61-79-list-digest V4 #6

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 #6
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 Thursday, January 6 2000 Volume 04 : Number 006

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

FTE 61-79 - AOD into '79
RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed
FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems
FTE 61-79 - gearsets
RE: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?
FTE 61-79 - gearsets
RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
FTE 61-79 - tire balancing
FTE 61-79 - Re: C-6 cooling problems ?
RE: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?
FTE 61-79 - Re: AOD into '79?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings
FTE 61-79 - 2 wheel drive front suspension
RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed
Re: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 engine rebuild (propane)
FTE 61-79 - c-6 woes
FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys
Re: FTE 61-79 - Magazines
FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings
Re: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE
FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject(Principle Applies)
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?
Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings
FTE 61-79 - Clark 5sp
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE
FTE 61-79 - Hobbies
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - New toy
FTE 61-79 - Economics
FTE 61-79 - Thousandths
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - OD autos
FTE 61-79 - Shifting Aux
FTE 61-79 - Large inputs
Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - RE: Headshake(long)
Re: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE, 429?

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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:30:39 -0500
From: "Harvey, Blaine" sgc.gc.ca>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - AOD into '79

Anyone know anything about swapping an AOD tranny into a '79 f-150 that has
the three-speed automatic? The engine is a 302. Is there any aftermarket
equipment available or needed? Are there later FORD parts that would do, in
terms of trans cross-member etc?

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:59:51 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed

Azie, did you have any trouble fitting it to the crank? One person
suggested that large truck tranny's may have larger input shafts even though
they fit the bell housing??

I had a clark 250 in my 62 F-600 and always thought that would be a cool
tranny for a pickup but it was a big sucker :-) Had the 330 Fe truck engine
in it too so I know they will fit FE's for sure :-)

- --
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 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.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 12:25:55 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

Hey everyone!
. I just saw this in the WEB. Is this true?

> 360 FE:
>First year, 1958 I believe it was a 332.
>Perhaps around 1960 it went to 352.
>Near the end of the FE series run, in the pieckups anyway, the 352 was
known as the 360.
>This is the engine that little brothers 74 Ford half ton pickup came with.
>I think the bore and stroke were the same as the 352 and it was just an
advertising gimmick when they called it a 360
Seems like the factory may have made a 383 FE engine for an upcoming NASCAR
rules change and I believe there may be a 401 FE out there too.
- ---------------------------
I don't know if this is accurate.
Alex Bernal
390 f-100 4x4
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 14:09:03 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam

>>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 ....<<

Sorry, Bill, couldn't resist nailing you on this one. I knew you would
understand. Steam is colorless and odorless, as it is water vapor. When
steam condenses slightly into small droplets, it becomes visible. We
commonly call this phenomenon clouds. You can't see steam coming out your
tail pipe, but it is mixed in there with the white water droplets. :-) A
common misconception, but you know how FTE stands for truth and accuracy.

- -- 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 14:46:56 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

> Hey everyone!
> . I just saw this in the WEB. Is this true?
>

Some of it ...

> > 360 FE:
> >First year, 1958 I believe it was a 332.
> >Perhaps around 1960 it went to 352.
> >Near the end of the FE series run, in the pieckups anyway, the 352 was
> known as the 360.
> >This is the engine that little brothers 74 Ford half ton pickup
> came with.
> >I think the bore and stroke were the same as the 352 and it was just an
> advertising gimmick when they called it a 360

Not true, they really did change the bore on it to match the 390 at 4.05 ...
can't remember what the 352 was, but it wasn't quite that I don't think ...

> Seems like the factory may have made a 383 FE engine for an
> upcoming NASCAR

My uncle just mentioned a 396 or so displacement FE, but this was in the
60's, not the 90's ... apparently Chevy was mad that Ford and Dodge were
runnin these 427's, so they said we want a motor rule for 396's ... so Ford
destroked a 427 for it and kicked their butt with that in practice, so they
shut up ... my Uncle's a huge Ford fan though, so who knows how much of
that's true, but that's what I heard ...

> rules change and I believe there may be a 401 FE out there too.

