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 #369
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 12 1999 Volume 03 : Number 369



=======================================================================
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 - Re: 429/460 conversion
FTE 61-79 - Well, we didn't strike, yet :-)
FTE 61-79 - First crank
RE: FTE 61-79 - Well, we didn't strike, yet :-)
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem
RE: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke
Re: FTE 61-79 - Why Ford Made Unibodies Speculation
FTE 61-79 - alternative engines
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies
Re: FTE 61-79 - Buick V8 in an F100
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies
FTE 61-79 - Wiper arm replacement
FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem
FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
FTE 61-79 - Unibodies
Fuel price, was :Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies
Re: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke
Re: FTE 61-79 - 1966 Mercury F250 4x4
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies
FTE 61-79 - E series weatherstripping
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - alternative engines
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
FTE 61-79 - towing engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
FTE 61-79 - new purchase :))
Re: FTE 61-79 - new purchase :))
Re: FTE 61-79 - new purchase :))
FTE 61-79 - more ford trucks in georgia
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:41:31 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: 429/460 conversion

I did a tech article from many posts on the BB list.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.off -road. com /~rjmuir/bigblock.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:22:49 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Well, we didn't strike, yet :-)

Ok, I'm back :-) What did I miss? Didn't get a chance to re-subscr*be at
home. Hope I didn' t miss anything. Sorry Ken, I forgot to ascii the sub*
on my last post :-(

Had an interesting experience yesterday. A friend has a non-ford and I
tried to get the wheel covers off to no avail untill I pulled the center
caps off to discover that there is an anti-theft nut that holds the wheel
covers on with special shape in it and a tool in the trunk to unscrew it. I
put a 3' crow bar on this thing untill I was affraid it would be bent
beyond repair when I went looking further and discovered this. Has anyone
seen this arrangement on a ford? Makes good sense and you can use an impact
on all the nuts that way and don't have to rely on a questionable driver for
the anti-theft nuts to get the torque you need etc.. I hate those things so
much I'd rather take a chance on losing my wheels than have to deal with
them and if you misplace the special tool........you're out of luck :-(
Course if you misplace this tool you're still out of luck but it's bigger
and snaps into a holder in the trunk so less likely to get lost.

Sure had me going for a while there though :-) At first glance it looked
like the center just snapped on but it wasn't coming off so I investigated
further and decided there must be a tool for it and looked in the trunk and
sure enough......:-) Another advantage to this is you will never lose a
wheel cover :-)

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:39:04 -0400
From: "J. Doss Halsey"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - First crank

Stu,

Be careful about too much hype on "first crank." You may wind up like
Geraldo Rivera and the vaults of Capone. On the other hand, if you assemble
some of this world class talent for the event, you should be able to take
care of most any contingency.

I am almost ready for first crank myself. Last weekend I poured a gallon of
antifreeze through the water pump and onto the ground. Why did I screw
around by using the water pump that came on the engine from the junkyard? I
don't know. I should probably go get a fuel pump as well.

Doss Halsey
'68 F-250 390 Camper Special
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:26:21 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Well, we didn't strike, yet :-)

> Another advantage to this is you will never lose a
> wheel cover :-)
>

I've worked on a car that was similar (the Cavalier/Sunfire/etc.) it had
caps over the lug nuts to make them black (?!?) then it had the adonized or
whatever lug nuts ... and then when you got the right 3 off, the hubcap
would snap off over the other two ... it sounds great, but after the first
snow of the season there's always a few driving around with "redesigned"
hubcaps ... rather than just losing the whole thing, they end up destroying
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, 11 Oct 1999 08:32:46 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem

> Before I pull the actual unit out; can this thing be
> adjusted/cleaned?

Adjusted ? No. Cleaned ? Yes, or at least very likely ... all a sending
unit is is a variable resistor ... in the older vehicles this was
accomplished by sliding a piece of metal over a braided or woven piece, as
you got farther from the source of the wire it had more resistance, hence
the tank read a lower level on the gauge ... we were able to just clean this
up once in our '50 Buick and it worked after that(until the float filled up
and sunk to the bottom of the tank...) I would guess that most vehicles do
it the same, or very similar ways, so do some looking around when you pull
the sending unit out.


