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); Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:05:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:05:37 -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 #125
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 Mon, 12 Jun 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 125

In This Issue:
Re: GM, and gm truck list
Re: Bellhousings
Re: Carb Size
E150 wheels
Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Re: E150 wheels
Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Re: Carb Size
Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Re: E150 steel rims
Re: FE swap.
Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Cruise o matics
351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: Stalling update
Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Mercury FE valve covers...
Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Re: 78 f250 front axle what is it?
Re: 351M FMX
Re: 78 f250 front axle what is it?
I think I am about to tackle the paint/body work on my 66
Re: 64 Body trim ??
Where will it end....

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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:11:36 -0500
Subject: Re: GM, and gm truck list
From: John LaGrone ford-trucks.com>

on 6/11/2000 8:33 AM, Ken Payne at kpayne ford-trucks.com wrote:

> -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

Along the same lines, my son has a Monte Carlo with a small block v8. It is
basically a throw away engine. No where near as stout as a Ford v8. Oh Ken
meant a web site, I thought he was talking about the trucks.......

-- 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: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:15:29 -0500
From: "Don Yerhot" nwhealth.edu>
Subject: Re: Bellhousings

I'm currently running an aluminum bellhousing that came form a 82 F150 that had a 300 and a SROD tranny. It's now in my 74 with a 351W and the original cast iron Ford 3 speed. I'm also using the 82 10" diaphram clutch. Gotta love the interchangebility of Ford parts!

DonY
65 F250 351W
74 F100 351W

< >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.<<

and Azie said: 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: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Carb Size
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:11:50 -0600

I'm sure if Edelbrock recommends a 600 CFM carb for your engine that it
will work just fine for you. The 302 CID can maintain higher RPMs than a 390
FE big block. Your engine would need to run near 7,000 RPMs to make proper
use of a 600 CFM carb. If you're sure that your 302 CID will never see RPMs
over 6,000, then 600 CFM would be a bit to large for your application.

CFM = (Engine CID * Maximum RPM) / 3456

Since this formula assumes a volumetric efficiency of 100%, some adjustments
should be made to the final figure unless the engine is a fully modified
racing engine.

Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I'm following the thread on the carb and am a little confused by the
formula
> to determine carb size. I have a 76' bronco with a 302 and was
considering
> putting on an EdellBrock Performace package on it. The package includes a
> 600 CFM carb. By the formula on this thread though, that is way too much
> carb.



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

From: "Mike" connect.ab.ca>
Subject: E150 wheels
Date: (No, or invalid, date.)

Seems to me that the 92-up base model F150 wheels are similar to the slotted ones described. I'd suspect a size about 15x5.5 or 6" wide. I always thought they looked pretty cool, too.


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

From: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:00:27 -0600

What was the size of the original wheels for a 69 F250? All I can
remember was that they were split rims (before I threw them away). How does
a "235/85 R16 load range E" compare to a stock tire? Would you recommend
using a 6" rim with 4" backspacing, or a 7" rim with 4 1/2" backspacing, and
why is one better than the other? What about mixing the 2 different rim
sizes on the same truck? Would the truck handle funny if there was a 7" rim
on the left/front and a 6" rim on the right/front (using the same tire)?

TIA

Michael





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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:59:09 -0500
Subject: Re: E150 wheels
From: John LaGrone ford-trucks.com>

on 7/25/2018 12:00 AM, Mike at bigred connect.ab.ca wrote:

> Seems to me that the 92-up base model F150 wheels are similar to the slotted
> ones described. I'd suspect a size about 15x5.5 or 6" wide. I always thought
> they looked pretty cool, too.

Be sure and check offset in addition to bolt pattern when swapping wheels.
For example the dish may be deeper or not as deep and the wheel may hit on
your calipers or your drums or the inner fender workings when you turn. You
can ruin your wheels/tires or your brake components in short order. (Guess
how I know.)

Along this line, I have seen several late 70s Ford pickups with wheels from
early to mid 70s full sized Buicks. They are the chrome wheels with the five
spoke pattern. These wheels came in at least 6 combinations of bolt pattern,
diameter, width, and dish, maybe more. Not for my Ford, but.....

