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 #19
Reply-To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-61-79-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


61-79-list-digest Friday, January 14 2000 Volume 04 : Number 019



=======================================================================
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 - timing
RE: FTE 61-79 - poor braking
RE: FTE 61-79 - Sale prices?
RE: FTE 61-79 - Cab to Frame Mounts
RE: FTE 61-79 - Duraspark question
RE: FTE 61-79 - compression ratio and power
Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...
FTE 61-79 - Say.....Ken, about that ford link...
FTE 61-79 - compression ratio and power
Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...
FTE 61-79 - Mongrel '62
FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning
FTE 61-79 - Site update and a question.
RE: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning
FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]
RE: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]
RE: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]
Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...
FTE 61-79 - RE: Deacon the beacon
Re: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]
RE: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions
Re: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions
FTE 61-79 - RE: compression ratio and power (MPG)
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: compression ratio and power (MPG)
FTE 61-79 - Re: Body mounts, a quiz
RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Body mounts, a quiz
Re: FTE 61-79 - low diffs vs od
RE: FTE 61-79 - timing
FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 w/Propane
FTE 61-79 - L&M
FTE 61-79 - Re: Propane 390
Re: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning
FTE 61-79 - Trans and Rears issue
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: Body mounts, a quiz

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 05:33:49 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - timing

Sounds like you need a new balancer. When they get old the outer ring can move.

George H

BanksRVA aol.com wrote:

> Hey folks,
> The timing mark on my 300 six will only show up if the timing light is hooked
> to
> the 3rd or 4th plug wire. Anyone have a clue why this is happening?
> Thanks in advance.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:00:02 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - poor braking

My first thought is the residual valve in the proportining valve but we
really need more info to help you. Exactly what is it doing as someone
already asked?

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> i got a problem with the brakes on my truck. i have torn apart the
> front discs - turned the rotors and replaced the pads. the rears were
> torn apart but were in fairly good shape. i have just
> recently acquired
> the truck and haven't been able to find the problem. i bled
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:26:19 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Sale prices?

Any ford truck in "fairly" nice shape, regardless of mileage or age is worth
$1500. For everything which is wrong with it you can deduct a little and
everything that is right with it you can add a little.

A really nice body is worth quite a bit but a good engine is worth less,
still nice to have but will not add as much to the value as the body. Most
people buying old trucks can fix the mechanical stuff but have trouble
making the body look nice so really appreciate a nice body. Bondo and
obvious hacked up repairs actually take away from it's value.

If it's a 4x4 then you can add about 1-2 grand to the price.....if the body
is nice, if not it may not be worth any more than the parts are worth to the
buyer. An Arizona truck with low mileage, no rust and faded original paint
might get as much as 5-7 grand in Michigan but in arizona might not pull
down 2 grand.

I paid 3 grand for a 78 bronco that had been patched up but it had some
things I really liked on it so I bought it. It was not worth that but that
dealer would have eventually sold it to an old truck buff for that if he was
patient so the bottom line is what is it worth to you and how long can you
wait for the right buyer? On the same day I could have picked one up with
air, auto and other nice features for $1500 but the body was toast and the
power train was really worn out.....beleive it or not it was a very hard
decision for me since there is nothing on a truck I can't fix but how much
work did I want to do? Now that I've gained more experience with them I
would buy the cheaper one in a heart beat today but if there were an AZ
truck available with a really cherry body on it I would go to the
bank.......(If I were looking, that is :-))

Give us some specifics on the truck as to condition, mileage, power train,
other features etc. and we'll try to narrow the price range down for you :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> I've seen some sale notices on the list, anywhere from $500 to
> $3500. How do you determine the value of an old truck? Obviously
> the "blue book" doesn't go back that far. I'll be selling my
> '71 soon,
> I guess, and really wonder how to price it.
>
> Thanks,
> Carla
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:55:24 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Cab to Frame Mounts

Do you mean the standoffs that rivet to the frame? I've never seen these
advertised anywhere or listed in any of my catalogs. Maybe Hemmings would
have some clues, not sure? Mine are rebuildable so that's what I will do.
They do have some of the floor parts or body portion of the mounts available
for some parts which are difficult to repair like the front cab mounts. The
ones I bought are made to fit over the original and reinforce it rather that
actually replace it.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> in desperate need of cab to frame mounts, I have the rubber
> bushings bolts
> etc. (from SoCal0). What I am in need of is the "aftermarket"
> steel mounts
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:10:38 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Duraspark question

Only thing I know to look for is the plug configuration. The 75 is
different from the later ones so if you have the later wire harness the
later one would be best probably and the later ones, amaziingly enough,
actually have some refinements which are good so are better anyway. 74 and
75 were the first generation of the ford electronic ignition.