That would be a 410 likely that he's thinkin of, a 390 with a 428 crank
found in merc's in the mid to late 60's for a couple years :)

Hope that helps clear thigns upa little, its aweful muddy water when you
start looking at the one offs and stuff in the FE family ...

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 15:53:01 EST
From: Bad4dFilly

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?

Hiya guys! I just saw a purty cool lookin thing. This guy up the street has a
4x4 jeep and the pumpkin had a yellow smiley face with the tongue stickin out
painted on it It looks SO cool! Where can
I score one of those and for how much?????????

*~*~Lisa and Emvy~*~*
*~*~SIlly boys....trucks are for GIRLS!~*~*
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 14:52:15 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - gearsets

>> 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.<<

True, Ox, but the public that buys a Super Duty is different from the public
that buys an F150 or a Ranger.

- -- 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 15:06:57 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam

> >>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 ....<<
>
> Sorry, Bill, couldn't resist nailing you on this one. I knew you would
> understand. Steam is colorless and odorless, as it is water vapor. When
> steam condenses slightly into small droplets, it becomes visible. We
> commonly call this phenomenon clouds. You can't see steam coming out your
> tail pipe, but it is mixed in there with the white water droplets. :-) A
> common misconception, but you know how FTE stands for truth and accuracy.
>

Hahahaha ...thanks John, you're absolutely right, I guess my brain wasn't
fully engaged this morning :)

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 15:06:50 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: 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:<<

This thread has been going awhile, but I don't remember this suggestion. Did
those bias tire sit for a long time on the tread as in a double bar rack
typically used by tire stores? If so, they have permanent flat spots and you
will not cure the vibration short of grinding off the high spots. You
probably will not find anyone who has a clue about how to do it or a machine
to do it with anymore. You can check for flat spots by running the tire
until it is up to operating temperature, then raising the vehicle and
supporting it on jack stands. Don't leave it on a lift or jack because if
the jack collapses even the tiniest amount it will foul up your diagnosis.
you can do one tire at a time, you don't need the whole truck raised at
once. You need a device of some type that can be placed against the tread as
you manually rotate the tire. The last one I saw was built like an oil can
with a flex spout and had a suction cup so that it wouldn't shift on the
shop floor. If your tire/wheel assembly is round, then the point will touch
about equally all the way around. Flat spots will show as big gaps between
the point and the tire.

Hope this helps.

Disclaimer: racing situations not withstanding, especially when quickly
backing off the trailer with a C6. :-) Hi, Bill. Yep, I blew that one.

- -- John
jlagrone

juno.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: C-6 cooling problems ?

Thanks I figure it has got to be something other then the tranny.
I would cry to find out the PAW engine kit was the culprit per the
crank........
========================================================
Matt- I know some 429 cranks (w/sticks) aren't drilled for an auto's
converter. I'm not sure about the 460's though. If the holes not big
enough, it won't pull up properly. Also, if the flange isn't true, it
would probably show up as a cracked flex plate eventually. (due to
constant flexing) It sure sounds like you have something seriously out of
alignment to cause all these pump failures though. If you put a
completely different trans in, and it fails again, I'd say the crank is
the culprit. Have they replaced the converter each time too, or at least
checked it? (snout,etc.) Is the fluid overheating due to no circulation
to the cooler, or due to clutch slippage? Have they ever CONFIRMED fluid
circulation? Phil
________________________________________________________________

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:10:56 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?

> Where can
> I score one of those and for how much?????????
>

Lisa, you've got a half ton right ? that means you've got the 9" diff (was
going to say rear, but not sure that's p.c. :) ... anyway there's no rear
cover on a 9" so you'd have to crawl under there and paint it yourself (or
have someone do it) ... the Jeeps (dependin on the axles they're running)
have covers so they can pull them off and paint it up ...

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 16:28:33 -0600
From: oldfords63

juno.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: AOD into '79?

