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 #401
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 Wednesday, November 3 1999 Volume 03 : Number 401



=======================================================================
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 - Clutches and things...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
FTE 61-79 - transmission swap
FTE 61-79 - more C6 tranny questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - more C6 tranny questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Steering wheel/column adjustments
FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Dead Cylinder
Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things
FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...
FTE 61-79 - Steering wheel mystery
Re: FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...
FTE 61-79 - Auto -vs- NP435
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Re: Vibration Problem
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
FTE 61-79 - Steering Column
RE: FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...
FTE 61-79 - FTE: 66 Wipers Update (Let it rain)
Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE: 66 Wipers Update (Let it rain)
FTE 61-79 - Finding a dead cylinder
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
FTE 61-79 - Dead cylinder
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:12:44 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Remember my van was 4wd and had the 460/C-6 combo so I've had experience
with both in the snow and much prefer the stick when it gets "Sticky" :-) I
can unstick a stick easier than an auto :-) On dry pavement, where the
stick's attributes are essentially not needed, I prefer the auto. Why work
any harder than necessary :-)

Besides, I can steer with my knee while opening my burger, holding my pop
between my legs and leaning my fries on the seat next to me with an auto but
with a stick I always manage to spill one or the other when I have to shift
while trying to open my burger etc.......I really hate it when more than one
thing heads for the floor at the same time and I only have one hand free to
catch it......I have to make a choice then and I hate making
choices.......:-( Ever steer with your knee while holding your pop between
your legs and have to grab the brakes real fast? Tends to squeeze the cup
into a flat pancake and there's no place left for the pop except your
lap.....and then the fries go for the floor and you throw away the burger
trying to catch them since that's why you stopped at the fast food place to
begin with, especially if they are the spicy kind......

- --
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
- --

> Isn't your pickup a 2wd ? So wouldn't that change things for
> the snow and
> ice quite a bit whether it was an auto or a manual ? That's
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 10:22:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Gary, while holding a burger between his knees, typed out:
>
> Besides, I can steer with my knee while opening my burger, holding my pop
> between my legs and leaning my fries on the seat next to me with an auto but
> with a stick I always manage to spill one or the other when I have to shift
> while trying to open my burger etc.......I really hate it when more than one
> thing heads for the floor at the same time and I only have one hand free to
> catch it......I have to make a choice then and I hate making
> choices.......:-( Ever steer with your knee while holding your pop between
> your legs and have to grab the brakes real fast? Tends to squeeze the cup
> into a flat pancake and there's no place left for the pop except your
> lap.....and then the fries go for the floor and you throw away the burger
> trying to catch them since that's why you stopped at the fast food place to
> begin with, especially if they are the spicy kind......

Wow, it's a good thing you have rusted out floors, Gary. Makes it
easier to clean stuff out :-) :-) :-)
- --
Pat Brown
Sebastopol, California
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:43:56 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott William Richmond
Subject: FTE 61-79 - transmission swap

Hi everyone,

I currently have a 3-speed standard bolted to my 240. I saw a T-18
4-speed at a wrecking yard that I would like to swap in, but before I go
back to buy it I would like to ask a few questions. I think I will need
to get the bell housing from the donor vehicle too, is this correct? Will
I also need the clutch from the donor vehicle? How about the length of
the trannies, ie. will I need the driveshaft from the vehicle with the
4-speed too? Since my motor is a 240 and I think the donor vehicle has a
300, will this pose any additional problems? If anyone can provide me
with some tips on this swap I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Scott


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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:44:37 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - more C6 tranny questions

i've heard it mentioned about wide and close ratio c6 transmissions, whats
the difference? and were all c6's created equal as far as reliability and
strength, you know how the later model stuff is usualy lower quality then the
old stuff.

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:50:13 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>

> Remember this truck has 2.75 gears too :-)

Really, you've never mentioned this before, :-)

>th the 460 the C-6 is also much more reliable if you abuse it, if you have
> a temper or if you crawl around on rocks because it will absorb the
> tremendous torque inputs without breaking the tranny or rippping out the
> driveshafts quite as easily as the sudden, harsh jolt of the manuals.
All the really big guys (mudrunners) use the manuals near me. No mods
needed for 44-56 inch tires and 500+ HP.

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:19:41 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Better get my boots on, it's getting rather deep in here. "Real driving"?
Are you saying that just because I don't like horsing around with a stick
shift in a 3/4 ton 4X4 I'm not really driving? Gonna have to disagree with
you there...I've raced and driven many stick shifts including trucks and
frankly I've come to the realization that std trannys are great in cars and
they suck in trucks. I like the feeling of grabbing a short throw, tight
shifter and "snicking" it into gear in a sports car but yanking a 3 foot
long shifter with 10 inches of throw and who knows how much play ain't my
idea of fun anymore. Come to think of it it never was. Maybe for the
hardcore 4 wheelin' crowd but even they're comin' around to the advantages
of the "juice box". So easy on us auto drivers Arnie, just because I've only
got 2 pedals in my truck doesn't mean I can't drive.

