Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:20:54 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #165
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Friday, March 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 165



=======================================================================
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: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft [George Herpich ]
Re: Intro and Throttle Linkage?? [George Herpich ]
Re: Steel Braided Lines ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
RE: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft ["John F. Bauer III"
Re: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft [james oxley ]
re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match? [sbest ]
Re: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft [Brian ]
Re: 460 noises [Brian ]
RE: Oil hole restriction [Sleddog ]
RE: 351s [Sleddog ]
RE: Engine Wars?? [Sleddog ]
RE: Engine Wars?? [Sleddog ]
Re: Engine Wars?? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft [Randy Collins ]
RE:Engine Warz ["Robert Harris" ]
4x4 Spindles/Hubs, etc. [BDIJXS ]
Re: 4x4 Spindles/Hubs, etc. [james oxley ]
Re: Intro and Throttle Linkage?? ["Clare Waterman-Storer, Ph.D."
RE: 351s, 400's and 460's ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 460 noises ["Ron" ]
Re: Home-made FE Oil Pump Prime Shaft [Marv Miller ]
RE: 351s & the Mighty "M" ["Dave Resch" ]
RE: Oil hole restriction ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 460 noises, valves ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:50:15 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft

Tyler Wilkins wrote:
>
> Anyone have a Oil Pump Primimg shaft they would want to sell or borrow
> me? I'll pay for shipping to me and back plus $5 or something if I can
> borrow it. The local parts shop wants $87 for one! They want like $8
> for one for my 351M. Whats up with the high price for the FE one?
> Anyways let me know, I know I could always make one, anybody made one
> that has any suggestions on the best way to do it?
>
> Tyler Wilkins

Just use a 5/16 1/4 drive socket on the pump drive after
everything(except the distributor) is together. All I do is adapt it to
a 3/8 drive speed handle and crank it by hand. When you get plenty of
oil on the top en your done. It takes less than a minute.
George

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:24:29 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: Intro and Throttle Linkage??

A solution I have used is later model throttle cables. Find one about
the right
lenght and use the pedal and everything.
George

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:29:40 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Steel Braided Lines

> From: danadeb pacbell.net
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 00:19:29 -0800
> Subject: Re: Steel Braided Lines

> They are not approved by anyone for highway use and there is
> probably liability that will fall on you should they fail ( I.E.
> jail time for killing someone!!!! )

The main reason they are not approved "may" be that they don't "lock"
into the square boss like the originals. The originals have a square
edge which fits against a flat boss on the caliper to keep it from
working loose due to movement of the hose etc.. The aftermarket ones
are "generic" and don't have this retainer feature since they are
typical round banjos.

This worried me at first but so far mine have stayed tight. It's
still a consideration though and a bracket to do the same job can be
made up if it's really a concern for you.

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:51:31 -0500
From: "John F. Bauer III"
Subject: RE: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft



>Moral of the story...use the long adapter...even if it means that new drive
>lines must be made.
>

I've got the same setup, 77 dana 60 front and rear, 460/C6 except with the
LONG (like 16") C6 to NP205 adapter. With the double cardan joint at the
NP205 going to the front reverse rotation dana 60, clears the C6 with a few
inches to spare makes a very nice drive line config.

John

>Later,
>
>Randy Collins
>Boise, Idaho
>rcollins micron.net

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:47:41 -0800
From: james oxley
Subject: Re: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft

Randy Collins wrote:
>
> I have been told that the 78-79 F350 front driveshaft did not have the
> double cardan joint that the bronco (and maybe F-250) did. If this is
> true?? If so, I assume that it is because the F350 had the dana60 front and
> could not fit the double cardan.
> I am in the process of welding radius arm mounts (froman old dana 44 front)
> to a 79 dana60 front, to put in my 78 Bronco. I need to know about the
> driveshaft to know if I need a straight DS to pinion angle (using double
> cardan) or the same angle as the DS to transfer case flange (not using
> double cardan).
> I have also been told the U-joint size on the front DS is the same for
> F150-F350. Anyone know for sure??
>
>
> I am in the process of installing the drive lines in my project Ford. The
> project truck has a 77 1/2 to 79 F250 4WD front frame rails grafted to it.
> The front end holds the late model style reverse rotation Dana 44 and has
> a C-6 with the married type 205 behind that.

