|
|
Return-Path: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:50:30 -0600 (MDT) From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest To: fordtrucks61-79-digest Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V1 #305 Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest fordtrucks61-79-digest Wednesday, October 22 1997 Volume 01 : Number 305 ======================================================================= 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 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: C4 or C6 [DC Beatty ] 5 and 6 bolt bellhousing for 289 [john brawley ] [none] ["Nathan B." ] Re: Ammeter [John Gillespie ] Re: Increasing payload ["George Shepherd" ] Re: 66 Shortbed Styleside F100 ["George Shepherd" ] Re: Vacuum Line Diagrams ["George Shepherd" ] Re: rear end ratio ["George Shepherd" ] Re: Engine Identification ["George Shepherd" ] Actual ammeter wiring [Richard Cherico ] Re: your mail ["Daniel H. Jenkins" ] Re: t98 trans [Richard Cherico ] Re: t98 trans [Don Grossman ] Re: Increasing payload ["deconblu" ] Re: Plugs and Carbs [dave.williams Re: Plugs and Carbs [dave.williams Re: Plugs and Carbs ["deconblu" ] RE: FE intake sealing. was Re: Header for a 360 [Tom Hogan Re: t98 trans [sdelanty Re: 5 Speed and an FE [sdelanty mail structure [HYDROSMITH Re: C4 or C6 [DBrents105 Re: mail structure ["deconblu" ] Re: mail structure (Answer) ["Bear" ] ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:48:18 -0400 From: DC Beatty Subject: RE: C4 or C6 On a C4 the pan is square. On a C6 it's square except for a little indentation/notch type thing. = Good Luck DC Beatty 1967 F100 352 1974 Maverick 302 - ---------- From: INTERNET:fordtrucks61-79 Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 11:10 PM To: INTERNET:fordtrucks61-79 Subject: C4 or C6 My '53 F100 has a '71 Torino engine and tranny. The engine is a 351C- 4V and I think the tranny is a C6. I found it sitting in a garage in = So. Ca., where it had been for 20+ years. The engine runs great and = doesn't seem to have any problems (aside from water and fuel pumps = and carb which I have replaced). The tranny on the other hand leaks = from every seal, I have added transmission sealer just to keep it = together until I get the truck cleaned up. At that point I will = rebuild or replace the tranny. Since most of my transmission = experience is with sticks, I can't tell the difference between a C4 = or C6. Can someone tell me how to determine whether I have a C4 or C6? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:15:06 -0700 From: john brawley Subject: 5 and 6 bolt bellhousing for 289 I understand that ford made a bellhousing for a toploader 4 speed that would match to either a 5 or 6 bolt 289 engine. I need to verify years and models of Ford trucks this bellhousing was used on. Can anyone provide some information on this subject??? Thanks, John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:26:45 CDT From: "Nathan B." Subject: [none] I have a 76 Ford F150 with a 360. I am starting on my first restoration. And I decided why not start with the best FORD. I have a simple question...my fuel gauge quit working. My truck has dual tanks. No matter which tank the switch is set too it shows empty. Neither tank is empty. I was just wondering if anyone could give a rookie advice. I know it probably just a simple problem..but instead of monkeying with it right away I thought I would ask the experts. Thanks in advance. you can e mail me suggestions at natblow ______________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:31:46 -0700 From: John Gillespie Subject: Re: Ammeter Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:29:38 -0700 From: sdelanty Subject: Re: Ammeter >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:39:38 -0500 >From: "Dale and Donna Carmine" >Subject: Ammeter > >The latest chapter in the never ending saga of the Ford Ammeter......... > >Steve your suggestion the other day of using a piece of #10 wire as a shunt >seemed too reasonable not to try. Besides, I've been kicking this around >for a couple of weeks. Waiting for a power resistor from radio shack, etc. >.... it was time to try something!!!!! Hi Dale, Yeah, at R values this low, plain old wire is a cheap, easy way to go! >5) Replaced the #14 with 3 feet of #12 wire, (.002ohms/ft x 3=.006ohms). >Pretty good meter action. A little more sensitive than my Dad's old '69 >Plymouth. Engine off all accessories, headlights, heater fan, etc. on >produces about 2/3 scale movement. I still think that a low battery hard >charge condition will peg the meter, but I'm going to try it this way for >awhile. > >Note: The wire was added to the original shunt wire. I