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); Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:39:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server ford-trucks.com>
To: 61-79-list digest users ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: 61-79-list Digest V2000 #122
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 Fri, 09 Jun 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 122

In This Issue:
Re: New Member
Re: FMX- Overdrives & 64 Trim
Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Re: FMX
Re: FMX
Re: FMX Transmission
Re: FMX Transmission
bellhousings
Re: Part suppliers for 61-66 F100's
Re: FMX
Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
stepside steps
Re: 400 EDSEL
Re: bellhousings
Re: stepside steps
Re: bellhousings
Re: stepside steps
Re: FE swap.
Re: how do u figure out what type engine u got?
Degreeing a Cam
Re: 400 EDSEL
Re: FMX Transmission
starter problems
Re: Degreeing a Cam
E150 steel rims
Re: 390 cam/intake selection/FMX
Re: New Member
Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Me too!
Re: Me too!
FMX
460/NP435 clutch linkage
Free Car Show in Seattle, WA Sat 6/10
Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Fw: FE swap- wish
Re: Fw: FE swap- wish
Re: starter problems

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

From: "Toby Till" charter.net>
Subject: Re: New Member
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:25:26 -0400

Ya, some of us have wifes that work and no kids. It helps that she is into
the sport too.

Toby Till


----- Original Message -----
From: D. DiMartino yahoo.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: New Member


>
>toby:
>
>welcome to FTE! checked out your site and was impressed. you do
>nice work. sorry to see what happened to your pal, it's a
>lesson for us all.
>
>anyway, those photos of all that hardcore 4X4 action just made
>me jealous, some people have all the toys...
>
>=====
>Daniel DiMartino
> yahoo.com>
>1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://photos.yahoo.com
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
>message.
>


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

From: "Desanto, Phillip" Cinergy.com>
Subject: Re: FMX- Overdrives & 64 Trim
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:56:57 -0400

......I will find my newer book and send the rest of the specs I have for
the FMX [Cruise-0-Matics]
==========================================================
.........Up until AT LEAST 1984 A LOT of the full size ford products
STILL USED the FMX Tranny in a OVERDRIVE VERSION.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I too would sure like to hear more about this "overdrive FMX". I've worked
on Fords (and lesser vehicles) over 30 years and I've never seen or hear of
this one. Let us know what they came in. I'd sure like to score one.
Due to the separate bellhousing, the FMX was available in small block and
FE versions, as far as I know. The early versions were referred to as FX's
and MX. ( I think...I don't have my Tranny manual handy here.) The different
designations denoted a medium duty and a heavy duty version. The earlier
versions were even used behind the Y blocks. Never saw one used after 79 in
anything, anybody else? (I don't think the "FMX" name came into use till
about 66 either. The same transmission in my 63 Galaxie is simply called a
Dual range, Cruise-0-Matic.)
It's a pretty solid but VERY heavy tranny. Reliable, but there's not much
aftermarket support for it. You can do lots more with a C-6. That's about
all I can drag up off the top of my head. (CRS disease)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the 64 Styleside Trim. I think one of the reasons nobody make repro
stuff is because the 65 & 66"s are more popular (and plentiful) There aren't
near as many 64's around and I think that's the only one that uses that
narrower trim. The 63's had the mismatched bed and I don't know if they used
different trim or not. Also, just in case you might plan to use the 65-66
trim instead; ALL the mounting holes are different from a 64. The 64 trim
mounts lower, right over the styling line down the side, which would mean
you'd have to weld up all those holes and make it look good. On a 2 tone
there is a little bit of the match-up line showing at the front and rear of
the trim. The clips for the 64 trim are available from Autokrafters and
others. Good luck on finding good usable trim. Might try out West ?
Later, Phil ( 63 Galaxie - 64 F-100 LWB Custom Cab )



































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

From: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 09:17:12 -0600

(CID x RPM) / 3456 = Carburetor CFM

Which means a 400 CID engine operating at a maximum of 5,000 RPMs
requires a 578 CFM carburetor if the engine was 100% efficient.

