fordtrucks61-79-digest Friday, February 6 1998 Volume 02 : Number 076



=======================================================================
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: 428 flywheel ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
'77 4X4 [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: 390 or 460? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
'65/'66 F150 [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Dead at 55mph [ECampb5214 aol.com]
Re: 1972 ranger XLT.....help! [ECampb5214 aol.com]
Re: Brakes, bleeding, pressure...... [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: greasable throw bearing [Don Grossman ]
flywheel fix [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: rebuilt distributor ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: rebuilt distributor [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re:Differnce in Mercury/Ford Vans [RL ]
RE: Carb size and V.E. software ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re:Differnce in Mercury/Ford Vans [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
"loops" [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: 428 flywheel [dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)]
428 flywheel [am14 chrysler.com]
"Floating a Valve" [Keith Srb ]
Parts truck [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Toppers, Shells, Cap's [Kurt Albershardt ]
Re: Carb Size? [Kurt Albershardt ]
Re: Toppers, Shells, Cap's [Kurt Albershardt ]
390 or 460 [am14 chrysler.com]
Input/output of NP435/NP205 [am14 chrysler.com]
RE: "Floating a Valve" [Sleddog ]
RE: Parts truck [Sleddog ]
351M manifold [Dennis Pearson ]
Balancing 410e [am14 chrysler.com]

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:56:14 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 428 flywheel

> From: am14 chrysler.com
> Subject: 428 flywheel
> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:46:38 -0500

> says. The starter is the identifier here. If it has a half cover
> over the Bendix, and the shaft for the bendix is enclosed on the end
> of this covering, then it is the later version(more teeth on the
> ringgear). If the bendix is just hung out there on a shaft exiting
> from the starter with no surrounding at all, then it is the earlier
> version with fewer teeth on the ring gear.

I started to work here in 65 and didn't see the starter operation
then (went right into the army) so not sure when they switched over
but as late as the late 70's I was still repairing and making the old
style starter with long shaft. I believe my 62 F-600 had this style
and we called them "truck" starters. The bendix actually worked
backward and came from the end of the shaft back toward the motor to
engage the flywheel and the bendix was pinned or keyed to the shaft.

The next generation was in production from the mid 60's to the mid
80's and is called the "positive engagement" starter and came in
either 4.5" or 4" for large or small engines, had a much shorter
shaft and the bendix actually rides on splines in the shaft and moves
outward from the motor so is much more compact. The 4.5 with
selenoid is called the 4 pole and is preferred for the 460 due to
better torque. We used to make a modified version of this for AMC
years ago.

Now we make the geared starter similar to the chrysler type of old
which started in the mid/late 80's and is touted to have even more
torque but turns at 18k rpm on the input and 4500 on the output, same
as the older style. The teeth on the new style will work with the
460's and I'm told is a good choice for cold starting etc. but doubt
if there are any to fit the FE engines, not sure.

I noted a tooth count change in the 351M/400 in a certain year (don't
remember) by one tooth but they all use the same
starter............???

Is this the kind of stuff the Ch**y guys use when they say fords are
hard to work on cuz of all the changes???

Where's Murphy when
you really need him??

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:01:15 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: '77 4X4

Marko: I forgot to include this in my earlier post. Both have Disc
brakes - both have Dana 60's in the rear and Dana 44's in the front.
If I can find a Dana '60 front reasonably priced, I will change the
long one over. I have a Dana '70 in one of my farm trucks that I might
put in the rear, but it has 3.73 gears, and all my other axles have
4.10's front and 4.11's rear. If I could locate a front Dana 60 with
3.73 gears, that would be ideal. The Camper special is C6. The long
one is NP435, but that too is subject to change. I'm contemplating
some type setup with auto OD. The wife may wind up driving this one on
occasion, and "Clutch" is not in her vocabulary, if you know what I
mean.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:08:12 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 390 or 460?

> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 05:11:21 -0800 (PST)
> From: John Pajak
> Subject: 390 or 460?

> Alright folks, help me out! Should I convert my 360 to a 390 or
> go through all the pain and heartache of finding a 460/C6 and all
> the mounts, manifolds, etc to make the conversion? I realize the 460

I would build up the 390 if I had ANY of the parts I needed since it
can be made to run very strong, probably strong enough to keep you
happy for a while and will require NO other changes to the vehicle or
drive train.

