Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:38:13 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #50
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Wednesday, January 28 1998 Volume 02 : Number 050



=======================================================================
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: Rear sump oil pan 390 [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: Mike Schwall 300 6 cylinder [Mike Schwall ]
Re: V10 [Gardner ]
Re: MOPAR V10 [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
RE: V10 ["J. A. Knapper" ]
Re: Deaconbu's comments on responses to questions [FoMoCoNUT2
1969 f350 i-6 300 [Bruce Hart ]
Re: A couple of questions about my truck [Perry Farrell
Re: 1969 f350 i-6 300 [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re:Rear Sump Oil Pan for FE [BDIJXS ]
Re: F100 CrewCab springs [Ken Payne ]
Re: blue oval and url request [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: V10 [A64F100 ]
Re: Nodular 9" [Mike Blazek ]
RE: V10 [Sleddog ]
Re: Gas as a cleaner [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: A couple of questions about my truck [A64F100 ]
RE: Gas as a cleaner [Sleddog ]
Re: V10 [Don Grossman ]
Re: V10 [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: blue oval and url request [A64F100 ]
Re: Gas as a cleaner [danadeb pacbell.net]
Upgrades, where is the line drawn ["Deacon" ]
Re: FE conversion. long rods [sdelanty sonic.net]
Re: Torque Spec's on 289 [JRFiero ]
Finally got the check [Ken Payne ]
Re: A couple of questions about my truck [Impala502 ]
Re: 300 6 cyl [Jim Henjum ]
Re: 1969 f350 i-6 300 [Jim Henjum ]
Re: 1969 f350 i-6 300 [Steve & Rockette ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:57:45 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: Rear sump oil pan 390

>
>
>am14 chrysler.com wrote:
>
>> John: Only application I'm sure of for rear sump oil pans for the FE
>> series is the 4X4 360/390. Vans might also be rear sump, but I know
>> for sure the 4X4's are. Any FE will fit. Remember to get the oilpump
>> pickup tube and one of the center main bolts that helps to secure the
>> pickup tube and also the dipstick tube and dipstick is located in this
>> pan.
>>
>>
>
>Marko: Can you give me the part number off your pan just on the chance
>there is one sitting in a dealership somewhere.
>
>Thanks
>JOhn
>

Okay, it won't be till this weekend cause I'll be pulling the pan on Saturday.


marko

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:57:44 -0600
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: Mike Schwall 300 6 cylinder

At 09:48 AM 1/28/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Mike,
> Please do not take this as a prelude to war, I am just registering
>my opinion regarding the 300 inline 6 cylinder engine. I have owned a 90
>F-150 that had an inline 6 300 engine and regretted buying it because I did
>not feel it had enough smoke. I should have sprung for the 5.8 or some
>other engine!
>The 300 is an awesome little (ok, it is big for a 6 cyl.) motor. Very
>dependable and provides great service. Let me ask you oh devoted one to the
>inline 6 banger........EVER DRIVE AN FE V8? Again, Mike, Please this is
>not a flame or a bash, simply my opinion. I am a lover of the FE variant
>and a HATER of anything produced by Generic Motors! I really am on
>yourside!
>
>Nuke GM!
>Stu

Don't sweat it - this is what this list it for - talking about Fords. Sure
any V8 will over power the little 6, but the 300 6 is designed as a low RPM
torque motor. When I said truck motor, I didn't mean it in the sense that
it will do 0-60 in 5 seconds, I meant that it's designed for low RPM grunt
that, for it's size, is better than a stock V8 (except your big blocks).
It was designed for a working truck - as in doing what trucks were designed
for which is towing loads.

The 300 six has seven (7) main bearings - three more than a V8. It also
has gear driven valve train - no belts or chains to stretch/break. The 6
was built as a practically indestructible work truck motor.

I'd take a big block over the 300 6 any day, but if I was looking for
mileage and lots of low end torque for pulling a trailer or big boat, etc.,
I'd go for the 300 6.


>By the way, I know of some roundy round guys near here who have some really
>hopped up inline 300 6 bangers they run that produce gobbs of torque kicking
>everything it its way into the weeds!

Ever hear a 300 6 that has been race prepped spining six grand with nothing
but headers on it? Sounds sweet.

