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 #398
Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


61-79-list-digest Monday, November 1 1999 Volume 03 : Number 398



=======================================================================
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 - dual vacuum distributor (was F-600)
FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
Re: FTE 61-79 - edelbrock carb
FTE 61-79 - priming fuel pump
FTE 61-79 - Re: 77 F250 4X4 help
Re: FTE 61-79 - Roadranger Trans.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
FTE 61-79 - For Sale
Re: FTE 61-79 - edelbrock carb
FTE 61-79 - Re: Vibration Problem
FTE 61-79 - Divorced t-case/Engine war round 10/ch*vy owner/400
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Vibration Problem
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
Re: FTE 61-79 -Can anyone decode this ???
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
FTE 61-79 - FE's and hate mail
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE's and hate mail
Re: FTE 61-79 -Can anyone decode this ???
FTE 61-79 - Tuning for mileage
FTE 61-79 - Motor ID decode.
FTE 61-79 - Re: '72 F250 Divorced t-case shifter

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 03:12:43 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - dual vacuum distributor (was F-600)

Gary wrote:

The dual vac uses some form of both at different points in the operation of
the engine but I don't know for sure exactly why or how or when it uses
which one. I would venture to guess that the ported is always pulling
against the mainfold and mitigating it somewhat but not sure which way they
are connected so can only speculate.

Logic almost certainly dictates that you have manifold to the rear, pulling
in the normal manner and ported in the front to mitigate it's effect under
certain conditions but can't for the life of me see what for???

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary


Join with me Bretheren as I read from the '76th book of Ford, Vol 2 23:10.
And it sayeth: "A dual diaprhagm vacuum advance is used on some engines to
provide additional ignition timing retard during engine closed throttle
operation.
... The dual-diaphragm unit consits of two independantly operating
diaphragms. The outer (primary) diaphragm normally utilizes carburetor
(ported, ed) vacuum to advance ignition timing. The inner (secondary)
diaphragm is actuated by intake manifold vacuum to provide additional
timuing retard during periods of closed throttle operation, therby assisting
in the reduction of exhaust system hydrocarbon emissions."

I say YeayUh!

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 05:31:41 -0600
From: George Ramsower
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

Nah, it's a '78 F-150. I have a Comp Cams.. I think it's a 268m? Too
long ago.... (216 .05 fer sher. I remember that much). Flat top pistons,
multi-angle valve job, Edelbrock Performer, Q-Jet and dual exaust. If I
had the $$, I would put EFI on it and get 18 mpg. So I'm convinced it's
the carb, even though Q-Jets are famous for fair mileage if set up
properly. I haven't messed with this one since I pulled it off a
scrapped step van. So that's my next project.
This thing runs so good, I'm almost afraid to mess with it any more,
but I'm a guy, and guys mess with things that work good. :)
Before I built this 400 eight years ago(using a remanufactured short
block), I was using a 351M. I managed to squeeze 15mpg from that one.
But it was such a dog I should have got 30mpg. Odly enough, the 351M was
really sensitive to loading. With the tailgate up, I would get about
11mpg, and the 15mpg was with the tailgate down. This 400 doesn't care.
I've had this truck since 1985. Last year, I finally got around to
painting it. Now it looks so good, I'm worried about someone stealing
it. I need to set up some security on it. I figure to just put a hidden
switch on the gas tank selector valve. I have removed the front tank and
the valve has no other use now. I would rather find it in the street
abandoned than all torn up by an angry thief.


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

>>If I recall you have a 400 in a F-250? The axles alone are a drag in that
>>case and you will not typically see the same economy with a 3/4 ton as with
>>a 1/2 t
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 04:15:23 -0800 (PST)
From: rich may
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - edelbrock carb

I looked for these numbers and found them. It is a
750cfm carb, but only 1/2 inch away, there was
another number. It was 2027. Any ideas?


> 1405 - 600cfm, Manual choke
> 1406 - 600cfm, Electric choke
> 1407 - 750cfm, Manual choke


=====

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:30:35 -0500
From: "J. Doss Halsey"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - priming fuel pump

Don,
> Anyone tried to use a hand vacuum pump and pull the fuel up to the carb?
>laters

Yes I have, and it works like a charm. I used my mighty-vac to pull fuel up
through the pump, and Voila! a primed fuel pump.

