lofcom.com"> lofcom.com"> fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #11 X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest<img src="http://images.ford-trucks.com/clipart/at.gif" border=0 width=9 height=10 valign=bottom>lofcom.com
 

Return-Path: From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:43:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #11 X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/11 To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:

Automatic Overdrive [Gerald and Lisa Hoel
Re: FE blocks [JIM HURD ]
'63 Question [Jesus Cardoso
Re: '63 Question [LanceWaldn aol.com ]
Re: 360FE Engine Code [JIM HURD ]
Re: Inline 6 vs. V8 ["Malcolm O'Blenis"
spread vs. square bore carbs [John Strauss
Electronic or Transmission Problem - [farmergeorge sos.on.ca ]
tailgate restoration [Stuart Varner
Re: 1979 F150 For Sale ["Kimo Owens" ]
Re: NEWBIE with a few questions. [Gerald and Lisa Hoel
tailgate restoration -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Re: driveshaft slack [Michael Fischer
Re: Automatic Overdrive [Kevin Lindstedt
Help [Patrick476 aol.com ]
RE: Which engine. [Drew Beatty
RE: Inline 6 vs. V8 [Drew Beatty
RE: Inline 6 vs. V8 ["Ryan Penner" ]
Re: FE blocks [bigric mail.utexas.edu (Richard Che]
Re: Muffler's [LenJG aol.com ]
Re: Automatic Overdrive [LenJG aol.com ]
F150 with best track record?? [RESPITE95 aol.com ]
Re: Mufflers and the 7.3L Diesel ["Douglas J. Howard"
Newbe [SBMarks ix.netcom.com ]
Re: F150 with best track record?? [Don Grossman ]
Wheel Size for 59 Ranchero [Antonio Gonella

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:38:03 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Automatic Overdrive
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry to keep bugging you guys with questions but this is our day home...

We were wondering when Ford started putting in automatic overdrive in their trucks. We have a '77 F-150 Ranger (351M & C6 tranny). We were just at the Edelbrock site and some of their carbs will not work with Ford AO. Help...

Jerry & Lisa
'77 F-150 Flareside(351M .060 Torque Monster)

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:43:13 -0500 (EST) From: JIM HURD To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: FE blocks
Message-id: Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I reccommend that anyone with FE Block questions get a copy of Steve Christ' book "How To Rebuild Your Big Block FORD". He spends PAGES des- cribing the diferences between the various FE blocks (and FT blocks), what year/vehicle they were available in, changes in oiling systems, which blocks have thicker main bearing webs, horizontal support ribs, etc.etc.

Heck, I think it is a good read, and I don't even have as FE/FT (anymore!)

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:42:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Jesus Cardoso To: Ford Trucks List Subject: '63 Question
Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hey Ya'll,

I have a quick question.....My '63 F100 Flareside only has a key door lock on the passenger side, but not on the driver's side. Was this common back then? Does anyone know why they did not put door locks on the the drivers side? Could the truck have been ordered without door locks?

Thanks in advance.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Jesus Cardoso, a.k.a. Chuy
Graduate Research Assistant (Power System Automation Lab)
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University
e-mail: cardoso tamu.edu
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://ee.tamu.edu/~cardoso

:::::::::::::::"Todos en el mundo sonreimos en la misma lengua.":::::::::::::::

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:00:29 -0400 (EDT) From: LanceWaldn aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '63 Question
Message-ID:

According to Bob at Bob's F-100's in Riverside, CA, the old Ford trucks didn't have a lock on the driver's side for safety reasons.
The thinking was that it was safer to lock the driver's door from the inside and slide over on the bench seat to get out. This would keep you from getting out in the traffic side of the truck.
I don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds good to me.
To remidy this problem you can get a new set of keyed-alike locks from a reputible F-100 supplier (not Bob's F100's), remove the passenger's side lock by carefully pulling back the weather stripping and removing the clip that holds the lock in place. Make a template using the door handle as a guide.
Reverse and transfer this template to the driver's side door and carefully cut it out just like the passenger side.
Now insert the new lock, insert the retaing clip behind the weather stripping (Ford made the slot but didn't install the lock. Go figure.) and you're done.