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Arnie G-well
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...


> Hi, I am new to the list but I just couldn't hold back any more.
> A-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c's are for people that let the truck drive them,
Standards
> for the the people that enjoy real driving. That is if you can master the
> clutch (You know there are people out there that cannot).



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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:16:05 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

> I think we can all pretty much agree that things are moving
> through there
> too fast for there to be an appreciable amount of heat
> exchange

I'm not saying the mixture picks up much, if any, of the wall temp but the
walls stay warm even at WOT so aid in maintaining the mixture in vapor form.
This is where the velocity comes in, the faster it moves the less heat
exchange there is and the less the atomized droplets will fall out.

> to worry about manifold temps at all... Also i don't see 6's
> worrying about
> putting coolant out there under the carb ... I'm beginnin to

I've had several 4's with water warmed or cooled intake/exhaust assys.

> > The coolant temp may be "substantially"
> > lower than engine temp but what part of the engine? It is still
> > warmer than
> > ambient air so adds to the temp of the manifold walls.

> So why bother with a temp gauge then, they just lie and only

I was responding to his remark, I believe the manifold coolant temp is
essentially the same as the coolant throughout the engine. Obviously, the
heads will elevate the coolant more as it passes through but it won't cool
down all that much passing through the intake manifold either so I believe
that the intake will be sufficiently warmed by it to make a difference in
the runner wall temps and the OEM's obviously feel the same or they wouldn't
put the senders there in the first place.

> > If you pass 180
> > degree coolant past a metal part that can potentially
> become cooler than
> > that it will absorb heat to maintain it's temp very close
> to that of the
> > coolant.
>
> Not true ... if you pass 180 degree coolant past 190 degree
> metal, no matter

Re-read my statement.....I meant if there was a chance that the metal of the
manifold could become "cooler" than the rest of the engine the coolant will
make sure it stays elevated.

> Uhm .. yeah, but wouldn't it be enough to make the fuel a
> vapor too? And
> wouldn't a vapor inherently suspend itself?

I don't believe it's "inherent". Fuel vapor will remain vapor and stay in
suspension until it comes in contact with a surface cooler than the mixture
itself. Vapor will begin to condense if the walls are cool enough. Hot air
has more space between the air molecules than cold air so it is able to
"suspend" more liquid in vapor form than cold air. The elevated temp also
helps to maintain the fuel in a vapor state. When you lower the temp of the
mixture, it closes up the space between the molecules and forces the vapor
out of "suspension" and also "condenses the fuel into liquid droplets as it
drops below it's boiling point or point of vaporization. Vapor mixes more
evenly with air than liquid so makes a more effecient chemical reaction when
ignited and the less heat the fuel has to absorb during the reaction the
less of the energy is wasted maintaining the reaction thus utilizing more of
the potential of the fuel BTU's. I won't try to imply that I am a physicist
but I do remember a few things from high school physics along with articles
on the subject in car magazines etc.. By atomizing the fuel into smaller
droplets you accomplish two important things: You create more surface area
for the "heat" to affect the droplets, converting them to vapor more
efficiently and you reduce the individual mass of the droplets so they will
remain in suspension more easily which is where the "Velocity" factor comes
in.

When a droplet condenses it gives off the amount of heat (calories or jouls
or something) that it took to vaporize it in the first place. Since the
manifold walls are the only thing it will come into contact with which can
affect it, the warmer they are the less likely the vapor can exchange heat
with it sufficient to condense.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:02:40 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

>>> It is my understanding that in Texas it is illegal to sit at a light with
> the clutch depressed. I believe the law says that you are
> supposed to sit in
> nuetral with the clutch out, service brake on. How can the cops tell? No
> brake lights and you are rolling up and down the incline. One
> more reason to
> drive an a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c.
>

HAHAHAHAHA ... John PLEASE tell me you are joking on this one... I'm
laughing so hard that it might just be true ... how on Earth could you get a
good launch starting from that position? You'd lose every race ... er uhm,
you'd be really slow takin off ... and that could frustrate hyper people ...
yeah that's it ... ;)

Sorry, it's no joke, Bill. Of course very few people obey the speed limit,
stop for red lights, give turn signals, got their license out of Cracker
Jacks, need I say more?

>>A-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c's are for people that let the truck drive them, Standards
for the the people that enjoy real driving. That is if you can master the
clutch (You know there are people out there that cannot).

