fordtrucks61-79-digest Saturday, March 21 1998 Volume 02 : Number 167
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
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
In this issue:
Re: Brake Hoses Reply ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Gas tank for Highboy? [Jim Henjum ]
Re: Deacon ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Filler' up? [Don Grossman ]
Re: Filler' up? [Ken Payne ]
RE: 351s. Or the continuing debate... ["Chris Samuel"
Granada/ Monarch Fuel Tanks [CAT LN7 ]
Re: stroke ["Harry Jennings" ]
Re: Weak T-5!? ["Harry Jennings" ]
Re: Engine Wars!? ["Harry Jennings" ]
Re: OD for a I6 ["Harry Jennings" ]
Re: Weak T-5!? [ROSITCH SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU]
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:54:08 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: Brake Hoses Reply
Nope... mine are in correctly according to my Helms manual. Bleeder is
on top. Banjo bolts on bottom inside. My hoses do fit. Maybe I am just
worried. The guy at the parts counter said mount your hoses then bolt
on your rims with tires on it and then turn the steering. He said
without the rims and tires I probably am turning the spindles on the
king pins farther than they would normally turn thus causing the hoses
I have not tried this yet. Might get to do it this weekend if it
doesn't rain. What do you think? It could also be that the hose
brackets on the frame needs to be relocated a couple of inches.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:55:13 -0600
From: Jim Henjum
Subject: Gas tank for Highboy?
Does anyone know if there was a gas tank made that would fit inside the
frame rails of a '75 F250 4x4 in back? (34" from outside to outside) I
am quite sure ones off the newer 1/2 and 3/4 tons are too wide. I have
been told some older 1 tons and crew cabs would have a tank to fit, but
haven't found one. I hope to have it to the bare frame by the end of
tomorrow, and then I can start fitting stuff like this. Oh yea, I would
like to use the same filler tube. Anyone know? Thanks!
'75 F250 4x4 - getting ready for the 460!
'78 F150 - 302 and C-4 for sale, body to go on my '75
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:37:19 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: Deacon
I really hate to see Deacon go. I think he is the only one who made me
laugh out loud while reading the messages here. His humor pulled me out
of the "fog" created when reading some of the more technical msgs
here. Darn!! Now where do I get my laughs from?
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:39:10 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Filler' up?
Someone just brought up gas tanks and it got me thinking.
One day I was thinking "I need a larger gas tank."
The next day I was thinking "I need a tool box for the back of my
On the third day I was thinking "There is no place to mount this extra
gas tank under this truck."
On the fourth day I was thinking "Man these bed boxes are way to
expensive and none of them fit my flair side (aka a bed with steps on
the side, if I got that right. I always get style side and flair side
mixed up. Yes I do babble when I think too.)"
On the fifth day I was thinking "I need a tool box with a gas tank on
Today I was thinking while looking and stacks and stack of sheet steel
"Could I make a box that had a gas tank on the bottom and a storage tank
on the top?"
I also heard a good story. here is the short version. Old gas tanker
used as water truck for 3 year, needed repair so guys started welding up
some holes and killed them self when the tanker blew up.
I steel that porous that it will retain gas for that long?
What should I use for the gas tank/bed box. I was thinking 10ga.? This
might be a little on the thick side.
Any good input from you fabricators out there.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 23:59:48 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: Filler' up?
At 08:39 PM 3/20/98 -0800, you wrote:
>What should I use for the gas tank/bed box. I was thinking 10ga.? This
>might be a little on the thick side.
>Any good input from you fabricators out there.
I know you're going to hate me for suggesting this but I've heard
that an Isuzu Trooper gas tank fits between the frame rails
perfectly. You might want to try this.
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:36:45 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: RE: 351s. Or the continuing debate...
>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
Agreed... as I said they can be useful tools.
But 50 HP is a lot to be off when you are being paid to make HP!
Some of the programs give good data: Piston Speed, "G" loads, Max. Piston
Speed Point, Effective Compression Ratio, Etc..
I like to try out Camshaft designs, but use the data to indicate trends
only, when it comes to the real world it is still cut and try in the end.
>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.
We agree here.
The fact that the longer stroke produces a directly proportional increase in
piston speed; there by inducing a stronger demand (Delta/P) accost the
"IF" the intake system is adequate to supply the D/P more air flow will
result; if more air and the appropriate amount of fuel is introduced into
the cylinder more power will be produced (if the ext side works).
If more power is produced at any given point it can be measured and one of
those measurements will be... Torque.
SO... If the intake system is up to it and the exhaust side works; a longer
stroke will make more torque, "PERIOD":-)
With simple deburring and a good valve grind the "M/C" 2BBL heads are easily
good for well into the 450HP range; with a factory 4BBL intake manifold. Do
some port work, give it a good manifold they'll step in to 600HP territory.
And we haven't even gotten to the 4BBL units yet!
As to: "thank you, you just proved MY point."
