Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:08:38 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #13
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Friday, January 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 013



=======================================================================
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: ADVISE NEEDED!!! (re-sending 1/9/97 08:15) Thank You Ken!! [John Ham]
Re: Power brake conversion ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
TQ's [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Flex coupling on a '77 F150 2wd ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Cleveland heads on a 351M [John Strauss ]
428 [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Cleavland heads on a 351M ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Brake pedal [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Dual Batteries [Charlie Mear ]
Re: 1979 F250 rear hub assembly ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Intake manifold ["Art Lutz" ]
Intake manifold ["Art Lutz" ]
Re: Intake manifold [SuperMagot ]
Re: ADVISE NEEDED!!! (re-sending 1/9/97 08:15) Thank You Ken!! ["Gary, 7]
Re: 428 [marko ]
Re: Intake manifold ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: '77 351M vacuum line routing ["Dave Resch"]
Re: Cleveland heads on a 351M ["Dave Resch"]
Re: Dual Batteries [Kurt Albershardt ]
Re: 1979 F250 rear hub assembly [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: Intake manifold [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: Master cylinder retrofit/ Trans ID/ Tire size ["JAMES MERLO"

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

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:13:21 -0500
From: John Hammell
Subject: Re: ADVISE NEEDED!!! (re-sending 1/9/97 08:15) Thank You Ken!!

John Hammell wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!! This may be a little long winded, but first I must say how
> much I admire all your motor and trany knowledge! I am not even close to
> being in your "mechanical league", but I do enjoy my 67 F250 Camper
> Special when it's running. I'm the guy with the tranny problem(C4)but
> it's more of an inconvienience than a problem for now. In the mean time,
> I have been having big time problems gettin' that old beast to kick over
> when it's damp outside! Dosen't seem to matter the air temp,(we've been
> having an early spring so far this winter!) But I think it has a lot to
> do first off with the manual choke. I'm not sure if I'm operating it
> right when I go to start. The manual tells you how to start in cold or
> warm temp.(choke in for warm starts, out for cold) and to press and
> release the gas pedal 1X. The problem is if she stalls out on the first
> try, I'll be damned if she'll kick over on the second try!!! Of course
> now I'm probably looking at a new battery because she don't have many
> cranks left, cause if she don't kick back over on the second try she
> dies!!!!!
> Again, I am no where near as mechanically inclined as most of you, but
> I'm capabel of changing my oil and also have tuned her up (with some
> help) so I'm not opposed to sticking my nose in any where under her
> hood!!!!
> Wooooo!!!!!! I'm really babbalin' now so I'll sign off and see if anyone
> can actually digest this stuff I'm babbalin' about!!!
> BTW, thanks in advance for any info or advise!!!!!!1

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:26:44 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Power brake conversion

> From: Schottsweb webtv.net (George Schott)
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:31:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: Power brake conversion

> I have almost completed the swap I used the entire front end off of
> a 75 pickup I also used a 75 power booster and master cylinder now
> my pedal does'nt have the same height that it did before do I need
> to get the pedal from a 75? What else if anything can I do to fix
> this? Thanks for the help.

Not sure but I think power brakes typically have a much shorter pedal
throw than standard brakes so this may be what you see. My 78 PU
finally has hard brakes and it actually stops but my bronco with
exactly the same setup has mushy brakes with poor pedal and even when
all the way out it seems like less than the PU but may just be my
imagination.

There is an adjustment in the booster push rod that takes up all the
slack between the pedal and master cylinder at rest which may not be
adjusted right. Did you check that?

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:42:17 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: TQ's

YO Gary: I'm not real familiar with the 351M/400, but I have torn
one down. The part that goes up in the crankshaft end is definately
different from the three or four 429s & 460's I have lying around. I'v
never taken any measurements, but the 351M/400 TQ has a stepdown shape
while the 429/460 has a straight shape to it. The old saying "If it
fits - Use it" works well here.

>>I've got both and use them interchangeably so I hope they are the
same! Someone said the pilot diameter was different but I don't
remember seeing that when I put it together?

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:44:20 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Flex coupling on a '77 F150 2wd

> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:51:52 -0800 (PST)
> From: John Pajak
> Subject: Re: Flex coupling on a '77 F150 2wd

> >>No, too much work! The joint can be replaced without removing the
> steering box. I don't even think the column needs to be
> removed...just slide the steering shaft back...it will telescope
> enough to get the old joint out. :)

2wd's don't have telescoping steering shafts or slip joints
unfortunately but I believe one side of the joint can be slid up the
shaft but not sure, it may have a shoulder in it to prevent that,
can't remember right now.

