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 #10
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 Friday, January 7 2000 Volume 04 : Number 010



=======================================================================
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 - Rear differential questions.
RE: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Headshake(long)
FTE 61-79 - 7 litre rule
FTE 61-79 - update on head shake.
FTE 61-79 - RE: Elec fuel pump - filters?
FTE 61-79 - Rusted out Cab mounts
FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?
FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover
FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?
RE: FTE 61-79 - steam
RE: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover
FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question
RE: FTE 61-79 - steam
Re: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation
FTE 61-79 - tcases - married vs divorced
RE: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation
FTE 61-79 - Re: Elec fuel pump - filters?
RE: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation
FTE 61-79 - Decoder Q.
FTE 61-79 - C6 or Cruise o matic
Re: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l
FTE 61-79 - Update
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - update on head shake.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update
FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 Parts Suppliers
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update
Re: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?
FTE 61-79 - RE: steam - terms for liquid/solid/gas phase changes
RE: FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 Parts Suppliers
Re: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - clarification, vacuum diagram
FTE 61-79 - RE: FTE 61-79 vacuum diagram

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:47:27 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Rear differential questions.

I'm going out on a limb here to say it's most likely a 31. Somewhere before
78 they started showing up in the 150 class trucks. My 78 with 2.75 rear
has 31 as does my 78 bronco. My 75 van had the LS rear and 28's.

AFAIK, all front loading or 3rd member type 9" fords will interchage the
center section but the axle bearings have 3 different configurations. The
79 uses the Federal Mogul A-20 type bearing and there is a cheap immitation
out there that costs half as much and is not a "tapered" bearing which I
wouldn't use on a bet. Get timkin or federal mogul, one peice tapered
bearing sets for about $40/side. They come as one unit with seal, inner and
outer race and bearing, lubed and ready to go :-)

Check the seal surface on the axle for wear and if it's very bad get a new
axle because it will just start leaking very quickly again and ruin your
brakes etc... You may be able to polish it up and make it work but if it's
very deep the seal won't have enough pressure on it to do a good job and if
it's scored it can become a stress fracture point.

When installing an axle be very, very carefull about the lip of the seal so
that it does not get pinched or torn, take your time and look all around it
as you put it in to make sure it is not being crumpled somewhere and push it
in slowly etc.... It's a lot of work and pretty expensive to replace a new
bearing just because of a torn seal :-(

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> I have a 1979 Ford F150 with axle code 12 . I got the gear
> ratio (2.73)
> from the VIN decoder on the classicpickups.com site. I need
> to know if the
> diff has 28 or 31 spline axles. Also, I would like to know
> the range of
> years of trucks (F100-F250) that the center section would be
> a bolt-in swap
> for my 1979. Thanks for any help. Steve
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:06:17 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?

Filters can go anywhere before the carb but in some cases it's good to have
them in front of the pump as well. The Diaphram pump probably won't be
harmed by debris but some of the rotary, electrics could be more sensitive
to this and should be protected.

I put a glass one in front of the carb with rubber hose connectors but you
can get them with 3/8" brake line threads (and other sizes as well), both
ends too and hook them up solid in the line which is what I did with the
bronco. Since the vertical portion of the line is fairly straight in the
front of the engine this was a good place to put it and it's also very easy
to see in that location.

I don't really see the need for more than one filter unless you are using
them in parallel to imporve flow. If both are in line one becomes redundant
IMHO unless it's in front of one of the pumps to protect it.

In systems with a low pressur delivery pump in the tank and high pressure on
the engine or frame a "Pre" filter was used in some cases, I understand, to
protect the high pressure pump which make sense to me but otherwise I see no
reason for this?

- --
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
- --

> Question is where to put the fuel filter(s)?
>
> I would like to use two - bought those clear glass filters with little
> plastic shield - they're nearly 3.5" long I think. Pretty long to fit
> between the metal hose that exits near the coil and the carb.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:23:52 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: Headshake(long)

Since the mini cooper is a front wheel drive it may be a more practical
example of what a 4x4 front end should be? Of course it was IFS also which
makes it fairly easy to do the combo you describe where a solid axle has to
make some serious compromises because the combos are limited. As I said,
body roll affected the toe in this case and could be anticipated under
certain conditions. I remember wanting one of those back in the old
days.....0-60 in 6 seconds or some such, interchangeable gear sets come with
it as an option etc....It was darned near as quick as the Porches up to 60
or so as I recall?

What I recall from my reading is that at high speeds you need to
"compensate" for scrub or slippage etc. by opening up the toe in turns etc.
but I don't recall which way it had to go off hand. The principle is the
same, you want both tires describing a perfect circle around the inside rear
tire in a turn but where slippage is predictable there are adjustments to
this for best traction etc.....

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> I have raced, and won a time or two, in an abomination, AKA the
> Mini Cooper. I remember the suspension being set to toe in to
> accelerate, and toe out to corner, at the same time. Basically at
> normal ride height the car would have 0 toe, but when you loaded
> the suspension (braking) it would have 1/8+ toe out. And when you
> unloaded the suspension, it would toe in an 1/8+.
>
> Yes, Henry would prolly look down his nose at FWDers, but they
> are a huge KITA to drive when set up correctly....
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 07:40:24 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 7 litre rule

>>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 ?<<

425 cid is about 7 liters. Someone did mention a 7 liter rule earlier.