"Harvey, Blaine" writes:
> Anyone know anything about swapping an AOD tranny into a '79 f-150
> that has the three-speed automatic?
===========================================================
I'll probably catch the dickens for this, but in stock form the AOD is
such a peice of crap, I wouldn't even go there. They CAN be made
reliable, if you want to spend about $12 to 15 hundred on a tranny. That
much money buys a lot of gas.....still. The later electronic transmission
is a "little" more durable, BUT the electronics to make it work in an
older vehicle costs around $400.PLUS the tranny,(last I checked) You can
go thru a C-4 or a C-6 a few times for that, but you probably wouldn't
need to. Think hard, Phil 81 F-100 w/AOD
66 Mustang w/ B&M C-4
63 Galaxie w/C-6
64 F-100 w/ C-4
________________________________________________________________

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 13:42:55 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

thanks for the answer.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
To: <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 12:46 PM
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

> > Hey everyone!
> > . I just saw this in the WEB. Is this true?
> >
>
> Some of it ...
>
>
> > > 360 FE:
> > >First year, 1958 I believe it was a 332.
> > >Perhaps around 1960 it went to 352.
> > >Near the end of the FE series run, in the pieckups anyway, the 352 was
> > known as the 360.
> > >This is the engine that little brothers 74 Ford half ton pickup
> > came with.
> > >I think the bore and stroke were the same as the 352 and it was just an
> > advertising gimmick when they called it a 360
>
> Not true, they really did change the bore on it to match the 390 at 4.05
...
> can't remember what the 352 was, but it wasn't quite that I don't think
...
>
> > Seems like the factory may have made a 383 FE engine for an
> > upcoming NASCAR
>
> My uncle just mentioned a 396 or so displacement FE, but this was in the
> 60's, not the 90's ... apparently Chevy was mad that Ford and Dodge were
> runnin these 427's, so they said we want a motor rule for 396's ... so
Ford
> destroked a 427 for it and kicked their butt with that in practice, so
they
> shut up ... my Uncle's a huge Ford fan though, so who knows how much of
> that's true, but that's what I heard ...
>
> > rules change and I believe there may be a 401 FE out there too.
>
> That would be a 410 likely that he's thinkin of, a 390 with a 428 crank
> found in merc's in the mid to late 60's for a couple years :)
>
> Hope that helps clear thigns upa little, its aweful muddy water when you
> start looking at the one offs and stuff in the FE family ...
>
> 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: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:07:05 -0800
From: "Chuck White" jps.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings

Thanks for all the ideas. I think first I am going to try one of the sprays
(CRC or Wire Dry when next I go to the parts store. The problem is that it
has only rained once here (San Francisco area) in the last month or so. It
could be a while before I can tell if they work or not. I have a further
question concerning venting the cap. Several of you suggested sealing the
cap up tight and several suggest venting the cap. Since the cap is not
being sprayed with water (the problem occurs when it has sat overnight and
there has been some rain) I am assuming the problem is condensation and
wouldn't it be better to vent the cap to aid in drying? And if venting is
the answer how do I go about it? BTW the distributor is a Mallory Dual
Point and there is no vent on the cap. Would I just drill a few small holes
around the vertical surfaces of the cap? Thanks people!

Chuck
'71 F-250 390 C-6

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 16:11:45 -0600
From: John Strauss inetport.com>
Subject: 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)
>
I obtained a '68 F250 really cheap with a great body but what I want is
a'69 F100 Ranger so I am making one (slowly) out of the '68.
_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, *_} jstrauss

inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:27:30 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed

> Azie, did you have any trouble fitting it to the crank? One person
> suggested that large truck tranny's may have larger input shafts
> even though
> they fit the bell housing??
>

Uhm ... why would the crank have any bearing at all on the size of the
tranny input shaft ? Wouldnt you be more worried about the clutch ? and
then wouldn't the odds be that with the right throw out bearing and clutch
disc that you could make it all work pretty easily ?

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 15:37:14 -0900
From: Matthew Schumacher 7x.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390

I know.... hopefully it will idle without causing to much trouble. I
figure it will idle ok, just not very stock, or smooth...

