fordtrucks61-79-digest Saturday, February 28 1998 Volume 02 : Number 116



=======================================================================
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: Calculations [George Herpich ]
Re: To Swap or not to swap... [Jean and Phillip Johnson
Re: Dies at Idle [Stu Varner ]
it dies [John Strauss ]
Re:390/428 [BDIJXS ]
FE compression [am14 chrysler.com]
brand new radio [ECampb5214 ]
390 flywheel [BDIJXS ]
Re: Engine Swap [danadeb pacbell.net]
Clutch adjustment [am14 chrysler.com]
Clutch adjustment [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: brand new radio [shoman p3.net]
Code 16 on axle for 1978 [shoman p3.net]
Jeff Carver 64 Crewcab [fred robinson ]
Re: EFI ["Harry Jennings" ]
Re: 65 F250 clutch ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
1968 F10 [Ray J ]
Re: 460's and gears and stuff ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Dana44F conversion [Stu Varner ]
Re: To Swap or not to swap... ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
oil bath remedy?? [DC Beatty ]
Re: oil bath remedy?? [shoman p3.net]
Re: brake lock [Tina & Norman Walters ]
Re: Dana44F conversion ["Deacon" ]
Thunderbird Special? [Dan Koster ]
Re: Calculations [Dan Koster ]
Re: '77 I-Beams in a '66 ["Dennis K. Austin" ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:38:58 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: Calculations

Dan Koster wrote:
>
> I am getting my 390 bored (its first time) and was wondering what the
> new displacement will be.

.030 will give you a 396. Good for confusing chevy guys.
Another way to get 396 is a 427 block with a 360 crank. A friend had one
in his C/A-B/G '54 ford in the early 70's. He used a 361 FT crank with
the snout cut down. 10,000 rpm screamer. Had everyone scratching their
heads. I know, this has nothing to do with your question, I just
couldn't help myself:-).

George

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 06:57:27 -0600
From: Jean and Phillip Johnson
Subject: Re: To Swap or not to swap...

The 300 I6 produces almost as much torque as the 302 but does it at a
much lower rpm. So if you need low end torque you should stick with the
six. I have a 300 six mated to a 3 speed and I work my butt off driving
around town. First gear isn't what you'd call a granny gear but your
not going to get any speed out of it. Second it too tall for take offs
with out reving up the engine and over working your clutch. Just about
everyone, from hot rods to tired old VWs, are going to beat you off the
line. Another thing I've noticed with the 3 speed is with the low end
torque of the engine it doesn't take much to break the rear tires
loose. So trying to tow anything in loose soil or on wet pavement leads
to wheel spin. And finally on the highway with the six and 3 speed you
have to be constantly aware of your throttle. I can run at highway
speeds (70 mph) but if I don't watch it I'll be back down to 55, which
seems to be the most comfortable speed for the truck on the highway. I
guess the bottom line to this ranting is I'd opt for the six over the
small V8 but get a good automatic transmission to back it up.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:58:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: Dies at Idle

At 02:49 PM 2/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello: I lost the post from the gentleman that wanted to swap carbs
>because his engine was dying in cold damp weather. A friend of mine had
>the same problem on his mustang and after several months of analyzing
>the problem finally figured out the solution.
>
>You need to reconnect the hot air tube from the exhaust manifold to the
>air cleaner intake. What is happening is that the air/fuel mixture is
>icing up do to the wind chill affect and the jets are momentarily icing
>up. The exhaust manifold provides heat within a few seconds, acting to
>reduce the chill induced in the air mixture until the carb/intake warm
>up. Does this make sense to anyone else who is more technically
>inclined than myself.
>
It makes a ton of sense. My "stove pipe tube" is hooked up to the
aircleaner. BUT -
I was having the same problem with my bone stock 71 360 with a 2100
Autolite..... I yanked the motor a few weeks ago and spent a few minutes
last night inspecting this and that on the engine.
AND.....
I wonder if my problem could be realated in a different way? Turns out, the
tube which goes to the vacuum on the carb from the exhaust manifold was
broken off at the exhaust manifold and apparently has been for a while.
Reckon this could have been the problem??

I won't find out anytime soon. I am looking at Novemeber at the earliest
for getting
the engine rebuilt and installed. Football season tends to clog August thru
Nov up!

STU
Nuke GM!

