Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:22:21 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #155
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Monday, March 16 1998 Volume 02 : Number 155



=======================================================================
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: Truck and Hog Farm ready! and 351C [Don Grossman
Re: Oil Pressure Problem [sdelanty ]
Re: Truck and Hog Farm ready! and 351C [Chris Hedemark
Towing old trucks [Rab Rawlins ]
Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: 391 manifold [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: Tow [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
1976 390 engine [Chris Hedemark ]
RE: For sale up North [Sleddog ]
RE: Oil Pressure Problem [Sleddog ]
RE: 391 manifold [Sleddog ]
Re: Engine Wars [Stu Varner ]
Re: ARRGH! FTV2 #151 [Stu Varner ]
Re: Engine Wars [Chris Hedemark ]
Re: Engine Wars [Stu Varner ]
Hobbie [am14 chrysler.com]
Plug [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: 360 and 460 swap, lincoln ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Oiling hole ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: T-Birds + FE's [Dan Koster ]
Been here too long! ["Deacon" ]
Towing [Dan Koster ]
Re: Been here too long! ["Bill Beyer" ]
Granny tranny [Dan Koster ]
RE: Towing ["Gillespie, John D." ]
Re: Oiling hole [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:01:19 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: Truck and Hog Farm ready! and 351C

Hey Deacon,

Don't forget to bring up the my old wheels ;)

Anyways, All this talk about 351C has got me thinking again. What are
the weekest parts of the 351C? What is the best way to make a 4V
streetable other than replacing the heads?

Laters

Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:11:21 -0800
From: sdelanty
Subject: Re: Oil Pressure Problem


>I currently have Main Bearings, new Melling Oil Pump, Rear Main Seal
>and a new Fel-Pro Pan Gasket. I will be driving the truck to my Dad's
>shop about 2hrs away and will begin. He has a lift and cherry picker
>which should make things easier. Any parts missing? I think I have all
>the bases covered. I'll let you know how it turns out.

You have Main bearings, do You have rod bearings too?
How about a new oil pump drive shaft? It's always a good idea to
replace these when You put in a new pump...

Are You going to remove the crank or just roll new bearings in place
without dropping the crank? If the crank is coming out You'll need
H2O pump gaskets, a timing chain cover gasket, front crank seal, and it's
a good time to replace the timing chain and sprockets.
If You aren't dropping the crank, be VERY carefull not to nick or scratch
it when changing the rear seal. wrap some duct tape or electrical tape
around the journal first to avoid unhappiness later.

Happy motoring,


Steve

Opportunity may knock only once,
but temptation leans on the doorbell.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:10:00 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: Truck and Hog Farm ready! and 351C

Don Grossman wrote:

> Anyways, All this talk about 351C has got me thinking again. What are
> the weekest parts of the 351C? What is the best way to make a 4V
> streetable other than replacing the heads?

Replacing the heads?!?!??

Keep the heads. Just get the rest of the engine breathing well and
you're fine. You can overbore the 351C but not a lot. I basically
started with a stock 351C-4V from a 1971 Mustang and did a 30 over,
stock heads, nothing fancy. I forget the cam specs. Crane said it was
too aggressive for street and sure the idle was a little rough but it
was certainly streetable. Intake was a Weiand single plane hi rise as I
recall. Carb was a Holley 750 double pumper. I tried an Edelbrock 600
for economy but that was a bad combo. Don't run a motor like this if
you want economy. The best thing I ever did to make this engine
streetable was a fullblown Mallory ignition system. Yes, the trouble
was in the spark! Plenty of fuel, plenty of air with the stock combo
but not enough spark!!!

After a few years it did swallow a valve. The motor has been sitting in
storage ever since, waiting for new life. I am just waiting for the
right vehicle to put it in. :-) I can't see putting this in a truck
though because there would be no way of having enough traction for it!
If anything I'll probably use it in a panel wagon down the road.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:19:40 -0700
From: Rab Rawlins
Subject: Towing old trucks

Jon, Sorry to here it didn't work out. I'm a big fan of the bigger
trucks and like you said, make lemonade. I'm building a 46 GMC 5 ton
flat deck w/ hoist into a car/truck hauler.