Do you think I will have any problems with valve clearances. I think I
am going to pull a head to double check...

schu

"William S. Hart" wrote:
>
> > 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 16:43:14 -0800
From: John Lord home.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 engine rebuild (propane)

That is a good question, it doesnt matter if the system is dual fuel as this
one is or if the mixer (injection ring) is attached to a carb baseplate. If it
is the type of system with an open ring you will find it has a bit of a venturi
shape to the inside of the barrel just as a carb has.
The Converter (vaporizer or exchanger) is a 2 stage regulator (similer to a
good welding regulator). It first meters the amount of fuel into the regulator,
then it lowers the pressure till it becomes a gas (this process is why it needs
to be connected to the heater hoses). The last chamber is connected by a hose
or pipe to the mixer, a valve (held closed by a spring) opens as the air is
drawn through the venturi allowing the flow of gasious propane into the engine.

(the distance between the mixer and converter is why propane engines are a bit
harder to start).

No matter what brand of propane system their are only 2 adjustments one is idle
mixture and one is for total flow (hi speed mixture).
There are 3 common brands of propane system, usually the open ring type is
"vielli?" the mixture controls are on the converter box (it is black). the
other types, "OHG" and " IMPCO" use a mixer that looks more like a carb with a
tapered cone in mixer that helps meter air/fuel flow the get fuel the same way
but the idle mixture is a simple screw like a carb and the hi speed flow is
controlled by a screw that blocks the flow of propane into the mixer.

"Hogan, Tom" wrote:

> > 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

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 18:58:59 -0600
From: ballingr

bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - c-6 woes

don't pretend to know the ciruitry and the torque converter has something
to do with all this too so the suggestions which point to the converter may
well be the correct direction to go here? I suspect, but don't know for
sure, that the output from the converter is what leads to the cooler. If
the converter is not flowing properly for what ever reason then the oil will
not flow properly through the cooler either???
>>>>>>

Sounds to me like what happens when you dont get the converter seated, or it
is burred up to where it chews the pump up.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:25:19 PST
From: "gene gardner" hotmail.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Whoops.....Ouch!..locks & keys

Quick and dirty hood lock: drill a hole through the safety catch and the
plate behind it and stick a hardened screw through it. This will at least
narrow down the list of would-be thieves to those who (a) are
semi-intelligent and (b) are carrying a screwdriver.

Texican Teacher, 70 F100 w 300-I6
______________________________________________________

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 17:54:02 -0800
From: Tim Bowman USWEST.NET>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Magazines

I'd add "Skinned Knuckles" as another that has much content. I really
like Auto Restorer as well.

- --
Tim Bowman
Burien, WA
tkbowman

uswest.net

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 21:25:56 EST
From: SHill48337

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings

CJ

I finally got a reply from Mallory about the voltage to your module. The
question sent into Mallory was:
Have a Mallory Unilite distributor on Ford 428 in 1969 Ford pickup and
Mallory says the voltage shouldn't exceed about 9V to these units....had one
burn out a couple of years ago, just wondering if the current unit is on
"borrowed time" due to too much voltage being applied. 10.5 Volts read on a
Fluke DVM, which is probably an average reading. The true reading is
probably a varying 9V to 12V. The big question, will this voltage shorten
the life of the distributor?

The answer just received:
<< The operating voltages for today's modules are 7 volts min and 11 volts
max. If you are running a large charging system you might simply add an
additional .8 ohm ballast. That will bring your voltage down to about 10
volts.
>>

I hope this helps. Good Luck
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:26:25 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - c6 continuous problems

What else could
> this be?
>
> Matt

I am thinking that you must have a problem in the tranny casing. If the
case is worn somewhere (especially in the pump region) the pump may not be
seating right, and failure will occur every time. Also, there are special
tools for aligning the pump and coverter. If the pump is slightly off set,
it will make the drive gear in the pump push against the other gear, or the
seperator... This would definately result in pump failure. This is what the
problem sounds like to me, because the pump must come off to replace most
anything in the tranny, so they are pulling it every time they have a
problem.... Have you noticed any probs. on startup (starter dragging,
turning over slowly, etc?) These can be signs of pump misalignment. Good
luck...
Brad

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 20:32:35 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

