 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 #340 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 Wednesday, September 22 1999 Volume 03 : Number 340 ======================================================================= 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 - Modification Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding FTE 61-79 - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI** Re: FTE 61-79 - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI** FTE 61-79 - rebuilds and ridges FTE 61-79 - punishment Re: FTE 61-79 - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI** Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding FTE 61-79 - Tranny noise RE: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? FTE 61-79 - RE: Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? RE: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? FTE 61-79 - Running again Re: FTE 61-79 - 66 Has Ugly Dashpad FTE 61-79 - Overbore FTE 61-79 - Ugly Dash Pads FTE 61-79 - Re-built & Machining Re: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? FTE 61-79 - cool Item on Ebay, cheap too FTE 61-79 - Re: What's wrong with the big C Re: FTE 61-79 - 428 Intake FTE 61-79 - 9 Inch Rear End Vent Re: FTE 61-79 - 9 Inch Rear End Vent FTE 61-79 - New Engine Break in FTE 61-79 - driving many hours Re: FTE 61-79 - Dual battery setup Re: FTE 61-79 - Dual battery setup ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:37:41 +0200 From: "Bill Brox" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Modification Hi all. Is it possible to take a F-350 Super Cab with dual rear wheels, which is longer than a regular cab, and put on a regular cab ? And then make a steel / wooden body for it..... the body would be longer than if it was done to a regular cab. chassis. Just a thought from me..... I guess they made long chassis F-350, but it may be easier to find a Super Cab with a lousy bed..... Bill == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:55:53 PDT From: "White Wolf" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding That would be Arlington, Texas (DFW) >From: Dennis Pearson >Where do you live, Corey? > >Thanks for your message at 01:32 PM 9/20/99 PDT, White Wolf. Your message >was: > >Hey guys/gals.. Im just about ready to replace my broken-a** windshield >on > >my '66 F100.. I called around a little today and was give a quote for >about > >$225, only one problem, no gasket. > > > > Ok. So does anyone know where I could get a GOOD/NEW gasket? .. also I > >have the original chrome molding, can it be reused? > > ______________________________________________________ == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:59:40 PDT From: "White Wolf" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding I looked in my Obsolete catalog and they list an OEM and a Repro for about a $100 difference? is it worth it? I mean come on a $100 is $100..... >From: Ted Wnorowski > > Just about every Ford Truck parts catalog I have carries >these. Try these places: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.macsautoparts.com/index.html >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.auto krafters.  com /welcome.html >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ford-obsolete-parts.com/ > It will probably run you about $40. Most of these placed will sell >you a "kit" that includes, windshield rubber, rear window rubber, door >gaskets, and cowl lacing for a pretty decent price. > > > > >ed Wnorowski >Bellevue,OH >'64 F-250 >352 transplant >4 speed ______________________________________________________ == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:31:42 -0500 From: kimchi webcombo.net Subject: FTE 61-79 - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI** Greetings. I have recently become the proud owner of a 1978 F-250 with the tried and true 300 inline-six. It's current factory-stock fuel & emissions specs: A. Carter YF-1V 1-bbl. carb. (unsure of CFM) B. NO SMOG EQUIPMENT - that's correct, lads & lasses - NONE, not even EGR or catalytic converters! It does have a PCV valve (does that qualify as smog equipment?), but, at the time the truck was built, it was considered a WORK truck, rather than a passenger vehicle, hence the absence of smog equip. I heard that Ford put out a fuel-injected version of this engine. True? If so, would junkyard browsing be my best bet for locating the necessary setup, and is this the most prudent way to go, or is there someone out there with a better suggestion? I'm an ex-USN electronics tech, and am not afraid of breaking out ye olde DMM and soldering iron, although I'll admit that digital wasn't my strong point. I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and my quest is to improve the following: A. Drivability - throttle response is not exactly linear at the moment - there are a couple weak spots/stumbles as I depress the gas pedal. B. Emissions - it failed a previous IM240 smog check, mostly due to high HC and CO (a rich fuel/air ratio was the cause, I believe). Beyond just being able to pass the sniffer, I live in a high-population-density area, and I'd like to do my part to decrease emissions as much as possible without severely depleting my bank account. C. Winter startup/pre-full-operating-temperature drivability - it has a manual