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 #348
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 Monday, September 27 1999 Volume 03 : Number 348



=======================================================================
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:

FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearbox kit is worth $30
Re: FTE 61-79 - When was 300 introduced?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Vibration when in gear.
Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - Rag Joints
RE: FTE 61-79 - Radius arm bushing replacement
Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates
FTE 61-79 - need gas gauge sender for 71' F100
FTE 61-79 - cheap insurance
FTE 61-79 - brake light
FTE 61-79 - I bet you didn't know ...
RE: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start
FTE 61-79 - C6 tail shaft measurement
Re: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6
RE: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car
RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything
RE: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: FTE news article
RE: FTE 61-79 - My New 1971 F100
RE: FTE 61-79 - C6 tail shaft measurement
RE: FTE 61-79 - FW: mountings
RE: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6
FTE 61-79 - Re: transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies
RE: FTE 61-79 - My New 1971 F100
RE: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start
RE: FTE 61-79 - NP205 Troubleshooting Question
Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates
RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
RE: FTE 61-79 - NP205 Troubleshooting Question
RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates
RE: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6
FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
FTE 61-79 - V6 in trucks
Re: FTE 61-79 - brake light
Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
RE: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
FTE 61-79 - Hey Muel...
FTE 61-79 - Power assist control valve
FTE 61-79 - RE:When was 300 introduced?
FTE 61-79 - RE: need gas gauge sender for 71' F100
FTE 61-79 - 3.8 V-6
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:59:30
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

What was the transfer case type again in the '78 bronco's? T-18? Anyway I
think the lowrange (1.9:1 or so?) is still waay to high, is there a way to
make it 2.5:1 or 3:1 or so? I don't want to get a higher ratio differential
because I drive on the highway a lot too. Then I'd need an overdrive but
they're EXPENSIVE..


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:02:33 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearbox kit is worth $30

Cliff, to get all the air out it is sometimes necessary to cycle the
steering with engine off but do it slowly to avoid pushing fluid out the
cap. I always did it under power too untill I ran into the 78 with it's new
style pump. Couldn't get the new one to quit and thought I had burned it up
and in fact replaced the old one unnecessarily because I didn't understand
this. Fact is I could have bled the old one and saved myself $40 :-( When
I installed the new one I didn't get the o ring in the power line seated
correctly and it all dumped out on the way into town. I drove it back home
dry with tears in my eyes knowing it was done for but.......it was ok and
all it needed was a new o ring and power off bleeding :-)

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:15:10 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - When was 300 introduced?

In a message dated 9/27/99 1:10:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kendrick mddc.com writes:

> According to my Chilton's, the 300 I6 was introduced into trucks in
> 1975.
> Jason
>
>
> Don Haring, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > When did Ford introduce the 300 as a replacement for the 240 engine? Just
> > curious.
> >
> > -don

Both offerings were introduced in 1965. The 300 did not replace the 240
at all. They simply stopped offering the 240 in 1975.

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---I need 15 x5 factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 2wd LWB Flare Side
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hometown.aol.com/tbeeee
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:24:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Henderson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Vibration when in gear.

> Hi everyone, I am somewhat new to the list but have been following=20
the
> postings with great interest. I bought a '77 F-100 with an I-6 300=20
and C-4
> recently. One of the problems that I am trying to correct is a=20
vibration
> whenever the transmission is in gear. It seems to disappear when in=20
park or
> neutral. I have checked the mounts on engine and tranny, rear=20
springs and
> rearend, they all seem to be fine. Any ideas? I'm stumped.

Michael:

Check your U-joints. Unless your talking about when the truck is in=20
gear, but not moving.

Dave H

- --=20
_
_| ~~. David Henderson
\, _} DHenders VT.Edu
\( Gig 'em Aggies! '93
Beat Texas Tech!!

Currently at:
Interdepartmental Genetics Program
2010 Litton Reaves Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540)231-4773
(540)231-5014
DHenders VT.Edu
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dasc.vt.edu/henderson/dhenderson.html



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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:27:43 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

Bas van der Veer wrote:

> What was the transfer case type again in the '78 bronco's? T-18?

NP205

Anyway I
> think the lowrange (1.9:1 or so?)

2.0

>is still waay to high,

Even with a T-18??

>is there a way to
> make it 2.5:1 or 3:1 or so? I don't want to get a higher ratio differential
> because I drive on the highway a lot too. Then I'd need an overdrive but
> they're EXPENSIVE..
>

I heard here recently on hte Bronco list that a company that makes
"doubler" gears for early bronc (dana 20) may be making a set for the
NP205. Not sure what stage that is in. Later cases NP208, ect are geared
in the 2.6 range I believe.