BTW FoMoCo isn't the only one that fudges. A Ch vy 396 is really a 402, at
least the 69 we had was.

- -- 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 08:57:12 -0500
From: luxjo thecore.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - update on head shake.

OK

I first swapped out my weak shocks for some stiffer one's, no
difference in shake. Then I swapped on some 35 BFG AT's, instead of the
36.5 mudder non-radials. It would not do the shake, but it still felt
like it does when it was on the verge.

I measured toe and it is set at 7/16 toe in. This seems likely, as I
toe it in quite a bit in my frustration the other day. So I yanked the 7
degree bushings and put the stock rubber bushings back in (I'm assuming
between 5 to 7 degress less caster than stock now). I then put the 36.5
mudders back on and now it does a less severe shake. I can now drive
right through the shake zone if I accelerate fast enough. Since this is
a trail truck which is towed and driven very little on the street, I
think I can live with it. I may add 2 more stabilizers, just for kicks
to see what happens.

Does anyone think excessive toe in would contribute to this problem?


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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:12:43 -0500
From: William King bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Elec fuel pump - filters?

Jeff,
Check the instructions for your elec. fuel pump, but Carter (fuel pumps,
not Jimmy) insists you run a fuel filter BEFORE the elec. pump (ie
between the tank and elec. pump). If you don't use a filter, the pump
may eventually clog w/ junk. I've seen it happen before (Truck stops
running. Get out of truck, hit fuel pump w/ a tire-iron to get it cleared,
then drive off again).
I wouldn't like the idea of a clear (glass) fuel filter sitting under
my truck. I went to Autozone and picked up a metal filter from their
filter rack. Flows fine. Don't forget to use vise-grips on the rubber
hoses as hemostats when you're installing that filter by the tank.
Good luck.
Ohio Bill
*********
>So I am trying the dual fuel pump thingy that was discussed a couple of
>weeks back - electric pump at the rear near the tank on a dash switch,
>backing up the standard pump. The old "if one is good two is better"
>philosophy.

>Question is where to put the fuel filter(s)?

>I would like to use two - bought those clear glass filters with little
>plastic shield - they're nearly 3.5" long I think. Pretty long to fit
>between the metal hose that exits near the coil and the carb.

>What I have read suggests that filters belong just after pumps in the
>lineup. For the stock pump that means cutting a section of the metal tubing
>out and clamping the hose/filter there; somewhere accessible too so I can
>actually view the fuel (cool). For the one by the tank it means mounting
>the assembly somewhere rocks won't find too often, but I can still reach.

>I know, big deal over little cookies. But many of ya'll have done this and
>I would love to learn from someone ELSE's character-building mistake this
>time. ;-) I have enough character to gag Click and Clack after this swap.

>Jeff

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:49:17 -0600
From: prozell oaielectronics.com (OAI Electronics: Paul Rozell)
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Rusted out Cab mounts

I found that my 65 F100 has severe rust on the cab to frame mounts last
night. I am wondering what is the best fix for this. I have looked in
several catalogs and found replacements. Has any one replaced these
before??? How difficult is it. If anyone could give me some help I would
appreciate it.

Paul
65 F100 460 C6.
Help please.

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:08:44 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?

Hey Jeff,

I noticed you had said you had the glass filters....I swapped my glass
in-line filter for a clear plastic one after hearing several horror stories
about the glass breaking and the gas hitting the hot intake manifold and.....

Anyway, the main reason I keep one up near the carb is so I can tell if gas
is getting up there....after all, I have an FE and have had to replace three
fuel pumps.....(another story). I would tend to put the other filter between
the tank and the electric pump, this way you'll always keep your pump clean.

Good luck!

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:17:44 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover

>>I bought a nice one from Gem top, they will fabricate one that will fit
>with the tool box in place.
>I put this on a 72' F-100 long box. e-mail me off line and I'll send you
>a few pictures.
>Mike in Burien<<

Sounds like a deal.

>> I can use the soft tonneau and still lock stuff in the toolbox.
>California Concepts has a website that shows a number of lid styles:
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.calconcepts.com<<

I went to the calconcepts site. On the rear rail, how hard is it to remove
when you need to slide a large object in the bed? I like the way the rail
system clamps to the truck and the has snaps on the cover. I definitely want
a soft cover. I am thinking I want snaps instead of velcro. I don't think
rust will be a problem and I am the only one who will be using it. Comments?
Advice?

- -- 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:20:56 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?

>> gag Click and Clack<<

Yessss!!!!

- -- 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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:35:59 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - steam

I believe it is still called "Evaporaton" since water is still H2O and
reacts with the air in exactly the same way regardless of it's "Physical"
state. This is what I recall from physics or chemistry class
some.........37 years ago or so....:-) As I recall, again, it is strictly
dependent on air temp and humidity just as when in a liquid state.

