fordtrucks61-79-digest Sunday, February 22 1998 Volume 02 : Number 105



=======================================================================
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: stan's headers [George Herpich ]
Re: fixing the ignion switch [George Herpich ]
Re: Disable Siwtches [George Herpich ]
Re: Engine Swap ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Clunk [Brian ]
EGR (was 460 timing) [sdelanty ]
Re: ADMIN: Survey Results Working (Beta) ["Gary, 78 BBB"
Unibody any Body [Don Grossman ]
Ignition Disable Again [Antonio ]
[none] ["ben" ]
Re: Ignition Disable Again ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Parts is Parts [BDIJXS aol.com]
Re: Ignition Disable Again [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: Unibody F250 [Rustforfun aol.com]
Re: 73 grille for a 79 [Thomas Shay ]
Re: stan's headers [marko ]
Re: Clunk Was:fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #98 [marko ]

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:31:27 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: stan's headers

marko maryniak wrote:

>
> The headers are tri-y's with great big tubes.

What size are the tubes? The purpose of try y's is to make low and
midrange torque. If the tubes are "too" big they would defeat this. I
think I would want around 1 5/8 for a 390.
George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:36:55 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: fixing the ignion switch

RL wrote:
>
> I replaced my igintion in the truck with another one. Is there a way to
> stablize it. As when starting it you have to hold it still to start or it
> rotates in the hole.
> Thanks
> Ryan
>
This is on your '71 F100? If so. one of the three ridges on the outside
of the switch
has a small square key that fits into the slot on the bottom of the
bracket, the one held by a screw through the bottom of the dash. It
sounds like maybe this bracket is missing.
George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:47:45 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: Disable Siwtches

Dennis K. Austin wrote:

>
> You guys know that the big trucking companies have the Satallite
> Tracking Systems. One such company that is very serious is Coca Cola.
> They treat their syrup tankers like gold. I have an uncle who drives
> one and they want to know where the syrup tankers are every minute. How
> many bottles of Coke can you get out of one tanker?
>
Ever heard of Teletrac? Works off the GPS system. I had it on my
Lightning. If it's stolen, even if you don't
know about it, the guy monitoring it calls the cops and tells them right
where it is.
Can even tell them the speed it's traveling. You can also call any time
and ask where
your vehicle is. Did your wife really go where she said she went? All
this plus the ability to call for free road service by pushing a button
or call in and have them open your doors if you lock yourself out for
about $20 a month. The unit was about $250 installed.
George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:12:30 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Engine Swap

> From: Schottsweb webtv.net (George Schott)
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 20:46:25 -0500
> Subject: Engine Swap

> sound so easy so tell me why it's soooo difficult. I am trying to
> install what is supposed to be the "original" motor and I can't seem
> to get a break Please help. I tried to use the 240 motor mounts no
> way the motor sat too far forward so I ordered a set of 302 motor

69, f100 but 2x4 or 4x4? if 2wd then the stanchions need to be
swapped between the 6 and 8 I'm reasonabley sure, if 4x4 then the
frame brackets had to be moved to fit the 6 if it was originally an
8, again I'm reasonably sure. Find a donor with 289 or 302 in the
67 - 72 vintage range and get the bracket or stanchions and mounts
and it should be a bolt in. Some applications simply changed the
length of the fan spacer to accomodate the difference but I suspect
the mount location is different in most cases.

The block length is quite a bit different between the 6 and 8 so you
may need a new drive shaft too, not sure. What do you mean when you
say too far forward? What isn't lining up or what's interfering? By
how much?

