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 #284
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 Friday, August 13 1999 Volume 03 : Number 284



=======================================================================
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 - 400M rebuild-tips?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Dennis Carpenter
Re: FTE 61-79 - Rear Bumper question
FTE 61-79 - 429 Emissions in '79
FTE 61-79 - Starter Problem
FTE 61-79 - electrical problem
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M rebuild-tips?
FTE 61-79 - Instrument clusters
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351M
RE: FTE 61-79 - Why do we Ford guys get screwed by the parts guysall the tim...
FTE 61-79 - Q&A on Gear Oil Weight and Main Bearings
Re: FTE 61-79 - Pilot bearing
RE: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?
FTE 61-79 - mohawk and Henry in the grass
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351M
RE: FTE 61-79 - Starter Problem
FTE 61-79 - Instrumentation
RE: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?
FTE 61-79 - Mistake
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mistake
FTE 61-79 - Wiring
FTE 61-79 - Another mistake
RE: FTE 61-79 - Wiring
FTE 61-79 - 1965 Mercury 4 sale F.Y.I.
FTE 61-79 - Pilot shaft bearing
Re: FTE 61-79 - Q&A on Gear Oil Weight and Main Bearings
FTE 61-79 - FYI--The Meaning of "FE"
Re: FTE 61-79 - Pilot shaft bearing
Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC
Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC
RE: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE
FTE 61-79 - Long lost lurker
Re: FTE 61-79 - Pilot bearing
FTE 61-79 - RE:FMX to AOD & Goodbye old friend
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE:FMX to AOD & Goodbye old friend
Re: FTE 61-79 - Why do we Ford guys get screwed by the parts guysall the tim...
Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M rebuild-tips?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC
FTE 61-79 - What I did - Re: 429 Emissions in '79
FTE 61-79 - 440

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pete Brunelli
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M rebuild-tips?

Hi,
I am going to pull the 400M from my 78 f250 4x4 supercab. The rear
bearing seal is leaking as evidenced by the drip thru the flywheel
inspection plate. While it is out i am planning on replacing the timing
chain, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. The engine runs great and
doesn't burn oil so I am not looking at the heads or rings. Any
suggestions on other parts to replace while the motor is on the stand?

I was going to drop a new torque converter in as well.

Thanks,
Pete in CT


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:24:33 -0400
From: "Ted and Sarah Freeman"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Dennis Carpenter

Call 1-800-476-9653.

- -Ted
- -----Original Message-----
From: PitStop Performance
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 11:26 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dennis Carpenter


>Does anyone know how/where to get one of the catalogs? I had one a few
years
>ago, but it is lost after 4 moves. Can't find it on the net....
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>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
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:28:13 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Rear Bumper question

In a message dated 8/11/99 11:57:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Spike188 aol.com writes:

> Here's an easy one. Will an original rear bumper from a 77 F150 bolt on to
> my 67 F100? Just eyeballing, it looks like it will but I wasnt sure if
the
> frame width was the same.

The frame width is not the same. However, you can adapt the bumber
nevertheless with a little work. The later style bumber looks pretty good.
Don't tell CJ.......but I have a step bumber on my 67 which originally was
from an 84 .

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---I need 15 x5 factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 2wd LWB Flare Side
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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:58:54 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 429 Emissions in '79

>>I also suggest you obtain a drivers
side valve(rocker arm) cover from a truck/van 460 as close to '79 as you can
find (later will do also, but prior years would not be wise) and stick it on
your truck, as it has the tuneup/emissions information on it.

I think LMC sells the decals.

- -- 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:55:24 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Starter Problem

>>I had a friend tell me it sounded like a torque converter, but am interested
in other possible reasons and solutions. I have even heard it may be miss
wiring or even the cylanoid.

Well, Mike, gently tell your friend not to quit his day job. Unless there
is a hidden mystery that I have overlooked for 40+ years, the torque
converter has nothing to do with the truck starting. The symptoms you
describe usually mean you have a bad or dead battery, and/or bad battery
cable connections. Clean the inside of the terminals where they clamp onto
the battery posts. they should be shiny silver. Clean the posts themselves.
If that doesn't help, try a known good battery.

Good luck.

