Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:34:01 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #104
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, March 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 104



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996 Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks80up-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank? [Chris Hedemark ]
1998 Ranger Gas Tank? [John Cassis ]
RE: 1998 Ranger gas tank? ["Chadlyr" ]
[off-topic] Car phones [Chris Hedemark ]
RE: [off-topic] Car phones ["Rio, Tony" ]
RE: Modifications -- F-150 / 460 [Joe Maleski ]
Re: distributer nightmare ["Doug Berry" ]
Re: [off-topic] Car phones [Chris Hedemark ]
Re: [off-topic] Car phones [Joe Maleski ]
Re: F-150 -- FORD 460 ["Dave Resch" ]
Re: Repair manuals [Danny Gaudenti ]
RE: Modifications -- F-150 / 460 [Mark Ponsford ]
Re: F-150 -- FORD 460 [Chris Hedemark ]
re: trade [Casey Vandor ]
84 F150 and intro ["Harold Day" ]

=======================================================================

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:11:13 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

Ken Payne wrote:

> Or maybe they figured people could bring flash lights along. I always,
> carry a flash light, jumper cables and a small tool kit. Rarely had
> any use for them but its good insurance.

I always carry flashlights, but the problem arises when you've got both
hands busy doing other things and you don't have one to hold the
flashlight.

It isn't TOO great a loss though because the under-hood lights have
been getting smaller and cheaper over time I think.

It's at the point now where one could possible acheive a similar level
of illumination merely by smiling and having the moonlight reflect off
of one's teeth and into the engine bay.

> Not really true. Mustangs were the first car Ford aggressively
> marketed towards women. And with modern 'Stangs there's a huge
> performance aftermarket. People really hop them up, at least
> around here. True, many people buy a GT and never intend to open
> the hood. But many also buy the cars to tweak them. Join the
> Fordnatics or Mustang email lists and you'll see that the hobby
> is alive and kicking.

Ken, I am one of the writers for Corral Modular
(http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.corral.net/modular) and earlier on I was running a mailing
list for Modular mustang owners (has since been replaced by Corral
modular techboard). While people *have* adapted and are starting to hot
rod the modular motors, it has become a rather exclusive territory and
requires that the enthusiast carry a fat wallet or bottomless credit
cards. Also the increase in performance in relation to the dollars
spent has been dwindling. To get a Mustang GT today up to the 300
horsepower level now requires over $3,000 worth of investment in a
blower or even more money to go the more traditional route. Plus many
of the installations that were considered mere bolt-ons before are now a
serious undertaking and many enthusiasts are no longer even installing
their own headers, rather sending their car to a modular specialist and
paying a lot of money to have it done (not easy on these cars).

Unless Ford pulls a rabbit out of their hat soon, we are coming back
towards a reincarnation of the 1974-1978 Mustang II.

My informants are telling me of *some* changes to be expected in 1999
(which have since been verified) but the horsepower increase to be
expected is very mild and will make the car no more competetive with the
1999 F body cars than the 1996 Mustang of mine is again 1996 F body
cars.

It drives me nuts that my pony car isn't even considered to be in the
same league as an F body, and I have to race against rice burners if I
want to race at all.

I fell in love with Mustangs in the 1971-1972 years (1973 got uglied up
with the big bumper). Anyone who thinks that these cars were geared
towards women is smoking crack (but I agree that the original Mustangs
were more suited towards women). The more matured mustangs of 1968 on
to 1973 were definitely a man's car, and the gas filler tube was clearly
labelled "WARNING: Fuel this vehicle only with high test fuel". "Test"
was short for "Testosterone". A drive in a 1971 Mach 1 with a 351C-4V
would scare most women. Sorry if it sounds sexist, but this is based on
real-life observation. My mother is the exception, as she is known to
have raced many folks in a 440 6-pack roadrunner while she was pregnant
with me.

This yuppification of vehicles seems to be extending to trucks, as
well. My uncle Dave got himself a 1998 F150 4x4 and the outside looks
very feminine while the inside looks straight out of a taurus. Frankly,
after doing a day's work I'd be afraid of getting into this truck for
fear that something might break or get stained. WAAAY too plush, but I
understand that is the trend these days and Ford goes where the wind
blows.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:06:09 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: 1998 Ranger Gas Tank?