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:07:45 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Rag Joints

I got one from AutoZone but it only comes with one lug so for $20 you can
get two and have the same as stock setup. 4x4 might be different but it has
two heavy lugs where the 2x4 I believe does only have one. I was a little
disapointed when I realized I was trading two for one :-(

I had to grind the ends off the lugs and basically toss them since there is
a sheet metal cover that can't be romoved with them in place. The kit comes
with new lugs, don't sacrifice the tin covers, sacrifice the lugs. You need
the tin covers to keep the rubber from wadding up under heavy stress :-)

- --
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 know this has been covered before, but where is
> the best place to get a new rag joint or suitable
> replacement. TIA
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 06:14:16 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Radius arm bushing replacement

If you do it yourself less than $50. If you hire it done about $200. If
you remove the pivot bolt from the end of the I beam you can then pry the I
beam forward enough to change the radius arm bushings. While your in there
you may want to consider replacing the pivot busing in the end of the I
beam. On both of the ones I've changed the bracket that the radius arm
bolted to was not round. I aske my front end guy and he said that was
normal. It's hard to tell cause it looks like a worn hole. If the bushing
has been worn for a long time then the radius arm shaft may have been
rubbing on the bracket and may itself be worn.

BTW while doing this be careful. While my front end guy was doing this
repair he was prying on the beam and the pry bar slipped and he lost a tooth
or two.

Tom H.

> ----------
> From: kimchi webcombo.net[SMTP:kimchi webcombo.net]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:00 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Radius arm bushing replacement
>
> Hi. How difficult and how expensive is it to replace the radius arm
> bushings in the front suspension of a '78 F-250?
>
> One is shot, which makes some clanking/banging noise when going over
> bumps,
> and I thought it would be prudent to replace both at the same time.
>
> Also, is there anything else I should check out while I'm on ye olde
> creeper, under the front end?
>
> Thanks to all!
>
> p.s. - Heres a little tip if you ever have to replace a distributor on an
> I-6:
> pull the hex-shaft out of the old dist., and, instead of inserting it into
> the new one, drop it into place in the block, THEN wiggle the new dist.
> in.
> I came upon this solution after almost breaking out ye olde sledgehammer
> Saturday afternoon! grrrrrrrr! }:[
>
> Perhaps this is already a well-known fact, but this is the first dist.
> I've
> ever replaced on ANY vehicle I've owned, and, with the exception of the
> hex-shaft saga, it was a breeze!
>
> There is so much room in the engine compartment, I could actually climb in
> and stand with my feet on the ground on the driver's side of the engine,
> and not have my legs or butt touch a thing! With today's vehicles, if you
> dropped a pin in an engine compartment, I'll bet it wouldn't hit the
> ground, much less being located in the black rubber vacuum/smoghose
> morass.
> Two teenagers could live under my hood. he he :)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> '78 F-250 Custom 2WD w/SuperCab, Rustic Primer Gray
> 300 HD I-6 (forged steel crank, etc.), Carter YF-1V
> Warner T18 4-spd, 3.31 Dana 61-2 Full-Floater
> Power Brakes & Manual Steering - what a combo!?
> 295K, and no rebuild yet!
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> == 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 05:21:47 -0800
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange


>
>What was the transfer case type again in the '78 bronco's? T-18?

Part time is the NP205 came with both the C-6 auto and NP435 or T-18 Man
trans

Full time was the NP208 I've only seen this TC with the C-6
Anyway I

>think the lowrange (1.9:1 or so?) is still waay to high, is there a way to
>make it 2.5:1 or 3:1 or so? I don't want to get a higher ratio differential
>because I drive on the highway a lot too. Then I'd need an overdrive but
>they're EXPENSIVE..

not sure what the ratio is for the 208 but 1.9:1 is correct for the NP205.
Rumors abound on the availability some day of a low gear set or add on gear
case for the NP205. I do not believe anybody on this list has every seen
used or owned such a thing. Heck, for that matter, has anybody even
directly spoken with one of the manufactures about these setup's??

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:14:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

> >What was the transfer case type again in the '78 bronco's? T-18?
> Part time is the NP205 came with both the C-6 auto and NP435 or T-18 Man
> trans

Yeah I have the C-6, and it is part time, so it must be the NP205.

