|
|
fordtrucks61-79-digest Monday, April 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 222 ======================================================================= Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks Digest Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, send email to: fordtrucks61-79-digest-request with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the message. ======================================================================= In this issue: FE head I.D [Zigstr ] Re: FE head I.D [John MacNamara ] RE:hindsight/foresight [ballingr RE:hindsight/foresight [Dan Koster ] Re: Electric fuel pump-? [Ractrk002 ] '63 to 390 [ballingr Re: '63 to 390 [Dan Koster ] C-6 troubles [ballingr Re: Electric fuel pump-? [Mike Schwall ] Removing Old Headers [ballingr Re: C-6 troubles ["Deacon" ] RE: C-6 troubles [DC Beatty ] RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers [Sleddog ] RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers [Dan Koster ] RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers [Sleddog ] Jake's pickup - the saga begins [Mark Moburg ] Re: Jake's pickup - the saga begins ["Bill Beyer" ] Hydraulic boosted brakes [sbest ] Removing old header bolts [Bill Adams ] RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers [DC Beatty Deacon [Bruce Hart ] Re: Removing Old Headers [marko ] 75 Ranger [Michelle ] ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 07:12:14 EDT From: Zigstr Subject: FE head I.D Need help in identifing cylinder head part # C4AZ-6069-G. My ID book tells me standard 352-390 head,but the intake ports match that of a 427 low riser(no port work has been done) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 05:46:29 -0700 From: John MacNamara Subject: Re: FE head I.D Zigstr wrote: > > Need help in identifing cylinder head part # C4AZ-6069-G. My ID book tells me > standard 352-390 head,but the intake ports match that of a 427 low riser Zigstr: They should because a 427 low rise head is the same design as the 390 head except for the exhaust bolt set up and any high performance stuff that may be found on the 427 such as valves, machined combustion chambers,etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 08:35:11 -0500 From: ballingr Subject: RE:hindsight/foresight >Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 19:16:46 -0700 (PDT) >From: Dan Koster >Subject: hindsight/foresight >Let life's wisdom speak into my ears. What would you do in my shoes >now? I'm not to be mistaken for a fount of wisdom, but I can share my regrets. If I had kept the structural integrity of the '67 up. Cab mounts, center support, floor. Theyr'e all going to have to come out because I wasn't smart enough to flush the mud out of the mounts twice a year and WD-40 them. Or replace the rubber door seals to keep water from standing (under nice,new carpet)in the floor. I wish overall that I had not taken the old truck for granted like I did. It gave me great service, starting on the coldest mornings, and ripping like a champ every time everytime I felt like showing my a**. And I made it a heap, the first vehicle I ever owned. But lessons learned, I'll make up for it when I strip it all down, replace the floor and mounts, and paint it wild cherry red, and bring that 390 and C-6 back to life. It will still be a Rod/Truck, but it will be what it should have been. I owe it. To everyone who replied to my posting on this subject, I want to make sure that you understand that I respect your right to turn your automotive canvas into whatever your minds eye sees. I doesn't have to fit my taste, or meet my expectations and I apologize to anyone who I might have offended with my views. One thing that I've learned though, is like the Piccaso's and Mattisse's of the world, it's not a bad idea to treat the canvas like you want it to last a while. Ballinger Preferred Company ballingr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 07:40:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Koster Subject: RE:hindsight/foresight > >Let life's wisdom speak into my ears. What would you do in my shoes > >now? > > I'm not to be mistaken for a fount of wisdom, but I can share my regrets. William, Thanks for the advice. I'll keep those things on my long term goal list. now... ...and paint it wild cherry red, and bring that > 390 and C-6 back to life. > It will still be a Rod/Truck, but it will be what it > should have been. I owe it. What modifications did you do to make it a Rod/Truck with the 390 and C-6? Thanks, Dan _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:45:15 EDT From: Ractrk002 Subject: Re: Electric fuel pump-? Sounds like my truck when I don't set the choke right. