lofcom.com"> lofcom.com"> fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #14 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: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:41:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #14 X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/14 To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:

Re: new engine break in ["Malcolm O'Blenis"
RE: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #13 ["Paul T. Clegg"
reply: new engine breakin [dherzog fv.stlcc.cc.mo.us (David He]
Re: Obsolete FORD Parts [Don Grossman ]
Re: '63 Question - Door Locks [Don Grossman ]
Re: '63 Question - Door Locks [Mathew Baker
unsubscribe [DMBBO aol.com ]
Re:desub -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
Wheel Size for 59 Ranchero -Reply [PAYNK (Ken Payne)
351M vs. 400 vs. 460 [John Strauss
unsubscribe [Tamara Pienknagura
Re: new engine break in [bob kanary ]
Re: Obsolete FORD Parts [Gerald and Lisa Hoel
Re: 351M vs. 400 vs. 460 [William Sabers
Re: Obsolete FORD Parts [Gerald and Lisa Hoel
Re: new engine break in [Gerald and Lisa Hoel
Re: 351M vs. 400 vs. 460 [John Macnamara ]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:58:19 -0300
From: "Malcolm O'Blenis" To:
Subject: Re: new engine break in
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I don't agree with this technique of engine break-in time...................however it probably does work.......I definetly don't know everything. But from a few engine builders around here, they have always told me " Don't go totally nuts on this motor but drive it a little HARDER than a normal everyday driver. Make the motor work a little more. I've also tried this technique with a 302 I had rebuilt (very mild cam and lifter kit, little better than stock) and that motor works like a top and I haven't done a thing to it. I have approx. 180 000KM on it and two winters of driving in temps as low as -40 degrees.
One of my chums had a 302 built by the same engine builder and he babied his for the most part and 100 000 km later it was apart????
Like I said I'm not a proffessional just an opinion.

Mac 1979 F-150 302 (soon to be 351W, built one myself)

----------
> From: Drew Beatty
> To: 'INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com'
> Subject: RE: new engine break in
> Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 11:07 AM
>
> Jerry & Lisa:
> I have always followed the advice my crusty old high school auto shop teacher
> told me:
>
> To help seat the rings, keep it in first gear (low one if auto), bring it up to
> about 15 MPH, and take your foot off the gas and let the engine slow the truck
> down to idle speed. Do this about ten or fifteen times (the midnight Wal-Mart
> parking lot break-in technique!!). Then, do the same in second gear to about 25
> MPH, let it come back down, then third gear to about...you get the point.
The
> engine back pressure helps seat the rings. I have always changed out the break
> in oil at about 250 miles and then again at 500 miles (people tell me this is
> overkill, but I'm good that way). Keep it under 50 MPH for the first 500 miles.
>
> The thing to remember is that when brand new a motor is as fragile as it is ever
> going to get in it's life. What you do in the first 1000 miles or so will
> shorten/lengthen it's life down the road. With proper attention to break in you
> will be slamming around town in this thing well into the 21st. century!!!
>
> Good luck,
>
> DC Beatty
> 1967 F-100 352
> 1974 Maverick 302
>
> ----------
> From: INTERNET:fordtrucks lofcom.com
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 1997 11:02 PM
> To: INTERNET:FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
> Subject: new engine break in
>
> Sender: fordtrucks-request lofcom.com
> Received: from t3.media3.net (t3.media3.net [208.5.7.1]) by
> hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
> id BAA14015; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:03:27 -0400
> Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id BAA23753; Thu,
> 24 Apr 1997 01:00:24 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
> fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
> Message-ID:
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 01:01:03 -0400
> From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
> Subject: new engine break in
> 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
>
> We have just completed reinstallation of our 351M .060 since rebuild.
> Anybody with some helpful hints on breaking in, what to do/what not to
> do... please share!!! Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Jerry & Lisa
> '77 F-150 FLARESIDE (351M Torque Monster 20mpg!)
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:30:18 -0600
From: "Paul T. Clegg" To: "'fordtrucks lofcom.com'" Subject: RE: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #13 Message-ID:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BC50AB.45666760"

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC50AB.45666760 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


[Paul Clegg] Glen, I saw your question in the Fordtruck Digest. I have = been buying parts from a company in Oklahoma City, OK for about six = months now as my son and I restore an old 48 Ford F-1. They have alot = of obsure parts. Give them a try for your wiring harness.

