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 #360
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, October 5 1999 Volume 03 : Number 360



=======================================================================
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 - Horn not working, part II
RE: FTE 61-79 - Calculation 2.47 Gears
FTE 61-79 - Calculation 2.47 Gears
RE: FTE 61-79 - Brakes
FTE 61-79 - Re: Lincoln Welder
FTE 61-79 - Seattle Meeting - Thanks
RE: FTE 61-79 - 400
RE: FTE 61-79 - Horn not working, part II
FTE 61-79 - Unibody Wraparound rear windows
RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda
FTE 61-79 - V8 455 Buick engine on F100
RE: FTE 61-79 - Blue Dots
RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda
RE: FTE 61-79 - Headers 390 FE
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers
RE: FTE 61-79 - re of my new 71 f100.
FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda
FTE 61-79 - V8 455 Buick engine on F100
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers
RE: FTE 61-79 - driveshafts???Help with
RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)
RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda
RE: FTE 61-79 - driveshafts???Help with
RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange
FTE 61-79 - Connecting Rods
FTE 61-79 - 240 upgrades?
FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
RE: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers
RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)
FTE 61-79 - rag joint
RE: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
FTE 61-79 - Need help getting out of prod. parts (in CAN. at least)
Re: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)
Re: FTE 61-79 - Need help getting out of prod. parts (in CAN. at least)
RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)
FTE 61-79 - number crunching
Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel
Re: FTE 61-79 - Seattle Meeting - Thanks
Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds
FTE 61-79 - Duallie
FTE 61-79 - Longbed Flairside
FTE 61-79 - Seattle Meeting

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:26:45 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Horn not working, part II

Non of mine have this strap and the horns work on all of them. I suspect
the reason for this is that they all ground through the steering shaft
bearing to the column housing. This may be one reason some bearings go bad
sooner than others, not sure but since I rarely use the horn my bearings
should last a long time :-)

One ground strap that you must have though is the body to frame strap to
carry enough current to run the horn.....and lights.....and other things :-)

Some vehicles have a "dual" battery ground that actually has two terminals
in it, one for the engine and one for the frame. If you have this type of
cable you don't need the body ground because it's already incorporated into
the battery ground.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> The rag joint does not ground the steering column shaft
> to the gearbox
> shaft. A small ground strap provides ground, or the stock
> horn will not
> work.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 08:57:45 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Calculation 2.47 Gears

These numbers assume you can actually achieve the rpm listed. Obviously, if
you can't, you won't make that speed either :-)

Wide ratio tranny's in a truck are very much indicated unless you are
hauling heavy loads all the time and then you may even want to look into
something with more than three speeds. Truck engines are more than capable
of handling the spans between the gears, especially the larger ones, 350 and
larger for sure. If you are running a hot drag engine and only using 3
speeds then the wide ratio may still be indicated since you will also be
using a high stall converter but it's possible that you would be better
served with standard ratios in that case. IMHO, you would have to have a
pretty exotic rig to have trouble getting the benifits of the wide ratio
tranny in ANY truck with a mid to large size engine in it :-) Since the
E4OD uses this gear set and virtually all trucks have that tranny I would
think this is not a problem? My daughter's 97 with 4.2-6 has that tranny
too with 3.55 gears and 30" tires. Shifting in that truck is just about
perfect but it still hangs in gear too long as do all electronicly
controlled trannys :-(

My 460 is essentially stock with an RV cam in it, stock 235x75x15 tires and
it gets an average of 12 or so driving it back and forth to work which
includes many stop signs and lights and speeds between 45 and 60.

Since my pickup is almost 1000 pounds lighter than the van and the engine is
running better now with the OEM carb rather than the "Holley" it may not be
a fair comparison but my heiney says with 2.75 gears it acts like it's lower
than the van with 4.11 gears. The 5% increase in space beteen gears isn't
expecially significant with a torquey engine but makes all the difference if
you want to run tall gears. The weakest, sickest 460 on the planet could
handle it :-) If I'd had this in my van with the 351C I may have had a
different view of 4V clevelands in trucks :-)

- --
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
- --

> > 188 mph with 2.47 6000 rpm
> > 130 mph with 3.56 6000 rpm
> >
> > Are what I get using that figure :-)
> >
>
> Good luck getting anywhere near that with a truck ... maybe

> me wondering ... what about the between gears issues ? My 82
> GT had a wide
> ratio tranny in it, and the motor was peaky to say the least,
> so it ended up
> being too wide between the gears ... I think you really need
> to look at the
> vehicle as a whole
>
> Do you have a stock 460 or a modified/massaged one ? I can
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 08:40:43 -0500
From: "Brian C Nyman"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Calculation 2.47 Gears

The 3.56 gears came out of a '60 Custom. We're putting them into the Lincoln 9"
rear end.

