61-79-list Digest V2000 #278

Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:34:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:34:04 -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 #278
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 Thu, 05 Oct 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 278

In This Issue:
Re: emissions control
Re: emissions control
Re: emissions control
Re: emissions control
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Pitman Arm
Re: Anodizing remover, source
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Re: K and N filters
Re: emissions control
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
460 Headers
Re: OEM tires
Re: paper air filters
Re: Stiff steering update
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
Re: paper air filters
FT trannie
Re: Pitman Arm
Re: emissions control

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:04:29 -0400
From: James Oxley <luxjo

thecore.com>
Subject: Re: emissions control

Randy Cannon wrote:
>
> I took my recently purchased '79 f-250 supercab w/460 for an emissions
> inspection today (required for registration). Tuns out the smog pump
> and etc. have been removed- which is an automatic FAIL.

What is GVWR and what state was truck originally from?

OX

--
78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44
boggers, 9" lift
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5
SX's, 4"lift
79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4

107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7

104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9

82)

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

From: "Southerland, Rich" <rsouther

alldata.com>
Subject: Re: emissions control
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:12:13 -0700

If the vehicle had the emission parts to begin with, they must be there and
functional. Typically states that emission test will have a max $ amount
that the owner must spend in emission-related repairs, after that max is
reached the vehicle will be given an exemption.

In the case of missing or tampered-with equipment, there is no max $ amount.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Oxley [mailto:luxjo

thecore.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 1:04 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: emissions control

Randy Cannon wrote:
>
> I took my recently purchased '79 f-250 supercab w/460 for an emissions
> inspection today (required for registration). Tuns out the smog pump
> and etc. have been removed- which is an automatic FAIL.

What is GVWR and what state was truck originally from?

OX

--
78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44
boggers, 9" lift
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5
SX's, 4"lift
79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4

107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7

104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9

82)
=============================================================
To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
Please remove this footer when replying.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:13:17 -0700
From: dave Prasse <burgess4

gte.net>
Subject: Re: emissions control

> > I took my recently purchased '79 f-250 supercab w/460 for an emissions
> > inspection today (required for registration). Tuns out the smog pump
> > and etc. have been removed- which is an automatic FAIL.
>
> What is GVWR and what state was truck originally from?

Our F250 had no emission controls and ran reg fuel ... is this truck a
CA truck , maybe?

dave Prasse
Illinois

>
> OX
>
> --
> 78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44
> boggers, 9" lift
> 79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5
> SX's, 4"lift
> 79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift
> 86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4

107)
> 90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7

104)
> 95 F250-460,4WD (16.9

82)
> =============================================================
> To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
> =============================================================
> To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

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

From: "Don Thurlow" <don.thurlow

greenbaynet.com>
Subject: Re: emissions control
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:25:12 -0500

I'm in wisconsin and my smog pump has been removed too. The previous owner i
got it from removed it, he also put a 4 barrel on it (it's a 351M).
Thank god there's no emission laws in my county of wisconsin. In different
counties in WI they have emission laws, I live in brown county, but to be
more specific Green Bay.. yeah yeah the packers *gag*
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Oxley" <luxjo

thecore.com>
To: <61-79-list

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:04 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: emissions control

>
>
> Randy Cannon wrote:
> >
> > I took my recently purchased '79 f-250 supercab w/460 for an emissions
> > inspection today (required for registration). Tuns out the smog pump
> > and etc. have been removed- which is an automatic FAIL.
>
> What is GVWR and what state was truck originally from?
>
> OX
>
>
>
> --
> 78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44
> boggers, 9" lift
> 79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5
> SX's, 4"lift
> 79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift
> 86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4

107)
> 90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7

104)
> 95 F250-460,4WD (16.9

ford-trucks.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:30:25 GMT
Subject: Re: paper air filters

>> >I think I didn't say that correctly--your truck (or anybody else's, unless

>>
>> >they have a peterbuilt) doesn't suck as much air as a semi.

OKay you missed part of my point that I had hidden in there, an F250 is not
a big rig, unless compared with a Ranger maybe, but at any rate the PSD is available
in the "smaller" trucks (F250+)

>read through it again, slower. for a given displacement, diesels use more

>air (for many of the reasons you said below). the reasons for this have
>to do with the bore/stroke dimensions of the cylinder itself, and the
>number of them, displacement held constant. a small bore, long stroke
>engine (let's assume a single cyl. to keep it simple for you)

Gosh, that's mighty nice of you ... so you're comparing motors that are built
with completely different dimensions and making a generalization based on them
? THe newer modular motors actually have a very long stroke and small bore
combination ...

