 |
|
|
|
|
|
Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:19:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:19:01 -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 #341 Precedence: list ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979 Truck Mailing List Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ 61-79-list Digest Mon, 20 Nov 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 341 In This Issue: Re: Engine Assembly Problems- Advice? Re: D 60 390 Oil dipstick tube ADMIN: Steve Delanty Re: D 60 Re: D 60 Re: D 60 429/460 introduction Re: D 60 Re: D 60 Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Re: Another 460 Debate :-) 352 vs 351W compatibility Re: 352 vs 351W compatibility Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Re: D 60 front clip opinions Re: D 60 Re: 429/460 genesis Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility Re: D 60 Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility Big Block Bronco Re: 429/460 genesis Re: 429/460 genesis Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility Re: front clip opinions Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility Saggy!~!~~ Another Ford truck! Re: Saggy!~!~~ Re: 429/460 genesis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Dave Resch" <Dave.Resch sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:51:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Engine Assembly Problems- Advice? >From: "Andersons" <robertan cfw.com>
> >main crank bearing clearances. I was getting >anywhere from .0025" to .002" clearance when >I torqued them down to the spec in my Haynes >manual- 40 to 45 ft-lbs (which seems way too low). >The '77 engine calls for this torque, while the '78 >and '79 calls for 95 to 105 ft-lbs. The spec. range >for clearance is .0008" to .0015", so I'm pretty >far over. Yo Bob: The torque spec you have is incorrect. The correct torque for M-block main bearing cap bolts is 95-105 ft/lb. >Since Dave thought that 45 lbs had to be wrong, >we went up to 90 lbs torque and re-checked. This >helped some, but I'm still in the .0015 to .002" >range- too loose. Even at 90 ft/lb, you still don't have enough torque. I would set the wrench to 100 ft/lb (middle of the 95-105 range) and see how the clearance checks. >What's the deal with the 45 ft-lbs main bearing >torque- is this right? No. Greg also mentioned that his '77 Ford shop manual shows 45 ft/lb torque for 351M/400 engines, but that is not correct. In 335 series engines, the only main bearing cap bolts that used the 45 ft/lb torque spec were the secondary cap bolts in 351C engines w/ 4-bolt main bearing caps. Try the higher (100 ft/lb) torque and let us know if it works. Good luck on the Project. Dave R (M-block devotee) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:14:35 -0500 From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 "Nichols, Josh" wrote: > > Don't the excursions have 10.25 rears--with disks too. I think the 250/350 > superdutys have D50 fronts as well. Anyone have the specs on the D50 front? > How strong is it compared to the HP D60 ? > > Josh TTB D50 front has about a 9" ring gear I believe. Axles are slightly thicker than D44 TTB. Axle use 1350 U's vs 1330 for D44. Hubs are D60 stuff. I don't think it's in the same league as D60 fronts, although it might not be bad as a solid front axle. OX -- 78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44 boggers, 9" lift (27 54.5678498576476596875869 (street), 17 56 (4"
mud), never 0 (17" mud)).
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5 SX's, 4"lift (It's so fast, I tore the axles right out of it). 79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift (19.3 40, pulling boat,
19.3 40, not puling boat)
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4 107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7 104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9 82)
------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:41:32 -0500 From: "Brice Sample" <sampleb state.mi.us>
Subject: 390 Oil dipstick tube anyone know where I can purchase a new dipstick and tube for a 71 390 FTE. I have checked Dennis Carpenter, Mac's, and LMC...none carry....Any ideas? also....I need to replace my carb. any thoughts on stock rebuilt 2 barrel vs. aftermarket ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:54:27 -0500 From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: Steve Delanty Anyone have contact information on Steve Delanty? His email address stopped working on 11-1-00 and so did his web site. I've received numerous inquires about him and his fantastic tech articles. If you have contact information, please email me off the list. Ken Payne Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts ------------------------------ From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:28:07 -0800 How about the axle u-joint..I stopped by the dealer the other day to look at the D50 on a new superduty and it looked quite a bit bigger the the 297X the D44 uses. Does it use the same u-joint as the 60? Josh -----Original Message----- From: James Oxley [mailto:luxjo thecore.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:15 AM To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: D 60 "Nichols, Josh" wrote: > > Don't the excursions have 10.25 rears--with disks too. I think the 250/350 > superdutys have D50 fronts as well. Anyone have the specs on the D50 front? > How strong is it compared to the HP D60 ? > > Josh TTB D50 front has about a 9" ring gear I believe. Axles are slightly thicker than D44 TTB. Axle use 1350 U's vs 1330 for D44. Hubs are D60 stuff. I don't think it's in the same league as D60 fronts, although it might not be bad as a solid front axle. OX -- 78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44 boggers, 9" lift (27 54.5678498576476596875869 (street), 17 56 (4"
mud), never 0 (17" mud)).
