 |
|
|
|
|
|
Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list 61-79-list); Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:01:28 -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 V2001 #19 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 Sat, 20 Jan 2001 Volume: 2001 Issue: 019 In This Issue: Re: 73-79 F250s engine placement Re: Need some stuff (Bill!) Re: engine placement Re: Emblems, was 1979 Supercab cabs Re: engine placement Output Shaft Return Re: Output Shaft Return Re: Output Shaft Return Re: Oxygenators in fuel Re: Output Shaft Return Re: Oxygenators in fuel Re: Oxygenators in fuel Re: Output Shaft Return Re: engine placement 88 Lincoln Towncar Re: engine placement Free to a good home..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: 73-79 F250s Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:06:31 -0800 No it's not, they added the "oxygenators" to reduce emissions by making the combustion process more efficient. There's no less oxygen in the air now than there was 30 years ago or 300 or 3000 or 3,000,000 for that matter. I have no idea what made this person think there is but I have a pretty good idea which orifice he's talking out of. /// Friends help you move...Real friends help you move bodies \\ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 2:13 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 73-79 F250s > > Is that why they added oxygenators to the gasoline? ;-) > > Tom H. > > > > > Less oxygen? If that were the case shouldn't we all be > > suffering from acute > > hypoxia? > > > > /// Friends help you move...Real friends help you move bodies \\ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael" <danger csolutions.net>
> > To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:18 AM > > Subject: [61-79-list] Re: 73-79 F250s > > > > > > > I'd suggest sticking with 9:1 and avoid 10:1 > > compression unless you > > will > > > never use the engine to pull a heavy load up a steep grade > > during the > > summer > > > heat. Not only does todays fuel contain a lower octane > > rating, but there > > is > > > less oxygen in the atmosphere compared to 30 years ago. You > > may, or may > > not > > > have troubles with 10:1, but is it really worth the risk > > when 9:1 is known > > > to be safe? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:12:50 -0800 From: Don Grossman <duckdon mac.com>
Subject: engine placement Hey all quiet day What is the best orentation for the engine in relation to the frame or does it matter? What is more important the engine sitting level or the carb? My vote would be the carb. I am rebuilding the motor mounts in my truck and the carb doesn't sit level on the engine. The rear of the carb sits higher. Any advise? Thanks Don ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:18:27 -0800 From: Don Grossman <duckdon mac.com>
Subject: Re: Need some stuff (Bill!) Please excuse me folks Hey Bill Ballinger if you are still out there email me. Your old email bounces. We now return you to your regular programing. ------------------------------ From: "Jason and Kathy" <kendrick mddc.com>
Subject: Re: engine placement Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:20:13 -0600 I've noticed in most of my rwd vehicles that the rear of the motor is actually lower than the front. With the carb sloping towards the front of the engine and the motor sloping to the rear, they should cancel each other out and the carb should sit level. But, both of my trucks sit higher in the rear than the front, and the carb still leans towards the front. In the end, I really don't think it's that important the carb sits level. As long as it's within reason... Jason Kendrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:23:14 -0800 From: Greg <greg gregster.com>
Subject: Re: Emblems, was 1979 Supercab cabs > Anyone got "trailer special" emblems? > Nope ... but I've got some "Ranger XLT" rear fendr emblems I'd like to trade for some "Explorer" emblems. Greg ------------------------------ From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: engine placement Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:17:58 -0800 The more level a carb sits the better. Even though vehicles are designed to keep running when off level the carbs are not sophisticated enough to run like a chain saw or even a lawn mower. The most forgiving carb I know of is the Rochester due to the float location but all will handle some tilting up to a point. I certainly would not want to have it start out tilted though, level is better for sure :-) If the carb is tilted then the engine may not have the correct relationship with the chassis either which can cause other problems, especially if it's a 4x4. Typically you want the rear driveshaft to be on a perfect line with the transmission output shaft for best performance and ujoint life. Since the front drive shaft gets used a lot less it's angles are less important but still must be considered. I would build the mounts to locate the engine as described and let everything else fall into place as it will. The carb should also be level in that condition. If not there is some other problem with the carb mount to the engine....IE wrong adapters, poor installation of intake, wrong intake etc..... I've never personally seen an engine installation (stock) where the engine was tilted forward or even absolutely level. All of them have been tilted to the rear slightly to facilitate the alignment of the drive shaft I'm reasonably sure. -- Happily Retired (but broke) Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary -- > Hey all quiet day > > What is the best orentation for the engine in relation to the > frame or does it matter? What is more important the engine sitting > level or the carb? My vote would be the carb. I am rebuilding the > motor mounts in my truck and the carb doesn't sit level on the > engine. The rear of the carb sits higher. Any advise? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:00:05 -0500 From: "O'Connor" <theoconnors mindspring.com>