Doss Halsey
'68 F-250, 390, Camper Special, Ranger Trim, now back on the road and
running like a top.

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:03:39 EST
From: FORDTRKNUT aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 77 F250 4X4 help

Brad, There are 2 steering swaps that I know of as "Kits". One uses a 2wd
Ford steering box.....Cannot remember manufacturer though. The last (and
newest one out) is sold by B&H Used Pickup Parts. It is on Page 128 of the
December 1999 FOUR WHEELER. It says "Power Steering Swap".....B&H has
developed a power steering kit for 1967 thru 1977 F-250 4x4's using a Saginaw
Power Gearbox. 4 turns Lock to Lock. All you have to do is drill 2 holes
into the frame. It replaces the "Ram Type" steering setup. There address
is: B&H Used Pickup Parts-------Department FW12--------13060 Highland
Circle, North East Littleton, CO 80125 The phone number is: 1-303-791-8211
As far as swapping a 460 is......it is cake if using the L&L Kit. I
have done a few swaps using there kit. You can save a few dollars if you get
some parts from the junk yard like I have a few times. The only parts I did
get from the junkyard were: Flywheel from 79 F-350 2wd with a 460 & 4 speed,
and oil pan, pickup tube, dipstick from a late 70's Ford Van with a 460.
Their brackets are well thought of, and clear the power steering box (at
least on my 1979 F-350 4x4)
If there are any questions....Please ask!!!
Well....Take Care!!! Wayne Grabley
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:15:51 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Roadranger Trans.

In a message dated 10/30/99 9:19:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
elliott ptsi.net writes:

> 'm hoping to find out some things. #1 was it offered with a gas engine? How
> much does it weigh?
> How much do they cost used? Are they even still availible? Thank You, Bob
>

I believe that they were only available in the F800 and larger trucks. To my
knowledge the only gas engines they were mated to were the 477 and 534 cid.
I am sure they weigh 500-600 lbs. You should be able to find one in an older
truck. I haven't seen any lately in the want ads.


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: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:58:37 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

I hope this isn't too stupid a question for the list. I'm not much of a
mechanic. I'm just trying to get the truck going again.

Crawling under the truck, ('72 F-100, 360 ci, 4-speed manual trans,
140,000 miles on it), I cant see into the clutch housing. All I can see
is the release lever hanging out of the housing thru the boot which is
all torn and falling apart. The lever is hanging down at about 7:30
o'clock, instead of being in its normal position of 9 00 o'clock
(looking toward the front of the truck). While it's out of position, the
push rod cant make it release the clutch.

Going by the pictures in the Chilton book, it looks to me like the lever
fork is supposed to be held in position by a spring clip on top of the
hub, and another on the bottom of the hub, as well as by the fulcrum
maybe, and the lever should stay at 9 oclock even if the boot has given
way. My buddy says the boot is what holds it in position, and if the
boot wears out, the lever is free to rotate counterclockwise to where
it's hanging now. He says replacing the boot will do the job. Who is
right?

I located the boot listed by Dennis Carpenter, and am going to order it,
but I'm thinking that isn't going to quite do the job.

Another thing -- do you think fashioning a makeshift boot out of some
rubber hosing 2 or 3 inches in diameter will take care of it for a while
until I can do the job right? I just need to get the clutch release
working good enough for a while.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:12:25 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Kiernan, Denny wrote:
>
> I hope this isn't too stupid a question for the list.
No such thing!

I'm not much of a
> mechanic. I'm just trying to get the truck going again.

Good for you!

it looks to me like the lever
> fork is supposed to be held in position by a spring clip on top of the
> hub, and another on the bottom of the hub, as well as by the fulcrum
> maybe He says replacing the boot will do the job. Who is
> right?

