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 #373
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 373



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

FTE 61-79 - where is Ardmore?
FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
RE: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
FTE 61-79 - unibodies
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: weatherstripping
Re: FTE 61-79 - starts - dies
Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!
RE: FTE 61-79 - where is Ardmore?
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
FTE 61-79 - run on - dashpot
FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's Ticker
FTE 61-79 - Re: Radiator support questions
FTE 61-79 - '74 towing specs, my webpage
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID
Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460
Re: FTE 61-79 - 2wd and 4wd Radiator supports
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on - dashpot
Re: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset
FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear
FTE 61-79 - semi-new list member
FTE 61-79 - Re: Tweety's Ticker
Re: FTE 61-79 - run on
RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine
FTE 61-79 - Re: 4v for 351M
RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear
RE: FTE 61-79 - run on - dashpot
RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460
RE: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset
Re: FTE 61-79 - semi-new list member
FTE 61-79 - Re: Tweetys ticker
FTE 61-79 - Whoosh
FTE 61-79 - Need some assistance please.
FTE 61-79 - Re:Tweety's Ticker
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Archives
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's Ticker
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Radiator support questions
FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Interview with Bob Masone, F150 Brand Manager!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Radiator support questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Tweetys ticker

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:50:00 -0400
From: "Forest V. New"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - where is Ardmore?

Azie,

Where the heck is Ardmore? Im in the Columbus/ Phenix City area and was
wondering where you were located in relation to me.

Forest New
72 XLT ranger
71 sport custom
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:02:53 -0500
From: "Bob & Becky Elliott"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Postmaster
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:00 PM
Subject: Undeliverable Mail


> Unknown user: gpeters3 viste.com
>
>
> Original message follows.
>
> Received: from default.ptsi.net [206.103.101.40] by lulu.ptsi.net
> (SMTPD32-5.05) id A57117FC012A; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:00:49 -0500
> Message-ID:
> From: "Bob & Becky Elliott"
> To:
> Subject: 460
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 21:42:36 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
>
> Hi, yes it is a 460 in my crew cab. It is burning a little oil. My
question
> stems from back in the early 60's when I had a 1 ton flat head Dodge. It
had
> a 4 sp in it and was geared so it would cruise nice, as long as there were
> no hills. Then it would have to drop down to about 35 before I could down
> shift. I was going to school in East Texas at the time and going home to
Wis
> on vacations. The Mo.
> hill were murder. While down in Texas, I changed the trans from 4sp to
5sp.
> Top 4 were close ratio, and 1st was a stump puller. With that combination
> (no other changes), I could cruise home, hit the hills at 65, down shift
> about 55 and keep on pulling. My Dad used the same truck to pull a crawler
> front end loader on a tilt bed trailer while I was in the service. It was
a
> non syncro trans, and coming out of a construction site 1 day, he missed a
> shift on an up hill grade. From a standing start, he climbed to the crest
of
> the hill. I'm using that knowledge to think that a 5sp with 3sp aux would
> give me OD when empty, and a better selection of gears when climbing
hills,
> fighting head winds, etc. My 460 has plenty of power, I'm just not sure it
> is the best package for the job. They use 330's & 370's in F500, 600's,
700,
> etc but they don't use 460's . I'm just trying to learn more about what
> would work for me, and gather ideas. thanks, Bob
>
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:07:21 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

On my van I located it next to the radiator in an open air stream but the
fender well is plenty cool in most cases. A van has less air space under
the hood than a pickup and with the 460 and auto tranny there was a lot of
heat in there, sufficient to boil the fuel in the fuel lines. If it heats
up there you probably have something else going on as well :-) The newer
ones are mounted directly to the dizzy so pick up heat from the engine
directly and are much more prone to failure than the old dura spark boxes.

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:59:46 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

Gang, if this is the dura spark system, any of them or even points there is
another possibility even more likely than the box itself.......the plugs
that go to the box! Trust me, I have torn engines down looking for things
because of this. If you take the box out you have to .......unplug it and
when you......plug it back in guess what you have just done? Cleaned off
the corrosion in the pins and sockets which was probably the problem in the
first place.

Since the good one tested bad and the old on tested bad.......??? I have
two spares that I bought at different times to replace a "Bad" box only to
find out it was the connection, not the box. I'm still running boxes that
are over 20 years old on some of them and have cut the plugs off more than
one and soldered the wires directly to eliminate the problems.