If you assume a volumetric efficiency of 90%, then that engine would
require a carb with a flow rating of about 520 CFM. If this same 400 CID
engine was operating at 6000 RPMs, then it would require about 625 CFM.

These figures are why I believe a 750 CFM carb to be to large for a 390 FE
big block. Even if the engine was at 7000 RPMs, it would still only require
about 729 CFM (assuming 90% efficiency).

Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I think you may be better off with something in the 600-650 range.
> I only have a 625 AFB on my 428 and it works fine.
> I tried a 735 Holley instead of the 600 Holley on my old 390 and did not
> notice any improvment
> Overall I prefer my Carter AFB to the Holleys I used to run,but for WFO
> the Holley seems to have a slight edge.
> If you alreay have the 750 Holley, give it a go and see what you think
> With some tuning it should work.


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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:18:38 -0500
From: "Don Yerhot" nwhealth.edu>
Subject: Re: FMX

Another interesting feature of the FMX or Criuseomatic as it was called in my old 66 LTD was that you could push these vehicles to start them. If it got at all below zero, (frequent occurrence in Minnesota) I used to have problems starting that old 390 and had a buddy push me to start it a couple of times. If I remember correctly, once it was up to about 30mph, it would crank the engine over, kind of like popping the clutch on a stick.

Don
65 F250 351W
74 F100 351W


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

From: "Southerland, Rich" alldata.com>
Subject: Re: FMX
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 08:32:33 -0700

Yeah, My first car was a '66 Bu!ck , with a 2 speed PG trans. You
could do the same thing with it. Tried it right after I got it. Car
started fine, just wanted to see if it would do it...

For those scratching their heads wondering how or why this works...
These older transmissions had 2 oil pumps. One in the front and one in the
rear. When pushed (usually had to get 'er up to at least 30mph-whoopee!) up
to speed and dropped in 2nd, the driveshaft drove the rear pump, pressuring
the trans and turning the engine over.

Modern automatics have no rear pump, so turning the driveshaft has no
effect.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Yerhot [mailto:DYERHOT nwhealth.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: FMX


Another interesting feature of the FMX or Criuseomatic as it was called in
my old 66 LTD was that you could push these vehicles to start them. If it
got at all below zero, (frequent occurrence in Minnesota) I used to have
problems starting that old 390 and had a buddy push me to start it a couple
of times. If I remember correctly, once it was up to about 30mph, it would
crank the engine over, kind of like popping the clutch on a stick.


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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:28:21 -0500
Subject: Re: FMX Transmission
From: John LaGrone ford-trucks.com>

on 6/8/2000 4:34 PM, G & J Boling at flash1 alltel.net wrote:

> these are listed as cruisomatics and mercomatics 2nd generation and call for
> type -F- fluid ONLY

Right, Gordon. The C6 doesn't call for Dexron until the 76 model year.

-- 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!!!!


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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:28:24 -0500
Subject: Re: FMX Transmission
From: John LaGrone ford-trucks.com>

on 6/8/2000 9:45 PM, G & J Boling at flash1 alltel.net wrote:

> well here it is up untill AT LEAST 1984 ALLOT of the full size ford products
> STILL USED the FMX tranny in a OVERDRIVE VERSION

Yesterday this thread was discussing holding an auto in Low. On my Lincoln
(88 Towncar with OD) you can not hold it in Low because you can not select
Low. On the GM Turbo 400 series, it depends on the year model. the later
ones could not be held in Low but would shift up anyway after a certain rpm.
I believe this was needed due to emissions concerns. I know they were
designed this way to intentionally limit the number rpms that could be
turned on an engine. I read somewhere once that extended operation in Low at
high rpms would cause the transmission to overheat. Let's face it, 99% of
the general population don't need to hold Low on an auto.

-- 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!!!!


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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:38:23 -0500
Subject: bellhousings
From: John LaGrone tenet.edu>

on 6/9/2000 7:50 AM, Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server at
listar ford-trucks.com wrote:

>> Duhhh!!!! Wish, the bell housing is bolted between the engine and the
>> transmission, separate from each when manufactured.
>
>
> Well now that everyone has completely misunderstood me, my problem was I
> didn't
> understand that the bellhousing didn't come with the tranny.

