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 #14
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 Tuesday, January 11 2000 Volume 04 : Number 014



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)
RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump
FTE 61-79 - Cold Weather Driving!
RE: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: FTE 61-79 - 4.6
Re: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)
FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover
FTE 61-79 - Update - fire
RE: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)
FTE 61-79 - searching for power steering box rebuilder
RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump
RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Elec fuel pump - clarification, vacuum diagram
FTE 61-79 - glove box replacement for 1 cent (clarification)
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
RE: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)
FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump
FTE 61-79 - fuel pump
RE: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)
RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
Re: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)
Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: FTE 3rd Anniversary and a chance to ask Ford!
FTE 61-79 - VIN problems
FTE 61-79 - tcases - married vs divorced
FTE 61-79 - rattling and hard start
Re: FTE 61-79 - rattling and hard start
FTE 61-79 - T-19 trans information.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.
Re: FTE 61-79 - VIN problems
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire
Re: FTE 61-79 - searching for power steering box rebuilder
Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire
FTE 61-79 - firewall paint removal
Re: FTE 61-79 - rattling and hard start
Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:09:08 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)

Gang, why do you suppose that you need the rubber part under the frame as
well as between the frame and body? Virtually all body mounts are made this
way so that the frame is actually sandwiched between two rubber doughnuts
with the body resting on the top one. What is the advantage of this?

I know the answer and it was made very clear last night when I test drove
the bronco. The necessity only shows up under certain conditions but these
are very common conditions even on the highway.

Restoring the front clip mounts made several improvements. The truck feels
a little more solid, the left front tire doesn't rub the flares any more in
turns and the heater works better.....anyone know why? Ok, I'll explain
since this is a trick question :-) My radiator is busted, the top tank has
come loose from the top flange so I can only keep enough coolant in there to
stay below the core top or it just runs right out. This also drops the
coolant level below the heater core so the flow is reduced. When I restored
the mounts it raised the front of the body about 1.5" which also raised the
level of the radiator relative to the heater core so the flow is improved
:-) I don't know exactly why this works but every ford I've owned has been
this way.

Anyway, what I've determined is that I will have to remove the rivets on all
the body mounts and restore them one at a time until they are all restored
and painted to protect them from rusting and them bolt them back on
with........grade 8 bolts.....I know, I know I should use grade 5 for better
shear but I think grade 8 is what I want so I can tighten them more which is
more important in a mount I think :-) If you don't hear from me for a while
after I get it all done you will know I should have used grade 5's....:-)
Since I've never actually had a grade 8 bolt fail in any application I used
them I don't have much concern about it :-)

I also noticed that the terminals in the head light socket are gone and high
beam won't work on the driver side due to this so where can I get
replacement sockets......Ok, I know, auto parts right? The passenger side
has already been replaced and there are these huge crimp connectors and 3'
of wire in there......:-( Hope I can do a better job than that :-)

Gravity bled the brakes again last night and now it actually feels like a
brake pedal when you push it. There is an air leak in there somewhere and
also a fluid leak but so far I have not been able to detect it. I'm keeping
an eye on the driver side rear cylinder right now, even though it's brand
new. This method has really turned out to be all that's needed with my two
trucks and I have a system for doing it now too, on the lift, at eye level
using a cart to hold the bottle, works great :-) Don't even have to push
the brake pedal :-)

Yeah, she's coming along nicely, nice and slowly :-)

- --
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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 04:13:38 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

No, as I recall it was the design of the newer switch. I can't remember
what it was but I do remember when I saw it on the news program it was
obvious to me it was a problem waiting to happen. The new switch you bought
in 97 for your 72 would be of a different design totally.

TOm H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kiernan, Denny [mailto:dennyk wenet.net]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 7:12 AM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> 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
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:56:21 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

Black RTV is recommended for intake manifolds and oil pan gaskets so I would
venture to guess it is as resistant as any. I would not be a bit surprised
to discover that virtually all RTV is resistant.

- --
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 also have a quick question. Are there any sealants,
> silicone or
> otherwise, that are gasoline resistant? Just curious.
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:33:25 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Cold Weather Driving!