- -- 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:17:07 -0500
From: "don"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - electrical problem

Just rebuilt a 400M. I am not getting a spark to the plugs. Checked voltage
to the control module, it was there. Checked it coming out, it was there.
BUT, when I plug in the module to the distributor, I lose the voltage at the
coil. Thought maybe I had a bad distributor, so , having a spare around, I
plugged it in, I also lose voltage at the coil when I ground that
distributor..
ANY help is appreciated as I would LOVE to hear this beast run.
Thanks in advance
donb ficom.net

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:29:16 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M rebuild-tips?

Pete Brunelli wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am going to pull the 400M from my 78 f250 4x4 supercab. The rear
> bearing seal is leaking as evidenced by the drip thru the flywheel
> inspection plate. While it is out i am planning on replacing the timing
> chain, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. The engine runs great and
> doesn't burn oil so I am not looking at the heads or rings. Any
> suggestions on other parts to replace while the motor is on the stand?
>
> I was going to drop a new torque converter in as well.
>

valve seals

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:22:26 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Instrument clusters

>>> actually I'm not sure how the underhood harness would be different, I would
> think they would need the same number of wires going the same places if you
> had lights or gauges ... anyone clear that part up for me ?

That is what I thought too, but I figured it would be better to know now
than to
have surprises later.

The number of wires would be the same, however they might not go to the same
place. For instance lets say you swap a 460 in to replace a 302. Are the
coolant sensors both in the front of the block on the same side? Is the oil
pressure sender on the front on one and the rear on the other? I don't know
the answers to these questions, but they are the ones that must be answered.
Oh, and if Ford works like the dark side, don't be surprised if your senders
need some kind of adapter because the engineers decided to change the thread
size.

Now I don't know what you will actually find, but this is what I would
examine before I began. I know I went off on some tangents. For instance if
you are just swapping lights for guages, your main concern will be the new
sender fitting the hole and the wiring harness plug being the same.

Personally, I wouldn't try this conversion without a multi-tester and a lot
of patience.

- -- 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:05:09 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351M

> polishing,,,since im getting new pistons im wondering about
> raising CR to 9.0
> or 9.5 to 1

I'd recommend staying with the 9.0:1 ... unless you have a really big cam or
aluminum heads. That way you can run whatever gas you want (yeah I know,
you'll always run the premium, but when the difference is $.20/gallon it
looks a bit different), and you can run the timing wherever it works best
for that motor. I ended up a shade over 9.5:1 and have some ping on long
hills or pulling heavy loads. I think my advance moved on me (!?!?!), but
initially I had it set at 10deg. I'll double check that again this weekend
to see for sure what its at, but that was the most I could really go and
have the pinging not be dangerous (maybe it was there a few times too) ...
anyway stick to less than 9.5:1 and consider that a hard line, so if your
block is decked at all, or the heads planed to keep everything flat, don't
get the 9.5:1 pistons.


>will the raised CR
> work without
> major head work, and will the cost be worth the performance increase, im
> aware it may require higher octane fuel but that doesnt concern me

Yes, the raised CR will get you more power whether you do anything to the
head or not... I'm curious when you say "mild performance cam" what do you
mean ? Like an RV cam? A performer cam ? Also the cam is what will want
the heads that breathe, you'll need to figure out how much work the heads
need based on how many revs you are planning on pulling and such ...

> looking for around 350 HP 400 ft-lbs,,,,but i dont know if my
> plans will make
> that happen,,,,

Those are pretty lofty plans, can't really tell you what to expect as I have
no idea what I'm putting out with my 390 even as a base line ... I would
guess you'll do pretty well with a nice cam, a 9:1 compression ratio, a good
intake, and a really good tuneup (when its all said and done of course) ..

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:10:11 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Why do we Ford guys get screwed by the parts guysall the tim...

> It has to do with volume,,,,i hate to say it,,,,and i truly
> despise the idea
> but every one ones a SBC even me,,,i hate it,,,,

Everyone's a pretty strong word :) (I'm assuming you mean everyone owns an
SBC) I can proudly say that my g.f. saw the light a few months after we
started dating (actually her dad saw the light through a frame rail) and got
rid of her C*m*r* with a SBC, and now there are no SBC's sitting in my
driveway or in my garage ... believe it or not! heck now that I think about
it, I even got Dad away from his (he does have GM's but no SBC's)

Do you know how nice it is to look out the garage and see 3 fords ? :)



> but see chevys
> need alot of
> new valves cause they burn em up all the time,,,

I think at the parts store we always used to say something like :

"The only thing a chevy is good for is supplying a block to hold all the
aftermarket parts"

> need as many so the production is lower and the cost is
> higher,,,supply and
> demand,,,,hehehe,,,,
>

I think if you compared the SBC and the 302's you'd find prices are very
competitive between them now ... though they used to be quite different, the
popularity of the 5.0 has really brought the prices on parts for those down
quite nicely.