A fairly reliable way to help I.D. a truck is to find out how many lug
nuts and their spacing. This along with tire size can be a really
helpful, long distance way to quickly I.D. older trucks.

Another point that I don't think was mentioned during the
"towing/trailering" discussion is flat tires. I've dragged home a lot
of vehicles in my day and I've found it's way less hassle to hit the
boneyard and pickup some spare tires. $5 each up here. That along with
onboard air has allowed me hassle free towing so far. You can imagine
getting a flat tire 100 mi. from home with your 48 Merc with 7.5x20
split rim tires!!

Anyways good luck with your hunt.

Rab

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:45:01 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS

> From: "Chris Hedemark"
> Subject: Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS
> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 17:51:19 -0500

> Just keep in mind if you go the Duraspark route, always keep a spare
> module under the seat. I went to an MSD on another truck because of
> the poor reliability of the Duraspark modules.

You have to keep the electrical system in good repair or you will
damage ANY electronic component. I've had many 100's of K miles on
ford duraspark modules with only one failure. It had 170k miles on
it. I have several spares and on many occasions used them to trouble
shoot the ignition only to find out the plugs were not getting a good
contact. On other occasions I've found one of the coil wires broken
at the coil in such a way that it wasn't obvious till I tugged on the
wires. Now when I trouble shoot the first thing I do is unplug all
plugs and replug them several times to clean the contacts off and tug
on the coil wires and unplug and replug the coil cap several times
before I go anywhere else.

I'm sorry you had such bad luck but if you ask this list I believe
you will find the majority of us have only one complaint with the
duraspark and that's lack of high rpm support. They generally die
around 4500 rpms or so depending on the application so are not good
for racing but work very well indeed in a truck :-)

You can remove the points plate and rotor and replace them with the
electronic components so a new dist isn't really necessary.

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:57:37 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS

All this is well and good, but the WELLS (oem replacement type) ignition box
I got at Wal Mart two years ago still works perfect after 30,000 miles. Not
kilometers. Cost me 30 bucks, and those are Metric dollars too.

One of the reasons Ford distributors keep wearing out the top bushing is
that nobody remembers to oil them. Periodically, you are supposed to take
off the rotor, take out the little screw in the shaft, and put oil in there.
There is even supposed to be a little piece of felt in the top of the shaft
to hold oil. Steve Christ's book has a picture.

marko in vancouver
marko helix.net

>> Just keep in mind if you go the Duraspark route, always keep a spare
>> module under the seat. I went to an MSD on another truck because of
>> the poor reliability of the Duraspark modules.
>
>You have to keep the electrical system in good repair or you will
>damage ANY electronic component. I've had many 100's of K miles on
>ford duraspark modules with only one failure. It had 170k miles on
>it. I have several spares and on many occasions used them to trouble
>shoot the ignition only to find out the plugs were not getting a good
>contact. On other occasions I've found one of the coil wires broken
>at the coil in such a way that it wasn't obvious till I tugged on the
>wires. Now when I trouble shoot the first thing I do is unplug all
>plugs and replug them several times to clean the contacts off and tug
>on the coil wires and unplug and replug the coil cap several times
>before I go anywhere else.
>
>I'm sorry you had such bad luck but if you ask this list I believe
>you will find the majority of us have only one complaint with the
>duraspark and that's lack of high rpm support. They generally die
>around 4500 rpms or so depending on the application so are not good
>for racing but work very well indeed in a truck :-)
>
>You can remove the points plate and rotor and replace them with the
>electronic components so a new dist isn't really necessary.
>
>78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
>78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
>
>-- Gary --

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:02:17 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: IGNITION IGNORAMUS