I did this on my '56 F-100 and it works.
Good luck.
Lance

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:02:11 -0500 (EST) From: JIM HURD To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 360FE Engine Code
Message-id: Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Well, MY book says that in trucks, an engine code of:

D was a 352 2V in 1965
K was a 361 2V in 1965

Y was a 352 2V in 1966-67
E was a 361 2V in 1966-67

Y was a 360 2V in 1968-72
D was a 330 2V in 1968-72 (Heavy Duty)
E was a 361 2V in 1968-72
and the 352 is no longer listed.

Jim in Central NY
'79 F-150 (302!)
'92 Topaz (3.0l)

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:31:37 -0300
From: "Malcolm O'Blenis" To:
Subject: Re: Inline 6 vs. V8
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

~~~~ Hello!, I have proof that they are excellent racing motors. I am on the pit crew for a local racer and we ran a WHIPPED junkyard 300ci inline 6 and set fast time that night, sat on the pole for the "feature race" and won the damn race!
The driver "Al" said he laughed the whole race..........the old motor just kept hauling. While we were watching this...................we couldn't believe our eyes!!!! Anyway, we did go through 8 litres of oil in only two heats and the feature. It may have "ate" a little oil but we won.
We race on a 1/3 mile oval and blew all the 350chevys and even the 351Windsor's away............this may be unbelievable but those 6's are real tourquey out of the corners. So there is my story and with the right setup you can make people think...................


Mac

1979 F-150 Custom 302ci (soon to be 351W......just got to swap) longbed

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:38:56 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: Ford Trucks List Subject: spread vs. square bore carbs
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>
>Also, does Edelbrock make a "double pumper"? Finally, one last rather
>stupid question -- but here goes.. what is the difference b/w spread
>bore and square flange carbs.
>
Spread Bore means the secondaries are larger than the primaries. All are the same size on a square bore.

John

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:46:03 -0700
From: farmergeorge sos.on.ca
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Electronic or Transmission Problem - 1989 F350 Crewcab Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

We have a 7.3 ltr. 1989 Diesel Crewcab F350 truck with a E40D transmission.
The transmission did not have a previous shifting problem. Because of an over heating problem the transmission was rebuilt electic current (from the battery) was back fed by mistake, burning out dash circuitry, RPM Tach, fuel sensor, light switch.
These damaged components were replaced but now the transmission shifts irregularly, and at too high engine RPM. As well it does not remain locked up in overdrive (hesitates an egine RPM fluctuates approx 200 RPM at 2500 to 2700). Does this sound like a wiring, electrical component problem or an internal mechanical transmission problem????????!!!!!!!

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:11:47 -0700
From: Stuart Varner To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: tailgate restoration
Message-id: Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Anyone have any great ideas on how to save a tailgate of the 64-72 variety? This gate has seams on the side which tend to rust from the inside out. My tailgate is in great shape now..... but, before it starts getting much worse, (there are small rust lines forming) I'd like to slow or stop the process. The paint on the tgate is factory original......

Any qualified bodymen out there which care to share helpful info......it would be very appreciated. Ken,I am glad the tailgate unbolts, I have been trying and trying to lift my taligate off like the 73-97 models do. I thought I was going crazy! Thanks and remember......NUKE GM.


Oh, by the way, anyone know the largest tires which can be fitted on to the stock, 96 model FoMoCo aluminum 15" rims? Right now they have GYear Wrangler HT 235-75-15.
They look too spindly , narrow, and short on my 4x4. Any and all takers welcome. In case it may matter, I will be keeping the stock 4x ride height.

Stu
71 F-100 4x4

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:51:29 -0500
From: "Kimo Owens"
To:
Subject: Re: 1979 F150 For Sale
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Please send me the number, Thanks

----------
> From: John Strauss
> To: Big Bronco List ; Ford Trucks List
> Subject: 1979 F150 For Sale
> Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 10:14 AM
>
> Anybody in Texas need a good beater/parts hauler or a 460 doner truck? I
> saw a 1979 F150 Ranger for sale in Thrall, Texas (about 50 miles West of
> Austin) for $550 this past Sunday. It was in pretty good shape considering
> the price (A/C worked, no rust except the tailgate, all the chrome was
> there, even had a bed liner) and it has a 460/C6 in it. E-mail me direct
> if you want the phone number.
>
> John
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 14:12:37 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: NEWBIE with a few questions.
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mark, we are "newbies" who recently purchased a 1977 F-150 Ranger 4x4 with 351M about 3 mos ago. Our experience is limited but definitely hands on. Hope what little we have picked up is a start for you:

The question of keeping the truck depends on how much money you want to spend and what it will cost to at least make your truck reasonably driveable. We have spent around $1200 to get our truck going (engine rebuild including redoing heads, crank miking, and boring to .060 as well as carburetor rebuild, which was a complete bust!)

As far as the wiring harness, there are several places that have them.
For your model year you can probably get them from JC Whitney for around $120. Obsolete Ford Parts might have them, but they will be more costly.

>From everything we have heard about the Cleveland, its a good engine but the replacement of the rear seal would be a bear if that is the source of the leak. Also, you should probably do some engine diagnostics (compression check, check the plugs to see what kind if any fouling they have, etc.)to see what kind of shape it is in. We learned the hard way how to check the health of your engine.

If you decide to keep your truck, a new carb is probably in your future.
We are in the process of shopping one right now for our '77 F-150 351M.
A new carb would probably help with your fuel economy too.

The fumes are probably from your exhaust. We have an '88 Wrangler (no flames please)that has multiple holes in the exhaust, especially in the cat and the fumes are quite noticeable (yes we are working on correcting this problem).

Wish we could help more, keep us all posted.

Gerald & Lisa
1977 F-150 Stepside (351M .060 Torque Monster)

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:46:50 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: tailgate restoration -Reply
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

-snip-

>Any qualified bodymen out there which care to share helpful info......it
>would be very appreciated. Ken,I am glad the tailgate unbolts, I have
>been trying and trying to lift my taligate off like the 73-97 models
>do. I thought I was going crazy! Thanks and remember......NUKE GM.


>Oh, by the way, anyone know the largest tires which can be fitted on to
>the stock, 96 model FoMoCo aluminum 15" rims? Right now they have GYear
>Wrangler HT 235-75-15.
>They look too spindly , narrow, and short on my 4x4. Any and all takers
>welcome. In case it may matter, I will be keeping the stock 4x ride
>height.

>Stu
>71 F-100 4x4

I've had BFGs All Terrain 35x15 - 10.5 (don't know the metric right off hand and I'm too lazy to convert it) on 10x15 FoMoCo wheels. They're pretty big tires, I'm sure bigger exist.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:06:41 -0400
From: Michael Fischer To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: driveshaft slack
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gardner wrote:
>
> I hav ereplied to several of the questions but never had one of my own,
> but now I do! I have a 94 Ford Ranger Splash 4 cylinder 5 spd and I have
> what I think seems to be alot of slack in the drivetrain somewhere, I
> checked the universal joints and they were fine, next I was going to try
> the rear transmission mount. The problem is the it makes the same sound
> as when you have a bad universal joint when you shift or let of the gas
> sometimes. The transmission has been out under warranty to replace the
> third gear sancynizer, the idiot that owned it before pulled a 40 foot
> boot with it, but if you have any other ideas they would be appreciated.
> Thanks Chris
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
> For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com To Gardner/driveshaft: make sure the yokes line up if they don't you will get vibrations. Check to see if the driveshaft has twisted from the heavy load that was towed. In addition, check to see if the yokes nuts at the back of the tranny and diff. are tight, they too will cause vibrations. Check to see if the 4wd is engaged while driving in 2wd.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:47:46 -0500
From: Kevin Lindstedt To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Automatic Overdrive
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:38 AM 4/23/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Sorry to keep bugging you guys with questions but this is our day
>home...
>
>We were wondering when Ford started putting in automatic overdrive in
>their trucks. We have a '77 F-150 Ranger (351M & C6 tranny). We were
>just at the Edelbrock site and some of their carbs will not work with
>Ford AO. Help...
>
>Jerry & Lisa
>'77 F-150 Flareside(351M .060 Torque Monster)
>

I don't know when Ford started offering the automatic overdrive, but the C6 is definitely not a O.D. transmission. BTW, I recently replaced the carb on my 460 with a Holley 600 - very smooth install, no problems, improved driveability alot!

Kevin Lindstedt
1978 F150 Styleside 460/C6 Gas Hog

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:17:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Patrick476 aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Help
Message-ID:

Sirs/Ladies:


Due to an oversubscription of e-mail from the FORD TRUCK site, I request that my name be deleted from "fordtrucks lofcom.com". Thank You.


Respectfully,

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

Date: 23 Apr 97 18:23:11 EDT
From: Drew Beatty To: "'INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com'" Subject: RE: Which engine.
Message-ID:

Personally, if this were my vehicle I wouldn't screw around with other motors.
