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); Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:22:00 -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 #123
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 Sat, 10 Jun 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 123

In This Issue:
FMX Tranny
Re: starter problems -- what year engine ?
bellhousings
stalling out
GM
FMX
351M FMX
I'm back
RUG
Re: 351M FMX
Vans 9-inch rear-ends
Re: FMX
Re: 351M FMX
Re: Just wanted to say hi, and....
Re: 390 cam/intake/carb
69-72 Hood/tailgate+ Sacramento Area
Re: Just wanted to say hi, and....
Re: Part suppliers for 61-66 F100's
Re: GM, and gm truck list
Re: GM, and gm truck list
GM, engines
FMX & C-4 Bellhousings

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

From: "james burnette" mindspring.com>
Subject: FMX Tranny
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:06:39 -0400

I have a FMX in my '71 F100 behind a 351W. Motor and tranny came out of a
'69 Cougar. I built the motor to be a real thumper around 400hp, the FMX is
stock. I've had a C6 ready to install when the FMX started going out but
that was 50K miles ago and the FMX shows no signs of giving up as of yet. I
may not ever get the chance to install the C6:-))


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

From: "Serian" flashmail.com>
Subject: Re: starter problems -- what year engine ?
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:48:37 -0400


> I wonder if anyone can decode them?
>
>EOAE

for the year the engine was cast:
E0AE = 1980



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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" HiWAAY.net>
Subject: bellhousings
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:20:18 -0500


Wish writes: >>SO they use the same bellhousing between the cars and the trucks? Is that what you're tellin me ? I'll believe it, just want to be sure I understand.<<

Some bellhousings between cars and trucks carry the same P/N of the years this list covers. I have no idea about later models, but for the 50's and 60's and the 70's this is almost always the case. Now when the toploader was introduced, it carries a larger "snout"(that thing that covers the inputshaft - the large circular thing that goes into the large hole in the bellhousing and is a tight fit), so they aren't interchangeable with the earlier 3 speeds and the T-10 4 speeds. I just discovered this last week while looking in my garage for some things for Stu. I believe in '66(or was that '65) when the all syncromeshed 3 speed was introduced in trucks, that the bellhousing on these also carry that large hole in them, but this is speculation on my part..Some transmissions carry two bolt patterns (small and large).. I have a toploader in my garage(not mine) that has both bolt patterns in it. If you have an FE bellhjousing, then it will fit any FE, but it might not fit any and all transmissions, but that is easily compared, if both are out of vehicles. That would be the necessary obstacle to overcome, I bvelieve.

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.



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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" HiWAAY.net>
Subject: stalling out
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:23:49 -0500


Chuck writes: >>I have a question though - immediately after it dies I can look down the
carb throat and pump the throttle and I get a good squirt of gas. Would I
get that if the filters were clogged or the needle was sticking or the pump
was bad? <<

In my opinion, NO!!!

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.


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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" HiWAAY.net>
Subject: GM
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:39:58 -0500


Scott H. writes: >> __gm__.com...

Surely not!!!!

Why not Scott... I worked for Chrysler(now DaimlerChrysler for 32 years, and just retired the last day of Aoril 2000...


Put your flamethrower back up. All have the priviledge and opportunity to love and drive Ford Trucks...

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.


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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" HiWAAY.net>
Subject: FMX
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:04:35 -0500


Don yerhot writes: >>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<<

The FMX was the last tranny Ford put into production with a tailshaft pump in it.(pertaining to the vehicles that we are concerned with anyway - I can't say about large trucks with automatics). The tailshaft pump would pump the fluid just like the front pump, so that allowed you to engage the clutch packs and "put it in gear".. All introduced after the FMX do not have this feature.

To be quite honest, I think Gordon is mistaken, but I can't be sure of this. Cruis o matic was a generic term used by literature for automatics during some years that are a part of the period covered by this list. Cruise o matic(Merc o matic and Ford o matic) could have referred to the earlier automatics as well as the FMX and maybe even the earlier versions of C4 and C6.

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.



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

From: "NP 540" hotmail.com>
Subject: 351M FMX
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:12:02 PDT




>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)


Yep, indeed there was a FMX behind those 351M: I have one
behind the 351M in my (almost dead) 1976 LTD. I am also sure that
they were also behind 351M into 77-79 Thunderbirds and Cougars.
My neighbor also had a FMX behind the 351M on his 1975 Mercury
Montego station-wagon. I know, that FMX is now mine. A friend of mine
also has a FMX behind the 400 with 351C-4V heads with nitrous and
SPECIAL pistons that he often drag-race with; 1977 LTD-II. VERY
fast car!!! :) He likes the FMX because the case is cast-iron;
says it is stonger. Never had problems with it that I know of.

