Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 14:28:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #110
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/110
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest Digest Volume 97 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:

Re: Something's Not Right! [Chris Kelly ]
Re: King pins, disc brakes (was Merc [Michael & Linda Waak
Re: Disc brakes for rear? [Steve & Rockette
Amp light solved! [Anthony Ricotta
RE: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !! [William Sabers
Re: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !! [silent.bob juno.com ]
Mileage Again !?!? [Gary Gadwa
Re: Mileage Again !?!? [Ken Payne ]
tailgate info [John Strauss
'61 Unibody hubcaps [John Strauss
Re: Mileage Again !?!? [JIM HURD ]
Re: Emissions a discussion with Dumb [LanceWaldn aol.com ]
Re: Mileage Again !?!? [rick adc.com (Rick Larson) ]
Re: Disc brakes for rear? [mcat epix.net ]
Re: 454 in an Econoline????? [Richard Green ]
1968 F100 code number question [Mark Goods
Re: Disc brakes for rear? [rick adc.com (Rick Larson) ]

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: Mon, 12 May 1997 00:46:03 -0400
From: Chris Kelly
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Something's Not Right!
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Harry Jennings wrote:
>
> >From jstrigas worldnet.att.net Fri May 9 14:45:03 1997
> >Received: from base ([207.146.227.170]) by mtigwc03.worldnet.att.net
> > (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA15050
> > for ; Thu, 8 May 1997 19:42:01 +0000
> >From: "Jim '73 F 100 302"
> >To: "Harry Jennings"
> >Subject: Something's Not Right!
> >Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 12:41:27 -0700
> >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> >X-Priority: 3
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >Message-ID:
> >
> >
> > Harry dose it seem that there is a lack of posting after I
> >posted you have a right to your opinion? When I realized I
> >had fallen into the brainwash of performance and economy are
> >not effected by emissions, I posted the truth on what I
> >found on High Performance parts. People posted you aren't
> >vindicated and hammered on PCV. If I'm seeing things
> >correctly you agree that PCV would be better than CV but you
> >would use exhaust to supply the vacuum, instead of dumping
> >the unclean air into you intake. I also checked and found
> >High Performance applications using exhaust for PCV. A tube
> >inserted at the proper angle would produce a low pressure
> >area at the end of the tube. To cut this short, Your right
> >again! I live in Smog Heaven you don't, Emission laws where
> >I live are vary strict Where you live they aren't! What the
> >hell! no one is more pig headed than me! But if it's proved
> >to me I'm wrong, and I still refuse to see it then I'm not
> >only wrong I'm an Idiot! I posted the Welcome to the Harry
> >Hot Line to get people off a dead subject (you understand
> >what they are saying and you disagree) and on to Ford
> >Trucks! If they believe you have offered no proof then I did
> >with mine. Do you think it pissed them off that much? You
> >can admit I was stone cold against what you were saying
> >until I did some research and found I was full of it! I had
> >done the same things for the same reasons! I'm as Truthful
> >as I can be, if I'm wrong about something I admit it no
> >matter how it makes me look (I think I just proved that)!
> > I don't know Harry I think I've really F___ up this time! I
> >hope things get back to normal. But if your right your right
> >I'm wrong not the first time it's not the last! Let me know
> >if you are seeing things the same way I am.
> >
> >Jim Strigas jstrigas worldnet.att.net
> >'73 Ford F100 (302 2bbl C4 Auto Ford 9" 3.25
. Daily
> >driver)
> >'83 Yamaha XJ900RK (Best Gift of my life! From my best
> >friends! RSCL)
> > '77 Buick EstateWagon (Beast of Immense Magnitude!)
> >
> >These are "The Good Old Days"!
> > Be Cool Daddy-O B-)>
>
> Jim,
>
> Yes I am seeing things the same way!
>
> I do NOT want to argue, but if you want to hear the rest of my idea then here it
> is. (If not PLEASE ndo not read on.)
>
> We all no what a PCV does, but think about how it works.
>
> First, what are the gases that are being vented? It is "blow by", which is hot
> (hot air going into the intake=less power) and it is exhaust gases (remember,
> most blow by occures on the power stroke).
>
> When does the most blow by occur? At WOT!
>
> The PCV is hooked to engine vacuum. This produces good vacuum at low speeds (yet
> little blow by) and no or very little vacuum at WOT (and the most blow by).
>
> What I am saying is the PCV works the most when it is needed the least and the
> least when it is needed the most. Not to mention the system is dumping HOT
> Exhaust gases into the intake system which DECREASES MPG and inturn INCREASES
> pollution (you use MORE gas)!
>
> My thinking is that a PCV system hooked to the exhaust would create the most
> vacuum when needed (at WOT) and less when not (at lower speeds).
>
> PLUS, if blow by is basicaly exhaust gases why wouldn't it be possible to place
> as "little" in-line cat-converted to *filter* the PCV gases before reaching the
> exhaust? (Remember, it would pass through ANOTHER cat, too.)
>
> A system such as this would LOWER pollution (PCV is still *filtered* and the
> vehicle would get better MPG) and it would create more power (not hot exhaust
> gases going into the carb).
>
> Abain, I do NOT want to fight. These is just MY ideas!! They may or may not
> work. Since you live in California you can't try it, but others could.
>
> If you see a problem with any part of my idea feel free to let me know. (please
> explain in detail, not just "I was taught different" which I got alot from
> others.)
>
> I just got so defensive before because I would explain why I think what I do and
> I would just get back "WILL NOT WORK" with no reasons why.
>
> BTW, I posted that message on the Edebrock BBS for a little support. I already
> knew the answer.
>
> Later,
>
> Harry.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.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.comI think your idea sounds to good to be true, but I think it might
actually work! I wish a manfacture would experiment with this! They can
afford to try something different.