Ford did build two big inch FE's, as an experiment for the NASCAR super
speedways. I have scince discarded the article, but if I remember right,
these two FE's were installed in Starliners. They were tested at the
Bonnoville salt flats for top speed. It seems that they did go faster
than several standing records, but because this was a special testing
session for Ford, no official timers were present. When the Dodge and
Chevy spys heard of this, they protested to NASCAR and NASCAR set the
cubic inch displacement of seven liters, or so. The testing program was
scrapped, and the two big FE's dissapeared. I think the smaller of the
two was about 440-450 cubic inches, and the big one was mabye about 490
cid.
The magazine article was in an issue of "Super Ford" in the early to
mid 1990's.
Jason Kendrick

A Bernal wrote:

> Seems like the factory may have made a 383 FE engine for an upcoming NASCAR
> rules change
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:38:38 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William S. Hart iastate.edu>
To: <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 9:43 AM
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 ... :)
>

They used the 429 in a lot of the B series beig trucks, even up into the
90s... some carbureted and some fuel injected. Not exactly sure why they
did this, other than Ford may have made a deal on some fleet vehicles with
some old leftover engines???? I have even seen these newer model B sereis
trucks with 370s, 390s, and 352s. Don't really know why they did this, but
they are out there. 429 is a pretty popular swap engine though...
Brad
78 F150 4X4 429!!!

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:41:35 EST
From: SHill48337

aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject(Principle Applies)

In a message dated 1/4/00 11:54:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cworley76

hotmail.com writes:

<< I recently had to replace the water pump on my wifes '93 Pontiac Grand-AM,
to get to the water pump I had to remove the exhaust manifold, 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.
>>
Very doubtful as the combustion products are water and carbondioxide. Cold
pipes enhance the condensation so you see nice clear water running out.
Happens to 61-79 Ford Trucks just the same. Your system is fine used gaskets
and all. It is true that a high velocity near an opening in a gasket could
pull in very small amount of air assuming the opening is small. But under
some condition such as full throttle the pressure in system at that point
becomes higher than atmospheric and you should have heard the exhaust leaking
out. If you have not heard it leaking out, then it is not leaking in.
Burt Hill Kennewick, Wa 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:43:52 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) visteon.com>
To: <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 10:50 AM
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 hate to disagree, but I have to... The modular SOHC 5.4L is going to be
better at top end, because of the OHC design, and the icreased "breathing".
The 5.4 doesn't really hit it's peak until around 1700 RPM.... The pushrod
390 should be able to outdo that on low end...

Brad

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:53:06 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: aol.com>
To: ford-trucks.com>; <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?

> Hiya guys! I just saw a purty cool lookin thing. This guy up the street
has a
> 4x4 jeep and the pumpkin had a yellow smiley face with the tongue stickin
out
> painted on it It looks SO cool! Where
can
> I score one of those and for how much?????????
>
> *~*~Lisa and Emvy~*~*
> *~*~SIlly boys....trucks are for GIRLS!~*~*
Booo!!! He stole my idea!! I have a smiley on my 9"... I just crawled
under there with a can of yellow spray paint and a brush and some black and
painted her on!! The idea is to say "Have a nice day" to the Ch**y's as I
blow by them!!!

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:57:57 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck White jps.net>
To: 61-79 Ford Trucks <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 5:07 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings

> Thanks for all the ideas. I think first I am going to try one of the
sprays
> (CRC or Wire Dry when next I go to the parts store. The problem is that
it
> has only rained once here (San Francisco area) in the last month or so.
It
> could be a while before I can tell if they work or not. I have a further
> question concerning venting the cap. Several of you suggested sealing the
> cap up tight and several suggest venting the cap. Since the cap is not
> being sprayed with water (the problem occurs when it has sat overnight and
> there has been some rain) I am assuming the problem is condensation and
> wouldn't it be better to vent the cap to aid in drying? And if venting is
> the answer how do I go about it? BTW the distributor is a Mallory Dual
> Point and there is no vent on the cap. Would I just drill a few small
holes
> around the vertical surfaces of the cap? Thanks people!
>
Don't drill the cap, that will allow for any splash to get in there... They
make vented caps that have little ends over them so water can't get in, only
out...
(Unless you flood it)
Brad

