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); Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:16:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:16:52 -0500 (EST)
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 #6
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, 14 Feb 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 006

In This Issue:
Re: 351 oil tip
Choke Thermostats 101
Re: D6TZ-8200A Grille Shell
Re: Grille Shell D6TZ-8200A
Re: Frame painting/cleaning
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Flex plates
Balance job
Re: Water in oil
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Re: 61-67 econolines
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
FW: on mixing ATF
displacement
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Re: Grille Shell D6TZ-8200A
Re: displacement
Re: 351M/400 flex plate
LEAKING C6
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Re: displacement (oops)
Re: displacement
Re: windshield trim - No Trim??
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Re: Part number breakdown
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Re: displacement
351M buildup
Re: 351M buildup
Re: 351M buildup
Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff

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

From: Rubberducky23 webtv.net (Danny Ling)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 05:59:27 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: 351 oil tip

that idea works great with shaft mounted rockers. BUT!!!! the 351M and
400 both have canted valves (not paralell as they travel through the
head) and as far as I know are all pedistal mounted rockers.

Laters, Danny Ling


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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Choke Thermostats 101
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:05:52 -0500

Well, I spent the afternoon Sunday monkeying with the stupid choke on the
stupid Holley on the stupid......anyway I made a mistake in my last post on
this, the thermostat has 12-15 ohms, not Kohms. Hope I didn't mess anyone
up with that little booboo......read the meter wrong, sorry :-( Temp makes
a huge difference in the readings too which explains why I got 10 the first
time and 15 later. You can also put a volt meter on the terminal with power
on and watch the voltage chage as the element heats up..... interesting :-)

Here's what I found.....the Holley unit has 15 ohms depending on how you
hold your little finger.....or 10 or 12 or.....I finally settled on 15 for
that one and the replacement Motorcraft was 20-21 ohms which was a step in
the right direction I figured so for $28 I picked one up along with a
ballast resistor for another $3.98. They had three of these with different
part numbers but they looked identical so I got out my trusty Multimeter and
checked and sure enough they were different resistances: 0.7, 1.6 and 2.0
ohms. I took the .7 one to start with and it made about a 2v change in the
available power to the choke cap, measured at the terminal with power on.
The battery read about 12.7v, the Holley cap read about 11.2v between the
terminal and the neg batt post, and the Motorcraft replacement (not
motorcraft brand) read about 9.7v.

The holley choke was going off in about 1.5-2 minutes which was way too fast
and all the electronic resistors I had were way too high a value and when
used in parallel batches to reduce the ohms they got way too hot so the
ballast resistor is the way to go for this project, absolutely no doubt
there :-) The replacement unit by itself went off in about 4 minutes and
with the ballast resistor the time was increases substantially but I didn't
really measure it.....guessing about 7 minutes for full off position or so.

What all this means is that the choke will now come off in the coldest
weather in about 7 minutes which is just about perfect to keep the bronco
happy at stop lights etc. when cold where before I had to knock it out of
gear, coast up to the car in front of me with one foot on the brake and one
on the gas to keep it from stalling....BUMMERBUMMERBUMMER!!!! This should
translate to about half of that in the summer with no adjustments which
should work well I think. I can also adjust the richness of it by rotating
the cap quite a bit and the pulloff (integral) still pulls it off far enough
to run well. It turns out that these units have a heating element in them
rather than using the spring as I originally thought. The spring is not
supposed to be part of the electrical circuit in the system but is affected
by the heat generated by the metal plate it is attached to which is a "heat
sink" to the heating element in the cap. On the Holley unit there was a
ground effect via the sping which shorted the element, possibly by design
but what ever the case it acted way too fast.

This was an interesting experiment and I learned a lot and wanted to share
my findings with the group(s) in case anyone else was struggling with this
problem. I did have to modify the Holley lever to accomodate the motorcraft
replacement because the replacement fits into a slot and the holley is a
loop that fits over the arm, other than that they are interchangeable. The
holley unit also has two terminals, one for ground and the replacement has
the traditional metal strip on the cap which is grounded to the retainer
ring. Tonight will be the acid test as my first stop light is about 2
minutes from the parking lot and then there are two more about 1 minute
apart which was the perfectly wrong scenerio for the old choke setup, I'll
keep y'all posted :-)

--
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--


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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:41:20 -0500
From: Dan Herrmann in-motion.net>
Subject: Re: D6TZ-8200A Grille Shell

At 11:05 PM 2/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Mike Wrote:
>Just gave that part number another look... ...doesn't "D6" signify
something that first appeared in the '76 model year?
>
>
_______

Mike, Generally on most Ford parts this is true. For whatever the reason
Ford had upgraded the original "D3" part number to a "D6" during the 1976
production year. Usually they do this when there is some kind of running
change to a part, even though it may not be noticeable to us. This often
times happens to large sheet metal parts, examples being the Doors to our
73/79 trucks was upgraded to a "D9" part number, the Tailgate to a "D7",
Hood to a "D8" and Fenders to a "D9".

