 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages contained in these archives without consent from the respective author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors. From: owner-61-79-list-digest  ford-trucks.com (61-79-list-digest) To: 61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com Subject: 61-79-list-digest V4 #2 Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com Precedence: bulk 61-79-list-digest Tuesday, January 4 2000 Volume 04 : Number 002 ======================================================================= Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, send email to: majordomo ford-trucks.com with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the message. ======================================================================= In this issue: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning Re: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco RE: FTE 61-79 - '79 F-250 Towing Capacities FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake FTE 61-79 - years of the hi boys Re: FTE 61-79 - New 73-79 catalog - Free RE: FTE 61-79 - Vacuum probs/diagrams for 400M (long) RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed transmission FTE 61-79 - Daily drivers RE: FTE 61-79 - washer and misc details for 67-71 trucks (and my '87 olds cutlass supreme) RE: FTE 61-79 - vacuum tuning RE: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco RE: FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF Re: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake FTE 61-79 - Broncos, body mounts, thumps and bumps....... RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems FTE 61-79 - Jacks - was: washer and misc details.... RE: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems FTE 61-79 - Re: Vacuum probs/diagrams for 400M Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake FTE 61-79 - Shift FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension Re: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension Re: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension Re: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning FTE 61-79 - '79 Dream Truck Re: FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF Re: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems FTE 61-79 - disc brake conversion FTE 61-79 - 4wd questions Re: FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning Re: FTE 61-79 - Broncos, body mounts, thumps and bumps....... Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! FTE 61-79 - removal from list Re: FTE 61-79 - disc brake conversion ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:44:50 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco If you use the truck, passenger side, manifold you don't need to notch the frame. This notch winds up in exactly the wrong place for reliability, especially in a coil spring setup. The 460 is a great engine but the 302 can be made to be fun too, just depends on what you are trying to achieve. I like big blocks so the 460 goes in everything but not everyone wants or needs that much motor. You will need: All engine accessory brackets (high mount for power steering pump) Engine mounts drive shafts transmission cross member mods exhaust mods and new pipe Power steering box may get in the way Van oil pan, tube and dipstick The only trannys that bolt to the 460 are the ZF, 5 speed, C-6, Np435 and t-18 and all those in this class which bolt to the same bellhousing. With enough money you can adapt any tranny to it :-) - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > Posting this for my cousin. We are debating putting a 460 in a '83 > Bronco or replacing the 302 with another 302. He is planning > on slowly > building the truck, 3/4 ton swap next year, lift etc. His == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 06:46:22 -0700 From: Harry Vermillion Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning re: vacuum tuning After several people told me to add a degree of timing advance per thousand feet of elevation (I was in Denver) it seemed that the engine was over advanced and it still wasn't running well. An old timer suggested I tune up (points, plugs, filters, check the wires, etc.) as usual, but set the timing by using a vacuum gauge - advance the timing to maximum manifold vacuum and then back it off an inch. Been doing it that way for about 10 years now and it runs great. If you're at higher elevations, this might be what you're looking for Larry. - -- Harry Vermillion E-mail: north40 verinet.com == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 09:00:55 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > > If you use the truck, passenger side, manifold you don't need to notch the > frame. This notch winds up in exactly the wrong place for reliability, > especially in a coil spring setup. > > The 460 is a great engine but the 302 can be made to be fun too, just > depends on what you are trying to achieve. I like big blocks so the 460 > goes in everything but not everyone wants or needs that much motor. > > You will need: > > All engine accessory brackets (high mount for power steering pump) > Engine mounts > drive shafts > transmission > cross member mods > exhaust mods and new pipe > Power steering box may get in the way > Van oil pan, tube and dipstick > > The only trannys that bolt to the 460 are the ZF, 5 speed, C-6, Np435 and > t-18 and all those in this class which bolt to the same bellhousing. With > enough money you can adapt any tranny to it :-) > E4OD is a viable swap also if used with seperate controller and BW1345 TC. OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:17:54 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - '79 F-250 Towing Capacities The truck is heavy enough to do it and the 460 will do it but you need to look at the gearing and tires. Low profile tires? Just get some decent, highway, stock sized tires or use the curent tires with new gearing but you need to consider the load capacity of the tires. Add up the tongue weight and the rear weight of the truck, divide by two and that's the number you need on the tire, minimum. You are probably looking at 8-10 ply truck tires for this. Get a large cooler and mount it in the air stream "beside" the radiator, not in front of it and get a shift kit for the tranny, level one transgo at least. If you plan on using a boat ramp you