Mike

_____________________________________________

Email: mikes intx.net
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.intx.net/mikes

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:35:28 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: V10

Sleddog wrote:
>
> ok, i love the mopar v10, but this ain't a mopar list :) so, has anyone
> seen, driven, heard, or otherwise experienced the ford v10? i am curious
> as to it's nature. (can i put one in a '70's truck ford?)
>
> sleddog
>
> ----------
> From: Kurt Albershardt[SMTP:kurt nv.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 1998 2:28 PM
> To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
> Subject: Re: MOPAR V10
>
> At 11:50 AM 1/26/98 -0500, am14 chrysler.com wrote:
> >>>>>Dodges V-10 is a tuned down viper motor and there have been tuners
> >out there pumping out 700 plus horses with them!
> >
> >Vipers have aluminum heads. Dodge trucks are cast iron. Not quite the
> >same. Also use different cams - valves - exhaust and intake
> >manifolds.
> >Bolt patterns are the same.
> >
>
> Viper motor is tuned for high-RPM horsepower and the truck motor is tuned
> for low-RPM torque.
>
> 700 HP is also available from turbocharged small I-4s at 9500 RPM but I
> wouldn't want to put it in a 1-ton ;>
>
> +-------------- 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/ ----------+

I have friend who works at a custom shop and he rates as about the same
as the 460. The ford v10 is very small for a v-10..6.8liters i think. It
shares the duratec v-6 bore and stroke!(The contours v-6) I aonly recall
this from memory I will check my magazine when I get a chance!

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:19:27 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: MOPAR V10

>>Viper motor is tuned for high-RPM horsepower and the truck motor is tuned
>>for low-RPM torque.
>>
>>700 HP is also available from turbocharged small I-4s at 9500 RPM but I
>>wouldn't want to put it in a 1-ton ;>
>>
>
>The only Vipers I've ever seen are the ones on the windshields


Oops, I meant "vindshields"!

of Ford
>trucks driven by old Ukrainians around Two Hills, Alberta. But it doesn't
>rain much there, so they only get used once in awhile. My Viper motor works

that's "vorks"

>on electricity and makes much less than 700 horsepower.
>
>Stu Warner, vot do you tink?
>
>(Just making sure this thread has its required Ford content!)
>
>
>marko in vancouver
>(formerly of rural Ukraine, I mean Alberta)
>
>71 f250 4x4
>67 merc m100
>
>
>
>+-------------- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:20:34 -0500
From: "J. A. Knapper"
Subject: RE: V10

sleddog wrote:> ok, i love the mopar v10, but this ain't a mopar list
:) so, has anyone
> seen, driven, heard, or otherwise experienced the ford v10? i am curious
> as to it's nature. (can i put one in a '70's truck ford?)
>
> sleddog
The Ford v10 is 6.8L cast iron block aluminum head modular engine based
on the 4.6L V8. There's a balance shaft in one head (right one I think)
that is supposed to make a smoother running engine. I'm not sure of the
horsepower and torque, but if memory serves me correctly the HP was
about 5 more than the 460, and the torque about 10% more. I drove an
E350 with one in it, and was very impressed with the power. The bell
housing is the same as the 460 I believe.

Jim Knapper
1968 F100 390

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:58:22 EST
From: FoMoCoNUT2
Subject: Re: Deaconbu's comments on responses to questions

What Deaconblu wrote, and I have pasted portions below, IMHO should be almost
Law for our fine list. We continue to grow and I am sure all of us have
learned a thing or two or else we wouldn't be here. By following these
guidlines we sponsor what it is that really keeps us all here; comradeship and
the love of Ford trucks. By flaming we only add usless email to a large
portion we all sift thru each day. By good thourogh answers along with some
reccomended reading.... hmmmm think about that.... a reccomended reading list
for the very beginers out there.... maybe something we "guru's" publish on the
website ourselves.... hmmmm.. we can only help the hobby/profession and in
doing so help ourselves.

John Miller



> Don't flame someone for asking a question, no matter what the question
> is (with in reason). I still say the only stupid question is one that's
not
> asked. Look at it this way, by asking his question and learning the
> difference between the two. He learned more than anyone on the list
> today.

