Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 18:47:11 -0400 (EDT) To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
From: digest-proc lofcom.com
Subject: fordtrucks Digest v97 n0039
Reply-To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Volume 97 Number 0039 fordtrucks Digest

Today's Topics:

RE: 351M vs. 351W
RE: 351M vs. 351W
RE: 351M vs. 351W
delete
RE: 351M vs. 351W
RE: 351M vs. 351W
RE: 351M vs. 351W
Re: 351M vs. 351W=20
RE: 351M vs. 351W
Re: 351M vs. 351W
F-150 BRAKE PROBLEMS
Re: 351M vs. 351W
Re: New Process Transmissions
Re: F-150 BRAKE PROBLEMS
Re: Concerns with F350 Brakes - Reply
Re: F-150 BRAKE PROBLEMS
Re: Quicker 97-Ranger XLT (2.3L) -Reply
Delete me from the list
SAFETY WARNING
Re: SAFETY WARNING
very high miles 302 v8
289 revisited
RE: SAFETY WARNING
SAFETY WARNING
64 F100 SWB
Re: SAFETY WARNING
RE: 289 revisited
1966 Ford F100 with a 230 CI Straight Six, I want to replace this

'61 Electrical Question
Re: '61 Electrical Question
Re: Powerstroke Water in Fuel light
Re: 1966 Ford F100 with a 230 CI Straight Six, I want to replace this
Re: Steering wheel cover
RE: F-150 BRAKE PROBLEMS
Re: 1966 Ford F-100 - Adding Power Steering
Re: '61 Electrical Question


* PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE ENTIRE DIGEST IN REPLIES TO THE LIST! *

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

>From jks2x faraday.clas.virginia.edu Mon Apr 7 15:23:35 1997 From: "Jason K. Schechner" Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

My two 79 Broncos have a 351M and a 400 in them and I would agree that, stock, the 351M is a dog of a motor. It was one of the early smog motors and uses a lot of energy trying to keep itself emissions-clean. However, the 351M and the 400 share almost everything, except the crankshaft. If you rebuild the 351M with a 400 crankshaft you'll have an instant 400, and take it from me the 400 is a much better performer than the 351M.
They get about the same mileage, but the 400 has a lot more umph.
The 351M is actually a variant of the 351C, though greatly detuned. The 351C, 351M and 400 (often called the 400M) all share the bigblock transmission bell-housing pattern, so you can pull that 351M and bolt a 460 right up to that C6. (both of my trucks have C6's, btw) In fact, that's what I plan to do with my 351M-powered truck. I'm going to rebuild the 400 (it burns a lot of oil) and replace the 351M with a 460, or so I hope. Where'd I put that lottery ticket again? :-)
Fun fact - the 400 is one of the only "square" motors out there: bore and stroke are both exactly 4"

-Jason

--
Jason K. Schechner
Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
devellopers who never crash anything [computers] are proving
they have no creativity. -[Brecht]


------------------------------
>From mcat epix.net Mon Apr 7 16:41:09 1997 From: mcat epix.net
Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

--- On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:23:35 -0400 (EDT) "Jason K. Schechner" wrote:

> My two 79 Broncos have a 351M and a 400 in them and I would
>agree that, stock, the 351M is a dog of a motor. It was one of
>the early smog motors and uses a lot of energy trying to keep
>itself emissions-clean. However, the 351M and the 400 share
>almost everything, except the crankshaft. If you rebuild the
>351M with a 400 crankshaft you'll have an instant 400, and take
>it from me the 400 is a much better performer than the 351M.
>They get about the same mileage, but the 400 has a lot more umph.
>The 351M is actually a variant of the 351C, though greatly
>detuned. The 351C, 351M and 400 (often called the 400M) all
>share the bigblock transmission bell-housing pattern, so you can
>pull that 351M and bolt a 460 right up to that C6. (both of my
>trucks have C6's, btw) In fact, that's what I plan to do with my
>351M-powered truck. I'm going to rebuild the 400 (it burns a lot
>of oil) and replace the 351M with a 460, or so I hope. Where'd I put
>that lottery ticket again? :-)
> Fun fact - the 400 is one of the only "square" motors out
>there: bore and stroke are both exactly 4"
>
>-Jason
>
>--
>Jason K. Schechner
>Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
> devellopers who never crash anything [computers] are proving
> they have no creativity. -[Brecht]
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Garry
E-mail: mcat epix.net
Date: 4/7/97 Time: 3:44:22 PM

