Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:28:14 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V1 #324
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Friday, October 31 1997 Volume 01 : Number 324



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks61-79-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: Torque Specifications Question ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: '61 Spicer Oil Question ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Torque Specifications Question [Keith Srb ]
Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again! ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Torque Specifications Question [Keith Srb ]
Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again! ["Daniel H. Jenkins"
Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again! ["deconblu" ]
Flywheel Teeth [Schottsweb webtv.net (George Schott)]
Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again! [pharrell bae.uga.edu (Graphics & Re]
Re: Torque Specifications Question ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
F372 ["deconblu" ]
Re: Header selection for FE... [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again! ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Torque Specifications Question ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Torque Specifications Question [Keith Srb ]
Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order... ["Daniel H. Jenkins"
Re: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order... ["Gary, 78 BBB"
Re: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order... ["Daniel H. Jenkins"
Re: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order... ["deconblu" ]
Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again! ["Dave Resch"]

=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:15:41 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:57:05 -0700
> From: Keith Srb
> Subject: Torque Specifications Question

> I have heard from several people that it is unwise to put anything
> on the treads of a bolt when you have to torque it to specification.
> These people have told me that putting anything on the treads will
> give you inaccurate torque readings. I.E. don't oil the treads in an

Mechanics are being taught to use anti-seize on wheel lugs now when
years ago it was thought that this would allow them to back off.
Fact is it allows for more accurate torque so the DON'T back off :-)
All torque specifications I'm aware of require "Lightly oiled
threads" more is not better in this instance since once the metal is
coated the extro doesn't do anything to make it more slippery.

> me, it would make it a lot easier to explain. Wait a minute, I think
> he said it had something to due with Fluid Dynamics?

If, OTOH, you try to soak the threads and put it into a blind hole
you can indeed have a hydrostatic lock prevening accurate torqueing
of that bolt when the excess oil fills up the hole before the bolt is
all the way in so take care not to let that happen, blow all blind
holes out before you insert the bolt with anti-seize or oil on it and
you will be right on the money every time :-)

One place I found that anti-seize can be a problem is on sheet metal
threads. Since there is only one thread and poorly supported the
lube can allow you to over torque very easily so care must be
exercised here since they usually aren't torqued but just tightened
by feel. The lube messes up your feel.

Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:27:38 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: '61 Spicer Oil Question

> From: "Eric"
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:07:59 EST
> Subject: Re: '61 Spicer Oil Question

> Gary, does this mean you don't us the additive anymore?
> Do you just accept the chattering in turns?
> Will this have any long term -ill effects on my Spicer 44?
> What if I just put 1/2 the amount of LSD juice in there?

If you go to the ford parts house they should be able to give you a
small can of the additive (sorry, sell you a can). Just make sure
you determine if you want synthetic or not first and ask for the
appropriate one.

I WOULD use it in a FRONT end simply because the grab can be
dangerous on ice or wet pavement but not in the rear. I don't think
it will cause any damage and when moving in a straight line it won't
matter so you will only notice it on fairly sharp turns.

> I did locate in my Ford Shop Manual (1961) where it says this rear
> axle takes 4.5 pints of gear oil.... but what type?!?! The reason

85/90 high pressure gear lube, either petrol or synthetic type
doesn't matter but don't mix them. 140 should be used in heavy
trucks such as the F- 600 but not in light trucks IMHO :-)

> Also, IF I ever learn of the correct lube to put in there, and I go
> with synthetic like a couple of you suggest, will this present an
> oil compatibility problem with the small amounts of original oil
> that will refuse to drain?

That small amount shouldn't be a probelm but you could rinse it with
kerosene I suppose if it bothers you. Personally I wouldn't worry
about it :-) If you do rinse it don't move the gears very fast with
only the kerosene in there.


Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:36:40 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

At 11:08 AM 10/31/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Put anti-seize on it if you want it to come off again, loctite if you don't
>and RTV for head bolts. If anything, dry threads will be the most likely to
>give you an inaccurate torque.

Why would dry threads be the most likely to give inaccurate torque??

>
>>had something to due with Fluid Dynamics?
>
>You must know Engineers! :)

No, just a old diesel mechanic, and a bunch of Ford Junkies on some mailing
list some where.

