Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:58:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:58:58 -0500 (EST)
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 #317
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 Sun, 29 Oct 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 317

In This Issue:
Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?
Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?
Rochester Q-jet for a Ford
Re: Micarta Carb Spacer
Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?
Balancer difference
Re: 56 F100 in the Stable
Re: Wooden Carb Spacer
Re: Balancer difference
Re: 21 mpg 460?
Re: '71 F100 for sale on ebay
Re: '71 F100 for sale on ebay
Re: Frankenstein F150 Double Cab!:  Was cab and box swap
Re: 56 F100 in the Stable
Re: Micarta Carb Spacer
Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
Re: Timing
Re: Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
ADMIN: SEMA Show / Meet the web master
Saturday with my Ford Trucks
Re: Saturday with my Ford Trucks
Re: Saturday with my Ford Trucks
Re: Saturday with my Ford Trucks

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

From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:45:29 -0800

Well I know that the manual takes a flywheel and the auto takes a flexplate
but I don't think there's any difference on the other end of the crankshaft
where the balancer is. Never seen different part #s for auto versus manual
dampers.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Oxley" <luxjo thecore.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?


>
>
> Bill Beyer wrote:
> >
> > Hate to be the bearer of good news but the 351M and 400 take the same
> > flywheel and damper. Just check the old one out good to make sure the
outer
> > and inner pieces are still bonded by the rubber.
> >
>
>  The manual and auto trans balancer are different though.
>
>                            OX
>




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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:06:55 -0500
From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?



Bill Beyer wrote:
>
> Well I know that the manual takes a flywheel and the auto takes a flexplate
> but I don't think there's any difference on the other end of the crankshaft
> where the balancer is. Never seen different part #s for auto versus manual
> dampers.
>

The one that came stock on my manual is about twice as thick and 3
times the weight of all the auto one's I've seen. Couldn't find any part
numbers on any balancer of all the one's I've looked at. I assumed the
balancer was bigger due to flywheel. I reused "man trans??" 351M
balancer on my 400.

                                   OX

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

From: "Ballinger" <ballingr sbmu.net>
Subject: Rochester Q-jet for a Ford
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:31:21 -0600

>> > A What
>> > I didnt know they even made such a critter for a ford
>> > thats a G.M. carb

They put them on the '70-'71 429CJ.  It is numbered on the driver's side air
horn behind the secondary throttle lever.  It will either be a 7040285,
7040286, 7040287, or 7040288.  It will have a Ford kickdown lever. Another
distinguishing feature is that it has a center inlet like a Buick, Olds, or
Pontiac but is threaded for a Ford screw in filter.

Tuning them is really no harder than any other carb if you choose the right
carb for the application to begin with.  Use a pre-75 carb from a Caddilac,
Buick,  Pontiac or Olds and you will already be close.  The numbers to look
for break down as follows:

This is a carb I'm building for my truck: 7044262= '73-'74 Pontiac
Breaking it down:

"704"='70's (703='60's. 1705= 1975-1980, 1708=1980up. 170 prefixes power
pistons and primary jets do not interchange with the 703 or 704 prefix
carbs, jets secondary rods and hangers will interchange)
"4"= year 1974 (will always be the last digit of the year)
"2"= 49 state emissions(a "5" denotes California)
"6"= Pontiac (0,1,2 = Chevy/GMC, 3=Caddilac, 4= Buick, 5= Olds, 6,7 Pontiac,
8= Ford(after 1975 the Olds carbs used this to denote a carb with the
aneroid compensator)
"2"= Auto trans (odd numbers are manual trans evens are auto)

If you go with a 7040-7044 (70-74) 2(49 state) 3-7 (Cad Bu, Ol, Po, or an 8
Ford 429CJ) and any number 1-9 for a manual(kickdown will require adapting
linkage or using the 429CJ carb) you won't be far off for any truck
application as it is.  Rebuilding one is no harder to me than any other
carb.  If you are too lean or rich at cruise change the primary jets or
rods, if you are off at WOT change the secondary rods or hanger.  The
secondary rods /hanger are a piece of cake, I can change then in two
minutes, one screw on the hanger and they come up, swap and screw back down
and you're done.  The primary jets and rods can be changed by simply pulling
the air horn with it still on the vehicle.  The power piston spring will
tune the part throttle cut in of the power circuit, choose the spring for
the manifold vacuam the engine generates.  The spring pulls the rod out of
the jet thus metering fuel. A light spring requires less vacuam to overcome,
cutting it in later, a heavier one needs more vacuam .