> Remember most of the things we learn from this list are from questions
> asked by another person.

> No harm no foul Bro. Parry! Ask away. In a couple of weeks on this list,
> you'll be a Ford truck Guru! :~)



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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:59:14 -0500
From: Bruce Hart
Subject: 1969 f350 i-6 300

the engine runs strong with tons of power 1st through 3rd gear but the
jump to fourth seems big.The problem I'm trying to adress is when
running in fourth and going up long grades the engine seems to go off
the power band at 2800 rpm and falls sharpley till I gear down to 3rd
where it will climb moutains.I realize the tranny gear spacing is part
of the problem and I'm definetley looking at changing to a t-19 or some
other more evenly spaced transmission(also have a line on a 5 speed
overdrive) but I would like to build more power into the engine and I've
heard there are some carb,manifold,and cam chages that can be made that
would help.Keep in mind the horse trailer loaded probably goes 8000 lbs
and I have a 455 rear-end so it takes about 3600 rpms to get to 60 mph
which is what I consider max towing speed but which I want availible.As
I said the engine runs great but is box stock and I would like to keep
it in the truck.I have a 67 gt 390 sitting in the barn but I want to
utilize the six because I just like inline sixes better.Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:54:57 -0500
From: Perry Farrell
Subject: Re: A couple of questions about my truck

Okay, first off, I'd like to give a big "screw you" to
kfowler laribay.net for answering my questions in a very immature
manner. I may have asked a stupid question, but at least I used proper
grammer, ahem... "these question"? I believe you left out an "s".
Normally I wouldn't care, but since you so blatantly (that means
obviously) pointed out that my post was so dumb, I figured why not point
out how yours is even dumber? Why the hell would I post questions if I
knew the answer? And I'd like to thank Scott L for not making fun of me
too much (yeah, my email address happens to be the lead singer of
Jane's) and especially Deacon Blues for being a nice guy and pointing
out that not everyone is a Ford truck guru. I'd also just like to say,
I've heard of a V8 302, and am familiar with some V8s, but since my
engine is a I6, and I am not too familiar with them, I kinda guessed it
was a 302... I knew it was at least 300 cu in, but I didn't know what
exactly. I'd also like to say that car audio is one area where I am very
knowledgable in, and the point of putting subs in the engine compartment
would be to have the bass coming from the front, which is very desirable
if you are competing. Anyways, now that I've kinda introduced myself,
I'd like to ask a few more stupid questions. About suicide doors: is
that just where the doors open backwards (the hinge is on the side
facing the bed, instead of the engine side)? If so, would it be possible
to convert my doors like that (I'm sure everybody knows it's a '77 F100
Custom)? I think suicide doors (or at least my impressions of what they
are exactly) would be a nice little novelty-type thing to do to my
truck, although it might just be stupid, in which case I restore them to
their original form. Also, shaving the door handles: what exactly does
this... do? Like, what does that mean? And what does it entail? I really
thank everyone who answered my questions truthfully, and I hope I get
some more straight answers. And Kevin, the next time you think about
flaming someone, stop and think what that'd make you: a FLAMER, flamer!

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:19:55 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: 1969 f350 i-6 300

Bruce Hart wrote:

>I have a 67 gt 390 sitting in the barn but I want to
>utilize the six because I just like inline sixes better.Bruce


Hey, FE nuts, are you paying attention?!!???!!!


marko ;-)

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:05:38 EST
From: BDIJXS
Subject: Re:Rear Sump Oil Pan for FE

Hi,

Someone was wondering where to get a rear-sump oil pan for the FE 390. They
came stock on the F-100 4x4's (360), at least for sure 1969 like mine, sounds
like the early 70's models as well. I had to replace mine recently, and bought
one at Ford, no problem.