>
>Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
>================================================
>Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Srb
>To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
>Date: Friday, October 31, 1997 10:53 AM
>Subject: Torque Specifications Question
>
>
>>I have heard from several people that it is unwise to put anything on the
>>treads of a bolt when you have to torque it to specification. These people
>>have told me that putting anything on the treads will give you inaccurate
>>torque readings. I.E. don't oil the treads in an attempt to make the bold
>>go in easier. Don't put anti-seize, lock tight, anything on them. Just use
>>a tap and die on the bolts and the bold holes to clean up and the treads.
>>From what these people have told me, buy putting something on the threads,
>>you not reading the torque as being metal contacting metal. You have a thin
>>layer of non-metallic material between the bolts that will be "crushed" to
>>a certain extent? I wish I could remember how one person told it to me, it
>>would make it a lot easier to explain. Wait a minute, I think he said it
>>had something to due with Fluid Dynamics?
>>
>>
>>Comments anyone??
>>
>>Later
>>
>>Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
>>Mesa, AZ
>>1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
>>1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
>>1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box, Style Side.
>>1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
>>My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two
>Wheels!"
>>
>>
>>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
>>| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
>>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request listservice.net|
>>+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request listservice.net|
>+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+
>
Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box, Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:35:21 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:11:40 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
> Subject: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

> Well, I tried looking at the intak emanifold for the firing order.
> After scraping away about 20 years of oil, I finally saw what I was
> looking for. The bad news is that the firin gorder given in the
> intake manifold is the same as the one from the Chilton's manual.
> What else could I have screwed up by replacing the cap and rotor?
> The motor won't even run on the old cap and rotor, so I'm thinking

Did you move the distributor? If not then you may have the order
reversed. The dist on fords always goes counter clockwise as you
look down at it and number one should be roughtly 30 degrees to the
right of center to the rear of the cap if on there correctly.

Did you remember to put the rotor back in? Did you unplug any wires
to gain access?

BTW, number one is on the left (passenger side) as you face the
engine and the numbers are 1 - 4 on the left and 5 - 8 on the right
with number 1 left front and 8 being at the right rear.

Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:47:04 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

Maybe I had better take one or two steps back and ask this question and see
if my thinking is right here or not. I thought that the reasons you
torqued bolts to specification, say on an intake manifold was to provide
even pressure from the manifold down onto the gasket and then down onto the
block, helping to prevent leaks, etc.

True or False? is there more to this that I am forgetting????

At 02:15 PM 10/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:57:05 -0700
>> From: Keith Srb
>> Subject: Torque Specifications Question
>
>> I have heard from several people that it is unwise to put anything
>> on the treads of a bolt when you have to torque it to specification.
>> These people have told me that putting anything on the treads will
>> give you inaccurate torque readings. I.E. don't oil the treads in an
>
>Mechanics are being taught to use anti-seize on wheel lugs now when
>years ago it was thought that this would allow them to back off.
>Fact is it allows for more accurate torque so the DON'T back off :-)
>All torque specifications I'm aware of require "Lightly oiled
>threads" more is not better in this instance since once the metal is
>coated the extro doesn't do anything to make it more slippery.
>
>> me, it would make it a lot easier to explain. Wait a minute, I think
>> he said it had something to due with Fluid Dynamics?
>
>If, OTOH, you try to soak the threads and put it into a blind hole
>you can indeed have a hydrostatic lock prevening accurate torqueing
>of that bolt when the excess oil fills up the hole before the bolt is
>all the way in so take care not to let that happen, blow all blind
>holes out before you insert the bolt with anti-seize or oil on it and
>you will be right on the money every time :-)
>
>One place I found that anti-seize can be a problem is on sheet metal
>threads. Since there is only one thread and poorly supported the
>lube can allow you to over torque very easily so care must be
>exercised here since they usually aren't torqued but just tightened
>by feel. The lube messes up your feel.
>
>Broncos really are supposed
>to have brakes aren't they?
>
>-- Gary --
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request listservice.net|
>+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+
>
Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box, Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:43:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

What do you mean by move the distributor? Do you mean did I move
it in such a way as to hcange the timing? I don't think I did; I didn't
touch the bolt that holds the distributor to the intak emanifold. Just a
quick question, the plane of the top of the distributor isn't parallel
with the plane of the intake manifold. Problem? Thanks.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel H. Jenkins Food for thought: John Milton
djenkins honors.unr.edu wrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
Honors Program wife died he wrote _Paradise_
University of Nevada, Reno _Regained_...

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:55:11 -0800
From: "deconblu"
Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

IMO it's something simple (those are always the hardest to find) I would
start from the getgo and try again. Pull the #1 plug and find TDC. Using a
remote starter (easy to make) put your finger over the hole and give it
short cranks. You'll know when you found the compression stroke. Line up the
timing marks for TDC and see if the rotor is pointing at the #1 on the cap.
If the wires on the cap are correct and in the correct rotation (I sayz it
again, cuz I seez it before) then check that their going to the right plugs.
You have the right F/O so me thinks it's you! :) Look it over with it in
mind that it's wrong. I hate it when I can't see the forest through the
trees. Good luck, been there did that.
Cancel all kiss up to Mom suggestions. I see you have already worn those
to thin!:) Later!

