fordtrucks61-79-digest Monday, April 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 231




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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:05:53 -0700
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: T-cases

At 04:19 AM 4/23/98 -0800, Don Grossman wrote:
>>
>> Np 205 is probably the strongest light truck xfer case ever made.
>>
>
>Your moding everything else, go with a 2 1/2ton rockwell.

To the best of your knowledge, does/did anybody make a three-speed T-case? It seems to me this would eliminate the OD question once and for all. If it had 2-HI, 2-LO, 4-LO, 4-XLO I'd invest in one right now. You could run 3.05's or similar in the rear and still crawl with big tires.


+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:21:13 -0700
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: RE: Time for new glass

At 07:04 AM 4/25/98 -0400, THE PAVIES' wrote:
>looking like new. Maybe someone out there knows what it was and where to
>get some. The label on the stuff I used only had the usual military
>description: Stock Number 1234-567-8910 Cleaner, liquid, plastic.

Just go to a plastic supplier (like the afforementioned sign shop) and ask them for some plastic polish. There are several types, some for power buffers and others for hand application. They are _very_ finegrained abrasive polishes, and will remove small surface imperfections. For deeper scratches, get a stick of plastic buffing compound & put it on a wheel (wear a mask, it stinks.)




+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:29:20 -0700
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: Mileage

At 11:20 AM 4/22/98 +0000, Gary, 78 BBB wrote:
>
>As I said any engine in a truck is going to burn gas but the
>differences between the better ones like the 302 and the so called
>bad ones like the 460 aren't all that great in a truck. 351W's have
>never been considered economical and the HO's are notorious for poor
>economy in trucks even late model EFI versions. It just takes "X"
>amount of BTU's to make a truck cut the wind with over 4k pounds of
>iron. Theoretically the larger engines have the best potential for
>economy in a truck since they don't have to work as hard to make the
>torque required but the factorys don't seem to take advantage of that
>so it's up to us to figure it out.

All of this depends on gearing as well. If your effective final drive ratio (combination of trans gear, ring & pinon, and tire height) is setup so you cruise at or near the torque peak on your engine, you will extract the most mileage possible from your rig.

I have seen many people miss the mark on this one (myself included.)





+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 13:03:03 -0400
From: papacat webtv.net
Subject: Re: CV vs. U joints

they use them on the front shaft of a 75 blazer
(sorry for the dirty word) they were a couple
100.00 then to rebuild. they cost too much
for the factory to install. the old bottom line
thing.
+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 07:56:11 -0400
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: Carlisle/Garry

Would like to say Carlise was ok, Not great but Ok..I did get to
meet list member Garry and He brought me my 390 Intake(don't
worry Garry the hernia is ok!)Nothing like carrying a cast iron
intake for 2 miles.....!I'm getting ready now for the All Ford
Carlisle show in June...A Must for the Ford Owner!
Well gotta run my 390 is calling
- --
Joe
Aka. Fordguy
1968 F-100 4x4 302 Np435 Bone Stock down to the wheel covers
1970 F-250 4x4 390 Np435 The Beast
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://web.p3.net/~shoman
+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:23:20 -0700
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: clear up some things....

At 04:19 AM 4/23/98 -0800, Don Grossman wrote:
>>
>> > And another thing..does anyone know, cuz I don't,
>> > what was the heavy T-case Ford used back in the day? Was it a
>> > Np205
>>
>> Np 205 is probably the strongest light truck xfer case ever made.
>>


The NP-203 full-time case (optional in late '70s Fords) was about a foot longer and 80 pounds heavier than the 205. Almost as tough as the 205 but requires a conversion kit to convert to PT use. All kits are not equal, BTW. The more expensive ones replace the shaft & are MUCH stronger.




+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:08:45 -0500
From: "D Parker"
Subject: '70 F-100 shift tube

In trying to fix the shift tube on my '70 F100 (3 on the tree) I discovered
that some of the tubes were 28" long and others 28&1/2". Had to weld top of
one to bottom of another to get one good one (28 1/2") for my truck. Can
anyone tell me why? Has it got to do with power steering (mine is standard)
or what? Also has anyone ever seen a detailed drawing of the column to
include bearings etc.? These things are very hard to find and if you do the
prices are out of sight..
Thanks, Don
...someday the war's gonna end...