What does married mean, I've heard this many times before, but does it
mean the transfer bolts directly to trans somehow??

> When I put it together I used
> the SHORT transmission to transfer case adapter. The drive line that was
> on the donor truck (F250 77 1/2 to 79) had the cardan type front drive
> line. Guess what? The cardian joint won't clear the C-6 oil pan.

I have a NP435, 6" lift, and cardan allready. That end won't be a problem
for me.

> I tried
> turning the drive line around so the cardan joint is at the differential
> but the angle is too steep and the drive line won't turn.

That must have looked kinda funny, guess it would work, cept for the
angle thing :-) Never thought of that!

> When I talked to my drive line guy he said he didn't think the trucks with
> the reverse rotation differentials and married 205's had cardan joints.
> Maybe not but because my truck has been lifted I have no choice but to use
> one. The current plan it to try to locate a yoke for the differential that
> is shorter this will move the cardan joint closer to the transfer box.

Stock 78-79 bronc's have a front cardan and C-6's, but not sure about
the married thing??

ope that this and a little grinder work on the C-6 case will give me the
> clearance I need.
>
> I'll know in a day or so if this works.
Thanks for the info, let us know how it turns out.

OX

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:34:49 -0400
From: sbest
Subject: re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match?

>> 302. Could anyone confirm that the T-5 is a bolt in (to replace the
>> existing Ford 3 speed manual) in a '78 300 I6?

>The bell housings are identical and will bolt up but there was an odd
>bolt pattern in the 302 at one point so make sure you get the later
>version. I don't know all the particulars on this but one version
>had one more bolt than the other.......
>
>351C, 351W, 302, 289 and 300 I6 all use the same bell housing except
>for that one exception AFAIK. There may be a spline difference
>between the T-5 and 3 speed but that's handled by changing the clutch
>disk. Throw out bearing may be different too, not sure.

The T5 must use its own bellhousing, pressureplate, flywheel and
clutch linkage but will bolt to any 351C, 351W, 302, 289, 300, 240 or
250 six built after 1964 (which only rules out some 5 bolt 289s) but
the flywheel becomes the problem. All the six cyl engines have a zero
balanced flywheel. All the V8s have their own specially balanced
flywheels, you shouldn't mix them without expecting some vibration.

Besides the T5 being rather weak for a heavy vehicle it sounds like
finding or making a zero balanced flywheel will be quite a problem.

Steve Best, Nova Scotia, sbest glinx.com
6.9 litre diesel Ford van, full-time 4 wheel drive
"Hang on kids, we're going through..."
4 wheel drive van page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
Tire chains, camping gear, tools and first aid stuff too...

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:06:28 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft

I'm not sure what your shaft is like, But on my 460, I used a 5/16
socket, 1/4" drive with extensions. I taped them all together with
electrical tape and it worked just fine.

Brian

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:16:14 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: 460 noises

Yeah...it was the same guy, But I did see the heads before they started
the work, Not that I new what to look for, But I did see where they
weren't sealing. And he only charged an extra $100.00 bucks for them.
But when the guy figured out the bill....He only charged me for 1 so I
got a deal anyway. Still spent about $600.00 to get them done.

Brian

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:20:52 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Oil hole restriction

gary, the 386 does feed crank, then cam, then valvetrain. to restrict
these engines, you restrict some (2,3,4,5 i think?) of the mains going up
to the crank. then you restrict the right side crossover (or was it the
left?) and the other side needs to have the lifter bores bushed. most
people only do the mains and the crossover, and ignore the lifter bores on
the one side. the 385 also needs some attn to the oil filter/pump area -
drilling the holes larger. in fact, i am about to check out my "new" block
to make sure these mods are done.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[SMTP:gpeters3 ford.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 5:03 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Re: Oil hole restriction

> From: am14 chrysler.com
> Subject: Oil hole restriction
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:32:43 -0500

> Gary writes: >>Azie and Marv, Why did you guys do this again?? It
> seems to fly in the face of modern thinking from what I've read? I
>
> This is a Main hole - not a cam bearing hole. Remember the FE's
> (except the side oilers)feed oil to(read through) the Cam then the
> mains. The # 4 main oil hole is about 1/2 covered by the bearing

If this is true (and I'm not doubting you) I see what you mean but
I'm used to the 335 and 385 engines which feed (unless I've been
misled) from the pump to the crank and up to the cam and lifters
etc.?? Anybody know for sure? Why would they sell restrictor plugs
for the cleveland to go into the upper main saddle holes if this was
not the case? All the articles I've read on these engines say this
is the way they feed?