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:04:50 -0600
From: John Strauss
Subject: Cleveland heads on a 351M

>I may have to be corrected on this and I'm sure that Dave R. will, but you
>already have "Cleveland" heads on your 351. The difference is that you have
>the 2V heads with smaller intake passages vs. the 4V heads which have much
>larger diameter passages. The larger passages are actually better for high
>RPM than for typical street driving. The smaller passages typically give
>more low end torque which is better for the street. IMHO I think you would
>be better served by having your existing heads "cleaned up" by a shop that
>knows what they're doing and putting an aftermarket manifold and 600 cfm 4V
>carb.
>
Bill, you won't get a correction from me. I think every you said here is
spot-on. The 351M is basically a 2V Cleveland with a different bellhousing
pattern and larger main journals. IMO 4V Cleveland heads have no place on
a truck motor.


_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, _} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:34:47 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: 428

Jeff: FOMOCO balanced the 410/428 differently from the remainder of
the FE family for a reason. I have no idea what that reason was, but I
would think with their resources of both talent and money, the reason
was a valid one. I would much rather balance the flywheel and the
vibration damper to the 428 crank than to balance the 428 crankshaft to
the 390 flywheel and vibration damper. All a matter of opinion I
suppose.

Good luck withever route you choose.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:36:14 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Cleavland heads on a 351M

> From: Gregg Park
> Subject: Cleavland heads on a 351M
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 15:38:08 -0800

> I'm going to do the heads on my '77 F150, w/a 351M.
> My buddy is trying to temp me into putting the cleavland heads on
> it. I don't think it will pass the smog test if I do. But just in
> case, what kind of gain might I see with this mod? Would I have to
> go to a bigger carb than the stock 2150 2V? Thanks, Gregg

Your 2v intake manifold won't fit the intake ports without a lot of
hogging if this is the 4v C head configuration and those ports
probably won't do you any good with only a 2v intake anyway. You
will lose bottom end in gobs and gain lots of top end but only if you
put a 4v and proper intake on it along with proper exhaust and cam
otherwise you will only see a reduction all around in performance.

I put a full fledged, stock C with ford spread bore carb (highly
recommended) in my van with 3.25 rear gears and a C-6 with stock
converter (didn't know about all the good stuff then) and was very
unhappy with it but have to admit that it really pulled above 45 as
far as I cared to go. It just couldn't pull 5k# of 4x4 van at low
speeds with those gears. Now the 460 is a whole nuther smoke! :-)

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:49:54 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Brake pedal

GEORGE: Did you also get the little rod that goes into the master
cylinder from the booster from the donor vehicle?? Those rods may be
different. Also they are adjustable!! Maybe all you need is to adjust
it.. The large piece from the pedal to the booster may also be
different. I'm not sure anymore. Just ideas to look for!!! Power
brakes are naturally lower pedal than non power brakes, aren't
they??? >>I have almost completed the swap I used the
entire front end off of a 75
pickup I also used a 75 power booster and master cylinder now my pedal
does'nt have the same height that it did before do I need to get the
pedal from a 75? What else if anything can I do to fix this? Thanks for
the help.
Good luck.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:22:17 -0700 (MST)
From: Charlie Mear
Subject: Re: Dual Batteries

I have a dual battery setup on a 79 F-250. Mine isn't a factory setup.
The second battery is used to run accessories (lights, inflater, camping
trailer, etc) without worrying about not being able to start the truck.
There really is no headache to it. As far as expense, you can probably
get set up for under $150 (battery tray, wire, isolater, battery). I use
a deep cycle battery that can also be used to start the truck. There have
been a couple of times where the kids leave something on or door open and
run down the main battery. I can then start the truck with jumper cables
from the aux battery. I view it as insurance, plus I don't worry about
running accessories while the truck is off and harming the battery. The
deep cycle batteries are suited to that kind of thing. Of course you will
need to move those accessories to a circut driven by the aux battery and
you may want a fuse block in between.

