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 #402
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 402



=======================================================================
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 - Oil slingers & M blocks
FTE 61-79 - yugo facts?
FTE 61-79 - Rotors for 76 f-250
Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Cam Installation
RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
RE: FTE 61-79 - Dead cylinder
Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Miscellany
RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed
RE: FTE 61-79 - Stiff steering and tranny cooler
FTE 61-79 - What were they thinking ?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Stiff steering and tranny cooler
FTE 61-79 - Manifold Heat
Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
FTE 61-79 - Tires, gear ratios, effect on speedo
RE: FTE 61-79 - Dead cylinder
Re: FTE 61-79 - What were they thinking ?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Manifold Heat
FTE 61-79 - Re: Vibration Problem
FTE 61-79 - parts needed
FTE 61-79 - 262
Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
FTE 61-79 - OD
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
FTE 61-79 - Cam install in FE
Re:FTE 61-79 - Steering wheel mystery
FTE 61-79 - FE cam install
RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...
RE: FTE 61-79 - Auto -vs- NP435
RE: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
FTE 61-79 - steering col.and wheel
FTE 61-79 - Lord-going well HA!
Re: FTE 61-79 - Rotors for 76 f-250
RE: FTE 61-79 - Tires, gear ratios, effect on speedo
FTE 61-79 - front brake problems
Re: FTE 61-79 - steering col.and wheel
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cam install in FE
Re: FTE 61-79 - What were they thinking ?
FTE 61-79 - Project Status
FTE 61-79 - Unibody vs Styleside Same Year

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 06:58:38 EST
From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

Now that you mention it, I dont remember seeing one when I was working on my
tired ol 400. Was down in that area several times over the years. Ive still
got an old 400 mostly apart in the garage. If needed I can check for a
slinger to see if it's got one. I dont think it does though.

And no, Im sorry, you cant have mine (if it's there)!

George

In a message dated 11/02/1999 2:56:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
bbeyer pacifier.com writes:


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 04:40:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel DiMartino
Subject: FTE 61-79 - yugo facts?

i may be wrong but from what i remember the yugo factory bought
the plans for a fiat 127 and built the fine euro import known as
the yugo. i owned a spanish 127 (S.E.A.T) in spain and i will
swear it was the best beat box going. i sealed up all the
electrical stuff on the motor and water proofed it so i could do
my version of the "dukes of hazzard" on muddy dirt roads while
intoxicated. ah, yes the memories....


=====
Daniel DiMartino

1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 05:29:15 -0800 (PST)
From: JOSEPH SUITS
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rotors for 76 f-250

I am looking for a good set of front brake rotors for
a 1976 f-250 trailer special. the truck has the
double piston brakes. None of the Hardware stores in
this area can find them for me. I check all the local
junk yards and could not find any f-250s from that
vintage with double piston brakes. HELP!!!!

Any Suggestions



=====
Joe Suits

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:29:42 -0500
From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - FE Cam Installation

Okay...here's what I found out about my problem. First off, Thanks Terry for
sending me the info. It really helped.

The FE's OD of the cam is tapered with a standard ID. The cam journals should
be all the same size.

What I've found out is that the cam still won't go in no matter which end goes
first. I tried to install it in the correct orientation with no success, then
flipped the cam 180 and I have the same problem. That tells me the cam is most
likely okay and that I have a problem with a bearing.

I'm calling the machine shop today and will drop it off tomorrow afternoon.
I'll get you an update as soon as I find out anything.

Thanks,

- -Ted





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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:12:54 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

> >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.
>

I heard somewhere that there was a company making special bolts to do the
trick, I thought those sounded like the easiest for what most of us do to
our motors ... they are the smaller diameter for the block side and have a
large shank to hold the head securely ... don't remember who made them
though :(

> 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.....
>

Sold to you, or some one else ? Congrats if you got it, sounds like a great
truck ...

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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:14:26 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: 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.


Wow, this sounds like the least painful so far ... good thinkin!

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: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:20:10 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

William S. Hart wrote:
>
> > >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.
> >
>
> I heard somewhere that there was a company making special bolts to do the
> trick, I thought those sounded like the easiest for what most of us do to
> our motors ... they are the smaller diameter for the block side and have a
> large shank to hold the head securely ... don't remember who made them
> though :(
>
They also sell sleeves to use the stock 302 head bolts.

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:13:53 -0500
From: "Clem Salek"
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.
>>





You're right!... I've laid on the cold hard ground to change a snapped
clutch fork, among other snowplowing mishaps. Sometimes using the
greaseable throw-out bearings can extend bearing life. Seems like I'm
swapping motors or rebuilding gear cases too often, and never end up letting
the clutch go to it's full useful life anyway.

