 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 #5 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 Wednesday, January 5 2000 Volume 04 : Number 005 ======================================================================= 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 - i believe i've sinned Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves FTE 61-79 - tire balancing RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE Re: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings RE: FTE 61-79 - i believe i've sinned RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject RE: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems RE: FTE 61-79 - Azie 5sp/3sp aux RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 engine rebuild (propane) RE: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390 RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4 RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE RE: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390 Re: FTE 61-79 - Rubber Seals FTE 61-79 - Gearsets RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE, 429? RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4 FTE 61-79 - auto trannies RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets Re: FTE 61-79 - Magazines FTE 61-79 - C6 puking FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!! RE: FTE 61-79 - Azie 5sp/3sp aux Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves FTE 61-79 - Reply-new cam for my 390 FTE 61-79 - Re: new cam for my 390 RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!! RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!! RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake Re: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets FTE 61-79 - California Dreamin'.... FTE 61-79 - Big truck trans change over FTE 61-79 - '61 RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake RE: FTE 61-79 - Tire Balancing RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake RE: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 03:55:16 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel DiMartino Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - i believe i've sinned scott, the only sin i read was the automatic trans ;) i will be doing the same 2x4 to a 4x4 swap, when i get my act togather. i'd love to hear more about the swap and difficulties involved. photos etc... ===== 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: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 04:49:38 -0800 From: Mike Pacheco Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves When I went to rebuild my 351C 2V I was unable to obtain stainless steel valves, just thought I would throw that into the conversation. Mike in Burien. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 07:17:48 -0600 From: "Bob & Becky Elliott" Subject: FTE 61-79 - tire balancing I don't know if the tire shop did it or not, but sometimes if you break the tire loose on the rim again and rotate it on the rim, you can move the heavy spots apart so that the weights aren't all in one spot, and you don't need so much. You use the tire & rim to help balance each other. Bob == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:24:01 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 1/2 ton head shake I'm still struggling with the concept of attaching the dampers directly to the tie rod bolts so all forces acting on the wheels are damped right at the steering arm without going through the tie rod ends and, of course, the steering box is also protected. On the dana 44 there isn't much room due to the track bar and drag link locations to do this but it is possible using some rather large brackets which is the rub.....the large brackets add considerable unsprung weight which could impact handling, not sure how much, but it also would stick out in harms way quite a bit as well so I haven't really got started on that project yet but someday.........:-) If I use single shocks and mount both in the rear locations I can do it more easily but I have the quad mounts up front so have to go aroung them which means some pretty long brackets sticking out up front :-( I saw a neat F-250 with this setup but he did the normal hookup to the tie rod with "U" bolts. That setup is really pretty simple but still leaves stuff sticking out in front of the axle to get creamed. Reversing the tie rod end bolts to put the tie rod on top of the steering arms may give more room, not sure but also not sure I want to remove that much metal from the taper surface to support the pins. - -- 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 - -- > 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. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 07:33:55 -0600 From: "John LaGrone" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings >> 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 Replace the cap with a vented one... I've never heard of putting anything inside the cap, because any drying agent is going to be tough on the contacts.... Good luck. Brad<< WD40 will do the job. I've used it many times without problem. - -- 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 05:52:03 -0800 From: "Hogan, Tom" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE 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. > Almost. From above yes. But from below the 427 gives itself away by the 6 bolts (3 per side) for the cross bolted main bearing caps. (I know, you Knew that! :0) ) Tom H. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 09:22:23 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings Chuck White wrote: 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. > I've had many an entire day of completely drenched engine compartments. I can now drive through 4 feet of water while towing another truck, with no more sputtering, heeheehee. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/whart52399/Oxdive.jpg) This is what I did. 1. Use a good blob of dielectric compound on all spark plug wire boots, ign box connections, and coil connections. 