To use the 460 you will have the cost of a rebuild, new tranny,
mounts, pan, radiator, any bracketry for accessories and probably a
new drive shaft. This is all well and good if you enjoy tinkering
but not if you enjoy tinkering with a race car instead IMHO. We only
have so much time for tinkering............:-(

I went with 460 because my setup already used the same tranny and
initially because I built a 4x4 van which needed all new drive train
parts anyway. It was a lot of work but worth it in my case. Puting
that motor in the PU was a bolt in operation so it was a no brainer
since I already had mounts etc made up and had the radiator and pan
etc..

With L&L mounts it will be a bolt in proposition in the bronco so I
will be building a new one for that project cuz I want to. Until
then the 351M will suffice :-)

Where's Murphy when
you really need him??

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:17:38 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: '65/'66 F150

I noticed on my way to work this morning a truck sitting out next to
the road that might be for sale. It has a sheet of notebook paper
stuck in the windshield, and I assume it has some
information/pricing/phone # kind of stuff on it. If anyone is intere
sted I will investigate. 1965 or 66 F150 2X4. Looked like the long
bed - pale blue and white - chrome grill (this was Custom offering I
believe). The rest I don't know about, but will gladly stop and look,
if anyone has an interest.
It was a georgous looking truck, just passing by. Might be a dog up
close.

I'm only on the list at work, and this is Friday (Thank God), so it
will be Monday before I can get you any info.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:34:02 EST
From: ECampb5214 aol.com
Subject: Re: Dead at 55mph

No code scanner in the world could of found that.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:36:36 EST
From: ECampb5214 aol.com
Subject: Re: 1972 ranger XLT.....help!

I got some of that 70's trim for sale in good condicission. 76 f250 xlt
ranger

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:39:36 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Brakes, bleeding, pressure......

Gary, 78 BBB wrote:
>
> > From: danadeb pacbell.net
> > Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 21:38:52 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Brakes, bleeding, pressure......
>
> > The loops were there to keep the lines from fatiguing and braking,
> > when the body flexes relative to the frame. I hope you don't have
> > problems in the future!
>
> Yeah, I left quite a bit of line so it can move around quite a bit.
> It still has a big "bulge" in it near the MC, just not a full loop.
> I leave several bends in all my lines to allow for shrinkage in
> winter as well. If my body and frame flex away from each other that
> much I'm in trouble anyway :-) I've actually been thinking of using
> braided teflon line for the whole system. Anyone ever try that?
> Might make the brakes a little more mushy? Might be an improvement
> :-) Wouldn't take much to improve my brakes :-(
>


I don't know Gary! I have had the SS hose on a 56 but only from frame to wheel
cyl / caliper. At the time I was told that the SS hose was not approved for the
use due to the fact that it melted in a fire and left nothing for investigators
to examine afterwards ( I can not vouch for the accuracy of the last statement
it was told to me 10 years ago by the people I bought the hoses from. ) I was
sent a post a while back reporting a story where a guy was charged with
manslaughter for killing someone when his brakes went out ( He had made some
kind of mistake that caused the failure ) OOOOOOOOUUUUUUCCCCCCCHHHHHHHH!!!!


IMHO Do it by the book! then there is no way for a problem.

Dana

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:38:27 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: greasable throw bearing

Thank you

I just think we crossed in the mail ;)
- --
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: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:39:48 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: flywheel fix

Okay, I can now sleep calmly again.

The machine shop will "unbalance" my 352 flywheel in order to balance the
410 crank assembly, by drilling. No ugly counterweight-projectile things.

Apparently, I probly wouldn't be too happy with a 428 flywheel for my
application anyway, as I will be using smaller pistons and lighter rods than
a 428 would. The shop thinks that I'll probly end up with a
close-to-neutral assembly prior to balancing anyway, so a 428 flywheel would
be overkill.

As for a heavier flywheel, he says it could rob horsepower on acceleration,
and since I'll have heaps of torque anyway, it shudn't be a problem.