Now, I need the FTE list wisdom: the axle on my Dana-44 from my
1979 F-150 4x4 is junk (driver's side). Does the axle part that
goes from the U-joint to the wheel is the same for BOTH sides?
In my Hollander, it says that there were two styles of splines for
those axles. I assume that they meant the splines that goes INTO
the differential. Or is it ALSO the splines that goes to the hubs?
I know one junkyard that have a dana-44 for my truck, but the
driver-side axles has been sold, and I was wondering if the axle
part that goes from the U-joint to the hub is the same as passenger
side, so then, it will be one less part to hunt for. I checked a place
where they sell axles: they want around $200.00 CAN. for complete
driver's side axles, less U-joint. Or anybody had experience with
the places that repair those axles: welding a good piece that holds
the U-joint to the axle? Is this a whortwile repair? Does it hold-ups
well?

Many thanks!

Gerry
Vive le FORD!
________________________________________________________________________


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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" HiWAAY.net>
Subject: I'm back
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:12:19 -0500


Wish writes: >>Azie, you out there? Any ideas on this<<

I think I just answered you in a previous post.. I'm in digest mode and have been out of town since Thursday afternoon. Just now catching up on my FTE mail..

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.



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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" HiWAAY.net>
Subject: RUG
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:14:28 -0500


Stu writes: >>. It is an RUG XX tranny.<<

Actually that should read RUG AZ. tranny.

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.








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

From: "Erik Marquez" alaska.com>
Subject: Re: 351M FMX
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:20:15 -0800


-----Original Message-----
From: NP 540 hotmail.com>
>
>Now, I need the FTE list wisdom: the axle on my Dana-44 from my
>1979 F-150 4x4 is junk (driver's side). Does the axle part that
>goes from the U-joint to the wheel is the same for BOTH sides?
>In my Hollander, it says that there were two styles of splines for
>those axles. I assume that they meant the splines that goes INTO
>the differential. Or is it ALSO the splines that goes to the hubs?
>I know one junkyard that have a dana-44 for my truck, but the
>driver-side axles has been sold, and I was wondering if the axle
>part that goes from the U-joint to the hub is the same as passenger
>side, so then, it will be one less part to hunt for. I checked a place
>where they sell axles: they want around $200.00 CAN. for complete
>driver's side axles, less U-joint. Or anybody had experience with
>the places that repair those axles: welding a good piece that holds
>the U-joint to the axle? Is this a whortwile repair? Does it hold-ups
>well?
>
The stub axle is the same, for both left and right.. as for welding, and
turning it back down as a repair.. umm, at best you will have a repaired
axle with worn splines.. I would go the new axle route if that is what it
needs.

Erik Marquez
bronco78 alaska.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.gci.net/~bronco78
Home of the BB decal


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

From: "NP 540" hotmail.com>
Subject: Vans 9-inch rear-ends
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:37:20 PDT




Hi again!

My brother has a 1975 Ford E-150 van, that he recently replaced the
axle bearings on the 9-inch rear-end. They were the "light-duty"
version. Everything works ok, but he is wondering how to identify
a "medium-duty" or "heavy-duty" (bigger axle bearings) 9-inches
in junkyards without removing the axles? Anybody know how?
Or can the bearings could be swapped in a same axle? ie, put
heavy-duty bearings in place of light-duty bearings?

Many thanks again!

Gerry
Vive le FORD!


________________________________________________________________________


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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: Re: FMX
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:13:25 -0400



>
> Don yerhot writes: >>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<<
>
> The FMX was the last tranny Ford put into production with a tailshaft pump
in it.(pertaining to the vehicles that we are concerned with anyway - I
can't say about large trucks with automatics). The tailshaft pump would
pump the fluid just like the front pump, so that allowed you to engage the
clutch packs and "put it in gear".. All introduced after the FMX do not have
this feature.
>=======================================================
it was NOT ME that said the above
----------------------------------------------------------
> To be quite honest, I think Gordon is mistaken, but I can't be sure of
this. Cruis o matic was a generic term used by literature for automatics
during some years that are a part of the period covered by this list. Cruise
o matic(Merc o matic and Ford o matic) could have referred to the earlier
automatics as well as the FMX and maybe even the earlier versions of C4 and
C6.
>
> Azie Magnusson
> Ardmore, Al.
==========================================================
the FORDO O MATIC and the rest are all referred to as DIFFERENT trannys in
my books i have BESIDES the C6 had the bell housing built into the tranny
casing and it is listed also as dfferent along with the C4 the books show
CRUIS-O-MATICS MERC-O-MATICS as the same with slight differences AFTER 64 or
65 then they were called 2nd GENERATION with the MX OR FMX stamped into the
rail where the tranny pan bolts onto them
gordon


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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: Re: 351M FMX
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:20:45 -0400

A friend of mine
> also has a FMX behind the 400 with 351C-4V heads with nitrous and
> SPECIAL pistons that he often drag-race with; 1977 LTD-II. VERY
> fast car!!! :) He likes the FMX because the case is cast-iron;
> says it is stonger. Never had problems with it that I know of.
Many thanks!
>
> Gerry
> Vive le FORD!
> ________________________________________________________________________
WELL THERE YA ARE
IF anything could blow a FMX i am sure that one would,ve by now
ive seen more C6s blown than FMXs possibly because they WERE NOT cast iron
in the center section as the FMX or CRUISO-MATICS were
gordon


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

From: WEDIVE247 aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:39:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Just wanted to say hi, and....