2. Silicone lower distr. cap to housing, including where pickup wires (or points wire in your case). Silicone cap to lower distr cover, but make sure sil. is on outisde, if you silcone in cap lip, you will make the cap permanent (ask me how I know :-)). I also JB welded cap vent, as it was letting water in. My boat came stock with unvented distr cap, so I don't see it as a problem. 3. As suggested, rubber distr cap works well also and in your case, may cure your problem all by itself. 80's fords with 5.0, V-8's had them (stangs, T-birds, Lincoln Marc VII's). Oddly, Fords trucks did not have them :-( OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:28:11 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - i believe i've sinned > i kind of feel bad for tearing a great > truck apart, but i feel better knowing that its a much better truck now > with 4wd and an automatic nothing against the 4-speed but the clutch was > shot and it wouldnt fit my engine. > did i sin doing this or is its resurection as a better > truck worth it. > If that's sinning, I'd hate to see what you'd call the previous owner who put my truck together ... here's a partial list : 73 Cab 74 Drive train/chassis 74 Bed 79 Grille/Right fender(?) Though I'm sure they were all wrecked trucks, the VIN says my truck is a 2wd just like yours does now ... I've since added a 76 motor and will be adding a 76 axle too, just to round things out :) 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:29:56 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject > when I put it > back together I reused the gasket (couldn't find a new one at the > time) now > when it is cold in the morning I am noticing an excessive amount of clear > water coming from the tail pipes, could the used gasket be > letting too much > air by and thus cause the condenstion. > I doubt it would do this, if there was a leak you'd hear a definite tick from the exhaust when you started it ... that clear water is condensation from having a cold exhaust system and the h2o left over from the combustion process condenses and runs out the tail pipe ... as the system heats up it will turn to white vapor (steam) and then eventually disappear as it is completely mixed and vaporized as it comes out the warm tail pipe .... 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:32:23 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems > time. The frame and mounts for engine and tranny are fine. What else could > this be? > Hmmm...this is just a shot in the dark, but on the newer x-fer cases the pump runs by sitting against a bump between 2 ridges that's cast into the case ... anyway the pump will eventually bend one of the arms that's over the bump, or wear the bump away, poof, pump failure (cause its spinning the casing and everything) and you quickly burn everything up ... is it possible that your front pump is not seating like everyone think sit is ? I'm not familiar with the guts of an auto tranny so I'm just kind of blind on this one, maybe someone else can confirm or deny this as even a possibility ... 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:33:43 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Azie 5sp/3sp aux > the shifting of the all manual set up, but how will you shift the > aux behind > the c-6? It seems to me there was some discussion about getting > t-cases in & > out of gear behind an auto. I've never had a problem shifting the xfer case that was tranny related ... just let off the gas like you would for any other manual shift... 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 06:41:03 -0800 From: "Hogan, Tom" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 engine rebuild (propane) > One of the "neat" things about my existing propane setup is that it > feeds the 360 through my stock air cleaner and 2 barrel carb - no > special aftermarket carb. During the conversion process the shop cut > the base off the air cleaner housing and in its place riveted > a propane > injection ring (for lack of a better description). The propane line > from the evaporator runs to this "ring" at the base of the air cleaner > housing and the air-propane mixture continues through the venturis and > intake manifold as did the air-gas mixture. All the carb linkages > remain intact except the manual choke has been disconnected. > Seems like > a fairly elegant/simple set-up. > Sounds like a very simple setup but I have a question. How does that setup control the flow of propane to the engine? Obviously it works for you. Tom H == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 06:41:05 -0800 From: "Hogan, Tom" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390 Check out Steve Delany's tip on replacing valve seals without pulling the heads. Basically you thread about 10 feet into the cylinder and then compress it with the piston. This holds the valves up while you pull the springs. Tom H. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Schumacher [mailto:schu 7x.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 12:10 AM > To: ford truck list > Subject: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390 > > > Hello all, > > I am putting a new cam in my truck next weekend (just got all > the parts) > and wanted to ask if anyone had any tips or short cuts I can use when > installing my new cam. > > I ordered this cam for pulling and performance: > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cranecams.com/cgi-bin/spec.cgi?database=SPECCARD.tab&form=CardSam p.htm&id=343942 Then I learned that I need new springs so I ordered the matched crane springs, which means I will need to pull the heads :( After I got that all sorted out, I learned that I have a retarded cam sprocket so I ordered a new edelbrock timing gear set with all the markings on it. It seems that crane doesn't make the timing gear set, but the edelbrock one looked like it would do the job. I think between these three parts and a gasket set I am all ready to go.... Hopefully I can get a audio file up on my web site when it's done. I am expecting it to sound mean... :) schu == 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:42:24 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4 > > Can a 390FE out pull a new 1999/2000 Ford with the v8 5.4L? > > I would be inclined