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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:49:57 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Miscellany

Okay, all this discussion prompted me to pull out my trusty "Tractors and
their Power Units" book ...

"The temperature at which an engine operates affects both fuel economy and
wear. Fuel consumption tests showed increasing specific fuel consuption as
the jacket temperature was decreased from 93deg to 38deg C."

So that shows that yes indeed, fuel needs to be heated ... those numbers are
roughly 200deg F and 100deg F ... unfortunately no graph is provided to
show what those effects are ... there is a graph showing wear based on temp
though, not that that helps us any ...

The next couple of sentences are the ones that got me though ...
"A change in jacket temperature when the engine was operating at near
maximum load affected the specific fuel consumption very little, whereas
decreasing the temperature at light loads affected it considerably. The
increase in specific fuel consumption wiht a decrease in engine temperature
at low loads was attributed to lower manifold temperatures."

To me this explains why the big - high horsepower motors don't care about
the heat of the manifold, under heavy loads it doesn't matter, so the cooler
air will actually make a denser charge and work better than the warmer air
will ... I realize they aren't worried about gas mileage, but they are
worried about efficiencies ... at any rate since at cruise nearly all our
vehicles (except maybe those Yugo's yesterday) are at a very light load
compared with their maximum power, hence they are severly affected by
manifold temps.

Is this affect enough to get me to switch to a 195 or 200 deg thermostat
instead of th 180 ... no probably not, but I thought it was interesting to
note ...

Also interesting, (this was all in the cooling section) was that
occasionally people ask how much the temp difference should be between the
top of the rad. and the bottom (or across if you flow that way) ...

"...with a temperature drop through the radiator of 5.5deg to 8.5degC may be
assumed..."

so there ya go ... 10 to 15 deg F drop from top to bottom ...

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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:56:04 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

Discuss, discuss, discuss :-) I think the point being made here is that a
302 will never be a 351 no matter what kind of head you put on it. This
same head on the 351 will make more power at a lower rpm so will produce
more torque regardless. The 351 has 50 cubes on the 302 and the difference
is in the stroke which pretty much guarantees more torque all by itself, all
other things being equal. (got to throw that in or someone will try to show
how I'm wrong by taking it out of context :-))

Comparing a stock 302 of a given year and a 351W from the same year will
certainly prove this out regardless of how they are applied with the
possible exception of a roller HO or Boss 302 which is hardly what we could
consider "Stock" even though they came from the factory. The 351W will have
more power and torque in any case if the basic design parameters are the
same :-) Put a roller cam and hot parts in the windsor, then compare it to
the Boss or HO 302, see what I mean?

The 351 heads improve the intake flow of the 302 thus giving it a new lease
on life but it's still JUST a 302 :-)

- --
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
- --

> > 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 ?

> Just something to ponder, not really meant to start any
> discussions about
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 08:31:02 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 302 info needed

>>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 ...

I will have to do some checking here. I have been fooled before by looks.

- -- 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: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:15:23 -0600
From: David.R.John deluxe.com
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stiff steering and tranny cooler

I wrote:

> questions to the pile :--). What will cause my steering to be stiff?
> When I turn to wheel it is kind of easy, hard, kind of
> easy.... But mostly
> it is hard.

Gary wrote:

>>Rear Steering shaft Ujoint, for sure! :-) I bought a new pump due to
this
>>same thing only to discover that there was no improvement. I had never
had
>>a setup with ujoints so it didn't occur to me right away.

Now I say:
You were exactly right!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well kind of.....you didn't think that
I would be able to get it freed up with WD40 :--). Actually I think I just
got lucky for once and had something go right. I just sprayed with WD40,
take tire iron pry and wiggle the joint with it still hooked up, turn the
steering wheel a bunch, spray with WD40, pry and wiggle, turn and turn ....
(boy I bet the neighbors thought I was weird :--))

I put the cooler in last night too, and it went smooth too. Maybe I should
buy some lottery tickets!!! I ended up putting the cooler after the
radiator to get a little more cooling. Even though I live in MN, I fear my
tranny running hot due to my 2 and 1/2" dual exhaust running about an inch
away from my tranny. Does anyone think I need a heat shield there or is
this how it is??

Thanks again!!!!

David John
78 F250 4x4 Supercab 460 "cool" C6 and smoooooth steering!!!
78 F250 4x4 regular cab 400 parts truck

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:18:10 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - What were they thinking ?

