61-79-list Digest V2000 #302

Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:42:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:42:36 -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 #302
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, 20 Oct 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 302

In This Issue:
OD in '78
OD versus direct drive
Re: ADMIN: Political Content
Re: OD versus direct drive
Re: C6 versus OverDrive
Re: ADMIN: Political Content
Re: ADMIN: Political Content
Price Of '65 Cab
Truck FS
Re: OD in '78
Jeep digest
Re: grinding in the transfer case?
Re: 4 bbl on a 300
looking for fuse panel in 61
Cab
Re: ADMIN: Political Content
Re: looking for fuse panel in 61
looking for tail light wirinig harness
315C
Re: 315C
Re: 315C
Which headers for my 390?
Re: Which headers for my 390?
Re: 4 bbl on a 300
400 fuel problem

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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11

HiWAAY.net>
Subject: OD in '78
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:45:56 -0500

I am told that this is what it takes(as it is what I plan to do with my wifes '76 Flareside):

Any of the earlier AOD's that shift without the aid of a computer(shift strictly by valve
body, Governor, Vacuum diaphram etc)..

Any AOD from a 302 or 351W will bolt up to your 351W. you may have to replace the
crossmember that the tranny mounts to and change your driveshaft and yoke. Don't
know about the linkage and column, but I'd venture to say this could be conjectured up
from some later model pickup that came with AOD and made to work.
Everything else should just be a matter of changing it out. I have all the pieces that
I've been led to believe is all I need, but this is a winter project and I'm in no hurry.

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.

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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11

HiWAAY.net>
Subject: OD versus direct drive
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:02:26 -0500

OK Guys/Gals.. Here is the theory of OD's.

A 355:1 rear with C6(or any direct tranny) is final drive of 3.5 turns of the
drive shaft to one turn of the tires...
A 355:1 rear with an OD is 3.55X.69 (or whatever your OD ratio is and most factory
are .69) is final drive of 2.4495(or stated as 2.45)..
Theoretically that is about 30% better, but you will never see this in gas mileage.
Several things cause this some of which are added gears to pull and added load
to the engine for the taller gear ratio..

If you were getting 20 mpg with a direct and installed a .69 OD then
theoretically you should get (20 divided by .69=28.9mpg)... Ain't gonna happen.
Don't get me wrong.. I'm a big advocate of OD's.. They just ain't going to get
you what you would expect from doing the math.. What they do do is let you
run a much lower(higher numerically) rear ratio and still get good mileage and
have a lot more lower end grunt or quicker to get up to speed..
A 4.11 and .069 figures to a final drive ratio of 2.8359(expressed as 2.8)..
That is a pretty good final drive ratio..

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.

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

From: "Arnie and his F250 G" <arny_f250

hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Political Content
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:06:15 CDT

I am really sorry you feel this way. When one of the candidates has said
that the combustion engine is the "biggest threat to this world" everyone
that drives (which includes US ford truckers), should sit up and take
notice. And the list of things that he plans on doing to rid this world of
that "threat," two buck gas is only the start. Our way of life, our trucks,
are threatened. I will adhere to the rules, but I don't totally agree with
them. And again keep up the GREAT site. No other ford site I have seen
even comes close.

Arny

From: Ken Payne <kpayne

ford-trucks.com>
Reply-To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
To: pre61-list

ford-trucks.com, 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com,
80-96-list

ford-trucks.com, 97up-list

ford-trucks.com,
small-list

ford-trucks.com, perf-list

ford-trucks.com,
pre48-list

ford-trucks.com, offroad-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] ADMIN: Political Content
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:28:35 -0400

A few of the lists have had political content posted lately.

Do not use the lists for posting political content unless it
directly affects our Ford truck hobbies, and then only after
forwarding it to me for review first.

Discussing on-topic political content, such as crusher laws,
emission laws, highway safety, regulations, off-road laws,
etc. are acceptable. Discussion of these topics requesting
members review pending bills and lobbying efforts should be
forwarded to me first.

Discussion of political candidates is off limits.