+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:11:46 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (WILLIAM L BALLINGER)
Subject: Carbs

>I am looking to replace my current carb (Holley 750) with something else
>that
>allows me to tune it much easier (change Jets, fine degree of tuning, etc)

You can't beat a Holley for easy tuning. Sleddog is right about the plates.
They work and are a great idea for your purpose. Good Luck with it.

>Oh my lord! Stand back you have angered the FE gods now! OTOH there are a
>few 460 devotees here who may defend you but this thread could get ugly!
>Ken, grab your bowtie...(no, not the motor!)... you may want to referee
>this one..

Easy guys.... I live on a fault line, is that a volcano I hear? I think I'll
stock up on water and canned goods....


Ballinger
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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 15:33:40 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: Carb Questions

At 01:53 AM 4/26/98 EDT, you wrote:
>This question is for those who have experience with multiple brands/types of
>carbs.
>
>I am looking to replace my current carb (Holley 750) with something else that
>allows me to tune it much easier (change Jets, fine degree of tuning, etc)

I had a holley on my FE390 before I put the edelbrock on, and I would
never use a holley again... I hated mine.
The edelbroock doesn't leak, it has better throttle response and low/mid
range performance, it doesn't leak, it doesn't blow power valves, it doesn't
leak, it's much easier to change jetting, it doesn't leak, it doesn't spew
fuel all over Your manifold when You change the jets (it's hard enough to
keep paint on an aluminum manifold), and it doesn't leak. I had a lot of
trouble with my holley leaking...
Despite substantial tuning efforts I never got the part throttle response
on the holley as nice and crisp as I'd like. Acceptable, maybe. Good, not.

Changing main jets on the e-brock requires removing the carb top cover,
but the cover comes off with just a few screws and I can change jets
in less than 5 minutes on mine. Many times during tuning You don't need
to change the jets themselves but just the metering rods, and these can
be changed by removing the air cleaner and then removing 2 screws that
hold the metering rod covers on. Takes about 2 minutes to change rods...
If You get the ebrock, get the tuning kit that has the jet/rod/spring
selection. It's about $40 I think and has most every combination of
jetting parts You'll need to get it tuned nicely.

If You get the holley, spring the extra $ for the quick-change kit and then
You can maybe change jets as fast as the e-brock.
Buy lots of spare power valves, bowl gaskets, and fuel transfer tube O-rings.
You'll need 'em.
I've rebuilt and tuned a few holleys and I'm not impressed.
Lots of folks love the holleys and swear by 'em, but I think they're
more trouble than they're worth.

My $.02, YMMV, etc...

Steve

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
-- Hunter S. Thompson

+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:50:09 EDT
From: BDIJXS
Subject: NP 435 bolt pattern

I'm trying to attach an NP-205 (1977 F-150) transfer case to my 74 F-100 NP
435. It appears that the bolt pattern on the back of the NP 435s changed
slightly sometime between 74 ("square" pattern) and 77 ("trapezoid" pattern).
It doesn't look like the adapter from the 77 will bolt up the back of the 74
tranny, unless there are some bolt holes hidden by the current 74 adapter.....

I've sent Advance Adapters a message, still waiting on a response....

Anyone been through this or have any ideas here????

Colorado Jeff
+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 98 19:02:56 PDT
From: Molly & garry Catalano
Subject: RE: Carlisle/Garry

Joe, I guess I would say for me it was great, considering that I found the 427 steel crank for $100. And I also got a hernia from it! Let me know how you make out with the intake. Garry
- --- On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 07:56:11 -0400 Joe DeLaurentis wrote:
Would like to say Carlise was ok, Not great but Ok..I did get to
meet list member Garry and He brought me my 390 Intake(don't
worry Garry the hernia is ok!)Nothing like carrying a cast iron
intake for 2 miles.....!I'm getting ready now for the All Ford
Carlisle show in June...A Must for the Ford Owner!
Well gotta run my 390 is calling
- --
Joe
Aka. Fordguy
1968 F-100 4x4 302 Np435 Bone Stock down to the wheel covers
1970 F-250 4x4 390 Np435 The Beast
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://web.p3.net/~shoman
+-------------- 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/ ----------+