Sorry, wish. I know how it is to be totally misunderstood. :-) I also see
your point now, but I must have missed the answer. Are the car and truck
bell housings the same?

-- 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!!!!


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

From: daniel.r.mandernack gm.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:31:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Part suppliers for 61-66 F100's

Thanks to all for the many part supplier contacts. I really appreciate it!
Dan
P.S. I really do work at GM.



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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:56:06 GMT
Subject: Re: FMX



>Another interesting feature of the FMX or Criuseomatic as it was called in
my old 66 LTD was that you could push these vehicles to start them. If it got
at all below zero, (frequent occurrence in Minnesota) I used to have problems
starting that old 390 and had a buddy push me to start it a couple of times.
If I remember correctly, once it was up to about 30mph, it would crank the engine
over, kind of like popping the clutch on a stick.

Heh, the 69 Cougar's owner's manual says 25mph is all ya need, but it is indeed
documented even :)

An OD FMX would definitely be a cool thing, I can think of a certain car we
have that is needing some tranny work and would LOVE an OD to really make it
a cruiser :)

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:02:03 GMT
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake/carb



>(CID x RPM) / 3456 = Carburetor CFM
>
> Which means a 400 CID engine operating at a maximum of 5,000 RPMs
>requires a 578 CFM carburetor if the engine was 100% efficient.
>
> If you assume a volumetric efficiency of 90%, then that engine would
>require a carb with a flow rating of about 520 CFM. If this same 400 CID
>engine was operating at 6000 RPMs, then it would require about 625 CFM.
>
>These figures are why I believe a 750 CFM carb to be to large for a 390 FE

>big block. Even if the engine was at 7000 RPMs, it would still only require

>about 729 CFM (assuming 90% efficiency).
>

Yup, these figures are a pretty good way to get an idea what sort of carb you
need if you don't have one, but sometimes practical experience will show that
it is slightly off ... the 390 I have would like to breathe a little more than
the 600cfm carb I've got on it ... I could go to a 625 or something, but that
doesn't increase the airflow. Air is what really makes the power and stuff,
so by stepping up to a 750 I would be bumping my venturi size and allowing more
air in, hence better power and such, of course that means I can't just romp
it clear open either as the auto will probably cause it to bog doing that ...
so I may have to *gasp* drive the 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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "sailpaul" email.msn.com>
Subject: stepside steps
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:38:44 -0700


I have a set of the smaller steps for sale for what I thought belonged to the 73-79 years. When a I met another FTE we matched them up to his 75 4x4 and they didn't fit as well as the larger steps. Any help out there ? Does the 4WD have anything to do with it?
Paul G


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

From: "Dave Resch" sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 12:00:02 -0600
Subject: Re: 400 EDSEL

>From: "Lyndell Smith" fairburn.com>
>Subject: Re: 400 EDSEL
>
>can anyone tell me if ford ever made a
>400 engine back around 1973, or a
>special edition engine called a 400
>edsel or with a similar name

Yo Smitty:

Ford made the 400 engine from 1971 to 1982. The Edsel line was discontinued
long before.

There was also a 410 FE engine, and maybe something close in the MEL engine
family, but I'm not familiar w/ them.

>From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
>Seems like DaveR has mentioned a 400
>with a small block bellhousing pattern
>on it from around that year, can't
>remember if that's a high compression
>version too or not...

There was a 1973-only M-block 400 w/ the small-block bell housing bolt pattern
(casting # D3AE). This engine was used w/ the FMX tranny. AFAIK, all other car
M-blocks used the C6 tranny. I noticed someone recently posted that they have a
'76 LTD w/ a 351M and FMX, so maybe there was also a big-block bellhousing for
the FMX, but I have never seen one attached to an M-block.

In 1971, the first model year they were available, the 400 had decent
compression (9.0:1). Thereafter, the 400 compression ratio was 8.4:1.