The clutch fork is held in place by the spring clips on the release
bearing, the ball pivot stud, and the clutch pushrod. The boot has
nothing to do with anything but keeping dirt out.
You might have to drop the transmissoin to find your problem, and
without looking at it myself, diagnosis is near impossible. I'll go out
on a limb in saying that I suspect your problem lies in the release
bearing, pivot stud, or the clutch fork. (I have seen one that had a
hole worn clear through it!)
Good luck!
Jason Kendrick (390FE)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:49:24 EST
From: DR11AGON aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - For Sale

FOR SALE:
351M WITH HOLLEY 600CFM 4-BARREL (VACUUM SECONDARIES), EDELBROCK
PERFORMER INTAKE, CRANE RV CAM, NEW HEAD GASKETS, NEW TIMING CHAIN.-$300 C-6
TRANSMISSION.-$200. NP 205 TRANSFER CASE.- $300. I LIVE IN THE PHILADELPHIA,
PA AREA.
E-MAIL: DR11AGON AOL.COM
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:01:29 -0800
From: MC
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - edelbrock carb

rich may wrote:

> I looked for these numbers and found them. It is a
> 750cfm carb, but only 1/2 inch away, there was
> another number. It was 2027. Any ideas?

Sorry, Rich, I don't know what those other numbers are for. My carbs have
them too, but my manual and the pamphlets don't say what they are for. They
just talk about the first 4 numbers. My guess is that they are a code for
the build date, maybe? Or maybe a unit number?


- --
Matt Cozad
When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

[||||||]=[|00|]=(|¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_¯_)


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:05:16 -0800
From: Tim Bowman
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Vibration Problem

The flywheels are totally different between the manual and automatic tranny's. It
doesn't rule out an out of balance torque converter or possibly a flexplate.

Tim Bowman
Burien, WA
71 F100


Rich Wrote:

I am also having a vibration problem. I have a 1976
F250 with a 390GT and a C-6. It originally had a
manual tranny and I think that the old owner didn't
bother to change flywheels. I haven't checked it yet,
but I believe that it has a manual wheel. When it was
in the shop, I asked the mechanic what he thought and
he said it was probably the flywheel. It dissapears at
1800 RPM+ but at anything underneath that, it shakes
rather violently. Any insight would be appreciated.



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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:52:06 -0800
From: "S.Harkema"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Divorced t-case/Engine war round 10/ch*vy owner/400

>I've never had a divorced xfer case truck so don't know how the linkage
>worked

I have owned two.A 61 and a 76

>but it seems to me that this linkage from any divorced setup would be
>adaptable to your setup?

The shift lever attaches to a special tail shaft on the 4spd

>Obviously, if it's divorced there is no adapter,
>the tranny undoubtedly is a standard tail shaft type

The tail shaft also has no speedo cable provision.Speedo attaches to
T-case


>so there is no adapter,
>therefore the linkage had to attach somewhere else?

The original poster put a auto in a 72 4spd truck.Being that as far as I
know Ford never built a auto/divorced t-case equiped truck and the
t-case shifter attaches to the trans we have a stickey wicket indeed.


>Hate, Hate, Hate........:-) Everyone knows 460's rule :-)

I own a 460 powered 84 and a 428 powered 76.
Like both but I'm kinda partial to my 428

>Ok, the only FE I recall that got a bad rap was the 406, something

Know a guy who ran a 406 in his flat bottom boat for years and never had
any trouble.Only reason he took it out was he found a 427.

>You can blow up any engine if you try hard enough and you can make any >engine run strong if you try hard enough but some engines are easier to >make power with such as the FE and 460 :-)

460 wins in the aftermarket availability.

>Not sure why the 390's burn valves

Burn valves,bend push rods same old FE slams.Never had a problem with
either one on my FEs.
Brother burnt a valve on his old 360 at 120,000 miles
He didn't think a valve job at over 100,000 was big deal tho.

>but wonder if it has anything to do with unleaded gas? Hardened seats
>weren't around untill about 73 as I recall?

His was a 73


>Guess I just can't figure how you burn valves if they are adjusted
>properly and mixture is correct for the application?

My dad has owned 7 FEs in 3 trucks,my brother had 2 in his 73,
I have had 3 in my 76 and 2 in a 61.
Thats 14 FEs.1 burnt exhaust valve 0 bent push rods.
Not a bad average.


