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 #315
Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


61-79-list-digest Saturday, September 4 1999 Volume 03 : Number 315



=======================================================================
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 - lamps
RE: FTE 61-79 - mission accomplished!
RE: FTE 61-79 - remind me why
RE: FTE 61-79 - Thanks
FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
RE: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
FTE 61-79 - 390 Power and Edelbrock Heads Compared
Re: FTE 61-79 - Overbore
RE: FTE 61-79 - Pant job
RE: FTE 61-79 - Diesels
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 Power and Edelbrock Heads Compared
FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Heads
Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels
FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Bolt patterns, F-100's vs F-150's
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Bolt patterns, F-100's vs F-150's
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Bolt patterns, F-100's vs F-150's
Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
RE: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels
Re: FTE 61-79 - SPEAKERS???
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 oil pressure
FTE 61-79 - Block code
Re: FTE 61-79 - Block code
Re: FTE 61-79 - Block code
Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels
Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 oil pressure

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 02:48:59 PDT
From: "White Wolf"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - lamps

thanks.. I'll check into that....

>You'll need to go with a Halogen aftermarket type lamp.
>I've seen them in various catalog's, JC Whitney being one
>of them. Anything else you use is going to draw more amps,
>and probably not make a huge difference in visual light.
>
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 06:56:23 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - mission accomplished!

Alan, on the 79, the wedges are held in place by a tapered bolt and have a
flat spring between the caliper and wedge. Typically they come right out
with a little nudging from a punch. One problem they do have though is that
they will hang up and not wear the pads evenly if you don't lubricate the
ways or grooves the calipers ride in. I always use anti-Seize on these and
anti-seize all threads on all my vehicles as well. Technically, the
retainer bolt on all disk brakes is supposed to have some loctite on the
threads as a safety measure but I have never used it myself. If you do
this, use the yellow or blue, reusable or non hardening type so you can get
them out again without damaging the threads. The loctite also protects
against rust so the anti-seize is not necessary if loctite is used and, of
course, would nullify the effect in any case :-)

Also on disk brakes, you need some kind of padding between the pad backing
plate and the caliper frame or piston to prevent squealing due to vibration
against the rotors. I generally just use whatever rtv I happen to have
handy but high temp is much better for this and heat transfer material is
even better.

Wait till you try this on the newer ones with the rubber sandwich
keys.....:-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> knowledge. Lo and behold, after soaking the snot out of the area with
> penetrating oil for about a week, I was able to liberate the
> keys from what
> I thought was their final resting place, intact and
> undamaged. I can't
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 06:58:11 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - remind me why

Remove part of the manifold????!!! Ok, you're putting headers on right?

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> entaled using a chisle to very carefully remove part of the
> manifold and
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 07:04:47 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Thanks

My neighbor's doing that. House isn't selling or buyers keep coping out due
to financial difficultys. He moved from the Delphi plant in Adrian to a GM
plant in Jainsville, Wisconsin to keep his GM seniority and retirement.
It's a tad more than 150 miles :-) East side of Michigan to north of
Chicago. Best wishes for your new career :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> Thank you, I hope it all works the way I hope it does. I'll have alot
> to do, but it's only a 150 mile move. The wife and kids are going to
> stay here until the house sells, and I'll come home on weekends for a
> few months. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 05:34:46 -0700
From: Joe & Jen DeLaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

group,
i am in the process of a ground up redo of my 68 4x4, i just put in the
390 and mated a c6 behind her..with the trans mounted it sits on an
angle and i need to pry the trans over a few inches to get it to mount
to
the crossmember..is this normal???do i need to use differnt hole son the
frame for the motor towers to put the motor on an angle to compensate??
I had the motor bolted down when i installed the trans is this a nono??
any help ????Has anybody done this swap in a 67-72???
thanks
Joe
68 4x4 390"soon to be a auto that Ford never offered"
- --
Joe 1968 F-100 4x4 302 NP435 "Its not pretty but its gets me there"
1969 F-250 4x4 390 NP435 "Undecided Future"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 08:21:25 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

> angle and i need to pry the trans over a few inches to get it to mount
> the crossmember..is this normal???do i need to use differnt hole son the
> frame for the motor towers to put the motor on an angle to compensate??
> I had the motor bolted down when i installed the trans is this a nono??