Don't be skeered of the Q-jet, they are a good carb for anything.







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

From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Micarta Carb Spacer
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:29:02 -0800

Micarta is used for all manner of applications but most are where a solid,
stable base is needed for spacers or non conductive forms for holding parts.
They are all pretty stable but there are special types for special jobs.
For a carb spacer I would venture that almost any that you find will be
adequate.  They vary in density, number of layers per inch etc. and also the
type of resin used to give them less porosity etc..  BTW, porosity as
defined here is extremely low in all cases but some applications require
extremely stable material and it can be found in one of the Micarta types
for high tech applications.  Most PC boards are a type of Micarta for
instance and some of the flat parts found in switches and other electircal
devices are made of Micarta.

If you can get  your hands on a McMaster Carr catalog or one of the
materials distributors like "Exotic Rubber" they have a description of the
properties of each type but, again, I think most of them would work for
this.

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

> I'd be very interested in knowing more about which industries use which
types
> of resins and possible sources.  Or maybe even better would be knowing
which
> types of micarta to avoid.



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

From: "Andersons" <robertan cfw.com>
Subject: Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:59:31 -0500

Thanks for the information, guys- and the manual vs. auto question is moot,
as the same manual trans and flywheel will be kept on this project.  The
original balancer is very heavy, almost 2" thick, and in great condition.

Looks like I dodged a bullet there.  But, now I'm getting real worried about
this block cracking issue being discussed on the 351M/400 list- I'm sure my
engine falls into the problem time period, but not sure yet of the casting
origin.  Have a good thought for me....

----- Original Message -----
From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 8:06 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 351M vs. 400- Same Harmonic Balancer?


>
>
> Bill Beyer wrote:
> >
> > Well I know that the manual takes a flywheel and the auto takes a
flexplate
> > but I don't think there's any difference on the other end of the
crankshaft
> > where the balancer is. Never seen different part #s for auto versus
manual
> > dampers.
> >
>
>  The one that came stock on my manual is about twice as thick and 3
> times the weight of all the auto one's I've seen. Couldn't find any part
> numbers on any balancer of all the one's I've looked at. I assumed the
> balancer was bigger due to flywheel. I reused "man trans??" 351M
> balancer on my 400.
>
>                                     OX
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
>


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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Balancer difference
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:08:38 -0600


Ox writes:  >>The manual and auto trans balancer are different though<<

Want to elaborate a bit more on this????  Cause I don't understand what you're
saying...
Are you saying that the automatics of the 351M/400 family have a different
balance than the manuals of the same family???

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.


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

From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:46:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 56 F100 in the Stable

At 05:18 PM 27:10:2000 -0700, Tim Bowman wrote:
>I just found and purchased a '56 F100 to add to my FOMOCO stable.  Using
>a 78 F250 (FTE content) with a friend to go pick it up tomorrow
>morning.  Have a Mustang II front clip and have other non-stock plans
>(which is very unlike me!).

I wouldn't use a Mustang II front clip if I were you, I've never understood
why everyone is enamoured with the M II front end components,  you
should check out the Aerostar front ends, at least the brakes are rated
for more than 3K lbs...

Steve & the Rockette
68 F100, 390cid, FMX
63 F100, 292cid, 3speed
72 Capri 2000, hers
73 Capri 2600, terminal cancer...
73 MGB GT, Our Toy
94 SHO, SWMBO's
98 Contour SVT, Mine, Mine, All Mine....


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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:09:47 -0500
From: somalley voyager2.cns.ohiou.edu (Sean O'Malley)
Subject: Re: Wooden Carb Spacer

>  I am still looking for a cheaper alternative that is
> a plastic yet is still affordable AND will cut the
> mustard for use as an insulating spacer. u

Visit www.mscdirect.com and request a (free) catalog and/or CD ROM.
I'm assuming they still send out their "big book" catalog for free...

