 |
|
|
|
|
|
Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:37:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:37:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server <listar  ford-trucks.com>
To: 61-79-list digest users <listar ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: 61-79-list Digest V2000 #202 Precedence: list ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979 Truck Mailing List Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ 61-79-list Digest Fri, 18 Aug 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 202 In This Issue: Re: valvetrain upgrades for a 390? Re: need help with no headlights : removing body mounts on a 72 Re: Steering Swap Re: valvetrain upgrades for a 390? Re: Dana 70 rear? Re: Hi/lo Horns Re: Hi/lo Horns Re: 77 AC Max position Re: need help with no headlights M's, C's and W's. Re: need help with no headlights ADMIN: Tough Tales ADMIN: More... Retirement Generate into this Bronco II Vacation Re: M's, C's and W's. Re: Bronco II Re: Bronco II Re: M's, C's and W's. Re: M's, C's and W's. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tim and Pam Allgire" <tim-pam williams-net.com>
Subject: Re: valvetrain upgrades for a 390? Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:10:34 -0400 Contact Ford Motorsports (or whatever they call themselves now) or Dove Manufacturing. They will be able to set you up with some roller rockers. -----Original Message----- From: wish <wish ford-trucks.net>
To: perf-list ford-trucks.com <perf-list ford-trucks.com>;
61-79-list ford-trucks.com <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Date: Friday, August 18, 2000 10:51 AM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: valvetrain upgrades for a 390? >>What kind of valvetrain upgrades are available for a 390? Mine is all stock >now. Absolutely nothing wrong with it the way it is, but are there any upgrades >out there that will help me pick up some power? >> > >I was on the Carroll Shelby site (www.carrolshelby.com I think) and noticed >they had some nice new light weight roller rockers, they were VERY tempting, >but didn't see any pricing info on it yet ... might check with them, and if >you find out, lemme know :) > >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 > >Ford Truck Enthusiasts >http://www.ford-trucks.com >============================================================= >To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 >Please remove this footer when replying. > ------------------------------ From: "Tim and Pam Allgire" <tim-pam williams-net.com>
Subject: Re: need help with no headlights Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:28:59 -0400 I would wiggle the wires where they go into the plug on the back of the switch first. I had this same trouble with the tail lights on my '82 one time. some times they would work & other times they wouldn't. I found out which wires were loose & I unplugged the plug then I took needle nose pliers & bent (twisted ) the contact ever so slightly so it would make better with the female part of the plug & it worked great after that. If that doesn't work,then try another switch. -----Original Message----- From: Joe <shoman p3.net>
To: ford trucklist61-79 <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Date: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:45 PM Subject: [61-79-list] need help with no headlights >group, > >the 61 f-250 4x4 i'm looking at , has only 1 problem so far that i've >seen, when i pull on the headlights, the amber lights come on but no >headlights...bulbs are good... >where should i start for fixing???headlight switch???? >joe > >============================================================= >To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 >Please remove this footer when replying. > ------------------------------ From: "Pat" <patsplace aisl.bc.ca>
Subject: : removing body mounts on a 72 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 22:42:48 -0700 Howdy, I've never taken the body mounts or stand-off's from a '72 frame but I just took some off both 78 and 79 frames. Grind the rivets flush with the frame and use a 1/4 or 3/8 punch and drive them out. I redrilled the holes to 1/2" and am bolting it together.Not much to it. Yup, take all the good bits and pieces. Murphy does say in the great book of Murphy that: "What ever ye shall leave when ye send the mortal remains to the scrap yard, so shall ye need that exact thing" Pat. Patsplace 77 F250 4X4 78 F150 W/Overloads 72 Ranger parts truck 79 F250 4X4 (Dream Truck Under Construction) Anybody know how to remove the body mounts off of the frame? I would reallyh like to keep the set that are the 72 I stripped out, as they are in better shape than the mounts on my 70.... Michael Kaczmar Detroit, MI ------------------------------ From: "John Webster" <jwebster primeline.net>
