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 #377
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 Sunday, October 17 1999 Volume 03 : Number 377



=======================================================================
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 - Drive Shaft Strength
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Bleeding Brakes
RE: FTE 61-79 - Drive Shaft Strength
RE: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.
FTE 61-79 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts on FordNews.Com
FTE 61-79 - RE: 78 service manual!
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 78 service manual!
FTE 61-79 - Need a '77 Chassis Manual?
FTE 61-79 - Powell's - OOPS
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series
FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.
FTE 61-79 - RE: Tweety's ticker actually about speedo year
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Tweety's ticker actually about speedo year
RE: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series
FTE 61-79 - Unibodies
Re: FTE 61-79 - How much $$$$ would you dare sink into a 351M??
Re: FTE 61-79 - Big Radiators
Re: FTE 61-79 - tweety's ticker
FTE 61-79 - Dana front
Re: FTE 61-79 - tweety's ticker
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.
FTE 61-79 - FE Power
Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)
FTE 61-79 - hows this for swapping
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup ... more questions
FTE 61-79 - 429 vs 460
Re: FTE 61-79 - Highboy Steering.
FTE 61-79 - IFS Install
FTE 61-79 - Tranny choices for 460
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny choices for 460
FTE 61-79 - Body stuff
Re: FTE 61-79 - 429 vs 460
FTE 61-79 - 460 Stuff
Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny choices for 460

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 06:15:17 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Drive Shaft Strength

94 tbird has it built into the body and rear end. The DS fits snugly into
the tunnel and the fixture on the tranny and rear end keeps it in the
tunnel. Not exactly a hoop but does the same 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
- --

> As for the loops and Gary's comment about cars coming with them ... I
> haven't seen any of these cars yet, at least the 'stangs and
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 06:18:24 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Bleeding Brakes

Mine Says "Gasoline" :-)

- --
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
- --

> Somebody wrote:
> >I found some gasoline teflon tape at Lowe's in the plumbing dept
>
> I'm more inclined to think that the "gas" involved here is
> natural gas, not
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 06:34:11 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Drive Shaft Strength

Ok, I see the problem, I said most when I've actually only seen a few but
they were all newer ones so I made an assumption, sorry :-) Should have
said "Some" not "Most" :-(

- --
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
- --

> As for the loops and Gary's comment about cars coming with them ... I
> haven't seen any of these cars yet, at least the 'stangs and
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 07:09:23 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.

When you lift the "Y" type you pull the wheels together and even if you
adjust the tie rod ends the geometry will not be right in turns (if there is
even enough adjustment). The "T" style will change the way the camber and
toe is affected in turns but should not be especially noiceable since both
systems are in common use and both handle well. "T"'s are usually used on
solid axles where "Y"'s are usually meant for IFS of one type or another.

All the parts can be obtained from auto parts but you will have to check the
tapered pin size to get the correct versions for your pitman arm hole and
steering arm holes at the wheels.

NAPA sells Moog and Federal Mogul so yes you can get them there. Is this a
4x4? I lifted my 2wd but only the body, not the suspension so it was not
affected. If it's a 4x4 then you will have to do something with the panhard
or track bar as well. In the one I did I just built a new bracket for the
frame and lowered the mount the same as the lift to keep it all the same.

If it's 2wd then all you will change is the linkage along with all the
suspension components etc.. I did a body lift to fit larger tires on mine
and it turned out to be a mistake because the truck was not heavy enough to
handle well in wet conditions with those wide tires on it :-( The 4x4 is
about 1000# heavier and handles the puddles a lot better :-)

- --
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 am looking to get a 4" lift kit for my 76 but before I do,
> I am told I
> need to replace the stock "inverted-Y" steering linkage and convert to
> the "inverted-T" style steering linkage. I don't know much about the
> suspension in my truck, so I have a couple of questions:
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 09:27:22 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts on FordNews.Com

Check out the write-up on Ford Truck Enthusiasts done
by FordNews.com. This weekend their site is featuring
articles about Ford trucks and they have a free
screen saver available.

Steve Blake has given Ford Truck Enthusiasts some
great press lately. Please stop by his site and check
it out.

Thanks,
Ken Payne


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:01:12 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: 78 service manual!

