fordtrucks61-79-digest Saturday, February 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 078



=======================================================================
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: 390 or 460? [George Herpich ]
Re: Test Drive ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Horror Story on my 351M ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Horror Story on my 351M ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 390/428 Water Jackets [BDIJXS aol.com]
Re: Carb Size? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Test Drive [Brian ]
Re: Horror Story on my 351M [Brian ]
Re: Test Drive [Brian ]
F150 Stall [Jason DiSalvo ]
1972 ranger fuel system [Forest New ]
Re: '66 Floor Pan ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Re: 1972 ranger fuel system [Impala502 aol.com]
Re: "loops" ["Deacon" ]
Re: 390 or 460? [Firrer aol.com]
Re: "loops" ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Carb Size? ["David W. Anderson" ]
Re: 390 or 460? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Ranchero ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Re: "loops" ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
QuadraVan [Kurt Albershardt ]
Re: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #77 ["Dennis K. Austin"
Re: "loops" [james oxley ]
Re: "loops" ["Deacon" ]
Re: 390 or 460? [sdelanty ]
Re: QuadraVan ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: "loops" ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]

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

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 06:10:18 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: 390 or 460?

marko maryniak wrote:
>
> >I would go for the 390. 410 pistons are hard to find and, I believe,
> >only available in custom forged. 390 pistons with a 428/410 crank will
> >poke up out of the block as all FE's,390 and up, use the same rod
> >length. Bore for the 390 is 4.050 and 4.130 for the 428. You'd strike
> >water long before you reached that size. Max is .060 with .030
> >preferred.
> >The only difference between your 360 heads and 390 heads would possibly
> >be the combustion chamber volume. Valves and ports are the same.
> >The 280 .050 cam from the earlier post would be very radical for any
> >street car let alone a heavey truck. 220 .050 would be about max with a
> >fairly wide lobe separation. A nice combo for lots of low end torque
> >would be the Edlebrook performer cam and manifold. Their carbs work real
> >nice with this setup. Either the 600 or 750. Add headers and you'll have
> >plenty of power.
> >
> >George
>
> Hey George,
>
> I went thru this very question with my engine builder before we got going on
> the project. If you use stock-replacement 390 truck replacement pistons
> (68-76 all I think is the listing) you end up with 0.010 clearance at tdc in
> a 410 mercury. Or I wouldn't be building one. This is because stock
> compression height of a 390 piston was actually less than that of a 410
> piston. I don't have the book in front of me right now but I can post the #s
> when I get home. And you can get these either in FedMogul or Silvolite,
> hypereutetic.
>
> I will get cam specs from the shop and post.
>
> marko


Marko, The FT 391 truck engines use dished pistons. You would have very
low compression. If the 390 truck piston has a compression height the
same as a 410 (1.680) it would mean that the 390 truck had over .1 deck
clearance with the 390 crank!
Be sure to post the results. If it works it will save a lot of money
rebuilding 410's.
Make sure you can return the pistons if they don't fit.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:05:22 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Test Drive

> From: ECampb5214 aol.com
> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:10:20 EST
> Subject: Re: Test Drive

> some long past due brake work i only have front brakes. So i sit on
> that and squeze the gas at the same time. light them up and a little
> squell, and its off to the races. It turns all heads. You don't
> need a big block to have fun. work on that timing.

I had an off brand when I was a kid with a 235 motor in it and torque
tube drive shaft in a 54 vinntage but I won't tell what it was and it
would squeal all the way through town as long as I wanted in first
gear :-)

Had a 61 ford 240 six and it would hop all over town and never even
squak a tire due to axle (housing/spring) wrap. Never could get it
to settle down so I could have fun like the "****" :-) You could
say at that time I was a "*****" man.

BTW, what gears are you running Brian? I run 2.75's in a 78 PU and
it will break loose at 45 in passing gear (C-6) and melt the pavement
in low with stock size 235 tires. Never had any trouble breaking the
33's loose either in low at least.