-- 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: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:07:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
From: John LaGrone ford-trucks.com>

on 6/12/2000 1:00 PM, Michael White at danger csolutions.net wrote:

> What about mixing the 2 different rim
> sizes on the same truck?

Rarely a good idea, especially on the same axle.

>Would the truck handle funny if there was a 7" rim
> on the left/front and a 6" rim on the right/front (using the same tire)?

Very likely. It is usually not a good long term solution to mix and match.
The truck may drive OK, but it will likely not stop properly, typically
pulling to one side. The narrower wheel will cause the tire tread to not lay
as flat as on the wider wheel, giving you less tread on the road or at least
a different footprint. You can compensate some by adjusting air pressure,
but you are risking tire failure then. Like I said, mixing is not a good
idea as a long term solution.

-- 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: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:11:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Carb Size

OKay guys (generic term including all sexes/genders/species on the list), I think
its time to realize that these are just SUGGESTIONS, your needs may change depending
on how you drive, what you drive, and what you are looking for. If you don't
have a carb at all, or any idea how big of one you need, then this is a good
starting place. If you have a carb already, or have friends with SIMILAR setups
then you've already got a starting point. Not the same motor necessarily, as
what works for my buddy on the track with his 351 Cougar won't work as well
for me with my truck since his motor is wilder. These are just suggestions
based on calculated air flow requirements.


>The 302 CID can maintain higher RPMs than a 390
>FE big block.

Heh, I'm sure there's some guys who will take exception to that, any of these
motors can be built to handle any number of rpm's, it all depends on applications
and such ...


> Your engine would need to run near 7,000 RPMs to make proper
>use of a 600 CFM carb. If you're sure that your 302 CID will never see RPMs

>over 6,000, then 600 CFM would be a bit to large for your application.
>

Also a 600 is a common sized carb, if you wanted a smaller one you'd be paying
a ton of money for one, when a 600 will probably be fine. People do tend to
"over carb" motors, putting on way bigger than they need a lot of times (Mustang
Monthly did a comparison and "proved" this with an old 289 hi-po). Your best
bet is to talk to people who have the stuff and see what they think works best.



ps. I'm going through withdrawl, I haven't driven my truck in over a month
now!

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: "Southerland, Rich" alldata.com>
Subject: Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:11:06 -0700

FWIW, the 235/85/16 was the stock size tire (may be still even) on most
80's-early 90's F250-350 4x2's. The load range "E" is the highest load
capacity available. (10 ply) It's like night and day comparing them to the
old bias stockers...

I wouldn't mix rim sizes, but then again I like to rotate. Some people
don't. I don't know whether mixing rim widths on the same axle with the
same size tire would cause adverse handling, but then again I can't really
understand why you'd ask that question.

Unless you are planning running 7" in the back and 6" in the front and were
concerned about having to use the spare.

But then we're back to the same question. If you're running the same size
tire front and back, then why buy different width rims? I can think of no
reason to do that.

Hope I haven't clouded the issue too much...
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael White [mailto:danger csolutions.net]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 11:00 AM
To: FTE List
Subject: [61-79-list] Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing


What was the size of the original wheels for a 69 F250? All I can
remember was that they were split rims (before I threw them away). How does
a "235/85 R16 load range E" compare to a stock tire? Would you recommend
using a 6" rim with 4" backspacing, or a 7" rim with 4 1/2" backspacing, and
why is one better than the other? What about mixing the 2 different rim
sizes on the same truck? Would the truck handle funny if there was a 7" rim
on the left/front and a 6" rim on the right/front (using the same tire)?

TIA

Michael




==========================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
message.

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

From: "wish" ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:15:47 GMT
Subject: Re: E150 steel rims



>I've been told by numerous people that '99-down E150 wheels will bolt onto

>our older 1/2 ton vans/trucks. The F150 changed bolt patterns when it was

>redesigned in '97, but the E150 did not. Don't know if the '00 E150 wheels

>will fit or not.
>

Sounds right ... I saw those rims on a pre-97 van today, and I remember now
seeing them on pre-96 F150's running around the University, probably from a
"fleet vehicle" purchase, I'd bet the local salvage yards and such can probably
come up with some ...

