Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:05:28 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #77
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/77
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:

Re: HUH?!? -Reply-Reply the the herd ["Harry Jennings"
Reminder, help and the _vote_! [Ken Payne ]
Re: Engine sizes. [Randy Zeilinger
Re: Two 9" Rear Questions -Reply -Re [Randy Zeilinger
Re: '61-'64 engine paint [Jesus Cardoso
3rd list for Brand Bigots [JRFiero aol.com ]
Re: Engine sizes (all years) [Daver ]
Re: Engine sizes. [Daver ]
Re: HUH?!? [Daver ]
Re: Two 9" Rear Questions [Daver ]
Re: HUH?!? [Ken Payne ]
Re: Two 9" Rear Questions -Reply -Re [Daver ]
Re: Advice for rebuilding 360 [Daver ]
Re: engines [Daver ]
Re: SOHC 427 [Daver ]
RE: 350 in a Ford ["Bill Rotureau" ]
Re: '61-'64 engine paint [Wyteye aol.com ]
Re: 350 in a '64? [MLawing616 aol.com ]
Re: Split or not ["Mitch Miller" ]
engine sizes [Niqjh aol.com ]
Re: SOHC 427 [Mathew Baker
360 windage tray [Doug Neely

Administrivia:

____________________________________________________________________
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-digest-request lofcom.com
Comments and suggestions are welcome, use: kpayne mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________________


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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:16:55 PDT
From: "Harry Jennings"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: HUH?!? -Reply-Reply the the herd
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain

Here is the thing about 20mpg.

Someone posted that there 351M was only getting 8mpg. They asked if this was
normal.

There were many replies that this is normal. One said that he only gets 12mpg
with his 302. Another said to pull the 351M and put in a 460 because the 460 has
more power and gets the same mpg!?!

I returned the post saying these people are nuts! I pulled a 302/C4 from my '71
longbed and replaced it with a 351M/C6 (80,000mi on it). I got an AVERAGE of
17mpg (with a lead foot) and I got 21mpg on the highway. After the rebuild it
was even better. My Dad also has a '71 longbed with a 302/C4 and it gets about
the same mpg on the highway and a little getter that my 351M in town. My truck
has 3.25:1 gears (I incorrectly said 3.75:1 earlier--I was thinking of my other
truck). These gears may seem high to some but I have smoked many Z-28's.

After posting this some smart $$ posted that there is no way my truck (or any
Ford V8) gets 20mpg and that his bike only gets 20mpg!?!?

Well we all know that many V8's get 20mpg. I also replied that I also have a '92
ZX-600 Ninja that gets 43mpg and has a top speed of 172mph!

This same smart $$ said that there is NO 600 anything that can go 172mph. I told
him to go to a dealer and ask them, but it is like talking to a cow. No matter
what you say all you get back is a MOOOW!

BTW the truck I refered to as having 3.75:1 gears is my '71 shortbed. It also
gets very good mpg! It is powered by a VERY HIGH OUTPUT 351SVO and is backed by
a AOD.

Harry.

'71 F-100longbed 351M
'71 F-100shortbed 351SVO
'92 ZX-6 Ninja (larger, pipes, carb kit, and cams that are more for lower
end and not top end)
'97 Chevy 1500 shortbed 305/5 speed (soon to be LT-1 383/t56 six speed)
'65 GMC 305C V6 (yes its a V6)
'73 Barracuda 318/929 auto


>From fordtrucks-request lofcom.com Tue Apr 29 09:21:53 1997
>Received: (from lof localhost) by t3.media3.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) id MAA08000; Tue,
29 Apr 1997 12:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to
fordtrucks-request lofcom.com using -f
>Message-Id:
>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
>Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:21:30 -0500
>From: PAYNK (Ken Payne)
>To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
>Subject: HUH?!? -Reply
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-Disposition: inline
>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
>
>>>> Charlie Allison 04/28/97 10:00pm >>>
>>Removing heads on an FE to change the intake? HUH?
>>I just swapped two and got no closer to the heads than loosening the
>>rocker shafts and removing push rods.
>
>You are correct. Brain fart on my part. If memory serves correctly
>(my truck is at home right now) it looks like this:
>
>intake-------------|
> ______V______
> /\ /\
> /\_\_________/_/\
>block---> / \ / \
> \ \ / /
> ^----^-----------------pushrods through intake
> (actually closer to center of
> the valve covers than I can draw)
>
>So, to be correct, the push rods come out, the distributor comes off
>and the _valve_ covers are removed.
>
>>Twenty MPG?!? HUH?
>>M motor 14 mpg when dropped from C-130! Burning premium!
>
>I don't recall what the original poster was talking about so I can't
>comment on this specifically. I've heard of more than one V8 getting
>20mpg. My mother with her 0-60 in two days and feather foot driving
>did it all the time.
>
>>'66 Mustang!?!?! HUH???
>
>Again, don't recall what the original poster said.
>
>Ken
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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
>



---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:21:45 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Reminder, help and the _vote_!
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In light of the fact that email traffic has been rather high...

