Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:58:03 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:58:03 -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 #342
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: 342

In This Issue:
Re: Hubs Locked? was d 60
Ebay has STOCK 460 mnts for 73-79
Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility
Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Re: D 60
Re: Fwd: FE Pulleys
FE'S
Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Re: 352 vs 351W compatibility
Re: 4V Cleveland (Was Engine missing - 1978  400
Sorry to bug ya....
Thanks and more D60 questions
Re: D 60
Re: Sorry to bug ya....
Re: 352 vs 351W compatibility
Re: Hubs Locked? was d 60
Re: Sorry to bug ya....
Re: 429/460 genesis
Re: Another 460 Debate :-)

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

From: "rich" <richth exis.net>
Subject: Re: Hubs Locked? was d 60
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:37:24 -0500

Gary
love to read your responces to the group, even a idiot like me can
understand what you are saying :)  Without my giving reasons to the
contrary, can you explain why this could destroy the spiders, etc:

Rich

you can just flop it into 4wd for a few
minutes to move the axles around and redistribute the oil around the seals
but don't do this for long distances or at any speed or you will destroy
the
spider gears and pins in the diff.

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

> So basically, is it safe to run with the hubs always locked (although you
> are in 2wd), noting that there will be a negligible amount of wear to the
> front diff and a minor increase in fuel consumption ??



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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:32:00 EST
Subject: Ebay has STOCK 460 mnts for 73-79


Just thought Id share.  These are the stock mounts and towers for putting a
460 in your 2wd.  These are the real deal, as these are identical to the ones
in Tweety.  Should come in handy for someone here.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://cgi.ebay.aol.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&
item=504895949&r=0&t=0

Darrell & Tweety



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

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:54:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Dan Lee <danlee_58 yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Fordnatics] 352 vs 351W compatibility

Yes, you can mate a top loader to a 351W with a bell
housing from a 302, but I believe that a 352 tranny
input shaft is not compatible with a small block. At
the very least the pilot bushing will not accept the
tranny snout. You need a top loader from a small block
engine. I don't think that you can swap the input
shaft either. I believe that a 390 would be an easier
swap.

Dan Lee
'53 F100
400C-4V



>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 patternsdifferent.
                >
>>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......
                >


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://shopping.yahoo.com/

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

From: "Dennis Smith" <hdennissmith earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:16:04 -0500

Dear List,

First I would like to thank those persons who replied and offered
suggestions relating to my original posting of 11/14/00.

Those who mentioned the intake manifold were right.  The top of the
intake manifold behind the carburetor was eaten away to the point that
it must be replaced.  It had been leaking vacuum between the manifold
and the EGR that sits between it and the carburetor.

The mechanic still says that the carburetor is leaking vacuum and
causing a miss at low idle even when the manifold leak has been
temporarily sealed up with silicone gasket material.

He says that when the intake manifold and carburetor are replaced, I
have a choice between going back with an original 2BBL carburetor or
changing to a 4BBL.

I'm not looking for a performance boost.  I just want to get many more
years of trouble free use out of the truck. The truck has 94,000 miles
and, except for this little problem, I think it is in excellent
condition.

It appears that the 4BBL would improve gas mileage and be the better
choice.

Any advice at this before I spend the $?  This is a daily driver and
currently my only means of transportation so I'm not looking to create
any new problems.

Thanks,

Dennis Smith


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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:19:48 EST
Subject: Re: Engine missing - 1978  400


In a message dated 11/20/2000 9:14:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
hdennissmith earthlink.net writes:


> It appears that the 4BBL would improve gas mileage and be the better
> choice.
>
> Any advice at this before I spend the $?

Id go for the 4 bbl, I went from a 2bbl to a 4 bbl on my cleavland, with no
other alteration above stock, and my mileage went up, and also the car was
actually smoother to drive.  And theres also the benifit of having those
secondaries open up when ya need em to.

Darrell & Tweety



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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:47:05 -0500

Any advice at this before I spend the $?  This is a daily driver and
> currently my only means of transportation so I'm not looking to create
> any new problems.
Dennis
=============================================================
it sounds like your trying to save money on the different intake so if you
are try checking a few of the on line classifieds for a OEM or aftermarket
intake like you want
if your not going to be running high RPMs tho stick with a dual plane intake
gordon



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

From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:46:56 -0800

Well if you go with a 4V it'll have to be aftermarket because there were no
stock 4V 351M/400s. If you get the Edelbrock Performer EGR it will come with
an adapter to mount the stock 2V on it. You can purchase a 4V adapter
separately.