I don't think 2500-3000 rpm for 55-60 is all bad. The motor is being built for
slightly higher rpms anyway. It's a good thing I've got a 25 gallon tank. The
truck will doing mostly "cruising" around town once we get it shaken down. It's
a short-box stepside, with specialty bed wood, so I won't really be hauling
things anyway.

I'm very aware that these numbers are theoretical anyway. I might be able to do
this on a strip if I put my mind to it. The motor should be able to reach 6K-7K
pretty easy. I'm not sure if I can get up to those speeds in a 1/4-mile
necessarily.

Brian Nyman
bnyman allina.com

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:41:42 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Brakes

Gravity bleeding is just as the name implies, you open a bleeder and let it
drain :-) What this doesn't do is dislodge any air bubbles trapped in the
system which may be hanging up on some turn or fitting, for that you need to
pump them or get some "velocity" going by some means and then even use
spasms by pumping short strokes but hard to kick them loose.

I always use a combination, gravity first and then pumping.

- --
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
- --

> How do you gravity bleed brakes?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 06:59:53 -0700
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lincoln Welder

I'm laughing with you, too! I went to the local thrift store and
bought the whole angle iron frame and decent casters for about $5.00.
Powered up the hacksaw, got out the ruler, and just DID IT!

Ted Wrote:
>By the way, I built a roll around cart for it using an old bed frame
>that was chopped and sectioned.
In the manual that came with it is a list of accessories. Right
at
the top of the list is a cart for this machine. I looked at a Northern
Tools catalog and they want about a $100 for one. I about wet myself
laughing. I figure, if you've got a welder now, spend $20 for some good
casters and make a cart!!! : )



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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 07:04:26 -0700
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Seattle Meeting - Thanks

CJ has spurred me on with his generosity. If you are ever travelling in
or through Seattle, bring a picture of your FORD truck and projects, and
I'll buy lunch. I'm right near the airport and would like to meet
others on the list.

Tim Bowman
Burien, WA
71 F100


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:14:00 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 400

Unless it actually says "400" on the air cleaner and even then someone could
have swapped it in :-) 460's and 429's have the same problem except that on
some 429's the valve covers were different and if you are really familiar
with them you could tell them that way but I couln't tell one from the other
myself :-) I generally trust what the air cleaner says :-) In that case
though I wouldn't be all that particular since they both scream :-)

The 351 and 400 OTOH do have quite a bit of performance difference so the
400 is a better truck engine for sure :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

>
> the outside of the
> motor. >>
>
> Thats what I thought
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 07:19:15 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Horn not working, part II

Danger is correct. The rag joint is a disc of flexible non-conductive
material (rubber or the new ones have some sort of polymer). The upper
shaft bolts to the disk in 2 places and the lower shaft bolts to the disk in
two other places about 90 degrees from the first two bolts. So the only
contact between the upper and lower shaft is the disk. Hence the reason
for the wire connecting the upper to lower shafts. I have heard that 4X4s
use a U-joint instead of a rag joint and they may not need a wire.

Tom H.b

> ----------
> From: Danger[SMTP:danger csolutions.net]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 1:20 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Horn not working, part II
>
> > I must be missing something. When you say the rag joint has to be
> > grounded (i.e., a wire between the joints) in order for the horn to
> work;
> > the rag joint is joined together by two 3/8-inch bolts. Doesn't this
> > "ground" one half to the other?
> .........
>
> The rag joint does not ground the steering column shaft to the gearbox
> shaft. A small ground strap provides ground, or the stock horn will not
> work.
>
> Danger
> danger csolutions.net
>
>
> == 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, 04 Oct 1999 07:35:22 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Unibody Wraparound rear windows

Sitting at a stoplight in Kennewick, I heard someone behind me honking
like crazy. I looked in my mirror to see some wild man waving me and
hollering something about "Unibody Wraparound...Phone number..."
I pulled into Stinky's Drive-In, thinking it seemed an appropriate spot to
talk about cars and trucks.

Anyway, after talking about Unibodies and finding out this guy has two
Unibody Wraparounds in Moses Lake and that he got written confirmation from
Ford that between 1961 and 1964 (I really think the Unibody ended in
1963)Ford made only 100 short-bed wraparound Unibodies, we exchanged phone
numbers. Bob (the man from Moses Lake) builds his trucks with Y-blocks and
doesn't have a computer...It made me think about all those great resources
out there that don't have access to FTE...Would be really great to find a
way to tap into those resources...

I guess if I ever decide to part with my truck, I will definitely think
twice about the price...Also, I feel much better about investing some
(more) money into her, since eventually the value will be truly appreciated
as much as it already is for me...This may be the first time I really took
Levi in a car deal...



Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (big empty space under the hood)
I shortened this to only FT's

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:37:18 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda

What plant did you wind up at?

You can't adjust that out of it and still have an engine that runs when it's
warm. The problem you mention is common with carbed engines with chokes on
them. When the engine is cold it requires a richer mixture to run and then
it leans out as it warms up at which point most of the carbon should be
gone.

