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 #344
Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


61-79-list-digest Friday, September 24 1999 Volume 03 : Number 344



=======================================================================
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 - Bulb Sockets
Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale
Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list
RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets
FTE 61-79 - 390 in a 84?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351C finally running
FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
Re: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292
Re: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292
FTE 61-79 - 460 rebuilds
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
RE: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 in a 84?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets
RE: FTE 61-79 - cab mount corrosion
RE: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale
FTE 61-79 - Bellhousing bolt patterns
RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list
Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
FTE 61-79 - Couple of questions-- Dana-60 rear brake job
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
FTE 61-79 - 460/Diesel
Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
FTE 61-79 - sealers
Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
RE: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale
RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks
Re: FTE 61-79 - Factory Original 460 Issue (again)
RE: FTE 61-79 - sealers
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence
Re: FTE 61-79 - sealers
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
RE: FTE 61-79 - sealers
RE: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
RE: FTE 61-79 - sealers
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.
Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list
FTE 61-79 - RE; New to the list

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 05:40:19 -0400
From: David Wadson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets

> > Hi, I just got done completly rewiring my 74 F250 4wd I found a
> > source for
> > new turn signal/ brake/ side marker lights but I can't find new
> > light bulb
> > sockets to fit them, any one know of a source for these?
>
>Just go to the local parts store, they should carry them ... Napa, Jocko's
>(local one), Big A ... they should all have them ...

I was recently looking at getting new sockets to replaced cracked and
corroded ones and was shocked at the price of some of the new ones - close
to $20 each! Even the guy at the parts counter was surprised! So the
sockets are now on our list of little things to grab when you're at the
scrapyard. Those early '80s Ford vans are another good source for
replacement sockets since the decline in the number of trucks in the scrap
yard up here....


David Wadson - wadsond air.on.ca
"PS2" - 78 F100/302/C4
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:05:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

>
> it
> "Grass" Valley! >>
>
> Careful, ya never know what Ford coulda done. Azie and a few others STILL
> have a hard time believing Tweety's 460 is factory original. A VIN check of
> this Bronco is the only way to be sure.

In that case it should be legal to transplant a 460 as well, even inn
california, would it...????

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:26:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list

> The name here is Cliff. I bought a 72 F-250 4x2 w/360-2V and C6 tranny. The
> odometer says it only has 55103 miles right now. I don';t know if those are
> the true miles. I replaced the intake manifold gaskets and it didn't look
> like only 55K to me. But the more I read on this list, I'm not so sure it
> isn't true?

You never know .. a truck that was abused can pick up more wear in 55k
miles than a highway truck gets in 200k.. but gaskets aren't an accurate
measure. Perhaps you can loosen the rear driveshaft and see how much play
the rear diff has. This seems a pretty good mileage indicator.

> Anyway I have a couple of questions. First the brake warning light stays on
> all the time. I know that the differential valve is where the light is
> connected. Are these valves still available? Or can I clean it up with some
> brake clean and free that thing up. I've tried everything the books say to
> get it to turn off, with no luck.

But the brakes work good? No leak? Hmm, the light is supposed to go on if
the valve cannot establish a certain pressure ratio between front and
back, eg when a line cracked. It may just be electrical, or the valve may
be stuck. In my experience it is better to go to a good (preferably one-man)
brake shop and have him check it out. Brakes are such a pain to work on,
I've spent hundreds of dollars and days of ruining my skin with brake
fluid with no result. Plus, brakes sure are important..

> Second question. The power steering gearbox is leaking at the top seal near
> the flex coupling. I have already bought the kit with all the seals and
> O-rings. Is it a difficult task to put this kit in? Or should I just look at
> replacing the leaking seal at the top only? I'm not a mechanic, but I do
> understand the workings of the thing from the pictures and text I've been

They say power steering boxes are pretty complicated, but if you have the
time and a second vehicle you can buy a good book and try. When worst
comes to worst you can always buy a new box. Aren't the seal kits only
$20 or something? The boxes are more like $300 so it's worth trying.

> able to get my hands on. Is it worth putting the whole kit in, and not have
> to do this again a little later? Am I going to have parts jumping out and I
> won't have a clue as to where they go? I've never done this before, and I
> can't afford to let someone else do it, or can I afford to buy a rebuilt
> one.

Oh, hmm.. well what can I say, you can't drive around spraying oil all
over the place.

> I have a tip. You can take a cheap toggle switch and wire it into the
> battery side of the coil, then place the toggle switch under the dash away
> from the ignition switch. When the switch is off, the truck won't start no
> matter how long they try. They'll run your battery down before the get it
> started. You can even wire it up backwards so that the switch is in the on
> position, and the thief may think it has nothing to do with anything because
> it's ON anyway.

