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 #371
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 Thursday, October 14 1999 Volume 03 : Number 371



=======================================================================
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 - 4v for 351M
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
FTE 61-79 - '63 truck
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - 1978 Ford F150 Supercab 4x4 parting out sale:
FTE 61-79 - Re: weatherstripping
FTE 61-79 - Unibodies
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
FTE 61-79 - 63 Falcon Ranchero for sale in WI
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M
RE: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M
FTE 61-79 - Mosquito patrol
FTE 61-79 - Intake for 351M on 460
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: fuel mileage on different engines ?
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - '63 truck
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
FTE 61-79 - Radiator support questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Radiator support questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mosquito patrol
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
FTE 61-79 - Brake Lines
Re: FTE 61-79 - Radiator support questions
FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear
FTE 61-79 - Coil spring questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear
Re: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear
RE:FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460
FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID
RE: FTE 61-79 - Coil spring questions
FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset
FTE 61-79 - Tweety's Ticker
FTE 61-79 - Re- finished tail lights
RE: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - starts - dies

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:33:47 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M

I don't know the numbers but there are two basic types of carbs used on the
460, square bore where all the holes are roughly the same size and spread
bore where the secondarys are considerably larger than the primaries. There
are at least 3 configurations of this carb using different size holes and
it's mounting bolt pattern is unique in the automotive world :-(

The Ford spread bore is in a class by itself and will not work on any
manifold except a ford spread bore manifold. Virtually all square bores
will fit virtually all manifolds made for a square bore, within a certain
range at least.

Classes of engines have manifolds unique to the class and sometimes even
within a class there are differences. As others have mentioned, the 460
manifold will fit the 429 or 460 and you must use the carb it was designed
for.

- --
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 scored a freshly remanufactured (by Holley) Motorcraft
> 4350 for cheap!
>
> So... have I guessed right that the 460 intake will fit on my
> 351M?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:04:32 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

Run on is caused by any of several things. Most common is the throttle
plate being held open after shutting off the ignition which allows fuel to
keep entering the intake. Newer (post 68 or so) engines are "lean burn"
engines and run hotter so this is absolutely necessary. The mechanism is
usually an electric dash pot which is actually what you adjust to control
the idle speed. If this is not working then it will not release the linkage
to completely close the throttle plates and the engine will run on.

You can eliminate this assy and still avoid run on by "De-tuning" the engine
so that it doesn't run efficiently and therefor runs cooler but that's a
mighty poor alternative in my book :-) You can also set the idle so slow
that it stalls in traffic and drives you nuts but that isn't my cupatea
either :-)

If you suspect a timing problem, especially on older engines, inspect the
vac advance mechanism and ensure that it is working properly or you will
never get the timing to function right. The mechanical advance must also be
in good shape or you will inadvertenly set the initial to a point to make it
run better at midrange and it will be way off everywere else and will no
doubt experience a lot of spark knock as well. Manually ensure that the
linkage inside the dizzy moves easily against spring pressure to the vac and
the cam assy will rotate on the shaft about 13-21 degrees with no roughness
or sticky spots etc.. You can oil these parts but wipe off the excess after
loosening them up.

Once this is done you can then set the initial, either statically or with a
light and the vac disconnected to 8 - 12 degrees as others have mentioned
already. Mine runs fairly well at 8 degrees before TDC.

- --
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
- --

> Recently I messed with the timing and carburetion to get my truck to
> pass emissions and now it runs on almost every time that I shut it
> down. I don't believe it is the idle speed because I am at about 650
> RPMs when in park and less when in drive of course. My question is,
> could timing cause runon or is it just some other adjustment
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:27:33 -0400
From: "JEff McCain"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '63 truck

Hello, I own a 1963 ford F-150 with a 223 I-6. My plans are to fill the =
great space under the hood with a '77 460. However, until that glorious =
day I need a little help with my 6. A few weeks ago I started getting a =
lot of tapping from the valves. Removing the valve covers the rocker arm =
assembly loose at the rear of the engine. I tightened this down and =
found the truck wouldn't start.I backed off the rocker arm adjustments =
and the truck started and ran, it just ran rough. Could anyone tell me =
the correct valve adjustment for this engine? I bought this truck about =
10 months ago and haven't had any problems until now. Also anyone got =
any pointers on the 460 install? Thanks, Jeff
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:36:30 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

When you say torque curve I assume you mean "Load"? If your 390 did not do
as well as a 300 six then it was very tired, poorly tuned or you are not
comparing the same gearing. A properly tuned 390 with proper gearing will
easily out perform a 300-6 under most conditions including low end torque if
it is, in fact, tuned for a truck. If you modify it for "More power" then
you have taken it out of context.

Engine torque is essentially linear with cubes if gearing and tune are
similar. Stroke has some effect but will not overcome cubes in most cases
unless the cubes are very similar. When you guys make comparisons you need
to keep these things in mind. Compare like entities, not disimilar
entities. Don't compare a poorly tuned, very tired 460 to a highly tuned
fresh I-6 or a hot rodded (by someone who may not know what he's doing) 390
to a truck tuned I-6. These are not valid comparisons.

