Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:34:45 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #145
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Friday, March 13 1998 Volume 02 : Number 145



=======================================================================
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:

Driver Seat Sag - How to fix... ["Terry Sherman"
Re: Cloyes roller chain [George Herpich ]
360-460 swap ["Harvey, Blaine" ]
Re: 360 and 460 swap [George Herpich ]
RE: Window Felts. ["Hogan, Tom" ]
Trading & a PS pump [Jeff ]
Subject: Re: I-6/302 boss head ["J. A. Knapper"
9" rear ends [Dennis Pearson ]
Re: 351C ["Chris Hedemark" ]
Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN # ["Chris Hedemark" ]
NP-445 ["Mike Paz" ]
Re: 351C and 429/460 [George Herpich ]
Rundown of the 351's [dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)]
ratios? [BDIJXS ]
Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN # [Stu Varner ]
Re: Cloyes roller chain [Brian ]
Re: 4x4 gearing [Brian ]
Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN # [marko ]
Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN # [Ken Payne ]
Re: Frame [Ken Payne ]
Re: 351C and 429/460 [Mike Blazek ]
Big Trouble Revisited... ["Daniel H. Jenkins"
RE: Cloyes roller chain [DC Beatty ]
Re: V*lare Rear End [danadeb pacbell.net]
Oil weights [Alan Mittelstaedt / Chad Dailey ]
ADMIN: Another milestone [Ken Payne ]
Re: Engine wars... ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Re: NP435 ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Re: Engine wars... [danadeb pacbell.net]

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:35:57 -0600
From: "Terry Sherman"
Subject: Driver Seat Sag - How to fix...

I have a 1976 Ford Highboy(Please no more arguments on what it means...) and
the driver side of the bench seat is really saggy, the springs are dead I
think, not much "bounce " in them any more. Is there anything I can do to
fix the problem without spending to much money? Please help me. If possible
please respond to terbear discover-net.net

Thank you,
Terry Sherman
'76 Ford Highboy...
'84 Ford Bronco II

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:37:04 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: Cloyes roller chain

Sleddog wrote:
>
> i agree. but as for the quality of cloyes, they are considered top notch
> stuff. i have used them for years in my 460 engines with no problems at
> all.
>
> sleddog

Right on.
You get what you pay for. Beware of those $29.95 roller chain sets. Pull
the cover
off in 10,000 miles and see how it flaps in the breeze. Go for the
cloyes. Think about
the time and pain in the ass of redoing the job.
When it comes to linkbelt sets, a good nylon gear will stay in time
better than steel.
You may not lose teeth after 80 to 100k with steel but it'll wear the
chain out much
faster. There's a good reason why factory gears have nylon teeth.

George

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:38:38 -0500
From: "Harvey, Blaine"
Subject: 360-460 swap

I don't know exactly but I strongly suspect so. Send off to Advance
Adapters (website order) for their free catelogue. Ton of info on
trannies, Ford bolt patterns, transfer cases and what fits what.


You wrote
>
>Subject: 360 and 460 swap
>
>Anybody HELP!! I just found a dream deal. While checking out one of the
>local bone yard. I found a 79 LINCOLN which was driven off of the tow truck.
>I thought it was coasting but the driver said it was and it was. I bought it
>on the spot. Now will the 460 fit right into my 71 f-350 and bolt onto my
>NP435? If so I'm going to put my 360 into the LINCOLN. BTW it is in
>vurtually
>mint condition.
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:40:56 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: 360 and 460 swap

DGholsM wrote:
>
> Anybody HELP!! I just found a dream deal. While checking out one of the
> local bone yard. I found a 79 LINCOLN which was driven off of the tow truck.
> I thought it was coasting but the driver said it was and it was. I bought it
> on the spot. Now will the 460 fit right into my 71 f-350 and bolt onto my
> NP435? If so I'm going to put my 360 into the LINCOLN. BTW it is in vurtually
> mint condition.

If the lincoln is really a '79 you better sell it as is and buy a 460
with the profit. '78 was the last year for 460's in lincoln or any other
passenger car. What you have is a 400.

George

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:54:51 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom"
Subject: RE: Window Felts.