- --
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
- --

> 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
> one... he tossed it on the tester and it appeared to test as
> bad. I was
> wonderin what the heck the deal was. Even he was confused
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:14:06 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - unibodies

>>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.

I drove one in delivery service for a while. Turning corners took new
skills. Since you sit in front of the front wheels, you don't turn until you
are PAST the street sign. :-)

- -- 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:06:48
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:fuel mileage on different engines ?

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

My 78 bronco with 351M/C6 gets about 12 mpg on the freeway, 10 in the
city.. 15 on a 200 mile stretch of I5 (straight & flat) driving a constant
55 mph behind a big semi ;-)

And I'm pretty sure this is as good as it gets with this truck, I sure did
tune the hell out of that engine!



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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:16:51
From: Bas van der Veer
Subject: Re: 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.

What about the window seals? Especially the little triangle window is a
pain, at freeway speeds it makes more noise than the engine :(



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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:55:10 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - starts - dies

Thanks for your message at 06:02 PM 10/11/99, Bas van der Veer. Your
message was:
>>some cases of this start and die syndrome where the module will allow the
>>engine to start and then as you released the key from start position it
will
>>die ! I read the repair manual for this problem , and the wiring diagram
>>shows voltage on one of the ignition wires when starting and then zero
>>voltage when the key is released . As far as I know there isn't any way to
>>repair the module , just replace it .
>
>How about the coil resistor? If I'm not mistaken the coil is wired directly
>to the battery voltage when starting (to compensate for the voltage drop),
>then as the key is released the current is routed through the resistor to
>limit the current. A bad resistor / connection would cause such behaviour.
>I have not been following this thread so it may have been said already..
>but it is simple to test, just turn on the ignition and measure the coil
>voltage (red). If it is less than 7-8 volts, put a jumper wire from it to
>the battery +, and try again.. not too long because the current will get
>too high.

I have a student who was complaining about constantly literally blowing up
coils. I suggested a similar scenario to him, except in his case he's
getting too much to the coil...He hasn't said any more about it. He
probably figures that an English couldn't know much about Ford trucks...


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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:56:56 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - WOOOOOSHHH!!!!

Thanks for your message at 10:48 AM 10/14/99, Bas van der Veer. Your
message was:
>>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
>
>Hey that's pretty good, yeah last winter it was $.99 in san jose too, it
>rocks! But wasn't it $.80 in the rest of the US?? There was a special phone
>number in CA you could call to complain about the high gas prices, you
>could vote for california to drop the winter/summer mix etc.. I did that
>too, I wonder if it worked..

Yeah, it was as low as .89 here and now we are one of the highest...


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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:00:03 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - where is Ardmore?

My son lives in Pheonix City and works at a garage in Columbus. He has a 72
and now a 51 as well :-)

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

> Azie,
>
> Where the heck is Ardmore? Im in the Columbus/ Phenix City
> area and was
> wondering where you were located in relation to me.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:53:59 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Those were long stroke, low compression, low rpm engines designed as the
300, I-6 was, to pull heavy at low rpms. They are designed to work in heavy
vehicles like trucks which do not typically require fast accelleration but
do require stall proof lugability.

The 330 is an economical engine to get this done but will not keep up with
traffic or pass traffic as well as a larger, automotive or light truck
engine which typically won't be as economical either but will handle typical
road duties in a light truck better. It has torque alright but still not as
much as a 460 due to size differences. If you want a real stump puller, cam
the 460 to run at 1500 rpm with torque peak near 2400 or even lower and you
will have a better 330 mouse trap :-)

Remember that these engines do not have any magical properties because they
are called this or that or used in this or that application, they do what
they do because they are cammed and valved and carbed for that specific job
and bigger is always, always, always stronger and torqueier when all else is
applied the same. As I said, there is no free lunch. Engines are simple
physics and if you do this or that to any engine it will respond the same as
if you did it to any other engine, all other things being equal.

Add stroke and you add torque
Add cubes and you add torque and HP potential
Add cam and you either add low end or top end but not both
Add carb and you add top end

Here are some basic guide lines:

At any given speed the engine will have a max air flow capacity regardless
of carb or intake or cam due to the space that is being opened up by each
intake stroke. If you over carb it you will lose bottom end torque because
of mixture problems.

If you under carb it you will lose top end due to the restriction ahead of
the cylinders but at low rpm it will atomize and meter better so for a few
rpms you will have superior torque, generally.

Put a small carb on a 460, jet it correctly and cam it for low rpm use and
you will be able to pull bull dozers around all day with it but don't try to
go over 50 mph, it will run out of air.

