Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:29:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:29:17 -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 #205
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 Mon, 21 Aug 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 205

In This Issue:
Re: M's, C's and W's.
Re: Stroker W's
unusual truck configuration ?
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Electrical Drain
Re: M's, C's and W's.
Re: M's, C's and W's.
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Stroked 351W
Re: Engine
360-390/Oil pressure loss
Re: Engine
Re: FE cam bearings and oiling
Re: Engine
Re: FE cam bearings and oiling
Re: Engine
Re: Thanks Tom!
Re: Engine
Re: M's, C's and W's.
Re: Engine
Re: Engine
Re: Engine

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:50:53 -0500
From: John Strauss <jstrauss inetport.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's.

(snip)

>Since Mr Ganahl's assertion that
>the 351W crank was simply slapped into a 400 block to make the 351M is
>incorrect it is highly likely that  his assertion that the M means modified
>is also incorrect. I have done lengthy research on the subject,  including
>emailing the former webmaster of the Ford V-8 Engine Workshop, Bill Lewis, a
>man who has done more work with Ford V-8s than anyone I've ever met. His
>response was:
>
I have to disagree with that.  If we just had no earthly idea what the M
stood for, I could go along with you.  But Mr. Ganahl's version is the same
as a lot of other folks on this list, folks I agree with.  So I don't think
because he said one thing that is patently wrong means that M does not
stand for Modified.

Nobody can be wrong ALL the time - even a broken clock is right twice a day.
  _
_| ~~.  John Strauss
\, *_}  jstrauss inetport.com
  \(    Texas Fight!


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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Stroker W's
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:56:40 -0400

ford motor sports has a stroker kit now for about 1500.00 or so
gordon


>
> Dave Prasse writes:  >>There is a company making stroker Windsors using
400 cranks.<<
>
> Tell me who/where this Co is, please!!!
>
>
> Azie Magnusson
> Ardmore, Al.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
>


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

From: "Serian" <serian mailandnews.com>
Subject: unusual truck configuration ?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:58:01 -0400


> Hold the phone. My (Henry's) dipstick goes in the
> front timing cover, not the side of the oil pan. Ford
> replaced the engine at about 6000 miles.
> ???????

Hey John, did you get Henry new ?
All the repair manuals that I have seen for the
78-79 trucks indicate that the "down the side"
dipstick is the way Ford went for trucks. The
parts places around here show that config for
a truck, too.  I don't doubt that Ford did some
pretty funny things outside what they published
"officially", but it does ofttimes makes it hard to
get the counter guys at the parts stores to get
the right one.
Other than the oil pan, pump pickup, and dipstick
tube, internally a 351M is a 351M regardless of
where it is destined to go.  The "truck" style pans
were made to clear that "under the engine" frame
piece (I know they are there ... got a '76 in my yard
too :-P).  I like the setup that has the front frame
cross piece located directly under where the fan is
and no under the engine crosspiece, with just two
little brackets to hold the engine ... a lot more
flexibility in what you can put in with less effort that
way.
I'll have to take a closer look at the late 70's F-series
to see if this is a common occurrence, and confirm
whether or not there is a BIG omission in my repair
manuals !




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

From: "Hogan, Tom" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:58:36 -0700


> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, John LaGrone wrote:
>
> > I'll get this one started. The 390 and 360 are basically
> the same engine.
> > They are so similar that you can't tell them apart on the
> outside. The
> > stroke is different. There are a few internal parts that
> you swap from a 360
> > for 390 parts (I think pistons and rods, and maybe crank?
> Someone will fill
> > in the details.)

<snip>

> if the 360 has a shorter stroke than the 390, the crank will
> not swap.  at
> least, not without some, er...modifications. ;-)
>
> sorry.
>
> scott
>

No modification necessary.  Different rods and pistons, yes but the 390
crank will drop right in no problem.  Actually the block will take a 427 or
a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck
might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.)

Tom H.

