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 #20
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 Saturday, January 15 2000 Volume 04 : Number 020



=======================================================================
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 - Parts Cleaning
FTE 61-79 - RE:Lift justification....(notice the subject change :-))
Re: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: compression ratio and power (MPG)
RE: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions
FTE 61-79 - 390 car vs truck
FTE 61-79 - Hold back
FTE 61-79 - A/C lines
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mongrel '62
FTE 61-79 - 410 CR
RE: FTE 61-79 -Tri-Power
FTE 61-79 - Air damn
RE: FTE 61-79 - 410 CR
RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 car vs truck
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE:Project justification, Passions....(notice the subject change :-))
FTE 61-79 - Now it's MPGs
FTE 61-79 - antique licence plates/ no tech insp
FTE 61-79 - TGIF and new parts....
FTE 61-79 - Gas mileage (MPG Thread)
FTE 61-79 - mongrel 62
Re: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion
Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas mileage
FTE 61-79 - Re: intank fuel pumps
FTE 61-79 - Re: FTE List
Re: FTE 61-79 - Mongrel '62
Re: FTE 61-79 - Air damn
RE: FTE 61-79 - RE:Project justification, Passions....(notice the subject change :-))
FTE 61-79 - Scary
FTE 61-79 - fuel pump on 69 w/6 cyl.
Re: FTE 61-79 - Re: FTE List

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:37:09 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning

Caustic soda is very dangerous but works very well on greasy iron
components. Neat thing is that the soda actually "pickles" the iron and
leaves a protective coat on it but does not react with it so is safe to use
with iron but DO NOT USE THIS WITH ALUMINUM PARTS!!!

Do you know off hand what PH you kept it at? 9 will burn your skin and
somewhere around 13-14 it becomes imediately damaging to anything it
touches. You can't get it off fast enough to prevent damage at that PH.
Litterally dissolves your skin on contact....:-( Seems like we use 50%
solution in barrels and it's around 14 PH.

Carb cleaner used to use that stuff that got banned
Hydro...floro----something or other right?

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

> we used caustic soda in our hot tank, but this was several
> years ago, carb
> cleaner works good, but the smell stays with you a while.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:08:15 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - RE:Lift justification....(notice the subject change :-))

I can't harp enough on the idea that this lift only cost me $6000 from the
store into the ground and ready to use. "If" you have a building with at
least a 12' ceiling and are an avid mechanical pervert....er, I mean
genius....er, addict....then that is a very small outlay for a lifetime of
enjoyment IMHO. Once the pole barn project materialized, the lift was a no
brainer :-)

This to me is kind of like people who buy land and build a house but don't
build a pole barn or garage because it increases their house payment by
$12/mo. They plan to live there for many years and know they need a place
to work on projects but the $5-10k additional outlay puts them off. What
the H**l is 5-10k when you spend 150k or more on the house???? It's chicken
feed and believe me your wife is going to extract a lot more than that out
of you over the years for new furniture and other unneccesary things so do
it up front and forget about it, it will be there for you the rest of your
life and it's a one time investment. (shop that is)

I can't even imagine a farmer with lots of equipment to maintain not having
a lift somewhere. Even the heavy truck lifts with two sets of two pole
lifts don't cost all that much. I guess it just depends on what you feel is
important. I'm getting older and won't be able to persue my hobby without
some equipment like this for much longer so it was the only way I could
maintain my hobby up till the day I die :-) Perhaps if my wife were young,
beautiful and healthy I might have spent my money in some other fashion.
Perhaps then I would not even have this hobby, who knows?? I don't know and
certainly don't want to tell someone else how to spend his money but......if
it is your passion then........

The above ground versions are much cheaper and will suffice for most people
and can be moved from location to lacation if you move a lot. Don't let me
twist your arm but Jeeeezz Louise! for $2500 you could be standing under
your truck instead of lying in the mud :-) (course you can't do that if you
live in town or in an appartment etc., sorry for getting your dream machine
turned back on....) But if you can, just do it! :-) It only hurts for a
couple of years and the pain of the payments goes away and leaves nothing
but the pleasure...

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

> Though your lift & garage drive me insane - it (and your list
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 04:16:31 -0800
From: John Lord home.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Parts Cleaning

What i use to clean most of my parts is an old retangular tank large enough to
fit half a V-8 or a pair o cyl heads completely. I heat it with 2 water tank
heaters controlled by a single thermostat. The heaters are below a rod iron
grate that all my parts rest on. I have a small pump to keep the hot water
moving to give a bit of movement to help the cleaning.

