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 #346
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 Sunday, September 26 1999 Volume 03 : Number 346



=======================================================================
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 - 351W
FTE 61-79 - Cheap Insurance
FTE 61-79 - Re Bronco w 460
RE: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cheap Insurance
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re Bronco w 460
RE: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence
FTE 61-79 - FW: mountings
FTE 61-79 - RE: mountings, again
Re: FTE 61-79 - Big score!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cheap Insurance
FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel Kit
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel Kit
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re Bronco w 460
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence
FTE 61-79 - Steering Shaft and Worm
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence
FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco
FTE 61-79 - Car Movies
FTE 61-79 - Tears, Here they come.
FTE 61-79 - 1976 F-250 for sale
RE: FTE 61-79 - 1976 F-250 for sale
FTE 61-79 - Re: New to the list
FTE 61-79 - Gearbox kit is worth $30
FTE 61-79 - 300 Pistons
FTE 61-79 - My New 1971 F100
FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: New to the list (27 or 28 Steel balls?)
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W
Re: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco
FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start
FTE 61-79 - Side trim
FTE 61-79 - Alt. Sockets
FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco
Re: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies
Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:28:23 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351W

Did you mean 69? I know they had them in 73 because I worked on some then
and my 75 van had 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
- --

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 05:10:08 PDT
From: "james varela"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cheap Insurance

Does anyone know of a good company to purchase insurance from?

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 07:16:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rubberducky23 webtv.net (Danny Ling)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re Bronco w 460

are you SURE its factory? I swapped out the 400M out if my truck (77
F250 4X4) for a 429. Its almost a direct bolt in conversion. the
bellhousings matched perfectly all I needed to purchase was a set of
conversion mounts. they are about $100 and they are a real simple item.
My conversion was done in a way that I could pass it off as beaing a
"factory" done deal (except they never put 429's in trucks as far as I
know)

Laters, Danny Ling

(pre 77 1/2) 77 F250 Hiboy 4X4 429 TJ

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:27:45 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating

The oil theory is correct but it's not the whole story :-) The two surfaces
also have to mate exactly for the best seal so both the rings and the
cylinder walls have machining grooves in them to allow some metal removal
and redistribution. The actual amount of "change" to the surfaces and size
of the bore etc. is very miniscule if all machining is done correctly and
proper specs are adhered to etc.. The cylinder should be, in absolute,
scientific terms, perfectly round and the rings as well so they are already
essentially perfectly matched which is one of the reasons that boring plates
are used by the better machinists to take out the last little bit of
discrepancy.

I don't know if it's exactly work hardening but the carbon in the oil gets
worked into the pores of the iron and moly to finish smoothing them up and
making them more impervious to corrosion etc.. If you've ever owned cast
iron cooking utensils or carbon steel knives you know they have to be
"conditioned". What happens when you break in the rings and cylinders is
somewhat the same I suspect. It produces a smoother, more perfectly matched
contact but also somewhat tougher at the same time.

If the cross hatches are too coarse you will lose too much size in the bore
and also contaminate the oil as well as have larger "chunks" of iron rolling
around like little ball bearings between the rings and cylinder walls to
produce "galling" which leaves high spots of softer or harder material all
over the rings or cylinder walls and will never wear in properly after that
so the depth and angle of the hatching is very important and must be matched
to the characteristics of the ring material along with good oil pressure
which is again the reason for breaking it in at elevated rpms (to ensure
plenty of oil).

Harder rings like moly need finer hatching and usually shallower angles,
softer rings like cast iron need coarser hatching and steeper angles to wear
in properly. During this process, large volumes of oil are also needed so
the hatching does aid in this as well and is perhaps even more important
than the physical "wear in" aspect. The angle may actually be a way of
controling the oil distribution more than anything else, not really sure
about that but hard rings will tear the high spots (peaks) off in chunks
instead of smoothing them slowly so they also must be matched up.