to say yes, a 390 should out pull a 5.4L. However, > with out knowing the hp and torque numbers of the 5.4L, I'm not > positive. > Well for the F150 they list the hp and torque as 260 4500 and 350 2500 respectively... wow, for the F250LD they list it as same hp, but torque is 345 2300 ... while the super duty is back to the same specs as the F150 ... weird stuff, but that's carpoint.com for you ... There's a lot more to pulling than the size of the motor (right Tony ?) You'd have to consider gear ratio's and all that stuff. Also with the fuel injection and the SOHC design, likely the 5.4 would do things with better mileage unless severely taxed ... the other question is what sort of towing ? if you're looking to pull a house off its foundation, the FE will be nearly unstoppable as its got a ton of low end grunt to put into that sort of a pull, while the Modular will be able to tow on the highway without breaking a sweat because of its nice flat torque curve that doesn't really drop off very quickly at all until you get near that peak hp ... Check the sig, you'll see I have one of each (an FE and a modular :) 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:43:26 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE > > what about the 429? > > > The 429 is a little better for top end, whereas the longer > stroked 460 would > have more torque (again, stock for stock). > As far as I know the 429 was never really offered in the truck line, maybe a year or so in the very early 70's (like 70 and 71) but you don't really hear about it being an option ... I'll have to check the Red Book on that one, unless Thom's got his handy ... :) 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:45:44 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390 > I ordered this cam for pulling and performance: > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cranecams.com/cgi-bin/spec.cgi?database=SPECCARD.tab&fo rm=CardSamp.htm&id=343942 Wow, that's a hefty cam, let us know how you like it, I'm sure you'll notice it in the idle, mine's not quite that big and I can tell its in there, but its not as obvious to the "untrained observer" :) 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: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 09:13:33 -0600 From: Craig Cantrell Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Rubber Seals Ford recommends and sells silicone grease to keep rubbers seals plyable. White Wolf wrote: > Is there anything I can put on my existing rubber seals(ie. Windshield, > windows, vents) to keep it from cracking any more and possible re-expand > them? > > Corey > ______________________________________________________ > > > == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html - -- Craig - -- 1997 Cobra Convertible--#2149 "Naw Jaw"--Pacific Green/Saddle/Saddle South Central Kansas Mustang Club See us at: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.kscable.com/sckmc == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:30:27 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets Gary writes: >>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 :-(<< You and I both know that your approach makes sense. Why do you figure that an Engineer(a group of Engineers) that knows absolutely nothing about maintaining a vehicle for twenty plus years would have a clue about this. All of them expect the car buying public to trade vehicles at a minimum of 5 years average, and a majority at 3 years, so why make them to last any longer. Economics for the Company - not for the consumer. I get so PO'ed everytime I work on one of the later vehicles I lose it. They are very much UNDER designed in nearly all catagories to make a vehicle last. The old turbohydro's the General made were tough. The 727's of MOP*R were tough. We all know the toughness of the C6 and its forerunners. These late model OD trannies are a disgrace to the American consumer. All brands - Not any 1 in particular. Henry would Croak if he knew what was going into some of his vehicles currently coming off the Assembly lines, as he should. Top gear should always be 1:1. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:38:58 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE, 429? I know the numbers would indicate that the 460 runs stronger in a truck but I've had both and can't see much difference in performance. My 429 had about 200k miles on it and even with a jumped timing chain ran like a scalded dog (with a bad cold :-)) :-) I wouldn't be afraid to put either version in my truck but with shorter stroke, the 429 is better suited to high rpm use than the 460 although in practice there is really little difference. Piston speed is not that different and doesn't really reach bad levels until most of us would have backed off anyway :-) I believe my 429 did breath better at higher rpms, it would wind out quite a bit more (before the chain jumped :-)) but a lot of this has to do with tune. It was pulled from a merc wagon, was a 70 vintage with high compression and installed with all stock parts. (God! I wish I'd saved those heads!!) Two 460 versions I've done were modified from stock and ran Holley carbs and the third version uses the OEM spread bore which has been the best version for the 460 but it still runs out of air way before the 429 ever did even as tired as it was. Again I believe this is strictly a tune issue, not a cube or stroke issue. All I'm saying here is "Don't be afraid to put a 429 in a truck" :-) They are still an improvement over any truck engine which came stock, except the 460 of course and in some ways I liked the "tune" of the 429 better too :-) - -- 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 - -- > > > what about the 429? > > > > As far as I know the 429 was never really offered in the > truck line == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:50:55 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4 My guess is that the 5.4 would out pull it at about 1400 rpm but above that the 390 might take over. These new engines are made to run very strong at the bottom so they can take advantage of the OD trannys. Due to it's size the 390 has a "relatively" strong low end but