 |
|
|
|
|
|
Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:27:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:27:37 -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 #303 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: 303 In This Issue: Re: Cab Which headers for my 390? Re: grinding in the transfer case? Re: looking for tail light wirinig harness Re: Which headers for my 390? Re: OD in '78 Re: C6 versus OverDrive Re: C6 versus OverDrive Re: Manifold vs. Ported Spark Vac Advance: Tested both on Re: 4 bbl on a 300 Mileage Lockup reliability of OD Gas mileage Re: Lockup BED/TAILGATE FOR SALE Re: Gas mileage Re: reliability of OD Rare truck distributor for FE ADMIN: Web site updates Re: Rare truck Re: looking for fuse panel in 61 Re: looking for fuse panel in 61 Re: OD in '78 Re: 400 fuel problem Re: 400 fuel problem Re: Cab Re: Which 390 headers? ADMIN: 2001 Specifications Fw: Re: Pilot hold in 460 crank Re: Rare truck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:38:27 EDT Subject: Re: Cab I'll have one here shortly. Its in Vegas. Rust free. Large dent on the roof, where my parts guy fell on it, but easily repairable. Is it close enough for you? Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: "JX Schulz" <bdijxs bridgetest.com>
Subject: Which headers for my 390? Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:19:19 -0000 Marty, I have experience with both, and would go for the shorties any day...but, they are more expensive, at least the Sandersons. They do NOT solve any starter heat problems, as they are pretty close to the front of the starter. I insulated mine. But, they are DON'T LEAK anywhere....a first for headers, at least for me! There are a few little tricks to getting the Sandersons to fit just right, but nothing major.... As far as power, I'm guessing there's not THAT much difference between headers.... I don't know if this helps your decision or not....any questions on shorties, just shoot.... CJ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:38:22 -0400 From: David Wadson <wadsond air.on.ca>
Subject: Re: grinding in the transfer case? >Sounds great, can't wait to hear what you've found. >============================= >I have a 1974 4x4 with a separated NP 205 transfer case. On pavement or not >it >grinds / growls and clunks >once i have the poor old thing apart i will tell what i have found. I agree. I'm tempted (once I buy that house/garage) to rebuild my transfer case. It was grinding the last time I was putting it into gear. Really didn't sound too healthy. But I'm almost looking forward to having some snow on the ground so I can try out 4 wheel drive. I've been stuck a few times in the 2WD and I'm itching to be win a battle with a snowbank...without resorting to a shovel... David Wadson - wadsond air.on.ca
"PS1" - 79 F100 ...ground into a million pieces. "PS2" - 78 F100 ...currently alive and kicking. "PS3" - 79 F150 4x4 ...now what have I gotten myself into... Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------ From: EffieFrd aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:37:03 EDT Subject: Re: looking for tail light wirinig harness In a message dated 10/20/00 3:36:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, shoman p3.net
writes: << i'm looking for an intact wiring harness for a 1961 flareside pickup. >> go to www.painlesswiring.com, and see if they can help you. :o) -mel ------------------------------ From: draco pacifier.com
Subject: Re: Which headers for my 390? Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Marty wrote: > 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 $100. Is either one > better? Don't know if one is better, but I had the Dynomax ones from Summit on a '74 2WD F-250 and they fit and worked fine. For and inexpensive header I though they were made pretty well. I went with headers on my trucks for the same reason. It was a pain to get the stock manifolds to seal up and new ones cost too much. > I remember seeing a web site with a FE that had shortie headers > on it, how do these compare? Is there a peticular advantage? > These appeal to me because it would mean less heat to the starter, > right? That may be my web page. The main reason I chose Sanderson block huggers was to simplify the exhaust routing around the transfer case. On your 2WD this is not an issue. In either case the header tubes are very close to the starter (see the pictures on my page). I would think a heat shield of some kind would solve the starter problem either way. I never got around to making a heat shield and haven't had any problems, but I only have about 10K miles since the rebuilt starter was installed. Mark in Southwest Washington http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pacifier.com/~draco/Truck.html -- '74 F-100 Ranger XLT 4x4 in digest mode ------------------------------ From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: OD in '78 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:48:13 -0700 I don't know what you mean by "Early" but my 92 Bird was wonderfull as is my 93 Aerostar but........my #$%^^%$# #%^& 94 Bird with the highly touted
computerized, Hoity, Toity, hot to trot fancy dancy transmission is a piece of garbage :-( Give me a trany that senses the load via mechanical means any day......or night. Both my "Weak" and "Failure Prone" trannys shifted exactly when they should, exactly when I would have grabbed the next gear........every time.......under every stinking condition and neither of them broke OTOH.....the 94 has never shifed at the correct points.......EVER and the stupid Hoity Toity hot to trot lockup converter that slips after 30k miles is a piece a #$$%^%#$ # .