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:55:50 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Clark 5sp

Gary writes: >>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?<<

The one in my shop came out of my F700 with 391FT. Bell housing is still
in it along with the engine. That is a project for as soon as I get time.
The 2sp Eaton rear is still in it also which has to come out. After that
it goes to the crushers. It has had too many fertilizer spills on it to be
safe anymore. Rusted all to H___!!! The rear, tranny, and engine were so
olil soaked that they are practically rust free, but the frame and cab are
gone.
The 429 was offered in the L series for sure and maybe the Raally large F
series, but I never saw one in the F. Seen quite a few in the L..

Someone bought Clark, but I'm not sure who!
I'd still take A Clark 280V0 if the price was right, but I'm not actively
searching....

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:06:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel DiMartino yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

so what was the displacement of the motors ford ran in the early
sixties against the chevy 409's in nascar? i want to say 406??
was that an FE motor??

=====
Daniel DiMartino
yahoo.com>
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://im.yahoo.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:23:00 -0800
From: wicowboy gateway.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE

> They used the 429 in a lot of the B series beig trucks, even up into the
> 90s... some carbureted and some fuel injected.

I have one of these carburated 429's in my '90 F-700 two-ton dump
truck.........
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:31:07 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hobbies

Ox writes: >> 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.<<

You're sure in a different environment than I am if this is the case.
Realize I work in an Electronics facility, and not at a transmission or
engine or assembly plant. Most(I'd say about 95%) of our engineers don't
even check their own oil. Most of them drive Corporate Lease vehicles and
keep them only 2 years max, and very few of them are into automobiles as a
hobby. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Now we have a lot of
technicians and administrative and hourly folks into autos as hobbies, but
not our Engineers.

I should not have Generalized about Engineers and I apologize for that. I
know that the driving force is the bottom line for $ profit. I just think
the auto industry as a whole has gone down hill in the reliability
department for 20 year ownership of vehicles. I'd much rather pay a bit
more for an overdesigned vehicle, than the underdesigned ones of today.
Technology has done a lot for the environment and weight savings is
critical for CAFE, but I still think in the long run our auto industry is
in for a rude awakening some day in the not too distant future.

There is no excuse for putting a transmission in a vehicle and expecting
the consumer to spend upwards of $1200 in approx 100,000 miles (Ior
less)for a transmission rebuild, and that is exactly what GM, M*PAR and
FOMOCO are doing in many of the 80's/90's designed/built vehicles that come
off their assembly lines. It probably started with the Gas crunch in the
early/mid 70's.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:25:23 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

The 406 was raced in 1962 and 1963. Under sustained wise open throttle,
the main caps would "walk" and the bottom end would blow. In June or
July of '62, the cross-bolted mains were introduced in the 406's,
ending crankshaft durability problems. In mid 1963, the 406 was
replaced by the famed 427.
Jason Kendrick

Daniel DiMartino wrote:
>
> so what was the displacement of the motors ford ran in the early
> sixties against the chevy 409's in nascar? i want to say 406??
> was that an FE motor??
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:56:42 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - New toy

Stu writes: >>Well ladies and gents, I bought the 1968 F-100, SWB, 2 wheel
drive, 31,000
original mile, pebble beige truck<<

Congradulations my boy!!!! Now for the next assumption. When is the new
baby due??? I know SWMBO wouldn't have succumbed to a new toy unless she
was getting you out of the house on purpose.....

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:59:48 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Economics

Wish writes: >>
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 <<

You're absolutely right It is marketing and not the Engineer, I said
economics at the end, but I should not have Generalized on the Engineers.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:09:02 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Thousandths

Dr Waterman writes: >> I said I wanted the block bored .0060 over - any
arguments?<<

Yep!!! .060" is sixty thousandths. - not .0060(six thousansths).
Don't recommend .060" if it is the 1st rebuild and you ever intend on
rebuilding again. That is the recommended upper limit for most blocks.
Now if you don't care to be maxed out bore wise, then go for it.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 18:43:50 -0900
From: "Matthew Schumacher" 7x.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