> >think the lowrange (1.9:1 or so?) is still waay to high, is there a way to
>
> not sure what the ratio is for the 208 but 1.9:1 is correct for the NP205.
> Rumors abound on the availability some day of a low gear set or add on gear
> case for the NP205. I do not believe anybody on this list has every seen
> used or owned such a thing. Heck, for that matter, has anybody even
> directly spoken with one of the manufactures about these setup's??

No I talked to somebody who has a '77 bronco and he said they did have
gears for his.. not sure what he had either, I always mix up those
numbers until I've actually had to do with them. Anyway he also said that
the NP205 was just about the strongest xfer case ford ever made, so I
don't want to part with it!

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:01:46 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

All I know for sure is that with a factory 351/400, NP435, 33" tires and
3.50 gears with my trusy NP205 I can use low range, idling and pull a 78
linclon all over my drive way, sideways without touching the gas or stalling
the engine. To me that reads "Plenty of torque" in low range for any use I
can think of. Since the only rocks in Michigan are under the soil where
plow shares can catch them or on a stone boat in some farmers field, rock
crawling is not really a consideration around here :-)

I've pulled stumps with it too, literally :-) My neighbor was backing up to
the stump with his ranger 2wd and nailing it only to jump all 4 tires off
the ground to no avail. I hooked up, gave myself about 12" of slack, gently
eased down on the gas and popped it out in a couple of tuggs :-)

- --
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
- --

> >think the lowrange (1.9:1 or so?) is still waay to high, is
> there a way to
> >make it 2.5:1 or 3:1 or so? I don't want to get a higher
> ratio differential
> >because I drive on the highway a lot too. Then I'd need an
> overdrive but
> >they're EXPENSIVE..
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:33:50 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates

I thought the 10.25 was semi-floating only?

- --
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
- --

> brake conversion for the Ford 10.25 full float axle, MileMarker
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:46:04 -0500
From:
Subject: FTE 61-79 - need gas gauge sender for 71' F100

>Looking for a tank sender for my 71' F100. have not been able to find one
>so far, Ford dealer says
>they are out of production. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I know Mac's sells them for 66 so they may have 71 (in different catalog?). But 66
year runs $60 or $80 I think. I don't have the catalog info with me right now, but if
you are interested, email me and I will get you a phone number

Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 FE, 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:24:58 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - cheap insurance

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

Sorry, that's an oxymoron, meaning they don't go together. If they sell
insurance, they aren't a good company. IMNSHO.

I have Allstate. I've been with them for 25 years now. They have been OK,
but we have had our differences of opinion through the years. They are
extremely cheap for me now, but in most states insurance rates are set in a
range by law, so service and accessability make the real difference.

- -- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:07:18 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - brake light

>>If memory serves me correctly this "Brake light" is also an
> indicator that the Emergency brake is on.

Cliff,
I won't swear on a 72, but on my 79 the light in
the dash has nothing to do with the emergency brake.

- -- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:41:06 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - I bet you didn't know ...

Hey guys, one of my friends pointed me to the great "carnack" who's supposed
to tell you if you're compatible with your car or not ...

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cartalk.cars.com/Survey/Results/Psychographics/

Anyway I put in some answers for my car and my truck, the only difference
being which vehicle I picked ... thought those of you who've seen me on the
list and know me, or even those of you who don't know me might enjoy the
"generalizations" they make about F100 owners :)

- -----

When compared to other people who drive a Ford F100, you're a bit too young
to be driving this vehicle, you care a bit too much about your car compared
to other Ford F100 owners, you're just too educated to be driving a Ford
F100, other Ford F100 owners make more money than you, you are a little too
much of a snob, and you are much more objective and logical
- ----


Sorry, I thought it was good for a laugh (is that CJ and Dave I hear in the
distance?)

As an interesting side note, it suggested 3 of 5 of the same cars as being
better matches both times!

Have fun.


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L (a nearly perfect match)
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L (nowhere close)
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:56:47 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start

What engine? Big blocks do that pretty regularly due to "heat Soak" which
is the heat from the heads being drawn back into the coolant after coolant
stops flowing causing the engine to act like it is over heated.

If you have headers the starter could be over heating too due to proximity
to exhaust tubing.

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:10:42 -0500
From: David.R.John deluxe.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - C6 tail shaft measurement

Hey all,

Could those of you with 78-79 4x4 supercabs with C6 autos go measure your
tailshafts (or anyone with insight on my problem)? Actually I would take
any info you give me on measurements of where the crossmember is located
relative to the back of the motor or some other common point. I'm
wondering if that is in the same place for the 4spd vs C6. How about the
overall length of the tranny and tcase, I would appreciate anything you can
give me.

