Return-Path:
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:44:39 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #168
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Saturday, March 21 1998 Volume 02 : Number 168



=======================================================================
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:

F-250 4x4 hubs [BDIJXS ]
Re: Weak T-5!? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Gas tank for Highboy? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
FORD Tools? [Tyler Wilkins ]
Re: Filler' up? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Engine Wars!? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: F-250 4x4 hubs [Tyler Wilkins ]
FORD Tools? [Randy Collins ]
Re: Brake Hoses Reply ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
re: 351s or the continueing debate ["Dale and Donna Carmine"
Re: F-250 4x4 hubs [Don Grossman ]
Re: FORD Tools? [Tyler Wilkins ]
re: 351s or the continueing debate ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Message from Deacon. ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 65 F259 4X4 ["kingw" ]
RE: strokes, or the continueing debate [Sleddog ]
oil restriction plugs. [Sleddog ]
Gas tank for Highboy? [Thomas Hogan ]
RE: 65 F250 4X4 ["Charles" ]
Re: 460 build-Up ["Harry Jennings" ]
Re: Engine Wars!? [George Herpich ]
FE Oil pump priming shaft, FTV2 #163 [Alan Mittelstaedt / Chad Dailey
Re: FORD Tools? [George Herpich ]
Re: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft [George Herpich ]
Re: 65 F250 4X4 [George Herpich ]
Engine Wars [Alan Mittelstaedt / Chad Dailey ]

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:24:39 EST
From: BDIJXS
Subject: F-250 4x4 hubs

Don was right, I found a set of hubs, stub axles, rotors, calipers (double
piston) etc. off a 76 F-250 4x4 and it bolts right up to my F-150 steering
knuckles. The guy didn't have the locking hubs. Does anyone out there have a
set they would be willing to part with? I'm looking for the big "external"
locking type....might even need a spindle or two.

Thanks!

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 07:59:56 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Weak T-5!?

> From: "Harry Jennings"
> Subject: Re: Weak T-5!?
> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 03:44:44 CST

> the country. I am sure the T-5 would work just fine behind the mild
> 300 I6. I think it would even work just fine behine a mild 351W.
> After all, what manual did Ford use with the '93(?) Mustang Cobra
> (the one with the HO 351W)?

I tend to agree even though I've never personally had one. SVO has
HD gear sets which make it usable for drag racing and other sportsman
events with over 600 HP engines. I know some like the think of the
I6 as having awsome torque but let's face it, it's still less than a
mild 351 of any kind and only barely better than the stock 302 at low
rpm. At higher rpm it's no contest.

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:58:23 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Gas tank for Highboy?

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:55:13 -0600
> From: Jim Henjum
> Subject: Gas tank for Highboy?

> Does anyone know if there was a gas tank made that would fit inside
> the frame rails of a '75 F250 4x4 in back? (34" from outside to

I have a 75 van rear tank in my 78 PU and it fits perfectly except
for being too deep. It still sits higher than the bottom of the rear
axle so it works but the "reserve" tank for that year (78) is just
right but only holds about 16 gal I think. The van tank is closer to
22 gal as I recall. I would venture to guess any van rear tank or
pickup tank in the 73 - 79 year range will probably work. You may
have to hunt for a filler hose (just the rubber part) to make it a
good fit. Can't remember which one I used right now, sorry :-(

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:07:32 -0600
From: Tyler Wilkins
Subject: FORD Tools?

In Ford's early years does anyone know if they sold 'tool kits' with
their cars/trucks as even modern day motorcycle manufacturers still do?
The reason I asked is yesterday I picked up three open-end wrenches with
the Ford script (2 say Ford and one has Ford U.S.A.) on them at a
rummage sale. They are obviously quite old by the antique look they
have. Neat little wrenches though, I think I'm going to mount one on my
dash of my '73 as decoration(FTC). I'm not planning on actually using
these. I picked them up for $ .10 for all three. On the back of one it
has T-1917 on it. 1917 Model T? Anyone have any ideas?

Tyler Wilkins

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:11:59 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Filler' up?

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 20:39:10 -0800
> From: Don Grossman
> Subject: Filler' up?

> I also heard a good story. here is the short version. Old gas
> tanker used as water truck for 3 year, needed repair so guys started
> welding up some holes and killed them self when the tanker blew up.

Gasoline fumes are heavier than air so if the tank was left with no
drain open on the bottom the fumes would have stayed in it untill
something came along to move them out.