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:53:51 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Horror Story on my 351M

> From: Bzysignl aol.com
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 23:06:50 EST
> Subject: Horror Story on my 351M

> I fired it up, and looks like there's still H2o where no H2o should
> ever go. The oil breather cap drips water when I remove it. Water.
> Like the water coming from my eyes. The cooling system is pumping
> up like crazy too. Pressurizing.

Somewhere around 74 there were a bunch of blocks from the Mid
Michigan plant that had casting flaws in them. I don't rmrmber the
scope or nature of the flaws but other than that I've never heard of
cracking being a problem on the 335 series engines but it sounds like
you have a cracked head. It could be a block if it's ever been
frozen.

A crack of this nature may not be visible till the heads are torqued
down or the engine is warmed up but can be seen readily in a
magnafluxer. Typically the crack will open up so it's visible
without even putting any iron filings on it just from the magnetism
of the flux coil. Since the 351M heads will bolt to a 351W and visa
versa......................but it was running ok before right?

My brother's B***k 350 had two cracked heads and we could not see
them till he took them to the auto shop and had them fluxed.

The block will typically crack on the outside or in one of the
cylinders if it's frozen since the head reinforces the deck pretty
well so look in the cylinders for cracks if you tear it down.

If you go for a long block check PAW's prices for kits and whole
assys first. They have some good deals I think :-)


78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:55:15 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Horror Story on my 351M

> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 21:30:27 -0800
> From: marko
> Subject: Re: Horror Story on my 351M

> Is the water problem any different now? If so, it might be the
> alignment of the intake manifold gasket. Or, the intake manifold
> could be cracked.

335 series has dry manifold :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:55:59 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: Re: 390/428 Water Jackets

Hey George,

I saw where you were talking about the water jacket thickness on the 390's
while trying to bore them out 0.80 over. I keep hearing completely
contradictory stories on whether you can get by with this or not. I'm hoping
to do this with my 360 block (4.05 bore), but first I'll get the wall
thickness measured, I guess with one of those ultrasonic thickness measuring
devices. What do you recommend as a remaining minimum wall thickness after
being bored out?

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:21:57 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Carb Size?

> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 12:02:16 -0800
> From: Kurt Albershardt
> Subject: Re: Carb Size?

> >Horsepower and torque curves cross (therefore, they are the same)
> >at 5252rpm. Anything below that, torque is greater than horsepower.
>
> Is this specific to an 8-cylinder engine? If so, what would the
> numbers for a 6 be?

As sleddog said it works for all engines since HP is a function of
"Torque" AND "Speed" and torque is a function of engine volumetric
efficiency. To measure torque you run the engine at different speeds
in a machine which can measure the rotaing force it produces at WOT.
Torque and HP are NEVER measured at any other throttle setting since
that would impact on the VE so when you reach a speed where the
torque is no longer climbing it's called the torque peak and is also
the "theoretical" point of highest VE for that engine. If you chart
the curve of the rpm points and torque at each point there will be a
relatively flat area somewhere in the middle which we call the torque
band and it the place where the engine like to run most efficiently.
I will cover and area of the curve plus or minus a certain amount
from the torque peak and not necessarily symetricaly spaced.

As rpm climbs the torque falls off but due to the formula by which HP
is calculated it's possible for HP to continue to climb for several
hundred or even thousand rpms before the torque is so weak (VE falls
off) that the rpm can't make up for it in the formula and they cancel
each other out which is the HP peak.

Torque is purely a matter of force directly applied to an object such
as a Toledo Scale through a known lever length. Hp OTOH is a measure
of mass moved a certain distance over a given period of time such as
per minute or second etc.. The faster the engine turns the more work
is being performed in a give time and the more force at a give speed
the more work etc..

The theory behind an accurate engine dyno is very simple, the problem
is dissapating the heat generated by the resistance to rotation and
building a device which can handle the torque and heat etc. running
continuously for hours of testing.