Obsolete Ford Parts, Inc.
8701 South I-35
Oklahoma City, OK 73149
405-631-3933 Fax 405-634-6815

I saw in a previous post that a co. called obsolete ford parts may have or make new wiring harnesses for 77 ford trucks does anyone have an E-Mail address or a phone number for this Co.?
Does anyone know of other places that I can get a wiring harness?

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC50AB.45666760 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

eJ8+IhMSAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAsAEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9m Y29tLmNvbQBTTVRQAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbQAAAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA AB4AAzABAAAAFgAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbQAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYAAAAeAAEw AQAAABgAAAAnZm9yZHRydWNrc0Bsb2Zjb20uY29tJwACAQswAQAAABsAAABTTVRQOkZPUkRUUlVD S1NATE9GQ09NLkNPTQAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAB4A9l8BAAAAFgAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9m Y29tLmNvbQAAAAIB918BAAAASQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGZvcmR0cnVja3NA bG9mY29tLmNvbQBTTVRQAGZvcmR0cnVja3NAbG9mY29tLmNvbQAAAAADAP1fAQAAAAMA/18AAAAA AgH2DwEAAAAEAAAAAAAAAqldAQSAAQAlAAAAUkU6IGZvcmR0cnVja3MtZGlnZXN0IERpZ2VzdCBW OTcgIzEzAPILAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcEABgADAAeABIABAAwAQEggAMADgAAAM0HBAAYAAwAFQAJAAQA HgEBCYABACEAAABBMkNFM0MzQTVFQkFEMDExODBBQTAwQUEwMDBEODQxMAAlBwEDkAYAyAUAACEA AAALAAIAAQAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkA4NZP j91QvAEeAHAAAQAAACUAAAB
SRTogZm9yZHRydWNrcy1kaWdlc3QgRGlnZXN0IFY5NyAjMTMAAAAA AgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbxQ3Y8/OjzOqbpeEdCAqgCqAA2EEAAAHgAeDAEAAAADAAAATVMAAB4AHwwB AAAAGgAAAFRSQU5TRVJBL1BPU1RPRkZJQ0UvUEFVTEMAAAADAAYQnaOhiwMABxDqAQAAHgAIEAEA AABlAAAAUEFVTENMRUdHR0xFTixJU0FXWU9VUlFVRVNUSU9OSU5USEVGT1JEVFJVQ0tESUdFU1RJ SEFWRUJFRU5CVVlJTkdQQVJUU0ZST01BQ09NUEFOWUlOT0tMQUhPTUFDSVRZLE9LRgAAAAACAQkQ AQAAAJoCAACWAgAAiQMAAExaRnVn548EdwAKAQMB9yACpAPjAgBjgmgKwHNldDAgBxNNAoB9CoAI yCA7CW8yzDU1AoAKgXVjAFALAzBsaTM2AUALYG5nsDEwMzMKoANgdAWQ/nQLpwqxCoIUhBVTCzEU hQ5jAEEMMhXWIFtQYQJ1AyBDbGVnZ131AzBiAUBpD+ADMBcwD+ACRxiwbiwgSSBzSmEH4HkIYSBx ClBzFHRpAiAgC4AgdGiIZSBGBbBkdHIS8KBrIERpZxsRLhlwaxpAD4B2G9BiCeEdgHXSeQuAZyAK sXQEIANSKCBhIAWgbQqwbnlpG3JPawtgaANxGJBp5HR5GiBPSx6gBbEBoGcIYAVAAJB4IARgAjBo qQQgbm8H4GEEIG0fgPZzG1EAcGQaMQlwGyAFsM8b0AORBvAjQDQ4G+Mb4PQtMRzxVBvAH4AdQwdA yxSQJCBmJCBicwhwG9DzHlMc8EdpHWEbsR7iHDB/H4Ag8hqjA/AFEB4hD4Fu7weQJyAVZhWCTyaA BvAPwJ0b1CAYUB5xGiFuYynFsDg3MDEGACFRaBowGC0zNSo1H+83MzEENDkVZDQwNS02my8ALUA5 FEAZcEZhIbDlL6Q0L9A4MS1lEyoUdp8Vcxo1G4EfABRwZX
YbQLJ1BCBwbxsgG6FhBUD7HwIc8GMH QBiwI0AmcSrE/yDxI0AeUxVkAMAlhQWxAMB+axvQKYAH4CjsB5Eg8jfONza0HDMEIGRvB5AVZB8f YQIgG9AlpAOgRS1N4wtwAyBhZGQjgQQgIQLnHkAgEDwxbnUG0ASQIOOvG7AEABiQNZA/FWREO2H7 IxE8E2siQiZCG7EFwAtR/mMHkTUTGkA1wAOgHLA1Qr8o5BVkKVU/tRVkEHEARYAAAAMAEBABAAAA AwAREAAAAAADAIAQ/////0AABzBAfkpI3FC8AUAACDBAfkpI3FC8AQsAAIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAA AABGAAAAAAOFAAAAAAAAAwACgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEIUAAAAAAAADAAWACCAGAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABShQAAtw0AAB4AJYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFSFAAABAAAABAAA ADguMAADACaACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAL4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAAA6FAAAAAAAAAwAwgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADADKACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAB4AQYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAeAEKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgBDgAggBgAAAAAAwAAA AAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAAwANNP03AAAyQQ==

