Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list 61-79-list); Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:12:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:12:43 -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 #85
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.
==========================================================

Serious help restoring and maintaining your Ford truck!
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Truck Enthusiasts carries hundreds of Ford licensed
reproduction decals to put that finishing touch on your
truck!

Air Cleaner Decals Interior Decals
Emission Decals Chassis Decals
Exterior Decals Body Decals
Valve Cover Decals Jack Decals
and much more, including Ford oval decals in several
sizes!

<a href="http://www.motorhaven.com/">
http://www.motorhaven.com/</a>

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

------------------------------------
61-79-list Digest Fri, 16 Mar 2001 Volume: 2001  Issue: 085

In This Issue:
Carb
Q-jet 460 Carbs / manifolds
Re: vibrating 302's
parts cleaner
385 series motors
Re: Q-jet 460 Carbs / manifolds
Mineral Spirits vs Fuel Oil
Re: parts cleaner
Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Re: Mineral Spirits vs Fuel Oil
Re: parts cleaner
Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Re: Q-jet 460 Carbs / manifolds
compressors and tire fillers
Re: Greatest engine there never was
Re: vibrating 302's
Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Re: vibrating 302's
Re: Diesel fuel
Re: compressors and tire fillers
Re: compressors and tire fillers

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

From: "Azie L. Magnusson" <maggie11 HiWAAY.net>
Subject: Carb
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:06:12 -0600

Eric F. writes:  >>I'd like to use this truck off-road a bit and I know the quadrajet is
considered to be the best off-camber carb but does anyone know of a way to
get a QJ that would work with my 460/C6 combo in the '79 F-350?  <<

Eric!!  There was an offering one (1) year only for the Rochester Qj on the 429.
I do not know the year, but it was during the infancy of the 429/460, so it would
have to be in '68-'69 time frame.  IF(and that is certainly a big IF) you can find
an intake from one of these, then you would have exactly what you want.

Azie Magnusson
Ardmore, Al.


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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:32:43 -0500
From: Tony Marino <redneck raex.com>
Subject: Q-jet 460 Carbs / manifolds


Huh?

Either I'm one lucky SOB, or I'm confused here-

I could have sworn mid-70's lincolns that had the 460's in them ran Q-jet
carbs (dont' know if it was rochester or not) but I've come across at least
a half dozen Q-jet cast manifolds on ebay- one that I picked up with carb
and all for like $30 bucks.

Tony Marino
redneck raex.com


At 07:06 3/16/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Hundreds of Ford licensed decals to put the finishing
>touch on your truck! Support FTE - Check out our store:
>http://www.motorhaven.com/
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Eric F. writes:  >>I'd like to use this truck off-road a bit and I know
>the quadrajet is
>considered to be the best off-camber carb but does anyone know of a way to
>get a QJ that would work with my 460/C6 combo in the '79 F-350?  <<
>
>Eric!!  There was an offering one (1) year only for the Rochester Qj on
>the 429.
>I do not know the year, but it was during the infancy of the 429/460, so
>it would
>have to be in '68-'69 time frame.  IF(and that is certainly a big IF) you
>can find
>an intake from one of these, then you would have exactly what you want.
>
>Azie Magnusson
>Ardmore, Al.
>
>=============================================================
>To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
>Please remove this footer when replying.



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

From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: vibrating 302's
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:34:07 -0800


The only way the crank would affect the engine is if there was a change in
the deck height and thus the compression height of the pistons, otherwise
you should be able to use any crank as long as the flywheel and damper were
a good match.  I believe you have some other problem here.  Something you
are bolting on to both engines or the frame or mounts etc. is causing this
problem, not the engine itself.

--
Happily Retired (but broke)
Michigan Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

> 4X4. The entire motor from the fanblade back to the flywheel was
> replaced and it still had the shakes.

> The 1980 that was originally in it is back in there now. The things I
> have changed on it are the crank, flywheel and harmonic balancer. Last


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

From: "Greg Schnakenberg" <greg mail.dntcj.ro>
Subject: parts cleaner
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:22:41 +0200


with all this talk of parts cleaner, I think we should all have a moment of
silience and remember back to the good ole days before big brother
determined that VARSOL was bad for polywogs and newt darters!