Thanks!

Dan Herrmann



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

From: nukegm ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: Grille Shell D6TZ-8200A
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 04:59:05 -0800



--- Original Message ---
"Mike Sealey" <75.f150 angelfire.com> Wrote on
Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:05:17 -0800
------------------
Just gave that part number another look... ...doesn't "D6" signify
something that first appeared in the '76 model year?

(Talking Fords, not Caterpillars...)
~~~~~~~
Yup and no. D6 simply signifies the year of the part
production. Ford would have modified the part slightly, when
they do modify or change runs it would no longer have a D3TZ-8200-?
number, it now would be D6TZ-8200-?.

71-72 grille shells are the same part but have a D2TZ prefix
not a D1TZ prefix. Somewhere there was a modification
in the shell or a change in the part manufacturing process.

Some parts go a long, long time without ever having modifcations
made such as the windshield trim for 67-77 trucks. That part
begins with C7TZ for 67-72's or 73-77's.

That is how I understand their screwy part numbering system.


Also, since Ford is a global company now, their part numbering
system has changed again (so I have heard). In 30 years we will
be trying to decipher the new numbering system to get a grille
for an 2000 model F-350 Super Duty without chrome.

Stu
Nuke GM!


-----
Sent using MailStart.com ( http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!


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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Re: Frame painting/cleaning
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:14:52 -0500

Bill, this has been discussed recently. A car wash will not prep a frame
for painting :-( You need to run a needle gun and wire brush on it at the
very least and sand blasting is recommended as well then you need to
degrease it and rinse it with a phosphoric acid wash then dry it quickly and
paint it with a good epoxy rust paint.

--
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

>I was wondering if anyone could answer my questions about redoing my
>frame on my 66' SWB. I'd like to clean it up and repaint the whole
>frame. Will I need to sandblast it or will high pressure from the
>carwash clean off the old dirt and paint good enough to apply new
>paint. Any comments/suggestions appreciated.

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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:29:36 -0600


> What I'm saying is that these units were made for circle track racing to
> help generate exactly the correct relationship for hard braking in corners
> and were never intended to be used on street vehicles.

Gary, this makes no sense at all, a proportioning valve has nothing to do
with braking on corners unless you put it between the left and right wheels
instead of the front and rear ... even then I don't think they bias the
brakes to one side just in case they do get down on the apron or heaven
forbid, backwards (no sense pulling into the wall by default) ...

If they were never intended to be used on street vehicles they would have
warnings all over them saying "Not legal for use on street driven vehicles"
or "for off-road use only" ... I don't see that anywhere on ANY of the ads,
including the manufacturers homepage. I'm confident these are DOT approved
and that you will have no problems with them. Besides the whole point of a
dual system is that if one part fails the other should take over to an
extent.

> DO NOT REMOVE THE STOCK PROPORTIONING VALVE! It is a
> critical part in the proper operation of your front disk brakes. If you
> really feel you need to do "something" then plug the rear ports and bypass
> it with your rear lines and use the Willwood unit but leave the front
> connected in stock form.
>

Or buy a check valve that WilWood also sells for ten bucks... really I
thought you were into this "speed parts" thing much more than this ...

And the weight distribution thing on a 4x2 vs. 4x4 ... last time I checked
the 4x4 was heavier in the front therefore worse off than the 4x2 ...

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


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

From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: Flex plates
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:36:23 -0500

Ox writes: >>351M/400 flex plate - Are these the same<<

Should be. I have one of each in my garage and laying them down one over
the other and then reversing the one on top to the bottom, I can find no
differences.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.


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

From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: Balance job
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:38:29 -0500

Ox writes: >> noticed one of the 400 flex plates I have has half
drilled holes (not in balcnce weight) that look like they are not
factory. Was this due to a shop balancing job??<<

Most probably.

Azie
Ardmore, A.


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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Water in oil
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:43:49 -0600


> > My 352 used to develop water in the oil over the winter when it
> sat for a
> > long time.
>
> Not quite to that extent but moisture in the 352 just the
> same. It's happened every winter to me so far.
>

My 360 had this problem a bit (white froth on the oil filler) in the winter