Arnie, I can double clutch with the best. I guess I'm older and I like to
think wiser. Unsolicited, I once had a police officer who had followed me
for about 6 miles tell me that I was one of the few people who appeared to
know how to maintain total control of my truck while I was driving. No, I
didn't get a ticket. I don't get tickets. We happened to be going to the
same place. In my book, shifting gears doesn't prove anything. I wonder why
a lot of fuelies run 727s with a very high stall converter?

To each his own. I don't fly, either. Why fly when there are perfecly good
roads everywhere I want to go?

- -- 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: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:15:15 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

>>A 302 can be "hopped" up a bit as you put it, but don't expect to see the
torque figures you would with a 351W. Just so you don't get disappointed.

I am confused about this torque issue. There is a reasonbly steep, long hill
close to here that I have to go up regularly. My Towncar with EFI 302 and OD
automatic will pull the hill at 70 mph without dropping out of OD nor
disengaging the torque converter clutch. None of the Buicks or Cadillacs I
ever owned would do this. Every one of them downshifted. Some were EFI, some
were carbed, some V8, some V6. Torque? HP? For sure the Lincoln is a better
car.

BTW, except for my exhaust manifolds, I can tell no difference from the 302s
in HO Mustangs of the same era. I once had the hood up next to an ex DPS
persuit car. He had headers. If I ever run across a wrecked car with a 302
of this vintage for cheap, I'm snagging it for Henry.

- -- 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:28:50 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

What can I say OX? The only place I can see a problem with the autos is
heat. In mud it would be very hard to keep them cool enough to avoid
trouble so breakage may be the lesser of the evils in that case. I'm
reasonably sure the 435 is rated at over 400# of input torque so may well be
adequate, not sure since I have yet to break any kind of tranny :-) I know
that if it were used with dragster engines that the C-6 has been used with
the 435 probably wouldn't hold up but I can't even verify that so please
disregard any comments I make on this particular subject since I'm just
speculating :-) Dragsters do break input shafts on the C-6 so it's not
indestructable either :-)

I'm just repeating what I've heard about sticks and rocks and broken parts
:-) Sticks and rocks my break my box but mud will never hurt 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
- --

> Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
> >
>
> > Remember this truck has 2.75 gears too :-)
>
> Really, you've never mentioned this before, :-)
>
> All the really big guys (mudrunners) use the manuals near
> me. No mods
> needed for 44-56 inch tires and 500+ HP.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:38:05 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - more C6 tranny questions

I don't know of any differences other that housings for small and big
blocks. The gear differences are 11% in low and 5% in second I've been
told. I can't verify that but I do know from experience that you are
wasting a lot of motor if you don't have one connected to a 400 or 429 or
460 and use taller rear gears :-)

- --
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 heard it mentioned about wide and close ratio c6
> transmissions, whats
> the difference? and were all c6's created equal as far as
> reliability and
> strength, you know how the later model stuff is usualy lower
> quality then the
> old stuff.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 14:38:36 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> What can I say OX? The only place I can see a problem with the autos is
> heat.

And thats the problem. You can start out the day with a perfectly good
radiator and be overheating badly about 2 hours after that, clogged with
mud. Then your auto trans overheates and pukes fluid out the fill tube
and starts a nice fire on the exh. Hmm.... sounds like something I've
done recently ;-).

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:41:03 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

> I am confused about this torque issue. There is a reasonbly
> steep, long hill
> close to here that I have to go up regularly. My Towncar with EFI
> 302 and OD
> automatic will pull the hill at 70 mph without dropping out of OD nor
> disengaging the torque converter clutch. None of the Buicks or Cadillacs I
> ever owned would do this. Every one of them downshifted. Some
> were EFI, some
> were carbed, some V8, some V6. Torque? HP? For sure the Lincoln
> is a better
> car.
>

Rear gears can have a big effect here too, if the lincon's turning more
revs, then there is less need for it to downshift ... also there's the
programmed shift points and all that jazz too ...

> BTW, except for my exhaust manifolds, I can tell no difference
> from the 302s
> in HO Mustangs of the same era. I once had the hood up next to an ex DPS
> persuit car. He had headers. If I ever run across a wrecked car with a 302
> of this vintage for cheap, I'm snagging it for Henry.
>
>

Check your firing order ... and the intake manifolds, I think there are some
diffs there too ... the DPS pursuit car was a 5.0 'stang ? I know the
firing order is different for the HO vs the non-HO ... and the headers were
probably added by the DPS crew to give it just that little extra more umph
:)

I will admit though, lots of times the HO's found their way into other
vehicles without nearly as much hoopla (a hojo term ;) as it did in the
'stangs ... Lincolns aren't known for lacking in power, how do you think
they got it ? ;)

