shaft from the distributor to
the oil pump was 1/4 inch. In 1964, they went to 5/16ths. It's a six sided
shaft about 5 inches long. The distributor diameter, just below the flange
where it butts up to the engine block measures 1.4 inches, but the key item
is the "female" end of the distributor shaft itself. If anyone has one,
I'll pay a premium price for one that is "rebuildable ". Please contact me
off line, or any other way, as I need the item to complete my restoration
project.

Thanks, Bill

303 773-6873
303 773-3977 evening and weekends
oxleygf

msn.com email

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:51:16 +0800
From: "David and Cherie"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Submerged

It would more likely be the case that if its totalled then the insurance
company keeps the vehicle and fixes it and sells for a profit. Thats why
they would want to keep it.
Dave
Australia

F350 68

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: barry mitchell
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Engine swap (460 for 302)

You can get the rear sump 460 oil pan from Ford Motorsport (I just saw
it in there today.)

Barry
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:53:20 EDT
From: TWL1911

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - exhuast for a 352

Hey all
i would like to know what i could do to make my truck sound like there really
is something under the hood and yet i dont want to sound cheesy. i have a 352
motor and just manifolds and single exhaust i belive its 2 1/2 inch but im
not sure. would headers be the way to go and glass packs or what. any info is
greatly apreciated
Travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:07:43 -0500
From: "Brett L. Habben"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: More 300 split headers

Tony,
What exhaust system works best behind the factory split manifolds; 2"
duals or "Y" them together into a single "3" system? What cam
recommendation?
Thanks,
Brett,
>I've tried both, and to make it short and quick-- I really prefer the
dual
>manifolds off of a fuelie model. The clifford intake, Carter 600 carb,
and
>dual manifolds run circles around the dual hedders that I had on it.
>Tony

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:08:54 -0700
From: Kathy & Christine
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: tires

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I have been checking local tire stores for some
> 6.50-16 6PR bias ply tires for my '64 CrewCab.
> I thought it would be a snap. Wrong!
>
> Anybody have any recommendations of a brand that
> actually carries and old style tire like this?
>
> For the bias plies in the old numeric sizing, Coker Tire is about the
only
> place I know of... They can offer several brands, most likely, but the
price
> you received of about $125 per tire is right in the ballpark... I
don't know
> where you are, or what tire shops you're asking at, but I believe both
Sears
> Automotive and NTB deal w/ Coker on a regular basis. Hope this helps!

>
> Kathy
> '66 F-100 Custom Cab

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:13:48 -0500
From: donb

ficom.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - what is this hole in my manifold ?

what is this hole in my manifold ? :) okay, I have just put a Edelbrock
manifold on a 400 engine. It had three holes in it for vacuum I guess. I
took the ones off the old two barrel manifold but there is one left. It is a
much larger diameter hole on the front of the manifold behind where the
thermostat housing is. Yes the hole is threaded....any ideas what goes there
?

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:44:19 -0400
From: Tony Marino
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: More 300 split headers

"Brett L. Habben" wrote:

> Tony,
> What exhaust system works best behind the factory split manifolds; 2"
> duals or "Y" them together into a single "3" system?

Well Brett, I have the priveledge of using both of these systems as well!
This is ALL IN MY HUMBLE, PERSONAL OPINION!!! 8-)

My '93 has the duals into a collector pipe, which goes to a 3" inlet to a
CHEBBIE muffler, which has dual 2 1/2 inch outlets, then they run side by
side to the rear axle, where one humps up and around the spare tire and the
other goes straight, and they both exit out the rear on each side of my
receiver hitch. I REALLY like this setup personally. I get a deep rumbly
tone to the exhaust under a load, and it's quiet, but the resonance
carries. I used a 3 core chambered muffler. This is a fuelie motor though
with dual cats.

My '78 runs single 2 inch pipes out of the manifolds, never joins, run in
parallel through the transmission crossmember one over top of each other,
and then the one pipe 90's, goes under the transfer case yoke, then 90's
back along the frame rail running parallel with the straight pipe and into a
single muffler on each pipe, and then exits out in front of the rear tire.
Picture: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/~tony/pics/n12.jpg shows the setup. It's
really slick, custom bent pipes the whole way, but when I first coined the
phrase "It's sounds like a cessna" I AM NOT JOKING. These suckers are
loud, obnoxious, and downright hilarious to listen to when I really get 'er
wound up. Ask Colorado Jeff, or Stu. It's crazy! The carb did have to be
tuned for the dual exhaust on this system-- going from single 2 inch to dual
2 inches that are free flowing really played havoc on the Carter.

Which do I prefer? Well, both! I have so many trucks because I can't seem
to make up my mind on what I want, so I keep buying them.. ;-) Actually, to
tell you the truth, I wish I would have ran the 2 inch duals on my '78 to a
collector, and into a 3 inch single pipe all the way back and out behind the
passenger rear tire. I think if you have a 300 six, and you're looking for
any kind of "reputable, decent, halfway impressive" sound you really have to
run single muffler to a large pipe. I gotta admit though-- The looks I get
on campus when I'm in my '78 on my way to work (drive right though downtown
Akron campus) is worth the smiles I get from the different reactions of
people! 8-)

> What cam recommendation?