One of the reasons hair driers work is due to this principle. The air is
heated by the dryer so that the molecules become further apart but retain
the same moisture content which makes the air "thirsty" due to some empty
space and the temperature brings the water closer to a vapor state and makes
it more "active" so that evaporation and air absorbtion occures at an
increased rate up to the saturation point of the heated air. When the air
cools there is less room and some of the moisture must "drop out" as water
so cold air has a lower humidity......

- --
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
- --

> Also I have seen ice evaporate (turn to vapor). I forget
> what it is called
> when water goes directly from solid to vapor.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:32:16 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover

> >> I can use the soft tonneau and still lock stuff in the toolbox.
> >California Concepts has a website that shows a number of lid styles:
> >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.calconcepts.com<<
>
> I went to the calconcepts site. On the rear rail, how hard is it to remove
> when you need to slide a large object in the bed? I like the way the rail
> system clamps to the truck and the has snaps on the cover. I
> definitely want
> a soft cover. I am thinking I want snaps instead of velcro. I don't think
> rust will be a problem and I am the only one who will be using
> it. Comments?
> Advice?
>

that's a neat trick about the flipping to keep it tight all year long ...
but I haven't really had a problem with it, one day when it was - it was
really tough to get on ... my big problem has been that the aluminum rivets
break, but that's easy enough to fix ... and comes from having it for 4 or 5
years of college life...

the one thing I don't like about the sliding snaps though is that if you
remove everythign and load the truck up, you have to put the rear rail on or
you will lose all your snaps! One of my friends did that with his dad's
truck, took it off to haul some stuff and while he was going down the road
the snaps all slid off the back of the rail ... neither of them was too
pleased...

On mine the rear bar just slip fits into place, then the tonneau itself
holds the bar in ... also the rails are aluminum on mine so there's no rust
problem there ... actually haven't had any rust problems at all with it as
most of the parts are aluminum ...there is some mildew I can't get off of
it, but that's cause I left it folded up in a corner all summer :( I
recently had to take the tonneau itself in to get some snaps repaired, the
underside had pulled off and stayed wiht the truck ... I think this was a
function of cheap snaps, but for less than fifty bucks they replaced all the
broken snaps and fixed a couple seams that were tearing ...

Mine was actually made by a tent company in the quad cities (Rock Island
actually) so they used vinyl top material which has lasted really well
through the winters and such ... my truck has only gotten a garage for the
last two years, otherwise it sat out in a parking log ... so it has had the
worst possible life and has still done very well for me ... I'm not sure who
made the frame rails or anything for them but the company is Sears Tent and
Awning ... its all riveted together (plastic corner pieces riveted to the
rails themselves) ...

Anyway just some things I like about mine that you might consider looking
for ... also be sure and check your tailgate, mine was taller than the side
rails just by a little bit ... an extra weatherstripping on the back part of
the bed lifted it enough to clear the gate and let it function normally ...
well as normal as a tailgate ever functions anyway :)

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, 06 Jan 2000 18:47:56 -0600
From: "Howard Bottles" austin.ppdi.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question

I have a problem with swapping trannys and need some help from the
list...

Truck 1: 74 F250 360/3spd on tree

Truck 2: 72 F100 T18 4spd. Originally looks like it had a 3spd on tree.

Both have 2pc driveshaft w/center carrier bearing.

I pulled the 4spd out of the 72 and installed it into the 74 F250 when I
put the new 390 in.
Problem is that when I install the front shaft onto the tranny and then
try to mount the carrier to the frame, the carrier holes don't line up
with the holes in the frame. Both front shafts from the F100 and the
F250 are the same length, so where could I be going wrong? Does the 4spd
use a different length front shaft? Anyone done this swap before?

Any help is appreciated.

BTW, the 74 Super camper special I wrote about last week, I bought it.

'74 F350 super camper special
390/4bbl
NP 435 4spd
PS and PB
Super cooling radiator

The engine is bad, so I will be pulling a 360 from my 74 F100 Ranger and
transplanting it in the F350. Should make a good truck for only $500.

Thanks

Howardb

74 F100 360/3spd Ranger
74 F250 390/4spd Custom
74 F350 390/4spd Custom Super Camper Special
72 F100 360/3spd for parts Sport
6?-7? F100 360/3spd for parts
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:36:56 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - steam

> I believe it is still called "Evaporaton" since water is still H2O and
> reacts with the air in exactly the same way regardless of it's "Physical"
> state. This is what I recall from physics or chemistry class
> some.........37 years ago or so....:-) As I recall, again, it is strictly
> dependent on air temp and humidity just as when in a liquid state.
>

Uhm, I missed something on this, but "transpiration" is the process of going
directly from a solid to a gas ... and yes water does do this, or rather ice
does ... a prime example of this is "dry ice" though (CO2)

> One of the reasons hair driers work is due to this principle. The air is
> heated by the dryer so that the molecules become further apart but retain
> the same moisture content which makes the air "thirsty" due to some empty
> space and the temperature brings the water closer to a vapor
> state and makes
> it more "active" so that evaporation and air absorbtion occures at an
> increased rate up to the saturation point of the heated air. When the air
> cools there is less room and some of the moisture must "drop out" as water
> so cold air has a lower humidity......
>
Uhm ... you're talking two different humidities here, there's relative and
absolute ...absolute is a measure of the actual amount of water where as
relative is a measure of the amount of water it can possibly hold (absolute
is weight/mass, relative is %) ... as you heat air just by adding heat the
absolute stays the same, but the relative is decreased ... really neat
psycho charts (psychrometric or something like that :) to show this, but I
dont have any on me anymore (thankfully! :)

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: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:37:03 -0800
From: wicowboy gateway.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?