My secret cleaning ingredient is LAUNDRY SOAP. it works wonders and after a day
even the toughest of greasy build up in the cyl heads will wipe out with a
small wire brush.

For the really tough jobs i add one to three cans of Draino (caustic soda), as
long as i remember to clean out the tank before i clean aluminum, i never have
a problem.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:40:04 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE: compression ratio and power (MPG)

The world record mileage holders have all driven in the 25 mph range that
I'm familiar with. One I read about actually designed a way to change the
tires while still moving to prevent having to stop and start again.....

I read an article once where they attmpted to get more mileage from a van
and two of the things they did were to cover the grill with screen and they
gained 1 or 2 mpg and instead of a ground effects spoiler they used duct
tape and cardboard and covered everything under the van so that it was
smooth and flat except for the drive shaft and picked up another 1-2. I
don't remember the numbers but do remember that both of these netted an
improvement on the highway.

The spread bore gives you better low speed metering and thus better economy
around town as well as much better throttle response at lower speeds. It
may have some effect on high speed cruising too but it's primary advantages
show up at lower rpms. Probably the best economy/performance system ever
invented was the tri power setup because only one carb came on line at a
time, as you needed it but all three were relatively small.

The problem with a 2v used on 351 sized engines is that it is 500 cfm
typically which is about 250 more than you need around town so the venturi
signals are way too weak to get it to meter very well. Most spread bores
are an improvement even over the 2v in this case with perhaps as little as
300 cfm in the primaries but an over all cfm rating of 850 or so.
Theoretically even a square bore carb, used judiciously, is an improvement
over the 2v due to this same principle but in most cases I'm familiar with
the secondaries get used enough to offset any advantage. I use the
strongest spring in the vac on mine and they still come in sooner than they
really need to most of the time. My spread bore is a double pumper type
with mechanical linkage rather than vacuum so it comes in when you push the
pedal past a certain point regardless of rpm or vacuum etc..

One of the most responsive vehicles I've ever driven was a Plymouth Sport
something or other with a 318 and one barrel carb. It would squall the
tires easily and yet never seemed to run out of steam but around town that
thing was dynamite. It didn't do hole shots like a 4v but it responded to
the slightest movement of the pedal with clean power, instantly. Most taxi
cabs in the old days had one barrels on them for that very reason, they
metered better so get better mileage and had that extra little jump you need
to cut between trucks on michagan street at 4:30 pm.......

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

> 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
>
> 2. You can make a front spoiler from sheet metal. Basically,
> a metal "cattle
> plow"
>
> 3. Cover the front grill with fine, wire screen material. At
> high speed this
> screen "looks solid" to air bumping into it [A Hojo
>
> 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.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:47:48 -0800
From: "Hogan, Tom" kla-tencor.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - compression/ and questions

> > 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.

So, what is the best deck clearance for this engine? How would it respond
to 0 or near 0 deck clearance?

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:59:48 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 390 car vs truck

Brent Prince !!!
What year car 390 did you build for your '67 F series??? I'd just about
be willing to bet that the difference was the cam and not the pistons!!!
Pre '71 engines used much more radical(and that was still mild) timing than
'72 and later..

Cams can/will make a lot of difference in usable HP if all else remains
constant.

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:04:24 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Hold back

Deacon writes: (to Gary) >>Please!!! Do not hold back a thought on
anything!!!<<

Surely you Jest, Deacon. Gary hold back.... Naw.... He'd forgotten he
printed that before you read it....

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:11:47 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - A/C lines

Steve S. writes: >>Now I have a question, where can I get new A/C lines?.
<<

Most places that make up hydraulic lines for Farm/Industrial use also have
what it takes to make A/C hoses. Use your Yellow Pages. May even be
listed under Air Conditioning - Automotive... May also have to take your
vehicle over there to get all the correct bends/measurements, but I've
found them to be very capable.

Azie
Ardmore, Al

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:20:45 -0500
From: Ken Payne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mongrel '62

At 07:02 AM 1/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
> 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...

This is exactly what our performance/hot rodding list
was started for.