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

From: "Hogan, Tom" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:58:37 -0700


<snip>
> Someone else mentioned a high compression 360 and I'm not
> sure if you can get
> pistons for such a beast, but that would be my route too,
> except that I found
> a deal on a 390 that made it just as viable as a 360 rebuild,
> so I decided on
> the bigger is better, cammed it and beefed the compression
> ratio up (a bit too
> far I might add) ... I've always thought about building a
> high compression high
> revving 360 ... hmm, we just picked up an 88 mustang 4cyl
> parts car ... I could
> scrounge up a C6 .. ;)
><snip>

Wish, what compression are you running?  How bad does it ping?  What rear
end gear/tranny combo?  How is your gas mileage or lack thereof?

Reason I ask the 20 (30?) questions is that I've heard that higher
compression engines are more efficient and have been considering this myself
(after home remodling of course).  I was hoping to get some input from
someone who is there.

Tom H.

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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:04:54 -0400

the 390 piston is notched for rod
> clearance.
Darrell&Tweety
=============================================================
i have 2 360s with the notched rods in them that are OEM so Some mustve came
with them at least they also are notched or butterflied on the tops as well
for valve clearence
gordon


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

From: "Serian" <serian mailandnews.com>
Subject: Re: Electrical Drain
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:10:30 -0400


>>> I have run into a problem, however-  my truck (71 f250
>>> recently rebuilt 360, c6)
>>> has a slow electrical drain such that if i dont run it
>>> regularly (i.e. if it
>>> sits for 5-7 days) the battery runs dead.
>>> It is a brand new battery.
>>
>> Voltage Regulator or hung brake light switch
>> due to non-returning brake
>> pedal or under hood light that doesn't turn off.....
>> ever try to see if a
>> refrigerator light goes out..........:-)
>
> What do you think about shorted field coil in
> the alternator?

Wouldn't the lack of a field magnet in the alternator
due to a shorted field coil make it not charge the
battery though ?  It might be ... several parts stores
will test your alternator, starter, etc. for free, so
it is certainly worth having it tested.

> Also, I'd try a different battery, regardless of the
> age of the battery.
> Actually, you might eliminate the battery as a
> problem by disconnecting it for the typical go
> dead time and see if it goes dead just sitting
> in the truck.

A brand new battery shouldn't be doing that
though ... I suppose it is possible, but not very
likely.

Had the same problem on my '79 bronco ...
A bad voltage regulator was the culprit.  These
are inexpensive units, so I would be inclined to
try a new regulator first if the alternator tests
good.



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

From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's.
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:20:47 -0700

Look I'm not trying to impugn the knowledge of anyone on this list...M could
very well stand for modified but I'll match Tom Monroe, Bill Lewis and Dave
Resch up against Pat Ganahl and whoever else you can find anytime. There's 3
guys who have a TON of knowledge about both Ford V-8s and the 335 series in
particular who say that M does NOT mean modified. Ganahl even says he's
never seen the inside of a 351M so how much knowledge about them can he
possibly have?

The consensus of the list is that everyone is tired of this thread and it
really doesn't make much difference what the hell M really means. My
personal preference is to take whatever 351M I find and do an "emonectomy",
remove the M and make it a 400 so I don't have to worry about people asking
"What does M stand for anyway?"

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Strauss" <jstrauss inetport.com>
To: "Ford Trucks List" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 1:50 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's.


> (snip)
> I have to disagree with that.  If we just had no earthly idea what the M
> stood for, I could go along with you.  But Mr. Ganahl's version is the
same
> as a lot of other folks on this list, folks I agree with.  So I don't
think
> because he said one thing that is patently wrong means that M does not
> stand for Modified.




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

From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's.
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:24:13 -0700

Look I'm not trying to impugn the knowledge of anyone on this list...M could
very well stand for modified but I'll match Tom Monroe, Bill Lewis and Dave
Resch up against Pat Ganahl and whoever else you can find anytime. There's 3
guys who have a TON of knowledge about both Ford V-8s and the 335 series in
particular who say that M does NOT mean modified. Ganahl even says he's
never seen the inside of a 351M so how much knowledge about them can he
possibly have?

The consensus of the list is that everyone is tired of this thread and it
really doesn't make much difference what the hell M really means. My
personal preference is to take whatever 351M I find and do an "emonectomy",
remove the M and make it a 400 so I don't have to worry about people asking
"What does M stand for anyway?"