427 Fe powered F-100 Wild by design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



------------------------------
>From mcat epix.net Mon Apr 7 16:41:47 1997 From: mcat epix.net
Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

--- On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:23:35 -0400 (EDT) "Jason K. Schechner" wrote:

> My two 79 Broncos have a 351M and a 400 in them and I would
>agree that, stock, the 351M is a dog of a motor. It was one of
>the early smog motors and uses a lot of energy trying to keep
>itself emissions-clean. However, the 351M and the 400 share
>almost everything, except the crankshaft. If you rebuild the
>351M with a 400 crankshaft you'll have an instant 400, and take
>it from me the 400 is a much better performer than the 351M.
>They get about the same mileage, but the 400 has a lot more umph.
>The 351M is actually a variant of the 351C, though greatly
>detuned. The 351C, 351M and 400 (often called the 400M) all
>share the bigblock transmission bell-housing pattern, so you can
>pull that 351M and bolt a 460 right up to that C6. (both of my
>trucks have C6's, btw) In fact, that's what I plan to do with my
>351M-powered truck. I'm going to rebuild the 400 (it burns a lot
>of oil) and replace the 351M with a 460, or so I hope. Where'd I put
>that lottery ticket again? :-)
> Fun fact - the 400 is one of the only "square" motors out
>there: bore and stroke are both exactly 4"
>
>-Jason
>
>--
>Jason K. Schechner
>Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
> devellopers who never crash anything [computers] are proving
> they have no creativity. -[Brecht]
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Garry
E-mail: mcat epix.net
Date: 4/7/97 Time: 3:45:15 PM

427 Fe powered F-100 Wild by design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



------------------------------
>From kevin.bradley sympatico.ca Mon Apr 7 16:46:48 1997 From: Kevin Bradley Subject: delete
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Delete me from the list, its information I don't want Thank you


------------------------------
>From mcat epix.net Mon Apr 7 17:02:20 1997 From: mcat epix.net
Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Jason
About the only thing that interchanges between 351C &351M-400 are the heads. The blocks look the same, but the deck hight is taller on the "M" motors. The bellhousings are completely different. The "C" motor uses the smallblk style and the"M" motor uses the 429-460 bellhousing style.
Camshafts will interchange between "M" and"C"s allso. If you want a power house, bore the 400 .040 over, cam the motor install aftermarket 4bbl and manifold freeflow exhaust, and pass everything but a gas station. I did in my shop truck and Ilike it. Realy woke it up for towing.This is in a82 F250.
Garry
--- On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:23:35 -0400 (EDT) "Jason K. Schechner" wrote:

> My two 79 Broncos have a 351M and a 400 in them and I would
>agree that, stock, the 351M is a dog of a motor. It was one of
>the early smog motors and uses a lot of energy trying to keep
>itself emissions-clean. However, the 351M and the 400 share
>almost everything, except the crankshaft. If you rebuild the
>351M with a 400 crankshaft you'll have an instant 400, and take
>it from me the 400 is a much better performer than the 351M.
>They get about the same mileage, but the 400 has a lot more umph.
>The 351M is actually a variant of the 351C, though greatly
>detuned. The 351C, 351M and 400 (often called the 400M) all
>share the bigblock transmission bell-housing pattern, so you can
>pull that 351M and bolt a 460 right up to that C6. (both of my
>trucks have C6's, btw) In fact, that's what I plan to do with my
>351M-powered truck. I'm going to rebuild the 400 (it burns a lot
>of oil) and replace the 351M with a 460, or so I hope. Where'd I put
>that lottery ticket again? :-)
> Fun fact - the 400 is one of the only "square" motors out
>there: bore and stroke are both exactly 4"
>
>-Jason
>
>--
>Jason K. Schechner
>Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
> devellopers who never crash anything [computers] are proving
> they have no creativity. -[Brecht]
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Garry
E-mail: mcat epix.net
Date: 4/7/97 Time: 3:45:47 PM

427 Fe powered F-100 Wild by design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



------------------------------
>From mcat epix.net Mon Apr 7 17:23:02 1997 From: mcat epix.net
Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Apologies if this is a repeat, it looked like the first message I sent didn't go through correctly.

