Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:38:40 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
To: fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #9
Reply-To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks61-79-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks61-79-digest Wednesday, January 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 009



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

C6 wide ratio gearsets [John Pajak ]
RE: C6 wide ratio gearsets [Sleddog ]
Head shake ? [am14 chrysler.com]
Shakey front end [am14 chrysler.com]
O'heating 351M [am14 chrysler.com]
RE: 1973 F-250 Ranger Camper Special ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
A/C brace [am14 chrysler.com]
351M [am14 chrysler.com]
Carbon Buildup ["James E. Brady III" ]
Re: 1977 351M ["Dave Resch"]
390 Intake [BULL229 ]
RE: 410 clutch [BULL229 ]
Carb info confession ["Dave Resch"]
Re: torque converters ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Clutch [am14 chrysler.com]
Re: Clutch [John MacNamara ]
Re: Steering, C-6 Aftermarket Shifters? ["Gary, 78 BBB"
Flex coupling on a '77 F150 2wd ["MICHAEL THOMAS" ]
[Fwd: Mail failure] [danadeb pacbell.net]
Re: 1973 F-250 Ranger Camper Special [danadeb pacbell.net]

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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:12:03 -0800 (PST)
From: John Pajak
Subject: C6 wide ratio gearsets

Can someone shed some light on the C6 low ratio gearsets? What
years were they offered? Can they be retrofitted into any C6? What are
the ratios for the std and the low versions? Is it just 1st gear
that's different or is 2nd lower also?

TIA

===
John Pajak JSPajak rocketmail.com
Lexington Park, Maryland http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.tripod.com/~JSPajak

75 F100 360/C6 (390 soon)
68 Fairlane SW 351W/FMX
12 Oldsmobiles


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:21:22 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: C6 wide ratio gearsets

my C6 has a lower first gear only. it is 11 percent lower, but i can't
remember the actual ratios. many tranny builders will be able to install
the lower first gear. my tranny also has a full roller bearing set
throughout the tranny, and kevlar racing clutch packs, etc.

sleddog

- ----------
From: John Pajak[SMTP:jspajak rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 12:12 AM
To: fordtrucks61-79 ListService.net
Subject: C6 wide ratio gearsets

Can someone shed some light on the C6 low ratio gearsets? What
years were they offered? Can they be retrofitted into any C6? What are
the ratios for the std and the low versions? Is it just 1st gear
that's different or is 2nd lower also?

TIA

===
John Pajak JSPajak rocketmail.com
Lexington Park, Maryland http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.tripod.com/~JSPajak

75 F100 360/C6 (390 soon)
68 Fairlane SW 351W/FMX
12 Oldsmobiles


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?







+-------------- 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, 7 Jan 1998 09:39:36 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Head shake ?

Gary: Ain't this "Shimmy"????? No matter. I think you hit the nail
on the head with your prognosis. >>Are you sure it's
vertical motion? Is it a 4x4? Wheelers with large
tires will get a "head shake" due to the added weight in the tires
which can set up a sideways oscilation under certain conditions. A
steering damper will usually fix i

Azie

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:47:31 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Shakey front end

ED: Nylon tires by chance???? I haven't seen any of these in ages,
but it sounds as if you have one. I would try adding just a bit of
"toe in" to the front and add a steering damper(Shock absorber looking
deal between draglink and axle), if I thought it was a shimmy action
(horizontal motion) instead of vertical bounce. If it truly is
vertical bounce, then change the tires around. My only guess.