Now that I think about it I don't think I ever really questioned it
and never really tried to determine this for myself. Boy do I feel
foolish! :-( I will be making this a special consideration next time
I pull one down..............

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:35:22 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: 351s

- ----------
From: Chris Samuel[SMTP:fourmuelz email.msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 10:01 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: RE: 351s

From: Sleddog
>Hmmm, interesting idea. but, stroke doesn't "make" torque, it only limits
>the engine to being built as a torque motor.

Stroke, and the lack there of absolutely does have a direct influence on
Torque production. Though it is not the sole determinate.
Stroke is not a limit to RPM, IF the selection of the rest of the
components
reflects the desired operating range.

sorry, i stand by what i said.

> my new 460 build according to
>the desktop dyno should be making about 500 #ft at 2000 rpm. and, it
won't
>fall below that until about 8000 rpm, with a max near 5000rpm, of 700+ #ft
>torque.

I do hope that you are not actually believing the numbers that you are
getting from your "Desk Top Dyno" program. These programs are anything but
accurate! A tool and even a useful one but they all are not even close to
giving actuate power output numbers! While researching the various
"Cyber-Dyno" programs, I input actual build specs. for 10 engines that we
selected from our real world data base and ran them through several of the
Sym. programs. While some were better then others none were really close to
the results that actually happened on the real dyno. Most like "Desk Top
Dyno" were optimistic to say the least for high pro Street Engines and way
off for Race Engines.

ok, i know they are not too accurate BUT, when a freind of mine had his
motor dynoed, he came out with over 900 hp. now, in this program, i still
haven't gotton that combo to come close - it is always UNDER! noe, follow
me on this, if i tell it it has a tunnel ram intake, it gets close, but it
really was a single plane. so in my build, i am using this guys old heads
and intake. now, i call it a single plane. it should be showing low on
the computer. besides, the numbers it gives match very well with what both
ultradyne, and engine systems told me my build should be. AND with correct
tuning, more power is always available. in the program i gave it 926 cfm
to use for the carb (my current carb). putting on a dominator will be
worth possibly 50 or more horse top end. if the program is off +-50 hp
(the excepted amount by many engine builders for these low end dynos, i am
and will be very close.

also, i do not "beleive" these numbers from the program. but i have a
better idea what my engine does than the guy who tosses one together and
then says - "i have a 437 hp engine". the program is fantastic for
comparison.

and, as for the afore mentioned torque vs stroke analysis i gave. if you
plug different srokes into ANY dyno program i have ever used, you will find
that given same cid, longer strokes need better breathing. PERIOD! this
is a confirmation of my initial statement. if you need more info on this
area, i would be happy to give it to you.

> find me M motor that can match that! (really, I would like to
>find one! i'd put it in my other truck!)

You will be hard pressed to find a naturally aspirated 460 that will do it,
for any length of time, on a real Dyno, burning anything that you can get
from a gas station.

duh, race gas, i don't run it on the street very far.

And...
Yes I can deliver such an engine, when and where do you want it? You do
have cash....

cash, but i get to run it in truck first. stroudsburg pa, let me know when
you are in town.

>really, the 460 makes more torque. the 400 just feels like it has more on
>the bottom, because it gets so anemic after a couple of rpms there's no
>"punch" at the top!

In factory trim the 78-79 460 was rated at 357 Lb/Ft 2200 RPM with a 4BBL
while the 400 was rated at 315 1800 RPM with a 2BBL (Numbers from
Chilton). Install an equivalent intake system and adjust the Ign. and Cam
timing accordingly, and the 400 out powers the 460 all the way through the
RPM range that most Street engines operate in, lives just as long, weighs
80
plus pounds less, and uses less fuel to do it all. (Isn't that right Dave.)
But... If we are going drag racing I want the 460!

thank you, you just proved MY point.

sleddog

Chris
79 Bronco

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:39:55 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Engine Wars??

you are right about most things, i agree with most points but remember, the
little details make power and reliability. here, when something is slapped
together, even the most expensive parts can be slugs.