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 08:56:45 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Re: Clunk

danadeb pacbell.net wrote:
>
> I have a 70 f250 and I get the same clunk sound.
>
> I haven't finished checking but some suggestions were:
>
> 1) Slip yoke needing lube causing a slight bind in the drive shaft.
> 2) Drive shaft center support bearing able to move in it's mount.
> 3) Rear springs might have a wear spot that the next lower leaf gets
> caught in till the springs unwind.
> 4) Transmission mount.
>
>In the past years when I had my 4x4 shop I found several things that could cause this. Alot of time you can't really tell if its the u-joint unless you unbolt it from the yoke and check it for movement,sometimes there so rusted up that they move alittle but you can't get a real feel for it unless you can rotate the caps by hand or pull them off and check there contents for rust, grease, etc.
Also if the splines in your slip yoke on the shaft are worn, they won't
slip unless there under load. You could pull the slip end apart on the
shaft and check the splines, but normally its the yoke side that gets
worn and not the shaft end so these are hard to detect.
Brian
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:28:45 -0800
From: sdelanty
Subject: EGR (was 460 timing)

On Thu. Feb 19 Rick Brewster wrote: (in part)

>> >> At part throttle applications, diluting the
>> >> air/fuel mixture with O2 depleted air (exhaust gases) reduces the
>> >> amount of available oxygen.

Steve Replied: (in part)

>> EGR does not reduce the amount of available
>> oxygen, since it displaces both fuel and air. It does not change the
>> fuel/air ratio and reduce available oxygen. What it does is introduce
>> inert gases into the fuel/air mix which reduces the peak flame
tempureatures.
>> Since nitrogen only wants to combine with oxygen at rather high
temperatures,
>> lower cumbustion temps = lower NOx emissions.

Rick counter-replied with:

>I am sorry my friend but you are incorrect. we are talking mass air flow ratios
>here. EGR adds combustion gases AFTER the carburetor (the only systems I have
>experience with). Notice I said "diluting the air/fuel ratio". The a/f
ratio for
>near stoichiometric relationship was already determined in the carb. There
is, and
>remains, sufficient O2 for the carbon-based fuels. Air/fuel ratio does not mean
>the same as oxygen/fuel ratios.With EGR we now add "stale", ie air with low or
>non-existant O2 content. The total mass of air (and air does not mean just
oxygen)
>now exceeds the normally required "ideal" mass of air required for efficient
>combustion. The end result is the same, we now have a larger mass of air being
>heated by the same (ie former) amount of fuel, which results in lower
combustion
>temperature AND less available O2 for NOx formation BY MASS. Both lower
combustion
>temperatures AND less available O2 for the mass of air after EGR result in a
>reduced production of NOx.


O.K. Rick, I've had a couple days to think on this one, and I don't think
I get it yet... Your credentials look way better than mine, so I'll assume
You know about this stuff. Maybe You can help me understand this so I'll be
smarter next time...

I understand how adding "stale" gases adds to the mass of air that the fuel
heats, reducing peak flame temps below the minimum temps required for
formation of NOx. That's what I've always been taught that EGR was all about.

Where I get lost is the part about less available oxygen.
If You have a fixed A/F ratio and then You dilute it with "stale" gases,
You have less total A and F in the cylinder, but the ratio of fuel molecules
to oxygen molecules stays the same doesn't it? You've got less total oxygen
in the cylinder, but You've got proportionately the same amount of fuel to
consume it... The added EGR gasses are just stale and dont use up any of
the oxygen, so how can there be any less "available" oxygen during combustion?
I guess there is less *total* NOx created because You burned less *total*
Fuel/Air in the cylinder. If 5% of the gases in the cylinder are EGR gases,
than You've burned 5% less air/fuel and reduced the opportunity to form NOx
by 5%...
That seems pretty minor compared to the large reduction of NOx caused by
getting the flame temps down.

What am I missing here? Can You explain it to me so I can understand it?

>If you want to be precise your use of the term "inert gases" would only include
>helium, neon, argon, krypton, and the other noble gases.

Well, yeah, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I ment to imply
that they were essentially inert as far as combustion is concerned,
not that they were made up entirely of the noble gases. (altho they
certainly contain a small percentage of them!)

>Most of these do not
>contribute significantly to the combustion process :-).

No, but they sure is perty when Ya zap some electric current thru 'em!

>I stated from the beginning that my explanation was simplified and missed some
>engineering points. The original poster asked for a definition in laymans
terms,
>not the whole chemical/physics dissertation.