High praise indeed coming from the likes of you Deacon! ;-)
JC Whitney has window felts for 73-79 Ford trucks and the window channel
felts that go around the outside of the glass. However I have not tried
them yet. Also Obsolete Ford Products had some in stock and theirs were
about $120. The left and right sides of the seals at the bottom of the
window are different and a set was about $50 if I remember. If you
decide to go with them let us know how it goes. Does anyone know how to
remove the old felts without roaching the sheet metal of the door.
Deacon, If a window got felts does it have grounds for a harassment
lawsuit?
Tom H.

BTW anybody know where I can get window felt for my 79 F250? Those are
the pieces that actually contact the glass and prevent water from
sliding down into the door.
Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:14:22 -0500
From: Jeff
Subject: Trading & a PS pump

Thanks for the opinions on swaping a 302 for a 300. I'm not sure if
this is the right
place or not but I have Power Steering pump and 4-point offset mounting
bracket
for the 302 thats up for grabs. If anybody is intrested, it's yours.
E-Mail me
directly if your intrested. If this isn't the place for such an offer,
well then I guess I'll
just have to take the flames and learn.

Thanks to all,
Jeff (aka "sifu")

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:25:42 -0500
From: "J. A. Knapper"
Subject: Subject: Re: I-6/302 boss head

At one Ford was experimenting with a cross flow head for the 300, it was
refered to as the "Australian" cylinder head. I saw a few at the Ford
experimental engine development building about 7 years ago. As far as I
know, the head never was available in north america, but it may have
been in use in Australia,(reason for the name????). There was an article
on a 9 sec Pinto that ran a 240 with a highly modified head in an old
Popular Hot Rodding from many years ago. The head was made up of 3
sections cut from a 351C head and then furnace brazed together. The
article mentioned that a ton of epoxy was used to keep the head from
leaking. Doesn't sound to streetable!!

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:38:08 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: 9" rear ends

I know this rear end subject was about beat to death, butt I just can't
help asking: Does the '70 Marquis with 429/C6 probably have a 9" ?

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:36:21 -0500
From: "Chris Hedemark"
Subject: Re: 351C

>The really wild factory heads were for the 220,260 and 289 such as the twin
>cam, Gurney Westlake etc. and for the pushrod types the Gurney Eagle 3
valve
>head in 1967.

Yeah they did some wild stuff on the 289's back in the 60's. Various OHC
designs, weber carbs straight into the heads with no intake, and on and on.
Neat stuff!

>The 302 came out in 1968.

I had a 4bbl. 302 in my 1967 Cougar (original from factory... VIN numbers
matched). In 1968 they came out with the 2bbl 302.

I was going to make a post, however, that the Boss 302 did indeed come out a
year before the 351C. I did some checking up today to make sure and it does
indeed seem to be true. So my post about the 351C coming before Boss 302
was wrong.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:41:50 -0500
From: "Chris Hedemark"
Subject: Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN #

>First three symbols = series, fourth symbol = engine: A or 1 = 240 cid six;
B
>or 2 =
>300 cid six; Y or 8 = 352 cid *eight (the book says 352 cid six, but I
don't
>think there is such an animal). The fifth symbol = assembly plant which is
>too long to list, post the fifth number and I'll tell you which it is....I
own
>a '65 F100 and I can tell you they are great trucks. Your '66 will have
twin
>I beam suspension since that began in '65 but it won't ride like a cadillac


I got a lot of responses on this, mostly in private. Thanks everyone for
the rapid and thorough response. I thought I was going to be alone with a
'66 (doesn't seem like a popular year) but I'm glad there are a few folks
around that already know what I am getting myself into. :-)

I'm not too worried about the suspension. I figured on doing one of those
airbag suspensions to really soften it up. I rode in another truck that had
one of these and it was almost like a Crown Vic or something. NICE!

Is the 352 worth keeping??? Is this a really reliable engine? I noticed in
Edelbrock's catalog that they show Performer manifold for all FE engines but
Performer RPM was not listed for 352. Is this right? Are there some
fundamental differences between a 352 and a 390 that would affect bolt-on
parts? My line of thinking here if this is the case is just to nurse the
thing along long enough to rebuild a 460 & C6, get a nice fat radiator, and
swap it. If the 352 is really reliable though it might be worth keeping a
little longer.

I'm going over there saturday to drive the truck and maybe make an offer.
So FYI I haven't driven it or anything yet.