>>The left front tire seems to develop a flat spot on it
when its been sitting for a while -

Azie

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:55:35 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: O'heating 351M

Greg: Fan shroud is important to low rpm cooling. Reinstall it.
Looks like you've tried about everything else except maybe your
radiator is clogged. Try taking your radiator to a reputable shop and
have it rodded out. This will open the passages for heat transfer and
flow. Where are you located? Seems an odd time of year for most of us
to be experiencing overheating!! Not enough heat would seem to fit the
season better. OH WELL!!!
Good luck.
Azie

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:00:49 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: 1973 F-250 Ranger Camper Special

> From: "Abajo, Ed"
> Subject: RE: 1973 F-250 Ranger Camper Special
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 14:07:09 -0800

> I pretty sure it is vertical motion -- the truck is a 2wd with
> 9.50x16.5 tires on it. The left front tire seems to develop a flat

Based on what you've said so far I'd guess you may have a bad king
pin or tie rod joint. If this is a violent motion which shakes the
steering wheel and actually gets pretty scary I'd guess you have
looseness somewhere not a bad tire. If it's just a vibration you
can feel and noise, maybe even loud and a little scary then tires are
definitely right up there at the top of the list but tires won't
cause the kind of motion I'm picturing from your description unless
they are very obviousely deformed but then you should feel something
at any speed. With loose king pin or tie rod it requires a certain
amount of effort at the right angles and at the right speed to set up
the oscilation. The looser it is or the larger the tires are the
more likely it is to happen.

Before I figured out what was happening with my van (4wd) which had
fairly tight everything I used to get a shake that litterally tore
the wheel out of my hands at about 45 mph at the same spot in the
same road and nowhere else but it began happening so often at that
spot I started slowing down there to avoid it, that's how specific it
can be and it still amazes me to this day that it could be THAT
specific??

In this case it was due to slightly worn ball joints, tie rods,
steering box and large tires. None of these components were worn
enogh to cause alarm and could even be considered OK for an older
vehicle. It steered fine, tracked fine, handled fine except for this
anomaly. It was the combination of ALL of these things that brought
it to the point where this could happen. A steering stabalizer
(damper) fixed it io this case but reduced the fine tracking feel it
had before so I didn't like it but I lived with it. That was then,
now that I understand more about the physics involved I can have my
cake and eat it too :-)

BTW, if you really want to have some fun, put a radial and bias tire
on the same axle :-)

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:29:53 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: A/C brace

Leave that sucker off. If it causes the compressor to shake more than
is desireable, then fabricate a bracket to the front of the head, or to
the intake front bolt. "Where theres a will, theres a way".

>>I want to put headers on my 74 F250, 390 V-8. I noticed a brace that
ran
from the exhaust manifold to the air conditioning compressor. Do I
really
need this brace, or can I leave it off when I put the headers on?? It
is a
square shaped compressor that I need to replace anyway.

Azie

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:34:39 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: 351M

>>The 351Mod's are punched out Small blocks?
I thought the Mod's were a completely different family/design

They are. He knows better. Was just sitting on his thinker,
temporarily. The 351W is a "punched out" 302.

Azie

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

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 13:09:18 +0000
From: "James E. Brady III"
Subject: Carbon Buildup

>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:03:36 -0800
>From: marko helix.net (marko maryniak)
>Subject: Re: Carbon and suffering.
>
>>Hope everyone had a wonderful holiday.
>>
>>I have the carbon on the spark plugs syndrome that doesn't go away.

I have had this problem but not to your extent. At one point there was so
much build up on my pistons that the truck started dieseling. I steamed
cleaned the pistons (slowly poured water down the carb at idle) and that
kept the truck from dieseling. I have not has that problem recently but do
have black smoke out the tailpipe when I stomp on the gas pedal. What does
this sound like? Also the truck pings under heavy load. I tried 93 octane
fuel but this did not help. I will try backing the timing off. The motor
is a 360ci FE from either a 67 or 68 F-100. How could this problem be
resolved?