>Suddenly his tune changes. Well, if I go home and get my
silveradough,

That kind always has a faster truck"at home"

>So I went on to tell him how my Ford had pulled out
>my buddies S-10 that got stuck in my yard

Reminds of when I awoke to find 2 ch*vies chained together stuck in the
ditch in front of my house.Could not leave them there, they were
bringing down my property value,so I had to pull them out.

>Seriously Bill, no offense taken by me anyway. I love the challenge of
>taking a motor like the M series and making it into something exciting.

My bro traded his 73 for a 78 Bronco.We rebuilt the 400 and added
Edelbrock intake and carb,RV cam headers and dual exhuast.
That thing flat gets with the program,He is very pleased.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:59:38 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

> My buddy says the boot is what holds it in position, and if the
> boot wears out, the lever is free to rotate counterclockwise to where
> it's hanging now. He says replacing the boot will do the job. Who is
> right?
...........

When you remove the linkage and spring from the fork, it will allow the
fork to wiggle a bit even if all other parts are ok. The boot doesn't hold
the clutch release fork into place. The fork is held by clips on the
throwout bearing and also at the fulcrum inside the bell housing. You can
feel the fulcrum with your fingers with the boot removed, but you might be
able to see inside the housing with a light and a small mirror. The throwout
bearing could have a broken clip, or the fulcrum could be broken, or both.

When I installed the last clutch assembly in my 69 with T18, I found it
necessary to fabricate a new fulcrum (using pieces of old fulcrum as
pattern) from angle iron and to attach it to the bell housing with special
bolts (tapered head to match counterbore hole in bell housing).


Danger
danger csolutions.net


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 11:43:41 -0800 (PST)
From: rich may
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Vibration Problem

It shakes all the time, not only when it is in gear.
What does that sound like to you?

- --- Tim Bowman wrote:
> The flywheels are totally different between the
> manual and automatic tranny's. It
> doesn't rule out an out of balance torque converter
> or possibly a flexplate.
>
> Tim Bowman
> Burien, WA
> 71 F100
>
>
> Rich Wrote:
>
> I am also having a vibration problem. I have a 1976
> F250 with a 390GT and a C-6. It originally had a
> manual tranny and I think that the old owner didn't
> bother to change flywheels. I haven't checked it
> yet,
> but I believe that it has a manual wheel. When it
> was
> in the shop, I asked the mechanic what he thought
> and
> he said it was probably the flywheel. It dissapears
> at
> 1800 RPM+ but at anything underneath that, it shakes
> rather violently. Any insight would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>


=====

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:55:05 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

In a message dated 10/31/1999 3:32:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
georgeram stic.net writes:


but I'm a guy, and guys mess with things that work good. :) >>

If you would like to get a few more MPG you should study up on a new product
called, "Direct Hits". Direct Hits is a capacitor that encapsulates (RF
shields) the spark plug that is capable discharging in nanoseconds.
Basically it increases the power (Amps) by 500 times in the spark. This
directly translates to a larger flame kernel which in turn burns the fuel
more completely and quickly. And thus better MPH. An important principle
here is the less resistance the plug wires and spark plugs have and of course
the greater the source such as MSD or similar the better. Direct Hits caught
my eye in 4x4 Mag article about 9 months ago. Went to the Web site read up
on their references found a white paper from the Department of Energy's
Sandia Lab. The paper helps explain the electrical engineering involved.
The tests, however, that were performed on a 510 Cu In high performance
engine are flat amazing. For best results get enough Direct Hits for all of
your spark plugs, replace the plugs with non-resistor plugs and a low
resistance wire, such as some of the popular spiral wound type. The Direct
Hits cost $12.50 a piece. You can call them on the phone a find out what
spark plug brand and # you need for a non-resisor plug. Believe it or not
non-resistor plugs are getting hard to find. My truck is down being rebuilt
so I have been running them in my car, at lease 3 miles per gallon increase.
They will be in my truck along with MSD shortly. The Web Site is
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.directhits.com, lot of good info there. Someone on this List
mention fast burn a while back, this is a powerful and good tool for that
concept.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:36:34 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -Can anyone decode this ???

It helped a lot... thanks.

Truck is located in Norway... not the Netherlands. It looks light blue
now, but I think from the pics. from the interior that it has been a lot
darker.

