 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages contained in these archives without consent from the respective author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors. Received: with LISTAR (v0.128a; list 61-79-list); Fri, 19 May 2000 18:32:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 18:32:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server To: 61-79-list digest users Reply-to: 61-79-list  ford-trucks.com Subject: 61-79-list Digest V2000 #103 Precedence: bulk ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979 Truck Mailing List Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ 61-79-list Digest Thu, 18 May 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 103 In This Issue: '79 questions/Galvanize refurbishing Re: Microfishe Readers Re: drums and shoes Re: 71 429 4 Barrel $75 Re: drums and shoes Re: drums and shoes Re: Fwd: 69 bronco front end 65 progress Re: [Fwd: 69 bronco front end] MICROFICHE READERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Harvey, Blaine" Subject: '79 questions/Galvanize refurbishing Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:15:50 -0400 The 79 F-150 is slowly getting there. Frame painted, brakes done, new gas tank etc etc. Gone to body shop for new cab corners and a spray. Surprised how many hours this project has eaten up. But its fun, especially figuring out how to find various parts and then buying all those new parts Anyway, a couple of questions. 1) The galvanized inner fenders, or whatever they are called really look dingy. Does anyone have any tips on getting some lustre back into them, short of painting them? 2) I think I need new tranny lines. The truck sat so long that they are pinholed with rust. What size would they be? How does one go about replacing them? I plan to put in a tranny cooler--a stacked plate design. Thanks ------------------------------ From: "Ross Johansson" Subject: Re: Microfishe Readers Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:48:09 -0800 I was told the microfiche reader link didnt work.... sorry try one of these... http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://surplusshed.com/misc.html http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://surplusshed.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:31:19 -0500 Subject: Re: drums and shoes From: John LaGrone on 5/18/2000 10:31 AM, wish at wish ford-trucks.net wrote: >> in the box there were two >> types of shoes ones with a longer pad ones with a shorter pad. The box >> listed them as primary and secondary..so I put the primary ones on the >> leading side and the secondary pads on the trailing side. Brakes seem to >> work fine.. any thoughts >> > > This is absolutely correct ... they are labelled as such because the primary > is pulled into the drum by the rotation of the drum, and the secondary is > pushed > away because of the rotation, this means more surface area is required on the > secondary to equal the same stopping force as the primary. Well, now I was always taught the other way around, that the long shoe went on the back because it bore more load as inertia is carrying the vehicle into this shoe and away from the front shoe. I think if you put the short shoe on the back it will be carrying more load and wear out a lot faster. Also, on the back brakes, the emergency brake cable is hooked to the rear shoe. In the event of spring failure or other mechanism failure, this will give more surface area against the drum with the shoe that is making contact. Wish is right about the rear shoe being pulled into the drum. The pivot point is at the top. Dual or split piston systems supposedly do away with this inequity. -- John jlagrone ford-trucks.com <]:-) <]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-) 1979 F150 Custom, Long Wide Bed, Regular Cab, 351M, C6 (Henry) http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm Dearborn iron rules!!!! ------------------------------ From: DWeaver232 aol.com Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:14:07 EDT Subject: Re: 71 429 4 Barrel $75 Well now that I have some of you guys attencion. There is a 71 4 barrel 429 in a local you pull it yard here in Denver. They will want $75 for the long block, maybe a little more with the exhaust manifolds. DOVE everything. Looks to be in pretty good shape. Since I'm stuck with the kids for the rest of the week I can't go get it. (I don't no why they won't allow kids, no more dangerous than the junkyard at home) If someone is interested in it give me a call, however I do want a commission. 