Yeah we've been discussing that a couple of months ago. Somebody even
thought of putting a little switch on a heater control. But they usually
just put a jump wire to the battery, so the best wouldbe to take part of
the truck, for example the coil to distributor wire or the battery wire.

If you have an electric fuel pump at the tank, that would be good to put
a switch on.

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 06:38:21 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets

Buy a 78 lincoln for $64 and strip it :-) That thing must have had 20 light
sockets on it :-) The front side markers are going on my bronco along with
the front bumper and some other stuff. Can't wait to see you guys at PF
next year :-)

- --
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
- --

> I was recently looking at getting new sockets to replaced cracked and
> corroded ones and was shocked at the price of some of the new
> ones - close
> to $20 each! Even the guy at the parts counter was surprised! So the
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:32:59 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 in a 84?

Gang, a friend in the AFTE group from Norway has an 84 F-250 with a 390 in
it and wants information on mounts, where to get them without mortgaging the
house. Anybody familiar with this particular swap? I don't have an L&L
catalog so can't look this up? He said he deals with AutoShop in Orlando,
FL but they couldn't help him on this one :-(

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:13:57 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

Erik Marquez wrote:
>
> welllllllll, since there is no such thing as a factory bronco with a 460,
> I'll take the rest of the ad with a grain of salt.
>
>

Never say never, but I'd need to see the original sticker or have it
proved to me through a serial number or something. If it was original,
that would be sweet, as it only takes one to make it smog legal. I could
see a 78 with a factory 460 way before I could see a 79, as 78 Broncos
were still classified as heavy duty for emissions.

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:25:34 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351C finally running

Gearing is important but there is a range within which you should work for
best overall satisfaction, performance, reliability etc.. A two cylinder
Briggs and Stratton will pull a double bottom trailer full of gravel if you
gear it properly but.......:-)

My 302 powered 73 club wagon, E-300 probably had 4.10 gears, not sure but
then engine worked it's but off it's whole life and gave me very little
satisfaction in any case. Every time I drove it I wished for more power.
The sad thing is it didn't give me anything I couldn't have also had with a
larger engine: economy? Pooo! Power? Poooo! Ease of maintenance? Poooo!
Weight? who cares when you have a 5000 pound brick to start with?

The 302 has been put in many trucks and many owners are happy with their
trucks but the 302 is not a "truck" motor and never will be and can't be
made into one due to it's stroke and cubes. The reason the I-6 has so much
torque has to do with the stroke and camming. In stock form it will not
rev, it's not supposed to, but it will pull all the way down to idle so it
works well in a truck but even the mighty 6 will lug on hills with heavy
loads. There are limits to everything and more power and torque is usually
better when work is being done.

A 302 geared with 4.11 rear end will pull quite nicely but a 351 (any kind)
will easily out pull it under every circumstance with taller gears, fewer
revs, less wear and tear. If you are going to drive your truck back and
forth to work and occasionallly take a trip to the dump with it a 302 is
fine but if you are going to use it for a truck, haul loads on a regular
basis you will tire of that 302 in a big hurry, it has limits.

Want to talk built? Ok, build the 351 or 400 or 460 by the same amount and
what do you have? A better mouse trap :-) If you already have the 302 it
may be cheaper to add some power to it than replace with a larger engine,
that has to be a personal choice :-)

The 400, 335 series is probably the best truck engine ever made, just
looking at it's specs. It has some design flaws but theoretically it has
all the right qualifications. The 460 is an even better mouse trap, if you
need it for towing etc..

So far we're talking legitimate "truck" usage but most of us do more than
haul heavy loads and many never do so there's the other aspect of bigger is
better.......It's just plain more fun :-)

- --
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
- --

> I wasn't going to say anything on this thread BUT
> Gearing is very important in how an engine feels torque wise, and
> how it performs acceleration wise. My late great '57 had a verily
> modfied 289, ant the gearing was correct for the application. If you
> are having a problem towing heavy loads, try changing the gears
> before changing engine.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:27:44 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

James writes: >>What I wanted to know is if anyone knows if Ford
used to or does produce a truck or
van that's got an EFI engine and dual tanks?

Sure did and still do. You need to visit the 80-96 list for your info. There
has been several discussions about pumping out of one tank and returning it to
another tank and causing overflow of raw gas.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:47:06 +0200
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292

Hi Jim and Liisa,

A 292 belongs to the first overhead valve V8 engine that Ford built in the
50ties. It lasted a bit into the 60ties, but then it was no more.
The 289 belongs to a new and modern V8 family, the small block as it is
also called. This same engine is maybe best known as the 302 or 5.0 liter
engine,,, but the 302 has a little longer stroke, and thereby a little
larger displacement.

So, all in all, those 2 engines are totally different,,, the 289 engine
will be easier to find parts for.