Greg S.


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

From: "Greg Schnakenberg" <greg mail.dntcj.ro>
Subject: 385 series motors
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:50:25 +0200


> I'm looking for a late 60's to mid 70's 460 and C-6 to go in my 74 F350
> Super Camper Special, that I tow a 14,000lb 5th wheel with.  I'm heading
> to the junk-yard this weekend, (I want a torque monster) I'm looking
> something to rebuild and beef up so what years should I look for and out
> of what models and which should I stay away from?  TIA
>
>
> William (Tony) Whited

Tony,

your 68 to 71 engines are the "good" ones that everybody wants for racing.
any head casting number that begins with a "C" or the DOVE-C heads are the
high compression ones. (around 10.5 to 1)  They are great for high
performance, and have screw-in studs that can take BB Ch**vy roller rockers.
My opinion is that 10:5 to 1 is too much for a stump puller on today's gas.
some guys add dished pistons to them, which is a good Idea.  Others run them
as they are, and the motors dont seem to mind.  anyway, i'd still try to
keep it around 9.5 to 1

you want to stay away from CJ or SCJ heads, as they have ports that can
swallow a tennis ball but are a drag on moderate performance engines.  Also,
the cost a whole lot of money.   (as a side note, in the early 80's i could
have bought a SCJ engine from a wrecking yard for $50 or so.  it was sitting
upside down in the mud, and the owner of the yard was a silly scrub guy and
thought that motor was just another boat anchor! also could have bought a CJ
Ranchero at that time for $500 but didnt because the hood had flown up it
and i didnt think at the time i could find another shaker hood! oh, the dumb
things we do!!!)

the 72 to 86 (?) engines are all about the same i am told.  they have around
8 to 1 compression. with new pistons, they can be Raised to around 9:5 to 1,
they are decent performers for our stump pullers.  they have pedistal
rockers that perform ok, but can be swapped to rollers using a kit from
Crane.  My heads are from '73 and are numbered D3VE-A2A.  I have 3 of these
motors, from the years 73, 75 and 76.  The 73 is of unknown origin, and the
75 and 76 are both from Tbirds. I just got a 72 lincoln Mark IV from CA, and
it has the D3VE-A2A heads on it. (Gary, you had mentioned something about
the 78-79 motors being balanced differently, that is a first for me, but
most of my experience is with the older motors)

I would agree that the exhaust ports on just about ALL ford engines need
work.  take the bumps out and you will notice a good increase of power. Add
the bigger CJ valves (2:24 intakes). and you'll do even better.  another
trick I suggest is that you ALWAYS use the pre-71 timing set.  Ford retarded
timing to meet EPA requirements by up to 8 degrees.  From what I read in the
late 70's this swap alone was worth 35 HP on the post-72 engines!

The 87 up motors are not any good unless you just have to have EFI.  they
have wimpy ports and are just generally weak performers.  early heads will
not swap over to the later intakes and EFI setups either.

for a ton of great info on these motors look at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.385-series.com


well, I hope this has helped you.

Greg S.






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

From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: Q-jet 460 Carbs / manifolds
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:27:23 -0800


Are you sure they were Qjets?  Ford has it's own spread bore pattern which
is not compatible with the Rochester, Holley or Thermoquad.  This is the
most common 460 manifold but also the most useless for most of us who want
to use after market carbs.  It is totally Ford proprietary and only the
stock Ford carb will work with it.