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:20:22 -0500 From: ballingr Subject: '63 to 390 >I'm about to put a 390 into a 63 F100 and am just praying that I'll figure it >out o.k. I plan on adding an aluminum intake, new carb, headers and tubes. >Then I'll start working on the body, etc. The '63 used a front mount and bellhousing mounts at the rear ( bellhousing stays in the truck when you pull the engine ) with no trans crossmember. This can be a small problem if you want an automatic, I've never seen a modern trans with a provision for this mounting system. You could adapt or fabricate a rear crossmember for the trans mount if you're going that way, just measure it across, you can fabricate a drop mounting to take care of the up and down part. From looking at my '65 4X bellhousing it should mount about any kind of 3 or 4 speed Ford used in the '60's and '70's, and some '80's. Keeping your stock trans will simplify things a lot. You will need a front mount for an FE which can be problem since as far as I know only were only used in '65 and '66 4X's. I'd bet that an NOS or aftermarket mount exists. I don't know whether your existing mount can be modified to work or not. Another option is to adapt a '65 or '66 front crossmember to your frame with it's FE mounting pads. I've never seen it done though, so I can't say what you'd go through on that. A driveshaft will likely have to be made if you stray from the stock tranny. Everything else is pretty straight forward. Mark the wiring well, you might have to do some patching in on your oil pressure,( add a guage)temp senders and ignition wires. Throttle linkage etc. will take a little ingenuity, but you can do it, just make sure it doesn't bind, and has good clips on it. You didn't say what you are taking out, so I don't know about your gearing. If it's a six you'll probably want to change the gears. While the engine is out, dig out and repair any rust that you can find, you'll thank yourself down the road. This is where I went wrong on my '67, the fork in the road, so to speak. The early syle cab mounts don't seem as rust prone as the later style, so this may not be as much work as it seems. It would be a good time for kingpins and brakes if you need it. If your steering box is loose, fix it now because you wont be able to do much with it once the engine is installed, especially with headers. This sounds like a good project, keep us posted on your progress. Ballinger Preferred Company ballingr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 08:44:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Koster Subject: Re: '63 to 390 William, thanks for your advice. I really need it. > Keeping your stock trans will simplify things a lot. I will be keeping the T98-A 4-speed on-the-floor tranny. It has the old granny gear, 6.20 if I'm right. > You will need a front mount for an FE which can be > problem since as far as I know only were > only used in '65 and '66 4X's. I'd be that an NOS or > aftermarket mount exists. That's one of my biggest concerns. However, I've been told that whatever fit a '65 will fit any 59-64 under the hood, even though they didn't offer the FE at the that time. > Another option is to adapt a '65 or '66 front crossmember > to your frame with it's FE mounting pads. I've never seen > it done though, so I can't say what you'd go through on > that. I have no access to welding tools, etc. So I think I'll be doing a lot of knuckle-breaking steel bending. > You didn't say what you are taking out, so I don't know about your gearing. > If it's a six you'll probably want to change the gears. It is a six. A 223 I6 that isn't the original, although that was the specified original engine. What gears will I need to change, and what do you recommend? Once again, thanks for sharing your hard-earned knowledge with a first-timer like myself. (first V-8, that is) Dan _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:43:35 -0500 From: ballingr Subject: C-6 troubles >I have the same problem with my C-6. Low speed (10-15 mph) usually in a >turn and going uphill the trans chatters from 2nd to 1st. >chatter goes away. Talked to a transmission guy who seemed to know his >stuff and he thought it could be an adjustment on the vacuum modulator >that controls shift firmness. He offered to adjust it free. Just >haven't had time to get it in to him That will probably help, your kickdown may be a little sloppy too, playing with it may yield a little bit. While on C-6's a little trick I've learned is that if you get some trash in your governor, usually after changing out a fried trans, this can cause erratic shifting. Get up to 