61-79-list-digest V3 #253

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 #253
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 20 1999 Volume 03 : Number 253

=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo

ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???
FTE 61-79 - Re:door handles and rag joints
FTE 61-79 - Steering Boxes
FTE 61-79 - Oil Pan for 429
FTE 61-79 - 534 Engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - Fix for leaking drain plug
Re: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???
FTE 61-79 - 534 Engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - cfm??
Re: FTE 61-79 - emissions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Fix for leaking drain plug
FTE 61-79 - Help with Guages
FTE 61-79 - cfm
RE: FTE 61-79 - Convert 240 to 300 possible?
Re: FTE 61-79 - t-18 & np
FTE 61-79 - Oil drip
FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID
FTE 61-79 - Chunk removal
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID
FTE 61-79 - F100 Tranny swap
FTE 61-79 - 534 Engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 motor mount brackets for a 79
Re: FTE 61-79 - 78-79 Bronco prices ...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Extaordinary Ford Trucks !
Re: FTE 61-79 - Extaordinary Ford Trucks !
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Availability
FTE 61-79 - truck license / PNO
Re: FTE 61-79 - Power steering help
Re: FTE 61-79 - voltage regulator
FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...
Re: FTE 61-79 - cfm
FTE 61-79 - Re- Fix for leaking drain plug
Re: FTE 61-79 - Power steering help
FTE 61-79 - statues - was: 534 engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...
Re: FTE 61-79 - statues - was: 534 engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...
Re: FTE 61-79 - what is this hole in my manifold ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???
Re: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???
FTE 61-79 - Ford list
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Boxes
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford list
[none]
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 240/300 performance

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:40:23 EDT
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

In a message dated 7/20/99 12:13:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
r72cnvt

hotmail.com writes:

> I hope this puts to rest the idea of putting one of
> these in an F series P.U.

But If not I have one in an F-900 that runs excellent. Truck is pretty
decent too. Buy the engine and the truck will go along for the ride.

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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:54:17 +0200
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???

Hi,

My F-100 has one L78-15 (spare tire).... but the license papers says
7.00-15, and under Plyrating it says R code.

I have found out that L78-15 equals 8.00-15,,, or 235/75-15,,, those
sounds a bit big.

What do you all say, when I want to keep it more or less original ???

Maybe both sizes could be used in 1965.. I mean 7.00-15 standard and
8.00-15 as an option...

Wish I had an original shop manual to find out this. Maybe the same tire
for 64 or 66 maybe,,,

Bill

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:19:04 PDT
From: "eldon eversull"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:door handles and rag joints

Don wrote:
>>With the custom option you have the chromed handle plates, right? The
>>ones with custom on them and go under the handle. The button on those
>>handles have extra length built in for the thickness of the plate.

Don:
You are right, I have the custom cab chromed handle plates and one push
button that goes with that setup and is longer. The door with the shorter
button is the one that would not lock. I didn't realize the button was
shorter at first and went back and complained to the locksmith that he did
not fix my lock correctly when he re-keyed it.

Danger:
You mentioned keeping the rag joint in my steering column in its proper
position after I moved the steering column up. I have seen a lot of threads
here on rag joint, but I don't see it in my shop manual. There is a shaft
in the recirculating ball steering box connected to an upper shaft by a
clamp bolted on. You also mentioned this Wedive247. Am I way off base
here? Thanks for your comments.

Eldon 1964 f100

_______________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:29:34 -0500
From: ballingr

ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering Boxes

> Hey Danger , are you sure about this ? My 64 doesn't have a "rag" joint I
> don't think. because I did the same thing to my column ie; moved it up to
> meet the steering wheel ;; and all I saw was one shaft hooked to the other
> via a C clamp type thing.

The pre-'65's and F250 4X4's up till the mid '70's used a Gemmer-Ross
worm and roller steering box that had the shaft in direct coupling with
the box. Recirculating ball steering came along in '65 and had the rag
joint. I'm not sure what year they stopped using the Gemmer box on the
4X4's, does anyone know?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:37:37 -0400
From: "HARLEY A PUTNAM"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oil Pan for 429

>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:56:18 -0400
>From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 Oil pan for 4X4

>For all you guys contemplating a 460 in your favorite early vintage FOMOCO
truck
>you can purchase your rear sump oil pan, dipstick, and dipstick tube from
the
>Ford parts counter. Get one for your favorite year of E series(vans) with
460.
>You also need to get the oil pump and pickup tube for the same year van you
>choose.

>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.

Azie, would this also work to convert an oil pan from automobile style for a
429 to truck style to fit in a 72 F-100?

Thanks,
The Dirtyman

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:51:05 -0500
From: ballingr

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

> I wonder if the 534 really is built to run at 2000 rpm. If it is a
> gasoline engine, it can probably run 4000 easy. Does anyone know the
> stroke/bore? It would still be nice for towing, especially with an
> overdrive.
>
> Wonder how much it weighs.