Bill Brox

- ----------
> From: Jim and Liisa Tino
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292
> Date: 24. september 1999 05:05
>
> Hi all! I'm new to the list, and don't understand half of
> what is said, but I like it, anyways!
> I have a 64 F100 with a small V8. It's either a 289 or a
> 292 - apparently, Ford put both engines in the 64 F100. My
> question is this: is there any difference between the 289
> and the 292 (besides the 3 cubes, I mean!) I can't imagine
> that there would be much difference. If there is any
> difference, how can you tell them apart? Is there anyone
> out there who could give me a little history on that
> engine - when and why it was used, obvious
> benefits/problems, etc.? One obvious benefit of MY engine
> is that it is still running! :)
> Also, is there anyone else out there who has a 64 F100?
> Just curious! Thanks!
>
> Jim Tino
> 64 F100
> Venezuela
>
> == 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, 24 Sep 1999 08:38:26 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292

In a message dated 9/24/99 8:33:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bill online.no
writes:

> The 289 belongs to a new and modern V8 family, the small block as it is
> also called. This same engine is maybe best known as the 302

The only thing I'd add is that the 289 wasn't stock in trucks and that
somewhere in mid-65, the 289's went from a five bolt bell housing to a six
bolt.

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, 24 Sep 1999 08:36:15 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 rebuilds

Marv writes: >>OK, we've GOT to know. What brand of oil, filters, and
intervals?

Castroil 10w40. Motorcraft or sometimes Deutsche(Autozone brand). 5000
miles(oil and filter).


Larry ask: >>Where these motors run on propane?

No. I run the cheapest gas I can find, that will not give predetonation (valve
ping).


Azie


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:53:32 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

> My 302 powered 73 club wagon, E-300 probably had 4.10 gears, not sure but
> economy? Pooo! Power? Poooo! Ease of
> maintenance? Poooo!

This sounds like my sister's truck ... a pooch, but with her lead foot we
decided it was safer than anything else, and it was available ... its a
3/4ton, with an E4OD, the thing does okay on the interstate with that OD on
it, okay mileage and everything... but for power it sucks ... dunno what
gears are in it, probably 3.73's or something (Dana 60 semi-floater axle if
that helps) ...


> A 302 geared with 4.11 rear end will pull quite nicely but a 351
> (any kind)
> will easily out pull it under every circumstance with taller gears, fewer
> revs, less wear and tear. If you are going to drive your truck back and
> forth to work and occasionallly take a trip to the dump with it a 302 is
> fine but if you are going to use it for a truck, haul loads on a regular
> basis you will tire of that 302 in a big hurry, it has limits.
>

hahahahahaha...don't mean to laugh at you, just lookin back and chucklin at
ourselves, Dad and I said the same thing ... get a 351, then you can pull
that car trailer no problem ... except the 351 he got is in a 250HD, with a
C6 and 4.10 gears ... its not fast or economical either, and it doesn't have
all that much power, frankly we're pretty disappointed. We've had several
351W's before (69 Stang, 2 69 Cougars, 74 Gran Torino Elite) and I know they
weigh less, but there was always more than enough power with the 2V in them,
so we figured with the FI it would be fine (no barn burner, but still pretty
okay) ... hahahaha ... I bumped the timing the other night and it finally
feels like there MIGHT be a V8 under that hood ... but with the C6 the
fastest you want to go for very long is between 60 and 65, anything more
than that, and its just too many revs ...


> Want to talk built? Ok, build the 351 or 400 or 460 by the same
> amount and
> what do you have?

Less money in the bank ?


> A better mouse trap :-) If you already have
> the 302

Oh ... okay ... we can do that ;)

Actually I have built up the 390 in my old half ton, and Dad swears ( I
agree to an extent ) that my truck with the 4V and cam and everything will
just drag his 351 all over the place, even though he's got the 4.10 gears
and I've got 3.50's (my tires are a shade smaller, but not enough to make
this difference up, same tranny) ... and from my experience towing a trailer
with a car on it, I'll have to agree ... even though my motor wasn't built
at all for pulling, its displacement seems to do it justice ... and I still
get better or similar mileage (probably gears comin into play) ...


> So far we're talking legitimate "truck" usage but most of us do more than
> haul heavy loads and many never do so there's the other aspect
> of bigger is
> better.......It's just plain more fun :-)
>

Exactly, my truck's built for commuting, but still hauls more?!? well
anyway its lots of fun and not built for hauling or pulling (hence 1/2 ton
:), the fact that it does is just a nice bonus :)

And I find it odd that everyone talks displacement and 351's, but leaves the
little W's out ... they're the same bore and stroke ... just different heads
and such, which actually have many aftermarket parts available now ... just
something interesting I noticed....