Yes the I-6 is a great truck engine but it's still just an I-6 with 300
cubes. There is no free lunch. An engine with two more power pulses per
cycle and 90 more cubes ABSOLUTLEY WILL HAVE MORE TORQUE if the tune is
properly configured for the application. I can honestly say that a 4v 351C
is a sick dog compared to an I-6 in my 4x4 van with 500-600 rpm stall
converter and standard ratio C-6 but is that fair? The power band starts at
3k rpm in that engine where the I-6 starts from idle. At 45 mph in second
gear though there is absolutely no comparison.

A fresh 460 with wide ratio c-6 will eat virtually any other "stock" engine
ford ever made on low end torque. A sick, poorly tuned 460 won't be able to
pull itself off the pot :-) The 390 was noted as one of the strongest at
the bottom of any stock engine too which is one reason we find so many in
trucks. It just did every thing very well. Unlike the 460 though, the 390
could also rev :-)

If you burned the valves twice I would suspect the tune was way off for the
application or your machine shop cheated you? Running too lean will burn
the heck out of exhaust valves. All you need is an open vac line somewhere
and you lose power due to lean condition and also over heat the exhaust
valves. Since you had both symptoms I submit you were running that poor
engine way too lean :-)

- --
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
- --

> My 73 F-250 had a 390 and 4.10 rear end C-6 tranny. Was a Trailer
> Special. The torque curve was so high I could not get the rpm
> up at low
> speed in the hills or to start a heavy load on a slope.
> After burning valves twice I put in a 300 six. It out does the 390
> except at high speeds. The six has a lot more guts in town.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:00:15 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

In a message dated 10/13/99 5:45:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:

>

I disagree. There is only a .07'' difference between the strokes, so that
isnt a factor, but the 460 had those nice big power building pistons. Have
you ever wondered what the red stripe on ford speedos that goes from 70-120
is? This was the FE redline. You werent supposed to run an FE in this range
for more than 15 min, because the harmonics from that massive bottom end
would destroy itself. Now this is just one of those "heard it from a
neighbors, brothers, kid" so It might be wrong. My point is bring your 390's
on, Tweety will chew em up and spit em out :)

Flame suit on,

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:01:49 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1978 Ford F150 Supercab 4x4 parting out sale:

All the parts you mention are the ones I need but my truck is still on the
usable list so, as one already asked, why are you parting out what appears
to be a better truck than most of us are driving back and forth to work?

- --
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
- --

> PARTING OUT SALE:
> 1978 FORD F150, Supercab 4x4: Has many good parts. whole
> front end no rust, 2
> cabs to chose from, solid 8' bed, good drivetrain: 351M(crane
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:37:14 -0400
From: "Don Haring, Jr."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: weatherstripping

I need new weatherstripping for all my vehicles, too. Like everyone else, I
don't like the idea of paying about $80 for reproduction door seals,
although I have been told by several people that the Dennis Carpenter seals
are high quality and fit like the originals.

However, I met a guy (sorry, can't remember his name!) at the Ford
Nationals at Carlisle, PA this summer. He had his custom early Econoline
there, and I asked about his door seals. The doors shut with a nice thud
and the seals were new. He said he simply used some aftermarket seal from
Pep Boys. Total cost for both front doors? ... $15!

He said he just cut a cross-section of the old strip and took it to the
store and found some new inexpensive seal. I haven't gone to find
replacement yet, but I will definitely check locally first. I'd love to
have repro seals, but all I really care about is that the door is sealed
and if it looks fine, I'd rather save the money.

- -don

- --
Don in Philadelphia
Internet Director, Keystone Chapter FCA | 66 Falcon Deluxe Club Wagon
Falconaut: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://fedora.net/falconaut | 61 Falcon Futura
Keystone: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://fedora.net/falconkey | classic scooters and bicycles


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:56:27 -0400
From: "Don Haring, Jr."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Unibodies

Dale Blanchard said:

Serian wrote:
>
> > " ... the Ch**y pickup, which had a unibody-type vehicle
> > starting in 1955, I believe...Very nice looking truck (Please
> > don't flame me...!!!). "
>
> Hey, we all know that the Ford trucks are better, so there is
> no harm in admitting that some of the not-Fords look good :-)
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
=====

> In the early 60's ford had a unibody econoline with the little 6 inline.
> It it had a problem of getting stuck off road because the body would not
> flex enough and one of the rear tires would stay off the ground and it
> would not move. I hade a Corviar Van (Chev) at the same time and it
> worked real well for 180k on dino oil. Got smushed.


The early Econolines were from '61-'67. I believe there was a slight
beefing of the frame and front end in '66 to allow for the bigger 240
engine, but they really didn't change much over the span of 7 years. They
are unibody, but have full frame rails. It's true that the body does not
flex much. It's a good design since you don't want a van to flex since half
vehicle is just doors anyway. :)

It's also true that they would probably stink offroad. :) They have a
straight beam front suspension and leaf springs all around anyway. Driving
them on pavement is a blast, though, even if they corner like an empty
refridgerator. They do have a tight turning radius, too, so you have to be
careful of you'll end up sideways. Parking in the city is a lot of fun if I
have a passenger because visibility is so good, and the front of the van is
right at the windshield. Passengers are always worried that we're ...
getting ... too ... close. haha :)

PS: This post was simply a good excuse for me to talk about how cool the
early Econolines are. I'm sure you all understand.

