fordtrucks61-79-digest Thursday, February 12 1998 Volume 02 : Number 090



=======================================================================
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: 352 to 390 and tranny question [Ken Payne ]
Re: FE Intake Port Matching [BDIJXS aol.com]
1972 Ranger XLT ID Plate quiz! [Forest New ]
Re: Vehicle lifts ["Deacon" ]
Good lord! ["Daniel H. Jenkins" ]
More "M" Heads ["Chris Samuel" ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:45:52 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: 352 to 390 and tranny question

At 10:41 AM 2/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>First I would like to thank everyone for their advice and answers to the
>various questions I have asked in the past. Maybe when I am done with the
>restoration of my 59 Ranchero I will be able to answer a few of my own, but
>until then....
>I am eventually going to replace the 352 with a 390, if I have the 352
>bored out to 390 (with the appropriate crank etc) will the stock cruise o
>matic transmission be up to the task of handling the (hopefully)
>considerable new power levels?
>Also I dont know whether to bore out my block or get a used 390 and rebuild
>it, as I would have to replace all major componenets in my 352 vs.
>refurbishing the 390 parts. If I did buy a used 390 would my tranny bolt up
>to it (assuming it can handle the 390 power?)
>My ultimate goal is to get 400HP out of the 390, is this a little optimistic?
>Thanks in advance,
>Antonio
>

Edelbrock claims 390+ hp for a 390 with their intake, cam
and carb package for it. Probably even more with headers.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:38:00 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: Re: FE Intake Port Matching

Hey Sleddog,

Thanks for the cool cardboard idea on matching the ports. I still need to
answer the big question as to what kind of cylinder head I really want for the
torque. The FT's are built for it....small valves and big combustion
chambers...but I'm afraid of choking out the 428....

Think I need to hang out at the Edelbrock list for awhile and see what those
guys have to say. I just hesitate cutting into a performance manifold that I
know quite a bit of research and development was gone into....

I'll let you know what I come up with...

Thanks again guys,

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:32:07 -0500
From: Forest New
Subject: 1972 Ranger XLT ID Plate quiz!

Has anyone found their ID plate to be wrong? I mean without their truck
being a junk yard parts queen? I know the history of the truck I just
purchased and the only two things out of place are the transmission code
and the fuel tank selector valve.
My truck is coded for a 360/C-4, but I have a 360/ C-6 short shaft model.
Ive seen mustangs that had different parts then the build sheets I was just
wondering if it was a common thing with trucks too.
The one thing I am missing is the fuel selector valve for duel tanks. Its
discontinued thru Ford and Obselete ford parts doesn't have them either! If
anyone has a parts truck with one or one laying in their parts pile let me
know please, its proving to be quite elusive.
Thanks
Forest

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 21:27:58 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: Vehicle lifts

From: Gary
>I have a pit but want to set the barn up for my shop and make the
>garage a garage again for my wife's car and my daily driver as well
>so a lift is the cat's meow and cheap too! I hope you guys are as
>excited as I am about this :-)

Must I remind you, we have unemployed aerospace workers on this
list! 2 Big Mac's for 2 bucks is cheap. 3 grand for a jack is not!
If your not going to use your pit any more, can I have it? I wonder
what shipping would be for a hole. :)

>Bummer, I won't need the compressor now.............well maybe for
>the other stuff but now I don't need one as big..........shucks! :-)

I wish! My little angle grinder takes more air than a turbojet to
operate. You'll need it. You'll just have some to spare. Unlike some of
us that need to wait for our air tools to reach a temperature that
humans are able to handle.

>Backyard buddies has a 4 post that uses ramps but will actually stack
>two cars for storage if you need the space and it's only $2895 but I
>don't want to have to drive up on it and have the tires tied up with
>ramps so the frame deal is best for my purpose.

What! Are you made of money? Only $2895! That's twice what I paid
for my truck.

I was happy that I'm getting a new cherry picker for $177 this week.
I was excited about telling everyone what I was getting. You really took
the joy out of that! :)
When are you going to build a Web site so we can see some of these
new cheap tools. Your killing me talking about them. Why not finish me
off with some pics!
So when are you planning on getting your lift? Are you installing it
yourself?
Later!



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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:54:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "Daniel H. Jenkins"
Subject: Good lord!

Well, I went and looked at a 1973 F250 Ranger today for a friend.
From the outside it looked promising; a camper special, longbed, really
good interior. But, upon closer ispection, it was a monument to jerry
rigging!! I could spend days talking and laughing about the things that
had been done to it, but the most interesting thing was the tranny. It
appears to me that at on e point in time there was a four speed manual in
the truck; that's a manual with a floor shifter. Well, somebody swapped
in a 3 speed auto and used the EXACT same shifter for the automatic. :)
Anyway, if anybody is looking for a floating rear axle for their truck,
the guy is asking $500. Just figured I'd share the lighter side of life.
:)

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel H. Jenkins Food for thought: John Milton
djenkins honors.unr.edu wrote _Paradise_Lost_; When his
Honors Program wife died he wrote _Paradise_
University of Nevada, Reno _Regained_...

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:07:13 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: More "M" Heads

"Bill Beyer"
>OK...now wait just a dang minute! While I agree that if you're gonna spend
>a chunk o' change on building some nice heads you should have'em "Mag'd", I
>thought that 2V M heads were also 2V Cleveland heads! (Besides if I'm gonna
>"Blow" my engine or fill it full o' funny gas, I'm sure as heck gonna put
>the 4V heads on it.)

Looks like I stirred the pot...

The vary early "M" Heads may have been Cleveland heads, in fact I have
pulled them off of virgin early 400 engines. Later "M" heads look the same,
carry the same valve sizes etc.. At some point there was a change, later
heads don't carry the same casting markings; no-one that I have ever found
can pin-point the exact date but there was a change (may be some one on the
list knows?).
Having sectioned several heads (cut them into pieces) there have been
several changes. Casting walls become thinner as the heads become newer...
Or I cut heads up that had progressively thinner casting walls, and it was a
fluke, a possibility, I'll admit. All of the heads were junk before I cut
them up, relax.
All of this cutting came about by striking water while porting a set;
another thing you don't want to do.
As to the 4BBL heads. IMHO & based on my experience.
Unless you are making serious power; well over 600 BHP* they are simply not
necessary.
Yes, if you are artificially aspirating the engine you may want to use them.
The fact remains that the 4BBL Exhaust port is simply terrible.
If you are running your engine "full o' funny gas" you really need to
concentrate on the exhaust side. By the nature of a nitrous system, and its
chemistry; a reasonable intake system will work (ie; 2BBL Heads), but the
exhaust had better be exemplary to get the full power out of the "funny
gas".
The intake on the 4BBL head is too-big-enough for almost any naturally
aspirated application, a serious 8000+ RPM 351C is just beginning to use the
intake port; but it is starting to be strangled by the exhaust port at about
6000 RPM.
Fixing the exhaust port can be accomplished, Port Plates are relatively
cheap, but are really just a band-aid for a poor design, are hard to keep
sealed, and must be changed with some frequency. Raising the Port is not
all that difficult but it takes time and that costs bucks.

All of this aside I still will not do any work on any "M" head with out
Mag'en em, whether it is a valve grind or a fully ported big valved,
adjustable valve train set. Flames being as they are I Mag'em even if I am
just changing the head gasket, simply cheap insurance! Flames on the net are
nothing compared to those from justifiably PO'd customers!

*1BHP=1.5MHP MHP = Magazine Horse Power....

---

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.