If you look at one close up it's huge. My guess is about 1500 lbs. The
problem with revving an engine of that size up, is that the
reciprocating mass of the engine will likely be heavier than it's
internal components can stand above it's rpm design limit. You'll
scatter it in short order. Big truck designs are really not made for
the flexibility that light duty driving demands. They're more like a
pump engine, staying within it's narrow comfort zone.

If you were towing steady on the highway and geared it right, and could
afford to feed it it would be as close as it will get to working. But I
really think the mileage and weight (and what will it take to fit that
monster in an F series anyway?) penalty is too high to make it a viable
swap. A 460 ( or a built-right 390) will do all that 534 can do in a
light chassis.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:08:07 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Fix for leaking drain plug

>My oil pan plug came with a little gasket. The package told me to replace
>it each time I drain the oil, but so far (three changes or so) it's kept
>up very well. Do you have the gasket? I would imagine this is what is
>supposed to be sealing, not the thread. Be careful with these bolts
>because the previous owner of my truck managed te ruin the thread on it.
>Thank god he did not ruin the thread on the pan.

The gasket is a good point. Another option is runnin to the local parts
store and picking up an oversized plug, take the old one with you and
measure the shank diameter, then look to see what they have to replace it,
it should come with a washer and be magnetized... the oversized ones will
cut new threads in the pan, but they will definitely seal up...

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, 20 Jul 1999 08:17:47 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???

>I have found out that L78-15 equals 8.00-15,,, or 235/75-15,,, those
>sounds a bit big.
>
>What do you all say, when I want to keep it more or less original ???
>
>Maybe both sizes could be used in 1965.. I mean 7.00-15 standard and
>8.00-15 as an option...
>
So you're thinkin that these 235's are a bit big how ? They are wider than
stock, but just marginally ... if you are on stock rims you might consider
dropping to a 225, but I wouldn't worry about it too much, as long as the
rim and the tire are within the manufacutrer's specs for the tire width,
you should be fine. I'm not a fan of wide tires, but the 235's work well
on the Cougar, causing only slight hydroplaning in the rain. On a truck
that weighs a thousand pounds more, I wouldn't expect too many problems.
Even my stang which is only a few hundred pounds more has no problems with
245's on it (stock even!). For complete originality (7.00) wouldn't you
need something like a 205 or 215 ? Getting one of those tall enough will
take an 85 series tire probably, which can be tricky to find ...

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, 20 Jul 1999 08:21:15 -0500
From: ballingr

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

> Well if that puts to rest the idea of putting it in a pickup why not go all
> out and use a beefed up F-350 frame and trick suspension, possibly buil your
> own body using the cab as a start??? seems to me it wouldn't be hard to weld
> flat sheets of metal together to make a cool lookin body like the hummer's.
> anyways it'd make a killer off-roader, if your into that sort of thing, or
> just something to jerk the house off the foundation with??? hehe, me and my
> crazy ideas

Yeah, but a have you ever seen Bigfoot? They use a 385 series big-block
and lots of rpm. I just don't think that 534 is worth the trouble.
Weight is important, you add another 750 lbs to the nose of your truck,
it ain't goona help a thing. You lower the available revs by 2000, it
aint gonna do nothin but get you stuck in a mud hole.

In mud you need momentum, big chunky lugged tires, as little weight as
your rig can carry, and the ability to throw mud to the next county on a
moment's notice. That means lighter, revvable, powerful. If you need
6000 rpms in the gear you're in to keep your tires clean, and maintain
forward momentum, you need it, and there's no time to down shift.

Rock crawling in an F350 would be an interesting sight, and again 1500
lbs of engine in the nose is going the wrong way. The power would be
where you need it, but that weight...

Whatever trips your ticker, but big truck gas burners are one of those
things that have a very narrow application. They burn alot of gas, and
make alot of one kind of power. Like a diesel, but without the fuel
economy. If you had zillion bucks and built a set of rods that can take
the stress, lightened and balanced the crank, cammed it and manifolded
it to rev up a little, you might get up to where a mildly modified 460
can go, but with a little more off-idle grunt. To me it's a waste of
time and effort.

Just my opinion though, you know what they say about opinions and
a**h*les...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:20:40 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - cfm??

>> If that 302 is stock, I bet you will find that even a 600 is too much
>carb.
>
>It is mainly stock, I went to Auto Zone and got a remanu. 302. I read the
>spec sheet and it is bored .030 over and I have that Edel. 600cfm and a
>Edelbrock Preformer 302 intake along with Accel hi-pro wires and a Accel
>Super Stock coil.

If you are decent at tuning a carb you can usually make them work, but you
also have to realize that you don't really want to floor it or you'll just
overwhelm the engine. My g.f's dad has an interesting view on all this,
when I was asking what size for my 390 he said 750 without hesitating. My
first reaction was shock as technically a 600 is just a hair too small, so
a 650 should be fine and a 700 a little overkill. Then he cleared up his
reasoning: You can always re-jet to get the fuel right, but those
throttles are only so big and if you can't get the air through it doesn't
matter how big the jets are...