- -Ken Payne

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:37:37 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - 410 CR

Wish writes: >>I'm not sure what the 410 ran stock, but I'd be surprised
if it was much more than that ...<<

I think you are going to be surprised>>> I don't have the books in front
of me, but I seem to remember that it was a considerable amount greater
than the 390 4bbls of '67... 11.5/1 or thereabouts, maybe...

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:46:53 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 -Tri-Power

> Probably the best economy/performance system ever
> invented was the tri power setup because only one carb came on line at a
> time, as you needed it but all three were relatively small.
>

Most of the systems I've seen have the center one operating alone, then
bring on the outer two at the same time ... I haven't studied the original
vaccuum units very closely, but I can't see why you would pull on the front
or rear without the other, your fuel distribution would be atrocious ...



> One of the most responsive vehicles I've ever driven was a Plymouth Sport

Fury likely :) (H*ll hath no Plymouth Fury ... :)

> with a 318 and one barrel carb.

Yikes, a neighbor supposedly had a 400 C$##y with a 1V on it ... never road
in it or anything ...

Just my $.02
wish

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:47:09 -0500
From: am14 daimlerchrysler.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Air damn

Wish writes: >> 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 ?<<

Wouldn't this be the same principle as the large air deflector you see on
top of the cabs or large over the road tractor-trailers??? I've heard or
read someplace that this was a significant factor in helping them to
maintain speed as well as increase fuel effeciency. Don't have a clue as
to whether or not it helps, but this is what I'm led to believe. In later
years those same tractor/trailers are having air damns(is this the way to
print this) and GT types of ground effects packaging on them and their
trailers....

Azie
Ardmore, Al.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:53:01 -0600
From: "William S. Hart" iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 410 CR

> Wish writes: >>I'm not sure what the 410 ran stock, but I'd be surprised
> if it was much more than that ...<<
>
> I think you are going to be surprised>>> I don't have the books in front
> of me, but I seem to remember that it was a considerable amount greater
> than the 390 4bbls of '67... 11.5/1 or thereabouts, maybe...
>

Yikes! Right you are Azie, I didn't expect that CR ... though I did mean to
type LESS instead of more, didn't feel like correcting myself though :)

Wow ...11.5:1 ...

Now you've got me wondering what my CR really is, anyway to guesstimate this
with a pressure gauge ? I keep thinking there's gotta be a way to use your
compression tester and calculate it, but I'm afraid I have too many unknowns
to really figure it out ...

Just my $.02
wish

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:17:00 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - 390 car vs truck

Well, I was attmpting to be witty and my mailer quit on me.....

What is the "Heart" of an engine? Or...What gives an engine "Heart" more
than any other single component on it? (I can't wait for the arguments on
this one :-))

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

> Cams can/will make a lot of difference in usable HP if all
> else remains
> constant.
>
> Azie
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:24:46 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE:Project justification, Passions....(notice the subject change :-))

Uuuuuuh, this seems a little cold doesn't it? Don't know exactly how to
rephrase this but the fact is that a man will make more compromises to his
"other" dreams for a woman with more "physical" virtues and if she also has
other virtues then he becomes "henpecked" so the hobby then become less
important or dies completely.

With my duties being expanded, to include many of the chores which were
previously my wife's responsibility, working full time, and due to her
condition, not having all the same benefits a normal relationship would have
along with many more interruptions when I DO try to do anything due to her
needs, I find it necessary to have something I can do that is just for me,
to fullfill my "other" dream I've always had etc. and replace some of the
things now missing from my life so my hobby takes on a much larger role in
my life. In this way I am able to care for her without feeling burdened. I
guess you could say she recognizes this need and I recognize her need to be
loved and cherished in spite of her situation. It's a matter of balance and
as humans we all get out of balace sometimes but I thought long and hard on
this and decided that it was a necessary investment for my peace of mind and
now I am working on fixing up the house for "her" peace of mind but in this
one, important, case my needs did come first :-)

My passion for building that one, perfect, unstoppable truck that perfectly
reflects my personality is easily as strong as any passion I have ever had
for any woman but due to family responsibilities this passion is being
fullfilled very slowly. Without the lift, at this point in my life, with
joints beginning to hurt, eyesight going away, energy waning etc. I would
probably give it up. It really boils down to that. Being able to put my
work at a level which is comfortable for me to work on it and convenient as
well brings back a level of enjoyment to my hobby that's hard to describe
but in my case I have to say that all the hardships and misunderstandings
over this project were worth it :-) Now that I have what I want and have
spent the money at the most opportune time in the scheme of things it is
time to begin bestowing some of my lifes blessings on my wife :-) In my
case many of the projects priorities were set by need or timing rather than
money, this was one of them :-) Wives don't always understand this but she
enjoys having the barn around too, it just wasn't on the top of her list :-)
Sometimes being a good husband is a little like being a good officer, you
have to make decisions that not everyone agrees with and hope that your
decisions eventually become vindicated :-)

I hope you all can understand what I meant.