When we talk fine and coarse we are still talking about grit sizes in the
micron range, less than 0.001" average cross section and roughly 1/2 the
cross section is able to penetrate at any given time so the depth of the
"valley" is roughly 1/2 the grit size. I don't know the exact numbers but
from my grinding experience I would guess the valleys you get with 600 grit
would be less than 0.0005" at their deepest and 400 grit would be slightly
deeper at perhaps 0.0008". 120 diamond grit is roughly 0.003" max with
0.0025 average or so. This is quite coarse and used for rough grinding
carbide or fluting and relief work. Grit is typically measured by the
number of grains which can be contained in a certain size container or which
constitute a certain weight, depending on application which is why Borazon
grit physically measures differently than diamond and they can not be
directly compared. The above numbers are a guess and I suspect are somewhat
large in reality. The hatching is probably somewhat finer than I described
but I offer them as examples :-)

As many have said, they see cross hatching still evident in engines with
over 100k miles so it never wears all the way smooth and in fact, when that
happens you get much accellerated wear due to lack of oil to protect the
metal surfaces. In a properly worn in cylinder wall I venture to guess the
actual depth of the scratches (hatching) is measured in millionths of an
inch, not ten thousandths and with oil filling the voids looks to the gasses
trying to escape the combustion chamber essentially as closed, completely
sealed end with no gaps :-) We see the hatching as a place for gas to
escape but with oil in the grooves it acts as a perfectly finely polished
surface, if you've matched them correctly :-)

- --
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 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.

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 08:32:33 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating

In a message dated 9/25/99 1:30:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SHill48337 aol.com writes:

> I still got the crosshatch and I can see how that might help hold the oil.
> But what really changed is they used very fine stones instead of the
coarse
> stones that leave the surface noticeably rough. Guess I need to get over
it
> and move on.

I guess you will find out how good their warranty is right?

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---3 more 15 x5 factory rims needed)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 (Almost Rebuilt) 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: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 06:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel DiMartino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cheap Insurance

james,
how old are you and have you ever been in the service? what
paygrade? USAA is a great insurance company if you are
elegible, check out their web page!!


=====
Daniel DiMartino

1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:09:50 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re Bronco w 460

In a message dated 9/25/99 7:17:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
Rubberducky23 webtv.net writes:


F250 4X4) for a 429. Its almost a direct bolt in conversion. the
bellhousings matched perfectly all I needed to purchase was a set of
conversion mounts. they are about $100 and they are a real simple item.
My conversion was done in a way that I could pass it off as beaing a
"factory" done deal (except they never put 429's in trucks as far as I
know)

Laters, Danny Ling

I htink htye only put 429's in the heavy trucks for the tourqe curve. and
the other cars to but im not sure right of hand but i think thats the only
vehicles ford put them in, to bad because they are a really great motor.
Travis
"ol Blue"
66 F-250 4spd 2wd
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:49:20 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Cylinder Finish and Ring Seating

Sometimes we talk because it amuses us to hear our own intellectuality
flowing forth but that carries with it a responsibility......:-( I'm afraid
I may have caused some confusion in my discussion of this tipic :-(

There can be no doubt, in retrospect, that the hatching is there primarily
for oil distrubution. That is it's main function. As I suggested in this
last post, some metal is moved around but very little is actually removed or
your engine would quickly become out of spec. I can't say for certain why
the angle of the hatch is important but it is :-)

If you understand the physics of oil lubrication between two metal surfaces
you will know that it is not due to slipperyness or some other magic quality
but surface tension which gives it the strong, thin film that actually keeps
the two surfaces from ever touching each other. If they ever touch, even
for a millisecond, there is damage in the form of galling which is actually
just melting the metal off of one spot and rewelding it somewere else. If
you have a perfectly smooth surface and you do this then there will be a
high spot somewhere and a low spot, however large or small. If this happens
once it may have no consequence but if it happens more often it will
eventually destroy the parts.

Crank shaft bearings, both main and rod, rely on this principle to cause the
crank to "float" within this film, separated from the bearing material and
it's a good thing since the bearing is made of a very soft material and
wouldn't last a millisecond if the oil stopped flowing as some on this list
can attest :-( The clearance designed into the spec, roughly 0.001-0.003"
for mains does a couple of things but mostly it allows room for the oil to
flow between the parts. Since the crank and block are made of essentially
the same material they have the same expansion coefficients and since the
oil flowing through the crank and splashing on the main caps and block
surface cools them both about the same amount there is very little
"relative" movement due to heat expansion. There is actually a heat exchange
between them which keeps them at approximatlely the same temp which is,
again why I keep saying to make sure you keep the backs of your bearings dry
when installing them to aid in this heat exchage which is a very important
part of controling both expansion and heat in critical areas of the engine.
The pistons transfer heat both to the cylinder walls and to the connecting
rods which in turn transfer it to the crank which in turn transfers it back
to a cooler area of the block to be carried away by the coolant and oil
flow. (getting carried away here, sorry :-))

The soft, porous material of the bearing does several things that we can
relate to the cylinder walls and cross hatching:

1..The porous surface collects and holds the oil droplets allowing them to
act as tiny ball bearings as do the cross hatching valleys. This is in
addition to the strong, thin film.