Just some food for thought ...
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, 20 Jul 1999 08:23:07 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - emissions

I had an odd thought on this the other day. Maybe instead of trying to
make everyone meet emissions and all that stuff, we should put that money
into ignition modules and parts to keep the cars that are 7 to 15 years old
running. It seems to me (just my opinion now) that most of the clunkers I
see around are about this old and the people (GENERALIZING!) who drive them
are not knowledgeable enough and don't have the money available to really
make them run right, so maybe we should have sort of a "car welfare"
program where some of the money is dogeared to fix their cars for them so
they aren't polluting as much ???

hehehehehe ... am I weird or what ?

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, 20 Jul 1999 09:29:24 EDT
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Fix for leaking drain plug

In a message dated 7/20/99 9:10:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wish

iastate.edu
writes:

> .. the oversized ones will
> cut new threads in the pan, but they will definitely seal up...
>
I personally didn't have a good experience with these (I am familiar with
cutting threads and using self-tapping bolts). I ended up pulling the pan
and removing the old spot-welded "nut" and welding in a new half-height one.

This thread come up several weeks ago. Wish mentioned that this
would leave a lip and consequently trap some oil during an oil change. I
looked at the pan again since that thread. Due to the angle of the drain and
a slight bulge in the pan, I think the amount of oil left would be negligible
and in any event because everybody performs regular oil changes on their FE
that means that whatever oil might still be left in the pan shouldn't be in
real bad condition anyway right? Yeah right!

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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:30:14 -0700
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Help with Guages

I've got a 71 F100 with a full set of guages. All of my guages read
low. By that I mean, the alternator needle barely swings when the
headlights are turned on with the ignition is turned off or the turn
signals activated, the temp guage doesn't reach the operating range and
the electric oil pressure guage reads on the low side of the operating
range.

I have a hunch the problem may be in the cluster voltage regulator.
Does anyone have any experience with this type of situation and a
possible solution? Does anyone know the part # for the voltage
regulator?

Thanks for the help.

Tim Bowman
71 F100 Sport Custom
360, 105k and pulling strong

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:39:15 -0400
From: David Henderson
Subject: FTE 61-79 - cfm

Wish:

Wish wrote:
>You can always re-jet to get the fuel right, but those
>throttles are only so big and if you can't get the air through it doesn't
>matter how big the jets are...

The Edelbrock 500 and 600 cfm carbs are the same body, the only difference is
in the rods and jets. He's have to step up to a 700+cfm carb form Edlebrock to
get bigger throttles.

Dave H

- --
_
_| ~~. David Henderson
\, _} DHenders

VT.Edu
\( Gig 'em Aggies! '93

Currently at:
Interdepartmental Genetics Program
2010 Litton Reaves Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540)231-4773
(540)231-5014
DHenders

VT.Edu
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dasc.vt.edu/henderson/dhenderson.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:56:56 -0400
From: David Henderson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Convert 240 to 300 possible?

Brett writes:
>Is it possible to convert a '69 240 to a 300 by swapping the crank, rods,
>and pistons? Will they clear the 240 block? Any balancing problems with
>the harmonic balancer, flywheel etc.? How about timing set? Heads the
>same?

Brett:

The block is the same so you shouldn't have any problems there, but you will
have to swap some other stuff. The combustion chamber on the 240 head is too
small (would put you up to about 11:1 cr) for the 300, have to swap or go to
the airport to fuel up. Have to swap the crank, cam, and timing set (different
number of teeth between 240 and 300 -- thanks StockMan). The harmonic balancer
might be fine and the rods might be fine. If you're doing a rebuild, always
get new pistons (and yes, ones for a 300). Good luck with your project!!

Dave H

- --
_
_| ~~. David Henderson
\, _} DHenders

com is usually a good starting point for some Jeep
>related links and info ...

WiSH:

My first vehicle was a '77 J*ep Cherokee (3/4 ton Levi's edition, had denim
seats and panels). This thing was an amalgamation of parts. Had a New Process
transfer case, a GM transmission, an International 360 (an awesome engine,
would love to get another), and probably Dana axles. From what I understand,
AMC could not always meet their own production needs for parts and frequently
used parts from whoever they could get them from at the time. Makes for some
interesting archaeology ;^)!!

Dave H

- --
_
_| ~~. David Henderson
\, _} DHenders

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oil drip

Bas writes: >>The drainplug on my oil pan has a slow leak. I just got done
with the oil
change and torqued it to spec., but I've still got the drip. Could I use
teflon tape around the threads to fix this, or would I be courting trouble with
some sort of contamination?

I don't think you will be contaminating anything, but there should be a teflon
gasked(seal) on your drain plug. and they do get damaged from time to time..
You can purchase these at most any auto parts store for $1.00 or thereabouts...

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:27:53 -0400
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID

Larry writes: >>who made the t18 and np transmission.