didn't remove any >of the original shunt. I used crimp connectors. If you solder your >connections your results my vary. With resistances this low, obviously many factors can influence the final *total* resistances. Other wiring in the shunt circuit, connection quality (crimp, solder, etc), individual meter resistance, wire in the meter current path, phase of moon, etc can make a big difference in how the meter reads. It's not a very deluxe meter setup, but it's what Ford gave us, so we make the best of it I guess... >Tom, >I don't think there's any way your shunt resistance is 1.2ohms. Your meter >may be telling you it is, but don't believe it! Measure your voltage drops >and currents and calculate your resistance. I'll bet it's very close to >the .025 that you set out to create in the first place. Yes, it's very hard to get accurate measurements on this stuff without a nice expensive milliohmeter, or measuring currents and volt drops and using the calculator. Toms shunt description sounds like it should give way less than 1.2 ohms, and the fact that it works well suggests much less than 1.2 ohms. Something is wrong with that number... The article Tom wrote is excellent though, and should help lots of people fix this odd Ford ammeter problem. It certainly makes one wonder what Fords reasoning was tho! Actually though, I'm a volmeter man myself... Steve Delanty Tom, Steve, Dale and all of the others that have been following this thread. I just noticed something as I was re-reading all the comments about the shunt resistance being too high. It is. All the electronics theory that I've had tells me that when you have two or more resistors in parallel; you add their resistance and divide the sum by the number of resistors or legs, i.e., R1 + R2 +Rn ------------- = Total Resistance # of resistors There fore if the origanal shunt had 0.05 ohms(and here I am guessing) and the 10ga wire has 0.006 ohms then your total resistance would be approximately 0.056ohms --------- = 0.028 ohms 2 Maybe Im barking up the wrong tree by this is IMHO. Sorry about not replying sooner. Been trying to repair the wife's 82 LTD. She was one of the unlucky ones here in San Diego 3 weeks ago in our yearly rain storm. John 66 F100 240-6 82 LTD (front clip needing replacement) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:19:08 -0500 From: "George Shepherd" Subject: Re: Increasing payload You can try the JC Whitney overload springs and air shocks routine; the beef up the F-100 with the F 250 components routine (swap out the rear axle and change the front hubs) or switch over all your goodies to the F250. - ---------- > From: deconblu > To: fordtrucks > Subject: Increasing payload > Date: Friday, October 17, 1997 7:53 PM > > I have been doing deliveries using my '73 F-100 and I need to increase > it's payload. I would like to carry up to a ton of cargo, if it's possible. > If not, I've thought a flatbed trailer would do the trick (possibly even > better). What would I need to do for a trailer hitch? I found an '72 F-250 > that needs transmission work for $900.00 but after all the work I've done to > my truck, I'd hate to start all over again. TIA. > > Deacon Blues deconblu > ================================================ > 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/ > > > +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ > | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request > +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:29:38 -0500 From: "George Shepherd" Subject: Re: 66 Shortbed Styleside F100 I think the rust replacement boys have a panel kit for that. Check Popular Mechanics, maybe JC Whitney. A four or 5 speed on the floor would be a good replacement. Get the steering column and the floor plate from a salvage yard. Cut your floor board to fit the floor plate. Much simpler than an auto trans conversion. - ---------- > From: Tred123 > To: fordtrucks61-79 > Subject: Re: 66 Shortbed Styleside F100 > Date: Friday, October 17, 1997 10:08 PM > > Hi All, > > I have been enjoying this list for some time. Great source of info!!!!. > This is my first post. I have a rust free truck except for the bed. The > sides are almost perfect, the problem is the floor up near the cab is rusted > thru. Rather than cover up the rust with a wood bed kit I'd like to replace > the floor panel. The problem is, that except for flareside bed panels I have > been unable to locate parts for my styleside. Does anybody know a source for > these beds??? I have also been unable to locate a rust free bed as a > replacement. > Second, I'd like to replace my three speed on the column to a four > speed(or five Speed) on the floor. I dont have a cut out on the floor for > this type of shifter. Is it a good idea to cut up the floor or should i just > go with a C6? Presently, the engine is a 390. > Your input would be appreciated!!!! > > Thanks, > > > Fred > +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ > | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request > +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:15:11 -0500 From: "George Shepherd" Subject: Re: Vacuum Line Diagrams Vacuum line routing varied so much that Ford never published them. It was always on the emissions sticker stuck to the radiator support. I've never heard of any compilation of them. Would make an interesting project. Any body know of a compilation of them please let me know. - ---------- > From: MICHAEL THOMAS > To: fordtrucks61-79 > Subject: Vacuum Line Diagrams > Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:28 PM > > Hello-- > > I need to know a source for vacuum line routings on a '77 F150 w/400. > I just bought the truck and none of the vacuum lines were > hooked to the distributor, trans., etc. Most dealers around here > claim they cannot get them. There is a diagram in Chilton's Ford > Pick-ups 65-86 for the EGR system. Would this be a valid diagram??? > It is eqipped w/EGR and it doesn't have the vacuum switches in the > intake manifold. They are plugged by bolts. > > Oh, and thanks to Gary and Dana for Dura Spark I info!! > Dustin T. > mdthomas > KB9OGG > '77 F150 Ranger 400 cubes > > Never enough time to do it > right at first, but plenty > of time to do it over. > +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ > | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request > +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:42:35 -0500 From: "George Shepherd" Subject: Re: rear end ratio None of those sound right. Rear end ratios vary from around 2.73:1 to 4.11:1. - ---------- > From: Jesus Cardoso > To: fordtrucks61-79 > Subject: rear end ratio > Date: Saturday, October 18, 1997 4:38 PM > > Howdy! > > I finally had a chance to lift up my to see the rear end ratio. > The problem that I am having is that I can remember how the ratios go...my > truck basically has the ratio of seven turns of the driveshaft to four of > the tires...I can't remember if it is 7:4 or 4:7 or more like 1.5:1 or > 1:1.5. So which one is it?!?! > For the guy that put the info on this parking lights (I can't > remember who it is)....my truck has following configuration; on the first > notch my parking lights only turn on, but on the second notch my > headlights come on and the parking lights turn off. I think this was what > you had on your truck. > By the way my truck is a '63 F100 (292, T87E 3-speed, LWB > Flareside). > > Thanks for everyones help. > > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: > > Jesus Cardoso, a.k.a. Chuy > Graduate Research Assistant (Power System Automation Lab) > Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University > College Station, TX 77843-3128 > w: 409-845-4623, h: 409-775-0737 > Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2214, College Station, TX 77841-2214 > e-mail: cardoso > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ee.tamu.edu/~cardoso > > :::::::::::::::"Todos en el mundo sonreimos en la misma lengua."::::::::::::::: > > +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ > | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request > +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:31:48 -0500 From: "George Shepherd" Subject: Re: Engine Identification - ---------- > From: deconblu > To: fordtrucks61-79 > Subject: Re: Engine Identification > Date: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 1:25 AM > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/fe.html Here's some good information on the > FE at the Ford Engine Workshop. A good place to bookmark too. Has some of > the best Ford engine information on the Internet (wish it was mine)! > > > F10CE447882 > > C doesn't show up in my Chilton but a G is a 302. Don't put much weight in > Chilton, it has been known to be wrong. Redbook says the same!! > > Remember if you contact (i.e. send e-mail or sign a guest book) a site, say > you seen it on our list! > > Deacon Blues deconblu > ================================================ > 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/ > > > +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ > | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request > +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:42:38 -0500 From: Richard Cherico Subject: Actual ammeter wiring So, you add wire to the shunt. When you actually swap in a deluxe dash from the standard dash, what wires do put in the wiring harness? Do you