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 #349
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 Tuesday, September 28 1999 Volume 03 : Number 349



=======================================================================
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 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
[none]
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
FTE 61-79 - RE:
FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower
Re: FTE 61-79 - Radius arm bushing replacement
FTE 61-79 - radius arm bushings / grasshopper / ant
Re: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
Re: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car
THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start
Re: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower
RE: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start
RE: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies
FTE 61-79 - Re: tranny vibration
Re: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
FTE 61-79 - Was timing, now backfire(?) popping...
Re: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?
FTE 61-79 - Problem with My replies
Re: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car
Re: FTE 61-79 - Problem with My replies
FTE 61-79 - RE: Hey Muel...
FTE 61-79 - Oh, yeah.
FTE 61-79 - 351M vs. 351C
FTE 61-79 - RE: T-case low range
FTE 61-79 - T-case ratios

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:58:57 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Ok, tell us about the AOD cause I just bought a 94 t-bird with a 3.8.
Course I only had it 1 week and gave it back for some work. Should I think
about killing the deal?

Tom H.

> ----------
> From: Peters, Gary (G.R.)[SMTP:gpeters3 visteon.com]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:29 PM
> 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 13:19:55 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Maybe I overstated it a bit originally, but I've seen what I would consider
a higher than normal failure rate in 3.8 head gaskets. It seems to be more
prevalent with FWD cars. Run a search on Dogpile or any other search engine
with the keywords "ford head gasket" and you'll likely find pages devoted to
this malady. Particularly Windstars and Taurus/Sables.

For example, the 3.0 engine in Taurus/Sables does not have this problem like
the 3.8 does.

My own experience is that if you keep the cooling system in good working
order (good coolant, factory thermostats, try not to overheat it) then you
have done about all you can do. Average mileage with failure that I've seen
is somewhere around 100K, though I've seen ones with 200K+ on the originals
and I've seen them fail with less than 50K.

Rich

- -----Original Message-----
From: Hogan, Tom [mailto:Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:57 PM
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower


Yeah, do tell I own two of them now. How soon do they usually go? Anything
to do to prevent it?

Tom H.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:38:34 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

> Ok, tell us about the AOD cause I just bought a 94 t-bird with a 3.8.
> Course I only had it 1 week and gave it back for some work.
> Should I think
> about killing the deal?
>

I wouldn't worry about the head gaskets on a car this new ... also are you
sure its the AOD and not the 4R70W that the 'stangs are using now ? Might
look into that before you decide to keep it or not ...

Either way parts are plentiful and common for those systems that are shared
with the 'stangs ...


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 13:38:56 -0800
From: "dave"
Subject: [none]

How do you find out what year a truck is cuz i got a ford f100 between 1=
964-1972 and i cant pinpoint the year and how do you tell what kind of e=
ngine it has (size) I think it has a 360

LookSmart =85 or keep looking.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.looksmart.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:44:54 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

I'll have to look but do these things have aluminum heads and a cast iron
block? I do know that this design tends to chafe the head gasket due to the
different expansion rates of aluminum and iron. Also the dissimilar metals
cause electrolysis in the coolant and errode the metal inside the motor. It
may have to do with the number of heating/cooling cycles the motor goes
through than absolute mileage. Lots of short trips where the engine has
time to cool down probably wreak havok on this design.

Tom H

BTW you didn't help my confidence a whole lot cause the other 3.8 I own is
in a windstar. ;0)

> ----------
> From: Southerland, Rich[SMTP:rsouther alldata.com]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 4:19 PM
> To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
>
> Maybe I overstated it a bit originally, but I've seen what I would
> consider
> a higher than normal failure rate in 3.8 head gaskets. It seems to be
> more
> prevalent with FWD cars. Run a search on Dogpile or any other search
> engine
> with the keywords "ford head gasket" and you'll likely find pages devoted
> to
> this malady. Particularly Windstars and Taurus/Sables.
>
> For example, the 3.0 engine in Taurus/Sables does not have this problem
> like
> the 3.8 does.
>
> My own experience is that if you keep the cooling system in good working
> order (good coolant, factory thermostats, try not to overheat it) then you
> have done about all you can do. Average mileage with failure that I've
> seen
> is somewhere around 100K, though I've seen ones with 200K+ on the
> originals
> and I've seen them fail with less than 50K.
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hogan, Tom [mailto:Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:57 PM
> To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower
>
>
> Yeah, do tell I own two of them now. How soon do they usually go?
> Anything
> to do to prevent it?
>
> Tom H.
>
>
> == 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 15:51:04 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

This wouldn't be two different versions of a similar engine would it? The
front drive model may have aluminum heads where the rear drive doesn't. Just
wondering. The boys down in Ysplanti did this number on their 3.8 V6, too.
There were at least three Buick 3.8s. One was totally different from the
other two. FoMoCo may have pulled a similar stunt. Inquiring minds want to
know.......