------ =_NextPart_000_01BC50AB.45666760--

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:30:07 -0500
From: dherzog fv.stlcc.cc.mo.us (David Herzog) To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: reply: new engine breakin
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I don't know if you have started the engine yet, but if not it is always necessary to prime the engine first. With oil in the pan and the distributor removed, spin the oil pump to build up pressure on the main and rod bearings. This also helps you look for leaks. I use an electric drill with a long screwdriver blade attached.

I always use a light weight (SAE 20w20) oil for the first 300 miles. Drive the vehicle taking care not to over-rev the engine (under 60 mph), but otherwise drive it as normal. I would avoid hard acceleration.

Change the oil and filter at 300 miles, using a good quality 10w30. Drive the vehicle as normal for another 500 miles and change the oil and filter again. If it is running well at 800 miles, it will probably be running well at 100,000....good luck
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^* DAVID L. HERZOG Ph.D.,PROFESSOR OF BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE AT FLORISSANT VALLEY DIVISION OF BUSINESS AND HUMAN SERVICES 3400 PERSHALL RD.
ST. LOUIS, MO 63615
(314) 595-2339
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:33:21 +0000
From: Don Grossman To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Obsolete FORD Parts
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Glen Pace wrote:
>
> I saw in a previous post that a co. called obsolete ford parts
> may have or make new wiring harnesses for 77 ford trucks does
> anyone have an E-Mail address or a phone number for this Co.?
> Does anyone know of other places that I can get a wiring
> harness?
> I have been having major electrical trouble and I would love to
> just get a new harness.
> Thanks in advance
> Glen
>
> 96 F-350 4x4
> 77 F-250 4x4

Obsolete Ford Parts, Inc.
8701 south I-35
Oaklahoma City OK 73149
405-631-3933
fax 405-634-6815


J.C. Whitney
2319 S. Throop St.
Chicago, Il 60680
312-431-6102
Fax 312-431-5625

--
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net

It's hard to do 90 on a speed limit budget.......

65 Ford F-150 4x4 (soon to be 72 Mustang) 63 Ford F-250 4x4

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:35:08 +0000
From: Don Grossman To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '63 Question - Door Locks
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Strauss wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >

63 locks on both sides
65 locks on both sides


--
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net

It's hard to do 90 on a speed limit budget.......

65 Ford F-150 4x4 (soon to be 72 Mustang) 63 Ford F-250 4x4

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:55:20 -0600
From: Mathew Baker To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '63 Question - Door Locks
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> John Strauss wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
>
'61 F-100, '64 F-100, '64 F-250, '66 F-250 4X4 all cuatom Cabs :both sides
'63 F-250 Standard Cab : Both Sides
'62 F-100 Unibody S. Cab : D. S. only

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:05:44 -0400 (EDT) From: DMBBO aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: unsubscribe
Message-ID:

to whom it may concern,

please take me off of your e-mail list. too much to sift through.