The reason for this is I'm in the middle of my 4sp to C6 auto conversion
and I have hit a little bump that I thought might happen (This is in an
1978 F250 4x4 Supercab converted to a 460). My donor vehicle was a 78 F250
4x4 w/400 regular cab. After having the 2 trannies out it appears my total
tranny lengths are different. I know some of you cautioned me about tail
shaft lengths on the C6 and that I assume is my difference. I don't want
to get new driveshafts made nor drill holes for crossmember mounts.
Assuming I can get a shorter tailshaft what does it take to change this??
Is it hard or easy, cheap or expensive...?

Thanks,

David
78 F250 4x4 Supercab 460 (4spd==>C6)



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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:22:30 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6

I'll be darned! I've never seen one. Maybe partly cause I'm on the older
list. Thanks for the info Tony.

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

- -----Original Message-----
From: Tony Marino
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6


>I have a set of '83 shop manuals that have the V6 in it, and a friend's
>father owns a truck with one in it--didn't believe it until I saw it a few
>years ago-- so just for grins, if somebody wants me to scan anything, let
>me know.. 8-) (he gave me the manuals when he sold the truck)



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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:24:57 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car

> I would have had a hard time trying to stop so hard. I guess
> that is what
> comes from driving with so many aggressive drivers. I only have
> things like
> that happen to me when I drive my econo-box FORD Escort, not in my F-250
> with a trashed bumper.
>
>

I've noticed that here in the college town here's how people look at things
when crossing the street :

a) Mustang (96) great shape ... pedestrian just walks off the curb thinking
"He'll stop and not mess up his car"

b) Bronco II almost as good of shape ... pedestrian walks off curb, pauses,
thinks "He'll stop"

c) 73 (looks like 79) 4x4 again not quite as good of shape as the BII ...
pedestrian steps off curb, pauses, steps back onto curb thinking "he might
not stop, or be able to stop"

d) 89 F250 4x4 probably same shape as 73 ... pedestrian thinks "crap, farm
truck, no brakes, and hood's already over my head" and stays on curb...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:10:51 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351 vs Everything

Harley 45's had about 5:1 compression so they could be run on diesel fuel in
a pinch. They were made to be used in the war (II) and still on the books
in 67 when I was in Viet Nam. Some guys were actually able to order one but
the CO made them ship it back :-)

A carbed engine running on diesel would have to have a very low comperssion
ratio or it would detonate. The old boat motor you spoke of probably had
very low compression ratio as did the harley.

If you could get it to run at all, a higher compression engine, even 8:1 or
even less would simply self destruct from the detonation since the fuel is
not injected at the correct moment and the pistons are not designed to take
"explosions" like the cast iron pistons of a diesel. You would also be
running lean since the fuel viscosity is much differnt from gasoline. Older
motors ran rich in the first place so could tolerate more variation then
newer ones will.

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:31:17 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6

> Chilton's Ford Pick-ups 65-86 lists a v6-232 with engine code
> "3" for 1982
> amd 1983;

Ford's still using that motor, more commonly referred to as the 3.8L V6 ...
'stangs are still running it with nearly 200 hp (197 I think) in FI trim ...
quite a peppy motor for a light car ...


>it also lists another oddball, a V8-255 cid. with
> engine code "D"
> for 1982.

Interesting that its 82, this motor was in the 'stangs in 81 as there were
no 302's from the factory for the 'stang (the truck may have had it) in 81,
maybe even in 80 ...


As for V6's in trucks ... Ford has one now that came out in 97, but I dont'
know the displacement (4.5?), but the small trucks have had a 2.8 in the mid
80's, 2.9 for a bit after that, then 3.0 and 4.0 ... and a 4.0 HO in the
Exploder that put out as much hp as the 302, but got worse mileage ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:22:41 -0400
From: kpayne ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: FTE news article

Check out the news section of the web site at
http://www.ford-trucks.com/news/index.html

FTE has just published an article about the door stress crack
on 1997-1998 F150s. Additional articles about this will be
published in the near future.

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:22:54 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - My New 1971 F100

Ok, number one, the 360 is a fine puller but not noted for good mileage.
The chevy adds say "like a rock" well the 352 and 360 were stones as far as
holding up and pulling, hard to beat so chevy had nothing on them for sure
:-)

The 360 in in the FE family along with the 390 you mentioned, same block.