- -----------------End of Original Message-----------------

+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 17:58:17 -0700
From: Aaron Jacobson
Subject: Re: Hard Starting

I am running a 351c in my 65 without this problem. I did have a 71
Custom 500 with a cleveland that had the same problem.After playing
around with the timing with no results I started on the starting system.
It eventually turned out to be a lot of corroded cables and a bad cable
from the battery to the solonoid. It only did this when it was hot.I
guess when the engine was cold it wasn't as tight and the problem wasn't
noticed. Just a guess. Hope it helps

Jake
65 f250
351c
+-------------- 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, 25 Apr 1998 07:41:11 -0300
From: sbest
Subject: Re: CV vs. U joints

>>From Steve
>> Soooo... how come CV joints aren't used on rear axle drivelines?
>> Wouldn't CV's make driveline angles less critical?
>
>From: "Deacon"
> My '70 Bronco did have CV joints. They were the dual spider type
>(also called something else that I can't remember, but they were CV
>joints non the less). It would be my guess that cost keeps them from

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%4X4%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

>From SBest:
You are right Deacon, they are a type of CV joint, called a "Double
Cardan" joint and they do allow about double the angle of a standard
"U" joint without undue vibration, but I think the 1st Steve was
refering to a sealed ball bearing "FWD" style of constant velocity
joint instead of the standard cross types.

Anybody know if we can retrofit this style of CV joint to or lifted
truck or even better yet to the front axle joints?
Would it be worth the effort?


Steve Best, Nova Scotia, sbest glinx.com
4 wheel drive van page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
Tire chains, camping gear, tools, Bronco and some shooting stuff too.

+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 18:55:53 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: NP 435 bolt pattern

BDIJXS wrote:

> I'm trying to attach an NP-205 (1977 F-150) transfer case to my 74 F-100 NP
> 435. It appears that the bolt pattern on the back of the NP 435s changed
> slightly sometime between 74 ("square" pattern) and 77 ("trapezoid" pattern).
> It doesn't look like the adapter from the 77 will bolt up the back of the 74
> tranny, unless there are some bolt holes hidden by the current 74 adapter.....
>
> I've sent Advance Adapters a message, still waiting on a response....
>
> Anyone been through this or have any ideas here????
>
> Colorado Jeff

All that I can think of is to find the matching 435 case out of a 4x. Sorry
- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacific.net/~duckdon

63 F-100 4x4 with 3/4 ton running gear and most of the trimmings.


+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:43:43 -0400
From: DC Beatty
Subject: RE: MOTOR?

Jay. There are stamped numbers in the block in a couple of locations.
Unfortunately, I never have figured out which is the motor number. =


On the driver's side, follow the dipstick down toward the block. There's =
a
little rectangular flat chunk of the block that sticks out. It's above th=
e
oil filter and directly below the front lower head bolt. The dipstick on
mine goes right under this little reciting. Anyway, it's probably greasy =
to
wipe it off or spray brake cleaner on it. There should be numbers stamped=

on the face of this rectangle. =


Also, in the back of the motor on the driver's side (errr, might be
passenger side, can't recall) just under the cylinder head there should b=
e
a stamped number. This will be real tough to see without a light, a mirro=
r,
and a clean surface. I had my motor out and still couldn't see it until I=

shot brake cleaner at it. It's there though. =


I hope this helps,

Drew Beatty
1967 F100 352 (soon to be 390)
1974 Maverick 302

wrote: =


Can someone please tell me where the engine numbers are on a 1965 352. I =

can't find them on my truck. When I bought it I was told I had a 352 =

with 390 heads and then later I was told I had a 390 with the 352 heads. =
=

Haven't had a thing go wrong with it and the folks in the town where I =

live El Paso Texas arn't real friendly with Ford owners. Thier Chevy =

Fans here. Opps sorry I used that bad word.
Thanks >> =

+-------------- 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: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:29:19 -0700
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: Bronco Side Windows

Anyone have a source for the optional rear side windows for the 78-79
Bronco?
They are the ones that have a slide open section in the front part of the
window, some were even screened.
Still looking for feedback on the SmittyBuilt in cab rollbar/cage for the
78-79 Bronco, anyone?

