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 #8
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 008



=======================================================================
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 - 360 FE Doubts
FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New
FTE 61-79 - Hobbies
FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 429
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings
FTE 61-79 - HELP STOP THE NJ AUTO EMISSIONS TEST
RE: FTE 61-79 - tire balancing
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshakes
RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed
RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
FTE 61-79 - Coil Voltage
RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets
RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!!
RE: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts
RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshakes
RE: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings
RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets
RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390
RE: FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New
FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Redux
Re: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390
FTE 61-79 - steam
FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover
FTE 61-79 - painted pumpkins
RE: FTE 61-79 - Clark 5sp
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover
Re: FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New
FTE 61-79 - 351 vrs 400 motor
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 06:09:35 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts

Chevy has always, from the very beginning, controlled the racing rules to
it's own favor. Go to any circle track and check out the rules.....they
eliminate virtually all the decent ford bodies for racing so we get stuck
with gun boats....:-(

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 06:56:55 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New

> 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...
>>>>>

I've driven both. The 5.4 runs pretty darn good, it is an improvement over
the 4.6 for sure. It depends alot on the 390 we're talking about too. I
think the 8.2 to 1 truck 390 will make more power all over the place, It's
alot more cubes, and it actually breathes better provided it has a decent
exhaust. But it will only get about half to two-thirds of the same fuel
economy. They have terrible a quench relationship, since they used a 410
piston that comes up .100 lower in the bore than does a passenger car
engine. A 9.5 to 1 passenger car 390 will stomp any modern offering in the
dirt, provided you run good fuel. Due to it's much better combustion
efficiency, it's fuel economy will be better than the truck engine, but
still nowhere near what the mod motor can do.

A combination I really like is what I'm building for the '65. It's a .020
over 390 with TRW forged flat-tops (the same as the original cast pistons)
and a set of early style squared off chamber heads(the same as what the
truck came with) . My specific combination will come out to 9.35-9.4 to 1,
and has .051 quench including the gasket. If I put this in a little
shortbed '65-'66 2wd with a C-6 and 3.55 gears, slap on a set of headers
well, what do you think it would do? Bill Hart has a good basic 390
combination, it's basically a dished piston 9.5 to 1 passenger car engine
with a little more cam. Sweet. I ran the same thing in my '67 F100 for
many years and there's no question in my mind that it would eat 5.4's for
lunch, and set up and tuned right (headers, duals, weight and gears equal)
it would stick with a new. blown Lightning.

It's all in what you want to drive. A $3500 older truck is pretty nice and
though I like the older trucks better, if you get a '73-'76 (FE models, the
78-79's are just as nice) they can be downright comfy. Say you spend $5000
with interest and do some freshening up, compare that to a new or even a
year old truck with interest. The difference will buy a lot of gas and
resto parts.

As far as reliability goes, if that new truck breaks(and they do) it will be
more expensive to fix than the older one. They are more reliable in a sense
that if everything is put together right and there are no defects in
anything, yes they are. Warranty is great, but, when you get 5 years down
the road and blow a head gasket from either weak metal or poor gasket design
(the aluminum head 3.8 for example) it will cost you dear to get it fixed
and you are on your own. The old truck, you can get a couple of gearhead
buds together, buy some beer and do some male bonding. Have them bring
their wives and kids and throw some steaks on the grill. And anyone with a
decent set of basic tools and some mechanical experience can maintain and
fix most problems. Bodywork is the money pit, get a good straight body and
a fresh paint job. Mechanical stuff is pretty straight forward and doesn't
cost all that much. Rust can break your heart, ask me how I know.

It's a different kind of relationship with your vehicle. If you like to
trade vehicles every 3-4 years and can afford a $600 payment, and don't like
to get your hands dirty the new truck is better. If you like to tinker,
and in my case, actually prefer the charachter in a older truck, the old
one's for you. There's room for both.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:42:04 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hobbies

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.
>>>>

AAAA-MEN brother Azie!!! Can I get a witness???

The auto industry has managed to lower expectations of true durability, by
doing things in a way that reduce the need to interact mechanically with
your car. It used to be you'd go down to the DX station every 3 months, and
they would change oil, and grease eveything up again, latches,
hinges,everything. Once a year, you got a tune up. Plugs, points and a
good look at everything. Every two years, you flushed the coolant, changed
the trans and differential oil and replaced the belts and hoses. Your
maintenence mechanic knew your car, what it was due for. You drank your 3V
Cola and talked to him while he did the work. He'd show you what you need
to look at addressing as an actual repair. If he wasn't set up to do it, he
knew someone who could and would send you over.