Sorry to take this stand, but its been abused lately, especially
with the pending election around the corner. I don't care if
its conservative or liberal, it doesn't really belong here.
If you feel you must talk about it, use the General Conversation
forum on our web site where very little is considered off
topic.

Thanks,
Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

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

_________________________________________________________________________
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: "wish" <wish

ford-trucks.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:29:50 GMT
Subject: Re: OD versus direct drive

>A 355:1 rear with C6(or any direct tranny) is final drive of 3.5 turns of the

>drive shaft to one turn of the tires...
>A 355:1 rear with an OD is 3.55X.69 (or whatever your OD ratio is and most
factory
>are .69) is final drive of 2.4495(or stated as 2.45)..

Actually you guys keep comparing driveshaft speed to wheel speed, that's always
gonna be the final drive ratio ... you need to compare engine speed to tire
speed ... when the tranny's in 1:1 the engine is turning 3.55x as many rpm's
as the wheels ... when the tranny's in .67:1 (my 5spd :) then its only turning
about the same speed as the tires ...

>Theoretically that is about 30% better, but you will never see this in gas
mileage.
>Several things cause this some of which are added gears to pull and added load

>to the engine for the taller gear ratio..
>

True ... but you will see some increase, it won't be the total ratio difference
...

>If you were getting 20 mpg with a direct

And you're on this list with a 73-79 then why would you go to an OD tranny ?
You should be telling us your secrets!!! :)

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: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:21:26 -0500
Subject: Re: C6 versus OverDrive
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> I see your point about the c6 though. Personally. how much of a
> difference in mileage between an overdrive and the c6?

Yep, I had it backwards. Yesterday was a long day. I don't know about the
mileage as my C6 is in my pickup and my OD is in a Towncar. Too many other
variables.

-- 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!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:22:39 -0500
Subject: Re: C6 versus OverDrive
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> If the OD tranny was in third gear 1:1 ratio and the C6 was in third gear
> 1:1 ratio assuming they had the same gears and tires, they would both be
> turning the same RPM at 30 MPH. (maybe slightly different do to slippage in
> the torque converter).
>
> At 70 if the OD tranny was in OD is would be spinning slower than the C6
> which would still be at 1:1; while the OD tranny would be at 1:.72 or what
> ever the OD ratio happends to be on that particular tranny.

Sorry, Josh, you missed the point. I said the final drive ratios were the
same, not the differential ratios.

-- 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!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:25:02 -0500
Subject: Re: C6 versus OverDrive
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> Theoretically it should be the same but you have to account for torque
> converter slip also...

They both slip at 30. Clutch lockup doesn't occur until about 40-45.

-- 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!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:27:06 -0500
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Political Content
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> Sorry to take this stand, but its been abused lately, especially
> with the pending election around the corner. I don't care if
> its conservative or liberal, it doesn't really belong here.
> If you feel you must talk about it, use the General Conversation
> forum on our web site where very little is considered off
> topic.

Don't be sorry, Ken. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Ken Payne for President!!! Naw, we like you too much to torture you that
way.

-- 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!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:32:25 -0500
Subject: Re: OD in '78
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> Any of the earlier AOD's that shift without the aid of a computer(shift
> strictly by valve
> body, Governor, Vacuum diaphram etc)..

These may bolt up, but you won't like the results. All early over drives
with no electronics had very high failure rates, both initially and after
rebuilds. The general's trucks from 1981 through 1986 had a 98% failure
rate. (I owned an 82 Suburban. I averaged 25K per transmission rebuild.
AAMCO paid for all but the first.) Ford's may not be quite as high, but it
is not good. IMHO, avoid the non electronic ODs.

-- John
jlagrone

mailandnews.com>
Subject: Re: C6 versus OverDrive
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:35:28 -0400

> I see your point about the c6 though. Personally.
> how much of a difference in mileage between an
> overdrive and the c6?

In any given application, the engine has to spin the
same amount of internals regardless of what gear
the transmission is in. It is the engine load and RPM
that you make it go that determines your fuel mileage.

I suppose if you do a lot of high-speed driving on
the interstates and such, an overdrive will help quite
a bit, since for any given speed in its highest gear,
the overdrive will allow the engine to run at a slightly
lower RPM (thus less cfm fuel/air through the engine).