I would think that you would bolt the tranny down first, since the mounts on
the motor side are adjustable ... a few inches is probably not much angle on
the motor up front ... I would try loosening all the mounts up and see if it
straightens itself out. I've found its better to start all the bolts than
to tighten any down no matter how close it really looks ...




> any help ????Has anybody done this swap in a 67-72???


I think CJ is working on something like this ... he's got later drivetrain
and is using an NP205 I think ... I'll bet he can fill us in ...


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: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:11:14 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 Power and Edelbrock Heads Compared

> > I've seen dyno sheets published in magazines that put a 9.5 to 1 390
> > with an iron intake and 750 4 bbl and a mild cam with headers at 355 HP
> > and 435 lbs ft of torque at the flywheel.
>
> Note, you said And headers ....

Yes, I did. Headers are a necessity on a 390 unless you have a set of
the iron headers from Ford. The stock manifolds are awful. I assumed
that the gentleman had headers, or could see their merit. They're good
for 40 HP (and maybe more, depending on the cam)on this engine.

> Whose GT ? what you just described sounds like a 390GT (maybe lower
> compression) to me ...
> There you go with the headers again ... and you're also talking early ones,
> I think I was talking later ones (72+)

A 390GT. The purpose of the article and dyno test was to prove that the
390 could be built to a good street performer for almost nothing, with
the lowest line heads offered. Their point was that you can slap on a
set of CJ heads, but what will the cheap ones do? The engine was a '69
model Galaxie 9.5 to 1 engine (just like the one I had in my '67 F100,
that's why I remember so much about it) with the same heads as what came
on the later engines(same as the '72 ups in fact). Another thing was
that it did it on pump gas. When they dialed up and ran it on race gas
it made 370 HP and 445 lbs ft. When they put it in a Fairlane and ran
it ran mid 13's in Drive, on pump gas. Their comments were that it just
didn't seem flat anywhere, it pulled hard anywhere you gigged it. But
it had those nasty headers, yes it did.

> Honest how ? rear wheels? crank ? Gross ? Net ? I don't think you can
> call 265 Gross rated an "honest" horsepower rating, since you'll never see
> that much umph while its in the truck ...

That would be gross, as all the '60's engines were rated. And it's just
as valid as net if you're comparing two engines gross. I really don't
see what difference it makes. 265 gross, 230 net. It all equals the
same thing, it's just a number.

I picked up yet another article last week that repeated the same old
myth about FE ports that "the FE is somewhat restricted in the exhaust
port and needs a camshaft with more duration on the exhaust side to
compensate..." Edelbrock, when designing their new FE head realized and
stated in print that they couldn't find much at all to improve on the
exhaust side of any FE head. That it's pretty darn good as is.

Here's the data on their 427MR part #6007 compared to their Pontiac head
Part # 6059. The Ford head has 2.09/1.66 valves with 3/8 stems, and
from seeing them myself in person, the ports are just like my C4AE
heads. I commented on this to the guy at the display booth, and he
said that these were designed after the MR which in his experience the
only difference between them and the early 390 head was that the valves
are set further apart, and were filled in a little on the floor.
Edelbrock didn't set them further aprt, so in his opinion there isn't
much difference. He even wanted to know if I wanted to sell my heads.
The Pontiac had 2.11/1.66 valves with 11/32 stems.