better get a 4 wheel drive. I watched a guy burn the tires right off his truck one day trying to get a large "cigarette" boat out of the water with 10 guys standing all around giving him advice and not one of them thought to climb on the back of the truck to give him more traction.....very funny to watch actually :-) If you add some leaves to the rear stack you will need new shocks as well so keep that in mind. The shocks need to be long enough to allow full droop but not top out at full compression. On most applications this it a tricky compromise without moving the top mounts. - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > Got one more ? for the list. I have a 79 F-250 4x2 with a > 460/c-6 i put > in, the truck is my daily driver (reliability isn't an issue or at > least hasn't been), my question is what would the towing > capacity be of > this truck with a gooseneck or fifth wheel type set-up, the > reason i ask > is I'm trying to figure out if it would pull a 36' boat and traler > estimated at 10,000lb boat and 2000lb gooseneck trailer. Need to pull == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 09:20:36 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake I just finshed installing a rebuilt dana 44 front with Lokrite (that I had left over from my big mud truck) into my green beater trail truck. I also put in 4" springs (had 2" before). I now have horribly violent head shake at 40 MPH. I installed new 7 degree C-bushings and axle has new ball joints (new everything actually). To try to fix the problem, I swapped out lower track bar bushings and fixed a really loose tie rod end. Just seems weird that with all these new parts, it goes into this violent shake, but with the old parts and crap falling apart it was fine just last week. Only guess I have is that I did not lengthen track bar, so it has shifted axle over ansd upper bushings are a litle loose, but they were last week too and it was smooth as glass. I am going to weld up an extension for track bar bracket and drill out holes, so I can eliminate upper metal bushing and let poly bushings ride on bolt (thanks wayne for that suggestion!!). Another thing wayne (FRDTRKNUT) had done was build a crossmember that runs from upper track bar connection to opposite side of frame where front pass side shock mount bolts on to keep track bar bracket from flexing about frame. If need be, I will be building one of these also. I had this problem (not to this degree) with my big truck and it was track bar related then also. Gets annoying to do all this work and replace all these parts and have a major problem you did not have before :-) OH, well, enough whining. Hope everyone had a good some nice holidays and a good New Year!! OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 08:23:46 -0600 From: John Strauss Subject: FTE 61-79 - years of the hi boys > What years where factory hi boys made? > Not sure what year Ford started building factory F-250 4x4, 1959 maybe? I know they had the "hi-boy" in 1967. The last full model year was 1976. There may have been some early-77s, not sure if this was a running change or not. _ _| ~~. John Strauss \, *_} jstrauss inetport.com \( Texas Fight! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:32:49 -0600 From: prozell oaielectronics.com (OAI Electronics: Paul Rozell) Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - New 73-79 catalog - Free Mr. Miller, I would love to have one of the Autokrafters catalogs. The catalog can be mailed to: Paul Rozell 12903 S. 279th E. Ave. Coweta, Okla 74429 53-72 F Series. Thank You, Paul Rozell 65 F100 460 C6. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald D. Miller To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com> Sent: Friday, December 31, 1999 9:53 AM Subject: FTE 61-79 - New 73-79 catalog - Free > We are ready to print our newly revised 2000 catalog covering 73-79 F-series > pickups. Please email me off the list if you would like to have one mailed > to you when they are ready. If you have purchased from us in the last 18 > months, (Thanks for your business!) you will get one automatically and do > not need to reply. Please specify vehicle when responding. Thanks, Ron > Miller Auto Krafters, Inc. > > P.S. Check out our newly revised website featuring all books and manuals at > 15% OFF list. Also FREE shipping on any UPS order over $200.00. > > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:37:33 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Vacuum probs/diagrams for 400M (long) > Sound like the thing to do? Any quicker fixes? > Your vaccuum sounds about right for a heavier than stock cam ... did you use a factory cam in it ? Also what is your timing set at ? Mine smoothed considerably when I bumped the timing up a bit :) You might also try changing your vaccuum source, though I wouldn't think that would really affect the idle ... to check if its going to affect it or not, try disconnecting and plugging the advance ... at idle this will be the same as "ported" vaccuum ... this can be drawn off of the carb usually if this is the problem ... Keep us updated on what you've tried and how its working ... Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:42:42 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed transmission > I have seen Tremec TKO trannies run between 1400 to 1500 bucks new at some > Mustang speed shops. > Dunno the ratings of them and it they would handle the torque of an FE. > They are a direct replacement for the Borg Warner T-5 I am sure. > Yeah they are ... the TKO might handle the FE for a while, but I wouldn't race with it ... there really aren't any good 5spds for high performance aps that can handle a vehicle weighing more than about 3500lbs ... at least that's what I've seen/noticed ... Don't really know why that is, could be the aluminum cases or something I suppose ... could also be that not many people run vehicles like that :) > Don't the T-5 and T-56 have the same bolt pattern? > Couldn't a person then use the T-56 which is a 6 speed and > is listed here in a rag with two different torque ratings, one of 440 ft > pounds and one that can handle 550 ft pounds. > Cost there would be between 2300 and 3000 bucks. > > hhmmmm, Wish, you are up on the Mustangs....whadda ya think?? > Will it work?? > Hahahahaha ... I've heard the T56 is a waste for 'stangs, you get too low on first and get nothing but wheelspin ... I would think on an old FE for cruising and stuff that the 6spd would be great, you'd have the equivalent of a granny low and a double over drive :) But I don't think it would really last very long on a healthy 390 (as someone else said) ... I don't have any personal experience, but that's the general feeling I get from the other 'stang guys ... some guys can make a T45 (the new 'stang tranny) last forever, others can't make a TKO last 3 runs with less power ... dunno if its driver or what ... The other thing to consider (maybe its not a concern for some of you) is that the gear shift comes right out the top at the very back of the tranny ... great for those Fox bodies (and SN95's), but may not line up quite so well on the old trucks ... Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:44:30 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Daily drivers Andy writes: (I'm late cause I've been off work since the 23rd of Dec last millenium. >>CJ and I have had a running discussion concerning the reliability of our old trucks and there suitability for everyday use. If you would answer the answering the following three questions and post them to the list. I will tally the results and post them back to the list one week from today. >>1. What year and model truck do you have?<< I have 5, but for this list query, I'll concentrate on my 1977 F250 4X4. >>2. Do you drive it everyday or is it a "hobby" truck?<< Hobby, but If I didn't work for DiamlerChrysler it would be a daily driver. >>3. Would you drive your truck cross-country on a routine basis?<< I would not be afraid to go cross country in mine because it is reliable, but I would not go in it due to its miserable gas milage (6 - 10mpg), unless I wanted to pull/haul something home. Feel free to include any additional comments. Thanks for the help! West Slope Andy<< Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:48:12 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - washer and misc details for 67-71 trucks (and my '87 olds cutlass supreme) > One thing I cannot find is a jack. I want an original jack. If I am > correct it > is supposed to mount on the drivers side fender under the hood. I always > see a bracket there but nothing in it. > Well I can't find many parts around here that are still useable, but Jacks I usually can :) If you want I can try and take a peek and see if I can find one sometime in the next couple of weeks ... I wouldn't wnat to ship a handle though as they are the full width of the truck ... the jacks themselves are very similar to the ones used on through the 96's I think ... they are a bit different in case design, but the principles are still the same, so if you just need one, check the newer trucks ... they also store under the hood, usually on the backside of the passenger's inner fender ... Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:49:27 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - vacuum tuning > A while back, someone posted either an article or an address about tuning > with a vacuum gauge. anyone still have that? I seem to have > misplaced it and > the ol` 66 needs a little help! > Could this be the one ? http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Tech/Tuneup/tune.html There may be a link on the page to another page that has stuff ... Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:00:16 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco One of the things I have always wondered about is why engineers design a transmission to run in a gear set most of the time instead of 1:1. The disadvantage of the OD's is that top gear, the one you stay in 95% of the time, is a small, light duty high speed gear set......why do they do this? It makes no sense. Someone many years ago figured out that best efficiency and life could be obtained by eliminating all the spinning gears in top gear so they invented.......1:1 :-) Why didn't they just add a 4th gear to the bottom and put taller rear gears in it? This isn't really a question, I know the answer but it still irritates me :-( - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > E4OD is a viable swap also if used with seperate controller > and BW1345 > TC. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:11:58 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF So what you are saying is the band on the C-6 only snaps tight on the downshift? Seems odd that releasing a clutch would cause such a harsh shift going up into second with a shift kit? On the C-6 the large front clutch is the first gear clutch and the band is for second as I remember. One of it's strengths is that large first gear clutch. It may be that the band releases for the 1-2 upshift and engages for the 3-2 downshift, not sure but it makes sense to me :-) I have a couple of good manuals on this, guess I should go take a look, eh? Isn't there a clutch that connects the input and output shafts in high gear? - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > >> Faster (read harder) shifts cause less wear. Smooth shifts > mean there is > slippage between<< > > Brad, George, > > negligible. A harsh > shift will slam your other drive train components > unnecessarily IMHO. In > reverse, all bands and clutches are engaged. In low, all are > engaged but > one. As you up shift, something releases each time. A band > never engages to > cause an up shift and generally only causes the low range > unit to engage > which usually means you are stopped or going very slow. In > high gear on a > 1:1 automatic, all clutches and bands are released. Racing or > performance > transmissions are another matter. > > -- John == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 10:18:03 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 302-460 Swap in Bronco Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > > One of the things I have always wondered about is why engineers design a > transmission to run in a gear set most of the time instead of 1:1. The > disadvantage of the OD's is that top gear, the one you stay in 95% of the > time, is a small, light duty high speed gear set......why do they do this? > It makes no sense. Someone many years ago figured out that best efficiency > and life could be obtained by eliminating all the spinning gears in top gear > so they invented.......1:1 :-) > > Why didn't they just add a 4th gear to the bottom and put taller rear