- -- 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 13:57:51 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Sorry about that Tom... Yes, the heads are aluminum and the blocks iron, at
least the later FWD's are...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Hogan, Tom [mailto:Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 1:45 PM
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower


I'll have to look but do these things have aluminum heads and a cast iron
block? I do know that this design tends to chafe the head gasket due to the
different expansion rates of aluminum and iron. Also the dissimilar metals
cause electrolysis in the coolant and errode the metal inside the motor. It
may have to do with the number of heating/cooling cycles the motor goes
through than absolute mileage. Lots of short trips where the engine has
time to cool down probably wreak havok on this design.

Tom H

BTW you didn't help my confidence a whole lot cause the other 3.8 I own is
in a windstar. ;0)


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:07:12 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:

> How do you find out what year a truck is cuz i got a ford f100
> between 1964-1972 and i cant pinpoint the year and how do you
> tell what kind of engine it has (size) I think it has a 360
>

Probably best thing to do is grab the VIN decoder, it'll tell you all of
that .. but there are body style differences (big ones) between 64-66, 67,
and 68-72 ... not to mention grilles for all those years and all that stuff
that's easily interchangeable ...

grab the VIN (on your insurance card if you don't have the truck handy) and
hit the ford-trucks.com website, i think there's a decoder on there ...

also the motor, best thing is to look at the intake and such, if it looks
like its half of the head, then its an FE, as for displacement, well if you
think its original, then look at the VIN, if you don't think its original,
you'll have to come up with a measuring device of some sort (or just assume
its a 360)

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 14:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower

My son has a Bronco II with a 2.9L POS (piece of
sh**). He had to replace both heads due to cracks. The
new heads were redesigned to prevent this problem. I
love Fords as much as anyone, but my rule is to avoid
any motors that are identified in a foreign language
(liters).

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C-4V
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:48:30 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower

> I
> love Fords as much as anyone, but my rule is to avoid
> any motors that are identified in a foreign language
> (liters).
>

Wow, guess I'm SOL then huh ? (see signature) ... want scarey ? The 4.6
and the rest of the "triton" motors don't have direct cubic inch
displacements (like 302 and 351 that were designed in inches), they are
metric design, so to figure displacement in inches you gotta go back and
change the borexstroke measurements then do the calculations ... 4.6=281 by
the way ...


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 18:46:28 -0400
From: David Wadson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Radius arm bushing replacement

>the bushing. With a come-along, hook the come-along to that side I beam or
>something that will pull the wheel forward. Set your parking brake, and make
>sure whatever it is you hook the come-along to is capable of handing a heavy
>pull. I put a stake into the ground about a foot and a half at an angle. The
>angle being away from the truck. Crank the come-along back into itself, and
>it will pull the front wheel forward. Take it slow and only pull it forward
>enough to get the old bushing off and the new one on. Now getting it lined
>up once you start cranking the come-along back out. If you take it slow, and
>watch, you may get lucky and the radius arm lines up pretty good. If not,

Hmmmm....my friend was given a similar sort of solution but it involved
another truck. I think what is often a somewhat easier way to handle the
solution is to remove the rivots from the bracket that the radius arm end
goes into and then replace them with high grade bolts once you've swapped
the bushing.

If the nut at the end of the radius arm is really hard to break loose, use
a jack under the end of the wrench/rachet and use the weight the truck to
break the nut. Just make sure you're jacking under the proper side or
you'll bust your rachet...


David Wadson - wadsond air.on.ca
"PS2" - 78 F100/302/C4
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:18:19 -0700
From: bedlee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - radius arm bushings / grasshopper / ant

I just pulled apart my whole front end. It was pretty easy to replace all
the bushings then! I also replaced the king bolts. It is going back
together tonight and then to the shop for realignment tomorrow. Brakes are
new all around and now the front end is new ( I had to replace the steering
box and control link too). The engine is next when the Ministry of Finance
decides to open the vault.