Put a larger 4v carb on it, jet it and cam it for midrange and it will have
less at 1000 rpm but more at 2000 rpm etc...

They are all compromises so you have to weigh what your needs are and design
it to suit. If pulling heavy loads economically is a high priority and
passing traffic when empty is not even a consideration then a 330 and lots
of gears may be good for you but if you need a little of both a 460 can be
cammed and carbed to do very well in both arenas. If you still need more
gearing then the spicer 10 and 15 speed trannys may be your answer but they
will have to be adapted since they only come on diesels. The 3 speed aux
may be a good choice too but consider the cost and inconvenience of this
compared to a properly setup 460.

The primary reason they don't use the 460 in medium trucks is due to
economy, they burn too much fuel in that application and have power
capabilities way beyond the actual needs of the applicaion so the extra fuel
is essentially wasted. By gearing the 330 down, increasing stroke:bore
ratio and camming it to run slowly with high efficiency they get the job
done they want to accomplish but most of us would not be happy with this
arrangement in our back and forth to work trucks. In other words, they use
the "Minimalist" strategy.

Most, if not all, the problems you mention were due to the fact that you had
a non-syncro tranny and could not catch the right gear at the right time.
More gears will not fix that but a good syncro 5 speed would work very well.
The ZF is made for the 460 and diesel engines and uses the BW 1356 xfer
case. This may be a better choice for you than the wide ratio C-6 and may
not require the additional 3 spd box, just a thought :-) There is also a
new "New Venture" cast iron case tranny made for the Cummins diesel with 6
speeds which Advance Adapters can adapt for you. It has the added advantage
of having a 560# torque rating, the ZF is rated at 470#.

- --
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
- --

> > no hills. Then it would have to drop down to about 35
> before I could down
> > shift.

> > (no other changes), I could cruise home, hit the hills at
> 65, down shift
> > about 55 and keep on pulling. My Dad used the same truck to
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:33:20 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460

I get 31.73" with 85% :-) Will this list ever agree on anything? :-) For
calculations I use 31.11" to allow for the contact patch. My sheet
arbitrarily calculates this for me based on some very loose assumptions but
it gives me some kind of estimate at least :-)

I still get 3.08 and 3.70 for 2000 rpm and 2400 respectively and 2657 for
4.10 gears with this tire.

Spin a 460 at that rpm and you will not be able to pass any gas stations :-)
(Depending on cam specs of course :-))

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:42:03 -0700
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

snip

> Add stroke and you add torque
> Add cubes and you add torque and HP potential
> Add cam and you either add low end or top end but not both
> Add carb and you add top end
>


I've been following this thread and I was wondering. What to you
gain with more compression? I've heard that high compression is not good
for towing/hevay loads. Why? I've also heard that higher compression
makes the motor more fuel efficient. Does this not happen if the motor is
heavily loaded?

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:43:39 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - run on - dashpot

Aggggggh!

The dashpot is a device designed to prevent the throttles from slamming
closed when you take your foot off of the gas pedal. Can you say sudden
engine shut down?

The electric device that prevents run on (in both AC and non-AC vehicles) is
the anti-deiseling solenoid. Can you say quit running you so and so?

These two devices may be combined (as it is on Henry's 351M) into one unit,
but on many vehicles they are in fact separate. Our 66 Buick had a dashpot,
but no anti deiseling solenoid. Not being smogged down, it could keep the
air running without much change in idle.

- -- 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:32:44 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - run on

>>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 ...

Actually, the first federally mandated pollution control equipment appeared
on the 1967 model year vehicles. (Dec 31, 1966 was the cut off date in the
law.) This consisted mostly of Air Injection Reactor (AIR) pumps and 195
degree thermostats. In 1975, when catalytic converters were required, many
manufacturers went to 205-210 degree thermostats.

- -- 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:46:12 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset

Don't know of any from the outside but in 78 and 79, economy was on
everyone's mind so most trucks with larger engines came with this AFAIK. If
both came from trucks with 400's I'd say there's a good possibililty you
have them :-) I'm going to be real interested in what my 78 lincoln tranny
has in it too......I'm hoping :-)

If both trucks also has fairly tall rear gears, 2.75 or 3.00 or even 3.08
then it's almost a sure thing :-)

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:40:22 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's Ticker

As long as you are buying new parts.....why not a spread bore? If you like
Holleys they have the 4165 and 75 for this which uses the same bolt pattern
as the Carter Thermo Quad and Rochesters. Offenhauser has a 360 degree,
dual plane manifold for this application but I can't say for sure what kind
of performance or economy to expect. My head says it should be pretty
economical based on the design of it. This will be my choice when I get to
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Radiator support questions

joe wrote:
> 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???