Norm, I'm CCing the list so my error will be recorded for all to see :-)

Actually you are right, it was used in a car first but it was never designed
to be a screamer. In all cases I'm familiar with it was used with tall
gearing and wide ratio trannys to make a smooth, rheostat like luxury ride
unlike the 429, 428, 427 etc..... :-) The low end torque characteristics
and heavy crank make it ideal for a truck in any case :-) I find it
interesting that the 429 was used in medium trucks but I don't know, off
hand, of any 460's used for this? They must be or there would not be the
"T" designation for these right?

I should be more careful what I say and how I say it though since people
will sometimes not question my stupidity as did and others do which is what
keeps us on our toes :-)

- --
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
- --

> Oh yeah and BTW....ya made a statement about the 460 being built for a
> truck?......and what year was that?......Cuz the 460 first
> was introduced in
> the late 60,s IE 68 actually for use in the T-bird/Lincoln
> line!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:44:20 EDT
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: 78 service manual!

Hey
i think you maybe right that only 429's were used in Medium duty trucks. i
live here in iowa and of course theres lots of farmers and such and there
grain trucks have 429s or 391s(the older ones) and of course you have ye
chebbie 305 industrials - funny watching them going up hills, and industrial
283's i belive funny how only 1 farmer runs dodges in my area and his are
413's and 383's but mosdt of the farmers here run the 429 - excelent motor
for the job because it has lots of tourqe and good acceleration i have yet to
see as 460 in a med. truck well hope this helps at all
Travis
ol blue
66 f250
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Need a '77 Chassis Manual?

I was browsing the bookstore Thursday and ran across a '77 Chassis manual.
It was not it great condition, but looks like it is all there. The price
on it was, I think, $23. It is the chassis volume only, not the whole
set.

Since I am looking for a '78 or '79, I passed, but I thought someone on
the list might want to know.

You can call them and they will get the book, describe the condition, and
if you want it they will mail it to you.

Powell's Bookstore
Portland, OR

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.powells.com/


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: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 08:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Powell's - OOPS

Powell's has several stores in the area. I saw the manual at the
Burnside store.

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: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:43:08 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series

For what ever reason, the 429 seems to like to rev more than the 460 and rev
higher without any special monkeying. My bone stock merc wagon 429 with
200k miles and square bore OEM carb would rev circles around my fresh 460 in
either configuration and had gobs of torque as well. I actually can't see a
whole bunch of difference between them myself. I've only had experience
with one copy of each of these so far but I actually prefer the way the 429
ran. Both were 70 vintage and if I had known then what I know now that 429
would never have been scrapped! What a waste! At the time I scrapped it I
was looking for a 460 to rebuild and didn't even know they were the same
block! :-( Shortly after I junked it I found out but it was too late to get
it back :-(

To be fair I think the latest version of my 460 with spread bore carb, hot
air intake and hot crossover displays more brute torque than the 429 but
still doesn't seem to rev quite as well. This could be tune or any number
of other things and I know that the stroke does help but there is very
little difference between them. More likely it's just a matter of tune
between them or luck :-)

Anyway, either one is a killer engine for a truck, even in car tune :-)

- --
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
- --

> 413's and 383's but mosdt of the farmers here run the 429 -
> excelent motor
> for the job because it has lots of tourqe and good
> acceleration i have yet to
> see as 460 in a med. truck well hope this helps at all
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:59:40 EDT
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.

Hey Schu,

I'll take a stab at this one....

OK, you can buy the new drag link and tie rod setup for the 78 at your parts
house. I just did this about a year ago....

You'll also want the Superlift (or equal) drop down pitman arm....I will all
bolt right up, and your steering will be WAY better than that mickey 76
setup. You'll be able to dial in your toe-in, and it will stay....the 76
setup seems to let it move around.

One more thing, you'll need a Superlift (or equal) adjustable track bar as
well...this will let you get the front end back in line once its raised.
Almost forgot. You'll need to address the caster issue. There are two ways.
First is to get some 4-degree axle bushings (again, Superlift has
these)....these work, but since the radius arms are now angled down, the
springs don't quite seat real well on the lower pads. I mean, its good
enough, but you'll find that when tightening the restraining bolt, it doesn't
line up with the lower spring pad when tight. I ran mine for probably 15
years this way, so its probably no big deal. The other way, (which I recently
did) was to use 2 degree bushings and rear drop-down brackets for the radius
arms. This keeps the arms level, and everything fits real nice....