Jim Brady
'71 F100

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:28:18 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: 1977 351M

>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 19:18:38 -0600
>From: Tyler Wilkins
>Subject: Re: 1977 351M
>
>snip
>
>The 351Mod's are punched out Small blocks?
>I thought the Mod's were a completely different family/design
Yo Tyler:

You are correct; the 351M is not a small block. It is unique to those
engines (351M and 400) and it is in the same design family as the 351C.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:45:18 EST
From: BULL229
Subject: 390 Intake

I have an old Edelbrock F427 intake for sale, quite similar to the Performer
RPM. It has had some work done on it, repairs over the years, but I'll sell
for 100 plus shipping from Nebraska. Feel free to email me directly

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:43:52 EST
From: BULL229
Subject: RE: 410 clutch

I would recommend (IMHO) to run an aftermarket clutch, std Long design, my
best luck is a zoom purple clutch. Its been through hell for years, and still
works well, however I TRULY recommend replacing the stock clutch rods with
heim? joints, you know the threaded rod ends with bearings. I did this on my
truck after the increased pedal pressure took out the factory bushings more
than once.

It will take some finesse and fabrication, but the difference in the clutck
linkage is fantastic, plus it looks pretty trick. I used 3/8 rod and rod ends
with grease fittings, makes a nice set up.

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:14:45 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Carb info confession

Yo Dudes:

Well, it's been a long time since I've read my carburetor literature, but
over the last few weeks I've been talking off-list w/ Stu Varner about his
carburetor/air cleaner ideas for an FE 390 and I've talked to a couple of
Mustang gurus and dug up a little of my old literature and done some more
research and now I must confess that I was talking a bit "out-of-school"
about the specs of the Motorcraft 2150 when I made suggestions to Adam
Clever back on Dec 31.

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 12:02:07 -0700, I wrote:
(Responding to: Adam Clever )
>>Subject: carburetor/intake advice
>>
>>'79 bronco, 351M (soon to be 400), Motorcraft 2150, manual
>> transmission.
>
>snip irrelevant stuff about 351M/400 conversions, cams
>
>>With a torque cam and a 400 engine should I just keep the the
>>stock manifold and get another OEM carb? I shouldn't need
>>very much CFM if my cam won't comfortably rev very high and
>>all I intend to do is idle over the rocks and trails (and use as a
>> daily driver), right?
>
>As I understand carb theory, at low engine speeds, a smaller
>venturi will give better throttle response than a large venturi. At
>a given air flow rate (cfm), the smaller the diameter of the venturi,
>the higher the velocity of the air flowing through it. When the air
>flows at a higher velocity, the carb is more sensitive to throttle
>changes and it provides more precise fuel/air mixture control
>and better atomization of the fuel.
This theory is correct, as best I can determine. The limiting factor is
the size of the venturi itself, which will flow up to a maximum rate before
it becomes a flow "bottleneck" because of the pressure drop. As long as
the capacity of the venturi(s) is adequate for the engine's flow demand,
the smaller the better.

>BTW, the Motorcraft 2150 carb used on trucks is rated at 380 to
>425 cfm.

Oops!! This is not correct! There were two different size venturis used
in the 2150 carb, 1.08" (the most common) and 1.12". A version of the 2150
w/ 1.12" venturis was used on the 1982 Mustang GT and rated at 369 cfm.
This is supposedly more than the standard 2150 w/ 1.08" venturis. If the
relationship of flow capacity and venturi size is directly proportional
(which I think is not the case), then the carb w/ 1.08" venturis should
flow around 356 cfm. I still have not yet found the actual flow rate specs
for the 2150 w/ 1.08" venturis, though.

BTW: Apparently, some 2150s w/ 1.12" venturis were supplied on trucks
(maybe w/ the 400 engine, which could use a little more flow than a 351M).

The formula for determining an engine's cfm requirement is:

CID/2 x RPM / 1728 = CFM

Displacement is divided by 2 because each cylinder sucks in air on every
other crankshaft revolution in a 4-stroke engine. RPM is the maximum
engine operating speed. 1728 is a constant number of cubic inches in a
cubic foot (converts ci from cid to cf for cfm).