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

Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 22:11:14 -0800
From: Michael & Linda Waak
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: King pins, disc brakes (was Mercury trucks?)
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>> Sounds good for those people with the 67-72s. My 51, tho, might be a
>>little more difficult!
>
>It's definitely more difficult than just switching spindles, but it's not a
>really difficult task. It's a little on the expensive side, but maybe not
>much more than on the 67-72's. I did my 50 for around $400, and that was
>with all new parts (except the booster).
>
Well guys maybe I can be of a little help.

Once upon a time my family had a '51 panel. We were in the truckin'
business and thought we could build a "parts hauler" and cool advertising
rig for our haulin' business.

The original flattey and trans. were long gone so we wanted to get creative.

The whole front end was shot (box, tie rod, king pins, all of it). We bought
a kit and used Mustang II parts that we rebuilt from an auto-wrecker.
We also used a 2.3 and C4 shifter and brackets from the same donor. Those who
laugh have never driven a flat head on the freeway in California. SCARY.

There was a lot of fabrication but the suspension "kit" came with good
directions.
Fat Man Fabrication sells 5 hole rotors for these front ends and also sells
the kit
that we used, their # is in Truckin magazine I think. At the time the only
kits were for
the '53-'56 trucks but we remade some pieces and it went together pretty
sweetly.

I put the MC/power booster on the firewall and replaced all of the hard
lines. I think
I used the pedal from a Scout or something. I looked for one that would not
only bolt
through the firewall but also the bottom of the dash for extra support.

The 2.3 puts out more power than the original motor and with a header and Weber
carb it ran really nice. Also power rack and pinion, power disk brakes, and
the light
motor (and A/C) all helped the picture.

I wish I could remember what rear was used but it was close to a bolt-in
(drums).

I've driven a few old Ford's and they never feel that great even with
good front axles and steering in them. Generally, the front leaf springs droop
and throw the alignment settings off and it makes them squirrely (rear spring
sag can have the same effect) (adjusting the air spring height wrong on a semi
has the same effect, 80,000 pounds. SCARY).

When my folks got divorced and sold the business the panel was considered
an asset and went also. The guy who got it didn't care and sold it without
even calling to see if we wanted it back. Oh well.

All told it added up to around 3K with rebuilding the engine and beefing
the trans.
well worth the time and money if you can find good parts at Pick-n-Pull.

Now if I could only find it again.

M

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

Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 23:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve & Rockette
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Disc brakes for rear?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:04 AM 11/5/97 PDT, you wrote:
> Jim,
> I belive the lincoln rear will work up to 72 but years ago I
>discovered that 73up 9" truck housings were wider. If you measure between
>the brake attaching flanges I can tell you if one would work. The linclon
>rear is 59-60 inches at that point.My truck rear is 63 inches. The rear
>4link on the lincoln needs to be removed and truck pads welded on. Another
>bonus is the lincoln rear sway bar can be made to work. Idon`t need it as
>I already run ladder bars. I have two sway bars that I dont need complete
>with mounting brackets. Also, you need the valve assembly from the donor
>car and the master clyinder. If you need more info e-mail me .
> Garry

Hey Garry,
Are the Lincoln Rear-ends 4 link mount bolts run parralel with the
axel tubes? If they do, I can see a 4 link in my '63's future...

Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
'57 F100 Shorty
'63 F100 Longbox

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 00:41:08 -0700
From: Anthony Ricotta
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Amp light solved!
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks to all at the digest for their help with my amp light problem. I
took my '93 F150 back to the dealer (it was still on warranty). They
checked it out and determined that IT WAS A BAD ALTERNATOR. Replaced it
and off I went, with just a deductable payment.

Later,
Tony R.

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 08:28:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: William Sabers
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: RE: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !!!!!! (fwd)
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Just one note guys...
a virus is only executable if something is run (an *.exe or *.com
or *.bat file of some type). If it is just a text file, there should be
no harm in reading it.
The word macro virus is sort of an exception, but the macro is run
in MSWORD and executes a macro or set of commands.
Just a word to the wise, there are as many real threats as false ones...
Consumer beware!
Wsabers


> ----------
> From: Joe Sivak
> Sent: May 9, 1997 8:45 AM
> To: Jesse Marcellus
> Subject: Fwd: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !!!!!! (fwd)
>
> >Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 11:45:53 -0400 (EST)
> >From: Tom Bacolini
> >To: Joe Sivak
> >Subject: Fwd: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !!!!!! (fwd)
> >X-UIDL: 5434517174a7bc41b61449f4d03ca53b
> >
> >
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 00:30:30 -0400 (EST)
> >From: Garry Lambright
> >To: Tom Bacolini
> >Cc: Garry Lambright
> >Subject: Fwd: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !!!!!!
> >
> >-------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:25:14 -0500 (EST)
> >>
> >> This information was received this morning from IBM, please share it
> >> with anyone that might access the Internet:
> >>
> >> If anyone receives mail entitled; PENPAL GREETINGS! please delete it
> >> WITHOUT reading it!! This is a warning for all Internet users - there
> >> is a dangerous virus propagating across the Internet through an e-mail
> >> message entitled
> >>
> >> "PENPAL GREETINGS!".
> >>
> >> DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANY MESSAGE ENTITLED "PENPAL GREETINGS"!!
> >>
> >> This message appears to be a friendly letter asking you if you are
> >> interested in a penpal, but by the time you read this letter, it is
> >> too late. The trojan horse" virus will have already infected the boot
> >> sector of your hard drive, destroying all of the data present. It is
> >> a self-replicating virus, and once the message is read, it will
> >> AUTOMATICALLY forward itself to anyone who's e-mail address is present
> >> in YOUR mailbox!
> >>
> >> This virus will DESTROY your hard drive, and holds the potential to
> >> DESTROY the hard drive of anyone whose mail is in your in box, and
> >> who's mail is in their in box and so on. If this virus keeps getting
> >> passed, it has the potential to do a great deal of DAMAGE to computer
> >> networks worldwide!!!!
> >>
> >> Please, delete the message entitled "PENPAL GREETINGS!" as soon as you
> >> see it! And pass this message along to all of your friends,
> >> relatives and the other readers of the newsgroups and mailing
> >> lists which you are on so that they are not hurt by this dangerous
> >> virus!!!!
> >>
> >> Please pass this along to everyone you know so this can be stopped.
> >>
> >> Let's keep the Cyberspace clean and profitable.
>
> >--------------45037F0F607A--
>
>
> Got this message tonight downloading my e-mail from a friend who programs
> computers here, so I"ve sent it to the list. Sounds nasty...
>
> Kristen
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:35:59 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: WARNING FOR VIRUS ON INTERNET !!!!!! (fwd)
Message-ID:

On Sat, 10 May 1997 00:28:33 -0400 (EDT) "Jason K. Schechner"
writes:
>
> Hoax. The "penpal" virus is a hoax, just like the "good
>times"
>virus. Please don't pass this message along any more. The message
>itself
>is the virus. Nothing more.
>
>-Jason
>
>-----
>Jason K. Schechner - Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp


Thank you, good thing you said somthing before i did...