It isn't like I'll be hauling a yard of cement in the thing every day.


marko

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:16:45 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: rebuilt distributor

> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 19:16:27 -0800
> From: marko
> Subject: rebuilt distributor

> I have a question, it seems to be made of gray iron, not of cast
> aluminum like some others. Does this really make any difference?
>
> It says "motorcraft" on it so I would think it's probly just a later
> casting.

Motor Craft has to be late 70's early 80's and I've never seen an
iron distributor housing as long as I've worked here so if it really
is iron, lock it up and take it to the channel 30 antique show to
have it appraised...............Really, I've never seen an iron
distributor on anything, ever??

It must be discolored by what ever solvent they cleaned it with or
preparation they finished it with. Pretty easy to check with a
magnet..........:-) Does it have the number 12127 cast into it
somewhere? That's the ford generic part number for a distributor of
any kind and is cast into all castings.

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:28:13 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: rebuilt distributor

>Motor Craft has to be late 70's early 80's and I've never seen an
>iron distributor housing as long as I've worked here so if it really
>is iron, lock it up and take it to the channel 30 antique show to
>have it appraised...............Really, I've never seen an iron
>distributor on anything, ever??
>
>It must be discolored by what ever solvent they cleaned it with or
>preparation they finished it with. Pretty easy to check with a
>magnet..........:-) Does it have the number 12127 cast into it
>somewhere? That's the ford generic part number for a distributor of
>any kind and is cast into all castings.
>
Geez. I hope they gave me the right one! It came with the proper cap for a
360/390 though, the small blue one. I'll change that for a spacer and wide
cap (yes, and the rotor too!). I could be just plain stupid (well, no I
know that already) but I usually know Iron when I see it as opposed to
Aluminum. Maybe they did sandblast it or something but it feels HEAVY,
heavier than the smooth cast aluminum. They painted it cast iron grey so
that is helping my impression somewhat. You know how a water pump looks
when you buy it rebuilt, not a totally smooth surface on the outside, almost
like those non-skid things they put on stairs? This is what the distributor
looks like.

I'll try a magnet, but if the dist could be magnetized, wouldn't that mess
up the whole electronic ignition?

Weird....maybe it's just a rough casting unlike the older, smooth castings
which sure were pretty. I'll check at home for the number.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:40:47 -0600 (CST)
From: RL
Subject: Re:Differnce in Mercury/Ford Vans

Since every one is talking about these vans. Is there any real differnce
in trim/prices when Mercury made vans? I know what the Ford van looks like
plus I assume Mercury would have more options and luxury. Of course I
could be wrong. Is there any differnce in the Mercury truck also.
Thanks
Ryan
1971 Torino 500, 1971 F-100, 1977 Hornet Sportabout,
1978 New Yorker e-mail: st0478 student-mail.jsu.edu
Homepage: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/9027
Fairlane Club of America, American Station Wagon Owners
Association

> It's called an Econoline Pickup. By the way, they came in Mercurys too
> (these look amazing!!) (The coolest thing I ever saw was STOCK 65 Mercury
> Econoline van with factory 4-wheel drive!.)

> marko in vancouver
> marko helix.net
>

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:51:23 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: Carb size and V.E. software

> From: Sleddog
> Subject: RE: Carb size and V.E. software
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 11:48:28 -0500

> ---snip-----
> Now, someone else said that V.E. depends upon C.I.'s. My program
> says that is depends upon bore and stroke, not just C.I. For
> instance, a Ch*vy 400 C.I. engine needs 840 CFM for MAX HP, a
> Chrysl*r 400 C.I. engine requires 930 CFM, and a Ford 400 C.I.
> engine only needs 790 CFM (which is less than the Ford 390). BTW,
> all three made near 320 HP at about the same RPM (5200). Actually
> the Chrysl*r needed about 750 extra RMM to get close to 320 (never
> quite made it) and the Ford made 325 HP a bit sonner that 5200. Go
> Ford! ---snip-----

This makes at least theoretical sense since it's related to piston
speed. At some point in the stroke the piston will be traveling
faster with a long stroke than with a shorter stroke at the same rpm
so will generate a higher velocity to fill the cylinders during at
least part of it's cycle. The amount of time between top and bottom
DC is the same regardless but at some point in the travel the speeds
change between the two so it's believable that the intake velocities
could be enhanced by this with long strokes.