Dave R (M-block devotee)



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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:20:05 GMT
Subject: Re: bellhousings

>I also see
>your point now, but I must have missed the answer. Are the car and truck
>bell housings the same?
>


No one has answered that for me yet ... Azie, you out there? Any ideas on this
one ?

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:24:41 GMT
Subject: Re: stepside steps



>
>I have a set of the smaller steps for sale for what I thought belonged to the
73-79 years. When a I met another FTE we matched them up to his 75 4x4 and they
didn't fit as well as the larger steps. Any help out there ? Does the 4WD have
anything to do with it?

Actually I think it has to do with the year, I'm thinkin the early stepsides
used a previous body style of step side, and then they switched to a newer looking
bed ... which in turn bled into the early 80's where they came up with yet another
newer bed ...

Anyone confirm or deny this ?

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

Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 13:36:16 -0500
From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: bellhousings

At 05:20 PM 6/9/00 GMT, you wrote:
>>I also see
>>your point now, but I must have missed the answer. Are the car and truck
>>bell housings the same?
>>
>
>
>No one has answered that for me yet ... Azie, you out there? Any ideas on
this
>one ?
>

Bill,

That was also my question. I know the flange from engine to bellhousing
for an FE between car and truck are the same.
That goes without saying IMHO.

My question has always been - and I think your question is - Are the tranny
"to" bellhousing flanges the same
(for say an NP 435 and a car toploader) in the FE variety? Azie has a C5TZ
bellhousing he says bolts to the toploader he has from a Mustang. It is an
RUG XX tranny.

There are 8 holes in the bellhousing he has so it must be a multi-purpose
bellhousing for tranny's other than a toploader
to an FE. The "T" in the C5TZ part number on his bellhousing tells me it
is a truck bellhousing. Maybe a 435 bellhousing works the same for a
toploader excpet it uses the 4 other holes. I will see if this is the case
this weekend when I go back to pick up the toploader. He (junkyard man) has
an FE bellhousing for an NP 435 and I will slide it on the front of the RUG
J2 toploader from the Fairlane to see if they line up correctly. If they
do then bingo!

I will let you know then. Does this make sense Bill? I am trying to post
this as I put babies to sleep so hopefully it does.

Stu
Nuke GM!
http://www.ford-trucks.com/~nukegm (for sale!!!)

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

From: "sailpaul" email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: stepside steps
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:47:09 -0700

I realize the beds are different. I've got 1 good 52-72, 1 in pieces and
I've sold a 73-79( i didn't pay attention to the steps on the one I sold).
The 80+ used a different bed completely. The differences between the 72- and
73+ is the gas filler in the fender and the the top rail is flat on the
newer as opposed to the angled rails on the older series and there are
inner flares on the 73-79 bed sides. I'm not sure if I have the exact years
right though. My question is on the steps alone.
Thanks for your time !!
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: wish ford-trucks.net>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:24 AM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: stepside steps


>
>
> >
> >I have a set of the smaller steps for sale for what I thought belonged to
the
> 73-79 years. When a I met another FTE we matched them up to his 75 4x4 and
they
> didn't fit as well as the larger steps. Any help out there ? Does the 4WD
have
> anything to do with it?
>
> Actually I think it has to do with the year, I'm thinkin the early
stepsides
> used a previous body style of step side, and then they switched to a newer
looking
> bed ... which in turn bled into the early 80's where they came up with yet
another
> newer bed ...
>
> Anyone confirm or deny this ?
>
> 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
>
> Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> 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.
>
>



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

From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FE swap.
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:32:37 -0500

If the industrial 390 is anything like the FT engines, he'll either need an
FT tranny and balancer, or he'll have to have the flywheel flange machined
thinner and have the crank snout turned down to match an FE. Almost all FT's
had a larger oil pump drive shaft, along with matching sized distributors
and oil pumps. Also, the distributor guide hole in the block of most FT's is
larger than FE's. If he wants electronic ignition, it looks to me like the
Pertronics conversion would be the way to go.
By the way, has he measured the bore and stroke of this industrial FE/FT/?
yet? I know a guy who bought an old irrigation pump engine(FE) that had
cross bolted mains, but it only had the 4.05" bore. It had FT heads on it
with dished pistons for a compression ratio of just a bit over 8 to 1.
Jason Kendrick