If they really are Qjets.....I WANT ONE!!! :-)   I have the carb but need
the manifold :-(

--
Happily Retired (but broke)
Michigan Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

> Huh?
>
> Either I'm one lucky SOB, or I'm confused here-
>
> I could have sworn mid-70's lincolns that had the 460's in them ran Q-jet
> carbs (dont' know if it was rochester or not) but I've come
> across at least
> a half dozen Q-jet cast manifolds on ebay- one that I picked up with carb
> and all for like $30 bucks.
>
> Tony Marino
> redneck raex.com


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

From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Mineral Spirits vs Fuel Oil
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:22:38 -0800


Well, I've looked at quite a few MSDS's and both mineral spirits and fuel
oil both varied quite a bit as far as flash point but the fuel oil typically
has a lower flash point.  There are thousands of variations of both
materials and each has a specific purpose.  Here's what I found to be mostly
stable between them:

Explosion Rate:
Fuel oil is always between .5 and 7.5 where mineral spirits are all over the
place from .2 to 14.5 what ever this means

Evaporation rate:
Mineral spirits are virtually all at or around .1 compared to Butyl someting
or other where fuel oil virtually always says N/A (what are they hiding? or
perhaps it's supposed to be volatil so it is unimportant?)

Flash point:
Fuel oil was fairly stable between 96-106 where mineral spirits were all
over the place but none went below 96 that I saw but some were as high as
150 (Safety Kleen)

What all this means to me is that, as I suspected when I went looking for
some in the first place, is that you must be carefull when selecting mineral
spirits and look at the data sheet where fuel oil is known to be very
volatile, has a very constant explosion rate and relatively low flash point.
The correct mineral spirits will be the safest, hands down from what I've
seen due to higher flash point and lower evaporation rate but if you get the
wrong one you could be putting yourself in grave danger.

I have to give Gordy one thing at least......with fuel oil you always know
what you have :-)  It is the evaporation rate that makes mineral spirits
safer as a parts cleaner.  As we already noted, the fumes are what are
dangerous, not the liquid form in either case so if you can reduce the fumes
then you reduce the hazzard and I believe that is the bottom line here.

If I were to haul this stuff in 55 gal drums I would feel safer with fuel
oil because it is more stable across the board but some mineral spirits are
much more stable than fuel oil too so you can't really generalize here.

BTW, the docs did not transfer so I couldn't print or copy just the sections
I wanted.  Apparently they are protected from copying.

--
Happily Retired (but broke)
Michigan Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--


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

From: "GaryBBB" <gpeters3 lni.net>
Subject: Re: parts cleaner
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:42:16 -0800


As I recall, Varsol was one of the less stable of the bunch.  That site is
very enlightening but I was disappointed that the fuel oil did not have the
evaporation rates listed.

--
Happily Retired (but broke)
Michigan Pot Hole Jumping,
78 Bronco Loving, Gary
--

> with all this talk of parts cleaner, I think we should all have a
> moment of
> silience and remember back to the good ole days before big brother
> determined that VARSOL was bad for polywogs and newt darters!
>
> Greg S.


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

From: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:45:32 -0800


How do you guys dispose of these 'degreasing cocktails'?  I have a bucket of
'engine shampoo' and water in my garage now and it ain't going into my back
yard.  I have a well and I'm not going to take the chance.

Tom H.

>
> Any of the olefins(I think) are fine to clean parts with as long
> as they do not get atomized (what an injector does).  Of course
> if there is a fire source near by then there is a problem.   I use
> kerosene a little lighter than diesel and add Gunk SC3 which aids in
> cleaning.    In my parts cleaner I use stuff called agetine (sp)
> that works pretty well.   I was happy to see the post that Gunk SC3
> was still available, I am going to search the stores this weekend.
>
> At 12:01 PM 3/13/01 -0800, Bill Deacon wrote:
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >Hundreds of Ford licensed decals to put the finishing
> >touch on your truck! Support FTE - Check out our store:
> >http://www.motorhaven.com/
> >----------------------------------------------------------
> >I have a parts cleaner filled with 3 or 4 gallons of diesel
> fuel. It cleans
> >good enough for me, but I am worried about the fire hazard.
> Am I at great
> >risk of fire? I probably should have asked first. FTE
> content?---none, but I
> >think safety does take precedence here---Thanks! Bill
> >
> >
> >=============================================================
> >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: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:45:33 -0800


> G & J Boling wrote:
>
> >
> > Diesel is not very flammable! Kerosene yes, but not diesel.
> I have cleaned
> > parts lot of time with diesel. It doesn't smell great but
> does less harm to
> > my lungs than Mineral Spirits. Have you every tried
> building a fire with
> > diesel? It is very slow to ignite and slow to burn but with
> produce a heavy
> > smoke and bad odor and no you can't burn it in a kerosene
> lamp with a wick.