Charlie




> I've seen some 72-73 trucks with dual battery setups. Usually setup as
> a heavy duty camping rig. Is this a factory setup? I can't find any
> reference in the factory manuals. What is the advantage to two
> batteries? Is it worth the expense/headache? Was this something that
> had more value 20 years ago but less payoff now with advances in battery
> technology?
>
> Tom H
> San Francisco, California
> 76 F-150 SuperCab 390FE
> 96 Windstar 200 hp 3.8L (Wife's Hot Rod)

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:58:28 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 1979 F250 rear hub assembly

> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 15:59:19 -0800
> From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
> Subject: Re: 1979 F250 rear hub assembly

> >>I am servicing my brakes for the first time on a 1979 F250 with
> >>full floating rear axles (I assume they are Dana). My question

> I say split the difference, and forget measuring end play (make sure
> you give it a good wiggle and a listen). We used to fix 'em on

I disagree here (unless you mean with a dial indicator in which case
I agree). Tapered bearings require some free play, not much but
some. Dana 44 front hubs require 0.001 - 0.010" axial free play.
Dana 60's will be right in the same ball park as are most other
timken type bearings. You can feel 0.010", you can't feel 0.001"
unless you are a skilled mechanic so the trick is to JUST get the
play out with outer nut locked down and you'll be about right. Drum
brakes don't require the same preload as disk brakes so if they wind
up a tad loose it won't hurt anything but a tad is still less than
0.010". Disk brakes need the minimum play so they don't push the
piston back in so far you lose "pedal" and they tend to heat the
outer races more which loosens the bearings as well.

> highway trucks by tightening the inner nut to 100 pounds and backing
> it off 1/8 - 1/4 turn, then putting on the lockwasher and the outer
> nut, then tightening the outer nut, with final tightening via Huey
> (4lb hammer) and cold chisel. The object is to seat the bearing

I disagree, there is a cheap tool for these nuts available from
JCwhitney and others. Don't use a chisel or punch, please! It will
work but it damages the slots for future wrench use and can not be
torqued properly that way. I've done it and the wheels never fell
off but I won't do it now that I have the tools, believe me they just
make the job so much easier :-)

> properly (align it) then relieve tension without unseating it. And

I agree, the torque of the inner nut is to seat the bearings, the
backoff is only ball park and a place to start.

> to put the outer locknut on tight enough that it isn't gonna fly off
> and hurt somebody or you. You need to ensure that when you tighten
> the outer nut, you do not turn the inner nut. So keep turning the

I agree but the lock washer should guarantee that. If not and if
the tabs have all been used, get a new one. Before putting it back
on use a hammer to flatten out the washer and it's used tabs so the
outer nut will tighten properly as well. Turning the wheel as you
tighten AFAIK simply ensures that the bearings are centered, the lube
is evenly distributed and helps ensure seating. The way to determine
axial play is to rock the wheel top to bottom, back and forth as
Marko said to try to sense any movement but to isolate the movement
to the bearings only. With rear hubs this should be automatic since
nothing else should move anyway.

Just remember, loose it better than tight with tapered bearings but
too loose is bad too so you need patience and usually several
attempts with outer nut tight to get the right "feel". You can
torque the inner nut, back out 1/4 turn, install the lock washer and
outer nut and torque it or hammer it tight and be close and maybe the
bearings will last as long as you own the truck but maybe not. I
prefer to be a little more precise myself but that's just me :-)

Happy wheeling :-)

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0800
From: "Art Lutz"
Subject: Intake manifold

I think I may have an Intake manifold leak on my 78 400. The manifold is a
performer.
Is there an easy way to tell if the manifold is sucking air? I tried
running propane along the edge of the manifold , but did not notice any
change in the Rpms. I did this at Idle, do I need to run the idle up for
this to work. I was also told WD-40 works in the same way, but I have not
tried it yet. Any other ideals. Thanks Art

78 F-250 4X4 XLT

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0800
From: "Art Lutz"
Subject: Intake manifold

I think I may have an Intake manifold leak on my 78 400. The manifold is a
performer.
Is there an easy way to tell if the manifold is sucking air? I tried
running propane along the edge of the manifold , but did not notice any
change in the Rpms. I did this at Idle, do I need to run the idle up for
this to work. I was also told WD-40 works in the same way, but I have not
tried it yet. Any other ideals. Thanks Art

78 F-250 4X4 XLT

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:52:44 EST
From: SuperMagot
Subject: Re: Intake manifold

In a message dated 98-01-09 11:25:58 EST, you write:


performer.
Is there an easy way to tell if the manifold is sucking air? >>

If WD-40 (or whatever) did not change the RPM then try using a vacuum gauge.
If the leak is close to a cylinder intake port, you will get a pulse in the
vacuum gauge every time that cylinder tries to suck in air.

BTW, what makes you think you have a manifold leak? What are the symptoms?
Maybe its something else...

- - Mike

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:55:24 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: ADVISE NEEDED!!! (re-sending 1/9/97 08:15) Thank You Ken!!

> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 08:13:21 -0500
> From: John Hammell
> Subject: Re: ADVISE NEEDED!!! (re-sending 1/9/97 08:15) Thank You Ken!!

> > problem for now. In the mean time, I have been having big time
> > problems gettin' that old beast to kick over when it's damp
> > outside! Dosen't seem to matter the air temp,(we've been having an
> > early spring so far this winter!) But I think it has a lot to do
> > first off with the manual choke. I'm not sure if I'm operating it
> > right when I go to start. The manual tells you how to start in
> > cold or warm temp.(choke in for warm starts, out for cold) and to
> > press and release the gas pedal 1X. The problem is if she stalls
> > out on the first try, I'll be damned if she'll kick over on the
> > second try!!! Of course now I'm probably looking at a new battery

Ford V-8's are typically very cold blooded so require lots of gas to
start usually. Take the air cleaner off and, while looking into the
carb with choke open cycle the throttle likage all the way several
times. If no fuel sprays into the venturis you need to rebuild the
carb, especially the accellerator pump. Unless you have a Holley
which basically meters fuel any time it wants to, not necessarily on
demand and not necessarily into the engine you will need a good
accellerator pump to start a ford v8. (my bronco doesn't need one
because the Holley keeps the manifold full of gas even with the
entgine off so it's always primed and ready to start :-))

If this is working well then try pumping the gas several times up to
even 10 times (it's very hard to flood a cold ford) with choke pulled
and once started, imediately push it in part way. How many pumps and
how far to push the choke back in will be determined by trial and
error. There is also a speed adjustment which works in conjunction
with the choke linkage and a stepped cam on the passenger side of the
carb. Once you get it running with the choke on you can adjust this
screw till it will run at a fast idle sufficient to keep it running.

You definitely need a good battery with old ford v-8's especially in
cold weather

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:38:51 -0800
From: marko
Subject: Re: 428

At 09:34 AM 1/9/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Jeff: FOMOCO balanced the 410/428 differently from the remainder of
>the FE family for a reason. I have no idea what that reason was, but I
>would think with their resources of both talent and money, the reason
>was a valid one. I would much rather balance the flywheel and the
>vibration damper to the 428 crank than to balance the 428 crankshaft to
>the 390 flywheel and vibration damper. All a matter of opinion I
>suppose.


This is exactly what the builder at "thunderbolt engines" told me, and he's
been makin them longer n I've been alive. And ford balanced cjs and scjs
all the same. Unless maybe you were running at Le Mans.

marko

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 12:58:23 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Intake manifold

> From: "Art Lutz"
> Subject: Intake manifold
> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0800

> manifold is sucking air? I tried running propane along the edge of
> the manifold , but did not notice any change in the Rpms. I did
> this at Idle, do I need to run the idle up for this to work. I was
> also told WD-40 works in the same way, but I have not tried it yet.

Use propane with caution, you could get a fire going under there :-)
I'd say if you saw no rpm increase at idle then it's not leaking but
one of the tubes or other vacuum controlled devices such as dist vac
and brake booster could be as well as carb base gasket and throttle
shafts where they go through the carb body so check them in the same
manner. Idle is the best place to do it since it has the highest
vacuum then and the rpm change can be seen and heard more easily.

You can use carb cleaner or any flamable fuel with good volitility
including "Hot Shot" but again be careful with the more
volitile fuels and be careful not to get it near the air inlet to
influence the test :-)

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:01:08 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: '77 351M vacuum line routing

>Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:14:23 -0600
>From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
>Subject: Re: '77 351M vacuum line routing
>never know what that is anyway, (BTW, if I send away for the build
>data based on the VIN does the data include the emission
>calibration number???).
Yo Dale:

Probably not. The problem is that calibrations changed pretty regularly,
often for reasons that had nothing to do w/ build data. Availability of
other parts at the engine assembly line probably affected calibrations as
much as anything else, "Oh no, we got two more crates of that EDB
carburetor to use up... better get the engineers to give us another
calibration to work w/ those things."

Unless the calibration was related to a specific application that appeared
as an option (i.e., "California emissions" or "high altitude"), there would
probably be no clue on the build sheet. OTOH, absence of those "emissions
options" in the build data would eliminate some calibration possibilities,
assuming the calibrations shown in your book are labeled for "California"
or "high altitude."

Wish List: one thing that would be really handy is a cross reference that
showed which carb numbers were used w/ which calibrations. That way, if
you even had a just carb tag, you could track down a correct calibration
(and vacuum configuration) for the engine.