2..The soft surface allows small, hard particles which would otherwise
scratch the journal surface to be forced into it and "embedded" so that it
can do no further harm and the valleys offer the same protection although in
a much smaller way.

3..The "Ductile" surface allows for some minor reshaping as needed to make
the parts fit perfectly. The bearing is soft and easily reformed and the
hatching can be "bent" and "smeared" slightly to correct minor blemishes
etc..

I hope this has helped to clean up my mess :-)

- --
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
- --

> The oil theory is correct but it's not the whole story :-)

> and redistribution. The actual amount of "change" to the
> surfaces and size
> of the bore etc. is very miniscule if all machining is done
> correctly and
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:53:28 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence

Dang it Steve! I just watch and enjoy, I don't keep track of little details
like the title or who was in it :-) As you know, my point was that I can't
picture, even a F-350 taking that kind of hit repeatedly without damage :-)

- --
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
- --

> 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
>
> Ahhh, that would be "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry".
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:56:43 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FW: mountings

Ok, Dag says he needs the frame mount parts....any ideas? Hmmmmm! Is the
frame part different for a 4x4 and 2x4 with the FE's? Better find out for
sure which one he has :-)

- --
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
- --

>
> Thanks for your reply!It is the frame mountings i need.I have
> the rubber
> parts.I hope this can help!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:01:43 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: mountings, again

Sorry, I think yesterday I said 86 but it's an 81 F-250 and the engine is a
GT-390 with C-6. He needs the frame mounts and I'm waiting for him to
confirm the 2 wheel drive aspect. I believe that's what it is, not sure yet
:-(

- --
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
- --

> Thanks for your reply!It is the frame mountings i need.I have
> the rubber
> parts.I hope this can help!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:04:44 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Big score!

At 09:47 PM 9/24/99 -0600, you wrote:
> 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

Unfortunately, the color of the truck is "Rustic"
Yellow. It was a northern truck before it had its
home in Georgia and has some rust through too. I'm
not sure about the shape of the tailgate, I'll take
a look.

Ken

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:07:42 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cheap Insurance

At 05:10 AM 9/25/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Does anyone know of a good company to purchase insurance from?

If you're in the South, Southern General has good prices.
If you own a home, Nationwide has good rates. They dropped
our homeowners and auto insurance 40% less than State Farm.

Ken

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 09:01:32 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel Kit

I just got my catalog from POR-15 and they have a
Steering wheel kit in it for $70.00. It appears to
have all that you need to fixer up good. Their website
is http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.po15.com

- --
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 09:08:04 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel Kit

It should be http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.por15.com

William A Whited wrote:

> I just got my catalog from POR-15 and they have a
> Steering wheel kit in it for $70.00. It appears to
> have all that you need to fixer up good. Their website
> is http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.po15.com
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 11:15:38 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re Bronco w 460

In a message dated 9/25/99 4:17:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Rubberducky23 webtv.net writes:

>

100% Sure. I didnt believe it till I ran the VIN myself.

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:17:59 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence

In a message dated 9/25/99 5:55:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


picture, even a F-350 taking that kind of hit repeatedly without damage :-)
>>

Are ya anywhere near Vegas? Id be more than happy to take you out. Its
wicked fun.

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:08:59 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence

That would be a fur piece for me to travel even for such a fun adventure :-)
I do plan to make it to Moab before I die so may be able to catch you there
some day :-) I'd also like to take in that truck show in Omaha some day and
I could use a million dol..........Ok, so I dream :-)

- --
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
- --

> Are ya anywhere near Vegas? Id be more than happy to take
> you out. Its
> wicked fun.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:52:02 -0400
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering Shaft and Worm

For those of you who haven't tried it, eBay is an excellent place to find
parts for all different years of trucks. That being said, I just got a
steering shaft and worm that I paid $75 for. This is a popular wear item
that goes for about $200. Without it being in the truck, how can I tell
what condition it's in. It looks like normal shelf rust on it, and it came
in the original box. The worm seems tight, but the end where the steering
wheel goes has the little mark where the factory peens the wheel nut. Me
thinks this might have already been in a truck. Any thoughts anyone? Any
help, always greatly appreciated.




Ted Wnorowski
Bellevue,OH
'64 F-250
352 transplant
4 speed
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:03:41 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's defence

Gary wrote:
>Dang it Steve! I just watch and enjoy, I don't keep track of little details
>like the title or who was in it :-) As you know, my point was that I can't
>picture, even a F-350 taking that kind of hit repeatedly without damage :-)

Heehee, It's O.K. Gary. I wasn't trying to give you a bad time!
The only reason I responded is because it *is* one of my all
time favorites, and I was hoping someone else here might
know where to get a copy of it... I really would like one!