> What should I use for the gas tank/bed box. I was thinking 10ga.?
> This might be a little on the thick side.

I'm not sure I'm pictureing this right but if you are making a gas
tank to fit into the bed as a bolt in then 16 ga should be
sufficient. 10 ga is a bit over 1/8" and quite heavy for a gas tank
unless you plan to use it as a bumper for throwing stuff in the bed
etc.. I don't know what farm fuel tanks are made of but bet they
aren't quite that heavy either, not sure.

Gas tanks should be mounted in such a way that they will break loose
from the vehicle before they burst which is one of the reasons OEM's
make them with rounded edges and flat seam welds so keep that in mind
as you work out the design. Since the area below the tool box is
essentially unusable this actually sounds like a good plan but I
think I would make them as two separate units, not bolted together
for safety's sake. If you put them together as one welded unit and
the tool box is bashed it could cause the fuel tank to leak such as
in a roll over etc..

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:25:09 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Engine Wars!?

> From: "Harry Jennings"
> Subject: Re: Engine Wars!?
> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:15:03 CST

> In all out race engines, you have to realize that most don't allow
> EFI. Therefore, the advances haven't been made and the knowledge
> isn't there. In otherwords, the best NASCAR engine guy probably
> couldn't build a very good EFI engine. So, *he* would think that EFI
> makes less power. But given some time.........:)

Most race applications are simple WOT operations which once tuned to
max power don't care where the fuel comes from but do care how it's
atomized. Carbs do this very well but are limited by only doing it
well at one flow and pressure at the venturi (where it was tuned for)
which is why the metering rod carbs do better on the street and the
Holleys do better on the track. For racing EFI would be redundant
and probably not offer any advantage IMHO. It also adds complexity
which is not what most racers dream of. The simplest setup that does
the job is the goal of most teams, I'm reasonably sure :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:30:13 -0600
From: Tyler Wilkins
Subject: Re: F-250 4x4 hubs

BDIJXS wrote:
>
> Don was right, I found a set of hubs, stub axles, rotors, calipers (double
> piston) etc. off a 76 F-250 4x4 and it bolts right up to my F-150 steering
> knuckles. The guy didn't have the locking hubs. Does anyone out there have a
> set they would be willing to part with? I'm looking for the big "external"
> locking type....might even need a spindle or two.

I have a set I'll sell for $25+ shipping, their off my '73 F-250 which I
upgraded to superwinch hubs which I would suggest rather than putting
used hubs on, If you go this route from summit insist on the 3/4ton
hubs, they insisted my '73 F-250 needed the 1/2 ton hubs (internal,
smaller type) which they sent me and what do you know, they were wrong!
I paid around $90 for the pair from summit and they are much stronger!
They're made of all metal parts opposed to the factory plastic that
likes to break and leave you with useless 4-wheel drive, and of course
the plastic will break at the absolute WORST time, like when your alone
in the middle of nowhere relying on your 4wd to get you home. Grrr.....
Hope this helps.

Tyler Wilkins

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 09:25:37 -0800
From: Randy Collins
Subject: FORD Tools?

On the back of one it has T-1917 on it. 1917 Model T? Anyone have any ideas?

Tyler,

Try this site:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.toolsource.com/

You will find plenty of tool veterans to help you out. I believe there are folks that collect the old Ford tools.

Later,

Randy Collins
Boise, Idaho
rcollins micron.net

1975 Ford F250 4WD Supercab "Muscle Truck"
460 SUPER COBRA JET
Short Block Completed...Stage II head work

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:49:25 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Brake Hoses Reply

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:54:08 -0600
> From: "Dennis K. Austin"
> Subject: Re: Brake Hoses Reply

> doesn't rain. What do you think? It could also be that the hose
> brackets on the frame needs to be relocated a couple of inches.

Did you take them off too? If so, you may have reversed them? or
switched sides? (some have an offset which could have this effect)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:03:11 -0600
From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
Subject: re: 351s or the continueing debate

Chris and Sleddog,
- --snip--
>Agreed... as I said they can be useful tools.
- --snip--
>We agree here.

Sounds to me like you all agree on more points than you disagree. But
debates are boring without conflict. :-)

My question relates to the stroke, piston speed, port size issue. I
understand the relationship between stroke and piston speed, but what I find
confusing is the references to piston speed or stroke and port size.
Shouldn't port size be related to total volume pumped, (displacement)?