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 11:01:34 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re:Differnce in Mercury/Ford Vans

>
>Since every one is talking about these vans. Is there any real differnce
>in trim/prices when Mercury made vans? I know what the Ford van looks like
>plus I assume Mercury would have more options and luxury. Of course I
>could be wrong. Is there any differnce in the Mercury truck also.
>Thanks
>Ryan
> 1971 Torino 500, 1971 F-100, 1977 Hornet Sportabout,
> 1978 New Yorker e-mail: st0478 student-mail.jsu.edu
> Homepage: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/9027
> Fairlane Club of America, American Station Wagon Owners
> Association
>
Ryan:

The mercs were usually lighter. If you wanted a heavier truck, or a heavier
van, you bought a ford. The mercury trim looks REALLY cool. Mercury is the
old greek? roman? god with wings on his feet. Older mercs have little
busts of the guy here and there in badges and stuff. The 1967 mercury truck
has only different badging on the hood/fenders, and a different tailgate
(lettering). Everything else was the same. The steering wheel and dash
cluster both say 'ford'. I don't know about the older trucks.

The 65 mercury van my friend has, has the cargo doors on the passenger's
side. The Dennis Carpenter's econoline catalog for these things, showing
only Fords, has the cargo doors on the driver's side. Is this a difference
among Ford/Merc, a difference among model year, or just a goofy diagram in
the Carpenter catalog?

marko in vancouver
marko helix.net
71 f250 4x4
67 merc m100

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:59:43 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: "loops"

Gary says: >>and took all the loops out of the line at the MC

Yo Gary!!! Me thinks these were put there to keep from vibration and
stress causing line failure due to fatigue.. All FOMOCO trucks I've
ever dealt with from the early '60's on had it. I say all, but in
reality I don't ever remember looking under the hood of anything later
than '79. I'd be more comfortable with them than without them. JMHO


Azie

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 11:01:00 -0500
From: dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: 428 flywheel

- -> Is this the kind of stuff the Ch**y guys use when they say fords are
- -> hard to work on cuz of all the changes???

Sure... but wait until you work on '55-'58 sedan, an early V8 Nova, or
a V8 Monza, or a 262 or 267 V8, or late model stuff, where the
"interchangeability" of the small block Chevy goes to hell in a
handbasket.

Ford engines are *very* interchangeable; that's half of the hassle, as
they're so similar. Here's a list of the 350ish Ford V8s:

351W,K based on the 302W, Ford Division design
351C 2V,4V Mercury Division "performance" design
351M large car/truck variant
352 FE Ford/Edsel "big" block - but actually smaller and lighter
than a 351M


That's three unique series (FE, 351C/M, 351W/K). And of them, the 351s
share common bore spacing, head bolt patterns, and so forth, making them
kissing cousins at least.


For the Chevrolet crowd:

348 big block, smaller variant of the 409
350 small journal (1 year only)
350 large journal
350, "second" (really fourth) gen, one piece rear seal, rollers,
revised intake manifold bolt pattern, external balance
350 LT-1 "third" gen, reverse flow cooling, distributor on front like a
Ford flathead, every part except for the basic reciprocating
assembly unique
350 Vortec, which is a revised, semi-interchangeable version of the
"second" gen motor, unique intake manifold bolt pattern, etc.
350 LS-1 "fourth gen", whole new motor, Ford-type symmetrical ports and
center thrust main (actually a 348 again, in case you want to annoy
the "302 Ford is really a 301 liar liar liar! Chevy types)
350 LT5, Lotus design motor built by Mercury Marine

==dave.williams chaos.lrk.ar.us===http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm==
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=====================================================================


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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 14:53:39 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: 428 flywheel

Marko writes: >>But if you got one 428 flywheel that was already
detroit balanced, I would think you'd have to re-balance it to your own
428 cause I don't think they were all detroit balanced exactly the
same.

All the manual flywheels I've encountered for 428's have the
counterweight molded in the flywheel, and all are interchangeable. It
is not a seperate weight welded to the flywheel. All the rest of the
FE family (excluding 410) doesen't have this "cast in" counterweight
and are 'zero balanced'.

Just as an informational piece -- The 460's are also 'zero' balanced
and carry the same flywheel to crankshaft bolt pattern. I'm using 390
flywheels on two different 460's right now.