Hmmmm, looks like you have the steve christ book :)

For everyone on the list that wants to know more about FE's get the HP
Books "How to rebuild your big block ford." It is written by Steve
Christ and it explains the diffrences between all of the FE engines.

schu

Jason & Kathy Kendrick wrote:
>
> The 406 was raced in 1962 and 1963. Under sustained wise open throttle,
> the main caps would "walk" and the bottom end would blow. In June or
> July of '62, the cross-bolted mains were introduced in the 406's,
> ending crankshaft durability problems. In mid 1963, the 406 was
> replaced by the famed 427.
> Jason Kendrick
>
> Daniel DiMartino wrote:
> >
> > so what was the displacement of the motors ford ran in the early
> > sixties against the chevy 409's in nascar? i want to say 406??
> > was that an FE motor??
> == 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 16:47:49 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - OD autos

Gary writes: >>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? <<

Don't know if this is all true, but this is the way I heard it explained to
me. GM and FOMOCO put the OD in the case right behind the input shaft from
the engine. (1st gearset).
I know M*Par tacked theirs on behind (I'm talking rear wheel drives here)
in the tailshaft. M*PARs is basically a 727 or a 904 front case and gears
with a complete OD attached to the rear in the form of a tailshaft.
M*OPAR even purchases this add on from New Venture Gear(NVG) that is a
joint ownership of GM/Chrysler (now DaimlerChrysler). There is a different
case because of added oil passages through it and it has a different bolt
pattern at the rear for the OD (tailshaft) and a different velve body. All
the bands, clutches and gearsets are interchangeable with the
aforementioned 727(OD version being A518) and 904 (OD version being A500).
The OD units carry the same P/N so are interchangeable between the heavy
(A518)and light duty (A500).

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:04:49 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Shifting Aux

Wish writes: >>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.<<

If all else fails come to a complete halt after completing the difficult
pull or whatever and put the aux in whatever gear I want and take off
normally and let the C6 handle it. I do think, however, that I can shift
the c6 into Neutral and shift the aux either up or down, but going into or
coming out of a 2:1 lo range might be difficult. The .8 OD should be a
"Breeze".

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 17:10:01 -0500
From: am14

daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Large inputs

Gary Perry writes: >>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. <<

Mine measures about 1&1/2 inches on the splines. The pilot is definately
larger, but being at work and not having the memory I used to(and it was
never anything to brag about), I can't envision the size of it.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 21:42:57 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

I borrowed one years ago, and I couldn't return it till I got one of my
own!

Jason

Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>
> Hmmmm, looks like you have the steve christ book :)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:30:20 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel" email.msn.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Headshake(long)

- -> From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)"
- ->
- -> Chris, you are saying that a 4x4 needs toe "in"?
SNIP<

Yes. I am.

- -> 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".

Agreed. In theory zero toe is ideal.
In fact, and in theory toe out (on RWD)is a wreck waiting to happen,
anywhere but an autocross course. As far as the driving wheels in front
pushing together. I played for a day, years ago, to see what would happen,
both front wheels turned out in the blink of an eye (ok, it was a J##p). The
caster angle has a huge influence on this. Increasing the caster angle from
zero to 5� induced what you describe under power. They always turned out
when not under power. Man do I wish I still had that kind of time and
energy!

- -> 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??