> or should I just replace it?

I dunno, if you can't clean it, then replacing it will be your only option,
not sure what sort of choices you have after that .... a good used one? a
NOS one ? somehow I'll bet those are pricey ...

> 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....
>

Likely you've got the rust problem I mentioned in a previous post ... also
if it was stored with 1/2 tank, maybe that's why it only works in the lower
half of the gauge, the rest of it corroded ... who knows ...

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, 11 Oct 1999 08:38:03 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke

> 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?

It depends how much smoke are we talking about ? A cloud where you can't
breathe ? Just enough to be noticeable ?

Hmmm... 460 in a half ton ... you sure its not tires ? ;)


> 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?

Its possible that this hasn't helped the situation ... like someone
mentioned, a compression check might be a good idea ...

Lots of high performance engines burn a little bit of oil at higher revs,
its just the nature of the beast ... the new Cobras even have a slight oil
burn at high revs, it has to do of course with the way the oil flows and the
cylinder walls and all that neat stuff that works well at low revs, but
start pushing that 7,000 limit and some of the things dont' work as well
(like rings scraping the sidewalls)

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, 11 Oct 1999 06:52:17 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Why Ford Made Unibodies Speculation

Thanks for your message at 01:26 AM 10/9/99 -0400, crewcab altavista.net.
Your message was:
>Those with tender ears should skip this post!
>It is laden with speculation,

I'll say...!

but the timing is
>too coincindental.
>
>I suspect Ford designed the unibody to compete with
>Volkswagen! VW made their first truck in 1950 and
>due to the nature of a VW bus, it was a unibody. It
>was cheap, had a huge multi-purpose bed, and was
>rated at 1 ton. All a threat to the US truck makers.
>
>VW was making some serious inroads into the US

Are you kidding? I hope so...The VW bus a "threat to US truck makers"?

in 1961, when the first Unibody came out, I was 15 and very aware of
automobiles and trucks of all makes and models. Believe me, you could
count on one hand the number of VW buses you would see for every 100 Ford
Trucks!


>around the end of the 50's, when the 'chicken tariff
>war' broke out. I've forgotten the details, but in
>the end trucks from Europe got taxed at about 25% in
>retaliation for some tax on chickens, and it then
>became unprofitable to import VW trucks.

So why did Ford need to retaliate with the Unibody to compete with a
non-existent VW truck competition...?

>
>This may also be why the VW bus (essentially a truck)
>was called a station wagon by VW, to avoid the tax.
>
>I see an occasional unibody Ford, they still stand
>out in the crowd, nicely.
Thank you. You may be stating the real reason made the Unibody...to make a
good lookin' truck...

I think the real reason might have more to do with the Ch**y pickup, which
had a unibody-type vehicle starting in 1955, I believe...Very nice looking
truck (Please don't flame me...!!!). Of course Ford's Unibody is much
nicer and a Ford!!!

There are a couple of
>very nice ones in the Auburn CA area.
>

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, 11 Oct 1999 08:09:34 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - alternative engines

>>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.

1. Do you think the oil companies would ever let something like this hit the
market?

2. I remember reading that ceramic technology was not far enough along at
the time to keep the innards in one piece.

3. John Q. Public can't keep a 4 cylinder rice burner right side up on an
eight lane interstate. Can you imagine the damage with a turbine powered
car? Did you ever see Tim the Toolman on his jet powered mower? Imagine our
city streets filled with Tims in turbine powered cars. (shudder)

- -- 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, 11 Oct 1999 07:11:59 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies

Thanks for your message at 06:26 PM 10/9/99 -0500, Brett L Habben. Your
message was:

Well,
>evidently reality set in, because the unibody's were dropped for '64,
>Galaxies never went unibody, and T-birds got a frame back in '67 and
>Lincoln's in '70. The reasoning was that bigger, heavier vehicles
>needed a frame.

The last time I looked, my Unibody had a frame...In that sense, perhaps,
the term Unibody, as it is applied to cars, is not an accurate label...