Subject: Re: Steering Swap Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 06:34:45 -0400 Thanks to everyone for the input on the '77 to '78 steering swap. Everything was available but the pitman arm, obsolete item as the dealer said. So it looks like a call to LMC and a river of tears when I see the exchange rate. Otherwise I should be out pounding the snot out of the old girl soon. Just got back my older Holley aluminum valve covers, I was tired of always trying to keep up the clear coat so I had them ceramic coated. Looks good, I'll let everyone know if it holds up well after a winter up here. John '77 F150 4X4 460/C6/4:11's/33's ------------------------------ From: "Ted and Sarah Freeman" <oldparts ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: valvetrain upgrades for a 390? Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:34:43 -0400 I have a set from Comp Cams. Ran about $300 for new shafts and the rockers. These don't come with the iron stanchions or reinforced ends, but I don't ever intend on turning that kind of RPM to need the support. Comp Cams does sell one for all out racing but comes at a $800 price tag. -Ted > > >>>What kind of valvetrain upgrades are available for a 390? Mine is all >stock >>now. Absolutely nothing wrong with it the way it is, but are there any >upgrades >>out there that will help me pick up some power? >>> >> > >============================================================= >To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 >Please remove this footer when replying. > ------------------------------ From: FORDTRKNUT aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:42:17 EDT Subject: Re: Dana 70 rear? I will have to pass on the Van rear because I really don't want to swap used gears. I just thought that someone had a complete rear laying around. A local drag racer setup the 4:88's in my 1979 Bronco (Dana 60 Rear, Dana 44 Front) for $125.00 per rear. I'll purchase a new set as soon as I road test the truck. Thanks Again Girls & Guys!!! Wayne Grabley ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:10:03 -0400 From: David Wadson <wadsond air.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Hi/lo Horns >There was a dual horn option which used a hi and a lo horn. I think it >sounds quite excellent and two 'horns' are better than one. I agree on the sound...much nice and fuller across the tonal range. :-) However, I've noticed that some trucks have 2 lo horns and you have to scrounge around a bit to find a hi tone horn. Was there a reason for this or have people been modifying their horn setup? David Wadson - wadsond air.on.ca
"PS1" - 79 F100 ...ground into a million pieces. "PS2" - 78 F100 ...currently alive and kicking. "PS3" - 79 F150 4x4 ...now what have I gotten myself into... Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------ From: TBeeee aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:08:36 EDT Subject: Re: Hi/lo Horns I suspect someone added a second horn without realizing. I can recall doing that myself once upon a time and the resulting sound was kinda flat. Stock Man http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hometown.aol.com/tbeeee In a message dated 8/19/2000 9:06:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wadsond air.on.ca writes:
> I agree on the sound...much nice and fuller across the tonal range. :-) > However, I've noticed that some trucks have 2 lo horns and you have to > scrounge around a bit to find a hi tone horn. Was there a reason for this > or have people been modifying their horn setup? ------------------------------ From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:53:44 EDT Subject: Re: 77 AC Max position I'll need to check out my 79 Bronco. I Know that there is no detent on the temp control lever. Hasent been one there int he last 16 years anyway. As for the doors working and recirculating, well, I havent been using he air much in mine and it no longer works well (tepid but not cold air, not bad for never having a recharge!), so I havent paid much attention to them. My Bronco just plain has allot of volume to cool down weather it be in Tx (where I got it) or down here in Fl (where it & I are now). It doesnt make sense to engauge the air unless Im making a trip with some length to it. Now, Im thinking about getting the rear AC unit from a econoline van (like my 92 has) and using in the rear to help out. anyway, she's still mine and I love it! George M in FL. In a message dated 8/18/2000 1:40:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jlagrone ford-trucks.com writes:
<< The recirculate position on my 79 factory unit is engaged when you push the Temperature control lever fully to the left. There is a detent there to let you know when you take it out of recirculate into fresh air mode. I am not one hundred percent familiar with the doors, but I believe the door just below the glove box opens up on recirculate and closes in fresh air. Someone else will have to take over from here. >> ------------------------------ From: GMontgo930 aol.com
