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 mindspring.com
>
>

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

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: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:52:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: JRFiero aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: 3rd list for Brand Bigots
Message-ID:

Go ahead and put a Cheby in your Ford, or a Mitsubishi twin cam V-6 if you
like, or whatever you have hanging around. Maybe we should split the list
into three, two for Ford Trucks, and the third for Chevy bashing, etc, which
I don't care to read under the subject lines that originally had to do with
Ford Trucks.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:22:58 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Engine sizes (all years)
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PAYNK (Ken Payne) wrote:
>
> I'm currently in the process of making a user survey form for
> the web site. It will ask about you make, model, year, engine
> type, etc. This will help everyone to know what our membership
> consists of.


My ford stuff in this order.

Displacment Engine family Carb HP Real/Expected Vehical

2/428's FE's MHO 4V +/- 400 Stored
427 S/O FE Stock 6V +/- 430 Stored
Numerous 390's FE's Stock 2V/4V +/- 250/350 Stored
406 FE Build up 960 CFM 4V 620+ 67 Ranger F100
rebuilding now
2300cc 4cyl Pinto Engine MPFI +/- 300 52 XK120
Replicar un finished
300 6L (4.9) 6 cylinder MPFI +/- ???? 87 F150 410,000
miles

My none ford toys

350 Stock Pontiac BB 4V +/- 230 Stored
400 Ram Air Pontiac BB 6V +/- 400 73 Formula under
restoration
360 HiPro AMC SB 4V +/- 270 73 AMC Javlin
Future project

Vehicals W/o engines
49 Ford F100 Will soon inherit the 406
Numerous Firebirds Mainly parts

Hope this is what you were looking for. I have owned, raced and sold
countless others that We'll not even discuse.

Ken the checks in the mail, Keep up the fine work.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:32:25 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Engine sizes.
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Don Grossman wrote:
>
> Where can I find more information on the 427 sohc ?
> --
> 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
>


The engine you ask about is the 427 Cammer it had dual OHC and a chain
that drove them off the cranck Ford Performance (book By Pat Ganahl) has
a picture of the beast. The timing chain is about 5 foot long +/-. If
you have this book look close at the picture beneath the engine there is
a whole pile of hens teeth.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:44:34 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: HUH?!?
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Charlie Allison wrote:
>
> 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.

I never said you had to remove the head. I said a quick way to spot an
FE was to look at the valve covers if the intake extended under them
it's an FE.

>
> Twenty MPG?!? HUH?
> M motor 14 mpg when dropped from C-130! Burning premium!
>
> '66 Mustang!?!?! HUH???
>
> Just a few questions...

I can spot That Chevy Moron in one E-Mail. Huh.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:50:30 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Two 9" Rear Questions
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dan Wentz wrote:
>
> >I'll add a couple ideas here one I have a 49 f-100 you have a great
> >chunk with a 300:1; however, your housing is too wide. I think toy'll
> >find that this will be more that a simple shave so here is a solution.
> >Find a Junked uot shorty ranger or bronco the 5 foot long ones the 9"
> >housing and axles you need are there and are perfect size.
>
> Yeah, I've been told that 73-79 F100 rear ends are exactly right--spring
> perches are even in the right place. I was just asking because I already
> have the Torino rear end--if it was just a little off I'd use it to save a
> few bucks. If it's way off, then I'll get an F100 9".
>
> Thanks for the input.
>
> ~Dan
I'd suggest checking into a disk break convertion to shave an inch or
two; however, you could buy the narrower rear housing for about half.
Sorry best I could think of.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:47:25 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: HUH?!?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:44 PM 4/29/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Charlie Allison wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>I never said you had to remove the head. I said a quick way to spot an
>FE was to look at the valve covers if the intake extended under them
>it's an FE.
>

You're right, I said it. I corrected myself shortly thereafter. Had
a "brain-fart".

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:14:08 -0500
From: Daver
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+

325:1 and p255 70's thats the combo that I found works best for me. TCI
has a towing converter that can help with milage if you'd like to check
it out.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:37:00 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Advice for rebuilding 360
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Macnamara wrote:
>
> Richard Cherico wrote:
> >
> > Thanks to everyone who lent advice on the bearings for my 360. I've decided
> > to go ahead with the rebuild, and I've got some plans as well as some questions.
> > I plan to enlarge the oil passages for better flow, as well as put
In addition restrict the flow of oil to the heads this will healp the
block. An FE over oils the top end and during higher RPM's you can
actually get most of your oil in the valve covers. the passage leading
to each head is under the rocker beam support simply bore the hole a bit
bigger and thread it for a small allen plug drill a 1/16" hole in the
plug and thread it in. if you wish to open the restriction up at a
later time change the plug out for a set that have a little larger hole.

in a
> > stronger oil pump and a windage tray. I'm probably going to do some porting
> > on the heads and have hardened seats put in.
> > Now for the questions
> > -Does anybody recommend a good oil pump for the FEs?

