61-79-list-digest V3 #462

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 #462
Reply-To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest

ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest

ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk

61-79-list-digest Thursday, December 16 1999 Volume 03 : Number 462

=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo

ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

FTE 61-79 - F-350 HUBs
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
RE: FTE 61-79 - Lost my taillights
Re: FTE 61-79 - candian fords and manuals???
FTE 61-79 - Re: 460 in place of a 360?
FTE 61-79 - Rear axles.
FTE 61-79 - For sale on E-bay
FTE 61-79 - no tail lights
RE: FTE 61-79 - candian fords and manuals???
FTE 61-79 - Boring
FTE 61-79 - Re: Lost my taillights
FTE 61-79 - Old FE's to later mounts ?
FTE 61-79 - Choke setting
FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
FTE 61-79 - rings???
Re: FTE 61-79 - Boring
FTE 61-79 - choke setting
FTE 61-79 - "exhaust" pipes
Re: FTE 61-79 - rings???
FTE 61-79 - Central Florida List Members????
FTE 61-79 - FE "Shorties"/motor mounts
FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case
FTE 61-79 - Dirty oil
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400
[none]
Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F150 Clutch Question
RE: FTE 61-79 - "exhaust" pipes
FTE 61-79 - lost my tail lights
FTE 61-79 -
RE: FTE 61-79 - Boring
RE: FTE 61-79 - "exhaust" pipes
Re: FTE 61-79 - Boring
FTE 61-79 - reminder!!, Need "roadless" support by Dec 20th.
FTE 61-79 - 460 rebuilt (long)
FTE 61-79 - Re:rings???
FTE 61-79 - power steering
Re: FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case
RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for anything :-)
Re: FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case
FTE 61-79 - Economy gains?
RE: FTE 61-79 - candian fords and manuals???
Re: FTE 61-79 - For sale on E-bay
Re: FTE 61-79 - power steering
FTE 61-79 - Brand Loyalty

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:24:15 EST
From: GHOLSM

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - F-350 HUBs

Hey club it's me again, I am having trouble with my front Hubs again. I have
>a 1971 F-350 about a year ago or about 4000 miles my right front hub lugs
>became loose I found some on a 73 van that worked well now the left side is
>doing the same thing needless to say the van only had one on it can anyone
>tell what would cause this because this truck has a screamin' 360 and I am
>just about through with restoring the body and I don't want it to site
>another 6 months until I find another hub for it. It has eight lugs all
>around dually backend but different type heavy duty wheels on the front.
When
>I purchased the truck 3 years ago it had 16.5 wheels on the front and 15
inch
>one the rear I put 16 inch all around. HELP!!
>email me Gholsm

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:21:35 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

Ok, In my opinion it is still snake oil when you only gain a very small
percentage and generally only in one area of the rev range or another, not
the whole spectrum, and then have to pay what people pay for this stuff. If
you do it for the sound or looks then it's worth what ever you think it's
worth but if you do it for power then there are much better ways to spend
your power money in "MOST" cases.

What most newbies try to figure out is called "Resonant" tuning and this is
also what most manufacturers rely on in their hype but.........what they
eventually realize is that resonant tuning is only good for one, very narrow
RPM range. Every where else in the spectrum it is off in one direction or
another so in a touring or truck application it has "Zero" application,
ZERO! In this case, longer, smaller tubing is usually better and as long as
you have enough size to let the exhaust out at the highest rpm you normally
use you have enough. Special scavenging mufflers work but, again, only at a
specific rpm, and within a very narrow range. In a NASCAR application
resonant tuning has a very profound effect since they can predict with
extreme accuracy where they will need the most power and tune for that
specific rpm, usually in the 7-8k range. Most of us can only dream of that
kind of rpm and these engines make enough total hp to have plenty at the
bottom as well but their bottom is higher than our cruise. Even in this
case the majority of the tuning goes in to the heads, intake manifold, carb
and stacks, not the exhaust but in this case the exhaust does at least have
an impact worth considering.

I used stock manifolds with exhaust pipes going into one large muffler and a
single tail pipe. This was a "Designed" system made to work together by
Walker and is simply a cheap, after market 460 swap exhaust specifically
made for that purpose. So far this has been the most productive system on
that engine. Because I didn't have the truck manifold I had to weld a bunch
of kinks into it so it was by no means an efficient setup, jerry rigged to
say the least up to the muffler.

The headers are 1-3/4 tubes into a 2.5" system with the largest turbo
mufflers I could fit under there and full length, relatively straight pipe,
over the axle and out the back. I would guess my bottom end is as good as
ever but with a wide ratio c-6 and 460 who can tell? If it lost 50 hp I
wouldn't notice at the bottom :-) Where I lost it is in second gear,
passing traffic. It used to hit 90 in second if I left it past good reason
but it only got to 80 or so with any spunk even with 2 into 1. With headers
it nails 70 pretty well but then falls right off....real off with no other
changes but the headers and exhaust. If you think the system I just
described is restrictive I'd be interested in your opinion on what is not?