>I've had just the opposite experience. The OEM module had a lot of this
>resin in the back. Other replacement modules from Ford were much the
>same. Much of the problem is with the electronics within expanding and
>contracting due to heat. This frequent expansion and contraction does
>the same thing to the solder joints as temperature changes can do to the
>asphalt. When the unit heats up the electronics break away from their
>solder joints, but then when it cools down the memory of the leads
>brings them back close to their joints and the circuit closes again.
>This is why it can confound those who haven't dealt with these modules
>before because it doesn't *act* like an electrical problem with the
>symptoms seeming to be related to whether the engine is warmed up or
>not.
>
>Yes, the problem may be avoided or postponed simply by having more resin
>in the module. This is a band-aid, I think. The Borg Warner
>replacement that I bought was the *last* replacement that I bought. The
>electronics inside are supposed to be of a higher grade and more
>heat-resistent. I never gutted the thing so I cannot confirm. The BW
>unit was slimmer than the Ford unit, too. BW said that their
>replacement modules use IC's which really fix the problem with the older
>transistorized modules. Again, I haven't gutted the thing to confirm
>this. I just know it works.
>

The reason these boxes are made of cast aluminum is that the units produce a
lot of heat and the box is supposed to be a heat sink. That's why it has
fins. It makes me wonder why Ford put that big ugly black sticker on it-
the Wells name is cast into the cover, a much better idea eliminating the
unnecessary insulation.

If you mount the box where it doesn't get ventilated, or is near a header or
the rad, or let it get covered with crud, it will die on you quick.

If the box is getting white and corroded, put a wire brush on the end of
your drill and shine it up so it sinks heat again.


marko in vancouver
marko helix.net

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:03:49 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: 391 manifold

>Levi ( http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm )just picked up a '67
>crewcab with a 391 industrial. It has an aluminum Edelbrock intake. It
>looks awful close to the 429/460 in size. Any chance they are the same?
>
Should be the same as a 390/428, shouldn't it?


marko

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:17:46 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: Tow

>Dan writes: >>Should I risk it and just 2-wheel dolly an obviously
>heavier Ford truck behind my Isuzu?
>
>Or, should I tow the Isuzu behind the F100 with it's newly installed
>390? (i'll have put at least 1000 miles on it and made the adjustments
>already)

Forget the sentimental teary-eyed I love Fords stuff (although it is
important too). Consider this:

Weight of IZ: probly 2500-3000#
Typical payload of IZ: probly 500# or less (2-3 people and a canoe, groceries)

Weight of Ford (m/t): probly 3000-3500#
Loaded weight of Ford: probly 1000# (lumber, dirt, cement, feathers, whatever)

So, the Ford is designed to stop with a payload. The IZ is not. The IZ has
expensive alloy brakes with semimet pads that heat the heck out of the
discs. And little teeny wheel bearings.

The Ford has big and cheap cast iron drums with stock-type pads (asbestos I
think, maybe not anymore) and big bearings, and a big rearend. And the
Ford probly either has a C6 or a T-18 or (this last weighs more than an
entire IZ) NP 435.

Tow the IZ with the Ford. It is designed for it, the IZ is not. You won't
even notice it's there unless you go around a corner too tight. And, if you
heat up a brake or two and warp a drum a bit, a new one won't break the bank.

marko in vancouver
marko helix.net

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:21:43 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: 1976 390 engine

Howdy folks,

Is the 390 offered in 1976 any better or worse than other years? This
is in one of the 2 trucks still in the running for my new daily driver.
I know that many engines were real dogs in the 1970's. For example, the
302 was worthless in 1976 but a real joy in 1967 and again in the early
1990's. Was the 390 similarly crippled during the early years of
emissions controls and the heat of the oil crunch?

Thanks,
Chris

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:23:37 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: For sale up North

a shop in stroudsburg pa that i do alot of business with has a 460 block
for sale, all ready to go for $50. he just wants it out of there.

also, someone here might sell their blue thunder 460 cast iron heads, fully
worked with the "B" port design. price? cheaper than new, better than
gettin' 'em ported yourself, but i do not know how much. intersted, i can
give # or find out price.

sleddog

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:31:44 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Oil Pressure Problem

- ----------
From: tfmf211 murphyfarms.com[SMTP:tfmf211 murphyfarms.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 5:44 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Oil Pressure Problem

i suggest a new oil pump drive shaft. it is cheap insurance, and i feel should always be replaced when a pump is replaced.

sleddog
.