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Strauss" <jstrauss inetport.com>
To: "Ford Trucks List" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 1:50 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's.


> (snip)
> I have to disagree with that.  If we just had no earthly idea what the M
> stood for, I could go along with you.  But Mr. Ganahl's version is the
same
> as a lot of other folks on this list, folks I agree with.  So I don't
think
> because he said one thing that is patently wrong means that M does not
> stand for Modified.






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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Hall <sch8489 garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Engine

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Hogan, Tom wrote:

> > if the 360 has a shorter stroke than the 390, the crank will
> > not swap.  at
> > least, not without some, er...modifications. ;-)
> >
> > sorry.
> >
> > scott
> >
>
> No modification necessary.  Different rods and pistons, yes but the 390
> crank will drop right in no problem.  Actually the block will take a 427 or
> a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck
> might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.)

tom,

perhaps I said it wrong.  the crank will fit in the block, but if you put
the 360 crank in the 390 block, you get a 360, not a 390.  if you want the
360 crank to make your engine displace 390 c.i., you'll have to get
different rods, regrind the crank, maybe weld on more meat for longer
throws, if it can be done at all.

that is, if the difference between the 360 and 390 is the stroke.

scott


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

From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:53:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Engine



>the 390 piston is notched for rod
>> clearance.
>=============================================================
>i have 2 360s with the notched rods in them that are OEM so Some mustve came

>with them at least they also are notched or butterflied on the tops as well

>for valve clearence

Gordon, here's a question for you, if you have the pistons out can you check
the casting in the side near the wrist pin hole, I've got a beer that says you'll
find it to say 390 ... the pistons I pulled out of my 390 said 410 on them ...
Here's our take of what happened, Ford built some okay motors in the late 60's,
decent compression and all to haul loads and such.  The emissions police came
around and said you are running too much fuel and too polluting so clean it
up .. their answer was lower compression motors with different cams and such
in them, to save costs, Ford simply swapped the higher compression pistons they
already had and were making into smaller displacement motors where applicable
and the compression ratio fell as they wanted ...

That's just a theory, but the way things are shaping up for what people are
finding that holds.  My motor was a 76 390 when I tore it apart and found the
410 pistons, they'd stopped making the 410 nearly a decade earlier, so why would
they still be putting those pistons in "new" 390's ?

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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:53:00 -0500
From: "Howard Bottles" <Howard.Bottles austin.ppdi.com>
Subject: Re: Engine

360 rods are weak compared to 390 rods. Definately not HiPerf, just LoPerf for
LoCompression pickups.

Howardb

Scott Hall wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Hogan, Tom wrote:
>
> > > if the 360 has a shorter stroke than the 390, the crank will
> > > not swap.  at
> > > least, not without some, er...modifications. ;-)
> > >
> > > sorry.
> > >
> > > scott
> > >
> >
> > No modification necessary.  Different rods and pistons, yes but the 390
> > crank will drop right in no problem.  Actually the block will take a 427 or
> > a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck
> > might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.)
>
> tom,
>
> perhaps I said it wrong.  the crank will fit in the block, but if you put
> the 360 crank in the 390 block, you get a 360, not a 390.  if you want the
> 360 crank to make your engine displace 390 c.i., you'll have to get
> different rods, regrind the crank, maybe weld on more meat for longer
> throws, if it can be done at all.
>
> that is, if the difference between the 360 and 390 is the stroke.
>
> scott
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.


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

From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:03:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Engine


>Wish, what compression are you running?  How bad does it ping?

Isn't that the question of the century ... the machinist didn't tell me how
much he took off of the head or the block to get it flat, as a result I don't
know what the compression ratio is, I know I put 9.5:1 pistons in it, so its
a bit over that ... it pings pretty bad with a load and light acceleration,
but I backed it down to about 7° advance and it is much better.  I could
probably run 93 octane and boost it up, but i'm cheap that way.

Estimates on my final compression ratio are from 9.7:1 as high as 10.1:1 ...
its probably somewhere in that range.

> What rear
>end gear/tranny combo?