This, of course, is the beauty of the 460......you don't have to do anything
special to get bottom end with it unless you are dealing with a tank or huge
motor home etc... In a normal truck applicatin it has so much bottom end
you have to be carefull how you step on the gas most of the time so you
don't fry the tires. When I switch from my bird to the truck I squall the
tires at every stop untill I get my sea legs and not on purpose either but
the bird will fly right past it in the passing zone above 70 until it shifts
into high again so it can breath :-) I don't tune for top end either but
with 2.75 gears I should be able to wing it way past 70 in second........:-(
My old Ch**y 235, in line 6 would do 80 in second.....:-) (threw some rods
shortly after that though :-)) Festiva would do 80 in third (burned up the
exhaust valves doing that :-))

- --
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
- --

> > People still buy snake oil too and rhino (stupid spell checker
> > couldn't fix
> > Rhinosorous...:-)) horn and tiger tooth and..........It sells
>
> Did you ever do the 2 into 1 with headers though ? Sounds
> like you went
> from wide open to fairly restrictive again ...
>
>
> I thought the 460 ruled by itself and didn't need an exhaust
> though ? (sorry
> cheap shot,

> engine than top end on the street ... how's your low side
> performance ? How
> about mid-range? I don't build my truck for top end, that's
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:25:17 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Lost my taillights

Check your wiring from the front to the back and you will probably find a
spot that is green on the brown wire. What happens is the insulation cracks
and moisture gets in and corrodes the wire. Can't see it from the outside
but it's eaten away inside so look for the tyical green color that copper
corrosion causes :-)

No CB's in a 78 I know of :-)

- --
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
- --

> lights in back. This has me a little confused, since the
> brake lights and
> signals work just fine (are the side rear markers suppose to
> flash too,
> mine do in the back but not the front). Any guesses, I
> checked the manual
> and they said that the taillights is controled by a C.B.
> (circut breaker)
> and not a fuse. Where is that located?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:54:11 EST
From: TBeeee

aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - candian fords and manuals???

In a message dated 12/15/99 5:18:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
grunon

yahoo.com writes:

> anybody delt with a canadian ford before??

Danny:

Every Ford truck I own was built in the Ontario Canada Plant. The total
is 13 (give or take a few). They range from 1963 to 77. I have seen no
problem with any of the details while working on my 67's as far as the shop
manuals are concerned.

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---I need 15 x5 factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 2wd LWB Flare Side
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hometown.aol.com/tbeeee
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:56:22 -0500
From: Steve Schaefer
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 460 in place of a 360?

> Van cross member is completely different so stancheons won't cross over.
> Engine mounts might work though. Does this mount in the center of the
> engine? (side). Might just bolt right in in that case :-)

I am going to try to set the motor and hope things line up.

> Worst case is you will need the L&L mounts to convert the 360 to 460 using
> stock stancheons. Since it's out of a van you already have the proverbial
> and highly esteemed passenger side exhaust manifold so pipes might even bolt
> up with a little fiddling, probably not though :-(

Unfortunatly the manifolds were already swiped:-(. Found aftermarket headers, using copper
headere gaskets and aluminum collector gaskets (I hate header leaks).

> You will need the tranny for the 460 as well and probably new drive shafts
> depending on how much difference there is between the over all length with
> tranny installed etc...

I got the tranny from the ambulance, rebuilt with the SVO wide ratio kit, added a Gearvender
overdrive (stole it from someone that did not know what he had, for $400), so I know that the
driveshaft will have to be modified. Add the fact that I will be added 30" to the wheel
base, and the driveshafte is a big issue.

Thanks
Steve S.
76 F-350 Crewcab
77 F-250 Supercab
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/8663/

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:14:28 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rear axles.

Kelley McD. writes: >>I found a parted out '77 Super Cab f150 with the
entire rear end under it (maybe even the
driveshaft, hope, hope). It's in one of those junk yards run by a 90 year
old man that
lives on the premises. I can have it for $100 if I jack it up out of the
dirt and take
it off. Sounds good to me, if it will fit the '75.

Never fooled around with the Supercabs, but they should be the same. I've
swapped them around between the '73 thru '77 models about everywhich way
they can be swapped on the regular cabs, and never ran into a problem.
'79's have wider springs, and I think this started in '78, but can't be
sure.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:21:02 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - For sale on E-bay

Saw this one on e-bay. Gotta check it out. Someone bought it in 58 and
then parked it. It has 14,000 original miles, original belts, hoses and
tires on it.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=217339463
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:54:21 -0800 (PST)
From: ECSTrucking

webtv.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - no tail lights

david
i read that some one else said chk your light sockets in back for power,
i'd chk that first cause those sockets do get corroded. but the light
switch does have two internal breakers inside.one for the headlights and
one for the tail lights/dash lights. how do i know? lets say that i was
a very curious young man at one time with not alot of money and took the
switch apart needless to say i did have to buy a new switch but did
discover that there are two breakers
inside !!!!! my damn ego!! oh well good luck and may the electricity
gods smile one on you!
Chris

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:51:31 -0500
From: Marvin Meyer
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - candian fords and manuals???

I don't quite understand the question regarding manuals,...... if you mean
they are in metric.........no they are in imperial measurements.
Engineering drawings came from Detroit. We (Oakville ) provided the
building and manpower to assemble them.
meyer

strat.net

> anybody delt with a Canadian ford before??