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 :-))
>>>>>>

I agree with Gary, on a street engine you tune it to run warm, running cold
is when it runs like crap. An engine will get up to it's operating range
eventually, and if you've tuned it to run colder it be compromised when
warm.

My best luck, even in a '60's engine, has been with a 195 thermostat and a
big radiator, preferably with some kind of shroud. A quick warm up will
increase engine life, you have less blowby, less fuel in the oil, and less
sludge inside the engine. I'd go with the quick warm up for a streeter.
That's really all it does is regulate the bottom temp limit of the flow of
water through the rest of the system, it doesn't affect the operating range
much once it's warmed up.

Racing is a little different, a cool dense mixture is good. You tune the
engine to run best at the point it hits the line and hope you have enough
latitude in the fuel delivery to keep it from crapping out on the big end.
A different set of standards, you don't care about wear as much either.

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:26:39 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

Maybe so, but I have seen them in a catalog (minus the "Property of P.O."
stencil) for about $35 each. Probably means the gov't spent $86.95 each on
them. ;0)

Tom H.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Wnorowski [mailto:theodore ford-trucks.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 11:58 AM
> To: 61-79-list 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
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:44:21 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
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.
>

Hahhaaha ... actually I had another idea too, to really establish hauling
capabilities, go to the local drag strip with a few hundred pounds of weight
in the back of each (match em :)

hehehe ... dunno if they'd let you run, but it would probably be akin to the
"slow drags" they have at GoodGuys and such events ...

Frankly if you agreed to cut off at the legal limit and you had a 4lane with
stop lights you could probably do that on the street, but I wouldn't want to
promote illegal actions on the part of other list members...

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:49:27 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
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

4.6L = 281 Cubic Inches (don't do the math based on english conversions,
then its 280, you have to go back to bore and stroke in mm and all kinds of
stuff, but it does work out to 281 ... )

Uhm, as for hp/tq ... actually for any info on newer motors check
www.carpoint.com its not always completely accurate, but then neither are
the advertised numbers anyway ...

I know the 4.6L in the stangs ratings, but not the trucks (96-7 215hp, 98
225hp, 99+ 260hp) tq is nothing ...no wait its got some, but don't remember
the specs on it off hand ...

:)

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:49:21 -0500
From: James Oxley thecore.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>

> Anyway, what I've determined is that I will have to remove the rivets on all
> the body mounts and restore them one at a time until they are all restored
> and painted to protect them from rusting and them bolt them back on

My standoffs where rotted out. I ended up getting 1/8 thick, huge
washers that I welded in. If you lift the whole side of the body, you
can get in there to weld them up. The washers I used have exactly the ID
you need to seat the small metal ring on urethane body mounts. I got the
washers from McMaster-Carr. If your interested, I get dig up the PN's
and sizes.

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 13:17:12 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tonneau cover

>> good luck if you get wet climate ! I about wore out my thumbs<<

Good advice, but I don't think wet will be a problem. Right now I'm more
concerned about cracking and stiffening in the hot Texas summer sun.

- -- 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: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 13:08:24 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire

>>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
interior 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......<<

88 and 89 Towncars were recalled for shorts in the ignition switch. Symptom:
the car catches on fire while unattended. On eguy in our town lost his 89
Towncar and half his house when it ignited in the garage one day.

- -- 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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:55:33 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)

> Gang, why do you suppose that you need the rubber part under the frame as
> well as between the frame and body? Virtually all body mounts
> are made this
> way so that the frame is actually sandwiched between two rubber doughnuts
> with the body resting on the top one. What is the advantage of this?
>
> I know the answer and it was made very clear last night when I test drove
> the bronco. The necessity only shows up under certain conditions
> but these
> are very common conditions even on the highway.
>
Uhm ... I trimmed the rest of the message, you wanna tell us what the reason
really is orther than "certain conditions" ? I'm guessing its for when you
hit a bump, the body will want to continue up, or launch up first and by
having the rubber there you "dampen" that shock ...