Thus, on my 351M that never exceeds 3500 rpm, my engine's flow requirement
is: 355 cfm (actually 351/2 x 3500 / 1728 = 355.46875). This fits nicely
w/ the 2150's rating of (somewhere around) 350 to 370 cfm.

However, going with a 4V carb rated at 600 cfm or less would still give
better performance because the primary venturis would be smaller than the
2150's, producing a higher air velocity through the carb and theoretically
giving better throttle response and fuel economy. The secondaries would
provide the additional flow capacity for higher rpms.

One of the main problems with tuning 4V carbs is opening the secondary
venturis too soon. This produces an over-rich mixture (as fuel is fed in
through the secondary venturis) and probably eliminates the throttle
responsiveness potential of the smaller primaries as the air velocity
through the carb drops from what it would be with only the primaries open.

>IMHO, if you want a simple and reliable emissions-legal
>carb (and manifold), I would recommend the Edelbrock #3771
>intake manifold (with EGR) and either the 500 cfm Carter AFB
>(#9504) or the 600 cfm Edelbrock 1400-series EGR carb (#1408,
>I think). One snag with the Edelbrock manifold, you'll have to
>cough up an extra $40-$50 for the 4V EGR spacer to adapt it to
>the 4V carb. Even though it's made for the 4V carb, it comes
>from the factory w/ only a 2V carb EGR spacer (to allow you to
>mount the stock Motorcraft 2150 carb).
I'll stand by my final recommendation there. Both the Carter and Edelbrock
carbs are much easier to work on than a Holley, and they seem to be less
temperamental as well.

A few weeks back, Dale Carmine asked about the differences between the 2100
and 2150 carbs.

>Who can tell me what the difference is between a motorcraft
>2150 and the 2100???
After looking at a few pictures of the 2100, I would say the main
difference is that the 2150 is adapted to emissions controls, especially
evaporative emissions controls. The 2150 has provision for trapping vapors
from the fuel bowl in the carbon canister, whereas the 2100 simply vents to
the air. The only other differences I can see are the provision for vacuum
choke pull-down on the 2150 and (at least on some later models) a port for
the EVAP system control signal.

> What is the basis for Pony Carburetor to claim that the "2100
> is the finest 2-bbl ever made"?

Quoting from the Pony Carbutetors, Inc. web site:

"For the last several years you have been reading about how wonderful the
Autolite 2100 and 4100 carburetors are. The reasons that these carburetors
perform the best on the planet are:

1. Annular fuel discharge - which atomizes fuel much better than any other
metering system ever engineered in any carburetor.

2. A one piece float bowl and main body casting that eliminates leaks and
maintenance.

3. A simple appearing design that does not require constant adjustment and
attention while providing superior fuel economy and straight line
performance! "

Pony Carburetors web site URL is :
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cybervillage.com/ponycarburetor/

You can read more FoMoCo carb tidbits there. BTW: Pony Carbs offers a 4100
conversion where the primary venturis are reduced to 1.00" and the
secondaries are 1.12", sort of a 4100 "spreadbore" concept in a square bore
package. Hmmm... This sounds like it might be just the ticket for serious
mid-size V8 performance and economy.

OK, on a (somewhat) related note, last week I picked up a genuine Ford shop
manual that covers "Emissions Diagnosis/Engine Electronics" for all 1984
Ford vehicles (manual reference code AB). (Remember, in 1984, over 8500
GVW trucks still used the good old Duraspark II ignition system and most of
the same emissions devices as the late '70s vehicles.)

I bought this book so I could figure out how to troubleshoot CFI/EEC-IV
problems on a Crown Vic, but this book has proved to be a veritable gold
mine of information on late '70s through early '80s Ford engine emissions
control devices. The function and application of every device is
explained, with specs for variations (like on/off temperatures for temp
switches), and the vacuum diagram symbols are shown. After years of
research, I have finally figured out what two of the weird little things
are in the vacuum system on my 351M!