Diesel:
4.11 X 4.18
5.4L V8/6.8L V10
3.55 X 4.16

So the strokes are nearly identical, in this case of course the Diesel is a
much larger displacement (7.5L total), so the bore is bigger ...

> will
>generate a higher velocity of air flow through the port (and thus the
>runner, the carb, and eventually the filter), generally about .75 of the
>distance down the stroke. not a *huge* amount, but it's there. the
>displacement is the same, and the two cylinders are sucking through the
>same size port, but a curve of the speed through the port will show slower

>at either end and faster (higher) at the peak (for the long stroke, small
>bore engine). this higher speed tends to also generate a little more
>*volume* through the port as well (again, we're not talking massive
>amounts here, but it's there). I can break this down if you like,
>tonight.

Normally don't we call this volumetric efficiency, the amount of air drawn into
the cylinder versus the actual displacement the cylinder moves through... maybe
I'm thinking of something else ...

> now, if you kept displacement the same, and number of cylinders
>the same, you'd get the long stroke engine sucking a little more air.
>make one engine have fewer cylinders and greater cyl. displacement (like a

>diesel would compared to, say, a ford v-10), and this difference gets more

>pronounced--the bigger cyl.s with even longer strokes suck more air again

You're basically just saying a bigger motor with a longer stroke takes in more
air ... that seems pretty intuitive to me ... if we make the correct assumptions
we can prove that Ford=Chevy ...

> let that engine short circuit (I'll explain
>tonight) part of the air/fuel charge through the cylinder because of
>the way it draws it into the cylinder (again, like diesels do) and you get

>*more* air used.

You'll definitely have to explain that "short circuit" to me...

>right. which was too much to blather with bed calling. sorry.
>

Ah, didn't realize sleep was calling, that's always a good excuse to cut things
short! :) (seriously!)

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: "Gary" <gpeters3

lni.net>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:24:17 -0700

Oil/Foam filters were used on motorcycles (dirt bikes) because they were
less affected by water contamination, not because they were better filters.
A little bit of water will make a paper filter unusable but simply runs off
the oil soaked foam filters.

Paper filters allow more air flow by virtue of the total surface area of the
convoluted folds. They have a relatively small micron filtering ability but
the fibers will swell with any dampness seriously restricting air flow. The
foam filters have MUCH less surface area to work with so must by less dense
thus allowing larger particles to get through. The oil makes up for some of
this but probably not all. They have specific areas of application where
they are superior to paper but daily driving is not one of them. The reason
many have seen some iimprovement is due to the shape of the filter housing
itself and the fact that it replaces certain restricted parts on newer
vehicles such as the Mustangs etc...

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

> K&N air filters were first made like back in the time of the dinosaur
(early
> mid 70's) for motorcycles.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:36:20 -0500
Subject: Re: paper air filters
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> They have specific areas of application where
> they are superior to paper but daily driving is not one of them.

Gary, are you feeling OK? It looks like we actually agree on something. ;-)

-- John
jlagrone

bridgetest.com>
Subject: Pitman Arm
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:46:13 -0600

Hey Dave,

I'm surprised Ford doesn't have one, I just bought one from them about 6-8
months ago.....right now, it's a high-priced door stop until I make some
progress on this highboy.....

Maybe try a different dealership?

CJ (Colorado Jeff)

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

From: "Gary" <gpeters3

lni.net>
Subject: Re: Anodizing remover, source
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:35:06 -0700

Just keep in mind that this substance is also known as "Caustic Soda" and at
50% dilution has a PH of 14 or higher which will eat aluminum like water
disolves salt.......it is the chemical brother to Draino which is Potassium
Hydroxide.

My guess is that anything that will affect anodizing will probably be an
acid of some kind but not sure since I don't have any direct info on this
:-) Aluminum is extremely chemically active and is affected by both Acidic
and Basic chemicals.

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

> It's called Sodium Hydroxide.