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish
and a 92 Mustang 2.3L just for her (http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pixie)

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:17:13 -0400
From: frenz.6 osu.edu (Dale Frenz)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Q&A on Gear Oil Weight and Main Bearings

1. I was thinking about changing the gear oil in Ruby's axles and
transfer case, and I was wondering what weight is adviseable to go with in
an older leaky truck. Obviously I thought I should go with something a
little heavier since the old girl has some "conditioning". (We dont call
that wear.)

2. I was wonder what you guys thought about this redneck fix.
Ruby's 351M has looooow oil pressure (big surprise). I was thinking about
pulling the pan and turning in some new main bearings as a temp. fix to
bring the oil pressure up. This way it doesnt nuke on me before I can get
my 460 built. Anybody else tried this? Comments, sugguestions?


Dale
Ruby '79 F-150 Supercab 4x4



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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:30:55 -0400
From: j arnold
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Pilot bearing

At 10:17 PM 8/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
. Pilot bearing was GONE! Brand new - motor's the 69 429 -
>fresh - about 10-20 miles - transmission is fresh - those same 10-20 miles -
>replaced bearings and input shaft. Input shaft had shoved about 1/8 into
the
>pilot bushing - and that's NOT an exageration.


I've had this same problem with mating a 429 to NP435. Quick, CHEAP cure is
to use two backplates between block and bellhousing. It worked on my son's
truck although I'm not convinced that the pilot bearing is not still
getting beaten. He has about 12,000 miles on it since this rebuild so we'll
see how much longer the bearing lasts. Ford makes a pilot bushing and a
pilot bearing that will fit, the bearing is slightly "thinner" so seems to
work better. Good luck, hope this helps.

stoney

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 07:42:46 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?

The underhood space from 73-79 in F-100 to F-350s is the SAME. So all of
the engines you mention will "fit". The difficulty and expense of the swap
depends on what the your truck was originally equipped with. F-150s had
460's available from Ford stock in '76 so I think the same is true through
79.

If you have a 302 then a 302 or 351W will swap.
If you have a 351M Then a 400M and 429/460 will swap
If you have a '77 truck then it will not have an FE in it original. FE =
360, 390, 406, 410, 428, 427
If you have a 300 I6 I don't know if or what engines will swap.

The above list is if you want to swap the engine and nothing else. If you
are willing to swap the engine and trans together then the sky is the limit.
Along those lines you will also probably need different engine mounts,
throttle linkages, rerouting wires/hoses etc.

Hope this helps.
Tom H.

> ----------
> From:
> robertwerner postmaster.co.uk[SMTP:robertwerner postmaster.co.uk]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 4:05 PM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?
>
> I can't remember if I posted a message about the 77 460 my neighbor has,
> but
> I'd, like to get a mid to late 70's 4x4 F-150 and drop that 460 in it, but
> I'm
> thinkin maybe that might be too much. 302's are fairly common round these
> parts, with the occaisional 351. A 302 or 351 would be much easier to put
> in a
> F-150 wouldn't it, while the 460 would require more modifications? I
> might even
> be able to find a 390, I don't know. I might even consider a 300 straight
> six.
> Would the 460 go better in a 250? Being as I'm only a Junior in High
> school,
> price is also a factor. Finally, did Ford make any small Deisels that
> would
> work for this application? Any advice would be greatly appreciated,
> thanks.
>
> Robert
>
> 91 F-150 Lariat 4x4 300 six
> 89 Probe LX 2.2
> 84 Mercedez Benz 300D
>
>
> == 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:51:43 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?

> The underhood space from 73-79 in F-100 to F-350s is the SAME. So all of
> the engines you mention will "fit". The difficulty and expense
> of the swap
> depends on what the your truck was originally equipped with. F-150s had
> 460's available from Ford stock in '76 so I think the same is
> true through
> 79.
>
>> I'd, like to get a mid to late 70's 4x4 F-150 and drop that 460 in it


The 460 was available in the 2wd's only, just for clarification there.