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:10:21 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Boring

Ox writes: >>I measured my bores last night and they seem to be within
.002 taper.
I did not measure actual dia of the bores. My local machine shop claims
anything over .008 will need to be bored. Tom Monroes book says anything
over .004. I was thinking of just honing them at home, since this is
going to be the el-cheapo of all rebuilds. I only need the motor to last
until Oct. I only pulled it apart due to bad rod bearings. What rings do
you think I should use? Motor has 146K and ran fine (cept for part
throttle rattle which turned out to be rod bearings).

If I only wanted to "Get by" for less than a year, I would check the bore
size for consistency, and just put oversized rings on standard pistons, if
the bore was only a little larger than specs allow. I'm quite sure you can
still get rings in .005" oversized. I know I've done this on several
engines long ago when $100 was a very big issue. I built a 292 once when I
was in these circumstances and the bore was .010" too large. I installed
.010" oversized rings on the standard pistons and I put 70,000 more miles
on it before it started using oil again. It always had a piston slap when
cold, but it never did any damage. When it went down the last time I got
rid of it(the engine, that is).

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:18:12 -0600
From: David.R.John

deluxe.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Lost my taillights

Sparky Wrote:
>ps
>Just had another thought. Do the taillights and the marker lights flash
>when you turn the ts on? If so you are missing the ground for the light
>sockets and you are probably missing the 12volts to the taillights.
>Corrosion is not our friend when it comes to electricity ;)

Sparky,

That is exactly what is happening. I will try to track down my grounding
problem this weekend. Atleast I now feel confident in what I am looking
for, even though it may not be all that easy to find.

Thanks a lot!!!!!!!!!!

David

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:17:11 -0600
From: ballingr

bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Old FE's to later mounts ?

>Hi all- Anybody out there remember what has to be done to >an older 390
>(pre-63) to adapt the later model motor mounts to the >block ? Seems like a
>little plate or something, but don't remember.
I>'ve got a buddy that needs to know.........Hello, Bill ??
>Thanx, Phil ( the 60's are all a blur now )

You'll have to make an adapter plate. A good piece of 1/4 inch flat plate
that will bolt to the block with a 1/8 (if I remember right, might have been
3/16) inch strip welded well on the bolt side of the plate in the same spot
the later mounts bolted that will ride against the block and will make up
for the potrusions of the bosses like the later block had that aren't there,
and will allow the bolts some extra depth.

The engine will ride a little bit higher than original, but it works.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:32:51 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Choke setting

Rob N. writes: >>If it is (supposed to be closed all the way) then it is
probably not adjusted or it is binding on something.

In my experiences, the butterfly on the choke needs to be completely
shut(not shut very tight, but shut completely) when the temperature is
below say around 45-50 degrees and the vehicle has been setting long enough
for the engine to be at ambient temperature. The flow of air will pull it
open just slightly when the engine fires up. You will have to experiment
with where the best overall setting is for choke and fast idle cam for your
particular engine/vehicle/driving. If you get it too tight then you have a
flooding problem after it runs for a few minutes, and you are experiencing
the problems you have with it set too lightly, in my opinion.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:29:32 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

>> The fact is, on a touring engine, one that sees zero to
4500 rpm or so, once you have "enough" room in the pipe for the gases to get
out you have done all you can do

Well, maybe. From a historical perspective, if you go back and examine the
exhaust mainfold design on V8s, you will see how they have evolved from some
pretty weird looking monstrous cast iron devices that flow up and opposite
directions front to back, then turn down to the more modern everybody goes
the same direction manifold. (You English teachers can diagram that
sentence!) Most modern exhaust manifolds look like headers and act like
headers. To save weight, a lot of them aren't even cast iron, they are
headers. I have had a lot of experiences replacing mufflers over the years.
The el cheapo after market restrictive standard mufflers always cause a drop
in performance when they are first installed. IMNSHO, you want a free
flowing outbound, limited flowing inbound system. You will also get better
flow from true duals without a balance tube. Now before you light the flame
throwers, I said better flow, not necessarily better performance.

- -- John
jlagrone

daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>

> If I only wanted to "Get by" for less than a year, I would check the bore
> size for consistency, and just put oversized rings on standard pistons, if
> the bore was only a little larger than specs allow. I'm quite sure you can
> still get rings in .005" oversized.

Yes, I've looked at this, but I'm guessing I would have to take off
quite a bit during honing to allow for even .005 oversize rings and, my
pistons were not slapping, so I'd rather not introduce myself to that. I
measured my 351m pistons and 400 pistons last night. They all seem to be
about the same dia, so if I didn't have piston slap before, I don't
think I will now, unless I go crazy honing. I had the 400 running
briefly before I stole the crank,rods and pistons out of it and it had
no slap or knocks. The rattle in my 351M turned out to be rod bearings,
as they were a good bit undersize from spec, on the order of .006-.008.