10 mpg is not good but it's about right for that engine

The F-100 can be made to ride pretty nice so attention to spring bushings,
rubber bushings in the suspension components, shocks etc. will help.
Always, when beginning a new "used" vehicle project, especially if you plan
to drive it right away, go through the brakes first. If you can't start it
you can't get into trouble but if you can't stop it you are already in
trouble befor you start :-)

Rust is a real problem if you don't have good welding skills. You can gob
plastic in all the holes but it will fall out again pretty soon. Metal for
these trucks is readily available from many sourses so complete replacement
of certain panels may be the best solution for you. Companies such as
AutoKrafters, Dennis Carpenter and JC Whittney have this material along with
many other parts for the body.

- --
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
- --

> 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.
>
> My truck gets just better than 10 mpg. That's good ain't
>
> 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
>
> Another question: Can the rust be stopped? Is the body too far gone?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:47:32 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - C6 tail shaft measurement

There are two tail shafts, one for 2wd and one for 4wd. If you have 4wd you
need the short one but there is no shorter choice. The c-6 is simply a
longer tranny in 4x4 than either the T18 or NP435 so a drive shaft is almost
certainly going to be a requirement, actually two drive shafts since the
xfer case will be further back.

You could cut the part from the rear and weld it into the front.........:-)
(you know I'm only kidding :-))

Is the super cab a divorced xfer case (not mounted to the transmission)?

- --
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
- --

> Could those of you with 78-79 4x4 supercabs with C6 autos go
> measure your
> tailshafts (or anyone with insight on my problem)? Actually
> I would take
> any info you give me on measurements of where the crossmember
> is located
> relative to the back of the motor or some other common point. I'm
> wondering if that is in the same place for the 4spd vs C6.
> How about the
> overall length of the tranny and tcase, I would appreciate
> anything you can
> give me.
>
> The reason for this is I'm in the middle of my 4sp to C6 auto
> conversion
> and I have hit a little bump that I thought might happen
> (This is in an
> 1978 F250 4x4 Supercab converted to a 460). My donor vehicle
> was a 78 F250
> 4x4 w/400 regular cab. After having the 2 trannies out it
> appears my total
> tranny lengths are different. I know some of you cautioned
> me about tail
> shaft lengths on the C6 and that I assume is my difference.
> I don't want
> to get new driveshafts made nor drill holes for crossmember mounts.
> Assuming I can get a shorter tailshaft what does it take to
> change this??
> Is it hard or easy, cheap or expensive...?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
> 78 F250 4x4 Supercab 460 (4spd==>C6)
>
>
>
> == 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:52:06 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: 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 :-)
>

Okay Gary, one more time ... Tony has swapped an I6 in place of a 360 on an
older truck ... no changes in the motormounts ... so using this logic,
unless motor mounts changed on the I6's, you should be able to take the I6
mounts from a similar year truck and use those to mount the 390 in ...


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:52:59 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6

4.2, my daughter has this in her 97 :-) They now have 4.2-V6, 4.6-V8 and
5.4-V8 for trucks that I know of. And then, of course is the replacement
for the 460, the venerable V10 with all of 415 cubes.....Booooooo! and the
diesel too :-)

Give me cubes or give me dea................:-)

- --
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
- --

> As for V6's in trucks ... Ford has one now that came out in
> 97, but I dont'
> know the displacement (4.5?), but the small trucks have had a
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 07:55:35 -0800
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: transfer case lowrange

arrggggggggg, yup, FIM again . I have a NP208 on my shop floor as we speak,
have to work on it today and must have had that on the brain.

I must be getting old, this is the third messed up post I made in as many
days.
My apologies to the list for any confusion these have caused.

Erik Marquez
bronco78 mosquitonet.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mosquitonet.com/~bronco78
Home of the BB decal
- -----Original Message-----
From: James Oxley
To: bigbroncos moab.off -road. com
Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: transfer case lowrange


>
>Erik Marquez wrote:
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bas van der Veer
>> To: bigbroncos moab.off -road. com ;
>> 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>> Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:58 AM
>> Subject: transfer case lowrange
>>
>> >
>> >What was the transfer case type again in the '78 bronco's? T-18?
>> Part time is the NP205 came with both the C-6 auto and NP435 or T-18 Man
>> trans
>> Full time was the NP208 I've only seen this TC with the C-6
>
> Full time was NP203, right??? 208 was alum transfer from later models
>
> OX
>
>=====
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bigbroncos.com
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:55:17 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: 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.

Hehehehe ... I got the anniversary edition for x-mas :) Has some "making of
the movie" clips that are quite interesting ... definitely a favorite of
mine ... along with the classic "Vanishing Point" though its gotta be a
boring day to watch that straight through :)

> 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!!!