BTW it was proven several years ago that the natrual frequency of rubber
mounts is exactly the wrong frequency for your back, it will really mess
things up if those are all you rely on for "shock absorbtion" on your seats
... yes it was the farm tractor community that discovered this btw.

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:56:03 -0500
From: "Gagnon, Raymond J" navair.navy.mil>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - searching for power steering box rebuilder

Hi all,
I've got a '68 F100 that needs the power steering box rebuilt. Does anyone
know a source for rebuilding p/s boxes? It's not the ford designed unit,
but the other OEM supplier whose name I cannot remember now.
Thanks,
Ray G.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:57:56 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Fuel pump

> Oh the joy of it all. Murphy's law should be suspended on
> Sundays. They
> gave me the wrong fuel pump!!!! The new one has the short shaft,
> I need the
> long one.

hehehhehe ... I had a different problem ... they gave me a pump for a 360
D*dge! scarey part was it bolted up, but the fuel lines weren't aimed in
the right direction! (the arm was also considerably longer, but didn't hit
the timing cover ... just a warning for you guys with 360's, be sure and say
Ford 3 times or so...

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:00:54 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

> 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.
>

someone else has already said no, but there was another reason as well..in
your 72 the switch is directly activated by the key right ? In the newer
ones with the locking columns, the switch is still down on the column near
where it used to be ... they run a rod down to the switch itself from the
column ... this means you get all those neat forces on that rod and can
compound them through the elasticity of the rod and all kinds of neato
things ... my sister's 91 jams all the time, as does dad's 89 ... a friend's
88 Bronco II does this as well ... they've all been cleaned at least once,
then they are out of adjustment (the problem with the 89) ... We're just too
lazy to crawl under there and adjust it, afterall you only need the start
position for a few minutes a year anyway (if it runs right :)

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 09:02:19 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Elec fuel pump - clarification, vacuum diagram

> One other thing to think about is:
> Don't use any fuel system cleaners, and avoid alcohol
> containing fuels. These shorten the life of diaphrams
> and seals. If you think your fuel system is dirty
> change the filter.
>

Now I know this is going to jinx me ... but here goes... I think this thing
about alcohol shortening seal life is a bunch of hooey (is that spelled
right? :) Anyway 5 years ago this comin summer (must be 4.5 then huh?) I
bought a stock replacement fuel pump with a lifetime warranty from a no-name
local store ... cost was a litte over $12 .. it was about 95 degrees that
day and that was the only time my truck actually left me at the side of the
road, but it was in town about 3 blocks from a hardware store, so there was
no trouble gettin a ride or anything.

Anyway to make a long story longer, all I ran on that pump was ethanol,
occasionally pure gasoline, but only 'cause the ethanol was too expensive or
unavailable ... I can't remember now if I put a new fuel pump on when I
rebuilt the 390 or not, likely I did, probably one from the same place I got
the last one. No problems in 4.5 years seems to be a record of some sort on
an FE the way some of you talk (this isn't a challenge, just a comment, I'm
sure others have made 10+ years on a fuel pump before)

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:57:25 EST
From: NTesla333 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - glove box replacement for 1 cent (clarification)

The mail bin that I used was thrown out by local post office, because it had
a rip in the side. I personally would never endorse nor encourage anyone to
liberate mail bins from our fine and efficient Postal system. I will endeavor
to find a non-offensive replacement material, but that corrugated plastic
does work real well. I will update you all on my search.
Robert Bowen
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:22:37 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

yeah, like they need your encouragement :-)

- --
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
- --

> Frankly if you agreed to cut off at the legal limit and you
> had a 4lane with
> stop lights you could probably do that on the street, but I
> wouldn't want to
> promote illegal actions on the part of other list members...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:51:45 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

This reminds me of a story I saw on TV about a girl driving down the Eway
out of control because her throttle stuck wide open and the key would not
turn so she couldn't turn it off and the engine was too powerfull for the
brakes so she fried them too. Luckily she had a cell phone, called her mom
and she hooked her up with the police who cleared the road because she was
doing over 100 mph for about 2 hours before she lost control and ran off the
road and lived to tell about it. The police tried everything, got in front
and put on the brakes but she was afraid and avoided them (didn't under
stand what they were trying to do I guess). All they could do was wait till
she ran out of gas or wrecked and hope for the best. They actually had
police footage of the chase.