Lets see... that movie was from 1974. In '74, my truck was only
3 years old, FE's were still in production, and gas was probably
about $0.35/Gallon! (FTE content?)


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: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:34:31 -0400
From: "George W. Selby, III"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco

Ford MIGHT have made a 460 Bronco in 78-79, but the one we are talking
about is definitely not a Factory deal. The clutch pedal attachment point
gives it away, if the factory did an automatic they would have used the
factory pedals for an automatic. Not to mention the engine mounts and
exhaust and the vehicle emissions sticker.

George Selby
78 F-150 400M, 4 on floor, 4x4
86 Nissan 300ZX
82 Jeep Cherokee
85 Dodge W-100
IsuzuG prodigy.net

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 10:59:24 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco

Ford might have made a lot of things over the years but good luck finding
ANY 460 Bronco in ANY year. As for 78-79 they didn't even make a 460 3/4 ton
4X4 much less 1/2 ton or SUV.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: George W. Selby, III
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 10:47 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco


>Ford MIGHT have made a 460 Bronco in 78-79, but the one we are talking
>about is definitely not a Factory deal. The clutch pedal attachment point
>gives it away, if the factory did an automatic they would have used the
>factory pedals for an automatic. Not to mention the engine mounts and
>exhaust and the vehicle emissions sticker.



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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 13:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies

All of those car-chase movies were something weren't
they? "Bullitt" will always be my favorite, even if
the Char*ger was really the stronger car of the two.
I also like the "moonshine movies" like "Gator" and
White Lightning" Especially when they show him in one
scene putting the car in Park, and another with him
banging a 4 speed. Them good ole boys can swap them
trannies in the middle of a car chase, Whee Doggies!!!
I remember the classic "Opie goes Bad" movie, "Eat my
Dust" with Ron Howard. Remember the Rebel soldier's
hat he wore? Great to see a CamArrow getting smacked
around for a change...Way too cool...:-)

FTE content: I bet Darrell watched "Mr. Majestyk" a
few times wouldn't you? And Lisa, as soon as you get
out of that neck collar, kick him in the a** for
acting a fool..:-)




>>>>>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...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tears, Here they come.

The tire scaldinest, Ch*vy stompinest, ding dang hunk
of sweet high nickel iron ever founderied in the
history of mankind!!!

You can put em in a truck,
You can put em in a car,
You can wind em up to 7 grand(provided a few longevity
exercises are performed in the preparation of the
shortblock)
And measure their smoothness with a mason jar.

If they made em any better,
The world would have stopped,
But as it was,
The grass-eaters got her dropped.

A moment of silence for the year 1976, the year all my
friends got busted, and the last FE powered
puddle-blaster rolled down the line..

And there's one thing,
I can guaran-freakintee ,
The last stutter-bumpin 390,
Will be runnin' under me!!

>>>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. . .
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: rich may
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 1976 F-250 for sale

I have a 1976 F-250 for sale. It was completely
restored from the frame up. It now has 15,000 miles on
it. It is all fiberglass so it will never rust out.
The power comes from a 1968 390GT mated to a new C-6.
It is a 4x4 with a posi-traction front end. It is
black, with 35x12.5x16.5 B.F.Goodrich All Terrains
mounted on American Eagle 589 rims. It has a tilt nose
and big fender flares. It has dual 3" Flowmasters and
the exhaust exits through two nice chrome tips(approx.
4"W,1.5'L). It has a leather bench seat from a
Cadillac. It also has a B&M Hammer shifter with a
chrome handle. Excellent condition, over $30,000
invested. I am asking $12,500. If interested, please
e-mail me.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:41:46 -0500
From: Jeff Lester
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1976 F-250 for sale

Hey Rich...