Lee
'74 F250 2WD Crew Cab


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 3.8 head gasket blower

Tom cried out:

> Ok, tell us about the AOD cause I just bought a 94 t-bird with a 3.8.
> Course I only had it 1 week and gave it back for some work. Should I think
> about killing the deal?
>

Tom, the tranny in your bird is probably a 4R70W, the failure
that Gary refers to is the torque converter (lock up clutch).
Early symptom is a shudder when going into 4th, which mine
has had for a couple of years now. The shudder can be very
subtle, I really only notice it when the car is cold (wife's
car). More recently, it has developed a very hard shift into
second, again when cold. I originally drove this car every day,
and NEVER liked the shifting - it seemed as though is was
programmed to get into OD as fast as possible, and stay there.
Probably Ford trying to boost its CAFE ratings (Corporate
Average Fuel Economy), as per federal mandates :-(

No complaints about the 3.8, but it only has 80k miles on it. .
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:47:34 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car

In a message dated 9/27/99 10:27:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
wish iastate.edu writes:


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 >>

I find that so true around even the small town that i live in though theres a
97 f350 super duty, a 66 f 250 (me) or the high sitting ch*vys most people
think oh better let him go he can just drive right over me ha ha
Travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 18:18:53 -0700
From: "Josh Assing"
Subject: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

Thanks to all that replied and gave me the starting point of "6 BTC"
I ended up at 8, and it runs TONS better. Maybe I'll get better gas
millage, who knows. It was set way off! (20 or so) No wonder it
pinged when under load....

However, I still get this really annoying "pop" everyonce in a while.
Almost like a backfire, only more "tin" like.... It's electronic ignition,
so it's not the points, I replaced the plugs, cap & rotor (haven't
done the wires; as they "look" good still)

Timing's set; firing order is correct. Carb's been rebuilt.

All the "old" plugs looked good (maybe a little hot).

Any thoughts as to what it might be now?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:20:57 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start

In a message dated 09/27/1999 4:12:19 PM !!!First Boot!!!, wish iastate.edu
writes:


timing, if there is too much advance it will start harder when its warm ...
>>

I'll have to try that cuz Envy's got that problem, after a few mins of
driving she's hard to re-start, QUESTION: Do you know BTDC on a 400 engine?
He says he can set it by ear purty close. Thanks y'all!

*~*~Lisa and Envy~*~*
*~*~Silly Boys..trucks are for girls!! ~*~*
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:24:57 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies

All this talk of movies, and no mention of "Gone in 60 Seconds" First half
is how to swipe cars, second half is a car chase involving a mess of cops and
1 73 Mach one. 93 cars destroyed in 45 min! Its awesome what they put the
stang through.

Darrell Duggan
74 F-350 "Tweety"

PS The yellow 73 in the movie was named Eleanor
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:40:35 -0400
From: "Ted and Sarah Freeman"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower

What year is the 2.9??? What year heads were the redesigned ones? I guess
I got lucky...mine has over 260k miles on them and has never been into. I
have an '87 that I've had since new and has never been rebuilt and I'd still
take it coast to coast if I had to.

- -Ted

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dan Lee
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 5:13 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 3.8 head gasket blower


>My son has a Bronco II with a 2.9L POS (piece of
>sh**). He had to replace both heads due to cracks. The
>new heads were redesigned to prevent this problem. I
>love Fords as much as anyone, but my rule is to avoid
>any motors that are identified in a foreign language
>(liters).
>
>Dan Lee
>'53 F100
>400C-4V
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
> >== 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 20:57:30 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

> Thanks to all that replied and gave me the starting point of "6 BTC"
> I ended up at 8, and it runs TONS better. Maybe I'll get better gas
> millage, who knows. It was set way off! (20 or so) No wonder it
> pinged when under load....
>

You set the timing with the advance disconnected right (the vacuum line in
front discnnected and plugged) ???


> However, I still get this really annoying "pop" everyonce in a while.
> Almost like a backfire, only more "tin" like.... It's electronic
> ignition,
> so it's not the points, I replaced the plugs, cap & rotor (haven't
> done the wires; as they "look" good still)
>

When do you get it ? Accelerating ? Decelerating ? On warmup only ?



> Timing's set; firing order is correct. Carb's been rebuilt.
>

Check the choke settings too, if you're too lean sometimes you'll get a
backfire through the carb ... same's true if you have a bad powervalve
usually when warm then.

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 20:58:30 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Hard hot start

> I'll have to try that cuz Envy's got that problem, after a few mins of
> driving she's hard to re-start, QUESTION: Do you know BTDC on a
> 400 engine?
> He says he can set it by ear purty close.
> Thanks y'all!
>


Start at 6 or 8 or so, and then add a couple if you feel adventurous .. if
it starts getting hard to start, then back it off again (pinging, stame
story)


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 20:59:43 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Car Movies

> All this talk of movies, and no mention of "Gone in 60 Seconds"
> First half
> is how to swipe cars, second half is a car chase involving a
> mess of cops and
> 1 73 Mach one.

