 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 #3 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 003 ======================================================================= 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 - Whoops.....Ouch! RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! RE: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! FTE 61-79 - Re: 1/2 ton head shake RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake RE: FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! FTE 61-79 - RE: Whoops, Ouch Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves FTE 61-79 - tail light trim RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake 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 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys FTE 61-79 - Re: C-6 problems FTE 61-79 - 390 FE Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE FTE 61-79 - Oil input opening Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE FTE 61-79 - 390 Output FTE 61-79 - Mechanics in general FTE 61-79 - 5 speed FTE 61-79 - new member FTE 61-79 - hi boy FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings RE: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE FTE 61-79 - test ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 06:02:41 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Don't you guys have the safety latches? There should be 2 latches, the primary one that keeps it tight and a second "safety" latch that allows it to bob around but won't let it come open?? - -- 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 had this happen to me about 3 years ago doing about 60. > Luckily the hood > did not get damaged but one hinge bit the dust. Not really > sure why it > happened, latch appeared to be fine. I chalked it up to not > having shut it > properly == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:41:10 -0500 From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Mine has the safty latch, the hood hesitated for a split second and then over she came. My safety latch as well as the rest of the latch was pretty well mangled. - -Ted "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Please respond to 61-79-list ford-trucks.com To: "'61-79-list ford-trucks.com'" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com> cc: (bcc: Ted Freeman/MURPHY_FAMILY_FARMS) Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Don't you guys have the safety latches? There should be 2 latches, the primary one that keeps it tight and a second "safety" latch that allows it to bob around but won't let it come open?? - -- 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 had this happen to me about 3 years ago doing about 60. > Luckily the hood > did not get damaged but one hinge bit the dust. Not really > sure why it > happened, latch appeared to be fine. I chalked it up to not > having shut it > properly == 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:47:21 -0500 From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! I wouldn't mind having a latch that's a little more positive. I like the stock look though. It's got me a little paranoid as well. I drove her today and was wondering the whole time it the hood was going to pop again. I'd be intrested in hearing how others have solved this problem. - -Ted In a message dated 1/3/00 10:24:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, tfreeman murphyfarms.com writes: << 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. >> I had this happen to me about 3 years ago doing about 60. Luckily the hood did not get damaged but one hinge bit the dust. Not really sure why it happened, latch appeared to be fine. I chalked it up to not having shut it properly, but have always wondered if it is getting ready to let go again. Has anyone taken positive measures to insure the hood will not pop up? I have thought about pin hood locks, but they are a pain. Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460 == 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 05:57:53 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel DiMartino Subject: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys lesson to be learned is the safety latch won't keep the hood shut for long! when i purchessed my truck the latch was stiff and didn't work properly, only the safety latch was holding it shut. i make it a point to keep that bugger lubed, free to move and hold the hood shut. as long as we are speaking of holding the hoods shut, are there any hood locks that are kept out of sight? how bought a better ignition key set?? theft always concerns me, even though any half wit theif could hot wire and old ford. i used to laugh at the movies at how quick a guy could hot wire one, until i owned and old truck!! ===== Daniel DiMartino 1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4 __________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:15:16 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys > as long as we are speaking of holding the hoods shut, are there > any hood locks that are kept out of sight? how bought a better > ignition key set?? I had a hood lock/ignition kill switch on my 82 GT ... it mounted using 4 good sized screws on both sides of things ... it was in addition to the other stock latches and used a lock that looked like a pop machine or bike lock key ... all sheathed cable and everything ... mounted the lock under the dash near the left knee ... if you didn't hook up the kill part of it, it would work very well for driving :) I regret to say I don't have a manuf. name or anything on it, it was on the car when I got it ... seems like there was an article a few years ago when the 5.0 was the motor to steal ... maybe some of the shops still remember them ? 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: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 08:17:32 -0600 From: John Strauss 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?? > They are, I swapped the front I-beams from a '72 F100 into my '68 F250 (converting it to an F100) and they fit perfect. _ _| ~~. John Strauss \, *_} jstrauss inetport.com\( Texas Fight! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:31:03 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Since I have the hood off, maybe this is a good time to check mine out :-) I did notice that the backing plate or mounting plate it is attached to has holes rusted through it but it still "seems" to be pretty solid. This wasn't on my fix list this week so may wind up with mechanic's wire on it :-) It is a Ford after all and we know we don't have to go under the hood all that often, eh? :-) - -- 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 - -- > Mine has the safty latch, the hood hesitated for a split > second and then over > she came. My safety latch as well as the rest of the latch > was pretty well > mangled. > > -Ted == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:30:29 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension > (converting it to an F100) > _ > _| ~~. John Strauss Wow, there's something you don't hear every day ... can I ask why ?? (just curious, not passing any judgements at all) 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:33:13 EST From: BDIJXS aol.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Ox Man, Used to have the same trouble when running non-radial tires.....they were Tru-Tracs. Anyone remember those things? They tended to "round out" after a few miles... The BFG A/T's took care of it.... Seemed like the dashboard was going to fall off at about 35mph..... CJ == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:33:24 -0500 From: William King Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! There was a discussion about "Ford flying hood syndrome" about a year ago on the list. Had it happen to me on the interstate about 4 years ago. I installed two eye-bolts (one on the hood, the other near the grill), attached a foot of chain to the hood, and now use a padlock to lock the chain to the grill area. Keeps my hood locked and will keep it from flying onto the windshield if it ever unlatches again. The last time this problem made the list, some people talked about using cable-operated catches (like on new cars) to ensure the hood stays closed. Personally, I like the chain and padlock. Not pretty, but simple. Ohio Bill >>In a message dated 1/3/00 10:24:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, >>tfreeman murphyfarms.com writes:>>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. > >I had this happen to me about 3 years ago doing about 60. Luckily the hood >did not get damaged but one hinge bit the dust. Not really sure why it >happened, latch appeared to be fine. I chalked it up to not having shut it >properly, but have always wondered if it is getting ready to let go again. >Has anyone taken positive measures to insure the hood will not pop up? I >have thought about pin hood locks, but they are a pain. >Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 04:22:43 -0800 From: "Scott Jensen" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 1/2 ton head shake I went through this on my 76. It was kind of irritating when I replaced the front end parts and tires, and the truck still shook. In fact, in some ways worse than before. I was really focused on my track bar, because the bracket hole on the axle housing had egged. After being under there for the umpteenth time, I noticed that one spring looked a bit shorter than the other. Replaced both. Cheap fix, (compared to the rest of the parts), and it helped a bit. But it still shook. Then something hit me. It seemed like I went though this 20 some odd years ago. I forgot about the pitman arm. It seemed tight, but it wasn't. Sure was nice to finally drive down the road without it shaking all over the place. The track bar isn't such a priority now and I only notice it when I'm 4wheeling. Now, because of a collapsed spring and a worn pitman arm, I have a front end that feels new. So now the rear springs are very noticeably sagging...next project. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:10:35 -0800 From: "Hogan, Tom" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Don't have one on my 76. Did they add this to the 78/79s? Tom H > -----Original Message----- > From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) [mailto:gpeters3 visteon.com]> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:03 AM > To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! > > > Don't you guys have the safety latches? There should be 2 > latches, the > primary one that keeps it tight and a second "safety" latch > that allows it > to bob around but won't let it come open?? > > -- > 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 had this happen to me about 3 years ago doing about 60. > > Luckily the hood > > did not get damaged but one hinge bit the dust. Not really > > sure why it > > happened, latch appeared to be fine. I chalked it up to not > > having shut it > > properly > == 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: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 09:14:09 -0600 From: "John LaGrone" Subject: 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?<< Probably so, Gary. In any case, there should be minimal things engaged in 1:1. My uncle used to tell me that the best way to destroy an automatic tranny was to slam it into reverse as soon as you start up. Since the fluid was cold and sluggish and everything engages in reverse, this is the period of the most stress. He always said warmup was more important to the tranny than the engine. Disclaimer: racing situations not included. - -- John jlagrone ford-trucks.com <]:-) <]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)1979 F150 Custom, Long Wide Bed, Regular Cab, 351M, C6 (Henry) http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm Dearborn iron rules!!!! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:21:28 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! > Don't have one on my 76. Did they add this to the 78/79s? > Sure you do ... some people call it a "wind latch" its the second taller part that catches the hood when you lift it a little bit ...even my 73 has one ... they've been on cars since ... well I think even our 57 has one on it ... the idea is it will catch before the hood actually flies up ... we all know as they get older they don't move as well and may actually do very little in this dept. 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: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 10:28:42 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake BDIJXS aol.com wrote:> > Ox Man, > > Used to have the same trouble when running non-radial tires... Well, I've run 38 swampers, 44" boggers and now these 36.5 ATR mudders. Never had a problem until now (after swapping axles and adding 2" more lift). Did have a less severe problem on my big truck when it had 4" lift and 32" BFG radials (turned out to be track bar bracket). Had NO problem last week with these exact same 36.5's. I can't bel. it is the tires, as they did not change from a week ago. Yesterday I took half a day, welded up a 4 inch drop for track bar bracket, put in new bushing and sleeve. I also welded up crossmember from passenger side frame to just above where upper track bar end mounts. I did not have time to drive it, but there is now zero play in bushings (both ends), sleeve and track bar bolt/bracket holes. I should also be able to rule out bracket flex (with new crossmember), even though it should not matter. At least it should help with the big tires and steering response, as even the stock bracket not lengthened flexes big time on the frame Thanks for all the thoughts :-) OX PS, if none of this works, I have the 35" BFG AT's that originally came on the truck. I will swap the fronts and see if that clears it up. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:35:51 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Dexron vs Ford ATF > Disclaimer: racing situations not included. > Come on John, you know all us racers fire that motor up and slam it in R just to get off the trailer ... :) 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:47:07 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake My van would only do it in one spot on my way to work. An invisible dip in the road with a side twist in it that would bottom the suspension and force the wheels toward one side at 45 mph which was the speed limit. Apparently when it bounced back up it unloaded the suspension enough for what ever was loose in there to allow the 33" tires which had been turned slightly by the impact to begin oscilating, but not just vibrating or jumping around, I mean lock to lock body slammers that threatened to tear the front axle right out. It was impossible to control even with power steering. Only coasting to something below 20 mph or so would end it. Applying brakes made it worse! As I told OX, I put a more or less stock damper on it and this solved the problem on that vehicle but apparently it doesn't have as much affect on larger tires since Ox is still having this problem with a damper installed which brings me to a discussion we had on the bronco list: It seems that the larger the tires the more damping is required which, of course, makes perfect sense. The consensus there was that when you get over 35" tires you need double dampers but less than that may have handling problems if you use two since it also dampens the system's "return to center" response and you may experince wandering even with a tight system. This was the first thing I noticed on the van with the damper installed, it tended to wander more than before but......it had very loose steering linkage and ball joints so they didn't work well with the damper installed. The key to all this I have observed is that first you must fix all the loose, damaged stuff and get it alligned, then install a damper consistent with the tires you have and you should have no problems with "Head Shake". Right now I have good linkage conditions in my bronco and am running 33's with no damper and no problems but it would handle better with a damper IMHO. I intend to use dual dampers because I plan to go to larger tires next time around but I may experience a little wandering when I put them on, we'll see :-) If you omit any of these you are leaving yourself open to the experience of a lifetime........not a fun one either :-( It's not my intention to get everyone scared of it and run down to your local garage to get it all fixed but to warn you to keep it in mind next time you have a little wandering problem or feel more feed back from the suspension than usual etc. to look into it just in case. Just one occurance of this "head shake" thing (the kind I described as happening to my van) could cause some serious damage to links, steering box bearings, ball joints etc. so it's not something to play with. Again, some of the things to watch out for are: Don't just automatically throw a bunch of caster into your "C" bushings, too much caster will exacerbate the "Return to center" response so that it may actually begin to oscilate due to over travel Keep the track bar, above all other links, good and tight so there is no mush or free play in it Keep the rest of the steering links in good condition and lubed so they neither bind nor get sloppy Keep it aligned properly. With a solid axle this usually means once during the life of the axle for camber but toe adjusments any time you change a component. Ball joint changes "can" change camber too but I wouldn't expect much of a change since these are all turned and ground to center. With TTB's and "I" beams there are more things to move so adjustment may be needed more often. Rotate the tires every oil change or 5k miles at least to keep them round and cup free. Cupping can set up some awesome vibrations and howling. I've rotated my daughter's tires on her 97 4x4 since it was new and she has over 50k on them now and they still look like new. - -- 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 - -- > Ox Man, > > Used to have the same trouble when