still was not "tuned" typically for low rpm operation like modern ones are. In the 60's a typical engine was tuned to be most efficient at about 2600 rpm, now days they are tuned for around 1800 rpm. There is still the cube difference of course which adds quite a bit to the formula too. I've run the 4.2 V-6 and found it to be very strong for it's size so can only imagine the 5.4 as being more of the same, only bigger :-) Where these new engines really shine is in the throttle response and smooth operation at low rpms. Carbed engines suffer at low rpms due to low signal strength (due to large venturis) and thus less efficient metering but at higher rpms the carbs begin to show their strengths. I can only imagine a propane engine to be very responsive at low rpms as well due to superior vaporization but again have no experience 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 - -- > Can a 390FE out pull a new 1999/2000 Ford with the v8 5.4L? ( > I think it is > 5.4L) == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:51:04 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - auto trannies Gary writes: >>Isn't there a clutch that connects the input and output shafts in high gear?<< Yep!. If memory serves me correctly both clutches are engaged in top gear. 1 turn in = 1 turn out. Output shaft will not turn if clutches are not engaged(I believe). (I also think the overrunning clutch is engaged in top gear) Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:55:06 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed Azie, what engine did this hook up to? I'm thinking that both the FE and the 385 series have been in large trucks to there should be bell housings for both to fit large truck trannys? I believe Eaton bought Clark and are used in Fords now so there should still be some around we could use? I bet we could holler at Eaton and get a few ideas there, 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 - -- > 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. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:02:06 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets > Gary writes: >>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 :-(<< > > You and I both know that your approach makes sense. Why do you > figure that > an Engineer(a group of Engineers) that knows absolutely nothing about > maintaining a vehicle for twenty plus years would have a clue about this. > Maybe its the engineer in me, but it bugs the crap outta me to hear people talk like this (no offense to Azie or Gary) ... I know I'm quick to defend the engineer here, but remember its not engineering that drives things like it used to, its marketing ... marketing says "this is what people want", marketing says "this is how long it has to last" ... they're the ones putting the restraints on the engineers ... that along with tightening budgets and cost restrictions has really caused the engineers to tighen up the factors of safety which cuts down on longevity of vehicles ... not to mention that the marketing guys are saying "if it falls apart in a few years they'll be forced to buy a new one" ... At any rate, all engineering is is compromising, you're always giving up something to get something else ... in the case of cars they are giving up longevity and quality in exchange for lower costs and higher sales (theoretically) ... Sorry, just had to vent on this topic, I'm sure there're other engineers on this list that feel the same way ... Oh yeah and while I'm on the subject, a different engineer has to figure out how to put things on the vehicle on the assembly line ... they didn't intentionally make it hard for you to get to, they made it easier to do on the line ... if you worked on your car in the reverse of the way it was put together you'd be fine, but I don't think most of us want to spend that kind of time on fixing things ... 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: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 11:02:20 -0600 From: none Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Magazines White Wolf wrote: > > Ok.. another question... Are there any good magazines any can recommend > for older trucks?(and cars i guess) > > I would like to learn more about what I can do, what others have done and > what exactly some of my options are.... > > Thanks.... Corey General magazine, the only one with real content: Auto Restorer Ken Payne == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:02:18 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - C6 puking Mat Schwartz writes: >> 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.<< Have you tried changing out the torque converter. I think that is your problem.... I had one in a '56 Mercury do this and it was the TC. There is a Sprag(one way clutch) in it that goes bad and your symptoms indicate that yours has gone South.... Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:08:04 -0800 (PST) From: Clare Waterman Subject: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!! Hi gang- i know its been a while, I've been busy setting up my new lab here in s.d. so I know i threatened in the past about a rebuild on my 360 (in a 71 f250 with c6) but it is actually soon to be a reality. The machinist here on campus recommended a shop that he's had 2 of his own engines done at (he makes scientific instruments- that's why he didnt do it himself!) and i've actually made an appointment to get it done at the end of the month. what with my new job and increased responsibility I have not much time and am having them do the whole thing- pull it and reinstall when done. I just wanted to check in with the gurus and see if i have it all straight about what to ask for. For the top end, I have asked for 3 angle valve grind, guides replaced with new steel guides, hardened seats installed, new stiffer springs to go with a new slightly hotter cam (i have stock now), and rebuilt rocker shaft assembly. I said I wanted the block bored .0060 over - any arguments? I am having new water pump put in. they use all good brand name bearings, pistons, felpro gaskets. they magnaflux everything, hot tank it, and paint it when done. what else should I worry about and ask for and check on as it goes along? they ask for $900 for the rebuild, $100 for cam/lifters, $30 for springs, $100 for rebuilt rocker assembly and another $600 to pull and reinstall it. it's a load of $$, but i cant take the embarrassment of a smoking truck any more!! as always, any and all advice is appreciated Clare Best Regards, Clare M. Waterman, Ph.D. Assistant Professor MB 39 Department of Cell Biology The Scripps Research Institute 10550 North Torrey Pines Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 T: (858)-784-9764 F: (858)-784-9779 == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:14:10 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Azie 5sp/3sp aux Only place I had trouble was when going to 4-low. It shifts through neutral in the 205 so the gears will start spinning if you hesitate. 