Hmmm...the one on the cover is a 71 or 2 Grande' ... do they steal a
different one later ??? Just curious, but I can't stand to see a stang get
that trashed...

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 21:48:44 -0400
From: "Jim and Liisa Tino"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: tranny vibration

Does it vibrate while moving, or only while in gear and not
moving?

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:13:05 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

I was always told that all carb adjustments should be made after the
timing is set. Even a couple degrees of timing variation could cause
major differences in the way the carb performs.

Jason
>
> > Timing's set; firing order is correct. Carb's been rebuilt.
> >
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:14:01 -0700
From: "Josh Assing"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Was timing, now backfire(?) popping...

> You set the timing with the advance disconnected right (the vacuum
> line in front discnnected and plugged) ???
Um, yes; I wasn't supposed to do that?

> When do you get it ? Accelerating ? Decelerating ? On warmup only ?
Yes.
;-) It happens at idle; that's when I notice it...

> Check the choke settings too, if you're too lean sometimes you'll get
> a backfire through the carb ... same's true if you have a bad
> powervalve usually when warm then.
It's still an auto-choke. The choke was fully off when I did the
timing. The pop happens when cold or warm..

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:26:43 -0700
From: "Josh Assing"
Subject: Re: THANKS! Re: FTE 61-79 - '72 F100 360/390ci Timing?

> I was always told that all carb adjustments should be made after the
> timing is set. Even a couple degrees of timing variation could cause
> major differences in the way the carb performs.
Ah; yes; thanks. I failed to mention that the popping was
happening before I adjusted the timing. It was just the "lower on the
list" annoynance.. The pinging from timing was the major problem.

- -josh

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:20:54 -0400
From: "Marvin Meyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Problem with My replies

Ken;
If I reply to your group discusions I cannot use my Microsoft Outlook 97
(Office 97). I have to use the older Outlook Express. For me I have to
remember to switch back and forth. I use my 97 primarily for
contacts/address and replying to messages. I have to use the older Express
soley for replying to FTE discusions.
I forgot, my appologies to you and the group.
Marivn Meyer

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:46:20 -0500
From: kimchi webcombo.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - That "Was" a Nice Car

At 12:18 AM 9/26/99 -0600, you wrote:
> "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/
>

HAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
(Rolling on the floor laughing my a** off)

If ~Tiffany~ had pulled the same stunt in front of MY F-250, her car would
need a tetanus shot! ;)

All kidding aside, I hope noone or nothing was injured, other than the
fragile reality of the little lady, and her fender flares.

Let's hear it for solid Ford construction!

Geoff

- ---------------------------------------------------
'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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:50:57 -0600
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Problem with My replies

> Ken;
> If I reply to your group discusions I cannot use my Microsoft Outlook
97
> (Office 97). I have to use the older Outlook Express. For me I have to
> remember to switch back and forth. I use my 97 primarily for
> contacts/address and replying to messages. I have to use the older Express
> soley for replying to FTE discusions.
> I forgot, my appologies to you and the group.
> Marivn Meyer
..............

It seems like Outlook uses HTML format as the default when sending mail.
The "mail sending format" should be set for "plain text" on the "tools",
"options", "send" tab.

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: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:31:32 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 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...

What a SICK bunch!

- -> 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

The 351M/400 engines share the 351C oiling system design, (as does the 385
series) and it has problems. (The big block however does not have problems
"generally" with oiling.)
In the "M Class" engines the large bearing journal diameters can cause
potential problems with oiling. These problems are exacerbated by the use of
tangential oil gallery and lifter bore locations. When the 351C was the
engine to run in Pro-stock and NASCAR. the "C" engine was bomb proof...
except for the oiling!
Part of the problem is that often the lifters don't fit PERFECTLY in the
lifter bore. When this happens the oil can hemorrhage out of the main
gallery and both pressure and volume drop! Unfortunately the Main Bearings
are oiled last for all intents and purposes.
When racing these engines, the best fix is to re-plumb for "Priority
oiling"; or Mains first. This option is simplicity in action, but more work
then we usually need for a 1-2-1 (or less) engine: 1HP/1CI. To do this you
simply drill straight down through the main webbing from the lifter valley
to the main bore; tap the top and feed it fresh oil being pumped out of the
engine through a cooler and then into this new oil passage. Presto, you can
now sustain 8500 RPM for as long as the rest will stay inside.
I charge too much to do this to my "Street" engines!, so what is a gearhead
to do? Simple!-)
Located just above the Oil Filter pad is a Port that is normally plugged.
And located at the back of the block on top just behind the valley/intake
manifold seal rail is the port that has an oil pressure sender or plug.
Simply connect these two ports and you are effectively feeding nice fresh
pressurized oil, from the front of the system, into the vary back of the
system. Not quite as effective as the first system I described but, it will
work well and is fairly cheap too!
You can build the external lines our of 1/2 Hydraulic tube but it is a pain
so I use Aero-Q (or=) braided Stainless line.
***I will caution that in this instance your use ridged line or braided,
don't cut corners! Your engine is at stake!***
For those not inclined to build their own Braided Stainless line there is
hope!
There is a company called:
MPG Head Service
3881 S. Jason St.
Englewood, CO. 80110
PN (303) 762-8196
These fine peoples just happen to sell the line, complete, and ready to bolt
on! You pay a bit for the privilege but what the heck! I buy em, and I don't
mind building STSTL Lines.
They also have the other piece that any well dressed engine needs. From pure
stocker to race! IMNSHO "ALL" engines should be equip. with a "Windage
Tray"; MPG has this item for the M Class engines that has a built in scraper
to assist in pealing the oil off the crank! And it fits inside the stock
pan.