Contrast this with the relationship today. Someone buys a car and takes it
to the Jiffy to service it, they change the oil. That's it. You'll be
lucky to get away with the caps on your reservoirs intact. They drive it
for 5 years or 100,000 miles, like the hype says they can do. They get out
the book and call down the line till they find a shop and ask him a stupid
question like, "My car is running funny, has been for a year, how much is a
tune up?" Or maybe they fancy themselves a do-it-yourselfer, so they go
down to AutoZone and ask some poor harassed high school kid to figure out
what's wrong with his car. In my store I trained everyone to send that
stuff to me so I could at least make sure they wouldn't break their darn
fool neck! Well they get the bad news, the car is going to take some major
attention. It's time to trade in and start over. The dealer details it out
patches it up a little and some young couple comes along and buys it. Major
Screw Job. They drive it 3 months and it blows a head gasket. $2000. A CV
joint lets go, $400, and in the mean time the machanic (who these people
know very intimately, he has a second on their house) discovers that the
(imported $100 each)rotors are grooved up, even though it has a set of
fairly new pads, quality Dealer Work strikes again, just do what it takes to
get it out the door and sold.

The poor kids have so much money in it they can't junk it, like someone
would have done with such a poorly cared for car 20 years ago. The
manufacturer boasts that the average age of cars on the road has risen to
unheard of heights, they must be better products than they used to be.
Yeah, right!

The only reason they stay on the road is that poor folks can't afford to
junk them, that is all. It's a piece of worn out crap with 30 more
payments to go.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:04:01 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 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.

>>>>>

A 390 needs headers, badly. They will then rev so well you have to be
careful not to scatter it.

429's were good engines too, but in my experience the FE had nothing to be
ashamed of as long as you ditched those log manifolds.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:07:03 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Rough running, damp mornings

What I've seen in my experience is that the wires are more to blame for this
problem than anything else with one exception.......greasy caps :-) There
is a lot of heat under the hood and it takes a toll on anything made of
rubber including wires. If the probelem occures in the am after a rain then
I suggest that you need some decent wires, not the cap or....the cap has a
thin coating of oil on it which may or may not be visible but if it's there
it causes a low grade short between all the towers and there isn't enough
spark to get it fired when cold. It's not on the inside, but the outside.

Dielectric grease helps but make sure you have the newer plug sockets with
the little snap ring before using this on your boots or you will find the
wires will not stay put. You can pinch the older style sockets till you're
blue in the face and they still won't stay on if you grease them :-(

On the cap, don't grease the boot but just the socket itself so the boot
helps keep them in place or you will be pushing them back on every other day
too :-(

Remember that both the towers and plugs are tapered and the rubber acts like
a cam to push itself off. It's a paradox at best, on the one hand you need
to keep them on but you also need to be able to get them off later without
damaging them.......can't win for losing :-(

The cap should be vented but the vent needs to be protected. Virtually all
OEM caps come with a vent for that reason. Even dirt bikers who run in mud
and water vent their caps but they run tubing up under the seat or into the
air cleaner to keep water out. Sealing the cap at it's base is iffy at best
and I would say it is only necessary if you are going to be submerged as in
a water crossing, otherwise, leave it unsealed so air can get in and out
more easily to keep it dry. Rain and high humidity are not likely to get
into a properly fitted, unsealed cap to the extent that it causes a problem
but it can get into the wire connections at the cap so the rubber boot over
the cap is a very good idea and actually does work, I can attest to this :-)

Believe it or not, on a perfectly clean cap, water has little effect until
it becomes a flood. A little moisture should not affect the ignition if all
components are in good working order. I often wash the engine on my
vehicles and the only time i have trouble starting them afterward is when
the wires are in bad shape and this is with no specail precautions being
taken. I even power wash the dizzy cap quite often with no ill effects but
I'm carefull about the air cleaner. This is paper and will swell up if it
gets wet.

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 09:05:10 -0500
From: James Oxley thecore.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - HELP STOP THE NJ AUTO EMISSIONS TEST

Sorry for the cross post, although no one has ever told me why I
shouldn't cross post :-) Is it computer related or just not nice??