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 08:57:50 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Test Drive

danadeb pacbell.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dana
>
> P.S. was the first test run with mufflers or not?
>
> YES..Everything was pretty well in place. But I found that its still not charging, gonna have the parts place check out the rebuilt alt. Were suppose to get snow here next week so I guess its back to the barn for the truck to finish up a bunch of details.
BIG thanks to the list for all there support !!

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 09:00:38 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Horror Story on my 351M

Sorry to hear of your problem...Is there maybe a dye or something you
could put in the radiator to help find the leak ??

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 09:05:51 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Test Drive

>
> BTW, what gears are you running Brian? I run 2.75's in a 78 PU and
> it will break loose at 45 in passing gear (C-6) and melt the pavement
> in low with stock size 235 tires. Never had any trouble breaking the
> 33's loose either in low at least.
>
>

> I'm not sure as to what gears I have...I still need to pull the rear end apart and check it out. I'm alot more curious now though, it appears to have a posi type unit...both tires left marks on the pavement.
Brian

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:05:57 -0500
From: Jason DiSalvo
Subject: F150 Stall

I have a 1994 F150. It has a 302, automatic. 4X4. I am having this problem.
When ever you put it in reverse the truck stalls out. A local ford
dealership had it for 10hrs and saw the problem but cant find anything
wrong. They replaced: all plugs and wires, massa air-flow sensor, neutral
switch, trannie hoses and fluid. Nothing it still did it. Any one here of
this prob? Please let me know


- -Jason DiSAlvo
disalvo tco.com

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:33:00 -0500
From: Forest New
Subject: 1972 ranger fuel system

Thanks to all the people who helped me shed some lite on my current dilema
with my truck but I still could use some help though. My truck I just
bought is in Minnesota and Im in Georgia, planning to pick it up in two
weeks but, I know that the fuel system tank selector switch on the dash
works and represents both tanks level. Ive been told that by some people
that this was an electrical type switching sytem and Ive been told by
others that it was a mechanical valve under the seat that you manually
changed to switch tanks. All I know about the truck is the owner said not
to use the front tank that it never worked (he had a locking cap with no
key). I drilled out the cap and filled the tank and all it seemed to work
fine except for I could not get it to switch to pull from that tank.
On the driver side of my truck beside the seat just behind the seat hinge
(pivot/latch), about 2 inches from the door seal there is a 1-2 inch hole
with a screw hole beside it, looks like something that was seated there and
held in place by the screw in the not so distant past. The owner didn't
even know how to change oil so he wasn't any help at all in figuring out
what happened, but at least nothing has ever been removed from the truck so
its all intact except for this mystery switch.
If anyone can recall if this is where the switch was located I would be
really appreciative, also, if you have any tech drawings of this system or
the switch, you could send me I would also be very appreciative. Im trying
to get everything together to drive the truck to Ga, so twin tanks would be
much nicer than one OTR!
Thanks
Forest New
1972 Ford Ranger XLT
1989 Ford Ranger XLT
1969 Mustang Mach 1

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 11:42:11 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: '66 Floor Pan

Thats okay! I am in Bossier City, Louisiana (pronounced Bo Sure) across
the Red River from Shreveport, Louisiana. Northwest corner of the
state. Let me know if you can find one. Thanks!

- -=DENNIS=-
>
> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 20:36:35 -0800
> From: marko
> Subject: Re: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #70
>
> At 08:49 PM 2/5/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >Thanks Marko,
>
> Oops, I didn't understand. Even if I do find one, where are you located?
>
> I know exactly what you mean now cause I have one in my truck (fraid I need
> it though).
>
> Apparently they're all the same thru to at least 76 so you might wanna check
> that way.
>
> marko

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 12:46:29 EST
From: Impala502 aol.com
Subject: Re: 1972 ranger fuel system