I know I've done this on several
> engines long ago when $100 was a very big issue. I built a 292 once when I
> was in these circumstances and the bore was .010" too large. I installed
> .010" oversized rings on the standard pistons and I put 70,000 more miles
> on it before it started using oil again. It always had a piston slap when
> cold, but it never did any damage. When it went down the last time I got
> rid of it(the engine, that is).
>

70,000 on this truck would be the rest of my life :-), although the
abuse it gets might be a simulated 70K by the time Oct/Nov rolls around.
I really need to get a bore guage before I can really figure anything
out. It also seems that everything I measured last night (2 sets of
pistons and 3 cranks) was .002 undersize, so I figured something was
rotten in ...... Even the freshly cut (.010) 400 crank I have was .002
undersize, so who knows what all the actual measurements are.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:36:31 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - choke setting

Rob N. --- I forgot to say: The choke will not be fully closed unless you
have mashed the accelerator pedal once. This is required to "set" the
choke and the fast idle cam.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:47:52 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - "exhaust" pipes

William H. writes: >>Uhm ... isn't the whole system made of exhaust pipes
? you mean
intermediate pipes ?

Engine to Muffler is exhaust pipe - Muffler to exit is tail pipe.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:48:19 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - rings???

John LaGrone wrote:
>
> >> John LaGrone wrote:
> >
> > >> I think what is being said is that apples for apples, Moly rings last
> longer.
> > This makes sense because of the material they are made of... it is "slicker"
> > than cast iron...
> >
>
> I thought any other ring besides plain cast iron was still cast iron
> with a coating or other material around the edges of the ring?? Doesn't
> the bore taper have to dead nuts to use moly rings?
>
> OX
>
> Ox, I think I quoted that. I don't remember writing it anyway. Shoot, I
> don't remember is coming to be too much of a habit.

Uhh...., what????

> As for your last question: Huh?
>
You mean the bore taper part? I was told bore taper needs to be
perfect to seat moly rings. More recently, I was told that X-hatch
pattern plays an even bigger role.

OX

I guess all I can say is HUH?? to your whole post.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:48:13 EST
From: BDIJXS

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Central Florida List Members????

Just checking to see if anyone is interested in a free lunch in Central
Florida, probably on Jan 3rd.....I'll be just north of Tampa, but I'm willing
to meet people somewhere within a reasonable distance.....

I've heard a lot about "Planet Bubba", but haven't had a chance to eat there
yet????

Please e-mail me if you think you can make it.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:48:19 EST
From: BDIJXS

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - FE "Shorties"/motor mounts

Hey George,

Let me know when if you decide to go with new shorties.....there is only
really one choice, Sandersons, and they work great.....

There are a few tricks on getting them in. "Mark in Southwest Washington" has
done a real nice job on making a web page that outlines the installation of
the Sandersons, and it has several photos. I haven't seen any posts from him
in a while, so I hope he is still with us!

The website was www.pacifier.com....

Good Luck!

CJ

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:48:24 EST
From: BDIJXS

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case

I'm pretty sure that this 203 WON'T "bolt right up" to the tailhousing to
replace the Dana 21.....that tail housing isn't as simple as it seems....its
really almost part of the D-21 transfer case since it has a "receiver gear"
(sorry don't have a better term) inside it to accept the transfer case. I
doubt that the 203 has this setup, I'm guessing it accepts a splined shaft
for the input....but probably Wish-man can help out here

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:55:17 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dirty oil

Denny K. writes: >>I had my oil and oil filter changed several weeks ago.
I didn't see the
guy actually do it. I guess I should have checked the oil right away,
but I didn't until yesterday, after putting on 260 miles. The oil is
almost black. Is it possible for oil to get really dirty this fast?

Your oil is doing its job, most likely. Detergent oils get dark(black)
really quick. Consider it cleaning up the inside of your engine.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:56:27 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for 400

> Ok, In my opinion it is still snake oil when you only gain a very small
> percentage and generally only in one area of the rev range or another, not
> the whole spectrum

Well everyone knows we're not gonna change your opinion, which is okay
'cause everyones entitled to their own stupid opinions anyway ... :)

> stuff. If
> you do it for the sound or looks then it's worth what ever you think it's
> worth but if you do it for power then there are much better ways to spend
> your power money in "MOST" cases.
>

On my stang I did it for the power and the sound ... really I still have the
stock manifolds on it, but will be putting the headers on (shorties) this
spring (was gonna do it this fall but wussed out at the last minute and now
its in storage:) In this case since the rest of the car is stock, it will
be overkill on the exhaust side, but will set me up nicely to fully reap the
benefits of any intake mods I happen to come across ... of course I am also
trying to stay SP legal in my class which restricts me a bit more, not to
mention the cost of parts for a 4.6L makes my FE look cheap ...

Now on to my other motor, an FE, I'm sorry but those bored out logs of cast
iron are not going to be more efficient than any header that's available for
that truck ... BTDT ... currently I'm running a 2" dual exhaust on it (have
to measure to be sure, but I'm about 80% sure of that) ... true duals, with
stock manifolds and super turbo mufflers ... it sounds okay, but it also
sounds choked ... you can just hear it ...