Thanks

OX (James Oxley)

PS, site is difficult to get into sometimes, keep trying :-)

> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 12:11:35 -0600
> To: butch covacvag.org
> From: info murraysabrin.com
> Subject: HELP STOP THE NJ AUTO EMISSIONS TEST
> MANDATES
>
> STOP THE NJ AUTO EMISSIONS TEST MANDATES
>
> Sabrin for U.S. Senate is asking all its New Jersey
> supporters to back Murray’s fight against
> environmental extremism by signing the online
> petition against NJ’s new federal auto emissions
> testing mandate.
> Sabrin’s petition, available on the web at
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.murraysabrin.com/petition.shtml.
> is asking Senators Lautenberg and Torricelli to use their influence
> with President Clinton’s Environmental Protection
> Agency to end the threat of sanctions on New Jersey
> if the state goes back to the old emissions test.
> All petition responses will be sent to both
> Senators, hopefully for their immediate action.
> The petition states that the test “is unnecessary,
> expensive and a waste of time. Motorists whose cars
> fail will be forced to pay hundreds of dollars in
> repairs. Waivers will be granted to only three
> percent of all vehicles that fail and these cars
> will be forced off the road within two years. The
> existing test, therefore, will have a devastating
> impact on low income and moderate-income people who
> need their cars to get to work. And ironically, cars
> idling in residential neighborhoods (while in line
> to be inspected) create pollution where none existed
> previously.”
> Sabrin said that “three weeks of this nightmare is
> enough and everyone in New Jersey knows it except
> for those making excuses for this fouled up system.
> Like HOV lanes and Oxyfuels, this extreme test will
> soon be abandoned. It should be sooner rather than
> later, and our Senators should learn from this and
> use their influence with President Clinton to stop
> any new testing mandates.”
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:20:54 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - tire balancing

HAAAAAAAh! I've seen such a machine! We had one at the school where I took
my alignment class and it was a BEAST! To say the Least! :-) Noisy,
vibratey, hungry, scary thing to watch! I was the only one in the class the
instructor would let touch it......if he only knew....:-)

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:26:01 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

> 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...
>

The other advantage the 5.4 has on the higher end is that the torque curve
is a very very gradual slope after you hit that peak ... it will stay within
5% for quite some time if I remember right ... great for pulling once you
get up to those revs :)

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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 04:02:38 -0800
From: "Scott Jensen" worldnet.att.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshakes

I played with the toe in when I was redo'in my front end. I think the specs
called for 5/32. I dialed this in, drove, then turned the adjuster a bit
both ways and drove it again. I never went beyond the straight point. Too
much toe in gave a very positive straight line feel. And I was thinking I
might not need my dampening shock, until I went into a corner. My truck
wanted to pull into the corner. Then, when I adjusted it to a more toe out
position, Just about the opposite happened. I was most satisfied with
adjusting it to specs, then out, just a bit. In 4x4, my truck really
doesn't care about alignment, because of binary mode. It's either driving,
or it's broke.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:46:35 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5 speed

Apparently, the truck crank was drilled with a larger pilot hole for a
larger pilot bearing to fit a larger input pilot. My question to Azie was
if this was a Problem but since he also used the original truck engine I
would presume not :-)

Clutches come in diameters and all manner of spline size and configurations.
Chances are the truck disk would work with the light truck clutch as would
the throwout bearing. At worst, the truck pressure plate may be required as
well.

Ever try to set up a crank to precision drill the end? Perhaps a large
lathe with a captive roller rest......?

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:03:30 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam

Let's see......6 billion people, all breathing and water vapor coming out of
their mouths and going.......UP? It takes 540 calories of energy to convert
one gram of water to steam as I recall and that same amount of energy must
be absorbed by what ever object it touches to return it to water......since
the upper atmosphere has lower pressure the water vapor......If you blow a
head gasket you will get a good understanding of this principle when the
coolant condenses inside what used to be a hot manifold....:-)

- --
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
- --

> 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 10:35:36 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Coil Voltage

Hey Burt,

Thanks for finding that out!!!!!!!

Guess I'll start looking for that ballast resistor!

Thanks again!

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:39:55 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
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 :-(<<


Gary,
Is the 1:1 gear in older transmissions a straight through shaft? I thought
in a constanly meshed transmission high gear was another set of gears with
the same gear count to give the 1:1 ratio. If this is the case then would
there really be any difference if high gear was a 1:1 or an overdrive?
Every gearset (first through last) would consist of 2 gears meshed together
and I would think the losses in the trans would be approx the same for every
gear.