15 pack of the local brew should do it. Terry Weaver 303-232-1167 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:08:33 -0700 From: Marv & Marge Subject: Re: drums and shoes Bruce Montcombroux > I just put new front drums and shoes on my 65’ ..so I put the primary ones on the > leading side and the secondary pads on the trailing side. Wish replied: > This is absolutely correct ... they are labelled as such because the primary > is pulled into the drum by the rotation of the drum, and the secondary is pushed > away because of the rotation, this means more surface area is required on the > secondary to equal the same stopping force as the primary. This is just the reverse from how I learned it. The primary (larger) shoe is the "anchored" shoe. That is: it's the one that is pushed into the anchor pin and cannot rotate (not ever so slightly). This is in the normal wheel rotation direction, car moving forward. The secondary, smaller, shoe, is the one that is pushed upon by the hydraulic wheel cylinder, and actually moves out into the drum to take up the space that is the normal clearence. Note that both shoes may appear to be acted upon by the cylinder. In reality, however, when the drum is turning, only the secondary shoe moves. Thus, the larger padded shoes would normally go on the vehicle farther toward the rear than the smaller-padded ones. This would not be true if the anchor pin and cylinder were at the bottom of the backing plate, however. The reason for the different sizes is that the primary shoe contacts the drum with a bit more pressure and friction. It is larger to compensate for the greater wear that would occur if it weren't larger, the purpose being that both shoes wear out at the same time. That's how I learned it. -Marv- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:11:41 -0700 From: Jason Derra Subject: Re: drums and shoes Short shoes go toward the front and the long shoes go on toward the rear. Jason Bruce Montcombroux wrote: > I just put new front drums and shoes on my 65’ ..in the box there were two > types of shoes ones with a longer pad ones with a shorter pad. The box > listed them as primary and secondary..so I put the primary ones on the > leading side and the secondary pads on the trailing side. Brakes seem to > work fine.. any thoughts > > Bruce > 65 Mercury 240 I6 > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with > the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the > message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 22:48:36 -0700 From: Jason Derra Subject: Re: Fwd: 69 bronco front end Burt, If your wanting info for converting your 72 F250, and its original (closed knuckle front end), I don't think this will work for your truck. If it is a later model front end though, you can convert it this way, but you would just substitute the Dana 44 8 lug hubs and rotors (or since the Chevy and Ford 3/4T bolt patterns are the same, go with all Chev in the front, no one will ever know). You should still be able to use the 15" wheels, possibly with a little grinding on the caliper and caliper mounting depending on the style of wheel you're using. This is a small write up I did a while back: My brakes came from a '71-72 1/2ton 4WD Chevy (71-76 will work). I got the spindle and the caliper mounting brackets for about $30 from a wrecking yard. The swap is much easier and cheaper than the Ford swap since you don't need to change the steering knuckle. It will work for the 30 and the 44. I used the same wheel bearings from my original drum brakes. I bought new Chevy calipers (same year as donor truck), new Ford hub and rotors (the large wrecking yard here wanted the same price for used as what I could get new), I used a Chevy brake hose (again same application). I bought two spindle bearing kits (part #SBK1), packed the wheel bearings, installed the wheel seals and just bolted it together. You do need to grind (on the 44 anyways) a little off of the steering knuckles so that the caliper will seat and work properly. I have heard different feelings about using a proportioning valve and a different master cylinder with the disc brake setup. I personally have not made any changes to the hydraulic system and have had good luck with it. I only installed a new master cylinder about 6 months after it was done. It stops evenly front to rear, has a good pedal feel and works great on the street and on the trail. And yet another article from the Early Bronco mailing list: Here's some great info on the Chevy Disc conversion, that I collected from the LIST to help others in the future! With a little editing it looks pretty good! Disk Brakes; D30 & 71-75 Bronco D44 At the Junkyard pick up some 72-76 Chevy D44 spindles, calipers, and caliper brakets. Make sure they have the 6 bolt pattern, not the 5 for the knuckle. Then you'll need D44 hub and rotors, just like the F150 stuff. Bearings, seals, flex hose, and your about done. Another option is to take everything from the knuckles out, off a F150 including the tierods. I havent done this??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lackey added; I have the parts available including the brackets. The break down is as follows. > > > > 77 Bronco hub / rotor assembly $99.00 (each) > > > > 72 - 76 Chevy Disk Brake calliper $25.00 (each) + $10.00 core > > > > 72-73 Chevy 1/2 ton 4X4 d44 bracket $45.00 (pair, used cleaned up and primered) > > > > Bendix D 52 brake pads lifetime warranty $39.00 (pair metalic) > > > > I have the spindle available now since, JC whitney no longer carries them. The spinldes are $99.00 each. There are some seals and bearings also needed for this swap, plus new brake lines from the chevy. Kevin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Strube wrote; There are some things I learned while doing the Chevy swap. One is that the 72-76 Chevy 1/2 ton, Blazer and Jeep Wagoneer and Cherokee all share the same parts. The Jeeps were easier to find in my local yard. In 77, they changed the diameter of the spindles, so they will not work. Actually, it was a mid year change, so