/// Friends help you move...Real friends help you move bodies \\

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Smith" <hdennissmith earthlink.net>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:16 PM
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Engine missing - 1978 400


> Dear List,
>
> First I would like to thank those persons who replied and offered
> suggestions relating to my original posting of 11/14/00.
>
> Those who mentioned the intake manifold were right.  The top of the
> intake manifold behind the carburetor was eaten away to the point that
> it must be replaced.  It had been leaking vacuum between the manifold
> and the EGR that sits between it and the carburetor.
>
> The mechanic still says that the carburetor is leaking vacuum and
> causing a miss at low idle even when the manifold leak has been
> temporarily sealed up with silicone gasket material.
>
> He says that when the intake manifold and carburetor are replaced, I
> have a choice between going back with an original 2BBL carburetor or
> changing to a 4BBL.
>
> I'm not looking for a performance boost.  I just want to get many more
> years of trouble free use out of the truck. The truck has 94,000 miles
> and, except for this little problem, I think it is in excellent
> condition.
>
> It appears that the 4BBL would improve gas mileage and be the better
> choice.
>
> Any advice at this before I spend the $?  This is a daily driver and
> currently my only means of transportation so I'm not looking to create
> any new problems.
>




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

From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: D 60
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:59:09 -0800

What size hubs are on your Dana 50 (same size as a 1/2 ton)?  Are you sure
it's not a 44?   From the mid 70's on up, they show one possible u joint for
the 50 and the 60.
Jason
'69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435
'96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke
"As fast as necessary, as slow as possible"



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

From: SevnD2 aol.com
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:59:18 EST
Subject: Re: Fwd: FE Pulleys

Thanks Dan!

I remember the engine these pulleys came from did have the AC stuff on it.
The belts weren't on it though. I have both three groove pulleys, so I am set
to go with the AC when I get to it.

Rollie

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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: FE'S
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:07:59 -0600


William P. writes:  >>A "352" is an FE.  It is also a Y block because the block skirts
extend beyond the main bearing centerline.<<

A 352 is an FE and they are not related to the Y blocks.
They are similar in design as he says about the crank being up in the block, but that is not the criteria for Y blocks.
The Y blocks consist of:  239. 255, 272, 292, 312 cu in, and maybe more but they are not parts interchangeable with any FE's.


Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:07:06 -0600
Subject: Re: 429/460 genesis
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>

> 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

The 460 was introduced in 1968 in Lincolns in response to GM's introduction
in 1967 of their newly designed 472 in the Cadillac line, followed in 1968
by the 455 Olds, Buick and Pontiac (these were all different engines) and
the 454 Chevy. The cube wars were on. In the back of my mind, I still have
this little gray cell that nags me insisting that there was a short run of
490s in the Lincoln line during the early 70s, possibly only in the Mark 4.
The largest production V8 was the 500 cube Cadillac engine produced from
1971 to 1976. It was originally exclusive to the Eldorado. This is why I
think the elusive 490 may have been exclusive to the Mark 4, if it exists at
all. Enough rambling...

-- 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: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:11:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>

> It appears that the 4BBL would improve gas mileage and be the better
> choice.
>
> Any advice at this before I spend the $?  This is a daily driver and
> currently my only means of transportation so I'm not looking to create
> any new problems.

I much prefer a 4 barrel. Better fuel economy, better performance. You do
have to control the urge to put the pedal to the metal or you will lose the
fuel economy gain.

-- 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!!!!