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: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FE swap.
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:30:47 -0500


----- Original Message -----
From: wish ford-trucks.net>

Wish wrote:

> Thinner ? as in diameter or truly thickness ? Since he runs a machine
shop
> I'm not sure this is really a deterrant for him. I don't remember if he's
got
> a manual or an auto, but there's a flywheel on the motor with some adapter
bolted
> to it to connect it to the pumps. I'm curious as to why an FT application
clutch
> wouldn't solve the problem of it mating up, or would that have such a big
ring
> gear that it wouldn't fit in the bellhousing ?

An FT tranny and clutch will save him from having to thin the flywheel
flange. The following quote is from Steve Christ's book, "How to rebuild
your Big Block Ford"
" An FT crank can be used in an FE engine (or application) if the crank nose
is machined to a smaller diameter (from 1.750" to 1.375"). The rear flange
must also be shortened (thinned) 3/16". " end quote.
The thicker flange on the FT's was primarily used to better handle the
added weight of the FT flywheel and heavy-duty clutch assemblies. Likewise,
the extra stout crank nose was designed to run a pto.

> He's got the balancer for the motor, they just unbolted it from a corn
picker
> and pulled it out, everything's there it looks like.

If he's got the balancer and all associated pulleys, bracketry, and
accessories, then he'll just be able to use those instead of machining the
crank nose and using FE parts.

> > 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.
>
> So even the distributor on the inside has a bigger diameter shaft, so
swapping
> the "guts" from a duraspark unit wouldn't convert it over ?

He'll have to use the FT dizzy housing and the shaft. If the point cam will
come off the shaft, and he can get the armature back on and indexed
properly, then he will be able to convert it to the Duraspark.

> He's putting this in an F350 with a GVW of 12,000 lbs ... so I don't think
using
> FT heads and such to up that low end grunt will really hurt him any ...

Personally, I think if he's going to be doing a lot of heavy hauling, he'd
be better off with an FT.

Jason Kendrick



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

From: skordik yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:16:22 -0500

The original tire size with split rims would have been 7.50X16. (I still
have a set for my 71 F250) The closest diameter would be a 235/85R16. The
wheels on my truck were updated last fall before I drove home to Wisconsin
from Colorado. The replacements are a 6 inch rim.

Steve Kordik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Michael White
>
> What was the size of the original wheels for a 69 F250? All I can
> remember was that they were split rims (before I threw them
> away). How does
> a "235/85 R16 load range E" compare to a stock tire?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://im.yahoo.com


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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:45:11 -0500
From: John Strauss inetport.com>
Subject: Cruise o matics

The first Ford automatic transmission was the Ford-O-Matic and it was a
3-speed. Later, the Ford-O-Matic became the Cruise-O-Matic and the
Ford-O-Matic name was shifted (no pun intended) to a 2-speed (late fifties
I think). When the C4 came out (early sixties), Ford started using
"Cruise-O-Matic" as a marketing term to refer to any 3-speed automatic
trans. When that started, the "FMX" term came along which referred to the
original iron case Cruise-O-Matic. This trans was used up until the late
seventies. It did not ever come as an OD trans AFAIK. The AOD was based
on the C4 (aluminum case) and was introduced around 1980-81 and some
transmission guys at first referred to them as an "Overdrive C4".

The FMX or Cruise-O-Matic is quite heavy duty, it was offered in trucks up
thru the F-350 in the sixties before the C6 came out in 1968. In my 1964
F-Series service manual there are two transmissions listed - 2-speed
Ford-O-Matic and Heavy Duty Cruise-O-Matic.

Internally, the FMX is more akin to the C6 as it uses a band for 2nd gear
only. The C4 uses a band for 2nd and another band for high/reverse.