I have a 1970 Ford Ranger XLT, and I think I can help you out. I
am not sure if they have a similar set-up, but this is the way mine works. I
have one tank that sits behind the seat, and another on the drivers side, in
front of the wheel-well. This is how you switch from one tank to the other:
If you are sitting in the driver's seat, you reach back inbetween the door
panel and seat. On the floor is a 1 1/2 inch handle with an arrow on one end.
If the arrow is pointing towards the passengers seat I am taking fuel from the
tank behind the seat, if it is pionting straight back to the tailgate, I am
taking fuel from the back tank, and if it is pointing towards the drivers door
it is shut off, and taking no fuel. Although I have never taken the switch
apart, it appears to just be a three way type mechanical valve, there are
three lines entering it under the truck, you can see them if you climb under.
One comes from the back tank, one from the behind the seat tank, and the last
one goes to the carb.
Now on to the fuel level gauge. I have a switch on the left side of the
steering wheel, it sits right under the lights switch, it looks dealer
installed or something, because it is not part of the ccluster of switches.
Anyways, it is electric and you just hit to the right or left, right is the
"Auxilery" tank, left is the "Main" tank. You can switch between these at any
time to see how much gas you have in each tank.

Hope this answer your questions, if not, oh well!

Neal Larson
1970 Ford F-250 Ranger XLT Camper Special, w/ 360

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:57:01 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: "loops"

>Yo Gary!!! Me thinks these were put there to keep from vibration and
>stress causing line failure due to fatigue.. All FOMOCO trucks I've
>ever dealt with from the early '60's on had it. I say all, but in
>reality I don't ever remember looking under the hood of anything later
>than '79. I'd be more comfortable with them than without them. JMHO
>
>
>Azie

Azie, I am impressed. Quoting William Shakespeare's "Me thinks he
protest too much". Well a part of it anyway.
Gary hasn't had brakes in his Bronco and has done everything a
person can do to fix them. But wherefore do not you a mightier way?



Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
================================================
Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:00:02 EST
From: Firrer aol.com
Subject: Re: 390 or 460?

hmmmmm every one is forgeting about the good old 429 stock it ill out perform
the 460
hands down here goes the can of worms hehehe
mike

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:03:14 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: "loops"

> From: am14 chrysler.com
> Subject: "loops"
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:59:43 -0500

> Yo Gary!!! Me thinks these were put there to keep from vibration
> and stress causing line failure due to fatigue.. All FOMOCO trucks

I've got my lines pretty well supported so they probalby won't be a
problem and I put lots of bends to prevent tugging when things flex.
I've found this in my experience that hydraulic lines create their
own vibration and need to be supported at close intervals. If you do
this and allow enough room for them to flex they should hold up fine
:-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:04:00 -0800
From: "David W. Anderson"
Subject: Re: Carb Size?

Kurt, the answers you've gotten from Sleddog and Gary are both correct. The
reason why hp and torque are the same at 5252 can be seen from the formula
that hp is calculated from:
torque x rpm
hp = -----------------
5252

Torque is measured, hp is calculated from torque. Torque below 5252 rpm has
to be greater than hp; torque at 5252 has to be equal to hp; and torque
above 5252 has to be less than hp.

A while back I had found what I thought was a good explanation of torque and
horsepower; I tried checking the site and found that it had moved but I was
able to locate it again. Check out http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Dave

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:17:14 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 390 or 460?

> From: Firrer aol.com
> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:00:02 EST
> Subject: Re: 390 or 460?

> hmmmmm every one is forgeting about the good old 429 stock it ill
> out perform the 460 hands down here goes the can of worms hehehe

Not me doc! My first big block was a 429 and it leaked/burned more
oil than gas but ran like a scalded dog with long legs! I'm still
kicking myself tor dumping the heads and stuff when I junked it out
for the 460...........DANG I wish I still had those heads!

For the bronco I think the 460 is great but for a low rider 2wd
street cruiser I'd take the 429 any day :-) Neat thing about the 429
is you can get blocks and cranks in the FE size journals which helps
with higher rpms for cruisers etc. and if no one has noticed, most of
the SVO stuff is "called" 429 even thought it is interchangeable with
the 460. It's a status thing I think :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:39:57 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: Ranchero

I am a Ranchero fan myself, but settled for an old truck as these are
becoming harder and harder to get. My last one was a titled a 72 ,but
had the '73 body on it. It had a modified 351C that roared. When I
fired it up the neighbors came out to look. You could feel the real
horsepower in it.