Good Luck
Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:47:34 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: F100 CrewCab springs

At 12:21 PM 1/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Classic/Custom Springs: they have "over 17,000 OEM blueprints"
>
>Eaton Detroit Spring Co.
>
>1-313-963-3839
>
>
>
>Mike
>

That's the company that Classic Auto Restorer was referring to.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:54:50 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: blue oval and url request

jniolon uss.com wrote:

> I need the address of a discussion group that can handle CHE*Y
> problems...much like this one for Fords. Got a friend who needs some
> help.
>

Tell him to get a Ford and all of his problems will go away ;-)

Dana

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:51:47 EST
From: A64F100
Subject: Re: V10

I've heard that the ford V10 is a little lacking in the torque department, I
don't know how true it is, but it's something I've heard....


later,

Scott L

*Keep It Ford Blue*

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:50:00 -0600
From: Mike Blazek
Subject: Re: Nodular 9"

Azie:

I got mine out of a '68 Torino GT (also got the 428, but that's another
story).
In addition to the nodular housing, it also had a 31 spline Traction-Lok
diff. with 3.50 gears. Too bad the car was so rusty-I'd probably still have

it!

Mike
'73
F100

460/C6


am14 chrysler.com wrote:

> For all you older knowledgable FOMOCO gurus: Was the Nodular 9"
> offered in any FOMOCO vehicle as standard????? What was the most
> common offering as "optional"????
>
> Azie
>

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:04:12 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: V10

balance shaft? the "other V10" doesn't have one and purrs like an electric
motor. why does the ford need one? based onthe modular engines huh? does
that mean i can put one into a car/truck that uses the modular V8? is it
the same motor mounts locations as any other engine?

sleddog

- ----------
From: J. A. Knapper[SMTP:jim.knapper sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 6:20 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: RE: V10

sleddog wrote:> ok, i love the mopar v10, but this ain't a mopar list
:) so, has anyone
> seen, driven, heard, or otherwise experienced the ford v10? i am curious
> as to it's nature. (can i put one in a '70's truck ford?)
>
> sleddog
The Ford v10 is 6.8L cast iron block aluminum head modular engine based
on the 4.6L V8. There's a balance shaft in one head (right one I think)
that is supposed to make a smoother running engine. I'm not sure of the
horsepower and torque, but if memory serves me correctly the HP was
about 5 more than the 460, and the torque about 10% more. I drove an
E350 with one in it, and was very impressed with the power. The bell
housing is the same as the 460 I believe.

Jim Knapper
1968 F100 390






+-------------- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:10:40 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Gas as a cleaner

Here in california there is a company called Safety Clean or something like
that. I do not know if it is the same chemical but I bought some from them. (It
is the stuff that garages use)

Dana

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:10:43 EST
From: A64F100
Subject: Re: A couple of questions about my truck

> And I'd like to thank Scott L for not making fun of me
>too much (yeah, my email address happens to be the lead singer of
>Jane's)

Hey man, sorry about sort of goin off like that, It was wrong and I admit it,
after all, I don't know even 5% of what a lot of other people out there know.
I mean, put me around anything with complex electronics, and well, I'm
screwed. So, keep the questions goin and if anybody else gives you more crap
about it just ignore them.

Later,
Scott L

*Keep It Ford Blue*

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:12:34 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Gas as a cleaner

i currently have stuff from safety clean, and it works fairly well. yes it
is what most garages and machine shops and the like use that i know of. i
got mine for free, so i do not know what it costs.

sleddog

- ----------
From: danadeb pacbell.net[SMTP:danadeb pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 9:10 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Re: Gas as a cleaner

Here in california there is a company called Safety Clean or something like
that. I do not know if it is the same chemical but I bought some from them.
(It
is the stuff that garages use)

Dana






+-------------- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:16:29 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: V10

J. A. Knapper wrote:
> The Ford v10 is 6.8L cast iron block aluminum head modular engine based
> on the 4.6L V8. There's a balance shaft in one head (right one I think)
> that is supposed to make a smoother running engine. I'm not sure of the
> horsepower and torque, but if memory serves me correctly the HP was
> about 5 more than the 460, and the torque about 10% more. I drove an
> E350 with one in it, and was very impressed with the power. The bell
> housing is the same as the 460 I believe.
>
> Jim Knapper
> 1968 F100 390


Don't go telling me stuff like this. "The bell housing is the same and
the 460 I believe" It makes it sound like a bolt in. I just will not
do it. NO.

Well maybe...
- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net


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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:21:48 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: V10

There was an article in Classic Mustang ( don't know the name for sure ) in the
last 2 months. It gave some info on all of fords new engines.