running non-radial > tires.....they were > Tru-Tracs. Anyone remember those things? They tended to > "round out" after a > few miles... > > The BFG A/T's took care of it.... > > Seemed like the dashboard was going to fall off at about 35mph..... == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:51:37 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake BUMP STEER! Just occured to me when I read this about your lift. The track bar and drag link should be parallel with each other and the closer to parallel with the ground you can get them the better as well but at least they should be parallel with each other to prevent input from bumps affecting the steering or the steering box resisting change so as to set up an oscilation. - -- 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 - -- > Yesterday I took half a day, welded up a 4 inch drop for track bar > bracket, put in new bushing and sleeve. I also welded up crossmember > from passenger side frame to just above where upper track bar end > mounts. I did not have time to drive it, but there is now zero play in > bushings (both ends), sleeve and track bar bolt/bracket > holes. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 07:57:31 -0800 From: Dennis Pearson Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Thanks for your message at 07:10 AM 1/4/00 -0800, Hogan, Tom. Your message was: >Don't have one on my 76. Did they add this to the 78/79s? > They go way back. I've had one on all my '62s (on replaced after a scary ride over railroad tracks). As with any part that gets frequent use and tend to be taken for granted, the hood latch and safety latch tend to be topics of conversation after some frightening incident involving a windshield full of nothing but hood...That is if you live to tell about it... Not as bad as my friend's '56 Ford convertible when the hood flew up and wrapped around the top of the windshield, almost giving me a concussion. (The top was down). See...Another story to tell...I lived... I just remembered. When I was into '48-'52 Ford Trucks, they had safety latches, also. Probably even a law in most states requiring hood safety latches... Dennis L. Pearson http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson.index.html http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:58:39 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! I believe mine operates with the main latch which is cool IMHO :-) It's there, in front of the main latch, but requires no second lever like so many new cars do, you just pull the main lever and both come out of the way. Course the newer ones have the cable so you more or less have to have a second lever to release the safety latch I suppose :-) As someone mentioned, if you don't keep it lubed the safety latch will not fully engage so it's useless in that case :-( - -- 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 - -- > Don't have one on my 76. Did they add this to the 78/79s? > > Tom H > > Don't you guys have the safety latches? There should be 2 > > latches, the > > primary one that keeps it tight and a second "safety" latch > > that allows it > > to bob around but won't let it come open?? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:07:42 -0500 From: "Parsons, Raymond" Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Whoops, Ouch I have also had the latch fail; fortunately I have the hood chained and locked so it only traveled about 2". I didn't find a problem with the latch other than it was not completely closed due to lack of lubrication. Ray == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:06:34 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > > As I told OX, I put a more or less stock damper on it and this solved the > problem on that vehicle but apparently it doesn't have as much affect on > larger tires since Ox is still having this problem with a damper installed > which brings me to a discussion we had on the bronco list: > > It seems that the larger the tires the more damping is required which, of > course, makes perfect sense. Maybe, but I ran my big truck with the 44's and no damper for a year. The only reason I put a single damper on, was I was eating up PS boxes and off-road, with no pwer steering can rip your hand right off. I have had zero problem with that truck and the biggest street legal (OK, firestone makes a 46 :-)) tire you can buy. OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:12:05 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > > BUMP STEER! Just occured to me when I read this about your lift. The track > bar and drag link should be parallel with each other and the closer to > parallel with the ground you can get them the better as well but at least > they should be parallel with each other to prevent input from bumps > affecting the steering or the steering box resisting change so as to set up > an oscilation. > > -- > 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 > -- > > > Yesterday I took half a day, welded up a 4 inch drop for track bar > > bracket, put in new bushing and sleeve. I also welded up crossmember > > from passenger side frame to just above where upper track bar end > > mounts. I did not have time to drive it, but there is now zero play in > > bushings (both ends), sleeve and track bar bolt/bracket > > holes. Well, another good theory, but again, my big truck has 8" susp lift and no drop brackets for track bar. The track bar is at a huge angle compared to stock. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/BRONC_DETAILS/headersfrt.jpg It is an aftermarket adj, but that should not matter. OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:23:52 -0800 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys My 79 came stock with a locking hood latch on the inside of the cab which uses the ignition key. Don't know how feasible a swap would be or if all 79s had this but it works well. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" - ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel DiMartino To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 5:57 AM Subject: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys > as long as we are speaking of holding the hoods shut, are there > any hood locks that are kept out of sight? how bought a better > ignition key set?? theft always concerns me, even though any > half wit theif could hot wire and old ford. i used to laugh at > the movies at how quick a guy could hot wire one, until i owned > and old truck!! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:25:47 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Ok, but if you did not put a drop pitman arm on then the drag link and track bar should be parallel, right? - -- 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 - -- > Well, another good theory, but again, my big truck has 8" susp lift > and no drop brackets for track bar. The track bar is at a huge angle > compared to stock. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 08:29:57 -0800 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves All other things being equal (price, availability, etc.), should I go with multi groove keeper or single groove keeper stainless valves on my 400? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:34:56 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys I've seen these on broncos. Almost bought one that had this arangeement. Wonder sometimes if it would be worth looking into for my 78. Looks very similar to the old style E brake lever or handle. (real old :-)) - -- 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 - -- > My 79 came stock with a locking hood latch on the inside of > the cab which > uses the ignition key. Don't know how feasible a swap would > be or if all 79s > had this but it works well. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:52:44 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Multi groove is always better if you can get the keepers to go with them. - -- 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 - -- > All other things being equal (price, availability, etc.), > should I go with > multi groove keeper or single groove keeper stainless valves > on my 400? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:01:18 -0800 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves I believe that's what came stock on these heads (74 casting Cleveland 2v) and I think that the purpose of the multi grooves is to actually rotate the valves? I've also heard that at high rpms, which my truck engine probably won't see too often, the multi groove keepers can actually loosen enough to allow the valve to drop into the cylinder. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:52 AM Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves > Multi groove is always better if you can get the keepers to go with them. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:26:07 -0600 From: "John LaGrone" Subject: FTE 61-79 - tail light trim Back in the late summer I acquired a couple of trim rings from around the tail lights of an E series van. Yesterday I finally installed them. Some day I'll take pictures and post them. Today our Internet browser services don't work. Nope, not Y2K, just an upgrade mistake by the MIS department. Anyway, back to the trim rings. First, they do not fit exactly right. the van has a bigger recess around the tail light lenses. The pickup trim is made to blend with the trim on the tail gate, which I don't have. I used a body hammer to bend down the flange around the outboard side of the trim ring so that it would fit more flush. Then I drilled two holes in the truck above and below the tail light and attached the ring with self tapping chrome screws. Then I used brute force with the heel of my hand to mold the ring more to the body contours. The right side, which I did second, looks better than the left side which I did first. I got a little wild with the hammer on the left side. I have to admit the trim rings look a little funny right now, I think because I am not used to them yet. - -- John jlagrone ford-trucks.com <]:-) <]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)1979 F150 Custom, Long Wide Bed, Regular Cab, 351M, C6 (Henry) http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm Dearborn iron rules!!!! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:38:20 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves > I believe that's what came stock on these heads (74 casting Cleveland 2v) Wow, that's cool if its true ... > and I think that the purpose of the multi grooves is to actually > rotate the > valves? usually there's a "rotater" on the end of the spring that does this, not the actual grooves themselves ... also this is an exhaust thing mostly ... as the intake doesn't have the hot spot problems 'cause it gets cooler intake air passed over it ... where the exhaust is hot all the time so they rotate it to help keep an even heating on the head and the valve ... > I've also heard that at high rpms, which my truck engine probably > won't see too often, the multi groove keepers can actually loosen > enough to > allow the valve to drop into the cylinder. I would think you'd have to float the valves for this to happen, otherwise there should always be pressure on those keepers shouldn't there ? 