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, 24 Sep 1999 07:56:02 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292

>
> So, all in all, those 2 engines are totally different,,, the 289 engine
> will be easier to find parts for.
>
>

Whew, with no one answering this way I thought I was going nuts! They are
very different engines if you look at them ... the 289 actually started as a
260, and maybe something smaller slightly before that ... in 62 or 3 in the
small cars if I remember right ... anyway parts for a 289 shouldn't be hard
to find ... for a 292, it may be more of a trick ... but you'll definitely
want to find out ...

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, 24 Sep 1999 07:58:37 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 in a 84?

> house. Anybody familiar with this particular swap? I don't have an L&L
> catalog so can't look this up?

I think you're gonna have to look at one of the mounts and see what he's
usin first ... likely block side is just a standard 390 mount ... as for the
frame side of things ... rumor is the 300 mounts were the same before, maybe
they can be used still ??

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, 24 Sep 1999 08:00:10 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets

> I was recently looking at getting new sockets to replaced cracked and
> corroded ones and was shocked at the price of some of the new
> ones - close
> to $20 each!


This doesn't seem right, I thought it was only 3 bucks or so ... I was just
getting mine off of the shelf ... the pig tails they have in the generic
parts sections ...

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, 24 Sep 1999 08:01:20 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - cab mount corrosion

> a freind has 6 or 8 ford pickups 1961-63 none are restored but are
> in fair condition. thay all seem to have a similer problem with
> corrosion on the floor above and including the front cab mounts.
> is their any repair componets for this problem.
>

You're gonna have to get the panels and have new ones welded in to do it
right ...

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, 24 Sep 1999 07:58:43 -0400
From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

Careful, ya never know what Ford coulda done. Azie and a few others STILL
have a hard time believing Tweety's 460 is factory original. A VIN check of
this Bronco is the only way to be sure.

He's right, or look ......under the seat for build sheet, you never know
Marvin
meyer stratford.webgate.net


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:21:52 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Bellhousing bolt patterns

Someone ask: >>Do someone know if the bellhousing bolt pattern of a Ford truck
diesel engine is the same as a 460? Is so, does a 5-speed transmission
from a diesel engine could be bolted on behing a 351M/400-429-460?

I don't know, but if they are the same pattern, then there is no reason you
can't interchange them.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:18:34 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

It occured to me that if you choose one tank to return to it could fill up
if you are actually using the other and you would then run out of gas?
Seems like all you would have to do is run the return to both tanks with a
cross vent at the top just in case :-) I would venture to guess that ford
either does not use the return line with dual tanks or the selector valve
has two inputs for each tank? With a regulator the return line is not
necessary but they are more expensive so OEM's use return lines when they
can I would suspect?

I've only had one vehicle that uses a return line that I know of, back in
the late 60's or early 70's. Newer ones (92-94) I wouldn't know since I
don't work on them :-)

- --
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
- --

> James writes: >>What I wanted to know is if anyone knows if Ford
> used to or does produce a truck or
> van that's got an EFI engine and dual tanks?
>
> Sure did and still do. You need to visit the 80-96 list for
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:39:39 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list

There is a plunger or pin that slides back and forth with a cam on it to
operate the switch. If this pin is frozen it will be very difficult to
break it free since there is no access to it from both ends, only one end so
it can't be driven out. These assemblies are available from ford for $113
including tax. If you have disk brakes the most important part of this assy
is the "residual" valve which controls push back of the pads from the rotors
for better brake pedal.

I haven't had a power unit apart yet but the input shaft is held in with a
large nut and bearings are behind that. The nut controls axial free play as
well as holding the seals etc. I would suspect you can remove this to gain
access to the front seal but you have to be carefull to readjust the free
play in the input or "Steering" shaft when you are done. This should be
essentially zero since any free play here will translate into considerable
free play in the steering linkage. Been there on a manual. Couldn't figure
it out til I noticed the axial movement one day while fooling with it.
Tightened this up and steering improved immensely :-)

- --
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
- --

> > Anyway I have a couple of questions. First the brake
> warning light stays on

> > Second question. The power steering gearbox is leaking at
> the top seal near
> > the flex coupling. I have already bought the kit with all
> the seals and
> > O-rings. Is it a difficult task to put this kit in? Or
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:41:04 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

In a message dated 9/24/99 6:36:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


with dual tanks or the selector valve has two inputs for each tank? >>

Factory return lines for dual tanks use an electric switch similar to the
ones used for switching the tanks on our older fords, just moves the
returning fuel from one tank to the other. Dont need one for the supply
side, as switching merely turns one in tank pump off, and turns the other one
on. I had to run a return on my truck for the Holley Projection. I just ran
it to the front tank, as I could remove the sending unit without dropping the
tank. Way it works is fill both tanks, drive on the front tank until empty,
switch to the rear, when its empty switch back to the front, when thats
almost empty, thats it your done, better be close to a gas station. :)

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:51:34 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Wish, I drive an '89 F250 with a 351W, 4 speed w/od, 2wd dana 60, with
3.73's. (company truck) It can't even pull itself up a good hill with
our small work trailer(3500lbs) in fourth gear. My '70 2bbl C6, 3.50
geared F100 will out pull the F250 any day. I regularly pull a 30' 3250
pound pontoon and haven't found a hill I couldn't be going 60 mph at the
top.