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

> maintain my hobby up till the day I die :-) Perhaps if my
> wife were young,
> beautiful and healthy I might have spent my money in some
> other fashion.
> Perhaps then I would not even have this hobby, who knows?? I
> don't know and
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:55:12 -0500
From: William King bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Now it's MPGs

wish,

My understanding is that the spoiler should actually be more effective on
a truck b/c there is more distance from the front bumper to the ground.
The idea was that air travelling under the truck hit all kinds of stuff and
created considerable turbulence. I've seen pictures of cars at Bonneville
with smooth under-carriages, to smooth the air under the car. Anyway, a
properly built air dam diverts the air from under the truck, thus
reducing turbulence. Car and Driver claimed that the mileage improvements
w/ the 240Z were not as good as with the Pinto b/c the 240Z was already more
aerodynamic. If we add our trucks to that comparison, the improvements should
be substantial, esp. given the distance from the front bumper to the ground.
The Car and Driver spoiler on the 240Z appeared to have at least 2 inches of
ground clearence (eyeballing the pictures). The MPG improvements for the
240Z were fairly consistent too (ie about 10% MPG gain from 40 mph up to 80
mph).

>> 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 ?
*******************
I agree with you on the potential problem of a vertical grill. The impression
I got from the Chrysl*r article was that it didn't matter whether the surface
was sloped or not. In a way this concurs with the better top speed of cars
like the 1969 Torino Talledage and Charger 500 *thingamajig* (i.e., the
Chargers w/ the flush grill and fill-in rear window. The ones they built for
NASCAR, but NOT the Superbirds). By moving the grill out to the level of the
front fenders (but not changing the vertical angle of the grill) Ford was
able to pick up some mph on the race-track. Seems like metal screen could
do the same thing, but I don't know for sure...


>> 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 ...
*******************
>>>snipoooo<<<<<

Cool. Thanks for the info.

>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 ...
**************

I reread a Chrysl*r article on mpg gains last night. They claimed
weight reductions of under 100 lbs would be unnoticeable for mpg, but
didn't have any tables or figures to show the relationship between weight and
mpg...

>> 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...

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:56:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "D. DiMartino" yahoo.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - antique licence plates/ no tech insp

something i have looked into are antique plates for my '68.
here in maine i can put the plates on my truck for 16 dollars.
but there are some retrictions, like limiting driving less than
5k miles a year which will be designated as a non primary
vehicle, and it must be 25 years old. if a cop sees you driving
it to work everyday he could raise a stink. i think this will
suit my driving needs, but something else made it unique: no
technical inspection required. this little loophole will most
doubtly vary from state to state, but if you aren't using your
old truck as a daily driver, and do limit yourself to weekend
dump runs, camping trips ect. it may be something to look into.
next spring my truck will be sporting "Antique Auto" plates!



=====
Daniel DiMartino
yahoo.com>
1968 F-250 soon to be a 4x4
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://im.yahoo.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:33:50 -0500
From: "Peters, Gary (G.R.)" visteon.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - TGIF and new parts....

Well, looks like I'm not the only one with a 3 day weekend coming up, eh?
Just got off the phone with Tom's Bronco Parts and my credit card had tears
in it's eyes when I hung up the phone.....Not really but I ordered a
complete rebuild kit for the Np-435 including all the syncros and seals and
bearings for about $300 with shipping. No one else seemed to have a kit and
some didn't even have the parts. Jeff's bronco graveyard doesn't even deal
with Np-435's except to sell them as used or rebuilt items. His "used" but
not rebuilt price was pretty decent though at $225 where Tom's "rebuilt"
price was $450 as I recal from a previous discussion with him.