Well I've been kind of whining all summer that no one would ever "race" me
in my Mustang ... or my truck for that matter (nothing but sports cars out
when I drive the truck, nothing but trucks out when I drive the car ... its
a conspiracy I tell you ...)

I finally got the truck almost completely ready for winter ... since putting
the new motor in it has taken me forever to get enough miles and heat/cool
cycles to get the gaskets seated in the oil pan and valve covers ... got
those done finally I think, and topped off the brake fluid and oil, and the
fuel ...

On the way home, I was catchin all the lights green (gotta love that!),
there was a car sitting at one that was going to turn as I got there, so I
changed lanes even though mine ended in 1/2 mile so I wouldn't have to slow
down as much ... light took longer than I thought so I had to hit the brakes
a bit hard ... from 50 down to 35 or so ... he nails his grand am in an
attempt to pin me in this lane ... the truck never shifted out of third and
just walked away from him (gotta love low end torque :)

Then he rode my butt (what on earth can you see when you follow a 4x4 pickup
that closely? a couple exhaust pipes I suppose) and to top it off, he
turned about 1/4 mile after the road narrowed ... I would have killed him if
he'd beat me and then I'd had to wait for him to turn ...

So then today on the way into work I bring the truck again ... going down
another 4 lane, some dork in a civic cuts me off as we are coming to a stop
sign so I have to get on the brakes pretty hard (it was tempting to not hit
them at all) ... catch him just for fun, end up passing him after we turned
... we both turn again onto a twisty hill that is 4 lane, and I'm leading,
but he's gunnin that little 4banger for all its worth, so I lay into the 4V
(note that's barrels not valves or cylinders:) and proceed to just walk away
from him in the twisties too ... lots of body roll though, I'd forgotten how
much there is in that truck with the new front springs ... this guy turned
onto a 2lane behind me then, and before I knew it he had turned ... again
I'd have had to wait for him to turn if I'd been behind him ...

You would think that would be the end of it right ? After all its only
about 15 miles to work ...

Some dork in a LeSabre (I was shakin believe you me) tries to get the hole
shot from the right lane (ends 1 block from the light) by starting a few
feet behind me ... the 390 hauled up to 30 with plenty of time to spare, I
didn't even bother flooring it (yes the tires spin then), and actually
thought about letting off just to make him stop so the car behind me could
get in front too, but I didn't ...

Sure enough, we go a few blocks, he turns too ... what is up with that? Do
you guys race someone off the light then turn in front of them? its a big
pet peeve when I'm in my truck 'cause the 4 drum brakes just don't stop as
well as the discs on most cars ... not to mention the extra mass ...

Anyway that's my rant for today ... and thanks to this list for all the help
putting the motor together and keeping things tuned/running right :)

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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:24:01 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stiff steering and tranny cooler

> tranny running hot due to my 2 and 1/2" dual exhaust running about an inch
> away from my tranny. Does anyone think I need a heat shield there or is
> this how it is??
>

With the air flow under the truck, I wouldn't think it would be a big issue
... also that is likely a straight section of pipe, which means it won't
create/give off as much heat as if it were at a corner ... it probably
wouldn't be too hard to make a shield if you couldn't find one easily, but I
probably wouldn't worry about it unless you spend lots of time sitting in
traffic not moving ... even then I probably wouldn't, but that's just me ...

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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:29:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Ballinger
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Manifold Heat

>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 :-)

One thing we might seperate in this debate is the
meaning of "running better."

Drivability from cold to fully warm is what we're
talking about here, am I correct? The introduction of
a heated carb/intake is reduce the amount of choke
needed to keep an engine running smooth when cold, and
as part of a syncronization of automatic chokes to
shorten the time it needs it to the time the choke is
set to deliver. If you have a hot air choke,
(electric chokes pretty well act the same way) the
exhaust temp jumps up pretty consistantly and the time
it influences the choke is fairly well the same within
it's range. So how do you deal with a 50 degree
temperature and 50 percent humidity swing? A manual
choke , you just leave the choke out till it runs
funny (burns alot of gas) You can only get so far with
spring pressure on the auto choke until you hurt it in
warm weather (keeping the choke on too long)

There's no doubt that bringing up the intake tract to
operating temperature as quick as possible is going to
improve drivability. The fuel drops are smaller and
don't "clump up," and if the air into the carb is
heated or a direct butterfly heat is applied there
will be no tendency to "ice up" in cold weather. I've
found that in cool damp weather it helps too, probably
because it dries everything out. So it syncronizes
the ambient air temp to the time and degree of the
choke available, and makes drivability more
consistant.