Azie

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:04:46 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: "Floating a Valve"

I have heard people saying this from time to time inn the past and never really stopped long enough to find out what "floating a valve" really is. So what is happening when you float a valve.


Later




Keith Srbherbie netvalue.net

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie

Mesa, AZ

1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.

1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.

1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, Camper Special, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long
Box, Style Side.

1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Model 1100 1bbl carb, Oil Bath Air
Cleaner,

Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.

My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two
Wheels!"





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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:00:32 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Parts truck

Sleddog writes: >>sometimes it is cheeper to buy a used 1 ton, than
buy just an axle. when i bought my 79 1 ton, i payed for the front
axle and got a 460, 4 speed, 205 t-case, dana 80 rear, chassis, cab,
tires, etc, etc. etc. for free. $1500 and i drove it away (with the
tires smoking (love that posi!) as i took it sidways out the driveway!
the truck needs some TLC, but the price was worth the axles alone, and
they may end up under my 77 f150.

Yo Sleddog! If you run across any more of these bargain parts trucks
that you don't want, I'm interested. I'll drive to NE Pa to get it. I
could use a D 60 front and a D 70 or 80 rear now.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 12:02:03 -0800
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: Toppers, Shells, Cap's

At 10:11 AM 2/2/98 -0700, Keith Srb wrote:
>I need to find a Topper for my 74 F250. I need one that I can hang
curtains in, because I am going to use this Truck to pull my boat to the
lake and I am going to sleep inside the topper, as well as change clothes,
etc. Do any of you guys that have Toppers now have any suggestions,
comments, thing to look for etc.?


Depends on your budget and needs. Four Wheel Campers makes a very nice
popup unit that can be ordered without all the interior stuff and a queen
size bed for about 60% of the regular price. Six Pac makes a unit called
the Flip Pac that has a top which swings 180 degrees off a piano hinge at
the top and turns into a tent with tons of space in it. Bot these units
will not impact your airflow too much on the highway.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fourwheelcampers.com/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.datadepot.com/~ferguson/six-pac/flippac.html

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 12:02:16 -0800
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: Carb Size?

At 06:33 PM 2/2/98 EST, SARHOG aol.com wrote:
>
>Horsepower and torque curves cross (therefore, they are the same) at 5252rpm.
>Anything below that, torque is greater than horsepower.
>

Is this specific to an 8-cylinder engine? If so, what would the numbers
for a 6 be?

Thx...

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 12:02:07 -0800
From: Kurt Albershardt
Subject: Re: Toppers, Shells, Cap's

At 10:11 AM 2/2/98 -0700, Keith Srb wrote:
>I need to find a Topper for my 74 F250. I need one that I can hang
curtains in, because I am going to use this Truck to pull my boat to the
lake and I am going to sleep inside the topper, as well as change clothes,
etc. Do any of you guys that have Toppers now have any suggestions,
comments, thing to look for etc.?


Depends on your budget and needs. Four Wheel Campers makes a very nice
popup unit that can be ordered without all the interior stuff and a queen
size bed for about 60% of the regular price. Six Pac makes a unit called
the Flip Pac that has a top which swings 180 degrees off a piano hinge at
the top and turns into a tent with tons of space in it. Bot these units
will not impact your airflow too much on the highway.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fourwheelcampers.com/
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.datadepot.com/~ferguson/six-pac/flippac.html

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:39:43 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: 390 or 460

John writes:
to a 390 or go through all the pain and heartache of finding a 460/C6
and all the mounts, manifolds, etc to make the conversion? I realize
the 460 has more ultimate potential but I don't need a race truck :)
....But, how well does a mild 390 4V run in a truck? I have 3.50 gears
in there now...and a 2.75 9" pumpkin in stock. I tow 5500 lbs of car
trailer and race car occasionally. The current 360 has virtually no
ooomph...thanks to the previous owner who installed a big cam :( And,
he also put on a Performer intake and Holley 750. I do have a 600
Holley in stock also though....