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 09:49:29 -0800 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves - ----- Original Message ----- From: William S. Hart To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:38 AM Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves > > I believe that's what came stock on these heads (74 casting Cleveland 2v) > > Wow, that's cool if its true ... > Woops...I didn't mean the heads came stock with stainless valves...just multi groove... > > and I think that the purpose of the multi grooves is to actually > > rotate the > > valves? > > usually there's a "rotater" on the end of the spring that does this, not the > actual grooves themselves ... also this is an exhaust thing mostly ... as > the intake doesn't have the hot spot problems 'cause it gets cooler intake > air passed over it ... where the exhaust is hot all the time so they rotate > it to help keep an even heating on the head and the valve .. > > I've also heard that at high rpms, which my truck engine probably > > won't see too often, the multi groove keepers can actually loosen > > enough to > > allow the valve to drop into the cylinder. > > I would think you'd have to float the valves for this to happen, otherwise > there should always be pressure on those keepers shouldn't there ? > I read this on a website about the Ford Cleveland...http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Flats/3845/cleveland.html#cle veland Don't know how accurate the info is but the guy seems to know his stuff... == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 13:17:38 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote: > > Ok, but if you did not put a drop pitman arm on then the drag link and track > bar should be parallel, right? > I did put a dropped pitman in the big truck. They are not parallel, but they are not that far off. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/BRONC_DETAILS/frtsusp.jpg I did extend the pitman on the big bronc and made it adjustable with a tie rod link setup, but not this green bronc with the shakes. I went home at lunch and tried the green bronc, NO difference, just as bad. Would not being on center in the steering box do it. I doubt it, cause I ran that way for years with the big bronc, when I had only 4" lift. I'm starting to think maybe it is shocks, as I had to swap them to longer one's and they seem very week and floaty. I'm on the verge of putting the 2" springs back and the stock rubber C-bushings. Of course now the starting sol went and the water pump is leaking (both happened just today :-(). Maybe this truck is trying to tell me something !!! Anyway, thanks for all the suggestions Gary, I'll go through everything again when my mood gets a little better!! OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 13:32:56 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake Tony Marino wrote: > > 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) > Same tires I had last week, no shake at all. > 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. Fixed all that, in fact overkilled it > 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. Should not have changed from last week. Does not seem loose, as I've been under there with someoen else turning the steering backa nd forth about 100 times all week. > 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. Toe should be the same as last week. I initally had same tie rods as last week. I did swap out both tie rods after the inital shaking started. I toed it in some from where it was in my last round of "fixes" yesterday. No better. Thanks for the suggestions OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 10:45:02 -0800 From: "Hogan, Tom" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! Ok, I'll look. But when I open mine just pull once on a latch on the front of the grille (inside a bit) and the hood goes up. Tom H > -----Original Message----- > From: William S. Hart [mailto:wish iastate.edu]> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 7:21 AM > To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! > > > > Don't have one on my 76. Did they add this to the 78/79s? > > > > Sure you do ... some people call it a "wind latch" its the > second taller > part that catches the hood when you lift it a little bit > ...even my 73 has > one ... they've been on cars since ... well I think even our > 57 has one on > it ... the idea is it will catch before the hood actually > flies up ... we > all know as they get older they don't move as well and may > actually do very > little in this dept. > > 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 > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:57:32 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! > Ok, I'll look. But when I open mine just pull once on a latch on > the front > of the grille (inside a bit) and the hood goes up. > Yup, there's only one lever, but 2 latches ... if you look one is a door style latch (as far as the way it looks, not the way it acts necessarily) and that's at the bottom of the mechanism on the radiator support, then a bit farther up is a piece of metal with a hook on it, looks kind of like half of an up arrow, that's the safety latch portion ... 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:18:40 -0800 From: "Southerland, Rich" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys Anybody made this change on an E-series? With nearly $200 worth of batteries under my hood and needing SWMBO be able to open it (the chain and padlock idea has been shot down) if needed has me interested in this... Rich 77 E150 - -----Original Message----- From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) [mailto:gpeters3 visteon.com]Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 8:35 AM To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys I've seen these on broncos. Almost bought one that had this arangeement. Wonder sometimes if it would be worth looking into for my 78. Looks very similar to the old style E brake lever or handle. (real old :-)) - -- 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 - -- > My 79 came stock with a locking hood latch on the inside of > the cab which > uses the ignition key. Don't know how feasible a swap would > be or if all 79s > had this but it works well. == 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:34:59 -0500 From: oldfords63 juno.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - Re: C-6 problems Matt- 6 times is WAY too many. Try looking at other areas too. Converter run-out, crank flange run-out, Crank snout bore, and converter pilot hub and flex plate integrity are good places to start. I assume the pump was checked and or changed some where along the way? Good luck, you could use some !! Phil ________________________________________________________________ == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:04:29 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE A Bernal writes: >>And about the comparison. What's more or less the "potential" or " output" of the 390 engine. Any uplifting things it does? Why would the original owner or some other owner put a 390 engine on a f-100 4x4? Factory or just someone wanted something bigger in the hood?