Jason
Big Blocks Rule!





William S. Hart wrote:

> This sounds like my sister's truck ... a pooch, but with her lead foot we
> decided it was safer than anything else, and it was available ... its a
> 3/4ton, with an E4OD, the thing does okay on the interstate with that OD on
> it, okay mileage and everything... but for power it sucks ... dunno what
> gears are in it, probably 3.73's or something (Dana 60 semi-floater axle if
> that helps) ...

>
> hahahahahaha...don't mean to laugh at you, just lookin back and chucklin at
> ourselves, Dad and I said the same thing ... get a 351, then you can pull
> that car trailer no problem ... except the 351 he got is in a 250HD, with a
> C6 and 4.10 gears ... its not fast or economical either, and it doesn't have
> all that much power, frankly we're pretty disappointed.
>
> Just my $.02
> wish
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 08:23:18 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Couple of questions-- Dana-60 rear brake job

>>A trick I recently learned when doing this adjustment in cold weather was to
leave the wheel installed so I could use it's leverage against the cold
grease to get a better feel for free play :-)

Duhhhhh. You know sometimes you've been doing stuff for so long it becomes
routine. Back in the days when drums all around on a two wheel drive was the
most common configuration, we never touched the lug nuts when doing a front
brake job. You just pulled the spindle nut, slid the whole mess off, did the
brakes, serviced the bearings, slid it all back on and adjusted the
bearings. the only thing left was to put the hubcap on. For a long time I
didn't care for discs because of all the extra nuts to deal with. I always
remount the tire and wheel before doing final wheel bearing adjustments, I
guess because that's the way I learned to do it. I wouldn't consider
accurate adjustment any other way. I never use a torque wrench on spindle
nuts. I've got the feel...ahhhhh.

- -- 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: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:12:57 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

> Wish, I drive an '89 F250 with a 351W, 4 speed w/od, 2wd dana 60, with
> 3.73's. (company truck) It can't even pull itself up a good hill with
> our small work trailer(3500lbs) in fourth gear.

Yup, sounds like our 351, but if 4th is OD, then remember you're really
cutting the torque to the rear wheels, to compare them you'd need 3rd on
both ...


> My '70 2bbl C6, 3.50
> geared F100 will out pull the F250 any day. I regularly pull a 30' 3250
> pound pontoon and haven't found a hill I couldn't be going 60 mph at the
> top.
>
> Jason
> Big Blocks Rule!
>

What motor? Guessing FE ?

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, 24 Sep 1999 09:10:57 -0500
From: Dave Jacobs
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

In returning my second tank to form, I noticed the local parts store has two
valves available, one with a return feature and one without. I haven't had
the time to take my nonworking system apart, but the current valve does have
the no-return feature. It's on a '78 F150 4x4. And according to parts store
either valve would work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) [mailto:gpeters3 visteon.com]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 8:19 AM
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

It occured to me that if you choose one tank to return to it
could fill up
if you are actually using the other and you would then run
out of gas?
Seems like all you would have to do is run the return to
both tanks with a
cross vent at the top just in case :-) I would venture to
guess that ford
either does not use the return line with dual tanks or the
selector valve
has two inputs for each tank? With a regulator the return
line is not
necessary but they are more expensive so OEM's use return
lines when they
can I would suspect?

I've only had one vehicle that uses a return line that I
know of, back in
the late 60's or early 70's. Newer ones (92-94) I wouldn't
know since I
don't work on them :-)

--
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
--

> James writes: >>What I wanted to know is if anyone knows
if Ford
> used to or does produce a truck or
> van that's got an EFI engine and dual tanks?
>
> Sure did and still do. You need to visit the 80-96 list
for
== 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, 24 Sep 1999 07:35:06 -0700
From: "J.S.H."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460/Diesel

> Do someone know if the bellhousing bolt pattern of a Ford truck
> diesel engine is the same as a 460?

No,swapped a diesel for a 460 in my father's 84 and bolt paterrns are
different
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:54:41 -0700
From: "James A. Doty"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

Hi:

That's what we (myself and father-in-law) were thinking would happen if you didn't
return
fuel to the same tank it came from.

I'll go check out the other list. Thanks.

James A. Doty
dotyj earthlink.net

am14 daimlerchrysler.com wrote:

> Sure did and still do. You need to visit the 80-96 list for your info. There
> has been several discussions about pumping out of one tank and returning it to
> another tank and causing overflow of raw gas.