Finally got to talk with Tom's tech guy and he said you can get some realy
serious input and output shafts for this tranny but you also have to have
the correct crank for the pilot to fit so for those who want more beef but
don't want the hassel of finding another tranny there's an option. Get the
FT crank and the large input shaft and you got a dump truck tranny :-)

Think I'll get started this weekend tearing it down and cleaning it up with
my new parts washer. Give it a maiden voyage so to speak. The tech guy at
Tom's said there were some shims and other spacers in there which controlled
certain clearances and pointed out that these measurements were pretty
important so maybe this is where some of us are getting into trouble with
our "rebuilt" units that someone else put together. I should have some new
data for Y'all on Tuesday :-) Might even get some sheet metal work done on
it.

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:19:44 +0000
From: "Eric" scican.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Gas mileage (MPG Thread)

==========
I've been watching this thread with interest, as I am
currently frame-offing my truck in anticipation of it being my daily
driver.... so I'm interested in bumping up its MPG.

> > 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 ...

This description sounds like some logical data, I guess, but I *CAN*
tell you that with my wife's '93 Ranger, we *gained* 4 MPG since the
day I installed the ProNet on the bed (obviously with gate removed).
Most of this driving is highway and has been recorded over a couple
of years - so I think my data is pretty substantiated with this
truck.

I also gained a couple of MPG with my Unibody when I drove
it from Colorado to Indiana with the tailgate down - but I only had
about 2 fillups with it up and another 6 or so with the gate down
to base those numbers on. That's why I think it does make some type
of difference with the gate up or down.

I think another factor on just how much of a difference the gate up
or down is the truck's engine and gearing factors.... Obviously, a
small engined, low torque engine is going to suffer from
*any* resistance (tire, wind, bearings, etc) than a larger,
torque-ier (hojo) engine when cruising down the highway.

As with any scientific experiment, we have to have some comparison
controls and also compare the apples trucks to other apple trucks,
or so to speak (Wow! that second hojo term just popped out! -
honest!)

Well, interesting discussion, none the less.
Later,
Eric 'Stitch'
=============================
"Happy Days"
1961 F100 Unibody Pick'em up Truck
w/'59 292 Y-block
=============================
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:19:37 -0600
From: "John LaGrone" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - mongrel 62

>>...In what category of
discussion would we put a '62 Ford Truck with a 500 cubic inch Cadillac
engine...<<

Dennis, you know that is my secret dream, except I want one in a 79 F150.
Send me your Cadillac questions off list, I'll try to help. Anyone else who
wants to listen in, send me an e-mail indicating so.

- -- John
jlagrone ford-trucks.com <]:-) <]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)
1979 F150 Custom, Long Wide Bed, Regular Cab, 351M, C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:36:46 -0500
From: "Brad Smith" mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: : FTE 61-79 - Spontaneous Truck Combustion

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Peters, Gary (G.R.) visteon.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 11:51 AM
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?

No - It's called brake fade, the two surfaces actually become like a
lubricnt to one another after a certain temperature....The thing to do in
that circumstance is throw it into neutral, and let the motor blow if you
can't get it stopped... Make the manufacturer pay for the new motor!!!

Brad


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 14:59:28 -0800
From: "A Bernal" hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Gas mileage

Question:
More or less how much mpg can I expect to get from my 77' 4x4 390cid
shortbed, f-100? (stock)

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:24:40 EST
From: DWeaver232 aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: intank fuel pumps

The intank fuel pump is needed to help prevent the high pressure pump from
burning out. Some vega's (really bad) word came with an in tank pump. Try
checking foreign cars in the yards. I kn ow that most BMWs came with the in
tank pump and you may be able to adapt one of those to your fuel tank pickup.
In fact most of the pumps are all pretty much the same, and about the same in
price $150. But the vega pump has been used and runs under $50 I think.

Terry Weaver
78 F350 SC 460
and jeeps and bimmers
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:54:12 EST
From: TBeeee aol.com
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Re: FTE List

Just in case anyone should notice, I will be away for an extended period due
to a death in my family. I will miss the list while I'm gone. So long for
now. Peace.

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:08:30 -0800 (PST)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Mongrel '62

At 09:20 AM 14:1:00 -0500, Ken Payne wrote:
>At 07:02 AM 1/13/00 -0800, you wrote:
>> 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...
>
>This is exactly what our performance/hot rodding list
>was started for.

If it wern't for Cadillac, Henry couldn't have built an assembly line,
and any cars for that matter....