One person informed us that the yellow strain relief version has the best
performance. If it has the same plug configuration it might be the best
choice.

Isn't there a write up on the duraspark conversion in the FAQ? It's pretty
simple but I don't recall the exact pinouts in my head right now.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> My wiring loom came from an '83 F250 with an M-block in it.
>
> I am wondering about what application I should request on the
> module, the
> '75 360 or the '83 M-block? I'm also wondering how to wire
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:26:30 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - compression ratio and power

> If you use flat tops you will get 10.5. The car dished pistons are 9.5.
>

here's the 9.5:1 compression piston ... :)

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish/Images/Truck/eng03.jpg


Just my $.02
wish

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:32:51 -0800
From: "Deacon" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...

> What I see happening all too often is the discussion getting side
tracked
> over peripheral issues and then the points begin to get mixed up as do
the
> replies and the subject line is no longer valid.

Hey it happens and will continue to happen. It's no big deal. If it
bothers anyone they can always post a question or whatever to the thread
and change the subject line. A lot of times discussions are followed
through improper subject lines.
It is true that we need to change the subject line as the discussion
changes but it's as simple as a single post to update.

> I for one will be more careful about how I respond and
> to what I respond in the future and I will be staying away from the
what
> if's no matter how tempting they may be, they only cause trouble


This wouldn't be best for the list members Gary. You are one of the
best sources of information on the list (on the web, as a matter of
fact). I, along with many others on this list, value your input on any
subject. Please!!! Do not hold back a thought on anything!!!

>If I
> don't know the correct terms I will refrain from responding so I don't
> confuse anyone.

Then who among us could post. Correct terms are as consistent as
politician's promises. It all depends on who's listening at the time. If
a list was made of people that give misinformation, your name wouldn't
even appear! Again I say, Please!!! Do not hold back a thought on
anything!!!

> Sometimes I feel I'm in a court of law and have to watch every detail
> including the way I look at the judge......This, of course, pretty
much
> takes the fun out of the discussion for me :-(

As it would for us all! You are amongst friends that not only value
your knowledge but your wit, humor and attitude adjustments (when we
need them. as seldom as that is). FTE would not be what it is today if
not for the contributions of:
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
You can bet the farm, 100% of the list members feel the same as I!


Later!

Deacon

deconblu ford-trucks.com
deconblu earthlink.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~deconblu/


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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:28:47 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Say.....Ken, about that ford link...

>But I wont
>because I'm not going to embarrass Ken. Ford truck content only, and
>nothing at all about those stupid hydraulic throwout bearings I've fought
>for 10 years, GRRR!

The '57 had a hydraulic clutch, and *IT* actually worked..>>>

They worked pretty well, and the later ones that still had the slave
cylinder on the fork worked all right too. I meant the one that has the
line going into the bellhousing directly to the throwout bearing. The ZF's
on the diesels still got the slave cylinder on the fork at least until '95.
that I've seen. Why they couldn't use this on the M5OD I have no idea.

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:55:15 -0600
From: ballingr bootheel.net
Subject: FTE 61-79 - compression ratio and power

If you use flat tops you will get 10.5. The car dished pistons are 9.5.

George
>>>>

It depends on which heads you use. The early style 61-65 heads (they are
supposed to be 71.2 74.2cc's, but mine came out to 74.2-74.8ccs, yielding
9.35 to 1 CR with .005 milled from the block deck) with the squared off
chambers will give you 9.5 to 1 or thereabouts with a TRW L2291F forged
flat-top. They come up to .015 below 0 deck on an uncut deck, mine are
right at .010 below 0, and with the .041 gasket thickess the quench distance
is just about right .051, with an uncut deck it would have been .056, still
within the .060 guideline for quality combustion.

The later heads have small jellybean shaped chambers that are from 67.1-71.2
cc's. These require a dished piston to get 9.5 to 1, as George said, they
will yield 10.5 to 1 with flat-tops.

The reason the truck engines CR was low and combustion was inefficient was
that in the 390's they used the 410 compression height piston, which comes
up roughly .110-.115 below 0 deck. With a Fel-Pro gasket you're looking at
.151-.156 quench. Yuck! Low compression and awful combustion efficiency.
The 360 used a 390 flat-top that combined with the longer rod still only
came up to .098-.103 below 0, yielding something just as bad in quench
distance.

That is why a passenger car engine ran so much better, and really wasn't
that much more prone to detonation. When you move the piston away from the
head you actually encourage detonation, and even though the CR is lower it's
no better off than higher compression engine in it's detonation tendencies.

The trick with the higher CR is to put a bigger cam and freer exhaust on it.
It will pull anything the low CR engine could pull and not ping, and have
power on tap for days. Plus, economy is a world away better.