- -don

- --
Don in Philadelphia
Internet Director, Keystone Chapter FCA | 66 Falcon Deluxe Club Wagon
Falconaut: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://fedora.net/falconaut | 61 Falcon Futura
Keystone: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://fedora.net/falconkey | classic scooters and bicycles


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:53:26 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

> Run on is caused by any of several things. Most common is the throttle
> plate being held open after shutting off the ignition which
> allows fuel to
> keep entering the intake.

This I'll agree with ...


> Newer (post 68 or so) engines are "lean burn"
> engines and run hotter so this is absolutely necessary. The mechanism is
> usually an electric dash pot which is actually what you adjust to control
> the idle speed.

This I won't ... 68? Come on now, unless you're talkin CA emissions there's
no way it was this early ... not even on cars ... 78 I would believe, but
more likely it was 76 or so when cats started becoming required and EGR was
being used ... We have several post 68 cars (3 69's, 2 70's, 1 74 parts car,
and my truck ...) The only one that MIGHT have this system on it is the 74
Gran Torino, but I haven't looked at it in years to be able to remember (its
a parts car) ... my truck had the dashpot there, but since the EGR was
bypassed and everything it was disconnected ... the 76 motor I put in (390
from 3/4ton I think) had NO signs of even having EGR, much less this little
device ...

Now I'm sure that some of the more emissions stringent states, like CA, may
have had them earlier, I don't think this applies to a majority of the cars
...

> You can eliminate this assy and still avoid run on by
> "De-tuning" the engine
> so that it doesn't run efficiently and therefor runs cooler but that's a
> mighty poor alternative in my book :-) You can also set the idle so slow
> that it stalls in traffic and drives you nuts but that isn't my cupatea
> either :-)
>

I don't see either of these as being choices at all, and I know that's what
you're trying to say, but I don't think "de-tuning" an engine has ever
really caused it to run cooler ... not to mention you don't say how to
detune it ... are you talking making a richer idle mixture ? that could
cause the run-on itself ... retarding the timing ? I think if he runs any
less timing he'll never get it to run over 2500 ... I'm not sure he has
enough now to rev it very well ... as for the low idle ... I resemble that
remark! I do that all the time, mostly its a function of setting the idle
while the vehicle is good and warm (and in park) ... so I have to go back
and set it back up ...


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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 08:58:35 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

> >
>

I don't think the 390 is all that great of a revver with the stock manifolds
and such on it ... open it up a bit and we may have a different story ...
'course I also compare it to a 4.6 that accelerates pretty good (right CJ ?)


> Have
> you ever wondered what the red stripe on ford speedos that goes
> from 70-120
> is? This was the FE redline. You werent supposed to run an FE
> in this range
> for more than 15 min, because the harmonics from that massive bottom end
> would destroy itself.

What red line ? There's no marks on my gauges at all and its a 100mph
speedo ... I can also tell you from experience that running at 70 for 3+
hours does not cause it to destroy itself ... well I guess it would've only
been 65 by the speedo since the tires are the wrong size ... but at any rate
it was fine ... Seems odd that they would say the harmonics on the massive
bottom end of an internally balanced engine have problems ... the 428's
maybe since those have the external balancers, but the 390 is an internally
balanced motor so the harmonics shouldn't be too bad ...


Now this is just one of those "heard it from a
> neighbors, brothers, kid" so It might be wrong. My point is
> bring your 390's
> on, Tweety will chew em up and spit em out :)
>

Hahahahaha .... I'd offer to join in, but I guess since my 390's kinda not
stock its probably not fair came (balanced and heavyish cam during a fresh
rebuild) ... hey I've got almost 5,000 miles on that motor now!

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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:06:12 -0500
From: "Terry L. Rahn"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 63 Falcon Ranchero for sale in WI

A Gentleman stopped by my house today, and asked if I or anyone I know would
like to buy his Ranchero. He got it last spring. He has replaced the
floorboards and converted to dual master cylinder. Too many projects and
needs to thin out his toys. The info is:
63 Ranchero
260/4spd(factory)
original except for new floor and dual master cyl. conversion
runs and drives
asking $2000.00
Larry White
Boscobel, WI
608-375-5130
He came to me last spring for info, but I've never seen the car.
Terry L. Rahn
78 E250 Quadravan 460/C6 NP215 Dana 44 front Dana 60 rear 3.73
2 61 Falcons in need of TLC and $$$

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:28:19 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M

Thanks for your message at 09:02 PM 10/12/99 -0700, Radoje Spasojevic. Your
message was:
>Unfortunately the intake manifold of a 460 WILL NOT fit either a 351M or a
>400, so it is a good thing it was free... :^)

So are you interested in unloading the manifold? I have a 429 that "needs"
a 4V.