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 08:15:48 -0600
From: John Strauss
Subject: it dies

>hey guys got my truck out of storage could not get it to start put new
>plugs got carb rebuilt new points runs good until i hook up the vacum
>advance and it dies . unhook it and i will run .
>any ideas STUMPED!!! WHAT COULD BE THE PROBLEM ? THANKS
>
This is most likely a worn distributor shaft bushing. My '64 had the same
problem. I put a rebuilt distributor in it - end of problem. This is
caused because the shaft is not in the center anymore due to the worn
bushing. When the vacuum advance is hooked up, it is supposed to rotate
the distributor plate around the shaft. But this movement then makes the
shaft move as well since the bushing isn't holding it tight which screws up
your point gap and makes the rotor move away from one side of the dist. cap.


_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, _} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:20:21 EST
From: BDIJXS
Subject: Re:390/428

Hey Dave,

Thanks for the tip....I'll check out the magazine. Everyone I talk to says
something different on whether this can be done or not. Most seem to say
"just go ahead and get a 428 block"...but they've never tried boring out a 390
themselves. I think the first thing to do is to have the block "sonic-ed" to
measure the actual water jacket thickness available.

Thanks again!

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:01:29 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: FE compression

Stu Writes: >>What about the FE's.....what was the last year for
higher compression engines?????
Was it during or after 72 models????

When the 360 came out to replace the 352 I think !!! Could be wrong,
but I think this to be the lower compression FE. FE's of the 390
vintage as I understand it lowered the piston while TDC to lower the
compression(raised the wrist pin location). This was on the list for
discussion not too very long ago. I was told that the heads did not get
a volume increase to the combustion chamber.
Any body well versed in the FE's want to jump in here????///
I'm pretty sure that '71 was the last year for compression above 9:1
from the factory.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:00:34 EST
From: ECampb5214
Subject: brand new radio

Hi everyone

I just installed the radio out of the probe into the truck. It works but is
so quite that even on full blast, it is so quite my mufflers block out the
sound. Please if anyone has delt with a case senario like this please write
me back. the radio has a 7 wire setup and the truck has a 3 wire setup
excluding the speaker connections. the radio has 2 grounds excluding the
regular box ground.

Thank you
Ethan

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:04:23 EST
From: BDIJXS
Subject: 390 flywheel

Hey 390 guys,

If you happen to have a 390 truck flywheel laying around, could somebody
measure the total diameter for me? (from the outside of the ring gear teeth
will be good enough). I just received a 428 flywheel, and it has a pretty big
counterweight cast into it...I'm pretty sure its out of a Mustang or Torino.
Before I get it resurfaced, etc., I want to double check that its the same
diameter of a truck flywheel.

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 07:31:18 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Engine Swap

George,

on the JPG I sent there was some text that said the automatic and 3 speed manual
use the forward of two mounting holes in the frame for the trans mount ( 302
section ) and that the rubber insulator has off set holes. Holes toward the
front for I240 with light duty trans and in the rear for I 240-300 with any of
the other transmissions.

It still seems like you need mount the 302 frame brackets in the rearward holes
then move the clutch pivot mount forward and the trans mount forward to match.

Good luck

Dana

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:27:22 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Clutch adjustment

John Von Writes: >>The problem is, the clutch seems out of adjustment,
(the engine doesn't completely disengage when I push the pedal down)
but the push rod adjusting nut is maxed out.

Make sure the pivot points of the arm going into the Bellhousing aren't
worn. Seems there was a replaceable Nylon bushing that tended to wear
over many years of service.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:41:21 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Clutch adjustment

Transmitted earlier msg then realized I needed to add somethjing
else!! Any body else ever do that????

John Von: RE my earlier post to check the pivot points for the arm
entering the bellhousing. While you're under there checking things,
check the bushings on the Bellcrank assy. One on the frame - one on
the engine. they too have nylon bushings that are prone to wear out.
You will have to release all the pressure off it to get an accurate
"feel" for wear. Disconnect the clutch rod coming from inside the cab,
and the rod going to the pivot arm, then grab it and move for feel of
how much looseness you have there. I think these are readily available
from the dealer and maybe some of the better NAPA stores.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:36:44 -0500
From: shoman p3.net
Subject: Re: brand new radio

Ethan,
most likely you need th amp to go with the head unit..Most Ford radios
are powered by a small amp usually mounted behind the dash or under

the seat...I know 87-90 Escorts had it mounted behind the radio,same
with 87-93 Mustangs...etc...
hope this helps
Joe

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:37:36 -0500
From: shoman p3.net
Subject: Code 16 on axle for 1978

Can anybody tell me what Code 16 is for gears in 1978..I know in
1977 it was 3.50 was it the same for 78???
Joe

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 09:18:42 -0800
From: fred robinson
Subject: Jeff Carver 64 Crewcab