<< Most people upgrade to the 390 from the 360 because it is fairly cheap to do. Same bore but requires different pistons due to the wristpin location. I think it uses the same rod length, so you don't have that expense. Go to your favorite crankshaft regrinder and purchase a crankshaft for the 390 for probably less than $150.00 with no trade in (core). That is strictly a guess. Outside dimensions are identical on all FE's, so no one can tell for sure by appearance wheather it is a 332/352/360/390/406/410/427 or 428. The 390 will out pull a 360, out run a 360 and probably get better gas mileage. Those are the reasons most people use. Me - I like cubic inches. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 14:00:52 -0800 From: wicowboy Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch! William King wrote: > > There was a discussion about "Ford flying hood syndrome" about a year ago > on the list. Had it happen to me on the interstate about 4 years ago. > I installed two eye-bolts (one on the hood, the other near the grill), > attached a foot of chain to the hood, and now use a padlock to lock > the chain to the grill area. Keeps my hood locked and will keep it from > flying > onto the windshield if it ever unlatches again. The last time this problem > made the list, some people talked about using cable-operated catches (like > on new cars) to ensure the hood stays closed. Personally, I like the chain > and padlock. Not pretty, but simple. > Ohio Bill I have the chain and padlock on my trucks also, not only for saftety but to keep the theives out from under my hood. Those performance parts are cheap! == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:28:16 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE > I think it uses the same rod length, so you don't have that expense. Sorry, you do have that expense, it uses a different rod :( the 360 uses a longer one ... > The 390 will out pull a 360, out run a 360 and probably get better gas > mileage. Those are the reasons most people use. I've got about the same mileage actually, which is why the 390 is preferred, or so I've heard ... same mileage with more power, fewer sacrafices that way :) > Me - I like > cubic inches. > That's always true here too, though my little 281 isn't as disappointing as you'd think :) 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:28:46 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - Oil input opening Ted F. writes: >>I didn't catch the first post, but on some of the older 4V intakes had an oil fill spout on the front of the intake, which is on the passenger side of the motor. I don't know if it's relevant to this conversation or not, though<< Through '63 for sure 2bbls as well as 4bbls. I think the '65 went to the rocker arm covers, but it might have been '66. My '67 Galaxie 2dr ht had it in the covers for sure. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:30:48 -0500 From: tfreeman murphyfarms.comSubject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE You'll need the connecting rods as well. The 360 uses the long rod and the 390 uses the short one. - -Ted A Bernal writes: >>And about the comparison. What's more or less the "potential" or " output" of the 390 engine. Any uplifting things it does? Why would the original owner or some other owner put a 390 engine on a f-100 4x4? Factory or just someone wanted something bigger in the hood?<< Most people upgrade to the 390 from the 360 because it is fairly cheap to do. Same bore but requires different pistons due to the wristpin location. I think it uses the same rod length, so you don't have that expense. Go to your favorite crankshaft regrinder and purchase a crankshaft for the 390 for probably less than $150.00 with no trade in (core). That is strictly a guess. Outside dimensions are identical on all FE's, so no one can tell for sure by appearance wheather it is a 332/352/360/390/406/410/427 or 428. The 390 will out pull a 360, out run a 360 and probably get better gas mileage. Those are the reasons most people use. Me - I like cubic inches. Azie Ardmore, Al. == 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:15:33 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - 390 Output William H. writes: >>Ffactory trim was over 300hp in some vehicles<< 1961 Starliner I bought new off the showroom floor rated 375hp. Single4bbl, cast iron headers(shorties), solid lifters. Got a very respectable 15-17 mpg with the 3 speed on the tree with elect OD. Ran like a scalded dog when you wanted it to, yet was very mild mannered. I later added the 3 2bbls and ran these on many FE's from then until 1994 when I sold my '76 F150 BiCentennial addition 4X4 that I installed a slightly warmed over 428SCJ in. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 13:00:23 -0700 From: "Kiernan, Denny" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mechanics in general After several months of being on this list, the biggest thing I've learned is that even old-timers who have been working on these machines since they were kids still have to struggle mightely sometimes to figure out the right way of handling some problem. So it seems to me that that, if I'm looking around San Francisco for someone to fix my truck, the average mechanic, who spends most of his time dealing with a vast assortment of highly complex modern autos, couldn't possible have an understanding of all the stuff he's faced with, and would have little chance of knowing how to deal with my '72 pickup. The fellow that I went to when I had the clutch fork trouble seemed like a bright young guy, but turned out to be totally unfamiliar with the problem, with the result that at one point, when he had the thing apart, he was saying that "there seemed to be something missing" and it was up to me to suggest that it might be the fulcrum, which was indeed the case. I figured if you've got a lever, you've got to have a fulcrum, and sure enough, he shined a light inside the bell housing and you could see where something had broken off. In a small town, where people know each other, word-of-mouth probably takes care of this problem, I imagine. But in the big city, with thousands of mechanics' businesses, there needs to be some way for people to communicate about these things. Up until recently, I didn't know anybody else who had an old truck like mine. Now I know one. And I still haven't found a mechanic who knows his old trucks. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 15:58:10 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed Gary writes: >>Only one I can think of is the Clark that was actually used with this engine and has the capacity to handle the torque on a daily basis. I think Azie has one set up with a clark so when he gets back Monday, give him a jingle << I wanted one, but not anymore. I have a Clark 5 sp but it is not OD. The only OD is Model #2820V0. Mine is Model #285v23 out of a '73 F700. It will stand all the torque and punishment you can give it in an F100. I purchased a Spicer 5831 Aux transmission that I'm going to figure out how to mount in my '77 4X4 with divorced TC. I want to mount it between the C6 and the NP205. The Spicer 5831 has 2:1 - direct: and .080 (or thereabouts) OD. My '77 has 4.11:1 rear and 4.10:1 front. It ought to be a "HOSS" with the 460 in place and this drive line. (The 460 is in it - not the Spicer Aux yet). Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:05:54 -0800 From: "ROCH FRAPPIER" Subject: FTE 61-79 - new member Just to say hello since I'm new to the list. I own a 1977 f100 flareside, 400 engine and in need of lots of TLC. Hope to be driving it soon. Rocky == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:17:08 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.comSubject: FTE 61-79 - hi boy Brian writes: >>A friend told me the last year Ford made them was 76. Mine is stamped January 77.<< A 1976 model year truck could have been built from August of '75 thru July of 76. If your truck was built in Jan '77, then it is a '77. I think they built Hi Boys in '77, too. Someone give him a sure fire way to determine if he has a Hi Boy!!!!!!! Somehthing about the front axle, I think!!!!!!! Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:13:50 -0800 From: "Chuck White" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings Just to recap I have been having occasional problems with really rough running on cold and wet mornings for the first couple of minutes after startup. Thanks to all of your suggestions concerning carburetor and choke problems. The choke is working perfectly and the carburetor also appears to be working perfectly. This morning the same thing happened again. Thinking about the rainy weather I took off the distributor cap. I couldn't see any moisture in there but I wiped it out with a rag anyway and that seemed to solve the problem. Does anybody know if there is anything made for this type of problem that I can spray on the inside of the cap to prevent this from happening. I thought of silicone but I don't want to mess anything up without checking first. And I sure don't want to have to stand out in the rain wiping the cap to make it go. Chuck '71 F-250 390 C-6 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:41:52 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings > I > couldn't see any > moisture in there but I wiped it out with a rag anyway and that seemed to > solve the problem. I got a new cap from the parts store, borq warner part I think, it snapped on tight and sealed well, haven't had that problem at all with the new cap (rarely had it before) at any rate I was really impressed with the fit, best cap I've ever had, will hate to change it out, but likely that's the best answer... another answer is to hit the salvage yards, the 5.0's had a boot around their dist's that protected them from this, it'll be too big for your small cap, but may work anyway .... I think it was 87+ 5.0's on the big cars and the stangs ... 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: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:45:16 -0800 From: "A Bernal" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE What is the rival of the 390? (in engine). Can the 390 out pull a 400/351m? Thanks for the previous answers. I was looking for those answers. Thanks again. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William S. Hart" To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 12:28 PM Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE > > > I think it uses the same rod length, so you don't have that expense. > > Sorry, you do have that expense, it uses a different rod :( the 360 uses a > longer one ... > > > The 390 will out pull a 360, out run a 360 and probably get better gas > > mileage. Those are the reasons most people use. > > I've got about the same mileage actually, which is why the 390 is preferred, > or so I've heard ... same mileage with more power, fewer sacrafices that way > :) > > > Me - I like > > cubic inches. > > > > That's always true here too, though my little 281 isn't as disappointing as > you'd think :) > > 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 > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 16:57:06 -0800 From: "Charles T." Subject: FTE 61-79 - test other post didn't go thru.....testing this one 79 F150 4x4 swb 460 swap == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ End of 61-79-list-digest V4 #3 ****************************** +----- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 though 1979 Trucks And Vans -----+ | Send posts to 61-79-list ford-trucks.com, || List removal information is on the web site. | +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+.... 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. 
|