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5 SX's, 4"lift (It's so fast, I tore the axles right out of it). 79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift (19.3 40, pulling boat,
19.3 40, not puling boat)
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4 107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7 104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9 82)
============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:29:25 -0800 From: Don Grossman <duckdon mac.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 >"Nichols, Josh" wrote: >> >> Don't the excursions have 10.25 rears--with disks too. I think the 250/350 >> superdutys have D50 fronts as well. Anyone have the specs on the D50 front? >> How strong is it compared to the HP D60 ? >> >> Josh > >TTB D50 front has about a 9" ring gear I believe. Axles are slightly >thicker than D44 TTB. Axle use 1350 U's vs 1330 for D44. Hubs are D60 >stuff. I don't think it's in the same league as D60 fronts, although it >might not be bad as a solid front axle. > > OX they might have been talking about the new D50 which is a solid axle.. I'm loosing track of the conversation :) Has no one brought up the D80 yet? -- Don Grossman duckdon mac.com
------------------------------ From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:32:29 -0800 Yea the new superduty's (and excursions I think) have a solid D50 in front. What about the D80? Josh -----Original Message----- From: Don Grossman [mailto:duckdon mac.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:29 AM To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: D 60 >"Nichols, Josh" wrote: >> >> Don't the excursions have 10.25 rears--with disks too. I think the 250/350 >> superdutys have D50 fronts as well. Anyone have the specs on the D50 front? >> How strong is it compared to the HP D60 ? >> >> Josh > >TTB D50 front has about a 9" ring gear I believe. Axles are slightly >thicker than D44 TTB. Axle use 1350 U's vs 1330 for D44. Hubs are D60 >stuff. I don't think it's in the same league as D60 fronts, although it >might not be bad as a solid front axle. > > OX they might have been talking about the new D50 which is a solid axle.. I'm loosing track of the conversation :) Has no one brought up the D80 yet? -- Don Grossman duckdon mac.com
============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: 429/460 introduction Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:05:50 -0600 Josh N. writes: >>I beleive the 460 came out in 68, the 429 came out much earlier.<< I think both were introduced in '68. The 460 in Linclons and the 429 in T'birds. Azie Magnusson Ardmore, Al. ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:30:03 -0800 The 50 and the 60 are using the same u joints. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke "As fast as necessary, as slow as possible" ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:31:00 -0800 The F550 is using a Dana 135. Now thats beef. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke "As fast as necessary, as slow as possible" ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:32:32 -0800 The 429 and 460 were both introduced in the 68 model year. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke "As fast as necessary, as slow as possible" ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:37:07 -0800 Taking a '70 model year 429 and 460 specifications and entering them into the DynoJet 2K program, the torque curve is nearly identical. At about 2500, both are near peak torque with the 460 slightly higher by about 10 lb/ft. Mainly due to the longer stroke. Both came out in '68. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke "As fast as necessary, as slow as possible" ------------------------------ From: "Don Thurlow" <don.thurlow greenbaynet.com>
Subject: Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:26:38 -0600 But which one gets better gas mileage? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 1:37 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Another 460 Debate :-) > Taking a '70 model year 429 and 460 specifications and entering them into > the DynoJet 2K program, the torque curve is nearly identical. At about > 2500, both are near peak torque with the 460 slightly higher by about 10 > lb/ft. Mainly due to the longer stroke. Both came out in '68. > Jason > '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 > '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke > "As fast as necessary, as slow as possible" > > > > > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:05:16 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Kaczmar <biertest-r excite.com>
Subject: 352 vs 351W compatibility Cross posted. I am looking at a 67 F-100 longbed. It has a 352 with 4-speed top-loader, according to the owner. I was wondering if a 302/351W would bolt up to that top-loader wothout any hassle, or are the block-bellhousing patterns different. Also, is the 352 considered an FE or a Y block... or are these things the same. I haven't even seen the truck yet, and do not have any idea how to identify a 352 in the first place.... Michael Kaczmar Lost in compatibility contemplations...... _______________________________________________________ Tired of slow Internet? Get Home Broadband Internet
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ------------------------------ From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: 352 vs 351W compatibility Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:31:06 -0800 The 352 is a FE, the 351W won't bolt up. Josh -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kaczmar [mailto:biertest-r excite.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 11:05 AM To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com; fordnatics mustangworks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] 352 vs 351W compatibility Cross posted. I am looking at a 67 F-100 longbed. It has a 352 with 4-speed top-loader, according to the owner. I was wondering if a 302/351W would bolt up to that top-loader wothout any hassle, or are the block-bellhousing patterns different. Also, is the 352 considered an FE or a Y block... or are these things the same. I haven't even seen the truck yet, and do not have any idea how to identify a 352 in the first place.... Michael Kaczmar Lost in compatibility contemplations...... _______________________________________________________ Tired of slow Internet? Get Home Broadband Internet
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "Ford F250" <fordf2501977 hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Another 460 Debate :-) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:38:21 PST What was the HP and torque on the '77 460's? Are there any tricks to find power on these motors cheap? Karl _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:13:47 -0500 From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Jason Derra wrote: > > The 50 and the 60 are using the same u joints. Really??, are they still using 1480 series? OX -- 78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44 boggers, 9" lift (27 54.5678498576476596875869 (street), 17 56 (4"
mud), never 0 (17" mud)).