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

From: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine missing - 1978  400
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:28:44 -0800


> Dear List,
>
> First I would like to thank those persons who replied and offered
> suggestions relating to my original posting of 11/14/00.
>
> Those who mentioned the intake manifold were right.  The top of the
> intake manifold behind the carburetor was eaten away to the point that
> it must be replaced.  It had been leaking vacuum between the manifold
> and the EGR that sits between it and the carburetor.
>
> The mechanic still says that the carburetor is leaking vacuum and
> causing a miss at low idle even when the manifold leak has been
> temporarily sealed up with silicone gasket material.
>
> He says that when the intake manifold and carburetor are replaced, I
> have a choice between going back with an original 2BBL carburetor or
> changing to a 4BBL.
>
> I'm not looking for a performance boost.  I just want to get many more
> years of trouble free use out of the truck. The truck has 94,000 miles
> and, except for this little problem, I think it is in excellent
> condition.
>
> It appears that the 4BBL would improve gas mileage and be the better
> choice.
>
> Any advice at this before I spend the $?  This is a daily driver and
> currently my only means of transportation so I'm not looking to create
> any new problems.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dennis Smith
>

I would go with a 4 barrel.  If you can find one that would work get one
with small primaries and large secondary venturies.  It's called a spread
bore carb.  GM had one in their quadrajet.  There are other manufacturers
that use this design also.  The advantage is that for tooling around town at
low rpms you run on the smaller primaries.  The smaller venturi sees a
stronger signal and is able to meter the fuel better.  Then if the motor
needs more flow at higher rpm the large secondaries kick in and provide the
flow.

List wisdom states that a Holley is tougher to tune and requires more
fiddling out of the box.  It is also a square bore carb where all venturis
are the same size.  Most comments I've heard about Edelbrock carbs are they
work pretty well out of the box.  If they do require adjustment it seems to
be easier.

Manifolds I can find that will fit a 351M/400:
Weiand Action plus Dual plane $165.95
Weiand X-CELerator (351C)Single plane $227.95 2bbl or $238.95 4 bbl
Requires spacer kit
Weiand spacer kit for 351C manifolds $99.95
Offenhauser 360degree high rise for 351C 4V heads  $219.95  Might work
with spacer kit don't know
Offenhauser 351M 1975/later std 4bbl $254.95
Offenhauser small port 400 cleveland 1971/later 4bbl $254.95
Edelbrock Performer  351M/400 $163.95 Non egr
Edelbrock Performer 400 egr $208.95 can be 2V,
4V or 4V no egr

The prices are from PAW summer/fall '98 catalog.  prices have probably
changed but I included them for comparison.

Tom H.

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

From: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: 352 vs 351W compatibility
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:28:45 -0800


> 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......
>

The block-bellhousing patterns are different.  The good news is that the 352
is an FE.  You could bolt in a 360, 390, 406, 410, 427(rare), or 428.  And
then tell everyone that it is a stock 352 while you blow their doors off.
;-)

I haven't heard much about 352 economy but it seems that the 360 and 390 get
about the same in our trucks.  About 8-12 mpg depending on the rear gear and
weight of the truck.  If that seems to be what you are getting then I would
go with a 390 and enjoy the extra power.

The FE block extends below the main bearings which provides more strength to
the block (think that's why the General adopted that design for their new
350 a couple of years ago?) and is a  Y block design because of this but is
not considered part of the Ford Y-block family.

Tom H.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:40:41 -0800
From: Dennis Pearson <dpearson ctc.edu>
Subject: Re: 4V Cleveland (Was Engine missing - 1978  400

I have been wanting to do this.  I probably should know, but which
manifold-carb combination did you go with?

JUMPINFORD aol.com wrote:
>

> Id go for the 4 bbl, I went from a 2bbl to a 4 bbl on my cleavland, with no

>
> Darrell & Tweety
>

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

From: "Daniel Beiers" <dbeiers rmpprestress.com>
Subject: Sorry to bug ya....
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:39:18 -0700

I am sorry to ask this again, I just asked a couple of days ago but its
kinda a time sensitive item..

I have the chance to get a very slightly used power brake booster and
additional brake parts, if needed, from a 75 f-250.  Will I be able to use
this part or need any others if I should want power assisted brakes on my 67
f-100.  I know someone told me there was an article on the tech page but I
can only find a disk brake swap write up.

Thanks a lot you guys, I am going there this morning so your reply is
greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Azie L. Magnusson
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:08 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] FE'S



William P. writes:  >>A "352" is an FE.  It is also a Y block because the
block skirts
extend beyond the main bearing centerline.<<

A 352 is an FE and they are not related to the Y blocks.
They are similar in design as he says about the crank being up in the block,
but that is not the criteria for Y blocks.
The Y blocks consist of:  239. 255, 272, 292, 312 cu in, and maybe more but
they are not parts interchangeable with any FE's.


Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.