In a message dated 6/8/2000 11:39:58 PM EST, garrettnelson writeme.com writes:

<< you should all check out my website. www.1966ford.com

I've been on the list for a week or so now and I have already learned a lot.
Thanks everyone!


---Garrett
>>

Way to go Garrett , really cool site ,.

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

From: canzusseanet.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 390 cam/intake/carb

At 01:45 AM 10:06:2000 -0600, Michael White wrote:

snippage...
>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.

You're right, if the carb is a square bore, if it's a spread bore with
vacuum secondaries, or a Q-Jet, it'll be fine...

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: "Carver" ncwebsurfer.com>
Subject: 69-72 Hood/tailgate+ Sacramento Area
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 18:32:15 -0700

Found in the Grass Valley paper:
(30 miles east of Sacramento)


69-72 Ford Pickup Hood, tailgate, fender,
chrome front bumper, 8 ft lumber rack
Make Offer 530-273-6872


Jeff '64 F100 CrewCab

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

From: "Tim and Pam Allgire" williams-net.com>
Subject: Re: Just wanted to say hi, and....
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:47:30 -0400

Cool site & nice truck also !!!
-----Original Message-----
From: WEDIVE247aol.com aol.com>
To: 61-79-listford-trucks.com <61-79-listford-trucks.com>
Date: Saturday, June 10, 2000 6:42 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Just wanted to say hi, and....


>In a message dated 6/8/2000 11:39:58 PM EST, garrettnelsonwriteme.com
writes:
>
><< you should all check out my website. www.1966ford.com
>
> I've been on the list for a week or so now and I have already learned a
lot.
>Thanks everyone!
>
>
> ---Garrett
> >>
>
> Way to go Garrett , really cool site ,.
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
>message.
>


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

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Hall garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Part suppliers for 61-66 F100's

do we tell his employers he's using company resources for this, or do we
just tell 'em he's got a ford...?

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 daniel.r.mandernackgm.com wrote:

> P.S. I really do work at GM.


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

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:39:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Hall garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: GM, and gm truck list

On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Azie L. Magnusson wrote:

> Why not Scott... I worked for Chrysler(now DaimlerChrysler for 32 years, and just retired the last day of Aoril 2000...

> Put your flamethrower back up. All have the priviledge and opportunity to love and drive Ford Trucks...

ah, I was just teasin'. as a matter of fact, I need to buy a truck pretty
quick here, and I've narrowed it to a chevy 1500 or a chevy 'burban. no
special chevy thing, I just need a truck and I can't find an older f100
within 100 miles, so I gotta go with what's here.

anyhow, anybody know of a _chevy_ trucks list to get help on these things?
I know pretty much zero about them.

scott


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

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:33:55 -0400
From: Ken Payne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: GM, and gm truck list

-snip-

>anyhow, anybody know of a _chevy_ trucks list to get help on these things?
>I know pretty much zero about them.
>
>scott

Don't know of any.... the Chevy guys don't have enough
technical savvy to set one up. :->

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ken Payne






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

From: "G & J Boling" alltel.net>
Subject: GM, engines
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:21:25 -0400

BE-WARE of the G/M v-6s a few years ago i was hauling them into tonawanda
n.y. where they are assembled and they found that more than a few thousnad
of them had been assembled WITHOUT enough oiling holes in the crankshaft
they were hoping they outlasted the warranty on them ANOTHER big mess up
with them was they did not have enough oil pressure so if you do get one
stick a high volume high pressure oil pump in it to make it last long
gordon


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

From: "Desanto, Phillip" Cinergy.com>
Subject: FMX & C-4 Bellhousings
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:15:04 -0400

<>
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.
========================================================
Gotta be careful calling a Ford 3-speed auto a "Cruise-0-Matic. Ford called
em all that at one time or another, even though they weren't the "same"
transmission. (FMX, C-4, C-6) True the cast iron case's bellhousing
(FMX,etc.) IS different then a C-4's. But they could both be called a
"Cruise-0-Matic". Better to stick with the actual designation.
Don't have to worry about the removable bell housing on the others though.
:-) Later, Phil


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

End of 61-79-list Digest V2000 #123
***********************************
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979 Truck Mailing List

Send posts to 61-79-listford-trucks.com

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing
list, send an email to:

listarford-trucks.com

with 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 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.