some will, but I looked for earlier ones. You can get the backing plates and calipers off of all of the above vehicles. The calipers are easy to rebuild, use compressed air to disassemble, it does not take much pressure, I used 30 psi. keep fingers away. the kit is about $1.50 ea. Hubs/rotors; Since Autozone sells hub/rotor/stud/bearing race assemblies, made in Canada for only $75, there is no reason to search out a used hub, the yard will probably want a first born for it anyway. Local, they wanted $125!!!! (put down the crack pipe buddy) Bolts/sliders; get the old bolts and sliders. new sliders may or may not be the same length. I got all new soft parts, but the sliders were short, and for the hex key type. my bolts were with regular heads, one less specialty tool to carry. I got them on a 74 I think. Hoses; I used braided Earl's stainless steel stuff. The thread on the banjo bolt was 7/16-20, and I got 13" pre-made -4 hoses. I also bought the ends seperately, one was the inverted flare with a slide on clip like OEM, and the other was the banjo side. Get the new bolts, they are a different length. I actually bought Earl's first, then found that the 7/16-24 bolt was wrong, so had to trade for ABBCO or something like that, it is roundy round stuff. I also used ABBCO bolts, as the banjo piece was slightly different, it was thicker than the Earl's. You don't want the bolt to bottom out or be too short, so don't mix brands here. These mated just fine with the stock hard line and mount, after sectioning it to clear the front shock mounts, which I had to do anyway, because of the Protofab front hoops. The cost for the Earl's stuff is within $5-10 total of the rubber stuff, and you can customize the length. Use only pre-crimped hoses though, from the factory. -4 AN female swivel both ends size 4 hose, 13" long 64191913 I would make sure the 13" works for your application, I thought it gave me the best flex, without kinking. It is much shorter than the Chevy hose, which is about 18". -4 to 3/8-24 FEM. I.F. (goes to hard line) 989532 Napa p/n 80742 for the clips that hold p/n 989532 to the axle bracket. (Thanks ToddZ.) -4 7/16 hole Banjo (must use Earl's Banjo Bolt) 997604 7/16-20 Banjo Bolt, Single (includes crush washers) 977504 I used the bolt and washer, as I did not get the Chevy outer axles. When stripping the spindles at the yard, check for improper disassembly prior, some goons use screwdrivers and fud up the threads. Keep the inner nuts, you never know when you might need an extra. John Strube --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Z wrote; > The correct Earl's banjo bolt for the Chevy calipers is p/n 977504. > Another neat Earl's alternative for the front hoses is to use a set of > their new Hyperfirm DOT legal hoses they introduced about a year ago. > You can get some that have a 3/8-24 SAE female end on them on the i.d. > and threads and a jam nut on the o.d. The threaded piece with a jam nut > is a nice way to attach the hose to the axle bracket as opposed to the > old slide clip method. About the only way to get these hoses is through > mail order(I like Baker, www.bakerprecision.com), but like John noted, > they're only a few $$ more than the stock rubber stuff. > BTW, a bit of a retraction on some Earl's info I posted a few days back. I posted the #'s for some Earl's Hyperfirm premade lines that fit the EB/Chevy conversion setup real well. I put the lines on a few nights ago and both leaked like a sieve at the same spot. So.....I'd recommend doing like John Strube did(and what I now have)and just use the -3 lines with the banjo fitting on one end and the -3/3/8-24 adapter on the other end w/clips. The setup is even cheaper than the stock rubber hoses! Todd Z. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ya I got sump'n to add, the hub /rotors can be used as new as '96. There are 2 different backing plates from cheby, you want the heavy duty one that is almost a complete round, the other is a thin backing plate. Both will work but get the beefy one because. Max Wood Richard White has some great pictures, of what Max is talking about at: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/1172/disc.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chevy disc swap seems to be a fashionable topic again, so I put a write up on my swap online. It outlines the basic steps once you have parts in hand. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.xoom.com/DanNewberry/Home.htm Dan Newberry If you have any questions, feel free to email me derrar internetcds.com Jason ------------------------------ From: A61fordtruck aol.com Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:34:43 EDT Subject: 65 progress I just wanted to write a note to let everybody know the progress of the project 65. the 460 is firmly mounted in factory mounts, what an easy swap, didnt even have to drill any holes. I did have to drill new holes for the rear cross member, about 1/'12" back from the originals. the PS box required a small dimple be made in the spring tower to clear it, and a notch had to be cut for clearance in the inner fender. I went with a tilt collum, I wanted to stay with the original, but it was about 3-4" too long. several of you gave me ideas about converting the original tube, but in the end, the tilt won out! the 