Jason

About the only thing that interchanges between 351C &351M-400 are the heads. The blocks look the same, but the deck hight is taller on the "M" motors. The bellhousings are completely different. The "C" motor uses the smallblk style and the"M" motor uses the 429-460 bellhousing style.
Camshafts will interchange between "M" and"C"s allso. If you want a power house, bore the 400 .040 over, cam the motor install aftermarket 4bbl and manifold freeflow exhaust, and pass everything but a gas station. I did in

my shop truck and Ilike it. Realy woke it up for towing.This is in a82 F250.

Garry
--- On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:23:35 -0400 (EDT) "Jason K. Schechner" wrote:

> My two 79 Broncos have a 351M and a 400 in them and I would
>agree that, stock, the 351M is a dog of a motor. It was one of
>the early smog motors and uses a lot of energy trying to keep
>itself emissions-clean. However, the 351M and the 400 share
>almost everything, except the crankshaft. If you rebuild the
>351M with a 400 crankshaft you'll have an instant 400, and take
>it from me the 400 is a much better performer than the 351M.
>They get about the same mileage, but the 400 has a lot more umph.
>The 351M is actually a variant of the 351C, though greatly
>detuned. The 351C, 351M and 400 (often called the 400M) all
>share the bigblock transmission bell-housing pattern, so you can
>pull that 351M and bolt a 460 right up to that C6. (both of my
>trucks have C6's, btw) In fact, that's what I plan to do with my
>351M-powered truck. I'm going to rebuild the 400 (it burns a lot
>of oil) and replace the 351M with a 460, or so I hope. Where'd I put
>that lottery ticket again? :-)
> Fun fact - the 400 is one of the only "square" motors out
>there: bore and stroke are both exactly 4"
>
>-Jason
>
>--
>Jason K. Schechner
>Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
> devellopers who never crash anything [computers] are proving
> they have no creativity. -[Brecht]
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Garry
E-mail: mcat epix.net
Date: 4/7/97 Time: 4:24:42 PM

427 Fe powered F-100 Wild by design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



------------------------------
>From tjgk pacifier.com Mon Apr 7 17:25:43 1997 From: Tim & Jolee Hann Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC42F3.BC2EC880

The C6 trans for the "M" engine is the large housing, same mounting as = the 429/460. 302/351W is the small case. You might be able to find = someone to trade ya.

----------
From: mcat epix.net[SMTP:mcat epix.net] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 1997 12:19 PM
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M vs. 351W=20

The 6 clyinder and the 289-302 share the same bell housing = =20
Garry
--- On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:51:40 -0400 (EDT) william enox=20 wrote:

>Ken Payne wrote:
>
> At 06:09 AM 4/6/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >The 351M is a piece of junk. You would be much better off running
> 351W.
> There are many more things you can do to a 351W than you can to a
> 351M. As
> far as I know the last time I went to find different pistons for a
> 351M/400
> you could only get stock C/R pistons. With a 351W you can do pistons
> of all
> types, you can do many different things for heads. List is endless.
> Dont
> waste you money on the "M" engine.
> >
>
> Agreed, the C6 however is a wonderful tranny. Since it has the bell
> housing
> built in does the 351M C6 have the same bold pattern as the 351W?
> If so,
> I'd hang on to the C6 and put it on the 351W
>
>The 351M/400 has the same bellhousing as the 429/460, the 351C has a
>302/351W bellhousing.
>Can anyone tell me if the 300 Six has a comon bellhousing with any V8?
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
>To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>For help send a message with "HELP" in the body = to:list-request lofcom.com
>Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>

-----------------End of Original Message-----------------


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Name: Garry=20
E-mail: mcat epix.net
Date: 4/6/97 Time: 6:21:12 PM