Didn't you just buy that a few months ago??? #8^)))

Jeff Lester and Scooby - La Porte, Texas
78 Ford E350 4x4, 460, C6, NP205, D44/70, 35" BFG MT's
http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1978_e350_1.html

On Saturday, September 25, 1999 4:19 PM, rich may [SMTP:doom460 yahoo.com] wrote:
> I have a 1976 F-250 for sale. It was completely
> restored from the frame up. It now has 15,000 miles on
> it. It is all fiberglass so it will never rust out.
> The power comes from a 1968 390GT mated to a new C-6.
> It is a 4x4 with a posi-traction front end. It is
> black, with 35x12.5x16.5 B.F.Goodrich All Terrains
> mounted on American Eagle 589 rims. It has a tilt nose
> and big fender flares. It has dual 3" Flowmasters and
> the exhaust exits through two nice chrome tips(approx.
> 4"W,1.5'L). It has a leather bench seat from a
> Cadillac. It also has a B&M Hammer shifter with a
> chrome handle. Excellent condition, over $30,000
> invested. I am asking $12,500. If interested, please
> e-mail me.
[snip]

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:33:53 -0400
From: "james burnette"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: New to the list

Cliff,
I've been reading about your steering gear job. I done a rebuild on my 71
F100 last month and it wasn't very difficult at all. The hardest part was
pulling the pitman arm off the gear. The next hardest thing was finding all
the ball bearings that spilled out into a pile of saw dust on the floor
which took two hours to find with a lot of cursing. An interesting note
concerning the bearing is I found 28 of these things in the saw dust but my
Chilton's manual said there should be only 27. I put all 28 back in the gear
and everything seems to work fine. I curious, how many bearings did you find
in your gear?

Jim

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:41:25 -0700
From: "Cliff"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gearbox kit is worth $30

I put the gearbox together last night, installed it on the truck today, and
no leaks! I paid thirty bucks for the kit out in the sticks where I live,
you may get it cheaper someplace else. But NAPA carries one for the power
steering gearbox for a 72 Ford F250.

I used sockets (large ones) to drive out the old seals, and in the new
seals. The ones near the pitman arm are a little different, and you just
have to pry them out from the end. Just be careful and don't scar up the
walls of the tube. The new seals have two metal washers that go in with them
near the pitman arm. It tightens up any loose sector shaft wear from years
of use.

I made a mistake while tearing mine down. And had to just tear the whole
unit down. I cleaned it really good inside, and installed all the seals that
came in the kit. Except for one O-ring and the Teflon ring that goes on the
piston. I couldn't get the end plug out of the piston to replace the Teflon
ring, which is where the other O-ring goes as well according to the diagram.

I inspected the existing Teflon ring, and it appeared to be in good shape.
So I put the unit back together, and installed it today. I also dumped all
the old power steering fluid out of the pump. I didn't have anything to
clean it with, nor did I really know how. So I just dumped the old fluid
out, and replaced it with new fluid.

Once the fluid got distributed throughout the system, the pump quit making
noise. The steering is like new again. I think I need to adjust the sector
shaft adjustment some more? But for thirty bucks I stopped the leak, and
regained new truck control with the steering gearbox.

While under the vehicle today I checked the oil pressure sending unit for
tightness? I managed to get about a one revolution turn on it. This may have
been the source of my oil leak there? I have found a lot of nuts and bolts
on this truck that are either missing or just bearly hanging on. I'll have
to wait and see if it continues to leak there?

If you decide to venture into the gearbox? It's worth replacing all the
seals and washers that come with the kit, that you can. You will probably
notice a difference in steering performance, like I did. By the way, if you
dump the power steering pump, and replace with all new fluid? It takes a
little better than a quart and a quarter to refill the system. Put a quart
in, and slowly add until it gets to the full mark, and the noise should
stop. To bleed the lines and get the fluid into the gearbox. Just cycle the
steering wheel from left to right, like you're making a hard right and a
hard left. Watch the level, and add fluid as needed. Keep cycling the
steering until the noise is gone and the fluid level, levels off. If the
noise doesn't quit, you probably need to repair/replace the pump.

I hope this helps anyone whose thinking about doing this? Talk to you later.

Cliff


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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:16:22 -0500
From: Brett L Habben
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 300 Pistons

Darrell,
I've missed the last two weeks of FTE mail, so forgive me if I am asking
a question you may have previously answered. I'm getting back to the '79
300 and it's time to decide on a piston. I've narrowed it down to two
different Ford OEM designs. The original piston had a 2.4" diameter
circle, .3" deep depression, offset towards (under) the spark plug. The
other piston design has a 3.25" diameter, .28125" deep "D" shaped
depression opposite the spark plug.
The previous talk about quench design, flame propagation, etc. has me
wondering what Ford had in mind with these two very different designs.
Any advice would be appreciated. I plan on occasionally pulling a car
trailer with this thing.
Thanks,
Brett
Super75cab

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:52:41 -0500
From: "Daniel R. Olinick"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - My New 1971 F100

HI, I am the proud new owner of a 1971 F100. It has a v8 and a three
speed manual transmission. I don't know the exact specifications.
I believe It has a 360 engine but can't be absolutely positively sure.
I don't know the gearing ratio. I haven't ever pulled any loads with
it so I don't know if the 360 has a lot of power. I never read about 360's
just 302, 351, 460, 390 etc and cleveland. What is that? What I do know
is I like it and want to fix everything as best as possible on a long term
strict budget.