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: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 18:44:51
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Buick V8 in an F100

>>I've never seen a 455 in a Ford but I've seen several Chebbies and G Cs.
>>I'm sure it isn't a "perfectly good" truck if he wants to do this. It is
>I was being tongue in cheek. Everybody knows that I secretly lust to put a
>500 cid Caddy mill in an F150 some day. Well maybe not everybody.......'til
>now.

On the bigbronco's list there is a guy (Norm) who has a 460 turned into a
514. I have a picture where he's burning so much rubber on his 36" tires
you can hardly see his bronco through the smoke ;-)


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

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

Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 19:00:12
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

At 05:52 PM 10/6/99 -0600, you wrote:
>$68 if i fill both tanks full

How much is gas over there at the west coast? Last I know it was $1.40
- -$1.50 ..


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:24:07 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different engines ?

Thanks for your message at 09:36 PM 10/10/99 EDT, JJJJJGRANT aol.com. Your
message was:
>
> 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 think you should use anything but the 351C and the small block C6--Just
give those to me and anything else you should chose will probably give you
about the same gas mileage (maybe somewhat less on the 429/460).

But, now back to that 351C-C6...
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, 11 Oct 1999 07:32:41 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

Thanks for your message at 07:00 PM 10/9/99, Bas van der Veer. Your message
was:
>At 05:52 PM 10/6/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>$68 if i fill both tanks full
>
>How much is gas over there at the west coast? Last I know it was $1.40
>-$1.50 ..

$1.51 for Premium Chevron...where I buy it.




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, 11 Oct 1999 08:49:58 -0600
From: "Matthew Senn"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

premium is $1.47 - $1.60 in montana . . .


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bas van der Veer
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!


> At 05:52 PM 10/6/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >$68 if i fill both tanks full
>
> How much is gas over there at the west coast? Last I know it was $1.40
> -$1.50 ..
>
>
> == 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, 11 Oct 1999 09:53:39 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies

> The last time I looked, my Unibody had a frame...In that sense, perhaps,
> the term Unibody, as it is applied to cars, is not an accurate label...
>

Unibodies do have frames, but not in the traditional sense ... they
generally have "sub"frames ... so there is a place for the motor to sit and
everything (front subframe or engine cradle) and usually there's some sort
of rear subframe for holding the suspension in place, but generally there's
not much between them ... some ribs in the floor boards, and a transmission
tunnel, and that's about it ... you can get "sub frame connectors" for
performance aps, that basically tie the front and rear sub frames together
with a couple more "frame rails" that are just welded in. The vehicle will
still be a unibody because the body can't be unbolted from the frame, its
all welded together and acts as one piece, or close to it (hopefully!)

When everything is unbolted from a uni-body vehicle, you will still have the
rear quarters, the a and b pillars, the roof, the floor pan, all of that
stuff will still be intact ... on a full frame car though you can unbolt
everything from the frame and just be left with the rails laying there ...
at least that's my understanding of things....


Just my $.02
wish

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:55:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Henderson
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Wiper arm replacement

If anyone is having problems with their old wiper arms not really=20
working due to old, worn-out springs, I have a solution (since I was=20
not able to get replacement springs). I got a pair of Trico=20
replacement adjustable wiper arms from NAPA ($15 apiece). I then=20
removed the old arms and drilled out the rivet holding the bent part=20
of the arm (where the wiper blade attaches) to the spring assembly. =20
After removing the bent part of the arm from the rest of the arm, I=20
used a hack saw to remove the curve where the spring attaches. Since=20
the Trico arms are adjustable, I removed their blade attachment part=20
of the arm and inserted the one from the OEM arm and then installed=20
them on the truck. I now have wipers that work and look just like the=20
originals.

Dave H

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

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



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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:24:12 -0500
From:
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem

> 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.


You may want to double check the fuel pump by getting a small amount of fuel in a
can and attaching a small piece of hose to inlet of the pump and submerge in the
can then crank the engine and make sure that is your problem. It may not help
you but it would be easy enough before you start digging into the tank.
Bryan Kirking
66 Step Side
352 FE, 4 speed
Houston, Texas


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

The first question I have to ask is "does this truck
require a 'smog' test?" The next is "what are the
restrictions on engine swaps?"