35 or so and stuff it in Park. It will clean out the governor. The first time I saw it done I thought "sheee****t!!!", but it worked like a charm, with no collateral damage. This was only on the C-6 that I know of, I've never seen it done on anything else. Ballinger Preferred Company ballingr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:54:03 -0500 From: Mike Schwall Subject: Re: Electric fuel pump-? At 04:05 AM 4/18/98 , you wrote: >Whenever I start my truck, I have to sit in it for 10 minutes working >the gas pedal to keep it from stalling until it warms up. It's a 76 F250 >360 with manual choke on the original carb (2100-?). I was thinking that >an electric fuel pump might solve the problem. What do you guys think? >And if I do go with the electric pump, should I by-pass the mechanical >pump or leave it in? Try re-setting the choke, fast idle speed and idle mixture screws. If the truck dosen't die from lack of gas on the highway or once it warms up, then the pump is fine. Mike ________________________________________ Email: mschwall Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.texas.net/~mschwall ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:54:49 -0500 From: ballingr Subject: Removing Old Headers >I was plannig on put on a whole new exahust system. I was wondering >if anybody had any tips for taking the rust bolts out of the engine >block any easier. Shoot penetrating oil on the bolt heads and tap them lightly with a hammer, square from the top of the bolt. I ususally soak them and tap them a couple of times over a two day period. When you get the socket on them, make sure that it fits tight, bolt heads will shrink a little, and I've had to use a metric socket that fit tighter to keep from knocking the ears off. Tighten the bolt a little bit, reverse it, and it will come loose. 302's usually aren't that bad, it's FE's that will make a preacher cuss. Ballinger Preferred Company ballingr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 09:59:55 -0700 From: "Deacon" Subject: Re: C-6 troubles From: WILLIAM L BALLINGER >While on C-6's a little trick I've learned is that if you get some trash in >your governor, usually after changing out a fried trans, this can cause >erratic shifting. Get up to 35 or so and stuff it in Park. It will clean out >the governor. Are you mad at us? Hey, do we call you William or Bill or late for dinner, what? :) Anyway back to the C6. What happens with the parking gear when you do this? Will the lever on the governor float over the gear? How long do you keep it in park before putting it back in drive? Are you sure about this? Are you nuts? :) If this was someone else suggesting this maneuver would you,,, OK, never mind that last one. :) Wakeup Call! Deacon deconblu ============================================== Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm ============================================== Deacon's http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:20:49 -0400 From: DC Beatty Subject: RE: C-6 troubles Yeah, I'm definitely not making any recommendations but I have seen this too. A good friend of mine has built trannys for years and he got my Maverick (C-4) up to about 20mph and jammed it into reverse to free up a governor. In reverse and then immediately back to drive--just enough to make me pucker. It forces an explosion of fluid and dislodges any crap that's jamming the governor. It worked. If it's done in park it shouldn't= be more than 20mph and definitely don't let it come to a stop in park. Bu= t, again, I'm not making any recommendations, just telling what I've seen an= d been told. = Drew Beatty 1967 F100 352 (soon to be 390) 1974 Maverick 302 >I have the same problem with my C-6. Low speed (10-15 mph) usually in a= >turn and going uphill the trans chatters from 2nd to 1st. >chatter goes away. Talked to a transmission guy who seemed to know his >stuff and he thought it could be an adjustment on the vacuum modulator >that controls shift firmness. He offered to adjust it free. Just >haven't had time to get it in to him That will probably help, your kickdown may be a little sloppy too, playin= g with it may yield a little bit. = While on C-6's a little trick I've learned is that if you get some trash = in your governor, usually after changing out a fried trans, this can cause erratic shifting. Get up to 35 or so and stuff it in Park. It will clean out the governor. The first time I saw it done I thought "sheee****t!!!", but= it worked like a charm, with no collateral damage. This was only on the C-6 that I know of, I've never seen it done on anything else. = Ballinger Preferred Company ballingr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:15:13 -0400 From: Sleddog Subject: RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers sorry, i wasn't directing my statement towards any one person in particular on this list, but many people i meet around my home. i started with a fairly prime piece of iron, but allowed the elements to take their toll over many winterrs of it being a daily driver. now i build the engine and drivetrain. later i will fix the body. as for my defination of sleeper, it differs from yours, but still is true. for many of us horsepower and performance addicts the "look" of the vehicle just doesn't mean as much as the performance. for example, bob gliddons son runs a mustang that looks like it was rear ended by a freight train, has half primer, some rust, and lots of missing paint on the plastic pieces. he runs hot street class i think. he wins more than not, but the car looks like crap. his money went into making the car quick, not pretty. i enjoy driving my 77 ford on the street (not often enough unfortunatly) more than my finely painted and cushy 94 truck, even tho it has some rust now, power steering that is almost useless, and brakes that are only 75% of what they were 2 yrs ago, no a/c, wind noise, loud exhaust, broken seat springs (still waiting to get $$$ for racing buckets), no radio, too stiff rear springs.........but i am building for competition, where HP and traction win, not paint and pretty frabric on the seats. why do i enjoy it? i built the engine, assembled the truck, built many custom suspension pieces and brackets, and enjoy the thrill of a good WFOT blast that many drag racers would be proud of. sorry if i offended you, i was just showing "the other side". sleddog - ---------- From: WILLIAM L BALLINGER[SMTP:ballingr Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 9:31 PM To: fordtrucks61-79 Subject: RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's If you're referring to my truck as a finished piece of iron that someone else built, I'll tell you this. I have a 99.5% rust free truck with a Ballinger Preferred Company ballingr ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 14:38:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Koster Subject: RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers sleddog wrote: ...for many of us horsepower and performance addicts > the "look" of the vehicle just doesn't mean as much as > the performance. I agree with sleddog. However, I don't think that you can really appreciate the vehicle fully without making an effort to keep it structurally clean. IMHO, it's performance before looks. Not performance without looks. Don't we all wish our rig looked just a bit nicer? (We just don't want to have to pay for it) It's really just a matter of pride. Dan _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:11:56 -0400 From: Sleddog Subject: RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers i think that is what i was trying to say, just no so eloquently as you did. it is performance before looks, not without it. but, many times projects tend to be ended, forgotton, or otherwise never finished no matter how much we want them to be perfect. especially as younger people i think many of us in the sport/hobby tend to jump into something and later find that we may be over our heads, and then abandon it for something "better". but before a project is finished or even close to it, it is fun to drive it around as a "roach" (a safe one of course, but in my younger days safety was secondary, dumb by hindsight of course. oh the stories i could tell!) sleddog - ---------- From: Dan Koster[SMTP:rumpus1 Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 10:38 AM To: fordtrucks61-79 Subject: RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers sleddog wrote: ...for many of us horsepower and performance addicts > the "look" of the vehicle just doesn't mean as much as > the performance. I agree with sleddog. However, I don't think that you can really appreciate the vehicle fully without making an effort to keep it structurally clean. IMHO, it's performance before looks. Not performance without looks. Don't we all wish our rig looked just a bit nicer? (We just don't want to have to pay for it) It's really just a matter of pride. Dan _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+ | Send posts to fordtrucks61-79 | List removal information is on the web site. | +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 19:23:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Moburg Subject: Jake's pickup - the saga begins Went over to my nephew's today; we ran the '61 F-100 he just bought again, and I figured the noise