That's cool, but I didn't see anything in Your post about reduced NOx from
reduced combustion temps, which certainly must be the major factor involved
in reducing NOx. I've *never* even heard of the reduced oxygen thing before,
and altho I'm certainly not an expert, I have at least a little knowledge
on the subject. Can You explain it to me so I can understand it better?


>I have 15 years of experiance in NOx
>reduction in both internal and external combustion processes and understand it
>very well. I have written and conducted a 40 hour course on NOx reduction
for the
>power production industry that was well accepted and used as a standard text by
>one of the major corporations involved in that process.

Great! It sounds like You're the perfect one to help me understand if You
would be so kind!
The short course would be fine...
Do You have any paperwork You've written on the subject You could share
with me?

Thanks much!

Steve

"Remember, with lunacy comes responsibility;
we have a duty to make life at least a little more
surreal for those whose lives make too much sense."
-- Trygve Lode

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:29:53 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Survey Results Working (Beta)

> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 01:38:59 -0500
> From: Ken Payne
> Subject: ADMIN: Survey Results Working (Beta)

> Give it a try (its not directly linked on the web site so you
> have to use this URL):
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/survey/results/t.shtml
>
> Let me know what you think and give me any suggestions.

Well I can see why on line surveys have picks rather than "type your
own answer". Kind of hard to sort eh? I noticed you left my poor 78
bronco out of the list, does that mean no one admitted to owning a
full sized bronco? I don't think I responded to the survey or there
would have been at least one :-)

Too busy answering mail and designing bronco parts I guess :-)


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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:51:17 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Unibody any Body

Just when you think you have seen them all.

While crusin through the valley the other day and wat do I see, a Ford
truck.

>From the road it looks like your typical 61-66 longbed. But no, it's a
unibody, ok 61 grill, cool. F250? Did they make a 3/4 ton unibody?
Well obviously, since I just saw one, but this is the first 3/4 ton that
I have seen. I thought all the unibodys were F-100's

Anybody know howmany F-250 unibody's were made?

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net


63 Ford F-100 4x4 67' 390, t-98, Spicer 24, Dana 60, Dana 44, power
steering, power brakes, and now ON BOARD AIR!

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:53:43 -0700
From: Antonio
Subject: Ignition Disable Again

Hello all,
I posted the initial query about how to wire the disable switch (coil
positive or neg). I didnt mean to start a debate on the relative merits of
alarms, as I am the first to agree that they are by and large more
irritating than helpful, false alarms and all. Here in the city alarms are
ignored as they are always set so sensitive anything triggers them.
But back to my question....
Effective or not, which coil wire should I interrupt, pos or neg?
The fuel pump ideas were great, but I have a Mech fuel pump.
Thanks again,
Antonio

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:59:29 -0500
From: "ben"
Subject: [none]

Hello my name is ben Kershner. I would like to get off the E-mail
list. My adderess is brownback erols.com



THANKYOU VERY
MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 15:08:07 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Ignition Disable Again

> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:53:43 -0700
> From: Antonio
> Subject: Ignition Disable Again

> Effective or not, which coil wire should I interrupt, pos or neg?
> The fuel pump ideas were great, but I have a Mech fuel pump. Thanks
> again, Antonio

I don't think it matters since they create a complete circuit. I've
had both break and it prevented the engine from running. Not sure
what that does to the modle tho so I think I'd go for the module side
rather than battery side. Probably doesn't really matter tho as I
said. Since the coil is what makes the secondary (high voltage) if
you disconnect it from the system there can't be any back feed to
cause trouble so either wire should accomplish that.

CD systems may have other considerations, not sure?

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 20:04:02 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: Parts is Parts

Hi,

I just went to swap meet here in Texas, and have seen a few things I think
some people on the list have been discussing...here goes!

62 F-250 Unibody truck, the entire truck, he said it runs, almost!....$650
Richard (940) 427-4291. I had never seen one until today, but Don W. here (who
kindly let me tag along to the swap meet with him since I was visiting here
from Colorado) pointed it out and we remembered that people were looking for
Unibody stuff.