choke installed by previous owner - he told me that they don't make the proper thermostatic coils for this particular carb anymore. This is pretty much a non-issue to me, but if I had my druthers, I'd rather have a computer take care of this. (My techie streak showing through. :)) D. Economy - currently, with 295,000 miles on her (mostly highway), she is getting 13.9 mpg with 87 octane unleaded. I assume that this isn't out of line for a truck with this many miles, but I have a hunch that it can do better. Previous owner performed a compression check, and told me that all cylinders were within 10-15 psi of each other. (I assume that this is within spec.) Thanks in advance to all! Geoff [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] G. Turk Microsoft Certified Professional Windows NT Workstation 4.0 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:37:45 EDT From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI** In a message dated 9/21/99 5:32:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kimchi webcombo.net writes: > I believe its around 300 or catalytic converters! It does have a PCV valve (does that qualify as smog equipment?), but, at the time the truck was built, it was considered a WORK truck, rather than a passenger vehicle, hence the absence of smog equip.>> Are you 100% sure of this? Easy way to check is to look for 6 plugs (1 per cylinder) on the exhaust manifold, suggesting that the truck originally had a smog pump attached. > Yes, but..... setup, and is this the most prudent way to go, or is there someone out there with a better suggestion?>> My brother and I just finished a rebuild of his 84 F-150 with that bad lil 300. In its current configuration, it has a holley 4 barrel, headers, bit of a cam, and an MSD ignition. It runs like a raped ape, and so far my brother has said its getting about 15-17 City mpg. A. Drivability - throttle response is not exactly linear at the moment - there are a couple weak spots/stumbles as I depress the gas pedal.>> Again, I say my bros runs like a raped ape. HC and CO (a rich fuel/air ratio was the cause, I believe). Beyond just being able to pass the sniffer, I live in a high-population-density area, and I'd like to do my part to decrease emissions as much as possible without severely depleting my bank account.>> Sounds like a simple carb adjustment, running rich causes the Hi CO and HC, lean is usually see as hi NOx. manual choke installed by previous owner - he told me that they don't make the proper thermostatic coils for this particular carb anymore. >> The new holley on my bros truck came with a new electric choke. getting 13.9 mpg with 87 octane unleaded. I assume that this isn't out of line for a truck with this many miles, but I have a hunch that it can do better. >> Yep it can, this points back to a rich condition in the carb. cylinders were within 10-15 psi of each other. (I assume that this is within spec.)>> All though this is spec, Id do one my self to find out what the readings are. They could all be worn out equally, and still be within spec of eachother. I doubt this though, as I'll be the first one on these lists to say it, but definately not the last, the 300 six is without a doubt the most durable engnie Ford EVER put together. you can drive it like its a blown 460 all night long, every night for about 10 yrs, and it'll still run like a new truck. Ok I exagerrated a lil, but still its a great engine, and will serve you well. Geoff >> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:43:25 -0500 From: "John LaGrone" Subject: FTE 61-79 - rebuilds and ridges >>By chrome rings do you mean molly? There are chrome plated rings too and I don't recommend them personally. I haven't done an engine since the late 80s. We always called them porous chrome. To tell you the truth, I don't know what they really were, but they weren't plated. I once used a set that were called "chrome edge." I think that might have been the brand. I was poor and desperate. They were cast iron with the chrome added. Come to think of it, they might have in reality been plated. They worked OK at the time, but I wouldn't use something like that again. I have seen folks use the original pistons with 60 over rings. It looked like Jane Jetson's bracelets. I never was that poor or that desperate or other descriptors that come to mind. - -- John jlagrone ford-trucks.com 1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry) http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm Dearborn iron rules!!!! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:30:33 -0500 From: "John LaGrone" Subject: FTE 61-79 - punishment I apologize to the list. I have posted at least two messages with no subject. I have taken 40 lashes with a SCSI cable. Ow....... - -- John jlagrone ford-trucks.com 1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry) http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm Dearborn iron rules!!!! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:49:13 +0000 (GMT) From: David Henderson Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI** On 9/21/99, 7:31:42 AM, kimchi webcombo.net wrote regarding FTE 61-79=20 - - **Help with Ford 300 I-6 FI**: > Greetings. I have recently become the proud owner of a 1978 F-250=20 with the > tried and true 300 inline-six. > It's current factory-stock fuel & emissions specs: Congratulations!! Good choice ;^)! > A. Carter YF-1V 1-bbl. carb. (unsure of CFM) Pony Carbs ( http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cybervillage.com/PonyCarburetor/index.htm )=20 sells remans of the original Autolite 1bbl carb from which the Carter=20 is based. On their web page, they mention some performance=20 improvements over the stock carb that they introduce (particularly for=20 accelleration). If you are going to stay stock, this might be a good=20 route. > I heard that Ford put out a fuel-injected version of this engine. =20 True? > If so, would junkyard browsing be my best bet for locating the=20 necessary > setup, and is this the most prudent way to go, or is there someone out= > there with a better suggestion? > I'm an ex-USN electronics tech, and am not afraid of breaking out ye=20 olde > DMM and soldering iron, although I'll admit that digital wasn't my=20 strong > point. I think the first EFI 300 I6 was in '86 or '87 (first year of model=20 change) and produced up to '96 or so. I'm not sure what components=20 other than the engine, EFI system, and conteroller you will need to=20 get. Maybe someone else who has done a similar conversion can help=20 you here. > A. Drivability - throttle response is not exactly linear at the=20 moment - > there are a couple weak spots/stumbles as I depress the gas pedal. > B. Emissions - it failed a previous IM240 smog check, mostly due to=20 high > HC and CO > (a rich fuel/air ratio was the cause, I believe). Beyond just being=20 able > to pass the sniffer, I live in a high-population-density area, and I'd= =20 like > to do my part to decrease emissions as much as possible without=20 severely > depleting my bank account. These are carb related. Either tune/rebuild and tune the carb, or get=20 a new one. One from Advance Auto is only about $40 after core trade=20 in. If you want to boost performance, check out=20 http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cliffordperformance.com/ . They make headers, cams, and=20 4bbl intakes for the I6. > C. Winter startup/pre-full-operating-temperature drivability - it has= =20 a > manual choke installed by previous owner - he told me that they don't = make > the proper thermostatic coils for this particular carb anymore. This = is > pretty much a non-issue to me, but if I had my druthers, I'd rather=20 have a > computer take care of this. (My techie streak showing through. :)) With the number of misguided individuals who replace the I6 with a=20 Windsor ( ;^) ), the yards should have some electronic chokes still=20 around for the taking. > D. Economy - currently, with 295,000 miles on her (mostly highway),=20 she is > getting 13.9 mpg with 87 octane unleaded. I assume that this isn't=20 out of > line for a truck with this many miles, but I have a hunch that it can = do > better. Previous owner performed a compression check, and told me=20 that all > cylinders were within 10-15 psi of each other. > (I assume that this is within spec.) Yes, you can do better. I'm getting around 16mpg with a 4bbl and Tony=20 Marino is getting around 16-18mpg, last I heard. Thanks and Good Luck!! Dave H - --=20 _ _| ~~. David Henderson \, _} DHenders VT.Edu \( Gig 'em Aggies! '93 Beat Tulsa!! 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, 21 Sep 1999 07:06:59 -0700 From: Dennis Pearson Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding Thanks for your message at 04:55 AM 9/21/99 PDT, White Wolf. Your message was: >That would be Arlington, Texas (DFW) > I was thinking maybe you were one of the list members who lived in the SE WA area. I bought one for my '62 at a local glass shop for either $60 or $80 (I can't remember which). At the time I thought that was pretty high, but after seeing some of your other options, I guess it wasn't so bad. Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA 1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C 1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed 1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood) I shortened this to only FT's http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:10:39 -0700 From: Dennis Pearson Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gasket/molding Thanks for your message at 07:06 AM 9/21/99 -0700, Dennis Pearson. Your message was: >Thanks for your message at 04:55 AM 9/21/99 PDT, White Wolf. Your message was: >>That would be Arlington, Texas (DFW) >> > I was thinking maybe you were one of the list members who lived in the SE >WA area. I bought one for my '62 at a local glass shop for either $60 or >$80 (I can't remember which). At the time I thought that was pretty high, >but after seeing some of your other options, I guess it wasn't so bad. I just noticed your question about the trim. The gasket I bought was NOT the one that takes the trim... Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA 1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C 1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed 1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood) I shortened this to only FT's http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:20:20 -0700 From: John Corbett Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tranny noise My '68 F-100 4x4, 4-speed makes a loud grinding noise when in neutral and the clutch is out. When the clutch is pushed in, the noise goes away. I was thinking it might be the main shaft bearing in the tranny but I don't hear the noise at all when it is in any of the gears. Any ideas? I'm leaning toward yanking the 4-speed and putting in a C-6. This may be just what I need to convince my wife that's the thing to do:) Thanks, John Computers & Peripherals at or Below Superstore Prices Top Brand Names / Incredible Business Opportunity Join the me-commerce Revolution today http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.handtech.com/jdm == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:28:16 -0700 From: "Hogan, Tom" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? I don't have personal experience with a 410. Again someone on the list (He actually has a Mercury Pickup I think) did build a 410. My thought is that with the difficulty in getting a good 428 block that the 410 would be a very good alternative. The magazine article was saying that 428 cranks are easier to find servicable than blocks because they are easier to clean up than blocks are. Tom H. > ---------- > From: Greg Fisher[SMTP:pmsboy mindspring.com] > Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com > Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 6:04 PM > To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com > Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? > > Thanks again for the input, Tom. I bought a Ford exchange manual and they > had a writeup about the Merc 410 motor which was a 390 block with the 428 > crank. The longer stroke should provide even more torque. I wasn't looking > at the aluminum intake for weight savings, just for the fact that I've > seen > 2 at swap meets but no cast 4V intakes yet. I'm sure I'll find one soon. I > saw the 390 to 428 article you talked about. Since I found out about the > 390 or 410 changeover, I definitely won't be doing that. > > Greg Fisher > '68 F150 Longbed > Rock Hill/Townville SC > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:03:53 -0400 From: Greg Fisher Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? Ok, well, thanks again Greg Fisher '68 F100 >I don't have personal experience with a 410. Again someone on the list (He >actually has a Mercury Pickup I think) did build a 410. My thought is that >with the difficulty in getting a good 428 block that the 410 would be a very >good alternative. The magazine article was saying that 428 cranks are >easier to find servicable than blocks because they are easier to clean up >than blocks are. > >Tom H. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:12:17 -0400 From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? I've got a 410 on the stand. I used a 360/390 block, a 1U (428 crank), 428 P/I rods and Federal Mogul pistons. Federal Mogul was the only piston that was in my budget range for this. The pistons are different on the 410, it has a higher wrist pin height than a 390 piston. This allows for the piston to clear the head at TDC of the crank. I still need to get the head work done and bolt everything together. But should be fun once it's together. I think Marko is the one that's built the 410 in the Merc! - -Ted Please respond to 61-79-list ford-trucks.com To: "'61-79-list ford-trucks.com'" cc: (bcc: Ted Freeman/MURPHY_FAMILY_FARMS) Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? I don't have personal experience with a 410. Again someone on the list (He actually has a Mercury Pickup I think) did build a 410. My thought is that with the difficulty in getting a good 428 block that the 410 would be a very good alternative. The magazine article was saying that 428 cranks are easier to find servicable than blocks because they are easier to clean up than blocks are. Tom H. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:55:59 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Running again Garry writes: >>Well finally after 3 weeks and alot of time and a major headache I finally got the truck running after removing the oil pan to change the gasket. There seemed to be a comedy of errors but in the end it is finished and running. I will have to watch it over the next day or two to determine if the oil leak is fixed. I do know that I have one valve cover that is leaking and that is an easy fix that I will do this weekend. Just want to let everyone know. Glad you got it Garry. Sorry it turned out to be a "Project", but sometimes that happens. For all you Guys/Gals that haven't seen this truck, It is very clean - underneath as well as inside and outrside. He did a steering wheel restoration and it looks like a new one - or maybe better. Did you ever write that resto up as a tech article for the Site??? If not then you should. Everyone would be interested in that, since all our vintage Fords have a steering wheel cracking problem. I'm sure Garry is very particular about those pesky oil leaks that the FE's seem to like so much. A very clean "ride". Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:26:18 EDT From: Bad4dFilly aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 66 Has Ugly Dashpad WOW! All these dash pads sound expensive! My dash is in fairly good condition, except that it was painted some time ago and a different color might I add. Anyways, why can't y'all just get a dash cover? They're fairly cheap and they look good.......I'm gettin one soon I hope...do I hear leopard print? HeHe! *~*~Lisa and Emvy~*~* *~*~SIlly boys...trucks are for girls!!