PS. Don't forget to put the rotor back in when you try to start it! :)

Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
================================================
Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/

- -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel H. Jenkins
To: Ford Trucks
Date: Friday, October 31, 1997 11:12 AM
Subject: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!


> Well, I tried looking at the intak emanifold for the firing order.
>After scraping away about 20 years of oil, I finally saw what I was
>looking for. The bad news is that the firin gorder given in the intake
>manifold is the same as the one from the Chilton's manual. What else
>could I have screwed up by replacing the cap and rotor? The motor won't
>even run on the old cap and rotor, so I'm thinking it is something else.
>I just don't know what could be causing my motor to backfire and die... :(
>Any more ideas? BTW, I tried Decon BLue's advice... my mom just laughed,
>yelled at me to get out there and fix it, and said "Fix your own damn
>lunch!" I don't know if that's a good sign or not... THanks for the old
>help and the forthcoming help!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
>Daniel H. Jenkins Food for thought: John Milton
>djenkins honors.unr.edu wrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
>Honors Program wife died he wrote _Paradise_
>University of Nevada, Reno _Regained_...
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request listservice.net|
>+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:23:04 -0500
From: Schottsweb webtv.net (George Schott)
Subject: Flywheel Teeth

I just want to thank you for your recipe for the ring gear. Although I
was very skeptical I went to the parts store and purchased a new ring
gear for 12.99 I brought it home turned the oven to 400 degrees and
waited for it to heat up when it did I placed the flywheel and new ring
gear in the oven and waited for about 30 minutes or so then I took the
flywheel out and tapped the old flywheel off I then waited for the
flywheel to cool off took the ring gear out and it layed right onto the
flywheel. BTW make darn sure that before you put the flywheel in the
oven you clean ALL grease and oil off of it I know this sounds like a no
brainer but I thought that mine was clean enough NOT!!! it smoked up the
whole house good thing I've got an understanding wife. I'm going to be
doing the power disc brake conversion this weekend thanks to Ken's
advice I'll write to tell you all how it goes thanks again.

Duke's
Fine 69

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 16:21:45 EST
From: pharrell bae.uga.edu (Graphics & Research Fabrication)
Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

Something else..has the engine ever had another camshaft put in? Ford has
two main firing orders and a 351 cam in a 302 changes the firing order..

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:33:21 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:47:04 -0700
> From: Keith Srb
> Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

> Maybe I had better take one or two steps back and ask this question
> and see if my thinking is right here or not. I thought that the
> reasons you torqued bolts to specification, say on an intake
> manifold was to provide even pressure from the manifold down onto
> the gasket and then down onto the block, helping to prevent leaks,

This is one handy use for torque specs but it's primary purpose is to
obtain maximum holding power without over stressing the bolt.

In the case you mentioned it's the torque sequence which is most
important and the max torque is important as well to prevent warping
the manifold or crushing the gasket and the bolts are in no danger of
being damaged here usually but in the case of head bolts, wheel lugs
etc. it's the safe torque before damaging the bolts or nuts.

All multi-bolt parts should be systematically torqued from a lesser
amount to the higher amount to keep them straight and avoid warpage
even when it's not specified but heads and manifolds need special
attention in this area :-)

Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:37:30 -0800
From: "deconblu"
Subject: F372

Hi Gang!
Well it looks like a go on the truck. I can't see anything that can go
wrong now, so I've decided to throw a curse on it and show you my '76 F372.
I scanned the ad in the Truck Trader I found it in. It's advertised as a 3/4
ton with a utility bed. The guy that's selling it doesn't know what it is.
He only got it for the rims and tires it had on it to trade wheels with his
truck. So take a look and tell me what you think! BTW it's a crappie
picture. Both sides of the truck are in the same condition so this isn't
it's good side! :)
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/HowTo/F372.gif

Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
================================================
Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:43:57 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: Header selection for FE...

