Return-Path:
X-Sender: kpayne mindspring.com
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:11:24 -0400
To: kpayne mindspring.com
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest) (by way of Ken Payne ) (by way of Ken Payne )
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V1 #266


fordtrucks61-79-digest Sunday, October 5 1997 Volume 01 : Number 266


=======================================================================
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: heater core ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!! ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Holley question ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Holley question, P.S. ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
RE: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!! [Sleddog ]
RE: Holley question, P.S. [Sleddog ]
Re: Report from the weekend/Question... [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: '72 f-250 [bic hankins.com (William Talley)]
Re: '72 f-250 [Ken Payne ]
Re: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!! [sdelanty sonic.net]
stolen truck [dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)]
Re: '72 f-250 ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
RE: Fouling one plug (FT#259) [DC Beatty ]
smog check info sites [danadeb pacbell.net]
RE: Timing causing engine vibration and poor emissions? [danadeb pacbell.]
rings....or valves [SARHOG aol.com]
POWER STEERING [Alex Haskins ]

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

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 07:10:18 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: re: heater core

> From: "RICH ANZALONE"
> Subject: re: heater core
> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 13:01:52 PDT

> remove the heater duct was a different story. To make a long story
> short it's a good thing the A/C didn't work anyway. :-)

Anybody run into those squeeze to remove rivit thingys they use to
hold the ducting together? First time I ran into that I broke
everything all to pieces trying to get it out. Once I had it out I
realized how it worked and kicked myself for breaking it. (I'm more
sedate now) Anyway there is a special tool for those which makes the
job much easier. Never ran into it again so never got one but
they're available :-)

The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:08:48 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!!

> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 23:25:58 -0700
> From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
> Subject: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!!

> 2. I figure on switching bodies, rather than axles transfer
> cases etc. Is this the preferred method? I recall recommending this
> to somebody but just want to make double sure. If the frames are
> the same (which I totally doubt) then it may be easier the other
> way?

Swap the body on to the new frame IMHO. Even if there are some
differences it will be much easier than swapping all the drive train.
I built a van that way and really wished I could find a donor chasis
for a good price but none were available so I cut and pasted the
drive train from a bronco. Took me 3 months hard labor to get it
done to my satisfaction.

> 3. My 71 has a NP transmission I think, it weighs about 200 lb,
>it has 3 gears plus a granny first, and the reverse is right and
> down. The 67 has a warner I think, it also has a granny but reverse
> is right and up. The reverse lights are operated by a dash switch
> not a tranny switch. Any real difference and shud I keep one over
> the other? The NP has been rebuilt, but the Warner seems quieter.

Reverse lights in dash is probably a shade tree fix. The shifter
switch is obviousely a better option but I once had a work light on a
67 with it's own switch and I really liked it so it's nice if you can
have both IMHO :-)

Either transmission will do the job and my NP 435 is very noisy too
but it's also old. I certainly hope it quiets down when I rebuild it
or it will get replaced with a C-6 and micky mouse floor shift :-) I
have no loyalyies, just what ever works :-)

The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:38:40 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Holley question

Ok, so I'm talking to myself today but I remembered my Holley
catalogs (yup, found 'em under a pile of off road rags) for the guy
with the 9-----something or other Holley that's too rich. I need the
number again and I'll look it up to see what I can find out.

BTW, the metering blocks are part numbers 134-0 to 134-223 if that
tells you anything about specificity to an application :-) I see the
new catalog lists 134-128 as the primary metering block and 134-39 as
the secondary plate which is equivelant to 122-69 jet number, doesn't
say what main jets it uses. Both carbs listed in the old catalog
call for 122-63 and 134-39 parts in primary and secondary jets,
haven't found it in the new catalog yet.


The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:02:18 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Holley question, P.S.

> From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:38:40 +0000
> Subject: Holley question

> Ok, so I'm talking to myself today but I remembered my Holley
> catalogs (yup, found 'em under a pile of off road rags) for the guy
> with the 9-----something or other Holley that's too rich. I need

Someone asked what the differnce between the 4160 and 4150 is and
visually the only difference I find is the secondary metering block.
I used to think it was the mechanical secondaries but I see they
offer both mechanical and vacuum in the 4150, they also offer both
side hung and center hung in either model but none of the 4160's have
secondary metering blocks (standard that is, they all have that
option), otherwise they seem to be identical? Looks to me like the
best value is the center hung 4150 with quick change jets and vacuum
secondaries. That gives you the most versitile, adjustable setup
Holley has to offer in this type carb. Add dual feed and you can
eliminate the transfer tube and feed the secondaries a little better
as well :-)


The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:30:30 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!!

i can tell you that the dana 44 5 bolt rears are getting rare. some old
jeeps used them if i recall and some old fords, but nothing else if i am
not mistaken. the 44 is not a stong axle for a truck. a light jeep with a
small motor it'll do ok, but a heavy truck with good torque will break it
if not driven very "softly". but it is worth something, what i dont know.
i think the jeep guys are always looking for them. of course, now they
are going to 9" diffs front and rear and . . . .

sleddog

- ----------
From: marko maryniak[SMTP:marko helix.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 2:25 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!!