Its a C6 with 3.50 gears.

>  How is your gas mileage or lack thereof?
>

Its a 4x4 so mileage is never really an issue (I don't get any)

The old 360 was pretty tired and got 12 no matter what (even 30+ mph headwinds
or 800lb + loads) it would get 12 (well 11.9 in the headwind issue, and that
was at 55 (nearly floored) for 3.5 hours... I put a 4V on the 360 and mileage
was 10-12 depending on how lead footed I was, I never really checked it, but
it seemed about the same.  Same carb/intake on this 390 and its about 10mpg,
but the motor's finally gettin broke in and I haven't started driving it enough
to check the mileage this year.

>Reason I ask the 20 (30?) questions is that I've heard that higher
>compression engines are more efficient and have been considering this myself

>(after home remodling of course).  I was hoping to get some input from
>someone who is there.
>

I guess I'm there ... it would definitely be interesting to see what a high
compression 360 would do ...


Oh yeah John, there are LOTS of 360's around here, seems like every other 1/2ton
came with one, but just the one's that didn't come with 6's :)

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

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

From: Seventy4SCab aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:07:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Engine

FTEers,

I have been on the pre61 list for about 3 years now and have dabbled on this
list a few times. I have a question for any who can help! Is a $950 price tag
for a 74 Supercab with 360 and possibly C6 - small tear in passenger side
sheet metal under the side window even with the door rocker panel - a good
deal? I have a 40 mile round trip to work (gas mileage). It is a yellow and
white 2 tone. Please chime in soon as I might buy it tonight!

Glenn in TN
57 F100 -- in progress
74 F100 Supercab -- daily driver????

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

From: "Michael" <danger csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:41:04 -0700