427 Fe powered F-100 Wild by design=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



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



------ =_NextPart_000_01BC42F3.BC2EC880

eJ8+Ii4IAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ACQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAEkAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQGxvZmNvbS5jb20AU01UUABGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQGxvZmNvbS5jb20A AAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABYAAABGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQGxvZmNvbS5jb20A AAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAYAAAAJ0ZPUkRUUlVDS1NAbG9mY29tLmNvbScAAgEL MAEAAAAbAAAAU01UUDpGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQExPRkNPTS5DT00AAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYP AQAAAAQAAAAAAAAD0jIBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAEwAA AFJFOiAzNTFNIHZzLiAzNTFXIAA+BAEFgAMADgAAAM0HBAAHAAAAIQApAAEAKgEBIIADAA4AAADN BwQABwAAAB8AEgABABEBAQmAAQAhAAAANjY5QkUwQ0FEQ0FFRDAxMUEwNjI0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAA /gYBA5AGAHgHAAASAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkAoNcMBCZD vAEeAHAAAQAAABMAAABSRTogMzUxTSB2cy4gMzUxVyAAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG8QyYEA8rgm2eu 3BHQoGJERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAASAAAAdGpna0BwYWNpZmll ci5jb20AAAADAAYQPUOcHwMABxAqBgAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAVEhFQzZUUkFOU0ZPUlRIRSJNIkVO R0lORUlTVEhFTEFSR0VIT1VTSU5HLFNBTUVNT1VOVElOR0FTVEhFNDI5LzQ2MDMwMi8zNTFXSVNU SEVTTUFMTENBU0VZT1VNSUdIVEJFQQAAAAACAQkQAQAAAAIGAAD+BQAAuQwAAExaRnU2sgKh/wAK AQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKA fQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEwMxRQCwoUUQUL8mMAQCBUaGUg4EM2IHRyBiICEAXA QnQbASJNIiAJ8GefC4AbEAQAG/MLYHJnGxAOaAhgAJAZECwgc2E1B4AgBGB1AjAeASBhAR0ENDI5 LzQ2MAAuIDMwMi8zNVQxVxzmcwDAbAMgYzUfMGUgEFkIYB6QaWdaaAVAYhsQAaBsGxB0tm8bsAuA ZB5AA3BlAiCHIvMbYQ2wIHlhLgqFQQqLbGkxODAC0WnwLTE0NA3wDNAmswtZXDE2CqADYBPQYwVA LV8o1wqHJ4sMMChWRgNhOh8p3ihWDIIekCGQdEBlEHBpeC4cwHRbU9BNVFA6LZtdKX8qjS8GYAIw K78sy1MewGRhmnkeMEETUAMRMDYeMJAxOTk3NNAyOjTgmCBQTS+vKo1UbzHvASzLRk9SRFRSVXBD S1NAFaARYANwLsc6kTW/ML51YmookTffGSzLUmU9cCBxTSB23nMgESCCJN8l4zMf8BnNxzc3GwEb QGNseSNRBJCHHyAjYRwCMjg5LSAx/x5AEYEi8SECHmIikCFhHcUuIEceCoVHE0cKwHJ58wqFKNEg TwOgM8EeMBtA0zRBNNU1OiCAOibQKMCmMCbQS4AoRTngKUcQlwPwIWAHMG0ccW94JTaCPEx1ZUB3 aHkuIpY+TGAoYjpAfD5LCfBvNYA0ABzBTus+T7ZHEEFTBUA0oDowNXBBP8A0uC82LzUBS6MeMHki ATtQ3EcQPhryP5Mc8WEgTy3wBZAbEDpwIGoewGs1IdR3CGBsI3AikW11vxFwIoECQEQxOnBWkHIe wP8DABkQUbggciTGUiEa8UWR+0WCA4F5HpFFkx4BBCBT8vshkAOgZCQhIyBWACBzHAAvA5Fcll1C WVtNIBBBc41RuGYKwR8xSSBrTQC/B+AdJBPAG1AHcWERdzGx9SMHZAaQZlsBYrEt8BPA/wIgG6Re 7R/QJlBRuFyTV2M7AiBD4CAdkAVAZCFja5kbIC9SY/YgEFdpHAB/XWZcmWQFUbhWgSFRUbh0/Hlw B5BT1FzVW4NjaFwl7xvCGwAkYD/xTGQRHOIJ8G5kIuAEEFo5RAIhUbh3/2HhJIEiAiPRW7ACIBv9 Wjn3UadRuQnCZB4wHAIbMR3AvWKQdkQxVdNXUEQSZldw/xtTW6AgEAYAC4BWUWkAHbCfHzVGUlG4 HcVRuGJ1AxC/b9Fc8geRHAI/k3bSYXdA/0W5BvAjcAqwWFIDoB81IHJaP1G4SVaQI5AsgBknfyNw XfEfEHMiJCEbBERicP51b9EFQHMlIHJ0/lVGZbK/eYdGB0amHzweMHzWQ3mD717nIDeHGVo3QwOR W5Ej0/9GYh5xBpB81EvReQBNIIlzP2bBcsGHCwPwaRJboVY494AHkH9PxV+Sf5OPlJ+VrvVPtk1w YWEdkWNgE8AFEHd8ABPQI3B2BzAdsAJAcFA6Ly93mSAuOmgv/4T3IyARsCNhAMADESMSBbD2ZBtg V/BrbLEd4EWkJGB+ZBYQBBA9cJuYOl9QEEb5bwNscJq0VgAHgZdjj7PgIkhFTFAcYHxhedO3BHBb sCMQOiYQE8AtFhD+cQpQE8CeD4vxA3AHgAIws1XhI2J1Zx2QE8BpZEJrRYJikGw6kWWcMz1wa9sK sFCRQCIwI2BzNFGLYW+eiXT9STiqPEUjYVaBT/8FEByhB0AF0JdEqj9AfAqF3n6vH7AvsJQKhU4e YT1w80jjJTZFLZsSPXAtmwqF/kQtsD9hUxUa4AdxPXBSkH4yS1A1MDWICoUfoDUQRv0bEHB3ERYR K2AmoEvRaPD/V4JtwQeQIkADoK6vuw+wz/2t/yCVr79fwG/BfwqFlz//mE+ZXwXAmp+br5y/nc8K o/+fP6BPoV+ibzqrpF+lb6Z/f6ePvU9A70H/KGUKhRUxAAHYgAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAA BzAAWtWuJUO8AUAACDAAWtWuJUO8AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAEVw=

