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 #368
Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


61-79-list-digest Monday, October 11 1999 Volume 03 : Number 368



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

FTE 61-79 - Re: unibodies
FTE 61-79 - Re: 429/460 conversion
FTE 61-79 - Alternative Engines
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: "drag link"
RE: FTE 61-79 - three speed on the floor my '71 f100
FTE 61-79 - cruise control
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative Engines
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Spammer
FTE 61-79 - Core Support
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Trying to contact the following people
FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem
FTE 61-79 - Looking for ...
FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative Engines
FTE 61-79 - Ceremonial Firing of the engine
FTE 61-79 - VIN ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - VIN ID
FTE 61-79 - dana track lock units for sale
FTE 61-79 - 1966 Mercury F250 4x4
Re: FTE 61-79 - Ceremonial Firing of the engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Core Support

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:57:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rubberducky23 webtv.net (Danny Ling)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: unibodies

I think the theory behind a unibody vehicle is the auto manufacturers
looking at aircraft manufacturers. An airframe is quite strong by using
all the panels on the aircraft as structure for the aircraft itself.
Doing this makes it cheaper to manufacture and lighter due to using less
material. The problem with this set up is one dent or flaw anywhere in
the structure weakens it very much but it is a very strong design when
in good condition.

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 08:33:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rubberducky23 webtv.net (Danny Ling)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 429/460 conversion

I may have been in a different boat that your setup. but the way I did
mine is...

My 77 F250 Highboy 4X4 came equipped with a 400M. therefore my existing
C6 would bolt up to a 429/460 without modification. My 429 had originaly
come from a 69 T-Bird... I got the motor built up and used a flexplate
from a parts store for the 69 T-Bird. I needed a rear sump oil pan but I
got lucky when one of my friends had one laying around in his garage
with the oil pump pickup. I had to get a special main bolt from a Ford
dealer that had a stud to support the pickup. I bought a set of
conversion mounts from L&L and put the motor in the truck. next was the
exhaust nightmare. the T-Bird manifolds worked on the drivers side just
fine. but the passenger side was a headache. I hunted wrecking yards for
weeks trying to find a right side exhaust manifold that exits close
enough to the block to clear my frame rail. after a couple weeks (and
payday) I gave up on trying to get manifolds to work so I broke down and
ordered a set of L&L Tri-Y headers. (Id rather have fender well exit
though) they worked pretty good but I had to tweek em a little to keep
em from hitting the crossmember between the bellhousing and the tranny
pan...other than that I used 69 T-Bird stuff for all the accessory
brackets and got as heavy of a radiator as I could get. It's pretty
much a straight forward conversion. (by my standards) If you need part
#'s or anything just write back.

Laters, Danny Ling

(pre 77 1/2) 77 F250 Highboy 4X4, 69 429 Thunder Jet

87 Samurai 231 Buick V6/TH 350 conversion, IH Scout axles, SOAC,
33X14.00 Boggers


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Alternative Engines

edans? That was to get the US buying customer used to
the idea of
purchasing full size rear-engined cars,
probably unitized construction
and air-cooled, possibly even gas turbine
powered. They all had
prototypes. My how different the 60's
would have been if they'd been
given the go ahead....

>>>>>>>

I always wondered why the gas-turbine never caught on.

I read a pretty good story on the Chr*sler experiments
with it and still can't see why they didn't use it.
There were a few drawbacks, but think of what they
would be today with all of the technology available.




=====

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:41:31 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem

> I tried to start my 1963 F-250, 223 6 cyl and it wouldn't start, I
> bought it from a fellow not running and it sat for at lest 2 years. I
> troubleshot it to the fuel pump, no fuel coming out when it cranked, so
> I replaced it and found that that was not the problem, either. There is
> no fuel coming out of the tank, I shot air through the line from the
> tank to the fuel pump. Is there a strainer or something in the tank that
> needs cleaning? It is driving me nuts. Thank you for any help. Robert
>

Actually the tank itself may need cleaning, there could be rust and stuff
piled up in there ... if you drop the tank down and clean it out good (use
water and then let it dry for a day or so) ...then get some sealer that you
slosh around in there, and that should keep the rust at bay so you don't
have to do it again in a week or two ...