> So you FE nuts, there's the question.....why not more 360's? Is power the
> ONLY reason?
~~~~~~~~~~

   Yes, more power is the only reason that I'm aware of. Why settle for a
mild mannered 360 2bbl (175hp 4000 RPM), when you could drop a 390 4bbl
(with headers of course) in its place. You can easily obtain an extra 125+
horsepower (even using hydraulic cam/lifter) with such a conversion, and
there is no real difference in MPG between the two engines. The FE big block
really comes alive if you use a 4bbl intake and headers which allow the
engine to breath better.

   It is real easy to convert a 352 or 360 into a 390 (all you need to do
is swap crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons). I've done this
conversion before in my 69 F250 and am VERY happy that I did.

Michael



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

From: Rubberducky23 webtv.net (Danny Ling)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:18:26 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Stroked 351W

A buddy of mine did a 351W buildup for his little Fox Body Mercury Capri
(drag car).
He said he had to have the crank turned in a lathe to get it to fit in
his 351W block (he still needed to to some grinding on the block also).
He also says they drilled the counterweights and added tungston to
regain true balance.  I'm not too sure if he had too, but he offset
ground the rod journals on the crank to use Chrysler rods. Doing so he
stroked it even further for a total displacement of 427 cid. Keith Black
makes pistons just for this buildup. They even have different part
numbers to match the length of rods you want to run (KB189 and KB261). I
can call him if you need more info.

Laters, Danny Ling


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

From: "Ted and Sarah Freeman" <oldparts ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:09:00 -0400

Hope you guys don't mind if I throw my .02 in.

>Gordon, here's a question for you, if you have the pistons out can you
check
>the casting in the side near the wrist pin hole, I've got a beer that says
you'll
>find it to say 390 ... the pistons I pulled out of my 390 said 410 on them
...


The 390 and 360 shared the same pin heights so in some cases the 390 pistons
were used in 360's.  The tin can style piston is mainly found on older
360's.  Later they went to the 390 and after that they started using the
surplus 410's to decrease compression.


The 352 and 360 share the crank and long rods (to me these are small and
weak) the bore was the difference.

The 360 and 390 share the piston.  The crank and rods are different.

The 390 shares rods with the 410, 406, 427 and 428 and shares the crank with
the 427 with the difference being the bore.

The 410 has the same bore as the 390, but has a 428 crank and rod.  The
pistons are unique to the 410 and later models of 390's.  The reason is the
wrist pin height is higher to keep the piston from smacking the head at TDC.
A standard 390 piston will pop out of the bore.

The 406 share the crank and rods with the 390 and 427 but has a shares a
bore size with the 428.  4.13 vs. 4.05 and 4.23 respectivly.

Of course the bad boy, the 427 has the largest bore as metioned above and
some came with steel cranks and most if not all were cross bolted.  It share
the same crank and rod deminsions as the 390.

The 428 has the longest crank throw of all and shares the crank with the 410
and share rods with the 390 and above.  It share a bore size with the 406.

Of course there are variations to all of the above.  Most of this I learned
while stroking my 360 to a 410 (which is STILL on the bench.
AAArrrrgggghhh)

I hope this helps some.  For my money, I'd make a 390 out of a 360.  Change
the crank and get a set of beefy rods, let her breath and don't worry about
it.  Same gas mileage (roughly) more power and torque.  A more solid bottom
end with the beefier rods.  The stock 360 rods look like tooth picks
compared to the 390's.

Anyway, again, I hope this helps some one.

-Ted


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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:46:57 -0700
From: scott <scott ford-trucks.com>
Subject: 360-390/Oil pressure loss

>>>I'm curious....I always
  read and see just 390 in trucks, but never any 360's.  I realize
the       longer stroke equals more torque, but with a decent rebuild
the 360 ought    to present some respectable torque numbers.

Used to have a 360 W//headers,duals and a 4 bbl.in my 76 and it ran very
well.No complaints.

>>> 390 out in the barn, but in questionable condition (it's not
   apart).

I pulled the 360 out and replaced it with a 390.Even fewer complaints
than the 360...
So, if I had a 390 in my barn and a 360 in my truck I would check
the condition of the engine in the barn and see what I had.
If the crank and rods are O.K. I would us the better of the two blocks
and build a 390.
BTW I noticed absolutely no difference in gas mileage between the 360
and 390.(And the 390 had a hotter cam)
A  high windin' 360 definitely sounds intriguing tho......


I may be going into my FE myself.I pulled the distributor out of the 428
and reinstalled it without engaging the oil pump properly.
(I know,I know..rookie mistake and I have been messing with FEs for 20
+ years, my butt still hurts from kicking myself)
Started engine and noticed 0 oil pressure.Pulled dist and reinstalled it
correctly and now I have good oil pressure but not as much as I had.
Went from 25-30 at idle to 10-15.Engine still runs fine and makes no
noise.
In the other FEs I have had 10-15 was the norm but...
I plan on tearing it down this winter,but in the mean time I gotta know
                     What did I hurt?

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

From: "Jason and Kathy" <kendrick mddc.com>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:48:29 -0500

Hey, Michael, if you're gonna stuff some 390 pistons in a 352 block, may I
recommend a good pair of safety glasses? A 352 block has a bore of 4.000,
and a 360/390 has a 4.050 bore. You'll need to bore your 352 block .050 over
before a 360/390 piston will fit in your 352 block. Just a safety short,
Jason

----- Original Message -----
Michael wrote:
>     It is real easy to convert a 352 or 360 into a 390 (all you need to do
> is swap crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons). I've done this
> conversion before in my 69 F250 and am VERY happy that I did.
>
> Michael



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

From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Re: FE cam bearings and oiling
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:08:55 -0500


If I remember correctly the cam bearings only have one oil hole.

---Garrett www.1966ford.com