EFI engines have a cleaner start up and better control during the warm up
phase but poorer once the engine warms up due to EPA strategies......:-)

- --
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
- --

> Michigan to work for
> Ford as a Product Design Engineer in the electrical side of

> 292 my 63 F100. When I start it up in the mornings it is
> leaving black
> smoked spots in the pavement. I think it is running to rich,
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 09:43:33 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - V8 455 Buick engine on F100

>>Thinking of placing a V8 455 Buick Engine (provided from a Custom LeSabre
73') with AT and PS to a 1961' F100.
All comments are appreciated.
Thanks
Erol
Istanbul-Turkey

Erol,
I could hear the screaming when you suggested putting a Buick power plant in
a Ford. I haven't read all of the digests from the weekend either, but I
know now part of what is waiting. I am going to assume that since you are in
Turkey, your choices and resources are somewhat limited.

The 455 Buick engine is a fairly decent engine. Its biggest problem is low
oil pressure at idle. The housing where the oil pump resides is made of
aluminum. The oil pump gears are steel. The gears make real nice groves in
the aluminum. this piece fits on the front of the engine and also houses the
timing chain. I don't remember whether the the distributor fits in this
piece or directly on the block. There were also at least two versions of the
oil pan, a rear sump and a mid sump depending on the car. You can swap
pickup tubes and pans to get the version you need.

Be sure to use the Turbo 400 auto or a manual tranny behind it. You'll
become very familiar with working on the transmission if you use a 350 auto.
The tranny you have is probably a 400, but in a LeSabre it might not be.

You might want to consider beefing up the front springs to handle the extra
weight.

I've never seen a 455 in a Ford but I've seen several Chebbies and G Cs.
They look pretty good and should keep the back tires burned down to nubs.
Are you sure you want to ruin a perfectly good Ford with a Buick engine and
tranny?

- -- 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, 4 Oct 1999 09:47:16 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Blue Dots

> Does anyone know what size hole I need to drill to put some
> Blue Dots in
> my taillights? A guy at work with a C! #y said he used a 15/16 wood bit.
> Any help always greatly appreciated!
>
>

This sounds about right ... the dots I bought came with instructions (!?!),
but that was years ago ... you really need them just about the same size as
the trim ring, the bevel on the ring should keep it from popping through,
also I would recommend twisting the fingers that stick through, I tried the
fold down method and it didnt' work as well ... just twist them with pliers
to about a 45deg angle from what they were ...

I dunno that "drill" or "cut" is the appropriate word, melt was a pretty
good one too ... its a combo of cutting and melting your way through the
plastic ... fortunately its a soft plastic and you don't have to worry about
cracking it ... I think i drilled from the back too, but don't remember for
sure ...

hope this helps

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, 4 Oct 1999 10:15:38 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda

> EFI engines have a cleaner start up and better control during the warm up
> phase but poorer once the engine warms up due to EPA strategies......:-)
>

Mumble mumble... grrr...grumble ... I BEG TO DIFFER! ... I had 2 full
paragraphs written up on this subject, but this isn't the place for it ...
FI has its place and is a great tool, I plan to put it on my truck ... not
in the "stock" configuration of course, but it will still be leaps and
bounds ahead of a carb when it comes to streetability ... not only the warm
up cycles, but the adjustability for altitude, also the attitude
adjustements (meaning off of level it won't flood) ... there are so many
plusses that the minuses don't even seem that bad to me ... but then I'm a
computer geek too, so plugging in a lap top to retune the car doesn't seem
odd ... heck wiring the lap top in so I can flip open the glove box, punch a
couple keys and suddenly have a full race tune sounds like a great thought,
but lots of people don't like that idea ...


>
> > 292 my 63 F100. When I start it up in the mornings it is
> > leaving black
> > smoked spots in the pavement. I think it is running to rich,

For some basic carb tuning, try :

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ranger3.cc.iastate.edu/Tech/Tuneup/tune.html

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, 4 Oct 1999 10:16:38 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Headers 390 FE

> Jake, I am using `Sorenson` brand/type headers that dump straight down
> alongside the block and stop at the Pan Gasket area(4 tubes to one
> collector/connector).... Kinda like Old style chevy ....
>

Sorenson ? Where did you get them ? Any info on them you can provide would
be great ... Sanderson is the only one I have seen or heard of doing a
"block hugger" style of pipe for the FE ...


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, 4 Oct 1999 11:02:42 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers

That's interesting because if it's made for your engine it should be exiting
in roughly the same place the original pipe would be. They may be close to
the linkage so a little tweaking may be needed to put it right but it should
be within easy bending range of the correct position.