still use the idiot light wire? What wire will connect to each side of the ammeter guage? I've examined my dash harness before and I know that I need to switch a wire or two around in the harness to switch guage sets, but which ones to I actually connect to the ammeter? If somebody would post a complete set of instructions for this conversion, from adding to the shunt to modifying the existing harness at the dash I'm sure it would be appreciated by all. Thanks guys for your math and science skills! rkc6793 '68 F100 Custom Cab Stepside 360 4bbl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel H. Jenkins" Subject: Re: your mail Well, I can just offer three things that are possibilities. Since your gauge isn't working for either tank, it could just be a bad ground somewhere. The sending unit on my tank was porrly grounded and caused the gauge to work once in a while. It is also possible that there is a break in the circuit somewhere. My understanding is that the two sending units from the two different tanks meet at a switch and then one wire goes to the gauge. There could be a break somewhere. The third thing I can think of is that both sending gauges are bad. This isn't very likely, so I would rule it out. I would check the grounding of the sending units first. Just bypass the ground on the tank to a ground on the frame. Let me know how it turns out! Hope I helped. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel H. JenkinsFood for thought: John Milton djenkins Honors Programwife died he wrote _Paradise_ University of Nevada, Reno_Regained_... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:50:12 -0500 From: Richard Cherico Subject: Re: t98 trans From: "JAMES MERLO" >I am currently leaning toward a 390 to attach to my t98 ( a 460 would be a >little tight in the engine compartment). You'd be surprised. I had a 460 in my '67 F100 and now I've got a 360 in my '68. I'd swear that I had more room to move around under the hood with the 460 (although I could be wrong-it's been a couple of years). It's a newer design than the FE family and therefore a little more compact. If you've got the option (and you've got a tranny-the FE and 385 families don't share bellhousings) I'd take the 460. I'm sure there are people who would prefer the FE, but I got a lot of luck and good work out of the 460 personally. Hope this helps. rkc6793 '68 F100 Custom Cab Stepside 360 4bbl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:33:58 -0800 From: Don Grossman Subject: Re: t98 trans JAMES MERLO wrote: > > Don > I got good responses from you and Steve Delanty, but bear with me... > >From what I understand from what you wrote, all I need to find is the motor > I want that has/had a manual transmission and then my t98 will bolt on up. The motor you get could have come with a manual or automatic transmission. If it came with an auto you will have to ditch the flexplate. First you find the engine that meets your needs and if you find a used one try to find one with the bellhousing attached. > Does this mean that the bolt holes on all ford transmissions and the trans > input shaft is the same diameter and length on all fords and has the same > splines? It sounds too easy. I am obviously missing something in your > messages, I need more. More. The three speed and fourspeed tranys use the same bellhousing attaching pattern is the same. The input shaft length should be the same and the number of splines are matched up to the clutch disk. When you buy your cluch kit just make sure that the kit matches your transmision input shaft. > > I am currently leaning toward a 390 to attach to my t98 ( a 460 would be a > little tight in the engine compartment). The 390 in my truck has the FE bellhousing and a t-98 tranny (looking at this statement....DUH!). I have the NP435 (well 2 of em) in the garage incase I need to swap it out at any time. When you go 390 shopping at the junk yard just pull a motor with a manual transmission. Hey you should be able to find one with the tranny still attached. If it is a later model the transmission probably will be a t-18. > > It sounds as if you have been this route with your 390 attached to a t98. > > Thanks for your patience, > > Jim - -- Don Grossman duckdon 63 Ford F-250 4x4 67' 390, t-98, Spicer 24, Dana 60, Dana 44, power steering, power brakes ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 21:46:14 -0700 From: "deconblu" Subject: Re: Increasing payload From: George Shepherd >the beef up the F-100 with the F 250 components routine (swap out the rear axle >and change the front hubs) or switch over all your goodies to the F250 That's all I need to do the the front is change the hubs. Putting in the F-250 rear end will require