- --snip--
>>if you
>>plug different srokes into ANY dyno program i have ever used, you will
find
>>that given same cid, longer strokes need better breathing. PERIOD! this
>>is a confirmation of my initial statement. if you need more info on this
>>area, i would be happy to give it to you.
>We agree here.
>The fact that the longer stroke produces a directly proportional increase
in
>piston speed; there by inducing a stronger demand (Delta/P) accost the
>intake system.
- --snip--

Can someone please explain this to me.

later,
dale c

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:12:06 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: F-250 4x4 hubs

Tyler is right about the hubs. Go for the best hubs you can get.

My 78 axle has the twin piston calipers (man do those things put the "S"
in stop) but use the smaller internal locking hubs. I used a set of
Mile Markers that are almost new that came with the F-150 parts truck.
I haven't put them to a real test yet but they do engage and disengage
really easy. The old set of factory hubs were well on there way to the
trash bin.

On the original 63 axle there was a set of Warn Premiums. These are the
old design but 100% metal. There were placed where rocks had smashed
them but the still worked, a little hard to get to engage, but they
worked.

Jeff, check the stub axle. The one for the external locking hubs might
be a little longer (1/4") than the old one. everything else should be
the same. Spindles are the hardest parts to find. If anyone has a
source for Ford 4x4 spindles (Disk) let me know. JCW's and a couple of
other places have them for the drum and Jeep,Chevy applictions but not
the Ford disks.

Laters

Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:46:01 -0600
From: Tyler Wilkins
Subject: Re: FORD Tools?

Randy Collins wrote:
>
> Try this site:
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.toolsource.com/
>
> You will find plenty of tool veterans to help you out. I believe there are folks that collect the old Ford tools.

Will Do, thanx!

Just checked out the website, pretty cool place.....

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:38:12 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: re: 351s or the continueing debate

> From: "Dale and Donna Carmine"
> Subject: re: 351s or the continueing debate
> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:03:11 -0600

> My question relates to the stroke, piston speed, port size issue. I
> understand the relationship between stroke and piston speed, but
> what I find confusing is the references to piston speed or stroke
> and port size. Shouldn't port size be related to total volume
> pumped, (displacement)?

I have a cold today but I'll try to get my brain to work :-)
Theoretically from TDC to BDC the volume pulled in will be the same
but the longer stroke will have a higher volumetric efficiency at
lower rpms so will draw more at lower rpm than a shorter stroke.

The pistion reaches max speed at roughly 90 degrees and with longer
stroke the speed is higher at this point and will be pulling at a
higher velocity but will be close to the same piston speed as the
shorter stroke near the top and bottom of the stroke so there is more
column accelleration in the center of the stroke. The higher
velocity helps cylinder filling at a lower rpm but gets choked at
higher rpms where the short stroke is the opposit since there is less
velocity change in it's stroke.

Chris, Sleddog, am I close here?

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:41:00 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Message from Deacon.

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:55:23 -0500
> From: Ken Payne
> Subject: Message from Deacon.

> near future. Told me that he had reached a point of frustration
> with the off-topic posts and the timing was right. Rather than go
> out in flame war, he choose to leave gracefully.

I'm confused?! You mean because we didn't stick to the tech truck
stuff he got frustrated? Or.............:-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:47:10 -0600
From: "kingw"
Subject: Re: 65 F259 4X4

Ballinger,
My 68 FE 360 had a cracked ring in one of the pistons. Like yours
it would blow oil out of the valve-cover breathers at higher RPMs
(above 2500 when I was on the highway). It didn't smoke on start up,
deceleration, or acceleration, but made a mess under the hood.
Try doing a compression test. If it is a cracked ring, you'll find out.
Good luck
Bill

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:17:47 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: strokes, or the continueing debate

first, as to wether or not stroke makes a difference in the torque output
directly (as in mechanically) the equation for indicated torque uses
displacement, not crank arm to arrive at a solution. so changing
bore/stoke relationship changes nothing related to indicated torque, and
therefor HP.

longer strokes require more breathing, since the piston area would be
smaller (assuming = cid) it induces a smaller effective initial motion to
the intake charge, and the charge takes longer to accelerate. now, it has
to catch up with the piston, and therefore needs a higher speed to do so.
simply put. i have a conceptual understanding that is hard to put into
words. perhaps this "understanding" is really a result of other factors,
since it is hard to build exact engines with differring bore/stroke ratios.