On your list of engines the 351C is probably the worst
choice for your application, but gas mileage would not
be too bad.
A 351W would be great for mileage if you could get a
EFI version with the computer etc.
A 400 would get decent mileage if it had some
compression. I have a 400 with flattop pistons and 4V
Clevland heads (it has about 10.2:1 compression ratio)
in my '53 F100, but I don't need to meet any emisions
specs. I haven't had it on the road yet, so I don't
know what kind of mileage it gets. Also a '53 is a far
cry from a '79 extended cab 4x4.
A 429/460 will give you great power, but again the
mileage will not be good unless you get decent
compression and find a way around the 'smog nazis'.

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C-4V

>Subject: FTE 61-79 - fuel mileage on different
>engines ?
> i just bought the 79 f250 4x4 extended cab, it has
>a rod showingitself
>outside the oil pan. it has a 351 m engine in it with
>an automatic.ihave 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 importantas 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 a429/460?
>would a 351 c or 351w be a good choice for this big
>of a truck. i haveaccess
>to all of the above engines and even have a reguilt
>351 c shortblock onthe
>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 differentengines.


=====

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:41:03 -0500
From: "Oscar Johnson"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Problem

Josh,

I had the same problem with my 71 when I first got it; turned out to be
the float which had a hole in it. I found a new float (brass?) at the Ford
counter at my local dealship - approx $5.00. Take the unit out and look at
it; it's fairly straightforward and removes easily.

Regards,
O.T. Johnson
Prattville, AL
71 F250 Ranger XLT 360 2V C6


> 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


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 10:39:06 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

> On your list of engines the 351C is probably the worst
> choice for your application, but gas mileage would not
> be too bad.

This part I agree with completely ...

> A 351W would be great for mileage if you could get a
> EFI version with the computer etc.

That was my thought, but my 390 gets the same mileage as Dad's 5.8 ...
granted different gears, but I haven't found a FI 351W in a truck that gets
better than about 12 ... even with the OD ... not that this will stop me if
I ever come across the need to do a swap like this, but mileage won't be my
reasoning behind it ... if you really wanted to do this swap right, you'd
put in an E4OD too to get the OD and help things out that much more ...

> A 400 would get decent mileage if it had some
> compression. I have a 400 with flattop pistons and 4V
> Clevland heads (it has about 10.2:1 compression ratio)
> in my '53 F100, but I don't need to meet any emisions
> specs. I haven't had it on the road yet, so I don't
> know what kind of mileage it gets. Also a '53 is a far
> cry from a '79 extended cab 4x4.

What fuel are you running this beast on ? At least 100octane I hope! Or
did you put AL heads on it, in which case its not so bad, but I can't hardly
get any advance on the 9.5+ that I have in the FE without getting some ping
...


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, 11 Oct 1999 12:00:47 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

I've seen some of the replies and agree that the 4v cleveland is not a good
choice but the 2v is just as good as the 351W or 351M. I prefer the 460
because is is simply a better mouse trap but if you are looking for decent
power and economy and the truck is set up for the M block this can be used
most effectively. While these engines have some quirks I would not be a bit
afraid of rebuilding one to put back in my truck if I were not already
planning on the 460. They make good torque which is what you want and still
have some moderate power for passing etc. even with a heavy truck.

If you have this in a 79 with C-6 it is probably already a wide ratio but if
not you can improve economy with this engine by utilizing the wide ratio
gear set. With these gears you can then run slightly taller rear gears to
maintain roughly 2000 - 2400 rpm at 60. The more torque you build into the
engine the lower you can go with this number. You probably have 4.10 gears
with tires in the neighborhood of 30" diameter. If they are 265R75-16's
they are 31" and my calculator says 3.08 to 3.67 rear gears for 2k to 2.4k
rpm at 60 so 4.10's at 2664 rpm will give you lots of power but not much for
mileage. If you tow a lot with it you may want to stay with the 4.10's.