Chris
79 Bronco
It is good to see this beast going back together!





+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 08:35:45 -0500
From: "John LaGrone"
Subject: CV Joints

Steve,

You just haven't been looking in the wrong places. Lots of GM cars had CV
joints in the mid sixties to mid seventies including the full sized 65-70
Buicks and 65-70 Cadillacs. If you want to add CV joints or compound
U-joints to a custom shaft, these might be a good place to start looking.
After owning them, I found them a royal pain to repair.

My brother had a 66 Caddy that he took the rear CV joint out of and
replaced with a u-joint. He shortly broke the drive shaft, so be careful,
you are talking critical components.


- -John

jmlagron tenet.edu
1979 F150 Custom 351M C6
1988 Towncar 5.0 EFI AOD
1979 MC (my son is rebellious)

Dearborn iron rules!!!!!!


+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 03:35:34 -0500
From: ballingr ldd.net (WILLIAM L BALLINGER)
Subject: Re:360-460 swap

>am considering getting rid of my boat anchor-360 for
>something a little more peppy (i.e. 460)

Boat anchor? It's much too heavy for that!!!!

The 385 series is a fine group of engines for trucks, but a bone stock
garden variety 460 might not satisfy you as much as you'd expect, and will
burn more gas than old ironman. Am I disrespecting the 460? Not at all. They
are the next phase of our performance future as FE stuff continues to dry
up. As a sidelight, imagine how long these engines have been out of
production, and the following they still carry. There are good reasons for
that. They were the consumate truck engine right out of the box. They were
so suited to the purpose that hardly any aftermarket engineering is required
to make them real work-horses. In fact in many cases you go backwards when
you "improve" them. The 360-390 is a fine engine that will stand and
deliver, not just when fresh and new, but when 150,000 miles of oily sweat
covers up the Ford Blue.

Debating the qualities of each can be divisive. Each has it's loyal
following, and I won't fan those fires by running either down. The 460,
though considerably heavier than the FE, gives a fine accounting of itself
and generally responds better to aftermarket modifications than the FE. Some
years were downright sluggish and won't pull any better than your 360 and
eat you out of house and home to boot. Part selection is important here, and
no other place on earth will give you better support than our resident 385
series afficianados.

Of course, if you decide to put a little starch in the old ironman there's
plenty of experience on this list for that too. A little advice... some
folks take offense at "Stationary Marine Use Only" tags being applied to
their object of affection, almost like telling them their wife's ugly ;)
Just a little fire prevention, you know...


Ballinger
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: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:02:50 +0000
From: "Peters"
Subject: Apology......

OK, OK, I apologize for dumping on my FE engine. I'll give it credit
- - 22 years old and nothing besides a timing chain! Seriously, if you
FE guys are so damn sure these motors are the best, how about some
tips on how to get more out of my 360? It's pretty well stock
everything for a '76 F150 4X4 - NP435, 2bbl carb. I'd stay with the
360 if i could get more bang for the buck. I get horrible gas mileage
(which I don't mind), if I only got something in return besides a
brick!
***********************************************************
Geoff Peters
#885, Route 845
Kingston, N.B.
E5N 1G2
(506) 450-5775 (cell)
(506) 763-3987


+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 10:19:52 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Hard Starting

> From: GEGK00A prodigy.com ( DAN LEE)
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 00:47:01, -0500
> Subject: Hard Starting

> I have a '53 F100 with a 351C-4V. When the engine is cold I pump the
> gas once to set the choke, crank the starter a few turns and it
> starts up and runs fine. If I stop and shut the engine off and try
> to restart in a short time, it is real hard cranking.