Lots and lots of plastics to choose from, though many of the ones that
would make great insulating spacers (like phenolic) probably cost as
much for the raw material as a finished one from some place like Summit.

--sean

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 09:09:42 -0500
From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: Balancer difference


"Azie L. Magnusson" wrote:
>
> Ox writes:  >>The manual and auto trans balancer are different though<<
>
> Want to elaborate a bit more on this????  Cause I don't understand what you're
> saying...
> Are you saying that the automatics of the 351M/400 family have a different
> balance than the manuals of the same family???
>

Yes, the one on my 78 bronc with man trans is HUGE compared to the
other balancers I've had on 6-7 auto M blocks. I never have had another
man. trans M-block to verify this monster balancer.

                                    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)

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 06:44:49 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson <dpearson ctc.edu>
Subject: Re: 21 mpg 460?



Aeroape82 aol.com wrote:
>
> Thought Edelbrock was a Weber

It isa.  Mine ways Weber right on it...

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

From: "Southerland, Rich" <rsouther alldata.com>
Subject: Re: '71 F100 for sale on ebay
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 07:07:36 -0800

Went for $356.  Not bad!  Did someone on the list get it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Southerland, Rich
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 6:36 AM
> To: 'ford list'
> Subject: '71 F100 for sale on ebay
>
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=47705413
> 9
>
> Currently $125.  Looks like a solid project truck.  Supposedly just needs
> a radiator.
>
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:16:47 -0500
From: "Huston, Virgil H." <vhhuston switch.com>
Subject: Re: '71 F100 for sale on ebay

I almost bid on it, but shipping pushed the cost up by $695 and my wife
would have killed me.

Virgil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Southerland, Rich [SMTP:rsouther alldata.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 10:08 AM
> To: 'ford list'
> Subject: [61-79-list] Re: '71 F100 for sale on ebay
>
> Went for $356.  Not bad!  Did someone on the list get it?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Southerland, Rich
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 6:36 AM
> > To: 'ford list'
> > Subject: '71 F100 for sale on ebay
> >
> >
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=47705413
> > 9
> >
> > Currently $125.  Looks like a solid project truck.  Supposedly just
> needs
> > a radiator.
> >
> >
> >
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

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

From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:38:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Frankenstein F150 Double Cab!:  Was cab and box swap

I'm not sure who originally sent me this, I think it was CJ or John a year or
so ago ...

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://woody.ait.iastate.edu/WWW2/Images/PUSHME.JPG


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: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:47:47 GMT
Subject: Re: 56 F100 in the Stable

> I wouldn't use a Mustang II front clip if I were you, I've never understood

>why everyone is enamoured with the M II front end components,

'Cause they're cheap, easy to find, easy to find parts for, did I mention cheap
?  They have a decent and compact SLA design instead of the strut front ends
that most vehicles are using these days ... and the street rodders that have
the light vehicles really took to them, that means LOTS of aftermarket support
from that side of things, and some pretty beefy components are available ...
besides I don't think many of them are using the brakes from the II, just the
front sub frame and suspension components ... (not actually the clip as the
clip is fenders and such too and who wants that ? :)

>   you
>should check out the Aerostar front ends, at least the brakes are rated
>for more than 3K lbs...
>

Aerostar front ends ?  that's the first I've heard of anyone using those ...
do they use a strut in the front, or the more traditional shock/control arm
arrangement ?

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: Micarta Carb Spacer
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:20:57 -0800

Another aspect of this Micarta thing is that it requires some fairly
ambitious cutting tools to do a good job on it.  Normal Hi Speed tools will
dull very quickly as it tends to be very abrasive to machine.  If you use a
band saw or jig saw to cut the holes out you will have to change the blade a
time or two to get it done probably.  We normally used carbide to machine it
in the shop.  It is still the best material I think, just be aware of the
machining difficulty.  The dust is very obnoxious too :-)  You could always
tell when someone was machining it by the smell in the shop.