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5 SX's, 4"lift (It's so fast, I tore the axles right out of it). 79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift (19.3 40, pulling boat,
19.3 40, not puling boat)
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4 107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7 104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9 82)
------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:36:53 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Kaczmar <biertest-r excite.com>
Subject: front clip opinions I dropped a MII kit under my 53 F-100, and have liked it so-far. I decided against a Volare i.e. torsion bar front end for a couple of reasons. 1) I have seen trucks with these systems on them, twice, and it doesn't look like you can get the engine as low in the frame as I was able to do with my MII setup. I believe it was due to the crossmember loaction. 2) While ride height is more adjustable with the Torsion bar setup, I have not found anybody that makes different spring rate torsion bars for these trucks. So, you have the same springing whether you have a heavy FE in there or a 302. This has implications on jounce resistance and handling. No tuning is available. 3) Running headers was easier with a steering rack instead of a steering box crowding the left header/framerail. This is also an issue with the Camaro/Nova clips, though most boneheads use these clips when thye further bastardize a Ford by putting a dime-a-dozen-seen-it-way-too-many-times-crossbredding-chebbie engine in. No excuse is good enough to do that. Either of these also have one drawback though. You are putting a car suspension under a truck. I have wondered if this can be considered a weakness if your truck sees any truck duty. I saw a good solution to this from a guy I know with a 59 Chevy pickup. He had a 87-98 2WD front clip grafted onto his frame. This gave him all of the heavy duty-truck components, and since a 454 was once bolted onto that frame it was a snap in terms of parts compatibility. I wonder if fitting a 97+ front clip on would be possible. That would give you a truck, all-Ford IFS.... Michael Kaczmar _______________________________________________________ Tired of slow Internet? Get Home Broadband Internet
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html ------------------------------ From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 13:46:35 -0800 I'm not sure of the series #, but they are the same. My TTB Dana 50 takes the same u joint as my F350 Dana 60 front, which is also used on the straight axle Dana 50. Jason '69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 '96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke "As fast as necessary, as slow as possible" ------------------------------ From: "Gagnon, Raymond J" <GagnonRJ navair.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: 429/460 genesis Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:36:37 -0500 But you are right, they are both awesome -) BTW, which came first the chick......I mean the 429 or 460? As I recall the first one was the 429 around 68 ? Doesn't really matter of course since the 460 is Ki............:-) (and the good 429 heads fit just fine :-)) BTW, before I knew their value or that they fit the 460 I tossed a perfectly good set of 70 heads, BUMMER! :-( Happily Semi-Retired, Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary :-) Gary, I've got a '68 Lincoln with a 460. It was only available in Lincolns for first few years. T-birds had 429's in '69 for sure, maybe in '68 as well. I think 460 was first to be available in a blue oval product (Lincoln), with the 429 available in high end merc/ford sedans one year later. Ray G ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:41:44 -0500 From: "William D. Poudrier" <vze259s7 verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility A "352" is an FE. It is also a Y block because the block skirts extend beyond the main bearing centerline. It is definitely not compatible with a 351W (by the way it is really a 352 as well 4.0 bore 3.5 stroke) You will need a 351 W bell housing and motor mounts from a truck with a 302 and that should make the swap work. Of course you could stuff in a 390 and have a real nice ride!!! At 11:05 AM 11/20/00 -0800, Michael Kaczmar wrote: >Cross posted. > >I am looking at a 67 F-100 longbed. It has a 352 with 4-speed top-loader, >according to the owner. I was wondering if a 302/351W would bolt up to that >top-loader wothout any hassle, or are the block-bellhousing patterns >different. > >Also, is the 352 considered an FE or a Y block... or are these things the >same. I haven't even seen the truck yet, and do not have any idea how to >identify a 352 in the first place.... > >Michael Kaczmar >Lost in compatibility contemplations...... > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ >Tired of slow Internet? Get Home Broadband Internet
>http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > >| Another Fordnatics post -- Author retains copyright -- ask before >forwarding| >| Posts: fordnatics mustangworks.com Requests:
>majordomo mustangworks.com |
>| Archives: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.listquest.com/ (currently >frozen) | >| Human in charge: Chuck Fry, >chucko chucko.com |