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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:31:56 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M

Thanks for your message at 06:33 AM 10/13/99 -0400, Peters, Gary (G.R.).
Your message was:
>Classes of engines have manifolds unique to the class and sometimes even
>within a class there are differences. As others have mentioned, the 460
>manifold will fit the 429 or 460 and you must use the carb it was designed
>for.
>
Is there a short list or long list of carbs that will work on this manifold?


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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:23:06 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mosquito patrol

Stock Man writes: >>You want to talk about woooshhh? My brother had a 74 F-250
4x4 with a
390 which used some oil. On any given day it was a toss up whether it would
need $20 fill-up of gas or oil. Can you say, "spent rings?"

The area he lived in cut cost on their "Mosquito Patrol" I would suspect. Just
how far behind this truck did you have to stay in order to see the road in front
of you??? Sounds like some in our area!!!

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:39:19 -0400
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Intake for 351M on 460

Ben writes: >>So... have I guessed right that the 460 intake will fit on my
351M?

Nope --- Won't fit. Sorry, but you guessed wrong.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:38:00 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Well, I got chased by a cop in a dog truck with a 390 in it and he didn't
have any trouble with 90 mph as long as I wanted to play.......Friends had
these in trucks and cars back then and they were real screamers compared to
some similar vehicles. Virtually every ford interceptor back then had 390's
in them. Since I never owned one myself I can't deny your claims but the
design is the same as the 427, 428, 406, 410.......need I say more? In 65
they offered a Hypo version of this engine with solid lifters, 4 spd tranny
and pos.....opps, traction loc rear end which was rated pretty high by the
critics of the time. Same bottom end, more power and made to rev :-)

As far as massive crank the FE family has a much lighter crank than the 460
which is capable of 9k rpm in a well built engine. We all know one truck
puller who has done this :-) You were more likely to bend a push rod or
break a rocker than mess up the bottom end.

- --
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 disagree. There is only a .07'' difference between the
> strokes, so that
> isnt a factor, but the 460 had those nice big power building

> is? This was the FE redline. You werent supposed to run an
> FE in this range
> for more than 15 min, because the harmonics from that massive
> bottom end
> would destroy itself.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:38:17 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

There were forms of emmisions controls on non CA vehicles long before 76.
My 70 Montego had the plastic idle adjuster dohickys on it along with the
electrical dashpot. 68 was the first year I remember anyone getting serious
about emmissions on anything but they were experimenting with various models
long before that. Trucks typically are the last to get any emissions
devices so in 68 they may not have had the dashpot on them or EGR or PCV.
Mine still had the down draft tube for the crank case but they were already
messing with cam timing on some models along with other secret devices :-)

In reality you are essentially correct in that de-tuning will have limited
effect if any. The fact is that the designe of the combustion chamber,
relatively high compression, higher coolant temps, leaner mixtures and other
factors created a monster that apparently didn't exist on older designs.
The result of all these design changes produced and engine which runs
considerably hotter and retains the heat in the piston and combustion
chamber longer than the older ones so they would self ignite when you killed
the ignition, especially at low throttle settings.

Most of these, if allowed to idle for even one minute will cool down to the
point they won't run on. The harder you work them and the quicker you shut
them off afterwards the more likely they are to run on too. I can't be sure
because it was so long ago but is seems to me the 68 I had did have the
dashpot on it. Automatics had vacuum operated ones back then too to prevent
them from stalling when you let off the gas suddenly and then later to
prevent hydrocarbons from entering the atmosphere due to over siphoning the
idle circuit and enriching the mixture etc.. I don't recall the year I
first noticed this but it near 70 somewhere.

My 73 van with 302 had some stuff on it, perhaps just the dashpot, not sure
now and the 75 with windsor had it all including the EGR, PCV, aluminum base
plate that burned up and the whole 9 yards :-) The 73 LTD I worked on had
the EGR, pretty 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
- --

> This I won't ... 68? Come on now, unless you're talkin CA
> emissions there's
> no way it was this early ... not even on cars ... 78 I would
> believe, but
> more likely it was 76 or so when cats started becoming
> required and EGR was

> > "De-tuning" the engine
> > so that it doesn't run efficiently and therefor runs
> cooler
>
> you're trying to say, but I don't think "de-tuning" an engine has ever
> really caused it to run cooler ... not to mention you don't say how to
> detune it ... are you talking making a richer idle mixture ?
> that could
> cause the run-on itself ... retarding the timing ? I think
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:45:15 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 4v for 351M

The 4v, square bore manifold will take virtually any square bore 4 barrel
carb as long as it's in the general CFM range so bore sizes are similar
since it uses the industry standard mounting bolt pattern but the spread
bore is strictly by itself. All Ford OEM spread bores will fit this
manifold but some have smaller primaries so spacers may need to be changed
to make them flow well. I put one on a square bore manifold by making up my
own adapter on a 429 once. Had to hog that EGR plate out a bunch to get it
smooth :-) I believe the carb I used just happend to have both patterns in
the flange, don't recall now how I mounted it.