Also check very closely for holes in the fuel line ... if there is a hole in
the line or a cracked fitting, the pump will suck air through that hole and
not the fuel...


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: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:43:10 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: "drag link"

> I believe you are talking about the rod that holds the axle from
> shifting side to side.. Its called a "Panhard Rod"...


The way I've always seen it referenced is a track bar for the front and a
panhard rod for the rear ...

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: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 10:47:54 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - three speed on the floor my '71 f100

> >R 2
> >| |
> >+---+
> >| |
> >1 3
>
> It's been a while since I drove a three on the tree. It was a 70ish
> chevrolet.
> My F100 has the floor shift and it goes lke this:
>
> 13
> R2
>

Yup, that's the flipped arm syndrome ... just crawl under there and take the
shift arms off the tranny, flip them 180deg and put them back on ... it
should be right after that ...


> Right now I am loading it with concrete from a slap I am
> destroying. How
> much concrete
> can I put in that longbed?

Well lets see ... its a 6' by 8' bed ...;)

> I want to overload it somewhat but I
> don't want
> to hurt the truck
> either.

Okay, well lemme say this, it depends on your truck ... if you have a half
ton that's fairly worn out, I wouldn't push things too far ... 5000lbs is
gross vehicle weight, so I wouldn't put more than that in the back (not to
mention DOT can get growly about things like that, and it being harvest
season and all they do have their scales with em)....

I know a guy who claimed he weighed his truck out of the scales at 10,000
lbs (1/2 ton 4x4), but that was with a plow and a full load of rock ... he
said it was a bit too much ...

I usually just load it til it starts to sag a bit, and check the tires
constantly, you don't want a flat with a load on it (ask me how I know)....


>
> Question: Radial or Bias? Do they still use Bias tires? Are there any
> benefits?
>

Bias are still out there ... I'm not sure of all the
advantages/disadvantages, but be sure and get a tire that suits your needs,
not just a replacement...

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: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 10:54:37 -0600
From: "Greg Sage"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - cruise control

I am also looking for an aftermarket cruise control. Any recommendations?
My truck never came with that option. Looked in JC Whitney catalogue. What
about a comparable Canadian company?

Greg
Calgary, Alberta...Canada
1978 F150 2WD 351M/400 C6 w/shiftkit 2nd owner *Albert*

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:01:05 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative Engines

In a message dated 10/10/99 7:11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ballingr yahoo.com writes:


with it and still can't see why they didn't use it. >>

My understanding was that they couldnt get the turbines to burn clean enough,
which was very hard for me to believe. I was watching "Automobiles" and
they went into alot of detail, even on the prototypes that were drivin around
the country. Even had an old commercial where they went to beverly hills and
dumped a bottle of Chanel #5 into the tank to show it would burn anything.
the bodies were designed by an ex ford designer, and it was easy to tell, the
fronts of the prototypes looked like the back of a T-bird!

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:50:30 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Spammer

If any of you have considered buying from coolwheels, please
be aware that they attempted to spam our mailing lists. Our
spam filters caught it. You should take this incident into
account when considering their business ethics.

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 15:08:01 -0400
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Core Support

I finally got 2 coats of POR-15 on my core support and have it ready to go
in. When I set it on the frame and tuck it under the drivers side fender,
the passenger side sticks up about three inches. It seems to me that the
cab mounts and floor are that far gone. Does this sound right? I'm gonna
get out the floor jack & some blocks of wood and see if I can't get it to
line up.
I told SWISO that it probably is so used to running with that rotten old
core support, it isn't ready for a major change.
Any suggestions are greatly anticipated and appreciated.
As a side note. Would it hurt to start the truck without the radiator? I'm
talking just for a couple of minutes to get the juices flowing. The "Beast"
hasn't ran in about 2 months and it needs to be started.