Wish wrote:


> Okay guys, I need your help here. The guy I'm workin with to get some
holes
> for my new steering system in my frame has an old 390 that has over 300K
miles
> on it. He's also got an industrial 390 sitting in his shop. He'd really
love
> to use the industrial one in his 73 F350, what does he need to change to
get
> this to work ??? And can he swap his Duraspark system over to the
industrial
> one ?
>
> I just want to be sure we get everything together so he can do it quick
and
> not steal my motor while he's workin on my 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
>
> Ford Truck Enthusiasts
> 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.
>


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

From: "Serian" flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: how do u figure out what type engine u got?
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:37:30 -0400

> a 1980 ecoline. its a straight 6

if this is the case, you have a 300 cu in inline 6
the 240 of the same family was dropped from the
production lineup quite a bit before 1980, and the
240 and 300 were the only inline 6's that I know of
that were installed in Ford trucks from the early 1960's
until the late 1990's.

If you can have reasonable faith that the valve cover is
the original, it should say on the sticker what it is ...
otherwise, the best way to tell is to check various
repair manuals as to what engines could have been
installed in that year truck and cross reference with
what you have. Look at lots of diagrams and pictures;
it helps a lot with identifying parts. After a bit of
experience actually seeing the pieces and doing a lot
of boneyarding for parts, identifying engines (or at least
the general family of engine) becomes easy :-)



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

From: SMOKEY5209 aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:11:11 EDT
Subject: Degreeing a Cam

When it it necessary to degree a camshaft? I have always just lined up the
marks on the cam and crankshaft timing gears and have had no problem. I have
read several places that you should use like components do that degreeing is
not necessary. Can anybody enlighten me?
Ed

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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: Re: 400 EDSEL
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:31:40 -0400


> >
> >can anyone tell me if ford ever made a
> >400 engine back around 1973, or a
> >special edition engine called a 400
> >edsel or with a similar name
========================================================
EDSEL had a 430 engine that was also used in the old lincolns to
gordon


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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: Re: FMX Transmission
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:42:07 -0400


>
> Yesterday this thread was discussing holding an auto in Low. On my Lincoln
> (88 Towncar with OD) you can not hold it in Low because you can not select
> Low. >
> -- John
==========================================================
THATS STRANGE about the low range not being there i have a 88 mercury grand
marquis l.s. that can be selected into low but to hold it into 2nd you have
to wind it out in low shift into drive then pull it back into low to hold it
in 2nd BUT if you go below a certain speed it will kick itself back into 1st
then
just like the old cruisomatics operated
gordon


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

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: younkers auracom.com (R)
Subject: starter problems

My recurring starter problem has raised it's ugly head once more. A little
background. I bought the truck (1978 swb 4wd) about three years ago. It
originally had a 300 in it, but the po put in a 302. When I bought it, I
had some problems with the starter that were reminiscent of the sort of
thing that happens when a starter drive fails. ie. periodic lack of contact
with the ring gear. One day when I returned from a lengthy trip over some
rough roads, I couldn't get the starter to mesh and when I looked under I
noticed that one of the bolts holding the starter to the bell housing was
gone, and the other one loose. Shortly afterward, the starter burned out
and I replaced it, expecting to solve all problems. As you might guess, it
didn't work out. The intermittant spinning starter problem continued so I
guessed there must be some teeth torn off the ring gear. I've not done an
inspection of the flywheel, but I've never noticed any missing teeth any
time I had the starter off either. I also thought perhaps the starter sat
too deep in the bell housing to connect with the flywheel properly so I
shimmed it out about 1/16 of an inch but this made no difference either.
Anyway I'm usually able to park on hills, and it's never failed to catch
after a few attempts anyway so I put it off in anticipation of pulling the
engine for a rebuild sometime soon anyway. As usual, sometime soon can be a
long time.