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC42F3.BC2EC880--



------------------------------
>From tjgk pacifier.com Mon Apr 7 17:25:41 1997 From: Tim & Jolee Hann Subject: RE: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC42F4.70EF0FA0

If you want more power and torque, throw away the 351M and get a pre 72 = 429. It will bolt up to the C6, but you might want to look into a = different torque converter. If you find a 70 or 71 429/2V engine, they = had over 400 ftlb of torque.
72 and newer engines had a block change that raised the deck height that = lowered the C/R down to 9 to 1. Something to think about. If you going = to but money into the 351M you would be money ahead to invest in the = 429/460.=20

----------
From: Ken Payne[SMTP:kpayne mindspring.com] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 1997 4:43 AM
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M vs. 351W

At 09:10 PM 4/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I own a 83 F250 4X4 for daily driving (351W with the 4 speed manual),
>work and occasional plowing. I recently purchased a donor truck (84
>with a 351M and C6 automatic).
>Both being high milage, I have to rebuild one of these drive trains.=20
>The question is, which drive train would better serve me? I'm leaning
>toward the 351M with the C6. I'd like some opinions?
>Thanks and the information would be greatly appreciated.
>

C6, its bullet-proof and can take a monsterous amount of torque.

-Ken Payne
1967 Ford F100 Custom Cab, 390 FE V8
List maintainer, send me comments and suggestions.
Visit the Ford Trucks List Web Page (unsubscribe form is there): http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mindspring.com/~fordtrucks