THANKS,

Dan M.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:36:18 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re:desub -Reply
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

Please take the time to read the directions. The web site asked you to read (and provided links to) the FAQ and charter BEFORE you subscribed to the list. The FAQ and charter both give instructions telling you how to unsubscribe. In addition, the FAQ and charter are emailed to all users upon joining. Lastly, the introduction email you recieved upon joining contained unsubscribe instructions. Posting unsubscribe messages to the group only succeeds in sending a copy of it to all 500+ of our members. I sent a message concerning this very item 2 hours ago. I've taken every reasonable step to inform all users of theses facts. If nothing else, read the bottom 3 lines of EVERY post from the list.

>>> "Byers, Dennis" 04/24/97 12:36pm >>>
>Please Take Me,,, Dennis Byers off of the mailing list.

>Dbyers origin.ea.com

>Thank yOu

>Dennis byers


____________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:43:46 -0500
From: PAYNK (Ken Payne) To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Wheel Size for 59 Ranchero -Reply Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline

>>> Antonio Gonella 04/23/97 10:29pm >>>
>Hello All,
>Question:
>What is the largest wheel/tire combo that will fit under a 59 Ranchero?
>I am looking at 15" wheels.
>What would be the max or recommended wheel width/backspace?
>Ditto for tire size.
>I am not aiming for outrageous width, just shall we say a tastefully
>meaty stance.
>Thanks, Antonio

As far as tire height goes, measure above your existing tire to a distance in the wheel well above it that you feel comfortable with.
Take half that height and add it to the tire. Your best bet is to take it to NTW (or elsewhere) and have them look at it. This is really a subjective question that could burn you if the net advice you get doesn't work. Summit or another supplier might also have an answer for you.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 15:00:40 -0500 (CDT) From: John Strauss To: Ford Trucks List Subject: 351M vs. 400 vs. 460
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

William Sabers wrote:

>Saying the 351M is a slug is like saying all Harley's leak oil.....

You mean they don't? 8^)

> Of course, the 460 is going to give better power for the Cubic
>Inch freaks out there. If it is in your budget.... go for it! If not, a
>400 or 351M may be cheaper to aquire and about the same to rebuild.
> The question I have is.... "are you going to need the x-tra that
>the 460 gives, if not, go with what is cheaper to get into." That is, of
>course, unless testostrone has anything to do with it.....! Then the 460
>wins!
> I am in the same boat, deciding to sell-off my 400 for a 460. I
>have a spare 400 from another 78 Bronco (for parts or rebuild). Life is
>full of all sorts of heated questions...
>
>Wsabers

William, you must not be on the Big Bronco list, huh? You'd never get away with a statement like that on that list - the BBB club would be all over you.
Those guys would have you believe the 460 cures the common cold and promotes world peace like Gandhi. But, if I had a truck with a 351M, I'd be looking 460. Now with the 400, it's a closer contest. The 400 makes very good torque - I particularly remember a '77 F250 fire truck used at a VFD where many of my kinfolks live that consistently blew the doors off the other fire truck, a '78 Chevy C30 w/350 and got better gas mileage while loaded. These trucks carried some 500 gallons of water each plus all the gear and the Ford was much less labored by the load. This really torqued the VFD guys who were almost exclusively Chevy guys. They only took the Ford because it was donated.

Anyway, I make my remarks based on stock engine comparison. Any engine can be made to do more than it was originally designed for, but now were are talking money. If you want to bolt in stock power, natch the 460 can't be beat. But what makes the 460 really attractive vs. the 351M or 400 is that it doesn't carry the usual BBB penalties. It's weight and MPG are comparable and many times better than the M it would replace. Those BBB guys must be getting thru to me I guess.

John

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:21:00 -0400
From: Tamara Pienknagura To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: unsubscribe
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

To whom it may concern:

Please unsubscribe me from mailng list.