Now I think a planetary transmission (like a Lenco?) actually locks the
planetary gearset to give a 1:1 high gear. In this case since the input
shaft is directly connected to the output shaft you would then have little
(zero) loss due to friction in meshing of the gears.

Let me know if I'm out in left field. (It has happend. Dad used to say
"That's a good idea son, problem is it just isn't worth a s*# :0) )

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:39:56 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!!

Clare, good to hear from you. Sounds like you covered all the bases.
Might make sure to ask for a new Timing chain and oil pump. Those might be
assumed in the rebuild but doesn't hurt to ask.

I know someone else is going to suggest this but you might check into
converting it to a 390. You'll need new pistons anyway with the bore and
the crank and rods may not be that much to add to the cost and the extra
cubes are always nice to have and doesn't seem to cost any extra in daily
economy.

Tom H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clare Waterman [mailto:waterman scripps.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 8:08 AM
> To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
> 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
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:40:16 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 360 FE Doubts


> 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 ...
>
I've been thinking about this earlier. A 427 bore and a 360 crank will
yeild 393 cubes. I've been wanting to put one together but 427 blocks ain't
cheap and there are no guarantees on used parts. :0(

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:40:15 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!!


> > 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

Good suggestion to have the bores checked before taking them out that far.
I would point out thogh that the 428 bore is "60 over" a 360/390 bore. They
may have cast a 428 block differently to give it more material at this size.
Does anyone know if the 428 block was cast differently? I have seen
magazine articles on building a 428 by punching out a 390 block. They also
recommend checking the block first though. Also PAW sells crank kits for
428s so a conversion might be pretty easy.

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:46:56 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Headshakes

Well, one day I will make my fancy dancy toe rod and take an accurate
measurement of mine which handles quite well and has no tendency to shake
and let you all know so you can all run down the the shop and set it
"correctly" :-)

What was said about IFS vs solid axle is quite true. The IFS has many
moving parts which move in a "designed" relationship to each other to obtain
the desired camber change and toe relationship in turns but for us this is
very difficult to analyze because the geometry is very complex and is
coupled with body roll which is not a factor with a solid axle. The toe
affects the camber change in turns due to the "angle of inclination" and
caster and is much more pronounced on a solid axle than IFS in most cases
because it is a "compromise". The controling factors in the camber change
in a solid axle are the angle of inclination, caster, initial camber and toe
but with IFS body roll changes the relationship of all these from one side
to the other, dramatically and is the subject of considerable discussion
among circle track racers.

On touring vehicles the geometry is designed to change both the camber and
the toe so that the outside tire is describing as close to a perfect arc
around the inside rear tire as possible and the inner front is doing the
same thing but with a different radius and to offset the latteral roll of
the tire relative to the rim which tends to pick up one edge of the tire
tread. In touring vehicles these are compromises and are designed to also
control over (pulling into the corner) or under steer (pushing) to make the
vehicle safer for the "average" driver as well.

Now......how do we use this information? The same way racers do, set it to
a known standard and test and then modify it as needed and test again and
again and again and ........

When NASCAR crews change the tension of the springs on each corner they are
attmpting to affect the down force and body roll to improve
handling.....during the race! If this were an exact science they could dial
it in in the shop :-)

This reminds me, I probably need to make a change to my toe or caster
or....something since my bronco seems to have a nasty over steer tendency in
tight corners.....at 60 mph.....in the rain....so that I wound up on the
inside lane with a completely stopped heart and realized that I was still on
the pavement and no one was coming in the other lane and I was still
alive....so I just kept going :-) Totally oblivious to the landmarks and
where I was, mind way off in the boonies and there it was, under my tires
already when I realized........Perhaps this is why they say under steer is
safer for the average bear? Since the took the large oak trees down on the
outside of that curve, sliding off the road would be a safer bet :-)

- --
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
- --

> much toe in gave a very positive straight line feel. And I
> was thinking I
> might not need my dampening shock, until I went into a
> corner. My truck
> wanted to pull into the corner.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:06:14 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski ford-trucks.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Rough running on Damp mornings

At 04:41 PM 1/4/00 -0600, you wrote:



>another answer is to hit the salvage yards, the 5.0's had a boot around
>their dist's that protected them from this, it'll be too big for your small
>cap, but may work anyway .... I think it was 87+ 5.0's on the big cars and
>the stangs ...
>Just my $.02
>wish
My 88.5 Escort GT had this boot too. I say had, came back from
getting an alternator put on it a couple of years back. Nobody at the place
I took it seems to remember seeing it??????????