Jeff, I will be at the ODD Fellows Hall in Auburn Sunday morning
for breakfast. I could drive my truck up there if you want to meet with
me. That is just about half way for both of us. Jeff you can leave me a
voice mail at 424 0190 or e-mail me at lemarsh softcom.net to let me know.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 12:13:52 CST
From: "Harry Jennings"
Subject: Re: EFI

>Harry,
>this sounds interesting, please tell us some more. What's the truck?
What
>did you do to swap in the EFI? What was the donor vehicle?
>
>TIA
>dale

Dale and others,

My truck is a '71 F-100. I have spent WAY too much money on it...:)
Maybe because it was my first vehicle. Anyway, several (about 7) years
ago I rebuilt the 351M/C6. Shortly thereafter, I sold the combo friend
and droped in a 351SVO crate engine and a AOD from TCI. The EFI is a
"generic" universial kit from Edelbrock. I would like to upgrade to a
GT-40 style setup from a late model mustang someday. That will have to
wait, though.

I have finished the body and it is done for awhile. I have several other
project I am working on. Well, not working on them just yet. I had to
move and no longer have a garage. (I have to live within the city limits
for my job.) My wife and I (just got married last May) will be buying a
house (with a big garage) either late this year or early next year.

That is when I will get back into my cars. My next project is taking a
late model Caprice Wagon and turning it into a real Woodie. I have a
nice picture that was done by a friend. I can Email it to anyone who
wants to see it. Maybe you guys could help me decide on a color...:o)

Harry.



______________________________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 14:48:40 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 65 F250 clutch

> From: "John Von Eichhorn"
> Subject: 65 F250 clutch
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:53:17 -0800

> Hey all,
> I'm new to the list, and new to my 65 F250 stepside. I'm having a
> problem with my clutch and am hoping somebody here can help me out.

I've never had one that I could max out even when the bell crank was
rattling around in it's socket and the rubbers were all gone. Just
happens that my bronco is in that condition right now :-) When I got
it there was no return spring and the guy had it tightened up so the
rod wouldn't fall out which meant no free play, not good. You need
some free play, about one inch or so. If you have to tighten it up
so there is no free play to get it to release then I suspect you may
have the 3 finger type and one of the fingers may be worn or broken
or if a diaphram type then the throw out bearing may be reacting with
a worn surface on the diaphram etc.. (mine's doing that too)

If your linkage is so worn that you can't get it to work properly
then you need to address this. You may be able to open up the bolt
holes on the bell crank bracket on the engine side to gain a little
more adjustment or one of the bolts may have fallen out allowing it
to move back or it may just be loose. You may be able to buy new
gromets for the link arms from the dealer if this is the problem too.
I need to do this, just haven't got around to it yet :-)

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:03:43 -0500
From: Ray J
Subject: 1968 F10

I have newly acquired 1968 F100 with 360 engine. Where can I get manuals for this truck?
>
>Ray

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:03:06 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 460's and gears and stuff

> From: jniolon uss.com
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 15:12 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: 460's and gears and stuff

> someone please fill me on on the difference in c-6 gear sets
> and the reasons for using one versus the other

Only two choices with the C-6 I know of, wide ratio and standard.
Wide ratio gives you 11% more in low and 5% more in second for better
take off with taller rear gears and a kind of OD effect in high gear.
This works especially well with the 460. Because the 460's torque
band is wider than, say a 302 it can easily handle wider spacing
between gears similar to a 500cc dirt bike compared to a 125cc. The
500 generally gets by with 4 or 5 gears and you run a race in one or
two gears most of the time but the 125 needs upwards of 5 or 6 gears
to keep the engine in it's power band and you have to use every one
of them for every track change............(am I dateing myself?)

Wide ratios are available from any SVO dealer for around $600.

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:00:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Dana44F conversion

Ford Truckin' fellas,

The great dilema is here. Opinions are like _________ ! I KNOW,
BUT, I am opening this can of worms for all to see and comment on. I
talked with the guys at the 4x4 shop in Jackson, TN last night and they gave
me some choices ....basically the same as everyone else, including what you
all have said. You fellas are soooo right!!
Now I have to decide what I want. Lack of power steering doesn't matter
that muchto me.

*****I can go with:

1. stock drum front end and a leveling spring up front to take the rake out.

2. stock drum front end and a 2 1/2 lift in front and an add a leaf rear lift
made by Heckathorn (which is a local 4x4 shock and lift co.)

3. stock drum set up with a 4 inch lift front, 3 inch rear, Can't remember
the manufacturer

4. 78-79 Ford truck/Bronco 44F disc front end and incorporate power
steering / disc brakes with a 2 1/2 inch lift and an add a leaf rear.