A note to those that do not know we have a digest version of the list...
The digest bundles 30k or 48 hours of messages, whichever comes first.
The digest contains all the messages you would normally receive except
in one email with a handy table of contents at the top. Usually 1
digest is sent per day, the most we've had is 4 in a day. This may be
a temporary solution to those who can't handle the volume. By the
looks of things we're probably going to have a vote in favor of
splitting the list. This should help the traffic situation and help
the guys/gals with newer trucks not to feel overwhelmed with old truck
questions (sorry but when they get old the maintenance goes up!). A
form to vote on splitting the list will appear on the web site tomorrow
evening.

To switch from standard to digest format send two emails:

1. to fordtrucks-request lofcom.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject
2. to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com with the word "subscribe" in the
subject

While opinions concerning a list split are welcome on the list, I will
__not__ count votes via the list. Only votes received via the web
page form will count - I have the form processing semi-automated and it
takes too long to process votes manually via the list. The form also
contains a user survey so that we can all get an idea of what types of
trucks are represented here. An announcement will get posted to the
list when the page is ready. I'm going to keep voting open until
Saturday at mid-night. As was the case last time, opinions on the
voting forms will get published without email address or any identifying
facts. This will keep everyone's vote private yet gives us all an idea
of why people are voting a certain way.

Keeping voting open until Saturday gives me enough trips to the mailbox
to see if we have enough contributions to cover the expenses of a second
list. No matter which way the vote goes any money received will go to
cover list expenses.

-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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:19:57 -0400
From: Randy Zeilinger
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Engine sizes.
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

MLawing616 aol.com wrote:
>
> the 351
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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


And the 4.2L V-6, 4.6 and 5.4L V-8s are the current family of modular
engines in the Ford F-150, F-250 and Expedition. The Econline van has a
6.8L V-10 and so will the HD 250s in 98.

Randy Z.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:32:47 -0400
From: Randy Zeilinger
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Two 9" Rear Questions -Reply -Reply
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PAYNK (Ken Payne) wrote:
>
> >>> Randy Zeilinger 04/28/97 08:16pm >>>
> -snip-
> >> I'm running 3.25:1. It works really well. I have 35x10.5-15 tires
> > >> though. I have a pretty good balance of accel vs economy. If I want
> >> more acceleration I could put smaller tires on it. The 390 gives it
> >> plenty of pep though.
>
> >3.25:1?!?!? And I got grief for 3.55's w/ 35's?
>
> >Randy Z
>
> It depends on your engine and what you're looking for. You said you
> wanted more "umph." I'm running a souped up 390 that really snaps
> your neck. With 3.25 I can still get off the line pretty quickly, but
> I can't smoke the tires (at least not too much!). My next set of tires
> > will be smaller as I went to 35s to try to improve my milage - it didn't.
> Because of the tire size most of my performance comes between 30-60mph.
> The 390 is a gas hog any way you look at it. If I wanted to smoke Mustangs
> I would definately run around 3.7+
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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

The funny thing is that now since the weather has gotten nice, my 302 is
like a spring filly raring to go. Except for a huge bog between 1500
and 1800 rpm. Over 2000 and I get a surge. If I keep the rpms over the
2000 - 2500 mark and power shift, the truck acts completely different.

I know the tires and gear ratios are a factor but the low prm bogging
has me baffled. I checked the dist. cap and see the rotor looks kind of
smoked so I assume the plugs are fouled *AGAIN*. Thanks Dr. Jacobs!

This weekend I gonna yank that pieve of crap off and replace with a good
Accel coil and distributer. Will also replace the plugs.

Anyone else have any ideas.

BTW gear swap will have to wait until I find a good place around Detroit
to do both axles. On the plus side, last couple of tanks of gas have
been averaging 15.5 mpg.

Randy Z.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:04:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jesus Cardoso
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: Re: '61-'64 engine paint
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

John,

The 292 in my '63 has orange have covers and no paint in the rest
of the engine. (the engine is fairly greasy). I hope this helps.

Jesus

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, John Strauss wrote:

>Anybody have a book or just a memory that tells what color the engines were
>painted in the '61-'64 pickups? I did the 292 in my '64 from memory - it's
>black with red intake and valve covers. This is what I remember from my
>dad's '64 that he sold in 1979 and what I gathered from the engine I took
>out, purported to be the original (but it was so grease soaked it was hard
>to tell). I am pretty sure this is right, tho. Now I am getting ready to
>rebuild the 223 Six in my '61. It's already been out at least once and is
>currently painted blue.
>
>Is this engine supposed to be black with red valve cover too, or is it all
>red? Or neither? Anybody know?
>
>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 ....

---

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.