Anyway, when I replaced the starter the first time, the wizard at my local
NAPA/UAP told me that there were different starters used for different year
302s. Unfortunately, I have no idea what year the 302 in my truck was
manufactured since it was a drop in. I found some numbers cast on the block
down in the area where the starter bolts in, I wonder if anyone can decode them?
1826 (assume this might be the firing order on the right bank)
EOAE
DBC
12
Any clues would be appreciated.
While I'm at it with the numbers, the transfer case has the number
C11416 on it, and the transmission isC96391 (four speed, bull low first)

When I took the starter off this time, the nose cone (front cover) was
severely damaged. It looks like the flywheel/ring gear was cutting into
like a power saw although there was never and noticeable vibration. It cut
through the cone to the point that the snap ring holding the starter drive
on was cut out which caused the drive to get loose and basically destroy the
starter.

Sorry for the rambling letter but I'm desperate for clues as to what might
cause this problem and no one around here seems to have any idea. My most
reliable mechanic friend is a bit too stuck on bowties to have a lot of Ford
knowledge I guess.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Robert Younker
Proud Owner
1978 F-150 Step Side 4X4 (156,000km) plate - NTFRGLE
1995 SHO Taurus (134,000km)
1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe (249,000 km) plate - PWRBY4D

Over 500,000 kilometres of Power By FORD


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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Degreeing a Cam
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:57:42 -0400




> When it it necessary to degree a camshaft?
> Ed
> ==========================================================
allot of the timing gears now have a built in retard of a few degrees thats
one reason to degree them
gordon



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

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:54:18 -0500
Subject: E150 steel rims
From: Brett L Habben juno.com>

Folks,
Today crawling in traffic I looked over into the next lane and noticed
something I hadn't before. This 90's E150 commercial van had the normal
dog dish hub caps, but the Ford steel wheels were different. They have
oval or rectangular ventilation holes cut all around the rim; 10-20 of
them. Always vigilant for cool steelies for the hubcap/trim ring look,
I wonder if these would fit my '75? Anybody know? What width would
these be?
Thanks,
Brett
Super75cab
________________________________________________________________





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

From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake selection/FMX

At 10:17 PM 08:06:2000 -0700, scott wrote:

> I think there was even some debate whether the FMX really ever had
>anything
>other than a small block bellhousing on it ...

You better explain that to Rockette's '68 F100, as it has an FMX, behind a
390...

Steve & the Rockette
68 F100, 390cid, FMX
63 F100, 292cid, 3speed
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600,tube frame going in.....
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
98 Contour SVT, Mine, Mine, All Mine....


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

From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: New Member

At 10:25 AM 09:06:2000 -0400, Toby Till wrote:
>Ya, some of us have wifes that work and no kids. It helps that she is into
>the sport too.
>
>Toby Till

You got that right, but I wouldn't want her job (medical), but herself
would enjoy mine (maintenance mechanic). Rockette is *NOT* a
typical female, actually enjoys going to the wrecking yard and slogging
through the mud to find that "perfect" replacement bit...

Steve & the Rockette
68 F100, 390cid, FMX
63 F100, 292cid, 3speed
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600,tube frame going in.....
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
98 Contour SVT, Mine, Mine, All Mine....


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

From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 18:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake/carb

At 09:17 AM 09:06:2000 -0600, Michael White wrote:
>(CID x RPM) / 3456 = Carburetor CFM
>
> Which means a 400 CID engine operating at a maximum of 5,000 RPMs
>requires a 578 CFM carburetor if the engine was 100% efficient.

What you have to remember is that in some instances, the engine
can be *more* than 100% efficient. I've built some engines that have
seen 107 to 115% efficency, ie: the carb, intake manifold, porting job,
valve size, port shape, and cam profile worked *right* at a specific
rpm. The best I've seen is 115% in a VW 1700cc Rabbit engine. It took
almost 10 hours on a dyno to see this, but the owner was very happy
with the results...

Steve & the Rockette
68 F100, 390cid, FMX
63 F100, 292cid, 3speed
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600,tube frame going in.....
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
98 Contour SVT, Mine, Mine, All Mine....