That would involve a weight change that you would have to compensate the front end for, then the tranny might not bolt up, etc. etc.

Unless you really want to go all out (out of money, that is) I would just get the 302 rebuilt. Or, what I did in a 1968 Ranchero I had was to get another 302 and have it built while I still drove on the old motor. The old one had a BAD knock in it. The day before I changed motors I tried to get it to blow up. That rod wouldn't come out of there. I was impressed. In fact, I still have the motor to use as core...someday.

Good Luck.

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

----------
From: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 1997 5:46 PM
To: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Which engine.

Sender: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
Received: from t3.media3.net (t3.media3.net [208.5.7.1]) by hil-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id TAA28273; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:47:21 -0400 Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id TAA09289; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:44:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
Sender: m3070190 bohm.anu.edu.au
Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 09:46:43 +1000
From: nat
Organization: Dunno
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4m) MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Which engine.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Precedence: list
X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/ Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

Hi there,

I am just a new reader to this group, and just wandering if you people out there could give me some advice.

I have a '69 Falcon ute/truck and its got a 302 cleveland. It gets around say 1litre of fuel for every 4-5 miles...and thats with the motor just been tuned...it was shocking before.

The motor is tired, and I need something new, what would be better, the 351 windsor or cleveland. What about the big blocks like the 429.

Can some one write me the fuel consumption/milage for the 351 W/C - 429 motors.

nat


____________________________________________________________________ Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/ For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: 23 Apr 97 18:23:07 EDT
From: Drew Beatty To: "'INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com'" Subject: RE: Inline 6 vs. V8
Message-ID:

Jerry and/or Lisa: I have seen this done. I knew a guy who ran a straight six with 12.0 pop-ups etc. on an 1/8 mile circle track. It was in a 56 Ford. People in the pits would laugh, until they lost the race to him.
I guess it all depends on the application. I'm sure this motor would rev much quicker in a shorter amount of time, but on a longer track the cubes of the V8's would take over. I tend to live by the maxim, "There's no substitute for cubic inches" myself, but I don't race.

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

----------
From: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 8:53 AM To: INTERNET:FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Inline 6 vs. V8

Sender: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
Received: from t3.media3.net (t3.media3.net [208.5.7.1]) by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id KAA06589; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:53:48 -0400 Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id KAA25525; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:50:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:50:19 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Inline 6 vs. V8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Precedence: list
X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/ Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

I wonder if somebody in Ford Truck land who knows engines much better than I, could settle a dispute I'm having with the "local know-it-all"

I have been informed that inline 6's are actually extremely good racing motors and can actually be faster than a V-8. It was to my uneducated understanding that an inline 6 is more geared towards power/torque than speed...

Jerry & Lisa
'77 F-150 FLARESIDE (351M Torque Monster)


____________________________________________________________________ Message distributed via http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/ For help send mail with subject "HELP" to:fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 97 23:04:30 UT
From: "Ryan Penner" To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: RE: Inline 6 vs. V8
Message-Id:

----------
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 8:50 AM To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Inline 6 vs. V8

I wonder if somebody in Ford Truck land who knows engines much better than I, could settle a dispute I'm having with the "local know-it-all"

I have been informed that inline 6's are actually extremely good racing motors and can actually be faster than a V-8. It was to my uneducated understanding that an inline 6 is more geared towards power/torque than speed...

I happen to have an Inline 6, and from what I know this is very true. They have low hoursepower, and high torque, (Which is where the umph is at).

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:10:06 -0500 (CDT) From: bigric mail.utexas.edu (Richard Cherico) To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Re: FE blocks