is something worse than the valve train. Listening with a stethoscope sounds like the knock is in the bottom end. Jake told me his neighbor ran it with the oil pump not working. Ouch. Pulled off a rod cap, and the bearing shell has worn through the white metal, so we decided the engine's coming out. Spent some time taking out the radiator, disconnecting the coil lead, oil and water sender leads, and throttle linkage. Question for the list: who's got the best prices on bearings and other engine parts? I called a local parts place that I use for my little furrin' cars and asked my friend behind the counter to price mains and rod bearings, since he gives me the shop price. He put me on hold, came back and asked, "What have you gotten yourself into? Those bearings are more expensive than a Jaguar!" :^( Best price he could get was about $79 for a rod set and $105 for the mains. What gives??? I checked J.C. Witless, and wouldn't you know? they list 2 types of 223 engine: 1952-1960 and 1962-1964. Jake's is a '61. The mains on both have the same part no. so I think we can use those, but the rods have different no's. Does anyone know what the difference is and/or when the change was made? I'll post the ongoing saga. Be well, all. Mark Moburg MarkMoburg Seattle, Washington ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:11:10 -0700 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: Jake's pickup - the saga begins Kanter lists the main set for $45 and the rods for $4 ea. They're at www. kanter.com or (800) 526-1096. - ---------- > From: Mark Moburg > To: fordtrucks61-79 > Subject: Jake's pickup - the saga begins > Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 4:23 PM > > Question for the list: who's got the best prices on bearings and other engine parts? I called a local parts place that I use for my little furrin' cars and asked my friend behind the counter to price mains and rod bearings, since he gives me the shop price. He put me on hold, came back and asked, "What have you gotten yourself into? Those bearings are more expensive than a Jaguar!" :^( Best price he could get was about $79 for a rod set and $105 for the mains. What gives??? > > I checked J.C. Witless, and wouldn't you know? they list 2 types of 223 engine: 1952-1960 and 1962-1964. Jake's is a '61. The mains on both have the same part no. so I think we can use those, but the rods have different no's. Does anyone know what the difference is and/or when the change was made? > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:16:33 -0300 From: sbest Subject: Hydraulic boosted brakes >> From: "John LaGrone" >> Subject: PS Coolers & Hood Ornaments > >> I finally remembered where the biggest power steering coolers were >> and why. I had a 77 Eldorado that had a very nice setup. The big >> Eldo's and the GM (sorry for the expletive) diesels of this vintage >> used the power steering pump as the booster for the brakes also. >From: "Gary, 78 BBB" > >My 78 town car has this brake system. I'm thinking very seriously >about putting it to good use in the bronco. What do y'all think? > I had this system on a 78(?) Colony Park(?) fullsized station wagon, and it was on all the mid 70's extended cab 2wd pick ups at work. Worked real nice Gary, excellent firm pedal feel and modulation. One thing I have always hated about vacuum brakes is that I most require them after an extended low vacuum session, ie: WOT. If there is a less than perfect seal to the system, poor brakes! I might wonder how the hydraulic system would hold up for rugged off-roading, you know: engine idling, lots of brake and steering use? Steve Best, Nova Scotia, sbest 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, Bronco and some shooting stuff too. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 21:02:43 -0500 From: Bill Adams Subject: Removing old header bolts Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 22:22:26 -0400 From: Ken Payne Subject: Removing Old Headers Forwarded for BJGR47D I have a 72 Bronco with a 68 302 in it. It has rusty (not worth saving) headers on it. I was plannig on put on a whole new exahust system. I was wondering if anybody had any tips for taking the rust bolts out of the engine block any easier. A friend just replaced the exh manifolds on hsis 73 Olds Cutlass (Ok It's not a Ford but this is a universal tip) Before he started he soaked the nuts daily for a week with penetrant, and then the real trick... He started the engine and warmed it up before pulling the bolts. It was hot, careful work but he didn't break a single bolt. Hey it's worth a try. - -- Bill Adams The WoodButcher's Shop "http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/heartland/plains/6640" ,.