- ----------
From: Chris Samuel[SMTP:fourmuelz email.msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 10:43 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Engine Wars??

snipped

All it takes is MONEY to win any engine war, or to break any rule.


Chris
79 Bronco



















+-------------- 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: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:41:49 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Engine Wars??

- ----------
From: Chris Samuel[SMTP:fourmuelz email.msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 10:43 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Engine Wars??

(5) Air flow is everything! More is always better. (SEE #1)
(6) A Single plane intake manifold makes more power under the curve
then a Dual
plane, and a Tunnel makes the most. It is the Carb that makes one or breaks
the other. (SEE #1)
(7) With in reason there is no such thing as too big a Carb; but there
are more
wrong types of Carbs then there are right. (SEE #1)

chris,
i have been saying just these 3 points for many years. i get alot of resistance on #6 especially.


Chris
79 Bronco


















+-------------- 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: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:45:23 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Engine Wars??

> From: "Chris Samuel"
> Subject: Engine Wars??
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:43:37 -0800

> In my spare time I do custom machine work for a race engine
> development shop (Dyno, Flow Bench, Cam Pro Plus, and the rest of
> (SEE #1) (4) There is no such thing as too big a main or rod
> journal, in any
> production
> based engine, but there are some that are too small. (SEE #1)

Please explain?

> (5) Air flow is everything! More is always better. (SEE #1) (6)
> A Single plane intake manifold makes more power under the curve
> then a Dual

What is "under the curve"?

> (7) With in reason there is no such thing as too big a Carb;
> but there
> are more
> wrong types of Carbs then there are right. (SEE #1)

What is reason?

> (8) Carbs make more power then Fuel Injection, until the price
> of the
> injection system goes over $15k and then it may be a toss up! (SEE

As in Hillborn?

> All it takes is MONEY to win any engine war, or to break any rule.

I have recently been bitten by the circle, dirt track bug and will
just be playing with a "Bomber" on a small budget but have been
reading about the engines the Late Models use and the work that goes
into them. One article on the Ch**y SB2 was interesting in that they
made a big issue of the angle of the intake ports among other things.
These guys run near 8k rpm most of the time and engines typically run
above 30k even at the local track level.

I must say I envy you your part time job. It's something I've always
wanted to delve into myself but at 51 years of age it's a little too
late for that now I guess..........:-( I'd pay to take a tour of a
real shop and have my questions answered..........:-)


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:49:13 -0800
From: Randy Collins
Subject: Re: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft

What does married mean, I've heard this many times before, but does it mean the transfer bolts directly to trans somehow??

A married transfer case means that the transfer case bolts to the transmission.

A divorced transfer case means that there is a drive line connecting the transmission and transfer box.


Later,

Randy Collins
Boise, Idaho
rcollins micron.net

1975 Ford F250 4WD Supercab "Muscle Truck"
460 SUPER COBRA JET
Short Block Completed...Stage II head work

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:53:22 -0800
From: "Robert Harris"
Subject: RE:Engine Warz

Someday, when I win the lottery what I really dream of is buying all the
classic 55 Chevy Nomad Station Wagons left in the world, Restore them
beautifully, and drop 351 Cleveland's into them. Paybacks a bitch.

If I had need of a very strong, working 350 size engine and a stout
transmission and was reluctant to part with excess cubic dollars building
the bottom end up, I'd contact a certain well engine builder and get a CHORD
350 - Cleveland 4V heads on a strong small block that hooks up nicely to
turbo 350's and 400's. Not only runs great, but performs an instant blood
pressure and heart check on fanatics of both breeds.

My personal all-time favorites battle between a Continental 196 CI in-line 6
flathead and a Kettering 430 with 11:1 factory machined chambers making 350+
and almost 500 torque - end of a long and glorious line - last produced in
1967.

In the ford line, first wet hate/luv is the Lincoln V-12. Worked on a dude
ranch as a kid, had a old Lincoln with everything back of the dash cut off
and a flat bed welded on. Hated that beast we did. Bunch of us pre-adults
ingested some adult beverages, drove it out into the field, wired the
steering wheel full left, throttle full down and let her rip in first.
Watched for hours - bump scream hopes up, slow done darn circle repeat.
Ran out of adult beverages, gas and had to push it two miles back to the
barn - no connection to reality by then.