I just love this bumper sticker I saw, it read:

JUST GET OFF THE PHONE AND DRIVE!!!!!

Got to love it.

John Cassis
93' STX 4x4 3.0/5-speed

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:24:47 -0500
From: "Chadlyr"
Subject: RE: 1998 Ranger gas tank?

I love it!

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-fordtrucks80up ListService.net
[mailto:owner-fordtrucks80up ListService.net]On Behalf Of Rio, Tony
Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 2:00 PM
To: 'Filip M Gieszczykiewicz'
Cc: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Subject: RE: 1998 Ranger gas tank?


I can handle the Yuppies, it's the 17 year olds in their
mom-and-dad-bought-me-it mustangs. Around here (Chicago) they're like
annoying buzzing flies on the expressways.

Three months ago while I was in the center lane I had a kid in a red
mustang try to cut me off. He zipped in front of me (I was doing about
60) and he cut it too close. The right side of the front bumper on my
F150 just caught his drivers rear wheel, and stripped it completely off.
He lost control and spun it into the center median wall.

I pulled over, called the cops, and of course the kid starts yelling
about how I rammed him! When Officer Friendly got there, the kid start
yelling at her how it was all my fault. The cop looked at his smashed
car, (and the missing rear tire) looked at my truck, (which had a big
chunk of that same tire stuck under the front bumper) and told the kid
to sit down and keep quiet 'cause she could see exactly what happened.
Of course the 4 witnesses that stopped and told her how he was doing
about 80 weaving through rush hour traffic didn't help his case any.
When he continued to protest she looked at his license again, looked at
her watch and said "Hmm, 10 am on a Tuesday, and you're 17? Why aren't
you in school?"

Yes, the Illinois State Patrol will arrest for truancy.

Lucily no one was hurt, but I weep for the future.

That's why you buy a truck!

Tony Rio
Allstate Enterprise Help Center
PRC Analyst \ Integration Owner
Trio1 Allstate.com
(W) 847.402.9386


> -----Original Message-----
> From:Filip M Gieszczykiewicz [SMTP:fordtrucks80up ListService.net]
> Sent:Friday, March 20, 1998 12:34 PM
> To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net; filipg paranoia.com
> Subject:Re: 1998 Ranger gas tank?
>
> You (Chris Hedemark) wrote:
> > Regarding the underhood light, this is common of the kinds of
> shortcuts
> > that Ford has been taking lately with new vehicles. For example, my
>
> They prolly did a "survey" (hey, _some_ people run why presidencies
> that
> way...) and they discovered that the average yuppie doesn't OPEN the
> hood... so the light was deemed "obsolete" and it got chopped. Look
> around the unwashed masses... how many of them even know what to do
> under the hood? "Oil dipstick? What's that??? Wait, my cell-phone is
> ringing..."
>
> I put a nice, self-contained (ie. with a built-in pendulum switch)
> light
> under the hood of my B2 for about $7 total... took about 10 minutes...
> yes, it's fused ... If I had an OEM place to mount it, it would have
> taken
> 1.3 minutes... for a total assembly-line cost of $5 (figure they'd buy
> 10K of them lights at a time :-)
>
> > 1996 Mustang GT has an underhood light as well as several other
> > goodies. The 1998 SVT Cobra, at $4,000 more, does not have this (to
> > clarify, none of the 1998 Mustangs do). The clock on the dash was
> also
> > removed (now the dash pad on the 1998 Mustang has this glaring bare
> > spot). Now I know car companies love to cut corners, but it is
> getting
> > nuts when prices go up all the time and we lose handy features that
> are
> > replaced with nothing or more cup holders (what does a mustang need
> with
> > CUP HOLDERS anyway?????!?!?!?!?!)
>
> It's for holding coffee cup, the cell phone and the message pad and
> the
> nail-file.
>
> Yes, that was low... and I stand behind it :-) I almost got rammed up
> the butt by some yuppie 40s woman in a "next model year" Mustang GT
> who was talking on the phone... $#$%&! Gotta thank God for those wide
> tires and ABS... or my ass ould have been history...
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean. A Mustang was something a "guy" would buy
> and maintain and drive for the enjoyment of it... no longer, it's just
> a yuppie-mobile now. So sad.
>
> That's one of the good (??) things about a Bronco II... they
> discontinued
> it before the yuppie-era and it's a good feeling to know that next
> time
> you see someone in a B2, they will NOT be a yuppie. Thank God!
>
> Take care.
> +--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996
> ----------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
> |
> | List removal instructions on the website.
> |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
> -----------------+



+--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996 ----------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:31:34 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: [off-topic] Car phones

John Cassis wrote:

> I just love this bumper sticker I saw, it read:
>
> JUST GET OFF THE PHONE AND DRIVE!!!!!
>
> Got to love it.