Fuel mileage will improve because you don't have to
have the choke shut every time you start the engine.

Now the other side of the coin is this. When you get
fully warmed up and the engine has reached it's peak
ability to burn fuel it wants cool air to increase the
density of the charge, (this applies to normal outside
conditions, not extremely cold weather, but will to
apply to hot weather) because the warmed charge
droplets have swung to the opposite end of the
spectrum and are too small for peak performance,
likely due to reduced oxygen density in the warm air.
(I'm no expert on chemistry, I'm just figgering here
by my own lights) The exhaust heat in the intake
manifold isn't needed any more, since the chambers can
now burn what ever you feed them, and the intake tract
has reached harmony in temp with the rest of the
engine.

So the devices in place to provide temperature
elevation during warm up, have to go away when it's
warm or it will hurt the performance of the engine. A
warm engine needs cool dense air, and will make more
power if the intake tract is kept cool.

The idea is to make constant and syncronous the
density of the charge to the ability of the engine to
digest the mixture. Whether cool or warm. Constant
heat to the intake tract won't do this, and neither
will none. It's a balance to be achieved.




=====

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 07:37:07 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

If you could check to see if it has one I'd appreciate it. I'm kinda stuck
on this rebuild until I can figure out where to get one or if I even need
one.

Thanks,

Bill

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks


> Now that you mention it, I dont remember seeing one when I was working on
my
> tired ol 400. Was down in that area several times over the years. Ive
still
> got an old 400 mostly apart in the garage. If needed I can check for a
> slinger to see if it's got one. I dont think it does though.



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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:43:21 -0600
From: David.R.John deluxe.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Tires, gear ratios, effect on speedo

If anyone can straighten this out for me you all can. My truck originally
had 4.10 gears now it has 3.54's this will have approx. a 16% effect on my
speedo right? (4.10/3.54=1.158) Therefore I am going 16% faster than my
speedo says right?

Now the next effect, tires: the sticker on the door says tires ==>
9.50-16.5D rims ==> 15.5x6.75 I don't know what size tire this setup is
but there were 31x10.5R16.5LT tires on the truck which I just replaced with
255x85r16 on 16" rims. I figure the height of the tire to be about 33"
leaving out the contact patch and all that stuff :--) Am I correct
(providing the tires that were on there were pretty close to stock height
that the new tires will have another 6% effect on my speedo? (33/31=1.065)

Can I now add these 2 effect together and say that my speedo is now telling
me I am going 22% slower than I am actually going?

I am approximating some stuff here so don't rip on me, but am I close or
just full of it?

Thanks again,

David John
78 F250 4x4 Supercab 460 C6

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 10:46:41 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Dead cylinder

Won't tell you if the plug, valves, rings, piston are dead though :-( Only
tells you if you have spark "to" the plug :-)

Seems like those diagnostic computer things have a way to catch the spark to
a specific plug and ground it for this test? Course that setup only costs
$25,000.00 :-(

- --
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
- --

> > >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.
>
>
> Wow, this sounds like the least painful so far ... good thinkin!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:17:38 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - What were they thinking ?

i love it when someone pulls out in front of me, in my old beat up blue 78
f150 4x4 w/5" of lift
35" tires and a hellacious winch bumper, i slow down just enough to keep the
bumper in their rear view mirror.

figured i'd grow out of being that way, but most of them are in a hurry to
pull out in front of you, then go about 40 in a 55 and then turn 1/4 mile
down the road.
usually its some teenager in a mini truck or foreign car. of course i do
respect my elders.

jeff grant


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:20:21 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Manifold Heat

It will make more power at WOT but not at cruise or idle. Both of these
conditions require the most advance and also the leanest mixture which also
requires the best vaporization which is why the flapper in the inlet snout
is vacuum operated. When the vacuum drops at WOT the flapper closes off the
hot air and you get only cold air. The increased volume of the colder air
passing over the plenum floor also cools the metal of the plenum so the "hot
spot" has negligeable effect on the temp of the charge but the walls of the
manifold remain warm enough to prevent condensation so you get the best of
both when you need them :-)

If you run strictly cold everything you will notice a marked drop in economy
and sluggish cruise performance due to these issues. Unless you re-curve
the dizzy, both mechanical and vacuum advance, you will have to run timing
which is not the best and mixture which is not the best to get the
performance back where you want it at cruise and then the timing issue will
rear it's ugly head at lower speeds and affect driveability. Like I keep
saying, there is no free lunch but the OEM's have done a good job in
providing 3 balanced meals in most touring engines by using the above
strategies.