Scary stuff!

In reality I believe it was her ignorance of mechanics which caused the
probelem. I just can't imagine a new car with enough power to overcome very
briskly applied brakes if applied and held til it stalled, especially on a
small car like she was driving and especially before it actually gets up to
speed but I guess you'd have to act pretty fast to catch it then wouldn't
you :-(

Being timid doesn't help either. Most of us would have jammed the brakes on
hard if the key failed and held them with both feet in a case like
that.......what do you all think? Would that stop it? I would test the
theory but I don't want to toast a perfectly good, trashed AOD and almost
worn out set of brakes doing it :-) I believe if the drive train held up
even a 460 could be stopped that way.....course something might melt down
before it died too, just can't say without trying it I guess.

I do know that 11" brakes on a 350 C***y small block running nitro in a
motorcycle called "Bloody Mary" didn't stop when the ignition failed and he
went about 1/4 mile through the woods shedding parts....after that he put a
fuel shut off on it :-) This guy actually lived long enough to ride three
of these things before one got him (I think that's how he died, not sure)

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

> compound them through the elasticity of the rod and all kinds of neato
> things ... my sister's 91 jams all the time, as does dad's 89
> ... a friend's
> 88 Bronco II does this as well ... they've all been cleaned
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:03:41 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)

The special cases are when you compress the top one in a bump and the mount
then uncompresses after allowing the bolt to "float" in the hole because
there is no rubber on the other side to keep it tight so it "clanks" when it
comes back up. It also adds a measure of flexibility to the mount and
prevents the bolt from wearing where it touches the washers or frame etc.
because, just like the stud on a shock, it is completely isolated from any
moving metal parts that way.

What it does is bang every time you hit a fair bump but the other aspects
are just as important if not more so :-) Anyway I have 3 with no bolt or
bottom rubber so I have to order the rubbers from someone. I'm going for
the black poly. I'd like to use the yellow poly but I don't know if I could
stand all the squeaking. Can anyone tell me of experineces with other than
black? Do they really squeak that much?

As to Ox's suggestions, I plan to take them off anyway to make sure they are
all cleaned up and all solid because I plan to fully restore this truck if
it takes the rest of my life :-) I got some really large washers too but
don't know if the ID is the right size for the rubbers. I'll get the kits
first and let you know if I need those parts. We have Micky Carr too and
Grangers etc.. Mickey Carr is the best IMHO for this stuff, cheaper, better
selection etc. but hard to get a catalog from them, dang 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
- --

> > Gang, why do you suppose that you need the rubber part
> under the frame as
> > well as between the frame and body?
> Uhm ... I trimmed the rest of the message, you wanna tell us
> what the reason
> really is orther than "certain conditions" ? I'm guessing
> its for when you
> hit a bump, the body will want to continue up, or launch up
> first and by
> having the rubber there you "dampen" that shock ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:39:03 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Elec fuel pump

>>The conclusion, all things having been seen (as Soloman once said) is that
gas and glass don't mix.......at least not on a truck or car. Remember the
heavy glass bowl in the carbs on old tractors? It was there to drain off
the water in the tank before starting the engine every morning. We did this
on aircraft too but they were not glass :-) Course this bowl was very
secure and out of harms way but it was still glass......:-(<<

In TX it is illegal to put gasoline in a glass container such as for a lawn
mower, etc. They may have even outlawed metal cans now, too. I am not 100%
on metal, but I have heard rumors and seen signs that say plastic only.
Actually, I am surprised that you can even by a glass in-line filter. Hard
clear plastic, yes, glass...??????

67 and earlier Cadillacs had a glass bowl just before the carb. It was a
water separator and filter. It had a porous rock substance as an element. It
may have been some type of porous ceramic material. It was real easy to tell
when the engine wasn't getting fuel.

- -- 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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:22:34 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: 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.
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, I'm not giving you advice here, just relating my experience.