So silly I didn't get the pics. on CD Rom too,,, cause there are so many
levers in the cab I want to know about...
A long one from the floor an up with a red button in front of it, looks
like shift lever... but then there is this lever on the columns just where
a regular column shift is, and with a aluminum thing on the end, like a
vacuum pot or who knows... and then two knobs on the floor right in front
of the seat,,, maybe hyd. pump and lift valve for the bed.
Then there is a lever to the right of what I assumed to be the shift lever,
chrome thing with a knob on top of it....

And who can tell me about the engine,,, bore and stroke and such
things...similarity to the 300 I6, possible to interchange.... ???

Well, that's it for today.

So long from Bill


> In a message dated 10/28/99 7:02:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bill online.no
> writes:
> > Can anyone decode this:
> > F-600
> > Warranty number F60BE542309
>
> I base this decode on the assumption that this truck was assembled in the

> United States as opposed to Canada.
>
> F60 = Series Code (F600 -gas-4x2)
> B= Engine Code (262 cid 1v gas)
> E=Assembly Plant (Mahwah New Jersey)
> 542309= Consecutive unit no. 445,001 was first truck, 580,000 was last
truck
> off the line.
>
> WB=Wheel Base (174 inches)
> Color L is "Dark Green"
> Model 602 is a standard F-600 model 4x2 gas powered truck with a Gross
> Vehicle Weight rating of 20,000 lbs.
> Body (181) The first "1" stands for the interior trim code. The type
and
> color scheme is: Light gray crush vinyl with light gray rib vinyl; The
81
> is the body type which means a conventional with a single rear axle and
gas
> powered engine.
> Trans Code "F" = either be a Synchronized Warner T98A 4spd or a dagenham
> 4spd. My bet is the Warner model.
> Axle code "F7" = Eaton Built Two-Seed Model 13802 with 5.83/8.11 ratios
for
> the two speeds and rated at 15,000 lbs.
> Max GVW =Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Rating in pounds (20,000).
> 132 is the certified net horsepower at the stated R.P.M. (in this case
3600
> R.P.M.); This correlates to the 6 cyl. 262 cid 1V gas powered engine.
>
> DSO is the District Sales Office responsible for this order. Anything in
the
> 90's specifies that the truck was intended for export. 93 in this case
> probably means the truck was originally intended for the Netherlands
which is
> where I think you said the truck is now. This makes sense that the truck
was
> built in Mahwah New Jersey because that is a stone's throw from the Port
of
> Newark which is a major point of entry and exit for cars by ocean bound
> freightliners.
>
> I hope this information is helpful to you.
>
> 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 15:41:34 -0800
From: Mike Pacheco
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

I just bought a new boot from a Ford dealer. cost $6.30, it was for a
72'

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:21:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE's and hate mail

>Hate, Hate, Hate........:-) Everyone knows 460's
rule >:-) Ok, the
>only FE
>I recall that got a bad rap was the 406, something
>about longevity?
>You can
>blow up any engine if you try hard enough and you can
>make any engine
>run
>strong if you try hard enough but some engines are
>easier to make power
>with
>such as the FE and 460 :-) Not sure why the 390's
>burn valves but
>wonder if
>it has anything to do with unleaded gas? Hardened
>seats weren't around
>untill about 73 as I recall? Guess I just can't
>figure how you burn
>valves
>if they are adjusted properly and mixture is correct
>for the
>application?
>I've heard the exhaust ports, manifolds and pipe can
>affect the exhaust
>valves to some extent? Changes the way it breathes
>which changes the
>way it
>mixes etc..


My theory on the exhaust valves is that you have a
combination of a few things causing it. The fuel
today burns very hot and dry. There is little or no
lubrication for the seats. The valves are a little
bit harder than the seats and wear them out. This is
made worse by the following factors.