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:28:37 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - mohawk and Henry in the grass

If you were having trouble loading these files, try these links. Notice the
jpg file extension instead of htm. Thanks Bill Hart for pointing out this
mistake on my part.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/mohawk.jpg
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/rtfrtsn.jpg

- -- 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:20:38 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351M

What your planning sounds good to me. 'Course I'm only bench racing here to
take this for what it's worth. (IE not experience talking). Sounds like
what you are doing is similar to what Hot Rod did to a 400M in Sept. 98
issue. Check it out. They got 400 Hp for about $2000. Good article. I
don't think you'll have any problem with the 9.5:1 compression and I think
it will really be worth it.

Tom H

> ----------
> From: IanBoss69 aol.com[SMTP:IanBoss69 aol.com]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 12:43 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351M
>
> Ok, I've got my new(old) 351M apart now,,,(came out of friends old
> truck),,,block is being delivered to shop soon,,,magnafluxing then boring
> .020 over,,,80k mile engine,,,im having a 3-angle valvejob done on the
> heads
> and having some mild port work done,,,,nothing major,,,the original valves
>
> are in great condition,,,im planning to just use them in the rebuild with
> new
> springs, crank is good, going in with the block for magnafluxing and
> polishing,,,since im getting new pistons im wondering about raising CR to
> 9.0
> or 9.5 to 1,,,i have a dual plane 4bbl edelbrock intake im using on the
> intake and a mild performance cam as well,,,,will the raised CR work
> without
> major head work, and will the cost be worth the performance increase, im
> aware it may require higher octane fuel but that doesnt concern me,,,I'm
> looking for around 350 HP 400 ft-lbs,,,,but i dont know if my plans will
> make
> that happen,,,,will a stock NP-435 stand up to that power??? let me know
> what you guys think,,,
>
> Ian
> 79 F250 4x4 4spd 351M
> True Blue Ford Blue
> == 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:50:26 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Starter Problem

Food for thought. You can't jump start a truck (etc.) that has a dead cell.
It breaks the curcit. sp. You have to remove the + cable and attach jumper
cable to it and ground - jumper cable. This will let you start it. After it is
running put the + cable on the battery post fast. This will let you get to a
battery dealer. I have yet to figure out why you have to put the + cable back
on if you have to take it off to start it.????




At 09:17 AM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>look at the battery!! i saw the same thing on my father's
>ranger. he swore up and down everything mechanical that could
>go wrong was bad. this was due to the fact it would't jump
>start with cables from a running truck. i got him a new battery
>and the truck ran fine.
>
>===
>Daniel DiMartino
>
>1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
> >
>== 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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:47:45 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Instrumentation

Matt writes: >>Well it looks like I have some rewiring in front of me then.
Does it make any
difference that he has a 429 in that truck(Originally a 351M)? Will I have to
change
the electronic ignition module over, or can I just plug in the one that I
already
have in my truck?

The one in your truck should work just fine.


>> Will the parts guy know what I'm talking about when I ask for
sending units for gauges as opposed to lights?

Probably not, but the Ford Parts guy will. Get one for your year truck and the
original engine. I'm not absolutely sure that they all have the same threads to
screw in the block, nor the same type of connection on the end where you will
need to hook the gage wire, but I think(thats considered dangerous by some) they
are all the same during the years we are speaking of.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:50:08 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Which engine?

Thanks for your message at 07:42 AM 8/12/99 -0700, Hogan, Tom. Your message
was:
>If you have a 302 then a 302 or 351W will swap.

...or 351C...Mustn't forget the Cleveland...


Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:52:18 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mistake

William H. writes: >>Azie, didn't you just agree with him ? if the wheel is
turning at half the
normal rate, then turning it twice will give you the correct number right ?
So every rotation of the wheel = 1/2 the normal rotations of the driveshaft
... so double everything 2 wheel rotations= 1x driveshaft rotations ?

Yes, and he also pointed that out privately. like I told him, I've been on
vacation (took 4 of my 5 kids, 3 with spouses, & 7 Grandchildren to the Gulf
Coast for 8 days) and my brain is still on vacation I guess.

Oh well!!!

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:56:56 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mistake

> I've been on
> vacation (took 4 of my 5 kids, 3 with spouses, & 7
> Grandchildren to the Gulf
> Coast for 8 days) and my brain is still on vacation I guess.
>

Okay I'm jealous, vacation sounds great ... maybe not with that many people,
but hey a vacation is time outta this place!

FTE conent: One month til I'm on vacation in a Ford truck visiting CJ in CO
workin on trucks and killin time! Probably sleepin lots too! :)


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:07:58 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Wiring

William H. writes: >>actually I'm not sure how the underhood harness would be
different, I would
> think they would need the same number of wires going the same places if you
> had lights or gauges ... anyone clear that part up for me ?