6007 6059
Ford MR Pontiac
0.100 88 64 73% 71 69 97%
0.200 153 113 74% 143 120 84%
0.300 195 148 76% 208 151 73%
0.400 233 171 73% 253 173 68%
0.500 265 183 69% 272 191 70%
0.600 270 200 74% 286 199 70%
0.700

This head will bolt on to a 390 and clear the bores. The Pontiac head
is very similar in spec to the RA IV, with improvements to the intake
bowls, and 30 degree intake seats. The Ford head has 45's. Note the
percentages, they show how the exhaust relates to the intake flow at
lift. It looks to me like the exhaust keeps up pretty well, I see here,
if you have the right header an opportunity for good scavenging anywhere
in the powerband, which means torque. I'd say you could run a cam with
the same profile on both sides. The Pontiac exhaust port dies at .400.

Now here's a comparison between the #6007 and the #6045 BB Chev 454-0.


6007 6045
6007 Ford MR 6045 BB Chev
0.100 88 64 73% 74 71 96%
0.200 153 113 74% 143 128 90%
0.300 195 148 76% 207 153 74%
0.400 233 171 73% 250 178 71%
0.500 265 183 69% 284 200 70%
0.600 270 200 74% 309 218 71%
0.700

From .300 on the Ford exhaust is keeping up better than the almighty 454
head. Also keep in mind that the Chevy is using 2.19/ 1.88 valves with
11/32 stems! The Ford has 2.09/1.66 with 3/8 stems.

Pick up this months Super Ford and you will find an article on this head
tricked out with big valves and a full port job by Kuntz and Craft in
Arkadelphia AR. It will blow your mind what it's capable of.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:06:52 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Overbore

oops! I knew I should have used a calculator!


am14 daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>
> Someone wrote: >>That would be a .180" overbore!
>
> My math says different... The 3.875 bore of the 330 FT to the 4.130 of the
> 428 - I got .255" when I subtracted it out.
>
> Azie
> Ardmore, Al.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 07:36:18 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Pant job

I have an original sales brochure from 76. If you would like I can send a
copy of it.

Tom H

> ----------
> From: grant eversoll[SMTP:granteversoll yahoo.com]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 1:27 PM
> To: ford truck club
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Pant job
>
> Can anyone tell me where to look to find the color schemes of the 1976
> F250. At one time part of the truck was red. It has been painted flat
> black for some odd reason. The inside of the cab is red with a white
> head liner. Just point me in the right direction and I'll take it from
> there
> Grant
> vrigin renovator
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 07:42:43 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Diesels

Here's a question for the diesel knowledgeable in the group. Why is water
so devastating to a diesel fuel system? I know it is but I don't know why.

Tom H.

> ----------
> From: MongoCaver aol.com[SMTP:MongoCaver aol.com]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 10:03 PM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels
>
> In a message dated 09/01/99 8:48:10 PM Central Daylight Time,
> JUMPINFORD aol.com writes:
>
> > I cant remember off the top of my head,
> > but I recall the injectors opening at approx. 225 psi, to overcome the
> > pressure in the combustion chamber.
> >
> Actually the pressure depends on if you are injecting directly into the
> cylinder or into a precombustion chamber. It also depends on if you are
> using a high pressure injection system (GM 5.7, 6.2 International 6.9,
> 7.3
> early models, lots of rice burners too) or a rail type system that
> delivers
> the fuel to all injectors and lets them do the pressurizing and timing of
> injection. The GM and International injectors mentioned above opened at
> approx. 2000 psi, mainly to properly atomize the fuel, but also to provide
>
> more fuel in a shorter time. Most of the rail types operated at a
> somewhat
> lower pressure.
> Or so I remember from running a fuel injection shop for 9 years, about 10
>
> years ago.
> James
> == 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, 3 Sep 1999 08:07:08 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 Power and Edelbrock Heads Compared


> I picked up yet another article last week that repeated the same old
> myth about FE ports that "the FE is somewhat restricted in the exhaust
> port and needs a camshaft with more duration on the exhaust side to
> compensate..." Edelbrock, when designing their new FE head realized and
> stated in print that they couldn't find much at all to improve on the
> exhaust side of any FE head. That it's pretty darn good as is.
>
>


Does this mean that you would not choose a cam that favors the exhaust side
of things? The flow numbers that you mention is that on heads with the
thermactor bumps in the exhaust ports? Would you go to the trouble of
grinding out those bumps?