The spark plug angling toward the exhaust side of the
chamber is making the chamber quench area right on the
exhaust valve area of the head. Coming in from the
top at the center of the bore. This is the ultimate
place to have a quench area for making a centralized
flame front that doesn't string out across the
chamber. It's the hottest spot in the chamber so it
doesn't snuff out the fire, and you can target the
cooling water to that place in the head to keep it
cool enough to not self-destruct. In actual effect,
it hammers the piston dead in the middle every stroke.
Very similar in practice to what a hemispherical
chamber does, by virtue of the angle of the flame as
it hits the piston. It maximizes the force with which
it drives the piston down. (like hitting the pad that
runs the ringer up the pole at the county fair, you
hit it right in the middle and straight and it rings
the bell with little effort, the least bit off and you
won't move it up 3 feet no matter how hard you hit
it.) and provided the piston shape is providing
sufficient squish it prevents any secondary flame
disturbances from occouring. The mixture is consumed
at once, with little burnable residue left. And the
force is concentrated on the best place to smack the
piston, in the middle with the flame front going down
toward the piston. But the problem is that the exhaust
valves and seats run hotter than with other head
designs. This heated condition would be exacerbated
by running alot under load, running lean, or at high
steady speed for extended periods. Over time the
seats would get soft and the valves would wear them
down and recede into the head. I think that the
valves usually burn more due to the seats receding
than the valves actally failing. The metals today can
handle this much better, and would eliminate this
problem entirely. Modern valves and seats are the
key here.

Another thing that causes this to be worse than it
needs to be is the terrible exhaust manifolds they are
saddled with. They hold way too much heat in the
head. The ports are great, and flow very well. They
can support very high horsepower incarnations of the
FE with out much change at all. The 750 hp
Tunnel-Port uses essentially the same port only
employing bigger valves and some small detail
differences. They are an amazing combination of flow
and velocity, and when coupled with a good pipe,
unbelievably efficient at scavenging. The restriction
is the manifolds. The runners on the manifolds have
little if any scavenging action above idle, and this
causes the heat to stay in the head, and keep in mind,
you already have more heat there than most engines
anyway due to the chamber design. I think that these
manifolds are bad enough that if you took them out of
the picture, the problem of burnt valves wouldn't have
been a noticable problem with these engines any more
than most any other engine of the era running on
today's fuel.

The 360 and post-71 390's (and possibly some earlier
truck engines, but I'm not sure) have their own unique
problems due to lower piston compression height. The
360 uses 1.76 compression height 390 flat-top pistons.
The crank throw is shorter by .140 and the rod is
longer by .060, so the piston comes up .080 lower in
the bore. The purpose was to lower compression, and
it does by at least a full point. Post 1971 390's
employed this trick and had the same troubles, from
having a 1.66 compression height piston (the same
piston as a 410 AFAIK). They will detonate under load
due to the diffusion of the squish into the cylinder
edges. The mixture at the edges is very lean and gets
compressed between the head deck and piston crown
enough that it will burn. This mixture under certain
conditions causes in some cases, pre-ignition which
will rob the crank of momentum coming up to TDC by
kicking it backwards, and in others, secondary flame
front disturbances (detonation) and combustion
temperature elevation. This is despite the lower
compression ratio, and regardless of the fuel. This
is why some 70's FE's ping as bad or worse than their
higher compression cousins. It wasn't the fuel
getting worse, it was a poorer combustion design.
This change can cause warping and distortion of the
valves and can crack the seats. It can also burn
pistons. Were the pistons coming up as close to 0
deck as the earlier 390's, providing the needed
squish, this wouldn't be a problem. It also made the
loss of compression ratio a more dramatic loss of
power for this engine than other designs. The
difference between a '69 9.5 to 1 engine and an 8.5 to
1 '74 model 390 is quite disporportionate to the loss
of compression ratio. It was the loss of the
concentrated flame front that did it worse than the
lower compression. I also think it's why economy was
(is)an issue with these engines. The early ones
burned it and made alot of power, the later ones
burned the same amount but wasted it in poor
combustion.

A few things I've found from experience prevent all
this from happening, even with the original metals,
and would really do it with todays metals.

Run Headers and 2 1/2 in pipes with low restriction
mufflers- They are a pain in the neck, but they pick
up performance in every way, and they get alot more of
that heat away from the heads. Headers, on the FE
more than any other engine I have ever seen, do alot
of good for alot of things. You can likely get away
with this modification alone and prevent recession and
not burn the valves unless you really tow alot.

Have your seats and valves updated to modern
materials- You'll never have trouble again with valve
recession, and combined with headers you won't have
trouble with cracking the seats.