The original Cruise-O-Matic would start in either 1st or 2nd gear,
depending on which lever position was chosen. But, in either case, the
trans would shift up automatically (i.e. it could only be locked in 1st
gear by selecting 1st on the lever but could not be locked in 2nd).
Instead of the more common "D-2-1" shift pattern, the Cruise-O-Matic was
"D2-D1-L". The shift indicator often had a white dot (D2) and a green dot
(D1) on the column instead of "D2" and "D1". But D2 came first on the
selection (i.e. right after neutral) and in D2 the trans would start in 2nd
and then shift to high. You had to go to what later was commonly "2nd"
(the position after "Drive" which on this trans was "D1") in order for the
trans to go thru all 3 gears.

Conversely, the C4 and C6 would stay in 2nd if 2nd was chosen. I believe
the FMX at some time was converted to this configuration but not sure when.

I hope this helps clear up some confusion about the Cruise-O-Matic but
probably I just muddied the waters even more.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!


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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Neal De Pape yahoo.com>
Subject: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar

I'll apologize for the off topic post right away. My
lame excuse is that this list is the only group that I
know of that might be able to answer these questions.

Now to the question, I am looking at purchasing a 1969
Mercury Cougar XR7 convertible. I am told that it has
a 351 Cleveland in it. Was the Cleveland an option in
1969 for Cougars? I thought only the Windsor was
available. Also, what transmission might be used
behind this engine? The current owner only knows its
a Ford automatic.

FTE content: If I buy it, I'll go pick it up in my
1968 Mercury pickup.

TIA,

Neal DePape
1968 Mercury M(?)-100, 300-6

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://photos.yahoo.com

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

From: "Chuck White" jps.net>
Subject: Re: Stalling update
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:25:23 -0700

I just wanted to give you people an update on my stalling problem. I
replaced the condenser, and the ballast resistor(had a new one laying
around) and the coil (I had an MSD Blaster in but I wanted to go back to
stock). That was the day before yesterday and so far I have not had a
reoccurrence of the problem. Hopefully, it was one of those two things but
I am also going to check my fuel filters today even though they have only
been on the truck for 1k miles. I want to thank everybody who responded to
my plea for help both on the list and by e-mail. It is very cool that we
all help each other out when in need. When I showed my wife all the
responses she was amazed because she had no idea what the list was about.

Again -- Thanks

Chuck
'71 F-250 390 C-6


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

From: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Tire Sizes, Rim Width & Backspacing
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:43:22 -0600

> FWIW, the 235/85/16 was the stock size tire (may be still even) on most
> 80's-early 90's F250-350 4x2's. The load range "E" is the highest load
> capacity available. (10 ply) It's like night and day comparing them to
the
> old bias stockers...
~~~~~~~~~~~

Yep, I took the wheels off of my 92 F250 HD 4X4 before I sold it and
have been using them on my 69 F250 ever since. They are 16" x 7" Accuride
rims with 4 1/2" backspacing and Goodyear Wrangler 235/85/R16 E tires. The
old tires now have dry rot cracks on the sidewalls, so I recently ordered a
new set of 5 tires.
~~~~~~~~~~~