I currently have Main Bearings, new Melling Oil Pump, Rear Main Seal
and a new Fel-Pro Pan Gasket. I will be driving the truck to my Dad's
shop about 2hrs away and will begin. He has a lift and cherry picker
which should make things easier. Any parts missing? I think I have all
the bases covered. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Thanks to everyone on the list that have helped me out and
to Ken especially for making this list possible.

-Ted
'68 Ranger (with an annoying ticking sound)





+-------------- 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:33:59 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: 391 manifold

same as a 460? the 385 series wasn't in any vehicles in 67, 68 yes, but
not 67. if the intake is partially under the valve cover, its a FE, not a
385 series.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dennis Pearson[SMTP:dpearson ctc.ctc.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 12:18 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: 391 manifold

Levi ( http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/levi.htm )just picked up a '67
crewcab with a 391 industrial. It has an aluminum Edelbrock intake. It
looks awful close to the 429/460 in size. Any chance they are the same?







+-------------- 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:03:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: Engine Wars

At 05:58 PM 3/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Believe it or not, I do have a tremendous fondness of "certain" GM engines
>>and vehicles.
>
>
>Oh, I do, too. I just hate seeing Brand X engines in Ford cars/trucks.
>When I was making my rounds today I passed a place I never saw before,

Chris,
If you tell anyone I told you I have a certain fondness for 68-thru
72 Cutlass 442 and HURST Oldsmobiles.....well, I'll have to drop agent
orange on your house!
;O) But definitley no BOWTIES!

STU
Nuke GM!

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:14:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: ARRGH! FTV2 #151

At 12:33 AM 3/16/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 14:16:54 -0600 (CST)
>> From: Stu Varner
>> Subject: Re: AARRGH! and intro
>
>..snip..
>
>> I have been thinking
>> about a 350 GM engine in my old 71 F-100 for the resto..............
>
>Boy! I bet old Henry is rolling in his grave about now... ;-P
>
Do I even need to address this one?? Naah, I'll let Deacon do my talking
for me!

STU
Nuke GM!

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 15:15:12 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: Engine Wars

Stu Varner wrote:
> Chris,
> If you tell anyone I told you I have a certain fondness for 68-thru
> 72 Cutlass 442 and HURST Oldsmobiles.....well, I'll have to drop agent
> orange on your house!

Oh you are not alone in this. No way. I have an affinity for *very
few* GM products and I would be hard pressed to think of any made within
the last 25 years that I have even slightly warm feelings about. But
the 442's were definitely very cool. My grandpop used to have an Olds
wagon, I think it was a 71, with a 455. That wagon could MOOOOOVE. I
think that saw more street races (and won) than any Mustang I ever had.
I was really upset when he sold that thing outside of the family back in
the mid-eighties. What a sleeper!

> ;O) But definitley no BOWTIES!

You would have to go back to the early fifties before you got to any
Chevies that I wouldn't mind owning. Still, I would rather have most
Fords than those very few somewhat likeable Chevies. If you offered me
a 51 Chevy panel, I'd take it. But make me choose between a 51 Chevy or
Ford panel and I don't even have to think twice before that Ford is
mine.

I can appreciate *anything* that is good looking or well built. Chevy
has made a few cars that were easy on the eyes, but the beauty is only
skin deep, IMNSHO. Fords have, for a long time, enjoyed far superior
fit & finish than their GM counterparts. I don't think I've been in a
Chevy yet that didn't exhibit those squeaks and rattles that make you
wonder about the engineering behind the vehicle. Vettes are the worst
of the bunch. I had a Chevy C10 as my beater for a few months and even
though it ran reliably, it just seemed like the designers didn't due
redundant measurements and the resulting discrepencies in dimensions
were causing the sensation of being in a rattletrap. I sold it for a
couple hundred more than I paid for it and got something like a 1981 or
so F350.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:34:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: Re: Engine Wars

At 03:15 PM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Stu Varner wrote:
>> Chris,
>> If you tell anyone I told you I have a certain fondness for 68-thru
>> 72 Cutlass 442 and HURST Oldsmobiles.....well, I'll have to drop agent
>> orange on your house!
>
>Oh you are not alone in this. No way. I have an affinity for *very
>few* GM products and I would be hard pressed to think of any made within
>the last 25 years that I have even slightly warm feelings about. But
>the 442's were definitely very cool. My grandpop used to have an Olds
>wagon, I think it was a 71, with a 455. That wagon could MOOOOOVE. I
>think that saw more street races (and won) than any Mustang I ever had.
>I was really upset when he sold that thing outside of the family back in
>the mid-eighties. What a sleeper!
>
>> ;O) But definitley no BOWTIES!