All the 335 and 385 series engines I've had do the same thing, once
the engine is fully warmed up and shut off for roughtly 5 minutes.
If you leave it longer or get back to it sooner it starts fine. This
symptom suggests "Hot Soak" IMHO which can be any of several things
but most often is percolating of fuel into the intake due to heat and
when restarting you have an over rich mixture which causes the
timing to be way too advanced for the mix and it kicks or back fires
on startup. My 460 will sometimes turn over very slowly and could be
a starter heat probelm due to the headers or bad cables as one
suggested, not sure but I suspect it's the same thing as the bronco
and is fuel related as well since both really stink of fuel after
sitting.

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 --
+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 11:22:30 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Carb Questions

> From: SuperMagot
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:53:44 EDT
> Subject: Carb Questions

> I am looking to replace my current carb (Holley 750) with something
> else that allows me to tune it much easier (change Jets, fine degree
> of tuning, etc)

My understanding is that the Holley is hard to beat for your purpose
when set up right. You can convert it to an externally swapable jet,
double pumper set up and then all internal adjusments can be made
without taking it apart. The only other thing you can change on it
might be the accellerator pump nozzles, Idle mixture and those round
thingies I can never remember the name of which atomize the fuel
better in the venturis (anular discharge?). These modifications
should cost less than a new carb and should give you what you need
from what I've been hearing.

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 --
+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 09:23:29 -0700
From: Scott Deutsch
Subject: 1978 Ford Courier XLT "For Sale"

For Sale: 1978 Ford Courier XLT pickup truck, good for parts, needs muffler, battery. Asking $500 od best offer. Need to get rid of it. Thanks!
E-Mail: sdjd nightmail.com
+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 12:28:36 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: The old engine war again...

> From: "Peters"
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 08:02:50 +0000
> Subject: Apology......

> 360 if i could get more bang for the buck. I get horrible gas
> mileage (which I don't mind), if I only got something in return
> besides a brick!

Engines are just chunks of iron with holes in them. They can ALL be
made to run and run economically with the right parts. Some require
a bigger wallet that others. The FE happens to be one of these but
it can be made to run well with a little patience and fine tuning
etc..

The reason many of us prefer the 460 is due to availability and it's
the cheapest way to get 400# of torque at 2000 rpm with no fuel
economy penalty, that's right, NO FUEL ECONOMY PENALTY!. People who
claim it's more of a gas hog than the 360 or 351M or 400 haven't
really paid much attention to reality. A poorly tuned 460 will eat a
lot of gas as will a poorly tuned 360 or 351m or 400 but a properly
tuned 460 will give you an economical run for your money and 400# of
torque to boot and parts are easier and cheaper to find etc..

I've owned all of these engines and can safely say there is no
difference in the economy in a truck that's properly set up in stock
configuration. I can also say the 460 will show signs of poor setup
sooner than the others (in economy) because it's bigger obviously but
that's no excuse to accuse it of being more of a hog than the others,
you just need to pay attention to the details. (worth the extra
trouble IMNSHO) :-)

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 --
+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 10:36:21 -0400
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Apology......

drop in the 460! c'mon! you know you want to do it! you said yourself
you don't mind bad MPG, and want REAL power! i dare ya , i double dare ya!

really, that's IMHO the best way, but turn that 360 into a 390 toss a 4bbl
on it and 4bbl intake with a good hydraulic cam and headers (like a Comp
Cams 280h grind) and then stand back! these 390FE's can really haul a$$
(or what ever it is you put in the back of your truck!)

of course, a stock 460 still gives more than the stock 390, and a built 460
gives more than a built 390. and a supercharged 460 . . . .

anyway, $ for $, the 390 will be cheaper to build now, but the 460 will
give you the most bang for your buck down the road. it is more work to do,
but imagine the pride you'll have afterwards!

and i still do not beleive that the 460 is heavier than the FE. one day i
think i'll have to put them on the scale.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Peters[SMTP:r342 unb.ca]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 4:02 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Apology......