My old truck was a '74 2WD F-250 Supercab w/390. My current truck
is a '74 4WD F-100 Regular Cab w/390, originally 360.

The radiator supports have different radiator mounting methods. I
know this because I intended to swap the brand new radiator into
the new truck and couldn't.

On the 2WD the brackets were part of the radiator. On the 4WD the
brackets are part of the radiator support AND the place where the
cab mount attaches is welded to the bottom part of the radiator
bracket. I don't remember how it attached on the 2WD. This
probably relates to Kirk's statement that the frame width is
different.

I guess you could probably modify the 2WD support, but if it were
me, I would try to get the right one.

Mark in Southwest Washington
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacifier.com/~draco/truck.html
- --
'74 F-100 Ranger XLT 4X4
in digest mode

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '74 towing specs, my webpage

If anyone is interested, I finally added the towing specifications
for 1974 trucks in the '74 Ford Truck Reference section on my web
page. Also the URL is a little different than before. See the
.sig below.

Mark in Southwest Washington
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacifier.com/~draco/truck.html
- --
'74 F-100 Ranger XLT 4X4
in digest mode

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:50:40 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tranny ID

If the casting is smooth on the outside and a 4 speed with granny low the
435 will be for the NP-435 which was the most common tranny back then. The
rear end could be a dana 44 (used in some trucks) or a 9" (more likely in a
car I understand). All 9" have front loading punkins, not sure about the
dana 44 rear but front has cover instead so I expect the rear does also.

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:59:53 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Higher compression in a vehicle simply means that you increase the amount of
power produced with each power cycle of the engine. If you can compress the
a/f mixture more then when it is ignited it will give up more energy thus
enabling the engine to do more work with the same amount of fuel. Increasing
the c/r also leads to a problem with low octane pump gas because it is more
volatile so when the mixture is compressed it tends to ignite before it's
supposed to hence the term "pre-ignite" or "ping" as it's commonly known.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Hogan, Tom
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine


>
> I've been following this thread and I was wondering. What to you
>gain with more compression? I've heard that high compression is not good
>for towing/hevay loads. Why? I've also heard that higher compression
>makes the motor more fuel efficient. Does this not happen if the motor is
>heavily loaded?



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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:00:54 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460

> I get 31.73" with 85% :-) Will this list ever agree on
> anything? :-)

Probably that Fords rule ... otherwise it seems like someone always has a
differing opinion ...

> calculations I use 31.11" to allow for the contact patch. My sheet
> arbitrarily calculates this for me based on some very loose
> assumptions but
> it gives me some kind of estimate at least :-)
>

WHAT?!?!?!?!? YOU mean you don't go out and measure from the ground to the
exact center of the hub on various cars throughout the parking lot to
establish an average contact patch size based on the calculated and measured
radii of the tire ? I'm really disappointed...I figured by now you'd have
also memorized all possible tire sizes and the different brands ability to
flex as the pressure was increased linearly ... that way we could predict
the exact rolling radius of the average BFG after driving for 20 min. on
both cloudy and sunny days ...


> I still get 3.08 and 3.70 for 2000 rpm and 2400 respectively and 2657 for
> 4.10 gears with this tire.
>

So a 3.50 gearset that should be pretty easy to find shoudl also get you
right into a good rev range ...

> Spin a 460 at that rpm and you will not be able to pass any gas
> stations :-)
> (Depending on cam specs of course :-))
>

Of course ... but then again what do you consider bad mileage or "not being
able to pass a gas station" ? A lot of this is personal preference and
perception ...

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 10:58:45 EDT
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 2wd and 4wd Radiator supports

In a message dated 10/14/99 10:53:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
draco pacifier.com writes:

> I don't remember how it attached on the 2WD. This
> probably relates to Kirk's statement that the frame width is
> different.
>
> I guess you could probably modify the 2WD support, but if it were
> me, I would try to get the right one.

As far as 2wd and 4wd radiator supports go, either support will bolt right
to the frame without modification. The only difference is in fact the
radiator mounting method. If you are going for a stock restoration, get the
right one. If you are only after functionality who cares, but understand
that the old radiator may not work for you on the new support if its
different.