T = Borg Warner
NP = New Process Gear

If his J**p has a manual, then either can probably be swapped in. The bolt
patterns to the bellhousings are fairly universal. The problem is adapting the
NP or T18/19 to his current transfercase. These adaptors are available for some
4 speed manuals, but I'm not J**p orientated, so do not know who makes them.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:49:13 -0400
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Chunk removal

You write: >>I am currently trying to remove the Hoggs Head as I heard the
called
today (Removable carrier type axle) I have pulled out the axles which I
must say once the four nuts were removed I just pulled the axles out
with my hands. I gave them a tug and they came out..
As for the hoggs head it will not budge....I have all the bolts out and
it is still very very tight even after some suggestive vibration with a
hammer it still will not move. Oil is only leaking around the bolts and
not the seal.....

I need any help you folks can provide....AZIE? I know you have removed
them...This one has been on the truck since is was built in 67....I
would like to get it off this evening but now it looks like tomorrow so
I can have it rebuilt and back in by this weekend.

Also, should I replace the gaskets or bearings for the axles?

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Put a bottle or floor jack(or anything you can apply lots of pressure with)
under the front yoke(or the housing near the front) and apply some pretty good
pressure. It probably has been removed previously and reinstalled with some old
Permatex hard cureing cement type of gasket sealer, which is causing your grief.

There is one nut directly under the front pinion housing that must be removed
with a hand wrench, so be sure you have all of the nuts off. If you are sure
you have them all out, don't be afraid to apply pressure. Once it breaks loose,
you will have to remove the pressure and slide the "chunk" forward evenly, cause
it wont come completely off at the top or one side unless it is out a good way
on the bottom or the other side.
Sorry for the delay. I'm in Digest mode, and only get one message a day from
the site.
My motto is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", most of the time. Rear axle
bearings are not really much trouble to change, so I wouldn't fix them if they
ain't broke. Now the front seal in an automatic tranny would be replaced if I
had to seperate the engine and tranny for any reason provided it had been in
there for any length of time. Good judgement here and of course whatever
pleases you.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:59:48 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID

Thanks Azie, William and everyone else who replied on my question.
This will give him the info. to do more research on the setup.

Thanks again
Larry

At 10:27 AM 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Larry writes: >>who made the t18 and np transmission.
>
>T = Borg Warner
>NP = New Process Gear
>
>If his J**p has a manual, then either can probably be swapped in. The bolt
>patterns to the bellhousings are fairly universal. The problem is
adapting the
>NP or T18/19 to his current transfercase. These adaptors are available
for some
>4 speed manuals, but I'm not J**p orientated, so do not know who makes them.
>
>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.
>
>
>== 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, 20 Jul 1999 10:57:19 -0400
From: William King
Subject: FTE 61-79 - F100 Tranny swap

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:52:33 -0600
From: "Berkeley, Dan"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - F100 Tranny Swap - Request for info

>Hello - I have a 1978 F100 Custom 2wd. with a 300 - 6 cyl with a three
>speed. The tranny is getting LOUD and I fear it is not long for this world.
>Which brings up a question about swapping transmissions.
>Is the bolt pattern the same on the old ford 3 speed, and the newer 5 speed
>manual overdrive tranny?
>>>Snip
>Any information would be greatly appreciated, including recommendations for
>alternate transmissions. I prefer to keep the tranny manual.

Dan,
I can't tell you anything about swapping in a 5 speed, but provided you have
the three speed topcover tranny, a Toploader 4 speed will (pretty much) drop
right in. The Toploader will bolt right to your bellhousing, and everything
else will work fine inside the bellhousing (the clutch spline count may be
different, but you'll change the clutch disk anyway, right?). The
Toploader will be a bit longer than your 3 speed, so you'll need to have
your driveshaft shortened. Of course, you'll need to convert to a floor
shift too. Finally, depending upon the Toploader you can find some 3+1's
(i.e., third gear is 1:1 like your current tranny, and fourth is an
overdrive).

The following site has info on Toploader tag numbers:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/tranny.html
You can find some information and pictures of Toploaders at:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.corpdemo.com/tiger/techtips/toplodr/topldr.html
and http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.corpdemo.com/tiger/techtips/toplodr/topldr1.jpg

Let me know if you need any other information and good luck.
Ohio Bill

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:26:52 -0700
From: Eric
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 534 Engine

Friends
The 534-equipped F850 I remember from my youth had a very cool chromed
"Super Duty" script on the sides of the hood. I've thought of adding the
badges to my '66, but the old dumps are long gone.

Eric

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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:10:22 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

>Along these lines, I am an on call wildland hand crew firefighter. We
>ride a bus that is powered by a 9.0 L International V8 diesel,
>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.

>International, and its ratings are 145 and 175. Mine is the 175. It is
>also much smaller than the 9 liter but it probably uses more fuel, since
>it spews a lot more black smoke when you push it. It probably doesn't
>last as long, either.

If you make a 9 liter diesel that only generates 160hp it can probably last
millions of miles if well built and maintained. Then of course if you're a
wildland fire fighter it probably has a pretty rough life ;)

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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:36:17 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 534 engine

>> I have seen the 534 engine. It is a huge beast. It probably weighs
double
>> a 460. It has the combustion chamber in the cylinder, similar to the
>> 348-409 Chevy. It is very heavy-duty engine, destined for large 700
series
>> and bigger trucks. I cannot see any reason to try to adapt this monster
>> into a smaller F-series p.u.

