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 #13
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 Monday, January 10 2000 Volume 04 : Number 013



=======================================================================
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 - Fuel pump
Re: FTE 61-79 - I'm an idiot!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Cold Weather Driving!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 verses 5.4
FTE 61-79 - Glass
RE: FTE 61-79 - tcases - married vs divorced
Re: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question
RE: FTE 61-79 - EFI Fuel Pump?
RE: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question
Re: FTE 61-79 - I'm an idiot!
FTE 61-79 - '61 F-100 Unibody For Sale
Re: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question
Re: FTE 61-79 - Cold Weather Driving!
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
RE: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
Re: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
Re: FTE 61-79 - I'm an idiot!
FTE 61-79 - Steering column for '71
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump
Re: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6
FTE 61-79 - Fuel Filters and EFI
Re: FTE 61-79 - EFI Fuel Pump?
Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6
Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel question
FTE 61-79 - 5.4 FE
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 06:11:34 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

You could use a cam break in lube but I don't think it's critical. I've never used
anything but oil when changing a fuel pump but if your assembling a new engine it
would be a good idea.
George H

Ted Wnorowski wrote:

> I'm changing my fuel pump and I decided to take a look at Steve Christ's
> book before I started. It says to put a little Moly grease on the shaft
> where it contacts the eccentric. Does it have to be Moly grease? Are there
> any consequences if I don't use Moly, but another type of grease? I have
> the red stuff that I lube the chassis with, and various other kinds around
> the house.
> Also he says to crank the engine until the eccentric is at it's lowest
> point. Is this absolutely necessary? Will I be able to see the eccentric
> through the hole where the pump mounts?
>
> 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

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 06:36:57 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - I'm an idiot!

Are you putting this engine in a pickup? If so, a regular thermostat housing
will bolt up. If you use this engine as is I don't think you will be happy
with it. It has no compression at all, something like 7:1 if I remember
correctly. The cam timing wouldn't be suitable for any kind of performance and
the valves and ports are smaller than the FE. It would probably run out of
breath at 4000 or so.
If you used a FE cam, heads, intake and headers it would be better and higher

compression pistons would be best. Might have to use FE rods, too, but I'm
not sure.
The FT uses a 5/16 oil pump drive so the oil pump has to be changed.

Fred Jones is/was a remanufacturer for Ford. Different parts of the country
use different remanufacturers but in FL he's it. Out of the probably 100
long blocks I used from him I can only remember 1 or 2 having problems. Of
course they where virtually new engines with new blocks. The cranks would be
about the only used major part.
George H

"Gary L. Perry" wrote:

> Thanks to GTHerpich's letter on FT engines. Did not know there was such an
> animal. He was first guy I've
> heard from who knows of Fred Jones rebuilders. My
> engine has their tag on it, from 1982. Seems like neat
> dealer, even their name is copy of Ford script. Do you
> know if I can remove dual thermostat housing and use
> one off FE engine to reduce size of radiator upper hose,
> it goes into Intake same as FE's that I can see? Also,
> will FE distributer fit in place of my dual vac. line unit?
> Thanks! "G"
>
> == 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: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:08:51 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Cold Weather Driving!

Ok, I'm willing to take the "heat" for this but the hotter you can run an
engine, within it's design parameters, the better it will run. The FE's
were designed to run at 180 degrees up to 190 in the newer ones and
clearances were calculated for that temperature range. Hot combustion
chambers vaporize fuel better so you get better mileage, power, performance
and.......engine life when you keep it in the designed heat range.

Yes, I've heard people say they run at 160 and get good performance and some
even say it runs better that way (complaining about detonation and such) but
I say.......if it runs better that way then something is dreadfully wrong
with your engine and that's all I have to say on that :-)

Internal combustion engines are called.........?????.......HEAT ENGINES for
good reason :-)

Now....lets take the other side, if it runs too hot you will have
detonation, less engine life, poor performance and poor mileage so you need
to get it tuned properly to run at it's designed temp range and then run it
at that temp for best results. Anything other than this is less..... If
you need to run at 160 to avoid detonation then you need to do some work on
the engine, not put in a colder thermostat. That isn't the way to fix it.
If you can't afford to fix it then you have to do what you can but if you
are doing it because you think it's the right way to fix it you are WRONG!
(Sorry, I just hear this so much). Some guys take the thermostat right out
because it gets too hot but that usually means there is some other problem
as well and is not recommended either.