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:45:57 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Steering wheel/column adjustments

> It's entirely possible that the wrong parts are there. However, it
may
> simply be an adjustment. Try this: loosen the two bolts which attach the
> column to the underside of the dash. Then go under the hood and find the
> lower column support bracket. This is the part "black" part that bolts
> directly to the firewall just above the column tube. You must loosen the
> clamp which goes around this bracket and the column. Now go back inside
the
> cab and pull up on the column while holding pressure down on the wheel.
If
> the gap tightens up then just tighten the dash mount. Recheck everything
for
> proper alignment and re-tighten all bolts. You will also need to readjust
> the bearing retainer clamp which is a small clamp that bolts directly to
the
> lower steering shaft between the column and the rag joint. I hope this
> helps.
>
> Stock Man
.........

I'd just like to include that it would be a good idea to check out the
drivers side front cab mount. It's also a good idea to check the washer
which holds the lower steering column bearings into place on the column
shaft. The weight of the cab resting on the steering assembly rather than
the cab bushing & mount can damage steering components. When the gap between
the wheel and column is fixed, you'll be able to make use of the turn signal
return & horn as originally intended.

Danger
danger csolutions.net



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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:40:04 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

>>Since the EGR only has "flow" at settings other than idle or cruise it would
seem to be a paradox without the manifold riser, eh? Course then you always
still have your "hot air intake" to warm things up :-)

Oops. Error. Reconnect fingers to brain. I didn't consider everything
earlier. There is pressure in the crossover. The change in back pressure is
what actuates the EGR. In theory you should have equal pressure from each
bank, but I guess practically you would get a pulse on each exhaust stroke.
This is above my thermodynamic expertise.

I understand what you are describing with the coolant flow, I'm just not
convinced. If the coolant keeps the fuel from condensing, why isn't this a
problem on dry manifolds?

I think I'll go drive my hojo slush box non-torquey thin walled casting cold
air ramming M-block without relays but with a heat riser to the pharmacy and
get some drugs. Oh well, it makes me happy....

- -- 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: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:49:29 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

>>What exactly are you calling the heat riser ? That hose piece from the
exhaust manifold to the intake that I took off my g.f's 92 Mustang ?

Or the flapper valve in my exhaust on the driver's side of the truck (a 74,
not a late 60's) ...

The flapper in the exhaust stream.

>> Hot mixture burns much cleaner and more efficiently than cold mixture.

Gary is totally correct here. Liquid gasoline will not burn at all. The
whole purpose of atomizing fuel in the venturis is to make the surface area
larger so that the gasoline will vapor more easily. But once it is vapor,
it's flammable. It doesn't do any good to get it hotter than boiling, you
just need to get as much gasoline as possible vaporous as close as possible
to the point in time of ignition.

- -- 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:32:08 -0500
From: "Clem Salek"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...






Yes, Yes, Yes...This is what I've also found. Gary will disagree with me,
however, my experience has shown that the 4spd's durability is above that of
the automatic.

Clem
"Recon Unit 1"
'79 F350,460,NP435
10Ton PTO Winch

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:58:11 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

Ok so I toddle on down to my local Ford Megadealer in search of the ever
elusive crankshaft oil slinger, the one that fits between the crank sprocket
and the timing cover. The short block I bought didn't have one but the cover
was already off when I got it so I figure it got lost. The parts guy looks
at the computer and tells me that while there is a picture of one in the
'puter, there's no part # associated with it. So we go to the book...same
results, his explanation is that the picture covers all motors including the
460 and maybe there isn't one for the 351M/400. The factory manual I have
doesn't mention it in the 351M/400 section but it doesn't in the 460 section
either. The Monroe/HP book and Haynes manuals do. Question: Do I need to
bust my butt searching for one of these things? Is it that critical? Has
anyone ever spotted one during an M block overhaul or does everybody just
swap in a 460?

TIA

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



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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:58:51 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

Thank you John :-) I just tried to expound on this but probably got in
trouble so You may have to bail me out again :-)

The purpose of jets in carbs is to atomize and the anular discharge nozzles
atomize even more for better size and distribution then the heat in the
manifold and cross over add to the temp of the mixture which hopefully
vaporizes most of it then there is velocity.........and when it turn a
corner........and then......:-)

- --
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
- --

> >> Hot mixture burns much cleaner and more efficiently than
> cold mixture.
>
> Gary is totally correct here. Liquid gasoline will not burn
> at all. The
> whole purpose of atomizing fuel in the venturis is to make
> the surface area
> larger so that the gasoline will vapor more easily. But once
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:02:53 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Can't argue as long as we put them in the applications to which they are
best suited :-) Swap applications though and one will work and the other
won't work as well :-) I'm getting gun shy so I have to keep it ambiguous
now :-) Also keep in mind that the tranny is not the only thing that breaks
and may not even be the weak link as OX once pointed out so we have to make
choices which also take those parts into account :-)