and cleared up every summer, though it would sit for a bit in the school
parking lot for weeks, rarely getting warmed up. Now that I drive the thing
every day during the winter, and have a new 390 in it, I haven't had the
problem ...

Dunno if this proves the condensation theory or not, but seems to be
logical...

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


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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:26:18 -0500

Well, Bill, if you read up on building and racing your own circle track car
as I have you will understand that there is a lot more to getting a car
balanced than adjusting a spring here and there or moving weights around.
It is common practice to have proportioning between both axles AND both
sides as well because when you dive into a corner all 4 tires have different
stresses on them and the valves help to distribute the braking forces to
prevent any from breaking loose. Needless to say each track and track
surface requires a differnt setup thus the "adjustable" versions. If you
recall from watching racing on tv, it is common practice to pass in the
corners. Diving in as hard as possible and applying brakes at the last
minute have won many races. In this situation brake balance front to rear
and side to side is critical. The guy with the best brake balance avoids
the wall :-)

I have used the willwood rear unit but not the check valve. 2-10# does not
seem to be sufficient to do what the stock check or residual valve does
based on my own experimentation with this. I do like performance but many
so called performance items are simply duplicates of a stock system that
already works well. If there is no stock unit which suits your application
then these things have a good function and application but if the stock unit
is available and your application is essentially stock from the standpoint
of braking then this is a superior way to go IMNSHO. I've seen this theory
proven many times in other scenerios. They may or may not be DOT approved,
not sure but their primary purpose was for racing applications. Perhaps I
was a bit presumptuous to make that statement, sorry :-(

One thing that occured to me when experinmenting with the bronco was the
fact that these units are designed for relatively lighter vehicles and
spring pressures may not be sufficient for trucks. I can't verify this
except to say that I had mine as high as it would go and it still seemed to
be limiting my rear brakes more than I wanted.

Long wheel base 4x4's still have a weight advantage if not a distribution
advantage due to the transfer case location but the bronco has the advantage
of short wheel base which puts more of it's weight over the rear axles or
"shares" more with the front if you will. I should not have used long wb
trucks in a braking, weight distribution discussion, sorry. Total weight,
tire size and axles locked together etc. are another issue altogether.

--
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

>Gary, this makes no sense at all, a proportioning valve has
>nothing to do
>with braking on corners
>
>If they were never intended to be used on street vehicles they
>would have
>warnings all over them saying "Not legal for use on street
>
>Or buy a check valve that WilWood also sells for ten bucks... really I
>thought you were into this "speed parts" thing much more than this ...
>
>And the weight distribution thing on a 4x2 vs. 4x4 ... last
>time I checked
>the 4x4 was heavier in the front therefore worse off than the 4x2 ...

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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:23:04 -0500
From: "Don Haring, Jr." fedora.net>
Subject: Re: 61-67 econolines

brian whiteman hotmail.com> said:
> Does anyone know of any parts sources for 61-67 econolines?

Mac's Auto Parts (www.macsautoparts.com) in NY has a good catalog. They
have 14 catalogs total for just about every Ford built. I've had good
experience ordering from them.

Replacement panels are made for some of the bottom side of the truck, but
top sheetmetal isn't available. You'll need to cut apart a junk truck for
that.

Good luck,
don

--
Don in Philadelphia
Internet Director, Keystone Chapter FCA | 66 Falcon Deluxe Club Wagon
Falconaut: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://fedora.net/falconaut | 61 Falcon Futura
Keystone: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://fedora.net/falconkey | classic scooters and bicycles



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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:45:39 -0600

> Well, Bill, if you read up on building and racing your own circle
> track car
> as I have you will understand that there is a lot more to getting a car
> balanced than adjusting a spring here and there or moving weights around.

Yeah, but real race cars turn both ways ... sorry more of a road race fan so
I watch NASCAR and such, but don't really get into their setups much as they
are always turning left ...

> I have used the willwood rear unit but not the check valve.
> 2-10# does not
> seem to be sufficient to do what the stock check or residual valve does
> based on my own experimentation with this.

That's a residual valve, I did say check valve ... like one say sort of
thing like the original cylinder has in it... I know you keep calling it a
residual valve, but I don't see how its residual and allows back-flow ...

> One thing that occured to me when experinmenting with the bronco was the
> fact that these units are designed for relatively lighter vehicles and