In-city driving is a lot of stop-and-go, and generally
under these conditions, the trasmission does not use
overdrive enough to make a significant difference; in
fact, if the OD transmission weighs more and you do a
lot of stop and go type driving, your mileage may get
worse.

I would have to say that it depends a lot on *how*
you drive, whether an OD will give you any real
benefits. For cruising around town, I doubt that it
would make enough difference to really matter, but
if you routinely drive the freeways at 60 for a good
number of miles, then an OD likely will give you
noticeable improvement in the time between fuel fill-ups.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:34:28 -0500
Subject: Re: OD versus direct drive
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

>
> OK Guys/Gals.. Here is the theory of OD's.
>
> A 355:1 rear with C6(or any direct tranny) is final drive of 3.5 turns of the
> drive shaft to one turn of the tires...
> A 355:1 rear with an OD is 3.55X.69 (or whatever your OD ratio is and most
factory
> are .69) is final drive of 2.4495(or stated as 2.45)..
> Theoretically that is about 30% better, but you will never see this in gas
mileage.
> Several things cause this some of which are added gears to pull and added load
> to the engine for the taller gear ratio..
>
> If you were getting 20 mpg with a direct and installed a .69 OD then
> theoretically you should get (20 divided by .69=28.9mpg)... Ain't gonna
happen.
> Don't get me wrong.. I'm a big advocate of OD's.. They just ain't going to
get
> you what you would expect from doing the math.. What they do do is let you
> run a much lower(higher numerically) rear ratio and still get good mileage and
> have a lot more lower end grunt or quicker to get up to speed..
> A 4.11 and .069 figures to a final drive ratio of 2.8359(expressed as 2.8)..
> That is a pretty good final drive ratio..
>
> Azie Magnusson
> Ardmore, Al.

See my post to Josh. This is all well and good, but my original post dealt
with equal final drive ratios, not equal differential ratios.

-- 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!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:39:09 -0500
Subject: Re: OD versus direct drive
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

> And you're on this list with a 73-79 then why would you go to an OD tranny ?
> You should be telling us your secrets!!! :)

Actually, I would love to have a 79 F100 2X4 short wide with a powertrain
like the one in my Towncar. 302, EFI, AOD. I would probably stick with the
truck's diff though.

-- John
jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Political Content

At 09:06 AM 10/20/00, you wrote:
>I am really sorry you feel this way. When one of the candidates has said that the combustion engine is the "biggest threat to this world" everyone that drives (which includes US ford truckers), should sit up and take notice. And the list of things that he plans on doing to rid this world of that "threat," two buck gas is only the start. Our way of life, our trucks, are threatened. I will adhere to the rules, but I don't totally agree with them. And again keep up the GREAT site. No other ford site I have seen even comes close.
>
>Arny

Arny,

The 2nd and 3rd sentences of your email were not exactly what
one would call adherence. :-( My administrative email did
not say FTE was not the place to discuss it, it said the lists
were not the place. The web site General Conversation forum
is the most appropriate forum.

Glad you enjoy the site, more new features are right around
the corner!

Ken Payne

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:54:01 -0400
From: Ken Payne <kpayne

ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Political Content

At 09:27 AM 10/20/00, you wrote:
>> Sorry to take this stand, but its been abused lately, especially
>> with the pending election around the corner. I don't care if
>> its conservative or liberal, it doesn't really belong here.
>> If you feel you must talk about it, use the General Conversation
>> forum on our web site where very little is considered off
>> topic.
>
>Don't be sorry, Ken. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
>
>Ken Payne for President!!! Naw, we like you too much to torture you that
>way.

President? Heck, I wouldn't even vote for me!

Ken Payne

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:23:39 -0500
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Political Content
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone

ford-trucks.com>

>>Don't be sorry, Ken. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
>>
>>Ken Payne for President!!! Naw, we like you too much to torture you that
>>way.
>
> President? Heck, I wouldn't even vote for me!
>
> Ken Payne

See? You are already demonstrating wisdom too great for politics. OK, I'm
shuttin' up with the off topic content.