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:02:52 EDT Subject: Re: need help with no headlights Check the Dash Switch, Floor Switch and the witing inbetweed all. The dash swiitch has a seperate CB for teh headlamps. The floor switch selects the beams (high and low). So if all are dead, teh most common point would be the dash switch. George M in Fl. In a message dated 8/18/2000 6:39:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, shoman p3.net
writes: << he 61 f-250 4x4 i'm looking at , has only 1 problem so far that i've seen, when i pull on the headlights, the amber lights come on but no headlights...bulbs are good... where should i start for fixing???headlight switch???? >> ------------------------------ From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
Subject: M's, C's and W's. Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:25:38 +1000 I may be repeating what has already been said, but quoting a paragraph from Ford Performance by Pat Ganahl: Another Ford engine that you have probably heard very little about, but rightfully belongs to the same family (Cleveland), is the 351-M. The "M" stands for Modified - but not in the way most performance enthusiasts use the term. After production ceased on the 351 Cleveland, apparently the Windsor plant was unable to keep up with the customer demand for an engine of this displacement, so the Ford engineers "modified" the 400 by installing the 351-W crankshaft into the 400 block. This gives a 351 cubic inch engine with approx. 1 inch taller decks than the cleveland, and what must be very long connecting rods or very tall pistons (we haven't seen inside a 351M). The engine uses the same intake manifold as the 400, of only which a 2 bbl has been offered. The 351-M has been in production since 1975. The book also has a cronology of Ford engines 1958-78 is anyone is interested. John Watson ' 81 351C C6 Aussie Bronco with a big thirst. ------------------------------ From: sparky2a home.com
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:53:10 -0700 Subject: Re: need help with no headlights Check for power and ground at the headlight connector, no power and it could be a dead hi/lo beam switch. The connector should have 3 pins, 1 lo beam power, 1 hi beam power and 1 ground. Cant remember the color code off the top of my head, seem to vaguely recall black ground, green hi and yellow lo but that is just a guess. However the pin on the bottom is the ground and the hi/lo pins are next to each other above it. Then move back to the hi/lo beam switch and check for power going in and out of it. No power in move back to the headlight switch and check again. I just realized we are talking 61 f250 and I am not to familiar with the the 60's trucks. They do have hi/lo beam switches dont they? Are the headlights on a different fuse then the amber running lights? Maybe it is just a blown fuse. Sparky 73 F250 3?0FE 4x4 definitely not a 351 M W or C :) > Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:31:09 -0400 > From: Joe <shoman p3.net>
> Subject: need help with no headlights > > group, > > the 61 f-250 4x4 i'm looking at , has only 1 problem so far that i've > seen, when i pull on the headlights, the amber lights come on but no > headlights...bulbs are good... > where should i start for fixing???headlight switch???? > joe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:35:14 -0400 From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: Tough Tales Ford Truck Enthusiasts is pleased to offer "Tough Tales - Stories by Owners and Fans of Ford F-Series Trucks" Editor Judy Scott captures the spirit of die hard Ford truck owners with this collection of stories, many from our web site users. Side splitting funny tales, tough adventures, memories of days gone by and touching father/son stories. This is a must have book for any serious Ford truck owner! Not only does it tell good stories, you'll also get to know some of the site users on a more personal level. Through a special arrangement with Judy and her publisher, we're offering the books at 25% off. You can purchase the book online in our web store: <a href="http://www.ford-trucks.com/">www.ford-trucks.com</a> Click on the Online Store link in the upper right hand side of the browser screen. Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts http://www.ford-trucks.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:37:42 -0400 From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: More... Forgot to mention... the book is in the Apparel and Gifts section of the store. Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts http://www.ford-trucks.com ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Retirement Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:44:32 -0500 Gary writes: >>How's that retirement coming along bud?<< Couldn't be better.. It is everything it is hyped up to be and maybe more. I'm in L O V E with it. Good to hear from you. As you can tell I;'m about 10 days behind but I'll eventually catch up. Congrats on your upcoming retirement. Hope you enjoy it as I do. Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Generate into this Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:48:25 -0500 John LaG. writes: >>How did Flareside vs stepside ever degenerate into this?)<< I threw a punch at Tony M in a very Jokingly manner and it all turned into this.. Sorry about that. Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Bronco II Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:54:27 -0500 Does the Bronco II and the Rangers of same years share drive trains?? Are any of the front body parts interchangeable as with the F series and Fullsize Broncos of same years?? Are the gearboxes and transfer cases strong enough to accept a stock 351W's torque?? I'm looking at an '87 BII 4X4 with V6. What is the cuin of the V6 and is it a reliable eng. ?? I haven't opened the hood yet. (didn't want to show too much interest) Is it EFI?? or Carb?? Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Vacation Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:58:17 -0500 Gary writes: >>How the heck does a retired guy go on vacation.........he's already on vacation :-)<< But I vacated in a different spot with all my family. Everyone of them. Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:46:36 -0700 Yes you are repeating and as Dave R pointed out the 351W and 351M crankshafts are 2 different animals. A 351M is absolutely NOT a 400 with a 351W crankshaft in it so whatever Mr Ganahl and/or his research staff was smoking that day must have been some good stuff. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 3:25 AM Subject: [61-79-list] M's, C's and W's. > I may be repeating what has already been said, but quoting a paragraph from > Ford Performance by Pat Ganahl: > > Another Ford engine that you have probably heard very little about, but > rightfully belongs to the same family (Cleveland), is the 351-M. The "M" > stands for Modified - but not in the way most performance enthusiasts use > the term. After production ceased on the 351 Cleveland, apparently the > Windsor plant was unable to keep up with the customer demand for an engine > of this displacement, so the Ford engineers "modified" the 400 by installing > the 351-W crankshaft into the 400 block. > This gives a 351 cubic inch engine with approx. 1 inch taller decks than the > cleveland, and what must be very long connecting rods or very tall pistons > (we haven't seen inside a 351M). The engine uses the same intake manifold > as the 400, of only which a 2 bbl has been offered. The 351-M has been in > production since 1975. > > > The book also has a cronology of Ford engines 1958-78 is anyone is > interested. ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: Bronco II Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 17:48:31 -0700 Bronco II's and Rangers share drivetrain parts. The front clips are interchangeable. I don't think the drivetrain would hold up well to a 351. The later ones used an 8.8 in the rear (same as the mustang and full size pickups) and a Dana 35 in the front. The 87 should have an EFI 2.9, a couple of options with transmissions, BW13-45 transfer case, 7.5" in the rear, and a Dana 28 in the front. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke E4OD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
To: <perf-list ford-trucks.com>; <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 1:54 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Bronco II > > Does the Bronco II and the Rangers of same years share drive trains?? > Are any of the front body parts interchangeable as with the F series and > Fullsize Broncos of same years?? > Are the gearboxes and transfer cases strong enough to accept a stock 351W's torque?? > I'm looking at an '87 BII 4X4 with V6. What is the cuin of the V6 and is it a reliable eng. ?? > I haven't opened the hood yet. (didn't want to show too much interest) Is it EFI?? or Carb?? > > Azie Magnusson > Ardmore, Al. > > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:19:00 -0500 From: Stu Varner <nukegm ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: Bronco II >> I'm looking at an '87 BII 4X4 with V6. What is the cuin of the V6 and is >it a reliable eng. ?? >> I haven't opened the hood yet. (didn't want to show too much interest) Is >it EFI?? or Carb?? Azie, The Bronco/truck V-6 cylinder heads were notorious for cracking due to poor casting. Go to a boneyard today and see if you can find a good set......it's doubtful you will find any. Everyone else has already bought them to repair their engines. 87 models "should" be fuel injected as I don't remember hearing of any 87 and newer light duty Fords coming with carbs........Things are very foggy for me anymore so I may be telling a lie on this issue.....anyone else?? Glad to see you were not "lunch" for a shark while at the Gulf. Email me off list when you get ready to head to West Tennessee. 8^) Stu Nuke GM! http://www.ford-trucks.com/~nukegm (IT IS FOR SALE!!) ------------------------------ From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:07:17 -0700 Um...no...he didn't. Re-read the post, it says the 400 was "modified" by installing a 351W crankshaft which isn't case... "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Cc: <bbeyer99 home.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > He did say the 351W crank was modified. > > > John > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