5. 78 79 44F disc brake front end with 4 inch / 3 inch lift power steering and

I am ready to begin frame cleaning for painting and I am going to have to do
something soon and make my decision! Of course money is a factor in that I
am (okay, my wife is) now expecting our 3rd child in November and money is
more of a concern now. But, I hate to go to the bother of not doing the job
right.
Quality is Job 1 for Ford people! Right!?

Sam at the 4x4 shop feels my truck would look silly with only 30.5 or 31.5
X9.0 tires (I have 96 model aluminum FORD rims & I really want to use them!)
and 4" of lift. He feels it would also not look good , even with 2 1/2 "
lift and the same tires. I cannot visualize in my head what 2 1/2 inches
lift and these tires would look like. I don't want to redneck the truck too
much even if I am from rural Tennessee and West Virginia by birth!

Let me have comments and suggestions. I will not be back at my terminal
til Monday a.m. so I may be a while responding. Private responses are ok
to save traffic on the list, or it may be appropriate for all to read and
comment on ......use your judgement!
I don't want to get in the same trouble makers list as Deacon :) (just
kidding sweetie!)

I WANT to use the stock 96 model aluminum rims and a little lift.......will
it be that much harder to drive with no power steering??? 4x4's are new for
me so I looking for all the reassurance I can get! I have been told tires
that are 9.0 or 9.5 on 7.5 rims will wear prematurely in the center
portion of the tire.....any comments on the tire thing?

Enough for now.
STU
Nuke GM!

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 16:23:54 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: To Swap or not to swap...

> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:07:34 -0500
> From: Jeff
> Subject: To Swap or not to swap...

> I'm hoping someone here can give me some advise. Is a 302 V2 out of
> a '68 Montego worth a 300 I6 & 3-spd tranny or am I better of
> holding onto the V-8 and eventually replace my 240 I6 with it? I
> kind of like the six banger but something about the V-8 keeps
> beckoning to me. Any opinions???

It depends on your intentions. if you plan to soup it up the 302 is
a much better choice, easier and cheaper to get parts for etc.. If
you just want a nice truck to get around in with a little more power
than the 240 gives you then the 300 I6 is your best choice. It's
simple to work on, leaves lots of room in the engine bay and will
last a long time as well as basically being a bolt it proposition
with no major mods as I understand it.

I'm not a good one to ask such a question because there is not such
thing as too much power in my book :-) All my trucks only have 460's
slated for the swaps, one down, one to go :-)

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:19:43 -0500
From: DC Beatty
Subject: oil bath remedy??

Thanks Phil (?) and Gary for the replies to my ugly problem. The truck
doesn't have any less power (yet) but it's obvious that only a few things=

could be causing this oil spewing problem, and none of them are very good=
!!

So, I spent my day motor shopping. I found a 390 2bbl sitting in a '68
Fairlane 4 door. The guy who has it owns a tire shop and needs to get rid=

of it 'cause he lost his storage space. He wants $450 for the motor
(complete with alternator, pwr steering pump, carb, etc.) , and it was th=
e
only 390 I could find in searching 3 cities. I guess I need to buy it. =


I heard it run but it had stale gas in it, and very little of that, so it=

idled real rough and choked out some white smoke. It sounded solid in the=

3000 rpm range, though. The rough idle made me think of burned valves, so=

I'm planning to run a compression test on it. My question is, besides the=

compression test, is there anything else I should be looking for or doing=
?
I'm not looking for a perfect motor but I'm not looking for a blown rod i=
n
3 months either. I worry about these things.

It's real clean looking for an old motor. The only thing I can see that's=

been leaking is the head cover gaskets, but that's pretty standard. I
couldn't tell by looking at the gaskets if it has had a rebuild on it or
not. The car was real clean for its age too except the trunk was rusted
out, so it looks like it was taken care of wherever it came from. =


Please steer me from evil and guide me in my quest for thorough happiness=

and worry free transportation, oh list Guru's!!!

DC Beatty
1967 F100 352
1974 Maverick 302

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:57:46 -0500
From: shoman p3.net
Subject: Re: oil bath remedy??