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:57:20 -0800
From: "Bill Beyer" pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...

I'll second that!

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Deacon ford-trucks.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...


> As it would for us all! You are amongst friends that not only value
> your knowledge but your wit, humor and attitude adjustments (when we
> need them. as seldom as that is). FTE would not be what it is today if
> not for the contributions of:
> Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
> 78 Bronco Loving, Gary
> You can bet the farm, 100% of the list members feel the same as I!



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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:02:39 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson ctc.edu>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Mongrel '62

It seems I remember this coming up in the past, but...In what category of
discussion would we put a '62 Ford Truck with a 500 cubic inch Cadillac
engine...

Yes it's true. I must have had a great time the other night. It's the old
story of waking up, turning over, and there it is...this huge Cadillac
engine sitting under your hood. Anyway, I guess deep down, I know this is
not the forum in which to discuss this particular hybrid...but where can I
go...It's sad...a truck without a list...

Thank God I still have two PURE Ford Trucks (well, except for the IROCZ
electric fan on the Unibody).


Dennis Pearson in Kennewick, WA

1962 Unibody, short box, big window--351C
1966 F250 Custom Cab, 352, 4-speed
1962 short stepside (Cadillac 500)
I shortened this to only FT's

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:03:59 EST
From: SMOKEY5209 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning

I am looking for help from you guys on what to use in my parts cleaner for
cleaning all the grease from parts from various engines. I had been using
what was called Kensol 30 but I can no longer get it in my area.
I am using a immersion tank with an agitation system. Please help!!
I have gone the kerosene route and mineral spirits. Looking for something
with some teeth.
Thanks
Ed
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:44:08 -0500
From: Steve Schaefer PLASTEKGROUP.COM>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Site update and a question.

Hey gang, I finnally got a better picture of my new dually up on my
website. There is only one. The truck is almost done and I will get
the finished product up as soon as it is.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/8663/other.html

It is at the bottom of the page.

Now I have a question, where can I get new A/C lines?. The system I
got had the lines cut. The shops around here look at me funny when I ask
for lines for this truck. People around here don't beleive the a
vehicle should be around that long I guess. I made my own on the 79
T-bird, but I don't want to do that again.

BTW, I also scored another A/C system for my other truck last weekend.
This one needs a condensor, but the rest was there. WOOHOO.

Thanks for the help.

Steve S.
77 F-250 Supercab
76 F-350 Crewcab
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/8663/

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:48:40 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning

Mineral spirits won't work? That's what we use to clean dies at the shop
and what I just paid $140/55gal for......I hope you're not going to tell me
it won't work.....:-( Don't know what brand it is but it smells just like
the stuff we used to call "Sunoco" which was a low volitility degreaser we
used for years. Now we have some company come in and change the solution
periodically and it still smells like the same stuff??

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> I am looking for help from you guys on what to use in my
> parts cleaner for
> cleaning all the grease from parts from various engines. I
> had been using
> what was called Kensol 30 but I can no longer get it in my area.
> I am using a immersion tank with an agitation system. Please help!!
> I have gone the kerosene route and mineral spirits. Looking
> for something
> with some teeth.
> Thanks
> Ed
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:24:21 -0500
From: chris koran bellatlantic.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]

chris koran wrote:

> the 'poor braking' problem is that i have to practically stand on the
> pedal for any effective braking. there is no pulling side to side and
> all the calipers and valves are working correctly. with the booster
> disconnected, i can't even get it to stop. not sure where to go from
> here short of randomly swapping parts. sure be nice if i had a parts
> truck.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: poor braking
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:23:32 -0500
> From: chris koran bellatlantic.net>
> To: "'61-79-list ford-trucks.com'" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
>
> i got a problem with the brakes on my truck. i have torn apart the
> front discs - turned the rotors and replaced the pads. the rears were
> torn apart but were in fairly good shape. i have just recently acquired
> the truck and haven't been able to find the problem. i bled the brakes
> completely front to back. the booster is working (when i disconnect the
> vacuum, i have 'no' brakes at all) but i don't know if they have a
> tendency to weaken internally after many years. maybe one of you out
> there have a good idea i could use. oh yeah, thanks to Rob Bowen for
> the idea on the glovebox. i didn't use the post office box, but found a
> suitable sub from a large piece of straight sheet plastic siding. the
> idea worked great. i went one step further and used 3M spray-on rubber
> floor matting on the bottom of the box to keep scrounge nuts and bolts
> and loose change from rattling. keep them coming. i appreciate any
> ideas on the brake problem.
>
> quadna bellatlantic.net
> 79 F-250 4WD Regular Cab 300 w/4 speed

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:04:37 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]

> > the 'poor braking' problem is that i have to practically stand on the
> > pedal for any effective braking. there is no pulling side to side and
> > all the calipers and valves are working correctly. with the booster
> > disconnected, i can't even get it to stop. not sure where to go from
> > here short of randomly swapping parts. sure be nice if i had a parts
> > truck.
> >

This sounds like a failing, or failed master cylinder ... just what I've
experienced though, have you tried pumping them when this happens to see if
some power is restored ?