Flatheads forever. The only truly terrible thing Ford has ever done was
stop producing the wild and wonderful stuff before I had the cubic dollars
to walk into the show room, buy it and drive it stock with the new car smell
intact. With today's ridiculous laws, I am stuck rebuilding the good stuff
and knowing that the golden age is long gone.

It don't take near as much cubic dollars to build up an engine to
unreasonable power as it takes simple knowledge, understanding, and a lust
to make that particular engine perform. All the money in the world will
never make a built for a rag engine make massive power unless it caters to
all the current advertizers in the process. No Ch*v*y fanatic will ever
make a Blue Oval perform as well as his true loves. And anyone who believes
factory numbers deserves it. They are as truthful as a White House statement
about Bill's sex life.

Building up the engine you luv will get you much further than sticking in
someone else's favorite. Do it with the one you want - it makes the "best"
poster so mad that you ignore their advice that the resulting flames will
keep your garage warm all winter.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:06:09 EST
From: BDIJXS
Subject: 4x4 Spindles/Hubs, etc.

I'm curious if anyone has tried to upgrade their 76-79 F-150 4x4 Dana 44 front
axles to accomodate a similar year F-250 hub, spindle, and rotor and
associated stuff? Is there an F-250 spindle that will bolt up to the F-150
steering knuckle? Or, could a set of everything from the steering knuckles out
from a 78-79 F-250 setup be used? I wondering of the F-150 tie rod would bolt
into the F-250 knuckle? I think the 78-79 F-250's had the same type of upper
and lower ball joints connecting the knuckles to the housing....

Also, are most of the 3/4 ton eight-lug wheels 15"?

Any input would be helpful!

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:23:46 -0800
From: james oxley
Subject: Re: 4x4 Spindles/Hubs, etc.

BDIJXS wrote:
>
> I'm curious if anyone has tried to upgrade their 76-79 F-150 4x4 Dana 44 front
> axles to accomodate a similar year F-250 hub, spindle, and rotor and
> associated stuff?

Yes, a fellow 78-79 Bronco owner from the Bronco list has done it. I have
seen the installation.

>Is there an F-250 spindle that will bolt up to the F-150
> steering knuckle?

Yes, at least on 78-79, it will work.

> Or, could a set of everything from the steering knuckles out
> from a 78-79 F-250 setup be used?

Thats what this guy did it.

>I wondering of the F-150 tie rod would bolt
> into the F-250 knuckle?

Don't need F-250 knuckles.


> Also, are most of the 3/4 ton eight-lug wheels 15"?

No, all 16". 15" won't fit, but I'm gonna try to grind enough away from
calipers to make them fit. Wide 15" will definately not fit, have too
much backspacing.

OX

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:44:03 -0500
From: "Clare Waterman-Storer, Ph.D."
Subject: Re: Intro and Throttle Linkage??

mike--

by the way,

could you find out who made that nice looking linkage rod from your
buddy?

thanks

clare

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:53:06 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: 351s, 400's and 460's

> From: "Chris Samuel"
> Subject: RE: 351s
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:01:18 -0800

> From: Sleddog
> >Hmmm, interesting idea. but, stroke doesn't "make" torque, it only
> >limits the engine to being built as a torque motor.
>
> Stroke, and the lack there of absolutely does have a direct
> influence on Torque production. Though it is not the sole
> determinate. Stroke is not a limit to RPM, IF the selection of the
> rest of the components reflects the desired operating range.

Based on previous discussions and what you say here I am assuming
that a longer stroke will make more torque at a lower rpm but run out
of air at higher rpms?? The very abused and very tired 429 I put in
my van seemed to run till I chickened out but the fresh 460 with
spread bore carb, headers and dual exhaust seems to run out of air
about 90 mph with 2.75 gears which isn't all that high rpm. The only
real difference I can see in the two besides the stroke is the cam,
the 460 has a torque cam.