Also, as you know, you'll need longer shocks. I noticed with the lift, that I
needed to go to the quad shock setup because the front end would dive all
over the place. Other people I've talked to haven't had this problem, so you
might wait and see.....

I'm sure Ox will have some good input here as well.....

Hope this helps!

Colorado Jeff (CJ)










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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:45:04 -0600
From: Mark Heims
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Tweety's ticker actually about speedo year

I have an instrument cluster from a 75, and a complete 76 4x4 truck in
my driveway, both are full gauges and both have 100 Mph speedo's. The
cluster I have has crumbly and broken plastic on the back where the
light go, can I pull the speedo out of it and put it in my 78 cluster?
It's a big 4x4 but it will still do 100+.

Montana Mark
78 F150 4x4, 3 inch lift, 35" tires, 400, NP435, "The Great Pumpkin"
(Web site in the works)

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:52:13 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.

In a message dated 10/16/99 4:11:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


suspension components etc.. >>

If you were to put an inverted T on a 2wd, youd have serious handling
problems. any suspension movement would result in extreme toe in or out,
depending on if it was compression or droop. I think the reson 4x4s got the
inverted Y was a way for Ford to sve some cash, but went back to the T after
two years because they saw it didnt work so well.

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:59:39 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series

In a message dated 10/16/99 8:45:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


still doesn't seem to rev quite as well >>

This is almost guaranteed to be stroke. There is more distance for the
piston to travel at the same RPM in a 460 compared to a 429. Thats why the
427 ran so well in Nascar, 390 stroke, so it could handle sustained high RPM
better than say a 428. But with an increase in stroke, you increase the
leverage, hence building more torque. The 460 will display more torque than
a 429 due in small part to more cubes, but mostly do to the longer stroke.
Empty, the 429 will probably out run the 460 in the long run, but put a
10,000 lb trailer behind each of them, and watch the 460 shine.

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:04:14 -0600
From: William A Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Tweety's ticker actually about speedo year

My 74 and 77 both have 100 mph speedo's

Mark Heims wrote:

> I have an instrument cluster from a 75, and a complete 76 4x4 truck in
> my driveway, both are full gauges and both have 100 Mph speedo's. The
> cluster I have has crumbly and broken plastic on the back where the
> light go, can I pull the speedo out of it and put it in my 78 cluster?
> It's a big 4x4 but it will still do 100+.--

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


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:46:58 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.

Very good point, I was wearing blinders when I threw that one out there :-)
It only makes sense if you ponder it for.......ohhhhh.....maybe 2
milliseconds...:-( Sorry about that :-(

The center has to be the center of the axle and both wheels have to operate
in opposing directions about that center (basically a solid axle) to use a
solid tie rod so that any reaction is kept syncronized with the other wheel
and axle assy....what was I thinking??? I guess I had the thought in mind
that there was no valid reason for the "Y" style on a solid axle front end
and got confused.....darn it! If you examine the two wheel drive, I beam
system the pitman arm pivot point is roughly over the right axle (beam)
pivot and the "Y" pivot is roughly over the left beam pivot so they stay in
sync pretty much, makes sense to me :-)

- --
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 you were to put an inverted T on a 2wd, youd have serious handling
> problems. any suspension movement would result in extreme
> toe in or out,
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:48:55 EDT
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series

In a message dated 10/16/1999 8:45:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


rev
higher without any special monkeying. My bone stock merc wagon 429 with
200k miles and square bore OEM carb would rev circles around my fresh 460 in
either configuration and had gobs of torque as well. >>