A little bit of chassis grease will work, a little bit of wheel bearing
grease with Teflon in it will work better. A little bit of engine oil or STP
will suffice. I've used all three and never had a failure.

I just put a fuel pump on Henry about two weeks ago. I didn't crank the
engine to low spot on the cam eccentric and I'll tell you why. If you don't
get the arm on the eccentric right, the pump will not work right, the truck
will probably not work, and the camshaft and pump can both be destroyed.
When you install a pump with the attached arm, you should tilt the pump down
so that the arm will go under the camshaft. Next, start the bottom bolt, but
do not tighten it. You should be applying pressure to make the bolt and
holes line up. Henry's 351m had a stud and nut for the bottom fastener and a
notch on the bottom of the fuel pump instead of a hole. If you have this
configuration, install the stud, insert the fuel pump, then start the nut.
Now go to the top hole and start that bolt. You will have to line everything
up and hold the pump square with the block. You should be able to start the
bolt by hand. Don't cross thread!! If the pump is lying there loose, not
under pressure, it is on wrong. If you turn the cam eccentric to low side,
installation is easier for someone with experience. For the inexperienced,
it's easier to miss the cam eccentric all together. Anyway, to finish your
install, tighten your bolts down alternating between top and bottom. Oh, and
don't forget the gasket. I always glue mine to the pump with Indian Head
black gasket cement. Personally, I wouldn't glue it to the block.

Well, I guess I gave you some advice anyway, and besides, the job is
probably a done deal by now. I finished all my weekend mail finally. Bummer
on the order delay!!

- -- 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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:50:19 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)

I just re-read this and not sure what you mean by this ring? The ones I've
looked at so far are rubber doughnuts with a washer/sleeve on top and the
bottom one having a washer/nut which, when bolted together bottom out
against each other to generate the proper preload similar to an upper shock
mount. Of course most of the metal is gone so can't tell what they "used"
to be :-(

None of this is very arcane, the sleeves can be made from any kind of tubing
or pipe and the washers can be fabbed out of many things and the nuts can be
welded on but if you double nut them they won't loosen anyway so why bother?
Once I have the rubber parts in front of me the metal parts will be pretty
straight forward I'm sure :-) Trickyest part is getting the right sized
holes in the standoffs as you say to fit the rubbers correctly, everything
else is a piece a cake :-)

I'm just going to do a few every weekend til I get them all done then it's
time to work on the floors :-) I've got a B pillar really going to pot too.
Probably where all the wind noise is coming from on that door :-( Glad I
didn't haul that lincoln away yet that part I ordered is smaller than the
hole I have to fix :-(

- --
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
- --

> My standoffs where rotted out. I ended up getting 1/8 thick, huge
> washers that I welded in. If you lift the whole side of the body, you
> can get in there to weld them up. The washers I used have
> exactly the ID
> you need to seat the small metal ring on urethane body
> mounts. I got the
> washers from McMaster-Carr. If your interested, I get dig up the PN's
> and sizes.
>
> OX
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:11:29 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

> This reminds me of a story I saw on TV about a girl driving down the Eway
> out of control because her throttle stuck wide open and the key would not
> turn so she couldn't turn it off and the engine was too powerfull for the
> brakes so she fried them too.

Yikes, that would suck ... I think I'd be kicking that panel (appropriately
named "kick panel" in this case) trying to get that stupid fuel shutoff to
trip :)

> In reality I believe it was her ignorance of mechanics which caused the
> probelem.

How do you figure ? Not hitting the brakes hard enough or soon enough
'cause she's timid isn't exactly a mechanical ignorance issue ... (self
image maybe, but not mechanical) ... maybe I'm weird but I'm the gearhead in
the room of computer geeks and the computer geek in the room of gear heads,
so i have to deal with all kinds on both subjects ...