What are you using this truck for? Is it a street only truck? Just
throw it out there that I had one of these neat glass one that was
mounted very secrurely using rubber to the frame. To make a long story
after about a week it cost me around $6000 I had just put into my truck
when it caused the truck to burst into flames around 55mph on my way to
work when it cracked...... That was the day after some wheeling so thats
probably why, maybe they're alright on the street though.........

Jeff Norville wrote:
>
> So I am trying the dual fuel pump thingy that was discussed a couple of
> weeks back - electric pump at the rear near the tank on a dash switch,
> backing up the standard pump. The old "if one is good two is better"
> philosophy.
>
> Question is where to put the fuel filter(s)?
>
> I would like to use two - bought those clear glass filters with little
> plastic shield - they're nearly 3.5" long I think. Pretty long to fit
> between the metal hose that exits near the coil and the carb.
>
> What I have read suggests that filters belong just after pumps in the
> lineup. For the stock pump that means cutting a section of the metal tubing
> out and clamping the hose/filter there; somewhere accessible too so I can
> actually view the fuel (cool). For the one by the tank it means mounting
> the assembly somewhere rocks won't find too often, but I can still reach.
>
> I know, big deal over little cookies. But many of ya'll have done this and
> I would love to learn from someone ELSE's character-building mistake this
> time. ;-) I have enough character to gag Click and Clack after this swap.
>
> Jeff
> == 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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:46:28 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
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)
>

It is always a question of traction and the shape of the equipment and such.
I don't know if you'd actually establish a clear cut winner doing this even
with a V6 against a V8 ... both machines would need to overcome the tractive
forces of the tires, and in some cases it may be better to just hold the
brakes as that's when you have the most grip ...

How to say this ... hmmm... take a 4x4, lock it in park and it will take a
certain amount of force to overcome the friction on the tires ... by
applying that amount of force, the tires will start to slide and the truck
will be dragged around ...

now apply a force in the opposite direction (by starting the motor and
driving it away from the pulling truck for instance) ... then you still have
to exert the same amount of force to overcome the tire's grip ... but since
you have a reactive foce you will need to overcome that reactive force and
then the additional force of the tires ... if you can do that without
slipping your own, then you will win ... at least that's how my head always
comes up with it ... maybe it'd actually happen differently if you tried it
in real life ... your best bet to see which is stronger is just to hook them
to a sled or something to measure their actual umph :) The Nebraska Tractor
tests provide such information on tractors, including their luggability and
all kinds of things you'd love to really know about your truck...

Its amazing how much better the tractor definitions for vehicle performance
are than the automobile industry's definitions ... horsepower isn't a peak,
its actually the grunt the motor can and will sustain for long periods of
time ... they list the actual displacements and horsepowers rather than
trying to inflate them ... of course if I paid 100,000 for a "small"
vehicle, it'd better do what's advertised or you won't be in business long
...

Just my $.02
wish (computer support by day, Ag. Engineer by night :)

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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:54:27 -0600
From: "Michael Ray Jones" lcc.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation

I want to jump in with my 2 cents on the 5.4 vs. 390 (or other old engine)
debate. I had an old Mercury wagon with a 390 4V, and it was a running
puppy! I also had a 77 F150 supercab and a 78 F250 Crew cab with 460's. I
currently have a 77 F150 with a 460 and 97 and 98 5.4's in an Expedition and
F150. Back in the late 70's, it seemed like the 460 pickups were the
fastest thing on the road, because the other cars were so weak. The new
5.4's are great in terms of power and response, and reliability. My old 460
has to have some choke and some morning warmup time before it's ready to
pull itself down the road. The EFI engines are ready to go as soon as you
hit the starter. I love em both, but as a daily driver, you just can't beat
the new engines.

>Also I have seen ice evaporate (turn to vapor). I forget what it is called
>when water goes directly from solid to vapor

I believe this is called sublimation.

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 15:58:31 GMT
From: byerks superford.org
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tcases - married vs divorced

Hi, its been a while since I've posted but I've got a general tcase
question. I have a divorced 203 right now. I'd like to swap to the 205
but I'm wondering the advantages and disadvantages of divorced vs married.
I'd like to stick with divorced because of front driveshaft angle and then
I wouldn't have to change tailshafts on the c6 making the swap very easy.
But then I've also heard that married is stronger, don't know if that would
be an issue with a 205 or not. Any opinions?