- --
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
- --

>
> me. No mods
>
>
>
>
> Yes, Yes, Yes...This is what I've also found. Gary will
> disagree with me,
> however, my experience has shown that the 4spd's durability
> is above that of
> the automatic.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:07:01 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

> Is it that critical? Has
> anyone ever spotted one during an M block overhaul or does everybody just
> swap in a 460?
>

No, I use FE's :) I seem to remember one of these on my 360, but don't
remember one ever having been on the 390 ... interesting... I'll have to
pull that front cover and check that out now that you got me thinkin about
it ...

This may seem like a dumb question, but is there a difference between the
400 and 460 "oil slingers"? the only differences I can think of would be ID
and OD ... if those match ... what's to stop you from using one ? Heck,
check the FE's too while you're at it :)

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:09:41 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

> The purpose of jets in carbs is to atomize and the anular discharge
nozzles
> atomize even more for better size and distribution then the heat in the
> manifold and cross over add to the temp of the mixture which hopefully
> vaporizes most of it then there is velocity.........and when it turn a
> corner........and then......:-)
............

I thought the purpose of jets was to meter the amount of fuel and had
nothing to do with atomizing the mixture?


Danger
danger csolutions.net



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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:10:26 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

Only dry manifold I'm familiar with is the M block and it gets so hot I'm
not sure if it would need any help :-) Maybe they plumb more exhaust in
there? What I discovered on my 460 was that the warmer the incoming air
charge and intake was the better it runs and the better the mileage :-)
Since, in that condition, it outperforms most vehicles I encounter on the
road and I don't drag race it the rest doesn't matter to me :-)

Interestingly enough I believe the edlebrock manifold on my bronco 351M has
no cross over but haven't really checked it out yet. Had the carb off
too......Duuuuuu....just don't recall what was in there :-) Anyway it does
pretty well on economy but performance is a little shaky :-) I haven't
checked the plugs since I got it either. It ran so I drove it :-) That's
on my list though :-)

- --
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 understand what you are describing with the coolant flow,
> I'm just not
> convinced. If the coolant keeps the fuel from condensing, why
> isn't this a
> problem on dry manifolds?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:30:39 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

Well the 429/460 uses multiple keys and I don't know if the diameter of the
crank is the same. They use a totally different front cover design as well
as a spacer sleeve on the crank. Don't know 'bout the FEs.

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William S. Hart
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 12:07 PM
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks


>
> > Is it that critical? Has
> > anyone ever spotted one during an M block overhaul or does everybody
just
> > swap in a 460?
> >
>
> No, I use FE's :) I seem to remember one of these on my 360, but don't
> remember one ever having been on the 390 ... interesting... I'll have to
> pull that front cover and check that out now that you got me thinkin about
> it ...
>
> This may seem like a dumb question, but is there a difference between the
> 400 and 460 "oil slingers"? the only differences I can think of would be
ID
> and OD ... if those match ... what's to stop you from using one ? Heck,
> check the FE's too while you're at it :)



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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:23:25 -0800
From: djohnson lem10.med.navy.mil (Douglas Johnson)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Dead Cylinder


> Pull the spark plug wires one at a time until you find one that
> seems to run
> just as good without it. Investigte from there.

Just make sure you watch out for that "difference of potential" while
yankin em off. Definitely use a well insulated set of pliers.
Sure it's the amps that kill, but at that voltage it still
hurts like h**l.

Doug Johnson
Stranded in Cali
64 F100 360,C6,Dana 60
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:29:36 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

Well, a 351W will deliver even more torque than your 302, but if you are
happy with the torque you have I am sure it is fine.... What I meant was
that if you expect the torque of a 351W you will not have it from the 302,
if we compare two stock engines from the same year.

Bill

- ----------
> From: John LaGrone
> To: -FordTruckDigest
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
> Date: 2. november 1999 20:15
>
> >>A 302 can be "hopped" up a bit as you put it, but don't expect to see
the
> torque figures you would with a 351W. Just so you don't get
disappointed.
>
> I am confused about this torque issue. There is a reasonbly steep, long
hill
> close to here that I have to go up regularly. My Towncar with EFI 302 and
OD
> automatic will pull the hill at 70 mph without dropping out of OD nor
> disengaging the torque converter clutch. None of the Buicks or Cadillacs
I
> ever owned would do this. Every one of them downshifted. Some were EFI,
some
> were carbed, some V8, some V6. Torque? HP? For sure the Lincoln is a
better
> car.
>
> BTW, except for my exhaust manifolds, I can tell no difference from the
302s
> in HO Mustangs of the same era. I once had the hood up next to an ex DPS
> persuit car. He had headers. If I ever run across a wrecked car with a
302
> of this vintage for cheap, I'm snagging it for Henry.
>
> -- 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:56:55 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

> What I meant was
> that if you expect the torque of a 351W you will not have it from the 302,
> if we compare two stock engines from the same year.
>

I've grown to love this phrase :) When was the last time anyone was able to
effectively do that ? Not to mention the differences between cars and trucks
and the tuning and all that stuff ... just one of those things that seems
inherently obvious but is nearly impossible to prove without some
specialized machinery ...