Actually I am the one who mentioned the word 'wick' but I never said
anything about a lamp.  No I wouldn't use it in a lamp.  What I was
referring to was what you mentioned above to get diesel to ignite you need
something to hold the flame -- a wick.  Be that brush, burlap, or a roll of
toilet paper.  (I have used all of these as wicks.)

> > This is from a women, and I though you guys knew every
> thing and to believe
> > some of you are willing to pay for this advise!
> > Mrs. Boling

Uh, yeah, ok....whatever.


Tom H.


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

From: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Mineral Spirits vs Fuel Oil
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:52:50 -0800


Gary,
were there units for any of those numbers?  Without knowing what the unit
is or what they're measuring it's hard to know if a large number is good or
bad for what we are talking about.

Tom H.

>
> Well, I've looked at quite a few MSDS's and both mineral
> spirits and fuel
> oil both varied quite a bit as far as flash point but the
> fuel oil typically
> has a lower flash point.  There are thousands of variations of both
> materials and each has a specific purpose.  Here's what I
> found to be mostly
> stable between them:
>
> Explosion Rate:
> Fuel oil is always between .5 and 7.5 where mineral spirits
> are all over the
> place from .2 to 14.5 what ever this means
>
> Evaporation rate:
> Mineral spirits are virtually all at or around .1 compared to
> Butyl someting
> or other where fuel oil virtually always says N/A (what are
> they hiding? or
> perhaps it's supposed to be volatil so it is unimportant?)
>
> Flash point:
> Fuel oil was fairly stable between 96-106 where mineral
> spirits were all
> over the place but none went below 96 that I saw but some
> were as high as
> 150 (Safety Kleen)
>
> What all this means to me is that, as I suspected when I went
> looking for
> some in the first place, is that you must be carefull when
> selecting mineral
> spirits and look at the data sheet where fuel oil is known to be very
> volatile, has a very constant explosion rate and relatively
> low flash point.
> The correct mineral spirits will be the safest, hands down
> from what I've
> seen due to higher flash point and lower evaporation rate but
> if you get the
> wrong one you could be putting yourself in grave danger.
>
> I have to give Gordy one thing at least......with fuel oil
> you always know
> what you have :-)  It is the evaporation rate that makes
> mineral spirits
> safer as a parts cleaner.  As we already noted, the fumes are what are
> dangerous, not the liquid form in either case so if you can
> reduce the fumes
> then you reduce the hazzard and I believe that is the bottom
> line here.
>
> If I were to haul this stuff in 55 gal drums I would feel
> safer with fuel
> oil because it is more stable across the board but some
> mineral spirits are
> much more stable than fuel oil too so you can't really
> generalize here.
>
> BTW, the docs did not transfer so I couldn't print or copy
> just the sections
> I wanted.  Apparently they are protected from copying.
>
> --
> Happily Retired (but broke)
> Michigan Pot Hole Jumping,
> 78 Bronco Loving, Gary
> --
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>

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

From: "Hogan, Tom (Portland)" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: parts cleaner
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:52:51 -0800


Is it possible that the evaporation rate of fuel oil is too low to be
measurable?  I can remember leaving a pan of diesel outside in the sun and
the volume didn't seem to go down much.  Do the same with gasoline and in a
little while it will be all gone.