Hahahaha ... haven't seen those, but have you seen Thunder Road ? Mitchum
was in that one ... pretty good flick, still b&w :) LOTS of old Fords ...
that's about all they run :)


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:05:55 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - My New 1971 F100

> HI, I am the proud new owner of a 1971 F100.

Congratulations :)

> It has a v8 and a three
> speed manual transmission. I don't know the exact specifications.

Is it a 3 on the tree (column shift) ? That's the only way Grandpa will
have his :)

> I believe It has a 360 engine but can't be absolutely positively sure.

2 easy ways to check 1) the VIN, I think its a Y as the 4th digit or so ...
or if you think its been swapped, check the intake manifold, if it protrudes
under the valve covers quite a ways (and looks like its about 1/2 the head),
then its likely a 360 (FE) ...

> 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?

A 360 is basically a short stroke or "smaller" 390 ... its not quite as
powerful, but I never really had any major complaints with mine, and having
a manual will definitely make it seem snappier ... the "cleveland" is a
351, there were 3 different ones, all with slightly different applications
and power outputs ... a real mess to get into on this list ...


> What I do know
> is I like it and want to fix everything as best as possible on a
> long term
> strict budget.
>

Most of these motors are very capable for low budgets as things aren't
always breaking, and those that are are cheap to replace :)

> My truck gets just better than 10 mpg. That's good ain't it?

Double digits is always good on an old truck in my opinion :)


> It has 4
> drum brakes(no discs). The steering is sloppy. The steering box is
> worn out isn't it?

Who knows, could be bad tie rods or king pins too ... any number of things
can cause loose steering ... have someone wiggle the wheel back and forth
while you watch the stuff move, that'll tell you where the slop is ... just
trace the moving linkage til you get to the part that's not moving, when you
find that part you've found the worn section ... much easier said than done
of course ...

> 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.
>

Well, depends on your level of experience, personally I have no problems
with the motor, need some patience with the front end and suspension, and
can usually handle 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?
>

Depends which motor you have, the rear end ratio, and how much performance
you expect while towing ...

> Another question: Can the rust be stopped? Is the body too far gone?

Hahahahahaha ...I looked at your page, that's not rust ! :) Okay it is
rust, but its not that bad ... check the floor boards and cab supports,
those are the important areas ... the best way to fix those is to weld in
new metal (the parts can be purchased and the old ones cut out and new ones
welded in ... but you need a competent welder to get it right ...



> 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.
>

That's a pretty cool lookin truck ... hopefully you will get lots of fun
miles out of it :) If the motor ain't knockin and things seem solid on the
drivetrain, I think you'll be able to keep up with the repairs as long as
you take care of it.

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:07:37 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: 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?
>

Someone suggested heat soak on the starter, also be sure and check the
timing, if there is too much advance it will start harder when its warm ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:09:12 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - NP205 Troubleshooting Question

> Let me preface my question. No unusual noices were, or are,
> coming from the transfer case. No indications of breakage
> were, or are, observed.
>
> Apparently, 2 Hi and 4 Hi work, but in 4 Lo, I do not have
> power to the rear axle...????? How can this be?
>

So how do you know you don't have any power to the rear axle ?

A slightly different ratio should make the rear turn a touch slower than the
front, hence you likely won't "feel" like you're being pushed if that's what
you mean ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:10:58 -0800
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bas van der Veer
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

>> Rumors abound on the availability some day of a low gear set or add on
gear
>> case for the NP205. I do not believe anybody on this list has every seen
>> used or owned such a thing. Heck, for that matter, has anybody even
>> directly spoken with one of the manufactures about these setup's??
>
>No I talked to somebody who has a '77 bronco and he said they did have
>gears for his.. not sure what he had either, I always mix up those
>numbers until I've actually had to do with them. Anyway he also said that
>the NP205 was just about the strongest xfer case ford ever made, so I
>don't want to part with it!


Bas. the EB has a Dana 20 Transfer case, different animal then our 205. That
is why your friend can get gear sets for his,. Some day................
Erik Marquez
bronco78 mosquitonet.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mosquitonet.com/~bronco78
Home of the BB decal

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:10:12 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

> >What was the transfer case type again in the '78 bronco's? T-18?
>
> Part time is the NP205 came with both the C-6 auto and NP435 or T-18 Man
> trans
>
> Full time was the NP208 I've only seen this TC with the C-6
> Anyway I
>

Hmmm....the Bronco's had a 208 in them ? or did they switch from the 203
later on ?