I am not convinced yet that you did... :-)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:57:32 EST
From: CAT LN7
Subject: Granada/ Monarch Fuel Tanks
Sometime back, someone mentioned installing late 70's Granada/ Monarch fuel
tank in the rear under bed area. What is the best way to route the fuel filler
hose? This will be install in my 67 F100 2wd w/ 8 foot bed. Any thoughts on
67 F100 240/ 3sp (soon to be 302/C4)
68 Cougar DGS 302/C4
82 Merc LN7 1.6L/4sp
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:26:09 CST
From: "Harry Jennings"
Subject: Re: stroke
>Subject: RE: 351s, 400's and 460's
>exactly. if you took a engine, and made the stroke longer, but used >a
smaller bore and assuming all else unchanged (assuming a cam grind >that
is not too serious a high rpm cam) the motor will produce better >low
end torque, but fall flat on its face earlier than the short >sroked
If there are any guys here that are familiar with Ch*vies they may know
that the 383 (a stroked 350) makes a great "street" engine, ie., a good
low RPM torque engine. However, for a long time, a DEstroked 400 (377 ci
with 39 over) was a choice engine for high RMP 1/4 mile drag races.
There was one very famous racer that used the 377 to win many a races. I
just wish I could remember his mame.
Visit me at
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:44:44 CST
From: "Harry Jennings"
Subject: Re: Weak T-5!?
>The T-5 is a rather weak transmission and won't survive
>long behind a 300 six, unless you drive like an old lady and don't >tow
OK, so the T-5 isn't the strongest tranny ever made. But, come on, the
T-5 was offered behind some very good running 302's. It isn't like he
wants to put it behind a 460. It's going behind a smaller engine! You
also have to remember that the T-5 does just fine in the several
SUPERCHERGED and otherwise HO 302 Mustangs running around the country. I
am sure the T-5 would work just fine behind the mild 300 I6. I think it
would even work just fine behine a mild 351W. After all, what manual did
Ford use with the '93(?) Mustang Cobra (the one with the HO 351W)?
I am sure it would work in any truck besides the heaviest, towingest,
truck of them all.
Visit me at
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:15:03 CST
From: "Harry Jennings"
Subject: Re: Engine Wars!?
>Subject: Engine Wars??
>In my spare time I do custom machine work for a race engine development
>(Dyno, Flow Bench, Cam Pro Plus, and the rest of the good toys). We do
>everything from small blocks to big; from every manufacturer including
>Mercedes, and yes the General.
>There are several things that I have learned over the years:
> (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.
I think every Taurus running in NANCAR would disagree with you. If that
is true then please tell me why Ford went out of its way to build a
special hybrid that is based on the 351W, but has the smaller 351C
> (6) A Single plane intake manifold makes more power under the
>curve then a Dual plane.........
NO, no, no, and no! A single plane will make more PEAK HP. A dual plane
will always make more power *under the curve.* That is why "torque"
engines are said to have nice, flat, torque curves.
> (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!
Um, OK, sure!?
Given a $500 limit, most people can make more power with a carb. This is
quickly changine with cheaper and cheaper EFI units coming to the
market, not to mention all of the salvage yard parts. The main reason
carbs are easier to make power with is because too many people don't
know how to make power with EFI!
For instance, if you want to limit it to a single situation (say, 1/4
mile racing) you can make more power per dollar with a carb. However,
the street is much different. With many more variables, the advantage
goes to EFI (if you know how to work with it). Considering this; most
street engines don't have more than a $500 carb. Many people could build
a fairly cheap TBI unit that as much power (for a street engine) and
runs better. I think that is a given. Just look at tuners such as
Lingenfelter. He doesn't even use carbs on his rrace engines any more.
As far as your $15K limit, well, I have been looking at a EFI system for
my 351SVO. All in all it would cost about $5000 (intake, horting, wiring
and such). With this system complete, the best carb wouldn't even come
close in power and definitely not in streatability. Of course, I also
realize that street engines are limited in cams and such. EFI allows
thes limits to be stretch, but, hey, that is part of the advantage of
In all out race engines, you have to realize that most don't allow EFI.
Therefore, the advances haven't been made and the knowledge isn't there.
In otherwords, the best NASCAR engine guy probably couldn't build a very
good EFI engine. So, *he* would think that EFI makes less power. But
given some time.........:)
Visit me at
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:42:33 CST
From: "Harry Jennings"
Subject: Re: OD for a I6
>Best bet if you want Overdrive is to convert to a Pre-86 (no computer)
>transmission. I'm on a search for one of them for my Dad's truck.
>Dennis Candy (Candyman)
It sounds to me as if he wants a manual. Nothing wrong with that!...:)
Anyway, if this is so, then the AOD isn't a real option.
Here are some options (besides the T-5 which will work just fine):
Richmand 4+1. Not an OD, but with its low first gears it is meant to be
ran with high rear gears. You could very easily end up with the same
final drive ratio os the T-5. This trans cost around $1850 form Summit.
Richmond 6-speed. This is a real OD, however, the $3000 price (from
Summit) isn't for everyone.
Borg-Warner T56 6-speed. This is now on the aftermatket. It, to runs
If you want a OD and don't care if it is an auto the AOD is a good
tranny. However, I like the computer ones....kinda.
A nice AOD can be bought from either B&M or TCI. B&M says you don't have
to worry about a lock-up as ling as you run 3:55 gears. I WANT a lock-up
(more mpg, and isn't that the point!?). TCI says you should use a
lock-up for best results (most mileage).
There is a computer that TCI sells that controlls the lock-up and the
shift into OD. It works without ANY driver input. That is the only way I
would ever hook one up! It is great. The computer only added about $150
to the total price 9around $1500 if I remember right). You can save the
$150 by hooking the lock-up and OD to switches on the dash, but doesn't
all that defeat the purpose of an automatic...;)
Visit me at
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: ROSITCH SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Re: Weak T-5!?....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
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.
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.