Ya, Ya, Ya, I know you can get stuf to fix it and it has a stronger input shaft and it can be made to handle more torque than the older version.....so what?? It didn't come from the factory that way but the other two did. Put these behind a 3.0 or 3.8 or 302 and they'll last forever. Use a little common sense and you can match anything to make a stong, useful power train. I wouldn't put an AOD of any kind behind a 460 and the 460 doesn't need an OD so the E4OD is redundant in that case as well. All this talk about OD's and mileage is off the mark since it's the cam that determines the engines happy spot and the cubes determine how efficiently it can be made to run at lower rpms with heavy vehicles etc...125's have 6,7 and even 8 speeds so you can "Row" the gears to keep them in a 5 rpm power band......500's have 4 or 5 speeds because they have a wider power band......a 302 needs an OD as do the V-6's but the 351W and 460 don't necessarily need them IMNSHO :-) Happily Totally Retired, Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary :-) > 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. ------------------------------ From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: C6 versus OverDrive Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:44:10 -0700 The E4OD IS a C-6 with OD gears added. They use the same internal parts for the most part. The reason the E4OD is weaker is due to the over drive gears having to run all the time so that they wear out and the OD gear set is weaker than the normal sized gears as well as spinning faster so more wear takes place. It's the weak link in most OD trannys. Happily Totally Retired, Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary :-) > The later E4OD's have come a long way as far as strength and reliability. > I'd say they are equal in strength to the C6. ------------------------------ From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: C6 versus OverDrive Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:33 -0700 There is a difference in torqe reqirements when the gears are actually loaded. In 1:1 top gear trannys the gears do spin but they are not loaded, the input shaft is locked directly to the output shaft. In ALL OD's, auto and manual, the top gear is a reverse ratio, that is the output is spinning faster than the input which requires even more torque than the lower gears due to an increase in the "Inertia" load in the output. It not only has to pull the vehicle weight but has to spin the transmission gears faster than the engine which takes more power (Oil shear, inertia, friction etc.) so much of the touted advantage of the OD is eaten up by additional loads which are not openly published. Take a look at a typical manual OD and the gears are smaller and thinner and it uses ATF for lube in an attempt to reduce some of these disadvantages and buy back some of the lower overall final drive ratio advantage. Take a look at the Jeroco tranny used in NASCAR and the problems they have due to it's much lighter internals. It is designed to be on the ragged edge of self destructing and basically to last one race at a time but they get maximum efficiency out of it that way. It's a risk they are willing to take to get even a part of one HP advantage. We've discussed this before and most of us know the "Excuses" they use to not design a 4 speed auto with 1:1 top gear instead of the OD type but IMNSHO this is still the way to go. It could be done but at what cost? Only the bean counters will ever know :-) I know about all their excuses, I just don't believe they are valid. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.......Harumph! :-) Happily Totally Retired, Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary :-) > In any given application, the engine has to spin the > same amount of internals regardless of what gear > the transmission is in. ------------------------------ From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Manifold vs. Ported Spark Vac Advance: Tested both on Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:59:58 -0700 AFAIK, at idle it should not matter. You will tune the engine to work with the timing it has. In the ported case you will have a richer mixture at idle due to using initial advance where with manifold you will have initial plus all the vacuum advance so will need a much leaner mixture which is probably what causes the bog with manifold vacuum. Happily Totally Retired, Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary :-) > Previously when I tried ported vacuum, I was unable to get a satisfactory > idle > carb to the distributor, I tried both. The results: Ported works much > better. With manifold vacuum, I had a massive bog when I floored it ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:32:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Ford Trucks in Computer Games From: Josh Keady <keady wizzards.net>
At current, the beta only lets you play with a Nissan Xterra or Pathfinder (with phase 1, 2, and 3 performance parts) on 2 tracks, but they expect to release an official demo of the game sometime in the near future with different trucks and tracks. I can hardly wait to get that F-250 out in the mud... (the final game will have a truck editor, and rest assured, I'll be creating classic trucks!) Josh Keady ---- 1977 F-350 Ranger XLT Camper Special on 10/20/00 5:24 AM, Don Thurlow at don.thurlow greenbaynet.com wrote:
> Josh, > I just starting to download the beta.. I'll have everyone at my work > look at it (they all are quake attics/ i also work at an isp) and i'll see > what they say today.. > > -Don ------------------------------ From: "Eric Washburn" <bruce9 flash.net>
Subject: Re: 4 bbl on a 300 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:56:15 -0500 Yeah, I'm building up a 300 and can use all the info I can get =) -----Original Message----- From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Sean O'Malley
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:04 PM To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] 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 ============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Mileage Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:02:22 -0500 Wishw\ writes in response to one of my post: >>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!!! :) << Illustration only my boy.. No way I'm getting 20mpg... Closer to 2mpg.. Actually in the neighbor hood of 10-11mpg..I'm hoping to improve this greatly with the '76 Flareside I have to "build" for the wife... Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Lockup Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:04:19 -0500 John writes: >> They both slip at 30. Clutch lockup doesn't occur until about 40-45. And C6 never had lockup.... Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: reliability of OD Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:09:32 -0500 John writes: >>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.<< Don't know a thing about the Generals "stuff". Haven't owned one since '63.. I think though that Fords record is better prior to the Electronics, but I sure don't know that. Just what I hear/read. I've never owned a Ford with automatic OD. Owned a bunch of old Electric OD's(3 speed manuals with elect OD) Got two of them right now, but not installed in vehicles.. Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Jason Kendrick" <390fe ford-trucks.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:26:28 GMT Subject: Gas mileage I've finally started driving the '78 F150 Ranger Lariat Supercab with a 460, and the mileage is terrible. It's got a 600 cfm Holley that runs superbly, but it's got a 2.75 gear out back. I think it's working the engine harder than it needs to be in town. I might try switching to a 3.50 ratio. I also think the truck sat for awhile before I got it. This last week the mileage was a bit better-about 8mpg. The first week it got about 4.5 mpg. Any thoughts on gear ratios and mileage of these 460's? PS, my email address has changed to 390fe ford-trucks.net if anyone needs it.