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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1

alltel.net>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:04:21 -0400

Cheap
you call $100.00 each or more for some of them Cheap
Gordon

========================================================
: paper air filters

> they're cheap?
------------------------
> > BUT if the paper filters are not as good as the other types why do semis
use
> > them instead of the other types
>
> =============================================================

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

From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols

svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:03:35 -0700

K&N filters are not foam...They are cotton witch is sandwich on either side
my wire mesh. Oil is then applied to the cotton and it is this very oil
that filters the particles out of the air. K&N's also have these very same
"convoluted folds" that the paper elements have in them. Giving them equal
if not more surface area to allow air to flow through.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary [mailto:gpeters3

lni.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 4:24 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: paper air filters

Oil/Foam filters were used on motorcycles (dirt bikes) because they were
less affected by water contamination, not because they were better filters.
A little bit of water will make a paper filter unusable but simply runs off
the oil soaked foam filters.

Paper filters allow more air flow by virtue of the total surface area of the
convoluted folds. They have a relatively small micron filtering ability but
the fibers will swell with any dampness seriously restricting air flow. The
foam filters have MUCH less surface area to work with so must by less dense
thus allowing larger particles to get through. The oil makes up for some of
this but probably not all. They have specific areas of application where
they are superior to paper but daily driving is not one of them. The reason
many have seen some iimprovement is due to the shape of the filter housing
itself and the fact that it replaces certain restricted parts on newer
vehicles such as the Mustangs etc...

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

> K&N air filters were first made like back in the time of the dinosaur
(early
> mid 70's) for motorcycles.

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

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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1

alltel.net>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:13:36 -0400

I don't really see how semis are so different, and how they determine what
is a good product or not.
========================================================
well when you have a vehicle thats going to run over a million miles in
every type of weather and road condition known and it holds up under that
type of use i would think if it was good enough for them it should be fine
for the rest of us also
as far as tires on new cars i have never had a new car that the OEM tires
didnt seem to outlast any of the replacements that i used on them and i have
no idea why that is but know others that feel the same tho
gordon

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:19:43 -0500
Subject: Re: OEM tires
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> as far as tires on new cars i have never had a new car that the OEM tires
> didnt seem to outlast any of the replacements that i used on them and i have
> no idea why that is but know others that feel the same tho

I had a 1985 98 Olds that I bought new. I sold it to my mother. It had
Michelin X4M tires on it. After 80K miles, she decided she wanted new tires,
so I put them on an 85 Cadillac. I couldn't wear those tires out. They had
over 90K on them and still looked good when I sold the Caddy.

-- John
jlagrone

flash.net>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:58:30 -0500

I have a ?
Do you think it was a good idea for me to have bought a K&N air
cleaner(entire assembly) for my 300? My 300 has headers, 4-bbl Clifford
Ram-Air intake, Holley 4160(390), Comp Cams 268 degree cam? I don't mind the
time and effort in cleaning it, I dedicate most of my Sundays to cleaning
and checking up on everything on my truck. Also, I drive this truck like it
was for racing =P.

-----Original Message-----
From: 61-79-list-bounce

ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce

ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of John LaGrone
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:14 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: paper air filters

> one for a newer F250 say a 98-99 will cost you about $25 - $30

If I had a 98-99 F250, I wouldn't be on this list, now, would I? If I was
spending $30 bucks a pop for an air filter, I might consider a K&N.

All of the arguments/discussions have been good, but I stick by my original
postulation: For the typical stock 61-79 F150 through F250 used as a daily
driver on paved roads at legal speeds, the K&N offers no major advantage
over regular replacement of paper elements.

Those of you that are screaming cost savings aren't figuring in your own
labor spent cleaning the K&N. I can replace my paper element in under a
minute.

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

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

From: "Eric Washburn" <bruce9

flash.net>
Subject: Re: K and N filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:02:12 -0500

The V10's in the vans are fast!
-----Original Message-----
From: 61-79-list-bounce

ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce

ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of John LaGrone
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 1:50 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: K and N filters

> I like em and have seen no negative side effects in over 200,000 combined
> miles on my Fords and Mercs. Money wise, I feel I am ahead vs the price
of
> new paper elements every 5k.

Now Stu has the right attitude. BTW Stu, the other day when I wrote that the
V10 had no guts, that was someone else's comment that I was addressing. I
have never operated a V10 equipped Ford, but I hope to some day.

-- John
jlagrone

ford-trucks.com <]:-) <]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)<]:-)
1979 F150 Custom, Long Wide Bed, Regular Cab, 351M, C6 (Henry)
http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm
Dearborn iron rules!!!!

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

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:02:02 -0600
From: "Randy Cannon" <rcannon

ussynthetic.com>
Subject: Re: emissions control

The GVWR is 7500 lbs., and the truck appears to be from CA originally. The
underhood stickers state that it complies with CA regulations for the 1979
model year, and runs unleaded fuel.