Just something to ponder, not really meant to start any discussions about
the true compartability of dyno numbers or elevational effects, or even
humidity vs nitrous or whatever odd combinations you can come up with, just
one of those comments to keep your brain working not to generate a ton of
list traffic debating the ethics of such a test or anything ....

and ..

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 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: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:08:48 PST
From: "Don Jones"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things

>>Actually, to save the pressure plate, throwout bearing, and clutch >>disk,
>>You
>>can shift without using the clutch at all.
A buddy of mine co-drove a Corv*tt* at The 24 hours of Lemans a few years
ago. During testing, one of the other drivers got into a disagreement with
the crew chief about the way the clutch was working.
The crew chief turned to Chris and asked what he thought of the clutch. He
just shrugged and said "dunno.. i never tried it". There were no more
complaints about the clutch..


Don Jones
1970 F-250 ~Fordzilla~

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:13:36 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...

Check this guy out ...

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hometown.aol.com/DaveYugo/UNDERDOG.html

Yes, that's right, a full race Yugo ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 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: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 13:20:08 PST
From: "steve potratz"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering wheel mystery

Denny:
I'll take a stab at it-I bet that at some point power steering was added
from a later model(or a different manual box) and the shaft in the the
steering column was not. I had a truck that this happened to and the ears
on the column were cut to alow for the increased shaft length-not too safe
an idea. You need to track down a shorter shaft.

Denny wrote: "Kiernan, Denny"
Here tho is another problem that I bet no one will be able to answer. So
far, six or seven professional mechanics here in San Francisco have been
unable to figure it out. (BTW this is a 72 F-100, with a 4-speed floor
shift). When I bought the truck three years ago, I noticed that there was a
space of about 3/8 or 1/2 inch between the steering wheel and the steering
column. Also there was a difference in the paint color, indicating the
steering wheel was a replacement. The steering wheel looks like the picture
of the 71-77 2-spoke wheel. Since the steering wheel wasn't all the way
down on the column, the little brush connection for the horn, which just
sits in a tube, wasn't held in and kept falling out. No mechanic has been
able to make the wheel sit down on the column like it should. One said that
he thought the wheel was a different year and that's why it wouldn't go
down. Attempts to fashion a longer brush connection that would stay in have
failed. So I've been without a horn for most of the time and I'm getting
really hoarse from yelling at people out the window.

Anyone have any ideas about this? I know I could just install a
different horn system, but it bothers me not to be able to put the thing
back the way it's supposed to be.

Dennis Kiernan
Great Cab Driver, Lousy Mechanic


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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:26:52 -0500
From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...

Dang that's sad!! You gotta love it though.....

Sheesh...

- -Ted


Check this guy out ...

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hometown.aol.com/DaveYugo/UNDERDOG.html

Yes, that's right, a full race Yugo ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:42:17 -0600
From: "Jeffery Hansen"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Auto -vs- NP435

In my 86 2.3 Turbo T-bird I have the 5 speed. This is my 3rd 86 T-bird -
first two destroyed by rode idoits. Have driven the 2.3 Turbo T-bird with
an auto - wouldn't trade my 5 speed with 216,500+ miles on it for a brand
new 86 T-bird with an auto (the last year they made a REAL Thunderbird).
The auto just can't get the g-forces accelerating once set up in the curves
on on/off ramps. With that said - I have to side with the argument FOR a
C-6 in the monster truck. Jason knows what I'm talking about, he's heard it
all. Got 1100 miles on my brand new 79 F-150 4WD Muny Pit. That's 1100
miles on both axles, the '69 429, and the NP 435. Hasn't even seen a dusty
trail, let alone get in some mud. Bearing set I got from National Drive
Train here in Chicago has already gone out on the counter shaft. These
bearing have half the needles the originals had - but calling them they
insist there is only one kits for all years. Went out Friday night as I was
pulling into the drive. This dang truck has put me in bankruptcy trying to
keep it on the road AND ALLS I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS A FLEXPLATE, TORQUE
CONVERTER, C-6 with NP205 adapter, KICK DOWN, COOLER LINES - OR someone to
write me a FAT check,,,,, if Santa's listening. (already got a buddy who
converted the opposite for a snowplower and will swap columns) Anybody need
a balenced clutch plate and brand new clutch set/throwout bearing?
Jeffery A. Hansen, HMC(SW/AW/FMF) USN
Independent Duty Hospital Corpsman
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 14:50:04 -0800 (PST)
From: rich may
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re:Re: Vibration Problem

Did your motor shake the whole cab? Mine shakes so
hard that it actually rattles everything including the
cab.