Racing applications may have different needs but in a touring vehicle the
above is true.....in all cases (waiting for the heat now :-))

- --
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
- --

> barely reach 160 degrees even after driving down the autobahn
> for a few
> hours. Do I need to change my thermostat? Will this cold
> weather hurt my
> engine? I only have about 1500 miles on the engine and
> transmission since
> they were rebuilt. Any precautions I should take will be greatly
> appreciated, as parts are very costly over here. Thanks, Jess.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:15:01 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

The moly keeps a good film on the cam and lever til it breaks in properly so
it better than oil for this application. You can get small tubes of this.
Putting the eccentric as far from the lever as possible just makes
installation a lot easier. I never do it but sometimes you have to fight to
get the pump up against the block without distorting the gasket etc. due to
the pressure on the lever. You may need a mechanic's mirror to see in there
but it is open to the hole in the block, just can't get your head down there
very easily :-)

- --
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
- --

> > book before I started. It says to put a little Moly grease
> on the shaft
> > where it contacts the eccentric. Does it have to be Moly

> > Also he says to crank the engine until the
> eccentric is at it's lowest
> > point. Is this absolutely necessary? Will I be able to see
> the eccentric
> > through the hole where the pump mounts?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:50:36 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

Well, again I disagree :-) Stroke certainly gives you the potential for
more torque if you feed it all it can eat with all the compression it can
handle but if you don't have the same intake and heads and compression
height etc. then stroke, by itself will not necessarily break the tie. A
high compression 429 will certainly, easily out torque a low compression
460.

What you guys are attempting to do is compare engines but that is not a fair
comparison. The 5.4 is not a 390 and neither is a 302 but a properly set up
302 will eat a stock 390 for breakfast when properly geared to work with
"It's" design parameters which are much different from a stock 390's design
parameters. HP does matter but it is relative and is the result of "Torque"
and RPM so more HP at a given rpm also means more torque, automatically
since it's part of the equation :-)

More stroke in the same engine design, all other aspects being unchanged
will produce more swept volume so the engine will be larger by default. If
you reduce the bore but maintain all other aspects to keep the swept volume
the same then a "significant" change in the stroke "should" improve torque
in that very narrow, carefully compared case but to just say that it
automatically adds torque is not accurate IMNSHO. You must also consider
every other aspect of the engine design including the intake and exhaust,
combustion chamber shape and compression.

All these arguments have some merit but all of them are leaving out
important, scientific parameters to make their arguments. If you approach
this scientifically all of them I've see so far other than pulling a sled
are short of the mark. The 97 f-150 with 5.4 engine was designed as a unit
as was the 76 with it's 390 and the only fair comparison between them would
be against an independent arbitor, the sled, so that they will prove their
ability against an equal force, under equal conditions and as they were
designed so what we then see is how each one stacks up against the design
parameters we all hold dear, load capacity, performance, power, traction
etc.... The Sled bares each competitor to it's very soul and makes no
excuses for poor gearing selection or tire selection or weight distribution
or...........:-)

If you really want to know what the engines will do on a dyno, I'm sure
there is info out there on this with rpms, torques, HP etc. Comaring them
in the truck is not scientific in that case, only the dyno can tell us the
story here :-)

- --
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
- --

> > Torque is a product of bore x stroke, not induction. Any
> motor that has
> > a longer stroke than another will produce more torque. It's a proven
> > principal of physics.
>
> Let me clarify this. I mean two motors of the same displacement, for a
> fair comparison. A 6.4 liter 390 will produce more torque than a 5.4L.
> My 390 is rated at 225 to 250 horses, and 390 ft lbs of
> torque. What is
> the 5.4L rated at, anyway?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 08:03:50 EST
From: NTesla333 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