Maybe if the stock manifolds were so bad that's how the motor got the
reputation for poor flowing exhuaust ports. But most magazine buildups
include headers which would eliminate that as a problem. Hmm.

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:32:53 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (William L. Ballinger)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Edelbrock Heads

One more thing I came up with is that if you add up the flow from .100
to .600 on those three heads, you come up with:

6007 MR Ford 6059 Pontiac 6045 BB Chev 454-O

1204 879 73% 1233 903 73% 1267 948 75%

Interesting, at least I think so.

I'd like to get flow data on a set of both early and late 390 heads to
see how they stack up. Stu, does that data we spoke of show different
styles of 390 heads? Did you ever get it away from The Kid? Should be
enlightening to read.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:30:50 EDT
From: MongoCaver aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels

In a message dated 09/03/99 9:45:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:

> Here's a question for the diesel knowledgeable in the group. Why is water
> so devastating to a diesel fuel system? I know it is but I don't know why.
>
Water has poor lubrication properties, separates from diesel fuel and of
course rusts metal. The oxidation produces byproducts that are floating
throughout the diesel. Many moving parts in fuel injection systems have
unbelievable fit tolerances and sometimes dissimilar metals are rotating
against each other with nothing but a coating of diesel as a separating
lubricant. You can easily see the potential for disaster.
In the Stanadyne injection pumps (we used to call them beer can pumps,
because of their aluminum housings and cylinder shape) there was an
unbelievable tolerance between the rotor and head, something like .000009".
The rotor was a 1" shaft rotating inside a head, which was a cylinder with 2"
thick walls. Each was drilled with various passages. The way they fitted
them together was they has a room at the factory chilled to about freezing.
Several older women sat at a table in the room and hand fitted the parts
together trying various combinations till they felt right. No tools, just
judgment. Now that's a calibrated elbow.

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:04:10 -0400
From: pdesanto Cinergy.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Bolt patterns, F-100's vs F-150's

> > All -100's of that era used the 5 on 5 -1/2 bolt
> pattern.................
> > Don Grossman
> >
> > Don- I have an all original 81 F-100, 4x2. It has the car 4 1/2" bolt
> > pattern on it. I was told the 80 to 82 ( I think ) F-100's had the small
> > pattern; but the F-150's had the larger pattern. Phil
>
> Well that's a new one to
me.......................................


Yea Don, that was news to me too. I had bought this truck as a
surprise for my son, and went down and got a nice set of wheels and tires
for it. Went to put them on and they didn't fit ! I went back to the tire
place and told them they sold me the wrong #%&! wheels. He looked back in
his book and said "No way...all 1/2 ton Fords are the same".
pause here > Then said, oops.
" Is it a 81 F-100 ?" : ) I'm not positive, but I think the 80 to 84's
are like that. The only other difference I can think of is the F-100's are
overloaded if you sit on the tailgate. Later, Phil



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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:10:21 -0400
From: Tony Marino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Bolt patterns, F-100's vs F-150's

Well, just to throw in a little tidbit--

My father owned an all original 81 F-100. It did indeed have a 5-5.5 bolt
pattern. I'm still using the rims.. ;-) So maybe not ALL of them
were.... but still that is definitely a new one to me too!

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

At 12:04 PM 9/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> > All -100's of that era used the 5 on 5 -1/2 bolt
>> pattern.................
>> > Don Grossman
>> >
>> > Don- I have an all original 81 F-100, 4x2. It has the car 4 1/2" bolt
>> > pattern on it. I was told the 80 to 82 ( I think ) F-100's had the small
>> > pattern; but the F-150's had the larger pattern. Phil

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:13:50 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Wheel Bolt patterns, F-100's vs F-150's

well, with all the talk of bolt patterns, I just happened to find Dave
William's site, and guess what ... a whole list of bolt patterns, let me see
if I can glean the Ford ones out of it ...


