fordtrucks61-79-digest Wednesday, February 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 088



=======================================================================
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: FE Cylinder Heads [George Herpich ]
Re: '78 F250- Good deal? [George Herpich ]
E350 [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Rear end ratio change & distributor ["Gary, 78 BBB"
RE: good moods in a ford truck. [Sleddog ]
RE: FE Cylinder Heads [Sleddog ]
Re: Rust Repair Panels for 67-72 [BDIJXS aol.com]
1969 F100 Project ["Galen S. Sampson" ]
Re: FE Cylinder Heads ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
ok rear main time [mongo ]
Re: good moods in a ford truck. ["Deacon" ]
Re: ok rear main time [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: Accelerator Pump woes ["Dave Resch"]
352 to 390 and tranny question [Antonio Gonella ]
Re: 352 to 390 and tranny question [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Re: good moods in a ford truck. ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Tranny Cable [Brian ]
Re: ok rear main time ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Need your opinion [Jim Craig ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:07:40 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: FE Cylinder Heads

BDIJXS aol.com wrote:
>
> OK guys,
>
> Lets see how good you really are.
>
> I'm building a 428 for low end power. I have a crank and a set of 360 heads
> (C8AE-H, with 1.34"x1.93" (they don't have the 2.26" height) intake ports.
> Now, the stock intake manifold has (approximately) 1.14"x1.78" intake port
> dimensions. The Edelbrock Performer manifold I'm going to use has even smaller
> ports than stock with something near 1"x 1.75". This must be how Edelbrock
> squeezes out better response by speeding up the air/fuel mixture with the
> smaller port.
>
> Now, I've heard of people matching up the intake manifold ports to the
> cylinder head ports, but this translates into almost 3/10" off the top and
> bottom walls of the Performer!. When people are matching these up, are the
> usually widening the ports on the cylinder heads to bigger ports on a intake
> manifold?
>
> What is the ramification of this sudden discontinuity, other than the air
> slowing down to fill the larger volume? Is it best to remove the discontinuity
> and match them up, or does the discontinuity help "mix things up" for a better
> charge?
>
> If I went to the other standard 390 heads (the ones with 2.26" tall ports),
> there would be an even bigger discontinuity since the ports are more than 1/4"
> taller the 360 heads I have now....
>
> To sum it up, would a bigger discontinuity be better or worse? (I have the
> suspicion that it would be worse).
>
> Since the Christ book didn't list the intake port size on the FT heads (which
> I assume are built for pulling, and therefore have the smaller valves), I
> would assume they would have smaller intake ports than the FE's. I'm wondering
> if the FT heads would be the best solution, they have smaller ports and
> valves, but a bigger combustion chamber to lower the compression ratio. I know
> the heat risers are in a different place, but these could probably be blocked
> off anyway to lower the intake charge temperature (this is out of Vizard's
> book "How to Build Horsepower").
>
> Any ideas here which cylinder head setup would be the way to go?
>
I would stick with the 360 heads. Don't worry about the mismatch. You
might want to radius the edges but don't try to match. If it were the
other way around, with the manifold bigger than the head, then you would
have a problem.
George

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:30:39 -0500
From: George Herpich
Subject: Re: '78 F250- Good deal?

Rob Patelke wrote:
>
> Thanks to Marko, Brian, Don, Bill, Don, & Gary,
> Perhaps I should have my head examined, but I bought it; will actually
> acquire it next week. We'll know whether it was a good idea by the number
> of requests for help I have to post :).
> Thanks to all for you input.
>
> Rob

The way I look at is if you like it and are happy with it don't worry
about what others think.
I just paid "too much" (according to my friends) for a '71 F100. I just
sold my Lightning and needed another truck. After seeing what was
available in later model stuff, for the money I could spend, the 71 was
much more truck and much more solid.
Plus, it's one of my favorites. I got the price down as far as the guy
would go and just went for it.

BTW, thanks Marko for the list of problem areas to look for. No rust in
any of those areas.

George

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:44:32 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: E350

Marko writes: >>Are these the same as cube vans?

Probably!! Ambulances are quite common users also. It is the one
where the back of the cab is open into the van body -- all one
compartment -- so to speak. Tour busses are another user, but they
usually butcher up the cab for installation of the passenger entry
door, so I'm not sure one of these would be acceptable at all.