Like many old Ford trucks, my cardboard glove box was disintegrating. I
needed a replacement and the plastic ones were not avalible. I cut the
staples ( with a Dremel) in the carboard one out and unfolded it, taped rips
together. I then used this as a pattern. I found a corrigated plastic US MAIL
bin. (you know the ones that you get when you get a whole lot of mail at the
post office) I cut it apart at the spot welds and unfolded it. l set the old
cardbord box pattern on top and traced it. The plastic cuts easily with tin
snips or stout sicisors. A regular needle tip in soldiering iron works in
making seams in your layout along original lines. Score the top layer of the
corrugated plastic with the iron on the side you want it to bend. I
fabricated a tip for my soldering iron and attached a copper penny. I
sprayed it with teflon lubricant or you could use PAM to keep iron from
sticking. Heat the iron with penny tip. I used small sheet metal screws to
hold together the new glove box ,while making seam welds with soldering iron.
With a back stop of a large closed 12" adjustable wrench, I welded the folds
together along the entire length of the tabs where the staples were located.
It was then painted black. The new box is durable and impervious to moisture
and cost 1 cent. Also, use the needle tip to melt the screw holes in the
correct positions. Construction time is about 2 hours. When you are done it
is ugly from outside, but who cares that side is in the dash. Hope this
helps. God Bless.
Robert Bowen


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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 08:32:33 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

Ok, one at a time:

> > The horsepower don't meen jack.
> Very true.

Not true as I said before but relative for sure :-)

> Torque is a product of bore x stroke, not induction. Any
> motor that has
> a longer stroke than another will produce more torque. It's a proven
> principal of physics.

Already answered this, they all play a part :-)

> > The only way to really tell what engine is better is if
> they are both fresh,
> > running the same tranny, same differentials, same transfer case.

Wrong, the only way to tell is to put them on a dyno or in the same truck on
the same day on the same track against the same load with the same operators
with the same......see what I mean?

> > The most important factor in the pulling of a vehicle is
> the Gear Ratios.

So I can put a 4 banger in a truck with a 43:1 crawl ratio and pull the same
load as with a 460?

> The 3.50's or 4.xx's are gonna pull more. They'll spin the
> engine faster
> and reduce mileage, but they won't lug the engine down like
> 2.73's will.

If I put a diesel in front of those 2.73's what do you think would happen?
The bottom line is that the gearing must be matched to the engine and
application. Neither stroke nor gearing nor compression nor intake nor
tires nor curb weight nor GVW in and by itself means a thing, take them as
a unit, each combination of these (application or design) to itself,
competing against the same load and you will join the scientific community.
Keep throwing one thing out by itself and you are just thrashing around in
the dark, making noise and going nowhere fast :-(

Each part of the puzzle has a certain advantage when added to the total
picture but none of them will stand alone, ever, anywhere, any time :-)
It's like letters which comprise a word, the result may be a thing of
beauty, "Soliloquy", "Aphrodite", "Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious" but
you can't really put your finger on the letter that actually makes it work
so well because it is a combination of many different letters which make it
happen and if you change the letters around you get a different word which
may be just as beautiful and powerful but uses the letters in a different
place (or proportion) :-)

You think engines are not like that? Stick two or three fingers over the
choke horn and try to run the quarter.......pull one plug wire and try the
same or retard the spark 5 degrees or...:-)

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:34:11 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

Be advised that the PO doesn't "give" you those boxes. They expect them back.
Hence the "Property of USPS" stenciled on the sides.

NTesla333 aol.com wrote:

> Like many old Ford trucks, my cardboard glove box was disintegrating. I
> needed a replacement and the plastic ones were not avalible. I cut the
> staples ( with a Dremel) in the carboard one out and unfolded it, taped rips
> together. I then used this as a pattern. I found a corrigated plastic US MAIL
> bin. (you know the ones that you get when you get a whole lot of mail at the
> post office) I cut it apart at the spot welds and unfolded it. l set the old
> cardbord box pattern on top and traced it. The plastic cuts easily with tin
> snips or stout sicisors. A regular needle tip in soldiering iron works in
> making seams in your layout along original lines. Score the top layer of the
> corrugated plastic with the iron on the side you want it to bend. I
> fabricated a tip for my soldering iron and attached a copper penny. I
> sprayed it with teflon lubricant or you could use PAM to keep iron from
> sticking. Heat the iron with penny tip. I used small sheet metal screws to
> hold together the new glove box ,while making seam welds with soldering iron.
> With a back stop of a large closed 12" adjustable wrench, I welded the folds
> together along the entire length of the tabs where the staples were located.
> It was then painted black. The new box is durable and impervious to moisture
> and cost 1 cent. Also, use the needle tip to melt the screw holes in the
> correct positions. Construction time is about 2 hours. When you are done it
> is ugly from outside, but who cares that side is in the dash. Hope this
> helps. God Bless.
> Robert Bowen
>
> == 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: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 08:42:09 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 verses 5.4

Quite true but if you take this to be that important then perhaps you need
to re-evaluate your values.....is this becoming a little too important in
the scheme of things? Is he just ribbing you because you respond?
Personally you can say what ever you like about my trucks, I'm the one who
gets to enjoy them so it doesn't matter does it? I think the bible calls
this syndrome, "The showy display of one's means of life", a snare to watch
out for. Those who don't appreciate a thing of beauty or practicality are
the ones missing all the fun :-)

- --
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
- --

> Seems to me that if you have a "friend" that won't let you
> enjoy your 76
> F100truck and just be glad that you have a rig you like, you
> need to find a
> better friend. Life is to short to waste time getting
> garbage from your
> "friends". Bob
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 07:41:43 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Glass

While I'm at it. The drivers side quarter glass on my Escort got
busted out. My wife called the glass shop for an estimate. $1233. This is
not a mistype. Since Ford spun off their parts div. into Vistion (sic) they
jacked some of their prices out of sight. Luckily, the local recycler had
it for $35. $105 to put it in. I'm still shaking my head over that first
estimate though.
>>>>

The back glass for my daughter's '93 Mustang convertable would have been
$1100 from Ford. I paid a guy $65 to sew in a plastic convertable window.
The heck with a glass back window!

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:02:21 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - tcases - married vs divorced

Well, since I'm bored I'll throw out my take on this....I don't think there
is any strenght difference, the primary reason they did this was to get the
drive shafts the same length and eliminate the carrier bearing which is a
weak point in the system.

All you have to do to ensure similar strength is make sure the mounts are
adequate, the housings are probably the same except the divorced will have a
front housing rather than a tail shaft adapter. I have not seen one so I'm
guessing here but can't see any reason they would make a special case for a
divorced xfer case application??

- --
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
- --

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:10:22 -0600
From: "Howard Bottles" austin.ppdi.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question

I didn't get the tape measure out, but the 4spd was installed in the
F100 with the same length front shaft as the F250/3spd had. It looked
like an easy swap, but it hasn't turned out that way.

Howardb

"Peters, Gary (G.R.)" wrote:
>
> I would guess the two trannys have considerable differences in over all
> length don't they?
>
> --
> 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
> --
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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,
> == 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: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:13:33 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - EFI Fuel Pump?

I would use a standard low pressure electric right in front of your current
tank with a filter in front of it to feed your high pressure pump then put
the high pressure pump as close to the entine as possible, perhaps even
right on the engine if that is convenient but high pressure is still
relatively low, about 70 psi if I heard right?

The only real good reasons for putting the pumps in the tank is so they can
make the pumps cheaper and use the fuel to keep them cool and so the assy
line only has to deal with one pump in one location and they can actually be
installed off line so the whole tank/pump/filter assy is installed on the
line and a hose conneced up, no line breaks or extra steps to connect both
sides of the pump and filter etc. so using a low pressure outside the tank
in your case is fine.

Summit and Jeggs have high pressure pumps but make sure you know what
pressure you need for your application before buying, there seems to be
considerable difference in systems.