Ted Wnorowski
Bellevue,OH
' 64 F-250
352 transplant
4 speed
' 63 F-100
parts truck

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 08:06:24 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) [mailto:gpeters3 visteon.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 7:04 AM
> To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
> Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam
>
>
> Let's see......6 billion people, all breathing and water
> vapor coming out of
> their mouths and going.......UP? It takes 540 calories of
> energy to convert
> one gram of water to steam as I recall and that same amount
> of energy must
> be absorbed by what ever object it touches to return it to
> water......since
> the upper atmosphere has lower pressure the water
> vapor......

Let me guess. It is eaiser for it to remain a vapor. When it looses enough
engergy due to the lower temperature at higher altitudes (540 calories per
gram) it then condenses into water droplets and forms clouds. Right?




>If you blow a
> head gasket you will get a good understanding of this
> principle when the
> coolant condenses inside what used to be a hot manifold....:-)
>
When you blow a head gasket the superheated liquid coolant goes rapidly from
a high pressure state to a low pressure state and immediately boils and
turns into steam. The steam hits the much cooler atmosphere gives up 540
cal/gram and condenses and surrounds the distressed owner in a cloud of
profanity. ;0)


> 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

That assumes that the coulds overhead are from water vapor that move
straight up from the ground water in your immediate area. How about the
warm moisture laden air from over the gulf water moving north into cooler
air and then condensing to form those clouds. Sound better? :0)

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:07:55 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

Lest anyone may get the wrong idea, the SOHC is not, in itself, what gives
it it's rpm capability or determines where it's curve will be nor does it do
anything directly to improve breathing, it simply makes it easier to use
high rpms without breaking something and reduces the friction and
reciprocating mass to gain a small amount of torque or power. The cam
"lobe" design, valves and ports all play a large roll in determining where
the curve will be, however. One of the reasons they use this design is that
it is cheaper to manufacture :-) As we all know, this could actually be
their MAIN concern :-)

Since I have not driven one myself and probably never will I can't say how
the 5.4 engine works but generally the trend is toward lower rpm, higher
torque designs for longevity and economy. The newer ones I have driven so
far all seem to display a fair ability to rev though which would seem to
indicate some effort in the design to enhance the breathing as well :-)

Economy was never much of an issue with the older designs so they made them
powerfull and ran them at higher rpms......

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:11:01 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - rebuild q's--finally!!

> Good suggestion to have the bores checked before taking them out that far.
> I would point out thogh that the 428 bore is "60 over" a 360/390
> bore. They
> may have cast a 428 block differently to give it more material at
> this size.
> Does anyone know if the 428 block was cast differently?

Aren't they .080 over on a 390 ? 4.05 vs 4.13 ? At least that's the info
I've got ... hey a 428 is only 426.5 .... a 427 isn't quite that even is it
?

Nope, 424.9 ...must've been a 425cubic inch rule huh ? ;)

ever wish they would show the real displacements ?

FYI 390 = 389.57
360 = 360.71

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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:25:31 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Gearsets

AFAIK, in a constant mesh tranny, the shafts are conneced by the shift forks
to differnt sets of gears and in most cases a set of gears has to be
connected to the shaft by dogs which slide on splines. When you engage top
gear, the dogs are all disengaged and only the slip collar between the input
and output shafts are actually connected and the gears free wheel. They are
still all meshed but are not under power or involved in driving the output
shaft.

In an auto they do the same thing but with a clutch pack if I'm not
mistaken. I thought the over running clutch was for reverse but don't know.
Some day I will get time to look all this up and you guys (and perhaps
myself as well) will be surprised to know how it "realy" works :-)

- --
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
- --


> Gary,
> Is the 1:1 gear in older transmissions a straight through
> shaft? I thought
> in a constanly meshed transmission high gear was another set
> of gears with
> the same gear count to give the 1:1 ratio.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:33:07 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sort of off the subject - steam

Yeah and wait till you blow a turbo seal.........fills the whole
neighborhood with clouds.....
Had to shut the engine off and coast up to the traffic light to prevent an
accident because the people and cars crossing the intersection couldn't even
see the light.....:-) Had to do that at every intersection on the way
home......:-( The cloud not only followed me, it preceeded me...:-( Ever
see the movie "The Fog"? Sort of like that...:-)

- --
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
- --

> turns into steam. The steam hits the much cooler atmosphere
> gives up 540
> cal/gram and condenses and surrounds the distressed owner in
> a cloud of
> profanity. ;0)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:41:03 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

> Lest anyone may get the wrong idea, the SOHC is not, in itself, what gives
> it it's rpm capability or determines where it's curve will be nor
> does it do
> anything directly to improve breathing, it simply makes it easier to use
> high rpms without breaking something and reduces the friction and
> reciprocating mass to gain a small amount of torque or power.