My feeling is that the 460 will make enough torque at the bottom even
with fairly racy cams that it shouldn't be a problem even in a truck
to use a roller cam in the 280 duration and .600" lift range?? Since
that's the torqueiest that's out there (in a roller cam) I guess
it's a no brainer :-(

Again, going by this discussion, the 400 may well be a good choice
for a dirt track car in stock condition and certainly good enough to
keep most truckers happy on the highway. I think mine may be a 400
and it does pretty well. It definitely does not have the awsome
punch the 460 does even with it's 2.75 gears but pretty good just the
same :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:59:36 -0500
From: "Ron"
Subject: Re: 460 noises

Brian,
Do the valve guides, and valve seat angle and width all over again
completely. With using unleaded fuels, be sure they are not cutting narrow
seat widths. Wider are generally harder to seat only if the doer does not
take the time to properly lap them in, starting with a coarse grit then a
very fine grit lapping compound, to begin with. The wider seat width takes
a lot more heat than a narrow one.
I don't know if you are using the old valves. If so be sure, under a very
strong magnifying glass, only after very a thorough valve cleaning, the
valves do not have anything looking like real fine road maps in them.
These are prime places for a valve to start to burn.

North Carolina Ridge Runner Ron

- ----------
> From: Brian
> To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
> Subject: Re: 460 noises
> Date: Friday, March 20, 1998 8:16 AM
>
> Yeah...it was the same guy, But I did see the heads before they started
> the work, Not that I new what to look for, But I did see where they
> weren't sealing. And he only charged an extra $100.00 bucks for them.
> But when the guy figured out the bill....He only charged me for 1 so I
> got a deal anyway. Still spent about $600.00 to get them done.
>
> Brian
> +-------------- 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: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:23:53 -0800
From: Marv Miller
Subject: Re: Home-made FE Oil Pump Prime Shaft

Tyler Wilkins rwrote:
FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft


>anybody made one that has any suggestions on the best way to do it?

Yea, but it involves an old pump rod, an appropriate sized hex socket,
the cheapest long socket extension you can find, a hack-saw, and a bunch
of RTV. NOT a pretty sight, but it works. Is this the best way?
Probably not!
YMMV
- -Marv-

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:44:10 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: RE: 351s & the Mighty "M"

>From: "Chris Samuel"
>Subject: RE: 351s
>
>snip some lovely 460 bashing :-)
>
>In factory trim the 78-79 460 was rated at 357 Lb/Ft 2200
>RPM with a 4BBL while the 400 was rated at 315 1800 RPM
>with a 2BBL
>(Numbers from Chilton).

Oops, there's a Grain o' Salt!

But seriously, I'd like to see factory-reputable numbers for the 400 from
'71 all the way up to its demise in '83.

In 1971, the 400 was fitted w/ flat top pistons that gave 9.2:1 compression
and some pretty healthy numbers (claimed). But that was before Detroit
switched to "net" horsepower numbers, I think that happened in 1972, which
coincided w/ switching the 400 to "dog-dish" low compression pistons
(8.2:1) and retarded cams, and more emissions controls, and ... well it
just never got much better. Strangled in its infancy... talk about a cruel
twist of fate!

> Install an equivalent intake system and adjust the Ign. and
>Cam timing accordingly, and the 400 out powers the 460 all
>the way through the RPM range that most Street engines
>operate in, lives just as long, weighs 80 plus pounds less,
>and uses less fuel to do it all. (Isn't that right Dave.)

Yeah, brother, right on! Actually, it weighs about 150-200 lbs less,
depending on how they're built. And if you're riding on anything less than
a Dana 60 front end, your truck will really appreciate that weight savings
(just about enough for a decent bumper and winch).

>But... If we are going drag racing I want the 460!

OK, I'll take that blown 600ci stroker w/ twin Dominators and nitrous;-)
Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 11:46:23 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: Oil hole restriction

> From: Sleddog
> Subject: RE: Oil hole restriction
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:20:52 -0500

> gary, the 386 does feed crank, then cam, then valvetrain. to
> restrict these engines, you restrict some (2,3,4,5 i think?) of the
> mains going up to the crank. then you restrict the right side
> crossover (or was it the left?) and the other side needs to have the
> lifter bores bushed. most people only do the mains and the

Thanks sleddog! I thought I was going nuts for a minute there! I
wasn't aware of the lifter area or crossovers though. I'll have to
keep that in mind on my next one. I knew about tapping the gallery
passages for plugs and also tapped the soph holes for allen pipe
plugs and deburred everything. I was real proud of myself for all
that but still misssed a few important steps which will not be missed
on my next one :-)


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:20:35 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 460 noises, valves

> From: "Ron"
> Subject: Re: 460 noises
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 10:59:36 -0500

> completely. With using unleaded fuels, be sure they are not cutting....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.