- --
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
- --

> Is there a short list or long list of carbs that will work
> on this manifold?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:04:54 EDT
From: MongoCaver aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: fuel mileage on different engines ?


>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
(snip)
>i'd like to hear from some of you on fuel mileage
>with differentengines. >>

78 F350 crewcab
460 engine in need of a carb rebuild and a tune-up
3:73 gears
12mpg city or farm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:07:22 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

> There were forms of emmisions controls on non CA vehicles long before 76.
> My 70 Montego had the plastic idle adjuster dohickys on it along with the
> electrical dashpot.


> My 73 van with 302 had some stuff on it, perhaps just the
> dashpot, not sure
> now and the 75 with windsor had it all including the EGR, PCV,
> aluminum base
> plate that burned up and the whole 9 yards :-) The 73 LTD I
> worked on had
> the EGR, pretty sure.
>


Were all these A/C cars ? ours are not (except the Gran Torino, the others
are Cougars, Mustang, Torino, Ranchero) ... possibly the dashpot that is
electric that you had on the 68 Montego and 73 Van ... come to think of it
that's why my 360 had it on my truck, it had had A/C on it from the factory
(the engine I mean, not the cab) ... same deal with the 69 Cougar, but the
dashpot (if it had one) was long gone ...

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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:53:33 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Thanks for your message at 10:38 AM 10/13/99 -0400, Peters, Gary (G.R.).
Your message was:
but the
>design is the same as the 427, 428, 406, 410.......need I say more? In 65
>they offered a Hypo version of this engine ...

It seems to be somewhere in my fading memory that something like that was
offered as early as 1960...but hard to find now...


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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:13:36 -0700
From: "Radoje Spasojevic"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

>As far as massive crank the FE family has a much lighter crank than the 460
>which is capable of 9k rpm in a well built engine. We all know one truck
>puller who has done this :-) You were more likely to bend a push rod or
>break a rocker than mess up the bottom end.
>

Which is why the shaft mounted rockers on the FE engines are far superior
for high RPM operation.

Rade Spasojevic -- rspasoje mindspring.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.2bigbroncos.org/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=194
- -Rubicon Tested-


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:05:08 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

>I disagree. There is only a .07'' difference between the strokes, so that
>isnt a factor, but the 460 had those nice big power building pistons. Have
>you ever wondered what the red stripe on ford speedos that goes from 70-120
>is? This was the FE redline. You werent supposed to run an FE in this range
>for more than 15 min, because the harmonics from that massive bottom end
>would destroy itself. Now this is just one of those "heard it from a
>neighbors, brothers, kid" so It might be wrong.


Uhhh, actually the redline on the speedo from 70-up was an indication
that you were exceeding the national speed limit.
It wasn't an FE thing, the "redline" speedo was used in lots of sedans
that had other powerplants.
Most FE powered sedans were more than happy to cruise at 3 digit speeds
all day long, as long as your gas tank was big enough. (and gearing
wasn't too silly...)
I've spun FE's at 4000+ rpm for hours on end, and never seen a bottom
end destroy itself...

> My point is bring your 390's
>on, Tweety will chew em up and spit em out :)

If you lived closer I'd be happy to give you an opportunity to *try*. (-:

Steve
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.sonic.net/~sdelanty

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:22:46 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

That's what happens when people don't understand the purpose of something,
they ditch it only find out it doesn't run as well :-) That's how I learned
about this dashpot thing :-) Put it right back on too :-)

None of mine were air conditioned untill recently, starting with the 86
cougar :-)

- --
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 engine I mean, not the cab) ... same deal with the 69
> Cougar, but the
> dashpot (if it had one) was long gone ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:32:20 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Reason I remember that particular one is that just before I went to the army
I had one picked out and had done the research on it......brand new 65
Galaxy convertible, burgandy with white top and interior,
posi..Oooops...traction loc, 4 spd, hypo 390, white wall tires.....$4500 out
the door :-)

In 62 they had the 406 and a real fancy version similar to the one above.
Don't recall any before that especially but I'm sure they were there, just
didn't run on to any I can recall :-)

Remember the 56, two tone, Crown Vic? Now that was pretty cool for it's day
:-) There's a black and white one for sale down the road from me I keep
eyeballing when I go by.....:-) No funds :-( Appears to be complete and in
good shape.

- --
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
- --

> It seems to be somewhere in my fading memory that something
> like that was
> offered as early as 1960...but hard to find now...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:41:22 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - '63 truck

Does it have hydraulic lifters? The 61, 240 or 250, not sure required one
turn after taking up the slack while running as I recall or 0.100" preload.
The recommende procedure for it was to remove the cover, start the engine
and back them out until they rattled and tighten them back down to that
spec.

DO NOT OVER TIGHTEN THEM! You will bend a valve or burn it up at the very
least. If they are hydraulic I would loosen each one and tighten it back
down until it is quiet and leave it there but make sure there is still some
spring movement under the push rod before running buttoning it up. If there
is no spring movement then it is completely collapsed and will burn up or
hit the piston and bend.