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



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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:46:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Finn <ecfinn yahoo.com>
Subject: Thanks and more D60 questions

First I just wanted to thank you all for your kind words after my
father-in-law's passing last weekend.  It helps to know that there are
other caring people even if you don't get to meet them face to face.  Your
prayers and encouragement were really uplifting in our time of need.

Now on to my questions...  If you'll recall about 1.5 weeks ago I was
asking questions about the maintenance of the Dana 60 rear on my '79
F-350.  I finally found the 2 9/16" socket needed to remove the wheel
bearing retaining nuts that hold the rear brake drums in place.  ($17 at
NAPA. OTC  Part #1928)

Here is what I found.  I'll apologize in advance for the simple questions.

1. The pads are 12" x 2.5" NOT 12" x 3" like Bendix lists.  I think I'll
use Wagner brake parts that list the 12" x 2.5".

2. The pads need replaced badly.  The rearmost pad was almost down to the
rivets.  Should I replace the springs/hardware when I replace the pads or
is it ok to reuse them and just replace the pads.

3. The passenger side drum didn't have any scoring and looked like it had
enough surface area to be cut.  How can I tell for sure?  Do I need to
measure the internal diameter or the thickness of the outer surface?

4. The bearings had no grease in them whatsoever.  Based upon this is it
safe to assume that I need to replace them?  Or can I get away with
re-packing them and reusing them?  How can I tell?  Is there a writeup
somewhere on doing this on the D60?

5. How do I remove the inner bearings?  Do I need some sort of punch
that's the right size for the bearings?

6. Is there a seal that needs to be replaced when you remove the inner
bearings?  It kind of looks like there is a seal behind the inner
bearings.

7. What brand of bearings do you recommend?  I was looking at carparts.com
and they've got BCA and Timken.  It looks like the Timken's would be
roughly $50 more for a complete set of rear bearings (inner, outer, &
race).  At the moment I know the current outer bearings are Timkens.

8. The "spindle" (I don't know if that's the right termů) that the inner
bearing rides on had some scoring/pitting on it after I wiped it off.
Should I be concerned about this and is there anything I can do about it
short of replacing the axle?

9. When I retorque the wheel bearing retaining nuts is it ok to use an
adapter on the torque wrench or will that skew the readings?  The reason I
ask is that the 2 9/16" socket is 3/4" drive and I've only got a 3/8"
torque wrench.  I'd need two adapters to get it to work.  I've already got
the 1/2" to 3/4" adapter so I could remove the nuts.

10. If/when I do this would there be any interest in a writeup with
pictures or is this too basic a process to document for the website?

Later,

Eric Finn (Learning as he goes..)
'78 Bronco "The Beast" (Project still in progress)
'79 F-350 4x4 "Fred"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://shopping.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:49:04 -0500
From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: D 60

Jason Derra wrote:
>
> What size hubs are on your Dana 50 (same size as a 1/2 ton)?

They are D60 hubs, NO question about it!!!

>Are you sure it's not a 44?

Has a big stamped "50" in diff casing. It is NOT an 8 lug dana 44 HD.

> From the mid 70's on up, they show one possible u joint for
> the 50 and the 60.

Just curious, what had a D50 in the 70's??? A D60's axle U joints are
huge compared to TTB D50. D50 joints are the same size cap to cap
(3.625) as D44 joints, except cap is bigger 1-3/16 vs 1-1/8. If D50
solid axle does indeed use D60 front (1480 series) u-joints, then it
might be a worthwhile upgrade over a solid axle D44. Does a solid axle
D50 use king pins or ball joints?

                               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: "Southerland, Rich" <rsouther alldata.com>
Subject: Re: Sorry to bug ya....
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:56:51 -0800

Am I understanding correctly that you are planning on keeping the 4 wheel
drum brakes (at least for now)?  Then the booster won't work as it won't
accept a manual brake cylinder...

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Beiers [mailto:dbeiers rmpprestress.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:39 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Sorry to bug ya....


I am sorry to ask this again, I just asked a couple of days ago but its
kinda a time sensitive item..

I have the chance to get a very slightly used power brake booster and
additional brake parts, if needed, from a 75 f-250.  Will I be able to use
this part or need any others if I should want power assisted brakes on my 67
f-100.  I know someone told me there was an article on the tech page but I
can only find a disk brake swap write up.