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------ fox unix.icso.com
/ / \(..)/ ----- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.fordmanted.com (Mustang Shop)
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
//// / // : : ---
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[95 Ranger XLT 2.3L]=[silent.bob juno.com]===
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 08:41:34 -0600
From: Gary Gadwa
To: FORDTRUCKS
Subject: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-ID:
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------67D89574ACD8A95B345C388B"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------67D89574ACD8A95B345C388B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All this talk about what works to improve gas mileage has me looking at
what else can I do to my FORD?????
MY 1990 F-250 4x4 Supercab 351V8 does get the mileage that everyone is
arguing about. Mind you its not a stock 351, it has Jacobs Wires,
Indexed platium plugs, underdrive pulleys, Ram air ducting for that all
powerful cooler air, K&N filter. Crane Compu-Cam, Headers, Clean 3inch
exhaust system with very little restriction. Its runs 5-30 Synthetic
Oil, Synthetic Gear and Differtial lubes. Speaking of Differential it
has 3.55 gears with Tall 235-85-16's by Michelin with the air pressure
right up there near maximum for least rolling resistance. Last but not
least it has the Jet Power Chip with a 165 Thermostat because again
cooler means power whereas hotter is for burning those pollutants. I use
a Grille cover for winter cab heat improvement. My Ford has the 5 speed
transmission which I seldom run in 5th gear because I like to keep the
Manifold Vaccum at or above 10 inches vaccum. My 90 F-250 gets 19 to as
high as 21 mpg empty that means without a tailgate and maintains 13 mpg
with a 3300 lb. 9 foot 10 inch camper on board. I'm also a believer in
my PreLuber System....
So much for my Truck, so lets get serious, What else should I or
others try for Power and Mileage??? Maybe a bigger throttle body or
maybe the Tornado Air Management System ???

--------------67D89574ACD8A95B345C388B
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Gary Gadwa
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin:vcard

fn:Gary Gadwa

n:Gadwa;Gary

email;internet:ggadwa cyberhighway.net

note:Stanley, Idaho

x-mozilla-cpt:;0

x-mozilla-html:FALSE

end:vcard




--------------67D89574ACD8A95B345C388B--

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:23:14 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>All this talk about what works to improve gas mileage has me looking at
>what else can I do to my FORD?????
>MY 1990 F-250 4x4 Supercab 351V8 does get the mileage that everyone is
>arguing about. Mind you its not a stock 351, it has Jacobs Wires,

-snip-

I hope you don't mind but I forwarded a copy of this message to the
1980 and newer list. They really need the message traffic and your
trucks fit in with that group. Feel free to post threads of this
nature to both lists as many of the techniques can apply to both
pre-1980 and 1980+ trucks. Its odd, the 1980+ list has only 18%
as many members as the pre-1980 list but the survey showed they
made up 30-40% of the list (guestimate from memory).

If anyone needs to get subscribed to the 1980+ list in addition to
or instead of the pre-1980 list (this list) let me know. Also, let
me know if you want the live version or digest.

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

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:15:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: tailgate info
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The 1964-1966 styleside tailgate can be used on the 1967-1972 trucks and
vise versa. The unibody tailgate will only fit unibodies. Same for the
'57-'66 "box" tailgate - it will only fit it's own kind but it *might* also
fit the Econoline pickup? Just guessing about that last part.

John

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:15:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Strauss
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: '61 Unibody hubcaps
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I've got a full set of these hubcaps in argent for 15" wheels. One of them
I would term excellent and the other three are very good. I wasn't
planning to sell them but I might if the price is right. I could even send
you a Poloroid if you like. What might you offer for a full set? Be
advised you must have the correct rims for these to work (can give you more
details if you need).

Please email me direct on this.

John

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:24:54 -0500 (EST)
From: JIM HURD
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-id:
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Gary,

I like the way you have your 1990 F-250 set up (and your milage!) Any
idea what kind of mileage it was getting before all the changes?

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

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:24:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: LanceWaldn aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Emissions a discussion with Dumb & Dumber!
Message-ID:

You know, you are right about emmision control and no my feelings aren't
hurt. It's just that I was getting guite tired about all of this discussion
of removing the PCV valve.
I realize that your '83Yamaha wasn't equiped with PCV, but most new bikes
have it.
I just wanted to state that removing PCV has no bennifitting effect.
Lance

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:40:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: rick adc.com (Rick Larson)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Mileage Again !?!?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Since I started this thread from H*ll, I just want to
let people I got 14.3mpg on my last tank. This is my
commuter truck so "stop and go" driving in rush hour is the
norm.

The truck is:
'71 302, 2bbl, single exhaust, STOCK.