If they are adjustable and solid then typically you have to turn it by hand
to get the rocker loose and set it to the spec, roughly 0.010 to 0.015"
typically but I've seen them as high as 0.022" so you have to look it up.

Ox put a nice write up on the truck site for the 460 install. Take a look
and if you still have questions, give us a ring :-)

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

> Could anyone tell me the correct valve adjustment for this
> engine? I bought this truck about 10 months ago and haven't
> had any problems until now. Also anyone got any pointers on
> the 460 install? Thanks, Jeff
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:10:26 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Thanks for your message at 01:32 PM 10/13/99 -0400, Peters, Gary (G.R.).
Your message was:
>Reason I remember that particular one is that just before I went to the army
>I had one picked out and had done the research on it......brand new 65
>Galaxy convertible, burgandy with white top and interior,
>posi..Oooops...traction loc, 4 spd, hypo 390, white wall tires.....$4500 out
>the door :-)
>
>In 62 they had the 406 and a real fancy version similar to the one above.
>Don't recall any before that especially but I'm sure they were there, just
>didn't run on to any I can recall :-)

I remember reading an article that called the 1960 Starliner with a 390/401
hp the first muscle car. I wish I would have kept it. I know the 390 had
a 401 hp option (or was it 410?). I believe both had tripower. I'm not
sure of the cam/lifters, but it almost had to be solid lifters. I'd love
to find one for my empty '62, or even my '66 F250 (FTE CONTENT).

I wish I still had that article...


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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:19:21 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

> That's what happens when people don't understand the purpose of
> something,
> they ditch it only find out it doesn't run as well :-) That's
> how I learned
> about this dashpot thing :-) Put it right back on too :-)
>

uhm, I didn't mean to imply that we were having problems with any of our
vehicles either ... quite the contrary actually they all run quite well ...
(except the 74 GTE with no motor)


> > (the engine I mean, not the cab) ... same deal with the 69
> > Cougar, but the
> > dashpot (if it had one) was long gone ...
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:13:17 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on

This was a pure stock engine with stock tune so the dashpot was necessary
:-)

- --
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
- --

> uhm, I didn't mean to imply that we were having problems with
> any of our
> vehicles either ... quite the contrary actually they all run
> quite well ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:37:00 -0700
From: Dale Blanchard
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

You are right on every thing , but the 390 had a few problems when
towing heavy loads. One guy I worked with pulled a 10,000 lb horse
trailer and burned valves 4 times under warranty. One mech said the
exhaust manifolds were to short. also they switched to another type of
valve for low lead gas.
When pulling my trailer in the mountains on the switchback roads I had
no torque at the low speeds reqired to get up the hills. once you could
get the rpm up there was lots of power. The 300 six gives me starting
power, but runs out fast. Driving in town is a lot more pleasant than
with the 390.
If the 390 had been cammed down the same low rpm torque as the 300 it
would have been a monster puller. Mine just had the wrong cam for a
trailer puller.
The 391 large truck engine was the same except had sodium filled valves
and hard seats. They had a reason for doing this. I don't know if the
cam was different. I even considerd intalling a set of those heads on
mine,but could not find any used ones. I have just liked the 300
better,thats why I still have it after 26 years. And the C-6 tranny
works a lot better than my Dodge Dakota electronic piece of crap.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:08:01 -0400
From: joe delaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Radiator support questions

Group,
I am looking for a radiator support for my 68 4x4, I rememeber back in june
or so
we talked about a 73-79 support working on the 67-72's has anybody confirmed
this????I have also gotten emails stating the 2wd support is different from a
4x4
support??Whats the difference???Is this the same for 73-79?I can get ahold of

atleast 10 rust free 73-79 supports all being 2wd...So i'm in a jam to get
this
truck together somewhat before the snow falls :)


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:29:19 -0400
From: Tony Marino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Radiator support questions

Hey Joe--

Yeah, I was the one who did the comparison between the 67-72 (unknown 4x4
or 2x4) and a '77 core support.

I personally have never heard/seen a difference between the 2x4 and 4x4
core supports, but I would stake my "kid" reputation on the fact that a
'73-77 would work just fine with just a FEW SMALL minor modifications-- I
think like 2 little 90 degree grill mounts would either have to be bolted
or welded onto the newer core, but that was about it.. The '73-77 will have
a little bend in the top of the line for the hood spring seat, but it
doesn't effect anything on the 67-72's. Everything I saw (and i'm anal)
lined up right, etc from what I could tell looking at the two of them
together at the same time. Only difference you'll have is your radiator
will bolt on the outer flange rather than inner flange, so you might not be
able to get away with using the same radiator.