Once I took my wife for a ride in it and decided to show her what it
could do. Once we got out on the 4 lane from a light I floored it. She
held on tight to the door handle and didn't say a thing. It easily
buried the speedometer. Once we got where we were going and I shut it
off she looked at me and said, " what is this?... a middle age
thing...?" I never got her out in it again. She called it my jet
airplane. Eventually, I tore the rearend out of it. But, the Salvation
Army wanted it and I was moving 1400 miles away and didn't want to tow
it and couldn't get it repaired in time. So, I gave it to them.

I had a book on the Ranchero history with photos and the reason the
production numbers were so low was that they were "hand-built" and
mostly built last after the main stable of the Ford line was already
out. Robot factories actually killed it. However, the book did mention
that there are many Rancheros running around out there that have Cougar
interiors, Mercury, interiors, etc. because the guys building the
Rancero line used the left over interior parts from the other lines.
So, you could pull your stering equipment out of any compatible Ford car
and nobody will tell you its wrong.

Oh! And one other thing towards the end of the line it was discovered
that the Lincoln Mark 5 (73 or 74?) doghouse was a bolt on to the same
year Ranchero frame. Makes an interesting looking Ranchero.

- -=DENNIS=-

ol' puddle pirate rebuilding a '65 F-100 a mild custom.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:56:04 -0800
> From: "Admiral J.R.E. Mc Kenzie"
> Subject: Parts Location Request " Tilt Steering Wheel Required "
>
> Hello everyone ( all of you Ford Guys too.... ):
>
> It's me again " Lest B Pestor " ( but I'm the real Mc Coy though )?!!!
>
> I'm searching for a tilt wheel assembly for the " El Ranchero " my
> 1975 Ranchero. I'm open as to color or perhaps the feature of cruise control
> as my present cars wheel has that option ( cruise that is ), anyone know or
> have one to vend to me? Yet another sorce perhaps is the Gran Torino would
> also be suitable. Item two a shell or canopy is my next item, color is un

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:39:25 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: "loops"

> From: "Deacon"
> Subject: Re: "loops"
> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:57:01 -0800

> Azie, I am impressed. Quoting William Shakespeare's "Me thinks he
> protest too much". Well a part of it anyway.
> Gary hasn't had brakes in his Bronco and has done everything a
> person can do to fix them. But wherefore do not you a mightier way?

I lose track of which list I've replied to but I have pretty good
brakes now, just pulls too much to one side. Made a bad flare last
night that wasted about an hour of my precious time locating (blamed
that stupid Summit Proportioning valve first). Anyway I have it all
plumbed to my satisfaction now with the valve bolted to the fender
well next to the module and new or rebuilt cylinders every where but
the left front pulls harder than the right so I still have a little
monkeying to do yet. I have a loose caliper frame on the right side
and suspect it may be affecting this a bit but it's hard to say right
now. The caliper floats a bit too easily in the frame for my taste.

Amazingly they almost feel like power brakes now but still don't stop
the brick lke the T-Bird brakes :-( If You stop slowly they feel
like they grab pretty well with light pedal pressur but if you REALLY
need to stop it's like stpping on a dead rabbit and all four wheels
have minds of their own. Maybe I need to put proportioning valves on
all four wheels and just adjust them till it works...........:-)

Actually, all the changes I've made have improved them quite a bit
but I'm pretty fussy and want them perfect so the quest
continues........:-)

Pheonix power bleeder should be here next week so we'll see if I can
get any more of the air out with that. I'll let Y"all know :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:44:59 -0800
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: QuadraVan

>From the Recycler.com site:

02/02
79 Ford E-250 Quadravan RARE 4wd van 460 ci, C-6 trans. Maximum payload
hitch. 4 captain's chairs with transport area large enough for a dirt bike.
$6500

panther_p98 hotmail.com
(626) 915-4254

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:46:58 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #77

Well, I have not found one intact yet. Plenty of them in trucks without
the hole. Please check again, Jeff.