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

As far as emissions go, I've got a '68 F100 with a factory-rebuilt 360 from the mid-70s. It has a smog pump and no EGR. While reading the owners manual (original!), I noticed a section on "environmental responsibility" in which it was stated that my Ford gasoline engine was equipped with an emissions control device. I took this to be the smog pump. Since I never saw the first motor (I'm the second owner), but this is a factory-rebuilt replacement, I do believe that the original 360 also had a smog pump.

And the '67 that I previously owned originally had a 352 (before the 460 transplant) with VIN code "A". My '68 has a 360 with VIN code "Y" for whomever was asking.

bigric mail.utexas.edu
'68 Ford F100 Custom Cab Stepside 360 FE '66 VW Beetle 1300->1500

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:43:09 -0400 (EDT) From: LenJG aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Muffler's
Message-ID:

I can add a little info on the glass pack not being loud on a '92 F-150 with the 302. I own a '92 F-150 SC 4-wheel drive with the 302. When I bought it a little over a year ago it too had several holes and the baffles had broken loose inside even with only 36,000 miles on it, so I cut that puppy out. Me being the adventures guy that I am I decided to start it up and see how loud it was without it and low and behold it wasn't much louder so I drove it for about a week before I went and bought the Flowmaster muffler that now resides in its place. The reason the glass packs aren't that loud is the dual catalytic converters that are right behind the Y pipe, they do a good job of quieting the exhaust noise. I did not notice any drop in power after installing the Flowmaster compared to the open exhaust, but definately noticed a big dif. after cutting off the old muffler.
I hope this gives some insight on why the exhaust is so quiet an these trucks.
Len

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: LenJG aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Automatic Overdrive
Message-ID:

In a message dated 97-04-23 11:43:27 EDT, you write:


>>
I believe it was '86 when ford started putting the AOD in htere trucks. The reason I say this is my brother has an '85 F-150, 351, C-6 combo but were I work we have an '86 F-150, 302, AOD. So I believe it was '86 when this happened.
Len

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:34:56 -0400 (EDT) From: RESPITE95 aol.com
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: F150 with best track record??
Message-ID:

I will be replacing my truck in the next few weeks with a F150 in the 1989 to 1995 year range. What is the general wisdom out there as to a year with fewer problems than average? Can Comsumer Reports be used for this information? I not looking for "pretty", I want another tough reliable truck for the farm and for hunting. Currently my Ford is 31 years old and beginning to show it's age a little. Please comment if you have an opinion.
Thanks G. Shelton

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:41:34 -0600
From: "Douglas J. Howard" To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mufflers and the 7.3L Diesel Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Haven't followed the thread from the beginning, but have some experience with free flow exhaust. I can't say that I would recommend this in everyone's circumstances, but I created free flow by 'gutting' the c.
converter (not exactly envirionmentally friendly, but with the deisel fuel quality here the converter was causing lots of problems) and removing the muffler all together. No headers.

Result:

Slightly (noticeable) higher but acceptable noise levels (inside cab and out), noticeably increased power especially at the low end and improved fuel mileage. Running at 75 mph; before - 10-12 mp(us)g on the highway; after - 20 mp(us)g on a recent 3000 mile trip. Running at 55 mph; before 18 - 20 mp(us)g on the highway; after - 24-26mp(us)g.

I had the dealer do the work and do not know whether any other adjustments were required under the hood.

I am more than satisfied.




Larry Wiandt wrote:
> Well, I've gotten a good deal of information on this subject. I still
> don't know it the boost in mileage is enough to bother or not.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:10:59 -0700
From: SBMarks ix.netcom.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Newbe
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If that is a 4 barrel clevland it is worth something but I don't feel it is a good engine for a work truck. You can spot a clevland with four barrel heads by the "4's" cast on the top of the inside corners of the heads. If there are "2's" there, you have a two barrel engine, no matter what carb is on it. A two barrel should work pretty good for a truck. The reason I say this is I have a 1950 F3 I put a 4 barrel clevland engine out of a 71 torino GT and I have done everything you can think of to it but it has just too much compression, and high end torque for a truck. I plan on taking it out and replaceing it with a 400. Or two barrel clevland. Tough call on the rest of your questions. you should get some good advice from other members, there are a lot of sharp people on this fourm.
Tracy Marks
1950 F3 351c 4bbl
1969 Electra Glide
1979 Low Rider

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:19:02 +0000
From: Don Grossman To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.