Uhm ... hello ? In my experience you just contradicted yourself completely
... you're saying its no the overhead cam that causes the thing to rev
higher, its the decrease in mass that's changing directions ? I suppose
you could be talking fancy materials for pushrods and stuff, but wouldn't
that inherently make the OHC a better revver ? Not that anyone on the
street really cares about how far you can rev it though ... and for the
"small amount of torque or power" I would think that would add up as you
gained in rpm's, meaning you'd gain more power than torque, but also that
you'd be able to make it count for more in the higher revs ...

> The cam
> "lobe" design, valves and ports all play a large roll in determining where
> the curve will be, however. One of the reasons they use this
> design is that
> it is cheaper to manufacture :-) As we all know, this could actually be
> their MAIN concern :-)
>

Cheaper to manufacuter ? How's that? you've got at least twice as many
cams that have to be matched (timed) when they go in ... not to mention the
additional belt/chain and such ... and in the end there's the neato
efficiency factors, less losses means you can burn it cleaner and get the
same power ... neato stuffs like that ...

> Since I have not driven one myself and probably never will I can't say how
> the 5.4 engine works but generally the trend is toward lower rpm, higher
> torque designs for longevity and economy.

This is a function of that overdrive you hate so much ... by dropping the
revs down you are dropping down in the powerband so you're not
"overpowering" your vehicle all the time (really how much HP does it take to
cruise at 65mph ? not the peak that's advertised that's for sure) ...
anyway by putting the peak torque near the cruise speed you can get by with
smaller pedal adjustments and fuel adjustments to maintain that speed, hence
better efficiencies and mileage ... this is just my limited experience
talkin here of course.

> The newer ones I have driven so
> far all seem to display a fair ability to rev though which would seem to
> indicate some effort in the design to enhance the breathing as well :-)
>

Actually the newer ones are bettter, the first ones (96-98 for 'stangs) had
shrouded valves that actually hurt things pretty bad for breathing. A 4.6
2V really won't rev any better than a 5.0 because of the port designs ... it
seems to pull harder around the dead spots that the old 5.0's seemed to have
between the torque peak and the hp peak ... this is mostly 'cause the torque
curve is so much nicer than the mountains that the 5.0's had for torque and
power ...

> Economy was never much of an issue with the older designs so they
> made them
> powerfull and ran them at higher rpms......
>
hehehehe ... anyone else ever hear of the 69 Mustang 'E' ?

:)

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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:46:17 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
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...
>

Yup, gonna be a bear on cold mornings, but I'm sure you can get it to work
:)

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

That I would definitely do... I'm ashamed to say I didn't check mine, but
the machinist was confident it would work, so I put my trust in him ... it
did work, but don't know how much clearance I have either so I can't tell
you if yours will work or not .

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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:49:34 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New

I enjoy driving my daughter's 97 but it is not a 78 with a 460 in it for
sure :-) It's smooth, comfy, quiet, has no rust and no broken windows or
parts, looks nice etc. but I can not throw trash in the back to haul to the
dump or dump shingles off the roof for the same end without feeling guilty
nor can I putter with it since it's all too arcane for me to monkey with so
I agree, I like my old trucks and some day, when I have them restored they
will be just as comfy as the 97 :-)

- --
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
- --

> It's a different kind of relationship with your vehicle. If
> you like to
> trade vehicles every 3-4 years and can afford a $600 payment,
> and don't like
> to get your hands dirty the new truck is better. If you
> like to tinker,
> and in my case, actually prefer the charachter in a older
> truck, the old
> one's for you. There's room for both.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 09:08:34 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer" pacifier.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Stainless Valves Redux

OK I've pretty much decided on the single groove valves...now anyone have
any real strong feelings one way or the other on the merits of swirl
polished valves for a truck engine? The difference is significant, about $3
a valve...TIA

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets"



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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 08:39:27 -0900
From: "Matthew Schumacher" 7x.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - new cam for my 390

uh, well hope it won't be to much of a bear because I live in alaska :)

So far I have not had any trouble with it because of the carb setup I
have. So far this winter the truck has started in -10 degree weather
when the starter turns very slow without turning over a full turn before
starting. Anyway, if I have trouble I'll plug it in, or keep it in the
garage.