> To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 7:46 AM > Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > > > > Yes you are repeating and as Dave R pointed out the 351W and 351M > > crankshafts are 2 different animals. A 351M is absolutely NOT a 400 with a > > 351W crankshaft in it so whatever Mr Ganahl and/or his research staff was > > smoking that day must have been some good stuff. > > > > "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
> > To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 3:25 AM > > Subject: [61-79-list] M's, C's and W's. > > > > > > > I may be repeating what has already been said, but quoting a paragraph > > from > > > Ford Performance by Pat Ganahl: > > > > > > Another Ford engine that you have probably heard very little about, but > > > rightfully belongs to the same family (Cleveland), is the 351-M. The "M" > > > stands for Modified - but not in the way most performance enthusiasts > use > > > the term. After production ceased on the 351 Cleveland, apparently the > > > Windsor plant was unable to keep up with the customer demand for an > engine > > > of this displacement, so the Ford engineers "modified" the 400 by > > installing > > > the 351-W crankshaft into the 400 block. > > > This gives a 351 cubic inch engine with approx. 1 inch taller decks than > > the > > > cleveland, and what must be very long connecting rods or very tall > pistons > > > (we haven't seen inside a 351M). The engine uses the same intake > manifold > > > as the 400, of only which a 2 bbl has been offered. The 351-M has been > in > > > production since 1975. > > > ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:45:01 -0700 I think we all realize that the M cranks were based off of the 351W design (Large journal, 28 oz internal balance) The main difference between the 2 is the crank snout dimensions. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke E4OD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
To: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
Cc: "61-79 List" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 7:07 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > Um...no...he didn't. Re-read the post, it says the 400 was "modified" by > installing a 351W crankshaft which isn't case... > > "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
> To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> Cc: <bbeyer99 home.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 7:01 PM > Subject: Re: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > > > > He did say the 351W crank was modified. > > > > > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
> > To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 7:46 AM > > Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > > > > > > > Yes you are repeating and as Dave R pointed out the 351W and 351M > > > crankshafts are 2 different animals. A 351M is absolutely NOT a 400 with > a > > > 351W crankshaft in it so whatever Mr Ganahl and/or his research staff > was > > > smoking that day must have been some good stuff. > > > > > > "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
> > > To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 3:25 AM > > > Subject: [61-79-list] M's, C's and W's. > > > > > > > > > > I may be repeating what has already been said, but quoting a paragraph > > > from > > > > Ford Performance by Pat Ganahl: > > > > > > > > Another Ford engine that you have probably heard very little about, > but > > > > rightfully belongs to the same family (Cleveland), is the 351-M. The > "M" > > > > stands for Modified - but not in the way most performance enthusiasts > > use > > > > the term. After production ceased on the 351 Cleveland, apparently the > > > > Windsor plant was unable to keep up with the customer demand for an > > engine > > > > of this displacement, so the Ford engineers "modified" the 400 by > > > installing > > > > the 351-W crankshaft into the 400 block. > > > > This gives a 351 cubic inch engine with approx. 1 inch taller decks > than > > > the > > > > cleveland, and what must be very long connecting rods or very tall > > pistons > > > > (we haven't seen inside a 351M). The engine uses the same intake > > manifold > > > > as the 400, of only which a 2 bbl has been offered. The 351-M has been > > in .... 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 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. 
|