 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Howard Bottles
 To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 11:48 AM
 Subject: [61-79-list] FE cam bearings and oiling



  Does anyone know if FE cam bearings have one or 2 oil holes? I am
 working on a 390 and am having lots of problems
  with it. It appears to me that the oiling path is as follows for a
 hydraulic lifter block, top oiler:

  oil pump, to top gallery, oils cam bearings, then down to mains. I had
 new cam bearings installed and they only have
  oil holes pointing to the top, but I can't figure out how the mains get
 oil.

 Thanks
 Howardb

 =============================================================
 To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
 Please remove this footer when replying.



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

From: "Hogan, Tom" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:20:47 -0700


>
>
> FTEers,
>
> I have been on the pre61 list for about 3 years now and have
> dabbled on this
> list a few times. I have a question for any who can help! Is
> a $950 price tag
> for a 74 Supercab with 360 and possibly C6 - small tear in
> passenger side
> sheet metal under the side window even with the door rocker
> panel - a good
> deal? I have a 40 mile round trip to work (gas mileage). It
> is a yellow and
> white 2 tone. Please chime in soon as I might buy it tonight!
>
> Glenn in TN

Glenn,
I have a '76 Supercab with a 390.  If the 74 has an automatic then it is a
C6.  Mine has a C6 and 3.00 rear gears.  I get 11-12 mpg on the highway.  I
would expect a 360 to get about the same.  Mine has dual tanks and has about
a 400 mile range.  I am very happy with my truck.  However I retired it from
daily driver status when I got my T-bird.  4 trips to town per tankfull vs
week and a half between fillups doesn't compare.  If  you are in a carpool
or are carrying something then the supercab can't be beat.  You will also
probably find the mileage the same or better than any new suv on the market
today.  $950 sounds good to me if the truck is sound.

Tom H.

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

From: "Jason and Kathy" <kendrick mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FE cam bearings and oiling
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:21:01 -0500

Steve Christ has pics of FE cam bearings in his book with two oil holes in
the bearings. Keep in mind, this also depends on how the block is set up.
For all I know, the bearings I looked at could have been from a 427 SOHC.
The caption didn't give any application.
Jason


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

From: "Michael" <danger csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:31:28 -0700

Ooops,.. Guess I could have phrased that differently. Silly me.

Michael


> Hey, Michael, if you're gonna stuff some 390 pistons in a 352 block, may I
> recommend a good pair of safety glasses? A 352 block has a bore of 4.000,
> and a 360/390 has a 4.050 bore. You'll need to bore your 352 block .050
over
> before a 360/390 piston will fit in your 352 block. Just a safety short,
> Jason
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>  Michael wrote:
> >     It is real easy to convert a 352 or 360 into a 390 (all you need to
do
> > is swap crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons). I've done this
> > conversion before in my 69 F250 and am VERY happy that I did.
> >
> > Michael




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

From: Seventy4SCab aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:32:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Thanks Tom!

Tom,

Thanks. I looked at a 72 Suburban today and the SCab is still on the 1st of
the list. Ford's paint has held up a lot better! Is your truck the one on the
PIC list?

Glenn in TN
57 F100 -- in progress
74 F100 Supercab -- daily driver????

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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:08:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Engine

In a message dated 8/21/00 1:59:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:

<<  Actually the block will take a 427 or
a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck
might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) >>

428 is a longer stoke than a 390, the 427 and 390 share a stroke length, but
the 427 got some HUGE pistons.

Darrell & Tweety

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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:10:27 EDT
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's.

In a message dated 8/21/00 2:21:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bbeyer99 home.com writes:

<<A lot of stuff snipped......>>

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

Isnt it about time to start poppin rounds??????

Darrell & Tweety

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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:15:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Engine

In a message dated 8/21/00 5:08:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
oldparts ford-trucks.com writes:

<< The 390 shares rods with the 410, 406, 427 and 428 and shares the crank
with
the 427 with the difference being the bore. >>

Shares the crank with the 406 too.

Darrell & Tweety

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

From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Re: Engine
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:16:13 -0500


Putting a 428 crank into a 390 makes a 410, a high compression super high torque motor.

If I would have know about that when I built my 390 I would have done it!

---Garrett www.1966ford.com
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
 To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
 Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 9:08 PM
 Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Engine


 In a message dated 8/21/00 1:59:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
 Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:

 <<  Actually the block will take a 427 or
  a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck
  might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) >>

 428 is a longer stoke than a 390, the 427 and 390 share a stroke length, but
 the 427 got some HUGE pistons.

 Darrell & Tweety



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

From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Engine

At 11:10 AM 21:08:2000 EST, Dave Emerick wrote:

>I've got a 390 out in the barn, but in questionable condition (it's not
>apart).  This engine was originally in a car, and I bought it in non-running ....


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.