I am going to get a set of headers here shortly, and also an electric
ignition box like a MSD or something. I am hoping to get 300hp out of
it. I want it to have enough power to turn my 33" mud terrain's in
really deep mud without hesitation.

schu

"William S. Hart" wrote:
>
> > I know.... hopefully it will idle without causing to much trouble. I
> > figure it will idle ok, just not very stock, or smooth...
> >
>
> Yup, gonna be a bear on cold mornings, but I'm sure you can get it to work
> :)
>
> > Do you think I will have any problems with valve clearances. I think I
> > am going to pull a head to double check...
> >
>
> That I would definitely do... I'm ashamed to say I didn't check mine, but
> the machinist was confident it would work, so I put my trust in him ... it
> did work, but don't know how much clearance I have either so I can't tell
> you if yours will work or not .
>
> Just my $.02
> wish
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:46:21 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - steam

>>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?<<

More or less. Most people think of steam as coming off of boiling water.
Vaporous water or water vapor can form at many temperatures depending on the
temperature, humidity, pressure, etc. Water will evaporate when the
conditions are right. Clothes dryers, hair dryers, fill in your own dryer
make water vapor. None of them boil in the sense of putting a pot on the
stove. Your defroster clears condensation from your windshield.

I think I better shush.

- -- 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: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:29:18 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover

Has anyone ever put a tonneau cover on a long box with a cross over tool
box? I know it wouldn't fit exactly, but I could fabricate a bridge between
the tool box and the front of the cover. Any experiences? Any advice about
tonneau covers in general?

- -- 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: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:23:31 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.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, I think JC Whitney had some stick on differential covers, but all I
remember is chrome. I don't remember the price.

- -- 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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:54:08 -0500
From: Marvin Meyer strat.net>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Clark 5sp

GM Diesel in London Ont Canada I was told bought them, I have a Clarke in my B-600 332HD mtr 2sp Rockwell rear
meyer strat.net
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

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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:09:24 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

OooooooooooK, here we go again.....:-) Yes the OHC "allows" for more revs,
it does not "cause" it to happen, the lobe design, ports and intake etc. all
do that and, Yes, due to lighter gear it will take less power to run but if
you consider all the parts which were eliminated by the design, they
certainly are cheaper to manufacture both from a materials stand point and a
machining/assy standpoint and along with the "distinction" that goes with
the title "OHC" you also get a few "real" benefits as well so it's a good
move for sure but, not the "reason" they run better, as I said. I was
attempting to speak to those with less understanding so that they are not
misled by elite catch words......

The reason they run better is due to someone in the design office getting
off his lump and designing piston tops, ports and intakes that work, the OHC
design aided in this to some degree but it could have easily been done with
the old pushrod design as well if they chose but it wouldn't have the same
charisma and would cost more to produce in an equal power/torque design so
the choice is obvious. I used to run my Triumph spitfire at 6500 rpm all
the time and it pulled hard all the way up to within a few hundred rpms of
that and that was a 30 year old design. We know of at least one truck
puller who can hit 9k rpm with a pushrod 460 so......

BTW, I like the OHC concept, one of my favorite designs is the XKE, V-12 OHC
and of course there is the 427 "cammer" too.

IF the new, fancy dancy OHC designs did not have the cam lobe, port and
intake "tuned" to operate efficiently at the lower rpms the OD would be
useless and actually be a step backward. As usual, the OEM's "experimented"
with OD's way back when an engine had to run more r's to make decent
economy. They figured less was better so just slapped a taller gear in
there with no other design changes and didn't get the effect they hoped for
but they gained an advertising advantage by including the fancy dancy OD in
their hype. They did gain some in engine life expectancy though as long as
the OD actually worked :-)

Then they added a few gears to spread the speeds over a better selection of
gears which was actually a better mouse trap than the OD and eventually they
got it all together with more gears to spread the speeds over and an engine
which actually worked at the lower rpms and still could rev enough to get a
little performance out of it so we have the latest generation of OHC, OD,
EFI, EEC econo wagons which have a little zip. All of this is good
but.......OHC, in and of itself, is not the reason they rev higher.....and
the OD should still be 1:1 :-) Give them time and I'm sure they will get
around to that too as soon as they figure out how to do it without costing
anything :-)