I found two different smog pumps at the local parts store for ~$40. I'm not
sure which one is correct (or if it matters) and not sure what else I'll need
in terms of mounting hardware, hoses, connections, etc... I've worked on
these systems once or twice before, but its been a while. Any relevant tips
or info would be great.

-Thanks,
Randy

> What is GVWR and what state was truck originally from

> Our F250 had no emission controls and ran reg fuel ... is this truck
> a CA truck , maybe?

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:08:35 -0400
From: Ken Payne <kpayne

ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: paper air filters

At 03:13 PM 10/5/00, you wrote:

>Those of you that are screaming cost savings aren't figuring in your own
>labor spent cleaning the K&N. I can replace my paper element in under a
>minute.

Paper elements can also be blown out with compressed air and
used again in under a minute.

Ken

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:10:03 -0400
From: Ken Payne <kpayne

ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: paper air filters

At 05:03 PM 10/5/00, you wrote:
>K&N filters are not foam...They are cotton witch is sandwich on either side
>my wire mesh. Oil is then applied to the cotton and it is this very oil
>that filters the particles out of the air. K&N's also have these very same
>"convoluted folds" that the paper elements have in them. Giving them equal
>if not more surface area to allow air to flow through.
>
>Josh

Actually, the average K&N I've seen has less folds than
paper elements.

Ken

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

From: "Luke Phillips" <lukes67ford

hotmail.com>
Subject: 460 Headers
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:15:08 CDT

Hey Guys!

I went to L&L Products last week to see what they could tell me about 460
headers for my 67'F100 2 wheel drive. First, the owner of the shop showed me
a set of nickle plated headers that cost $425.00. I asked him if he had a
set of plain black and he told me that they had none in stock at the moment.
The plain black headers are $100.00 cheaper. We walked outside to the truck
to see if my power steering box would be in the way of the headers and
luckily it is not. But, he also told me that the headers would run (under)
the cross member! I can not see that happening. What am I going to do?
Please help......

Luke Phillips
67 F100 short bed 240 I6 (460 in the works!) 2001 Super Nats Bound!
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://profiles.msn.com.

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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1

alltel.net>
Subject: Re: OEM tires
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:55:30 -0400

I had a 1985 98 Olds that I bought new. I sold it to my mother. It had
> Michelin X4M tires on it. After 80K miles, she decided she wanted new
tires,
> so I put them on an 85 Cadillac. I couldn't wear those tires out. They had
> over 90K on them and still looked good when I sold the Caddy.
>
> -- John
================================================
and i bet your Mom didnt get anywheres near that mileage out of the
replacements she stuck on it either
gordon

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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1

alltel.net>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:58:26 -0400

Paper elements can also be blown out with compressed air and
> used again in under a minute.
>
> Ken
===========================================
and for the really expensive ones there is a few companies that even wash
them or dry clean them to and then return them back into service
gordon

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

From: "John Webster" <jwebster

tnt21.com>
Subject: Re: Stiff steering update
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:51:54 -0400

John writes: >>A half hour with oil and working in the vice
and everything is as good as new (almost).<<

Congratulations. Ain't this list great...

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.

That is what makes it great alright, good advice and diverse views. Not to
mention the sometimes entertaining flaming.
Now I'm back under the truck because my two year old Edelbrock Performer
fuel pump has gacked its diaphragm. I'm real impressed, not to mention out
$60.00 for the kit to rebuild it.
John
'77 F150 4X4 460/C6/4:11's/33's

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

From: "Jason Derra" <derrar

internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:08:54 -0700

> All of the arguments/discussions have been good, but I stick by my
original
> postulation: For the typical stock 61-79 F150 through F250 used as a daily
> driver on paved roads at legal speeds, the K&N offers no major advantage
> over regular replacement of paper elements.
I was going through 2 paper filters a month at $10 a piece. Normal back and
forth to work driving, no wheeling. I paid $26 for a K&N that I cleaned
every oil change. I'm not sure about any performance or mileage advantage,
but it's paid for itself many times over. It's now not a typical daily
driver anymore but I put a K&N filter on it with the new 5.0 and I expect
the same results.