So there you have it clear as whipped 30WT in January!
Well I hope that it's clearer then that!

Muel
79 Bronco
75 Highboy



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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:26:40 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oh, yeah.

>From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
>Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 351C finally running
>
>The 400, 335 series is probably the best truck
>engine ever made, just looking at it's specs.
>It has some design flaws but theoretically it has
>all the right qualifications.

Yo Gary:

I didn't read my digests last Friday because I had to hack out some work. Then,
last Sunday morning I'm sippin' coffee at SWMBO's desk, catchin' up on my FTE
fix, and you should have seen my eyes bug out and my jaw drop when I read this!
Warmed the cockles of my heart, it did, and brought a knowing smile to my
face... you know how I do love them M-blocks.

As for design flaws, I disagree. The spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak.
The M-block 400 was the very last pushrod V8 ever designed by Ford. It was
literally the culmination of everything Ford learned from the introduction of
the first Y-block through the 351 Cleveland, but sadly, it's execution was
mediocre, and a mere inkling of its performance potential is all we got in 1971,
when it had decent compression and an unretarded (though lazy) cam.

Unfortunately, w/ all the woes that assailed our beloved Dearborn in the 1970s,
from the meanie-greenies to the greedy petro mongers to the Japanese invasion,
Ford basically turned its corporate backside to the high-performance world for
years. I shook my head in disbelief when I saw the first Mustang IIs, and a
cold shiver went up my spine when I saw those "plastic princess" Cobra IIs.
Thank God Starsky and Hutch used a meat-and-potatos Torino (powered,
incidentally, by an M-block), as that kept at least a little bit of the blue
flame burning for me in those dark days.

The M-block 400's qualifications are more than theoretical. After the FE360 was
discontinued (the day Ballinger cried), the 400 became the biggest engine you
could get in a Ford 4x4 of any denomination until 1983, when the 460 was
introduced in the F250-and-up. From 1977 to 1982, the M-block 400 was available
in all Ford 4x4 trucks, including the Bronco. Even in its worst smogged-out
low-compression cam-retarded factory production guise, the M-block 400 still
made respectable power for its day (back when 350ci Z28 C*maros could barely
wheeze out 150 hp!), and the 460 was no barn-burner then. Ford didn't really
jump back on the performance bandwagon until the M-block was killed off in 1982
(and Wish remembers the 255 V8 '81-'82 Mustang fiasco!).

>The 460 is an even better mouse trap, if you
>need it for towing etc..

And so Ford equipped their trucks, w/ 460s available only in 2wd trucks that
could haul or tow a serious load. When I look at early '80s Ford literature, it
looks to me as if they planned to kill off the 460 in back then. My 1980 Ford
Truck Technical Highlights (very early printing to update dealer service techs
on new model changes) show the 460 as available only in the E350 vans(!) for
that year, though I believe they did use it in 1980 HD 2wd pickups. BTW, in
1980 they introduced V6-powered F100s as an "economy" package for light-duty
fleet operators, and AFAIK, the V6 continued to be offered until the F100 name
was dropped in 1984.

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:26:59 CDT
From: "PitStop Performance"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351M vs. 351C

Which external parts (such as starter, waterpump, dist., etc) will swap
between a 351C and 351M?

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

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

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 03:14:14 -0400
From: "George W. Selby, III"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: T-case low range

Should be a NP 205. You can replace the t-case with a Advance Adaptors
Atlas unit, it has 3.8:1 OR 4.3:1. Don't really have a problem with my
400-4 speed-205-3.5 geared 78 F-150 with 35" tires. Of couse I live on the....


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.