Just my $.02
wish

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 13:05:16 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]

Do you have to pump them to get a good pedal? The residual valve will make
it feel like it's full of air and give you a mushy pedal. If you have a
solid pedal on the first push but it won't grab then the shoes are glazed,
there is oil on the drums and shoes or your vac is not pushing hard enough.
I had to take both of mine apart and lube all the joints in the cantilever
linkage in front of the booster. Usually what that means is that it won't
return, not the pressure stroke but it could all add up I suppose.

My bronco with new everything and premium shoes and pads still requires a
lot of pressure to get it stopped but my rear axles are leaking (shafts are
worn) just enough to ruin anything I put on there and I don't feel like
buying new axles right now so I just start stopping a little sooner :-)

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> chris koran wrote:
>
> > the 'poor braking' problem is that i have to practically
> stand on the
> > pedal for any effective braking. there is no pulling side
> to side and
> > all the calipers and valves are working correctly. with the booster
> > disconnected, i can't even get it to stop. not sure where
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:55:24 -0700
From: "Kiernan, Denny" wenet.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 -Discussions and rules for them... or not...

Deacon wrote:
>
> This wouldn't be best for the list members Gary. You are one of the
> best sources of information on the list (on the web, as a matter of
> fact). I, along with many others on this list, value your input on any
> subject. Please!!! Do not hold back a thought on anything!!!

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:25:09 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: Deacon the beacon

I thank you all for the vote of confidence. I was having a bad day
yesterday so I wasn't able to bite my tongue like I usually do, sorry :-( I
am probably as much to blame for discussions getting bent and twisted as
anyone and should be more carefull to express the twist in the subject line
so my thoughts are not misunderstood. Just because they make perfect sense
to me doesn't mean everyone, however intelligent or knowledgeable, sees the
same picure I have in my mind.

- --
Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
- --

> Must agree with the Deacon - keep it coming.
>
> Jeff
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:36:25 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions

Yes, of course the chamber volume is the main factor in passenger car heads. I
stated 9.5 to 10.5 because that is the advertised ratio with the most common
heads, the 71 to 74 variety.
Are these also the most common on trucks?
If the truck pistons use the 410 compression height guess that would make them
the answer to the problem of impossible to find 410 pistons, right. I've never
seen one, do they have a dish? My rusty wheels are starting to turn at this
revelation:-) Even if they're dished I have a set of 64 cc heads that would
still yield decent compression
with 417 or so cubes (.030 over). I could never bring myself to go .080 over for
the 428 pistons.
George H

ballingr bootheel.net wrote:

> If you use flat tops you will get 10.5. The car dished pistons are 9.5.
>
> George
> >>>>
>
> It depends on which heads you use. The early style 61-65 heads (they are
> supposed to be 71.2 74.2cc's, but mine came out to 74.2-74.8ccs, yielding
> 9.35 to 1 CR with .005 milled from the block deck) with the squared off
> chambers will give you 9.5 to 1 or thereabouts with a TRW L2291F forged
> flat-top. They come up to .015 below 0 deck on an uncut deck, mine are
> right at .010 below 0, and with the .041 gasket thickess the quench distance
> is just about right .051, with an uncut deck it would have been .056, still
> within the .060 guideline for quality combustion.
>
> The later heads have small jellybean shaped chambers that are from 67.1-71.2
> cc's. These require a dished piston to get 9.5 to 1, as George said, they
> will yield 10.5 to 1 with flat-tops.
>
> The reason the truck engines CR was low and combustion was inefficient was
> that in the 390's they used the 410 compression height piston, which comes
> up roughly .110-.115 below 0 deck. With a Fel-Pro gasket you're looking at
> .151-.156 quench. Yuck! Low compression and awful combustion efficiency.
> The 360 used a 390 flat-top that combined with the longer rod still only
> came up to .098-.103 below 0, yielding something just as bad in quench
> distance.
>
> That is why a passenger car engine ran so much better, and really wasn't
> that much more prone to detonation. When you move the piston away from the
> head you actually encourage detonation, and even though the CR is lower it's
> no better off than higher compression engine in it's detonation tendencies.
>
> The trick with the higher CR is to put a bigger cam and freer exhaust on it.
> It will pull anything the low CR engine could pull and not ping, and have
> power on tap for days. Plus, economy is a world away better.
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:44:13 -0500
From: "G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - [Fwd: [Fwd: poor braking]]