-- John
jlagrone

aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:21:32 EDT
Subject: Price Of '65 Cab

Hey Gang,
I hate to do this but the decision has been made to part out whats left of my
'65. A limb fell and put a huge dent right in the middle of my hood. I'd
like to sell the cab as it sits. I don't wanna take the doors off or
anything, so whats a good almost complete cab go for these days? I say
almost complete cause my dad took the steering column out, and the dash
insert is gone (it got broke lose in the wreck). Somebody in its past had
welded in some new floor pans. I replaced all the switches in the dash and
put a brand new head liner in it. It also has the original rubber floor mat
with the gear and lightning bolt in the middle. Anyhow, what kinda price
should I stick on it? I also need to know about this tailgate, frame and
rebuilt and balanced 352. What are truck parts goin for these days? Thanks
everybody for your help. :o)

~Mel
Marietta, GA
1965 F100 Custom Cab....sadly parting out. :o(
1989 Bronco XLT
ICQ#84544993
Real Racers Drive Straight To The Finish Line...
Those Other Guys Just Drive In Circles Looking For It.

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

From: Fordman9901

webtv.net
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Truck FS

If anyone is interested a friend of mine has a 1963 1 1/2 ton Ford truck
for sale .Asking $2000.00 OBO If you have any questions email me Thanks
Randy

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

From: "Jason Derra" <derrar

internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: OD in '78
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:56:32 -0700

> These may bolt up, but you won't like the results. All early over drives
> with no electronics had very high failure rates, both initially and after
> rebuilds. The general's trucks from 1981 through 1986 had a 98% failure
> rate.

All of the OD trans suffered growing pains during the first few years, both
Ford and GM. There have been many improvements made to make them last like
they should that can be used in the earlier transmissions. Even the
electronic E4OD's had LOTS of problems when they were first introduced.
There are quite a few guys on the early Bronco list with swapped in AOD's
and 700R4's (non electronic) that continue to provide great service under
extreme four wheeling and racing conditions.

Jason
'69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435
'96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael (Cut me and I'll bleed FORD Blue) Whittington" <broncoman85

excite.com>
Subject: Jeep digest

Hey guys I know this is a little off the list subject, but a friend of mine
has a jeep and want to get on the jeep list. A while back someone provided a
link to it and I would app. it if I could get it for him. Thanks
Whit
77 F250 4X4 20 inchs lift 800 horse 429 44 Boggers
75 F100 460
78 Bronco 11 inchs lift stock 351M 44 Gumbos(its gone traded for a bike, my
loss)
69 F100 302
76 F250 Dual wheels 390 Tow Truck
85 Bronco 302

_______________________________________________________
Say Bye to Slow Internet!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html

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

From: JUMPINFORD

aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:03:10 EDT
Subject: Re: grinding in the transfer case?

In a message dated 10/20/00 2:14:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thelord

home.com writes:

<< Anyhow..... I just lucked out and purchased a rebuild kit (I have the
federal
mogul part # somewhere) from ebay and thought I would tackle the problem in
the
next few weeks. I have a machine shop at my disposal and they seem to think
that
they can remedy any shaft problems i might have.
once i have the poor old thing apart i will tell what i have found. >>

I did the one in dads 75. Its really not hard at all. The only problem I had
was regarding the shifter forks. You need a long punch to drive out the roll
pins, and a whole lot of patience when its time to put them back in. Make
sure your rebuild kit also has the small parts kit, or it wont have any of
the thrust bearings. These were toast in dads. I also had to make my own
little pins that hold the thrusts from rotating, as the ones in dads were
almost toast. I used a small piece of tungsten welding rod that was the
right diameter. If you dont have a press, heres how to get the taper bearing
cups R&R'd in the large gear. To remove the old ones, use your gas wrench,
and get the bearing cup cherry red in 4 spots, then let it cool. It will
fall right out provided you pull straight. Clean the gear thoroughly. Place
the new roller bearing cups in the freezer. (also keep in mind that bearings
are matched, so keep the right bearing with the right cup by marking it).
After the cups have been in the freezer about a day or so, put the gear in
the oven at around 250 degrees. When its good and hot you should be able to
drop the bearing in. Do one at a time, and make sure the bearing is seated
by spinning it in the bore till it stops. Then use one of your old cups and
a hammer and gently tap the cup to be sure its completely bottomed out. This
saves for any visit to the machine shop.