> I just can't imagine a new car with enough power to
> overcome very
> briskly applied brakes if applied and held til it stalled,

Uhm ... 3 letters ... ABS

The real approach may have been to let the rev limiter do its thing and just
leave it in neutral, or at least gear down... what're you gonna do? over
rev it ? I bet you could be down to about 50 or so in first gear if you let
it ... then you wouldn't have to find her in the next state when she did run
out of gas ...

see if itd' been an FE she mightn't have gotten out of the county :)


we had an incident last year where a 16yr old got his license 2 weeks before
an autocross ... he was driving his dad's sirocco (they were both driving
actually, but not at the same time) ... anyway on the kids last run the
throttle stuck wide open ... in 2nd gear you wouldn't think a sirocco would
be that fast, but trapped on a go-kart track (thankfully it wasn't a parking
lot) he quickly spun off the track, through some 6' weeds (Still dont' know
how he turned just before that telephone pole) ... jumped through a drainage
ditch and finally got it shut off before hitting a fence just a few yards
from a good friend of mine and my girlfriend ... she was the first one to
reach him when the car stopped ... he was sitting there, both hands clamped
on the wheel and staring straight forward ... his first words ? "car ...
g--g---go ... not stop ... engine .... rev...." or something along those
lines ... no one was hurt thankfully, but even after the drivers meeting
where we discuss shutting off the ignition, he wasn't quick enough to get it
right away and that resulted in a very scarey ride ... experience is what
counts when it comes to these things ...

The ultimate irony was at the next race, his dad was running his Porsche 914
this time (the little VW powered one) ... he was cruising down the straight
and slowed up for a corner, then suddenly turned off the corner and idled to
a stop ... his throttle linkage had disconnected and the carbs had snapped
shut ...

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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:41:53 -0500
From: James Oxley thecore.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Body mounts, a quiz :-)

Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>
> I just re-read this and not sure what you mean by this ring?

The urethane mounts have a metal ring molded right into the bottom of
upper mount. It is designed to fit into the hole of the frame standoff,
to further help the bushing from moving around. Even though I had to cut
my factory metal hardware in half to get some of them apart, I was
confident in reusing them due to this metal ring in the bushings which
sat perfectly into my washers. They now make the urethane in all kind's
of hardness's and the black one's are impregnated with some kind of
lubricant. I can't see any reason to use rubber again.


The ones I've
> looked at so far are rubber doughnuts with a washer/sleeve on top and the
> bottom one having a washer/nut which, when bolted together bottom out
> against each other to generate the proper preload similar to an upper shock
> mount.

This ring is in addition to the stock hardware.

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:44:18 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: FTE 3rd Anniversary and a chance to ask Ford!

Where can I post a question for Bob Masone?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Payne" ford-trucks.com>
To: ford-trucks.com>; <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>;
<80-96-list ford-trucks.com>; <97up-list ford-trucks.com>;
ford-trucks.com>; ford-trucks.com>;
fordtrucks.com>; ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 7:44 PM
Subject: FTE 61-79 - ADMIN: FTE 3rd Anniversary and a chance to ask Ford!


> FTE will soon be celebrating its 3rd Anniversary as a web site.
> (It was just a mailing list prior to that).
>
> 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!
>
> Post the question(s) you would like to have asked, and we'll
> hash them out here. I'm going to present 5-10 questions to
> Bob in an interview and post the transcripts on the web site
> and to the mailing lists.
>
> There are a few minor guidelines....
>
> 1. No questions about unannounced future products.
> 2. Keep in mind that this isn't a mechanic's chit-chat.
> 3. It may be best to use this as an opportunity to discuss
> Ford's involvement with the enthusiast community.
>
> Ken Payne
> Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
>
> == 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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Koster yahoo.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - VIN problems

Howdy all,

I am in dire need of a VIN decoder for a '63 F100 Truck.

Anyone know where I can find one?

(the FTE decoder only goes back to '70)


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: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:58:31 EST
From: BDIJXS aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - tcases - married vs divorced

I'm pretty sure the outer 205 cases are different between the married and the
divorced units....the divorced units bolt up directly to a crossmember (there
might be some kind of rubber damper in there). The married units rely on two
"L" brackets on the driver's side and these are connected through a rubber
bumper....

