 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 #345 Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com Precedence: bulk 61-79-list-digest Saturday, September 25 1999 Volume 03 : Number 345 ======================================================================= 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 - dual tanks RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco FTE 61-79 - 289 or 292 RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco FTE 61-79 - Sealers RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. FTE 61-79 - Re: Dual Tanks RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. FTE 61-79 - bulb sockets FTE 61-79 - Brake light RE: FTE 61-79 - bulb sockets FTE 61-79 - 289/292 RE: FTE 61-79 - bulb sockets RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 Heads RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco FTE 61-79 - Dual tanks FTE 61-79 - sealers FTE 61-79 - 351W Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale Re: FTE 61-79 - Brake light Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. FTE 61-79 - Web Page Updatres 67-72 owners Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating Re: FTE 61-79 - RE; New to the list RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence FTE 61-79 - Progress Report Re: FTE 61-79 - RE; New to the list RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence FTE 61-79 - Big score! Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C finally running Re: FTE 61-79 - sealers Re: FTE 61-79 - Big score! RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating FTE 61-79 - Well it's a gearbox again! ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Pat Brown Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - dual tanks Gary, James, Most EFI fuel regulators make use of a return line - that's how they regulate, by dumping the excess pressure. However, they may or may not be set to one specific pressure. The fuel pressure at the injector needs to be some amount above the manifold pressure, which of course varies with throttle, speed, and load. So, as these conditions change, you get a constantly varying pressure at the fuel rails. Now, wish just mentioned that '98 up mustangs do NOT use a return line, I'd be interested in what is used. I suspect they have an accumulator/reservoir of sorts, and/or the fuel pump itself is controlled (pulse modulated power) to set the pressure. James wrote: > 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. > > "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? - -- Pat Brown Sebastopol, California == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:10:43 -0400 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list You know, a lot of engines get a bad rap due to bad mileage as a result of factory decisions which are not in the best interests of the owners. In many cases, carefull attention to cam selection and carb selection will make a new econo demon out of a sluggish engine. 360's are not known for economy but some do pretty well so it can be done, just not with stock equipment in most cases :-) I still dream of a 15 mpg 460 some day......I'll let you all know when it happens :-) One trick I keep hearing with proportioning valves that won't go off is to stomp on the brakes real hard a couple of times but if the valve is old and the pin is frozen......:-( In virtually every case I can recall, mine recentered themselves after a few stops without any special attention from me. - -- 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 - -- > stem seals; the truck now has 41,000 miles on it. It runs > like a top, but > only gets 10 MPG on a good day. I also had the problem with the brake == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:11:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Pat Brown Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. Jason wrote: > 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. Well, there you go, you just brought tears to Azie and Bill B's eyes. . . :-) - -- Pat Brown Sebastopol, California == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 19:34:27 +0200 From: "Bill Brox" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. 351 Windsor came in 1969 as 2v and 4v.... 250 hp and 290 hp. In 1970 the 4v was dropped and it has since been a 2v power plant... An excellent engine, good for better low end torque than the 351C due to smaller valves and ports.. Bill - ---------- > From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) > To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com' > Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. > Date: 24. september 1999 17:44 > > 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 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:36:37 -0400 From: "Serian" Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco > 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. According to Ford's literature on the 77-79 Bronco, the only engines they were given at the factory was the M-block 351 and 400, so if it has a factory installed 460, its either a special order or one of those undocumented "we have an extra one lying around, so lets use it somewhere" scenarios. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:56:17 -0500 From: John Strauss Subject: 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 ... > The first Windsor motor was 221 cubic inches, introduced in 1962. The 292 is called a "Y-block" and was the only V8 option for trucks in 1964. _ _| ~~. John Strauss \, *_} jstrauss inetport.com \( Texas Fight! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:58:43 -0400 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco If real, it's more likely one of the production managers or engineering managers wanted one so they ran it down the line. Parts plants do that all the time but it's more of a hassel on a vehicle assy line unless the changes are pretty darned simple. In this case it would require differnt frame brackets which were not designed to fit the bronco frame, mounts and some wireing along with springs etc. so he'd have to be pretty important for this to happen but I'm sure it happens. It could also have been built at a prototype shop after basic assy on the line but, again, the prospective owner would have to be pretty darned important to get them to go to this much trouble. It may even have been a dealer installation which is essentially considered "factory" by most. Some "factory" items used to be dealer installed as a normal part of the process. One possible exception might be a special order by the border patrol. We know they used broncos and may have ordered some intercepter versions for some reason. Then there's the possib....and maybe......:-) - -- 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 - -- > According to Ford's literature on the 77-79 Bronco, > the only engines they were given at the factory was > the M-block 351 and 400, so if it has a factory > installed 460, its either a special order or one of those > undocumented "we have an extra one lying around, so > lets use it somewhere" scenarios. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:04:02 -0700 From: Marv Miller Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sealers Azie wrote: >Mine just happens to be 3M weather stripping adhesive. It is an ugly bright >yellow, but I have extremely good luck with it. It's also available in black. Exact same stuff, different color. Works identically, i.e. GREAT! - -M- - -- Marv Miller mailto:ae722 lafn.org == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:57:56 -0400 From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco According to Ford's literature on the 77-79 Bronco, the only engines they were given at the factory was the M-block 351 and 400, so if it has a factory installed 460, its either a special order or one of those undocumented "we have an extra one lying around, so lets use it somewhere" scenarios. I have one of those undocumented examples, 1970 Mercury Cyclone 429, seems it was built before the build sheet and in a rush for the Eastern Ontario Car Dealers Show, for display (AKA Motion Car Show Toronto). Marvin meyer stratford.webgate.net == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:54:21 -0400 From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. 351 Windsor came in 1969 as 2v and 4v.... 250 hp and 290 hp. In 1970 the 4v was dropped and it has since been a 2v power plant... An excellent engine, good for better low end torque than the 351C due to smaller valves and ports.. This is what I currently have sitting on my 302, casting # DOOE. Pulls my 5000# boat out of the water, and my 73 T-bird on the car trailer.3.50 gears, Edelbrock Torqer(289), 4118 Holley. And no I don't travel out West through the Rockies!!, just to work and groceries and fishing(not as often these days). Marvin meyer stratford.webgate.net == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:20:13 -0700 From: Marv Miller Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Dual Tanks Gary Peters wrote: > 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. One of the things we're forgetting is that the fuel in an EFI system must be CLEAN! Those little nozzles get clogged if they're trying to pass gunk. The fuel bypassed back to the tank has been filtered already when it gets to the bypass, and will get recirculated through the filter at least once again before it gets injected. This method of constantly circulating the fuel through a filter keeps any crud from building up and just floating around in the bottom of the tank. Be aware, however, that it is necessary to change the filter a little more frequently. The inside of a bypassed-type fuel system will be a lot cleaner, on average, than one with just a regulator. Incidentally, the bypass valve IS the regulator. As Martha says, "And that's a GOOD thing". - -M- - -- Marv Miller mailto:ae722 lafn.org == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:23:21 -0500 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco > I have one of those undocumented examples, 1970 Mercury Cyclone > 429, seems > it was built before the build sheet and in a rush for the > Eastern Ontario > Car Dealers Show, for display (AKA Motion Car Show Toronto). > What's so undocumented on these ? There aren't many of them (I want one really bad), but there are a couple thousand total (if you count Spoiler II production)... That was actually the whole point of the Cyclone, big motor, med. body ... smallest you could get was the 351C that year ... this is Cyclone only of course, Montego (same body) had other options ... unless I'm misreading the literature I've got ... 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 13:33:10 -0500 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. > An excellent engine, good for better low end torque than the 351C due to > smaller valves and ports.. > > This is what I currently have sitting on my 302, casting # DOOE. The heads I hope, as the intake manifold won't fit quite right (about a half inch wider!) ... if I remember right aren't the valves bigger than the 302's from the factory ? That might explain why your 302 does so well, it can actually breathe! 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 13:27:39 -0500 From: "John LaGrone" Subject: 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 :-) (drool, turn green) I always wanted cornering lights. I haven't found a suitable donor yet, but some day..... Nothing beats an old luxury car for 500 miles of wire and vacuum hose and other odds and ends of neat gadgets. - -- 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 15:06:06 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brake light Cliff writes: >>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? Yo Cliff.... If memory serves me correctly this "Brake light" is also an indicator that the Emergency brake is on. Check your emergency brake and make sure it is coming off the Switch far enough to break connection when it is released... Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:14:15 -0400 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - bulb sockets Yeah, once I got started I just started unbolting everything, just in case :-) I have over a pickup load of trim and light parts I took off including the brake stuff, steering column etc.. Trying to figure out how to get it to the junk yard with no wheels or axles on 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 - -- > (drool, turn green) I always wanted cornering lights. I > haven't found a > suitable donor yet, but some day..... Nothing beats an old > luxury car for > 500 miles of wire and vacuum hose and other odds and ends of > neat gadgets. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:15:18 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - 289/292 Tin in S. America writes: >> It's either a 289 or a > 292 - apparently, Ford put both engines in the 64 F100. Not in the USA, they didn't... Only 292 was offered in V8. They have no commonality - none - nada - Zilch. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:25:47 -0700 From: "Southerland, Rich" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - bulb sockets What I have done in the past is left the front wheels on and had it towed to the junkyard. Then I popped off the bearing dust cap, removed the nut and off came the rotors and wheels (together) which were then thrown in my truck... - -----Original Message----- From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) [mailto:gpeters3 visteon.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 12:14 PM To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com' Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - bulb sockets Yeah, once I got started I just started unbolting everything, just in case :-) I have over a pickup load of trim and light parts I took off including the brake stuff, steering column etc.. Trying to figure out how to get it to the junk yard with no wheels or axles on 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 - -- > (drool, turn green) I always wanted cornering lights. I > haven't found a > suitable donor yet, but some day..... Nothing beats an old > luxury car for > 500 miles of wire and vacuum hose and other odds and ends of > neat gadgets. == 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 15:10:45 -0400 From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 Heads The heads I hope, as the intake manifold won't fit quite right (about a half inch wider!) ... if I remember right aren't the valves bigger than the 302's from the factory ? That might explain why your 302 does so well, it can actually breathe! Yes just the heads, but I saved the rare intake for future playing. Valves are 1.85/1.55 with 59cc = 9.8 compression Marvin meyer stratford.webgate.net == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:16:20 -0400 From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 460 Bronco What's so undocumented on these ? There aren't many of them (I want one really bad), but there are a couple thousand total (if you count Spoiler II production)... It was the paper work, usually the car is built according to the sheet, and you have to have a customer before an order is issued to proceed with producing a car. That is the info I've been given anyway, I've never personally worked for an Assembly Plant. And that's another real good topic to bring up some day........$$$$$$$ Marvin meyer stratford.webgate.net == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:32:40 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dual tanks Gary writes: >>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 The later models with FI and dual tanks use a switching device that is dual gated. One for return and one for delivery. The problem has been that one gate(the delivery side) will switch, but for some reason the return doesn't switch, hense the excess fuel is returned to the wrong tank. Ford should have used a valve that had both gates on one mechanical lever - arm or whatever actuator they chose, so that one could not operate unless both operated. Ain't "hind sight" wonderful. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:53:31 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - sealers Gary writes: >>Do you usually put it on both sides? Yep.. Sometimes it can be a bit stubborn coming off, but usually the greater part of it comes off fairly easily. I'm married to an Irish redhead, so stubborness I'm used to. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 15:58:38 -0400 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351W Gary writes:, >>I'd have realized that the windsor wasn't around in 70 :-) As I recall they came out in 73? I believe '79 was its introduction... Could be wrong. Have been many times... Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 13:11:48 -0700 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale Let's see now different tranny, different mounts, different exhaust, etc. Nope, sorry, my momma always told me if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck. This doofus is trying to pull a fast one and some poor sucker is probably gonna fall for it. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" - -----Original Message----- From: JUMPINFORD aol.com To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 1:00 AM 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. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:26:57 -0700 From: "Cliff" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Brake light - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 12:06 PM Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brake light > Cliff writes: >>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? > > Yo Cliff.... If memory serves me correctly this "Brake light" is also an > indicator that the Emergency brake is on. Check your emergency brake and make > sure it is coming off the Switch far enough to break connection when it is > released... I had thought of that I just haven't looked into it yet. This power steering gearbox is top priority right now. It's leaking really bad. It will pump it all out in a sixty mile round trip. That's pretty bad if you ask me. I got the gearbox off, and everything was going great until I put it on the bench to do the repairs. It looks like I'm going to have to put the whole kit in it. Due to a mistake of mine once I got it off the truck. I managed to let all the steel balls go into the piston of the thing. That's Murphy's Law though isn't it? Oh well I planned on giving it all weekend, I just didn't want it to be literally all weekend.:-) Thanks, Azie == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:32:02 -0700 From: "Cliff" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) To: Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 10:10 AM Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - New to the list > You know, a lot of engines get a bad rap due to bad mileage as a result of > factory decisions which are not in the best interests of the owners. In > many cases, carefull attention to cam selection and carb selection will make > a new econo demon out of a sluggish engine. 360's are not known for economy > but some do pretty well so it can be done, just not with stock equipment in > most cases :-) > > I still dream of a 15 mpg 460 some day......I'll let you all know when it > happens :-) Yeah I know what you mean. My 360 seems to have quite a bit of pep to it though. And I hate to say it, but I get 13 mpg on my 360, even with 2500 lbs of cynder blocks in the back. This was over a 30 miles trip. I have no complaints there except I wish it were more like 18-20 mpg. but what are you going to do? I did just rebuild the carb, and installed a new distributer though. > > One trick I keep hearing with proportioning valves that won't go off is to > stomp on the brakes real hard a couple of times but if the valve is old and > the pin is frozen......:-( In virtually every case I can recall, mine > recentered themselves after a few stops without any special attention from > me. > I'll give it a try if I ever get this steering gearbox put back together? Wish me luck.:-) Talk to you later, Cliff == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:44:49 EDT From: TBeeee aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New to the list In a message dated 9/24/99 5:36:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, clpfea iex.net writes: > > I'll give it a try if I ever get this steering gearbox put back together? > Wish me luck.:-) > Good Luck! 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 18:08:12 EDT From: SHill48337 aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating I have noticed some discussion of ring seating over the past 2 weeks or so. I am like several of you on this List and have been taught that a fairly rough crosshatched surface on the cylinder expedites seating of the rings. I have seen photos taken with a microscope of the cylinder after honing and then after different stages of run-in of the engine. After honing there are "peaks and valleys," but not like viewing a threaded surface. The peaks are randomly spaced and appear to be more like little lines of metal foil standing up. During the run-in process the lines of foil are bent and pressed into the valleys making the overall surface fairly smooth, work hardened, and most importantly the cylinder now conforms with the rings and allows maxim contact. That is what I believed until a few days ago. Then down at the machine shop where I have a block being bored and honed a Hastings Rep showed up and we got into a discussion. I said something about wanting a fairly rough surface on the cylinders and he said that now days with the materials used in the rings and the precision with which they are made that a smoother bore was better for seating the rings. The machine shop agreed and I finally said OK. Did I miss something over the past few years? The rough surface always worked well for me. The difference I guess is now my little lines of metal foil will be shorter and in my opinion less capable of compensating for irregularities of the cylinder or rings. Please help set my mind at ease. Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:44:50 EDT From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence In a message dated 9/24/99 3:31:18 PM !!!First Boot!!!, gpeters3 visteon.com writes: jumps did you say you've done? Without damage? When's the last time you had the front end aligned? >> Not sure on a total, but its quite a few. Only damage was bent front rims, but some load range "D" tires took care of that. Only aligned the truck once, last october when I replaced a bad draglink. (not from Jumpin, I had just got the Bird, and was still fixin stuff like that) Darrell Duggan 74 F-350 "Tweety" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:46:37 EDT From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Bronco w/ 460 ForSale In a message dated 9/24/99 4:27:14 PM !!!First Boot!!!, c_salek gpinet.com writes: located in a door on the side of the bed, some sort of a "sliding bumper" for towing? >> Just described Tweety. The sliding bumper was made to slide out to protect a huge camper that extended about 2 ft past the bed. Darrell Duggan 74 F-350 "Tweety" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:39:38 +0200 From: "Bill Brox" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. The first 351 W had bigger valves, later I mean they got the same size as the 302, at least for some years, after that I don't know. I could be wrong.... My 351 W from 1975 had small valves and small ports... I made them bigger... Bill - ---------- > From: William S. Hart > To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com > Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs everything, and gears. > Date: 24. september 1999 20:33 > > > An excellent engine, good for better low end torque than the 351C due to > > smaller valves and ports.. > > > > This is what I currently have sitting on my 302, casting # DOOE. > > > The heads I hope, as the intake manifold won't fit