If not, I suspect you have the wrong headers for your application. Since
all FE's are roughly the same deck height and general configuration this
would be rather surprising but car headers are different from truck headers
and will exit slighly different in most cases. It should still exit in such
a way to miss the tranny linkage but cars and trucks use different linkage
bell crank positions too so you really need the truck applicaiton for it to
work well.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> the headers were bought used so i don't know the brand
> i have them installed and the drivers side is exiting right at the
> transmission linkage, any suggestions besides different headers.
> the truck is a 1969 2wd 3/4 ton 390and c6
> any help is appreciated
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 10:36:55 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - re of my new 71 f100.

> Mine is on the floor. The hole is on the left side of the hump and
> the shifter has a few bends in it. It brings the shifter real close to
> my right leg in reverse. Yes, it is an H pattern but 2nd is on the
> right and switched with reverse. I figure that someone didn't like it
> on the tree or something and converted it.
>

Sounds about right ... I think ... I don't really understand what you're
saying quite ... the standard 3spd shift pattern is :

R 2
| |
+---+
| |
1 3

Likely if the shift pattern is upside down, then the arms are reversed, just
flip them 180 deg and you should be back to a standard pattern ... though
seems like it would also be mirrored if things were hooked up backwards too
...


> BTW: what's the deal with the gear and lightning bolt on the rubber
> flooring? I haven't seen it again on any ford trucks as I rummaged
> throught them in the salvage yard.
>

On the floor mat ? Cool, sounds like a Ford dealer thing, something that
factory floormats would have ... likely they wore out years ago on salvaged
trucks ...

> I found a spare tire bracket that goes inside the side of the bed.
> It was found attached on the passenger's side near the cab
> but I could bolt it in in any of the 4 corners I think. I don't have
> the guts to drill the holes because I can't decide if I really need
> it or want it or where to put it. Where did the spare tire go on
> these trucks from the factory? did they just thow them in the bed?
> Did they come with a spare? Did they sometimes mount under
> the bed near the bumber? I looked under their and didn't see anything.
> If I can I'd like to store it underneath instead of taking up
> space in the
> bed.

Likely it depends on option sets and many other things before you can decide
where it would've been mounted on your truck ... if you want to hang it
under the bed, I would guess there are trucks out there with mounts that
will work, like latemodels even ...

> The truck has dual exhaust which is routed on either side and exit
> on each side under the bumper. Would the tailpipes cause problems
> putting the spare under there? How close can you put the rubber to the
> tailpipe?

I've seen them run those pipes pretty close ... you get heat in your tires
from driving anyway, so it may not be a big deal ... it will depend on how
your truck is layed out though ... I'm not a big fan of the "hanging" spare
tire, so I just leave mine in the bed ... no one seems to want a stock steel
rim with an old factory tire on it, so I've never had any problems with it
disappearing either ...

My suggestion would be to figure out where you want it mounted, then take
measurements to be sure it will fit and figure out what size mounts you
need, then on your next trip to the salvage yard, look under whatever trucks
you can find and see if there's something you like there for mounting the
tire.

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, 04 Oct 1999 10:25:06 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda

Chuy,

It sounds like your truck is allergic to Michigan. First we have a guy
wanting to put a Buick engine in his Ford, now we have a guy moving from
Texas to Michigan. This really is a crazy bunch.

To the real problem. It sounds like you need to readjust the choke. My son's
Chebbie looks like a deisel when he cranks it. I always have to readjust it
from summer to winter and back again. Henry on the other hand is good to go
year round.

- -- 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, 04 Oct 1999 09:55:27 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - V8 455 Buick engine on F100

BTW, Erol,

The 455 Olds, 455 Buick, and 455 Pontiac are all different and share few
parts. I think bell housing bolt pattern is the same and bolt on accesories
are the same, but brackets, manifolds, internals, etc. are different. Bell
housing bolt pattern is different from Chebbie or Caddy which are also
different from each other. My brother did a lot of Buick 455 swapping in
days gone by. He dropped a 455 in a 78 LeSabre Sport Couope that came with a
3.8 Turbo V6. Ouch.........

- -- 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, 4 Oct 1999 10:59:25 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers

> That's interesting because if it's made for your engine it
> should be exiting
> in roughly the same place the original pipe would be.

Really ? I thought long tubes just came down and pointed straight back, it
was your responsibility to get the pipes from there on back ... and that the
stock pipes wouldn't do much, except to maybe provide an idea where it would
run nice ...

'course my experience is mostly with the 4x4 FE applications, which leaves
the headers WAY down under the body ...

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, 4 Oct 1999 09:13:53 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - driveshafts???Help with

The 2 piece shaft should give you more ground clearance. Especially on
longer trucks.

Tom H.

> ----------
> From: joe delaurentis[SMTP:shoman p3.net]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 1999 2:56 PM
> To: truck list
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - driveshafts???Help with
>
> Group,
> anybody know of a year driveshaft I can use on my 68 4x4 with a c/6 &
> np205
> I would like to get rid of the 2 piece rear driveshaft and go with a one
> piece...
> It needs to be 66"'s long from yoke to yoke...Any ideas???Or should I
> stick
> to the 2 piece unit???Advantages???
> Joe
>
> == 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, 4 Oct 1999 12:17:02 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)

'tis the place to speak of it too :-) I stand by my original statement :-)
You are talking a whole nuther smoke from what I was refering to and I agree
with you but I haven't seen an OEM EFI engine yet that could manage the same
fuel economy along with the same performance, over all average, of a
similarly sized and equipped carbed engine in a similar application and this
is ENTIRELY due to EPA garbage, not the inherent nature of the beast.