Tom H
>
> As I recall, Varsol was one of the less stable of the bunch.
> That site is
> very enlightening but I was disappointed that the fuel oil
> did not have the
> evaporation rates listed.
>
> --
> Happily Retired (but broke)
> Michigan Pot Hole Jumping,
> 78 Bronco Loving, Gary
> --
>
> > with all this talk of parts cleaner, I think we should all have a
> > moment of
> > silience and remember back to the good ole days before big brother
> > determined that VARSOL was bad for polywogs and newt darters!
> >
> > Greg S.
>

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

From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:03:47 -0500


I got ya, Yes it is very hard to get diesel to burn and from my experience
it doesn't Evaporate very well either so you are less likely to have fumes
which can be the source of ignition. It smells bad, this from a woman's
point of view but then what doesn't.
Mrs. Boling
> > G & J Boling wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Diesel is not very flammable! Kerosene yes, but not diesel.
> > I have cleaned
> > > parts lot of time with diesel. It doesn't smell great but
> > does less harm to
> > > my lungs than Mineral Spirits. Have you every tried
> > building a fire with
> > > diesel? It is very slow to ignite and slow to burn but with
> > produce a heavy
> > > smoke and bad odor and no you can't burn it in a kerosene
> > lamp with a wick.
>
> Actually I am the one who mentioned the word 'wick' but I never said
> anything about a lamp.  No I wouldn't use it in a lamp.  What I was
> referring to was what you mentioned above to get diesel to ignite you need
> something to hold the flame -- a wick.  Be that brush, burlap, or a roll
of
> toilet paper.  (I have used all of these as wicks.)
>
> > > This is from a women, and I though you guys knew every
> > thing and to believe
> > > some of you are willing to pay for this advise!
> > > Mrs. Boling
>
> Uh, yeah, ok....whatever.
>
>
> Tom H.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>



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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:15:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Finn <ecfinn yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Q-jet 460 Carbs / manifolds


--- GaryBBB <gpeters3 lni.net> wrote:
> Are you sure they were Qjets?  Ford has it's own spread bore pattern
> which
> is not compatible with the Rochester, Holley or Thermoquad.  This is the
> most common 460 manifold but also the most useless for most of us who
> want
> to use after market carbs.  It is totally Ford proprietary and only the
> stock Ford carb will work with it.
>
> If they really are Qjets.....I WANT ONE!!! :-)   I have the carb but
> need
> the manifold :-(

Ok, (and you had to see this coming...) :-)

How do I know if I've got the proprietary Ford spread bore pattern or a
more standard spread bore pattern on my current 460 intake?

I don't want to buy a spread bore carb only to have it not fit cause its
the Ford design.  I don't know what year my motor is since it was swapped
in before I bought the truck.

Can I tell from casting numbers?  If so which ones, and where are they
located on the engine?

Thanks,

Eric Finn
'78 Bronco "The Beast" (Project in progress)
'79 F-350 4x4 "Fred"
'95 Mustang GT "Beauty"


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:32:52 -0500
From: somalley voyager2.cns.ohiou.edu (Sean O'Malley)
Subject: compressors and tire fillers

I'm in the process of hooking up an air compressor in my shop.
The compressor's main duty will be running coolant-fed gundrills, but
I figure since I've got the capability I might as well dangle a nice
service-station-style tire filler off one of the pipe runs, too.

Do tire fillers need a filter/regulator, or can I safely hook the
tire filler hose straight to a pipe drop?  System pressure on
the unit is the usual 125 psi...

--sean


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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:04:32 -0600
Subject: Re: parts cleaner
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>


> Is it possible that the evaporation rate of fuel oil is too low to be
> measurable?  I can remember leaving a pan of diesel outside in the sun and
> the volume didn't seem to go down much.  Do the same with gasoline and in a
> little while it will be all gone.

I am going to jump in now. Evaporation rate, which generates the vapor pool
described earlier in this thread, is exactly what determines flammability of
a combustible substance. The most volatile element is Hydrogen. It's a
vapor, likes to be a vapor, and readily reacts with a plentiful supply of
oxygen in the atmosphere at typical ambient temperatures.

-- 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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:20:32 -0500
From: somalley voyager2.cns.ohiou.edu (Sean O'Malley)
Subject: Re: Greatest engine there never was

> While I was sitting around daydreaming, I was thinking about what a cool
> engine the 300 I-6 is. Then I was thinking about how damn cool it would
> have been if it was a 400 I-6.