Speaking as one who worked with both engines, your example is high lighting
the difference between the high compression heads (D0VE type heads) verses
low compression 72 and up types (and I do not even know the year of your
Merc). There were a few other differences, such as going to the taller deck
heights in the later half of 70 this dropped compression just a little. In
71 the cam timing was retarded, and then again in 72 an even taller deck
height was combined with the low compression heads to make these engines real
dogs compared to the earlier ones. I had a stock 2V 1970 429 with 10.5 CR
that would run circles around the 72 and newer 460s. I put a 4V manifold
from a 460 on it and tweaked the distributor so it would advance faster, and
the result was I could break loose the rear wheels at 40 MPH and get severe
wheel hop. The 1970 and earlier versions of both engines were fantastic in
the stock form. I have not directly seen a run off of an early 429 verses an
early 460 with the same compression (as you know the compression for both
engines varied between 10.5 and 11.0 (they used different pistons) cam,
distributor, and carburetor, but I firmly believe the 460 would win hands
down. So my point is yes, the 429 can be fantastic, but the 1972 429 is a
dog. Any self respecting 390 FE can run circles around it. I was so hyped
with my 429 that I convinced a friend of mine that he should drop in a 429,
and I got him one from a 72 Merc and at the time I was at a complete loss as
to why it did not have any go. This may be part of the reason Ford dropped
the 429 as the 400 had as much go. But I studied this big difference and
made it the basis for my current 460. In other words I wanted something that
would perform like the early stock engines (the 1970 429 was what I had
burned into my mind). Thus Trickfolw CJ type aluminum heads with 72cc
combustion cambers and removing .022 from the deck height of my 1974 block.
This combined with 19cc dished pistons gives me a 10.5 CR that does not
Knock. Added a few things like a complete balance, 268 cam, and big block
Che*y roller rockers, (because they are cheaper), just to satisfy the
teenager in me. I am happy.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:00:16 -0400
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Truck 385 series

I realize the stroke is the "torque" thing and the cubes is the "power"
thing but the small difference between the 429 and 460 seems like not enough
to make much difference. Then when you add the cubes in the 460 you would
think that would have some counter balancing effect but apparently not, eh?

In reality most of the perceived difference is probably due to the cam but
certainly the stroke helps. I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me
there are other factors which give the 429 the advantage besides the stroke
but, of course, I can't say that for sure :-)

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

>
> still doesn't seem to rev quite as well >>
>
> This is almost guaranteed to be stroke. There is more
> distance for the
> piston to travel at the same RPM in a 460 compared to a 429.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Unibodies

The 61-64 "unibody" trucks had a full frame just like
any other. There's been a lot of speculation about
the "experiment."

I'm inclined to think that given the austerity of the
times they were shooting for a cheaper way to build
trucks, and a one piece body shell would have to be
cheaper to build than two. You set down one big chunk
of metal on a frame instead of two. It's cheaper to
manufacture and assemble.

Another thing was the styling department was still
into "aircraft themes" in '57 when the 61's would have
been designed. The one piece body would have
reflected the syling themes in effect across the
entire Ford line of vehicles, and it was one sharp
looking body. I'd still love to slam one and will it
full of stuttering, slobbering FE.

Henry Ford II could make some decisions based on less
than objective logic. He liked style and performance,
while Robert McNamara was into cheap. If he was
presented with an idea that could be both he would
likely have run with it with McNamara's blessing, and
bypassed the engineering departments concerns that it
wouldn't hold up. In my opinion this is what
happened. It was cheap and pretty, so they did it.


>>>>>>>>>

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

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

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


Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

=====

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:37:59 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - How much $$$$ would you dare sink into a 351M??

Ditch the crank & Pistons in leu of those from a 400. No "mods" required.
True Plug & Play (Maybe Gates should do some research with Ford on that
subject).
I guess the rest is really up to you. I cant see much be hind the
blueprinting & balancing unless it's really spinning fast. Ive read where
roller rockers do help some but have never tried and dont know about the
longevity of em. HotRod did a thing a while back about getting 400 HP outa
this block for cheap. Basically bump up the compression a bit, and add a good
cam, carb, intake & exhaust.

George


In a message dated 10/15/1999 2:33:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
thepitstop hotmail.com writes:


done. However, now that I am gettng into it I really want to add some
*extras* such at roller rockers, gappless rings, and a fully blueprinted and
balanced engine.

Yeah, yeah, I know.... It will never see enough RPMs to use the extras. But
I am thinking that it would be worth it to get a few extra ponnies, a really
smooth engine, and extra-long engine life.
>>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:40:49 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Big Radiators

George

Is your radiator one with an incredibly fat & wide upper tank? If so, then I
believe my original rad was also a supercooling option. Never did measure the
system capacity though.