This sounds just like my '71 when I got it. Pedal was hard but no power assist.
Turned out to be the booster. It was the last thing I tried since the whole
system needed rebuilding anyway and there was no vacuum leak.
George H

chris koran wrote:

> chris koran wrote:
>
> > the 'poor braking' problem is that i have to practically stand on the
> > pedal for any effective braking. there is no pulling side to side and
> > all the calipers and valves are working correctly. with the booster
> > disconnected, i can't even get it to stop. not sure where to go from
> > here short of randomly swapping parts. sure be nice if i had a parts
> > truck.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: poor braking
> > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 02:23:32 -0500
> > From: chris koran bellatlantic.net>
> > To: "'61-79-list ford-trucks.com'" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> >
> > i got a problem with the brakes on my truck. i have torn apart the
> > front discs - turned the rotors and replaced the pads. the rears were
> > torn apart but were in fairly good shape. i have just recently acquired
> > the truck and haven't been able to find the problem. i bled the brakes
> > completely front to back. the booster is working (when i disconnect the
> > vacuum, i have 'no' brakes at all) but i don't know if they have a
> > tendency to weaken internally after many years. maybe one of you out
> > there have a good idea i could use. oh yeah, thanks to Rob Bowen for
> > the idea on the glovebox. i didn't use the post office box, but found a
> > suitable sub from a large piece of straight sheet plastic siding. the
> > idea worked great. i went one step further and used 3M spray-on rubber
> > floor matting on the bottom of the box to keep scrounge nuts and bolts
> > and loose change from rattling. keep them coming. i appreciate any
> > ideas on the brake problem.
> >
> > quadna bellatlantic.net
> > 79 F-250 4WD Regular Cab 300 w/4 speed
>
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:47:01 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions

> If the truck pistons use the 410 compression height guess that
> would make them
> the answer to the problem of impossible to find 410 pistons,
> right. I've never
> seen one, do they have a dish?

The pistons I took out of my 76 390 were cast with 410 in the side of them.
I don't remember exactly what they looked like, but I think they looked like
my 390 pistons, only without the valve reliefs in them ... so yes, they
would be dished ...

My rusty wheels are starting to
> turn at this
> revelation:-) Even if they're dished I have a set of 64 cc heads
> that would
> still yield decent compression
> with 417 or so cubes (.030 over).

I would think you'd want to keep the dish to keep the c/r as close to 9 or
9.5:1 as possible. I'm not sure what the 410 ran stock, but I'd be
surprised if it was much more than that ...

Just my $.02
wish

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:46:37 -0500
From: tfreeman murphyfarms.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions

I bought a set of 410 pistons from Federal Mogul. I don't have the part number
with me, but mine are dished with valve reliefs. On the box the tag read
390/410. This makes sense to me now that we're talking about the lower
compression FE engines using the 410 piston.

- -Ted





"G.T. Herpich" bellsouth.net> on 01/13/2000 04:36:25 PM

Please respond to 61-79-list ford-trucks.com

To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
cc: (bcc: Ted Freeman/MURPHY_FAMILY_FARMS)
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions



Yes, of course the chamber volume is the main factor in passenger car heads. I
stated 9.5 to 10.5 because that is the advertised ratio with the most common
heads, the 71 to 74 variety.
Are these also the most common on trucks?
If the truck pistons use the 410 compression height guess that would make them
the answer to the problem of impossible to find 410 pistons, right. I've never
seen one, do they have a dish? My rusty wheels are starting to turn at this
revelation:-) Even if they're dished I have a set of 64 cc heads that would
still yield decent compression
with 417 or so cubes (.030 over). I could never bring myself to go .080 over for
the 428 pistons.
George H

ballingr bootheel.net wrote:

> If you use flat tops you will get 10.5. The car dished pistons are 9.5.
>
> George
> >>>>
>
> It depends on which heads you use. The early style 61-65 heads (they are
> supposed to be 71.2 74.2cc's, but mine came out to 74.2-74.8ccs, yielding
> 9.35 to 1 CR with .005 milled from the block deck) with the squared off
> chambers will give you 9.5 to 1 or thereabouts with a TRW L2291F forged
> flat-top. They come up to .015 below 0 deck on an uncut deck, mine are
> right at .010 below 0, and with the .041 gasket thickess the quench distance
> is just about right .051, with an uncut deck it would have been .056, still
> within the .060 guideline for quality combustion.
>
> The later heads have small jellybean shaped chambers that are from 67.1-71.2
> cc's. These require a dished piston to get 9.5 to 1, as George said, they
> will yield 10.5 to 1 with flat-tops.
>
> The reason the truck engines CR was low and combustion was inefficient was
> that in the 390's they used the 410 compression height piston, which comes
> up roughly .110-.115 below 0 deck. With a Fel-Pro gasket you're looking at
> .151-.156 quench. Yuck! Low compression and awful combustion efficiency.
> The 360 used a 390 flat-top that combined with the longer rod still only
> came up to .098-.103 below 0, yielding something just as bad in quench
> distance.
>
> That is why a passenger car engine ran so much better, and really wasn't
> that much more prone to detonation. When you move the piston away from the
> head you actually encourage detonation, and even though the CR is lower it's
> no better off than higher compression engine in it's detonation tendencies.
>
> The trick with the higher CR is to put a bigger cam and freer exhaust on it.
> It will pull anything the low CR engine could pull and not ping, and have
> power on tap for days. Plus, economy is a world away better.
>
> == 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









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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:53:32 -0500
From: William King bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE: compression ratio and power (MPG)

Mileage? I've run two different 360s in my 1968 F100 2wd (w/ 4 speed). My
mileage has ranged from 16 mpgs (running a steady 60 mph on the highway in the
flatlands of western Ohio), to about 12 mpgs around town, to 11 mpgs towing
~6000 lbs of trailer from Boston to Ohio this summer. All of this has
been w/ a 2v carb.

A couple ideas pop to mind for improving mileage (of course each one has its
drawbacks as well. I won't mention these drawbacks...).

1. Drive slow. I've been poking thru some car tests from old Consumer
Reports (from the late 1960s and 70s). The MPG at 40 mph is much, much
better than at higher speeds (I will provide an empirical definition of
'much, much better' on request). If someone plows into your tailgate b/c
you're driving too slow you can shut the engine off and let them push you.
Your MPGs will rise to infinity).

2. You can make a front spoiler from sheet metal. Basically, a metal "cattle
plow" shaped thing that is attached under the front bumper, it's supposed to
direct air around the truck instead of under it. Car and Driver did this to
a Pinto and a 240Z in the early 1970s. They claimed a 15% mileage improvement
for the Pinto, and about 10% (I think) for the 240Z. I've been waiting to do
this and (test my MPGs with my truck) for a while. Just too busy...

3. Cover the front grill with fine, wire screen material. At high speed this
screen "looks solid" to air bumping into it [A Hojo statement, but DON'T
even start. I know air doesn't have eyes]. Chrysl*r suggested this
modification
in one of their performance books. Ideally, the screen flows well at low
speeds, but at higher speeds diverts more air. PROVIDED enough air gets
to the radiator, the truck shouldn't overheat at high speed. Chrysl*r claimed
it improved MPGs and the car didn't overheat.

4. I lost MPGs when I went from the Motorcraft 2v to an Edelbrock Performer
(600 CFM) 4v. Some list members really like spreadbore 4vs (methinks b/c the
primaries are small, and thus flow less. If you drive on the primaries
you should be better mileage. I'm sure someone will set me right on this if
I'm wrong). Anyway, the Performer 4v isn't a spreadbore, so my mileage
suffered.

5. I have seen no tests of tonneau covers or the differences between running
the tailgate 'down' versus 'up.' I'm sure other list members have opinions
or experiences with this, however.

6. Decreasing vehicle weight should help as well, but again, I have no hard
evidence on this with my truck, nor do I know how much weight loss is
required to make a significant MPG difference. Going from the
'backbreaker' intake manifold to an aluminum intake didn't offset my MPG
losses incurred from switching to a 4v carb...for what's that worth. I've
also heard that decreasing unsprung weight (e.g., wheels) has a dramatic
effect on a vehicle
(some sources claim that decreasing 1 lb. of unsprung weight is equal to
shedding 10 lbs of sprung weight).

This above list is hardly comprehensive, but it hopefully gives you some
ideas.
Ohio Bill
1968 F100 2wd 360 2v 4 speed
1968 Torino GT 429 4v 4 speed

>I would also like to hear from others with 2wd FE's and your mileage
>readings, and any tips to improve mileage on the daily driver.
>
>ME from NC

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:12:09 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: compression ratio and power (MPG)

> 1. Drive slow. I've been poking thru some car tests from old Consumer
> Reports (from the late 1960s and 70s). The MPG at 40 mph is much, much
> better than at higher speeds (I will provide an empirical definition of
> 'much, much better' on request). If someone plows into your tailgate b/c
> you're driving too slow you can shut the engine off and let them push you.
> Your MPGs will rise to infinity).
>

Hahahaha ...this one just makes me laugh :) When was the last time you saw
a farm truck with a straight tailgate ? :)

> 2. You can make a front spoiler from sheet metal. Basically, a
> metal "cattle
> plow" shaped thing that is attached under the front bumper, it's
> supposed to
> direct air around the truck instead of under it.