The one that lays over the engine by the rocker cover and has the connections
for oil pressure will be in a different location for the 335 and for the FE.
The sending unit on the 335 is located in back of the intake, and on the FE it
is located on the oil filter adaptor. (I think this is right). If you are
going from 335 to 385, then the locations are basically the same. I can't even
remember the location of the heat sending unit on either, but I think both have
it in the front portion of the engine close enough that it won't matter. The
harness going to the volt regulator/alternator will be quite a bit different I
think.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:11:00 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Another mistake

Dennis writes : >>Wow! This is an old mistake that I'm trying to forget...

I discovered that I was replying to a digest that had a date of July 7. I just
got it yesterday or day before-not sure, and realized when I got to one of my
post about 2/3rds of the way thru it that it was old stuff.... Sorry about
that.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:29:25 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Wiring

> William H. writes: >>actually I'm not sure how the underhood
> harness would be
> different, I would
> > think they would need the same number of wires going the same
> places if you
> > had lights or gauges ... anyone clear that part up for me ?
>
> The one that lays over the engine by the rocker cover and has
> the connections
> for oil pressure will be in a different location for the 335 and
> for the FE.
> The sending unit on the 335 is located in back of the intake,
> and on the FE it
> is located on the oil filter adaptor. (I think this is right).

Yup, its on the oil filter adapter ... I guess I haven't worked on any 335
or 385 series motors, so they all looked the same (351W's have the oil
sender and temperature in the same place as my FE), but when you talk about
that much difference, ther would probably be different wire lengths for sure
:) Guess my inexperience is showing through now :)


Thanks though Azie, that really explains why you would need different ones
there ... is this the only reasoning there, or could you use the same under
hood for lights and gauges ? I'm still fuzzy as to why the underhood
harness would be different (figured out the dash one thanks guys :)


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:24:09 -0400
From: "Marvin Meyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 1965 Mercury 4 sale F.Y.I.

Saw this one for sale in paper, located abt. 1 hr drive north of Detroit
Vineland, Ont. )
1965 Mercury 1 ton,6cyl ,4 spd, runs good, great body, needs TLC. $700CDN or
around 475 US.
If anyone is interested I'd be glad to E-mail a picture and phone # off list
I think these ones are the rare styled front ends, to good to throw in
wrecking yard. Looks like no box however.

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:33:54 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Pilot shaft bearing

Jeffri H. writes: >> Input shaft had shoved about 1/8 into the
pilot bushing - and that's NOT an exageration.

Sorry about your problems and hope you can resolve it cheaply and hurriedly.

It is an absolute must to use the sheetmetal spacer between the engine and the
bellhousing. I installed one without it and the teeth in the flywheel locked
into the bellhousing. Froze it right there. Couldn't turn it a lick. Removed
the bellhousing (this was on an engine stand - thank the Lord) and replaced it
using the spacer and everything cleared. I don't think that spacer is close to
1/8" - more like 1/16", so there is some tight tolerances there. Remember, I
use 351M/400 bellhousings. The 460 bellhousing might not be as tight. Don't
know.
Have you talked to Lakewoods Tech people about the necessity of the spacer???
Might be a start.

Good luck.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 14:08:08 -0700
From: Don
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Q&A on Gear Oil Weight and Main Bearings

Very first question.....Are you using the dash guage to see yer low oil
pressure ????If so.....PUT A MECHANICAL SENDER in and check that FIRST
BEFORE you worry about low oil pressure!!!!!
Ask me how I know this!! ;-)
Second question......SEE FIRST QUESTION!!!

BTW....I had the mechanical unit in my 79 bronco 400 and actually had LOW
pressure and replaced bearings last winter and VOILA....60lbs at 60mph The
freind who helped me do this also strongly suggested we put a new oil pump
in as well cause once you are in that deep....
Don

> 2. I was wonder what you guys thought about this redneck fix.
>Ruby's 351M has looooow oil pressure (big surprise). I was thinking about
>pulling the pan and turning in some new main bearings as a temp. fix to
>bring the oil pressure up. This way it doesnt nuke on me before I can get
>my 460 built. Anybody else tried this? Comments, sugguestions?
>Dale
>Ruby '79 F-150 Supercab 4x4

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 18:25:35 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FYI--The Meaning of "FE"

FYI---Here is a link to a post on the Fomoco Obsolete Tech Forum about the
meaning of the term "FE." I thought this might be of general interest to the
list because this question surfaces from time to time here. To those without
www access, the post essentially states that it means Ford-Edsel, but what I
find interesting is that it provides some evidence to support the theory.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=9907&messageid=934487581


Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---I need 15 x5 factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 2wd LWB Flare Side
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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:49:15 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Pilot shaft bearing

> Jeffri H. writes: >> Input shaft had shoved about 1/8 into the
> pilot bushing - and that's NOT an exageration.
>
......