My truck gets just better than 10 mpg. That's good ain't it? It has 4
drum brakes(no discs). The steering is sloppy. The steering box is
worn out isn't it? Maybe the springs and shocks are worn out.
I want to firm up and or smooth out the ride as much as possible for
this type of truck. Many roads here in San Antonio(and rrx crossings)
are very bumpy. I guess the main things I want to have checked out,
fixed or try to fix myself are: the engine, front end, suspension, and
last but not least the brakes.

I plan to use the truck for driving around town but ocassionally to haul
loads of crap to the dump or help someone move. Someday I hope
to tow a small(or not so small) boat and trailer. roughly do you know
what the limits as to what I can haul or tow?

I have no clue as to the miles on the truck or if the engine is original
or if it has ever been overhauled. The only thing is that the odometer
says 84,000 miles on it. It has a heavy bumper that used to have a
ball on it and the bed is somewhat beat up but not destroyed.
I haven't been able to contact the previous owners as I bought the
truck from a used car lot after someone had traded it in for a newer
truck. How can I tell if the odometer is correct and whether it has
84k or 184k or 284k miles or more? Anyway, I guess it doesn't
matter how many miles. I just need to start restoring/fixing things.

Another question: Can the rust be stopped? Is the body too far gone?
Or is it just a matter of the amount of work one is willing to do to
repair. There is one softball sized rusted through hole in the right
fender. Also, there are some small spots on the corners of the bottom
of the doors whith have bumps where the rust is going through.
Besides that around the joints and edges are small patches of rust.
I noticed some small areas have been repaired with body filler and
the truck has been painted sometime I don't know how long ago.
Otherwise the body is without any serious dents.
As long as I own the truck I want to keep making small improvements.
I believe the body(removing rust and primer it) and the brakes are where
I need to begin.

Anyway, I just someone might want to give me some pointers.
Otherwise sorry for writing so much about my truck.
I have some pictures at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~dolinick/71ford .
I have already replaced the mirrors with original ford mirror brackets
and (fomoco) mirrors and repaced the hub cap with some ford
wheel covers which I believe to be from the same era as the truck.

Daniel R. Olinick
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~dolinick


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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything

The 351W is a good all around performer, and is an
extremely smooth running engine when it uses it's
original firing order. If you use a 302 cam it wires
up like a 302 and it's not qiute as smooth.

For performance the 351W heads aren't that much better
than a 289/302 head. The valves are a little bigger,
but not big enough for a 351. And, the 72cc chambers
keep the CR down. It's all in what you want for
performance. A warmed up 351 is a fine truck engine,
the exhausts are too restrictive, but up to 5000, it's
fine.

A head I used to like was the early 221/260 head. You
could port them out and put Ch*vy 1.94-1.6 valves in
them. They had screw in studs and pushrod holes that
acted like guide plates. What made them really
different was the fact that they had a 36 cc chamber
that looked a whole lot like a modern Yates head. A
set of forged flat-tops and those heads on a 289/302
made it a 12 to 1 popcorn popper. On a 351, they
would be even higher. Now, granted you can't run 12
to 1 on pump gas, but if you ever felt an engine that
had that much CR on good gas you'd know it. They
start better, run better and IMHO run cleaner and more
efficiently.

There are some good aftermarket heads available too.
The shortblock can be plenty good for 400 hp without
too much fuss, but you won't get there with the smog
heads without some professional help.

An FE on the other hand will get there without much
more than a good intake/carb and the right cam, and
YES, headers, and it besides, it can also go much
higher. You have to tweak the oiling system a little
too, where the 351 is fine as is.

It's all in what you want. An aluminum intaked 351
will be 50 lbs lighter than a 390 with an aluminum
intake(of course if you moved the battery to the
trunk...), there are quite a few more parts out there
for the 351 too. I like the FE because it can do more
with less, but the little bit you have to do will cost
almost as much as the quite a bit you have to do with
the 351.



>>>>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..

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:34:05 -0700
From: "Cliff"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: New to the list (27 or 28 Steel balls?)