I'm going to use a '77 core in my '70 when the time comes, so for what my
opinion is worth... 8-)

Tony
tony pscico.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pscico.com/~tony

At 04:08 PM 10/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Group,
>I am looking for a radiator support for my 68 4x4, I rememeber back in june
>or so
>we talked about a 73-79 support working on the 67-72's has anybody confirmed
>this????I have also gotten emails stating the 2wd support is different from a
>4x4
>support??Whats the difference???Is this the same for 73-79?I can get ahold of
>
>atleast 10 rust free 73-79 supports all being 2wd...So i'm in a jam to get
>this
>truck together somewhat before the snow falls :)
>
>
>== 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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:04:53 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mosquito patrol

In a message dated 10/13/99 10:38:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
am14 daimlerchrysler.com writes:

> The area he lived in cut cost on their "Mosquito Patrol" I would suspect.
> Just
> how far behind this truck did you have to stay in order to see the road in
> front of you??? Sounds like some in our area!!!

It was pretty bad, but I may be exagerating a little. In reality you didn't
see much smoke once you were at cruising speed. Start-up and high revs in
reverse seemed the worse (NP 435). It wasn't too long before he did a
rebuild. We suspected it was a combination of valve seals and rings.


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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:53:38 -0500
From: "Norm"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Gary wrote
The 390 was noted as one of the strongest at
> the bottom of any stock engine too which is one reason we find so many in
> trucks. It just did every thing very well. Unlike the 460 though, the
390
> could also rev :-)


All I ask is ......Define Rev?......:-)

Norm/Tracie dahorse jvlnet.com " Babied & Pampered"
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=231
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jvlnet.com/~dahorse

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:29:40 EDT
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Brake Lines

Hey Geff,

I don't know which tool you are using, but I located my local Snap On man and
forked over about $70 for a brake line kit.....haven't had any problems with
leaks ever again.....the cheap kits aren't really worth it...

Good luck,

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:05:37 -0600
From: Kirk Baillie
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Radiator support questions

I can tell you that the frames are different for a 4x4 compared to 2x4
(4x4 more narrow. Have to drill new holes for the box but the rad
supports are the same however. I just replaced my rad support this
spring and I thought I would have to do some fabrication but it bolted
right up.

Kirk Baillie
74 F250 highboy 4x4
Just finished the brakes, finished undercoating but still have 4 inner
fenders still to put in.

joe delaurentis wrote:
>
> Group,
> I am looking for a radiator support for my 68 4x4, I rememeber back in june
> or so
> we talked about a 73-79 support working on the 67-72's has anybody confirmed
> this????I have also gotten emails stating the 2wd support is different from a
> 4x4
> support??Whats the difference???Is this the same for 73-79?I can get ahold of
>
> atleast 10 rust free 73-79 supports all being 2wd...So i'm in a jam to get
> this
> truck together somewhat before the snow falls :)
>
> == 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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:24:07 -0400
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear

Hi all

I just picked up a 79, F350 4 X 4. It has a dana 60 rear in it. I
thought they had 70's in them. What would have been the purpose of
getting an F-350 in 79 when the F-250's had the dana 60 front optional?
What did the F-350 have, that the F-250 coudln't have had? It also has
the big block rad and sway bars (tow package??), but a 351M??

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:53:08 -0400
From: joe delaurentis
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Coil spring questions

Group,
I have a friend with a set of coil springs from a 66-77 bronco w/3 "
lift in them
can i use them in my 68 4x4 with a 390???Or is the weight to much for
these springs
since the bronco has a 302

- --
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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:04:10 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear

In a message dated 10/13/99 5:35:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
luxjo thecore.com writes:



I just picked up a 79, F350 4 X 4. It has a dana 60 rear in it. I
thought they had 70's in them. What would have been the purpose of
getting an F-350 in 79 when the F-250's had the dana 60 front optional?
What did the F-350 have, that the F-250 coudln't have had? It also has
the big block rad and sway bars (tow package??), but a 351M?? >>

I think the difference is gonna be in the spring rate, maybe also in the
frame. Only the 2wd came with 70 as far as I know.

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:14:23 -0500
From: "Brett Yerks"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear

Ox, thats funny cause the 78 F250 4x4 Supercab I just picked up has a dana
70 in it. I don't know if that was ever stock or not but it works for me.

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


>Hi all
>
> I just picked up a 79, F350 4 X 4. It has a dana 60 rear in it. I
>thought they had 70's in them. What would have been the purpose of
>getting an F-350 in 79 when the F-250's had the dana 60 front optional?
>What did the F-350 have, that the F-250 coudln't have had? It also has
>the big block rad and sway bars (tow package??), but a 351M??
>
> OX


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:03:28 EDT
From: Invrdreamd aol.com
Subject: RE:FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460

He said, 235x16 tires. Are you assuming an aspect ratio of 75% ? I'll bet
that they are 235/85R-16's. 31.72" tall, if I recall correctly.

