 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 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. 
|