Okay, I have finally found basically what I am looking for.

It's a 1967 Mercury M100 (just like a Ford with different name), with
basically a PERFECT body for me to switch over onto my 71 f2504wd chassis.

I am probably going to buy yet another one, an M250, for parts, which is a
rust-bucket but has lotsa nice little parts, lenses, handles, stuff, etc.
BTW it also seems to have a very nice windshield washer bag which I
probably
won't need, so if somebody needs lemme know. Ditto, Ken, if you still need
the choke handle.

OK. Here's the list of questions:


QUESTIONS SNIPPED

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:39:32 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Holley question, P.S.

i admit i didn't used to be a holley fan. but my latest and greatest carb
(2 years using it now) is a 4150 holly with vacuum secondaries. it has
been rebuilt (built?) by the carb shop and worked fantastic just bolting it
on. i have not had to screw with anything but idle mixture and idle speed.
it is a 750 cfm that is worked to flow over 900 cfm. it responds to
throttle input like a puny little carb and still flows alot for the top
end. i think that my next one will be done the same way, but i will start
with a big dominator.
one day i will get around to getting the jets that can be changed while the
engine is running.

i looked in the catalog too, but didn't find the difference in carbs - must
looked in wrong place.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3 ford.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 6:02 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Holley question, P.S.

> From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:38:40 +0000
> Subject: Holley question

> Ok, so I'm talking to myself today but I remembered my Holley
> catalogs (yup, found 'em under a pile of off road rags) for the guy
> with the 9-----something or other Holley that's too rich. I need

Someone asked what the differnce between the 4160 and 4150 is and
visually the only difference I find is the secondary metering block.
I used to think it was the mechanical secondaries but I see they
offer both mechanical and vacuum in the 4150, they also offer both
side hung and center hung in either model but none of the 4160's have
secondary metering blocks (standard that is, they all have that
option), otherwise they seem to be identical? Looks to me like the
best value is the center hung 4150 with quick change jets and vacuum
secondaries. That gives you the most versitile, adjustable setup
Holley has to offer in this type carb. Add dual feed and you can
eliminate the transfer tube and feed the secondaries a little better
as well :-)


The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- 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/ ----------+

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 07:54:03 -0700
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: Report from the weekend/Question...

I would try to repiant the "chrome" that lines the edges
>>of the trim piece that covers the dash. You know, the one where the
>>windshield wipers, headlamps, and radio are located. ANyway, I botched it
>>throuroughly. I tried using painters tape to dill in the black areas
>>where I didn't want paint. It worked alright until I reached the curved
>>parts. Anybody out there got any ideas? I'm thinking of maybe filling in
>>the spaces with silly putty or play dough... Help me make my truck
>>beautiful again!! Thanks!


Okay, I checked the website for bare-metal foil. For the record, 20 years
ago (when I was 10) and making models (or was it sniffing glue? My mom used
to worry about how happy I always was... ;^) )this stuff cost a buck, now it
costs five bucks. Yeesh.

Anyway, point your browser to www.gremlins.com/bmf/index.html and you will
get all the info on this stuff you ever wanted, and then some. It does
really work great and doesn't look at all cheap.


marko in vancouver
marko helix.net
71 f2504x4
67 mercury m100!!!!!!

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:47:49 -0400
From: bic hankins.com (William Talley)
Subject: Re: '72 f-250

This is my first posting so i hope i'm doing this right... if not, i
guess someone will lemme know! :-) The Truck is a '72 F-250 and the
engine is a 360. My Dad bought it new in '72 and it's sorta been in the
family all these years... The motor seems "tired" but the body is great
and the a/c is cold! I'd like to start driving it again on a regular
basis and have considered dropping in a 302... some folks have said this
is an easy job and others have said it's nearly impossible... any ideas
or suggestions along these lines or should i just have the 360
re-built? I'm not even sure it requires a re-build at this point but i
know i have always had trouble with exhaust manifold gaskets... this
motor seems to eat them! When they go out the noise is ... noticable...
to say the least! Finally, this motor (360) seems to be kinda a rare
bird... or am i imagining this? Thanks for any ideas, suggestions, etc.