Doug in Ky.
'79 F-350 460 C6 4WD
'79 F-250 300 435 4WD
'79 Bronco ? ?
'78 F-150 300 RAT/RAN? 2WD
'76 Bronco 302 RAT/RAN?
'75 F-350 Super Camper Special 390 C6 2WD
'73 F-250 360 C6 2WD
'76 IH Traveller 304 727 4WD
'50-? Studebaker 6x6
Shew!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:12:48 -0700
From: "Shirley Byers"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID

Hey all,
I have a tranny that I'd like to ID. It's painted red and has a large
yellow set of numbers stenciled on the side: 8N3AF. There's a metal tag on
the PTO cover that reads: C8TA7003AFFL49 - 6 21 68 435.
And the casting number on the side:C-9639I-S. I was told it came out of a
1974 Bronco. Any help will be greatly appricated. I have a rearend that
has a tag that reads: WDC-Z1 3.00 5AB 160 and I was told that this came out
of a 1969 Ford Station Wagon. Thanks in advance!

Scott Bradley
1966 F-100 Heinz-57

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:21:20 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Coil spring questions

> I have a friend with a set of coil springs from a 66-77 bronco w/3 "
> lift in them
> can i use them in my 68 4x4 with a 390???Or is the weight to much for
> these springs
> since the bronco has a 302
>

I don't suppose you have a way of finding the spring rates on those ?
Likely they are pretty soft and will not result in anywhere near 3" of lift
if you install them, however you may end up with a nice cushy ride, just
like the new ones :)

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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:29:36 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset

Ive got a question. After reading so much about the wide ratio gearset
available in some C6's, how would I be able to tell what a given tranny's got
from the outside? The easier the better.
Ive got 2 C6's, the original from my 79 Bronco, and one from a 78 SuperCab
Utility truck, both driven my 400's.

Thanks a bunch

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 00:34:29 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's Ticker

Well folks the inevitable has happened. My lead foot combined with an old
motor has resulted in Tweety's Ticker ticking. It sounds to me like a lifter
or sumthin in the valve train has gone bad. Im gonna pull the valve covers
and take a look, also gonna try the ole ATF Fix all. But in either case, Ive
decided to buy another 460 to build up so I can just do a swap and not have
my truck down for the year my bros took. Figured Id share my baseline, and
get all of your opinions. I plan on doing the basic bottom end, Only boring
if I have to. Also plan on runnin Clevite bearings. Pistons will be TRW flat
tops to up the CR to a respectable level. Im sticking with the 73 head, so I
wont have to buy my gas at an airport. I do plan on gasket matching the
intake and exhaust, and removing the smog bumps. Im leanin towards the
Edelbrock Performer intake, but Ive also heard good stuff about the weiand
Stealth, either way Im running a Holley 650 with Vac secondaries, as I dont
need my mileage to go down to far. Im keeping the stock exhaust manifolds,
but running a dual 3 inch system, with a cross over. As far as a cam goes,
Im lookin at either Cranes Powermax (204/216 .050 with a gross lift of
.487/.518) or Comp Cams 268H series (218/218 .050 with a gross of .494/.494)
I want a lumpy idle, with good mid and top end, but I dont wanna have such a
week bottom end that I have to run a stall converter. I do have the 4.10
gears, so that helps a weak bottom end out a lil. Either cam is getting a
Cloyes Chain. I dont think Ive left anything out, so now Im askin on
feedback. Lemme know any ideas you have, or maybe even a better idea than
what I have.

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:48:54 -0700
From: sparky mail.island.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re- finished tail lights

John LaGrone wrote:
"clip"
I finished my tail light conversion project last night.

Congrats on the conversion. Now it works the way it should have been
designed in the first place. ;)

Sparky
73 F250 4x4
3?0FE 4v

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:49:19 -0700
From: sparky mail.island.net
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

"Southerland, Rich" wrote:
"clip"
The parts store where I work stopped testing modules as the testers proved
to be unreliable. One of the problems lies in that the failure mode of a
large portion of modules is they work until they heat up, then fail. If
allowed to cool, they will resume working until they heat up again, ect,
ect...

If heat is a problem for the module couldn't you relocate it to a cooler
place? Pretty much all you would have to do was pick a new spot, splice in
some new longer wires, and the job is finished.
I would guess that in the cab would be cooler than in the engine
compartment. Maybe under the seat? Or behind the dash? Just wondering.

Sparky
73 F250 4x4
3?0FE 4v


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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:10:52 EDT
From: ETRMK aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

In a message dated 10/13/99 9:52:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sparky mail.island.net writes:


>>


If the module is indeed "heating up" i doubt it is really caused by underhood
temperatures from exhaust ect. Dont get me wrong, at the end of the day i
really couldnt tell you jack about why brain boxes go bad or what actually
happens to them internally... but somehow they do! Just this last June i was
on my way home from my local all ford wrecking yard with my 460 core in the
back of my 78 when all of the sudden the ol 400 croaked on me in the middle
of rush hour. It shut down stone cold just like ya turned off the key.
Luckily (VERY LUCKILY) i coasted down a hill and right into an Als Auto
Supply parking lot! After she stopped i threw it back into P, turned it over,
and she fired right up.. no hesitation and smooth as butter. I got about 20
ft before it died again. I got out, popped the hood and began investigation.
Fuel filter was clean as a whistle, carb had plenty of go juice, and i had
spark. Took me about 20 min but i narrowed it down to the box, took her
inside and shur-nuf she tested bad. After the parts guy dug me out a new
....


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.