> I wouldn't mix rim sizes, but then again I like to rotate. Some people
> don't. I don't know whether mixing rim widths on the same axle with the
> same size tire would cause adverse handling, but then again I can't really
> understand why you'd ask that question.
>
> Unless you are planning running 7" in the back and 6" in the front and
were
> concerned about having to use the spare.
>
> But then we're back to the same question. If you're running the same size
> tire front and back, then why buy different width rims? I can think of no
> reason to do that.
>
> Hope I haven't clouded the issue too much...
> Rich
~~~~~~~~~~~

Since I have two 1969 F250's, it would be nice to have 10 identical rims
& tires, but I don't (not yet anyways). If you also count the trailer that
I'm currently building using a Dana #60 full floater, then 12 identical
tires would be
"ideal" for best interchangeability in the future. I do have 5 rims that are
7" wide with 4 1/2" backspacing, 5 rims that are 6" wide with 4"
backspacing, and 5 new Goodyear Wrangler 235/85/R16 load E highway tread
tires. The new tires will be here soon, and I was wondering which rims they
should be mounted on, or if it even makes a difference. I planned on buying
another set of 5 (or 7) tires when I can afford it, and wondered if I should
buy 5 (or 7) more rims so all 10 (or 12) wheels on both trucks and trailer
would be identical, or just mount them on the "other" set of 5 matching
rims.
My final objective is to be able to tow the trailer with either truck
and have that trucks spare tire fit any location on the truck or trailer
without any negative effects. If 12 identical wheels are required, then
which rim size would be best?

Michael






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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 14:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D. DiMartino" yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar


I am told that it has
> a 351 Cleveland in it.

get the VIN #'s and check it out with a manual, or go down to
walden books or a store like that and research! have a cafe
latte while your there...

=====
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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:43:11 -0400
From: Ken Payne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar

At 03:18 PM 6/12/00 , you wrote:
>I'll apologize for the off topic post right away. My
>lame excuse is that this list is the only group that I
>know of that might be able to answer these questions.

Try the Fordnatics link in our links section of the
site.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts



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

From: "Laura Spencer" junct.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:56:24 -0500

I don't know about the Cleveland being an option in the 69 Cougars, but I
use to own a 69 Cougar with the 351 Windsor. It also had the smoothest 3
speed behind it you could ever imagine. I kick myself everytime I think
about when I gave that car to my little brother. Oh...and that Cougar sure
ate a lot of Chevy's up. hehehehe
Laura

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal De Pape" yahoo.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 2:18 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar


> I'll apologize for the off topic post right away. My
> lame excuse is that this list is the only group that I
> know of that might be able to answer these questions.
>
> Now to the question, I am looking at purchasing a 1969
> Mercury Cougar XR7 convertible. I am told that it has
> a 351 Cleveland in it. Was the Cleveland an option in
> 1969 for Cougars? I thought only the Windsor was
> available. Also, what transmission might be used
> behind this engine? The current owner only knows its
> a Ford automatic.
>
> FTE content: If I buy it, I'll go pick it up in my
> 1968 Mercury pickup.
>
> TIA,
>
> Neal DePape
> 1968 Mercury M(?)-100, 300-6
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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: canzus seanet.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar

At 04:56 PM 12:06:2000 -0500, Laura Spencer wrote:
>I don't know about the Cleveland being an option in the 69 Cougars, but I
>use to own a 69 Cougar with the 351 Windsor.

Going from memory, the 5th letter of the VIN should be
an "M", and should be a 4 bbl carb, I think...but thats no
guarantee that the original engine is in the vehicle, and it's
a 351C...



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....


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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:46:33 -0500
From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/cougdb/

According to the engine decoding sources on this page listed above, the W
was the only option in 1969 in both 2 and 4V versions. I see no C's listed.

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

At 02:34 PM 6/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I am told that it has
>> a 351 Cleveland in it.



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

From: "davidl" tbcnet.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:33:44 -0500

sent this sunday will call tue with card ##

Let me know
you can take mastercard? and how do i do that?

do i send you my card #
let me know

zip code is 60178
David Lindenmayer
12293 north grove
Sycamore Il 60178

thanks
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 7:48 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar


>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/cougdb/
>
>According to the engine decoding sources on this page listed above, the W
>was the only option in 1969 in both 2 and 4V versions. I see no C's
listed.