If you run into anyprobs, just gimme a shout, I did it without problems.
Keep in mind that after its built, it will be incredibly tight, and be hard
to shift back and forth, especially out of 4lo. To ease this, unlock your
hubs and drive a few feet to be sure they are unlocked. Then your still
going to have to really pull on that lever to get it out, but at least it
wont be in vain:)

Darrell & Tweety

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:08:48 -0400
From: Don Haring <haring

fedora.net>
Subject: Re: 4 bbl on a 300

somalley

voyager2.cns.ohiou.edu (Sean O'Malley) said:

>> Yes... Lokar - 2 foot kit will do you plenty-- get a lokar throttle cable
>> adapter spring retainer clip (bolts to base of carb) and thread the hting
>> into it and clip on your return springs.. Works awesome on a 500/600cfm
>
>Cool, and thanks. Got the parts on order. Now I just get to wait...
>
>I think I'll borrow a digital camera and document the process.
>Assuming, of course, that the process ends up being something I'm
>willing to admit to :).

Sean, please take some pictures. This is something I'm sure I will
eventually add to my van, so it would be nice to see you document it.

Thanks,
don

Don Haring, Jr., Philadelphia, PA
FCA Keystone Chapter Internet Director
61 Falcon Futura, 66 Falcon Club Wagon and classic scooters

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:24:28 -0400
From: Joe <shoman

p3.net>
Subject: looking for fuse panel in 61

Can somebody point me to my fuse panel in a 61 pickup....I looked where
my 68's
was but not to be found there on my 61.....
joe

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

From: "Don Thurlow" <don.thurlow

greenbaynet.com>
Subject: Cab
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:31:14 -0500

Hey.
Does anyone know/have where there is a 1979 ford f-250 cab for sale? Some
jerk just hit me and totalled my cab... so anyone anyone?

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

From: "Don Thurlow" <don.thurlow

greenbaynet.com>
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Political Content
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:32:06 -0500

*snickers*
> President? Heck, I wouldn't even vote for me!
>
> Ken Payne
>
>
>
> =============================================================
> To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:10:56 -0700
From: Don Grossman <duckdon

mac.com>
Subject: Re: looking for fuse panel in 61

>Can somebody point me to my fuse panel in a 61 pickup....I looked where
>my 68's
>was but not to be found there on my 61.....
>joe

Head light switch :)
--
Don Grossman
duckdon

mac.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:34:08 -0400
From: Joe <shoman

p3.net>
Subject: looking for tail light wirinig harness

Group

i'm looking for an intact wiring harness for a 1961 flareside pickup.I'm
looking for the taillights harness etc...It unplugs on the frame, mine has
more wire nuts and electrical tape...I never new wire nuts came from the
factory :)
can anybody help me
Joe

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

From: "PitStop Performance" <thepitstop

hotmail.com>
Subject: 315C
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:19:16 CDT

Hello All,

I am looking for a 351C. Anybody have one for sale? What is needed to swap
one into a '71 F100? The truck came with a 302/C4 and now has a 351M/C6.

Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________________
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: "Southerland, Rich" <rsouther

alldata.com>
Subject: Re: 315C
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:24:18 -0700

Why not build a 400?

-----Original Message-----
From: PitStop Performance [mailto:thepitstop

hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:19 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] 315C

Hello All,

I am looking for a 351C. Anybody have one for sale? What is needed to swap
one into a '71 F100? The truck came with a 302/C4 and now has a 351M/C6.

Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________________
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.

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

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

From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer

pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 315C
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:29:49 -0700

Well you'll need a tranny with a 302/351W bolt pattern. Not sure about the
mounts & whatnot. Why not build the 351M into a 400 and go from there?

/// Smith & Wesson...the Original point & click interface \\

----- Original Message -----
From: "PitStop Performance" <thepitstop

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

ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 1:19 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] 315C

> Hello All,
>
> I am looking for a 351C. Anybody have one for sale? What is needed to swap
> one into a '71 F100? The truck came with a 302/C4 and now has a 351M/C6.
>
> Thanks.