-----__ ,:::://///,:::-. /:''/////// ``:::`;/|/ /' |||||| :://'`\ .' , |||||| `/( e \ -===~__-'\__X_`````\_____/~`-._ `. ~~ ~~ `~-' ************************************************************** * "Time was when the mystery and wonder of handicrafts * * were well acknowledged by the world, when imagination * * and fancy mingled with all things made by man; * * and in those days all craftsmen were artists." -MORRIS * ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 23:23:11 -0400 From: DC Beatty Subject: RE: dreaming/b...sing/460's & sleepers Sleddog wrote: = custom suspension pieces and brackets, and enjoy the thrill of a good WFO= T = blast that many drag racers would be proud of.>> Exactly. Plus, for me, there is the feeling of knowing that I can do stuf= f like this. I bought my '67 for $525 and _put it_ on the road. It had several Mickey mouse little problems that made it unsafe and unreliable.= I fixed that stuff. It's still a rat...almost too ugly to submit to Ken for= display on the webpage, and it's no racetruck, but that stuff will come. = I drive it everyday. And it's mine. I make truck go!!! I'm not helpless whe= n stuff goes wrong with it either. Speaking of rats, my Maverick is so ugly it kills all vegetation it is parked near. Dogs won't even pee on it. I paid $200 for it in 1990, drove= it everyday for years until I came upon the truck, and it's still reliabl= e enough to keep. I could go get it right now and drive it. = I work with a lady who just bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee and paid more fo= r her license plates than I paid for my entire truck. But she looks real cool---keeping up with the Jones's. = Nothing wrong with that. That's great for her. Not me...I'm definitely "function before form." = Drew Beatty 1967 F100 352 (soon to be 390) 1974 Maverick 302 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 23:31:07 -0400 From: Bruce Hart Subject: Deacon Sorry Deacon,no smart comeback right now,just got off work and all the smarts went to bed without me.Your absolutly right about the post to Jamie,so I will recant and tell Jamie my reasons for the blower suggestion are out of line.My reasons involve more than just getting more power and not widely held by others,the last two days of posts will have proved that out.My apoligies to Jamie if my post caused any problems.Sometimes I forget to engage the brain before letting the clutch out,not the first time,probably not the last.I enjoy reading the posts and will continue to do so,I'm not that thin skinned Deacon,as I said it was a bad hair day and I dug more than one pit that day,such is life.Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 23:46:32 -0700 From: marko Subject: Re: Removing Old Headers At 10:54 AM 4/18/98 -0500, you wrote: >>I was plannig on put on a whole new exahust system. I was wondering >>if anybody had any tips for taking the rust bolts out of the engine >>block any easier. > >Shoot penetrating oil on the bolt heads and tap them lightly with a hammer, >square from the top of the bolt. I ususally soak them and tap them a couple >of times over a two day period. >When you get the socket on them, make sure that it fits tight, bolt heads >will shrink a little, and I've had to use a metric socket that fit tighter >to keep from knocking the ears off. Tighten the bolt a little bit, reverse >it, and it will come loose. 302's usually aren't that bad, it's FE's that >will make a preacher cuss. > No kidding. I've been there on the FE. This may be a bit pedantic, but here goes anyway. In case anyone was wondering: Bolts are hard to remove when they are rusty. The rust crystals "bond" the bolt and the hole together. The crystals are strong, but brittle. The idea is to break the crystals, by shocking them or by the use of differential heat expansion of hole vs. bolt. The idea is NOT that you should try breaking the rust crystal by twisting the bolt. In the case of the manifold bolts, don't bother trying to torch them, as there's too much valuable stuff to burn accidentally. Make sure you attempt to remove them while the engine is hot. This not only ensures angry welts on your knuckles, but also ensures the bolt holes are expanded. Hit the bolt tops with a ball peen hammer or with a hammer and drift, hard. Square like George said. Then when you go to remove them, instead of just turning the wrench and yanking on it, whack the wrench a couple of times to try to break the bolt free..... To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.
Advertising -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy -
Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
|