The only reliable way I know of to determine your engine's original
calibration number is either from the emissions label or from the build
tags on the engine. On late model engines (late '70s-on), those are
stickers on the valve covers. On M-block engines, the engine build tag
stickers should be on the ends of the valve covers on both sides. Both are
on the same end of the valve cover, so if you don't see one on either side
in the front, be sure to check the back of the engine.

If the engine in your truck was replaced at some point, and the engine you
have now was originally installed in a car, you wouldn't want to use the
engine's original calibration anyway. Calibrations varied according to
engine application (the vehicle it was installed in), and in a truck you'd
want a truck calibration. Trucks generally had looser emissions
requirements than cars in the '70s.

>After doing all of the above I found a used chilton's emissions
>manual that includes all of the vacuum circuits for '79 & '80. The

Wow, that's a great find! (I was thrilled when I got my Ford '84 Emissions
Diagnosis manual.) What's the full title and ISBN of that manual?
Enquiring minds wanna know!

>interesting thing is that there were 32 different emission calibrations
>for the 351M in the '79 model year alone!!!! And looking at the

The Ford emissions manual deals with that same quagmire by providing a
generic troubleshooting guide that takes 200 pages or so of item-by-item
tables and covers all vehicles (can you imagine the number of different
calibrations?). There are general problem descriptions (like "Hard cold
starting.") that give you a starting point, then after each item you test
in a diagnostic procedure, you get referred to the next item based on the
type of vehicle you're working on, the part number of the item you just
checked, or even the presence or absence of another device in the system.
Holy moly!

>vacuum circuit diagrams many of these are not even remotely
>similar. In other words, a diagram from another truck may be helpful
>but don't follow it blindly unless the cal. number is the same.
In fact, if you don't have a calibration number and you don't have a
"California" or "High altitude" limitation, the best thing to do would be
to follow the simplest diagram that used the components you have available
on your engine. (For example, some of those diagrams may include a cruise
control vacuum motor, and if you don't have cruise control, you can skip
that one.) Then, even if it wasn't the original calibration, at least it
would conform to a legitimate factory spec and probably be emissions legal
anywhere except California.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 11:51:14 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: Cleveland heads on a 351M

>Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:22:24 -0800
>From: "Bill Beyer"
>Subject: Re: Cleavland heads on a 351M
>I may have to be corrected on this and I'm sure that
>Dave R. will, but you already have "Cleveland" heads
>on your 351. The difference is that you have
Yo Bill & Gregg:

Bill knows me, eh? He's pretty much correct, too.

There were actually 6 different Cleveland head designs, but there were two
major types of Cleveland heads, 2V heads and 4V heads.

The 2V heads had a bigger combustion chamber (76.2 cc) for lower
compression, smaller intake/exhaust ports, and smaller diameter valves
(2.041 intake/1.654 exhaust) to work w/ the 2V carb.

The 4V heads had a smaller combustion chamber (62.8 cc early '70-'71 and
75.4 cc later '72-'73) for higher compression, larger intake/exhaust ports,
and larger diameter valves (2.190 intake/1.710 exhaust) to work w/ the 4V
carb.

There were two different Cleveland intake manifolds, one for each of the
two head types (port sizes). Cleveland intake manifolds will not fit on an
M-block engine because the M-block's deck height is 1.091" taller than the
Cleveland engine. You would have to substantially (expensively) modify
either a Cleveland intake manifold or an M-block manifold to get it to work
w/ the Cleveland 4V heads on an M-block engine.

The M-block heads share most of the Cleveland 2V specs, except that the
combustion chamber is a bit bigger at 78.4 cc. Early M-block heads (used
only on the 400 engine from '71 to '74) were not set up for Thermactor and
EGR systems, and depending on your local emissions laws, may not be legal
on a post '74 vehicle. Otherwise, all M-block heads are the same.

>the 2V heads with smaller intake passages vs. the 4V
>heads which have much larger diameter passages. The
>larger passages are actually better for high RPM than
>for typical street driving. The smaller passages typically
>give more low end torque which is better for the street.
> IMHO I think you would be better served by having your
>existing heads "cleaned up" by a shop that knows what
>they're doing and putting an aftermarket manifold and
>600 cfm 4V carb.
I agree w/ Bill on all of this.