One place I've noticed this difference is in the light throttle, cruise,
small amounts of throttle change such as when passing traffic where they run
radar so you can only get a couple of MPH over the guy you're passing or
slowly building speed from lower rpms in high gear etc.. With hot air and
proper vacuum as well as OEM stock dizzy you have excellent throttle
response in this case but with totally cold intake and stock dizzy curves,
throttle response here is very sluggish and unpredictable. The neat thing
about this is that you can have your cake and eat it too because if you set
up the intake system correctly you will also be able to get good power at
WOT. Again, you can't mix racing application and street application in the
same engine but you can certainly gain enough WOT power to keep most of us
happy and have good economy at the same time :-)

BTW, I just got my hands on a 71 (GM) rochester carb. No choke on it but
the throttle lever is exactly what I need to fit a ford link and on the
right side too :-) Now all I need is a book and a new manifold :-) How
does $50 sound to you guys? (doesn't matter, I thought it was a pretty good
price :-)) I may be hollering at ya shortly Bill for some advice :-)

- --
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
- --

> So the devices in place to provide temperature
> elevation during warm up, have to go away when it's
> warm or it will hurt the performance of the engine. A
> warm engine needs cool dense air, and will make more
> power if the intake tract is kept cool.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:34:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Vibration Problem

The whole truck chattered on take off, and did a rock
and roll at idle. It was smooth and powerful at mid
RPM. What happens is the valves rotate and seat
sometimes, and sometimes not. At idle it is like a
wild cam, but more random. At higher RPM it happens so
fast that it seems smooth because it is dampened. My
motor sat for many years, the seats rusted. Did yours
sit for any length of time?

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C-4V

>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
>thecab.
>- --- 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: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:21:18 EST
From: JJJJJGRANT aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - parts needed

i need an oil pan and pick up tube for a 351m or 400m in a 78-79 4x4, i
ordered a rebuilt 400 for the f250 extended cab, someone put a front sump oil
pan in the truck
and it has made contact a time of two.

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:23:08 +0100
From: "Bill Brox"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 262

Hi all.

Are there any info about the 262 truck engine from 1964 on the net. And are
there any I6 Ford truck engine books out to the public ?
Is this 262 truck engine in the 223 family ? Or where does it belong ?

Bill


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:39:56 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

>From: "Bill Beyer"
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks
>
>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.

Yo Bill:

You can get an oil slinger that is listed for the 351C and early production 400
(#D0AZ-6310-A). I know of a dealer in the Denver area that actually has them
in stock for about $4.50.

>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

Personally, the only time I have ever seen an oil slinger on an M-block was in a
400 from a 1973 LTD that had never been opened up. I have not found an oil
slinger in several later model M-blocks (77-up), either 351M or 400. I believe
that Ford quit using the oil slinger after the first few years of M-block
production, maybe even as early as the introduction of the 351M in 1975. I have
never used an oil slinger on the M-blocks I've rebuilt.

>or does everybody just
>swap in a 460?

Not me.

Dave R (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 08:53:18 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

Dave your a life saver man! Thanks a lot. I'm not gonna put on the slinger
if I don't need it. I just spent $10 for a lousy front pump seal for the
tranny which I'm going to replace while I have the motor out of the truck so
I'm not gonna spend anymore money at the dealer than I have to. Thanks
again.

Bill

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


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Resch
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks


> Yo Bill:
>
> You can get an oil slinger that is listed for the 351C and early
production 400
> (#D0AZ-6310-A). I know of a dealer in the Denver area that actually has
them
> in stock for about $4.50.
>
> Personally, the only time I have ever seen an oil slinger on an M-block
was in a
> 400 from a 1973 LTD that had never been opened up. I have not found an
oil
> slinger in several later model M-blocks (77-up), either 351M or 400. I
believe
> that Ford quit using the oil slinger after the first few years of M-block
> production, maybe even as early as the introduction of the 351M in 1975.
I have
> never used an oil slinger on the M-blocks I've rebuilt.



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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:56:45 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

There are maintenance issues I would think and while simple it would still
be difficult to do on an assembly line and have all your ducks in a row plus
the temp problem you pointed out etc.. Water injection is simple too but no
OEM ever used it I know of? Probably some kind of conspiracy to keep oil
companies in business, eh?