Jim Wrote:

> I'm curious, how many bearings did you find in your gear?
>
> Jim
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>


Jim,



There are exactly 28. You managed to find them all. The book I was looking
at said there were 27 to 29 depending on the design of the gearbox, or
something like that. I thought I had lost one too. But it was hiding behind
a rachet.:) Whew.

Ford may have thrown in that extra steel ball just in case you lose one, but
you can't take any chances you know.

Well I checked the ground under the truck, and found a spot just below the
pitman arm. I looked up and sure enough there was a fresh fluid drip on the
low part by the sector shaft housing. With closer ispection I discovered it
was on the outside of the gearbox housing. I went up top and found that it
was leaking from one of the hose connections. When I was taking the gearbox
out, I accidentally bent just slightly, not enough to make a break in the
metal part of the connection. But I believe it was enough of a bend to keep
the hose from sitting squarely in the hole making the right connection. I'll
have to wait until tomorrow to see if I can straighten that up without
breaking it? It won't take much, just need to remember to use kid gloves.

Thanks for your reply there Jim. Sorry I didn't run into you before I
started, I could have asked you a lot of stupid questions.:) I use the
Chiltons Manual for trucks from 1961 to 1971. Mine being a 72, I have found
that there's not much in that book that doesn't work on my truck too. I also
have a Haynes book for Ford Trucks 1973 thru 1979, it helps too. They didn't
seem to make one in particular for the 1972 Ford truck that I've been able
to find locally anyway.

Talk to you later,
Cliff

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 22:44:39 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V

Hey all
i dont want to sound stupid on this but this 2v and 4v thing is this like 4
barrel carb or a 2 barrel carb im just kind of confused on this any info
would really clear this up
thanks a bunch
Travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:21:07 EDT
From: WEDIVE247 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V

In a message dated 99-09-25 22:48:16 EDT, you write:


barrel carb or a 2 barrel carb >>
Yes it does....
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 20:36:44 -0700
From: "Radoje Spasojevic"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V

You are right that 2v and 4v refer to 4 and 2 barrel carbs. The "V" stands
for venturi, which is the shape of the opening in the carb that the air
flows through.

Rade Spasojevic -- rspasoje gte.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.off -road. com /~2big/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=194
- -Rubicon Tested-
- -----Original Message-----
From: TWL1911 aol.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V


>Hey all
>i dont want to sound stupid on this but this 2v and 4v thing is this like 4
>barrel carb or a 2 barrel carb im just kind of confused on this any info
>would really clear this up
>thanks a bunch
>Travis
>== 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, 25 Sep 1999 23:30:11 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V


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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:31:40 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4V & 2V

Ok Great thanks alot i figured it meant something like that but i wasnt sure.
some one said it probaly means 4 valves. of course this guy didnt know jack
but i wanted to make sure again thanks all
travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:45:23 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351W

the 351 w came out in 1969, and i believe it was the only year that came with
a four barrel carb.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:53:44 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies

there was a cool movie called "hollywood nights" it was sort of a follow up
of "american graffiti" but it was based on the late 60's. it had a few scenes
of a 427 AC Cobra waxing everything on the street, until near the end it got
waxed by a blown big block in a T-Bucket. i've never saw it in a video store
either.
FTE content: i have an opportunity to buy a 1977 f250 extended cab for
$700.00 with a bad motor (needs rebuilding)
jeff grant
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:19:25 EDT
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco

In a message dated 9/25/1999 10:59:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bbeyer pacifier.com writes:


4X4 much less 1/2 ton or SUV. >>

Oh, yes they did. Took 79 original 460 out and put in a 400 myself.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:58:16 -0700
From: Al Evitts
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start

Guys: 78 E 150 Van SWB, starter rebuilt by a long time in business
firm, new cables and selenoid. Will barley turn over after about l5
minutes of driving. Worse if you are using A/C. Any ideas?

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:42:16 -0500
From: George Ramsower
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Side trim

I have a '78 F-150. The original trim went all the way around the sides.
I decided not to use the lower pieces. Now the moulding around the rear
side marker lens has that piece protruding down expecting to connect to
the old trim. Does anyone have the other part that goes there that
doesn't have that part to connect to the lower moulding? I've seen em on
some older Fords, but the owners won't let me pry em off. I wonder why?
:)

George Ramsower
San Antonio(Little Mexico), TEXAS

www.TheTinBox.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:15:05 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Alt. Sockets

With all of this talk of Bulb sockets I am reminds that I need to replace
the Alternator sockets. The ones that push onto the terminals on the back of
the Alt. I also need to replace the boot on the main power lead. Last time I
did this I just went to NAPA... Not any more, and Ford discontinued the
parts in 1994, so they say.
I have lost my Autocrafters Catalog so I cant look there right now. Any one
have a source?