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

> Visit www.mscdirect.com and request a (free) catalog and/or CD ROM.
> I'm assuming they still send out their "big book" catalog for free...
>
> Lots and lots of plastics to choose from, though many of the ones that
> would make great insulating spacers (like phenolic) probably cost as
> much for the raw material as a finished one from some place like Summit.



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

From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:33:32 -0600


I hope I don't fire up too much controversy, but I am considering putting a Chevy alternator on my 390. I want to do this because most alternators that have the features I want are only available for Chevy's. The features I want are: a powdercoated or chrome case/pulley, high output, and 1 wire regulator.

What are the physical differences between a Chevy and a Ford alternator? I know I will not have any problems electrically, just maybe in the way it mounts. I was thinking of getting a universal alternator mounting kit from Summit and trying to fabricate something to make it work. Does this sound possible? I have looked around and not been able to find anything about the differences in the alternators. Can anybody help me out?

Thanks

---Garrett www.1966ford.com


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

From: "Dave Resch" <Dave.Resch sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 10:37:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Timing

>From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
>Will the 351C  timing set work on the 351M/400????

Yo Azie:

Yes.  The M-block has the same crank-to-cam spacing as the 351C.

>From: GMontgo930 aol.com
>One question I do have is, in my '79 400, how
>much of an effect will I see by resetting my
>cam back to 0 degrees or even 4 degree
>advanced?

Yo George:

The low rpm power improvement is noticeable, but not dramatic.  The more you use
low rpm (particularly towing or climbing hills), the more you'll notice it.  If
you have over 50K miles on the original timing set and you need to replace it
anyway, I'd recommend it.

>The first I had a RV style of cam with a double
>roller gear & chain set. It ran nice though I
>dont remember any reall big or dramatic
>change once I was done (many moons
>ago). The newer one I know was a shop
>rebuilt with Im assuming stock parts
>(hey, I needed one and the price was
>right). Even though Ive got a new
>manifold, 4bbl, & headers on the new
>motor, it still doesnt feel as good or
>strong as the origional one without all
>that stuff.

The bottom line is that a better cam goes farther in producing power from the
M-block than all the external goodies.  Of course, all the external goodies will
bring a lot more out of a good cam.

If you're thinking about getting in there for the timing set, I'd recommend
upgrading the cam and really taking advantage of the carb and headers you have
now.

Dave R (M-block devotee)



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

From: "Keith" <A2JKEITH GCI.NET>
Subject: Re: Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:36:22 -0900

, but I am considering putting a Chevy alternator on my 390. I want to do
this because most alternators that have the features I want are only
available for Chevy's. The features I want are: a powdercoated or chrome
case/pulley, high output, and 1 wire regulator.
>
>What are the physical differences between a Chevy and a Ford alternator? I
know I will not have any problems electrically, just maybe in the way it
mounts. I was thinking of getting a universal alternator mounting kit from
Summit and trying to fabricate something to make it work. Does this sound
possible? I have looked around and not been able to find anything about the
differences in the alternators. Can anybody help me out?
-Garrett www.1966ford.com


Ok Garret not all alternators look the same, you can match one from a C #^y
in there though. If you look at one from say........... a 73 Ch___y it
should be just about the same I believe. To set it up as just a generator
where it charges constantly you would have to take the wire that comes from
the battery to the post on the alternator, and run a jumper from there to
the little spade on the right hand side of where a clip should normally be,
that would make it charge all the time, and presto chango, there ya go. In
reference to the alternator I am speaking about Most usually its a Delco
Remy alternator. But best of luck to you.
Keith
71 F250 4x4


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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:55:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>

>
> I hope I don't fire up too much controversy, but I am considering putting a
> Chevy alternator on my 390. I want to do this because most alternators that
> have the features I want are only available for Chevy's. The features I
> want are: a powdercoated or chrome case/pulley, high output, and 1 wire
regulator.
>
> What are the physical differences between a Chevy and a Ford alternator? I
> know I will not have any problems electrically, just maybe in the way it
> mounts. I was thinking of getting a universal alternator mounting kit from
> Summit and trying to fabricate something to make it work. Does this sound
> possible? I have looked around and not been able to find anything about the
> differences in the alternators. Can anybody help me out?
>
> Thanks
>
> ---Garrett www.1966ford.com

Garrett, if you look hard enough, you should be able to find some Fords that
came with OEM Delco (GM) alternators. I would look at mid-70 to early 80
full size LTD and Marquis. You will also find this vintage with Harrison
(GM) air conditioner systems.