bill.
1991 f-150 supercab
1972 f-250
one teenage male in the house

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:56:45 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: '72 f-250

At 12:47 PM 10/5/97 -0400, you wrote:
>This is my first posting so i hope i'm doing this right... if not, i
>guess someone will lemme know! :-) The Truck is a '72 F-250 and the
>engine is a 360. My Dad bought it new in '72 and it's sorta been in the
>family all these years... The motor seems "tired" but the body is great
>and the a/c is cold! I'd like to start driving it again on a regular
>basis and have considered dropping in a 302... some folks have said this
>is an easy job and others have said it's nearly impossible... any ideas
>or suggestions along these lines or should i just have the 360
>re-built? I'm not even sure it requires a re-build at this point but i
>know i have always had trouble with exhaust manifold gaskets... this
>motor seems to eat them! When they go out the noise is ... noticable...
>to say the least! Finally, this motor (360) seems to be kinda a rare
>bird... or am i imagining this? Thanks for any ideas, suggestions, etc.
>

1. Rebuild the 360, see about getting the crank changed over so it'll
be a 390. This is a minor changeover. If you put in a 302 you'll
have to change the transmission and driveshaft. The 302 does not
share the same bolt pattern as the FE blocks.
2. Check the manifolds to make sure they're not warped. They should
last a long time (the gaskets). Make sure you use a torque wrench
and properly torque them. Re-torque again after a couple of days.
Not having manifold gaskets tightened properly will cause **any**
engine to go use them up in a hurry. Also, if an exhaust port is
burned because you drove it too long with a bad gasket then this
could be the reason. This is a minor fix for a good welder.
3. The 360 is not rare. Over 12 million FE V8s were produced from 1957
through 1976, in displacements ranging from 332-428. Many people
think if its not a 302 or 351 then its rare, nothing could be further
from the truth. I'm willing to guestimate that 30-40% of the FEs
produces were 360 ci.

Ken

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:17:12 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!!!!

>Okay, I have finally found basically what I am looking for.
>
>It's a 1967 Mercury M100 (just like a Ford with different name), with
>basically a PERFECT body for me to switch over onto my 71 f2504wd chassis.


Sounds like You've got a fun new toy!

I'll give the FE questions a go,


>6. Both 67's run (ahem) 352's. Are they useful for anything but
>paperweights? I would like to drop in a 390, how much diff is there between
>a car and truck 390, and which shud I choose?

Yes, 352's will hold many papers down, and make good doorstops also.
There isn't much difference between a car and a truck 390. The truck
will likely have lower compression than the car, but if You rebuild
it, a diffent set of pistons will change that. The cam may be a little
different also, but that's the first to go anyway, right? (-:
Some car 390's may give You more power stock than the truck motors,
but if You rebuild it, the truck motor has the same potential.
I'd be more concerned with what condition it was in than where
it came from. I found a 165,000 mile truck FE390, never been opened
(crank and bores still "std" :-) complete, for $75. I did the heads,
threw rings, bearings, cam and a oil pump at it, and off I went...

>7. The good 352 has headers. These shud bolt up to a 360 or 390 (non
>gt), no?
>
Mmmmaybe... The bolt pattern will be O.K, and they will "bolt up",
but watch the exhaust port height. Early (58-65) heads have exhaust ports
that sit higher than later heads.
If You pick a point exactly centered between the studs, the 58-65 heads
have the port centered about 3/16" ABOVE midpoint and the 68 and later
heads have the port centered about 1/8" BELOW midpoint.
66-67 heads could be either style.
I have a set of C1AE castings from a 352, and my 390 hooker headers
definately would NOT seal correctly with these exhaust ports.
I'll send You an interesting article on making 428CJ heads out of
these early '58-'65 castings!
So check carefully before You try is all...

>11. Are there any useful parts from the 352 that I can swap over to a
>390? Except the block?

The heads *may* be desirable. What are the casting #'s??

Happy motoring,

Steve Delanty


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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 05:41:00 -0500
From: dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: stolen truck

>This morning the State Patrol called, the person who stole it is in the
>hospital with multiple fractures.

It would seem appropriate to visit the hospital with a tire iron and
add to his discomfort.

"Good morning, my name is Dr. Kevorkian..." WHACK!


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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 13:58:44 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: '72 f-250

> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 12:47:49 -0400
> From: bic hankins.com (William Talley)
> Subject: Re: '72 f-250

> a regular basis and have considered dropping in a 302... some folks
> have said this is an easy job and others have said it's nearly
> impossible... any ideas or suggestions along these lines or should i
> just have the 360 re-built? I'm not even sure it requires a

If it's not using more than a qt of oil between 3k mile changes and
it's running ok I'd just drive it.