It should be more efficient across the board by a fair margin but that is
not, and never will be, the case with off the shelf, OEM tune, again due to
those who know better......:-)

People like us will always be able to build a better mouse trap because all
we see is the mouse.....the goons see all kinds of ghosts and goblins we
can't and don't even care to see :-) It will be a sad day when the Sierra
Clubbers and other unbalanced special interest groups finally get their way
and we have to go to the sherrif dept to get a purchase permit to buy
automotive tools.......:-(

- --
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
- --

> Mumble mumble... grrr...grumble ... I BEG TO DIFFER! ... I had 2 full
> paragraphs written up on this subject, but this isn't the
> place for it ...
> FI has its place and is a great tool, I plan to put it on my
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:21:08 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda

Chuy, Way to go on the new job!!
From your description I would say you don't have a problem. Yes it is
running rich. You said on startup in the morning-- the engnin is cold and
the choke is set. It's supposed to be running richer. Mine will blow a
little black smoke on startup too.

Tom H.

> ----------
> From: Jesus Cardsoo[SMTP:jcardoso flash.net]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 1999 8:48 PM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com; pre61-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - Smoking 292 Kinda
>
> Howdy!
>
> Well it has been a while since I emailed the list. I recently moved
> from
> Texas (finished school finally!) to the great state of Michigan to work
> for
> Ford as a Product Design Engineer in the electrical side of the business.
> It is great to get paid for your hobby! I have a small problem with the
> 292 my 63 F100. When I start it up in the mornings it is leaving black
> smoked spots in the pavement. I think it is running to rich, right? I
> have tried adjusting the carb (2 barrel) manually with just a plain old
> screw driver, but I have had no luck. How can I calibrate the carb
> correctly so that I can get rid of this small problem? Thanks in advance
> for all of your input and it is great to be back!
>
> Chuy
> Detroit, MI
> 63 F100 Flareside
> 2000 Ranger 4x4 (soon to be acquired!)
> == 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, 4 Oct 1999 12:43:00 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - driveshafts???Help with

I once watched as a fellow shishkabobbed himself on a pointy hill and bent
his drive shaft at about a 20 degree angle :-) It was bent so
bad..........how bad was it bent, Gary?......That it didn't even have enough
room to rotate to move it off the hill :-)

A two piece shaft would have saved him in that case :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> The 2 piece shaft should give you more ground clearance.
> Especially on
> longer trucks.

> ideas???Or should I
> > stick
> > to the 2 piece unit???Advantages???
> > Joe
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:35:38
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - transfer case lowrange

>shallow ditch in deep grass and slush. I had open diffs, fairly new 33" A/T
>type tires with lots of fine siping and pulled her right out without
>slipping a tire in low range with a standard ratio C-6 with 4.1 gears. It
>litterally idled her out, just like I did with the lincoln in the drive way,

I once pulled out a high-centered chevy like that. It felt like the strap
didn't even get any tension on it ;-)


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:27:53 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Connecting Rods

Does anyone know where I can find 7 inch crankshaft to piston connecting
rods?

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:43:09 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 240 upgrades?

What if anything can be done to the old 240 to "wake it up" a little bit?
My father in law's '67 is getting tired (approaching 250K) and it's time for
a rebuild. I suggested not bothering with the 240 and moving to a 300, but
he wants to keep the numbers matching. It's far from a show truck, but no
junker.

Any suggestions on what to do?

Also I found a short styleside (?) box for him. It's pretty straight with
surface rust in the bed, but nothing major. Guy is asking $250. Sounds
fair to me, what do you think?

Rich
(You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me...)

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:29:22 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds

Brian writes: >>Is this close to right? This is based on optimal transmission
ratio of 1:1; I'm
not sure what the max/optimal ratio a C6 puts out. Not that anyone wants to
"cruise" at 6000rpm. As it is, the 3.56 gears are going to do okay for an old
'58 F100, don't you think? Nice comfy cruising speeds. My 402 (390+0.060")
with hydraulic cam and electronic ignition should be able handle 6K pretty easy,
on occasion. Now all I have to do is get it on the road...