-- 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:18:14 -0500
From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: SEMA Show / Meet the web master

Ford Truck Enthusiasts will be at the upcoming SEMA show
in Las Vegas, Nevada. We will be there from Wednesday,
November 1 to Saturday, November 4. If you plan to attend
the SEMA show (its for automotive aftermarket professionals),
let me know so we can meet during the week.

In addition to the show, we'll be in Vegas all day Saturday
and would like to meet some of the users for lunch! Let me
know and we'll make plans.

I'll be giving free FTE t-shirts to any user I meet there,
while supplies last!

Ken Payne
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Admin


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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:35:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>

> Ok Garret not all alternators look the same, you can match one from a C #^y
> in there though. If you look at one from say........... a 73 Ch___y it
> should be just about the same I believe. To set it up as just a generator
> where it charges constantly you would have to take the wire that comes from
> the battery to the post on the alternator, and run a jumper from there to
> the little spade on the right hand side of where a clip should normally be,
> that would make it charge all the time, and presto chango, there ya go. In
> reference to the alternator I am speaking about Most usually its a Delco
> Remy alternator. But best of luck to you.

Not to disagree with Keith, but if you get an alternator off of a GM
product, you want one off of a 75 or later with a catalytic converter. All
engines with HEI had the one wire alternators you seek. Just as with the
Ford trucks, GM made some heavy half-tons that didn't have HEI nor a cat nor
the one wire alternator.

-- 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:54:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Uh-Oh! Putting a Chevy alternator on a 390?
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>

BTW, they come in different amp ratings, too. The luxury cars were rated
higher than the others as a general rule. Oops, I made funny. Get
it...general rule.

-- 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:04:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Finn <ecfinn yahoo.com>
Subject: Saturday with my Ford Trucks

Nothing like a good productive Saturday spent working on your Ford
trucks...  I thought that in light of all the help you've provided in the
past couple of weeks I'd give you an update on my progress so far.  (I'd
have sent this sooner if my #$$# cable modem service hadn't quit working
all weekend.)

As you may or may not recall I've had a couple of questions on the list in
the past couple of weeks.  Question one.  "Starting Electrics"  Well it
turns out I had two bad starters for my '78 Bronco.  I went to Pep Boys
and got a new lifetime warranty starter (I know I'll be replacing it for a
lifetime...), installed it, and everything works great now.  It starts
correctly, turns off correctly, all I could ask of a starting system.  It
turns out my original problem with the wiring was due to the fact that I
bought a truck with an auto tranny and I swapped in a manual tranny.  It
seems that the auto tranny wiring harness has a neutral safety switch that
I needed to bypass when I swapped in the manual.  Now when I turn the key
it fires up and stops turning over the starter as soon as it does.  Thanks
guys for all the help with understanding the starting system.

Next up was the steering on my new '79 F-350 4x4.  It looks like this may
not be so expensive after all.  Taking the advice of the list I looked at
the column and the u-joint was dry as a bone and rusted to boot.  I
sprayed it liberally with penetrating oil a couple of times started it up
and voila,  nice smooth steering wheel movement from lock to lock.  I'm
still not convinced I don't have other problems in the steering but I'll
get to them in a later email.  Should I lubricate the u-joint permanently
with anything in particular or will it be ok for a while now that I've
freed it up?

I also spent the day giving the new F-350 a tuneup and getting familiar
with its layout.  I replaced the usual: cap, rotor, wires, plugs, air
filter, and breather filter.  This brings me to my next question.  In
comparing the hoses coming out of the valve covers between my 351M in my
Bronco and the 460 in the F-350 they appear to be routed differently.
Here's the scoop.

My bronco 315M has pass. valve cover (vc) hose routed through breather
filter into air cleaner and the driver vc has the PCV valve and then
routed to the base of the 4-bbl carb.