The single in-tank high/low pressure pump is very expensive and hard to work
on. Typical costs to have someone replace one are in the $300 range and up.
Unless I had a trap door over the sender/pump opening in the tank so I could
yank it easily without taking the tank out I would keep them both outside
the tank myself :-) Course they typically last for years so it's up to you
I guess :-) In the tank they will be protected and out of harms way and
fewer places for your fuel line to leak etc. so there are advantages to both
methods :-)

- --
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
- --

> Does anyone know where I can find a high pressure fuel pump?
> I need one for a fuel injection system. I am going to try
> and put a EFI engine into
> an older P/U but I don't want to put in a EFI gas tank. I
> was wondering if there
> is a pump that could be used without a low pressure in tank
> pump but still supply
> enough pressure to run the fuel injection. If not would
> using the EFI tank with
> a low AND high pressure pump be the way to go. Any input
> would be greatly appreciated.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:16:33 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question

Can the cross member or mount structure be moved that the xfer case bolts
to? Maybe there are two or more locations already drilled in the frame for
this? Most 2wd frames have several sets of holes already in place.

- --
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 didn't get the tape measure out, but the 4spd was installed in the
> F100 with the same length front shaft as the F250/3spd had. It looked
> like an easy swap, but it hasn't turned out that way.
>
> Howardb
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:24:21 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - I'm an idiot!

The FT also has a larger lower distributor mounting boss to accomodate
the larger shaft. An FE distributor would flop around and jump away from
the cam.

Jason
G.T. Herpich wrote:

> The FT uses a 5/16 oil pump drive so the oil pump has to be changed.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:28:51 EST
From: DWBaile aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - '61 F-100 Unibody For Sale

I have a 1961 Ford F-100 Unibody with a large back window that I need to
sell. It was purchased in North Carolina, but is now in New Mexico. It has
rust and all else associated with being in North Carolina, but is all there
and the back glass and trim are perfect. There are pictures available on
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.photopoint.com, then go to my email address (DWBaile aol.com) then
to '61 Unibody. I am asking $1500 or best offer.
Thanks for the posting!
Don

"Life affords no higher pleasure than that of surmounting
difficulties, passing from one step of success to another,
forming new wishes and seeing them gratified."

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:32:21 -0600
From: "Howard Bottles" austin.ppdi.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - tranny/driveshaft question

good idea, I got under there and looked , but I need to look under the
1/2 ton and see whats up there.

Howardb

"Peters, Gary (G.R.)" wrote:
>
> Can the cross member or mount structure be moved that the xfer case bolts
> to? Maybe there are two or more locations already drilled in the frame for
> this? Most 2wd frames have several sets of holes already in place.
>
> --
> 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 didn't get the tape measure out, but the 4spd was installed in the
> > F100 with the same length front shaft as the F250/3spd had. It looked
> > like an easy swap, but it hasn't turned out that way.
> >
> > Howardb
> == 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: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:30:50 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Cold Weather Driving!

I'll agree with Gary, and I'll add an additional point. I have a chart
that shows cylinder wall wear vs operating temperature. Looking at the
chart, 190 degrees is just about optimum for long wall life. Anything
less, and the walls will wear just a bit faster.

Jason Kendrick

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> Ok, I'm willing to take the "heat" for this but the hotter you can run an
> engine, within it's design parameters, the better it will run. The FE's
> were designed to run at 180 degrees up to 190 in the newer ones and
> clearances were calculated for that temperature range. Hot combustion
> chambers vaporize fuel better so you get better mileage, power, performance
> and.......engine life when you keep it in the designed heat range.
>
> Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
> 78 Bronco Loving, Gary
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:43:12 -0600
From: "Jason & Kathy Kendrick" mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

I knew I was getting myself into trouble with this one!:-) I do agree
with Wish and Gary in that the only fair comparison between these two
would be to put them on a dirt strip and hook a sled to them.

Jason

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> Well, again I disagree :-)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 09:56:28 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

In a message dated 1/9/00 8:35:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gherpich bellsouth.net writes:

> Be advised that the PO doesn't "give" you those boxes. They expect them
back.
> Hence the "Property of USPS" stenciled on the sides.

I think they throw out the damaged ones....this one was obviously "damaged"
.... RIGHT Robert?