4-high should never be a problem since it never sees neutral and both drive shafts are spinning at the same speed. It's a little more controlable with a stick since the gears stop when you depress the clutch (they coast to a stop :-)) I always grab third to stop them when I'm in a hurry for low gear or a low range shift. (normally would grab second but the syncros are gone :-)) Don't try to put it in 4-high on the fly with hubs unlocked though...........now that's a scary thought! :-) This Aux shift operation will need to be done at a stop or the aux must have syncros in it in any case, stick or auto. BTW, for those less familiar, syncros are designed to be engaged at or near the speed of equilibrium between the gears for best wear life. If you shift at relatively low rpms you will notice that the gears slip in with no resistance. This is because the syncros are not actually needed when the speed of the drive gear is syncronized with the gear you are changing to. The more you force them the sooner they will wear out. Just thought I'd pass that along :-) The larger and heavier duty the tranny is the more important this becomes. Jerico's are made to shift fast as are the older top loaders but truck trannys like to be finnessed into gear. When it is necessary to run second to the breaking point, you can catch 3rd with less strain by letting the engine rpms fall slightly before shifting (hesitate a few seconds before pushing it into gear), sort of the reverse of double clutching. Timing is everything here though which is why they shift better when you shift at the optimum speeds. - -- 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 - -- > > the shifting of the all manual set up, but how will you shift the > > aux behind > > the c-6? It seems to me there was some discussion about getting > > t-cases in & > > out of gear behind an auto. > > I've never had a problem shifting the xfer case that was > tranny related ... > just let off the gas like you would for any other manual shift... > > Just my $.02 > wish == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:16:10 -0800 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves I won't say they were easy to find but they're out there and at a very reasonable price too I might add. Here's the info I got from a guy I contacted online that got the flat top 400 pistons for me for jobber: Stainless Steel OE style valves, Single or Multi groove are : $4.27 for Ex. $4.53 for Int. These have the following sizes: Int. are 2.041" and Ex. are 1.656" For stainless w/ swirl polish in a single groove only are: $7.86 ea. for int. and Ex. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" - ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Pacheco To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 4:49 AM Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves > When I went to rebuild my 351C 2V I was unable to obtain stainless steel > valves, just thought I would throw that into the conversation. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:32:36 -0700 From: Brian Koss Subject: FTE 61-79 - Reply-new cam for my 390 The easiest way to replace the springs without removing the heads is to buy some clothes line cord and stuff it in the cylinder through the spark plug hole. Crank the motor BY HAND to smash the cord up against the valves. Proceed to the next. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:36:49 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Lee Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: new cam for my 390 Matt, I am using a similar cam in my 400. It is a Crane H-278-2. It does sound mean. As for that timing set, I hope it is a double roller chain. Dan Lee '53 F100 400C-4V >- ----- Original Message ----- >From: Matthew Schumacher >To: ford truck list <61-79-list ford-trucks.com> >Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 12:10 AM >Subject: FTE 61-79 - > Hello all, > I am putting a new cam in my truck next weekend (just >got all the parts) > and wanted to ask if anyone had any tips or short >cuts I can use when > installing my new cam. > I ordered this cam for pulling and performance: > > >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.cranecams.com/cgi-bin/spec.cgi?database=SPE>CCARD.tab&form=CardSamp.htm&id=343942 > Then I learned that I need new springs so I ordered >the matched crane > springs, which means I will need to pull the heads :( > After I got that all sorted out, I learned that I >have a retarded cam > sprocket so I ordered a new edelbrock timing gear set >with all the > markings on it. It seems that crane doesn't make the >timing gearset, > but the edelbrock one looked like it would do the >job. > I think between these three parts and a gasket set I >am all ready to go.... > Hopefully I can get a audio file up on my web site >when it's done. I am > expecting it to sound mean... :) __________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 10:39:02 -0600 From: "William S. Hart" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!! > Hi gang- i know its been a while, I've been busy setting up my new lab > here in s.d. > Where at in SD ? if I may be so bold ... > I said I wanted the block bored > .0060 over - any arguments? Uhm ... you mean .060 or "60 over" ? That's a long ways to go, me personally, I'd have them check the bores first and make a recommendation on that ... I only had to go .030 over on mine when I had it rebuilt (390, but same block) ... 