Thanks a lot you guys, I am going there this morning so your reply is
greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Azie L. Magnusson
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:08 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] FE'S



William P. writes:  >>A "352" is an FE.  It is also a Y block because the
block skirts
extend beyond the main bearing centerline.<<

A 352 is an FE and they are not related to the Y blocks.
They are similar in design as he says about the crank being up in the block,
but that is not the criteria for Y blocks.
The Y blocks consist of:  239. 255, 272, 292, 312 cu in, and maybe more but
they are not parts interchangeable with any FE's.


Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.

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


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

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

From: "Daniel Beiers" <dbeiers rmpprestress.com>
Subject: Re: 352 vs 351W compatibility
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:54:50 -0700

I believe all FE motors have "352" stamped on the front of the block just
below the drivers side head.  My fried and I both have 390's with this stamp
on it. Don't think you would gain anything by swapping to the 351, if you do
a swap, swap in a 390 or a 428, they will bolt up to you T-18 and they have
plenty of everything :)  Seems like the 352 is a good motor anyway but...

Dan

> same. I haven't even seen the truck yet, and do not have any
> idea how to
> identify a 352 in the first place....
>


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

From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Hubs Locked? was d 60
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:57:52 -0800

The spiders run on pins with no bearings because they are not designed to
spin continuously.  99% of all mileage is put on in a straight line which
does not move these gears at all, they act like ratchet teeth to hold the
two axles together in that mode so there is no wear.  If you put it in 4wd
there is no way to make both axles turn together like they do when the tires
are controling them.

In this mode you could actually spin one axle twice as fast as normal
without moving the other one at all, through the spider gears.  They would
be spinning very fast because they are smaller than the side gears
typically.  This same thing happens when you run two different sizes of
tires on the same axle.

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



 Without my giving reasons to the
> contrary, can you explain why this could destroy the spiders, etc:
>
> Rich



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

From: "Daniel Beiers" <dbeiers rmpprestress.com>
Subject: Re: Sorry to bug ya....
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:03:30 -0700

Oh, I didn't mean that...I would just get the brake booster for now and when
I put on the disk brakes, this coming spring, I would buy a new master
cylinder for the same vehicle that donated the booster....would this work?

Thanks

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Southerland, Rich
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 7:57 AM
To: '61-79-list ford-trucks.com'
Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Sorry to bug ya....


Am I understanding correctly that you are planning on keeping the 4 wheel
drum brakes (at least for now)?  Then the booster won't work as it won't
accept a manual brake cylinder...

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Beiers [mailto:dbeiers rmpprestress.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:39 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] Sorry to bug ya....


I am sorry to ask this again, I just asked a couple of days ago but its
kinda a time sensitive item..

I have the chance to get a very slightly used power brake booster and
additional brake parts, if needed, from a 75 f-250.  Will I be able to use
this part or need any others if I should want power assisted brakes on my 67
f-100.  I know someone told me there was an article on the tech page but I
can only find a disk brake swap write up.

Thanks a lot you guys, I am going there this morning so your reply is
greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: 61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:61-79-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Azie L. Magnusson
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:08 AM
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [61-79-list] FE'S



William P. writes:  >>A "352" is an FE.  It is also a Y block because the
block skirts
extend beyond the main bearing centerline.<<

A 352 is an FE and they are not related to the Y blocks.
They are similar in design as he says about the crank being up in the block,
but that is not the criteria for Y blocks.
The Y blocks consist of:  239. 255, 272, 292, 312 cu in, and maybe more but
they are not parts interchangeable with any FE's.


Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.

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


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



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

From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: 429/460 genesis
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:34:55 -0800

Whats the stroke on the 351C?  3.35"? :-):-)

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



> 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



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

From: "Gary" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Another 460 Debate :-)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:48:14 -0800

What do you mean by "Power"?  I took a stock 429 from a mercury wagon with
200k miles on it and it was nastier than anything I'd ever had before.  My
rebuilt, stock 460 was even more awesome but power is relative to the pocket
book no matter what engine you are messing with so if you want "More" power
you have to spend a few bucks.  Knock out the exhaust bumps, stick in a new
bump stick, flop on a offy dual, 360 degree, manifold for the Rochester and
a Rochester and.........

My next one will have a roller bump stick and roller floppers and and ....


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.