- -=DENNIS=-
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:38:51 EST
> From: BDIJXS aol.com
> Subject: Re: floorplate for toploader
>
> Hey Dennis,
>
> I remembered your question from the other day while I was at the junkyard
> today, and there one was, a floorplate for the toploader. However, if I
> remember correctly, it was for a 4x4, meaning it had an extra hole for the
> transfer case shifter as well...I can do a double check if you're unable to
> find one....it was unbolted and everything...
>
> Colorado Jeff
>
> ------------------------------
>

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

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 13:48:13 -0800
From: james oxley
Subject: Re: "loops"

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:

>
> Pheonix power bleeder should be here next week so we'll see if I can
> get any more of the air out with that. I'll let Y"all know :-)
>

Let me know how this works. I got the flyer on it, it looks
interesting, but I'm tires of buyin stuff that don't work. I'll let you
be the little pig.

OX

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:47:53 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: "loops"

From: Gary,
>I've got my lines pretty well supported so they probalby won't be a
>problem and I put lots of bends to prevent tugging when things flex.
>I've found this in my experience that hydraulic lines create their
>own vibration and need to be supported at close intervals. If you do
>this and allow enough room for them to flex they should hold up fine
>:-)

I had a problem on another application (MC) air would trap inside
the coils and I could bleed them until dooms day and not get the air
bubble out. I think your lines will be fine (if I understand you right)
Knowing you, I know I needn't say it, but for the record, keep an eye on
the lines.
Do you think it has been air in the lines causing your problems?
Have you found any HD calipers? My F350 has the duel piston calipers on
it and it stops really well. If you need any information on them, I'll
take a look at mine. They may be a bolt on upgrade.
How would you act with brakes anyway! :~)


Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
================================================
Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/

- -----Original Message-----
78 BBB
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Date: Saturday, February 07, 1998 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: "loops"


>> From: am14 chrysler.com
>> Subject: "loops"
>> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:59:43 -0500
>
>> Yo Gary!!! Me thinks these were put there to keep from vibration
>> and stress causing line failure due to fatigue.. All FOMOCO trucks
>
>
>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/ ----------+

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:53:49 -0800
From: sdelanty
Subject: Re: 390 or 460?

Marko writes:

>Hey George,
>
>I went thru this very question with my engine builder before we got going on
>the project. If you use stock-replacement 390 truck replacement pistons
>(68-76 all I think is the listing) you end up with 0.010 clearance at tdc in
>a 410 mercury. Or I wouldn't be building one. This is because stock
>compression height of a 390 piston was actually less than that of a 410
>piston. I don't have the book in front of me right now but I can post the #s
>when I get home. And you can get these either in FedMogul or Silvolite,
>hypereutetic.
>
>I will get cam specs from the shop and post.
>
>marko

Yes, this is correct. Ford uses piston height to set compression ratio,
since almost all of the "garden variety" FE 360-390 heads have the same
combustion chamber volume. (68-72cc)
The pistons in my 8:1 compression '73 truck motor are still 0.165" from
the top of the bore at TDC!
More than enough clearance to accomodate the added stroke of a 428 crank
with .065" leftover..
Letsee... with a stock 4.05" bore that gives a volume of 13.72cc.
Add a combustion chamber volume of 71cc, plus another 8cc for the head
gasket gives 92.72cc total volume. That makes for 10:1 compression!
Cool!

Happy motoring,

Steve

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment
by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

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

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 14:01:40 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: QuadraVan

> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:44:59 -0800
> From: Kurt Albershardt
> Subject: QuadraVan

> 79 Ford E-250 Quadravan RARE 4wd van 460 ci, C-6 trans. Maximum
> payload hitch. 4 captain's chairs with transport area large enough
> for a dirt bike. $6500

I could get three dirt bikes in my short box 4x4, 75 vintage :-) If....


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.