Wow, that'd have a cylinder displacement equivalent to a 533 ci V8.
Wouldn't that be pushing the limits for a gasoline engine?  Somewhere
I heard that ~500 ci was the practical limit for "normal" gas engines.
Much bigger than that, and they tend to rip themeselves apart.  Hence
the reason why locomotives, freighters, etc. are diesel powered.

Or am I falling victim to an engineering myth?

--sean

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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:08:58 EST
Subject: Re: vibrating 302's

In a message dated 3/16/2001 3:32:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gsruben infocom.com writes:


> I would venture a guess and say that Tweety already knows the answer to
> this problem. Do you think you could get your truck to "spill the beans"
> Darrell?

Unfortunatley Tweety and I arent speaking dud to the fact I bought a Mustang.
Im hopin the new motor will be the right ice breaking gift.  Your truck has
got us stumped thats for sure.  How bout just rippin it all out and puttin a
460 in it?   Ok just kiddin, Its hard to beat the economics of a small block
sometimes.  Did any of this stuff get dropped on install? The only things I
can think of are bent parts.  Im 99% positve an 80 302 is balanced the old
way, as I put an 80 302 into my 68 galaxie.  I didnt know much about anything
at the time, just that a 302 is a 302.  I used my old balancer and flexplate
for the job, although Im not sure why I changed the plate.  I had to change
the balancer because it was all setup for serpentine belts, and the old wagon
only needed the alt and PS pump, no need for the rest of that junk.  anyhow
it fired and ran just fine, drove it for 6 months before I sold it for a
whopping $100 due to the front end having gone out.  Im really lookin forward
to hearin the answer, Good Luck!!!

Darrell & Tweety



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

From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:16:04 EST
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick

I dont have the large quantities some of these guys have been using, I only
ever use about half a gallon in a coffee can for my cleaning needs.  When Im
done I add it to my waste oil barrel that I send to the recyclers.  they
really dont want ya to do that, but it gets treated, and I dont see it as
being any different than changing your oil after having a fuel pump go bad
and contaminating your oil.

Darrell & Tweety



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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:20:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Greatest engine there never was
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>


> Wow, that'd have a cylinder displacement equivalent to a 533 ci V8.
> Wouldn't that be pushing the limits for a gasoline engine?  Somewhere
> I heard that ~500 ci was the practical limit for "normal" gas engines.
> Much bigger than that, and they tend to rip themeselves apart.  Hence
> the reason why locomotives, freighters, etc. are diesel powered.
>
> Or am I falling victim to an engineering myth?

I'd say myth. How many cylinders? What cylinder configuration? Vehicle? I'm
no aviation expert, but some of those piston aircraft engines have to be
pretty big displacement.

-- 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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:35:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Cleaning Parts  what's your favorite trick
From: "John LaGrone" <jlagrone ford-trucks.com>


> I send to the recyclers.

Regardless of the circumstance, this is the proper method for disposing of
any used automotive fluids. In some places it is very difficult to do.

-- 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: "Brownell, Patrick" <patrick.brownell weyerhaeuser.com>
Subject: Re: vibrating 302's
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:23:27 -0800


I've heard that the early 302's were up to like '84 had 28oz imbalance, and
85 or newer had 50 oz imbalance, I have an 85 302 in my F100, and it is the
larger 50 oz imbalance.

The things I would worry about in your case are having the parts mismatched,
but if you have an '88 flywheel, crank, and harmonic balancer all should be
fine. Exchange any one of these with the "older" version, and you will have
quite a vibration problem.