Azie

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:46:53 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Rear end ratio change & distributor

> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:47:26 -0800
> From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
> Subject: Re: Rear end ratio change & distributor

> The tires are stock 235-85-16 radials. I'll look for a tag and post
> the VIN tonight if the VIN gives any hint about final drive ratio.

I forgot what you said you were getting on the tach but my sheet says
you should be getting about 2698 at 60 with that setup. To get it
down to a more reasonable rpm range (2000) you would need 3.05 by my
calculatios and a 3.50 would get you 2298.

Didn't you say you had a 460 in that? If so the 3.08 might be just
about right on the highway or the 3.00 even might work.



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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:29:23 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: good moods in a ford truck.

i sees mine grammar is as bad as me spelling. now i think you knew what i
meant!

she will help me sometimes, but i just try to show her i love her too, by
spending more time (money?) on her than the truck. in the end though, i am
still "paying" for a few days of all truck-no nancy.
i really can't complain though, as some guys aren't able to do what i do
because of "the wife". i am pretty free to spend money and time as i
please on the hobbies i have. Nancy even hooked my other truck to the sled
a couple of times last season. (pulling in some 1st and 2nd places in the
stock classes).

sleddog

"If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people
He gives it to."
- -- Old Irish Saying

- ----------
From: Deacon[SMTP:deconblu gte.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 11:54 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: Re: good moods in a ford truck.

>me thinks it IS my ford that causes mine her bad moods sometimes! she
>won't admit it, but i know my compulsive and obsesive behavior towards
my
>truck (and other vehivles) gets to her. so, for every hour with my
truck,
>she gets two!! :)

I can't get my wife to lift a finger on my truck. How do you get her
to work on yours twice as long as you do?

Put another log on the fire. Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
Go out to the truck and change the tire. Then come and tell me why your
leaving me!


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/









+-------------- 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, 11 Feb 1998 09:16:58 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: FE Cylinder Heads

with the mismatch, there will be an energy loss. that loss can be
minimized by matching the intake to the heads. the mismatch certainly
won't help "mix things up". (although putting a screen between the head
and intake can). i would recommend opening up the intake to as close to
the head as you can get, making sure that the gasket doesn't stick into the
ports. do not even touch the heads, only the intake. there should be
enough material there on the intake if there is not radius the intakes
ports out to the head to reduce the restriction. those heads and intake
sound a bit small to me for 428 cubes, but i am used to the bigger ports of
the canted valve heads.

sleddog

- ----------
From: BDIJXS aol.com[SMTP:BDIJXS aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 9:05 PM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: FE Cylinder Heads

OK guys,

Lets see how good you really are.

I'm building a 428 for low end power. I have a crank and a set of 360 heads
(C8AE-H, with 1.34"x1.93" (they don't have the 2.26" height) intake ports.
Now, the stock intake manifold has (approximately) 1.14"x1.78" intake port
dimensions. The Edelbrock Performer manifold I'm going to use has even
smaller
ports than stock with something near 1"x 1.75". This must be how Edelbrock
squeezes out better response by speeding up the air/fuel mixture with the
smaller port.

Now, I've heard of people matching up the intake manifold ports to the
cylinder head ports, but this translates into almost 3/10" off the top and
bottom walls of the Performer!. When people are matching these up, are the
usually widening the ports on the cylinder heads to bigger ports on a
intake
manifold?

What is the ramification of this sudden discontinuity, other than the air
slowing down to fill the larger volume? Is it best to remove the
discontinuity
and match them up, or does the discontinuity help "mix things up" for a
better
charge?

If I went to the other standard 390 heads (the ones with 2.26" tall ports),
there would be an even bigger discontinuity since the ports are more than
1/4"
taller the 360 heads I have now....

To sum it up, would a bigger discontinuity be better or worse? (I have the
suspicion that it would be worse).

Since the Christ book didn't list the intake port size on the FT heads
(which
I assume are built for pulling, and therefore have the smaller valves), I
would assume they would have smaller intake ports than the FE's. I'm
wondering
if the FT heads would be the best solution, they have smaller ports and
valves, but a bigger combustion chamber to lower the compression ratio. I
know
the heat risers are in a different place, but these could probably be
blocked
off anyway to lower the intake charge temperature (this is out of Vizard's
book "How to Build Horsepower").

Any ideas here which cylinder head setup would be the way to go?