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:42:37 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!! Cast iron guides and 0.030" over is standard fare. Unless you are trying to build more cubes into it 0.060" is wastefull and sacrifices at least one more potential over bore before sleeving or scrapping the block. If you really mean 0.0060" then what is the plan? If you have a really clean bore and go to forged pistons 0.006" is about the limit to prevent piston slap and premature ring wear. Any more than that may even prevent the rings from seating and the bores must be very straight and have very little wear for this in order to clean up with proper surface finish and shape. Are they installing new pistons? With old pistons this would be almost certainly not a good idea except for a short term fix. Also ask them for recommendations on the ring material. Most of us recommend Moly rings for a long lasting touring engine and this requres special care in honing the bores. - -- 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 wanted to check in with the gurus and see if i have it > all straight > about what to ask for. For the top end, I have asked for 3 > angle valve > grind, guides replaced with new steel guides, hardened seats > installed, > new stiffer springs to go with a new slightly hotter cam (i have stock > now), and rebuilt rocker shaft assembly. I said I wanted the > block bored > .0060 over - any arguments? > > Clare == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:46:17 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Ok, I can see this. I read somewhere that high performance valves use the multi-groove keepers because they are more secure which makes sense to me. Perhaps there is a performance version of these which will not become loose? - -- 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 - -- > The purpose of the multi-groove is for valve rotation. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:31:43 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake Chris, you are saying that a 4x4 needs toe "in"? Under power this should not be the case? Theoretically Toe is there to "make up for" all the slop in the system to render "zero" toe so in a 2wd it is toed in to make up for the road pushing the tires apart but in a 4wd the driving of the tires forces them inward so you should have toe "out". The only place I can see this affecting the steering to cause a shake is in an unloaded or coasting situation?? I do agree that seriously out of toe along with other factors might be a cause and off roading probably increases all the forces so it exacerbates the effects but I don't understand the logic?? I do use toe-in on my bronco to preserve the tires due to mostly running on the pavement in 2wd 98% of the time but that still compromises it in 4wd mode AFAIK. Course, on ice or slush I doubt if it really cares much :-) In dirt, on rough terrain I can see it having more impact on things but still can't see a difference of only 1/32" making much impact on handling?? Tire wear yes, handling, no?? At 200 mph on a circle track toe is a serious issue and in small increments too but.....?? I have not played off road much so am speaking from theory here, not criticizing, just curious how this can be? - -- 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 - -- > Your toe setting is off, as in Toe zero to out. > without monkey motion. Generally I run more toe in on a beam > axil with 33" & > up tires and have little need for the damper, only using them > There is more force > attempting to pull the tires apart, or increasing the Toe. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 11:47:30 -0500 From: James Oxley Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets am14 daimlerchrysler.com wrote: >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 :-(<< > My guess is it was easier to strengthen axle shafts than driveshafts in the overall scheme of things. > You and I both know that your approach makes sense. Why do you figure that > an Engineer(a group of Engineers) that knows absolutely nothing about > maintaining a vehicle for twenty plus years would have a clue about this. Hmmm, I'd say about 25% of the engineers (maybe 1000 total, including me) that I work with are heavily into some form of automotive hobby. I'd say more than 50% do the majority of their automotive repair (except EFI stuff). We have absolutely nothing to do with the automotive industry. > All of them expect the car buying public to trade vehicles at a minimum of > 5 years average, and a majority at 3 years, so why make them to last any > longer. Economics for the Company - not for the consumer. That is definatley not in an engineers nature and is not usually under their control. I've heard the new super duties were designed for 15 year service life minimum as that is the least the current public would accept. That and the average fleet age is increasing, although that may be more of an econimic factor. > I get so PO'ed everytime I work on one of the later vehicles I lose it. Well, some things have gotten better. Being a part time car stereo installer, I much prefer the one piece, relativley smooth alum support structure to the "stick your hand up under the dash and loose a finger syndrome" so common on older stuff. > They are very much UNDER designed in nearly all catagories to make a > vehicle last. The old turbohydro's the General made were tough. The 727's > of MOP*R were tough. We all know the toughness of the C6 and its > forerunners. These late model OD trannies are a disgrace to the American > consumer. All brands - Not any 1 in particular. Henry would Croak if he > knew what was going into some of his vehicles currently coming off the > Assembly lines, as he should. Top gear should always be 1:1. Well, I hate to admit this, but I thought I heard a front bearing noise on my "new" 95, 250 I just got. I was cruising about 30 MPH and tried to dump it into nuetral so I wouldn't hear engine noise. Went to far and dumped it into reverse. Rear wheels locked up until I came to a abrupt