The F-350 (460) has pass vc hose routed to base of carb and drivers side
cover has PCV valve but no hose attached to it.  The breather in air
cleaner on the 460 is on drivers side with no hose attached.  I'm thinking
that I should connect the drivers side PCV valve to the breather filter in
the air cleaner.  Is that correct or will either configuration work?  Is
this related to the ongoing ported vs. manifold vaccuum discussion or am I
still missing something.  Please help me as I'm starting to confuse myself
here.  Its not that hard to confuse me but yall have helped before so I
thought I'd ask again.  :-)

Later,
Eric Finn (perpetually fixing his Ford trucks but learning in the
process!)
'78 Bronco "The Beast" (Project still in progress)
'79 F-350 4x4 "Fred"
'95 Mustang GT "Beauty" (Daily Driver)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://im.yahoo.com/

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

From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 18:25:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Saturday with my Ford Trucks

>Nothing like a good productive Saturday spent working on your Ford
>trucks...

No kidding, glad yours went well too, I managed to "just" pull the front axle
out from under my truck and get it stripped to just the gears in the housing
... next step, have the gears swapped to the "new" (76) axlehousing and start
putting the disc brakes on her!

>  Should I lubricate the u-joint permanently
>with anything in particular or will it be ok for a while now that I've
>freed it up?
>

I'm not sure there's anything more permanent that you can do to it, unless you
took it apart and greased it, which I can see being a bad thing if you can even
figure out how to do it ... I'd just be sure it was kept lubricated, likely
too just driving it will keep it free ...

> The breather in air
>cleaner on the 460 is on drivers side with no hose attached.  > I'm thinking

>that I should connect the drivers side PCV valve to the breather filter in

>the air cleaner.

OKay, the way I've seen it setup has been a PCV valve on the pass. side valve
cover, that goes to the base of the carb with a nice big hose ...  then the
driver's side goes to the air cleaner to suck air in, there shouldn't be a valve
involved on this side, just a free breather.

>  Is
>this related to the ongoing ported vs. manifold vaccuum discussion or am I

>still missing something.

The ported vs. manifold is for timing, the distributor vaccuum hose ...


>  Please help me as I'm starting to confuse myself
>here.  Its not that hard to confuse me but yall have helped before so I
>thought I'd ask again.  :-)
>

No problem, just take it slow and be sure to ask questions, its hard to un-confuse
people sometimes if they get too confused. :)

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: "Michael" <danger csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Saturday with my Ford Trucks
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:50:45 -0800

> The F-350 (460) has pass vc hose routed to base of carb and drivers side
> cover has PCV valve but no hose attached to it.  The breather in air
> cleaner on the 460 is on drivers side with no hose attached.  I'm thinking
> that I should connect the drivers side PCV valve to the breather filter in
> the air cleaner.  Is that correct or will either configuration work?

Actually, it seems like the valve cover with the PCV valve should be
connected to the base of the carb, and the other valve cover should have a
hose leading to the breather filter.

Michael
69 F250 390 4V, T18, 3.54 LS
69 F250 390 4V, C6, 4.11
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.csolutions.net/myth/ford/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



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

From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Saturday with my Ford Trucks
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:57:43 -0800

My steering u-joint has been fine for the past 6 months since I lubed it
with WD-40. I don't think any maintenance is really necessary or really
possible for that matter.

The emissions setup on the 351 is the same as my 400 which according to the
shop manual is the correct one. It sounds like someone may have switched the
valve covers on your 460. I don't think it matters which v/c the PCV is
located in as long as it has vacuum applied to it and it's running directly
into the carb/base plate. The breather should be going to the air cleaner.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Finn" <ecfinn yahoo.com>
To: "FTE" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 11:04 AM
Subject: [61-79-list] Saturday with my Ford Trucks


>
> My bronco 315M has pass. valve cover (vc) hose routed through breather
> filter into air cleaner and the driver vc has the PCV valve and then
> routed to the base of the 4-bbl carb.
>
> The F-350 (460) has pass vc hose routed to base of carb and drivers side
> cover has PCV valve but no hose attached to it.  The breather in air
> cleaner on the 460 is on drivers side with no hose attached.  I'm thinking ....


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.