As for which helps more, intake or exhaust, I have changed both on my truck
... first with a 2V I had the headers on there ... they were pretty good
(wasn't as good at tuning the truck then either though) but then I went to
the stock exhaust manifolds ... GACK (that's the noise the truck made after
putting them on) talk about a restriction ... it was so choked up, but the
heads were fixed and the carb rebuilt so it ran much smoother, nothing I can
contribute to the exhaust itself though ... then I put on the 4V from a
Galaxie ... its overkill for an intake as the ports dont' match up quite
right, but I still didn't get the flow back that I had with the headers ...
it made a great leap up no question about that (one of my friends commented
"geeze, now when you step on it it really goes instead of just makin noise",
I didn't think it was THAT much improvement) but its still not quite up to
where it was with the headers on it ... okay well it is now that its a 390
runnin the same intake and exhaust manifolds ...

Now maybe I'm just dealing with the "exception" engines and stuff, but I
still believe there is LOTS of horsepower hiding in that exhaust system,
ESPECIALLY if you have catalytic converters ...

> What most newbies try to figure out is called "Resonant" tuning
> and this is
> also what most manufacturers rely on in their hype but.........what they
> eventually realize is that resonant tuning is only good for one,
> very narrow
> RPM range.

You should know by now that I'm cynical enough to not follow hype unless
there's something to it, and you don't see me jumpin on the bandwagon for
sound ... granted I do want it to sound right, not like some of these
systems you hear where they've got pipes so big it just wheezes, and not
like the Chubbies with their 1.25" dual straight pipes just to make noise
(talk about power eaters!)

> Every where else in the spectrum it is off in one direction or
> another so in a touring or truck application it has "Zero" application,
> ZERO!

Uhm ... not to argue your own logic with you, but couldn't you tune it for
your cruise revs so that you could get that incredible mileage you're aiming
for ?

> In this case, longer, smaller tubing is usually better and
> as long as
> you have enough size to let the exhaust out at the highest rpm
> you normally
> use you have enough.

Great, but there's only so much space under my truck, and I'm not filling it
with those heaters we call exhaust pipes ... as for the diameter ... the les
s backpressure I can have in there the easier and quicker my motor will rev.
I don't use this truck for towing or hauling very much, all it sees is
commuter duty and some playing ... occasionally it'll tow a trailer with my
car on it to a race, or pick up a friends battered Jeep ... other than that
its just my play thing ... now you know where I'm comin from on this ...
its not a heavy truck, yes it is heavy for a vehicle, but its not like those
who are runnin around with hundreds of pounds of speakers or tool boxes or
whatever people keep in/on/around their trucks ... heck I don't even have
alift on it and its a 4x4 ! Low end torque is something I'm more concerned
with than high end horsepower too ... the cam I have is a bit too agressive
to really get me all the low end I need for pulling or anything, but it will
still blow away Dad's F250HD with FI 351 and 4.10 gears, even with a trailer
that has anoher F250 on it (BTDT too) ... and at highway speeds my truck
still has kick left in it, quite a bit if I do say so myself ... I don't
think I'm going to lose any of this by putting headers on, but I do
understand that I will need to slightly retune the carb to better accomodate
the increased flow capacity of the exhaust otherwise the vehicle itself will
fall on its face when another part of the system runs out of ability ... IE
there are other short comings now that the exhaust is opened up!

> kind of rpm and these engines make enough total hp to have plenty at the
> bottom as well but their bottom is higher than our cruise.

I don't think they really have all that much low end ... I know they are
trying to heat their tires when they're leaving, but you don't see them just
idle out of their stalls, they are revvin the whole time and dumpin the
clutch basically ... now I know there's a lot to it, but I don't think ANY
of this has to do with their exhaust systems being tuned for top end ... I
thing its more along the lines of a really big cam and huge ports that need
higher velocities to maintain efficiencies enough to even keep it running
...

> Because I didn't have the truck manifold I had to
> weld a bunch
> of kinks into it so it was by no means an efficient setup, jerry rigged to
> say the least up to the muffler.
>

Uhm, what manifolds are you using ? And you don't think a bunch of "kinks"
welded into it are going to affect the flow quite a bit ? how about the
bends, mandrel or crush style ?

> The headers are 1-3/4 tubes into a 2.5" system with the largest turbo
> mufflers I could fit under there and full length, relatively
> straight pipe,
> over the axle and out the back. I would guess my bottom end is as good as
> ever but with a wide ratio c-6 and 460 who can tell? If it lost 50 hp I
> wouldn't notice at the bottom :-) Where I lost it is in second gear,
> passing traffic. It used to hit 90 in second if I left it past
> good reason
> but it only got to 80 or so with any spunk even with 2 into 1.
> With headers
> it nails 70 pretty well but then falls right off....real off with no other
> changes but the headers and exhaust. If you think the system I just
> described is restrictive I'd be interested in your opinion on what is not?
>
What's the other side of the system look like ? Have you changed anything
on it as well ? re-tuned anything for those revs, or have you tuned the
carb and everything for the down low performance ... you can't really just
say I could do this before when you've changed 5 things ...

> In a normal truck applicatin it has so much bottom end
> you have to be carefull how you step on the gas most of the time so you
> don't fry the tires.