I may have to take that NO BOWTIE statement back.....my neighbor took a 327
Vette motor
and stuffed it in an 82 Chebby S-10. Did a bunch of custom
suspension/AC.Interior and clean up stuff. It is quite a spectacle. For
sale for 5,000.00
I respect it! Don't want it, just respect it.
I hope everyone knows the pickin on GM stuff is all in good fun. I love FORDS!
Always will because I personnally believe them to be a better product, but
then opinions are like _________. The NUke GM is nopt a flame die=rected at
any one person or individual. NUKE GM is my way of saying, If I may quote
the legend and priest (deacon) of the list "Eagles may soar, but wooden
weasels don't get sucked into Jet engines made by GE!

BTW- I called Helm publishing this morning and they don't have any 70 thru
72 shop manuals.
I was really bummed out! Anyone have a set of 71 shop manuals for sale??
I want them if you do. Private email.
Stu
Nuke GM!

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:19:44 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Hobbie

Dana writes: >>Engine wars was bad enough but GAS PRICE WARS Now I
know we all need a hobby!!!!

What we need is some decent weather so we can get outside and work on
some of these Blue Ovals.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:26:14 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Plug

Drew writes: >>In the front of the block behind the cam timing gear
there is what looks to be an oil pressure relief valve. I was wondering
if non-HP FE blocks had a pressure relief valve in the front of the
motor. I couldn't find any reference to it in the Pat Ganahl book (this
just mentions the one at the back of the block on side oilers). Is
there an oil pressure relief valve on the front of these blocks and
could this be where the mystery plug is
supposed to be?

Don't believe this is a pressure relief Drew. The plug was probably
dropped when plugging the lifter feeders on top of the block with the
intake off. It probably just fell down through one of the oil return
holes to reside in the pan until someone had to pull it.

JMHO

Azie
Ardmore, Al

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:28:11 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 360 and 460 swap, lincoln

> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:53:58 -0500
> From: George Herpich
> Subject: Re: 360 and 460 swap, lincoln

> other hand, anything's possible. I just thought that he saw that big
> boat style lincoln and assumed it was a 460. The 400 looks pretty
> big. Better to find out now rather than after you pull the engine.

I have to sympathize with this sentiment since I took a flashlight
after looking at my 460 (with a flashlight) to look at the Lincoln
and looked at it twice before I was convinced myself and I've
rebuilt both engines and am VERY familiar with ALL their
idiosyncrosies! I couldn't believe I had to look twice and then even
looked at my 400 to make sure I wasn't missing something!

The reason is that the thermostat housing is mounted in EXACTLY the
same place and at EXACTLY the same height with only 1/8" space
between the intake and thermostat housing on the 400 so with grease
etc. I had to really look closely! I'm still amazed it was that hard
to tell apart. Must be the bifocals................:-)

There are other differences like the manifolds etc. but the
thermostat housing SHOULD be a no brainer right?

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:46:22 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Oiling hole

> From: am14 chrysler.com
> Subject: Oiling hole
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:51:21 -0500

> talking FE here, while you're at it lay an old half shell bearing in
> #4 main in the block and you will see that the oil hole is half
> covered up with the bearing. Scribe the block using the half
> bearing as a template and open this hole up, too. I made this a

Azie, I made this mistake too with my first 460 on the front bearing.
The hole is partially covered to prevent all the oil from going into
the top end and depriving the crank. When you open up this hole the
likelyhood of sucking the pan dry becomes higher not lower if I'm
understanding your explaination correctly??