George


In a message dated 10/15/1999 3:25:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jumbofordman earthlink.net writes:


"handling package" which consists of swaybars. Found this out on the
original window sticker I found in my truck. Those were about the only two
options on my truck, other than the 400. This guy knew how to order a
truck, and I thank him. >>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:48:20 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - tweety's ticker

In a message dated 10/15/1999 9:19:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jlagrone ford-trucks.com writes:

>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.

Henry has a 3.25 diff. and turns about 2000 at 60 mph. At 3000 the speedo is
running out of room. Someday I'm going to find a good 100 mph speedo out of
a 73.
>>
Man! My Bronco at 2500 I'm doing 55 & at 3000 is just barely hitting 70. and
they say a 400 is a low revving motor! It's suposto have 3.5 gears (per the
axle tag) though Ive never checked it.

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:40:12 -0700
From: "J.S.H."
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dana front

>If any free play is found (or not found), remove the outer nut, remove >the lock ring, rotate the inner nut one or more holes (depending on >loose or tight you are) to correct the condition and reinstall and >torque.

The lock ring can be flipped over to give you a "1/2 hole" if you need
it.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 14:56:23 EDT
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - tweety's ticker

In a message dated 10/15/1999 10:28:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


catalogs just for giggles :-) Course with a 460 it may actually
use..........Ok, maybe not but.....:-)
>>

Ok, Im gonna date myself here but --- I like a twist on Cosby's idea, give me
one that goes to a 100, after that I want the words "Oh WOW" !

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:05:19 -0800
From: "Matthew Schumacher"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup for a 76 F-150 and a lift.

Thanks to Gary, Darrell, and Jeff, for the quick replys. I am off to
the parts store to get the steering parts.

Oh, btw, it is a 4x4. (I live in Alaska, I would be an idiot to drive
anything else)

thanks

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 12:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE Power

FE's were hard on exhaust valves with the stock
manifolds. I agree that they the culprit. I've been
running headers on FE's for many years and have never
burned a valve in one so equipped.

As far as sustained revving goes, I've run a stock 9.5
to 1 390 with L-60 15's and 3.70 gears at 70-75 mph
(about 4000+ rpms is my guess) for over 250 miles
with no ill effects. In fact it seemed to run better
afterwards.

Revving capacity, power, and durability are all in
what you have. A 390 with headers and a mild cam will
pull a house and do it all day.


>>>>>

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.


=====

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 16:16:29 EDT
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - stalling problem(kinda long)

I've replaced the modulater due to the consistancy of everyones guesses. Now
if only I hadn't taken the carb apart I'd be able to tell you if it worked or
not. Now i have pieces missing in the carb that nobody sells anymore,,,,I've
been looking for an excuse to put a 4bbl holly on there, be careful what you
wish for,,,

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 16:36:58 EDT
From: IanBoss69 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - hows this for swapping

My friends jive me about liken older trucks and how I don't like newer ones,
they dont understand that the only reason i dont like them is because i cant
tear them apart without screwing up some computer. Anyways the question came
up: why cant you take out the computers? after thinking about this for
awhile i came up with my own question,,,will a 92-96 F-series body fit on a
79 chassis?? If it would it'd be the perfect solution,,,I'm a big fan of the
92-96's looks i just hate vehicle computers. So my idea is to goto the
junkyard and find a usable body. most of the computers and little accesories
are already stripped from the bodys after a couple weeks. I could pick up a
decent cab, front end, and bed for less than it'd cost me to replace my
floorboards, bed and get mine painted. Of course I'd keep the entire frame
and running gear of the 79. no computers. no power windows, no air, same as
mine just with a newer body. Ive assumed the bed mounts are the same because
ive seen a 70's truck with the newer beds on them. the cab/radiator support
mounts are the ones im wondering about. Anybody who might be able to tell
me?? even if the mounts are slightly different it should be relatively easy
to move the mounts on the frame, im assuming. So,,,,am i completely knockin
my rocker or do I have an achievable goal?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 13:53:31 -0800
From: "Matthew Schumacher"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering setup ... more questions

Guys,

I found this page on suspension kits for old ford trucks:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.rockymountainsusp.com/ford2.htm

It seems that I can get a standard 1978 tie rod assembly and drag link
from the local NAPA for $270, or I can order a Adjustable drag link and
tie rod assembly from rocky mountain for $300.