Sorry for the off-topic. Tell me if you want me to kill the thread,
Ken, and I'll stop.

I remember reading in a computer magazine awhile ago about a device that
someone was coming out with for the purpose of disconnecting cellular
phone sessions. The device would only work if you got within like 50'
of the caller and would overload all cellular frequencies causing a loss
of carrier. This sounded like EXACTLY what I'd love to have on the
road. I work in Research Triangle Park, which is full of executive
types (I am not one of them) and it seems like the closer I get to work,
the more people are making phone calls and ignoring the road (coasting
onto the shoulder or drifting into my lane). If you honk the horn at
them to wake them up before they hit you, you get the finger. So this
seemed like a godsend... a gizmo that could simply DISCONNECT the
offender without casting suspicion on you.

Then it hit me.

This was the APRIL issue. April fool!

But it sure got my attention. And if the device is ever REALLY made,
sign me up for TWO!

New cars should be fitted with a device. This device would include two
discrete electrodes in the driver's seat of the vehicle. A sensor would
be placed in the cab to detect transmission on cellular phone
frequencies from within the vehicle and an electric shock is given
through the buttocks in proportion to the reading on the speedometer
(smaller shock at 25 mph than 75mph). I realize that this hurts
passengers but enough is enough.

If this is too rough for you, how about just having all of the lights on
the vehicle flash rapidly to indicate to all those around that the
driver is impaired and may have the driving skills of Helen Keller at
any time that the cell phone is in use.

You know it's a shame that scanners are no longer capable of listening
in on cellular calls. Wouldn't it be great to plug a PA speaker under
the hood into a scanner, and rebroadcast these phone calls for the
benefit of all the drivers nearby?

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:43:11 -0600
From: "Rio, Tony"
Subject: RE: [off-topic] Car phones

Chris wrote...
"You know it's a shame that scanners are no longer capable of listening
in on cellular calls. Wouldn't it be great to plug a PA speaker under
the hood into a scanner, and rebroadcast these phone calls for the
benefit of all the drivers nearby?"

I have a scanner I purchased at a radio shop in the city last year that
will get the cellular and cordless calls (Bearcat 800xl). The dealer was
nice enough to add in a resistor and some other parts so that I could
get these frequencies. Maybe I'll go back and get a CD set with a PA
mode. Might make for a nice weekend project....
Tony Rio
Allstate Enterprise Help Center
PRC Analyst \ Integration Owner
Trio1 Allstate.com
(W) 847.402.9386