If yur engine is not rebuildable and you have access to a 400 version of
this same design go for it. The 400 is one of the torqueiest engines around
and you can expect 12 mpg or better with the right gearing.

If you decide to change over to the 460, go with the stock spread bore carb,
hot air induction, hot exhaust crossover manifold and shave the bumps out of
the exhaust ports. Except for the ports I'm running this in a 2wd with 2.75
gears and get 12 mpg in poor tune with wide ratio tranny and 29" tires.
It's turning just under 2k at 60. I fully expect to get 15 out of it when I
get it tuned the way I want it with roller cam and rochester carb etc.. I
typically pass traffic without down shifting from 50 or so and get around
pretty quick :-) It has so much torque you don't need to down shift for
passing to get good performance, unloaded at least :-)

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

> > i just bought the 79 f250 4x4 extended cab, it has
> >a rod showingitself
> >outside the oil pan. it has a 351 m engine in it with

> >to build this truck to be used everyday, so fuel
> >mileage is importantas well
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:16:54 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

Thanks for your message at 10:39 AM 10/11/99 -0500, William S. Hart. Your
message was:
> > On your list of engines the 351C is probably the worst
> > choice for your application, but gas mileage would not
> > be too bad.

I keep reading this on this list, and I just want to say...Keep writing
this.
This leaves more 351C engines available for me.
Mine is just perfect for me and my Unibody...
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, 11 Oct 1999 12:29:19 -0400
From: pdesanto Cinergy.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Unibodies

From:(Danny Ling)
I think the theory behind a unibody vehicle is the auto manufacturers
looking at aircraft manufacturers>>>>>>>>
- -------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the Unibodies; Saw an episode on "Automobiles" on the History
channel a while back about the Ch=A5y Cameo truck. Seems when it was =
just in
the development stages they planned to make it a unibody. But early
prototypes had a tendency to crack the body panels right behind the =
cab. I
think the Fords experienced the same problem. I would imagine that's =
one of
the reasons they weren't offered in a 4x4. Even though they had a =
frame,
there's a whole lot of flexing in a truck chassis. Even with a cab to =
bed
gap, a lot of cabs have dents in the rear from the bed coming forward =
an
inch or so to "visit". Later....Phil, 63 Galaxie, 64 F-100 (garage =
queen)

















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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:47:16 -0800
From: "Erik Marquez"
Subject: Fuel price, was :Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!


>At 05:52 PM 10/6/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>$68 if i fill both tanks full
>
>How much is gas over there at the west coast? Last I know it was $1.40
>-$1.50 ..



In Fairbanks I pay $1.38 for reg unleaded in the bronco, or about $41 a tank
full, and $1.27 for Diesel in the F350, that's about $45 to fill the truck,
Happy wheeling. OBTW, if ya get out of town, those prices increase about
$.50 a gal

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:51:54 EDT
From: SevnD2 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

In a message dated 10/11/1999 12:19:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dpearson ctc.edu writes:


this.
This leaves more 351C engines available for me.
Mine is just perfect for me and my Unibody...
Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA >>

You tell em Dennis ! I am going swap in a 351C where a 360 used to be in my
76 F100 Explorer . This truck will never handle a load more than the
cleveland can deal with anyway ! So why not get the better gas mileage of the
351C ? Transmission problems ? I have a small block bolt pattern C 6 for this
combination , so it should hold up very well .

Rollie H. Hunt
King N.C.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:53:35 -0400
From: kpayne ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies

> The last time I looked, my Unibody had a frame...In that sense, perhaps,
> the term Unibody, as it is applied to cars, is not an accurate label...
>
> Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA
>

Correct! The Unibody truck is not a "unitized" vehicle the
way cars are. It simply meant that the bed and cab were
one unit. Underneath it was no different from any other
truck.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:07:44 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke

It's just enough for me to notice, when I get on the gas extremely hard. You
can not even see it at idle.