Hubcaps, Full size (not just to cover the lugs, but most of the steel rim) for
F-series trucks, looked like in excellent shape: Keith (806) 323-8489

Aluminum Ford 4-barrel intake manifolds for FE's, looked like they were in
good shape, two different guys, they each had three or four:

Steve: (405) 692-4793
Chris: (940) 552-0752

Hope this helps some people out!

Again, I want to thank Don W. from the list for extending good ol' Southern
Hopitality and letting me go along to the swap meet with him in his cherry 71
F-100!.

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 17:14:09 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Ignition Disable Again

Antonio wrote:

> But back to my question....
> Effective or not, which coil wire should I interrupt, pos or neg?

I would think that on a point type system the most useful place to tie it in
would be on the wire from the coil to the dist. If you were to put it between
the dist and the ignition switch a thief could just jumper between battery and
"+" side but if the dist side "-" was interrupted then the thief would have to
cut wires to make the connection.


if you have a Duraspark or other electronic system then the trigger wires would
do the same job and since you are only preventing a flow of electricity I don't
think there would be any concerns. You could also disconnect the power to the
ignition module at the same time.

Heck why not through in a fake switch where a thief might see supply 12 v to one
side and have the other wire disappear into the wiring harness. Keep them
guessing!




> The fuel pump ideas were great, but I have a Mech fuel pump.do you have duel tanks? if so I beleave the manual selector switch has an off opsition! also you could simply put a duel tank electronic fuel switch over valve in line with the fuel line from the tank(s) and have the unit switch between source or no source ( IE one inlet is capped off )


Dana

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:17:45 EST
From: Rustforfun aol.com
Subject: Re: Unibody F250

Well, in 1962 there where three options for the F250, one of which was
the Styleside unibody, but my book really isn't clear about 1961. It says
only that the F250 was a somewhat more robust version of the F100, so I would
ass-u-me it was only offered in unibody. It is easy to tell when looking at
the truck there should be the usual gap between cab and body if it ain't a
unibody......

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

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 19:30:00 -0800
From: Thomas Shay
Subject: Re: 73 grille for a 79

> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:57:47 -0600
> From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
> Subject: Re: 73 grill for a 79
>
> Sleddog said;
>
> > the bolts holding the grill on were a real b**ch to get to even with
> >a LONG extension and swivel. lots of cut knuckels.
>
> I just changed the grill shell on my '79. Someone should find the engineer
> who decided those bolts should go from under the fender out through the
> radiator support and make him spend the rest of his days removing/installing
> the d*mn things!

This job can be made a lot easier by removing the side marker lights
and
reaching through the holes with a socket and long extension to get the
upper bolts.

Tom Shay 1978 F-100 2wd 351W 1979 Bronco 351M

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

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 03:06:04 -0800
From: marko
Subject: Re: stan's headers

At 08:31 AM 2/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>marko maryniak wrote:
>
>>
>> The headers are tri-y's with great big tubes.
>
>What size are the tubes? The purpose of try y's is to make low and
>midrange torque. If the tubes are "too" big they would defeat this. I
>think I would want around 1 5/8 for a 390.
>George


Sounds about right. I meant thickness rather than size.

On closer inspection the workmanship is really nice. The welds at the
flange are clean and ground so the transition in the "port" from square to
round is smooth. I won't be fitting them for a coupla weeks yet, but the
way they sorted out the drivers side not overlapping the starter yet
clearing the engine mount is great.


marko

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

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 03:07:39 -0800
From: marko
Subject: Re: Clunk Was:fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #98

At 11:51 PM 2/20/98 -0800, you wrote:
>I have a 70 f250 and I get the same clunk sound.
>
>I haven't finished checking but some suggestions were:
>
>1) Slip yoke needing lube causing a slight bind in the drive shaft.
>2) Drive shaft center support bearing able to move in it's mount.
....

---

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.