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



------ =_NextPart_000_01BC42F4.70EF0FA0

eJ8+IjEIAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ACQBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAEkAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQGxvZmNvbS5jb20AU01UUABGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQGxvZmNvbS5jb20A AAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABYAAABGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQGxvZmNvbS5jb20A AAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgABMAEAAAAYAAAAJ0ZPUkRUUlVDS1NAbG9mY29tLmNvbScAAgEL MAEAAAAbAAAAU01UUDpGT1JEVFJVQ0tTQExPRkNPTS5DT00AAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYP AQAAAAQAAAAAAAAD0jIBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAEgAA AFJFOiAzNTFNIHZzLiAzNTFXAB4EAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcEAAcAAAAsAAUAAQARAQEggAMADgAAAM0H BAAHAAAAJAATAAEAFwEBCYABACEAAAA2QTlCRTBDQURDQUVEMDExQTA2MjQ0NDU1MzU0MDAwMAAJ BwEDkAYAKAcAABIAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQCApNt3J0O8 AR4AcAABAAAAEgAAAFJFOiAzNTFNIHZzLiAzNTFXAAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbxDJ3fSyuCba67c EdCgYkRFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAAB0amdrQHBhY2lmaWVy LmNvbQAAAAMABhBCvYqQAwAHEAYFAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABJRllPVVdBTlRNT1JFUE9XRVJBTkRU T1JRVUUsVEhST1dBV0FZVEhFMzUxTUFOREdFVEFQUkU3MjQyOUlUV0lMTEJPTFRVUFRPVEhFQzYs QlVUWU9VTUlHSFRXQU5UVE9MT09LAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAswUAAK8FAACbCQAATFpGdeEeKaL/AAoB DwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM3cC5AcTAoB9 CoAIzwnZO/EWDzI1NQKACoENsQtg4G5nMTAzFFALChRRBQvyYwBAIElmIHl5CGAgdwBwBUAEYBYQ IChwb3cEkCAAcGQgqnQFsHEKUCwckGgDYDUH4GEbYHkdERvgMzX0MU0cU2cRwBxQG/Ab0cEBwCA0 MjkuGuAFQJ0D8GwDIAbhBUB1cByRyR3DQzYdAGJ1BUAbIvBtaWdoH9EbciDBFaC4b2sgC4AgwR7g ZAaQXmYEkAnwIoIcwiAFoG62dgSQE9ByH6EbBGYLgKMcgB7gNzAgBbE3GtChH3EvMlYgCfBnC4Dd HPNlHbARgByAbyTRH2DmMCZAAYBsYiZQGwAcpP4uCoUfQRxiJ3AcIic0BCDnKAIe4AJgb2MjABFx GRDrG+AdIGEFQHILcBGwHIH/HeEFgSMAHeAiAyyzFaAcIfEtRUMvUiOAHBADoCDBajkgsjEfoFMD cBHAaH0LgGcgtAuAIwABoAhgdPklN2dvMSUhcgRgJ3AdsK8jIx3XGyMIYGwcgGIb4P0zpGEd4CgR IMELgCTQE8DHIxEdwybCNDYwH6AKhWEKi2xpMTgooAIAaXgtMTQokAzBOfMLWTGuNgqgA2AT0GMF QC08F68KhzrLDDA7lkYDYTo9HpM7lgyCIEsJ8CBQHaABJ3BbU01UUDpr2wqwQTFAIfAccHMTUDEh 8i4FoG1dPL89zQZgAjBzPv9AC1N1HHAdoB0AQQtCgQMgMCFBMTk5N9EfYDo0MxSwTUMvPc0MVG9F b0ALRk9SRIBUUlVDS1NAFaAfEWADcELSSS9EPnViamc70UtPQAtSZVDgHhN2tnMfoB4RVzgfOSMz N9CLGc07lkEFQDA5OhkwQ0EAHkA0LzUvSIEtvDA1KKAdABsjO6I6CoVcPkkmUC/hHuA4SOBG4xhA JkA0WDQlsAWxR3CrAxAdsGQFEHYxIihTkvcf4R0gNzQgQnAJ4ByAA4GydQdAKSxZFjUgcjHR8xxx LABjYQCQAiAHQBvw+y7BQqIgGuAs8AWQI/FbQX5wCHARcS0yI3ECIAWxdMRydSwRKDg0XedcYj8e 4B4XITAcUCGAA3F0aeRjKSm2PkI7sFyANYD/MSIxECIQIeELYB6gHQBZkP8RgCTQILIWECFwAxAo ISdw/ykTHeARsFtjLJEtAQCAN/d8PlQd4RzRE8BfQSMQc/0dAHcxEBFwaOo1FwJAHDEtEbByZ0EH gD9gISdt/yLANjADABkQWRYcoBtgCyBvHchcVyEwYBInHIA5UGttG+BzMNEmUHALgF9Bc/Y/adgA cGsEIBxjHeELgH9a0WSSavE1JwnBLNBbQWHacB8BYwcwE9BkZPdT3L8hMlxgBCAhcCAQEcAtO5Hv KSEcYl8QL/FhcXEe4DOh+xPBA2B1c1EEYEdQBUApL10KhS1A1wqFSFE2SJBG2wWwHIBGGTAmQEN6 oGRxJyEgAaAdADM5JkBGReggVjh9ZkwEABuRC3H7AZAnYXIdABGwHHFxwULhxweAAjBzVHN1Zx6g asN7U2B9ZlYEAFxgHcN+M1R3YiIEIICjV2ewQQEsgSj7R1CDAGIE8jWAfWZ0EmsROx3CFhApUOAn 8AJAcDooLy93iUAuQjwvfrVa0WRiE3NT3AqFX4x/r42Pjp+PrgqFTQeQc4ZC/yOQE8CHASGALUFb oB7giNn9TdgvCoVLIIGlWyEgsoqI7x0AeqAsknnhZFtwkTFQ4O+KiE3PfiIt8WwgoIGzegEDkTVc UyJIRUxQIns3BgbgZB2xSzA5UBPALf8WEGqTl+8hIIJPg1QcUBvR/RwgbELhHPGWMVDgQc9OOb+i H1R/VY870gqFFTEApqAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzDgMVViJkO8AUAACDDgMVViJkO8AR4A PQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAA8S0=