gears > in it? This isn't really a question, I know the answer but it still > irritates me :-( > I hear ya. I am still running 3.54 gears with 44" boggers on my mud truck. It's no rocket due to power of the stockish 351M, but I don't fry the clutch at every corner either with that 6.32 first gear. 4th gear runs right about 1800 55 MPH. I wish they made a beefy, non electronic auto like the 4spd creeper trans's. OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:20:44 -0500 From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Well folks....I just had something happen to me that I thought only happened to other people. While driving my '68 yesterday, the ole hood latch gave up the ghost and turned loose on me. Folded the hood over the windshield and roof and ripped the drivers side hinge off the truck. Thank goodness I wasn't far from home. After cleaning up my britches, I limped her home. Thank goodness I was going to replace the hood and hinges anyway and had them there waiting for me. Took about 20 min to put the new hood on. So you '67-'72 owners...get out there and check those latches! I had heard this was a problem in these old trucks, but never believed that it would happen to me. - -Ted P.S.- New hood looks much better than the old. (Thanks CJ!) == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 09:26:44 -0600 From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Exactly what part of the latch gave out? Jason Kendrick tfreeman murphyfarms.com wrote: While driving my '68 yesterday, the ole hood latch gave up the > ghost and turned loose on me. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:54:18 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake You should not run just the poly bushing in the top because the upper bracket depends on the inner sleeve to tighten against to get a good solid mount. The holes in this bracket often elongate and then you have to really reef on that 9/16 bolt to keep it tight. Frame torsion should not cause head shake but loose parts will, especially the track bar. Adding just the stock steering damper fixed my van without doing anything else to it and it was Loooooose :-) Too much Caster will cause this too. Right now I am running zero caster c bushings with stock setup, new parts and no damper and it runs real nice. Found out I only have 3 body bolts holding the body on though.....:-) What size tires you got on there? You already know this but larger tires add to the problem :-( - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > I just finshed installing a rebuilt dana 44 front with Lokrite (that I > had left over from my big mud truck) into my green beater > trail truck. I > also put in 4" springs (had 2" before). > > I now have horribly violent head shake at 40 MPH. I installed > new 7 degree C-bushings and axle has new ball joints (new everything > > I am going to weld up an extension for track bar bracket and drill > out holes, so I can eliminate upper metal bushing and let > poly bushings > ride on bolt == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 09:32:44 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! > While driving my '68 yesterday, the ole hood latch > gave up the > ghost and turned loose on me. This must be going around, had this happen to me over Christmas ... Dad had forced the latch open when it was frozen and didn't tell me til after it had popped up ... by then I knew it 'cause I had to push the lever back to break the ice out of it ... been fine ever since. Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:44:46 -0500 From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! It looks like the peice that you pull sits on top of another peice of metal and that looked to be worn on mine. Mine was pretty well trashed when I looked at it. What it looks like to me, is that the latches normal position is open. When the hood is closed the causes the claws to hold on to the bar for the latch. The claws are held in place by the latch handle, which is basically a flat peice of metal that holds the spring loaded latch in place till the handle is pulled. I believe what failed in mine was that the handle either did not fully engage when closed or the worn metal caused the handle to slip when I hit a bump. I always pull up on the hood to make sure it's latched, but somehow she came loose. Again, that's about all I can tell from what was left of mine. - -Ted "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" Please respond to 61-79-list ford-trucks.com To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com cc: (bcc: Ted Freeman/MURPHY_FAMILY_FARMS) Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Exactly what part of the latch gave out? Jason Kendrick tfreeman murphyfarms.com wrote: While driving my '68 yesterday, the ole hood latch gave up the > ghost and turned loose on me. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 10:48:40 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > > You should not run just the poly bushing in the top because the upper > bracket depends on the inner sleeve to tighten against to get a good solid > mount. The holes in this bracket often elongate and then you have to really > reef on that 9/16 bolt to keep it tight. When I looked at it with someone turning the steering back and forth, it looked like the bolt was stationary (tightnede teh heck out of it), but the track bar was moving quite a bit from worn poly bushings. > Frame torsion should not cause > head shake but loose parts will, especially the track bar. Well, it is loose, but it was last week too, that is what gets me. The lower end was loose last week, but is now fixed, so it's less loose overall than it was last week. > Adding just the stock steering damper fixed my van without doing >anything else to it and it was Loooooose :-) Already have a new stock staibil on there. > Too much Caster will cause this too. I have 7 degree bushings with 4" lift and no drop brackets, should be just about stock caster, NO??? > Found out I only have 3 body bolts holding the body on though.....:-) You mean you need more than 3??, Why??, heeheehee > What size tires you got on there? 