I have to question this one a bit, I'd be interested to see if it really
helped or not, but trucks sit a lot higher than 240z's and whatever other
car they tested .. does this "spoiler"/"air dam"/"deflector" really help on
a vehcile as big as a truck, or do we need spoilers that nearly touch the
ground to really be effective ?

> 3. Cover the front grill with fine, wire screen material. At
> high speed this
> screen "looks solid" to air bumping into it

Interesting ... but again the question of application on a truck due to the
verticle nature of the grille ... this does bring up one thing though ..
elec. fans, dunno how directly it would help, but the reduced drag on the
engine should improve the highway mileage by at least one or two I would
think ... provided you're not driving slow :) I'll have to get a mileage
check on my truck some time so I can see how that affects it ... elec.
ignition also falls in the small gains category, but I would think this
would help, a hotter spark will mean it will burn more efficiently
...whether that translates to MPG or not, I can't say for sure ...

>
> 4. I lost MPGs when I went from the Motorcraft 2v to an Edelbrock
> Performer
> (600 CFM) 4v.

I think if I tried to go to the spread bore my mileage would still suffer,
mostly 'cause I can't keep my foot out of it around town :) The square
bore suits me fine as I'm less likely to kick in those rear ones, at least
that's my theory anyway, will I ever prove it ???

> 5. I have seen no tests of tonneau covers or the differences
> between running
> the tailgate 'down' versus 'up.' I'm sure other list members
> have opinions
> or experiences with this, however.
>

I've seen an article on it just recently where they determined it was better
to have the gate up ... I don't think the tonneau really made that much
difference either way ... the way I heard it (and makes sense) is that the
air in the bed will build up a "cushion" of sorts with the gate up, this
will result in slower moving air that travels in a circular fashion through
the bed ... watch the leaves and cans in the back sometime, or string them
along the center of the bed and see where they end up when you are done ...
anyway by putting the gate down you end up with the high speed air through
the whole thing that sucks straight out the back, this is a bigger pressure
difference and very definite turbulence, not good for your drag coefficients
and such, hence mileage drops ...

> 6. Decreasing vehicle weight should help as well, but again, I
> have no hard
> evidence on this with my truck, nor do I know how much weight loss is
> required to make a significant MPG difference.

That's part of the excuse for lighter cars, less weight = better mileage ...
true to an extent, but in my mind it would take a lot of lightening, you're
correct there...

> for what's that worth. I've
> also heard that decreasing unsprung weight (e.g., wheels) has a dramatic
> effect on a vehicle
> (some sources claim that decreasing 1 lb. of unsprung weight is equal to
> shedding 10 lbs of sprung weight).
>

That's what the racers I've talked with live by ... "Think Light, Build
Light, Bud Light" ...

My truck's a 4x4, so not quite the same application likely, but the other
things to check are the timing and the plug gaps and such, if you can run
some more timing I think you'll pick up a bit better on the mileage along
with the power ... also don't run any more octane than you need, ie. if you
can run 87 just fine, then stick with it, no point "wasting" those octane
points ...

Just my $.02
wish

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 11:30:47 -0800
From: "Pat" aisl.bc.ca>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Body mounts, a quiz

Hi Steve,
I've been wondering whether using Rhino Hide or Herculiner or one of the
many types of coatings might work on the underside of my '79 Dream Truck
(The fantasy is to somehow eliminate rust from the inside). When the guy
painted the Samurai did he sanblast the surface of just wipe it clean and
let fly? This whole generation of stuff "MIGHT" be the answer to us old Ford
Truck folks.
Patsplace
78 F-150 W/Overloads
> 77 F-250 4X4
> 79 F-250 4X4 Dream Truck Under Way
> 72 F150 Ranger parts truck
> 79 F250 Lariat donor vech. for the '79 4X4


(Steve Wrote)
> Hey Gary, I've got a buddy who Rhino-lined the underside and passenger
> compartment of his Suzuki Samari a couple of years ago, before we stuffed
> a B*ick 3.8L into it. He was building a serious rock crawler. Well,
there's no
> rust yet, and he can hose the damn thing out too....we see more mud 'round
> here than rocks...
>
> 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....
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>



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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:41:47 -0800
From: "Southerland, Rich" alldata.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Re: Body mounts, a quiz

I haven't seen the stuff applied as an exterior coating, but saw a early
Bronco whose owner had "Rhino'd" the interior. After mudding it up, he
simply hosed out the interior...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Pat [mailto:patsplace aisl.bc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 11:31 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: Body mounts, a quiz