Brett
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superford.org/fbird
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:05:22 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation

> I believe this is called sublimation.
>

That sounds better than what I said ... hmmm...wonder where I got the
transpiration thingy...lost my dictionary link, have to dig that up again
too ...


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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:12:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Lee yahoo.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Elec fuel pump - filters?

Jeff,

I am running an electric pump only on my '53. I am
using an in line fuel filter on the input side only.
Once the fuel is filtered it is filtered. BTW, are you
installing an Oil Pressure cut off switch on your
electric pump?

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C-4V



>Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 23:49:19 -0800
>From: "Jeff Norville" sosinet.net>
>Subject: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - filters?

>So I am trying the dual fuel pump thingy that was
>discussed a couple of weeks back - electric pump at
>the rear near the tank on a dash switch, backing up
>the standard pump. The old "if one is good two is
>better" philosophy.

>Question is where to put the fuel filter(s)?

>I would like to use two - bought those clear glass
>filters with little plastic shield - they're nearly
>3.5" long I think. Pretty long to fit between the
>metal hose that exits near the coil and the carb.

>What I have read suggests that filters belong just
>after pumps in the lineup. For the stock pump that
>means cutting a section of the metal tubing
>out and clamping the hose/filter there; somewhere
>accessible too so I can actually view the fuel
(cool). >For the one by the tank it means mounting
>the assembly somewhere rocks won't find too often,
but >I can still reach.

>I know, big deal over little cookies. But many of
>ya'll have done this and I would love to learn from
>someone ELSE's character-building mistake thistime.
>;-) I have enough character to gag Click and Clack
>after this swap.

>Jeff

__________________________________________________
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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:15:15 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation

> > I believe this is called sublimation.
> >
>
> That sounds better than what I said ... hmmm...wonder where I got the
> transpiration thingy...lost my dictionary link, have to dig that up again
> too ...
>

woo hoo, found my link (sorry for flooding you guys, its
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ) anyway

here's what's up:

Transpiration :

the act or process or an instance of transpiring; especially : the passage
of watery vapor from a living body through a membrane or pores


Sublimation :

1 a : SUBLIME 1 b archaic : to improve or refine as if by subliming
2 : to divert the expression of (an instinctual desire or impulse) from its
primitive form to one that is considered more socially or culturally
acceptable

hmmm...doesn't list the solid to vapor transition ... maybe that's too much
on the scientific side of things ?

Just my $.02
wish

96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L
73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 08:23:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Koster yahoo.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Decoder Q.

Where can I find a VIN Decoder for 60's Fords?



Thanks,


Dan


__________________________________________________
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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:36:41 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - C6 or Cruise o matic

Greg writes: >> is that Cruze-o-matic worth keeping (after all, it just
died last
year) or should I go with the more modern C6? also, what modifications
have
to happen to swap, if any if i choose the C6 route?<<

If you get a C6, make sure it has the FE bolt pattern. (All c6's have the
bell housing integral with the case ) The Cruise o matic is a very good
transmission and could be an early C6(I'm not sure when the C6 was
introduced). Cruise o matic is a Generic term for several of the earlier
transmissions I think - not sure but I think this to be true. They are all
fairly reliable but Personally if I could get my hands on a C6 I'd rather
have it, because it is the toughest.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:10:16 EST
From: SHill48337 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 5.4 and sublimation

In a message dated 1/7/00 11:18:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, wish iastate.edu
writes:

<<
1 a : SUBLIME 1 b archaic : to improve or refine as if by subliming
2 : to divert the expression of (an instinctual desire or impulse) from its
primitive form to one that is considered more socially or culturally
acceptable

hmmm...doesn't list the solid to vapor transition ... maybe that's too much
on the scientific side of things ?
>>
You did not go quite far enough in the dictionary, at least in the Book I
have (yeah I know yours is on line). Mine states as the 2nd meaning that
Sublime is, "to purify a solid by heating directly to a gaseous state and
condensing the vapor back into the solid form, -vi. to go through this
process", this almost gets it. Of course it does not list sublimation, which
is a form of this word, but still no cigar. Dennis of Kennewick help! I
know sublimation is a correct term because of my engineering back ground, but
how come the dictionary does not list that word. Just looked it up in one of
my physics books and here is their definition for the term sublimation,
"direct change form solid to vapor without becoming liquid." I guess the
dictionary just has too many touchy feely words to be bothered with
scientific terminology, oh well.
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:12:18 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