>From what I've been reading I surmise that we should cross drill and
chamfer the crank holes and "restrict" the holes going up into the
top of the block to get more oil to the crank and increase Oil
pressure to boot. Obviously you have to make sure the cam and
lifters and rockers get enough oil too but opening up the bearing
holes "should" be the wrong thing to do unless the FE is a different
animal than the 460 or 351C??

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:45:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Koster
Subject: Re: T-Birds + FE's

Tyler,

I need you to do me a big favor and look at the casting number on the
390 block. Please let me know what you find.

Thanks,

Dan



- ---Tyler Wilkins wrote:
>
> Ok, I couldn't help myself especially with all this pre-71 HI-PO
T-Bird
> and FE talk lately, the T-Bird I mentioned a few hours ago, I just got
> back from sneaking a peak at it. I know this isn't Specifically Ford
> Truck talk but sometimes I think this should be Ford Trucks & FE list.
> And my origanal interest in this car was hoping it had an FE to put in
> my '73 F-250. I don't think thats what will happen though. I would
> just rather ask this on here do to the high knowledge of FE's and this
> list is what has made me think more and more about that car the last
few
> weeks. Here's what I found: As soon as I poped the hood I was
> intsantly in love. For on top of the CLEAN (No external Grease that
> usually comes with high mileage) motor was a big blue Air Filter with
> the following: 390 4v!!!!!!!.
>
> The car itself was in beautiful shape there was not a spot of rust on
> the body although the wheelwells showed a different color indicating a
> paint job at some point. The interior was also very cool. This is a
> very cool car. Leather interior and lots of chrome. The back seats
> were developing mold but it doesn't look like it wouldn't come right
off
> with a rag. The drivers seat was awful worn, other than that the
> interior was beautiful. But anyways, (sorry, I'm awful excited) the
> door tag revealed the following numbers, I wounder if someone could
> decipher them for me to tell me more about the car.
>
> Top line (VIN)- 7Y82Z175262
>
> Bottom Line- 65B (Year?) B 2AA 20F 27 I (or 1?(Axle Code?))
U
> (Tranny code?)
>
> I would appreciate any codes you could decipher, This motor may still
> make it into my truck.
>
> Additional info if anyone cares, its got air and its a ragtop! The
> plates were last registered in '92 but the door panel revealed a
> maintenence tag (oil, tires, etc.) that was dated 11/94 with a mileage
> of 65K. Talking to the neighbors they said they moved in about a year
> and a half ago and they had never seen the car move. And that it
was an
> older woman who lived there. They said they would love to see the car
> gone and the realator probably would too. COOL! :)
> +-------------- 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/
- ----------+
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 13:49:32 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Been here too long!

I've been on this list for a long time and it's time to move on.
Take it easy Gang and keep up the good work.

Later!

Deacon

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:00:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Koster
Subject: Towing

Thanks for the all of the great advice.

I'll stick with my original plans - tow the isuzu with my newly built
Ford.

Now, what's best.. A 2-wheel dolly? or a Tow bar?

Thanks,

Dan

p.s. it's a manual tranny


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:05:22 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: Been here too long!

Bye Deacon! You'll be missed!

- ----------
> From: Deacon
> To: Ford Trucks
> Subject: Been here too long!
> Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 1:49 PM
>
> I've been on this list for a long time and it's time to move on.
> Take it easy Gang and keep up the good work.
>
> Later!
>
> Deacon
>
> +-------------- 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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:05:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Koster
Subject: Granny tranny

My '63 F100 has a granny-gear 4-speed transmission. I've always
assumed that it was a T-98. Could it actually be something else? (it
is the original)

Let's say it is a T-98. What are the gear ratios for 1st thru 4th?


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:15:06 -0800
From: "Gillespie, John D."
Subject: RE: Towing

Dan,
If the I*uzu is narrower than the F100 (which I think it is) you
might try the dolly. If all else fails talk the folks at U-Haul or
Ryder, their books/computer has most of the info you need and will tell
you which hitch ball you need (probably 2inch).

John
66 F100, 240-I6
82 LTD 302AOD
94 Ranger 4.0L (I hate liters)

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

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:20:18 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: Oiling hole

>> talking FE here, while you're at it lay an old half shell bearing in
>> #4 main in the block and you will see that the oil hole is half....


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.