> -----Original Message-----
> From:Chris Hedemark [SMTP:fordtrucks80up ListService.net]
> Sent:Friday, March 20, 1998 1:31 PM
> To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net; chris yonderway.com
> Subject:[off-topic] Car phones
>
> John Cassis wrote:
>
> > I just love this bumper sticker I saw, it read:
> >
> > JUST GET OFF THE PHONE AND DRIVE!!!!!
> >
> > Got to love it.
>
>
> Sorry for the off-topic. Tell me if you want me to kill the thread,
> Ken, and I'll stop.
>
> I remember reading in a computer magazine awhile ago about a device
> that
> someone was coming out with for the purpose of disconnecting cellular
> phone sessions. The device would only work if you got within like 50'
> of the caller and would overload all cellular frequencies causing a
> loss
> of carrier. This sounded like EXACTLY what I'd love to have on the
> road. I work in Research Triangle Park, which is full of executive
> types (I am not one of them) and it seems like the closer I get to
> work,
> the more people are making phone calls and ignoring the road (coasting
> onto the shoulder or drifting into my lane). If you honk the horn at
> them to wake them up before they hit you, you get the finger. So this
> seemed like a godsend... a gizmo that could simply DISCONNECT the
> offender without casting suspicion on you.
>
> Then it hit me.
>
> This was the APRIL issue. April fool!
>
> But it sure got my attention. And if the device is ever REALLY made,
> sign me up for TWO!
>
> New cars should be fitted with a device. This device would include
> two
> discrete electrodes in the driver's seat of the vehicle. A sensor
> would
> be placed in the cab to detect transmission on cellular phone
> frequencies from within the vehicle and an electric shock is given
> through the buttocks in proportion to the reading on the speedometer
> (smaller shock at 25 mph than 75mph). I realize that this hurts
> passengers but enough is enough.
>
> If this is too rough for you, how about just having all of the lights
> on
> the vehicle flash rapidly to indicate to all those around that the
> driver is impaired and may have the driving skills of Helen Keller at
> any time that the cell phone is in use.
>
> You know it's a shame that scanners are no longer capable of listening
> in on cellular calls. Wouldn't it be great to plug a PA speaker under
> the hood into a scanner, and rebroadcast these phone calls for the
> benefit of all the drivers nearby?
>
> +--------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 - 1996
> ----------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
> |
> | List removal instructions on the website.
> |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
> -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:03:17 -0800
From: Joe Maleski
Subject: RE: Modifications -- F-150 / 460

Well, for starters there is the issue of "will the two even bolt together".
Let's say that it can be done. The issue would then be the rest of the
drivetrain, and its ability to withstand the serious increase in tourque
that the 460 puts out over the 300 inline 6. Sure, if you keep your foot
out of it and don't load the truck too much the smaller transmission will
survive. But let's get real - big engines are put in trucks for two
reasons; to pull heavier loads and/or to go faster. The relatively simple
addition of a 460 to a half ton truck will not make that truck capable of
pulling a 10,000 pound trailer or putting 3,000 pounds of gravel in the
bed. One needs to consider the stronger transmissions offered in the 3/4
tons as well as a stronger rear axle, stronger brakes and stronger
suspension.

In the case of the lister who's thinking of replacing the inline 6 with a
V8 in his F-150, I'd go with a V8 engine that was available in the truck in
the first place, such as a 302 or 351. I suspect that the amount of work
(details) that the person will put up with in putting a 460 in an F-150
will not be worth the effort.

Joe

>Just out of curiosity... When you put a bigger engine in, what do you
>need to do to the tranny? I have never done an engine swap and am
>curious if the tranny needs to be "upgraded" somehow?
>
>For example, I have an Inline 6. If I were to pull it out and put in,
>say a V8, would the new engine apply more torque to the transmission
>than the I6 did and screw up the tranny? Would you have to rebuild the
>tranny with "better" gears that could handle the increased engine
>power...
>
>Just curious... always trying to learn.

************************************
Joe Maleski
Santa Clara, CA
1994 F-250HD SuperCab 4X4, 460/5-spd

mailto:jmaleski auspex.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 04:18:28 -0500
From: "Doug Berry"
Subject: Re: distributer nightmare

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BD53B7.3BD5A660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I believe that the '89 351 has a roller cam in it, so if you have put in =
a distributor for a cam with a non-roller type of gear it will chew the =
distributor gear up.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BD53B7.3BD5A660
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






http-equiv=3DContent-Type>



I believe that the '89 351 has a =
roller cam in=20
it, so if you have put in a distributor for a cam with a non-roller type =
of gear=20
it will chew the distributor gear up.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BD53B7.3BD5A660--

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:04:18 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: [off-topic] Car phones

Rio, Tony wrote:

> I have a scanner I purchased at a radio shop in the city last year that
> will get the cellular and cordless calls (Bearcat 800xl). The dealer was
> nice enough to add in a resistor and some other parts so that I could
> get these frequencies. Maybe I'll go back and get a CD set with a PA
> mode. Might make for a nice weekend project....

Does this dealer just do local sales or mail order as well?

You shouldn't need a CB to make this work. PA speakers only use a few
watts of power and most scanners should have a suitable "ext. speaker"
jack that would do the trick. Does your scanner have this?