It would probably take my bronco over its GVWR just like that :)

I love things that are big and bulky. That's also why I like american
60s/70s vehicles so much. Then again it sounds like a 460 will probably go
faster if you're not hauling tens of thousands of pounds..

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:24:55 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 460 motor mount brackets for a 79

>>I am looking for a set of motor mount brackets or stands to put a 460 into
>>a 1979 3/4 ton pickup. I have a set of stands for a 400 I could trade.

I thought the mounts for the 400 and 460 were the same..??

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:39:11 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 78-79 Bronco prices ...

>> As some of you may know, I've been looking for a '78-79 Bronco over
>the
>>past few months. I've found one that I really like and seems decent, but I
>>just want to know if the price is right. It's a '79 Bronco Ranger XLT.
>>Rebuilt 351/C6.
>> The truck had 141,000 on it and the motor had only about 40K on the
>> rebuild. The guy
>>wants $6000 firm...I think it's a little high with the lack of interior and
>>needed body work. I figure you are the experts, so what would something
>>like this go for...or what do trucks like this bring. I'm located in Mass,
>>just south of boston if that makes any difference.

I paid $2500 for my '78 bronco custom. It had a rebuilt (or low mileage,
not sure) 351M and C6 transmission (the latter seems to have been put in
with the engine). Body has hardly any rust, nice paint, 94k miles, some of
the stuff in it had been in there for a long long time though, overtime I
put quite a bit of time/money in it. It had a nice carpet; seats are kind
of torn up though. But I just sit on them, don't care too much what they
look like.

The XLT has a bit more luxury, A/C and perhaps a limited slip in the back
(?). Here in CA the emissions stuff is driving the prices up, you have to
have a good motor or you're in for a lot of headaches. I would say you
offer $3000 firm and see what they say. BTW after I started looking it only
took me 4 days to find this one, I must have been really lucky..

>I got mine locally here in northeastern Pennsylvania from
>a private owner ... virtually rust-free, strong 351M engine,
>4 speed manual transmission (T-18), NP205 transfer case.
>needed a rear main seal and a good cleaning of the bell
>housing and flywheel, new clutch disc and pressure plate;
>'bout 80k miles, redone interior, and factory new tailgate.
>It cost me $700.

Well that's a real bargain. Especially with CA smog laws you don't get much
for $700 unless it is more than 25 years old. How's that stuff in
pennsylvania?

Bas.

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:33:01 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Extaordinary Ford Trucks !

>At one time my truck was worth about $20,000. How can a 79 F150 daily driver
>be worth so much? Easy: It was loaded down with 10 brand new Macintosh
>systems!!

Someone once told me my truck would never get stolen, even with a million
dollar in it they would break it open but still leave the truck. Only if
they were a million singles they'd take the truck too :) .. I wish that was
true but I am afraid it is not. It is for this reason that I don't do too
much to make it look fancy, I just make sure the mechanics are in excellent
shape. Then again I of course make sure it does not get any worse either.

Anyway, has anyone here ever had a 20+ year old ford truck stolen?

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:38:45 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Extaordinary Ford Trucks !

>After installing a new distributor a friend of mine ran his 79 E-350 460 10
>miles round trip to an appointment without the oil pump shaft in place.
>Discovered the problem when he got back home and engine lost power. Pump
>shaft installed and no discernible damage.

Wow he did not have an oil pressure gauge?? I guess an old motor can run
w/o oil much longer because all the clearances are bigger.

They had this thing on the radio where people could call in and guess how
far you could drive w/o oil, and then they had somebody actually drain the
oil and drive a car until it stopped. I think it is kinda sick to ruin a
good engine just like that, but anyway they made it about 4 miles. You can
tell it was not a ford!

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:47:10 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Availability

>The 352 was used 65-67, the 360/390 was used 68-76. In 77, the 351M/400
>replaced the FEs due to emissions regulations.

Each time I read or hear those words "emissions regulations" I get a
headache :(

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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:17:17 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - truck license / PNO

>I know this only because I got busted on both sides of the fence.
Military and
>Civilian.

!!

> But that is different. I'm talking about permananetly garaging a car
>used out of state at my "other residence". Once in a while, I might

Now that we are talking about that.. I have an issue that is ford truck
related but not so much technical.

I have my 78 bronco and I like it a lot. I am here in the US on a 1-year
student visa. After it expires I will go back to the netherlands to get my
engineering degree. Once I got that I want to come back here ASAP. My uncle
has a big property in canada and I am welcome to store it at his place. I
do not want to officially register it there because that will cost me lots
of $$ (also to get it back in california). I want to just drive there,
park, register (by mail) as non operative. I called the DMV and they said
it was fine with them, as long as I paid my fees, changed my address etc.

Does anyone know, would there be an issue on the canadian side? I figured,
as long as it does not touch the road before I got my new registration, it
should be fine.