all from http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/42/wheelpat.htm
- ------------
5 on 4-1/2 (114.3 mm)

Ford 1/2 ton van
Ford Granada, Monarch
Ford - All full size cars '49-'72; '79-'85
- Fairlane '62-'79
- T-Bird '55-'71; '77-'79
- Mustang 5-bolt '65-'73
- Maverick 5-bolt all
- Mustang SVO '85-'86
- Ranchero '68-'84
- Aerostar, Probe, Bronco II/Ranger to '89
Hudson - all '48-'56
Lincoln - all '70-'72; '80-'89
Mazda - RX7 Turbo, 626, 929, MX6 '86-'89
Mercury - all full size cars '52-'54; '61-'72; '79-'85
- Cougar '67-'79


5 on 5 (127 mm)


Ford, LTD '73-'75
Ford - T-Bird '72-'76
- Galaxie, LTD, Custom '73-'78
Lincoln - all (exc Versailles) '60-'67; '73-'79
Mercury - all '55-'60
- Cougar, XR7 '73-'77


5 on 5-1/2 (139.7 mm)

Ford 2 ton van
Ford Bronco, F100
Ford - all '28-'48
- full size P.U., van, Bronco '49-'89
International Scout, Travelall
Lincoln - all '52-'60
Mercury - all '39-'51


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

I'm not sure this is 100% accurate, but it should be fairly close. I notice
he didn't include the stangs for 94+ as having the 4.5 also, but they do ...


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: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:06:15 EDT
From: SevnD2 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

A little note here from what I have seen on my 76 F-100 . My engine sits
about 1.5 - 2 inches to the right of center . This is the factory location
for the FE engine in this truck . It looks like somone put it in wrong but it
is correct . I see it every time I look at another truck like it with this
type of engine . I don't know if they were done that way all along , but it
could be something to check . Anyone else notice this ?
I hope this helps !
Rollie H. Hunt
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:24:39 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

> A little note here from what I have seen on my 76 F-100 . My engine sits
> about 1.5 - 2 inches to the right of center . This is the
> factory location
> for the FE engine in this truck . It looks like somone put it in
> wrong but it
> is correct . I see it every time I look at another truck like it
> with this
> type of engine . I don't know if they were done that way all
> along , but it
> could be something to check . Anyone else notice this ?


I notice the fan shroud is off center quite a bit, but couldn't really
determine if it was an offset radiator or an offest engine, my assumption
was the motor ...

Maybe I'll measure it tonight and see what I can find ... not that mine's
likely stock, it'll still be good to know...

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: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 13:43:56 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

Rollie

I was told by an old mancanic (sp) when I was putting a 302 into a 48
Willis overland, not mount the engine directly center. To offset it a
little else
I would not be able to keep ujoints in it. Seem the joints need to have a
minute' (sp) offset to give it a rolling action.

Works for me.

Larry

At 02:06 PM 9/3/99 EDT, you wrote:
>A little note here from what I have seen on my 76 F-100 . My engine sits
>about 1.5 - 2 inches to the right of center . This is the factory location
>for the FE engine in this truck . It looks like somone put it in wrong but
it
>is correct . I see it every time I look at another truck like it with this
>type of engine . I don't know if they were done that way all along , but it
>could be something to check . Anyone else notice this ?
>I hope this helps !
>Rollie H. Hunt
>== 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, 3 Sep 1999 11:52:16 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

Well the front diff is offset and in the old Willys sometimes you have to
offset the motor for the front driveshaft clear depending on the type of
tranny your putting in.

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

- -----Original Message-----
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap


>Rollie
>
>I was told by an old mancanic (sp) when I was putting a 302 into a 48
>Willis overland, not mount the engine directly center. To offset it a
>little else
>I would not be able to keep ujoints in it. Seem the joints need to have a
>minute' (sp) offset to give it a rolling action.
>
>Works for me.
>



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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:41:33 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels

In a message dated 9/3/99 7:45:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:


so devastating to a diesel fuel system? >>

Diesel fuel is also the lubricant for the fuel pump, so any water can cause
pump damage. Also at the high pressures that diesels inject fuel at, the
water will boil, and then you have a gas in the system, which causes the fuel
to not be injected at exactly the right timing. The biggest thing though is
the fuel pump. Itd be just like dumping a quart of water in your oil and
wondering why the engine seized.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 20:02:00 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - SPEAKERS???