> re-build at this point but i know i have always had trouble with
> exhaust manifold gaskets... this motor seems to eat them! When they
> go out the noise is ... noticable... to say the least! Finally,

There is a special way to torque exhaust manifold gaskets but you may
have warped manifolds too so next time you take them off put a
straight edge on them and check it out. If it's more than say 0.010
- - 0.015" then the bolts won't overcome the strength of the iron and
it won't seal. OTOH if you over torque them they will break.

> this motor (360) seems to be kinda a rare bird... or am i imagining
> this? Thanks for any ideas, suggestions, etc.

Most common engine in Ford trucks between 1968 and about 1976 AIR.
Based on the old 352 and is one of the FE engine series which shares
many parts with the others in the family. Not noted for economy but
very reliable just as all FE's are. It has an older transmission
flange tho so newer transmissions are harder to find for it. The C-6
was made to fit it once but housings are probably getting rare by
now. The other xmission families use bell housings so adapting them
is much easier. Parts for FE engines are still supported by the
aftermarket and easily obtained.

The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 15:17:33 -0400
From: DC Beatty
Subject: RE: Fouling one plug (FT#259)

Mike, happy to help out. =


I had a 1968 Ranchero with a 302. The motor was totally wore out and it
smoked big time. I changed the umbrella seals to pass the emissions test.=

They were little more than little chunks of charcoal when I got them out.=
I
passed the test. =


DC Beatty
1967 F100 352
1974 Maverick 302

- ----------
From: INTERNET:fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 1997 1:06 AM
To: INTERNET:fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: RE: Fouling one plug (FT#259)

Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Received: from listservice.net (listservice.net [192.41.45.94])
by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.5) with ESMTP id
DAA17014
for ; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 03:06:12 -0400 (ED=
T)
Received: from localhost (bounced localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) i=
d
BAA15155; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:05:59 -0600 (MDT)
Received: by listservice.net (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:05:58=

- -0600
Received: (bounced localhost) by listservice.net (8.8.5) id BAA15141; Sun=
,
5 Oct 1997 01:05:58 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from hotmail.com (F33.hotmail.com [207.82.250.44]) by
listservice.net (8.8.5) id BAA15137; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 01:05:56 -0600 (MDT)=

X-Authentication-Warning: listservice.net: Host F33.hotmail.com
[207.82.250.44] claimed to be hotmail.com
Received: (qmail 13682 invoked by uid 0); 5 Oct 1997 07:05:32 -0000
Message-ID:
Received: from 207.213.5.208 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
Sun, 05 Oct 1997 00:05:32 PDT
X-Originating-IP: [207.213.5.208]
From: "MICHAEL FRISCH"
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: RE: Fouling one plug (FT#259)
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 00:05:32 PDT
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net


>How about a bad valve guide on this cylinder or a bad valve guide =

>umbrella seal? =


>Just a thought

>DC Beatty

DC,

I was thinking the same on my 300 S6.
Im not more then a shade tree mech. But I fell
a little better knowing someone was think what I was.

Mike

______________________________________________________



+-------------- 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: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 13:57:08 -0700
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: smog check info sites

Sites with alot of California smog check info:



http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webgarage.com/ci/smog.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webgarage.com/ci/smog2.htm#require
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dmv.ca.gov/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://smogcheck.ca.gov/000170.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://smogcheck.ca.gov/000168.htm

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

Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 14:17:42 -0700
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: RE: Timing causing engine vibration and poor emissions?

I have a similar problem with my 460 shaking at idle. I always thought
it was normal!

Has the distributor or vacuum advance canister been replaced recently?
I went through hell because the rebuilder puts on what ever vacuum
canister they seem to have. ( all canisters are not the same. The dual
type seem to be particularly troublesome allowing mass amounts of
advance) I like Sleddogs' idea and would suggest you go one step further
use a timing light to find out what is going on. ( my $.02 is with too
much vacuum advance available initial would have to be retarded way too
much to allow the rest of the ignition timing to be correct ) although
the problem is probably carb related since it runs fine at higher RPMs.
Did it pass a (if there is one ) high RPM test ?

E-Mail me directly and I will go into detail regarding vac advance as I
know it.

Dana

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 18:08:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: SARHOG aol.com
Subject: rings....or valves

Well, I think I may have stumbled upon my problem....unfortunately, it ain't
looking like an easy fix. While troubleshooting my # 1 plug fouling problem,
I did a compression check which showed all cylinders 180-185 except # 2
165, and
# 1 195. Since my problem cylinder was giving me the highest readings, I
was thinking it was an intake manifold sealing problem, or maybe valve guides
or seals. This morning I did another check on # 1 (cold) and it was 200.....


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.