OK, OK, I apologize for dumping on my FE engine. I'll give it credit
- - 22 years old and nothing besides a timing chain! Seriously, if you
FE guys are so damn sure these motors are the best, how about some
tips on how to get more out of my 360? It's pretty well stock
everything for a '76 F150 4X4 - NP435, 2bbl carb. I'd stay with the
360 if i could get more bang for the buck. I get horrible gas mileage
(which I don't mind), if I only got something in return besides a
brick!
***********************************************************
Geoff Peters
#885, Route 845
Kingston, N.B.
E5N 1G2
(506) 450-5775 (cell)
(506) 763-3987


+-------------- 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/ ----------+




+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 09:41:38 -0700
From: "Bill Beyer"
Subject: Re: Carb Questions

- ----------
> From: Gary, 78 BBB
> To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
> Subject: Re: Carb Questions
> Date: Monday, April 27, 1998 4:22 AM
>
> > From: SuperMagot
> > Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:53:44 EDT
> > Subject: Carb Questions
>
> > I am looking to replace my current carb (Holley 750) with something
> > else that allows me to tune it much easier (change Jets, fine degree
> > of tuning, etc)
>
> My understanding is that the Holley is hard to beat for your purpose
> when set up right. You can convert it to an externally swapable jet,
> double pumper set up and then all internal adjusments can be made
> without taking it apart. The only other thing you can change on it
> might be the accellerator pump nozzles, Idle mixture and those round
> thingies I can never remember the name of which atomize the fuel
> better in the venturis (anular discharge?). These modifications
> should cost less than a new carb and should give you what you need
> from what I've been hearing.
>

You can also replace the accelerator pump cam and vacuum secondary spring
to help with the "fine degree of tuning." Summit sells kits with these
components or find a local parts store with a good stock. They'll have
multiple choices for both of these and they're all color coded.

+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 09:41:39 -0700
From: "Michael Connor"
Subject: Re: The old engine war again...

Friends,

Let me echo Gary's comments about the fuel economy of the
various engines mentioned.
I've ran the 351M,400M and the 460 in the same truck spanning
a period of over 18 years. The original bone stock 351M got around
10mpg, loaded down or empty, didn't matter, and was GUTLESS.
I know there are guys that like the M's but boys thats all I can say
about it. I went to a 400M when the 351 crapped out, and put all
Edelbrock stuff in it (cam, timing set, lifters, intake, and Carter
9637 carb). The 400 had more power over the 351 but still got the
SAME mileage. The 460 I currently run easily has twice the power
and torque of the M engines and gets the same mileage, about 10mpg.
I'm very pleased with the 460 and would heartily recommend them.
You won't be sorry.


Regards,
Mike
Phoenix, AZ.

+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 12:11:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Stu Varner
Subject: RE: Apology......

>really, that's IMHO the best way, but turn that 360 into a 390 toss a 4bbl
>on it and 4bbl intake with a good hydraulic cam and headers (like a Comp
>Cams 280h grind) and then stand back! these 390FE's can really haul a$$
>(or what ever it is you put in the back of your truck!)


Oh and just think of the pride you'll have when you smoke some new fangled
chebby
piece of _______ with a 40 year old engine design!!

>
>of course, a stock 460 still gives more than the stock 390, and a built 460
>gives more than a built 390. and a supercharged 460 . . . .
>
>anyway, $ for $, the 390 will be cheaper to build now, but the 460 will
>give you the most bang for your buck down the road. it is more work to do,

+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 13:18:57 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: The old engine war again...

> From: "Michael Connor"
> Subject: Re: The old engine war again...
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:41:39 -0700

> it. I went to a 400M when the 351 crapped out, and put all Edelbrock

That's it MIke, I'm quitting the list if we can't be more accurate in
our discussions..................There never was a 40.............:-)
You did that on purpose just to see if we were awake right? Ok, Ok
I'm just kidding, dang! you guys take all the fun out of it with all
these disclaimers................

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 --
+-------------- 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, 27 Apr 1998 10:44:03 -0700
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Engine weights (wars?)

>anyway, $ for $, the 390 will be cheaper to build now, but the 460 will
>give you the most bang for your buck down the road. it is more work to do,
>but imagine the pride you'll have afterwards!
>
>and i still do not beleive that the 460 is heavier than the FE. one day i
>think i'll have to put them on the scale.
>
>sleddog

A friend of mine has a cheap cherry picker and I've helped him pull
motors on a couple of trucks with it, including a late 60's FE390 and
a '77 460. The FE was pretty scary on the light duty hoist, but was....


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.