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 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.