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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:16:20 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: Re: Rust Repair Panels for 67-72

Is anyone looking for some replacement panels for the lower door edges for
thier 67-72 rigs? They go the length of the doors, and are about 5" tall. I
also have some repair panels that bolt in where under the hood hinges. These
are two prime rust areas on these models. I ended up not needing these panels
since I found an entirely rust-free body.

Colorado Jeff

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:57:38 -0500
From: "Galen S. Sampson"
Subject: 1969 F100 Project

Hello Everyone!
I am new to the list. Great information here, please bear with me, I
have a general systems restoration/upgrade question - please excuse the
length. I have had overseas duty for the last 4 years and my
restoration project was put on hold. Now that I am back and in a
different area of the country there are not as many resources as I found
out west.
I have put a lot of hard work, sweat and cash into my truck and my goal
is to have it when I die.

Background Info: I have a 1969 Ford 4WD Pick-up, It has a 1967 - 352
V8, newly rebuilt (1992). It has a newly rebuilt transmission.
Goal: I want to have this truck in workable 4WD operation for the
rest of my driving days. I love the look and operation of the old
Fseries and want to really push this truck to its potential in the 90's.

Two Immediate Problems:
Problem #1: The steering is shot!!! The steering was not good when I
bought the truck in '89, but after more than a few out back camping
trips, the steering will not pass inspection in Maryland. No suprise.
I have looked around in every Balt-Wash area in auto parts recycling
yards and talked to various shops - no direct or indirect steering boxes
that I can use. I have found a few early Broncos with the same set-ups
but the steering boxes have been shot also.

Question #1: I would love to put in a system with heavy duty power
steering. Is this reasonable?, I need something that is heavy duty,
reasonably serviceable (I do a lot of off road driving and if I bust
something up, I would like stock items that I can get repairs done if
necessary) What do you think it will cost? Cost is not really an
issue, but it will cause delays on getting it back on the road. This is
a long term project.

Problem #2: When I was doing a good amount of four wheeling out in
Utah, I had serious doubts about my braking system.
When I used my brakes frequently going down a very steep grade (which
are all over the state of Utah - highways or off road), they would heat
up badly and their braking capabilities would decrease dramatically ( I
had to stand on my brakes to brake under relatively normal conditions.)
I have had a few shops verify the operation of my braking system and it
is operating normally - evidently. Is this just the design limitations
of the braking system/ I am using the truck under conditions it doesn't
want to do?

Question #2: Since I am totally putting this truck up on blocks to get
it to 100%. Is it possible to put in a newer design POWER BRAKE SYSTEM
system that is heavy duty and will put up with some heavy use. New
axles, etc... what do you think it would cost (ballpark figure).

Thanks for your help and guidance,
Big Time F100 Lover,

G. Sampson

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:18:17 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: FE Cylinder Heads

> From: BDIJXS aol.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 21:05:34 EST
> Subject: FE Cylinder Heads

> Now, I've heard of people matching up the intake manifold ports to
> the cylinder head ports, but this translates into almost 3/10" off
> the top and bottom walls of the Performer!. When people are matching
> these up, are the usually widening the ports on the cylinder heads
> to bigger ports on a intake manifold?

I found that I had to remove some material from a 460 head to match
things up but this was my first attempt and I didn't understand all
the principles so probably didn't need to do that as Sleddog says.
No one has mentioned this so I'll throw it in here:

There is a thing called reversion which can occur when the fuel
charge reflects off the closing intake valve and is cam and speed
sensitive as to when it happens but it was noted in one article I
read that port mismatch which allows the head opening to be larger
than the manifold, especially if the ridge is fairly uniform is
actually helpful to prevent or reduce the reversion effect. This
article suggested leaving the manifold opening edges sharp. The
interesting thing here also is the pressure increase at the valve
which happens due to enlarged tunnel area with this arrangement which
theoretically helps filling. The opposit mismatch will increase the
tendency for reversion which interferes with flow at higher rpms and
should be avoided at all costs.

> What is the ramification of this sudden discontinuity, other than
> the air slowing down to fill the larger volume? Is it best to remove
> the discontinuity and match them up, or does the discontinuity help
> "mix things up" for a better charge?

The suggestion above implied that the ridge should be fairly small so
as to avoid large changes in velocity or pressure but that a small
amount in favor of the heads is desirable. The other thing this does
is ensure that no matter how you install the intake the head will
always be larger with no reverse edges.