Yes but, ok, suppose both trucks had he same height, and same traction., I
would assume that the 390 would pull a v6 anyday. But I'm talking about a
390cid and a new 5.4l, Someone a while ago said that, well, if they had the
same weight, and gears, and such. But the whole point of a competition of
this caliber is just that! If I were to put two same trucks, same weight,
same gears, same everything, I'm missing the point of the competition. Ok,
But I omited the part of the traction. Here goes again: In a leveled area
there are 2 f-series pickups, 1 is a 1977 f-100 4x4 regualr cab small bed
(6 ft) with a 390cid engine. against a 1997 regular cab, 5.4L sohc 4x4 6ft
bed, both are the same height and traction is the same and both have stick
shift. and they are pulling each other (NOT BRAKING, or putting in park, or
in reverse) but PULLING, Who would drag who? as before, even if the winner
blows his engine, who would win?
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 7:46 AM
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)
> >
>
> It is always a question of traction and the shape of the equipment and
such.
> I don't know if you'd actually establish a clear cut winner doing this
even
> with a V6 against a V8 ... both machines would need to overcome the
tractive
> forces of the tires, and in some cases it may be better to just hold the
> brakes as that's when you have the most grip ...
>
> How to say this ... hmmm... take a 4x4, lock it in park and it will take a
> certain amount of force to overcome the friction on the tires ... by
> applying that amount of force, the tires will start to slide and the truck
> will be dragged around ...
>
> now apply a force in the opposite direction (by starting the motor and
> driving it away from the pulling truck for instance) ... then you still
have
> to exert the same amount of force to overcome the tire's grip ... but
since
> you have a reactive foce you will need to overcome that reactive force and
> then the additional force of the tires ... if you can do that without
> slipping your own, then you will win ... at least that's how my head
always
> comes up with it ... maybe it'd actually happen differently if you tried
it
> in real life ... your best bet to see which is stronger is just to hook
them
> to a sled or something to measure their actual umph :) The Nebraska
Tractor
> tests provide such information on tractors, including their luggability
and
> all kinds of things you'd love to really know about your truck...
>
> Its amazing how much better the tractor definitions for vehicle
performance
> are than the automobile industry's definitions ... horsepower isn't a
peak,
> its actually the grunt the motor can and will sustain for long periods of
> time ... they list the actual displacements and horsepowers rather than
> trying to inflate them ... of course if I paid 100,000 for a "small"
> vehicle, it'd better do what's advertised or you won't be in business long
> ...
>
> Just my $.02
> wish (computer support by day, Ag. Engineer by night :)
>
> 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:24:41 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

What does height have to do with it? In a tug-of-war, the truck with the
most traction will win. It doesn't matter who has a bigger engine.

Jason

A Bernal wrote:
>
> Yes but, ok, suppose both trucks had he same height, and same traction.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:31:05 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

>
Here goes again: In a leveled area
> there are 2 f-series pickups, 1 is a 1977 f-100 4x4 regualr cab small bed
> (6 ft) with a 390cid engine. against a 1997 regular cab, 5.4L sohc 4x4 6ft
> bed, both are the same height and traction is the same and both have stick
> shift. and they are pulling each other (NOT BRAKING, or putting
> in park, or
> in reverse) but PULLING, Who would drag who? as before, even if the winner
> blows his engine, who would win?

Okay, you missed my point ... there are 2 different issues here ...

1) to truly compare motors (5.4 vs 390) you need identical trucks, but I
understand you are comparing trucks and not just the motors, still matching
equipment as closely as possible is necessary or you will start breakign
things or giving people advantages based on options (so 4.10 gears behind a
390 with 2.73's behind the 5.4 gives the 390 incredible power advantage down
low and horrid mileage)

2) to prove which is stronger you not only have to overcome the power of the
other vehicle, but also the frictional forces .... so if it takes 50hp to
move the truck (frictional forces) and the 390 produces 230hp and the 5.4l
produces 225hp ...neither truck will win, you will just have burned up
clutches ...

By using the manual tranny you've also induced problems with clutch slippage
and driver abilities, an auto would bring torque converter efficiencies into
play but those are not nearly as variable as drivers abilities and how fast
each lets the clutch out or engages it .... if Idump the clutch and you try
to ride it out, I'll win ...

Best bet is to hook them to sleds at tractor pulls ...

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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:35:11 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

> What does height have to do with it? In a tug-of-war, the truck with the
> most traction will win. It doesn't matter who has a bigger engine.
>

I assume he means that if you are higher you will be lifting the other guy
off the ground and making it easier for you and harder for them ...

I still think it just sounds like a good way to break parts....


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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:44:22 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

Well, I think height would matter. because, I you had a 6 foot tall truck
with x engine trying to pull the same truck with the same x engine but that
it is 3 foot tall, I think gravity and the force would kick in. (newtons).

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4


> What does height have to do with it? In a tug-of-war, the truck with the
> most traction will win. It doesn't matter who has a bigger engine.
>
> Jason
>
> A Bernal wrote:
> >
> > Yes but, ok, suppose both trucks had he same height, and same traction.
> == 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:42:50 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

This is the best idea I've heard yet!

Jason

William S. Hart wrote:

> Best bet is to hook them to sleds at tractor pulls ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 11:56:12 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

So what you're saying is the truck with the most traction will outpull
the other? That's what I've been saying!

Jason

A Bernal wrote:
>
> Well, I think height would matter. because, I you had a 6 foot tall truck
> with x engine trying to pull the same truck with the same x engine but that
> it is 3 foot tall, I think gravity and the force would kick in. (newtons).
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:04:19 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l

Ok. I understand. I'm just to stubborn. I will refrase the question.
Which can handle more (as in real) payload?
Which can handle more pull load?
Which is stronger?
the 4x4 390 '77 or 4x4 5.4L '97?