hault :-(. About 1000 miles later, seems no damage. Granted it is prob fords toughest current light duty vehicle trans. OX == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:52:08 -0800 From: "Bill Deacon" Subject: FTE 61-79 - California Dreamin'.... This midwest boy (Chicago 'burbs) will finally get to see the Pacific Ocean come March!! While I am there (on business), I thought about checking out salvage yards, used parts, custom trucks..... Can anyone recommend places to visit around Long Beach? Any fun places to visit (in addition to the salvage yards)? You are in luck. There are several wrecking yards in the area that are usually loaded with relatively rust-free pre-80's Ford trucks. You have Ecology Auto Wrecking, and also Pick-Your-Part located about 5 miles or so from Long Beach Airport. Both of these yards are "remove your own", but the prices are great! You also have the Long Beach Automotive Swap Meet held on the 2nd Sunday of each month at Long Beach Veterans Stadium(next to the airport). The big Pomona Swap Meet is held every 6 weeks or so and is about 30 miles away. Not sure of the exact date but if you can, definitely put it on your agenda---it is HUGE!----Have fun! Bill == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:57:53 -0500 From: "Gary L. Perry" Subject: FTE 61-79 - Big truck trans change over To: Bob Elliot, be careful with trans from F-600, it probably has a large input shaft used for HD truck engines with a BIG pilot bearing. I have a 4-spd. from a F-500 that does. It's a T-98? Warner and bolts-up same and clutch disc fits, but won't fit crank and can't buy different bearing. Big engines have large roller bearing pilot. I had a bushing machined to fit tight in new roller bearing so I could use this engine with my 56 trans with smaller shaft. Now, I have a good 4-spd. that don't fit p/ups and can't seem to sell it, even tho it's perfectly good. Someone said front shaft could be changed, but I'm not willing to bother, just to sell. "G" == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:10:27 -0500 From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com Subject: FTE 61-79 - '61 Phil writes: >>Man Azie- you probably hate it that you sold that one! I've got a 63 1/2, and I sure hate to let go of it.<< Yes I really do. I made a drastic mistake. I wrecked it (not bad, but bad enough to bend up the grill/hood and one fender. I parked it around back on blocks and let it set for 5 years(gonna restore that sucker some day). When I finally got time to start on it I went to install the wheels/tires and noticed that the body had really rusted on the rocker panels and floorboards. The acid in the permanent grass growing around and under it had a really taken a toll on it. You could litterally punch a hole in it with your thumb all along the reckers. This car had never been out of the South, and was perfectly rust free when I parked it, so it had to be the grass acidity. I'm not much of a body/paint man, but I do have enough connections to have had it done reasonably cost effective and have wished many times over that I had kept it. Had over 300,000 miles on the body and that was the only wreck it was ever in. I could have had it fixed for less than $500.00 when it 1st happened, but I didn't. Sold the body for $500.00. Kept the engine/transmission and rear end for some other projects. We live and learn. Azie Ardmore, Al. == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:23:07 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets I agree to a point and it is the engineering supervisor who is usually an engineer himself (at Ford at least) who puts the Kybosh on good ideas to protect his image or to comply with upper management directives. Quite often engineers are given impossible tasks so they just do the best they can with them. In this case they take a less than optimum design and modify the materials used in the parts, improve the tolerances etc. to make it last "acceptably long". As we have seen in the AOD and E4OD this is a continuous process and the first version always falls short of expectations so must be "updated", sometimes right away with a recall. (no such luck on the AOD unfortunately) Since a gear set has to be added to make an OD why couldn't it be a lower gear instead of a higher gear? Well.......one person lives in town and sees nothing but third gear most of the time and another drives both in town and highway so sees both and another only sees the E-way so they compromise somewhere. It's called "demographics" and is based on research, not one or two engineer's opinoins. The design of the current tranny which is used as a base for the "new" OD has a lot to do with it too. How hard will it be to add the circuitry for a low gear as opposed to a high gear? How much room do we have in the case to put in larger planet gears or how much smaller can the sun gear be? Low and reverse probably use the same gear set and it's probably already taxed for sun gear size vs strength vs longevity so the obvious choice is to add an OD set which can use gears roughly in the same ball park and which fall within the space constraints they have to work with and still be robust enough for reliability. The next best option would be to enlarge the case, redesign all the components including the outer shell casting to allow for greater leeway in the gear sizes. We know from experience that they are not going to do this if they can make the OD live reasonably well so they take the cheapest route, just like every other OEM on the Planet. Sad for us but very true and some of the advantage of the OD gets lost in additional resistance within the tranny due to gears turning but it's considered a fair exchange apparently. - -- 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 - -- > > in it? This isn't really a question, I know the answer but it still > > irritates me :-(<< > > > > You and I both know that your approach makes sense. Why do you > > figure that > > an Engineer(a group of Engineers) that knows absolutely > nothing about > > maintaining a vehicle for twenty plus years would have a > clue about this. > > the engineer here, but remember its not engineering that > drives