I don't think frying those old hard snow tires that are a whopping 5" wide
really counts as frying the tires or lots of low end :)

> When I switch from my bird to the truck I squall the
> tires at every stop untill I get my sea legs and not on purpose either but
> the bird will fly right past it in the passing zone

Hmmm... lets see, you've got about 4 cats on that bird right ? And about
half the displacement ... and probably a much different weight distribution
... and fuel injection that can adjust a bit more on the fly ... shall I go
on ?

> My old Ch**y 235, in line 6 would do 80 in second.....:-) (threw some rods
> shortly after that though :-)) Festiva would do 80 in third
> (burned up the
> exhaust valves doing that :-))

Lets see the 'stang will do 80 in third no problem (heck that's even before
I have to shift!) and i"m sure the new Cobra's can pull down 2nd gear 80mph
bursts pretty easily ... my truck? Not on your life ... it might be able
to, but I'll never know.... 'course I've got 3.50 gears too ...

Also whose headers are you using? are they tuned for anything in
particular, or are they even a tuned header ? Are they just the cheapest
thing you could find (that's what I usually use :), or are they specificly
designed to help in one area of the system ?

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: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:00:32 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: [none]

Phil DeS. writes: >>Hi all- Anybody out there remember what has to be done
to an older 390
(pre-63) to adapt the later model motor mounts to the block ? Seems like a
little plate or something, but don't remember.
I've got a buddy that needs to know.........Hello, Bill ??

IF(and that really comes into play here) my memory serves me correctly, the
'63 and earlier FE blocks have but two bolt holes for the motor mounts,
whereas the later ones have three bolt holes. I think two of the three
holes in the later mounts will align with the two holes in the earlier
block. If that is the case, then just leave out the bolt that has no hole
in the block!!!...I may be all wet here, but I think it works this way.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:59:11 -0500
From: j arnold
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 78 F150 Clutch Question

>> Just wondering if anyone out there can help me find what clutch setup I
>>need for my truck... I've got a 78 F150 4X4 with a 429 in it, mated to a
>>Borg Warner top loader tranny (4spd w/granny gear). I need to find out what
>>size clutch this thing has in it, and I would like to do so before pulling
>>it down.... It is sad really, I bought this truck from a guy about 5 years
>
>Good luck,
>Ohio Bill
>
>1968 Torino GT 429 4v 4 speed
>1968 F100 360 2v 4 speed
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
Bill,

Since the 429 in the truck is an obvious 'transplant', there's a good
chance that the transmission (and clutch) are too. Having done this same
swap, I know from experience that there are at least a half dozen different
clutches that could be in there, from 10 1/2 inch to a twelve inch, 3 or
maybe more different 11 1/2 inch clutches for sure (don't ask how I found
this out). Sorry to tell you, the only way to find out for sure what you
have is to tear it down and find numbers to trace.

stoney

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:14:36 -0600
From: "William S. Hart"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - "exhaust" pipes

> William H. writes: >>Uhm ... isn't the whole system made of exhaust pipes
> ? you mean
> intermediate pipes ?
>
> Engine to Muffler is exhaust pipe - Muffler to exit is tail pipe.
>
Azie, technically its h or y pipe and then intermediate pipe ... I was just
ribbin him as usual :)

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: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:06:31 -0600
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - lost my tail lights

David,

If you still have parking lights and front markers, then you have probably
broken a wire or come unplugged back towards the rear. Do the license plate
lights work? Probably not. Start at the back bumper and examine all of the
wires. Look for a wire that has been cut, worn or broken. Also look for
previous owner splices(and yours too). If the brake lights still work, then
the harness may be partially unplugged somewhere. Unplug all of the joints
and look for corrosion. Clean them up if need be, then put them back
together.

- -- John
jlagrone

ford-trucks.com
1979 F150 Custom LWB Regular Cab 351M C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:26:01 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Boring

What are you measuring it with? I'll save the lecture till I get the answer
:-)

- --
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 really need to get a bore guage before I can really figure anything
> out. It also seems that everything I measured last night (2 sets of
> pistons and 3 cranks) was .002 undersize, so I figured something was
> rotten in ...... Even the freshly cut (.010) 400 crank I
> have was .002
> undersize, so who knows what all the actual measurements are.
>
> OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:42:05 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - "exhaust" pipes

Depends on what book you look into and the terminology changes from one
generation to another. Azie and I learned from our grandfathers
so.........:-) BTW, Azie I agree with you :-) That's what I call 'em too
:-)

- --
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
- --

> > William H. writes: >>Uhm ... isn't the whole system made
> of exhaust pipes
> > ? you mean
> > intermediate pipes ?
> >
> > Engine to Muffler is exhaust pipe - Muffler to exit is tail pipe.
> >
> Azie, technically its h or y pipe and then intermediate pipe
> ... I was just
> ribbin him as usual :)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:01:19 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Boring

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> What are you measuring it with? I'll save the lecture till I get the answer
> :-)
>

El-cheapo caliper. I know it's virtually useless, but it's all I have
right now and I'm more intersted in comparing the pistons I had with the
pistons I'm going to use. If the old one's didn't slap, the "new" one's
shouldn't either.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:10:17 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: FTE 61-79 - reminder!!, Need "roadless" support by Dec 20th.