>Hi all,
> I have begun to put on a new exhaust system on my FE 390 and have
>started to look for headers. I'm not looking to break any quarter mile
>records or anything, and durabilty is an issue as well as price and fit.
>Anyone had good results with a certain brand of header for an FE engine?
>I've priced Hooker's super competition at 250.00 bucks(kinda pricey but that
>was the only one offered for the FE) and Hedman's at 116.00 bucks(I wonder
>if I'll have to carve out my truck to get 'em to fit!). Those are the only
>two that would fit my truck that I've been able to locate with a quick
>search so far. One brand of header, I can't remember which, wouldn't fit
>because of a front sway bar. What gives? How could the front sway bar
>influence the header? The collecter is at the rear..right? ;~) The
>chasis is a 2 wheel drive 75 F250 crew cab, p/s, p/b, manual on the floor
>and no a/c. Thanks in advance...Paul
>

There is a brand called blackjack which I have on my m100; nothing fancy,
but they fit fine and work good, and they're cheap.


marko in vancouver
marko helix.net
71 f250 4x4
67 mercury m100

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:44:58 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:43:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
> Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

> What do you mean by move the distributor? Do you mean did I move
> it in such a way as to hcange the timing? I don't think I did; I
> didn't touch the bolt that holds the distributor to the intak
> emanifold. Just a quick question, the plane of the top of the
> distributor isn't parallel with the plane of the intake manifold.
> Problem? Thanks.

We're talking about the modern 400, 335 series common with the 351M
right? That dist goes directly into the block and yes I believe it
does sit at a slight angle but not sure right now. Taking off the
cap and rotor should not have messed with any of this so you need to
concentrate on getting the right wires in the right place on the cap.

Number one should go to the rear and slightly to the right, the next
wire in the sequence should go to it's left as you face the engine,
leaning over the radiator. The rotor must be completely on the
shaft and the cap must be properly located with the notch over the
left screw head in the vac. With this done organize the wires
according to the order on the manifold as above and it should start
right up.

Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:55:56 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:36:40 -0700
> From: Keith Srb
> Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

> >you don't and RTV for head bolts. If anything, dry threads will be
> >the most likely to give you an inaccurate torque.
>
> Why would dry threads be the most likely to give inaccurate torque??

Engineers who tested this stuff emperically undoubtedly used oil to
make them all the same. If one has a little oil in one spot and
another has more in more spots how can you come up with a standard?

This was probably more likely to have been prompted by the well known
fact that dry metal to metal, high pressure contact will gall the
thread surfaces causing all manner of problems so the light coating
of oil prevents this and since most mechanics will put it together
with oil on it anyway, why not make it all compatible??

What it boils down to is that most of the time you will have enough
oil on them even if you wipe them off unless you spray or soak them
in solvent so it works out most of the time eh? Where the extra
consideration of the anti-seize comes in is that since it doesn't
affect the torque spec since it is a lubricant like oil but is very
difficult to wash off with anything it will stay on and prevent
oxidation (rust0 in iron materials and electrolysis (corrosion) in
dissimilar materials allowing you to get them back out when you want
without breaking them off :-)

Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:06:30 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question

O.K. I can Accept that.

Thanks!

At 03:55 PM 10/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 12:36:40 -0700
>> From: Keith Srb
>> Subject: Re: Torque Specifications Question
>
>> >you don't and RTV for head bolts. If anything, dry threads will be
>> >the most likely to give you an inaccurate torque.
>>
>> Why would dry threads be the most likely to give inaccurate torque??
>
>Engineers who tested this stuff emperically undoubtedly used oil to
>make them all the same. If one has a little oil in one spot and
>another has more in more spots how can you come up with a standard?
>
>This was probably more likely to have been prompted by the well known
>fact that dry metal to metal, high pressure contact will gall the
>thread surfaces causing all manner of problems so the light coating
>of oil prevents this and since most mechanics will put it together
>with oil on it anyway, why not make it all compatible??
>
>What it boils down to is that most of the time you will have enough
>oil on them even if you wipe them off unless you spray or soak them
>in solvent so it works out most of the time eh? Where the extra
>consideration of the anti-seize comes in is that since it doesn't
>affect the torque spec since it is a lubricant like oil but is very
>difficult to wash off with anything it will stay on and prevent
>oxidation (rust0 in iron materials and electrolysis (corrosion) in
>dissimilar materials allowing you to get them back out when you want
>without breaking them off :-)
>
>Broncos really are supposed
>to have brakes aren't they?
>
>-- Gary --
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request listservice.net|
>+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+
>
Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box, Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:39:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
Subject: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order...