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

From: BOgborn webtv.net (Bryan Ogborn)
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 21:07:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Me too!

Hey everyone,
I have essentially the same question as Tony Marino. I have a '77 F-150
w/ a 351M and a three in the tree. Will that transmission bolt up to my
bellhauosin and will the rear tranny mount have to be changed? Also,
what about the drive shaft? I haul a 325 gal water tank and the 3 speed
does just fine. Would there be any difference with the 4 speed/ OD?
I'm wanting to be able to drive the Junkyard Dawg a little more, bt you
all know how gas prices are these days.
You can e-mail me direcxt or just post it here. Doesn't matter. Take
care and thanks in advance.
Bryan in KY
'77 F-150 with a 351M and a 3 on the tree. Life don;t get much better
than this!


http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://community.webtv.net/BOgborn/TheOgbornFamilyof


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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Me too!
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:10:43 -0400

I have a '77 F-150
> w/ a 351M and a three in the tree. Will that transmission bolt up to my
> bellhauosin and will the rear tranny mount have to be changed? Also,
> what about the drive shaft? I haul a 325 gal water tank and the 3 speed
> does just fine. Would there be any difference with the 4 speed/ OD?
.
> Bryan in KY
=========================================================
you should be fine with a O.D. tranny i haul a full cord of wood in my 79
f100 with a 302 and have hauled as much as 2 1/2 tons of rock in it also SO
if your doing okay with the 3spd the o.d. should be the same only it will
lower the rpms in 4th then I THINK it should all bolt up with no mods either
to anything also
gordon


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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: FMX
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:15:24 -0400


----- Original Message -----
From: seanet.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Cc: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:06 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 390 cam/intake selection/FMX


> At 10:17 PM 08:06:2000 -0700, scott wrote:
>
> > I think there was even some debate whether the FMX really ever had
> >anything
> >other than a small block bellhousing on it ...
>
> You better explain that to Rockette's '68 F100, as it has an FMX, behind
a
> 390...
============================================================
the cruisomatic bell housing will NOT WORK on the FMX tranny it bolts up
completely different you will HAVE to get a F/E bell to install the FMX
gordon


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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:35:28 -0700
From: Norm & Carey home.com>
Subject: 460/NP435 clutch linkage

Greetings! I have a '65 F-250 with a '76 T-bird 460. I'm running the original NP435 and a Centerforce clutch. My problem that a buddy of mine and I have been trying to work out is that the clutch is excruciatingly heavy to operate, and we believe we've traced it to the linkage set up. It's bellhousing is from an '86 460, likely for a hydraulic application since hydraulics, we recently found out, were used since '83. There appears to be traces of removal (cutting and grinding) on the edge of the bellhousing where the hydraulics must have been. The linkage was 'custom
made'; the original linkage eye bolt with another bolt 'extension' welded on to it. Anyway, the leverage seems to be all out of whack. Any suggestions?? New (perhaps aftermarket) bellhousing? Could it be just as simple as a longer clutch fork to improve the leverage? We figured the transition to a hydraulic clutch would be too involved, but any input in that direction would be appreciated as well. What say you??

Thanks in advance,
Norm


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

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:40:55 -0700
From: Tim Bowman uswest.net>
Subject: Free Car Show in Seattle, WA Sat 6/10

Tomorrow, Saturday 6/10, from 9 to 3 there will be a FREE car show with
free food and soft drinks, door prizes, entertainment, and dash plaques
for the first 200 vehicles, 17 trophies in your not your usual
categories. The show will be held at the Goodyear Tire Center near
SouthCenter on Baker Blvd between Andover Park East and Andover Park
West.

The show is sponsored by VINTAGE VEHICLE a local car show which is shown
on our ATT Cable channel 29 & 77 every Tuesday 7:30pm. The host of
that show, Lance Lambert, is a strong supporter of the car hobby.

For other Pacific NW events check out my website shown below. If you
have suggestions of events to add, please email me directly offlist.