I used to read all that kind of stuff. I still have quite a library but
most of the info is now more or less defunct, like me :-(

The grinder pump was the word he used in the book and I thought I remembered
reading about more than one being used in that setup? Pretty rusty on this
right now. Read this about 10 years ago :-) Maybe he had more than one
design? Maybe yours was a streamlined version? Not sure :-)

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


> I take exception about complex since in 1983 I built a
> prototype similar to
> Smokey's using data from Smokey. It was then and is now very
> simple.

> I was beginning
> to think no one knew about some of these projects. What's a
> grinder pump?
> The turbo homogenized the mixture.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:05:47 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - OD

Steve S. writes: >>I have located a bolt on OD for a C-6 2wd,

Tell us more about this "Bolt on " OD for C6!!!!! Inquireing minds want to
know!!!!!!!!



Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:23:07 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

Thank you Burt :-) I am running on fumes here since I haven't actually
studied any of this in over 10 years and am going from memory. Since I have
never really had time or money to experiment with this stuff I am spouting
theory mostly but have had some experience with some of these things at
various times. I did quite a bit of messing with the 460 when I first built
it and started with what I thought were matched ports but didn't match them
correctly so had some reversion. I also sealed off the crossover, removed
the EGR and intake snout and the biggest mistake of all was I put a Holley
on it :-( I re-curved the dizzy (actually took the curve out of it :-)),
played with jets and transition circuits and rear gears to no avail.

When I put the same engine in my Pickup I cleaned up some of the port
mismatch by putting a stock, untamperedwith spread bore, OEM, hot cross over
manifold with OEM spread bore carb on it, bought a junk dizzy from a 70
vintage 385 series engine and left the dang thing alone! and added headers
along with hot air intake. Originally it had the 2 into 1 in this truck
till they fell off and it ran like a scared rabbit. I put headers on with
no other changes and lost about 15 mph in second and got some backfiring to
boot but otherwise it runs as well as before. In the van I got 6 mpg, in
the pickup I get 12. The van had standard ratio C-6 with 4.11 gears, the pu
has wide ratio and 2.75 gears and believe it or not runs much better
including off the line.

Not very scientific but I've gleaned a few things from all this and most of
it has been posted in this discussion :-)

Most important thing I learned is DON'T LOSE THE BLACK SPRING IN THE DIZZY!
There is no replacement for it's exact characteristics :-( I had 30 springs
and not one would duplicate the curve I had with that one which I lost when
the pliers slipped :-( One thing I have yet to test is the 38 degree total
advance concept. Ford dizzy's go up to about 21 degrees in the mechanical
advance. I looked through every cam we had in the plant and that was the
largest number I could find so to get 38 degrees with only 10 initial you
have to open up the slots in the cam wings or figure out how to make it run
with 17 degrees of initial advance :-(

- --
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
- --

> 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.

> As I mentioned liquids do not burn, only vapors in a gaseous
> form.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:13:19 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cam install in FE

Ted Freeman writes: >>The only things I know to check are: Cam bearing
diameter, Cam bearing size, or
a bent cam. Anything else I'm missing or need to check? I'd like to get all my
facts together before I contact the machine shop.

I'm a bit behind, and you probably already have it in, but here is one thing to
look at: Look into all the lifter holes to see if you can locate the "pink"
sound as you move it just slightly in/out. Might be something in one of the
lifter bores. If the lobes go in one cam bearing, then they ought to go in all
the cam bearings. Rotate the cam as you insert it. This usually helps!!!!
Thats all I can think of.

Really sorry to hear about Chinquepin being under water. That must be a
completely helpless and devestating feeling.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.



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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:28:54 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny"
Subject: Re:FTE 61-79 - Steering wheel mystery

"steve potratz" wrote:

> 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.

There's definitely no power-steering on this truck. Wrasslin' this
steering wheel, especially in and out of tight parking places, is what
keeps me in prime physical shape.

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:26:26 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE cam install

Ted F. writes: >>I was wondering if they were stepped. I assumed that the ID
would all be the
same. Guess that's what happens when I assume stuff. I bought the cam from the
same shop that installed my bearings I would have thought that they would've
checked. I also noticed in the shop manual that each bearing has a different
part number and said they had to be put in in a the right order or bearing
damage would occur. I guess they are stepped.

Naw!!! Don't think so. Going from memory, here and sometimes that is really
way off, but the book only list one cam bearing size for all the journals, I
think. I believe this to be true on all Ford Engines. Same cam bearing journal
diameter for all the journals on the cams for each family of engines.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:31:26 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Mileage and Vacuum

They actually do a little of both. The design of the jets tends to beat the
fuel up atomizing it somewhat but also restricts the total flow into the
venturis as well. The annular discharge nozzles were added to atomize it
even further and also help to evenly distribute the smaller droplets around
the venturi for a more consistant mixture.