Subject: Output Shaft Return Gang, Awhile back, I ordered an output shaft from one of the NOS guys. Like most of us, I waited a couple of months for the spirit to move me to start putting the transmission back together. When I started to put it together, the shaft was too short! I got in touch with the owner and told him the shaft didn't match the length given in the Ford parts book. He said he would try to get me another one. After a couple more months of waiting, I found a used shaft for my transmission. I sent the short shaft back to the store and asked for my money back. He told me that it was store policy to give a 50% store credit after 30 days. I E-mailed him back and asked for the correct shaft or 100% refund. There was never any mention of a 30 day return policy. I have the original packing slip. What does everyone think? Tim 66F100 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:42:30 -0700 From: "William (Tony) Whited" <f10074 ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: Output Shaft Return I think you have a point if they don't tell you about the policy then it is their problem. I have found that when someone has a questionable policy, that being such a pain that they cannot really stand behind something that doesn't make sense. If you go to Ford parts at the dealership they have been signs 10% restocking fee or no returning special order parts. If you told them what you needed and they sent the wrong one then they are really wrong. Just my thoughts O'Connor wrote: > Gang, > Awhile back, I ordered an output shaft from one of the NOS guys. Like most > of us, I waited a couple of months for the spirit to move me to start > putting the transmission back together. When I started to put it together, > the shaft was too short! I got in touch with the owner and told him the > shaft didn't match the length given in the Ford parts book. He said he > would try to get me another one. After a couple more months of waiting, I > found a used shaft for my transmission. I sent the short shaft back to the > store and asked for my money back. He told me that it was store policy to > give a 50% store credit after 30 days. I E-mailed him back and asked for > the correct shaft or 100% refund. There was never any mention of a 30 day > return policy. I have the original packing slip. What does everyone think? > Tim 66F100 -- William (Tony) Whited 74 F350 Ranger XLT Super Camper Special 460 77 F150 Custom 460 El Paso, TX Semper Fi ------------------------------ From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Output Shaft Return Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:36:36 -0800 If this was an internet site transaction then the site is "Supposed" to spell out the policy or forever hold their peace. If you gave them the correct information and there was no possibility of confusion due to more than one option for that part etc. then they should be willing to replace the part but if you left out any info which could cause confusion then you really don't have a case. OTOH, if they want your business they should be willing to make it up to you since they are the ones who are supposed to know what questions to ask to avoid confusion. IMUO, Legally you probably can't do much about it but using some reason, pointing out their moral obligation etc. may have some impact depending on who you actually contact. If you are willing to take a "Deal" then maybe you can recover most of your costs but I wouldn't settle for 50% without a struggle at least :-) -- Happily Retired (but broke) Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary -- > back to the > store and asked for my money back. He told me that it was store policy to > give a 50% store credit after 30 days. I E-mailed him back and asked for > the correct shaft or 100% refund. There was never any mention of a 30 day > return policy. I have the original packing slip. What does > everyone think? ------------------------------ From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Oxygenators in fuel Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:41:03 -0800 That "May" be true but it also lowered the total BTU output of the fuel which also lowered the engine's efficiency which also lowered economy which........They will never, ever get it right as long as there is Greed in the world, trust me :-( NOS is an oxygenator too but guess what you have to do to make it generate more power, do it's thing, add efficiency etc....? YOU HAVE TO ADD MORE FUEL! Unfortunately you can't add more fuel to fuel so there you go..... -- Happily Retired (but broke) Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary -- > No it's not, they added the "oxygenators" to reduce emissions by > making the > combustion process more efficient. ------------------------------ From: "Erik Marquez" <bronco78 alaska.com>