Thanks everyone,
Chris Hedemark
Yonder Way
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.yonderway.com

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

Date: 12 Mar 1998 17:11:27 -0800
From: "Mike Paz"
Subject: NP-445

Subject: Time:5:00 =
PM
OFFICE MEMO NP-445 =
Date:3/12/98

Well I just spent two hours looking on the net
and I can't even find one mention about the NP-445...
Is it real or just a myth :) ?I would like to know more about it and =
also the 4 speed AOD...
Mike

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:00:24 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: 351C and 429/460

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:32:34 -0500
> > From: George Herpich
> > Subject: Re: 351C and 429/460
>
> > The boss 302 came out in '69, The 385's in '68 and the cleveland in
> > '70.
>
> The Pantera had a 351C engine, what year did they come out? I
> thought it was 68? Remember any head swapping between the 335 and
> small block engines would require water jacket mods.
>
> 78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
> 78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
>
> -- Gary --
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
> | List removal information is on the web site. |
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+
Good point. I think the pantera was '69 though it had a different name
then. I don't remember if it was a 351c though.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:29:00 -0500
From: dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Rundown of the 351's

- -> Boss is the BEST *production* 351 ever made. It is a heavy duty C
- -> block with a forged steel crank.

Nope, the BOSS 351 had a cast crank, though Ford claimed it was
"selected for higher nodularity" like the 289 Hipo cranks. In practice
it seemed to work just fine; Mario Rossi used them in NASCAR and Jack
Roush used them in Pro Stock, though both switched to the HTC and Moldex
forgings when they became available later.


- -> Boss) and is lighter and smaller overall. The weak point of the W is
- -> the *too large* mains (around 3.00).

Hot rod mythology. The 429/460 has the same main bearing size, and
*they* don't have any trouble.

==dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
====================================http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm


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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:06:34 EST
From: BDIJXS
Subject: ratios?

OX, Thanks for confirming my axle ratio setup....

I have to say this list is great....

The narrative from Mr. Harris on the small blocks and big blocks was
awesome...
I don't know anything about 302's or 429's, but I was sure impressed!

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:05:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN #

>>300 cid six; Y or 8 = 352 cid *eight (the book says 352 cid six, but I
>don't
>>think there is such an animal).
**Major misprint in the book!!
I checked into a 66 with a 352 not long ago and saw that and had to laugh,
cause the VIN said 6 cyl 352.....eight plug wires so I figured ....oops!
>and it was almost like a Crown Vic or something. NICE!
I am partial to Crown Vics.......especially with the Sever duty package!!
Sorry Marko, I know how you love them Mercs and hate FORD cars! :)
I just had to!

>
>Is the 352 worth keeping???

YES YES YES!!! Keep it!

Is this a really reliable engine?
Streemly Relaible!! Love the FE torque!

I noticed in
>Edelbrock's catalog that they show Performer manifold for all FE engines but
>Performer RPM was not listed for 352. Is this right?
It will work just fine. Most all the FE intakes will interchange with the
exception of some serious Hi-Po stuff (high riser, tunnel ports and some
medium risers) along with those that have slightly different port sizes but
for the most part they will work jes fine! Got to do a little measuring first.

Are there some
>fundamental differences between a 352 and a 390 that would affect bolt-on
>parts?

Bores are a little different and the crank is different/ so are pistons.

My line of thinking here if this is the case is just to nurse the
>thing along long enough to rebuild a 460 & C6, get a nice fat radiator, and
>swap it. If the 352 is really reliable though it might be worth keeping a
>little longer.
You can have it bored, buy a new crank and pistons etc. and slap a 4V intake
and a set of good headers (like Stan's???? Marko)
A viola, A fire breathing 300 hp 390 cid beast at your right foot!

>
>I'm going over there saturday to drive the truck and maybe make an offer.
>So FYI I haven't driven it or anything yet.

Do IT! Once you own an FE, Correct me here list members, They become
somewhat sentimental old engines! I went a number of years without owning
an FE and finally
found my 71 4x4 with a 360......just something special about them.

(Saying this, As "he" longs to drive his old truck sitting in a mjillion
pieces in his shop for the resto!)

No flames please M block lovers, 385 people and small blockers, I love all
FORD engines except maybe the Pinto engine!

You have come to the right place to ask about the FE's. Many more in this
group who know much more than I regarding them!

Stu
Nuke GM!