"William S. Hart" wrote:

> It depends how much smoke are we talking about ? A cloud where you can't
> breathe ? Just enough to be noticeable ?
>
> Hmmm... 460 in a half ton ... you sure its not tires ? ;)
>
> --

William A Whited
74 F100 RANGER SUPERCAB 390
77 F150 CUSTOM 460
EL Paso, TX
SEMPER FI


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:09:43 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

In a message dated 10/11/1999 2:16:08 PM !!!First Boot!!!, yl dds.nl writes:


-$1.50 .. >>

Here near L.A. prices range anywhere from $1.22-$1.37.....not as bad as it
was a few months ago, but still I can recall when it was like .99 cents.
Funny how the week I got my truck prices sky rocketed................LOL

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:10:41 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

Oops! I guess I dhould mention thats for 87 octane, I only buy the cheap
stuff! LOLOL

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:19:26 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Little Blue Smoke

> It's just enough for me to notice, when I get on the gas
> extremely hard. You
> can not even see it at idle.
>

This is probably a symptom that something is starting to get worn out, but I
don't think I would consider it a death knell ... check the valve stem seals
and such, and possibly the PCV valve to be sure its functioning properly ...
personally I'd probably just keep driving it and keep an eye on it to see if
its getting better or worse,b ut I don't have easy access to a compression
tester either ... my hunch is you won't find much, but you never know.

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, 11 Oct 1999 12:47:24 -0700
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1966 Mercury F250 4x4

Rick Walker wrote:

> 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

Hey there

If they are the 6 inch knuckles you can use a set for any early jeep.
They are not really a popular item in parts houses. A big chain might have
them available in their system. The kit for the 8" knuckles are still
available it that is what you have.

Laters

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
99 Contour
63 F-100 4x4
43 GPW


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:04:22 EDT
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

i have to agree, i was actualy thinking of the cleveland with a set of ported
2v heads,
i had this set up in my 69 mach 1 once and it had good power and seemed to
get good mileage, also built several other clevelands that worked out great
in trucks.
used to be my favorite engine, until i built my first 460, i know its better
for big horse
power and torque numbers.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 17:40:12 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Why Ford Made Unibodies

In a message dated 10/11/99 11:00:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wish iastate.edu writes:

> > The last time I looked, my Unibody had a frame...In that sense, perhaps,
> > the term Unibody, as it is applied to cars, is not an accurate label...
> >

If I am not misteaken...didn't Ford call these trucks "Integral Cab" models?
If that''s the case then the term "unibody" wouldn't be an accurate label for
these trucks either.

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


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:56:04 -0700
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - E series weatherstripping

My '77 E150 needs weatherstripping - around the doors and the felt-rubber
around the door glass (anyone know what that stuff is called?) While most of
the seals are still available, I'm not thrilled at spending the $96 for each
door seal from my smiling Ford dealer. Anyone found any suitable
alternatives? thanks in advance.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:28:23 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

A 1.14 and im loving it up to!!!! in iowa for 92 octane
travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:30:58 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

oh by the way its a 1.25 for premium i think its really high otane but out
here pretty much every things at least a 10% ethonal blend and most of the
time its like 25% and boy my car acts like it has rockte fuel in it when it
has ethonal in it and the truck well its always a speed demon
Travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:59:33 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

Gas prices here in southern Iowa are 1.229 for regular unleaded and
1.199 for ethanol.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:22:47 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - alternative engines

I thought Id share one more thing. About 2 years ago up in Reno, I stopped
to help some folks in a Taurus that was on the side of the freeway. They
said they had overheated. I asked to see under the hood and they kinda
snickered. They popped the hood and I saw why. They were using a small
turbine engine to run a Generator, which in turn ran electric motors for the
wheels. Quite the set up, said they were getting around 80 mpg.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:24:19 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

In a message dated 10/11/99 7:16:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, yl dds.nl
writes:


-$1.50 .. >>

Its as low as 1.36 in Vegas, but thats Arco and I wont run it. Im payin
about 1.42 for Texaco.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:26:39 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