remember that bigger bores allow bigger valves, and sometimes bigger ports,
and less valve shrouding, better weight/power ratios, and more. so if an
engine is design from the ground up with a bigger bore, smaller stroke, it
may be a better performer with even more potential because of these
factors, not the bore/stroke relationship itself.

the ford 400 is kind of in the middle of other brands 400's, as far as
stroke length. the chubby 400 will generally make more top end all else
equal but a shorter stroke. the mopar with an even shorter stroke will
make even more top end, and the olds with the longest stock stroke makes
less than all of them. this i get from observation, as i never
participated in an olds buildup.

any CFD (compressible fluid dynamics) experts out there?

if these posts are not on topic, please tell me and i will not stray from
FTC as far in the future. thank you.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dale and Donna Carmine[SMTP:dcarmine inetnebr.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 12:03 PM
To: Ford Trucks
Subject: re: 351s or the continueing debate

Chris and Sleddog,
- --snip--
>Agreed... as I said they can be useful tools.
- --snip--
>We agree here.

Sounds to me like you all agree on more points than you disagree. But
debates are boring without conflict. :-)

My question relates to the stroke, piston speed, port size issue. I
understand the relationship between stroke and piston speed, but what I
find
confusing is the references to piston speed or stroke and port size.
Shouldn't port size be related to total volume pumped, (displacement)?

- --snip--
>>if you
>>plug different srokes into ANY dyno program i have ever used, you will
find
>>that given same cid, longer strokes need better breathing. PERIOD! this
>>is a confirmation of my initial statement. if you need more info on this
>>area, i would be happy to give it to you.
>We agree here.
>The fact that the longer stroke produces a directly proportional increase
in
>piston speed; there by inducing a stronger demand (Delta/P) accost the
>intake system.
- --snip--

Can someone please explain this to me.

later,
dale c

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 15:37:41 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: oil restriction plugs.

Before anyone gets carried away with restricting oil, you may want to know:

i checked out my new (used) block (385) to look for restricters. there
were none (though i thought there were before - damn that memory of mine).
so, i called the guy i got it from and said wut up with that?

he said, he had no oiling problems until close to 8000 rpm. and this
engine turned over that a few times. so, though i do not know about the
FE, M, C, or W, i can safely say that i beleive the unrestricted oiling on
the 385 is sufficient for even a hot running street engine. i am not going
to restrict my passages and i intend to turn it on hard. as for sucking
the pan dry, that my still happen. the previous owner ran into a different
problem though. the heads filled with oil, and it got sucked out of the
valve cover into the headers (vacuum evacuation lines running from headers
to valve covers).

sleddog

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 12:15:09 -0800
From: Thomas Hogan
Subject: Gas tank for Highboy?

I don't know if 4x4 frames are different, but the rear gas tank (same
location as the spare) is stock for super cab trucks. If you look at
your bed there may be a cap over the hole for the filler. Crew cabs
still had the in cab tanks through 76. On a super cab the rear tank is
the main tank. The aux tank is in the same location at the front of the
bed. Check around. If you can find a super cab take some measurements
and see if it will fit. It doesn't seem to interfere with the spare
tire either.

Tom H.


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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 21:55:13 -0600
From: Jim Henjum
Subject: Gas tank for Highboy?

Does anyone know if there was a gas tank made that would fit inside the
frame rails of a '75 F250 4x4 in back? (34" from outside to outside) I
am quite sure ones off the newer 1/2 and 3/4 tons are too wide. I have
been told some older 1 tons and crew cabs would have a tank to fit, but
haven't found one. I hope to have it to the bare frame by the end of
tomorrow, and then I can start fitting stuff like this. Oh yea, I would

like to use the same filler tube. Anyone know? Thanks!

Ross Henjum

'75 F250 4x4 - getting ready for the 460!
'78 F150 - 302 and C-4 for sale, body to go on my '75

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:38:35 -0500
From: "Charles"
Subject: RE: 65 F250 4X4

The reverse image 105 was on the medium/heavy duty FT blocks so it is
probably a 361 FT block instead of a 360 FE although the bore and stoke are
the same. The differences are mainly on the bottom end and you'll need to
use bearings and seals specifically for the 361. The pistons you describe
could also be FT's but i've forgotten exactly what they look like. The 390
heads and intake should work just fine. Be aware that the FT's usually had
forged cranks and are Detroit balanced instead of zero balanced. The
harmonic balancer and flywheel have counterweights and are NOT
interchangeble with FE stuff.