things like > it used to, its marketing ... marketing says "this is what > people want", > marketing says "this is how long it has to last" ... they're the ones > putting the restraints on the engineers ... that along with tightening == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:26:05 -0800 From: "Bill Beyer" Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake Just as an FYI...I have never seen a Ford vehicle with a toe out specification. When I worked at the Ford dealership we aligned everything from F350s on down to Escorts. The specs were always for toe in and generally were measured in 64th or 32nd of inches but always positive. We never set up any vehicle I ever saw with a negative toe in which obviously would be toe out. "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: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 8:31 AM Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake > Chris, you are saying that a 4x4 needs toe "in"? Under power this should > not be the case? Theoretically Toe is there to "make up for" all the slop > in the system to render "zero" toe so in a 2wd it is toed in to make up for > the road pushing the tires apart but in a 4wd the driving of the tires > forces them inward so you should have toe "out". The only place I can see > this affecting the steering to cause a shake is in an unloaded or coasting > situation?? I do agree that seriously out of toe along with other factors > might be a cause and off roading probably increases all the forces so it > exacerbates the effects but I don't understand the logic?? > > I do use toe-in on my bronco to preserve the tires due to mostly running on > the pavement in 2wd 98% of the time but that still compromises it in 4wd > mode AFAIK. Course, on ice or slush I doubt if it really cares much :-) In > dirt, on rough terrain I can see it having more impact on things but still > can't see a difference of only 1/32" making much impact on handling?? Tire > wear yes, handling, no?? At 200 mph on a circle track toe is a serious > issue and in small increments too but.....?? > > I have not played off road much so am speaking from theory here, not > criticizing, just curious how this can be? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:33:32 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Tire Balancing Off road bias ply tires are historically very poor both in roundness and balance. The option you have is to work together with the tire man to find two things: The highest point from center of rotation of both The heaviest point on both the wheel and tire to be determined later (hopefully not needed) Now mark the runout locaions and install the tire with marks opposing and check for runout with his indicator (most shops have a tire runout indicator) and make adjustments to relative location until this improves and then balance it again. Once you have the tire running as close to round as you can the balance will probably improve too but if not you may have to move it around to find the best compromise and you may even need to swap tires to rims to get the best fit. If you do not make some attempt to balance them they will both cause noise and vibration and wear out themselves and chassis components. Once you get some kind of balance on them, rotate them every 5k miles too. Remember, mahy off road tires are directional and must be kept on the same side of the vehicle when rotating 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 - -- > weight. The tire shop said that this much weight would cause > just as much > 'Shake' as not balancing them at all. He reccommended not > balancing them. > > Is this information correct? If so, will I be able to drive > on the street at > all?? (60-70mph)?? == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:57:14 -0500 From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshake In the alignment class I took, according to the book, front wheel drive vehicles have toe-out specificatons, not toe-in. 4wd's usually do have toe-in because they are primarily used on the highway in rear wheel drive mode and in the dirt it has little effect since the tires have less contact with the surface and the surface is loose. The handling effect of even 1/2" of toe one way or the other is not even noticeable (I've driven them with over an inch before and that was noticeable at highway speeds) but other factors can make it more or less apparent in my experience. Of all the settings on the chassis which can affect tire wear, toe is probably the most critical although camber can certainly cause wear too. Obviously, if you increase the speeds such as in desert racing then toe certainly becomes more important to handling but at 60 mph I don't see it as much of a factor unless it's realy out there. I don't line front ends for a living but I certainly have driven vehicles with all manner of toe faults and can't think of a single instance where the toe was the culprit in the handling problem. Camber was almost always the handling problem and toe was virtually always the tire wear problem except on ford "I" beam trucks where the beams are quite often out of range for best wear unless someone bends them in. Camber change, which is affected by toe can be an issue at speed in turns so may play a part in off road stuff, not sure but even then, 1/32" is not likely to be something most of us would notice either way I would think. Again, I'm having trouble understanding how this spec affects the typical off road handling, especially on trails etc....??? My bronco is as close to zero as I could get it without good equipment and I typically take corners with gusto and can't see where there is a problem. It has been both in and out and I never saw a handling problem but knew it wasn't right so kept working on it til I had it close to zero. One day I will invest in the pointer/scribe kit and make up a nice bar for this :-) I can't argue with anyone who has raced and I can't argue with book specs in a Ford shop manual but I've experienced what I've experienced and recall the toe out thing from the class so don't think I am trying to run this.... 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. 
|