I'm not really qualified to answer that-- I bought an RV cam when I got my
remanufactured 300, and lost the specs sheet that came with it. You'd be
better off to talk to a few guys who have done the custom cam swap than
me.. I will say this-- my low end on my '78 has dissappeared with a
slightly over mild cam, the 4 barrel carb, and the dual manifolds. Right
now i produce the majority of my power at about 2,200-4,000 rpm, and have
been known to take it up a few times to 5,000 rpm. (I know, not very
impressive to the V8 crowd, but if you were behind a 300 screamin' that
fast, it'd make you wonder!) (GRIN)

Just as a little "add-on" note- Everybody please allow for a moments
silence for my dearly departed '78 that I speak so fondly of. Tomorrow she
is going to get parted out. Not because she isn't running well, but I've
found a more important fancy in taking her parts and fixing up my new 3/4
ton 4x4, rather than keep putting money into a 1/2 ton. With any luck, the
shortbed 4x4 frame off the '78 will be resurrected next year as a 100% 3/4
ton shortbed, 460, pulling truck to have fun with at local fairs. 8-)

Tony
tony

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 00:50:45 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stuck dist./bloody knuckles

soak it good with wd40, spray enough on it to puddle up, let it sit for a
while then crank it up until it gets hot, now try the hammer.i know from
experience.

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:01:08 -0500
From: George Ramsower
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

One of the more misunderstood things about torque and horsepower is how
they interact.
Torque is an instantaneous measument of the ability of the engine to
twist the crankshaft. Horsepower is a calculated measument of the work
that can be done in a given amount of time.
The guy(I can't remember his name) that defined what one horsepower is,
figured that if you can raise 33,000 lbs one foot per minute equals one
horsepower. If we took a pulley with a radius of one foot, placed it one
the crankshaft of any engine, and used this pulley to pull or raise an
object weighing 33,000 lbs, then we can calculate the horsepower by how
fast it can move this object.
The circumference of a pulley, with a radius of one foot, is 6.28 feet.
So each revolution of the pulley, will theoretically pull a load 6.28
feet per revolution. If the engine is developing 900 ft/lbs of torque,
then it can pull a maximum of 900 lbs. If it turns 2000 rpm, then it
would be pulling that 900 pound load at the rate of 12400 feet per
minute. To convert this to horsepower, we will take the 900 pounds and
multiply it by the 12400 feet per minute and we get 11,160,000. Then we
divide that by the aforementioned 33,000 and we get the horsepower
figure of 338. At 2500 RPM the horsepower is increased to 422. at 5000
rpm, the horsepower will be 844. This is assuming the load stays
constant at 900 lbs.
Diesel engines typically don't turn as fast as gasoline engines, so as
a result, they produce less horsepower. Torque is nice, but horsepower
is what gets you from point A to point B. Torque by itself without
movement is nothing.

WARRANTY DISCLAIMER:
No warrant is expressed or emplied on the math in the preceding post,
and I assume no responsibility for damages to equipment or persons as a
result of these calculations. Use these figures at your own risk. :)

_______________________________________________________________
> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:48:02 EDT
> From: IanBoss69

aol.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
>
> I've seen diesels have as much torque as 900ft-lbs, with only 200-300 hp
> before, i don't know if this is true with all diesels but, i always assumed
> they made alot more torque but not as much hp as gas engines.

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:01:08 -0500
From: George Ramsower
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

One of the more misunderstood things about torque and horsepower is how
they interact.
Torque is an instantaneous measument of the ability of the engine to
twist the crankshaft. Horsepower is a calculated measument of the work
that can be done in a given amount of time.
The guy(I can't remember his name) that defined what one horsepower is,
figured that if you can raise 33,000 lbs one foot per minute equals one
horsepower. If we took a pulley with a radius of one foot, placed it one
the crankshaft of any engine, and used this pulley to pull or raise an
object weighing 33,000 lbs, then we can calculate the horsepower by how
fast it can move this object.
The circumference of a pulley, with a radius of one foot, is 6.28 feet.
So each revolution of the pulley, will theoretically pull a load 6.28
feet per revolution. If the engine is developing 900 ft/lbs of torque,
then it can pull a maximum of 900 lbs. If it turns 2000 rpm, then it
would be pulling that 900 pound load at the rate of 12400 feet per
minute. To convert this to horsepower, we will take the 900 pounds and
multiply it by the 12400 feet per minute and we get 11,160,000. Then we
divide that by the aforementioned 33,000 and we get the horsepower
figure of 338. At 2500 RPM the horsepower is increased to 422. at 5000
rpm, the horsepower will be 844. This is assuming the load stays
constant at 900 lbs.
Diesel engines typically don't turn as fast as gasoline engines, so as
a result, they produce less horsepower. Torque is nice, but horsepower
is what gets you from point A to point B. Torque by itself without
movement is nothing.

WARRANTY DISCLAIMER:
No warrant is expressed or emplied on the math in the preceding post,
and I assume no responsibility for damages to equipment or persons as a
result of these calculations. Use these figures at your own risk. :)

_______________________________________________________________
> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 01:48:02 EDT
> From: IanBoss69

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.