Dave R. (M-block devotee, but not carb expert)

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:20:57 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: torque converters

> From: SAR HOG
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 16:26:12 EST
> Subject: torque converters

> Can someone please explain the advantages/ disadvantages of a
> high stall
> speed torque converter? I have a C-6 coupled to a 460. The guy I
> bought the truck from said it has a 3000 rpm torque converter. What
> does this mean? The truck appears to be built towards drag racing,
> but I'm using it as a daily driver first and foremost. The

3000 is way too high for a 460 unless that's all you do (drag). You
should go to a junk yard and pick up a stock converter out of any
460/C-6 application and pop it in. What it means is that at normal
highway speeds the converter never gets close to equilibrium so it's
like having a lower high gear, maybe like running in second all the
time. This also produced a lot of unnecessary heat which will
eventualy damage the tranny.

> transmission kinda "clunks" sometimes when it shifts between 1st and
> 2nd so I'm thinkin it's gonna need some work soon. If I pull it,

He probably has a shift kit in it to make it shift harder.

> would I benefit from a lower speed torque converter? Can I put a
> wide-ratio gearset in it? I'm changing the rear end gear from 4.11
> to 3.50 soon to try to get my rpm's down. It turns about 3700 rpm
> at 60 mph. I'm guessing here cause the speedo shows 90 mph! Sorry

The wide ratio is a good way to go but you shouldn't need 3.5 gears
with a 460 unless you off road it or want super pickup. I'm using
2.75 with stock size tires. 3.00 would be a good compromise IMHO for
the 460 and street use up to about 33" tires with the wide ratio gear
set. With standard gear set you may want to stay up around 3.50 tho.
I'm running 3.5 with a 351m and 33's and it's just about right but
the 460 could handle more gear IMHO.

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:43:15 -0500
From: am14 chrysler.com
Subject: Clutch

Azie Magnusson
01/07/98 11:00 AM
To: Fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net SMTP
cc:
Subject: Clutch

Marko. Ive had awfully good luck with FOMOCO clutches and pressure
plates. Only problem I've ever encountered is "clutch chatter", and
I've never been able to completely get rid of that. Longevety has
never been a problem.. All depends on what you intend to do with the
truck, as to what I would use. Continuous "severe duty" might make me
want to go aftermarket, but occasional "severe duty" I would trust with
whatever I could get that was cheapest and that I thought was
reliable. They aren't that hard to change, if found to be
unacceptable. I raced a '61 Strarliner for several years. Ran a
FOMOCO 11" behind a 390 rated at 401HP(3duece setup, solid lifters/cam,
and cast shortie headers from the factory). Later installed a 406, and
later a 428. All ran the same clutch. Was still good when I quit the
racing business. All a matter of personal preference and finances IMHO.

Let us on the list know what all you do to the 410, and how it feels
when you take her out for that 1st spin down the road. I think you are
going to get a definate "rush" from the tremendous amount of torque you
are going to have.

Good luck.

Azie

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

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 12:58:33 -0800
From: John MacNamara
Subject: Re: Clutch

am14 chrysler.com wrote:

> Azie Magnusson
> 01/07/98 11:00 AM
> To: Fordtrucks61-79 listservice.net SMTP
> cc:
> Subject: Clutch
>
> Marko. Ive had awfully good luck with FOMOCO clutches and pressure
> plates. Only problem I've ever encountered is "clutch chatter", and
> I've never been able to completely get rid of that. Longevety has
> never been a problem.. All depends on what you intend to do with the
> truck, as to what I would use. Continuous "severe duty" might make me
> want to go aftermarket, but occasional "severe duty" I would trust with
> whatever I could get that was cheapest and that I thought was
> reliable. They aren't that hard to change, if found to be
> unacceptable. I raced a '61 Strarliner for several years. Ran a
> FOMOCO 11" behind a 390 rated at 401HP(3duece setup, solid lifters/cam,
> and cast shortie headers from the factory). Later installed a 406, and
> later a 428. All ran the same clutch. Was still good when I quit the
> racing business. All a matter of personal preference and finances IMHO.