~*~* == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:16:45 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Overbore John LaG. writes: >>On the other hand, I have seen well cared for engines with almost 200k miles that spec-ed out and did not need a rebore. The ridge was very minute. I've never had to rebore a Ford engine under 200,000 miles, unless something other than "wear" got involved. A Ford block is hard. Much harder than the Generous Motors iron. I also never use carbon steel rings. The factory uses Chrome, so I figure Henry's folks got more time and money to research it than I do, so I accept their decision and always use Chrome. I've got two 460's (pre '72) that have just been gone thru and put back together. Neither of them were overbored, and both have in excess of 250,000 miles on them. There was less than .0005" out of round and wear. Neither of them exhibit any kind of piston slap. I even used the original cam and lifters in both. No apparent wear on either set. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:05:50 -0700 From: "O'Connor" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ugly Dash Pads Hi, For those of you that were at Charlotte, the truck with the tweed dash was under a roof with mostly Mustangs in the infield. No pictures but I did get his name and phone. Tim == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:28:00 -0400 From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re-built & Machining Just got the Motor back tonight from the Machine shop. It's a tear jerker when you have to pay someone when you know you can do it yourself such as in my case. I never thought or intended to start a discussion about rebuilding engines or short blocks. I felt that the fingers and feeling would justify such a reply. We all don't have mics in our shops, and if you felt the ridge then that would alert you to a potential problem. My self just recently went through this experience and I called for an R & R. Upon delivery at the machine shop the machinist took measurements of the cylinders to preset his vertical boring mill. When you do a job such as machinist work you can "detect" certain discrepancies just by feeling. A mechanic can set up a 289/ 312 just by ear, a damn good Mechanic can torque down wheel nuts and cylinder heads just by his feel. I can ( and I'm not bragging just merely making a point) set up a 9" rear end back lash just by feel( I check with dial Indicator to verify). You get through lots of experience (16yrs) a feel for thickness'. The motor I just did had 240k of Canadian Kilometers on it 149K miles. The Crank Mains were out at .008" clearance and the cylinders were very shiny upon visual inspection. There was no cross hatch pattern visible in any cylinder. After cleaning the block and carbon off of everything, I looked and felt with my finger nail the ridge, and it was very noticeable. When it comes to Honing, in the bearing industry such as where I work, that is just another process in making bearings. You hone the ball raceway to a certain smoothness or finish, by using different grit hone stones and rpm of the inner/outer rings. We then periodically inspect the raceway for concentricity or roundness and surface smoothness (mol). Honing takes the chatter marks(bumps) away from grinding. The finer a hone the more mirror like finish you get. Everyone knows that, but when you have to make 10,000/shft things get cranked up so you compromise on surface finish by classifying the bearings onto load and speed. When you hone cylinder walls, you have a choice of grit and that is determined by type of rings and application, as well as piston speed. 600 grit and chrome moly I think is satisfactory 400 grit and Cast Iron is good. Just think of the cylinder walls as washboards at a gravel road intersection. By slowly taking down the bumps you can go faster over them with out damaging anything. I don't want to keep up with the Jones' or Smiths, I like impressing the Mennonites. Respectfully, Marvin meyer stratford.webgate.net == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:33:31 EDT From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tom - Any knowledge of the Merc 410 ci? In a message dated 9/21/99 7:33:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes: > I do! I do! AWESOME motor. Dad has one in his 75 F-250 4x4. That engine has gobs of torque, but its not totally stock. It was built to improve upon already great torque. We used 360 heads (for the smaller valves, but I guess all FEs aside from the CJs and the med and high riser 427 had these valves), mildly ported, it has an RV cam, which was advanced 4' for improved bottom end. Basically this engine pulls hard from as low as 600, all the way up to 4500, where it almost falls on its face. Were 99% sure a normally timed cam would allow RPMs of up to 6000 without hesitation. I say, if you have the means go for it. One thing that has been mentioned is that it is easier to find a 390 block. This is a good thing, because if the block ever chucks on ya, you still have the good crank, and a 360/390 block is as easy to find as