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

From: "MARTY COLMAN" <colman76

hotmail.com>
Subject: Which headers for my 390?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:55:17 GMT

I have a stock 390 in my '73 F100 2wd. It has a stock 4 barrel with an
Edelbrock 1406 carb, 4 spd tranny and 3.55 gears. This is my daily driver,
I drive it sensibly, I've outgrown racing and smokin' tires (mostly). But I
am always on the quest for more power.

I have a cracked exhaust manifold that is driving my crazy. I've been
kicking around the idea of adding headers for a while now, but I'm undecided
on which ones to get. My wallet isn't as fat as I would like it to be, so
price is a big factor.

I'm told that long tube headers are better for torque, and they are easier
to find. But long tube headers are hard on starters. Summit has Headmans
or Dynomax for about $100. Is either one better?

I remember seeing a web site with a FE that had shortie headers on it, how
do these compare? Is there a peticular advantage? These appeal to me
because it would mean less heat to the starter, right?

What are your thoughts on the matter? What are good/bad features to look
for in headers?

Thanks guys.

Marty
_________________________________________________________________________
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: Matt Senn <msenn

avistacom.net>
Subject: Re: Which headers for my 390?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:15:50 -0700

i've got a 390 in my 73 f250 and i can tell you that the long tube headers
are a pain, there is little or no clearance on the passenger side between
the frame and the starter (about 1/4" between the starter and header, and
about 1/8" between the header and frame rail) . . . i have to disconnect the
passenger motor mount and partially remove the engine from the engine
compartment when i need to replace the starter (which really sucks, if you
could imagine) . . . i'm in the process of trying to find a resonably priced
shorty header solution for mine

just my opinion

matt
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.chaoticdelusions.com/truck

-----Original Message-----
From: MARTY COLMAN [mailto:colman76

hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:55 PM
To: 61-79-list

ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Which headers for my 390?

I have a stock 390 in my '73 F100 2wd. It has a stock 4 barrel with an
Edelbrock 1406 carb, 4 spd tranny and 3.55 gears. This is my daily driver,
I drive it sensibly, I've outgrown racing and smokin' tires (mostly). But I

am always on the quest for more power.

<snip>

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:03:53 -0400
From: somalley

voyager2.cns.ohiou.edu (Sean O'Malley)
Subject: Re: 4 bbl on a 300

> Sean, please take some pictures. This is something I'm sure I will
> eventually add to my van, so it would be nice to see you document it.

Will do!

--sean

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:38:16 -0700
From: mclough

page.az.net (Michael Clough)
Subject: 400 fuel problem

Hello all,
I recently rebuilt my 351m into a 400. I have since had a problem that I
thought was vapor locking but I am not sure now. I replaced the fuel
pump at the time of rebuild with a Napa pump. It was nothing fancy just
what they had. I am still using stock fuel lines, carburetion, and
intake manifold. The fuel line to the tank is all stock except under the
cab where the metal line has a break and there used to be a rubber fuel
line connecting them, I installed a marine water separating fuel filter
on the outside of the frame rail with hoses connecting to the two lines.
I put that on years ago when i first got the truck as the tank was
passing off some serious gunk and the little filter on the carb would
plug up very quickly. Also, when I installed the engine, I put on Hedman
hedders and it has dual exhaust exiting behind the tire with a crossover
pipe. I originally thought I was experiencing vapor lock from the
exhaust heat transferring to the metal fuel lines on their way to the
fuel pump. The reason I am wondering about this is that I towed my
travel trailer to the Kaibab forest from my home in Page, AZ yesterday
and experienced fuel starvation that made me have to let my foot off the
gas and slow down but it would not totally die off. The really strange
thing is that once I was there, the truck ran poorly without even having
the trailer on it driving on dirt roads. I think that the elevation has
something to do with it. Now that I left the trailer on the mountain,
and I returned home, I am having no problems at all. I thought today it
might have something to do with tank fuel level but it dogged out on the ....

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.