You know, this F250 I'm getting will likely look like Knight Rider
inside with all of the electronic gizmos I've been stockpiling over
time. Might as well add a scanner/pa to the mix. ;-) I've already got
the PA speaker but it's been used mostly on the CB set. That PA has
been INDESPENSIBLE to basically vent on idiots. Once I had a carful of
teenagers run a stop sign at an intersection (where I had no stop sign),
they cut in front of me and made aright turn so they ended up in front
of me. I pulled up on their butts, flashing my high/low beams up and
down, and in my most authoritative voice I could make I boomed out over
the CB "Okay, pull it over, step out of the car, and get your hands
behind your heads." I'll be damned if those kids didn't pull right over
and listen to me.

I've also had a lot of folks parking in the fire lane move out of the
way. I used to have this big F350 with a custom body on the back (like
the phone companies use ... which is where I bought it from) and
maneuvering that thing at the supermarket was next to impossible if
someone was parked in the fire lane and I was trying to find a parking
spot. So of course, out comes the mic and those people in the fire lane
MOVE. They just assume anyone with a PA speaking authoritatively must be
a cop or something.

Now that I have a siren I could offer additional motivation. :-)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:17:50 -0800
From: Joe Maleski
Subject: Re: [off-topic] Car phones

>You know it's a shame that scanners are no longer capable of listening
>in on cellular calls. Wouldn't it be great to plug a PA speaker under
>the hood into a scanner, and rebroadcast these phone calls for the
>benefit of all the drivers nearby?

Actually it is still quite possible to listen in on cell phone
conversations. My personal experience (enough said here) listening to
conversations is that 30 percent are people checking their voicemail, 30
percent are people telling their significant others that they are on their
way home and what do you need from the store, etc. and 30 percent are sales
pukes keeping up with their contacts.

It is also very possible to build a jammer that will flood the frequencies
with static but the challenge is to figure out the frequency of the guys
phone in the car directly ahead of you who has slowed to 45 in the left
lane as he tries to find a piece of paper to jot a note on. Can be done,
though.

Enough on this subject, back to talking trucks! Ken put me (or rather, my
F-250) on the website the other day; check out the Silver Camel at
http://www.ford-trucks.com/pictorial/big/1994_f250.html.

Joe

************************************
Joe Maleski
Santa Clara, CA
1994 F-250HD SuperCab 4X4, 460/5-spd

mailto:jmaleski auspex.com

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:27:12 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: F-150 -- FORD 460

>From: Chris Hedemark
>Subject: Re: F-150 -- FORD 460
>
>> The 351C will not work w/ 302 or I6 motor mounts. The
>> 351C was never a factory option in an F truck.
>
>True, it was never an option. But 351C bolts up the same
>as a 289/302/351W to motor mounts & bellhousing.
Yo Chris:

I'll take your word for it about the engine mounts. I know the
bellhousings match.

>> you have any local emission testing requirements, since
>> neither of these engines will meet '87 model year emissions
>> standards.
>
>Emissions requirements are indeed an issue in many places.
>However, many of these old motors can be made to meet
>1987 emissions standards in many states. Some states are
>easier than others to get through.
Of course, old boys will be old boys, but one of the reasons (the main
reason, I believe) that Ford discontinued the M-block (351M/400) was
because its air injection system couldn't be easily adapted to modern
computer controls that require an O2 sensor to control the fuel/air
mixture. Technically, changing the engine control system (particularly to
a more primitive one) is not legal. Although there are places where you
can get away w/ such things, it is still not "emissions legal."

>In the case of the Cleveland, you can spend some time tuning
>it a bit for emissions plus if you maintain the factory cats it is
>possible to squeak through emissions testing in many states.

My 1980 351M w/ 170K miles on it (since the last rebuild) never fails its
annual tailpipe test here in Colorado. In fact, the smog techs have
marveled at how it runs cleaner than a lot of new vehicles. Of course, if
it was tested on the treadmill (like newer vehicles are), I doubt it would
prove to be quite as clean. OTOH, if you keep any engine reasonably well
tuned and maintained (change the oil and air filter regularly), it will run
cleaner than a poorly maintained engine, even one newer with more
sophisticated controls and emissions devices. In general, substituting an
older engine (including it's control systems and emissions devices) in a
newer vehicle is not legal, even if it actually produces less pollution!
That is the sad reality of laws designed to be enforced by know-nothing
bureaucrats.