> Sorry about your problems and hope you can resolve it cheaply and
hurriedly.
>
> It is an absolute must to use the sheetmetal spacer between the engine and
the
> bellhousing. I installed one without it and the teeth in the flywheel
locked
> into the bellhousing. Froze it right there. Couldn't turn it a lick.
Removed
> the bellhousing (this was on an engine stand - thank the Lord) and
replaced it
> using the spacer and everything cleared. I don't think that spacer is
close to
> 1/8" - more like 1/16", so there is some tight tolerances there.
Remember, I
> use 351M/400 bellhousings. The 460 bellhousing might not be as tight.
Don't
> know.
> Have you talked to Lakewoods Tech people about the necessity of the
spacer???
> Might be a start.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Azie
...........

As fate would have it, I was half way through a project which included
the flywheel, clutch, and Lakewood Bellhousing when I had received the
original post in this thread. The Lakewood housing was shipped with the
spacer plate which seemed thicker than the original but I honesty didn't
measure them.
I ended up returning the Lakewood housing () and using the stock
housing and I'm very happy with the results. It seemed odd to me that a
housing specifically designed for protection would have an opening for the
clutch release fork that was twice as large as the stock opening (rubber
boot didn't fit). There was no release fork pivot bracket and the
instructions said to remove the original and install it, but the predrilled
holes in the housing didn't allow for a bolt or rivet with a head that was
flush with the surface. The means I would have needed to drill a countersink
hole in the new bellhousing. These simple problems could have been solved
easily enough, but it was the fear of "what else" is wrong with this thing
that really got to me, so I returned it and relied on the FoMoCo housing.
I'm still trying to get used to this new 12" CenterForce dual friction
clutch as it requires a gentle touch of foot for a "normal" start compared
to the old worn out 11".

Danger


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:53:04 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC

hey all
i know this isnt FTE content but what does HEMI stand for i never really knew
and it just would be cool to find out
travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:26:26 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC

TWL1911 aol.com wrote:
>
> hey all
> i know this isnt FTE content but what does HEMI stand for?


"hemi" stands for hemispherical combustion chambers. Opposing valves
with the sparkplug directly between the valves. Chr*sler/Do*ge built
many, but Holman and Moody built two as an experiment. One is known to
exist today and produces about 750 horse.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:47:02 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC

> Chr*sler/Do*ge built
> many, but Holman and Moody built two as an experiment. One is known to
> exist today and produces about 750 horse.


Actually the Boss 429 was a hemi, as is the new 4.6L cobra with its 4V
motor, DOHC lends itself nicely to this arrangement.

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:40:09 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE

Hey all
i always thought that FE ment "Iron Block" but now i know it stands for ford
edsel. i guesse my trucks name will have to change

also on another note how easy is it to slip a 429 into a 66 ford or do i have
to get a different tranny and such if i do i would like to get a 5 spd is
this possiable??

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:39:02 -0400
From: "R. B. Morris, Jr."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Long lost lurker

John R. Austin wrote:

I got both e-brake cables at NAPA for a '67 F100 - About $20 - Fit
perfectly.


Thanks John, I'll see if I can find a NAPA nearby for my E-brake cables.
I'd much rather prefer to have new ones anyhow.

What 4 speed manual transmissions are a drop-in for the 3 speed? Are they
as stout or better and how much should I be looking to spend (high side) for
one. I'd prefer not to have to do any driveshaft work or maybe just buy the
correct length shaft. This is for a 1970 Ford F100 2wd w/302.

Also, there is a tech. article on the FTE site that deals with converting
v-belts to the serpentine belt. As luck so has it, I have an uncle that
gave me all of the parts to do the conversion, but didn't have the timing
chain cover. Where (what vehicle) might I look on to find this beast?