> Those of you that are screaming cost savings aren't figuring in your own
> labor spent cleaning the K&N. I can replace my paper element in under a
> minute.
Lets see, it takes a whole 10 minutes to clean my filter, 2-4 times a year,
usually at an oil change. Thats less than an hour. $26 filter and the $15
cleaning stuff for an initial investment. About $50 a year to clean,
including my time. Two filters a month, that would be 24 a year. Right
there is $240, just for the filter. Lets figure I cleaned them once a
piece. That's still $120, plus labor. BTW, I have a filter restriction
gauge that I went by to tell when the filters were plugged, so I wasn't just
letting the K&N's go longer.

Jason
'69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435
'96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke E4OD
Happiness is a handful of warm deer guts

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:04:30 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson <dpearson

ctc.edu>
Subject: Re: paper air filters

>
> Actually that's the FIPK (Filter induction performance kit?) which is a little
> different than the filter itself ... I'm hoping for that price you got the one
> that blocks the hot air from getting into the filter (though Gary will tell
> us that the warm air is better for mileage :)

Well, it includes a new air box which seals (w/a large rubber gasket) to
the hood liner. I had considered a ram air hood with all the hardware,
but that ran much more. I also want the same setup for my 1962 Ford
Unibody (FTE content). Actually, all kidding aside, I have been
mentally building ram air for the 351C. I think I'd better take some
sheet metal classes first, though...

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:44:22 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson <dpearson

ctc.edu>
Subject: Re: paper air filters

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> At 03:13 PM 10/5/00, you wrote:
>
> >Those of you that are screaming cost savings aren't figuring in your own
> >labor spent cleaning the K&N. I can replace my paper element in under a
> >minute.
>
> Paper elements can also be blown out with compressed air and
> used again in under a minute.

I gotta say: I did not get the setup to save money. But don't tell my
wife that...

The one on my Unibody is just the filter with the chrome cover that I
bought because it was $5. The lady said she didn't know what her
husband wanted for it...mea culpa...

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:48:16 -0700
From: Dennis Pearson <dpearson

ctc.edu>
Subject: Re: paper air filters

Jason Derra wrote:

> Lets see, it takes a whole 10 minutes to clean my filter, 2-4 times a year,
> usually at an oil change. Thats less than an hour. $26 filter and the $15
> cleaning stuff for an initial investment. About $50 a year to clean,
> including my time. Two filters a month, that would be 24 a year. Right
> there is $240, just for the filter. Lets figure I cleaned them once a
> piece. That's still $120, plus labor. BTW, I have a filter restriction
> gauge that I went by to tell when the filters were plugged, so I wasn't just
> letting the K&N's go longer.
>

You forgot to figure in the time spent discussing this on this list. It
is educational, so it should be tax deductible...(:>)

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

From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols

svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: paper air filters
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:19:04 -0700

Less folds because the K&N material flows MUCH better than the restrictive
paper elements. So it can flow MORE CFM than a paper element even though it
has less surface area

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Payne [mailto:kpayne

ford-trucks.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:10 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: paper air filters

At 05:03 PM 10/5/00, you wrote:
>K&N filters are not foam...They are cotton witch is sandwich on either side
>my wire mesh. Oil is then applied to the cotton and it is this very oil
>that filters the particles out of the air. K&N's also have these very same
>"convoluted folds" that the paper elements have in them. Giving them equal
>if not more surface area to allow air to flow through.
>
>Josh

Actually, the average K&N I've seen has less folds than
paper elements.

Ken

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

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:15:56 -0700
From: scott <scott

ford-trucks.com>
Subject: FT trannie

>What I was really wanting to know was if a
>regular "pickup" transmission would bolt up to an FT, but I see from your
>post that it would not be a direct swap. I suppose that would means that
>without mods I would be limited to a sluggish, long-throw big truck tranny >if I used an FT block.. that's bad.

According to my 76 factory manual a NP 435 was available in everything
from a F-100 to a F-700 and even up to a LN700.Manual also shows a T-19
being available in F500 and 600s 4X4 only.
Should be able to round up a 435 that will bolt up to a FT without much
problem and the 435 is a GREAT transmission.

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

From: Aeroape82

aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 20:28:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Pitman Arm

Hey your not alone. Since I lifted my F250 the factory one don't cut it
anymore. I've around and ain't been able to locate one. Would really
appreciate any help.

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:26:26 -0500
From: Ron Martens <martens

flash.net>
Subject: Re: emissions control

What state do you live in?

Randy Cannon wrote:

> I took my recently purchased '79 f-250 supercab w/460 for an emissions ....

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.