Also, that 1.36 is for Regular, I cant afford mid-range in the ole girl.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:50:54 EDT
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

well, I've been absent from the list for a little while, mostly due to my
"partial rebuild" of my truck, started when I jammed a stick through my
radiator and was going to get a new one. the "might-as-wells" started. It
has new headers/2.5" exhaust now, new interior, new stereo, new white paint
job, 3" lift in back ( as ive mentioned before the front was 2" higher than
the back for some unbeknownst reason). anyways it looks great...but it doesnt
run now. i was driving around one day and it just stalled. stopped at the
side of the road and tried to start it again,,,wouldnt do it,,,by this time
im thinking maybe i flooded it so i set awhile. when i tried to start it
again it started right up, but died about 30 feet later. got it home(it
started again within 30 minutes),,,,got a new coil thinking that might help.
started right up, driving to a friends house, made it halfway there, stalled,
tried to start for 5 minutes, finally started,,,stalled again within 30
feet,,,,ended up towing it home behind my fathers conversion van( you have no
idea of humiliation until that happens; conversion van towing a big 3/4 ton
4x4) anyways,,,,its sitting in the garage now, with the carb off and in
pieces on the work bench,,,one of the vacuum lines from the carb to the
manifold was split open,,,could that be the problem? nothing else seemed
wrong,,,thinking bad wiring somewhere,,,it idles great when it does start,
and itll crank over fine,,,just acting like its not getting spark,,,any ideas
would be helpful and i apologize for the length,

Ian
79 F250 4x4 4spd 351M
True Blue Ford Blue
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:54:35 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

In a message dated 10/12/1999 1:28:11 AM !!!First Boot!!!, JUMPINFORD aol.com
writes:


about 1.42 for Texaco. >>

Oh Darrell....you're so damn picky!!!!!!! =) Just kiddin!

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:58:07 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

Hey
I have this same problem and i think i got it narrowed down now if the truck
has been sitting a while the fuel tanks tend to rust so my suggestion is take
off the fuel filter and clear it out i pretty much have gone what you gone
trough and the carb has been re built and it just acts like there is no fuel
also check your points and condenser if equiped hope this helps
Travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:07:44 -0500
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

Ian,

The fuel pump is always a possibilty! Sounds similar to fuel pump problems
I have had before.
Good luck.

Stu
Nuke GM!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/stu



anyways it looks great...but it doesnt
>run now. i was driving around one day and it just stalled. stopped at the
>side of the road and tried to start it again,,,wouldnt do it,,,by this time
>im thinking maybe i flooded it so i set awhile. when i tried to start it
>again it started right up, but died about 30 feet later. got it home(it
>started again within 30 minutes),,,,got a new coil thinking that might
help.
>started right up, driving to a friends house, made it halfway there,
stalled,
>tried to start for 5 minutes, finally started,,,stalled again within 30
>feet,,,,ended up towing it home behind my fathers conversion van( you have
no
>idea of humiliation until that happens; conversion van towing a big 3/4 ton
>4x4) anyways,,,,its sitting in the garage now, with the carb off and in
>pieces on the work bench,,,one of the vacuum lines from the carb to the
>manifold was split open,,,could that be the problem? nothing else seemed
>wrong,,,thinking bad wiring somewhere,,,it idles great when it does start,
>and itll crank over fine,,,just acting like its not getting spark,,,any
ideas
>would be helpful and i apologize for the length,
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:03:51 EDT
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

ive already replaced the fuel filter , and it has a duraspark ignition. and
the distributer is supposedly less than 5 years old.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:06:56 EDT
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

In a message dated 10/11/99 10:05:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
nukegm ford-trucks.com writes:

> The fuel pump is always a possibilty! Sounds similar to fuel pump problems
> I have had before.
> Good luck.
>
> Stu

that was another suspision but the carb looked "wet" inside after i tried to
start it so i assumed there was fuel going in,,,probably end up replacing
that too before thats all done with.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:38:28 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

Sounds like you lost your ignition module.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:42:52 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

Have you tried a new module?
Jason

IanBoss69 aol.com wrote:


just acting like its not getting spark,,,any ideas
> would be helpful and i apologize for the length,
>
> Ian
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:43:45 -0400
From: "Phil / Debi"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

> i was driving around one day and it just stalled. stopped at the
> side of the road and tried to start it again,,,wouldnt do it,,,by this
time
> im thinking maybe i flooded it so i set awhile. when i tried to start it
> again it started right up, but died about 30 feet later. got it home(it
> started again within 30 minutes),,,,got a new coil thinking that might
help.
> started right up, driving to a friends house, made it halfway there,
stalled,
> tried to start for 5 minutes, finally started,,,stalled again within 30
> feet,,,,ended up towing it home behind my fathers conversion van

sounds like the exact same problem I had a few months ago on my 79, replaced
the ignition box on the inner fender and its been running fine since.