Subject: Re: Output Shaft Return Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:47:13 -0900 Gary is correct, IMO on his assessment of your situation.. As an added idea, I have had friends in the local area of the supplier (mail order to me) go do a face to face on my behalf. It seems it is much harder for the supplier to be disinterested when facing a customer in person. It also lets them know that this is not a one person deal, but others are going to find out about there unfair practices, which leads me to my second suggestion which I have also used with some success. Inform the supplier that your large list of vehicle enthusiasts is very interested in the out come of your deal. As they would be very interested in avoiding those suppliers that participate in unfair marketing. And the last $.02 I'll throw at ya is, if it starts going bad for ya, and you think they have another part you might want from them, make a deal, you'll send the part back, they credit ya towards the new desired part. After the other above tactics, they might be more willing to make a deal. Erik Marquez ( who is very aware of the pitfalls due to long distance parts ordering) bronco78 alaska.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.home.gci.net/~bronco78 Home of the BB decal -----Original Message----- From: GaryBBB <gpeters3 lni.net>
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:35 AM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Output Shaft Return > >If this was an internet site transaction then the site is "Supposed" to >spell out the policy or forever hold their peace. If you gave them the >correct information and there was no possibility of confusion due to more >than one option for that part etc. then they should be willing to replace >the part but if you left out any info which could cause confusion then you >really don't have a case. OTOH, if they want your business they should be >willing to make it up to you since they are the ones who are supposed to >know what questions to ask to avoid confusion. > >IMUO, Legally you probably can't do much about it but using some reason, >pointing out their moral obligation etc. may have some impact depending on >who you actually contact. If you are willing to take a "Deal" then maybe >you can recover most of your costs but I wouldn't settle for 50% without a >struggle at least :-) > >-- >Happily Retired (but broke) >Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, >78 Bronco Loving, Gary >-- > >> back to the >> store and asked for my money back. He told me that it was store policy to >> give a 50% store credit after 30 days. I E-mailed him back and asked for >> the correct shaft or 100% refund. There was never any mention of a 30 day >> return policy. I have the original packing slip. What does >> everyone think? > > > ------------------------------ From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Oxygenators in fuel Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:00:28 -0800 Yes it is true and yes it does reduce the total energy released when the fuel is burned which is why there is typically a 2%-5% reduction in mpg when oxygenated fuels are used. Believe me I'm not a big fan of oxygenated fuels but I do know they weren't invented because there's "less oxygen in the air than 30 years ago." N2O is another subject entirely and is strictly for performance gains not emissions reduction. /// Friends help you move...Real friends help you move bodies \\ ----- Original Message ----- From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
To: <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Oxygenators in fuel > > That "May" be true but it also lowered the total BTU output of the fuel > which also lowered the engine's efficiency which also lowered economy > which........They will never, ever get it right as long as there is Greed in > the world, trust me :-( NOS is an oxygenator too but guess what you have to > do to make it generate more power, do it's thing, add efficiency etc....? > YOU HAVE TO ADD MORE FUEL! Unfortunately you can't add more fuel to fuel so > there you go..... > ------------------------------ From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Oxygenators in fuel Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:22:49 -0800 If anyone with any clout was "REALLY" interested in emissions they would have persued.....Ahhhh, forget it :-( This is political, not trucks.... -- Happily Retired (but broke) Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary -- > N2O is another subject entirely and is strictly for performance gains not > emissions reduction. ------------------------------ From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: Output Shaft Return Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:08:53 -0600 > If this was an internet site transaction then the site is "Supposed" to > spell out the policy or forever hold their peace. If you gave them the > correct information and there was no possibility of confusion due to more > than one option for that part etc. then they should be willing to replace > the part but if you left out any info which could cause confusion then you > really don't have a case. OTOH, if they want your business they should be > willing to make it up to you since they are the ones who are supposed to > know what questions to ask to avoid confusion. > snip< > IMUO, Legally you probably can't do much about it but using some reason, > pointing out their moral obligation etc. may have some impact depending on > who you actually contact. If you are willing to take a "Deal" then maybe > you can recover most of your costs but I wouldn't settle for 50% without a > struggle at least :-) > > back to the > > store and asked for my money back. He told me that it was store policy to > > give a 50% store credit after 30 days. I E-mailed him back and asked for > > the correct shaft or 100% refund. There was never any mention of a 30 day > > return policy. I have the original packing slip. What does > > everyone think? If you charged it on a credit card, contest the charges. The company will generally be very cooperative about negotiating a settlement when you have the part and suddenly they don't have your money any more. When you contest charges, you don't exactly get your money back. The credit card company does rescind the payment to the merchant until you and the merchant resolve your differences. If a company goes through this procedure very often, they can lose their credit card privileges. When it comes to credit card transactions of this nature, the bank never ever loses. --John LaGrone jlagrone ford-trucks.com