Dana

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:18:38 EST
From: A64F100
Subject: Re: blue oval and url request

>Tell him to get a Ford and all of his problems will go away ;-)

This is a little off the subject but I know a guy who says "The best part of
my Ford is a ch*vy." Well, it's kinda ironic, he's a Ch*vy guy, but he now
owns more fords than ch*vys. Including 2 new powerstroke pickups, and a new
econoline 15 passenger van. One of the pickups has a "piss on Ch*vy" sticker,
that he put on it. Go figure...
Maybe he's seen the light, the ford blue one that is. :)

Later,
Scott L

*Keep It Ford Blue*

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:34:54 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Gas as a cleaner

As I recall I paid under $100.00 for 25 gallons.( 15 years ago )

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:31:47 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Upgrades, where is the line drawn

Hey Gang!
This is going to get stupid but I can't get it out of my head. Last year
I was getting parts to increase my '73 F100's payload. I came across my '76
F350 in a truck trader advertised as an F250 for $1200. I bought it because
I would have easily put $1200 into the F100 and wouldn't match the payload
of the F350.
Time to get stupid! Where is the line drawn for upgrading a truck before
it's registration is no longer valid? Reading about marko's truck and
countless others that change engines, rearends, frontends, transmissions and
frames. I have told myself there is no way I can change enough parts that I
would have a 1 ton '73 F100. Why would I even think of such foolishness? '73
is smog exempt in California, Blood letting ambulance chasing, BS insurance
is cheaper and it's bugging the hell out of me why I can't do it. If we have
any official smog nazi's on our list that can answer this question I Dana
would appreciate your input. If there aren't any, sorry Dana. :)
If the answer is I would have trouble selling it, so what! I'm not
planning on ever selling it. I could part it out for more than I have in it
if I wanted rid of it. The two trucks are so much alike I could pull the
drivers door off the F100 paint it white and put it on the F350 and change
the only vin # anyone would look at. The '73's registration is current so
there's no problems there.
Please stop me from thinking about this before my last bit of sanity
slips through my fingers, leaving me alone in a padded room with nothing to
do all day but post nonsense like this to the list. Thanks!


Deacon Blues deconblu gte.net
================================================
Visit The Deacon Blues Homepage
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/deconblu/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dragonfire.net/~site/tbirdknights/

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:33:18 -0800
From: sdelanty sonic.net
Subject: Re: FE conversion. long rods

>>> There's been a lot of traffic about the venerable FE series of
>>> motors. Here's a question. Hot Rod magazine has been running
>>> articles about building long rod (not stroke) motors with high
>>> compression (about 11.0:1) claiming more power and the ability to
>>> run on 87 octane pump gas.


> I read once on another list that the long rod left the piston at TDC for
>a longer amount of time. I have tried to understand this concept but for the
>life of me "That dog can't hunt". But the people I've heard it from know
>what their talking about. Does this make sense? I can see where it would be
>beneficial allowing a longer time for expansion of the burning gases. I just
>can't see how it would stay TDC any longer than a shorter rod.


It's one of those geometry thingies...
Sorry I can't do the math for You, but You can demonstrate it for Yourself.
Take a large sheet of paper or cardboard and draw about an 8 or 10" circle
on it. (Your crankshaft) Now draw a line from the center of the circle to
some point maybe 12" outside the circle (Your cylinder).
Mark 2 points on the circle about 3" either side of where the "cylinder"
line bisects it. With me so far?
Now take a ruler or stick 12" long and hold one end (the rod big end) on
the circle where the line bisects it.(TDC) Hold the other end (rod small
end) on the "cylinder line". move the stick "big end" back and forth
around the circle between the marks and note how much the top end wants
to move up and down the cylinder line.
Now shorten Your ruler or stick "connecting rod" to 6" and try it again.
The "small end" wants to move up and down more for the same amount of
crank rotation, don't it?
With a shorter rod, piston acceleration/deceleration is more severe in those
few degrees around TDC.
Longer rods increase the amount of time the piston dwells near TDC.

Did any of that make sense?

Long rods have several benefits, especially reduced piston side loading.
I wonder if one of the reasons You don't see long rod FE setups is finding
suitable rods that can be easily made to fit.?
And FE pistons with short compression heights?