On Friday, March 20, 1998 8:30 PM, WILLIAM L BALLINGER
[SMTP:ballingr ldd.net] wrote:
> I have a 65 F250 4X4 that I bought a little while back. It has all of the
> original drivetrain intact except for the engine. The engine is a mystery
to
> me. The seller claimed that it is a 360 with 390 heads(which as far as I
> know are the same as 360 heads) with 10,000 miles on it. It has a
terrible
> amount of blow-by but it doesn't; use any oil, smoke, or contaminate the
oil
> with gas. No smoke on start up, or crap on the dipstick. It runs really
good
> , but sounds like a threshing machine when it is warming up, but quiets
down
> tolerably when warm. The oil pressure is 55 psi at start up 25 at idle
when
> warm and 45 to 50 at highway cruise speed. It blows oil out of the filler
> cap at sustained 2800 to 3000 rpm operation. It has an atermarket cam
> (unknown specs) Performer 390 intake and headers. It makes 14 to 16hg of
> vacuam at 825 rpms with a little lope but smooth, and runs 22 to 25
degrees
> of initial timing at the balancer( with the vacuam advance unhooked)When
> Ipulled the pan to seal the (redneck tourque wrenched)pan the block
revealed
> another mystery. The main webs have three ribs instead of two and the pan
> rail is about 3/16 of on inch wider than another FE I had lying around.
It
> has a 105 cast backwards on the drivers side front of the block wher any
> other I've seen has a 352. It is a D3TE casting.
> My questions are:
> 1. Do you think that the blow-by could be the exhaust valve guides? The
> intakes aren't sucking oil.( no smoke ever )If so will it hurt to drive
it
> that way changin oil every 3000 miles?
> 2.Do you think that the noise is due to forged pistons? The undersides
when
> I had the pan off had crescent shaped ribs opposite to the pins, other
cast
> pistons I've seen are flat at the skirt with no reinforcement. What does
an
> FE forged piston look like from undrneath?
> 3. Is the oil pressure OK? and is it normal to blow out oil at highway
> speed? (2800 to 3000 rpms with my 4.56 gears and 31.50(supposed to be
> 12.50x33x16.5)ties)
> 4.Why does it need so much timing? There is no vibration anywhere, so I
> don't think that the balancer has slipped, you cant really see it because
of
> the front mount. I have ported vacuam advance and good responsive
> centrifugal advance, and no ping at all. It runs good.
> 5. Can anyone identify the block?
>
>
> Ballinger
> Preferred Company
> ballingr ldd.net
>
> +-------------- 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, 21 Mar 1998 16:39:02 CST
From: "Harry Jennings"
Subject: Re: 460 build-Up

>Subject: 460 hop-ups

>article on 460 build-ups. I am willing to scan this article for those
>of you interested.
>

I am interested!

Harry ~~ hjennings hotmail.com


Visit me at
HREF="http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/3271/index.html">my web
page.


______________________________________________________

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:37:30 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: Engine Wars!?

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:

> > From: "Harry Jennings"
> > Subject: Re: Engine Wars!?
> > Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 04:15:03 CST
>
> > In all out race engines, you have to realize that most don't allow
> > EFI. Therefore, the advances haven't been made and the knowledge
> > isn't there. In otherwords, the best NASCAR engine guy probably
> > couldn't build a very good EFI engine. So, *he* would think that EFI
> > makes less power. But given some time.........:)
>
> Most race applications are simple WOT operations which once tuned to
> max power don't care where the fuel comes from but do care how it's
> atomized. Carbs do this very well but are limited by only doing it
> well at one flow and pressure at the venturi (where it was tuned for)
> which is why the metering rod carbs do better on the street and the
> Holleys do better on the track. For racing EFI would be redundant
> and probably not offer any advantage IMHO. It also adds complexity
> which is not what most racers dream of. The simplest setup that does
> the job is the goal of most teams, I'm reasonably sure :-)
>

Adds complexity? When instead of changing jets or pills every time the
barometric pressure ortemperature changes the computer does it for you? It
takes some learning but punching in a few numbers or selecting preset
programs is much faster and you don't get dirty or burned by a hot
engine that there's no time to let cool.
George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 16:43:52 -0800
From: Alan Mittelstaedt / Chad Dailey
Subject: FE Oil pump priming shaft, FTV2 #163

Tyler--

Get an old distributor at the bone yard, grind off the cam gear, attach
your 1/2 inch drill to the rotor shaft, and voila, you have have an oil
pump priming shaft! The best part about these, is that it pressurizes
the top end as well as the bottom end.