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:13:56 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Cloyes roller chain

Check out Summit's own brand. I put one in my 460. Its a true roller
and has 3 adjustments on it and was quite abit less than the name
brands. And its made by one of the name brand manufacturers.
Brian

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:19:56 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: 4x4 gearing

Jeff, That's normal in 4x4's to have a slightly different gear ratio
between the front and rear diff's. I once ran a '73 bronco with 3:00
rear and 3:54 front. I don't recommend this type of a split for normal
off road driving, but for racing (sand or mud) it works great.

Brian

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:13:52 -0800
From: marko
Subject: Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN #

At 08:05 PM 3/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>...especially with the Sever duty package!!
>Sorry Marko, I know how you love them Mercs and hate FORD cars! :)
>I just had to!
>
Hey, I have no problem with Ford cars either. Really. It's just they
didn't come with 410's....

>>
>>Is the 352 worth keeping???
>
>YES YES YES!!! Keep it!
>
> Is this a really reliable engine?
>Streemly Relaible!! Love the FE torque!

The 352 is just fine. It is rebuildable into a 390 or even (ahem) a 410
with little modification except a different crank, rods, pistons, and a 50
thou bore.
In some cases, a bit of flywheel re-balancing.
>
>I noticed in
>>Edelbrock's catalog that they show Performer manifold for all FE engines but
>>Performer RPM was not listed for 352. Is this right?
>It will work just fine. Most all the FE intakes will interchange with the
>exception of some serious Hi-Po stuff (high riser, tunnel ports and some
>medium risers) along with those that have slightly different port sizes but
>for the most part they will work jes fine! Got to do a little measuring first.
>
I agree, altho there may be better places to spend money than the Performer
manifold. Ask Steve Delanty about that one.

> Are there some
>>fundamental differences between a 352 and a 390 that would affect bolt-on
>>parts?
>
>Bores are a little different and the crank is different/ so are pistons.

Yup. Headers would be the same for both. So would intakes, basically.

>
>My line of thinking here if this is the case is just to nurse the
>>thing along long enough to rebuild a 460 & C6, get a nice fat radiator, and
>>swap it. If the 352 is really reliable though it might be worth keeping a
>>little longer.
>You can have it bored, buy a new crank and pistons etc. and slap a 4V intake
>and a set of good headers (like Stan's???? Marko)
>A viola, A fire breathing 300 hp 390 cid beast at your right foot!
>
>>
>>I'm going over there saturday to drive the truck and maybe make an offer.
>>So FYI I haven't driven it or anything yet.
>
>Do IT! Once you own an FE, Correct me here list members, They become
>somewhat sentimental old engines! I went a number of years without owning
>an FE and finally
>found my 71 4x4 with a 360......just something special about them.
>
>(Saying this, As "he" longs to drive his old truck sitting in a mjillion
>pieces in his shop for the resto!)
>
>No flames please M block lovers, 385 people and small blockers, I love all
>FORD engines except maybe the Pinto engine!
>
The FE is really a nice motor, and boy does it sound good too. Nothing too
difficult about it, and it has so much potential to make something really
special out of it. With your 352 block you have all kinds of choices, most
of which showed up as some production version or other somewhere down the
line. You can look up and down at the 60's 390 specs and say "I want that
one" and then build it out of your basic engine.

>You have come to the right place to ask about the FE's. Many more in this
>group who know much more than I regarding them!
>
>Stu
>Nuke GM!



marko

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:21:03 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: 66 Ford F100 VIN #

At 07:41 PM 3/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>First three symbols = series, fourth symbol = engine: A or 1 = 240 cid six;
>B
>>or 2 =
>>300 cid six; Y or 8 = 352 cid *eight (the book says 352 cid six, but I
>don't
>>think there is such an animal). The fifth symbol = assembly plant which is
>>too long to list, post the fifth number and I'll tell you which it is....I
>own
>>a '65 F100 and I can tell you they are great trucks. Your '66 will have
>twin
>>I beam suspension since that began in '65 but it won't ride like a cadillac
>
>
>I got a lot of responses on this, mostly in private. Thanks everyone for
>the rapid and thorough response. I thought I was going to be alone with a
>'66 (doesn't seem like a popular year) but I'm glad there are a few folks
>around that already know what I am getting myself into. :-)
>
>I'm not too worried about the suspension. I figured on doing one of those
>airbag suspensions to really soften it up. I rode in another truck that had
>one of these and it was almost like a Crown Vic or something. NICE!
>
>Is the 352 worth keeping??? Is this a really reliable engine?