quite right (about a half > inch wider!) ... if I remember right aren't the valves bigger than the 302's > from the factory ? That might explain why your 302 does so well, it can > actually breathe! > > 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 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 20:06:36 -0500 From: joe delaurentis Subject: FTE 61-79 - Web Page Updatres 67-72 owners Hello all, my website http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://web.p3.net/~shoman has been somewhat updated it now includes a better guestbook and a NEW parts/for sale/ wanted section...So if you are a 67-72 owner stop in thanks Joe 68 4x4 390 c6/np205 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:03:49 EDT From: TBeeee aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating In a message dated 9/24/99 6:11:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SHill48337 aol.com writes: > I said something about wanting a fairly rough surface > on the cylinders and he said that now days with the materials used in the > rings and the precision with which they are made that a smoother bore was > better for seating the rings. I always thought that the cross-hatched pattern was designed for oil retention and less friction during the seating process. Perhaps now with the oils and materials available that it is less important. The machine shop that honed my 240 block went with a traditional cross-hatched pattern and I am installing NOS Hi-Lo Piston Rings from Ford. I hope all will go "smooth" so to speak. 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 15:44:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Pat Brown Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE; New to the list Cliff wrote: > Hello all, Wecome aboard, Cliff . . > 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? My favorite place to look is the brake pedal rubber, at 55k it should be in decent shape, slightly worn at the lower right corner. At 155k, the corner will probably be worn though to metal . Of course, some one may have replaced it, but it's a good place to start. > 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. Discs or drum? Drum has a differential valve, discs have proportioning valve. Recently I installed the dash warning light on my '70 F250 (drum), it had been missing for the 13 years I've owned the truck. As expected, the light remained on. After completing a brake job, and bleeding the brakes, I left the one bleeder open while MASHING the pedal as hard as I could. I heard a loud "POP". Then I closed that bleeder, and opened an opposite (front or rear). With the key on, I CAREFULLY pushed the pedal until the light went out. You may need to try opening both ends (one at a time) to get the initial pop, depending on which way the piston was pushed. > 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 Ford box or Bendix box? If Bendix, I'll have a tip for you . . . Remove the flex coupling and run the engine before you take the box out, see if you can pinpoint the leak BEFORE disassembly. Ooops, too late. I see from a later posting that you already have the box apart. Anyway, I had a Bendix box leaking (well, squirting) fluid from the input shaft area, a seal kit didn't help. It turned out to an o-ring that resides between the input shaft and the smaller concentric torsion bar. The o-ring wasn't a part of the kit, the manual said "no further disassembly is possible". I pressed out a pin, took the two apart, and replaced the o-ring without any problems - leak fixed. - -- Pat Brown Sebastopol, California == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 14:49:16 -0700 From: sdelanty sonic.net Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence Gary wrote: >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. Ahhh, that would be "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry". Good flick from 1974, with Susan George and Peter Fonda. It's got a lot of *excellent* car chase footage... they really beat the snot out of that big Mopar! It's one of my favorite "car chase" movies. Sadly, it appears to be unavailable on home video. If anyone knows where to get a copy of it please let me know... Steve http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:59:00 -0700 From: "Cliff" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Progress Report Hi All, Well I got the Power Steering Gearbox off. I didn't take off the Pitman arm, until I had to. I took it lose at the ball joint instead; in the future I will take off the pitman arm. If there is another one in the future? You have to have it off in order to save yourself some time. In other words follow the instructions. Anyway, I have it all torn apart and laying on the bench cleaned and ready to put back together. I've already replaced the two seals at the top and bottom. And now I get to have fun putting those little steel balls back in, in the right places. And get it all put back together so I can put it back on the truck tomorrow. Hopefully? I did find the oil leak on the front part of the engine though today. It appears my oil pressure sending unit is leaking. So that's leak is found. These two leaks are the last ones I think? I'll let you know how the rest of it goes. Talk to you later. Cliff == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 19:19:26 -0700 From: "Cliff" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE; New to the list - ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Brown To: Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 3:44 PM Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE; New to the list > Cliff wrote: > > Hello all, > > Wecome aboard, Cliff . . > > My favorite place to look is the brake pedal rubber, at 55k it > should be in decent shape, slightly worn at the lower right > corner. At 155k, the corner will probably be worn though to > metal . Of course, some one may have replaced it, but it's > a good place to start. > Thanks for the welcome aboard. Now that you mention it, I usually check that too. I must have