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:43:41 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - sealers

Gary P. writes: >> Unless you
are working on a stand with a dry motor you will not be able to get the
conditions you need with RTV to be reliable most of the time. Brown
aircraft sealer absorbs oil and grease (cleaner is still better) since it
has a similar base and is not affected by them as much but it doesn't just
peel off either so pick your poison. This is still my prefered sealer for
close fitting, smooth surfaces like timing covers, thermostat housings and
bearing seals etc. because it's not very fussy but for big floppy gaskets
that won't stay put I really like the fel-pro stuff.

Usually this is up to whatever cranks your tractor, ie, personal preferences.
Mine just happens to be 3M weather stripping adhesive. It is an ugly bright
yellow, but I have extremely good luck with it. I started using it years ago on
the FE intake manifolds, and it worked for me. I figure if it worked there, it
ought to work E V E R Y W H E R E.

Azie


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:58:22 -0700
From: "James A. Doty"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

Hi Gary:

Maybe I should consider a regulator then. I don't know about the cost, but
it would be a lot less complex than returning the fuel to the tanks.

Thanks.

James A. Doty
dotyj earthlink.net

"Peters, Gary (G.R.)" wrote:

> It occured to me that if you choose one tank to return to it could fill up
> if you are actually using the other and you would then run out of gas?
> Seems like all you would have to do is run the return to both tanks with a
> cross vent at the top just in case :-) I would venture to guess that ford
> either does not use the return line with dual tanks or the selector valve
> has two inputs for each tank? With a regulator the return line is not
> necessary but they are more expensive so OEM's use return lines when they
> can I would suspect?

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:58:25 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

We're all assuming, of course, that the 70 is also a 351W?

My 75, E-150 van came with a 351W which had plenty of (gobs of) power and
got 16 mpg on the highway untill I ran it out of oil one day :-(
Unfortunately it also had some serious leaks :-( But......did I replace it
with a mighty 302? No! I popped in the world's most powerful stock small
block ever made, the trusty 351C, 4V and........well.......it wasn't a
pretty sight :-( After a couple of months fighting with that poopless piece
a $%^^$# # I stuck an old worn out (200k) 429 from a 70 Merc wagon in and it
ran like a scared rabbit but I had to stop at every gas station to buy oil
until the timing chain fell off. Then I rebuilt my current 460 in a class I
took, popped it in and have been smiling ever since :-) There were a few
hickups but I'll never, ever go back :-) That engine's been it two trucks
and, since it was rebuilt with stock bores, may wind up in more before it
dies :-)

Keep in mind that this van had a standard ratio C-6 which has pretty tall
first gear. Had it been a wide ratio who knows what my future would have
been? I loved that Cleveland engine but it absolutely refused to get off
the line with that setup :-(

I tried 3.5, 3.25, 4.11 gears in it with several of these engines and I have
since learned that ,among other things, the tranny ratio was most of my
trouble. It had no guts with the 3.25 and I couldn't pass a gas station
with the 4.11's but I had also "custom" curved my own dizzy (460) too.....we
won't even get into that and then there's the 33's I just had to put on! :-(

- --
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
- --

> Wish, I drive an '89 F250 with a 351W, 4 speed w/od, 2wd dana 60, with
> 3.73's. (company truck) It can't even pull itself up a good hill with
> our small work trailer(3500lbs) in fourth gear. My '70 2bbl C6, 3.50
> geared F100 will out pull the F250 any day. I regularly pull
> a 30' 3250
> pound pontoon and haven't found a hill I couldn't be going 60
> mph at the
> top.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 09:58:04 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

William S. Hart wrote:

> Yup, sounds like our 351, but if 4th is OD, then remember you're really
> cutting the torque to the rear wheels, to compare them you'd need 3rd on
> both ...

The tranny has granny low and overdrive(fifth gear). So technically,
it's a five speed.

> What motor? Guessing FE ?

> FE's are my personal favorite, but the 429 and 460's are darn good, too!

Jason

>
> == 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, 24 Sep 1999 10:21:38 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

Ya know where I found the build sheet on the lincoln? Under the dash pad
:-)

- --
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
- --

> He's right, or look ......under the seat for build sheet, you
> never know
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:11:31 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks

Make sure you get a second opinion on the regulator. I'm not and efi guy so
am not sure about the reasons they do certain things. The pressure they
supply to the fuel rails is fairly high and there may be some reason they
have to bleed fuel off, not sure.

From a simple physics stand point, pressure is pressure and if you control
that you also control volume and flow so it makes sense to me but.......:-)

- --
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
- --

> Maybe I should consider a regulator then. I don't know about
> the cost, but
> it would be a lot less complex than returning the fuel to the tanks.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:14:08 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Factory Original 460 Issue (again)

In a message dated 9/24/99 9:24:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
meyer stratford.webgate.net writes:

> Careful, ya never know what Ford coulda done. Azie and a few others STILL
> have a hard time believing Tweety's 460 is factory original. A VIN check
of
>
> this Bronco is the only way to be sure.
>
> He's right, or look ......under the seat for build sheet, you never know

Build sheets seem to be far and few between in the older trucks. BTW--It's
officially called a Truck Specification List or TSL.