Yes and yes.

>I noticed in
>Edelbrock's catalog that they show Performer manifold for all FE engines but
>Performer RPM was not listed for 352. Is this right? Are there some
>fundamental differences between a 352 and a 390 that would affect bolt-on
>parts?

No fundamental differences. The 352 probably doens't pull enough
air for the design to work optimally.

>My line of thinking here if this is the case is just to nurse the
>thing along long enough to rebuild a 460 & C6, get a nice fat radiator, and
>swap it. If the 352 is really reliable though it might be worth keeping a
>little longer.

Mine had its first rebuild at 265,000 miles (no kidding, I have all
the maintenance records).

>
>I'm going over there saturday to drive the truck and maybe make an offer.
>So FYI I haven't driven it or anything yet.
>
>Thanks everyone,
>Chris Hedemark
>Yonder Way
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.yonderway.com
>

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:24:42 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: Frame

At 05:22 PM 3/12/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Dennis writes: >>anyone know how new of a frame I can get that I can
>bolt my current 1970 crew cab body to, without any major
>modifications??
>
>'79 I believe.
>
>Azie
>Ardmore, Al.

I think the 73-79 frames are slightly wider. I don't know this
for a fact but I do know that the rear bumper mounts on 73-79s
are widers. 72 would be the safest bet. Someone please correct
me if I'm wrong.

Also, I've heard that 73-79 windshields fit 67-72s. Has anyone
done this or otherwise know if its fact or fiction?

Ken

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:30:00 -0600
From: Mike Blazek
Subject: Re: 351C and 429/460

Chris is right on this one. I had a 70 Mach 1 with the Cleveland, and
if it weren't for a certain moron in a Cadillac, I'd still have
it(snif).


Mike
Chris Hedemark wrote:
>
> >The 351 Cleveland was first produced for the 1971 model year and
> >discontinued by the 1974 model year.
>
> You sure about this? I could swear that the 1970 Mustangs were available
> with Clevelands (and, true, 1973 was the last year in that model for the
> Cleveland).
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net, |
> | List removal information is on the web site. |
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 18:50:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
Subject: Big Trouble Revisited...

First, thanks to all of those who responded and sorry for my
tardiness in replying; my account has been acting up. Second, I believe
that I need to clarify a littl ebit. THe member underneath the motor has
a lip on the bottom. THAT is what is bent. It doesn't look like a big
deal to me, as it isn't interfering with the I-Beams! THe one that is
SERIOUSLY bent is the one underneath the transmission; it is bent
backwards in a shape similar to a 135 degree angle. It does look really
easy to replace, though. Thanks again for all the help and anything else
is greatly appreciated. :)

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:24:54 -0500
From: DC Beatty
Subject: RE: Cloyes roller chain

Thanks all for the responses. This is very helpful. I haven't heard much
about Cloyes before so I thought I'd ask. The last time I had to change a=

timing chain was in my Maverick. Really annoying when they decide to slip=
,
eh? A steel set cost $60 for it, and I figured if it's only $30 more for =
a
double roller and it will wear better and longer I might as well do it
while the doing's easy. =


Here's my thinking: While the motor is on the engine stand I want to do a=
s
much as I can to make it as trouble free as I can. I don't have the cash
for a rebuild, but the motor is *extremely* clean inside and looks like
it's been built not too long ago. I have confidence in what I see.

I thought I'd clean it up inside and out, put a timing set in it, oil pum=
p
(Melling standard volume), seal it up with Ford gaskets (including umbrel=
la
seals and rear main) and Ford cement (which I hear is awesome), paint it
dark Ford blue and stab it in my truck. =


Thanks again, and if anyone thinks I'm overlooking something please let m=
e
know.