Just curious as I've seen the 208 pop up several times in the last week or
so and haven't actually heard where they fit in the scheme of things ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:12:10 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates

>
> I thought the 10.25 was semi-floating only?
>

Nope, got a full floater under my dad's truck :

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Images/autocross/autocross024.jpg

can't see the hubs here, but its a pic of the axle ... also my sister has a
semi-floating D60! How's that for bass ackwards ?

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:15:29 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

These used the dana 20 or something 20 which can be retrofit with lower
gears. The 205 case already is filled up with large gears and the only way
to gear it lower is to enlarge the big gear or make the small gear smaller,
neither of which is very likely to happen due to space or strength
considerations.

Since this is probably the most popular xfer case ever you can be sure
someone would have jumped on this by now if it were possible :-) There is
an add on gear box for it but it adds considerable length to the overall
length which in a bronco would require too short a drive shaft. In the
super cab length frame this might be a good option and perhaps even in a
long bed frame but short beds and broncos are stuck :-)

- --
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
- --

> No I talked to somebody who has a '77 bronco and he said they
> did have
> gears for his.. not sure what he had either, I always mix up those
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:19:29 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - NP205 Troubleshooting Question

The way to tell for sure it put it in low range with front hubs unlocked.
If it moves.....but if it doesn't.......:-) I use 2wd, low range all the
time so don't get that one started again :-)

- --
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
- --

> So how do you know you don't have any power to the rear axle ?
>
> A slightly different ratio should make the rear turn a touch
> slower than the
> front, hence you likely won't "feel" like you're being pushed
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:25:52 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Web site updates

Well, shoot, just when I thought we had that all ironed out too! :-) I had
the E300 with a big axle and thought it was the 10.25 but every one had me
convinced it was the dana. That one had the same kind of nut as the dana 44
on the spindle? Instead of retainer rings though it used the bend tabs you
mashed into the notches.

- --
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 thought the 10.25 was semi-floating only?
> >
>
> Nope, got a full floater under my dad's truck :
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:36:40 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6

Maybe this has been beat to death already, but they came with that lovely
head-gasket blowing 3.8 V6 offered in the Mustang and T-Bird. Only
available in '82 and '83 if memory serves. Only seen one in my 15+ years
under the hood.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bill Beyer [mailto:bbeyer pacifier.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 6:22 PM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6


Yes please enlighten us on this V6 that Ford put in full size pickups.
C.I.D.? I worked in a Ford dealership service dept. in 85-87 and don't
recall ever seeing a V6 F-series come in. Plenty of 300s, lotsa 302s and
quite a few 460s (351s wouldn't pass smog in CA then) but the only V6s were
in Rangers, Bronco Alsos, Aerostars & pass. cars. Now I do know that Ch*vy
used a V6 in their full sizes, I think they still might...

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

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jason & Kathy Kendrick
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - hauling with 1979 V6


>In a full size?? Care to share any details you might have?
>Jason
>>
>
>> kendrick mddc.com writes:
>>
> I wasn't aware Ford used a V6.
>>
>> They did in 82 and 83, but went back to the stump puller in 84.
>>
>> Darrell Duggan



== 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:59:38 -0700
From: "Josh Assing"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

I went to give the F100 4x4 a tune up today; got thru the plugs,
cap, rotor.. Then I went to do the timing... The "owners" manual
doesn't show any "tune up" specs.

Then I looked all around for a 72 F100 Chiltons or something .. "not
in print" was all I got from several sources.

So; Can anyone clue me in as to what the timing should be for this
beast?

Thanks.
- -josh


http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jassing.com/josh/f100.htm

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:02:13 -0400
From: "Serian"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - V6 in trucks

> By the way, we all know there were no V6's in fullsize
> pickups in the past

The 232 cid V6 was offered as an option in the 1980's
at some point, but no V6's in the F-series during the
'70's ... just the 240 and 300 I6.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - brake light

John wrote:
> >>If memory serves me correctly this "Brake light" is also an
> > indicator that the Emergency brake is on.
>
> Cliff,
> I won't swear on a 72, but on my 79 the light in
> the dash has nothing to do with the emergency brake.

No emergency brake warning on my '68 or '70, either.
Just the normal system warning light.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:57:08 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

About 6 degrees should not be too much out of the way...
But you can also advance it to you hear knocking, and then retard it 2
degrees.