Well, here's the update: Mother getting madder by the moment,
pulled all spark plugs (except for the two by the heater core) and checked
for gap, checked for complete seating of rotor and cap, check for proper
connection with the spark plug wires, tried the OTHER firing order for V8
motors, prayed to the truck god, and have checked vaccuum and wire
connections. Here's the scoop: all of the plugs I check appear to be in
good running condition (a light grey/tan; they're VERY new plugs), the
rotor and cap are both well-seated, the spark plug wires are all connected
properly and in the proper order, the other firing order does even worse,
and all of the vaccuum and misc connections are complete. Any other
ideas? I'm beginning to question if it is the firing order or something
slightly more sinister. :( HELP!

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel H. Jenkins Food for thought: John Milton
djenkins honors.unr.edu wrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
Honors Program wife died he wrote _Paradise_
University of Nevada, Reno _Regained_...

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:53:48 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order...

> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 13:39:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
> Subject: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order...

> the proper order, the other firing order does even worse, and all of
> the vaccuum and misc connections are complete. Any other ideas?
> I'm beginning to question if it is the firing order or something
> slightly more sinister. :( HELP!

I'm speechless! Don't have a clue..................................

Weeeeeeeellllllll, maybe you damaged the coil wire or didn't get it
properly pluged in? Is the coil mount tight, you didn't loosen it
for some reason did you? (coil needs a good ground)

Ok, Ok. Ok unplug the plugs to the distributor and module and plug
them back in several times making sure they are all the way in and
give it another try. Have someone crank while you wiggle the
connections around if this fails and maybe you can find the problem?

Ha! had you going didn't I! Me, speechless, HAAAAA! :-)

Broncos really are supposed
to have brakes aren't they?

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:08:07 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
Subject: Re: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order...

Well, the fact that you were speechless had me both worried and
bothered... As if things weren't bad enough, you're speechless! I've
unplugged and replugged the wires more times than I care to think of. :(
I do have another set of wires handy, so I may try replacing the current
set with the xtras. The thing that has me so puzzled is the fact that,
despite my having a correct firing order, the motor refuses to stay
running. I can get it ti run if I give it enough gas to up the RPMs, but
you can still tell it's misfiring. The other odd thing is that I smell
gas. Sure, this normally wouldn't be a problem, but my truck runs on
propane! THe last time I ran it on gas the old girl bent three pushrods.
:( I've disconnected everything associated with the electrical system
that gets the gas to run, so it SHOULDN'T be running. Is there an easy
way to turn the motor over from outside the cab? I'm going to go ahead
and try to figure out where the rotor is at #1 TDC. BTW, I have a million
pullies, which one has the timing marks? Thanks. As you can tell, I'm
not speechless... just truckless. TIA.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel H. Jenkins Food for thought: John Milton
djenkins honors.unr.edu wrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
Honors Program wife died he wrote _Paradise_
University of Nevada, Reno _Regained_...

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 14:22:02 -0800
From: "deconblu"
Subject: Re: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order...

Lets see if we are in sync. Starting on the passenger side of the engine
from front to back are cylinders 1, 2, 3, 4. On the drivers side from front
to back are cylinders 5, 6, 7, 8. On the cap starting at number 1 and going
counter clockwise you have 1, 3, 7, 2, 6, 5, 4, 8. If this is what you have
and what is on the intake manifold and doesn't work, what is happening when
you try and start it.
As far as your mother being mad! Your in trouble. May as well forget about
that and just think truck. :)
I got to go pick up the F372 now. Back soon! :)

Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
================================================
Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/

- -----Original Message-----
From: Daniel H. Jenkins
To: Ford Trucks
Date: Friday, October 31, 1997 1:40 PM
Subject: Yet another 77 V8-400 Firing Order...


> Well, here's the update: Mother getting madder by the moment,
>pulled all spark plugs (except for the two by the heater core) and checked
>for gap, checked for complete seating of rotor and cap, check for proper
>connection with the spark plug wires, tried the OTHER firing order for V8
>motors, prayed to the truck god, and have checked vaccuum and wire
>connections. Here's the scoop: all of the plugs I check appear to be in
>good running condition (a light grey/tan; they're VERY new plugs), the
>rotor and cap are both well-seated, the spark plug wires are all connected
>properly and in the proper order, the other firing order does even worse,
>and all of the vaccuum and misc connections are complete. Any other
>ideas? I'm beginning to question if it is the firing order or something
>slightly more sinister. :( HELP!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
>Daniel H. Jenkins Food for thought: John Milton
>djenkins honors.unr.edu wrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
>Honors Program wife died he wrote _Paradise_
>University of Nevada, Reno _Regained_...
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request listservice.net|
>+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 15:24:51 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!

>From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
>Subject: 77 V8-400 Firing order... Again!
>
>Any more ideas? BTW, I tried Decon BLue's advice... my mom just laughed,....


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.