36.5 X 14 X 15 fronts, but they are the exact same tires I had on last week with zero head shake. I have no problem on my big bronc with 44 boggers though, so I'm ruling out the tire issue. >You already know this but larger tires add to the problem :-( Yeah, I guess if it was bordeline and now it's over the top. I'll fix the upper track bar stuff and go from there I guess. OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:03:39 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Broncos, body mounts, thumps and bumps....... Well, spent last week end getting the shop ready for this weekend then worked monday through thursday but wednesday I was getting a little leary of the handling so put 'er up on the lift to check for broken shocks, springs etc........noticed the right rear body mount had no bolt in it so looked at the others while I was at it and realized that there were only 3 solid bolts on the whole truck! I knew the front clip mounts were toast and was planning on getting around to that eventually but on seeing this I left it on the lift and drove the bird to work thursday....... All body bolts came out.....amazing! Only broke one bolt in the battery tray :-) Took the whole front end out of it, grill, grill shell, head light frames, bumper, radiator and then the radiator support. what a mess! The whole bottom of the support was rusted out. Got it all cleaned up, rust cut out and ready to fix then went ot Lowe's and they had exactly the steel I needed, some 3" x 3/16 stock and some small patch plates in 22 ga and 16 ga. Spent 2 days fabricatiing the parts and fitting them to the frame, welding and grinding and drilling and painting with self etching primer. Stuck it back in last night with new bolts and the rubbers look real good as are the inner bushings so it's all bolting back together very nicely but...........the head light frames go it BEFORE the grill shell.......dang it! ##$%^%$# Oh well, it's only 6 bolts :-) Should have it back on the road tonight but still have to repair the radiator. Thinking about just heating up the tank and hoping it will all melt back together. It is leaking where the tank connects to the upper tray, all around the edges. Anyone ever try this fix? I've got some 50/50 solder and acid flux just in case....... It runs ok with coolant below the lip but heater doesn't work quite as well that way :-( Interestingly enough this is exactly what happened to my nice, expensive Modine which I turned in on warantee to get this off brand one and now here I am again. It has a life time warantee so I could just take it back (If I can find the receipt) but it's probably just going to do it again so......... Got a high pitch growel in the power train somewhere too. I think it's the rear end, excessive back lash but not sure. I was planning on looking into that this holliday too but........ - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:18:38 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Maybe the other loose parts absobed some of the wheel movement before it affected the track bar? Now you have everything else tight so the wheel movement goes right to the track bar and puts more force on it? Mine had a tight poly bushing and sleeve but the bolt was actually moving in the holes of the bracket. I wasn't getting the head shake but this annoying clicking when I turned the wheel in the parking lot so I had someone turn the wheel for me as you did and discovered the movement. I was able to tighten it up temporarily but eventually had to weld up the holes and re-drill them. If you take the sleeve out there will be way too much slop in there I'm sure. Not sure about the 7 degrees (I get 7.5 with 30" arm?) but I know I had some additional caster in the van and attribute some of the problem to this even though it had some lift as well but in that case I also built the brackets from scratch to keep them level so I had way more than I needed. If you look on those bushings there should actually be two degree settings depending on how you mate them up? Mine are two and zero as I recall. - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > When I looked at it with someone turning the steering back and forth, > it looked like the bolt was stationary (tightnede teh heck out of it), > but the track bar was moving quite a bit from worn poly bushings. > > > Too much Caster will cause this too. > > I have 7 degree bushings with 4" lift and no drop brackets, should be > just about stock caster, NO??? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 10:54:03 -0500 From: "Matthew Schwartz" Subject: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems I have a problem with a C6. I have had this tranny rebuilt 6 times and the failure symptom is the same. After about 60 miles, the tranny appears to lose the front pump, the fluid boils then utimately squeals. My question. What, other then a tranny component, would cause the front pump to go? I am at my wits end and so is the tranny shop. We even have an aux. cooler in line with a new 4 core radiator. Thanks == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:25:01 -0800 (PST) From: draco pacifier.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Jacks - was: washer and misc details.... danger wrote: > I got tired of looking at the empty bracket on my 69 F250, so I > bought a bottleneck jack (with threaded neck for height adjustment) > and mounted it on the inside of the drivers fender. I looked all over for a bottle jack, but couldn't find one that was short enough to fit under the axles or radius arms with a totally flat tire AND lifted high enough to put a fully inflated tire on. I think the original jack is 2 stages so the max height is more than twice the min height. Two stage bottle jacks can be found, but I seem to remember they are pretty expensive. I ended up getting one of those $25 floor jacks in a plastic case that fits behind the seat nicely. And believe me, it is really nice having an extra floor jack around when you are trying to line something up to install it - like a front axle. (I'm almost done.) Mark in Southwest Washington http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacifier.com/~draco/Truck.html - -- '74 F-100 Ranger XLT 4X4 in digest mode == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 11:36:51 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems This almost has to be a restriction in the cooler lines somewhere. If the front pump cavitates you will lose 3rd gear so I don't think it's lack of oil to the pump but if it's not circulating through the cooler then it won't last very long at all. Certainly, they would have checked for that? Is this a new radiator? Can there be some debris in the bottom tank which intermitantly interferes with flow? Does it have solid steel lines all the way or did someone patch it with rubber? Rubber lines can collapse etc...... - -- Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167 - -- > I have a problem with a C6. I have had this tranny rebuilt 6 > times and the > failure symptom is the same. After about 60 miles, the tranny > appears to > lose the front pump, the fluid boils then utimately squeals. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 08:40:14 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Lee Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Vacuum probs/diagrams for 400M Jeff, Happy 1900 to you, and those cases of beans will keep till they are used up, but I don't know how long bottled water can be safely used. Your problem could be timing, with the way your vacuum lines have been rerouted. First disconnect the dist. vacuum line and plug it, then check the timing. It should be what the book calls for. Then reconnect the vacuum line and see where the timing goes, it should be roughly the same. If it is retarded, that is the cause of the low vacuum readings. Next determine if it is manifold or ported vacuum that is going to the dist, if it is not ported then you should go to the book and try to fix the hoses. The previous owner may have set it up for manifold vac operation. The new carb may not have an electric choke, but you shoud be able to swap chokes, unless it works the way it is, then leave it alone. Dan Lee '53 F100 400C-4V >Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 13:59:28 -0800 >Subject: FTE 61-79 - Vacuum probs/diagrams for 400M >(long) >Howdy, and Happy 1900: >First, THANKS to all for your help, input and patience >as I swapped motors in my 79 Bronco; all-stock carb, >motor, hd clutch, etc. is (mostly working great. Did >the cam break-in just before New Years and have been >driving it a little since then... Lots more power, >less smoke, whew. BUT: >The vacuum hoses don't seem to be routed correctly. >The original ownermentioned that he had "improved" the >performance by re routing some of them- - and >replacing a temperature valve with a plug, etc... >The thing will just not idle correctly. Yes, carb was >factory set, playingwith mixtures didn't improve >anything (had a knowledgeable mechanic friendhelp out >here), idle is even set high to prevent from stalling. > The only thing I have come up with so far is the >vacuum advance to the dizzy seems to be constantly >applied through the current hose; don't know which >hose should be on there, probably the one from the >temperature valve that's gone... And the carb port >labelled 'E' is plugged, which seems wrong. >The new vacuum gauge mounted on my dash (nifty FTE >suggestion) reads low; idles around 16, runs (~2400 >rpm) at 10 - 11 in Hg. Think that should be 20 >and 16 respectively, right? But I have plugged the >leaks (I think) ... >I have systematically replaced vac hoses and made sure >everything matched the "original" setup as per masking >tape; I can't seem to find a matching diagram in >Chiltons, though. Next step will be to test all >valves, then try re routing vac hoses to match >something in the book. >Sound like the thing to do? Any quicker fixes? > Other question: old carb had a plug under the choke >for a wire to the dash - >new carb's choke doesn't have any place to plug in the >wire, though the carb is otherwise identical... >Doesn't seem to be a likely cause of the rough >idle as it happens whether motor is cold or warm. >Thanks again. Sorry for the long post. >Jeff >79 Bronco >400M 4spd __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://messenger.yahoo.com == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 12:00:13 -0500 From: Tony Marino Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Yo OX! I know of this shake that you are talking about... I've had it happen to me 3 different times, for three different reasons. ('78 f-150 4x4, 4 inch lift, 4 degree bushings, all poly) The first reason was because of a set of tires I had that were in poor shape, and one of the cords was busted on it, causing that violent shaking where all you could do was just slam on the brakes and wait for it to stop.. (really fun on entrance ramps to the expressway) The second time it did it was when the trackbar upper braket that bolts to the frame was slightly loose, and I just welded it to the frame, and replaced all the trackbar poly once again, because the previous shaking had killed them. The third time was hard to find. It tuned out my power steering gearbox was actually a little bit loose and the slight 1/16 movement side to side that it was getting while I had somebody wiggle the wheel on dry pavement was hardly noticeable. I cranked those 3 bolts down, and of course stripped them out needing to put another set of nuts on the back of them, and then I replaced my loose rag joint and fixed the upper steering shaft universal, I haven't had the problem since in at least a year. Tires and a slight toe-in are other big factors-- I didn't see anybody suggest it yet-- but if EVERYTHING is tight-- Head on down to an alignment shop and have them check it out.. If the tires are forced to work against each other, then can get into that nasty resonance that causes the shake. Good Luck! (I did the unltimate fix-- went to a leaf sprung truck!) 8-) Tony Marino tony greenman-systems.com == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:15:28 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Shift John LaG. writes: >>To me a harder shift means more wear and tear. This also illustrates that there is a difference in the properties of Ford ATF and Dexron.