Where's Dave Williams? He knows much muchness about such things...

Happy motoring,

Steve

"Laws do not persuade merely because they threaten."
-- Seneca, AD 65

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:41:03 EST
From: JRFiero
Subject: Re: Torque Spec's on 289

In a message dated 98-01-28 08:04:11 EST, you write:


> ft.lbs. >>




The footnote only applies to the main caps.
The Motor Manual has Ford & Mercury sections on Full Size, Compact and
Intermediate, Mustang II and Pinto, Thunderbird, and Lincoln Continental.
Except for the Mustang II and Pinto four cylinders, they ALL have 75-85 listed
as Flywheel to Crankshaft.
The little booklet that came with my Craftsman click-type torque wrench
lists the following torques for 289 from 63-70 (289 & 302 in same row).
heads 65-72
Rods 5/16, 19-24 3/8, 40-45
Mains 60-70
Flywheel to Crank 75-85
Balancer 70-90
Intake 14-16
Exhaust 13-18
Valve cover 3-5
Spark Plugs 15-20

Pretty close, huh?
In its general table of max suggested torques, #5 SAE 1038 3/8-24 cap screws
are good for 480 inch-pounds, 7/16-20 720 inch-pounds, 1/2-20 1140 inch-
pounds. Grade 8 1/2" go to 1620. Divide by 12.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:11:41 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Finally got the check

Finally received my check today for the lady who cut
me off in the BMW. Now looking for a 67 parts truck.
Anyone know of some good bone-yards in Georgia?

My favorite bone-yard went belly-up 4 months ago.

Ken

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:19:09 EST
From: Impala502
Subject: Re: A couple of questions about my truck

I don't know about the suicide doors, but i have had experience with shaved
handles. In most cases shaving your door handles is a fairly easy project
that involves taking the handles off, and filling the holes. Then you install
a electronic door opener, (big trouble if you batterie goes dead) it uses
solinoid operated "door popper" that pushes your door open. In my opinion, MY
opinion, cars and trucks look the best when you take off all outside
accesories ( handles, mouldings, emblems....) or none at all. :)

just my input

Neal Larson
1970 F-250 w/ 360

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:35:05 -0600
From: Jim Henjum
Subject: Re: 300 6 cyl

Mike,
In my dad's '79 F150 4x4, it gets right about 13 mpg., although last
summer we had a (cheap) glasspack muffler on there and it got almost 15
(my
dad didn't like the muffler and I took it off). It has almost 90,000
since
its rebuild, though.

Ross
Sunburg, MN




Michael Connor wrote:

> Gang,
>
> Just curious; what kind of mileage do you guts get running
> the 300 6cyl. in a full size truck?
>
> 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:35:19 -0600
From: Jim Henjum
Subject: Re: 1969 f350 i-6 300

Gary,
In our Chiltons manual it lists a 300 (carb) at 120 hp. and 220 lbs.
of torque.
I do like the engine for low rpm. It surprises me what it'll do under
1000 rpm.

Ross Henjum
Sunburg, MN




Gary Spradley wrote:

> >snip
>
> Being the past owner of a 300 six, I have nothing but good to say about this
> motor. Mine went 120,000 miles before I pulled it in favor of a Windsor.
> That same six is still running today in a work truck and doesn't use a drop
> of oil.
>
> All it's power was made way down low. As for the upper rpm range, it
> definately had its limits. Gearing down on the interstate during a climb
> was frequent here in Alabama, but in a 5500lb truck with 33" tires and 3.08
> gears what six wouldn't bog a little.
>
> After my expensive conversion to the Windsor, I noticed all sorts of aftermarket
> parts popping up for the I6. I believe Performance Automotive Warehouse out of
> California sells a kit to boost horsepower to 115 over stock. No torque figures
> were given with the kit.
>
> It includes a Cam, Offenhouser Intake manifold but I'm not sure if the 390cfm
> Holley came with it or not.
> Hooker is making a header for the 300.
> I can't imagine a 300 six with this kind of power. A little head work and it
> just might eat my Windsor's lunch.
>
> Can anyone give me the torque and horsepower figures on a stock 300 six?
>
> Thanks
> Gary Spradley....

---

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.