6000rev/min x 60min/hr x 1wt/2.47rev x 85in/1wt x 1ft/12in x 1mi/5280ft =
195.5mi/hr
3500rev/min x 60min/hr x 1wt/2.47rev x 85in/1wt x 1ft/12in x 1mi/5280ft =
114.0mi/hr
3000rev/min x 60min/hr x 1wt/2.47rev x 85in/1wt x 1ft/12in x 1mi/5280ft =
97.7mi/hr

6000rev/min x 60min/hr x 1wt/3.56rev x 85in/1wt x 1ft/12in x 1mi/5280ft =
135.7mi/hr
3500rev/min x 60min/hr x 1wt/3.56rev x 85in/1wt x 1ft/12in x 1mi/5280ft =
79.1mi/hr
3000rev/min x 60min/hr x 1wt/3.56rev x 85in/1wt x 1ft/12in x 1mi/5280ft =
67.8mi/hr

wt - wheel turn
wt = 27in (295/50R15) x pi (3.141593) = 85 in circumference

Looks good on paper, but I'm thinking you will be awfully lucky to get that
bugger to turn 6K in top gear with a 3.5 rear. When I was racing(Drags) my '69
428SCJ fastback mustang I would change the engine out in the winter and drive it
to/from work. That was roughly a 30 mile trip and quite often I got the chance
to "Ring it out" so to speak. I had a tach in it and it turned 3100 70 MPH.
That was just at above the start of its horsepower curve and from there up it
would really scoot. It would turn 6K a in top gear, but it was also not close
to stock. It had aluminun intake - a cam that had something like 312 degrees
duration and .500" lift at the valve with non adjustable rockers(and I had
adjustables that had a slightly higher ratio) - headers and some very smoothe
passages in both the intakes and exhaust. This was a stock bore/stroke 390 I
used in the "OFF" season, but had several good things that had been in some
previous engines I raced with. If memory serves me correctly the tires were
H78X15 and were 86" around(circumference).
My Mustang had aerodynamics that are somewhat of an advantage over the
"bricks"(aerodynamically speaking) that we know and love as old FORD trucks.
Your calculations aren't that far off, I don't think, but I don't want you to
expect your truck to ever get to 135MPH with a well built street 390. Maybe so,
but I just don't want you to get your hopes too high.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:32:33 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds


> My Mustang had aerodynamics that are somewhat of an advantage over the
> "bricks"(aerodynamically speaking) that we know and love as old FORD
> trucks.
> Your calculations aren't that far off, I don't think, but I don't want you
> to
> expect your truck to ever get to 135MPH with a well built street 390.
> Maybe so,
> but I just don't want you to get your hopes too high.
>
> Azie
> Ardmore, Al.
>
>
Don't you think with the "aerodynamics" of our trucks he would be airborne
well before 135? ;0)

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:53:02 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers

The Walker headers (cheap) long tube came out exactly where the stock pipes
came out, in the radius bent into the cross memeber for that purpose. This
was a 2wd application but I believe those were 4x4 pipes, can't remember for
sure. Stock pipes won't fit because they are intended to go further up into
the engine to meet with the manifolds but the pipe still goes in the same
general area in both cases with that one exception. My custom pipes go
right from the collectors, through the openings in the cross member and
straight back and over the rear axle and straight out the back.

Some applications may attempt to get the pipe under the xfer case but that
certainly isn't the best solution. I suppose this is why the outside the
frame headers were invented, eh?

I think in this case he may have headers designed for a car or other
application which is why the linkage is in the way. I pulled my engine and
tranny from a merc wagon and the linkage was completely different and
reversed from the truck. The truck also uses a bell crank and the car goes
direct as I recall.

- --
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
- --

> > That's interesting because if it's made for your engine it
> > should be exiting
> > in roughly the same place the original pipe would be.
>
> Really ? I thought long tubes just came down and pointed
> straight back, it
> was your responsibility to get the pipes from there on back
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:55:41 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)

> 'tis the place to speak of it too :-) I stand by my original
> statement :-)

Wouldn't want to stand behind it, might get smoked out ? ;)

> You are talking a whole nuther smoke from what I was refering to
> and I agree
> with you but I haven't seen an OEM EFI engine yet that could
> manage the same
> fuel economy along with the same performance, over all average, of a
> similarly sized and equipped carbed engine in a similar
> application and this
> is ENTIRELY due to EPA garbage, not the inherent nature of the beast.
>

So you're saying that the OEM EFI on say my 'stang isn't as good at what it
does as a carb on say an early 80's truck ? Okay lets back up a step, go to
95 when the 302 was still in the cars and had their injection on them ...
and compare that with say an 83 GT ? (I know 'stangs better than trucks
here, and a W is a common motor for both 'stangs and trucks) ... maybe we
should pick an 85 GT 'cause it was the LAST carbbed mustang from the
factory, so 85 and 95, both last of their breed (95 was last 5.0 'stang) ...
both with EPA restrictions on them ... both rated at or very near 225hp.
Now put a hundred thousand miles on them ... I'll bet the FI version will be
runnin a bunch better and not all gummed up like the carb would be ... both
would be needing tune-ups that's for sure, but I think the EFI system is
much lower maintenance, and much more likely to remain "in-tune" ... not to
mention the elev. changes that people sometimes deal with ... mileage would
probably be different too, but they are different body styles ...