> spring pressures may not be sufficient for trucks. I can't verify this
> except to say that I had mine as high as it would go and it still
> seemed to
> be limiting my rear brakes more than I wanted.
>

Did you use the stock prop valve ? And it was too limiting ? So that would
mean too much flow right ? So you added a WilWood to the system to reduce
flow by 57% and you still had too much rear brake ? Are you sure it wasn't
a lack of front brakes ? I mean cutting your braking even to the rear to
that extreme would seem to have it take longer and longer to stop ? Maybe
I'm not understanding all this 'cause the Bronco is such a short vehicle
.... you are right that they are designed for lighter vehicles, so that may
be affecting things a little ...

Did you try putting a delay valve in the system? Its one of those things
that they are using for street rods now, in a panic situation it delays the
application of the rear brakes for a split second so there is no spike to
them like you get under normal circumstances ... Shadetree mechanic was
using one on their Kit Cobra so you may be able to find info on that at
their site ...

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


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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: FW: on mixing ATF
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:03:28 -0600

Posted for John ... hope this works ...

>I have Dextron in the tranny now and have spare F
>type fluid. Any problem? Thanks.

Don,

We've had this discussion several times. I am of the opinion that you
shouldn't mix Dexron and Ford ATF. At one time my C6 had a lot of Ford ATF
put in it and it wouldn't back up. When I changed the fluid and put in
Dexron, as spec'ed by Ford, it worked properly again. OTOH, I put Dexron3 in
the power steering pump on Henry when I replaced it and it works very well.

I would say if the choice is be stranded or mix, then mix, but get it
straightened out as soon as possible. IF you have a big leak and are adding
regularly, find a cheap brand to pour in, then fix the leak as soon as
practical.

-- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com <]:-) <]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)
1979 F150 Custom, Long Wide Bed, Regular Cab, 351M, C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!


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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:10:08 -0800
From: Clare Waterman-Storer scripps.edu>
Subject: displacement

well its done- my motor's (360 in my 71 f250) back for the shop after its
rebulid (plus new radiator) and running like a champ. got hardened seats, moly
rings, hv oil pump, new rockershaft setup, performance cam/lifter/springs. this
added to my edelbrock performer intake and edelbrock 600 cfm carb, headres, and
mallory ignition, bosch platinum plugs, taylor wires and flamethrower coil, and
holley mech fuel pump. should be getting some seroius horsepower- would love
to have it dynoed! the rebuild went great- no surprises- no cracks, no
evidence of heat problems- they said it was the first time it was opened up!
it sounds and runs great! low, slightly lopey idle, excellent power in the
midrange! really! it snaps your neck back when you accelerate from 30-80!

anyway, i'm thirlled! love to drive to work and just listen to it!

so for the question-- i had it bored by 30/1000. whats now my new
displacement?

i could do the math, but its easier to just ask. actually- just check my
equation for me:

8 x pi(r)squared x stroke

where r is the radius of the cylinder. right?

wooohooooooooo!

clare


-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: text/x-vcard
-- File: waterman.vcf
-- Desc: Card for Clare Waterman-Storer



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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:10:03 -0500

No, this is what I've been trying to explain about the bronco. The large
tires and more even weight distribution along with the bronco's weight
requires "more" rear braking, not less. In my experiments I had the stock
unit out of the system because I didn't understand the function of the
"valve" in the front of the unit.

One thing I have not tried yet is to plug the rear ports of the new, stock
and working proportioning valve and re-instate the still wired in willwood
unit. Right now I have it installed but the lines are connected with a
coupler and bypass it. This might actually be a good experiment to try in
my next brake marathon :-) I will be installing new lines soon so maybe
I'll give it a shot then :-)

Call me old fashioned but I like to have a little more control over my
brakes than all this new fangled auto stuff allows. The very thought of any
kind of delay in my rear brakes scares the heck out of me :-( I will never
own a vehicle equipped with any kind of ABS (that works that is :-)). My
new van has rear ABS and as soon as I get my son's truck off the lift it
will be going up there for a "fix". Someone mentioned a fuse that will do
the same thing with no permanent damage to the wires, anybody know if this
is true? I'll have to remember to look in the owners manual tonight.......

--
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

>Did you use the stock prop valve ? And it was too limiting ?
>So that would
>mean too much flow right ? So you added a WilWood to the
>system to reduce
>flow by 57% and you still had too much rear brake ? Are you
>
>Did you try putting a delay valve in the system? Its one of

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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:17:32 -0800 (PST)