You can mail me off the list if it is too much off-topic.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:47:36 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Power steering help

>and they told me that the gearbox needed to be adjusted because it does
>not automatically return to center. they told me it was "a simple
>screwdriver adjustment" but of course, neglected to show me where to
>find the "simple screw".

The only simple screw adjustment I know of is to mesh the wormgear inside
to take up the play it develops as it wears out. Well, simple.. if you do
it wrong you can also screw your whole box, which is not good ;) That
actually happened to me. My mechanic screwed it until the play was gone,
but that was more than my 22 year old box could take.

Anyway, I thought the self centering was a matter of having the king pins
- -or whatever they're called- point "backwards" so it'll tend to go straight
and the box will have to fight it to make a turn. My truck pulls to the
right, probably because of the play in the suspension, ie the wheelbase
varies a little (it will pull left in 4wd).

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 07:23:10 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - voltage regulator

At 07:27 AM 6/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Bas,
>
>Your volt meter appears to be off a little. When the engine is off, you
>should read exactly 12 volts. When charging, the system should not exceed
>14.2 volts and typically should read 13.8. Older systems with mechanical

13.8 is what I last saw on the meter. The other three I broke earlier all
regulated to 14.5V (before they broke). This is a fairly new digital
multimeter, I would expect it to be fairly accurate. If it's more than .2
volts off I consider it JUNK.

I don't know if I have a wiring problem or what. Sometimes it stops
charging, when I jiggle the regulator it is fine again. I did add a ground
wire and after that I did not blow anything up anymore.

>regulators vary more than systems with solid state regulators. Solid state
>systems should read 13.8 always regardless of load or rpm if they are
>functioning properly. Steady voltage is required for solid state ignition
>systems to work properly.

Well.. When the regulator went bad, I have seen voltages from 12 to 20
volts and at the latter my headlights were like sunbeams, my battery
literally cooked (acid all through the engine compartment), my radio
stopped working, the heater fan turned into a helicopter, but I never
noticed any difference in how the engine ran. Thank god.

Maybe I should try one of those solid state ones. It's just that,
semiconductor devices are generally much more (electrically) fragile. I'd
have to keep the mechanical one in my glove compartment :)

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:44:10 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...

To recap for those who didn't see my original post about a month ago, I was
given a decent, low mileage '77 E150 that hadn't been started in about 2 1/2
years.

Well, after replacing ALL the rotten fuel line, the plugs, filters, cap and
rotor, fuel pump...
The beast lives (and sounds pretty good too). Problem is that I can't put
it in gear and give it gas or it will die.

Accelerator pump, right? In playing with the carb, I noticed that the
throttle only seemed to open about 1/3-1/2 of what I thought it should. I
disconnected the pedal linkage, the A/T kickdown and still nothing. I
removed the carb and got a kit for it...

Man, was the float bowl nasty! I disconnected the choke linkage, the fast
idle linkage, basically all the linkage and the throttle still wouldn't open
all the way. The plates aren't hitting anything, but it feels like they are
hitting some kind of "stop". Darnit, I can't figure this out!

Any ideas? Oh yeah, this is a 351W with the big Motorcraft 2bbl. The tag#
is D9WE-EB, which I think means is from a 1979 vehicle, right?

After seeing what the float bowl looked like, I'm wondering if I should pull
the tanks. A friend suggested taking them and having them "boiled out", but
from what the couple places my wife called, it would only be a couple bucks
more to buy new tanks ($$$) :-(

The carb dip cleaned that crud in the float bowl pretty good. I was
thinking of dumping a can of that stuff in each tank (out of the vehicle of
course), letting it sit for a bit and then flushing it out. What do you
think? Any better ideas short of buying new tanks? If I go new, I'll
probably have to replace one at a time. Any good sources for tanks?

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:09:34 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...

>The carb dip cleaned that crud in the float bowl pretty good. I was
>thinking of dumping a can of that stuff in each tank (out of the vehicle of
>course), letting it sit for a bit and then flushing it out. What do you
>think? Any better ideas short of buying new tanks? If I go new, I'll
>probably have to replace one at a time. Any good sources for tanks?
>
You could just put in a clear filter so you can see when its clogged ...
but pulling them out and cleaning them yourself may do just as well as
anything ... might just try the filter first, if it clogs up right away
then possibly look at changing the tanks or cleaning htem, but if it lasts
for a while, just keep an eye on it and change it when its full ...

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, 20 Jul 1999 11:11:10 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - cfm

>Wish wrote:
>>You can always re-jet to get the fuel right, but those
>>throttles are only so big and if you can't get the air through it doesn't
>>matter how big the jets are...
>
>The Edelbrock 500 and 600 cfm carbs are the same body, the only difference is
>in the rods and jets. He's have to step up to a 700+cfm carb form
Edlebrock to
>get bigger throttles.
>
Thanks Dave, I think that was my point ... in the case we were talking
about he didn't need it you are correct, but for say a 390 that needs at
least 605, a rejetted 600 won't work because there won't be enough air to
feed it ...