There would be little, if any, worthwhile advantage to swapping in 2V
Cleveland heads. The only improvement you could gain w/ the Cleveland
heads would be the compression ratio (on paper, an increase from 8.0:1 to
8.2:1), but the magnitude of that change would probably not produce a
noticeable performance improvement. Moreover, Cleveland heads would be
pricey and they would not have the provisions for Thermactor and EGR ports,
which you might need for emissions legality.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 10:33:37 -0800
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: Dual Batteries

I'd recommend looking into the battery combiners from West Marine as
opposed to a battery isolator.

An isolator is basically two big diodes, with a resultant 0.7 volt drop in
charging voltage to each battery. You'll need to move the remote sense
wire from the alternator to the side of the isolator near the battery to
make the charging voltage correct, and some alternators don't have the
sense wire externally available (although any good alternator rebuilder
should be able to change that if you ask.)

The battery combiners work using relays and a voltaqe sensor that
disconnects one or both batteries and have essentially zero voltage drop.
I've seen them work very well on campers and boats in applications where
battery combiners had problems.




At 08:55 PM 1/8/98 -0600, Mike Blazek wrote:
>
>A buddy of mine had a Camper Special with the dual battery setup,
>and it was a factory install. The second battery was used to power
>the camper; it was attached to an isolator that allowed the alternator
>to charge both batteries, but a discharge on one doesn't affect the other.
>The premise was that if you killed the camper battery, you could still get
>home with no trouble.In fact, as of a few years ago, the auxillary battery
>tray was still available from Ford. I bought one and used an aftermarket
>isolator to power my ham gear. Look close at your fender apron and you'll
>probably see the dimples that marked the mounting holes.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>Hogan, Tom wrote:
>
>> I've seen some 72-73 trucks with dual battery setups. Usually setup as
>> a heavy duty camping rig. Is this a factory setup? I can't find any
>> reference in the factory manuals. What is the advantage to two
>> batteries? Is it worth the expense/headache? Was this something that
>> had more value 20 years ago but less payoff now with advances in battery
>> technology?
>>
>> Tom H
>> San Francisco, California
>> 76 F-150 SuperCab 390FE
>> 96 Windstar 200 hp 3.8L (Wife's Hot Rod)

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 11:37:18 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: 1979 F250 rear hub assembly

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:
>
Snip


> I agree but the lock washer should guarantee that. If not and if
> the tabs have all been used, get a new one. Before putting it back
> on use a hammer to flatten out the washer and it's used tabs so the
> outer nut will tighten properly as well.
>

Snip

Has anyone tried using the "NyLock" type lock nut from Dana 70s. The Dana parts
book shows only the one nut per side to keep the hub on. It seems that it would
be a little easier to setup and you could always use the stock lock washer as a
backup.

Any thoughts??

Dana

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

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 11:42:42 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Intake manifold

Check around the carb flange gasket. Someone had an Edelbroke ( misspelled on
purpose ) that the flange on the manifold was not thick enough for the stock
carb to sit on. He had to make a spacer or something to fix it.

Dana

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

Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:02:27 -0600
From: "JAMES MERLO"
Subject: Re: Master cylinder retrofit/ Trans ID/ Tire size

I was looking into the same issue for my 62 f350. The key issues are the
front and rear wheel cylinder diameters and the master cylinder diameter
you have along with the same pieces of info for the donor vehicle. This
info for my vehicle was straight out of the ford service manual. A
cooperative parts man helped me look through the catalogs for a truck with
the same wheel cylinder diameter and master cylinder diameters(from a truck
with front and rear drum brakes with the same size bores). I didn't want
one from a disc/drum setup because of the need for the check valve for the
drum brakes. I was only able to find a dual master cylinder with a power
booster that had the closest wheel and master cylinder dimensions (I was
able to find 1 1/4 rear wheel cylinders w/ front 1 1/8 wheel cylinders, but
the master cylinder was 1 1/8 instead of 1 1/4). The smaller master
cylinder would cause more pedal travel, but the booster compensates.

The new master cylinder bolt pattern may not match the old master cylinder,
so some adapting/plate may be needed for mating. Also look at the length
of the rod that pushes into the master cylinder and compare to the new
unit. Some of this can be taken care of in the pedal height adjustment.

Just a note that the parts guy I deal with owns the store and is more than
happy to help me out as much as he can so I can give him my money!!! Isn't
it amazing.

Jim

- ----------
> From: steve.peters mts.com
> To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
> Subject: Master cylinder retrofit/ Trans ID/ Tire size
> Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 7:27 AM
>
>
> Does anybody know if I can directly retrofit a dual master cylinder
> from a '67 F100 (first year of dual) onto my '65 F100, without....

---

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.