65 used some wierd hooks to retain the springs in the towers, so i had to drill 4 holes as well for the spring retainer clips. i've decided to switch to a solid driveshaft at 66", unless anybody can convince me otherwise. i remounted the cab with prothane bushings in all 6 locations to get rid of that ford sagg. the front suspension is from a 78 and was a direct bolt-in. the super-duty radatior needs to be dropped an inch or so for hood clearance, and the shroud may have clearance problems as a result. any of you ever dealt with this problem? I also had to cut about an inch off the width of the shroud for it to clear the AC/PS. 65's must be a bit shorter in the hood compartments than later trucks. I didnt get it to start yet, as all the wiring must be done still. the dash harness looks like a birds nest with gobs of splices, its worse than i thought. any ideas on who makes a new harness for a 65? Overall, its been a real easy swap, in spite of what the ch*vy guys say about Fords. Lastly, i found, and installed the chrome valve covers that were on my hotrod in the 70's. they look really good on this milder version of a 460. I stuck with the manifolds, (truck manifolds that clear the frame rails) because headers are a hassle. my donor truck (69) had an almost brand new exhaust which bolted in to the 65. I'll be gone to the northwest for 3 weeks, and i only lack a day or so to make it run :( Greg Schnakenberg 65 custom cab 460 61 stepside (another story) 61 unibody (sitting in mothballs) ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 00 08:30:29 MDT From: Brent Dickerson Subject: Re: [Fwd: 69 bronco front end] Why remove the body lift and replace with susp. lift??? I have a 3.5" susp. lift that came with double shocks all around. The lift made handling worse (I lost caster even with using the correct C-bushings), the shocks are what made my handling much better. The James Duff shocks are so stiff that I am only running 1 on each wheel now and still have better handling than stock. My recommendations: Verify all steering components are in good shape and working correctly, such as a good stabilizer, the body lift isn't binding the steering shaft at the steering box (may need to use a u-joint), you have enough caster (susp. lift will just make caster worse), track bar bushings are good. Check out Cross enterprises rear shock hoop. I haven't tried it yet but have heard that it helps with handling without compromising ride quality. By tilting the shocks inboard, the shocks work more to stop body roll than susp. movement. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.4x4now.com/4wsfce.htm Go ahead and buy shock hoops and stiffer shocks for the front now and see if it helps the handling like you think it will. SROTH84 aol.com wrote: > > > > > -- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar -- > > Return-path: > From: SROTH84 aol.com > Full-name: SROTH84 > Message-ID: > Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:49:20 EDT > Subject: 69 bronco front end > To: 61-79list ford-trucks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 100 > > Hello again, > > I am still researching how to make the '69 bronco safer for my kids. Thanks > to those of you that responded last time. The two main thoughts are steering( > 33's and 3" lift make it hard to keep on the road) and braking(mushy). > > I am thinking of rebuilding the front end now. I am told that I need a mid > '71 to '74 dana 44 front end so that I can convert to disc brakes with > booster. > In addition I would look to remove the 3" body lift and replace with 31/2" > suspension lift and dual shocks on the corners. > > Does anyone know where to get the Dana 44? Are there any additional thoughts > on either of the two issues? > > Steve in St. Louis > > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with> the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the > message. ------------------------------ From: "JR" Subject: MICROFICHE READERS Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 19:26:45 -0400 There is one more place you can find a nice microfiche reader.................Mine ! ! ! It is the professional kind just like all the Ford Dealers used to use. In fact, the parts manager from the local parts place suggested I get my own machine for all the looking up he and his staff were doing for me. He made me a deal I couldn't refuse. Its like new and I haven't used it in years. Bell & Howell I think. You can contact off list too for more info. Jerry 1969 F350 Dually 351W 4V Performer AOD AC PB PW PT PT-this list keeps going and going.......and going...............and going............... ------------------------------ End of 61-79-list Digest V2000 #103 *********************************** ---------------------------------------------------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979 Truck Mailing List Send posts to 61-79-list ford-trucks.comIf you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send an email to: listar ford-trucks.comwith the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the message. Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com ---------------------------------------------------------- .... 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 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. 
|