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC42F4.70EF0FA0--



------------------------------
>From hatherill coinet.com Mon Apr 7 17:54:39 1997 From: hatherill
Subject: F-150 BRAKE PROBLEMS
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

I have a 1995 F150 4x4 and have went through 3 sets of front pads and 2 rotors,and am on the third set of calipers.I have heard of others with same problem, dealers can't seem to find the problem.


------------------------------
>From wsabers sunflowr.usd.edu Mon Apr 7 18:09:21 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: sunburst.usd.edu: wsabers owned process doing -bs From: William Sabers Subject: Re: 351M vs. 351W
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Halleluia my friend.
the 351m/400 large block motors produce very good torque thanx to decent cranks and large valves reminicent of the Cleveland motors. (only being a big block which left behind the problem of too light a block...
you can only bore a 351 Cleveland or 351 Boss out to 30 over.)

I have overhauled 351m, 351 Cleveland's, 400's and a 351 Boss.
The only shortcomings of these motors is really the low deck height.
These are great mid-rpm motors.

Don't dis this motor for lack of parts either. If you check magazines, there are plenty of 351m & 400 parts that will bolt-on, not to mention the number of custom shops out there to help you out.

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997,
Gerald and Lisa Hoel wrote:

> I own a 77 f-150 stepside with a solid wood bed, and 33's. This truck
> has a 351M that I'm rebuilding right now. Parts are a bit more
> difficult to find than for other engines and some parts are more and
> some are less expensive than other engine parts. I resent the 351M
> being called a piece of junk just because parts are hard to find. It's
> a flexible block because you have the option to put a 400 crank in it or
> leave the 351. I also know that the 351M puts out some awesome torque.
> I had just bought the truck and I knew it had some problems. Before I
> discovered what was wrong and started the engine rebuild, I was driving
> it with a dead cylinder. With that I could still break rubber on dry
> pavement. Later, losing yet another cylinder, while on the way to my
> shop so I could pull the engine for rebuild, it would still run well
> enough to drive.
>
> Jerry
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> To send mail to fordtrucks, use the address: fordtrucks lofcom.com
> For help send a message with "HELP" in the body to:list-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
>
>



------------------------------
>From duckdon pacific.net Mon Apr 7 19:03:54 1997 From: Don Grossman Subject: Re: New Process Transmissions
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com

Mathew Baker wrote:
>
> Does anybody out there know how to identify New Process transmessions?
> I have a NP 5 speed transmission that is a little larger than a Warner
> T18/98 and NP431. This transmission has a 7.5:1 ratio first gear, and a
> 1:1 5th gear. The pto cover is on the passenger side, and it takes the
> same pto as a Warner T98. It has a shifting pattern of: 1 2 4 R on
> top, and 3 5 on bottom.
> I think that this is a NP504 tranny, and it is the perfect size to put
> in an older 4X4 truck with a divorced transfer case. I am thinking that
> I can use 3.53 or 3.73 differential gears and still have a good low
> ratio gears for my 4X4, but have decent highway gears. I don't plan to
> use this truck much for off-roading, so I am not too concerned with my
> low gears. My low-low gear ratio will 52:1 which I think will be ok for....

---

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.