In a message dated 09/03/1999 3:52:31 AM !!!First Boot!!!, IanBoss69 aol.com
writes:


right
you have a 77?? the doors should be the same maybe not though,,, >>

I bought 5 1/4" speakers a few days ago and my dad is puttin 'em in as we
speak. They are the perfect fit though.......wierd size I guess? Maybe my
truck is just retarded in that area LOL

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 18:55:51 -0600
From: mark heims
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 oil pressure

Hi all,
While were talking about oil pressure
I own a 71 J**P Wagoneer (I'm selling it!) with a 350 in it, the oil
presure light came on at idle (before the rebuild). It worried me at
first, but when I checked the owners manual, it said that was normal. I
threw a guage on it and it read 0 at idle, no noise from the lifters at
all, came up to 20 lbs while driving. After the rebuild it has 20 lbs
at idle. This is only a 4 qt system.

FTE content-- the 400 in my 78 has great oil pressure and is a 6 qt
system. Much more to my liking.

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

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

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 20:26:43 -0600
From: Steve
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Block code

Me again,

Well I've figured out that at the least it is a Y-Block. Now I'm trying
to determine if it's a 292 or a 312.

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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 22:24:03 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Block code

In a message dated 9/3/99 10:22:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sbnorris micron.net writes:

> Me again,
>
> Well I've figured out that at the least it is a Y-Block. Now I'm trying
> to determine if it's a 292 or a 312.
>
Give us a few more clues so we all can play......

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: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 23:28:39 EDT
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Block code

In a message dated 9/3/1999 7:27:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, TBeeee aol.com
writes:

Well I've figured out that at the least it is a Y-Block. Now I'm trying
> to determine if it's a 292 or a 312. >>

Don't forget about the 272 Y-Block.

Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 00:01:16 EDT
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Diesels

In a message dated 9/3/1999 8:35:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
MongoCaver aol.com writes:

Here's a question for the diesel knowledgeable in the group. Why is
water
> so devastating to a diesel fuel system? I know it is but I don't know
why.
> >>

There have been a number of responses on this subject and I agree with most.
Luckily water and their byproducts can be readily removed from the fuel
before it gets to the pump. That is the job of filters and pre-filters in
the fuel system. And this is why timely maintenance on these items is
critical. There is always potential for water in the fuel due to tank
condensation especially when the tanks are routinely kept at a low level.
Most fuel filters remove particles down to 5 microns and contain excess
cellulose to absorb water. Some actually have a reservoir below a filter to
contain the water.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 00:24:29 -0500
From: "Shane"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap

The crossmember may be in backwards try swaping it left for right. If I
remember corectly, on my 78 the hole in the "center" of the crossmember is
not truely in the center.


Shane




- ----- Original Message -----
From: Joe & Jen DeLaurentis
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 7:34 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - looking for help with 68 4x4 auto swap


> group,
> i am in the process of a ground up redo of my 68 4x4, i just put in the
> 390 and mated a c6 behind her..with the trans mounted it sits on an
> angle and i need to pry the trans over a few inches to get it to mount
> to
> the crossmember..is this normal???do i need to use differnt hole son the
> frame for the motor towers to put the motor on an angle to compensate??
> I had the motor bolted down when i installed the trans is this a nono??
> any help ????Has anybody done this swap in a 67-72???
> thanks
> Joe
> 68 4x4 390"soon to be a auto that Ford never offered"
> --
> Joe 1968 F-100 4x4 302 NP435 "Its not pretty but its gets me there"
> 1969 F-250 4x4 390 NP435 "Undecided Future"....


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.