--
Tim Bowman
Burien, WA
tkbowman uswest.net
Website: www.users.uswest.net/~tkbowman
(Pacific NW Carshow Information & more)



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

From: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 00:31:50 -0600

> Yup, these figures are a pretty good way to get an idea what sort of carb
you
> need if you don't have one, but sometimes practical experience will show
that
> it is slightly off ... the 390 I have would like to breathe a little more
than
> the 600cfm carb I've got on it ... I could go to a 625 or something, but
that
> doesn't increase the airflow.

Wouldn't the air flow be increased exactly 25 CFM?

> Air is what really makes the power and stuff,
> so by stepping up to a 750 I would be bumping my venturi size and allowing
more
> air in, hence better power and such, of course that means I can't just
romp
> it clear open either as the auto will probably cause it to bog doing that
...
> so I may have to *gasp* drive the truck :)
>
> Just my $.02
> wish

Wouldn't the increased venturi size reduce the vacuum signal resulting in
decreased throttle response?

Michael



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

From: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:45:05 -0600

> What you have to remember is that in some instances, the engine
> can be *more* than 100% efficient. I've built some engines that have
> seen 107 to 115% efficency, ie: the carb, intake manifold, porting job,
> valve size, port shape, and cam profile worked *right* at a specific
> rpm. The best I've seen is 115% in a VW 1700cc Rabbit engine. It took
> almost 10 hours on a dyno to see this, but the owner was very happy
> with the results...
>
> Steve & the Rockette
~~~~~~~~~

According to "Super Tuning & Modifying Holley Carburetors" by Dave Emanuel
(ISBN #0-931472-08-3)

Volumetric efficiency = "the volume of intake charge that will reach a
cylinder prior to the power stroke".

A volumetric efficiency of 75% for low performance engines, less for
late-model smog motors.

85 % applies to most high performance engines.

95% is appropriate for fully modified racing engines.

Using this info as a guide, I quoted the CFM rates with an estimated
volumetric efficiency of 90%. I consider it a generous estimate because
we're talking about a hydraulic lifter FE 390 with stock intake & heads. I
still believe that a 750 CFM carb is to large for a slightly modified 390
FE.

Michael
Salt Lake City, Utah
69 F250 CS 390 4bbl 600CFM Holley, T18 with Centerforce DF, 3.54 LS rear
69 F250 390 4bbl 600CFM Holley, C6, 4.11 rear (power front disc brake
conversion)



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

From: "glperry" fwi.com>
Subject: Fw: FE swap- wish
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:03:07 -0500



-----Original Message-----
From: glperry fwi.com>
To: listar ford-trucks.com ford-trucks.com>
Date: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:19 AM
Subject: FE swap- wish


If that 390 is really a 391 like in big trucks, it won't work in p/up. Most have
9 qt. oil pans different oil pumps, distributer shaft is bigger and pump drive
is different, have two thermostats in BIG housing, bigger waterpump and front
case cover making it longer, big fan, uses Huge radiator. I was putting a similar
359 engine in COE I had and it bolted right in on mounts, but everything else
was too big and I couldn't swap parts from p/up engines. These are called FT
engines. Came in 330, 359, 361, 391 c.i. versions, maybe others. IF that's
NOT what you have..............NEVER MIND!
"G"
G. L. Perry
Huntington, IN
54 Chevy 2-ton (driver)
50 Chevy COE (project)
MM Jet Star 3 Super (tractor)


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

From: TBeeee aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:11:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Fw: FE swap- wish

I'm coming in late on this one..so I hope I have the gist of this thread.
Sometime in the early 70's Ford started machining the FT blocks to be 390 FE
blocks. I suspect it was to use up the supply. The FT blocks are by far
more superior. I have one of these in my most recent acquisition. It is a
factory longblock which was purchased through the Ford Dealer. The FT block
is easily identified by the mirror image "105" which is cast into it instead
of the traditional "352." BTW--with some machine work you can start with a
standard FT 391
and mix and match some raditional FE components to stuff one into a pickup.
It is a lot of work though.


Stock Man
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....


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.