Chad


> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:49:21 -0600
> From: Tyler Wilkins
> Subject: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft
>
> Anyone have a Oil Pump Primimg shaft they would want to sell or borrow
> me? I'll pay for shipping to me and back plus $5 or something if I can
> borrow it. The local parts shop wants $87 for one! They want like $8
> for one for my 351M. Whats up with the high price for the FE one?
> Anyways let me know, I know I could always make one, anybody made one
> that has any suggestions on the best way to do it?
>
> Tyler Wilkins

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:53:45 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: FORD Tools?

Tyler Wilkins wrote:

> In Ford's early years does anyone know if they sold 'tool kits' with
> their cars/trucks as even modern day motorcycle manufacturers still do?
> The reason I asked is yesterday I picked up three open-end wrenches with
> the Ford script (2 say Ford and one has Ford U.S.A.) on them at a
> rummage sale. They are obviously quite old by the antique look they
> have. Neat little wrenches though, I think I'm going to mount one on my
> dash of my '73 as decoration(FTC). I'm not planning on actually using
> these. I picked them up for $ .10 for all three. On the back of one it
> has T-1917 on it. 1917 Model T? Anyone have any ideas?
> `

If you look in any Ford shop manual you will see many tools being used and
numbers alwayssupplied. They all start with 'T'. The ones you see now have
many more digits and are never so
basic as a wrench but that's probably where the t prefix originated.
BTW, OTC makes all those tools in the manuals but if you ever tried to buy
them all you'd have to mortgage your house and still wouldn't have enough
money left over for parts. You can get by without allmost all of them.
George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 18:06:58 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:49:21 -0600
> > From: Tyler Wilkins
> > Subject: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft
>
> > Anyone have a Oil Pump Primimg shaft they would want to sell or
> > borrow me? I'll pay for shipping to me and back plus $5 or
> > something if I can borrow it. The local parts shop wants $87 for
>
> Go to a hardware store and get some hex stock the size of the pump
> shaft and cut it long enough to stick out where you can get a socket
> on it easily and do as previously suggested and use a "speeder"
> handle to crank it a few strokes.

That's why I suggested a 1/4 drive 5/16 socket. Most, except for the cheap
ones, will fit withoutany mods. Or get a deep socket. Then all you need is
a 3/8 to 1/4 adapter to the speeder. Beware, you can cook a cheap drill
motor doing this.You won't even break a sweat doing it by hand.

George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 18:28:53 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: 65 F250 4X4

Charles wrote:

> The reverse image 105 was on the medium/heavy duty FT blocks so it is
> probably a 361 FT block instead of a 360 FE although the bore and stoke are
> the same. The differences are mainly on the bottom end and you'll need to
> use bearings and seals specifically for the 361. The pistons you describe
> could also be FT's but i've forgotten exactly what they look like. The 390
> heads and intake should work just fine. Be aware that the FT's usually had
> forged cranks and are Detroit balanced instead of zero balanced. The
> harmonic balancer and flywheel have counterweights and are NOT
> interchangeble with FE stuff.
>

You can tell if it has a FT crank by the size of the snout. I don't know the
sizes off hand but ifyou have a FE crank handy you can compare them. Also, the
FT crank is forged and if you
look at the parting lines on the counterweights they will be a thin line on a
cast crank but quite wide
on forged.
Blowby is caused by compression blowing past the rings and pressurizing the
crankcase more than the ventilation system is able to get rid of. Either that
or the pcv valve or some other part of the pcv
system is not working or is clogged. Valve seals will cause smoke out the
exaust on startup or after
coasting or engine braking and then hitting the gas. If it smokes out the
exaust all the time while cruising it's probably an oil ring problem.
George

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:45:46 -0800
From: Alan Mittelstaedt / Chad Dailey
Subject: Engine Wars

Gang--

I'm a bit behind on all this, but I would like to make a couple of notes
to those individuals on the list that don't quite grasp these
conversations. Correct me if I'm wrong here guys (sleddog/chris) but
you gents are talking about Wide Open Throttle (WOT) race-type engines.....


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.