>DON'T LOCK THE PUBLIC OUT OF PUBLIC LANDS
>
>Our illustrious president is trying to initiate a Roadless Initiative,
>another attempt to lock us out of our public lands with little scientific
>backing.
>
>Which basically means that if it goes through that people will not be able
>to use the forest for just about anything. That includes, fishing, hunting,
>4-wheeling, snowmobiling,etc.,etc.
>Please email your opposition to this initiative to this addy:
>roadless/wo_caet-slc

fs.fed.us This addy is underlined also.
>This is the email of the USDA Forest Service in Salt Lake City, Utah.
>This needs to be in by December 20th.
>this could mean up to 16 million acres in the state of Idaho alone!!!!!!!
>These are PUBLIC lands, they belong to you, don't let them lock you out.
>Or go to: usconservation.org and fill out the form and submit it.
>
>Thank you for your help in advance.
>Sincerely
>Bob Jones
>Spirit Lake, ID
>rjones

dmi.net
>

Here is a sample letter you forward to this E-mail.
roadless/wo_caet-slc

fs.fed.us

December, 16, 1999

USDA Forest Service CAET
Attn.: Roadless Areas
Notice of Intent
P.O. Box 221090
Salt Lake City, UT 84122

Dear U.S. Forest Service:

I am appalled at the president's initiative and urge you to change
the Roadless Policy now. I can only support a policy that:

1. Utilizes current planning regulations to protect roadless areas
through land and resource management plans.

2. Acknowledges the legitimate use of off-highway vehicles on our public
lands including roadless areas that have traditionally been used by
off-highway vehicles.

2. Protects Roadless Areas through forest planning rather than rapidly
making top-down decisions from Washington, D.C. that jeopardize forest
health by placing a blanket prohibition on road building and
maintenance.

3. Eliminates development of Part II of the Roadless NOI which
establishes national direction for managing roadless areas and
determines whether similar protections should be extended to
uninventoried roadless areas.

The Forest Service must seize this opportunity to stop the
current action which endangers forest health and jeopardizes our
children's inheritance. Please count this as my formal comment on the
proposed rulemaking regarding Roadless Areas.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:19:41 -0700
From: William Whited
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 460 rebuilt (long)

Well guys just got my spec sheet from the guy that is going to
rebuilt my 460. So I will run down the list of stuff that he has
selected and I would like any comments, questions, concerns, or anything
that I need to ask him or be on the look out for.

Engine rebuilt kit with RV Cam & valve springs: Cam bearings
Durabond, Rod Bearings Clevite 77, Main Bearings Clevite 77, Camshaft
MTF-3 Melling with 490 lift 107 centerline 292 duration, lifters sealed
power Timing set Melling, Pistons Silvolite, Rings Sealed Power, Full
set of FelPro gaskets, and a Melling Oil Pump. Machine work includes:
Regrind, Recondition and press the connecting rods, Degrease, rebore and
hone the block, install the cam bearings, balance the rotation assembly,
and a valve job.

My mechanic highly recommends this guy and says that he does great
work and they both want me to deal directly with him and make any
changes that I want to make with the parts.

My truck is a 77 F150 460 with a C-6, with I believe 3.25 rear gear
and stock tires. Again what I want is a truck that gets around 10 mpg,
cruises at 65 in the 2300-2600 rpm range with more power then I know
what to do with. I will be towing on occasion but not frequently, this
truck is going to be my daily driver and my trip vehicle when I have to
drive to VA to see my son from TX. So I do spent allot of time on the
highway at speeds between 60-80. TIA

William Whited
74 F100 Ranger Supercab 390
77 F150 Custom 460
Semper Fi
El Paso TX

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:42:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Lee
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re:rings???

Muel,
I guess I screwed up. I should have said don't use
chrome, but going through the PAWS catalog I see Moly
rings, Chrome rings and Chrome Moly rings. I am
confused as to which kind are the ones that don't
seat. I used cast rings on my rebuild anyway. If you
take care of your motor, by the time the cast rings
need replacing it is time for an overhaul anyway.

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C=4V

>
> > Hi, Dan.
> > Just curious...
> >
> > > Don't use Moly rings.
> >
> > What causes you to say this?
> > And...
> > What are you recommending instead?
> > Muel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:24:40 -0800
From: "bronco66"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - power steering

has anyone done a power steering conversion on something similar to a 72
f100 four-wheel drive? Can you just use the 2-wheel drive box?

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:25:51 -0800
From: "bronco66"
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case

so will it bolt up to a dana 20. Someone on another list was saying it
probibly would.