Ted Wnorowski
Bellevue,OH
' 64 F-250
352 transplant
4 speed



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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:03:40 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Trying to contact the following people

Hi gang,

Many of you may remember when author Judy Scott was
looking for people willing to write up stories of
their Ford truck memories. I just received an email
from her requesting a favor. Following is the request....
- -Ken Payne

ToughTales author, Judy Scott, needs to hear from the following contributors but does not have current email addresses for them. If you see your name on this list, please respond to jscott bancom.net:
.RIch Yeoman
.Martin Clarke
.Karel Cromback
.Tom Lopez
.Christine Oxford
. Dr. Rico

Thanks,

Judy Scott

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:50:13 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke

My New To Me 77, has had the following done to it by
the previous owner:

less than 200 miles on the following:

New heads / rockers / lifters professionally
installed
New Holley 750 QuadraJet electric choke carb
New Edelbrock Performer 460 Manifold
New Timing chain, gears
All new Fel-Pro gaskets
Mallory ProMaster coil
8mm wires, new distributor, cap
Brand new lifetime starter
Most hoses and belts were replaced
New plugs, other small things
Replaced the exhaust manifold gaskets

Now the small problem that I have is when I get hard
into the gas I notice some light blue smoke from her.
Should I be concerned? She burns no oil to speak of.
Runs great. Could it be from sitting for a while and
only ran at idle for the last 6 months after all the
work was done to her? TIA
- --
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: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:05:44 -0700
From: "Josh Assing"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem

> Actually the tank itself may need cleaning, there could be rust and
This has got me thinking ...

My 72 tank (inside cab) only reads Empty-1/2 way; no matter how
much I put in. I tested by grounding the sending unit; and it read
full. Before I pull the actual unit out; can this thing be
adjusted/cleaned? or should I just replace it? The truck sat for
about 1 to 2 years before I bought it; so it might have some
corrosion
on it; as I doubt it had a full tank when it was stored....

- -josh
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jassing.com/josh/f100.htm
72 F100 4x4

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:51:19 -0400
From: joe delaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Looking for ...

Looking for people with 67-72's that did a 76-79 dana 44 front swap...
Looking for input/problems, modifications needed....
Joe

- --
Joe
68 4x4 390 c6- Np 205 Dana 44 with Disc Brakes,
Since Ford Didn't build em this way in 68, I'll make my own!


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:36:53 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different engines ?

i just bought the 79 f250 4x4 extended cab, it has a rod showing itself
outside the oil pan. it has a 351 m engine in it with an automatic.i have the
ability to do an engine swap, but i'm not sure which way i want to go. i want
to build this truck to be used everyday, so fuel mileage is important as well
as decent power. i know i can't expect great mileage from this big of a
truck. i have built many performance engines
but have never built one with economy in mind, so i need advice.

what kind of mileage should i expect from a 351m or 400 verses a 429/460?

would a 351 c or 351w be a good choice for this big of a truck. i have access
to all of the above engines and even have a reguilt 351 c shortblock on the
stand.

tranny is not a problem, i have a small block c6.

i'd like to hear from some of you on fuel mileage with different engines.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:46:36 -0700
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Alternative Engines

Bill B. wondered:

> I always wondered why the gas-turbine never caught on.

Power band too narrow, WAY too thirsty.
Union Pacific experimented with gas turbine locos
(ran on the lowest grade of fuel oil), they got the
same mileage regardless of loading.

We may see a turbine in a Ford soon, of
sorts. As I recall Volvo was working on a turbine
engined hybrid, just before being bought by Ford.
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:19:56 -0500
From: Stu Varner
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ceremonial Firing of the engine

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Football season is coming to a close and I am going to be able to remove
the old truck from moth balls in a week. Yehaw!!
It is hard to believe I have not even looked at the "old girl" since July
26th when Tony "the kid" Marino
was down to help with some major work. Coaching football and old Ford
trucks are my only two real passions
so please don't scold me for not having done anything.

This is an open invitation to all FTE people who would like to show up on
November the 13th (Saturday) for the
first firing of my freshly restored (90% complete) truck. So far I have
commitments from Jim Elliott of Nashville, TN and
Tony "the kid" Marino from Akron, OH. Any and all who would like to travel
to West Tennessee for the day
are more than welcome to show up. I will provide beverages, cold cuts and
chips etc. for lunch if you make the journey
for a day of good clean Ford truck fellowship.

We do plan to video the firing and (if successful) plan on putting it up on
the web page just for grins.
There was some talk of doing a live video stream but I don't think this is
going to be a possibility. 8^(

If interested in showing up for this "grand" event please email me off list
and I will give more specific details
and directions to the house.

Later on!

Stu
Nuke GM!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:39:38 -0400
From: "Forest V. New"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - VIN ID

I know its not the proper list but does anyone have a VIN code decoder for
a F1 series truck?