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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:00:18 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Ok, in truck trim it may not be any different than the 460 but the 460 has
always been a truck engine and tuned for it, the 390, even in trucks could
be had in some pretty fancy configurations and since it has a lighter crank
it stands to reason. 460's rev too, just not quite the same way or as far
in stock trim, they run out of air.

Even with spread bore carb, mine will only hit about 75 in second quickly,
then it take a minute or so to get the next 5 mph. Does pretty well in
third though with OEM spread bore carb :-) With the Holley 600 on it I
could only get about 90 in third on the dyno but my instructor was loading
it for me so who knows what he did :-) (Could have been pulling a simulated
semi trailer :-)) When I pass traffic I am so busy controling the truck I
never look at the speedo and it only goes to 85 anyway........got to be
quick to keep in on the road if you floor 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
- --

> > trucks. It just did every thing very well. Unlike the 460
> though, the
> 390
> > could also rev :-)
>
>
> All I ask is ......Define Rev?......:-)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:03:47 -0500
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on - dashpot

> Aggggggh!
>
> The dashpot is a device designed to prevent the throttles from slamming
> closed when you take your foot off of the gas pedal. Can you say sudden
> engine shut down?
>

Yes John, thank you! I remembered that yesterday, which explains why our
Cougar doesn't have one at all and our 'stang has a small one... not
electric though, I don't remember how its operated (vaccuum likely) ... so I
think Manual trannies got it and auto's didn't 'cause the auto would
naturally anti-kill the motor ...

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 11:05:11 -0400
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> Don't know of any from the outside but in 78 and 79, economy was on
> everyone's mind so most trucks with larger engines came with this AFAIK. If
> both came from trucks with 400's I'd say there's a good possibililty you
> have them :-) I'm going to be real interested in what my 78 lincoln tranny
> has in it too......I'm hoping :-)
>
> If both trucks also has fairly tall rear gears, 2.75 or 3.00 or even 3.08
> then it's almost a sure thing :-)
>
> --

Anything in the VIN that would give it away?

OX
> 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
> --
>
> > 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.
> == 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:52:52 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear

>>It also has
the big block rad and sway bars (tow package??), but a 351M??

Well, Ox, maybe some of my kinfolk had the truck. (not really likely) I have
a monster big block radiator in my F150 2X 351M. You know how we feel down
here in Texas, everything has to be bigger to be better.

- -- 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:16:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: zcwp11 ACCESS.ETSU.EDU
Subject: FTE 61-79 - semi-new list member

Hello all...

New to the list... well sort of... was on it a little short while
before... but it's been many months. I own a '62 F100 Unibody. Any
others on here :-) ANyways... the truck has the little I-6 (223?) 3spd on
teh collumn... manual steering... manual drum brakes (to freaked out
passenger... look.. I am hitting the brakes) oh... and no door locks
either... not that I need them or anything. I have come to find out
recently that the grill is from a '61... and the oddball tailgate is off
of a Chevrolet... gonna have t o get rid of that :-)

So the I-6 is dead... like really dead... think the crank might actually
be broken in two. Its been sitting for a few months now because of
this... but I'd sorta like to get it running before winter sets in. The
problem I'm having is finding an engine that I can install without making
modifications. So my first question is what engines will fit in this
truck as a bolt in? V8 or 6... don't care... need front mount. .. and I'd
prefer to keep the 3spd if possible. Somebody told me to check out a
Mustange engine... but it was saddle mount... somebody said a Thunderbird
engine... OK... think it might work... what were they... 350something?
But would the stock tranny hold up behind it? I guess what I"m really
asking for here is advice... what do all y'all think?

There is a '65 or so with a saddle mount engine int he junkyard... could I
take parts from this truck and change mine over to saddle mount? How hard
would this be?

Also... about that Cherryrolaids tailgate that is residing on my Ford...
did the unibodies have a unique tailgate? Can I just go get a tailgate
off of a regular truck in the junkyard? Will the later ('78 or so)
tailgates fit?


Oh if you are curious... you can see my truck at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.tripod.com/~aedd_mawr/olblue.html


Thanks...
Peace, Goodwill, and Keep on Truckin'
Clayton Pierce,
zcwp11 Access.ETSU.edu

1962 F100 Unibody 2WD. (I-6, 3spd. on coll.)

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Tweety's Ticker

This sounds similar to what I've done on my 400 in my
'53.