Comparing first gen. FI to late model carbs is like comparing an M-block to
a y-block ... (right Dave ? :)


> It should be more efficient across the board by a fair margin but that is
> not, and never will be, the case with off the shelf, OEM tune,
> again due to
> those who know better......:-)
>

I don't think an OEM tuned carb is anything to brag about ...


> People like us will always be able to build a better mouse trap
> because all
> we see is the mouse.....the goons see all kinds of ghosts and goblins we
> can't and don't even care to see :-)

Hahaha ... always true, hit the late-model boards, you'd be amazed what they
can do now ... carbs are still around, but they are in pieces (expensive
ones too) throughout the intake system ... throttle body = butterfly , MAF
is sort of like the jets in the venturi, it tells the computer how much air
is flowin in, and the injectors of course are like the jets themselves and
the mixture screws, with the computer metering pulse width to change the
amount of fuel added, based on the O2 sensor's determinations of rich/lean
...

So lets see, that's a MAF ($300 for aftermarket good one), Throttle body
($200 for bigger bore aftermarket) and injectors ($125 for aftermarket
bigger ones) ... so about 650 for the equivalent of a bigger carb, but that
also increases the maximum quite a bit ... and those are all new parts, not
used or refurbs (not many refurbs available yet) ... yes its expensive, but
you don't have to do it all at once either ...


It will be a sad day when
> the Sierra
> Clubbers and other unbalanced special interest groups finally
> get their way
> and we have to go to the sherrif dept to get a purchase permit to buy
> automotive tools.......:-(
>

But who will help them when their VW van stalls on the side of the road and
they can't afford to fix 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, 4 Oct 1999 15:33:20 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - rag joint

Dan writes: >>I must be missing something. When you say the rag joint has to
be
grounded (i.e., a wire between the joints) in order for the horn to work;
the rag joint is joined together by two 3/8-inch bolts. Doesn't this
"ground" one half to the other?

Look at it very closely Dan, and you will notice that it is actually
insulated(top from bottom) by the rag joint itself. Get your trusty flashlight
out and examine it carefully.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:57:00 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds

> Don't you think with the "aerodynamics" of our trucks he would
> be airborne
> well before 135? ;0)
>

Actually the weight still keeps them down ;) Though they are a bit lighter
to turn that's for sure ...

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, 04 Oct 1999 14:34:08 -0600
From: Kirk Baillie
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Need help getting out of prod. parts (in CAN. at least)

Hi I own a 74 F250 4X4 and I am in need of some help getting the power
cylinder and the Control valve for the steering system. My problem lies
in that the parts are no longer available through Ford in Canada, or
through remanufacturers.

My question is could someone find out if these two parts are available
down in the states so i could order them and drive my truck again.

Thanks
Kirk Baillie
74 F250 highboy 4x4
sitting on the driveway waiting for steering components :-(
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:34:40 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)

William S. Hart wrote:
>

> > is ENTIRELY due to EPA garbage, not the inherent nature of the beast.
> >

That and warantee claims, at least on the performance side.

> should pick an 85 GT 'cause it was the LAST carbbed mustang from the
> factory, so 85 and 95, both last of their breed (95 was last 5.0 'stang) ...

I'd say 85 and 87 would be a better comparison, but still not
completely equal. Only real difference between those 2 years 5.0 HO's
were 85 had single exh, while 86 up had true duals (although 4 cats:-().
Even so, 87's had 35 ft-lbs more torque than the 85's. Dual exh is not
going to give you that torque increase. It's the tuned port intake which
I don't think would work well on a carb. Several of my friends had 85's
and the injected motors ( I still have an 86) got equal or better
milage.

> both with EPA restrictions on them ... both rated at or very near 225hp.

Actually, 85 was rated 210 HP and 95 was rated 205 HP (87 was rated
225 HP).

> Hahaha ... always true, hit the late-model boards, you'd be amazed what they
> can do now ... carbs are still around, but they are in pieces (expensive
> ones too) throughout the intake system ... throttle body = butterfly , MAF
> is sort of like the jets in the venturi, it tells the computer how much air
> is flowin in, and the injectors of course are like the jets themselves and
> the mixture screws, with the computer metering pulse width to change the
> amount of fuel added, based on the O2 sensor's determinations of rich/lean
> ...
>
> So lets see, that's a MAF ($300 for aftermarket good one), Throttle body
> ($200 for bigger bore aftermarket) and injectors ($125 for aftermarket
> bigger ones) ... so about 650 for the equivalent of a bigger carb, but that
> also increases the maximum quite a bit ... and those are all new parts, not
> used or refurbs (not many refurbs available yet) ... yes its expensive, but
> you don't have to do it all at once either ...
>

You can't argue this with gary, I tried years ago :-) He has a point
about factory states of tune on EFI motors and the cost of tunable EFI
systems being more than a new carb/man setup, but those tunable EFI
systems can do 1000 things carbs could only dream about.