<< John: I've been out since the 23rd of Dec, and I'm reading my digests in order, so this may have been kicked around already, but here goes anyway. The quicker your automatic tranny shifts, the less clutch and band slippage, hence the least wear. Not at all like you imagine. Smoothe long duration shifts are what cause excessive heat and terminal wear. As to the differences in Dextron and type F, I don't know chemically nor structurally, but all the shift kits I've ever installed (and that is quite a few), all of them have recommended type F regardless of brand of vehicle or what the original manufactuer recommended. I use type F exclusively in all my personal vehicles (4 MOPARS and several old Ford trucks) and when I rebuild one for someone that I know is a hotrodder, I also use type F. If I am overhauling a trans for someone I know never abuses his vehicle, then I use what the manufactuer recommends. I've never had to re do but one and it was a mid 50's buick Dynaflo. I finally went to the salvage yard and bought a trans for it and installed it and told the owner what I had done. I did this free of charge by the way, because the vehicle would at least pull itself when it came in, but after I overhauled it, it never moved out of its tracks on its own power. Still do not have a clue as to what was wrong. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 17:11:47 -0600 From: Stu Varner Subject: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension Are 67-72 two wheel drive radius arms, tie rods and I-beams interchangeable between these years?? I am still debating as to whether I should buy this 68 F-100 SWB, 31,000 original mileage rust free truck that was hammered pretty good in the right front corner. It needs an entire new front clip and new I-beams, radius arms, and tie rod. I have a complete 1970 F-100 front end here at the house I can use to replace it all. I noticed today it was also dented pretty good in the cowl area (pass side where the fender apron attaches) which I can cut out and weld in a new piece from a donor truck. Decisions, decisions! Any help is appreciated. Thanks! Stu Nuke GM! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:40:16 EST From: JUMPINFORD aol.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension It should all be identical. As far as I know, I beams from 65-79 are all interchangeable. This should also include Radius arms and such. Seeings how both trucks are the same basic body, part #s might even be the same. I say go for it, sounds like a helluva truck. Darrell Duggan 74 F-350 "Tweety" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 19:05:00 -0600 From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" Subject: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension What year Ford F100/F150's used the stamped steel radius arms? I seem to remember the F100/F150's could have either the forged radius arms, or the stamped ones, but I'm not sure which years. Anyone have any ideas? Jason Kendrick == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:02:06 -0600 From: Stu Varner Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension At 07:40 PM 1/3/00 EST, you wrote: >It should all be identical. As far as I know, I beams from 65-79 are all >interchangeable. This should also include Radius arms and such. Seeings how >both trucks are the same basic body, part #s might even be the same. I say go >for it, sounds like a helluva truck. Thanks for the support Darrell......for some reason, I still am having a hard time saying "buy it!" I will make my decision tomorrow...... It really is a solid old truck excpet for the front suspension.....One BIG fear is that the front end may not be right when I do get it back together. It was tagged pretty good. The frame rails have been straightened on a frame machine but who knows how it will act when new parts are slapped under it. I will have a little talk with "Brother Henry" tonight while I slumber dreaming of Ford trucks. Stu Nuke GM! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:03:20 -0600 From: Stu Varner Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension Jason, Both trucks (the 68 and the 70) have the forged radius arms under them. Thanks. Stu Nuke GM! At 07:05 PM 1/3/00 -0600, you wrote: >What year Ford F100/F150's used the stamped steel radius arms? I seem >to remember the F100/F150's could have either the forged radius arms, or >the stamped ones, but I'm not sure which years. Anyone have any ideas? > > Jason Kendrick >== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html > > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jan 1980 21:00:02 -0500 From: "Larry Coffman" Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning Thanks to all who answered about the vacuum gauge tuning, the instructions that came with my new gauge where pretty vague to say the least. after setting the carb and timing, I had to back off the timing twice to avoid pinging but she is running great now! with only a 1 bbl. carb it was real easy to finally get it smoothed out. Thanks again Larry Coffman coffman defnet.com 66 F-100 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 18:18:04 -0800 From: "Pat" Subject: FTE 61-79 - '79 Dream Truck Howdy Folks, Thought you might get a kick out of this. I know I did. A couple of months ago a Ford Truck pal was showing me a '79 that he was working a trade on. It was a 3/4T 2wd. Lariat with a mint cab and clip, perfect trim and all there and an interior that was about 8 or 9 on a scale of 10. Was supposed to have a 351/400 that had had a carb fire. Well he called me and told me that I could go ahead on it as he was too busy. I talked to the owner, left a card after being told that he hadn't thought of selling it and went home. The same day, the owner called back, said that he'd just received word that he had an unexpected trip and would sell it for $400.00 (Tiny Canadian ones) I hurt myself getting the money out, picked up the papers and had it towed home. While clearing a place for this truck, my neighbor drove past and stopped to chat. (She has a '79 250 4x4 that has sat for 4 years with a shot body but a good C-6, frame, diffs and trans case that I have wanted to buy) Well to make a long story short, in one day I got them both and both for cheap. The '79 Lariat turned out to have the towing package with the big rad and tranny cooler, factory fog lights, box light, hood lock, dual battery setup, overload springs, Posi diff, C-6 and what was reported as a 351/400 turned out to be a 460 with really low mileage. Happy days are here again!! Lucky for me there is no SWMBO in my life, the yard is getting a bit cluttered. Patsplace 78 F-150 W/Overloads 77 F-250 4X4 79 F-250 Dream Truck Under Way More chicks on the list!!! Silly girls, don't they know trucks are for guys. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:41:30 -0500 From: "Brad Smith" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF > negligible. A harsh > shift will slam your other drive train components > unnecessarily IMHO. In > reverse, all bands and clutches are engaged. In low, all are > engaged but > one. As you up shift, something releases each time. A band > never engages to > cause an up shift and generally only causes the low range > unit to engage > which usually means you are stopped or going very slow. In > high gear on a > 1:1 automatic, all clutches and bands are released. Racing or > performance > transmissions are another matter. > Releasing is just as important as engaging! Think about what a shift kit does... It changes pressure to diff. tranny components. Gives more pressure to servos so that they engage/disengage more quickly. A slow engagement or disengagement of any friction part in the tranny (clutches or bands) means more wear.... There are O/D clutch packs and bands in O/D tranny's and they are engaged during overdrive... And they take lots of abuse... that's why they are usually the first to go.... Harder, quicker shifts are better for the tranny.... Brad == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:47:42 -0500 From: "Brad Smith" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems - ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Schwartz To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 10:54 AM Subject: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems > I have a problem with a C6. I have had this tranny rebuilt 6 times and the > failure symptom is the same. After about 60 miles, the tranny appears to > lose the front pump, the fluid boils then utimately squeals. > > My question. What, other then a tranny component, would cause the front > pump to go? I am at my wits end and so is the tranny shop. We even have an > aux. cooler in line with a new 4 core radiator. > > Thanks It is possible that some of the thrust washers were not installed properly, or were worn, and not replaced... If this is the case, the pump will not ride in the proper position in the tranny, and it'll give you problems... Just a guess from here.. Brad == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:57:04 -0700 From: "Bertolin" Subject: FTE 61-79 - disc brake conversion My brother has two parts trucks that he would like to make into one truck. The primary truck is a 1965 F-100 but the bed and some of the other parts will come from a 1963 F-100. He plans to convert the current drum brakes to disc brakes and would like the opinion of the list as to whether it's better to get one of the disc brake conversion kits or go junk yard hunting for a later model (~1971) I-beam/factory disc brake setup. Thanks in advance for your comments. Roberta with 1965 F-100 custom cab == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:50:52 -0500 From: "Brad Jones" Subject: FTE 61-79 - 4wd questions Fellow Truck people, I have a '65 short bed that has had a Dana44 from a newer (probably 70ish) year inserted under the front. Therefore I am not certain of what year it is from and I need some parts to firm up the steering. Is there a way to "date" a Dana 44? Is there a range of years where the parts for these were all the same? The Dana 24 Diff that came from the same donor (I hope) has 1967 casted into the case. Does anyone have a drag link for a Dana 44 they are willing to sell? Also, since this is a non-original install, the 4wd selector is giving me problems. Since I cut off the rusty cab and installed a good one, I would prefer to mount the 4wd lever on the passenger side of the tranny (where the hand parking brake would go on a F350+) but the arm I need to connect to on the diff. is under the driver seat. Can anyone tell me how their connection works? The prevoius owner welded up a funny looking bracket that never worked good. It's hard to think about plowing season when it is over 60 degrees in January (near Philadelphia) but I want to get ready. I have no 4wd experience and would appreciate any input. Thank you BJones snip.net Some early pics of this year long rebuild are at users.snip.net/~bjones/what.htm == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 21:17:35 -0600 From: "Freewheel" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning did I miss this posting, if so could you send it or repost it again. Larry ICQ# 3156803 Stephen Hawking: "The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Coffman" To: "61-79-list" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 1980 8:00 PM Subject: FTE 61-79 - re:vacuum tuning > Thanks to all who answered about the vacuum gauge tuning, the instructions > that came with my new gauge where pretty vague to say the least. after > setting the carb and timing, I had to back off the timing twice to avoid > pinging but she is running great now! with only a 1 bbl. carb it was real > easy to finally get it smoothed out. > > Thanks again > > Larry Coffman > coffman defnet.com > > 66 F-100 > > > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 19:22:13 -0800 (PST) From: canzus seanet.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Broncos, body mounts, thumps and bumps....... At 11:03 AM 3:1:00 -0500, Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > >Got a high pitch growel in the power train somewhere too. I think it's the >rear end, excessive back lash but not sure. I was planning on looking into >that this holliday too but........ This remindes me, many years ago, I worked for a Plumbing/Heating contractor here in the Great Northwet, who had a '78 F250 4X4 with 400/4 speed. Well, He's got a whining noise in low gear, So he thinks the tranny's rear bearing has gone out. Me, being the mechanic says "no, Its the rear end." He says, "no, It is the tranny, pull it out and fix it." I say, "Trust me, its the rear end." He says "Who's the Boss?" So I pull the tranny and TC, get them all the way apart, rebearing them, put them back together, and back into the truck, the noise has lessened but is still there. He drives it for a week then the rear end locks up and he drives into someones front yard. Whenever I see him, I give him a little jab about his parking technique..... Steve & the Rockette 68 F100, 390cid, FMX 63 F100, 292cid, 3speed 72 Capri 2000, hers 73 Capri 2600,tube frame going in..... 73 MGB GT, Our Toy 94 SHO, SWMBO's 98 Contour SVT, Mine, Mine, All Mine.... == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:00:06 EST.... 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 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. 
|