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:17:17 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

You're right. My apologies. I posted another question.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4


> So what you're saying is the truck with the most traction will outpull
> the other? That's what I've been saying!
>
> Jason
>
> A Bernal wrote:
> >
> > Well, I think height would matter. because, I you had a 6 foot tall
truck
> > with x engine trying to pull the same truck with the same x engine but
that
> > it is 3 foot tall, I think gravity and the force would kick in.
(newtons).
> == 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: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 12:14:49 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l

A Bernal wrote:

> Ok. I understand. I'm just to stubborn. I will refrase the question.
> Which can handle more (as in real) payload?
> Which can handle more pull load?

I think if both trucks are geared the same, the 390 will better handle a
heavier load.

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

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:41:06 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Update

A couple of weeks ago I posted about my friends ' 89 F-250 not starting
when it got wet. The poor guy really never got a chance to hunt down the
problem. Here's the story.
2 days before Christmas, his clutch goes out in the truck. No biggie, $80
and some quality time with his brother, the truck was fixed. Drove it used
through Christmas break, no problems.
Tuesday night after work he's on the way home. Makes it to the car wash by
the plant when the smoke comes rolling out from under the dash. Luckily,
he's got his phone with him, but no change. (Car wash, lot's of water, no
money.) Fire dept. put it out. Not till after it was a total loss. He
summed it up with the thought" at least I don't have to worry about my wet
weather starting problem."

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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:52:25 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l

Thanks. That's what I wanted to know. The reason I'm to stubborn in this
question is because a "friend" has a 97 ford pickup 4x4 v8. The problem is
that every time he comes to our house, Hes always tell telling me stuff
about my recently bought 76 f-100 4x4 390. Since I'm new to the f-series
world, He's always braggin' about his pickup can beat my pickup. I told him
that in speed, I gave him no challenge. But in carrying and pulling, mine
would win. He said no. Beside the fact that I don't know the difference
between a f-100 and an f-150, I am sure my f-100 overpowers his in payload
and pull.
Of course he won't, by any means, want to challenge me in a duel like the
one I just told you. But In reality, I know that my f-100 can carry more
than just half a ton. But I need a strong reason why. Appreciate all your
guy's answers.
By the way, my pickup has a 2 inch lift (proffesionaly done)
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 vs 5.4l


> A Bernal wrote:
>
> > Ok. I understand. I'm just to stubborn. I will refrase the question.
> > Which can handle more (as in real) payload?
> > Which can handle more pull load?
>
> I think if both trucks are geared the same, the 390 will better handle a
> heavier load.
>
> Jason
> == 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: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:14:03 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

When pulling in competition the "hitch" height (not truck height) is very
scrupulously controlled to keep all vehicles pulling in the same "plane".
It is up to the individual to find the best weight distribution for his
particular truck to get the best traction at that height.

If you connect two trucks and one has a higher connection point than the
other it will out pull the other if all other things are equal and a
difference of only a few inches can make a considerable difference in
traction depending on other factors like wheel base etc... The principle is
based on the "resolution of forces" using lever lengths as values along with
weights etc..

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.cfm?detailid=167
- --

> What does height have to do with it? In a tug-of-war, the
> truck with the
> most traction will win. It doesn't matter who has a bigger engine.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 14:21:47 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - update on head shake.

7/16 is way too much IMHO. Muel says 1/4" means there is something wrong
and I tend to agree with that. I would try zero first and work my way back
in, maybe 1/4 turn at a time and see how it works. If you get it at zero
and keep track of the turns you can easily put it back where ever you want
without having to re-measure every time :-)

- --
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 measured toe and it is set at 7/16 toe in. This seems likely, as I
> toe it in quite a bit in my frustration the other day. So I
>
> Does anyone think excessive toe in would contribute to this
> problem?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:48:06 -0800
From: wicowboy gateway.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update

>Makes it to the car wash by
> the plant when the smoke comes rolling out from under the dash. Luckily,
> he's got his phone with him, but no change. (Car wash, lot's of water, no
> money.) Fire dept. put it out. Not till after it was a total loss. He
> summed it up with the thought" at least I don't have to worry about my wet
> weather starting problem."


Anyone know anything about these trucks burning up? My '89 F-250 4x4
302, 5-speed burst into flames about a month ago after siting in a
parking lot for 4 hours...... Wondering if anyone knows why these keep
burning up, I couldn't find any recalls from ford but i talked to a few
other people who own this era truck and had interior fires. My
interioir was the only thing harmed....started under the dash.......

p.s. That was my 5th vehicle lost to fire last year, begining to think
arson......
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:57:19 -0800
From: wicowboy gateway.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 Parts Suppliers

Anyone know of a good source to get dana 60 parts new or used?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 20:08:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: David Henderson VT.Edu>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update

> >Makes it to the car wash by
> > the plant when the smoke comes rolling out from under the dash.=20
Luckily,
> > he's got his phone with him, but no change. (Car wash, lot's of wate=
r,=20
no
> > money.) Fire dept. put it out. Not till after it was a total loss. =
He
> > summed it up with the thought" at least I don't have to worry about =
my=20
wet
> > weather starting problem."