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:09:48 -0700
From: "Greg Sage" home.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - rattling and hard start

Hey folks. Another noise has started coming from my engine. Besides the
ticktickticktickticktick that is so annoying.....I'm getting a loud rattling
sound coming from the front of the engine around the distributor areawhen
the engine is warmed up. It doesn't seem to increase as I still lay rubber,
or seem to decrease at idle. I'm wondering if it could be a bearing of some
sort. In the same breath, and probably not related but could be, is I'm
getting the odd wrr wrr wrr slow hard start(lamens terms, the only I
know..). It happens when I run the truck...stop, then start it again. If
it's sat for a while(morning or after work) it starts fine. I've always had
a timing problem which the truck runs fine on the road(no missing, but
knocking on acceleration), but misses at idle and abrubtley shakes the cab.
Just have not gotten around to taking a timing light to it as I still need
to buy one. Would any of these be related to this awfull rattling noise? I
would like to get a new engine, but don't have the money for it right now as
it is going to be at least $2000 CAN installed.

thanks,

Greg Sage (M/M/29)
Calgary, Alberta Canada
78 F150 2WD REGULAR CAB 351M/400 C6


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 16:31:24 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson ctc.edu>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - rattling and hard start

Thanks for your message at 05:09 PM 1/10/00 -0700, Greg Sage. Your message
was:
>Hey folks. Another noise has started coming from my engine. Besides the
>ticktickticktickticktick that is so annoying.....I'm getting a loud rattling
>sound coming from the front of the engine around the distributor areawhen
>the engine is warmed up.

If the rattling is hollow sounding (a ping), combined with the description
of the starting (pretty good description), I'd say your truck has a timing
problem. It may be just a simple rotation of the distributor...come to
think of it it probably is just in need of timing, since it runs OK. Get
out the old timing light...



Dennis L. Pearson

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson.index.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ctc.edu/~dpearson/popcult.html
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/lyrics.htm
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.att.net/~dlpearson/dlp.htm
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:31:49 -0800
From: paul parker webhart.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - T-19 trans information.

Hello, id like to get some information on the T-19 4spd trans...(any
information)
its hard to find anything on this trans..as im looking for a stick
shifter and can't find one.
It has a PTO, plate on both sides of the case. It came with a Ranger
2spd overdrive.
Im getting antsie to put it in my truck...(4 feet of snow....bummer)
Any information on the trans is greatfully appreciated...Thanks.
Grasshopper.

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:27:49 EST
From: WEDIVE247 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

In a message dated 1/9/2000 2:55:13 PM EST, theodore ford-trucks.com writes:

<< This is about the only thing on my ' 64 that isn't falling apart. : )
>>
This is about the only thing on my "64" that I haven't had to replace
YET !!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:32:50 EST
From: WEDIVE247aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Glove box replacement solution for 1cent.

In a message dated 1/10/2000 9:31:22 AM EST, Tom.Hogankla-tencor.com writes:

<< Maybe so, but I have seen them in a catalog (minus the "Property of P.O."
stencil) for about $35 each. Probably means the gov't spent $86.95 each on
them. ;0) >>
Yea but those are cardboard ...Right ????
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:56:32 EST
From: WEDIVE247aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - VIN problems

In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:57:46 PM EST, rumpus1yahoo.com writes:

<< I am in dire need of a VIN decoder for a '63 F100 Truck.

Anyone know where I can find one?

(the FTE decoder only goes back to '70)


Thanks,


Dan >>

Hey Dan , You have two different ways to find out that answer . 1.
Just ask these guys on line. They are great at decoding vin # ,all you have
to do is tell them what the numbers are. or 2. Check out L.M.C. catalog or
some of the many others . Alot of the catalogs have the vin #'s decoded .
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:03:35 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny" wenet.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire

John LaGrone wrote:

> 88 and 89 Towncars were recalled for shorts in the ignition switch. Symptom:
> the car catches on fire while unattended. On eguy in our town lost his 89
> Towncar and half his house when it ignited in the garage one day.

There's a taxi in San Francisco that is famous for having spontaneously
combusted one day while unattended. The reason for the notariety is that
the number of the cab was 666, and it was parked in front of Grace
Cathedral on Nob Hill. In fact I think it was on Easter Sunday (or am I
possibly embellishing the story, due to my faulty memory?)