>I happen to have a 351C-4V in storage that needs a rebuild
>but was one helluva fun motor until it swallowed a valve.

Emissions reasons aside, I would not recommend this as a good engine for an
F250. The Cleveland 4V engine is not well suited to producing the low rpm
torque necessary for decent performance in a relatively heavy truck. It is
better suited to producing high rpm horsepower in a lighter vehicle, like a
Mustang or Torino. OTOH, it could work well in a lightened F100 designed
for street fighting:-).

>Wonder if the factory 4 speed would hold up, though.
>If not I've got the original toploader that the motor came
>with out of a 71 Mustang.

I would speculate that the tranny that came w/ the truck would hold up
better than the tranny that came w/ the Mustang. A truck places much
higher torque loads on a tranny (heavier vehicle) than a Mustang. Do you
know what the truck tranny is? Even if the tranny that's there is too LD
for your needs, you can get a heavier truck tranny that will stand up to
big block or diesel stresses.

>If I do go the C6 route, what can I do in the way of shifters
>that isn't too awkward?

Swapping the auto steering column w/ shift linkage should be a drop-in
proposition. The C6 lives behind many hopped-up big blocks w/ no problems.
>Are exhaust manifolds available to swap a 4V Cleveland
>into an 87 truck?

I'd bet the stock car manifolds would work. If not, the M-block manifolds
probably would. Better yet, get some headers to do that engine justice.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:29:55 -0800
From: Danny Gaudenti
Subject: Re: Repair manuals

>They may not be cheap but when you need them they're worth a million dollars
>
>The Husker

So true. I changed the timing belt on my wife's car and the service manual
gave me step-by-step instructions with drawings. It took a while to do it
the first time, but the next time I had it done in a few hours. The manual
payed for itself that first time I changed the belt.

Danny

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:53:15 -0800
From: Mark Ponsford
Subject: RE: Modifications -- F-150 / 460

At 12:03 PM -0800 3/20/98, Joe Maleski wrote:
>Well, for starters there is the issue of "will the two even bolt together".
>Let's say that it can be done. The issue would then be the rest of the
>drivetrain, and its ability to withstand the serious increase in tourque
>that the 460 puts out over the 300 inline 6. Sure, if you keep your foot
>out of it and don't load the truck too much the smaller transmission will
>survive. But let's get real - big engines are put in trucks for two
>reasons; to pull heavier loads and/or to go faster. The relatively simple
>addition of a 460 to a half ton truck will not make that truck capable of
>pulling a 10,000 pound trailer or putting 3,000 pounds of gravel in the
>bed. One needs to consider the stronger transmissions offered in the 3/4
>tons as well as a stronger rear axle, stronger brakes and stronger
>suspension.
>
>In the case of the lister who's thinking of replacing the inline 6 with a
>V8 in his F-150, I'd go with a V8 engine that was available in the truck in
>the first place, such as a 302 or 351. I suspect that the amount of work
>(details) that the person will put up with in putting a 460 in an F-150
>will not be worth the effort.
>
>Joe
>
>>Just out of curiosity... When you put a bigger engine in, what do you
>>need to do to the tranny? I have never done an engine swap and am
>>curious if the tranny needs to be "upgraded" somehow?
>>
>>For example, I have an Inline 6. If I were to pull it out and put in,
>>say a V8, would the new engine apply more torque to the transmission
>>than the I6 did and screw up the tranny? Would you have to rebuild the
>>tranny with "better" gears that could handle the increased engine
>>power...
>>
>>Just curious... always trying to learn.

2nd the motion. If you want more torque/HP, then sell the 150 and buy
something beefier. Your much better off in the long run.



- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ponsford
Phone: (250) 721-7397 Email: mponsfor uvic.ca

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:52:06 -0500
From: Chris Hedemark
Subject: Re: F-150 -- FORD 460

Dave Resch wrote:

> Of course, old boys will be old boys, but one of the reasons (the main
> reason, I believe) that Ford discontinued the M-block (351M/400) was
> because its air injection system couldn't be easily adapted to modern
> computer controls that require an O2 sensor to control the fuel/air
> mixture. Technically, changing the engine control system (particularly to
> a more primitive one) is not legal. Although there are places where you
> can get away w/ such things, it is still not "emissions legal."