Jason Kendrick 1978 F150 Supercab 460/C6 1970 F100 Custom 390/C6 Ford Truck Enthusiasts http://www.ford-trucks.com ------------------------------ From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:00:17 EDT Subject: Re: Lockup In a message dated 10/20/00 7:09:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, maggie11 HiWAAY.net writes:
<< John writes: >> They both slip at 30. Clutch lockup doesn't occur until about 40-45. And C6 never had lockup.... >> Actually the clutches dont slip. (unless its low on fluid, or broke) its just that the torque converter may or may not have reached stall speed at 30 mph. Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: BED/TAILGATE FOR SALE Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:08:19 -0500 HEY GANG:: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.dibit.com/browse.stuff/Automotive/Parts/ Approx 40% of the way down and in the right column there is a '64-'66 8' bed and tailgate for sale. $50.00 In 248 area code. Detroit area I believe. Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Gas mileage Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:21:39 -0400 > it's got a 2.75 gear out back. I think it's working the engine harder than it > needs to be in town. I might try switching to a 3.50 ratio. =========================================== the gears you have should be fine i would think really with the torque that 460 has unless you dragging a awfull lot of weight around with you gordon ------------------------------ From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: reliability of OD Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:25:16 -0400 ive got a 3 spd with O.D stick in my 79 f 100 and its fine i also have a automatic O.D in a 88 mercury thats got 140,000 miles on it and a 84 marquis as well with 130,000 on it with no trouble with any of them YET GORDON ------------------------------ From: "Robert Younkers" <younkers auracom.com>
Subject: Rare truck Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:19:48 -0300 This has got to be a rare find. Just checking out eBay this evening and came across this diamond in the very rough. It's a 1963 four door, four wheel drive. Anybody know how many of these might have been produced? It's in Texas if anyone is interested. One major drawback.......some clown stuck a 350 P*n^%c engine in it. Blasphemy. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=473547138 Now, I'd like your opinions on something I'm mulling over. It's a 1979 F-150 2wd with a 302. The bed would have to be replaced, but the box sides are repairable and the cab is in real good shape for the year....in Nova Scotia anyway. I think I would have to weld in a bit of frame at the back, but not much. I can have this truck for $300. The engines sounds pretty good, but smokes some. It hasn't been driven for over a year, but is run occasionally by the owner who is too busy building his 1982 lifted F-150 to get to this. I think it's a small risk worth taking but would welcome opinions...particularly regarding where that smoke might be coming from. Any input would be appreciated. S'Later Robert 1978 f-150 4wd 1987 Thunderbird TC 1995 SHO Over 600,000 km of Power by Ford ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:28:27 -0500 From: prices <prices mciworld.com>
Subject: distributor for FE Hey FE engine fans, I have posted a brand new Mallory Unilite distributor for sale on ebay, no reserve. Fits FE Fords, it never was installed. Would make any FE rebuilder happy. bkp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:31:39 -0400 From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: Web site updates Pictorial additions: 1998 Ranger XLT 1998 F-150 1979 F-150 1968 F-250 Camper Special Links addition: Bob's Model AA Truck Page Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts ------------------------------ From: "Eric Washburn" <bruce9 flash.net>
Subject: Re: Rare truck Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:32:27 -0500 Denton's not too far away from me(30 mins or so), so if someone on this list bids on it and wins it, let me know if you need some help getting it =P, looks like it'd be an awesome resto project! -----Original Message----- From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Robert Younkers
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:20 PM To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Rare truck This has got to be a rare find. Just checking out eBay this evening and came across this diamond in the very rough. It's a 1963 four door, four wheel drive. Anybody know how many of these might have been produced? It's in Texas if anyone is interested. One major drawback.......some clown stuck a 350 P*n^%c engine in it. Blasphemy. http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=473547138 Now, I'd like your opinions on something I'm mulling over. It's a 1979 F-150 2wd with a 302. The bed would have to be replaced, but the box sides are repairable and the cab is in real good shape for the year....in Nova Scotia anyway. I think I would have to weld in a bit of frame at the back, but not much. I can have this truck for $300. The engines sounds pretty good, but smokes some. It hasn't been driven for over a year, but is run occasionally by the owner who is too busy building his 1982 lifted F-150 to get to this. I think it's a small risk worth taking but would welcome opinions...particularly regarding where that smoke might be coming from. Any input would be appreciated. S'Later Robert 1978 f-150 4wd 1987 Thunderbird TC 1995 SHO Over 600,000 km of Power by Ford ============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "Richard Larsen" <richlars burgoyne.com>