what? Will the driveline work? This is sounding like what I'm looking for. I'm going to call the local you pull it and see how much it will be. I would also like to make it a flatbed. To much? Thanks! This sounds just like what my wife said it would turn into. I said no, but it looks like she's right again! :-) Deacon Blues deconblu ================================================ 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:47:00 -0500 From: dave.williams Subject: Re: Plugs and Carbs - -> Gary, The Autolite 4100 is not a spread bore. I am using an adaptor - -> plate on the origional intake. I thought they had the same bolt pattern as a Holley. And it's amazing how much the new el-cheapo Holleys look like a 4100... The 4300 came out later. It's the one that looks like a Porta-Potti. They have a slightly spreadbore layout with the rear barrels slightly larger than the fronts, but it's trivial compared to a QJ or TQ. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:08:00 -0500 From: dave.williams Subject: Re: Plugs and Carbs - -> remember is that it seemed that the runners were divided horizontally - -> and the upper part of the runner serviced one half of the carb - -> (primary?) and the lower part of the runner serviced the other half - -> (secondary). The plenum was divided from left to right instead of That was an Offenhauser Dual Port. They're fine street manifolds - I've run them on 351C-4Vs and SBCs. The stock 351C manifold (and the FE) is a pretty good part to start with, so you won't see much if any difference in power, unlike the 289/302. Part throttle fuel economy and throttle response is impressive, though. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:14:46 -0700 From: "deconblu" Subject: Re: Plugs and Carbs From: Dave Williams > That was an Offenhauser Dual Port. They're fine street manifolds - >I've run them on 351C-4Vs and SBCs. The stock 351C manifold (and the >FE) is a pretty good part to start with, so you won't see much if any >difference in power, unlike the 289/302. Part throttle fuel economy and >throttle response is impressive, though. They have them for 302's? Do they have a bolt pattern so that I can use my Q-Jet on it? My wife is going to be so happy that I was wrong and she was right! Deacon Blues deconblu ================================================ 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:39:33 -0700 From: Tom Hogan Subject: RE: FE intake sealing. was Re: Header for a 360 Good suggestions. I've noticed on many new engines from the factory they will "glue" the intake on using a bead of RTV. A mechanic told me his trick for using the stuff. 1. Clean the surface thuroughly using brake cleaner. It doesn't leave a greasy residue. ANY grease on the surface will cause it not to stick. 2. He said you could tell if the surface was clean by dragging a finger over the surface. If you felt a good friction then it was clean. If you hit a slick spot that spot still had oil on it. Obviously you have to have clean hands to do this. I'm not sure how you get your hands clean enough to do this. 3. Apply the sealant as described below. 4. After assembly wait at least overnight to allow the RTV to fully cure. If it is still vulcanizing and you hit it with hot oil it could lose its grip and leak. Basically his biggest tips were clean surface and let it cure. ____________________________________ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:49:34 -0700 From: sdelanty Subject: FE intake sealing. was Re: Header for a 360 Marko in Vancouver wrote: >Two things on the engine build: > >1. Intake Manifold Gasket. You know the two cork things you are supposed >to use at the front annd back? Throw them away. Clean the surfaces >THOROUGHLY!! and instead lay a 1/4" bead of that blue stuff on , making it a >bit thicker on the corners. Let this bead cure for close to an hour (so >it's fairly hard on top) then lay a tiny (1/8") bead on top of it, then drop >the manifold on carefully. If you do this right your I.M. will not leak. >If you use the cork chances are it will. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:50:17 -0700 From: sdelanty Subject: Re: t98 trans >Subject: Re: t98 trans > >Don >I got good responses from you and Steve Delanty, but bear with me... >From what I understand from what you wrote, all I need to find is the motor >I want that has/had a manual transmission and then my t98 will bolt on up. >Does this mean that the bolt holes on all ford transmissions and the trans >input shaft is the same diameter and length on all fords and has the same >splines? Well, the bolt holes are not necessarily the same on all trannys. You need a bell housing designed for the *T-18/98* with whatever motor pattern You want. The point is that T-18/98 bell housings ARE available for most popular motors. If You want FE, then You need to find a truck that had a T18/98 with FE in it for Your donor bellhousing. I *believe* that the pilot bearing end of the input shaft is the same diameter for all models. Dunno about spline size/number, but this really only changes what clutch disc You use. If there is any difference in shaft length, I pressume the bell housing depth takes care of it. I *know* that You can remove a 240-6 from a '71 F100 with T-18 and plug a FE390 right in to it. No problems with input shaft sizes (or anything else), I just swapped to a T-18/FE bellhousing and used the stock 390 flywheel and clutch disc. >It sounds too easy. I am obviously missing something in your >messages, I need more. I don't think You're missing anything... it IS easy! My 240-6 to FE390 swap was *extremely* easy, everything just bolted right up using stock parts. Happy motoring, Steve Delanty "There are 2 kinds of cars. Fords and can't affords..." -Edward Towe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:50:21 -0700 From: sdelanty Subject: Re: 5 Speed and an FE >>Almost any 5 speed will "fit" you just have to have the right bellhousing >>or adapter. >> Ahh, but that's the problem. They quit making FE's before 5-speeds were available, so there ain't no 5-speed bellhousings with an FE pattern. Besides, what 5-speed would You use? A T-5? Buy a couple, cause FE torque is gonna break it unless YOu never get on it hard... Of course, there's always the old clark 5-speed for truck FE's, but I ain't never seen 'em in the wrecking yard. Hppy motoring, Steve Delanty "There are 2 kinds of cars. Fords and can't affords..." -Edward Towe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 01:26:44 -0400 (EDT) From: HYDROSMITH Subject: mail structure On replies to members Q's the person who is doing the replying attaches all or portion of the previous mail to his own. How is this done and is there any spcifics for aol? Thank you for indulging a non-FORD question as I would like to participate more and this would help me out. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 02:54:59 -0400 (EDT) From: DBrents105 Subject: Re: C4 or C6 The C4 is much smaller than the C6. The C6 is most common behind the larger engines, but there is a small block version that will fit behind a 351C. My sons 70 Mach 1 has a small block C6 in it. The C6 pan has 17 bolts, the FMX has 14, I don't remember the exact count on a C4 off hand but it is less than either of the others. The C4 has a small square pan, while the C6 is not square, it has an offset on one side. The FMX was the most common transmission found behind the 351C, and 351M/400. It was also used a lot on 352CI engines. The C4 and C6 have aluminum cases. The FMX has a cast iron case. Hope this helps. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:19:13 -0700 From: "deconblu" Subject: Re: mail structure From: HYDROSMITH >On replies to members Q's the person who is doing the replying attaches all >or portion of the previous mail to his own. How is this done and is there any >spcifics for aol? I don't know AOL's software but maybe the same. In the options it has include original with reply. Check this box. The rest is cut and paste to get it to look like this. >Thank you for indulging a non-FORD question as I would like to participate >more and this would help me out. No problem hope this helps! Deacon Blues deconblu ================================================ 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: HYDROSMITH To: fordtrucks61-79 Date: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 10:56 PM Subject: mail structure >On replies to members Q's the person who is doing the replying attaches all >or portion of the previous mail to his own. How is this done and is there any >spcifics for aol? > >Thank you for indulging a non-FORD question as I would like to participate >more and this would help me out. >+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ >| Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 >| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks61-79-request >+---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:54:36 -0500 From: "Bear" Subject: Re: mail structure (Answer) When you are reading the mail on AOL that you want to respond to before clicking reply "Highlight" the text that you wish to select: i.e.. start with mouse pointer at the beginning, hold left mouse button down and drag pointer to the end of the text and then let go of left button. Now click.... 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 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.
|