John this is all in what you want. I've had success with both. A
fairly stock 4bbl 390 in the '61 thru '67 will give most folks all the
power they ever need. Their HP and TQ fiqures are rated at slightly
higher rpms than the 460 I think, but will still be ok with gearing as
low as 3.00, so should be OK with the 2.75's. It is all a bolt in. No
major undertaking. A/C - P/S and all remain in the same location with
the same brackets. If your truck is 2wd then the 460 can be bolted in
by acquireing the "stands" attached to the frame that the motor mounts
sit on, from a '79 that came from the factory with 460. (It was an
option, so they should be available). The tranny (bell housing, if
standard tranny) will not bolt up. Different bolt patterns.

Let us know what you have - (2wd od 4X4) before I proceed. I've done a
couple of F250 4X4's, but the F150 4X4 is easier and the F150 2wd
should be a 'breeze'.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:46:02 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Input/output of NP435/NP205

Oxley writes: >>Speakin of this. Does the NP435/NP205 have different
> input/main/output shafts between 1/2 ton and 3/4 or 1 ton??

My information is that only the yokes are different. Size and splines
of the shafts themselves are the same. Wayne at 'Performance Gear' in
Lumberton, Ms can tell you for sure. I'm not associated with him in any
way. He is very knowledgeable, though. (601) 796 2026.

Azie

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:44:35 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: "Floating a Valve"

the valvetrain doesn't follow the cam lobe correctly, allowing the valve to
stay open longer, and then slamming back onto it's seat suddenly, usually
causing it to bounce back off again. all the while the cylinder's charge
is escaping out the valve, into either the intake or exhaust manifolds.
valve float is caused by too much rpm, or weak springs. it may cause any
or all of the following: damage to the valve seat, burn a valve, allow the
piston to hit the valve, take the "spring" out of the spring, mushroom the
groove in the valve stem, break retainers, allow the keepers to fall out,
and generally screw things up everywhere if it gets too much.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Keith Srb[SMTP:herbie netvalue.net]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 3:04 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: "Floating a Valve"

I have heard people saying this from time to time inn the past and never
really stopped long enough to find out what "floating a valve" really is.
So what is happening when you float a valve.


Later




Keith Srbherbie netvalue.net

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie

Mesa, AZ

1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.

1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.

1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, Camper Special, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long
Box, Style Side.

1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Model 1100 1bbl carb, Oil Bath Air
Cleaner,

Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.

My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two
Wheels!"










+-------------- 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: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 15:51:29 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: Parts truck

i'll keep it in mind.

unfortunatly, they come along often. this one was a freinds who used it
for truck pulling. it was real beat, but still worth it to me. i drove it
for a yr or so and now it has been sitting ever since that load bang and
constant rod knock sound coming from the block. i have tried not to
cannibalize it too much as i wanted to cut the fenders out for 44"'s, and
build a long travel suspension and an exo-skeleton around it with these
utility boxes i have and do some serious 4 wheeling! alas, i will probobly
have to use the axles on the 77, and junk the rest, except of course the
T-case, motor, tranny etc. oh yes, and the tach, it has a nice VDO tach
inside. :)

sleddog

ps- it ain't a ford, but i saw a late 60's dodge 3/4 ton tow truck 4X4 for
$600, with the boom and PTO still on the truck. need a boom?


- ----------
From: am14 chrysler.com[SMTP:am14 chrysler.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 1998 3:00 PM
To: Fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Parts truck

Sleddog writes: >>sometimes it is cheeper to buy a used 1 ton, than
buy just an axle. when i bought my 79 1 ton, i payed for the front
axle and got a 460, 4 speed, 205 t-case, dana 80 rear, chassis, cab,
tires, etc, etc. etc. for free. $1500 and i drove it away (with the
tires smoking (love that posi!) as i took it sidways out the driveway!
the truck needs some TLC, but the price was worth the axles alone, and
they may end up under my 77 f150.

Yo Sleddog! If you run across any more of these bargain parts trucks
that you don't want, I'm interested. I'll drive to NE Pa to get it. I
could use a D 60 front and a D 70 or 80 rear now.

Azie






+-------------- 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: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:07:37 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson
Subject: 351M manifold

I have a friend who is looking for a 4 barrel manifold for a 351M. What
will fit? Anyone have one?

Dennis Pearson
(too many Dennises)
(too many Dennis Pearsons--see
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9487/dlp.htm )

1962 Ford Unibody 351C

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:15:49 -0500
From: am14 ....

---

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.