>
>Stu
>Nuke GM!
>http://www.ford-trucks.com/~nukegm (for sale!!!)
>
>At 02:34 PM 6/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>I am told that it has
>>> a 351 Cleveland in it.
>
>
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
>message.


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

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:34:12 -0500
From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar

DO NOT SEND ME YOUR CARD NUMBER!!!!!!!! Do not send anyone your card
number via email!
What are you wanting to buy???


At 08:33 PM 6/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
>sent this sunday will call tue with card ##
>
>Let me know
>you can take mastercard? and how do i do that?
>
>do i send you my card #
>let me know
>
>zip code is 60178
>David Lindenmayer
>12293 north grove
>Sycamore Il 60178
>
>thanks
>Dave
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
>To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
>Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 7:48 PM
>Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
>
>
>>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/cougdb/
>>
>>According to the engine decoding sources on this page listed above, the W
>>was the only option in 1969 in both 2 and 4V versions. I see no C's
>listed.
>>
>>Stu
>>Nuke GM!
>>http://www.ford-trucks.com/~nukegm (for sale!!!)
>>
>>At 02:34 PM 6/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
>>>
>>>I am told that it has
>>>> a 351 Cleveland in it.
>

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

From: "Bill Beyer" pacifier.com>
Subject: Mercury FE valve covers...
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:42:18 -0700

I seem to recall some dim memory of someone on the list looking for Mercury
FE valve covers. This guy has some for sale:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bob2000.com/pinto2.htm

Scroll down a little over halfway down the page...

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




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

From: "Bill Beyer" pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:45:58 -0700

Easy there Stu...what's so bad about sending your card # via email? You ever
buy dinner in a nice restaurant? Ever have the waitress disappear with your
card for a little while? Think she couldn't write your # down for use later
by her scum-sucking maggot of a boyfriend? Ask me how I know...

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 6:34 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 351 Cleveland in a 69 Cougar


> DO NOT SEND ME YOUR CARD NUMBER!!!!!!!! Do not send anyone your card
> number via email!
> What are you wanting to buy???
>
>




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

From: "Bill Capers" worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 78 f250 front axle what is it?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:09:08 -0400

There should be a 60 cast into the body of the pumpkin near the top of the web
where the tubes stick into it.. You can also tell by looking at the u-joints.
The u-joints on the 60 are MUCH bigger than the 44. Actually everything about
the 60 is much bigger.

Bill Capers
'78 F150 (with Dana 60 front and rear...)


----- Original Message -----
From: craig taylor hotmail.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:52 AM
Subject: [61-79-list] 78 f250 front axle what is it?


> Can anyone on the list help me ID this axle. It came out od a 78 f250, vin #
> f26hrce1081. It has disk breaks, large hubs, eight lug and is high pinion.
> The numbers on the tag are as follows, 409 D8TA AGG 610040-4. I sure the 409
> is the ratio but want to find out if it is a dana 60 or 44. Thanks, Craig
> ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
> message.
>


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

From: "Bill Capers" worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 351M FMX
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:00:37 -0400

I have heard rumors of a 400 Cleveland motor preceding the 351M/400. Perhaps
this is what you might find in front of an FMX?

Bill Capers
'78 F150

----- Original Message -----
From: NP 540 hotmail.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 5:12 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] 351M FMX


>
>
>
> >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!
> ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
> message.
>


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

From: "davidl" tbcnet.com>
Subject: Re: 78 f250 front axle what is it?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:38:42 -0500

Go to the parts store tell the you want to see the ujiont for a 44 and a 60
then you will tell by looking at the joint.
4.10 or 4.11 not heard of 4.09 take the cover off and check the # on the
ring gear or count the teeth on ring and pinion and divide
just my thought
not my final answer
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Capers worldnet.att.net>
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Date: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:23 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 78 f250 front axle what is it?


>There should be a 60 cast into the body of the pumpkin near the top of the
web
>where the tubes stick into it.. You can also tell by looking at the
u-joints.
>The u-joints on the 60 are MUCH bigger than the 44. Actually everything
about
>the 60 is much bigger.
>
>Bill Capers
>'78 F150 (with Dana 60 front and rear...)
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: craig taylor hotmail.com>
>To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:52 AM
>Subject: [61-79-list] 78 f250 front axle what is it?
>
>