>Well folks the inevitable has happened. My lead foot
>combined with anold
>motor has resulted in Tweety's Ticker ticking. It
>sounds to me like alifter
>or sumthin in the valve train has gone bad. Im gonna
>pull the valvecovers
>and take a look, also gonna try the ole ATF Fix all.
>But in eithercase, Ive
>decided to buy another 460 to build up so I can just
>do a swap and nothave
>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, Onlyboring
>if I have to. Also plan on runnin Clevite bearings.
>Pistons will beTRW flat
>tops to up the CR to a respectable level. Im
>sticking with the 73head, so I
>wont have to buy my gas at an airport.

My 400 has 4V Cleveland heads and flattops. CR is
about 10.2:1, 93 Octane is OK, but I have to watch
which brand. I also used Manley Valves and hardened
seats. The hardened seats are needed for unleaded gas.

>I do plan on >gasket matchingthe
>intake and exhaust, and removing the smog bumps. Im
>leanin towards the
>Edelbrock Performer intake, but Ive also heard good
>stuff about theweiand
>Stealth, either way Im running a Holley 650 with Vac
>secondaries, as Idont
>need my mileage to go down to far.

I am using an Edelbrock Performer and a Carter carb.

> Im keeping the >stock exhaustmanifolds,
>but running a dual 3 inch system, with a cross over.

I am using Sanderson Headers, 2 1/2 inch, with
Flowmasters.

>As far as a camgoes,
>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 havesuch a
>week bottom end that I have to run a stall converter.

I am using a Crane Powermax 278-2(222/234 .050, lift
.539/.534). I have a 2000RPM Stall Converter.

>I do have the4.10
>gears, so that helps a weak bottom end out a lil.

I have 3.00 gears, this may change, but a '53 is light
and I want to cruise the freeways
too concerned about the bottom end.

>Either cam isgetting a Cloyes Chain.

Same here.

> I dont think Ive left anything out, so now Im askin
>on feedback. Lemme know any ideas you have, or maybe
>even a better ideathan what I have.

In addition I have a Fluidamper streetdamper, and
Roller Rockers.

If I was building a 460, I would look at Ford
Motorsport Aluminum Heads. They are a little
expensive, but by the money you spend on valves and
seats and guide plates etc. and labor on your old
heads will be a significant part of the cost of these.

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C-4V

=====

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - run on

John typed out:
> Actually, the first federally mandated pollution control equipment appeared
> on the 1967 model year vehicles. (Dec 31, 1966 was the cut off date in the
> law.) This consisted mostly of Air Injection Reactor (AIR) pumps and 195
> degree thermostats. In 1975, when catalytic converters were required, many
> manufacturers went to 205-210 degree thermostats.
>

And out here in California, many of these cars had EGR, or some
other NOX reducing device retro-fitted up through the 80's. In
order to transfer title these devices had to be added. I installed
plenty of them, from the expensive STP EGR kit down to a cheap one
that included 1) A plug for the vacuum advance, and 2) A sticker
for the speedometer stating to NOT drive the car at sustained
high speeds, at the risk of destroying your engine :-(
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:18:55 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - towing engine

Higher compression is always better even at low rpms if you can get fuel to
operate it with :-) One reason we don't have them now is partly due to
decreasing the amount of toxic additives in the fuel and because higher
compression also generates the exact conditions needed to generate nitrogen
oxides which, apparently, can't be easily controlled by polution devices.

As was mentioned you are correct on both counts but under the above
conditions high compression engines used in high load, low rpm applications
would spark knock you to death so they simply are not used :-( Diesels are
relatively low rpm engines and have compression ratios as high as 22:1 or
even more which is why they typically have better mileage averages but they
are designed to control the "Knock" with cast iron pistons and heavy blocks
etc.. High compression Hemi head engines use soft aluminum rods to do the
same thing since the flame front in a hemi head engine is very fast and
evenly distributed from the center outward which tends to make some noise
and shock the rod and crank bearings rather than moving across the piston
top from one end to the other as in a wedge design which is more progressive
and less sudden.

I've heard that compression ratios are coming back up but only in light duty
car applications which typically don't have heavy loads imposed at low rpms.
Lowering compression is like shooting yourself in the foot so you don't have
to walk as fast.......Until they figure out how to control Nox emissions
with converters we are stuck with 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
- --

> I've been following this thread and I was wondering.
> What to you
> gain with more compression? I've heard that high compression
> is not good
> for towing/hevay loads. Why? I've also heard that higher
> compression
> makes the motor more fuel efficient. Does this not happen if
> the motor is
> heavily loaded?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:37:58 EDT
From: Brazzadog aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 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.

Sure Dennis, it's all yours. Thanks to all for the quick responses.