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:38:45 -0600
From: mongo
Subject: ok rear main time

ok i have a 74 390 and i need to know any and everything on how to
replace the rear main seal.. the motor is out of my truck and i was
needing to know ALL the CORRECT things to do ,the don'ts and the shoulda
woulda coulda's of this. what is the best way to remove the rear car
without destroying the crank and other stuff? ok thanks kevin

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:40:09 -0800
From: "Deacon"
Subject: Re: good moods in a ford truck.

>i sees mine grammar is as bad as me spelling. now i think you knew
what i
>meant!

Sorry Sleddog! There is nothing wrong with you communication skills.
It was just my Deacon Blues "hooked on twisting words" that's at fault!
Only one part of my anatomy is wise. It often raises a quite a stink
when it thinks it has something to say!
I agree with you 100%! As a wise man once said; "It takes two to
make a relationship work but only one to screw it up!" I hope you know I
meant no disrespect (I believe you do). I also have a respect for you
(along with many others here on this list) to publicly say, I have been
enriched knowing you!
As Azie stated once (far more eloquent than I will attempt to
paraphrase). There are only two things a man can be proud of being. A
good husband and a good father! Everything else is vanity. Sorry Azie. I
can't remember your words, but I believe the spirit is the same. There
is a third hat. One that says a person cares about others. All three
hats add up to only one. This hat is wore by a large majority of our
list members. In my forty two years I have found we are all equal. Some
may find this attitude disrespectful, others will agree fully. Those
that find it disrespectful, ware no hat at all!
One may ask "Where are you going with this Deacon?" It was asked not
to long ago if we are a club. This list lacks something that I have
found on most other list I belong to. The "my way is the right way"
attitude that seems so prevalent on other list. At times it may be
frustrating or differences of opinion may get out of line. But I know of
no other list that has people that care enough to send a personal e-mail
to cool a person off or so quickly forgive and put aside a foolish
temper tantrum. Both of which I am thankful for! There are no band
wagons to jump on nor are there blind leaders of blind followers.
Through the faithful leadership of Ken and Peggy and the overwhelmingly
helpful, knowledgeable members. There is but one answer. Call us;
"The International Ford Truck Enthusiasts Club of the World Wide
Web"
Do I hear an Amen?
For the more shallow among us. If we can find club discounts by
calling ourselves a club, what the hell! I'm as shallow as the next guy!
I do believe Ken said at one time we could look into this. If there's no
objections. Introduce yourself as a member of a Ford truck club with a
world wide membership of 1500+ and ask if they offer a club discount.
Just give them our URL for confirmation of our existence and who knows!
They may buy a banner. We'll make money! I can get my Ford Truck
Enthusiasts hat, lunch box, cool cup and "T" shirt! There it goes,
raising a stink again.
Later Gang! :~)


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, 11 Feb 1998 10:07:22 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: ok rear main time

>ok i have a 74 390 and i need to know any and everything on how to
>replace the rear main seal.. the motor is out of my truck and i was
>needing to know ALL the CORRECT things to do ,the don'ts and the shoulda
>woulda coulda's of this. what is the best way to remove the rear car
>without destroying the crank and other stuff? ok thanks kevin


If you are replacing the seal only, and don't wanna take the crank out,
you'll have a heck of a time, if it's the rope-type seal that's in there.

My rope seal on my 71 360 was rusted in so bad I had to soak it in
penetrating oil for a week, then ream it out with a homemade roto-rooter. I
wouldn't recommend this as it may score the crank. (I used a choke cable
housing). But it got the job done, and my 360 runs good and doesn't leak
oil out the seal anymore.

Make sure you put the seal in the right way. Directions are on the package.

marko in vancouver
marko helix.net

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:12:00 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: Accelerator Pump woes

>From: "MICHAEL THOMAS"
>Subject: Accelerator Pump woes
>
>This is a confusing one for any 2BBL fellas.
>The 400 on my '77 has the Motorcraft2150 2V. Is the accel
>pump lever (the one on the throttle shaft w/ the adjustable
>notches) supposed to be spring loaded???
>I see a spring inside the accel. pump lever that coils
>around the throttle shaft and the lever seems independent
>of the throttle shaft.

The accel pump lever on the throttle shaft should be spring loaded. That
allows the accel pump to work at a fixed "maximum" rate, regardless of the
rate at which the throttle is opened. When the throttle is opened slower
than the accel pump's maximum rate, the accel pump lever moves in unison w/
the throttle shaft, injecting fuel into the carb at a rate determined by
the rotation of the throttle shaft.