Check out my page, expect more later.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://homepages.msn.com/HobbyCt/rbmii/

Regards,
Rogers
rbmii msn.com






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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 23:33:50 EDT
From: CATLN7 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Pilot bearing

kendrick mddc.com wrote:


>> Input shaft had shoved about 1/8 into the
> >pilot bushing - and that's NOT an exageration. Input shaft was measure for
> >measure the same. Clutch is new - hell EVERYTHING's new. Except the
>>block,
> >Lakewood bellhousing, and transmission case. Tomarrow gonna get another
>> pilot bearing and install it and the bellhousing - measure the distance to
>> the mating surface for the trans. Then measure the trans. to bushing
surface.
>
>Is the Lakewood bellhousing exactly the same dimensions as your stock
>bellhousing? Block flange to the tranny flange? It sounds like the
>tranny has been moved toward the engine, for some reason.
>Jason

Did you install the plate between the block and bellhousing? That would
account for about an 1/8".

Chris Thompson
67 F100 302/C4 PDB, P/S finally!!!
68 Cougar DGS 302/C4
82 Merc LN7 1.6L/4sp




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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:21:52 -0400
From: pdesanto Cinergy.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:FMX to AOD & Goodbye old friend

I think the last year for a NON electronic AOD is 82 or 83. Everything else
needs a controller. Baumann engnr. has these but they're a little steep.
($300-400?) It's also my understanding the AOD needs lots of help to take
much torque. For what you'd have in a "built" AOD, you could do a real nice
C-6....maybe twice.

William Ballinger, your farewell to your old "family member" is beautifully
written. I sure hope it's found a good home and is brought back to life
right. I still have my old 66 Mustang that has been in the family since new,
and with me since 69. I know how I'd feel if I had to let it go. Thank you
for sharing that story with us. Phil


- ----------

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999

From: "Radoje Spasojevic"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FMX to AOD Conversion

I'm pretty sure that a '92-'95 AOD is going to be the computer controlled
version, so you would need a stand-alone computer for it.
Rade


>I have a moderately warmed-up 351 Windsor in my 78 Ranchero. The stock
FMX,with shift kit, behind is is getting tired. I'd like to update to an
AOD.
>My research says the best one is from a '92-93 5.8 pickup, as it has the
large OD band.
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 21:40:50 -0700
From: "Radoje Spasojevic"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE:FMX to AOD & Goodbye old friend

Umm, that is not correct, my '90 Bronco doesn't have any computer controlls
for the tranny. The only wires going into it are for the neutral safety
switch. I think maybe it was '92-'93.

Rade
- -----Original Message-----
From: pdesanto Cinergy.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Thursday, August 12, 1999 9:24 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:FMX to AOD & Goodbye old friend


>I think the last year for a NON electronic AOD is 82 or 83. Everything else
>needs a controller. Baumann engnr. has these but they're a little steep.
>($300-400?) It's also my understanding the AOD needs lots of help to take
>much torque. For what you'd have in a "built" AOD, you could do a real nice
>C-6....maybe twice.
>
>William Ballinger, your farewell to your old "family member" is beautifully
>written. I sure hope it's found a good home and is brought back to life
>right. I still have my old 66 Mustang that has been in the family since
new,
>and with me since 69. I know how I'd feel if I had to let it go. Thank you
>for sharing that story with us. Phil
>
>
>----------
>
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999
>
>From: "Radoje Spasojevic"
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FMX to AOD Conversion
>
>I'm pretty sure that a '92-'95 AOD is going to be the computer controlled
>version, so you would need a stand-alone computer for it.
>Rade
>
>
>>I have a moderately warmed-up 351 Windsor in my 78 Ranchero. The stock
>FMX,with shift kit, behind is is getting tired. I'd like to update to an
>AOD.
>>My research says the best one is from a '92-93 5.8 pickup, as it has the
>large OD band.
>>
>
>== 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, 13 Aug 1999 00:54:20 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Why do we Ford guys get screwed by the parts guysall the tim...

In a message dated 8/12/99 10:12:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wish iastate.edu writes:


Do you know how nice it is to look out the garage and see 3 fords ? :)

>>

Ive got 3 Fords ('79 Bronco, '91 Taurus, & '92 E150 Conversion) in my
Driveway and yes, it's a wonderful sight. Now if only one was a 58 or so
Pickup......

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:16:51 PDT
From: "George Litton"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 400M rebuild-tips?

Pete'
If you have not already done it, the 400 responds very well to a cam and
intake manifold change. My truck likes the Melling MTF-2, or equal. I have
a very old Holley street dominator manifold. I believe this was the first
aftermarket 4bbl intake for the "M" engines. Good luck on your project.