> Anyone know anything about these trucks burning up? My '89 F-250 4x4=

> 302, 5-speed burst into flames about a month ago after siting in a
> parking lot for 4 hours...... Wondering if anyone knows why these keep=

> burning up, I couldn't find any recalls from ford but i talked to a=20
few
> other people who own this era truck and had interior fires. My
> interior was the only thing harmed....started under the dash.......

My '89 F-250 4x4 diesel had smoke come out from under the dash while=20
my wife was driving it. Never blossomed into a fire and only did it=20
that once. Always had charging system problems with that truck, both=20
before and after the smoke incident. For what it's worth...

Dave H

- --=20
_
_| ~~. David Henderson
\, _} DHenders VT.Edu
\( Gig 'em Aggies! '93


Currently at:
Interdepartmental Genetics Program
2010 Litton Reaves Hall
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061
(540)231-4773
(540)231-5014
DHenders VT.Edu
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dasc.vt.edu/henderson/dhenderson.html



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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:40:05 EST
From: Bad4dFilly aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - PAINTED PUMPKINS?

In a message dated 01/05/2000 9:13:41 PM !!!First Boot!!!, wish iastate.edu
writes:

<< 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. :) >>

P.C. LOL Very cute, I do have a 1/2 and I am guessin that's the same "rear
end" as you stated. That kinda sucks that I can't buy one, I don't want it
bad enough to paint it! LOL

< 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!!!>>

NO WAY! That is so cool! Come do mine! LOLOL

< remember is chrome. I don't remember the price.>>

Your right, but chrome is too plain for my taste! My mottoe is get everything
customized you can so that you can REALLY call it "yours" LOL

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:46:09 -0500
From: "George W. Selby, III" ibox.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: steam - terms for liquid/solid/gas phase changes

liquid-solid=freezing
solid-liquid=melting
liquid-gas=evaporation/vaporization
gas-liquid=condensation
solid-gas=sublimation
gas-solid=deposition

George Selby
78 F-150 400M, 4 on floor, 4x4
86 Nissan 300ZX
82 Jeep Cherokee
85 Dodge W-100
digimanibox.net


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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:22:40 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Dana 60 Parts Suppliers

Look in the back of any 4x4 mag and you will find lots of drive train
specialists who have this stuff :-)

- --
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
- --
>
> Anyone know of a good source to get dana 60 parts new or used?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:09:58 -0800
From: "Jeff Norville" sosinet.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump - clarification, vacuum diagram

Thanks for the excellent suggestions - I should've spent more bandwidth
outlining my usage.

The truck is an off(paved)road vehicle, which is what made me a little
nervous about anything glass (fuel filter) living below the level of the
headlights. Lots of dirt/gravel roads to travel. The filters I bought have
the plastic shield that clips over about 40% of glass surface - did your
broken glass have this shield wicowboy? Ow.

My idea was to run the pump from a switch on the dash for priming purposes,
not to run it full time - though it is a backup for stock pump failures...
I hadn't planned on putting in the cutoff, even after reading the posts
about 'em (though I also haven't consulted my insurance company).

This is what made me wonder about filter placement - since it's not running
all the time it puts a resistance on the manual pump; adding a filter in
front of the electric adds a little more. Is this self-fulfilling prophecy,
adding backups that will have to be used because they are shortening the
life of the stock parts?

A final concern - this electric pump is made by Facet for Balkamp (Napa),
and says on the front of the package, "Replacement for Carburetor-Equipped
Cars, Vans, Trucks..." It's that first word that gets me.

I blow through the pump and it gives more resistance than I think I want.
Way more than a filter. Shouldn't be any resistance it seems to me if this
is a bypass-able pump.

Brand names/models/prices anybody? Argh.

Last, to wish: the update on my vacuum fiasco.

Got the exact diagram from the local Ford dealership and, yes, bingo, I was
missing a VCV that the distributor should be hooked into... Could be
causing my advance probs, no? So I will put this in as soon as the motor
cools - then I should be all stock and smoggable (though 49 cubes too big -
shh). And maybe it'll idle under 1000 rpms.

Jeff

> Don't forget to use vise-grips on the rubber
> hoses as hemostats when you're installing that filter by the tank.

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:44:40 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: FTE 61-79 vacuum diagram

> Got the exact diagram from the local Ford dealership and, yes,
> bingo, I was
> missing a VCV that the distributor should be hooked into... Could be
> causing my advance probs, no? So I will put this in as soon as the motor
> cools - then I should be all stock and smoggable (though 49 cubes
> too big -
> shh). And maybe it'll idle under 1000 rpms.
>
>

Its possible that wouldn't be helping things, that's for sure ... but I
would think you'd be able to get it close at least without the switch, and a
recurved dist woudl probably let you hit right on wihtout the vaccuum stuff,
but that's six of one half a dozen of the other, all depends on hwo you want
to run the system :)

lemme know how things work out on it!

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

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

End of 61-79-list-digest V4 #10
*******************************

+----- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 though 1979 Trucks And Vans -----+
| Send posts to 61-79-listford-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.