>| Please visit our hosts at <http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mustangworks.com/> >! | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:47:06 -0500 From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: D 60 Jason Derra wrote: > > I'm not sure of the series #, but they are the same. My TTB Dana 50 takes > the same u joint as my F350 Dana 60 front, which is also used on the > straight axle Dana 50. Well, that sucks. My 78 D60 front uses joints that make my TTB D50 front look like toys (about an inch larger cap to cap and caps much bigger too). I guess they downsized newer D60 front joints then. OX -- 78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44 boggers, 9" lift (27 54.5678498576476596875869 (street), 17 56 (4"
mud), never 0 (17" mud)).
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5 SX's, 4"lift (It's so fast, I tore the axles right out of it). 79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift (19.3 40, pulling boat,
19.3 40, not puling boat)
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4 107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7 104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9 82)
------------------------------ From: "Don Thurlow" <don.thurlow greenbaynet.com>
Subject: Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:53:27 -0600 talking about all these wonderful motors. I can get a 390 from a ol' mercury cougar. for $50 bucks the block is in good shape and so is everything else. he has the merc that it came from too and i can buy that for $150 or $200 for everything. You think i should pick up the motor???? -Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "William D. Poudrier" <vze259s7 verizon.net>
To: "Michael Kaczmar" <biertest-r excite.com>; <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>;
<fordnatics mustangworks.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:41 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility > A "352" is an FE. It is also a Y block because the block skirts > extend beyond the main bearing centerline. > > It is definitely not compatible with a 351W (by the way it is > really a 352 as well 4.0 bore 3.5 stroke) > > You will need a 351 W bell housing and motor mounts from > a truck with a 302 and that should make the swap work. > > Of course you could stuff in a 390 and have a real nice ride!!! > > > > At 11:05 AM 11/20/00 -0800, Michael Kaczmar wrote: > > >Cross posted. > > > >I am looking at a 67 F-100 longbed. It has a 352 with 4-speed top-loader, > >according to the owner. I was wondering if a 302/351W would bolt up to that > >top-loader wothout any hassle, or are the block-bellhousing patterns > >different. > > > >Also, is the 352 considered an FE or a Y block... or are these things the > >same. I haven't even seen the truck yet, and do not have any idea how to > >identify a 352 in the first place.... > > > >Michael Kaczmar > >Lost in compatibility contemplations...... > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________________ > >Tired of slow Internet? Get Home Broadband Internet
> >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html > > > >| Another Fordnatics post -- Author retains copyright -- ask before > >forwarding| > >| Posts: fordnatics mustangworks.com Requests:
> >majordomo mustangworks.com |
> >| Archives: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.listquest.com/ (currently > >frozen) | > >| Human in charge: Chuck Fry, > >chucko chucko.com |
> >| Please visit our hosts at <http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mustangworks.com/> > >! | > > > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. > ------------------------------ From: "Gary Tobolski" <garyt mediaone.net>
Subject: Big Block Bronco Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:09:46 -0500 Hello. Getting all the brackets to put the big block in my 78 Bronco is proving very difficult. I have found a 77 F-250 with mounts for the alternator, and power steering pump, but no AC compressor. This has the high alternator mount on it. I have also found a T-bird with the alternator, low mount, the power steering pump and the AC compressor mounts. Can I use just the alternator mount from the truck, and all other brackets and pulleys from the car, or some other combination? Thanks. Eric Tobolski ------------------------------ From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:45:14 EST Subject: Re: 429/460 genesis In a message dated 11/20/2000 1:40:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, GagnonRJ navair.navy.mil writes:
> I've got a '68 Lincoln with a 460. It was only available in Lincolns for > first few years. > T-birds had 429's in '69 for sure, maybe in '68 as well. I think 460 was > first to be available in a blue oval product (Lincoln), with the 429 > available in high end merc/ford sedans one year later. > I think they came out the same time, but I believe the 460 was designed first. Logic behind this being that these engines are known as the 385 series, and the 460 stroke just happens to be 3.85 inches. Make sense? Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: 429/460 genesis Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:54:49 -0800 Is this fact or just an amazing coincidence? Josh >I think they came out the same time, but I believe the 460 was designed >first. Logic behind this being that these engines are known as the 385 >series, and the 460 stroke just happens to be 3.85 inches. Make sense? Darrell & Tweety ============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:26:37 -0600 YES YES YES!!!! The 390 is a great engine, and if it runs I think $50 is a steal. Garrett www.1966ford.com (powered by 390) ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Thurlow To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:53 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility talking about all these wonderful motors. I can get a 390 from a ol' mercury cougar. for $50 bucks the block is in good shape and so is everything else. he has the merc that it came from too and i can buy that for $150 or $200 for everything. You think i should pick up the motor???? -Don ------------------------------ From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:44:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: front clip opinions At 11:36 AM 20:11:2000 -0800, Michael Kaczmar wrote: >I dropped a MII kit under my 53 F-100, and have liked it so-far. If you're not going to use it as a truck, I don't have a problem with the MII front end... >2) While ride height is more adjustable with the Torsion bar setup, I have >not found anybody that makes different spring rate torsion bars for these >trucks. So, you have the same springing whether you have a heavy FE in there >or a 302. You can control jounce and rebound with shocks... >3) Running headers was easier with a steering rack instead of a steering box >crowding the left header/framerail. Absolutely true, Thats why I'm leaning towards using the Aerostar front end in my "63... >Either of these also have one drawback though. You are putting a car >suspension under a truck. I have wondered if this can be considered a >weakness if your truck sees any truck duty. >I saw a good solution to this from a guy I know with a 59 Chevy pickup. He >had a 87-98 2WD front clip grafted onto his frame. This gave him all of the >heavy duty-truck components, and since a 454 was once bolted onto that frame >it was a snap in terms of parts compatibility. You could also use the front suspension for any Chub pick-up years '73 to '87, as they're bolted in...and I know where I can get a slammed one seriously cheap... >I wonder if fitting a 97+ front clip on would be possible. That would give >you a truck, all-Ford IFS.... I thought about that, but the parts are more expensive for the newer trucks, as the aftermarket hasn't caught up with the manufacturers... 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.... ------------------------------ From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:44:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility At 03:53 PM 20:11:2000 -0600, Don Thurlow wrote: >talking about all these wonderful motors. I can get a 390 from a ol' >mercury cougar. for $50 bucks >the block is in good shape and so is everything else. he has the merc that >it came from too and i can buy that for $150 or $200 for everything. You >think i should pick up the motor???? You'd be nutty not to... 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.... ------------------------------ From: "Daniel Beiers" <dbeiers rmpprestress.com>
Subject: Saggy!~!~~ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:44:27 -0700 My front end is sagging seriously. I have the stock springs for under a 6 cyl and currently have a 390 in it. Its to the point where the wheels are pitching in at the top. Can I use springs from 74 3/4" ton 2wd in my 1/2" ton? Found some springs that look to be in good shape. Thanks Dan ------------------------------ From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Another Ford truck! Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:48:26 -0600 Well, I bought the 94 F150 I mentioned earlier. Now I have 2 Ford trucks, they are both great! Just thought I would share that, I guess now I have a Ford truck collection! :-) Garrett www.1966ford.com ------------------------------ From: "Ken Schneider" <fordemail sunsetcoast.com>
Subject: Re: Saggy!~!~~ Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:49:44 -0500 Go to your local parts store that carries MOOG, or a simular chassis parts brand. I found some variable rate springs at Autozone for $70, but the MOOG heavy duty springs can be had for $55. While your at it, do the radius arm busings. I'd go with new ones before used ones... Just my $.02 worth... Stock market's down, otherwise it would be $.05 worth... Ken Schneider 68 F100 Ranger 360/C6/3.25NL 88 Crown Vic 5.0/AOD 89 G*C T15 Jimmy 4x4 4.3/700R4/3.42NL (winter beater) -----Original Message----- From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Daniel Beiers
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:44 PM To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Saggy!~!~~ My front end is sagging seriously. I have the stock springs for under a 6 cyl and currently have a 390 in it. Its to the point where the wheels are pitching in at the top. Can I use springs from 74 3/4" ton 2wd in my 1/2" ton? Found some springs that look to be in good shape. Thanks Dan ------------------------------ .... 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. 
|