Bill


- ----------
> From: Josh Assing
> To: Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
> Date: 27. september 1999 17:59
>
> I went to give the F100 4x4 a tune up today; got thru the plugs,
> cap, rotor.. Then I went to do the timing... The "owners" manual
> doesn't show any "tune up" specs.
>
> Then I looked all around for a 72 F100 Chiltons or something .. "not
> in print" was all I got from several sources.
>
> So; Can anyone clue me in as to what the timing should be for this
> beast?
>
> Thanks.
> -josh
>
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jassing.com/josh/f100.htm
>
> == 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:11:00 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

> So; Can anyone clue me in as to what the timing should be for this
> beast?
>

Usually factory timing is 6 or 8 degrees on those old motors ... most of the
time more is better though ... you might try advancing it til you hear some
pinging, then back it off a bit .. 8-10 is what I normally ran on my 360
that I had before ... this new motor is closer to the 8 side, but its got a
lot more compression ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:13:28 -0500
From: Larry Schmiedekamp
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Hey Jason

Can you tell me more. Is it a defect. I'm planning on over hauling one that
my son has.


Jason said

Maybe this has been beat to death already, but they came with that lovely
head-gasket blowing 3.8 V6 offered in the Mustang and T-Bird. Only
available in '82 and '83 if memory serves. Only seen one in my 15+ years
under the hood.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:22:19 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Actually I (Rich) said that, the head gasket were prone to blowing. They
have been redesigned and isn't the problem it used to be. Make sure the
heads are straight and not cracked. Other than that, make sure you keep
the coolant clean and add a temp gauge if one isn't there already as a
precaution...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Larry Schmiedekamp [mailto:Larry.Schmiedekamp angelo.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 11:13 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower


Hey Jason

Can you tell me more. Is it a defect. I'm planning on over hauling one that
my son has.


Jason said

Maybe this has been beat to death already, but they came with that lovely
head-gasket blowing 3.8 V6 offered in the Mustang and T-Bird. Only
available in '82 and '83 if memory serves. Only seen one in my 15+ years
under the hood.


== 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:26:18 -0700
From: "Josh Assing"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

> Usually factory timing is 6 or 8 degrees on those old motors ... most
thanks. I pings pretty good now when I get on it or under load; so I
wanted to go to stock; and go up from there.

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 14:29:46 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Well, I've had two so far and can't complain :-) Got 110k out of the 92
bird with no maintenance I can recall and I'm over 60k on the 94. The AOD,
now, is a whole nuther smoke %^^&%$$# $

- --
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
- --

> head-gasket blowing 3.8 V6 offered in the Mustang and T-Bird. Only
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:51:49 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Yeah, ask some of the poor Taurus/Sable owners who got them both! (the 3.8
and the AXOD, that is...)
FTE content: I love my '77 E150!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) [mailto:gpeters3 visteon.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 11:30 AM
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower


Well, I've had two so far and can't complain :-) Got 110k out of the 92
bird with no maintenance I can recall and I'm over 60k on the 94. The AOD,
now, is a whole nuther smoke %^^&%$$# $

- --
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
- --

> head-gasket blowing 3.8 V6 offered in the Mustang and T-Bird. Only
== 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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:53:43 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

> Well, I've had two so far and can't complain :-) Got 110k out of the 92
> bird with no maintenance I can recall and I'm over 60k on the
> 94. The AOD,
> now, is a whole nuther smoke %^^&%$$# $
>

Same deal here, my sister had an 87 Cougar with one in it ... 130,000 and
the thing ran fine ... had an ignition module go out ... heater hoses too
... but no head gaskets ...


Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 4.6L
73ish F100 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:58:32 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hey Muel...

Chris,

I'm going to post this question to the list on the off chance that it may be
of some interest to the other deluded M block devotees...

When I bought the short block from you, you mentioned a modification to the
oiling system that could increase the reliability of the engine. I ground
the lead in grooves on the crank per the diagram you sent and the whole
thing is being balanced now. I'm getting the block & lower end back from the
machine shop this week so now would be a good time to ask you about it. What
the scoop?

Bill

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



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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:09:52 -0600
From: Kirk Baillie
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Power assist control valve

Has anybody replaced there power assist control valve on there pre 76
f250 4X4. Mine is shot, only have power when turning left. And i have
a question about the valve, when ordering it does it come with the piece
that the pitman arm attaches to or just the piece that all the hoses
attach to. Because it looks like they are two separate pieces, what are
the names of these two pieces or are they both just know as the control
valve.

Also i found a place i town that said they could reseal my power
cylinder ram for me. I am going to take it in tomorow, I lat you guys....


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.