forgot to this time? It is in pretty good shape though. Anyway, it's no big deal really, I'm just curious if the mileage is true? > > 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. > > Discs or drum? Drum has a differential valve, discs have proportioning > valve. Recently I installed the dash warning light on my '70 > F250 (drum), it had been missing for the 13 years I've owned the truck. > As expected, the light remained on. After completing a brake job, > and bleeding the brakes, I left the one bleeder open while MASHING > the pedal as hard as I could. I heard a loud "POP". Then I closed > that bleeder, and opened an opposite (front or rear). With the key > on, I CAREFULLY pushed the pedal until the light went out. You may > need to try opening both ends (one at a time) to get the initial > pop, depending on which way the piston was pushed. > Hey it's worth a try! I've gotten some good tricks to try from you guys here. I don't want to replace it if it doesn't need it. But the light staying on does bother me. By the way, The front brakes are disk and the back brakes are drum. > > 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 > > Ford box or Bendix box? If Bendix, I'll have a tip for you . . . > > Remove the flex coupling and run the engine before you take the > box out, see if you can pinpoint the leak BEFORE disassembly. > I guess it's Ford, it's got it written all over it. I'm replacing everything the kit had in it. I cleaned it real good inside and out, and now I get to put it all back together now. Thanks for the tips though. I'll let you know how it goes. I'm taking a break right now. I'm going to get back at it here in a minute. Thanks again, Cliff == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:46:48 -0700 From: sdelanty sonic.net Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence Gary wrote: >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. Ahhh, that would be "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry". Good flick from 1974, with Susan George and Peter Fonda. It's got a lot of *excellent* car chase footage... they really beat the snot out of that big Mopar! It's one of my favorite "car chase" movies. Sadly, it appears to be unavailable on home video. If anyone knows where to get a copy of it please let me know... Steve http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:30:27 EDT From: Bad4dFilly aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence In a message dated 09/24/1999 1:51:57 AM !!!First Boot!!!, JUMPINFORD aol.com writes: up. Lisa was there. Remember that Spine tingling crunch as the front bumpe= r=20 tossed those rocks over the hood? Came down full force on the front end. =20 Thats 5100 lbs, at 55 mph, with the 8 ft drop added in equals SERIOUS force. >> "Defence" is spelled "defense" just thought I'd let y'all know! LOL And yes I was there and it was a pretty scary moment!!!!!! But we had fun! =P *~*~Lisa and Envy~*~* *~*~Silly boys...trucks are for girls!~*~* == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:41:08 -0400 From: Ken Payne Subject: FTE 61-79 - Big score! Hi gang, nothing like a parts truck to get you fired up about your restoration project, especial when its free! Someone posted a message on the web classifieds giving away a 73 F100 Ranger for free. They where 5 miles away and I jumped on the opportunity. While most of the truck is useless for my 67 restoration project, I'm taking the fan shroud, A/C parts, hub-caps, and power-steering. Plus a few knick-knacks. The truck has a 302, runs great (8K miles on the rebuild), looks like crap and will make someone in need are great truck. As soon as I take what I need off of it, its going to be giving to a worthy cause or someone in need. Later, Ken Payne == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:13:06 -0700 From: Mike Pacheco Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351C finally running No headers YET.... Stans Headers will be seeing me soon, I had the engine rebuilt, roller rockers, cam 9.5 to 1 Compression... then the pretty stuff, March Pullies, chrome alt. MSD etc.... Mike in Burien == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:24:27 EDT From: GMontgo930 aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - sealers In a message dated 9/24/99 3:59:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes: >Do you usually put it on both sides? Yep.. Sometimes it can be a bit stubborn coming off, but usually the greater part of it comes off fairly easily. I'm married to an Irish redhead, so stubborness I'm used to. >> I can relate to that! Besides working Fords exclusively (sometimes I wonder if that's a good thing or not) I'm also married an Irish Redhead, with an ample dose of Cherokee to boot! Im happy when she JUST stubborn! George == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:47:17 -0600 From: William A Whited Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Big score! Ken, Hey if any of that Ranger trim or the tailgate is in good shape, I'm all up for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - -- William A Whited 74 F100 RANGER SUPERCAB 390 77 F150 CUSTOM 460 SEMPER FI == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:39:51 -0400 From: David Wadson 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 ... The more generic sockets were between $5 and $9 but the actual replacement ones were close to $20. Either way, they are now one of those little items we make a point of grabbing at the scrap yard... 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: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:41:09 -0400 From: Marvin & Michelle Meyer Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Bulb Sockets The more generic sockets were between $5 and $9 but the actual replacement ones were close to $20. Either way, they are now one of those little items we make a point of grabbing at the scrap yard... That's my favorite past time, loot'n the wrecks, even for spotless ash .... 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. 
|