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---I need 15 x5 factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 2wd LWB Flare Side
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hometown.aol.com/tbeeee
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:08:51 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

Be careful what you put in print with your name on it......the feds are
watching...:-) Personally......"I know Noooooootingk"

With all the junk mail I've been getting I'm thinking about installing a
larger box with a tommy lift and electric power supply......Pretty soon mail
trucks will not be little jeeps, they will be full sized vans and it will
take two mail persons to deliver it :-)

- --
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
- --

> > Be advised that the PO doesn't "give" you those boxes. They
> expect them
> back.
> > Hence the "Property of USPS" stenciled on the sides.
>
> I think they throw out the damaged ones....this one was
> obviously "damaged"
> .... RIGHT Robert?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:42:14 -0500
From: "Rick & Debbie Kelso" email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

There is a recall on these trucks for this very same problem. The reason
behind this is that the tabs that bend over to hold the switch together get
loose and break. (Nice aluminum construction, you know!) When this happens,
the sliding parts of the switch (which carry A LOT of current) don't have a
ggod connection anymore and the switch builds up excessive heat and POOF,
the truck (or car for that matter)burn to the ground. I don't know if there
is a time expiration on this recall, but you need to contact your local Ford
dealer service department and find out what recourse is available. If you
need more details (recall number, etc.)post a reply and I will look it up at
work and get back to you. Rick Kelso

> >#3
> > 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.......
>
> >#4
> >I have seen 3 or 4 of these trucks burn up. All electrical fires under
the
> >dash Seems to me there was a recall, at least in Canada to replace the
> >ignition switch or some related wiring.



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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 07:42:47 PST
From: "Don Jones" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

>A Bernal wrote:
> >
> > 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)




>>We have several things planned for this. Among them is an
>>opportunity for you, the FTE user, to have your questions
>>answered by Bob Masone, F150 Product Manger for Ford Motor
>>Company!

Ask him if he could loan us a new f-150, 5.4l for *testing* :-)


Don Jones
1970 f-250 4x4
______________________________________________________

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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 08:11:30 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny" wenet.net>
Subject: Re: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

Rick & Debbie Kelso wrote:
>
> There is a recall on these trucks for this very same problem. The reason
> behind this is that the tabs that bend over to hold the switch together get
> loose and break. (Nice aluminum construction, you know!) When this happens,
> the sliding parts of the switch (which carry A LOT of current) don't have a
> ggod connection anymore and the switch builds up excessive heat and POOF,
> the truck (or car for that matter)burn to the ground.

Would this same thing apply in the case of an ignition switch on a "72
being replaced by a new switch bought in 1997? I never noticed what sort
of metal held the new one together.

Denny
'72 F-100 360 2WD Manual everything, 140K
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 13:04:37 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - I'm an idiot!

Ah yes, forgot that one.
George

Jason & Kathy Kendrick wrote:

> The FT also has a larger lower distributor mounting boss to accomodate
> the larger shaft. An FE distributor would flop around and jump away from
> the cam.
>
> Jason
> G.T. Herpich wrote:
>
> > The FT uses a 5/16 oil pump drive so the oil pump has to be changed.
> == 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: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 13:20:29 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Steering column for '71

What are some good columns to use in the '67-'72 F series? I need one
with
an automatic shift lever.

Thanks, George H

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:25:11 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

> I'm changing my fuel pump and I decided to take a look
> at Steve Christ's
> book before I started. It says to put a little Moly grease on
> the shaft
> where it contacts the eccentric. Does it have to be Moly
> grease? Are there
> any consequences if I don't use Moly, but another type of
> grease? I have
> the red stuff that I lube the chassis with, and various other
> kinds around
> the house.

I swapped mine a while back and don't remember that I even bothered to lube
the pump arm at all. Long term the eccentric should be oiled by engine oil
probably by splash. If you did lube it it will help protect the eccentric
from wear until the engine oil can get there. I think the moly is
recommeded cause it dissolves in engine oil so you don't get any clumps in
the oil system to block passages.