- --- Dan Lee wrote:
> Rich,
> It sounds exactly like my 351C with the bad valve
> seats.
>
> Dan Lee
> '53 F100
> 400C-4V
>
>

=====

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

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 16:54:43 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Denny, when I put power steering in my '70 F100, I used the shaft from a
'73-'79. Now my steering wheel sit's about 3/8" above the column.
You might have the same setup.

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:13:00 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

In a message dated 11/2/1999 5:45:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
c_salek gpinet.com writes:


possible between clutch overhauls (with no real abuse) who really cares.
>>
I guess you have not very often laid on the cold ground and pulled the tranny
just because the throw bearing went out.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 18:42:10 -0800
From: "O'Connor"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering Column

Doss/Dennis,
When Ford sold a power steering conversion kit in the mid 60's, they
supplied a center shaft that was 11/16" shorter. Also, the clamp at the
lower end of the shaft was changed to a thinner one. The original one can
be ground down to simulate the Kit clamp. Also, if the steering wheel is a
different color, it's hard to tell what was done to the column. Was the
truck converted to Power steering? If so, suggest that an original
shaft/column be put back into the truck from a doner vehicle.

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:16:12 -0800
From: "Southerland, Rich"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...

What about this?
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.stlnet.com/~jimpotts/yugonext.htm
(Make sure to click on them all!)

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Hart [mailto:wish iastate.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:14 PM
To: Perf-List; 61-79-List
Subject: FTE 61-79 - You thought we had trouble finding parts...


Check this guy out ...

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hometown.aol.com/DaveYugo/UNDERDOG.html

Yes, that's right, a full race Yugo ...

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:22:26 -0500
From: "David J. Turner"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FTE: 66 Wipers Update (Let it rain)

Thanks to all of you who offered help on diagnosing the problem with the
w/s wipers. After your input I decided to take one more look at the wear on
the bushings and the rivets in the pivot assemblies. You were right. The
bushings were too loose on at least one bracket and a rivet in the passenger
side pivot was also a little loose.

I took the whole thing to a local machine shop where they replace three
bushings in the two brackets which tightened them up substantially. I also
tightened up the rivet in the pivot assembly with a ball peen hammer. It's
back in the truck and I'm waiting for rain. (Don't want to run it on dry
glass since I just installed a new windshield.) But, I think I'm back in
business.

Thanks again.

Dave
66 Shortbed Auto - Stock Let it rain!




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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:50:48 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FTE: 66 Wipers Update (Let it rain)

In a message dated 11/2/99 8:26:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, DAVEBOY esn.net
writes:

> It's
> back in the truck and I'm waiting for rain. (Don't want to run it on dry
> glass since I just installed a new windshield.) But, I think I'm back in

Dave:

Glad to hear your news. I did happen to get under my 65's dash for a
good look. It had a brite silver arm on the passenger side stamped 440 and a
duller finished arm on the driver side stamped 508. This seems exactly
opposite of all of the other info I have and I can't speak to functionality
of this particular setup since it's only a parts truck and as if that's not
enough....this has a two speed set-up not a single speed. Hah....how's that
for being as helpful as a "load of rocks in a sinking boat" to borrow someone
else's analogy? I am convinced you have the correct arms, but right to left
may be the real question. The problems you corrected should bring you much
closer to a final fix if not already.

I would run a garden hose on your windshield and test the system if your
really curious (like I would be).
Hope you have final closure on this problem.

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: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:41:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Finding a dead cylinder

>What is the best way to check if you have a dead
>cylinder?`

Get a set of those plastic pliers at the parts store
for pulling plug wires, and while it's running go
around the distributor cap and pull each wire one at a
time (replacing the wire after each one is pulled) and
listen for a drop in rpms. Each wire should cause a
moticable drop. If you come to one that doesn't, you
have a dead cylinder or a miss.

If you have a miss, shut it off and pull that plug
out. If the plug is fouled with oil, get a
compression gauge and check it. If it's low, then
you've lost the ring seal in that cylinder, and
collapsed an oil ring. Rebuild time. If it's gas
fouled, try another plug and see if it still misses.
If it still misses, pull the wire and check it with an
ohm meter, comparing it to a known good one of roughly
the same length. Sometimes it will miss and have fire
and the plug will look like it's firing but not very
well. Then again you need to do a compression test
and if it's low put a teaspoon of oil in the
cylinder. If it comes up to normal, you have a leaky
valve, if not your rings are usually bad.