Drew Beatty
1967 F100 352
1974 Maverick 302
Sleddog wrote: =


notch =

stuff. i have used them for years in my 460 engines with no problems at =

all.

sleddog >> =


- ----------
From: Jean and Phillip Johnson[SMTP:trainquilt wwisp.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:27 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Re: Cloyes roller chain

DC Beatty wrote:
>
> I'm going to put a timing set in my 390. I can get a Cloyes "true-rolle=
r"
> double roller set for $92.00. Does anyone here have experience, good or=

> bad, with cloyes stuff? =

=

>
> Drew Beatty
> 1967 F100 352
> 1974 Maverick 302
I don't know about that particular timing chain kit, but it seems
extremely pricy. > =

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:15:50 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: V*lare Rear End

Ya Ya Ya Deacon!!!!!

Marko,

My only suggestion is to look for a 66-67 heavy duty model. I split the frame
tubes at about the engine mount from too much load on the light duty van I had.
If memory serves me correctly the 66-67 came with a heavy duty model and a 300"
six

I had a 63 Econoline van (one fun van). I put in a 289 and there are a lot of
stock van parts to swap around. Slightly modified 240-300 "I" engine cross
member. Ford 9" rear from a 66-67 Van ( bolt in ) C4 trans will mount to the
stock trans mount ( swap in the 66-67 tail piece )ETC.


Good luck

Dana

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

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:38:34 -0800
From: Alan Mittelstaedt / Chad Dailey
Subject: Oil weights

Hi all--

Just dropping in late on the oil recommendations to the gent with low
pressure. Something to remember: 10w30 has a thinner film thickness
than 20w50. This means, in a tight, new engine, 20w50 may not get to
all the nooks and crannies that 10w30 would, especially when cold. In
race engines, which typically use greater clearances, 20w50 may be
preferred. In your newly rebuilt street motor, it could be bad. In a
worn street motor, probably no problem.

Just my 2d.

Chad

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:55:23 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Another milestone

Its official: just passed 2000 members. Did a count and
there are now 2017 members on the lists. Thanks everyone!

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 00:04:21 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: Engine wars...

Okay guys I see you all taking shots at each other over which size cubes
is best. I think it really depends on what you are doing with the
truck.
Stump pullers/house movers may need that big 460 power.
Late evening cruisers with an occasional red light racing for just
showing off could get by with a small block. Especially if we ever get
into a gas crunch again.
Racing...build to win.

So, here is a personal comparison. My current '65 truck has a mild
modified 302 with all the Edelbrock stuff. I have yet to really drive
it. I have started it. I keep looking to see if the block is really
there, because I can't FEEL it. You guys know what I mean. You want to
FEEL the power. When I had my '72 Ranchero it had a mild modified 351C
and I could really feel that one. Comparing both engines while reving
leaves me wondering if the 302 has any guts. The 351C brought the
neighbors to the their windows to see what just fired up. Both use
aftermarket breathers, both had dual exhaust, the 302 has headers...the
351C had some sort of cast headers. I will tell you that the Ranchero
ate small new Mustangs alive and scared the ##$%&# out of some kids
whose daddies bought them those toys. The Ranchero was primer gray of
several shades and looked liked crap. But underneath it was one mean
machine. Made a good undercover vehicle.

So, while you guys argue this out I want to point out an engine you all
left off the discussion that was around in the late '70 and very early
'80. And since I am not a historian on engines I really do not know how
long these stayed around. My folks had a '76 Town Car... you know the
"living room" on wheels with a 55 gallon gas tank. It had a Ford 477
with 4bbl..specs I don't remember. I also had some '80 s Ford fleet
trucks, including cabovers, that had the 477s in them too. One of
these cabs was so huge it made the propane tank it carried (it delivered
propane to factories) look like a toy. It was the joke of the company!
And to get carried away....we used to drive this thing down by the RCA
factory in Bloomington IN. and downshift it where the factory walls
huged the street and just rattled the walls and windows down through
there something fierce. Somebody usually called to complain, but talk
about cooolll!!!!! You know I haven't seen one of those in a long time.
Anybody got any specs on them? Are they worth anything in a F-100? I
wonder.... '65 F-100 477 by Lincoln...I'll have to check that out!

Oh! We also had Ford repair trucks with heavy tool box beds that had
360 blocks. Talk about weak!!! Almost messed my pants in those a
couple times while trying to pass tractors. Finally realized it was not
worth trying. Any other Ford engines we have not cussed and discussed
yet?

Ken ought to be able to build a very opinionated library out of all the
engine talk here. You could just see a guy... "I found a F-100 with a
360, blah, blah..." We say "check the library on your engine... to see
what public opinion is on it."....

---

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.