Cadillac basically invented the idea of "spec" components, where
you could take parts from one car and install them on other cars.
Colt used the idea first, but you can't get anywhere in a handgun.
If it weren't for Caddy, there wouldn't be an interchange.....

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:08:33 -0800 (PST)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: Re: FTE 61-79 - Air damn

At 09:47 AM 14:1:00 -0500, am14 daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>Wish writes: >> 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 ?<<
>
>Wouldn't this be the same principle as the large air deflector you see on
>top of the cabs or large over the road tractor-trailers??? I've heard or
>read someplace that this was a significant factor in helping them to
>maintain speed as well as increase fuel effeciency.

Our delivery truck has a deflector installed on the box.(24' 32000lb
International) It gets 8mpg, up from 7mpg. Quite an improvement
when you consider it goes 6000miles a month....

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:08:35 -0800 (PST)
From: canzus seanet.com
Subject: RE: FTE 61-79 - RE:Project justification, Passions....(notice the subject change :-))

At 09:24 AM 14:1:00 -0500, Peters, Gary (G.R.) wrote:
>Uuuuuuh, this seems a little cold doesn't it? Don't know exactly how to
>rephrase this but the fact is that a man will make more compromises to his
>"other" dreams for a woman with more "physical" virtues and if she also has
>other virtues then he becomes "henpecked" so the hobby then become less
>important or dies completely.

Sorry to leave all this stuff in, but seemed to me to be necessary..

>With my duties being expanded, to include many of the chores which were
>previously my wife's responsibility, working full time, and due to her
>condition, not having all the same benefits a normal relationship would have
>along with many more interruptions when I DO try to do anything due to her
>needs, I find it necessary to have something I can do that is just for me,
>to fullfill my "other" dream I've always had etc. and replace some of the
>things now missing from my life so my hobby takes on a much larger role in
>my life. In this way I am able to care for her without feeling burdened. I
>guess you could say she recognizes this need and I recognize her need to be
>loved and cherished in spite of her situation. It's a matter of balance and
>as humans we all get out of balace sometimes but I thought long and hard on
>this and decided that it was a necessary investment for my peace of mind and
>now I am working on fixing up the house for "her" peace of mind but in this
>one, important, case my needs did come first :-)

My bride of 14+ years used to get upset with me because I spent so
much time in the garage. So I bought her a pair of insulated coveralls.
Sitting around the house ain't in my make-up. neither is watching TV.
I'm a bit of a squirrel, I can't sit still for too long. Most of the people
we know understand this, so if I have to get up and do something,
they understand.

But when I gave her the coveralls, she got the clue, "Try spending
some time with me"

>My passion for building that one, perfect, unstoppable truck that perfectly
>reflects my personality is easily as strong as any passion I have ever had
>for any woman but due to family responsibilities this passion is being
>fullfilled very slowly. Without the lift, at this point in my life, with
>joints beginning to hurt, eyesight going away, energy waning etc. I would
>probably give it up. It really boils down to that. Being able to put my
>work at a level which is comfortable for me to work on it and convenient as
>well brings back a level of enjoyment to my hobby that's hard to describe
>but in my case I have to say that all the hardships and misunderstandings
>over this project were worth it :-) Now that I have what I want and have
>spent the money at the most opportune time in the scheme of things it is
>time to begin bestowing some of my lifes blessings on my wife :-) In my
>case many of the projects priorities were set by need or timing rather than
>money, this was one of them :-) Wives don't always understand this but she
>enjoys having the barn around too, it just wasn't on the top of her list :-)
>Sometimes being a good husband is a little like being a good officer, you
>have to make decisions that not everyone agrees with and hope that your
>decisions eventually become vindicated :-)
>

You've got ten + years on me, but I think we're close to the same age,
in our wants and needs anyway.....

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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 19:37:17 -0800
From: "S.Harkema" ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - Scary

Gary wrote:
>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.

What scares me is that sometimes I see the same picture as Gary :)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 21:55:21 -0600
From: "Michael Miller" netzero.net>
Subject: FTE 61-79 - fuel pump on 69 w/6 cyl.

I'll try to make this short as poss. I have a 69 F-100 w/300 six cyl.
Possible fuel pump problems, parts store tried to sell me a fuel pump that
looks nothing like mine. I have a small newer style and they listed a biger....


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.