From: "D. DiMartino" yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Grille Shell D6TZ-8200A

it was always my understanding that part numbers all refered to
a design #, blue print page #, and item on that page (the actual
part), and something refering to date of manufacture. but then
again i have been known to be wrong...



=====
Daniel DiMartino
yahoo.com>
1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
__________________________________________________
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

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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: displacement
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:34:15 -0600

>> i could do the math, but its easier to just ask. actually- just check my
> equation for me:
>
> 8 x pi(r)squared x stroke
>
> where r is the radius of the cylinder. right?
>

Congratulations, your equation is correct, but could be more useful like
this :

8xPi(d)squared/4 x stroke


this way d = bore+overbore, so 4.08 in your case right ? and a what, 3.54"
stroke ?

so that would be about 370 cu. in ? unless its only a 3.50 stroke, then its
366... which is about ... 6.1L (6.06)

370*.01639 = 6.1L (6.06) 366 = 6.0L (5.998)
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




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

From: "Dave Resch" sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:36:00 -0700
Subject: Re: 351M/400 flex plate

>From: James Oxley thecore.com>
>Subject: Re: 351M/400 flex plate
>
>Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>>
>> I've found a difference in the manual flywheels
>> but both engines are externally ballanced so I
>> would expect the flex plates to be the same.
>> Pressure plate bolt patterns are different for the
>> 351m and 400 for some odd reason though :-(
>> Boy was that a painful lesson :-(
>
> So if I used a 351M manual flywheel on a 400
>with a 351M clutch assy, would that be OK? The
>flex plate question was for one that I am
>selling. A guy needs one for his 400 and I have
>several 400 and 351M flex plates. I noticed one
>of the 400 flex plates I have has half drilled holes
>(not in balcnce weight) that look like they are not
>factory. Was this due to a shop balancing job??

Yo Ox, et al:

According to some of my references, the 400 used a 12" clutch disk and the 351M
used an 11" clutch disk. Ford lists the same flywheel part number (originally
D7TE-6375-A) for both M-block engines (351M/400), though, which would explain
why there are two sets of holes.

Here's an interesting oddity: the current Ford part number for the M-block
flywheel is E5TZ-6375-H. That part doesn't cross reference to any other engine,
which means the M-block part was re-engineered in 1985, 3 years after M-block
production ended. The flywheel is rather pricey from Ford now ($327.37 is the
last quote I got), so if you need one, you better get it used or have a fat
wallet.

Ford also lists the same flex plate part number for both M-blocks (D1AZ-6375-A),
which would be the original design from 1971 when the 400 was introduced in
full-size cars. You can get a new flex plate from Ford for about $82.

You can use the 351M (11") clutch on a 400, though it obviously won't hold as
well as the 400 clutch. If you're not towing or placing heavy loads on it, it's
probably ok. If you build up the 400 beyond its OEM performance level, I would
recommend a high-performance 400 (12") clutch assembly.

As far as the holes go, I have also seen those holes on old M-block flywheels
and flex plates, some of which I believe to never have been altered, so they
could be factory balancing.

Hope this helps.

Dave R (M-block devotee)



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

From: prozell oaielectronics.com (OAI Electronics: Paul Rozell)
Subject: LEAKING C6
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:51:42 -0600

HEY GUYS,
I have a C6 in my 65 F100. I am finding alot of tranny fluid around the tail
of my tranny all over the underside of my truck. What seal is leaking and is
it hard to replace????

Thanks,
Paul
65 F100 460 C6.


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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:47:01 -0600


OKay lemme see if I follow this ...

> No, this is what I've been trying to explain about the bronco. The large
> tires and more even weight distribution along with the bronco's weight
> requires "more" rear braking, not less.

So it was limiting too much and you wanted increased flow to the rear right
?

> In my experiments I had the stock
> unit out of the system because I didn't understand the function of the
> "valve" in the front of the unit.

So you didn't really have the front brakes you were supposed to either right
'cause there was no check valve or anything on them ...

> One thing I have not tried yet is to plug the rear ports of the new, stock
> and working proportioning valve and re-instate the still wired in willwood
> unit.

*big head shake* So you don't really know if this will work with a check
valve for the front, sort of a "poor man's prop valve" or basically an
aftermarket prop valve that is actually 2 pieces ...

> Call me old fashioned but I like to have a little more control over my
> brakes than all this new fangled auto stuff allows.

Uhm ...yeah ... so why was the WilWood bad again ?

> will never
> own a vehicle equipped with any kind of ABS (that works that is :-)). My
> new van has rear ABS and as soon as I get my son's truck off the lift it
> will be going up there for a "fix". Someone mentioned a fuse that will do