I thought this was just true of cali. and other "emissions nazis"-run
states.

I've mixed-n-matched 1971 and earlier engines into 1972 and up vehicles
without raising an eyebrow, except for once with a well modified 302
from 1968 dropped into a 1972 Mustang. That's when the "Good Ol' Boy"
rules kicked in and next thing you know, that old pony had similar
emissions results as the late model MR2 toyota in the next service bay!

But seriously, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that I can
maintain 1987 standards with a well built 1971 Cleveland motor (even
easier with a 1972 Cleveland but they are far less fun). As long as I
keep a smog pump on it, cats, etc. I think it'll pass. I'll of course
try to pass it WITHOUT the smog pump first but will use it if I need
to. Nobody has *ever* asked me "what year is that engine, son?" so I'm
not too worried.

> My 1980 351M w/ 170K miles on it (since the last rebuild) never fails its
> annual tailpipe test here in Colorado. In fact, the smog techs have
> marveled at how it runs cleaner than a lot of new vehicles.

Yes I've had similar reactions with the Cleveland.

> In general, substituting an
> older engine (including it's control systems and emissions devices) in a
> newer vehicle is not legal, even if it actually produces less pollution!

I know that's true in Cali, but NC is pretty slack in its
safety/emissions laws (probably TOO slack)

> That is the sad reality of laws designed to be enforced by know-nothing
> bureaucrats.

Amen.

> Emissions reasons aside, I would not recommend this as a good engine for an
> F250. The Cleveland 4V engine is not well suited to producing the low rpm
> torque necessary for decent performance in a relatively heavy truck. It is
> better suited to producing high rpm horsepower in a lighter vehicle, like a
> Mustang or Torino. OTOH, it could work well in a lightened F100 designed
> for street fighting:-).

Probably the biggest problem I had with that engine was TOO MUCH
torque. It made all it's power before 4500RPM. No matter how big a
tire I put on that car, starting from a dead stop was TOUGH (the 4.10:1
rear probably didn't help matters). But you have a point. I'd like to
get an 18'-20' boat next year and will be using the truck this year to
haul cinder blocks and concrete mix so More's Law applies.

> I would speculate that the tranny that came w/ the truck would hold up
> better than the tranny that came w/ the Mustang. A truck places much
> higher torque loads on a tranny (heavier vehicle) than a Mustang. Do you
> know what the truck tranny is? Even if the tranny that's there is too LD
> for your needs, you can get a heavier truck tranny that will stand up to
> big block or diesel stresses.

Okay I don't know the model of the tranny, but I do know that it is a
four-speed NON overdrive with a granny first (effectively a 3 speed for
practical purposes).

> Swapping the auto steering column w/ shift linkage should be a drop-in
> proposition. The C6 lives behind many hopped-up big blocks w/ no problems.

Good!

> I'd bet the stock car manifolds would work. If not, the M-block manifolds
> probably would. Better yet, get some headers to do that engine justice.

Headers are always preferable, but not always available for non-standard
swaps like this. :-/

Well I have some time to sort out the issues. The 302 still has some
life in it and I'd like to improve some other things on the truck before
I do an engine swap anyway.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:24:51 -0900
From: Casey Vandor
Subject: re: trade

Is the extra cab different than the super cab? Is the extra cab you
are talking about the 4 door thing? That doesn't appeal to me much, but
I like the super cabs I have seen driving around. BTW what is your
mileage with the 3.0L and stick? I have heard that on the 4.0L the gas
mileage is almost the same with auto/manual (seems odd to me), but I
can't find the numbers anywhere.
Thanks

>>>Casey,=20

Get an extra cab. I have the regular cab and my budy has the extra cab.
=
His seats move back further than mine. He has much more leg room than I
=
do. Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

John Cassis
93' STX 4x4 3.0/5-speed

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:32:56 -0600
From: "Harold Day"
Subject: 84 F150 and intro

Hello everyone. I've only recently joined the list and have been lurking for
a few days getting a feel for the discussion. A word of introduction, I'm a
computer jockey, spends his spare time as an artist, gardener, and wood
worker. I'm not totally inept in the mechanical department, but I'm close.
:-) Seriously, I've done minor work, like install headers, and things....

---

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.