>> Can anyone on the list help me ID this axle. It came out od a 78 f250,
vin #
>> f26hrce1081. It has disk breaks, large hubs, eight lug and is high
pinion.
>> The numbers on the tag are as follows, 409 D8TA AGG 610040-4. I sure the
409
>> is the ratio but want to find out if it is a dana 60 or 44. Thanks, Craig
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> ==========================================================
>> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
>> the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
>> message.
>>
>
>==========================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
>the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the
>message.


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

From: "Garrett Nelson" writeme.com>
Subject: I think I am about to tackle the paint/body work on my 66
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:39:21 -0500


The truck- www.1966ford.com

I have a friend that has a spray booth out at his farm and between the two of us and his uncle we are going to gut the truck, do a little welding and repair, and paint it a nice dark shade of blue. I am going to cover the interior with sound deadening while I am at it, and replace all the weather-stripping and misc. small parts like that. I just got my Dennis Carpenter catalog today, and found lots of stuff that should help me out.

I have a little bit of experience with body work but have never done a project this big before. Is there anything I should look out for? Anyone have some good advice? And how much can I expect to spend on this project? I got a few quotes at body shops in town ranging from $2,000 up to $10 grand.

Tell me I am doing the right thing, this will be using up most of my paychecks for quite a while now.

---Garrett


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

From: WEDIVE247 aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:08:52 EDT
Subject: Re: 64 Body trim ??

In a message dated 6/11/2000 9:55:49 PM EST, Natp244 cs.com writes:

<< OOPS! I did give you the wrong one. it should be
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordoldpart.com
sorry for the mix-up. Good luck in your search

Nate >>

Thanks Nate . That one worked more better .

Steve

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:02:09 -0400
From: David Wadson air.on.ca>
Subject: Where will it end....

While I got the oil seal changed in that 351M finally. By jacking the frame
way up I was able to get enough clearance to get the oil pan out.
Unfortunately in the process we mangled the dipstick. The tube has a brass
fitting that screws into the oil pan and the wrench was rounding of the
fitting. Not thinking it was too wrong, we bent and broke the dipstick tube
in order to get the pan out. I got the kick in the teeth a few days later
when I went to the Ford dealer and found out that tube was worth $59. Kick
in the teeth #2 - all the trucks in the scrapyard are 2WD models with
dipsticks that go into the block at the timing chain cover. Checked our
local performance automotive store...351M 4x4 with dipsticks going into the
pan....haha! So we're going to try to fabricate a new tube from the old
fitting.

Final kick in the teeth...I've had a brand new, unused set of flarenut
wrenches sitting in my living room for weeks. Why oh why didn't I think of
them before I broke the dipsticks.

Got my front driveshaft back from being rebuilt...nice and pretty and the
slip yoke works great now! As I was installing it and looking at the yoke
on the front diff I got a sick feeling that maybe when my mechanic wrote
"front drive shaft yoke no good" he may have meant the yoke on the diff.
The little tabs (for lack of a better word) on the side of the yoke that
hold against the end of the u-joint caps have been broken and pieces of
metal welded onto the yoke. The u-joint fits all right in there but I hope
he did mean the slip yoke on the driveshaft...it was toasted. I'll have to
double check with him.

Started on the rear axle to replace the seals. 60 minutes to get one brake
drum off (doesn't help when you turn the adjusting wheel the wrong way and
then have to back it off even further). The other drum came off no
problem...doesn't take much when there's next to nothing left of the brake
pads. The axles came out easily and a pair of visegrips were able to
mangle the seals enough to pull them out with a slide hammer puller. Time
for another kick in the teeth...the ring inside the axle that the seal
bottoms out against...big chunk out of it and a good gouge on the inside of
the axle. We suspect the previous owner may have broken an axle at some
point in time. Whatever the case, I doubt that the new seal will keep the
fluid from leaking out and that's probably why that side had a bunch of
silicon in there.

Luckily I had picked up a couple 2WD trucks last year for parts and we
still have the back half of one of them. It gets kind of funny how
flippantly you look at the back of the truck and go..."Let's see, remove
the driveshaft, take off that brake hose...undo the u-bolts...hey, let's
just swap the whole axle out!" I guess after changing the rear main oil
seal anything else seems pretty easy...

Oh well, as I've been saying for the past month...honey, it'll be ready in
two weeks...


David Wadson - wadsondair.on.ca
"PS1" - 79 F100 ...ground into a million pieces.
"PS2" - 78 F100 ...currently alive and kicking.
"PS3" - 79 F150 4x4 ...now what have I gotten myself into...
Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada



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

End of 61-79-list Digest V2000 #125
***********************************
----------------------------------------------------------
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.