> Also he says to crank the engine until the eccentric is
> at it's lowest
> point. Is this absolutely necessary? Will I be able to see
> the eccentric
> through the hole where the pump mounts?
>

Only if you want to bolt the new pump in. ;0) Actually bumping the motor
over until the eccentric is at a lower point will reduce the time required
from 8 hours to about 15 min. All right I'm exaggerating :0). But it will
greatly reduce your effort in installing the new pump. And saves your all
important swear words for a more useful project later. :0) It's the
difference between just slipping in the new pump and trying to hold it
against the internal spring pressure with one hand at a disadvantageous
angle whill trying to line up the holes and then starting the bolts with the
other hand which you can't see cause you can't get your head in there and
your eyes are full of sweat and grease and road grime (discriptive enough
yet?)

I did this on a B&*#k I once had. Swore at it for almost an hour before the
little brain light (same wattage as your refridgerator) came on and I
thought about it. I was against the high end of the eccentric. I bumped
the motor over with the starter about 1/2 turn and the pump almost put
itself on!!. Course then I had to swear at myself for a while. ;0)

You can't really tell until you get the old pump off where the eccentric is.
I wouldn't try looking in the hole either though this might work. Just pull
the old pump and try to slip the new on in. If you have to lift up against
the internal pump spring to line up the bolt holes pull it back out and bump
the motor over and try to put it in again.

Good luck
Tom H

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:33:10 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

In a message dated 1/9/00 1:27:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:

> If you have to lift up against
> the internal pump spring to line up the bolt holes pull it back out and
bump
> the motor over and try to put it in again.

Another way to do it is put a socket on the damper bolt and turn the engine
over with your left hand while holding the pump against the eccentric with
your right hand. You will be able to easily tell when you reach the low
point on the eccentric.

Stock Man
1967 Galaxie 500 Convertible (HELP!---I need 15 x5 factory rims)
1967 F-250 FE 390 4wd
1966 F-250 I6 240 2wd LWB Flare Side
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hometown.aol.com/tbeeee
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:07:11 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update

> I remember something about faulty ignition switches torching escorts.
Could
> the same thing be happening?
>
> Tom H
>
I've got a friend that had an 86 to burn up... Ignition switch deal, but
Ford wouldn't do anything for him because he had a cracked exhaust manifold,
and they say that was the cause... He had a fire detective look at it, and
said it was under the dash... Ford issued a recall on the switch the next
year...
Go to www.flamingfords.com to learn more about the ignition switch problem

Brad



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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:26:27 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6

- ----- Original Message -----
From: aol.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6


> Hey all
> i know this isnt to FTE related but if theres anyone out there that owns a
> crown victoria prefered 92-95 with the 4.6 in it could you send me your
> opinions on the motor tranny and so forth and if they have a poilice
> intercepter pakage on it it would be even better help to me thanks all
> Travis

Seems to be a good engine/tranny setup... I have worked on a few with the
same problem, so I will tell you about that. There is an elbow at the back
of the intake, which, if you run crappy fuel through it on a regular basis
will gum up, and give a trouble code that when diagnosed says "Take your
vehicle to dealer for service"... Well that totally sucks, so just pull the
elbow off, clean the EGR passage into it, and run some 93 octane
occasionally from then on and you'll be ok... Works everytime, and doesnt
take that lond if you don't drop nuts and bolts :) Don't know about the PI
on that engine, sorry....

Brad


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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:30:42 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

> The most important factor in the pulling of a vehicle is the Gear Ratios.
I
> think its the lower the Ratio the more pull its got. Thats why I feel the
> 3.5x ratio differentials are perfect.
> I think the stock ratio on a new F-150 is like 2.73?
> Most of the older trucks ran and run 3.5x or 4.xx? right?
> The 2.73 I think is gonna be able to pull more anyways.

Sorry, but this is exactly backwards... 4.11 rear end has way more pulling
power than 2.73... And on this same note, the 33" tires may have more
traction, but it changes ratios, and smaller tires deliver more torque
(notice relatively small tires in tractor pulls).