Too bad your not closer to me in PA theres a 71 F-100 in a U pull it
with a complete 390..they Get $150 for the motor..
ANybody need a motor?
Joe

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:32:34 -0800
From: Tina & Norman Walters
Subject: Re: brake lock

Tina & Norman Walters wrote:
>
> Hey Ford fans I'm Norman a new member, been reading Email for a couple
> of days. I'm new at this and couldn't figure out how to respond. I think
> I got it know we'll see. I came in the middle of the brake lock
> discussion I heard a fellow talking about a lever type brake lock. It
> just so happens I work at a NAPA store that caters to trucks as my boss
> is a big Ford fan. I'll get to the point we have a line of United brake
> parts that has such a lever brake lock part #57504 costs aprox.$200.
> Also answering the I beam swap, did one on my 66F100 up to 79 will bolt
> right, in its the best thing I did to mine. My truck stops ALOT better
> with the 77 disc brakes. SEE YA IN PIGEON FORGE!! NORM 66trukrod

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:56:33 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: Dana44F conversion

From: Stu Varner
>Sam at the 4x4 shop feels my truck would look silly with only 30.5 or
31.5
>X9.0 tires (I have 96 model aluminum FORD rims & I really want to use
them!)
>and 4" of lift. He feels it would also not look good , even with 2 1/2
"
>lift and the same tires. I cannot visualize in my head what 2 1/2
inches
>lift and these tires would look like. I don't want to redneck the
truck too
>much even if I am from rural Tennessee and West Virginia by birth!

Why not build it low? Unless you have a need for the ground
clearance, low has it's advantages. The wheel IMHO needs to fill the
wheel well to look good.
I found this site with cool pictures http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.off -road. com /toc/
Like this 4x4 Mustang ftp://ftp.off -road. com /pub/ghg/mustang.jpg Sorry
Azie, you would love this picture. It gives me a woody (not to be
confused with Harry's project). Not to piss off those without access to
the Web (again , sorry Azie!) Here is a picture of a Ranger 4x2
ftp://ftp.off -road. com /pub/ghg/grhd016.jpg twin I beam never looked so
good. It's shows that you can get wheel travel without making a truck
sky high. There's people standing next to it looking in the window.
Comparing it's height to the people, it looks taller than it is.
Just my thoughts. I know it's not in your options list, but I have a
reputation to uphold! So if I'm a little off the subject...

>Let me have comments and suggestions. I will not be back at my
terminal
>til Monday a.m. so I may be a while responding. Private responses are
ok
>to save traffic on the list, or it may be appropriate for all to read
and
>comment on ......use your judgement!

Blame Stu! He knows better than telling me to use my judgement! Not
coming back till Monday is just plain irresponsible behavior. He knows
nobody can convince me this isn't the kind of input he's looking for!

>I don't want to get in the same trouble makers list as Deacon :)

With so many people that refuse to listen to me, I'd like to know
how do I piss off so many people with what I say! The trouble makers is
a discriminative list. It's not easy to become a member. It takes years
of dedicated sarcasm to achieve the level of bungholieoness that I have.
I do sell an instructional video if you wish to learn how!

>(just kidding sweetie!)

Hey, watch it now! I've seen Deliverance. :) No backwoods hayseed going
to make this city boy squeal like a pig!


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: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:37:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Koster
Subject: Thunderbird Special?

(I'm not sure if this was sent the first time)




Everybody probably knows by now that I have been trying desperately to
find out what was the original 'holder' of my '61 FE 390 V-8. (I plan
on swapping it into a '63 F-100 2WD Unibody.)

The guy I bought it from said it came out of a '63 bus. (?!?) He
said that it had already been disassembled by the time he got to it.
It was destined for his Fairlane when he realized that it would be too
big. (which to me is odd, because that year Fairlane came with a 390
option.)

I got it from him in basically the same condition he had received
it... in bags/boxes, etc. I took the block, heads, pistons, crank and
cam to a machine shop and they were able to identify it as original FE
parts dating from '59-61. They've never been bored or rebuilt, etc.

However, they were unable to identify any possible 'donor' vehicle.

Well, the other day (at the request of my better half) I began
organizing the rest of the engine parts and stumbled upon the Head
covers. They clearly read "THUNDERBIRD" imprinted across the rusted
chrome top.

Does this mean that it (most likely) came out of a '61 Thunderbird
Special?

If so, I'd like to know the ramifications - if anyone has the time.

The manifold and carb are 4 barrel, and that seems unlikely for a bus
of that era. Also, I've checked all the parts and they show no sign
of rebuild, or even reassembly.

What's the verdict?

Dan






_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 19:03:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Koster
Subject: Re: Calculations

Thanks for your comments, George.

This was the best part:

> Good for confusing chevy guys.


> Another way to get 396 is a 427 block with a 360 crank. A friend had
one
> in his C/A-B/G '54 ford in the early 70's. He used a 361 FT crank
with
> the snout cut down. 10,000 rpm screamer. Had everyone scratching their....


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.