- ----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 6:48 AM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case

> I'm pretty sure that this 203 WON'T "bolt right up" to the tailhousing to
> replace the Dana 21.....that tail housing isn't as simple as it
seems....its
> really almost part of the D-21 transfer case since it has a "receiver
gear"
> (sorry don't have a better term) inside it to accept the transfer case. I
> doubt that the 203 has this setup, I'm guessing it accepts a splined shaft
> for the input....but probably Wish-man can help out here
>
> CJ
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:21:41 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - headers for anything :-)

- --
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
- --

> Well everyone knows we're not gonna change your opinion, which is okay
> 'cause everyones entitled to their own stupid opinions anyway ... :)

As to my opinion....I've read many, many articles where systems were tested
on dynos and don't recall a single one that impressed me with the HP figures
or torque figures and often the changes necessary to get the Hp they claimed
cost in economy and basically made it a race only engine or so loud you
would be deaf in a few years driving it so while I agree that some gains can
be made in the exhaust I still maintain that this is not the place to spend
your money. I was impressed by the turbo muffler craze as were most
manufacturers and specify this when I build an exhaust system but they
typically don't cost any more than a "regular" muffler and do have a nice
sound :-)

> Now on to my other motor, an FE, I'm sorry but those bored
> out logs of cast
> iron are not going to be more efficient than any header
> that's available for
> that truck

I think really it depends on the specific vehicle and application of that
vehicle whether the exhaust mods will do much by themselves or even hurt
performance. The FE's are in a class by themselves apparently due to
restrictive exhaust manifolds but many, including the 460, have well
designed manifolds which make good use of physics to scavenge the engine as
long as there is enough pipe to exit through. It is for that reason that
most modern engines really don't get much benefit from exhaust changes but,
as you say, some actually do.

> > Every where else in the spectrum it is off in one direction or
> > another so in a touring or truck application it has "Zero"
> application,
> > ZERO!
>
> Uhm ... not to argue your own logic with you, but couldn't
> you tune it for
> your cruise revs so that you could get that incredible
> mileage you're aiming
> for ?

At low rpms the resonant tuning would have less effect so bang for buck goes
way down again which takes us right back to what I said before, work on the
intake side first and economy will come as you progress. True laboratory
level resonant tuning for 1900 rpm would probably be too restrictive to get
full use from the rpm range you need on the highway for passing etc. so
would be a bad compromise IMNSHO :-) As I have been trying to point out,
the performance difference between resonant tuning and just running a
reasonable size straight pipe the length of the vehicle is very small at
lower rpms and only racing applications which run at the same speed all the
time can really benefit from it. Sounds good on paper but.......:-)

> I don't think they really have all that much low end ... I

What we call low end is relative. If it idles at 3k rpm and will pull the
car at that speed then you have low end cuz "it pulls from idle" :-) With
750 hp at the top end there is also some serious grunt somewhat below that
as well. Like I said their bottom end is much higher than ours but it's
there or they couldn't get off the line at all without burning up the
clutch.

> Uhm, what manifolds are you using ? And you don't think a
> bunch of "kinks"
> welded into it are going to affect the flow quite a bit ? how
> about the
> bends, mandrel or crush style ?

Stock car manifolds. Remember the kinky system is the one that worked :-)

> What's the other side of the system look like ? Have you
> changed anything

Read my lips......NO OTHER CHANGES :-) :-)

> I don't think frying those old hard snow tires that are a
> whopping 5" wide
> really counts as frying the tires or lots of low end :)

235-R75-15's, Cooper Coursers....pretty nice tires actually but it did the
same thing with the 12.5x33's on it :-)

> Also whose headers are you using? are they tuned for anything in
> particular, or are they even a tuned header ? Are they just
> the cheapest
> thing you could find (that's what I usually use :), or are
> they specificly
> designed to help in one area of the system ?

Like most "so called" tuned headers they are not tuned, just 4 long tubes of
the same length colleced together at the bottom :-) Walker made mine and as
we know the two brothers wouldn't have Walker anything on their cars (local
radio show we have here, "Car Talk") so yes they are the cheap ones but I
made them very expensive by wrapping them with very expensive fiberglass
wrap and very expensive high temp paint and very expensive retainers and
used very expensive header bolts which still required an open end wrench on
a couple.....:-) IMNSHO tuned simply means that they have equal length tube
in them and are therefore "Tuned" :-) I'm sure the federal government finds
that explaination quite satisfactory.....:-)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:43:47 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - NP 203 transfer case

If we are still talking about the Rebuild Dodge units for $90 do you
really want to change the front axle also? These units are right hand
drive (i.e. passenger side). If you are talking about 203's in general
you will have to get the transmission, NP435, C6 and tail housing to go
with it. Yes there is also the custom route. I don't know if the 203
was offered with the T-18.

Laters

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon

pacific.net
99 Contour
63 F-100 4x4
43 GPW
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:23:21 -0800
From: "Robert Gunter"
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Economy gains?

There has been mention of working on the intake to get better economy vs the
exhaust. The MM came with a vacuum gauge stock, which was replaced by a
voltmeter (?). How about those tunable timing devices working in conjunction
with the vacuum gauge to tune the condition you are in?

Rob G

The Mystery Machine is a 77 Ford E250 Quadravan, 460 ci, 3.73 gears with a C6
Tranny.

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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:50:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel DiMartino
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - candian fords and manuals???

thom,

i think i'm o.k. with what i have, but i think i was miss
leading in my post. the manual is canadian, the ford is a
normal ford. thanks for the info!

=====
Daniel DiMartino

1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:05:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel DiMartino
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - For sale on E-bay

what a find!! dosen't beat out my '68 rat in the mileage
department (13,780) ;) but sure takes top honors in the clean....

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.