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:32:42 EST
From: TWL1911 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6

What is the Cubic inch roughly on those engines? im guesseing about a 283 or
so.. but im not sure, whats the horse power on that engine? well thanks for
the tips
Travis
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:38:03 -0500
From: "Gary L. Perry" fwi.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Fuel Filters and EFI

To Dave wanting EFI with a high pressure pump........EFI requires
a constant fuel flow with no float or bowl, so it needs a way to return
unused fuel back to tank, thusly EFI systems have a large supply line
and then a smaller Return line to tank for excess gas to flow back to
tank. You will need a two-line system and pump in or near tank to
feed your engine AND a throttle body type "carb" to regulate. IMHO
the change does not come as paracticle or cheap for an older vehicle.
Change-over to first years of EFI would be easiest as they are
"cruder"(?), but you will need entire system.
Regarding fuel filters in glass and on frame.........GM has had
metal frame mount filters for a long time (quite large too) with
threaded fittings for standard fuel lines that could go on any
vehicle I suppose. They had metal sheilds over them, too!
They must be a "pain" to change when rusted tho, I bet! Always
way back by tank as they say that's where best to have them,
for whatever reason. Some C**** trucks have smaller ones
in middle of frame under cabs. I'm not totally familiar with all
Ford products, but would think most of industry is similar.
'Nuff said! "G"

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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:38:41 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - EFI Fuel Pump?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: tc3net.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 10:34 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - EFI Fuel Pump?


> Does anyone know where I can find a high pressure fuel pump?
> I need one for a fuel injection system. I am going to try and put a EFI
engine into
> an older P/U but I don't want to put in a EFI gas tank. I was wondering
if there
> is a pump that could be used without a low pressure in tank pump but still
supply
> enough pressure to run the fuel injection. If not would using the EFI
tank with
> a low AND high pressure pump be the way to go. Any input would be greatly
appreciated.
You can get high pressure pumps from Summit, Jeg's and PAW
Some are made by Holley, but there are others out there as well...

Brad


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

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 13:46:48 -0600
From: Stu Varner ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 4.6

281 cid for the 4.6 sohc engine

HP = single exhaust 190 4250 rpm torque = 260 3250 rpm

HP = dual exhaust 210 4250 rpm torque = 270 3250 rpm


Stu
Nuke GM!

At 02:32 PM 1/9/00 EST, you wrote:
>What is the Cubic inch roughly on those engines? im guesseing about a 283 or
>so.. but im not sure, whats the horse power on that engine? well thanks for
>the tips
>Travis
>== 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: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 14:53:22 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

This is about the only thing on my ' 64 that isn't falling apart. : )



At 08:03 AM 1/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Like many old Ford trucks, my cardboard glove box was disintegrating.
>God Bless.
>Robert Bowen
>


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: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 14:57:34 -0500
From: Ted Wnorowski ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

Made by Federal prisoners at Leavenworth with your tax dollars!!!!!



>Be advised that the PO doesn't "give" you those boxes. They expect them back.
>Hence the "Property of USPS" stenciled on the sides.
>


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: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:27:14 -0800
From: "Jerry Godsey" prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel question

I've waited this long, a couple of weeks won't kill me!
Thanks,
Jerry
- ----- Original Message -----
From: seanet.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Cc: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Steering Wheel question


> At 09:54 PM 8:1:00 -0800, Jerry Godsey wrote:
> >Has anybody had any experience putting an aftermarket steering wheel on
an
> >Econoline? According to Grant, the shaft is smaller than a normal
vehicle
> >and they don't make an adapter for it. Any ideas would be greatly
> >appreciated, this hug steering wheel is a pain in the neck!
> >Blessings,
> >Jerry Godsey
> >www.geocities.com/heartland/meadows/4275
>
> I have a feeling that a Pantera adapter will fit, as it fits the other
> "Red Headed Step Child" car Ford sold, as in the Capri of early
> vintage. If you can wait a couple weeks, I have a wrecked Capri
> that I can rob the wheel out of for ya....
>
> Steve & the Rockette
> 68 F100, 390cid, FMX
> 63 F100, 292cid, 3speed
> 72 Capri 2000, hers
> 73 Capri 2600,tube frame going in.....
> 73 MGB GT, Our Toy
> 94 SHO, SWMBO's
> 98 Contour SVT, Mine, Mine, All Mine........


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.