Does anyone out there have a spare flywheel for a 427 they'd sell cheap? I
need one to balance with the crank in my 427.

If so you could email off line at JohnMcn micom.com

Thanks
John MacNamara

78 F250 4X4 Supercab
67 GT500
66 Corvette

64 427 LR
66 427 MR/SO

>
>

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:01:53 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Steering, C-6 Aftermarket Shifters?

> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 17:46:34 -0600
> From: Tyler Wilkins
> Subject: Steering, C-6 Aftermarket Shifters?

> components going to the hubs. Any suggestions on anything else that
> should be gone over on the front end? Such as Radius arm bushings,
> any bushings or such in the hubs, etc? Are these a worthy
> replacement (Radius Arm bushings)? Anyone done this know how
> difficult this is or how costly they are?

As long as you're getting under there I'd replace the radius arm
bushings and take a good look at the king pins as well. They usually
get stiff rather than loose but check anyway. If they are stiff, try
lubing them. If grease won't go through try heating the bushing
areas (top and bottm) but not too much to damage the seals in there.
If you can't get them to take the grease, I'd replace them by
removing the whole I beam assy and take it in to auto parts to have
them press them out and replace them then put it back in with new I
beam bushings as well.

Michigan Pot Hole Jumpin Bronco lover, -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 17:23:07 -0500
From: "MICHAEL THOMAS"
Subject: Flex coupling on a '77 F150 2wd

I need to know a good way on changing the flexible coupling that
joins the steering shaft and the p/s gearbox on a '77 F150 2wd.
The old one is broke and steering is very sloppy!!

Still trying to figure out the carbon and suffering with me spark
plugs, but thanks to marko in vancouver for the great theories!

Thanx fellas!



M. Dustin Thomas
mdthomas nc.edu
KB9OGG

'77 F150 Ranger 400 cubes
'91 G*C Sonoma 4-popper (the Gigantic Mistake)

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

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 14:31:48 -0800
From: danadeb pacbell.net
Subject: [Fwd: Mail failure]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------FC039A616A185641C2E94DF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hey Ken

I don't know if this is coming from your end or on mine but as of about a week
ago I started receiving this message every time I send something to the list.
Does it mean anything to you? my submissions seem to be getting to the list even
though I am receiving this response!

Help!!

Dana

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


Here is where I have been sending submissions to:


Ford Folks



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


Here is the full header:



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


Return-Path:
postmast{MHS:POSTMASTER mck} mckinstry.com
Received:
from mail-gw2.pacbell.net (mail-gw2.pacbell.net
[206.13.28.53]) by mail-la1.pacbell.net
(8.8.8/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA27624 for
; Mon, 5
Jan 1998 09:34:24 -0800 (PST)
Received:
from adcom.adcomsys.net (root adcom.adcomsys.net
[209.63.29.2]) by
mail-gw2.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with ESMTP
id JAA09530 for
; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:34:22 -0800
(PST)
Received:
(from Umck localhost) by adcom.adcomsys.net
(8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id IAA09210
for danadeb pacbell.net; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:54:21 -0800
(PST)
X-Authentication-Warning:
adcom.adcomsys.net: Umck set sender to
postmast{MHS:POSTMASTER mck} mckinstry.com using -f
Received:
from Connect2 Message Router by mck.mckinstry.com via
Connect2-UUCP v1.10;
Mon, 5 Jan 98 09:12:16 -0800
Message-ID:

Date:
Mon, 5 Jan 98 09:10:00 -0800
Sender:
Adminstrator

From:
Adminstrator

Organization:
Mckinstry
To:
"mail uucp {danadeb pacbell.net}"
Subject:
Mail failure
X-Mailer:
Connect2-UUCP v1.10
X-UIDL:
a5d1ca8819fc7f534abc844edcc603c4
X-Mozilla-Status:
8001
=====================================================================