Subject: Re: looking for fuse panel in 61 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:31:37 -0600 Hey Joe! If its like my 62, which I think it is, it should be right behind your headlight switch. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is part of the switch. I took a better look at my emergency brake tonight. There is a 3/4 tube, by that I mean that there is a tube that the hand brake rod rides in where the top 1/4 is open. It could be that some moisture has collected in yours and rusted it tight. I would get as much penetrating oil in there as I could and let it soak. I also discovered that when the brake is fully released, fully in, it does not twist very much. About a 1/4" -1/2" movement at the long end of the handle. Once it has come out about 2 inches then it will rotate about 45 degrees to release. Hope this helps. Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe <shoman p3.net>
To: ford trucklist61-79 <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 12:24 PM Subject: [61-79-list] 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 > > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. > > ------------------------------ From: "Richard Larsen" <richlars burgoyne.com>
Subject: Re: looking for fuse panel in 61 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:46:15 -0600 Hey Joe! If its like my 62, it is right behind the headlight switch. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is part of your headlight switch. Also, I had a chance to look at my emergency brake a little closer. The rod portion of the handle is housed behind the dash in a tube that is open along the top. It could be that something has lodged in there or moisture has gotten in and rusted it tight. I would soak it with some good penetrating oil and see if that loosens it up any. I also notice that if the brake is all the way in (off), the handle does not twist but a tiny bit. About a 1/4 to 1/2 inch at the end of the handle. Once it is pulled out about 2" it twists about 45 degrees to release. Mine also takes a little push to get it in all the way. Hope this helps, Rich > 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: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: OD in '78 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:11:06 -0700 . > the 460 doesn't need an OD so the E4OD is redundant in that case as well. Why not? It's not really a matter of how much torque is available at the transmission, its about running the engine at a lower RPM for fuel economy, yet still giving excellent acceleration, with a gear for almost every situation. Look at some of the highway trucks today with 1800 lb/ft torque. The best performers (acceleration, speed and fuel economy) all seem to be running 18 speeds with OD's. > a 302 needs an OD as do the V-6's but the 351W and 460 don't necessarily need them IMNSHO :-) When I used my 77 (with 429) for towing duty, I would have loved to have an overdrive. Either in a 5 or 6 speed or with an auxillary gear box. When pulling a hill (way overloaded for a F150) in 4th (4 speed, but the idea is the same), the RPM was too low, a shift to 3rd gave it the RPM's it needed but at about 4500, it would be out of the "sweet spot" of the cam and would only gain about 5 mph. This is where the gear split of an OD transmission would have worked great. Unloaded, it would run about 2800 down the highway at 60 getting about 10 mpg. With an overdrive, it would lower the cruise RPM, gaining fuel mileage, and engine life (slightly), without sacrificing the performance of the non OD. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke ------------------------------ From: "ben" <stevee itis.com>
Subject: Re: 400 fuel problem Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:22:28 -0500 I had the exact same problem you describe. I replaced the fuel pump, put on a new Holley carb, and re-routed the fuel line from the pump to the carb with no luck. It turns out that somebody didn't like the previous owner of the truck and sugared the tank. I saw the stuff getting into the filter by the carb and just kept putting new filters in. I found out the hard way that this crap can get past fuel filters, when I sent my new Holley 500cfm 2bbl to get rejetted the guy called me 5minuts after I dropped off the carb and told me the float bowl was full of crap. So the sugar in the tank got past my fuel filter(Fram) into my old carb and into my new one. What I did was put in a water separator/filter. This thing is huge! It has 1" inlet and outlets that I reduced down the 3/8" hose fittings. The stuff comes into the filter and most of it settles to the bottom and what doesn't has two filters to go through. I picked it up at a hardware store for about $15, new filter and seals run about $5. The only tricky parts are finding a place to mount it and you have to fill the bowl before screwing it back on because it takes alot of cranking to fill the bowl. Before putting on the filter I flushed the tank, but the "goo" is water repellant. The only thing that liquefies it is gas, and it solidifies when air hits it. So the only way I can think of that would completely eliminate the crap in the tank, is to get a new tank. Take a look in the float bowl on your carb, my old one was clogged full of slime. >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 *****Problems emailing me??Try Ben_E excite.com **********
