 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 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. 
|