Tamara_Pienknagura Brown University (401) 863-5345 \|||/ Box 2652
(O O) Providence RI, 02912 ----------------------- o00o-(_)-o00o--------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:37:39 -0400
From: bob kanary To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: new engine break in
Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:56 4/24/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Saying the 351M is a slug is like saying all Harley's leak oil.....
> Of course, the 460 is going to give better power for the Cubic
>Inch freaks out there. If it is in your budget.... go for it! If not, a
>400 or 351M may be cheaper to aquire and about the same to rebuild.
> The question I have is.... "are you going to need the x-tra that
>the 460 gives, if not, go with what is cheaper to get into." That is, of
>course, unless testostrone has anything to do with it.....! Then the 460
>wins!
> I am in the same boat, deciding to sell-off my 400 for a 460. I
>have a spare 400 from another 78 Bronco (for parts or rebuild). Life is
>full of all sorts of heated questions...
>
>Wsabers
>69 Mustang Mach I (351 Boss)
>78 Bronco (400)*
>
>
>On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, John Strauss wrote:
>
>> > Hello everyone hopefully I can send a message with out being scolded by
>> >the MOM. I am trying to prove to a buddy that the 351m is a better engine
>> >in his 68 bronco that a 460 (he has a 351m400).I would like to get a good
>> >engine combo for this daily driver and weekend stump runner? any help is
>> >app.(he thinks CH#$% 's are better. Thanks Brad...
>> >
>> I hope you mean 1978 Bronco - neither of these engines will fit the engine
>> compartment of a little Bronco.
>>
>> If it is a 1978, the 460 is the way to go. 351M is pretty much a slug.
>> 400 is decent but no match for the 460. The 460 will get the same MPG but
>> with much more power throughout the rev range.
>>
>> John
>>
>>

I have a 1978 ford explorer xl pickup - I put a 351 from a ford LTD

in it and its a screamer (got lucky) - got the truck for free and had the LTD sitting

with a bad front end. The truck had a 302 so making the alternator - power

steering and a/c bolt up was fun -but worth it. also exhaust didnt match

had to do a little welding.

Any other witches' brews out there?

bobk
>
>

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:51:05 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Obsolete FORD Parts
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Can also try Painless Wiring. Their wep page addresss is:

www.painlesswiring.com

They specialize in complete wiring harnessess that supposedly don't require any splicing, just snap right in. Expensive though.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:02:13 -0500 (CDT) From: William Sabers To: Ford Trucks List Subject: Re: 351M vs. 400 vs. 460
Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Yes, I am on the "Big Bronco" list, and I have heard much of the "sabre-rattling" for the "big-cube" motors....
There are pro's and con's to each arguement. I used to have a 351M in a 4200lb Mercury that could bury a stock corvette. Of course it was modified to be more of a 400 than a 351M, but like I stated earlier, what are you doing with the motor, and how much $$$$ are you willing to part with? (how much Bang for the Buck).
The 351M is more of a daily driver motor. If you are looking for Big-Boy torque go knock yourself out with the 460, however if you are looking for a compromise motor, I think the 400 is the way to go.

Wsabers
69 Mach I (351 Boss)
78 Bronco (400)


On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, John Strauss wrote:

> William Sabers wrote:
>
> >Saying the 351M is a slug is like saying all Harley's leak oil.....
>
> You mean they don't? 8^)
>
> > Of course, the 460 is going to give better power for the Cubic
> >Inch freaks out there. If it is in your budget.... go for it! If not, a
> >400 or 351M may be cheaper to aquire and about the same to rebuild.
> > The question I have is.... "are you going to need the x-tra that
> >the 460 gives, if not, go with what is cheaper to get into." That is, of
> >course, unless testostrone has anything to do with it.....! Then the 460
> >wins!
> > I am in the same boat, deciding to sell-off my 400 for a 460. I
> >have a spare 400 from another 78 Bronco (for parts or rebuild). Life is
> >full of all sorts of heated questions...
> >
> >Wsabers
>
> William, you must not be on the Big Bronco list, huh? You'd never get away
> with a statement like that on that list - the BBB club would be all over you.
> Those guys would have you believe the 460 cures the common cold and
> promotes world peace like Gandhi. But, if I had a truck with a 351M, I'd
> be looking 460. Now with the 400, it's a closer contest. The 400 makes
> very good torque - I particularly remember a '77 F250 fire truck used at a
> VFD where many of my kinfolks live that consistently blew the doors off the
> other fire truck, a '78 Chevy C30 w/350 and got better gas mileage while
> loaded. These trucks carried some 500 gallons of water each plus all the
> gear and the Ford was much less labored by the load. This really torqued
> the VFD guys who were almost exclusively Chevy guys. They only took the
> Ford because it was donated.
>
> Anyway, I make my remarks based on stock engine comparison. Any engine can
> be made to do more than it was originally designed for, but now were are
> talking money. If you want to bolt in stock power, natch the 460 can't be
> beat. But what makes the 460 really attractive vs. the 351M or 400 is that
> it doesn't carry the usual BBB penalties. It's weight and MPG are
> comparable and many times better than the M it would replace. Those BBB
> guys must be getting thru to me I guess.
>
> 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: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:07:48 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Obsolete FORD Parts
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