If you're rebuilding- Make sure your piston design
comes up as close to 0 deck as possible. If flat-tops
make too much compression, use dished pistons. Squish
is important to this head design. If it isn't
concentrated in the middle of the chamber and
consuming the mixture whole, you stand a good chance
of detonation and disturbed flame travel which can
spike your combustion temps. Bad news. The 360's need
a better piston design with a compression height the
same as a 352. I don't know where you would find it,
but maybe a .060 over 352 piston and a .010 overbore
would work. The late 390's need an earlier piston
design. It will be 9.0- 9.5 to 1 or more, but any
less doesn't get you anywhere economy or longevity
wise anyway.

Get your fuel and timing exactly where they need to be
for what you're doing. If you run sustained high
speeds, or loads, make sure your total timing and
mixture aren't leaning out and detonating. Read the
plugs.

That's my .02 on the subject, anyone else have any
experience to share?







=====

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:46:18 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE's and hate mail

> Run Headers and 2 1/2 in pipes with low restriction
> mufflers- They are a pain in the neck, but they pick
> up performance in every way, and they get alot more of
> that heat away from the heads. Headers, on the FE
> more than any other engine I have ever seen, do alot
> of good for alot of things
..................

The machinist who helped me with my last 390 build said the FE heads
required more work than other styles because "they got to hot & need all the
help they can get to stay cool". He suggested a combination of fixes (even
when using new seats) which included headers, large radiator with shroud,
and a high volume oil pump with hardened hex shaft.


Danger
danger csolutions.net


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 21:28:11 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -Can anyone decode this ???

In a message dated 10/31/1999 1:54:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bill online.no writes:


like shift lever... >>
Yes, this is your shift lever and the red button is the 2-speed axle control.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:19:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tuning for mileage

> I can't get over 12mpg. I think I should be able to
see 14 or 15. I
> will have to start reading the darned plugs now to
see what
> my trash-bin
> carburator is doing. I think it might be too rich.

What you need to look at is where your total timing is
coming in at and if it needs more advance. If the
timing is below optimum at cruise it will use alot
more fuel than it should. All in it should be close
to 40 degrees, and it should all be in by 2200-2500
rpms. If it's not all in change your centrifugal
weight springs so it is.

The carb can only do so much, and leaning it out can
actually take you backwards. You need the fuel in the
engine when it needs it. If it's a Holley, you might
try a bigger power valve (one that comes in a little
quicker at a higher vacuam level, a 69 jet and a 6.5
power valve usually works pretty well in a 351 to 400
ci engine, this is approximate though, yours might
need more or less) to improve your response and get
your foot out of it quicker when accellerating. If it
seems rich, check to see if the needle and seat is
leaking, or if the float is too high. A Q-jet will
give you better mileage, mine went up from about 5-7
up to 10-12 mpg.

Trucks drink gas, my '65 f250 4X4 with an FE and Q-jet
still only gets 10-12 mpg w 4.56 gears. It runs good
though.

I didn't catch what kind of engine you have, but a
good tune always helps. Timing and getting it just
the right amount of fuel is what it's all about.


=====

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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:25:35 -0500
From: "Forest V. New"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Motor ID decode.

Does anyone out there have an older codebook. Ive got an engine I need to
know some info on. Looks like a 292 Y-block to me but it might be something
a little different. Im just not that familiar with an engine this old. Any
info on this series motor would be helpful, like piston width vs rod length
to figure out motor size.

Block: ECZ 6015 A
Heads: ECZ-C
Intake: ECZ 9425 A

This motor is out of a 51 Ford truck, but looking at the setup its not
original. If memory serves me correctly they put flatheads in those trucks.

Thanks
Forest New

71 Sport Custom
72 XLT
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:23:45 -0800
From: Phil Clements
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: '72 F250 Divorced t-case shifter

Gary,

> I've never had a divorced xfer case truck so don't know how the linkage
> worked but it seems to me that this linkage from any divorced setup would be
> adaptable to your setup? Obviously, if it's divorced there is no adapter,
> the tranny undoubtedly is a standard tail shaft type so there is no adapter,
> therefore the linkage had to attach somewhere else?....

---

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.