When the throttle snaps open suddenly (when you nail the pedal to the floor
w/ your foot), the spring allows the throttle shaft to move faster than the
accel pump lever. The spring maintains the force pushing on the accel pump
lever to work the accel pump through its cycle, as long as the throttle
shaft is opened to a point farther than the accel pump lever. When the
throttle is released (closed), the accel pump lever is also released and
the accel pump diaphragm draws in more fuel from the bowl through its
one-way flap valve.

>I ask this because I have aceel. pump action
>from only idle to half-throttle, leaving the other half starving
>for gas up to WOT, where accel. pump action is required
>the most, right???

What the accel pump does is enrich the fuel mixture temporarily when the
engine rpms increase to prevent an excessive lean condition. When the
throttle opens, airflow increases immediately, actually faster than the
carb's fuel metering circuits can adjust the fuel flow to the correct rate
to maintain proper mixture. (Airflow vacuum is the input that the carb
uses to control fuel metering, so there is a slight lag time between
airflow change and fuel metering change.)

This fuel metering lag (temporary lean condition) is more prominent at low
rpms than at high rpms, partly because the carb has a weaker airflow signal
at low rpms, and partly because of the transition between different
metering circuits for idle, part throttle, and WOT.

When the throttle is already at least half open (or so), there is less need
for temporary fuel enrichment upon sudden (further) opening of the
throttle.

>I have observed the action of the accel. pump and it
>finishes travel at half throttle. It seems that the pump
>lever rests on a notch on the throttle shaft... and you
>can pull the lever the opposite direction of its regular
>travel, release it, and it goes back to that notch on the
>shaft. I guess what I am saying is that I bought this carb
>a year ago at a Parts America store here at home.
> It is a 2150 remanufactured by Holley. Do I have the
>wrong carb?? Or is it a screw up on Holley's part??

So far, everything you describe sounds ok. The notch is the stop position
for the accel pump. It allows the accel pump lever to stop moving when the
accel pump's maximum discharge volume is reached, even if the throttle
shaft is opened farther. If the accel pump lever could not move
independently of the throttle shaft, the accel pump's end-of-stroke
position would limit the degree to which the throttle could open (you
wouldn't want that) or you'd blow out the accel pump's diaphragm or bend
the linkage if you pushed hard enough on the pedal (you wouldn't want that
either!).

>I have tried to change the pump diaphragm, adjust the
>accel. pump linkage, installing a spring to counteract the
>present spring force on the lever.

Do not try to counteract the spring between the accel pump lever and the
throttle shaft. The spring is calibrated to apply the correct maximum
force to the accel pump lever for proper operation.

>There is no ID tag on any of those remans, I just bought it
>according to vehicle application.
>My brother has a '83 F150 w/302 and also a 2150. It has a
>few different emmision things on it, but the carb is basically
>the same. His accel. pump travels the FULL length from
>idle to WOT, and the pump lever on his isn't spring loaded.
> It is like it is attached to the throttle shaft. Could anyone w/
>a carb like mine check out their truck tonight and see how
>their accel. pump works?? Is it the full travel from idle to
>WOT, or is it set to discharge at a certain point??

Every Motorcraft 2150 I have seen is set up the way yours is, w/ the spring
on the accel pump lever. There were, however, dozens of different
configurations for the 2150 carb over the years, and your brother's may be
correct for his application.

> If I have the choke closed to the cold position (I have
>manual choke), I have more power, but still not enough.
> (I would guess it would cause more fueling.)

You may need to change to a larger main jet if your mixture is too lean,
but I would recommend a visit to a shop w/ a 4-gas analyzer before you make
a change like that. The gas analyzer would check the exhaust gases and
verify the fuel/air mixture on your engine. That's really the only sure
way to know if it's excessively rich or lean. If you don't have an obvious
problem w/ the mixture, you should look elsewhere for performance
improvements.

>The float level is fine, the power valve is fine, I just changed
>the fuel pump. I just surpassed the 1000 mile mark on the
>overhaul of this 400. I would like to see what it can really do
> now.
How far are you willing to go w/ this quest? How far can your wallet go?