Muel
79 Bronco
75 Highboy


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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:18:21 -0600
From: "Danger"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car

"My daddy is going to be mad" she says, after looking at the damage to
the car.....

As I approach a red light driving a 69 F250 in the far right lane with
the turn signal on, the driver of the small red car which is already stopped
at the light in the middle lane (to travel straight through the
intersection) decides to also make a right hand turn without even bothering
to look or signal. I slammed on the brakes (power disc) and came to a
complete stop less than one inch from the passenger side door, as the other
driver also came to a complete stop. As I'm reaching for reverse the other
driver doesn't realize how close we really are and tries to complete the
turn in front of me. So much for fender flares on that car! I was able to
wipe the paint off from my $62.50 chrome bumper with no damage to my truck
whatsoever... Whew!


Danger
danger csolutions.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.csolutions.net/myth/



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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 23:48:52 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco

Better check the VIN. Every source I've ever seen says no 460s in 4X4s in
the 70s.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: SHill48337 aol.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 460 Bronco


>
>Oh, yes they did. Took 79 original 460 out and put in a 400 myself.
>Burt Hill Kennewick WA F-250 4x4 460



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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 03:26:45 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies

In a message dated 9/25/99 1:10:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ballingr yahoo.com writes:


few times wouldn't you? >>

Yup, even watched it on the spanish channel just for all the offroad action.

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:31:27 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything

Hmmm.... well here it goes.

The 351 W did not as far as I know from 1969 to 1980 come with a 72 cc
combustion chamber, must have been later.

In 1969 it had a 60.4 cc chamber and 1.84 I and 1.54 E valves. Combustion
chamber was supposed to be 60.4 cc, but could be more and could be less...
1, 2, 3, or maybe 4 cc out of expected is at least not uncommon.

Then, in 1975 they got internal air injection ports, and in 1977 combustion
chamber volume was increased to 69cc, and valves decreased to 1.78 I and
1.45 E. The same as for 302.

After 1980 I have no idea how it is,,, but at least it is wrong to say that
a 351W is like this or that, since it has been developing during the
years...

There are also different deckheights for the 351W block, so compression
ratio will vary a little after what block it is, assuming all other parts
are equal.

Just thought I should clear up this a bit, also remind about the fact that
it is not possible to calculate compression ratio at least on a 351W engine
from the specifications that Ford gives.... the only way is to fill up the
head with liquid and measure it, and then fill the piston and up to top of
head gasket to find out the correct ratio. No easy way,, only a hard way to
find out.
And, to get an average comp. ratio you also have to do this for every
cylinder, no one is equal.

For highest compression ratio a 1969-1972 block is best, a 1969-1976 head
is best (except Ranchero or trucks) and 1977 or newer pistons.... gives
best compression.
The 351W truck heads in 1975 got small valves... included Ranchero.
Actually this will not be a problem for compression, but you will get
smaller valves if looking for hp,,, they are great for low end torque.
But this is just out of the book, and may vary, and I have no idea if some
blocks / piston combinations may hit the roof...

A 36cc head on a 351W will not be a gas engine, hardly a propane engine but
more a diesel engine. Good luck with trying, but don't blame me if your
forehead get a final "Made in Dearborn" mark when you fire up.... LOL I
have not calculated, but it should yield something like 16-20:1. Well,
maybe it was not such a bad idea, maybe the 351W would hold better as a
diesel engine than the Olds 350 engine in 1979 did.
I wonder how diesel fuel act in a high comp engine. How the cetan number
will hold up to selfignition in a carburated engine. At least, it is no
problem at all to fire a 351W up on gas, let it run warm, and then feed it
with diesel.... maybe need some different spark plugs, but it will run very
fine. During world war 2 my dad did this on an old one cylinder boat
engine, and it ran fine.. they had little gas, but diesel fuel were easier
to find. Some of the engines back then would not run on diesel fuel, but
others could run as normal. Guess depending on compression and port and
combustion chamber shape.
He he,, could have been fun to try...

Oops, out of topic I guess.


Bill Brox


- ----------
> From: Bill Ballinger
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything
> Date: 26. september 1999 02:47
>
> The 351W is a good all around performer, and is an
> extremely smooth running engine when it uses it's
> original firing order. If you use a 302 cam it wires
> up like a 302 and it's not qiute as smooth.
>
> For performance the 351W heads aren't that much better
> than a 289/302 head. The valves are a little bigger,....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.