> the same thing with no permanent damage to the wires, anybody
> know if this
> is true? I'll have to remember to look in the owners manual
> tonight.......
>
I pulled the fuse out of my box when I was autocrossing once as an
experiment ... didn't really affect my performance much, but made the brakes
feel different (full ABS on the car though, not just rear) ... also caused
the ABS light on the dash to come on of course ...

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


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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: displacement (oops)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:48:53 -0600

> Congratulations, your equation is correct, but could be more useful like
> this :
>

Wow, sorry Clare, that was a very rude message, what I meant to say was :

Congratulations! (as in getting the motor back and everything)

and then continue my thought with

Your equation is correct, but ...


Sorry for the misphrasing there, I've been practicing putting my foot in my
mouth all weekend, guess I've gotten pretty good at it ...

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


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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:13:43 -0800
From: Clare Waterman-Storer scripps.edu>
Subject: Re: displacement

thanks bill- to lazy too look up the bore and stroke-

does anyone know what happened to that ford v8 engine workshpo site that had
info on all the ford motors and bore and stroke charts for cach??
clare

"William S. Hart" wrote:

> >> i could do the math, but its easier to just ask. actually- just check my
> > equation for me:
> >
> > 8 x pi(r)squared x stroke
> >
> > where r is the radius of the cylinder. right?
> >
>
> Congratulations, your equation is correct, but could be more useful like
> this :
>
> 8xPi(d)squared/4 x stroke
>
> this way d = bore+overbore, so 4.08 in your case right ? and a what, 3.54"
> stroke ?
>
> so that would be about 370 cu. in ? unless its only a 3.50 stroke, then its
> 366... which is about ... 6.1L (6.06)
>
> 370*.01639 = 6.1L (6.06) 366 = 6.0L (5.998)
> 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
>
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
> the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the body of the
> message.


-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: text/x-vcard
-- File: waterman.vcf
-- Desc: Card for Clare Waterman-Storer



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

From: "Robert Gunter" icnpharm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:26:10 -0800
Subject: Re: windshield trim - No Trim??

Greetings,

I am not too particular about the looks of my vehicle, but the windshield is
leaking. Most of my window trim is gone. Has anyone had any experience with
the "No Trim" gasket discussed below?

Thanks,

Rob G.


Subject: [61-79-list] windshield trim

Good question.I know the windshield is the same,gaskets should be the
same so the trim shoud work.BTW there are at least 3 different gaskets
for windshield.No trim.wide trim and narrow trim.








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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:27:53 -0500

I know what it does and so can guess what I will see when I try it but yes,
I didn't understand it then so didn't try it with a properly working front
control in place. I still had front brakes and they worked well enough to
stop the truck but the pedal was all the way to the floor on a hard stop.
On a gravel road I could easily slide the rear tires but on pavement they
were basically doing nothing untill I cranked the valve all the way up and,
as you say, due to the improperly set up front end I also had poor front
brakes to compare to. I also tried plumbing everything straight in one line
with no differentiation anywhere and the rears still would not lock up but
that may be due to not being able to apply enough force due to the fronts
not working correctly, not sure.

About that same time and for that same reason I added the F-350 rear
cylinders which gave me an aditional 1/8" of bore so theoretically more
force in the rear. This certainly helps with large tires on a heavy vehicle
:-)

As I said, I will be testing this with a proper front control used with the
willwood and let you know :-) When all the air is out of the system, with
the new, stock proportioning valve the brakes are hard and work as I expect
so haven't been inclined to test any further. Now that you have brought it
up though I think this would be a good thing to do :-) Until I get the new
lines on and eliminate the air leak that I still have not located I can't
test anything with any certainty so I'm just driving it :-)

I don't think I ever said it wasn't good for what it was designed for, it's
just not the solution to all our brake troubles, especially with heavy
trucks with big tires etc. although it may enter into the picture somewhere
in some applications......more testing is in order to determin that I guess
:-) I had the feeling after messing around with it that the spring was not
strong enough for my application to allow good proportioning in a panic stop
but......there are holes in my testing so I will table my opinion on this
till I've had a chance to make some proper comparisons :-) One thing I will
stand on though is that you absolutely have to have a "control" in the front
with disk brakes to prevent the pistons from retracting "excessively"
between stops, what ever you call it and what ever it's design.....

--