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: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:48:45 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

I had a similar problem with my 74 all the wax was melted out of the module,
no wonder it wasn't working. It would run for about 10 minutes and once it got
warm it would die and start for about 45 secs and that was it until it cooled
down. That wax was fun to clean up to.

Phil / Debi wrote:

> > i was driving around one day and it just stalled. stopped at the
> > side of the road and tried to start it again,,,wouldnt do it,,,by this
> time
> > im thinking maybe i flooded it so i set awhile. when i tried to start it
> > again it started right up, but died about 30 feet later. got it home(it
> > started again within 30 minutes),,,,got a new coil thinking that might
> help.
> > started right up, driving to a friends house, made it halfway there,
> stalled,
> > tried to start for 5 minutes, finally started,,,stalled again within 30
> > feet,,,,ended up towing it home behind my fathers conversion van
>
> sounds like the exact same problem I had a few months ago on my 79, replaced
> the ignition box on the inner fender and its been running fine since.
>
> Phil Beattie

- --
William A Whited
74 F100 RANGER SUPERCAB 390
77 F150 CUSTOM 460
EL Paso, TX
SEMPER FI


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:49:58 EDT
From: ETRMK aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

Pull the ignition brain box(2 minutes) yard that sucker down to the parts
store and have it tested.30-40 bux if thats your problem.



Eric Norris
Spokane Wa

78 F250 Ranger 4x4 400tobe460 in the spring.(snowmobilings almost here :-)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:36:10 -0500
From: "Bob & Becky Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

I would like opinions on a good towing engine for a 79 4X2 crewcab. It
currently has a 460 w/C6.
I have thought of just rebuilding them both and adding a 3 sp aux. Putting
in a 330 w/5sp & the 3 sp aux. I'm running 410 gears w/235X16 tires. I tow a
24' 5th wheel & want to pull a boat. Thanks, Bob

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:12:50 -0500
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Rebuild the 460 and put a New Process 435 behind it. If that's not
enough for you, rebuild a 390 and use the same tranny!:-)


Bob & Becky Elliott wrote:
>
> I would like opinions on a good towing engine for a 79 4X2 crewcab. It
> currently has a 460 w/C6.
>
> I
> Thanks, Bob
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:23:45 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

I would say that the 460 and C6 is just fine. I have
towed my 77 with my 74 390 and C6 with no problems and
she is really tired and my 77 with 460 has power for
days. Is something wrong with your 460 and C6?

- --
William A Whited
74 F100 RANGER SUPERCAB 390
77 F150 CUSTOM 460
EL Paso, TX
SEMPER FI


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:45:11 EDT
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

In a message dated 10/11/1999 7:45:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
JUMPINFORD aol.com writes:


Darrell Duggan >>

Some parts stores will test your ignition module free. I have had Al's check
mine.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:47:37 -0500
From: "Brett Yerks"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - new purchase :))

Well I just bought myself a tow rig. Its a 78 F250 Supercab 4x4 with a 4"
suspension lift and 3" body lift. It has a swapped in 460, c6 and 205
tcase. The best part about it is that I only paid $350!! Needs a little
work, mainly just exhaust, power steering pump and I'll probably end up
replacing the floors eventually, right now he has sheetmetal riveted in.
Now I just need to find myself a trailer. :)

Brett
76 F250 4x4 460 c6 38's
78 F250 4x4 Supercab 460 c6 33's
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superford.org/fbird


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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:59:52 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - new purchase :))

Where are these deals when I need them??????????


Brett Yerks wrote:

> Well I just bought myself a tow rig. Its a 78 F250 Supercab 4x4 with a 4"....


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.