Hi Steve,
I've been wondering whether using Rhino Hide or Herculiner or one of the
many types of coatings might work on the underside of my '79 Dream Truck
(The fantasy is to somehow eliminate rust from the inside). When the guy
painted the Samurai did he sanblast the surface of just wipe it clean and
let fly? This whole generation of stuff "MIGHT" be the answer to us old Ford
Truck folks.
Patsplace
78 F-150 W/Overloads
> 77 F-250 4X4
> 79 F-250 4X4 Dream Truck Under Way
> 72 F150 Ranger parts truck
> 79 F250 Lariat donor vech. for the '79 4X4


(Steve Wrote)
> Hey Gary, I've got a buddy who Rhino-lined the underside and passenger
> compartment of his Suzuki Samari a couple of years ago, before we stuffed
> a B*ick 3.8L into it. He was building a serious rock crawler. Well,
there's no
> rust yet, and he can hose the damn thing out too....we see more mud 'round
> here than rocks...
>
> 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....
>
> == 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
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:52:42 -0800
From: "Pat" aisl.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - low diffs vs od

Hi Guys,
Thanks for the great theatre of debate. Gotta love it! And informative too.
Once sat in a car with the head of the Berkley Philosophy department and one
of his post-graduate students who was completing his PHD in Philosophy and
listened to an argument. Pure heaven! Gotta love debate.
Patsplace
> 78 F-150 W/Overloads
> 77 F-250 4X4
> 79 F-250 4X4 Dream Truck Under Way
> 72 F150 Ranger parts truck
> 79 F250 Lariat donor vech. for the '79 4X4

> Please do not add to what I say or try to read between the lines. This
> discussion has gone way beyond anything anyone really had in mind
initially
> so I am bowing out now. I really have much more important things on my
mind
> than trying to get all the words right :-(
>
> - --
> Michigan, Pot Hole Jumping,
> 78 Bronco Loving, Gary
> - >
> Well this has gotten lengthy enough, and if its enough to get me kicked
off
> the list, then I imagine I've already gotten there.
>
> Just my $.02
> wish



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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:29:19 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - timing

The harmonic damper outer ring probably slipped on the hub. You could get
or make a piston stop and find tdc of #1 and remark the balancer but if it
has slipped then it probably needs replacing.

Tom H

> -----Original Message-----
> From: BanksRVA aol.com [mailto:BanksRVA aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 6:18 PM
> To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 61-79 - timing
>
>
> Hey folks,
> The timing mark on my 300 six will only show up if the timing
> light is hooked
> to
> the 3rd or 4th plug wire. Anyone have a clue why this is happening?
> Thanks in advance.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:03:08 -0600
From: Brett L Habben juno.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: 390 w/Propane

Tom,
You can buy the exact system you describe today. David Bennet, Bi-phase
Technologies (320)664-7000 in Lake Lillian, MN (about 20 miles from home)
came up with a propane electronic injection system that functions just
like a gasoline multi port injection system. Imagine liquid propane
flowing right up to the injectors and you get the idea. Williams
Pipeline (propane supplier) and Mapco in OK City somehow got mixed up in
the marketing of this and a couple of the big three bit on it for fleet
sales. I believe you can go down to your Ford(?GM?) Fleet Sales dealer
and buy a fleet of propane powered trucks using this system. He's sold
it to taxicab companies, trucking firms, also. This system is supposed
to be very efficient. Give David Bennett a call.
I was raised on propane tractors and my dad still loves jacking with
them. He just slapped a MM G Ensign carb w/IH 806 intake on his IH 660
along with a homemade header w/straight pipes. Fire in the sky.......
Brett,
Super75cab

>From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
>Ok next question. Is there a system out there that can meter the liqid
>propane directly to the intake tract and allow the liquid to gas
conversion
>there? This would give the advantage of super cooling the intake charge
and
>put a denser mixture into the cylinders. I'm sure it would be difficult
to
>meter the liquid properly and there may be a problem with icing in the
>intake tract. The reason I ask is my experience with propane motors is
in
>ag tractors. All of them had a vapor valve and a liquid valve. The
>difference in the valves was the vapor valve vented gas off the top of
the
>tank and the liquid valve tapped off the bottom. Procedure was to start
on
>the vapor and then switch over when the tractor was at operating temp.
>Tom

________________________________________________________________




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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:12:16 -0800
From: "S.Harkema" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - L&M

>I wonder if that is the same L&M Steering that used to be in San Jose,
>California????

I believe so.I know he moved to Reno from somewhere in the Bay area.
The guy truly is a master at what he does.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:16:48 -0600
From: Brett L Habben ....


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.