Ben Williams
'78 F-250
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:39:04 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F350 rear

The 351M and 400 had the super cool as an option in the late 70's and this
would be the same as for a 460 I would think. Largest one I ever saw :-))
That's what my bronco came with.

- --
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
- --

> a monster big block radiator in my F150 2X 351M. You know how
> we feel down
> here in Texas, everything has to be bigger to be better.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 11:06:59 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - run on - dashpot

Dashpot Smashpt Crashpot......what's the diff? They all control the idle at
some point and in some way :-))))) I agree, the vacuum operated ones for
the autos were actually called dashpots and the electric thingies are
actually selenoids :-) and the things Arnold took were steroi....

When the engines started dieseling they had to change the idle speed
adjustment from a fixed set screw to a moveable control of some kind :-) I
do remember though on some vehicles with the "dashpots" if it wasn't working
you would cuss every time you came to a stop if you had an auto :-(

- --
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
- --

> Aggggggh!
>
> The dashpot is a device designed to prevent the throttles
> from slamming
>
> the anti-deiseling solenoid. Can you say quit running you so and so?
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:24:30 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 79, F-250 with sick 460

With 4.11, standard ratio C-6 and poorly tuned 460 I got about 5 mpg. This
same engine got about 9 with 3.25 gears and a very tired 429 got around 11
with 3.5 gears.

My pickup with 2.75 gears and a better tune (same engine) but wide ratio C-6
gets 12 mpg average or did when it was running well.

I consider 5 mpg BAAAAAAAADDDDD and 12 mpg pretty good but 15 VERY GOOD and
that's my goal :-)

- --
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
- --

> Of course ... but then again what do you consider bad mileage
> or "not being
> able to pass a gas station" ? A lot of this is personal
> preference and
> perception ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:40:17 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - How to ID a C6 Wide Ratio Gearset

Dont' know....vin decoding is right up there with EFI on my list of new
tricks to learn.....:-)

- --
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
- --

> Anything in the VIN that would give it away?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 10:31:01 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - semi-new list member

Thanks for your message at 11:16 AM 10/14/99 -0400, zcwp11 ACCESS.ETSU.EDU.
Your message was:
>Hello all...
>
>New to the list... well sort of... was on it a little short while
>before... but it's been many months. I own a '62 F100 Unibody. Any
>others on here :-)

Oh, yeah...



... and the oddball tailgate is off
>of a Chevrolet... gonna have t o get rid of that :-)

This is a problem...

>
>So the I-6 is dead... like really dead... think the crank might actually
>be broken in two. Its been sitting for a few months now because of
>this... but I'd sorta like to get it running before winter sets in. The
>problem I'm having is finding an engine that I can install without making
>modifications. So my first question is what engines will fit in this
>truck as a bolt in? V8 or 6... don't care... need front mount. .. and I'd
>prefer to keep the 3spd if possible.

Another six (300?) would be easy, or probably an old Y-Block 292 or 312,
if you can find a good one...


Somebody told me to check out a
>Mustange engine... but it was saddle mount... somebody said a Thunderbird
>engine... OK... think it might work... what were they... 350something?
352 or 390, but different block and mounts than your truck ...


>But would the stock tranny hold up behind it? I guess what I"m really
>asking for here is advice... what do all y'all think?

I'll let someone else answer this one...
>
>There is a '65 or so with a saddle mount engine int he junkyard... could I
>take parts from this truck and change mine over to saddle mount? How hard
>would this be?
I think the saddle mounts are a relatively easy way to go, but any
change-over will be some work. It'll be harder than building a model car,
but not as hard as putting an addition on your house ...It all depends on
your resources, experience, "free"time, etc...

>
>Also... about that Cherryrolaids tailgate that is residing on my Ford...
>did the unibodies have a unique tailgate? Can I just go get a tailgate
>off of a regular truck in the junkyard? Will the later ('78 or so)
>tailgates fit?
No, and this will probably end up being the most difficult and expensive
part of your truck to restore. Recently I found a Unibody tailgate (sems
everyone who has a Unibody needs a new tailgate) for $750 used...Recently a
guy who owns two Unibodies told me my tailgate was a good one and I should
have it "rebuilt." I'll be honest with you. Even in mint condition, this
tailgate is the ugliest damn thing I've ever seen on a Ford truck (IMHO, of
course).


By the way, is your trucka short or long bed? Does it have the wraparound
rear window?

The "Unibody Issue" is a topic that seems to pop here every once in awhile...