Here is the question:

Am I going to need a adjustable drag link or is the NAPA one good
enough. I don't want to order unless I have to, because I live in
Alaska and will eat it in the shipping.

thanks,
schu

btw my truck is a 76 4x4 with the y style steering I am converting to
the t style.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:06:46 -0500
From: "Norm"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 429 vs 460

I have been reading the posts on this subject with interest!

In the past I have had both of these motors and then some....The last 429 I
owened was a 1973 vintage motor! It was a 40k original from a friends car
and it ran great......I threw it into my Bronco and was less than happy with
the way it performed! It still ran fine but was not real peppy! Then I had
to replace a few gaskets and figured hmmmm...may as well put a timing chain
in it!

So I installed a "straight up" cloyes true roller and wow! That thing flat
woke up! Even with the lower compression it was struggling with that
retarded cam timing! It was a great running motor when I pulled it out! (For
a new 460) That 460 was a mild low compression stock rebuild with a
Edelbrock performer cam...And the rest was stock! It would kick that 429
all over the road! Then I built a cammed 9.5.1 472ci with a real
cam.....And that was way better yet! And finally the best for
last.........a 514 CI big block that would rev all day ta 7200RPM......and
still worked well on the trail!

I sold the 514 and am back to a well built but still mild 472......still
revs ta 6500 no prob..... and is a bit easier on the parts connected to it
than the last motor! But by next year a new 521 will take it's spot
.....that I guarentee.......no replacement for displacement! But it will be
a mild motor this time....Lots of cubes a bit of compression and a cam that
limits it some in the HP department...(this in an attempt to conserve parts)


Norm





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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:43:39 -0600
From: Kirk Baillie
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Highboy Steering.

Just at the local part store. I can get everything new except the
pitman arm still looking for about 700 canadian.

"William S. Hart" wrote:
>
> > Thats getting expensive, I could buy all new components for the 77->79
> > P.S conversion for less than that.
>
> Where are you getting your parts for the conversion to cost less than that?
> I just priced out a new steering box and stuff, the core alone is killer ...
>
> > > You can get a rebuilt Cylinder and I believe the Control valve
> > > from:
> > > Benz Spring in Portland, Oregon.
> > > Their Phone Number is (503) 224 - 4865
> > > They quoted me $278.00 (US) for the cylinder, Exchange.
> > > (I don't work for Benz, I've just dealt with them for years, and I just
> > > called em about one for my 75.)
>
> 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:20:40 PDT
From: "steve hoyt"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - IFS Install

O.K. did the unthinkable and had a MustangII IFS installed in my '62
Unibody. Went to the dual master cylinder and the 11" Granda rotors, but
had to buy wheel adapters as my machinist who assured me he could drill out
the Granda rotors to 5 on 5.5 decided he really couldn't and I wasn't
willing to shell out another $400 to replace my front wheels. The ride is
SO much smoother, but ride hight is a major problem. Installed the springs
for the 5.0 already, but not enought to clear the 235's. Installed a set of
J.C. Whitney expanders and I can now steer without rubbing the fenders, but
could still use another half-inch of lift when I turn. Any ideas are
appreciated. Was contemplating a late model engine swap, anybody know the
weight difference between a 292 and say a 302 or 351?

TIA

Steve Hoyt


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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:29:11 -0400
From: Becky & Greg
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tranny choices for 460

Just came across a deal on a 460 which apparantly came out of an 85 van.
I have a 300 I6/C6 set up in my 79 F100 4x2. What tranny will fit with
the 460? The C6 has worked so well with the 300 I was looking for a 302
but this motor is available and I started thinking........
Greg
79 300 I6 C6 (Lazarus)
75 360 C6
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 22:03:43 -0700
From: "Radoje Spasojevic"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Tranny choices for 460

Unfortunately your C-6 off the 300 will not fit the 460 due to differences
in bolt pattern. the C-6 would be an ideal choice for a 460 though.