------------------------------ From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: 400 fuel problem Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:55:36 -0400 Before putting on the > filter I flushed the tank, but the "goo" is water repellant. The only thing > that liquefies it is gas, and it solidifies when air hits it. So the only > way I can think of that would completely eliminate the crap in the tank, is > to get a new tank. ============================================== you could have used acid or drano and a few other things to clean the sugar out of the tank gordon ------------------------------ From: "Don Thurlow" <don.thurlow greenbaynet.com>
Subject: Re: Cab Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:26:33 -0500 not really. i'm in wisconsin :) ----- Original Message ----- From: <JUMPINFORD aol.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 4:38 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Cab > I'll have one here shortly. Its in Vegas. Rust free. Large dent on the > roof, where my parts guy fell on it, but easily repairable. Is it close > enough for you? > > Darrell & Tweety > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. > ------------------------------ From: "MARTY COLMAN" <colman76 hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Which 390 headers? Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:51:45 GMT Matt wrote- >longtube headersare 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 > That is exactly why I am considering shorter headers. I don't like taking apart more than I have to, to do a repair. Are the power/torque gains worth the hassle of long tubes? -doesn't sound like it to me. Is there another brand that is better for clearance? Sounds like shorties would be best. If I could only find some... 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:45:52 -0400 From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: 2001 Specifications The specifications section of the Ford Truck Enthusiasts web site has been expanded to cover all 2001 Ford trucks, vans and SUVs: 2001 Econoline 2001 Escape 2001 Excursion 2001 Expedition 2001 Explorer Sport 2001 F-150 2001 F-150 Harley-Davidson SuperCrew 2001 Ranger and Edge 2001 Explorer Sport Trac 2001 SuperCrew 2001 Super Duty F-250/F-350/F-450/F-550/F-650/F-750 <a href="http://www.ford-trucks.com/specs/index.html">www.ford-trucks.com/specs/index.html</a> Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts ------------------------------ From: "rich" <richth exis.net>
Subject: Fw: Re: Pilot hold in 460 crank Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:46:39 -0400 Jeff is unable to reply directly to the list, so he asked me to forward this: Yes, Pepboys, Autozone, all the Cheapie autoparts places said there was no Pilot bushing/bearing for this engine (mine) when I was rebuilding. Tell them to go to NAPA, they'll have it on the counter in 2 minutes, and in your pocket for less then 5 bucks. Jeff Hansen (The MUny Pitt) > > Jeff (?) Hansen (of the Muny Pitt) has a 68 or 69 429 in his truck. He > > claimed that he bought his pilot bushing off the shelf. I suspect that > > you could ask your local autoparts store to help you find a proper sized > > pilot bushing. There's a recess there...it's just ALLEGED to be too > > small. It looked plenty big to me, but I was 17 at the time and things >> just looked bigger back then (and I still believed in magazines too). > > Next time I'll hunt around for a pilot bushing that fits. I'll bet you > > can find one without much trouble. > > *down periscope* > > Ohio Bill (Listening for sonar pings from SB Ch*vys) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:24:56 -0700 From: Negative Image <negativeimage earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Rare truck is it just me or does it look like a custom job? The bed is too short. and the top of the cab looks extended and raised. Eric Washburn wrote: > Denton's not too far away from me(30 mins or so), so if someone on this list > bids on it and wins it, let me know if you need some help getting it =P, > looks like it'd be an awesome resto project! > > -----Original Message----- > From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Robert Younkers
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:20 PM > To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: [61-79-list] Rare truck > > This has got to be a rare find. Just checking out eBay this evening and > came across this diamond in the very rough. It's a 1963 four door, four > wheel drive. Anybody know how many of these might have been produced? It's > in Texas if anyone is interested. One major drawback.......some clown stuck > a 350 P*n^%c engine in it. Blasphemy. > > http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=473547138 > > Now, I'd like your opinions on something I'm mulling over. It's a 1979 > F-150 2wd with a 302. The bed would have to be replaced, but the box sides > are repairable and the cab is in real good shape for the year....in Nova > Scotia anyway. I think I would have to weld in a bit of frame at the back, > but not much. I can have this truck for $300. The engines sounds pretty > good, but smokes some. It hasn't been driven for over a year, but is run > occasionally by the owner who is too busy building his 1982 lifted F-150 to > get to this. I think it's a small risk worth taking but would welcome > opinions...particularly regarding where that smoke might be coming from. > Any input would be appreciated. > > S'Later > > Robert > > 1978 f-150 4wd .... To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.
Advertising -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy -
Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company. 
|