The vin is F2R1AT11006

I appreciate the help.
Thanks
Forest New
72 Ranger XLT
71 ranger Sport custom
69 Mach1 Mustang


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:51:22 -0400
From: "Phil / Debi"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - VIN ID

> I know its not the proper list but does anyone have a VIN code decoder for
> a F1 series truck?
>
> The vin is F2R1AT11006

f2 series
R 239 8 cyl
1 year 1951
AT assembly plant Atlanta GA
11006 consecutive unit number

Phil Beattie
66 F100
79 F250 4x4
91 F150 4x4
www.geocities.com/imstobu

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:55:08 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - dana track lock units for sale

i have available two trac lok units new in the box, these are dana units.

dana 44 front unit for up to 3.73 $180.00
dana 60 unit for up to 4.11 gears $225.00

my nephew bought them for his truck and then blew the engine.

he's taking a loss on the units, but needs the cash to rebuild the engine.

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:54:42 -0500
From: Rick Walker
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 1966 Mercury F250 4x4

I have a 1966 Mercury F250 4x4 with the heavy duty 3500# front axle, I
believe it is a Dana 44F-FD (or Ford 2558) axle. It has leaked since
the truck was new, can anyone help in finding replacement front seals
(rubber and felt seals) for this axle?
Thanks for any help anyone can provide.

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:10:54 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Ceremonial Firing of the engine

Stu, I'd love to be there but I will be in the middle
of a trip in AZ. Good luck and drink on for me.

- --
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, 11 Oct 1999 00:15:09 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different engines ?

Well, I cant speak for everybody (Ill let them do that) but Ive got a 79
Bronco w 400 & c6. I currently get about 9-10 mpg in mixed city/highway
driving as long as I dont go diving into the secondaries on my Holley 4bbl.
It's a good truck engine with lots of torque & low end grunt, but It does
love it's gas. If you were to rebuild your original 351, do it as a 400 (new
crank & pistons are all from what I understand).

Im not sure what the guys (or gals) with the 429's & 460's get mpg wise, but
Im sure they also have some more grunt then the 400. All of these motors use
the big cased c6. If you went with a Cleveland or Windsor series it'd be a
small block pattern so a tranny change would be in order.

Well, that's my $1.295 worth on it.

George


In a message dated 10/10/1999 9:40:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JJJJJGRANT aol.com writes:


outside the oil pan. it has a 351 m engine in it with an automatic.i have
the
ability to do an engine swap, but i'm not sure which way i want to go. i
want
to build this truck to be used everyday, so fuel mileage is important as
well
as decent power. i know i can't expect great mileage from this big of a
truck. i have built many performance engines
but have never built one with economy in mind, so i need advice.

what kind of mileage should i expect from a 351m or 400 verses a 429/460?

would a 351 c or 351w be a good choice for this big of a truck. i have
access
to all of the above engines and even have a reguilt 351 c shortblock on the
stand.

tranny is not a problem, i have a small block c6.

i'd like to hear from some of you on fuel mileage with different engines. >>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 00:39:22 -0400
From: Ted Wnorowski
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Core Support

The floor jack and a couple of small pieces of 2x4 is what it
took. Under the cab floor didn't work. There's a small spot under the
fender that did the trick. I told SWISO that something would have to "give"
when I let it down though. I didn't here anything break, but the door gap
on the passenger side is waaaay different now. That will have to be taken
care of another day.
BTW, too bad they don't make a less messy type of Never-seize. Now
I remember why the guys on our assembly lines grease each other with it.
That stuff gets on everything and won't come off. I resorted to lacquer
thinner to get it off my hands and tools.





At 03:08 PM 10/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
> I finally got 2 coats of POR-15 on my core support and have it
> ready to go in. When I set it on the frame and tuck it under the drivers
> side fender, the passenger side sticks up about three inches. It seems to
> me that the cab mounts and floor are that far gone. Does this sound
> right? I'm gonna get out the floor jack & some blocks of wood and see
> if I can't get it to line up.
> I told SWISO that it probably is so used to running with that
> rotten old core support, it isn't ready for a major change.
> Any suggestions are greatly anticipated and appreciated.
> As a side note. Would it hurt to start the truck without 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.