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-
- -----Original Message-----
From: Becky & Greg
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 9:23 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tranny choices for 460


>Just came across a deal on a 460 which apparantly came out of an 85 van.
>I have a 300 I6/C6 set up in my 79 F100 4x2. What tranny will fit with
>the 460? The C6 has worked so well with the 300 I was looking for a 302
>but this motor is available and I started thinking........
>Greg
>79 300 I6 C6 (Lazarus)
>75 360 C6
>== 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: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 22:15:57 PDT
From: "Mark Mcknight"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Body stuff

Howdy ya'll, I am just about ready to put the motor back in my new tube
frame, and I was wonderin, where I can get some new body mounts, I was told
I could use hocky pucks? is this true? Also, I would like to know if a Borg
warner T-5 5 speed tranny will bolt up good to the 302 4 barrel in the old
78'? I am hoping to touch the 125 mph zone with the beast! haha :O) hey
ford boys wanna race! haha, anyways. But I've put a lift on it. and it sits
about 3 1/2 feet off the ground! YEAH Who's yo daddy! ;o) haha, I've run a
dual exhaust 3 inches all the way! haha with 5 inch monza tips! haha sounds
like a Civic! hehehe ;o) anyways any info would be totaly sweet, as I am
stuck for what to buy. Thanks guys!!!
Mark

78' Ford F-100
94' Mazda B-3000
46' G*C 3/4 ton 2x4

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 22:35:07 PDT
From: "George Litton"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 429 vs 460

Norm,

On the 514, did you use 300CI Ford rods and offset grind the crank, or did
you use a custom crank and some sort of billet rod?? I have always wanted
to build one of these, but I haven't taken the time to tackle this project
yet. I work at an engine rebuilder, and we have some talented machinists,
so that is not a problem.

Just curious.

George Litton in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho


>From: "Norm"
>Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
>To:
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - 429 vs 460
>Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 19:06:46 -0500
>
>I have been reading the posts on this subject with interest!
>
>In the past I have had both of these motors and then some....The last 429 I
>owened was a 1973 vintage motor! It was a 40k original from a friends car
>and it ran great......I threw it into my Bronco and was less than happy
>with
>the way it performed! It still ran fine but was not real peppy! Then I
>had
>to replace a few gaskets and figured hmmmm...may as well put a timing chain
>in it!
>
>So I installed a "straight up" cloyes true roller and wow! That thing flat
>woke up! Even with the lower compression it was struggling with that
>retarded cam timing! It was a great running motor when I pulled it out!
>(For
>a new 460) That 460 was a mild low compression stock rebuild with a
>Edelbrock performer cam...And the rest was stock! It would kick that 429
>all over the road! Then I built a cammed 9.5.1 472ci with a real
>cam.....And that was way better yet! And finally the best for
>last.........a 514 CI big block that would rev all day ta 7200RPM......and
>still worked well on the trail!
>
>I sold the 514 and am back to a well built but still mild 472......still
>revs ta 6500 no prob..... and is a bit easier on the parts connected to it
>than the last motor! But by next year a new 521 will take it's spot
>.....that I guarentee.......no replacement for displacement! But it will
>be
>a mild motor this time....Lots of cubes a bit of compression and a cam that
>limits it some in the HP department...(this in an attempt to conserve
>parts)
>
>
>Norm
>
>
>
>
>
>== 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: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 01:50:19 EDT
From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 Stuff

Hello Ford-natics,

Only a few days into this new project, and things are flowin quite
nicely. Found a Weiand Stealth intake for $120 (thanks Clemstang1) and just
bought a 460 to build today so I wouldn't have to tear mine down. Picked it
up in running condition for $100. It was originally in a Lincoln, either 73
or 74 as per the date code on the head. The man I got it from pulled it out
of his 79 Bronco he's restoring, wanted to be original, so it now sports a
351 m. Talk about a step in the WRONG direction, but hey it does look real
nice, and will be a real looker when hes all done. Well seein how I got this
460, I figured Id let you know that I now have the exhaust manifold and oil
pan some of you folks need to stick a car 460 in your truck. As soon as they
are off, and I see their condition, I'll let the list know. I have no use
for them. Anybody else out there have any deals on some parts? Maybe a
Cloyes chain you bought and never used? Im on a tight budget, so any deal is
a good deal. I have a feelin Ebay and a few other sites are going to be my
new favorite places for awhile. Alrighty folks, Ive yakked long enough. See
ya out there.....


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.