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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:41:40 EDT
From: MongoCaver aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Tweetys ticker

I have built two 400's with the below items that you mentioned:

Clevite bearings, Edelbrock Performer intake, Holley 650 with Vac
secondaries, stock exhaust manifolds, Comp Cams 268H series, Cloyes Chain.
gasket matching the intake and exhaust, and removing the smog bumps.

Both were substantially more powerful than the standard config. and would hit
about 6200 rpm before the hydraulic lifters started to float.

I also always:
Smoothed and polished the oil valleys in the motor and on the heads for
faster return to the pan. Ran a high volume oil pump with the pick-up tube
spot welded to the pump body. Used brass freeze plugs. Had my distributor
curved by a pro. Degreed my cam in, just in case. Covered the mechanical
fuel pump opening and ran an electric pump. Ran a flex fan. Indexed the
plugs.

One thing I was never was happy with was how the Holley didn't like rough
terrain, even with the off-road anti-slosh kit, it would still stutter under
certain rough situations.

My buddies and I used to break in the new motors with a 200-300 mile
roadtrip, preferably late at night, and definitely with lots of beer and
ZZ_TOP. We used to be able to do that kind of thing here in Texas, before it
got civilized and ruined.
James
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:35:08 -0700
From: Scott grossen
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Whoosh

Looks like Oregon has got all of you beat, just the other day i payed
1.769 for premium, for my 429. talk about a heart breaking procedure.
My motor jus doesn't like anything else.

Scott
'79 f-150 used to be two wheel drive
mildly built 429 c6 np205 3.50 gears
never never try this swap
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:46:02 -0500
From: Shawn Donkin
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Need some assistance please.

Hi guys,
Well my '68 has been sitting over the the folks house for about a year
and it's home now and i need to get it going. Last year, i started what
i thought was going to be an easy engine swap and it turned out my
engine wasn't wasn't what i though it was(thought it was a 351m so i
bought a "new" one and the old one turned out to be a 351c) Well anyway,
i changed the c4 to a c6 and the 351m came with the duraspark setup.
Here's my problem, I'm not sure what wire to use to power the duraspark
module and also need to know what to hook the the + on the coil. It's
been long enough that i dont remember what wire came from where so i'm
kinda outta ideas here =) I have a red wire with a white stripe and a
plain red wire that is left unhooked in the engine compartment. Can
anyone give me ideas on what wires goes where?

Thanks,
Shawn Donkin
68 F100

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:36:06 -0500
From: "Don Yerhot"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:Tweety's Ticker

Darrel,
I'm running the Comp Cam 268 in a 351W and I love it. I get around 17-18 on
the highway, (3.25 rear), and the power is awesome. And with a .456 lift at
the valve, I was able to use stock springs. The idle is very smooth though,
no rumpity-rump, so you should not have any trouble with a stock torque
convertor.

DonY
65 F250-351W-Styleside
74 F100-351W-Longbed Flareside


.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.>

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:36:17 -0400
From: kpayne ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Archives

Just a quick update. The mailing list archives (all
166 meg!) have been formatted as HTML pages and uploaded
to the server.

As soon as they are indexed for searching and we come
up with a good way to protect them from email address
harvesting they will become available to the users.

Not sure is anyone has noticed, but our web server is
faster and mail delivery is too. The T1 install is
on schedule.

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:02:24 EDT
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tweety's Ticker

Hey Darrell.........what I'm wonderin is..........WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE ENW
TRUCK GONNA BE???????? LOL =P

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

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

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:48:37 -0600
From: Kirk Baillie
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Radiator support questions

I remember this now, yes the way the rad mounts is different, but all
you have to do is fabricate some brackets (4 about 1.5") and drill some
holes in the rad edge and bolt the rad to the support using these
brackets (this is what I did).

> On the 2WD the brackets were part of the radiator. On the 4WD the
> brackets are part of the radiator support AND the place where the
> cab mount attaches is welded to the bottom part of the radiator
> bracket. I don't remember how it attached on the 2WD. This
> probably relates to Kirk's statement that the frame width is
> different.
>
> I guess you could probably modify the 2WD support, but if it were
> me, I would try to get the right one.
>
> Mark in Southwest Washington
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacifier.com/~draco/truck.html
> --
> '74 F-100 Ranger XLT 4X4
> in digest mode
>
> == 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:01:26 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: Interview with Bob Masone, F150 Brand Manager!

FIRST TO PRESS! FordNews.com has supplied us with transcripts to
their interview with Bob Masone, F150 Brand Manager! You can find
it on the main page of the web site.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com....


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.