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, 24 Sep 1999 11:07:02 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - sealers

Yeah, I think the felpro stuff is the same thing, just packaged under their
name :-) I like it because I'm impatient and it drys quickly. One question
remains and that is how well it holds up over time and does it get hard and
brittle with the heat of the engine etc.? I only use it on one side to hold
the gasket in place and then use other sealers on the other side or none at
all.

Do you usually put it on both sides?

- --
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
- --

> Mine just happens to be 3M weather stripping adhesive. It is
> an ugly bright
> yellow, but I have extremely good luck with it. I started
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:26:56 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence

Boy! I'm still having trouble with this one! I once watched a movie called
"Crazy Larry and Bloody Mary" where they jumped a flat car with a big long
detroit chunk of iron and it was easily 8' off the ground at some point,
landed on it's nose and, unlike most movies, they were trying to put the
front end back together in the next scene. You could litterally see the
frame bend when it hit.

I've jumped mx bikes and landed wrong, in one case a square 4' drop off and
a front wheel landing which, when my body caught up with the
seat.........well.....needless to say there were forces involved.

The I-beam is strong but so is a properly trussed dana. How many of these
jumps did you say you've done? Without damage? When's the last time you
had the front end aligned?

- --
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
- --

> last very long with the abuse I give. Dont forget my current
> record is 8 ft
> up. Lisa was there. Remember that Spine tingling crunch as
> the front bumper
> tossed those rocks over the hood? Came down full force on
> the front end.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:28:56 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - sealers

In a message dated 9/24/99 11:25:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:

> One question
> remains and that is how well it holds up over time and does it get hard and
> brittle with the heat of the engine etc.? I only use it on one side to
hold
> the gasket in place and then use other sealers on the other side or none at
> all.

I like none at all for most everything. The only place I use anything is
on the FE Intake corners, and oil pan corners as recommended. I stick with
Black RTV. My theory for none is that if the gasket surfaces are so
irregular to need sealer then something is wrong. How do I hold the gasket
in place during assembly you ask? Just like the old-timers did with sewing
thread through a few bolt holes.

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, 24 Sep 1999 10:26:21 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> We're all assuming, of course, that the 70 is also a 351W?

No, the '70 F100 has an almighty 390 FE.
No 351w's for me!

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 07:37:46 -0800
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

Subject: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

>Found these in the local Grass Valley newspaper 4WD Section:
>
>79 Ford Bronco, Rare factory 460, AT, many extras,
>very good condition, $3500 firm
>530-265-8682 or 530-274-1112



>Erik Marquez wrote:
>>
>> welllllllll, since there is no such thing as a factory bronco with a 460,
>> I'll take the rest of the ad with a grain of salt.
>>
>>
>
> Never say never, but I'd need to see the original sticker or have it
>proved to me through a serial number or something.

OK, I'll admit, I typed before thinking about all the weird combos mother
ford has let slip from the factory. I should have qualified the statement,
in addition to saying it with a little more professionalism.

The Bronco was never advertised, or in the main stream offered with a 460.
Would be really cool if it was an OEM job though. I have just seen two many
(twice) instances of a Bronco owner thinking his 460 was factory, when in
fact it was transplanted by an unscrupulous previous owner, and passed off
to an unknowing buyer. BTW one of these times was a used car lot, I saw a
guy looking at the Bronco, and naturally went over to say hi. The salesman
was trying to get the buyer to believe the 460 installed was stock, and
there fore worth an extra 5k, being so rare...after a few points raised by
me...clutch linkage under the dash, but c-6 installed, hack job motor
mounts, little emission decal that clearly stated "Engine Family 351M/400"
The salesmen backed down and admitted his only basis for declaring it a OEM
install, was info from the former owner who traded it in.....OBTW anybody in
Denver have a 78 Bronco with a 460/c-6/208 combo....that was told it was
stock???? But can't seem to get the denver smog stations to belive ya?

Erik Marquez
bronco78 mosquitonet.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mosquitonet.com/~bronco78
Home of the BB decal

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:44:29 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Ok, so we're not comparing efi windsors with carbed, we're comparing larger
engines with totally different characteristics.......:-) If I had but
thought, I'd have realized that the windsor wasn't around in 70 :-) As I
recall they came out in 73?