a 350 che*y. Well Almost. :) Good luck, and let us know what you decide. Darrell Duggan 74 F-350 "Tweety" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:16:38 EDT From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - cool Item on Ebay, cheap too thought some of yall would like this, Original 428 4v intake, bid starting at 10 bucks! HREF="http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=167048661">eBay item 167048661 (Ends 09/24/99, 09:23:46 PDT) - FORD 428 4 BBL INTAKE Darrell Duggan 74 F-350 "Tweety" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 19:47:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Lee Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: What's wrong with the big C Here is my opinion of the big C. I once owned a '67 Mustang coupe with a '70 351C-4V and top loader w/3.89:1 gears(wish I still had it). It would get off the line with most Ch**ys, but once it got moving it was bye-bye Ch**y. The 4V Cleveland was great in a light car, but I can see that it could be a problem in a heavy truck. My last 4V Cleveland was in my '53 F100 street rod and it was OK in spite of some valve problems. Now those great heads are completly reworked and sitting on top of a 400 w/flattop pistons, cam, and roller rockers. It is balanced has a fluid damper and will get Sanderson headers, and a 750 cfm Carter after it gets installed into my '53. Again this is not a typical truck application, but I expect a lot more torque at low RPM with the 400 than with the 351C even with the 4V heads. Dan Lee '53 F100 400C-4V __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:10:06 -0700 From: "Danger" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 428 Intake > thought some of yall would like this, Original 428 4v intake, bid starting at > 10 bucks! > > HREF="http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=167048661">eBay > item 167048661 (Ends 09/24/99, 09:23:46 PDT) - FORD 428 4 BBL INTAKE > > Darrell Duggan > 74 F-350 "Tweety" ............. What differences if any are there in the standard 352, 360, 390 and 428 4bbls intake manifolds? When rebuilding a 390 for a truck, would any standard 4bbl cast iron intake work well? If there is a cast iron intake of choice for use with standard FE heads, what would it be? TIA Danger danger csolutions.net http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.csolutions.net/myth == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:15:15 -0400 (EDT) From: crewcab altavista.net Subject: FTE 61-79 - 9 Inch Rear End Vent Been goofing around under the truck and decided to replace the vent hose coming off of the rear end, since it was orignal, thus badly decomposing. Easily removed, so i checked to see if there was indeed any hole in there. Couldn't find any and was hesitant to start poking around. Any advice on how to clean the vent out without getting gunkies into the axle? I suspect this is part of the problem with weeping rear end fluid through the right axle seal. Jeff '64 F100 CrewCab - ---------------------------------------------------------------- == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:22:22 EDT From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 9 Inch Rear End Vent Maybe scratch the stuff out, while holding a shop vac REAL close? I dunno, never had the problem myself. Lemme know what you come up with. Darrell Duggan 74 F-350 "Tweety" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:33:00 -0700 From: "Earthlink" Subject: FTE 61-79 - New Engine Break in Hello All, I just finished rebuilding a 460 for my '71 F350. Can anyone give me some break in advise? When do I change the oil and do I put in more non-detergent oil and when do I use detergent oil? Do I need to re-torque any bolts? When I re-torque the intake bolts after running the engine to operating temperture do I let the engine cool before re-torquing or do it when hot? Any other advise you can give me would be helpful. When driving it for the first 500 - 1000 miles it there any things I need to avoid? Or especially do? Thanks, FredZ == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:16:41 From: Bas van der Veer Subject: FTE 61-79 - driving many hours >>32 hours??? yeah, rite... > >I have worked 27 hours straight plowing snow myself.It was in a 75 f-600 Hm really, after 16 hours of straight driving I'm dead meat, especially when four wheeling through all sorts of cr#p, that's wearing.. if I have to drive any longer, something will happen that even a ford truck won't stand ;-) I think here in europe it isn't even legal for a person to drive commercial vehicles more than 8-10 hours a day. Then also you need to take breaks etc.. there are plenty of people who drive more but it's a pretty serious offense. >with a 330.This truck has been subjected to that kind of treatment since >new and it still kicks butt all winter long. Never heard of a 330 .. guess it's a heavy duty engine? > We now have enough personel that we split in to two crews working >12 hours each,running the trucks 24 hours a day.That seperates the >Fords from the off brands in a hurry. Did you actually TRY other brands? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 13:07:01 From: Bas van der Veer.... 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 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. 
|