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:42:51 -0500
From: "Brett Yerks"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Need help getting out of prod. parts (in CAN. at least)

I assume yours are leaking? If you just need the parts and can rebuild them
I have some leaking ones. Cheap if thats what you need, I'm assuming you
are looking for some nice new ones though. :) Actually if you have access
to a welder and torch I would recommend converting your steering over to the
78/79 integral power steering. I just finished the swap this past weekend,
it drives like a dream now, even with 38" superswampers.

BTW, if anyone is in need of my old steering parts they are available. The
control valve and the ram both leak so I don't know why anyone would want
them, but they are available and very very cheap. :)

Brett
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superford.org/fbird


> Hi I own a 74 F250 4X4 and I am in need of some help getting the power
> cylinder and the Control valve for the steering system. My problem lies
> in that the parts are no longer available through Ford in Canada, or
> through remanufacturers.
>
> My question is could someone find out if these two parts are available
> down in the states so i could order them and drive my truck again.
>
> Thanks
> Kirk Baillie
> 74 F250 highboy 4x4
> sitting on the driveway waiting for steering components :-(


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 16:02:10 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Smoking, non efi :-)

> > should pick an 85 GT 'cause it was the LAST carbbed mustang from the
> > factory, so 85 and 95, both last of their breed (95 was last
> 5.0 'stang) ...
>
> I'd say 85 and 87 would be a better comparison, but still not

The reason I went to 95 was to get later generations of both on the same
motor, 87 was also a speed density system which is not nearly as efficient
or adaptable to mods as the MAF systems are ...


> Several of my friends had 85's
> and the injected motors ( I still have an 86) got equal or better
> milage.
>
> > both with EPA restrictions on them ... both rated at or very
> near 225hp.
>
> Actually, 85 was rated 210 HP and 95 was rated 205 HP (87 was rated
> 225 HP).

Are you sure it wasn't the auto that was rated at 210 ? That had the weird
TBI setup on it, while the 5spds still had the carb, and I could've sworn it
was 225 for the carbbed version, but we're still talkin rated, so it doesn't
mean anything when it comes down to the street ... also the 95's got the
lower rating (215 or whatever) mostly because the lower hood restricted the
intake height ... at least that was the story I heard ..

> You can't argue this with gary, I tried years ago :-)

hahahaha ... I'm just getting sick of hearing people bad mouth things that
are going to be with us no matter how much they complain ... like the OHC
motors ... another good idea and implemented well, but of course they don't
have near the development time as the old pushrod, so they're not quite as
effective yet, or as cheap because the parts aren't out there yet ...

> about factory states of tune on EFI motors and the cost of tunable EFI
> systems being more than a new carb/man setup, but those tunable EFI
> systems can do 1000 things carbs could only dream about.
>

Yup, I'm not arguing cost here, not for a few more years yet anyway ... and
I'd bet there are very few "factory tuned" carbs out there anymore, I'll bet
almost all of them have been re-tuned for mixture or choke settings ... its
funny how out of line they get after a while ....

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, 04 Oct 1999 19:15:49 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - number crunching

Forwarded for tjpiebiak yahoo.com:

1979 F-350 S/C 4x4 Lariat Full=20 Load ........How many where built in Canada and=20 U.S.

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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 20:22:30 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds

In a message dated 10/4/99 12:37:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:


well before 135? ;0) >>

Ive been airborne at 102, but thats cuz I wasnt on any paved road.

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 21:18:37 -0700
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel

Hi,
Does anyone have a source for a new/replacement 1949 F1 steering wheel?

Tim 66F100 Custom Cab SWB with 352, P/S & O/D
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 19:49:04 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Seattle Meeting - Thanks

Hey now that sounds like a plan I will be in Seattle
the last week of Oct. The job has me flying up there on
the 25th and leaving the 29th. I have hoped that some
of my travels over the next year will get me to bring
to some spots were list members are. Spent the evening
trying to get the wrong radiator in my 77. Talk about
a little upset. You tell people what you want and they
can't get it right.

- --
William A Whited
74 F100 RANGER SUPERCAB 390
77 F150 CUSTOM 460
SEMPER FI


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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 19:13:30 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds

Thanks for your message at 08:22 PM 10/4/99 EDT, JUMPINFORD aol.com. Your
message was:
>
airborne
> well before 135? ;0) >>
>
>Ive been airborne at 102, but thats cuz I wasnt on any paved road.

"....eight miles high..."



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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:37:30 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RPM's Speeds

I was able to manage 108 in my '73 F100 w stock 302 & c4. But then, something
about the Kansas Highway Patrol made me stop. Fun while it lasted though ;-)

George

In a message dated 10/04/1999 3:16:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:


"bricks"(aerodynamically speaking) that we know and love as old FORD trucks.
Your calculations aren't that far off, I don't think, but I don't want you to....


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.