-Pat

> ----------
> From: Gary Rubendall[SMTP:gsruben infocom.com]
> Reply To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:21 AM
> To: FTE
> Subject: [61-79-list] vibrating 302's
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Hundreds of Ford licensed decals to put the finishing
> touch on your truck! Support FTE - Check out our store:
> http://www.motorhaven.com/
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Darrell & Tweety,
> I would venture a guess and say that Tweety already knows the answer to
> this problem. Do you think you could get your truck to "spill the beans"
> Darrell? The second motor that was in this truck came out of a 1988 F150
> 4X4. The entire motor from the fanblade back to the flywheel was
> replaced and it still had the shakes. At that time I had homemade mounts
> in it which made the engine sit at a very odd angle, both up and down
> and side to side (found this out later). I thought this odd angle was
> the cause but it still would shake sitting in the driveway. Anyway, I
> bought real mounts for it and lowered the engine down where it should
> be. It lined up with the driveline like it should and I thought "I'll be
> driving this truck in a day or so." Sure was a good joke on me.
> The 1980 that was originally in it is back in there now. The things I
> have changed on it are the crank, flywheel and harmonic balancer. Last
> night I did a search on the small block engine list at FTE.com and read
> a post by a guy that says there are two types of cranks and they should
> not be mixed between the early and later 302 blocks. 302's are certainly
> strange engines because out of 4 different people there are 4 ideas of
> when early and late models start and stop. Parts stores have blank
> spaces in their books from '79 to '81 and a lot of things for '80 aren't
> even listed.
> I believe I have early model block,pistons and heads(1980) and late
> model crank,harmonic balancer and flywheel(1986). Maybe you just can't
> mix those things. Are the bigger Ford engines that way?
> This truck was really cobbled when I bought it but I drove it for about
> 6 months with no vibration. Everything was 1980 at that time. I was
> tempted to put a 351W in it just to see if everything would quiet down
> but my '78 had one and the 10mpg just killed me. I was hoping for a
> little more mileage with the 302. It has worked so far for mileage. One
> tank has lasted me for about 6 months now. Even with the gas additive I
> will probably have to eventually drain the tank and put new gas in it.
> I have it scheduled for an automatic this Wednesday but I hate the
> thought of doing that and still having the shakes.
> I'm still concerned about my cupholder!!!
> Gary R.
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:32:02 -0500
From: George Selby <gselby4x4 earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Diesel fuel


At 07:35 AM 3/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
>IF diesel fuel is so flammable why do you need about 14 to 1 compression to
>burn it

Remember that's to burn Diesel WITH NO SPARK AT ALL, it just injects and burns.

George Selby
70 F-100 Ranger XLT 400 C6
78 F-150 4x4 400 4 spd


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

From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Re: compressors and tire fillers
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:57:39 -0600

I wouldn't worry about it, most that I have seen do not run a regulator or a filter.


Garrett Nelson
www.1966ford.com


 ----- Original Message -----
 From: Sean O'Malley
 To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
 Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:32 AM
 Subject: [61-79-list] compressors and tire fillers


 ----------------------------------------------------------
 Hundreds of Ford licensed decals to put the finishing
 touch on your truck! Support FTE - Check out our store:
 http://www.motorhaven.com/
 ----------------------------------------------------------
 I'm in the process of hooking up an air compressor in my shop.
 The compressor's main duty will be running coolant-fed gundrills, but
 I figure since I've got the capability I might as well dangle a nice
 service-station-style tire filler off one of the pipe runs, too.

 Do tire fillers need a filter/regulator, or can I safely hook the
 tire filler hose straight to a pipe drop?  System pressure on
 the unit is the usual 125 psi...

 --sean



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

From: "Erik Marquez" <bronco78 alaska.com>
Subject: Re: compressors and tire fillers
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:06:47 -0900



>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Sean O'Malley
>  I'm in the process of hooking up an air compressor in my shop.
>  The compressor's main duty will be running coolant-fed gundrills, but
>  I figure since I've got the capability I might as well dangle a nice
>  service-station-style tire filler off one of the pipe runs, too.
>
>  Do tire fillers need a filter/regulator, or can I safely hook the
>  tire filler hose straight to a pipe drop?  System pressure on
>  the unit is the usual 125 psi...
>
>  --sean
A regulator is not required at only 125 line pressure, But a filter is
always a good idea. Rubber tires really do not like oil or water in side
them. If you typically wear the tread out in short time periods (less than 2
years) do to high road use or lots of beating off road your tire carcass may ....

---

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.