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

>So it was limiting too much and you wanted increased flow to
>the rear right
>
>*big head shake* So you don't really know if this will work
>with a check
>valve for the front, sort of a "poor man's prop valve" or basically an
>aftermarket prop valve that is actually 2 pieces ...
>
>Uhm ...yeah ... so why was the WilWood bad again ?

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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Re: Part number breakdown
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:43:31 -0500

I don't generally get into end item numbers but my understanding is a part
number "DOAF-12127-A1234" breaks down like this:

DOAF = Year and model etc.
12127 = type of part....distributor in this case, all dizzys
have this number
A1234 = engineering changes etc....

Tooling prints use a different scheme than end items do and do reference the
page and detial etc.. :-)

--
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

>it was always my understanding that part numbers all refered to
>a design #, blue print page #, and item on that page (the actual
>part), and something refering to date of manufacture. but then
>again i have been known to be wrong...

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

From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:52:04 -0600


> I also tried plumbing everything straight
> in one line
> with no differentiation anywhere and the rears still would not lock up but
> that may be due to not being able to apply enough force due to the fronts
> not working correctly, not sure.
>

Okay, I'm just going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that the WilWood
valve, as amazing as it may be, can't ADD flow to your system, so the
absolute most braking you could possibly get would be with the thing plumbed
straight from the mc to the brake cylinders ... you can include the WilWood
but you would want it at MINIMUM wouldn't you ? Otherwise it will be
offering a decrease in your braking abilities wouldn't it ?

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


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

From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: displacement
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:57:39 -0800

> well its done- my motor's (360 in my 71 f250) back for the
> shop after its
> rebulid (plus new radiator) and running like a champ.

Congrats on the rebuild. Want to do one myself soon


> anyway, i'm thirlled! love to drive to work and just listen to it!
>
> so for the question-- i had it bored by 30/1000. whats now my new
> displacement?
>
> i could do the math, but its easier to just ask. actually-
> just check my
> equation for me:
>
> 8 x pi(r)squared x stroke
>
> where r is the radius of the cylinder. right?
>

Yup 8 X 3.14 X ((4.05 + 0.030)/2) X 3.5 = 365.888

Tom H

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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:26:40 -0900
From: "Matthew Schumacher" 7x.com>
Subject: 351M buildup

Group,

I have a friend that wants to build up his 351M for off road usage.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get more power and torque out
of this block. I don't know anything about it, I have only played with
FE's.

Thanks

schu

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

From: "Bill Beyer" pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 351M buildup
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:38:22 -0800

Yeah schu, tell your friend to invest in a new crank & pistons & turn it
into a 400. Put in an aftermarket cam & 4V manifold & carb and you will wake
up the sleeping beast.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Schumacher 7x.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 10:26 AM
Subject: [61-79-list] 351M buildup


> Group,
>
> I have a friend that wants to build up his 351M for off road usage.
> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get more power and torque out
> of this block. I don't know anything about it, I have only played with
> FE's.




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

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 13:47:29 -0500
From: James Oxley thecore.com>
Subject: Re: 351M buildup

Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
> Group,
>
> I have a friend that wants to build up his 351M for off road usage.
> Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get more power and torque out
> of this block. I don't know anything about it, I have only played with
> FE's.
>

Basically, the 3 biggest things you can do to an M is replace the crank
and pistons to make it a 400 (everything else is the same between
engines), get the compr ratio up to at least 9.0:1 with new pistons and
replace the intake pieces (replace the intake/carb with 4bbl and put in
a decent cam that does not have retarded cam timing like the factory).
These will give you the best bang for the buck. See "Mr. M-block's"
article here :-)

http://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/mblock.html

OX

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

From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: Re: BRAKES! Proportioning valve stuff
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:19:03 -0500

That's the part I don't quite understand yet but I will get to the bottom of
it one day :-) The heavy spring can do one of two things, it can limit the
amount of "Pressure" that can be applied by acting as a reverse accumulator....


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.