See Henry at: http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm ------------------------------ From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: engine placement Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:08:57 -0600 > I've never personally seen an engine installation (stock) where the engine > was tilted forward or even absolutely level. All of them have been tilted > to the rear slightly to facilitate the alignment of the drive shaft I'm > reasonably sure. I'll agree with Gary on the observations and recommendations, but I always assumed the engine was lower in the back to facilitate oil return to the sump from the rocker arm areas. --John LaGrone jlagrone ford-trucks.com
See Henry at: http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm ------------------------------ From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>
Subject: 88 Lincoln Towncar Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:27:02 -0600 Please pardon this plea. I need some help locating some components on the climate control system on my 88 Towncar. I remember a couple of other people on this list have 88 Towncars. Please mail me off list (direct to jlagrone ford-trucks.com) if you think you might be able to help. TIA.
--John LaGrone jlagrone ford-trucks.com
See Henry at: http://www.ford-trucks.com/jlagrone/henry.home.htm ------------------------------ From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: engine placement Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:30:49 -0800 Again, I've never seen a set of heads that didn't have return holes on both ends so the oil returns at the lower end regardless and most, if not all, return around the push rods as well so I wouldn't think that was an issue. Most oil pans have at least two levels as well and the pickup is located at the lowest point, again for that reason. One exception to this rule is in lifted 4x4's where you can not keep the transmission output shaft aligned with the rear drive shaft or the engine would simply be at too much of an angle. The typical stock angle of most installations is only a few degrees, probably less than 5 degrees. If you tilt it too much then you run into other problems such as thrust bearing wear etc. as well as oil flow problems. Auto engines are designed to run mostly parallel with the horizon but have enough capacity built in to handle short duration angles such as when climbing a boat ramp etc. but if you leave it at a steep angle and run it hard (such as when rock crawling) you will cause some damage somewhere in the engine and if steep enough you can even cavitate the pump....and the rest of the engine due to the pump cavitation so virtually all competition engines have large capacity oil pans to offset some of this, along with the high rpm which tends to pull all the oil up to the top so more is needed to start with so you don't run out under that condition. I have not seen one but I've heard of engines with multiple pickups and some kind of check valve system so it uses the one which has the oil.....I beleive many dry sump systems utilize this method. BTW, some would say it's better to have a little angle at each Ujoint to ensure lubrication of the needle bearings in the joints but the ideal setup for the rear is to have the pinion and transmission shafts on the same axis when at cruise on a smooth surface. That is, when under light power which tends to force the rear axle to rotate a degree or two. This produces the least wear, provides the most geometric advantage for strength and ensures the smoothest operation at speed. The bearings in the ujoints are adequately lubed by the undulations of the suspension so constant movement is not necessary. I'm pointing this out because some may be installing engines with home made mounts (like I did) and this needs to be considered when mocking up the engine placement. 4x4's are different in that you usually have to balance the drive shaft angles between the front and rear for maximum flex in the joints and sometimes this means tilting the engine one way or the other to facilitate this. Owners of radically lifted trucks simply have to accept more frequent ujoint replacements and the likelyhood of more frequent breakage unless they use larger than stock parts. -- Happily Retired (but broke) Michigan Pot Hole Jumping, 78 Bronco Loving, Gary -- > I'll agree with Gary on the observations and recommendations, but I always > assumed the engine was lower in the back to facilitate oil return to the > sump from the rocker arm areas. ------------------------------ From: "Christopher Worley" <cworley76 hotmail.com>
Subject: Free to a good home..... Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:58:46 I need to get rid of some stuff in my garage so that I can walk, the first items I have are front brake assy. including spindles from a '67 F100, this is a drum assy., I also have the front coil springs, if anyone needs these items let me know off list and they are yours. Chris Worley '67 F100 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://explorer.msn.com .... 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. 
|