- --
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 thought the purpose of jets was to meter the amount of
> fuel and had
> nothing to do with atomizing the mixture?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:38:13 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clutches and things...

Plowing will probably cause autos to over heat so the stick is the better
choice there just as in mud running. Working a truck as hard as you do to
plow snow I would not expect 100k mileage from clutches or gear boxes or
throw out bearings, syncros would be shot pretty quickly in second gear I
should think :-) If you pay attention to the sounds and do some maintenance
I should think lying on the ground could be eliminated. I usually put mine
up on the hoist for this........:-) (think before responding, it's a trick
statement :-))

- --
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
- --

>
> possible between clutch overhauls (with no real abuse) who
> really cares.
> >>
>
> pulled the
>
>
>
>
> You're right!... I've laid on the cold hard ground to change a snapped
> clutch fork, among other snowplowing mishaps.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:42:40 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Auto -vs- NP435

YES! Where do you live? You did say it was in a 429 right?

- --
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
- --

> columns) Anybody need
> a balenced clutch plate and brand new clutch set/throwout bearing?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:44:24 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

I'd use the slinger if there is one for it. I wish the 460 had one.....or
does it? You'd be surprised how much oil it keeps off the seal and the
ground :-)

- --
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
- --

> Dave your a life saver man! Thanks a lot. I'm not gonna put
> on the slinger
> if I don't need it. I just spent $10 for a lousy front pump
> seal for the
> tranny which I'm going to replace while I have the motor out
> of the truck so
> I'm not gonna spend anymore money at the dealer than I have to. Thanks
> again.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 10:57:44 -0700
From: William Whited
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Oil slingers & M blocks

Gary, I've seen some in some mags I think I can look again if you'd like?

William A Whited
74 F100 Ranger Supercab 390
77 F150 Custom 460

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

> I'd use the slinger if there is one for it. I wish the 460 had one.....or
> does it? You'd be surprised how much oil it keeps off the seal and the
> ground :-)
>
> --
> 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
> --
>
> > Dave your a life saver man! Thanks a lot. I'm not gonna put
> > on the slinger
> > if I don't need it. I just spent $10 for a lousy front pump
> > seal for the
> > tranny which I'm going to replace while I have the motor out
> > of the truck so
> > I'm not gonna spend anymore money at the dealer than I have to. Thanks
> > again.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:03:45 -0500
From: "Gary L. Perry"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - steering col.and wheel

Denny, I'll bet your cab mounts are gone, cab settled, pushing
on steering column and pushing out of place. VERY common
on old Fords. OR maybe someone replaced column with wrong
type, as not all are interchangeable between 2 and 4 wheel and
others, and shaft is wrong length. Having trouble with shifter?
another indication of cab mount probs.
"G"

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:07:10 -0500
From: "Gary L. Perry"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Lord-going well HA!

Didn't you notice some NOISE sometime in your trucks life?
How you could drive it everyday w/out realizing something
wasn't right is beyond me. 4x4 much?
"G"

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:15:46 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Rotors for 76 f-250

> I am looking for a good set of front brake rotors for
> a 1976 f-250 trailer special. the truck has the
> double piston brakes. None of the Hardware stores in
> this area can find them for me. I check all the local
> junk yards and could not find any f-250s from that
> vintage with double piston brakes. HELP!!!!
>
> Any Suggestions

> Joe Suits
............

Last year I bought new rotors for my 69 F250 with dual piston calipers
when I did my power disc brake conversion (front drum brakes seem
"dangerous" to me). Although they were a special order item, many of the
local "auto parts stores" (not hardware stores) would have been happy to
order a pair. You should be able to purchase rotors for your 76 F250 from
any number of locations (Checker Auto, AutoZone, Pep Boys, Napa, etc...)