In any case, you all have probably debunked the story now with this
business about ignition switches. The cab was a Crown Vic, I presume,
but I'm not sure of the year -- possibly early '90's.

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:53:38 EST
From: SHill48337aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - searching for power steering box rebuilder

In a message dated 1/10/00 10:00:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
GagnonRJnavair.navy.mil writes:

<<
Hi all,
I've got a '68 F100 that needs the power steering box rebuilt. Does anyone
know a source for rebuilding p/s boxes? It's not the ford designed unit,
but the other OEM supplier whose name I cannot remember now.
Thanks,
Ray G. >>
One source is the Northern Catalog. For around $150. they will exchange your
unit for a rebuilt one. Probably will take 2 to 3 weeks for shipping. They
have an on line catalog at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.idsonline.com/naparts.
Oh, by the way are you related to Paul Gagnon who was in the Submarine Force?
Burt Hill Kennewick WA 1972 F-250 4x4 460
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:05:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Will Vanderstien yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - 390 FE VS the new 5.4

- --- Don Jones hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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)
>
>
>
>
All I know, is that my SUPERCHARGED 1999 Ford
Lightning's 5.4 liter engine would pull both trucks up
to the top of mount everest without even breaking a
sweat.
__________________________________________________
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: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:39:45 -0800
From: Mike Pacheco USWEST.NET>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire

That cab in San Francisco was for Yellow Cab, don't ask me how I know, I
never heard that story, but I was driving that cab when the arch-bishop
was blessing cabs and he refused...
The cab I drove was a 1990 Crown Vic... that I do know.
Mike in Burien
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:54:28 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny" wenet.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire

Mike Pacheco wrote:
>
> That cab in San Francisco was for Yellow Cab, don't ask me how I know, I
> never heard that story, but I was driving that cab when the arch-bishop
> was blessing cabs and he refused...
> The cab I drove was a 1990 Crown Vic... that I do know.
> Mike in Burien

You gotta be kidding!!!!!! The archbishop refused to bless it because of
the number???? But the archbishop isn't supposed to believe in Satanism.

It's true that it's a Yellow cab. Mike Sealey may know what year it was
when it caught on fire.

The various cabs that have worn that number (as the cabs become obsolete
and are replaced with newer models) have had what seemed like more than
their share of bad luck. I drove it a couple times and I know I felt a
little uneasy, altho of course I scoff at all such superstition. Still .
. .

BTW, where's Burien?

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 01:53:53 EST
From: JJJJJGRANTaol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - firewall paint removal

anybody know how to fet the inner fenderwells back to the silver color, mine
has been painted black, they're still in the truck, engine is going in soon.

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:09:36 -0700
From: "Michael White" csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - rattling and hard start

> Hey folks. Another noise has started coming from my engine. Besides the
> ticktickticktickticktick that is so annoying.....I'm getting a loud
rattling
> sound coming from the front of the engine around the distributor areawhen
> the engine is warmed up
>
> Greg Sage
..................

Sounds like a worn out timing chain to me.

Michael


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:49:01 -0800
From: "Mike Sealey" <75.f150angelfire.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Update - fire

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:03:35 Kiernan, Denny wrote:

>There's a taxi in San Francisco that is famous for having spontaneously
>combusted one day while unattended. The reason for the notariety is that
>the number of the cab was 666, and it was parked in front of Grace
>Cathedral on Nob Hill. In fact I think it was on Easter Sunday (or am I
>possibly embellishing the story, due to my faulty memory?)

Very close indeed, Denny. It was in front of Grace Cathedral in the early evening of Good Friday. IIRC it was a '90 or '91 Crown Vic, one of the last of the boxy ones with the 302.

Mike Sealey
'75 F-150, 390/C-6 ("Redneck Continental")
'99 Windstar (Yellow Cab 9033, San Francisco)
and multiple non-FoMoCo vehicles...




Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.angelfire.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

End of 61-79-list-digest V4 #14
*******************************

+----- 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.