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:41:19 -0700
From: Antonio Gonella
Subject: 352 to 390 and tranny question

Hello all,
First I would like to thank everyone for their advice and answers to the
various questions I have asked in the past. Maybe when I am done with the
restoration of my 59 Ranchero I will be able to answer a few of my own, but
until then....
I am eventually going to replace the 352 with a 390, if I have the 352
bored out to 390 (with the appropriate crank etc) will the stock cruise o
matic transmission be up to the task of handling the (hopefully)
considerable new power levels?
Also I dont know whether to bore out my block or get a used 390 and rebuild
it, as I would have to replace all major componenets in my 352 vs.
refurbishing the 390 parts. If I did buy a used 390 would my tranny bolt up
to it (assuming it can handle the 390 power?)
My ultimate goal is to get 400HP out of the 390, is this a little optimistic?
Thanks in advance,
Antonio

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:13:49 -0800
From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: 352 to 390 and tranny question

>Hello all,
>First I would like to thank everyone for their advice and answers to the
>various questions I have asked in the past. Maybe when I am done with the
>restoration of my 59 Ranchero I will be able to answer a few of my own, but
>until then....
>I am eventually going to replace the 352 with a 390, if I have the 352
>bored out to 390 (with the appropriate crank etc) will the stock cruise o
>matic transmission be up to the task of handling the (hopefully)
>considerable new power levels?

Dunno. I don't understand automatics.

>Also I dont know whether to bore out my block or get a used 390 and rebuild
>it, as I would have to replace all major componenets in my 352 vs.

Well, you would end up with a cleaner engine if you used the 352 block and
bored carefully. This is because you'd be boring to exactly 4.05 from
4.00". You'll have lots of wall left over for another rebuild, and you'll be
able to line up the bores properly on the 390 crank.

>refurbishing the 390 parts. If I did buy a used 390 would my tranny bolt up
>to it (assuming it can handle the 390 power?)

Yes.

>My ultimate goal is to get 400HP out of the 390, is this a little optimistic?
>Thanks in advance,

Not entirely, but to get that kind of power you'll need some pretty high
revs. For that, you'll need to do a bit of oiling work on the block/crank
to be able to sustain those revs for any length of time. The FE-s tend to
be a bit light on oiling the bottom end at high revs, or heavy on the top
end, depending on how you look at it.

marko

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:14:36 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: good moods in a ford truck.

> From: "Deacon"
> Subject: Re: good moods in a ford truck.
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:40:09 -0800

> to long ago if we are a club. This list lacks something that I have
> found on most other list I belong to. The "my way is the right way"

Deacon, dang it! You messed up my reply. I was going to get smart
and answer the thing our "Club" is missing is a bunch of drunks to
stand up and argue all the way through all the meetings so nothing
gets done but now I can't say that cuz that's not where you
went..................:-( BTW, I really am always r..........:-)

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:24:51 -0500
From: Brian
Subject: Tranny Cable

Hey List !
I know this is for our older trucks, but I have a question on my
'96 F150 4x4. I just pulled it out of the car wash when the tranny cable
snapped, Had to crawl underneath and shift it by hand. Has anyone ever
replaced one of these ?? I just ordered one from ford, they quoted me
$68.00 bucks to change it. Doesn't look to tough, but I couldn't get the
cable out of its mount under the dash. Maybe I'll let them do it. I
don't feel like fighting it and breaking something else !!

Brian

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

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:37:16 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: ok rear main time

> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:38:45 -0600
> From: mongo
> Subject: ok rear main time

> ok i have a 74 390 and i need to know any and everything on how to
> replace the rear main seal.. the motor is out of my truck and i was
> needing to know ALL the CORRECT things to do ,the don'ts and the
> shoulda woulda coulda's of this. what is the best way to remove the
> rear car without destroying the crank and other stuff? ok thanks

With the engine out I'd take the crank out myself and do a good job
but with engine in it's a whole nuther smoke. What ever you do,
remember the crank is VERY SOFT and gouges easily and will develop a
burr if even touched with a file or hard, sharp tool. This burr then
will destroy any bearing or seal it touches so be carefull.

If you take the crank out get some thin vacuum line the right size to
slip over the rod bolts to keep the threads from gouging the crank.
Once you cut them and use them store them away in your engine
building stuff for next time. Don't use gas line, it's too thick and
causes trouble geting thing in and out. When you take the crank out,
set it on end where it won't get knocked over till you put it back
in.

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

- -- Gary --....


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.