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, 20 Jul 1999 09:29:25 -0700
From: sparky

mail.island.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re- Fix for leaking drain plug

The drainplug on the oil pan isnt sealed by the threads on the plug. The
gasket is usually a crushwasher, that is why it is torqued. When you torque
the plug you crush the washer thus sealing the drain hole. If you
over/under torque the drainplug you might cause a leak. Also if you are
lucky you can get a few uses out of the crushwasher but it is usually
better to get a new one.
I have started seeing a lot of teflon washers on drainplugs that are
reuseable for a while but eventually they wear out to. Anyway you need a
gasket/crushwasher or some type of sealing device as the threads just dont
do it. Funny I just changed my oil last month and I cant remember what was
sealing the drainplug, it doesnt leak though. Well as Mom always said the
mind is the first thing to go..... :)

Sparky
73 F250
4x4 390FE

>> The drainplug on my oil pan has a slow leak. I just got done with the oil
>> change and torqued it to spec., but I've still got the drip. Could I use
>> teflon tape around the threads to fix this, or would I be courting
trouble >>with some sort of contamination?
>
>My oil pan plug came with a little gasket. The package told me to replace
>it each time I drain the oil, but so far (three changes or so) it's kept
>up very well. Do you have the gasket? I would imagine this is what is
>supposed to be sealing, not the thread. Be careful with these bolts
>because the previous owner of my truck managed te ruin the thread on it.
>Thank god he did not ruin the thread on the pan.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:19:23 EDT
From: TWL1911

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Power steering help

Hey
on your 4 wd as far as i know a great majoratie of 4x4 trucks always have a
little play in the steering. especily ones that use solid front axles. my
buddie has 1 ford f-250 (85 with 4spd and 6.9 diesel) and a f-350 (97
superduty with 5spd and 7.3 powerstroke no duals) (both which i like very
much) and he says they have a tendency to "wander" the road he says they
have taken it back to the factory many times and they checked everything and
they still just wander. maybe yours is the same hope i helped
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:26:40 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - statues - was: 534 engine

At 08:26 AM 7/20/99 -0700, Eric wrote:
>Friends
> The 534-equipped F850 I remember from my youth had a very cool chromed
>"Super Duty" script on the sides of the hood. I've thought of adding the
>badges to my '66, but the old dumps are long gone.

I have seen D*dge RAM's with a nice ram statue on the front of the hood. It
would be cool to have a bronco statue on the front of my bronco's hood but
I've never seen one :(
Ford does not seem to do that, although the lincolns do have a lincoln
thingie. Only the early bronco's have little bronco's on the side, but you
do not have the pleasure of looking at those while driving.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:32:25 -0700
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...

>The carb dip cleaned that crud in the float bowl pretty good. I was
>thinking of dumping a can of that stuff in each tank (out of the vehicle of

It seems that gasoline leaves a real mess if it sits for so-many years. I
have this stuff called gasoline stabilizer, which is an additive that is
supposed to keep gas good for years and years. It is made for motors that
are stored for extensive periods of time. I am planning on storing my truck
for a couple of years, and want to avoid having troubles like this van
does. Does anyone have experience with this stuff?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:37:36 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - statues - was: 534 engine

>I have seen D*dge RAM's with a nice ram statue on the front of the hood. It
>would be cool to have a bronco statue on the front of my bronco's hood but
>I've never seen one :(
>Ford does not seem to do that, although the lincolns do have a lincoln
>thingie. Only the early bronco's have little bronco's on the side, but you
>do not have the pleasure of looking at those while driving.
>

Have you checked the JC Whitless catalog ? Seems like they have one,
though I can't remember for sure ... I know I have seen a bronco rearing up
that goes on the hood, just can't remember where exactly ...if I find it
again I'll let you know.

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, 20 Jul 1999 09:47:03 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga continues...

It works really well in the small gas engines, so I suspect it would work
equally as well in the bigger ones. Wish the previous owners would have
done that, but since the van was free, I don't think it would be right to
complain...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bas van der Veer [mailto:yl

dds.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 9:32 AM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Reviving a slumbering van, the saga
continues...

>The carb dip cleaned that crud in the float bowl pretty good. I was
>thinking of dumping a can of that stuff in each tank (out of the vehicle of

It seems that gasoline leaves a real mess if it sits for so-many years. I
have this stuff called gasoline stabilizer, which is an additive that is
supposed to keep gas good for years and years. It is made for motors that
are stored for extensive periods of time. I am planning on storing my truck
for a couple of years, and want to avoid having troubles like this van
does. Does anyone have experience with this stuff?
== 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, 20 Jul 1999 10:47:47 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - what is this hole in my manifold ?

>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

Yo Don:

That hole is connected to the Thermactor AIR (smog pump) passage, which runs
across the front of the intake manifold. This passage feeds fresh air to the
Thermactor ports in the cylinder heads. If your application requires the
Thermactor AIR system, the Thermactor air pump blows air into the engine through
a check valve that is attached to that hole in the intake manifold. The check
valve prevents hot exhaust gas from coming back upstream and damaging either the
dump valve or the Thermactor pump itself.