Mellings

> > -Does anybody recommend a windage tray?
> > -Does anybody recommend bearings?

Clevite 77's

> > -Valve train components?

Comp Cam's-- If you use thier cam you can get all the other
compnents required it a set that is designed for that cam.
If you are looking for a good driving cam the comp 268
strait grind is an excellent Hydrolic cam.

> > I'm also considering using a 390 crank. Any pros/cons to either the 360 or
> > 390 setups?

In a 360 I would/have used a 352 crank and rods they'll give you
stability.

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

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:38:05 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: engines
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stuart Varner wrote:
>
> Did anyone mention the 406FE and the 370 (industrial)?
>
>

I have a 406 built from a 390 with a steel crank.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:40:25 -0500
From: Daver
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: SOHC 427
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stuart Varner wrote:
>
> I saw a brand new SOHC 427 motor...still in the crate...all 600 + HP
> (Excuse me, I must go change my clothes......)
> in the Ford Trader Magazine, June Isuue. The offering price.
> $18,000.00
> So much for dreaming BIG!
> If you're seroius I could probably find the number....I may have drooled
> part of it away.

Call Ford Man's Mustang in Houston TX he doesn't have a cammer but he
can set you up with a 427 side oiler.

Molater

Daver

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:38:31
From: "Bill Rotureau"
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: RE: 350 in a Ford
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Chris wrote

>My reasoning is as follows: I had the 350 block, I've got friends
with
>350 knowledge, and you'd be amazed by what is actually powering a lot
>of vehicles out there, namely 350's. There cheap, parts are available
>almost anywhere, and it's different, I've never been main stream.

'Fraid your gona take some flamin' on this issue. I have a '64 that I
put a 302/C4 in and am getting ready to upgrade to a 351W. When it's
done I may have spent a few dollars more, but my truck will still be pure
Ford. Availability and price had little to do with my decision to stay
all Ford (BTW 302 are plentiful and 351W are bullet proof compared to
350 C*evies). It's ok to be different, it's ok to want to save some
money, but it is not ok to not at least explore the "correct" avenue and
keep the vehicle "genuine".

No, I can't agree with this on any level. But, that is my opinion and
we all know about opinions...


Bill

'64 F100 Shortbox (302/C4 soon to be 351W)
'95 Thunderbird (soon to be replaced with another Ford)
'90 Harley Dresser


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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wyteye aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: '61-'64 engine paint
Message-ID:

can someone tell me how to unsubscirbe.....please make Subject
Unusribe,,,,thanks

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:15:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: MLawing616 aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 350 in a '64?
Message-ID:

Anyone who has gone thru rebuilding a small block chevy and also a small
block ford engine ( 350/305 GM 302/351 Ford) knows that the price for
quality replacement parts for these two combinations is very close when you
compare pistons,rings,oil pump,water pump,fuel pump. The main items costing
more for ford engines is whenever you are going for hi-performance items like
camshafts,lifters,crank and hi-output oil pumps,and even hi-compression
pistons,the reason being that the vendors who produce these items have been
able to charge more for FORD parts,not that they have higher cost to produce
the parts,but that the general thought is that a higher profit is available
to them because it fits Ford engines,and the public expects to pay more.

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

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:42:15 -0500
From: "Mitch Miller"
To:
Subject: Re: Split or not
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If it does NOT incur a user fee, I would be in favor of a '70 (or so)
split. The list is great, we all agree. I have new and old iron. The old
iron I can learn about but the new iron needs a 'doctor'. It is just too
technical for me. Can't even count the spark plugs, forget about getting
at them.... No doubt there is a HUGE audience for this info.

Donation basis for contributions would be the best choice for assisting the
"list mom".

Mitch Miller
mmiller dryden.net
'88 Bronco
'47 Panel Delivery
'46 Pickup

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

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 01:48:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Niqjh aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: engine sizes
Message-ID:

Hi yall,

I want to make sure the 226 flathead 6 is not forgotten, as it was the first
6 Ford produced. There was also a 254 version for some buses, and 50-54 2
ton trucks.
The 48-52 F7 and F8 used a 337 V8 derived, I think, from a Lincoln. Flathead
V8s
were 221, 239, and 256, and there was a 60 hp for a while, but I dont know
the disp.
The model A, B, and C fours were 200 cid, and for a short while, a 134 cid 4
from Ford tractors was available in small trucks in the early forties. Also
the first ohv sixes in 52-53 were 215 cid. Hope this is of interest to all.

Nick Huntington
50 F2 226-6 4 sp crash box

------------------------------....


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.