- --
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
- --

> Uhm ... hello ? In my experience you just contradicted
> yourself completely
> ... you're saying its no the overhead cam that causes the thing to rev
> higher
>
> Cheaper to manufacuter ? How's that? you've got at least
> twice as many
> cams that have to be matched (timed) when they go in ... not
> to mention the
> additional belt/chain and such ... and in the end there's the neato

> lower rpm, higher
> > torque designs for longevity and economy.
>
> This is a function of that overdrive you hate so much ... by
> dropping the
> revs down you are dropping down in the powerband so you're not
> "overpowering" your vehicle all the time (really how much HP
> does it take to
> cruise at 65mph ? not the peak that's advertised that's for sure) ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:06:47 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover

> Has anyone ever put a tonneau cover on a long box with a cross over tool
> box? I know it wouldn't fit exactly, but I could fabricate a
> bridge between
> the tool box and the front of the cover. Any experiences? Any advice about
> tonneau covers in general?
>

Don't have one, but have seen it done, frankly if your toolbox is the right
size a short bed tonneau will be really close out of the box ... just hit
your local truck accessory shop (I know Tony loves that phrase, but the
chains aren't big around here so I don't know what they offer) ... anyway
they should be able to get one custom fitted for you if they don't have a
company that already makes one ...

I've got a full tonneau on my truck and I love it, like having a really big
trunk. Mine's a clamp on style too, so no beds were drilled in the
installation of this tonneau :)

check the homepage and lemme know if you have any questions :)

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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:11:04 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New

I agree with you.
Nice explaination
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Old vs the New


> I enjoy driving my daughter's 97 but it is not a 78 with a 460 in it for
> sure :-) It's smooth, comfy, quiet, has no rust and no broken windows or
> parts, looks nice etc. but I can not throw trash in the back to haul to
the
> dump or dump shingles off the roof for the same end without feeling guilty
> nor can I putter with it since it's all too arcane for me to monkey with
so
> I agree, I like my old trucks and some day, when I have them restored they
> will be just as comfy as the 97 :-)
>
> --
> 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
> --
>
> > It's a different kind of relationship with your vehicle. If
> > you like to
> > trade vehicles every 3-4 years and can afford a $600 payment,
> > and don't like
> > to get your hands dirty the new truck is better. If you
> > like to tinker,
> > and in my case, actually prefer the charachter in a older
> > truck, the old
> > one's for you. There's room for both.
> == 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: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:12:41 -0600
From: "Tom Williams" megavision.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 351 vrs 400 motor

Hi,
I am looking at a 1974 Ford LTD with a 400 and a 1977 LTD with a 351.
I want to put the motor in a 1978 F-150 4x4. I can get the 1977 351 car for
$100.00 or the 1974 400 car for $200.00.
I am looking for some feedback as to which is the better motor to put in the
Pickup and why.
Thanks in advance for any info.

Tom
Columbus, NE


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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:18:59 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

Ok. one question:
If someone were to put a 97 f-150 4x4 5.4L SOHC and a 77 f-100 4x4 390cid
(6.4L i think) and put a heavy chain on attached to both chassis (in the
back) and both trucks started pulling each other, WHO would win? (Even if
both, or the winner blows his own motor winning)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 8:41 AM
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4


> > Lest anyone may get the wrong idea, the SOHC is not, in itself, what
gives
> > it it's rpm capability or determines where it's curve will be nor
> > does it do
> > anything directly to improve breathing, it simply makes it easier to use
> > high rpms without breaking something and reduces the friction and
> > reciprocating mass to gain a small amount of torque or power.
>
> Uhm ... hello ? In my experience you just contradicted yourself
completely
> ... you're saying its no the overhead cam that causes the thing to rev
> higher, its the decrease in mass that's changing directions ? I suppose
> you could be talking fancy materials for pushrods and stuff, but wouldn't
> that inherently make the OHC a better revver ? Not that anyone on the
> street really cares about how far you can rev it though ... and for the
> "small amount of torque or power" I would think that would add up as you
> gained in rpm's, meaning you'd gain more power than torque, but also that
> you'd be able to make it count for more in the higher revs ...
>
> > The cam
> > "lobe" design, valves and ports all play a large roll in determining
where
> > the curve will be, however. One of the reasons they use this
> > design is that
> > it is cheaper to manufacture :-) As we all know, this could actually be....


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.