>From: Pete Brunelli
>Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 400M rebuild-tips?
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 08:17:49 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Hi,
>I am going to pull the 400M from my 78 f250 4x4 supercab. The rear
>bearing seal is leaking as evidenced by the drip thru the flywheel
>inspection plate. While it is out i am planning on replacing the timing
>chain, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. The engine runs great and
>doesn't burn oil so I am not looking at the heads or rings. Any
>suggestions on other parts to replace while the motor is on the stand?
>
>I was going to drop a new torque converter in as well.
>
>Thanks,
>Pete in CT
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


_______________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 22:31:17 PDT
From: "George Litton"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC

Hemispherical


>From: TWL1911 aol.com
>Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 427SOHC
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:53:04 EDT
>
>hey all
>i know this isnt FTE content but what does HEMI stand for i never really
>knew
>and it just would be cool to find out
>travis
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html


_______________________________________________________________
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, 13 Aug 1999 02:06:06 -0400
From: "Sean R. Kerns"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - What I did - Re: 429 Emissions in '79

Okay, since Azie's delayed post brought it up again, here's
what I did:
My dilemma was that the engine is a much older ('68) 429
engine, with no EGR, air pump, etc., in a '79 F-250 4x4. The
original engine was a 351M, and it did have cats and an EGR
and a smog pump. I was prepared to eat the cost of
installing cats, but was not looking forward to trying to
install an EGR and a smog pump on an engine not fitted for
them.
Several people on here recommended trying the 460 ruse,
since a 460 apparently was not supposed to have cats on it
in '79. Problem with that was that the book that the Ohio
EPA is using, Chiltonís Emission Control Systems Application
manual, 1996 edition, says "All 1979 Ford trucks under
8,500 pound gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) required
catalytic converters. All 1979 Ford trucks above 8,500
pounds GVWR did not require catalytic converters".
Now, this is not true, but it's what the state of Ohio EPA
thinks, and Tony Marino has related his experiences to me
about getting vehicles inspected which didn't come with cats
but that the E-Check people thought should have cats. He has
been able to get them to see things his way, but it's been a
hassle. I talked to the OEPA, and essentially what I arrived
at was a compromise. Seems they don't look under the hood.
The main thing they're looking for, according to them (and
this was borne out in my experience at the E-Check station),
is the presence of cats.
Now, through a weird set of circumstances I won't get into
because this e-mail is already pretty long, I actually did
get the truck tested without cats, and it failed. So at that
point, what I decided was, I'll get cats on it, tune it up
nice, and try it again. And this time, it passed with flying
colors. I kind if feel like it was a fair compromise, since
the original engine would've had cats, and they're not gonna
hassle me about the other stuff I'm still missing. Had it
been up to me in the first place, I'd have left all the
original stuff in there, including the 351M. Sure, the 429
is fast and fun, but it's just not worth the inspection
hassles.
So I spent some money, and got what I really wanted, which
is to have my baby back on the road and legal.

BTW, the second time I got it tested, there were official
looking guys in Dockers and wearing OEPA badges all _over_
the E-Check station. Must've been an inspection or
something. They heard me rumbling and clattering in amidst
all the late model sedans and so forth, and were drawn to my
tuck like moths to a flame. It was funny. They looked it
over good. They didn't find anything wrong with it, but boy
did they have a "fresh meat" look on their faces when they
saw me.

Sean



> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:06:11 -0400
> From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 429 Emissions in '79
>
> Sean. I suggest you pretend your engine is a 460. The 460 was offered in '79
> in 2wd (not 4X4), so there has to be some information about the emissions in
> books (both Ford manuals and aftermarket). I also suggest you obtain a drivers
> side valve(rocker arm) cover from a truck/van 460 as close to '79 as you can
> find (later will do also, but prior years would not be wise) and stick it on
> your truck, as it has the tuneup/emissions information on it. I personally
> think if you follow the emissions related information for the 460 and install it
> on your 429, it will pass the Ohio emissions test. You should be able to find a
> 460 truck/van someplace within driving distance of you in a salvage yard (or
> even better if you can find one running and the current owner will let you
> inspect/look it over) and go look at it and make comparisons to your 429 as to
> the vacuum routings/fittings, air pumps/brackets/pulleys/belts and such that
> you might need. Any competent muffler shop can tell you if you need cats or not
> and the installation cost for them to do it (still pretending it is a 460).....


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.