Here is the return of the submission:


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





DATE: 01-04-98 TIME: 20:14
FROM: MHS:mail uucp

TO: MHS:mail uucp
SUBJECT: Re: Duraspark transplant
PRIORITY:



Adminstrator wrote:
>
> DATE: 01-04-98 TIME: 20:14
> FROM: MHS:mail uucp
>
> TO: MHS:mail uucp
> SUBJECT: Re: Duraspark transplant
> PRIORITY:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BULL229 wrote:
> Snip
> > That will
> > leave two remaining wires on the ign box, you will see, the two are a
> seperate
> > harness coming out of the box, just put 12v to these two wires, make
> Snip
>
> Although this will work the white wire should be hooked to a 12 V source
> when the ignition key is in the start position only. It is there to
> allow an amount of retard while cranking and if it is on all of the time
> there may be problems. See the wiring diagram at the site below:
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/duraspark.html
>
> It is a world of knowledge. Also the Duraspark I and Duraspark II use
> different connectors on the 4 prong connector.
>
> According to the tech people at Auto-Tune ( BWD Automotive Corp. ) there
> is a Control module # PT 289 ( white insulator ) that provides 16 degs
> of cranking retard vs. the 2-3 degs that the blue insulator # PT 313
> offers. I don't know if it is a direct ( blue ) Duraspark II replacement
> but the tech said it was and that it was intended for the 460 eng. ( I
> can't see how it would hurt to use it on the other engines )
>
> Disclaimer: I have not used the White #PT289 and can not be held
> responsible if it doesn't work or causes harm. I have only used the blue
> #PT313. I would have bought the #PT289 if I had known about it before I
> bought the Blue one.
>
> Good Luck
>
> 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/ ----------+
- --------------FC039A616A185641C2E94DF1
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: postmast{MHS:POSTMASTER mck} mckinstry.com
Received: from mail-gw2.pacbell.net (mail-gw2.pacbell.net [206.13.28.53]) by mail-la1.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA27624 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:34:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from adcom.adcomsys.net (root adcom.adcomsys.net [209.63.29.2]) by mail-gw2.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with ESMTP id JAA09530 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:34:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from Umck localhost) by adcom.adcomsys.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id IAA09210 for danadeb pacbell.net; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:54:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: adcom.adcomsys.net: Umck set sender to postmast{MHS:POSTMASTER mck} mckinstry.com using -f
Received: from Connect2 Message Router by mck.mckinstry.com
via Connect2-UUCP v1.10; Mon, 5 Jan 98 09:12:16 -0800
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 98 09:10:00 -0800
Sender: Adminstrator
From: Adminstrator
Organization: Mckinstry
To: "mail uucp {danadeb pacbell.net}"
Subject: Mail failure
X-Mailer: Connect2-UUCP v1.10

DATE: 01-04-98 TIME: 20:14
FROM: MHS:mail uucp

TO: MHS:mail uucp
SUBJECT: Re: Duraspark transplant
PRIORITY:

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BULL229 wrote:
Snip
> That will
> leave two remaining wires on the ign box, you will see, the two are a
seperate
> harness coming out of the box, just put 12v to these two wires, make
Snip

Although this will work the white wire should be hooked to a 12 V source
when the ignition key is in the start position only. It is there to
allow an amount of retard while cranking and if it is on all of the time
there may be problems. See the wiring diagram at the site below:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.wrljet.com/engines/duraspark.html


It is a world of knowledge. Also the Duraspark I and Duraspark II use
different connectors on the 4 prong connector.

According to the tech people at Auto-Tune ( BWD Automotive Corp. ) there
is a Control module # PT 289 ( white insulator ) that provides 16 degs
of cranking retard vs. the 2-3 degs that the blue insulator # PT 313
offers. I don't know if it is a direct ( blue ) Duraspark II replacement
....


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.