- --
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
- --

> > We're all assuming, of course, that the 70 is also a 351W?
>
> No, the '70 F100 has an almighty 390 FE.
> No 351w's for me!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:04:25 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

> Ok, so we're not comparing efi windsors with carbed, we're
> comparing larger
> engines with totally different characteristics.......:-) If I had but
> thought, I'd have realized that the windsor wasn't around in 70 :-) As I
> recall they came out in 73?
>

Dunno about trucks, but we've got 3 69 351W's at home ... 1 in an original
owner 69 Fastback 'stang too ... ask Mom, she'll tell you that motor's never
been out ... valve covers have never been off either :)

69 Was the first year for the 351W and the ONLY year for the 4V! yes, I
know they put them in trucks in the mid/early 80's, but those manifolds have
lots more holes in them and are missing 2 bolt holes ...

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, 24 Sep 1999 10:58:29 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
As I
> recall they came out in 73?

The 351W was introduced in 1969, but I'm sure this was in cars first. I
couldn't tell you when they were put in trucks.

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:14:05 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - sealers

I learned this in school but ford factory engine builders apparently never
went to the same school since all fords I've ever disassembled have had
sealer on every stinking gasket which only stands to reason if you don't
want them coming back for waranties.

One 351W I did a valve job on had epoxy in the intake manifold surface to
fill a void from the casting operation or machining glitch. I had to have
the heads milled and the intake touched up to make it fit back on there
right because I gouged it trying to clean the gasket off, what a mess!
(thought the epoxy was part of the gasket so I kept digging at it) :-(

- --
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
- --

> I like none at all for most everything. The only place I
> use anything is
> on the FE Intake corners, and oil pan corners as recommended.
> I stick with
> Black RTV.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:07:06 -0400
From: "Clem Salek"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale

I know a guy w/ a Camper Special with a 460, C6, AC, a bed mounted spare
located in a door on the side of the bed, some sort of a "sliding bumper"
for towing? purposes, and a toolbox build into the bed...Stock from Ford. A
really neat truck!

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com
[mailto:owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of JUMPINFORD aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 4:00 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale


In a message dated 9/24/99 12:10:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bbeyer pacifier.com writes:


it
"Grass" Valley! >>

Careful, ya never know what Ford coulda done. Azie and a few others STILL
have a hard time believing Tweety's 460 is factory original. A VIN check of
this Bronco is the only way to be sure.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"
== 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, 24 Sep 1999 09:26:32 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Thanks for your message at 10:26 AM 9/24/99 -0500, Jason & Kathy Kendrick.
Your message was:
>Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>>
>> We're all assuming, of course, that the 70 is also a 351W?
>
>No, the '70 F100 has an almighty 390 FE.
>No 351w's for me!

OK...I'll bite. Why not?


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: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:35:49 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Dennis,
I've never owned a 351W, but I've been driving 390's for 11 years and
I'm just really fond of them. Besides, I can't see going to a smaller,
weaker(power) engine. The only reason I would possibly own a Windsor
would be for the availability of parts. Or if it was free! As it is, I
have plenty of parts to repair my 390, if it ever breaks!(G)
Jason



> >No 351w's for me!
>
> OK...I'll bite. Why not?
>
> Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:36:35 -0400
From: "Clem Salek"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - sealers

I've always used Permatex's "High Tack". It comes in an aerosol can for,
say large thin gaskets, and my personal favorite: Brushable form. I find
that this stuff works better as it ages, and therfore, an old can that's
somewhat "dried out" makes for the best gasket adhesive.
Clem


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com
[mailto:owner-61-79-list ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of
am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 10:44 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - sealers


Gary P. writes: >> Unless you
are working on a stand with a dry motor you will not be able to get the
conditions you need with RTV to be reliable most of the time. Brown
aircraft sealer absorbs oil and grease (cleaner is still better) since it
has a similar base and is not affected by them as much but it doesn't just
peel off either so pick your poison. This is still my prefered sealer for
close fitting, smooth surfaces like timing covers, thermostat housings and
bearing seals etc. because it's not very fussy but for big floppy gaskets
that won't stay put I really like the fel-pro stuff.

Usually this is up to whatever cranks your tractor, ie, personal
preferences.
Mine just happens to be 3M weather stripping adhesive. It is an ugly bright
yellow, but I have extremely good luck with it. I started using it years
ago on
the FE intake manifolds, and it worked for me. I figure if it worked there,
it
ought to work E V E R Y W H E R E.

Azie


== 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, 24 Sep 1999 12:53:58 EDT
From: SevnD2 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears.

Well of course the 4V cleveland isn't going to pull of the line unless you
rev it while holding the clutch in ( if you have a clutch ) or have the right
automatic behind it ! I know that if your cleveland had been a 2V version
with the right carb and intake , it would not have been so poor off the line .
You are right , if given the choice of having a 351C , 429 or 460 , I would
choose the larger 429 or 460 for pulling and hauling !
Still I will say most people would be completely happy with the performance
and economy of the cleveland I have described . Unless they have been used to
big block performance already !....


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.