If your application does not require the Thermactor AIR system, you can block
off that hole w/ a pipe thread plug.

>From: JUMPINFORD

aol.com
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - what is this hole in my manifold ?
>your sensor for your temp gauge should go there.

Whoa, Darrell! Only if you want to know the temperature of the exhaust gas
coming out of your exhaust ports. Remember, the 335 series engines
(351C/351M/400) all have "dry" intake manifolds, that is, there are no coolant
passages through the intake manifold.

The M-block coolant temp sensor mounts on the front of the block, just to the
right of the water pump (left if you're facing it).

Dave R (M-block devotee)

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:53:10 +0200
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???

My rims are 8-15 Chrome rims. So, I have to use pretty wide tires on those,
or get some other rims. Original rims are 5.5-15, and 3/8 offset,,,, more
in than out.
I am not sure of the offset of the Chrome rims, but they have some offset
too. They talk about negative and positive offset, but I always forget
which way it goes.

I have found two different types of 7.00-15 tires... one is a personal car
standard, and one is a light duty truck standard.

If I use the personal car standard and 7.00-15, it equals 205/70-15, or
185-15 (82 serie), 195/75-15, 225/65-15.

If I use the light duty truck standard, 7.00-15 it equals 235/75-15... +
some others.

In Norway the law says that the rolling circle has to be within 5% + and -
to the original tire. But, then again, the problem was finding the original
tire... Ford in Norway has no books or are willing to help in this case. I
phoned them today...... it is common practise from them. Ford in Germany
has been preventing sale of American made Fords for several decades in
Norway or Europe for that matter, but in 1988-89 they started again in
Norway. But that is only newer Fords,,, older than that is like US Ford
didn't exist.
Calling Germany and talk to them about US Ford is far worse than "swearing
in the church" as they say over here.... Yuck Yuck.....
Look like some has forgotten that Henry Ford was an American....

Bill

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:42:59 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Sounds L78 - 15 bad ???

> If I use the personal car standard and 7.00-15, it equals 205/70-15, or
> 185-15 (82 serie), 195/75-15, 225/65-15.

I have no idea what all this means..

> In Norway the law says that the rolling circle has to be within 5% + and -
> to the original tire. But, then again, the problem was finding the original

Hmm that's interesting, so putting 35" tires on like a lot of people here
do would be illegal. The netherlands was really bad at that too, you
basically could not do anythingif it was not according to factory specs.
One of the reasons I came to the US..

> tire... Ford in Norway has no books or are willing to help in this case. I
> phoned them today...... it is common practise from them. Ford in Germany
> has been preventing sale of American made Fords for several decades in
> Norway or Europe for that matter, but in 1988-89 they started again in
> Norway. But that is only newer Fords,,, older than that is like US Ford
> didn't exist.

I know, it's terrible. IMHO it's almost impossible to find a decent
vehicle, at least in the netherlands.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:45:20 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ford list

I have received a lot of help from this list for my 74 f350 and have notice
some of you also
have mustangs. My son and I are reworking and 83 mustang 5.0 for his first
car.
Are there any list out there dealing with this year range of mustang.

TIA
Larry

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:58:41 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Boxes

> > Hey Danger , are you sure about this ? My 64 doesn't have a "rag" joint
I
> > don't think. because I did the same thing to my column ie; moved it up
to
> > meet the steering wheel ;; and all I saw was one shaft hooked to the
other
> > via a C clamp type thing.
>
> The pre-'65's and F250 4X4's up till the mid '70's used a Gemmer-Ross
> worm and roller steering box that had the shaft in direct coupling with
> the box. Recirculating ball steering came along in '65 and had the rag
> joint. I'm not sure what year they stopped using the Gemmer box on the
> 4X4's, does anyone know?
.........

I was looking at the neighbors 65 when I made the statement about the
rag joint. I assumed it would be very similar to a 64,... silly me

Danger

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:43:05 -0500
From: William S Hart
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ford list

>I have received a lot of help from this list for my 74 f350 and have notice
>some of you also
>have mustangs. My son and I are reworking and 83 mustang 5.0 for his first
>car.
>Are there any list out there dealing with this year range of mustang.
>
I'm sure there are, but I've found the message boreds to be a little bit
easier to find, hit the web and see what you can dredge up, some good
places to start might be the Mustang GT registry (www.mustang-gt.com) and
Mustangworld.com also check out www.corral.net and www.musclestang.com

They should all have links to other sites and some good information ...

If you need anything specifically lemme know off line, maybe I can get ya
steered in the right direction if nothing else.

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, 20 Jul 1999 15:03:17 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: [none]

Thanks William

I'll check it out.

Larry

I'm sure there are, but I've found the message boreds to be a little bit
easier to find, hit the web and see what you can dredge up, some good
places to start might be the Mustang GT registry (www.mustang-gt.com) and
Mustangworld.com also check out www.corral.net and www.musclestang.com

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

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.