Once the caster and camber are set to what the truck needs to have, or as
close as one can get...
If you have zero toe and one tire has more traction then the other (which is
always true) then you will inevitably pull to that side, this in a Rear
Wheel Drive Truck, as the tire will attempt to pivot around the Ball Joint
axis, turning away from the vehicle centerline, or out. If the other tire is
near zero it will then rapidly move to an angle that correlates to the tire
that first turned. If the caster is adequate at a point it will tend to self
center the wheels and turn them the other way until... SHAKEN! The wider the
tire and, or the farther out of spec the scrub radius is, the more
exaggerated the tendency. And Goodgolly-Miss Molly don't even think about a
panic stop!! All of the above IME when the hub is turned in too. Too much
toe out and you get rapid tire wear.
If you have 'some' toe in, and you run in exactly the same condition the
tire with the higher traction value will "best case" tend to turn vary
slightly towards the tire with less traction, and worst case will turn out
to a zero or straight ahead condition. The net result is a truck that runs
and stops straight and true, if everything else is also working correctly.
If anything is loose then you can/will get strange things happening; and
yes, if there is too much toe you can get the same shaking thing, but it
takes a ton! To much toe in and you get rapid tire wear too.
If you are Drag Racing then you set the toe to zero at drive height, not
ride height. If your autocrossing, Solo 1-2 (what ever) then you set zero,
even toe out, to get the rig to turn in faster. Of-course all your doing is
turning, with vary short straights generally and toe has little affect after
the wheels are off center so to speak. If you are running over a 33" tire on
the street then IME 99% of the time you need to increase the Toe-in. If your
barrel racing your 4x4 then toe out!
- ->
- -> 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??

May-perhaps I were not clear on this...
Add 1/32" to the factory setting of... and I kan't find my shop manual!
darn-it!! Anywayz say that it is, oh... 3/32 then add a thirty-second to
that, and test. If it solved the problem then your done, if not add another
and keep going. If you get to a 1/4" and your not running 44's you have
found... the problem is somewhere else, and I would suspect not enough
caster, or something is loose.

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?

Even in the dirt IME 1/32 can make all the difference.
Years ago in a galaxy far away I built a blown BBlk. Full Time 4x4. It ran
38" tires. Well after testing I started adjusting the suspension, as the
thing shook like a big dog coming out o'the pond! I ended up with something
like 4� more caster and around +3/16" over factory Toe-in as I remember...
Anyhow my customer was unhappy with me for not setting the truck to the
vaunted "factory" specs and took it to a local alignment shop... 2 days
later and $300 poorer they gave him back the truck set almost exactly the
same as when they received it.
- ->
SECOND POST:

- -> From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
- ->
- -> 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.

First pulling on the welding lid and leathers...
IMNSHO FWD is an abomination before Henry and all Humanity! It has been
foisted off on an illiterate driving public as being safe and improving
handling neither of which is true! Period! and don't even get me started on
Air Bags & ABS!
Sorry... but "I" feel better!
FWD is AFAIK all independent suspension and does not respond the same way as
a beam axil.
Gary, I would notice if any of my rigs was out of the toe setting by 3/16"
and I'll bet even less. Different butt meters I guess...

SNIP<
- -> One day I will invest in the pointer/scribe kit and make up
- -> a nice bar for this :-)

You can get well with in 1/64" on the toe, with a 2x4, some sheetrock metal
corner edge molding, a tape-measure, masking tape, a pencil, a few nails,
knife and a can of spray paint. So lets see that comes to around $5.00.
Course you could use better materials but I built my first one out of the
above and used it for years.
- ->
- -> 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
- -> discussion, I'm looking for more input :-)

Let's see I have raced, and I'll argue (and have) with anyone (can ya tell)
until they make sense! I only use the shop manual for the most basic
reference and exploded parts drawings. And if I don't make sense, stick my
foot in mouth, or your experience is different well then, we discuss, or we
don't, and ether way we all still drive Ford Trucks and in that we have
common ground and friendship.

Peace
Muel

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:17:52 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny" wenet.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam

John LaGrone wrote:

> Steam is colorless and odorless, as it is water vapor. When
> steam condenses slightly into small droplets, it becomes visible. We
> commonly call this phenomenon clouds.

Well, I'll be hanged. You mean then that clouds are formed by the steam
coming off the earth? Even when the temperature outside is zero?

Denny
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:37:34 -0800
From: "bronco66" teleport.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE, 429?

I have owned several 360, 390, 302, and 351w (no 460's though). My current
429 has more miles on it than any of the other motors and I have all the
power I could ever need and I am turning 3.50 gears with 35" BFG mudders. I
can stand on the gas as much as I want and that engine just asks for more.
As far as I was concerned the 360-390 family motors I have had experience
with had the least RPM potential.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) visteon.com>
To: <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 7:38 AM
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
>

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

End of 61-79-list-digest V4 #6
******************************

+----- 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 not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.

Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.