By the way, the correct web address for Ron Francis Wire Works is:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://wire-works.com/

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 17:18:58 -0400
From: Gerald and Lisa Hoel To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: new engine break in
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thank you William for the note on the 351M. I am just about tired of everyone banging on the modified & calling it junk. Our philosophy is if it works for YOU than it is the best for YOU. Anyone who thinks the modified is a slug/piece of crap or otherwise worthless garbage well kiss my a %!!!

We just put a grand into rebuilding our Modified and she is a sweet piece of machinery for us and so is the gas mileage (20mpg) so you testosterone filled Rolex carrying fuel suckers who need to have speed can just shove your accelerator through the floor burn rubber and keep going 'cause I got no use for any of you!And while you stop at the gas station 10 miles down the road we'll wave to you as we pass on by and keep TRUCKIN......

I love this list and my husband and I have learned a ton from you all but if you don't like something dont carry into name calling and slamming. Just state you prefer something LARGER!! Furthermore, since we all are supposed to be Ford enthusiasts, don't bang a Ford motor. Isnt there enough Ch !y metal out there for you guys to badmouth and pick on?


Jerry & Lisa
'77 F-150 Ranger with a 351M .060 and PROUD OF IT!!!

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:37:46 -0700
From: John Macnamara To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 351M vs. 400 vs. 460
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Strauss wrote:
>
> William Sabers wrote:
>
> >Saying the 351M is a slug is like saying all Harley's leak oil.....
>
> You mean they don't? 8^)
>
> > Of course, the 460 is going to give better power for the Cubic
> >Inch freaks out there. If it is in your budget.... go for it! If not, a
> >400 or 351M may be cheaper to aquire and about the same to rebuild.
> > The question I have is.... "are you going to need the x-tra that
> >the 460 gives, if not, go with what is cheaper to get into." That is, of
> >course, unless testostrone has anything to do with it.....! Then the 460
> >wins!
> > I am in the same boat, deciding to sell-off my 400 for a 460. I
> >have a spare 400 from another 78 Bronco (for parts or rebuild). Life is
> >full of all sorts of heated questions...
> >
> >Wsabers
>
> William, you must not be on the Big Bronco list, huh? You'd never get away
> with a statement like that on that list - the BBB club would be all over you.
> Those guys would have you believe the 460 cures the common cold and
> promotes world peace like Gandhi. But, if I had a truck with a 351M, I'd
> be looking 460. Now with the 400, it's a closer contest. The 400 makes
> very good torque - I particularly remember a '77 F250 fire truck used at a
> VFD where many of my kinfolks live that consistently blew the doors off the
> other fire truck, a '78 Chevy C30 w/350 and got better gas mileage while
> loaded. These trucks carried some 500 gallons of water each plus all the
> gear and the Ford was much less labored by the load. This really torqued
> the VFD guys who were almost exclusively Chevy guys. They only took the
> Ford because it was donated.
>
> Anyway, I make my remarks based on stock engine comparison. Any engine can
> be made to do more than it was originally designed for, but now were are
> talking money. If you want to bolt in stock power, natch the 460 can't be
> beat. But what makes the 460 really attractive vs. the 351M or 400 is that
> it doesn't carry the usual BBB penalties. It's weight and MPG are
> comparable and many times better than the M it would replace. Those BBB
> guys must be getting thru to me I guess.
>
> 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

Gentleman: My first Ford pickup was a 78 Ford F250 4X4 with a 400. I used to haul a camper and tow a dunebuggy on a trailer and or a dirt bike. One time I was climbing up into the Sierras to go dirtbiking and I came upon a hill that almost stopped my truck dead in the water. The combination of altitude and the 2bl 400m engine just didn't cut the mustard. When I came home I upgraded the engine with a cam and a 4bl.....


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.