Sometimes the head gasket will blow between cylinders
and will cause a limp. It's hard to tell sometimes
with a static compression test,but one of the best
ways is that two cylinders side-by-side will be 10%
lower than the others and those two plugs will be
black and sooty. A leak down test will tell you right
away. I did one back in high school, but never since.






=====

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:44:46 -0800 (PST)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

At 08:28 AM 2:11:99 -0500, Clem Salek wrote:

>By "newer" trannies, I meant newly rebuilt, with low miles on them. When
>they're tight, shifting this requires a bit more "precision". Although,
>your point on the late model units is well taken, and the "hanging revs"
>scenario would make the clutch-less shifts more difficult.
>

Actually it makes the shift take longer, which is mildly annoying, but not
so annoying that I don't do in my daily driver. But I can shift faster using
the clutch, so much so that SWMBO can't tell when she's not paying attention.

Steve & the Rockette
63 F100
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600, needs tube frame...
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
97 Contour, Mine

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:44:45 -0800 (PST)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

At 09:34 AM 2:11:99 CST, Arnie G-well wrote:
>Hi, I am new to the list but I just couldn't hold back any more.
>A-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c's are for people that let the truck drive them, Standards
>for the the people that enjoy real driving. That is if you can master the
>clutch (You know there are people out there that cannot).
>

Ya sure, ya betcha, the Rockette has trouble with clutches, I tried to
teach her how for a couple of weekends, cost me two disks and a
pressure plate.....then the trans blew up. It's been automatic transmissions
since then.....

Steve & the Rockette
63 F100
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600, needs tube frame...
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
97 Contour, Mine

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:44:43 -0800 (PST)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

> ... for instance
>351W's use a different head bolt, so you would need a special one to put
>those heads on your 302 ...
>

You can use HARDENED washers to put 351W heads on a 302, as the locating
bushings are the same between the two motors, but they must be HARDENED
washers. The alternative is to have the 302 block drilled and tapped for
the 1/2"
head bolts of the 351W.

Today I went and looked at a '68 F100, 390ci, C6, long bed, dual tanks,
fresh heads,
good tires, body, front end, $750, SOLD!! Was used to tow a boat to Eastern
Wa. it's
entire life. The owner bought a new Diesel D*dge 4X4.....


Steve & the Rockette
63 F100
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600, needs tube frame...
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
97 Contour, Mine

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 22:48:51 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

In a message dated 11/2/1999 7:38:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jlagrone ford-trucks.com writes:


on this statement. The hot air crossover is only functional during warm up
while the exhaust heat riser valve on one bank is closed. When both exhausts
are wide open, there isn't a pressure differential to send anything through
there. >>

Gary is right. As long as there is a passage open to the hot exhaust gases
that passage will remain very close to the temperature of the hot gas. If
the heat into the manifold from the hot gases, after the heat riser valve is
open, should become less than heat removal by the fuel air mixture then a low
pressure area would exist (because cooler gases mean less pressure) and flow
from the higher pressure would bring more heat (BTUs) to keep the fuel air
temperature fairly constant (HOT enough to vaporize the fuel, liquid will not
burn no matter how small the droplets). The reason the heat riser valve
shuts is to provide a lot of heat (BTUs) until the metal in the manifold it
hot, but there a continues removal of that heat by the evaporation of the
fuel and some is picked up the by the air flow. Therefore if heat is
continuously being removed then heat has to be going in and a lot of that
heat is from the hot gases regardless of the position of the riser valve. As
I mentioned liquids do not burn, only vapors in a gaseous form. The carb is
set up to put in more gasoline than is normally required when cold, this is
because a larger percentage stays liquid and the spark plug will only
lite-off the VAPOR mixture if it is around 15 to 1. To get the plug to see
15 to 1 when cold a lot more fuel has to be dumped in because there is too
much liquid and not enough vapor.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 19:50:21 -0800
From: "S.Harkema"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dead cylinder

>What is the best way to check if you have a dead cylinder?`

I use a timing light to trouble shoot ignition problemsClip the light to
each wire one at a time.The dead one won't make the timing light blink.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:49:36 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

In a message dated 11/2/1999 9:18:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gpeters3 visteon.com writes:


Smokey Yanuk proved that with his 240 hp, 40 mpg 4 cylinder test car. He
used a series of "Grinder" pumps to atomize the fuel, a heater to bring the
charge within a few degrees of detonation and a super or turbo charger to....


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.