Danger
danger csolutions.net


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:21:00 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tires, gear ratios, effect on speedo

Since 1.158 and 1.065 are ratios which act on each other I would say you
multiply them to get the final ratio of change just as you do when combining
the ratios of the rear end, tranny and transfer case but either way you come
up with only 1% difference so take your pick :-)

Adding you get 22.3% and multiplying you get 23.327% :-) I believe you will
find that the original tires were not 31" diameter though, probably only 30"
I believe my daughter's 97 has 17" wheels on it and her tires are just about
30"

- --
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
- --

> Can I now add these 2 effect together and say that my speedo
> is now telling
> me I am going 22% slower than I am actually going?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 09:29:12 -0900
From: Matthew Schumacher
Subject: FTE 61-79 - front brake problems

Hello All,

I am having some serious brake problems with my truck. It is a 76 F-150
with the dana 44 and disks up front. Anyway, it makes a
grinding/whinning sound going down the road, so I took it to a local
brake shop and they replaced the springs on the calipers and adjusted a
couple of things then sent me on my way. Well I got about 10 miles and
the truck started making the grinding sound again so I took the truck
back to the shop. This time they wanted to replace the front calipers,
turn the rotors, and put new pads on for $400. I told them that that
was to much and went to NAPA and bought a new caliper for the side that
was making the noise. I didn't turn the rotors because they where
turned 3 months before and it was still in really good shape. Well,
that lasted a while longer but then started making the grinding sound
again. The grinding sound lasted a couple of days and then went away,
now the other side is making noise.

note: I don't think it is front wheel bearings because it isn't
consistent at all, it isn't making a rubbing sound, and my brakes lock
up sometimes.

Here are the questions:

What exactly causes the brakes to grind against the rotors?
What should I do to fix the problem?

Thanks for any help you can send.

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:32:56 -0700
From: "Danger"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - steering col.and wheel

> Denny, I'll bet your cab mounts are gone, cab settled, pushing
> on steering column and pushing out of place. VERY common
> on old Fords. OR maybe someone replaced column with wrong
> type, as not all are interchangeable between 2 and 4 wheel and
> others, and shaft is wrong length. Having trouble with shifter?
> another indication of cab mount probs.
> "G"
..............

That's one bet I wouldn't make because...

I'm quite sure the heart of the problem with the gap between the
steering wheel & column is due to the cab mounts and/or bushings. The
steering assembly was not designed to hold the weight of the cab and damage
can be expected to occur to the lower column shaft bearings & retainer (flat
washers which holds lower bearings into place should be deformed). The
bearing housing on the bottom of the column could also be deformed/damaged.

The reason I'm so sure about this paticular problem is because I've
recently rebuilt both columns in my 69 F250's, and one of which was because
of the cab mount failure (other was broken shift collar on an automatic...
ouch!).

Of course it is possible that somebody has installed the wrong
shaft/column on the truck, but I doubt it very much.

Danger
danger csolutions.net



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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:32:31 -0500
From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cam install in FE

I'm heading to the machine shop Thursday afternoon. I don't know exactly whats
hitting. I'm sure they can figure it out.

About the only thing you could tell that Chiquapin was even there was the water
tower. "Welcome to Chiquapin" on the top and you could see a few roof tops here
and there. Most of our area is still trying to recover. My wifes aunt and a
cousin lost their house. We were just lucky.

- -Ted


I'm a bit behind, and you probably already have it in, but here is one thing to
look at: Look into all the lifter holes to see if you can locate the "pink"
sound as you move it just slightly in/out. Might be something in one of the
lifter bores. If the lobes go in one cam bearing, then they ought to go in all
the cam bearings. Rotate the cam as you insert it. This usually helps!!!!
Thats all I can think of.

Really sorry to hear about Chinquepin being under water. That must be a
completely helpless and devestating feeling.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.



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









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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 10:33:43 -0800
From: "Mike Sealey"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - What were they thinking ?

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:18:10 William S. Hart wrote:

(lotsa entertaining dork stories snipped)

>Sure enough, we go a few blocks, he turns too ... what is up with that? Do
>you guys race someone off the light then turn in front of them? its a big
>pet peeve when I'm in my truck 'cause the 4 drum brakes just don't stop as
>well as the discs on most cars ... not to mention the extra mass ...

In the cab business, we see this kinda behavior all the time, and refer to it as "compensation for phallic deficiency". (I know with the high intellectual level of the posts on this list -- another stereotype bites the dust! -- I won't have to explain further...)

Anyway, there's some kinda primal thing in some people that makes them act like they gotta strut whatever ineffectual "stuff" they have whenever faced with someone who looks like they might be having more fun in life. I don't see much of this in *my* truck, which is a clean older model with a camper shell that looks and sounds like it still belongs to its elderly first owner, but I do get it in the cab, and I do get it to a lesser degree in my cars from the '60s.

Mike Sealey
'75 F-150, '99 Windstar (taxicab)
and multiple non-FoMoCo vehicles


Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.angelfire.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 11:09:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Project Status

Here is the status of my project. This is in addition
to TCI IFS and Power Rack and Pinion Steering, Tilt....


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.