Things I changed:
removed "retard" vacuum line at distributor (plugged hose,
left distributor end open)
new points (I had 12k miles on old set)
PCV connected ;-)

Just think what new plugs would do! And I should check
the dwell again (adjusted it in a parking lot with a bottle
opener). And fix oil leaks, add front discs, fix the leaking
radiator, replace valve guides and ...

rick
'66 Mustang coupe
'71 F100 *Custom* daily driver

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 97 12:21:19 PDT
From: mcat epix.net
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Disc brakes for rear?
Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii

I think what you mean is that they would run parallel to the frame?
Yes , you could devise a 4-link system that would work very well. You
could use the coils that come under the Lincoln or go to coil over shocks.
You might be on to something for a full tilt custom ride.
Garry
--- On Sun, 11 May 1997 23:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Steve & Rockette
wrote:

>At 10:04 AM 11/5/97 PDT, you wrote:
>> Jim,

>> I belive the lincoln rear will work up to 72 but years ago I
>>discovered that 73up 9" truck housings were wider. If you measure
between
>>the brake attaching flanges I can tell you if one would work. The
linclon
>>rear is 59-60 inches at that point.My truck rear is 63 inches. The rear
>>4link on the lincoln needs to be removed and truck pads welded on.
Another
>>bonus is the lincoln rear sway bar can be made to work. Idon`t need it
as
>>I already run ladder bars. I have two sway bars that I dont need
complete
>>with mounting brackets. Also, you need the valve assembly from the donor

>>car and the master clyinder. If you need more info e-mail me .

>> Garry
>
> Hey Garry,
> Are the Lincoln Rear-ends 4 link mount bolts run parralel with the
>axel tubes? If they do, I can see a 4 link in my '63's future...
>
>Steve & Rockette...Lifes a beach
>'57 F100 Shorty
>'63 F100 Longbox
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>

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


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name: Garry
E-mail: mcat epix.net
Date: 5/12/97 Time: 12:21:19 PM

427 Fe powered 56 F-100 Wild by design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 12:01:58 -0500
From: Richard Green
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 454 in an Econoline?????
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Daver wrote:
>
> Chris North wrote:
> >
> > I worte:
> > >>I could very well be wrong, but I don't think Ford put a 351M in any E-150,
> > >>250, or 350 Vans in 1978. Small block 302 and 351W. Large block, what, a
> > >>454?
> > >>
> > Then John Strauss wrote:
> > >Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! A 454 is a CHEVY damnit!!! I am
> > >losing my mind and my patience with you people! 460. 460. 460. 460.
> > >460. 460!
> > >
> > >OK, rant over. Happy, happy. Joy, joy.
> > >
> >
> > I *did* say that I could very well be wrong ;^)
> >
> > One thousand apologies. I'm basically a MoPar man, so I don't know my Ford
> > engines as well as I should. When I think of big blocks, I usually think
> > of the 440 six pack or 426 (twin 4 bbl) HEMI. (ducking and running!)
> >
> > chris north
>
> Damn I lost the thread hear...............HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.........got
> to be somethin here somewhere.
>
> Molater
>
> Daver
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 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
Yes.. I have a 78 e-250HD with a 460 .. a 9 mpg beast..
But it's almost unstoppable if you can live with that.
rlgreen

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 13:01:20 -0400
From: Mark Goods
To: "'fordtrucks lofcom.com'"
Subject: 1968 F100 code number question
Message-ID:

This is directed to anyone whom can help me. On the door of my 68 F100,
there are three groups of numbers. One set I am quessing is the VIN number.
The rest I would like to know what they mean. If anyone knows their
meaning, please let me know.
Also, what do the numbers in the VIN tell me. If this is a dumb question,
please forgive me, I'm new at this.

top row:
F10YNC85978

middle row:

WB - 131
Color - MJ
Model - F100 (I guessed what this one meant)
Body - N481
Trans - G
Axle - 17

bottom row:

Max. GVW lbs - 05000
Cert. Net H.P. - 172
RPM - 3800
D.S.O - 25


Thanks in advance,

Mark
goods vaxrb.niehs.nih.gov

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

Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 12:27:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: rick adc.com (Rick Larson)
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Disc brakes for rear?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The trick in any rear disc conversion is finding
a donor with the same axle flange "offset" matches
your truck. You need to measure the distance from the
axle flange (flat surface where the wheel is mounted)
to the caliper mounting. I think +- 1/8" is ok with
modern floating calipers.

Since most big Fords (Lincolns, Continentals, Crown Vics?,
...) come with 9" rears, these should mount to our truck axles.

Visit your favorite auto recycling bouquet and start measuring.
My WAG is mid to late '70s fat rides will be good candidates.
When I was pulling Granada parts, I checked out a Conti. It
didn't look to difficult.

You will need to:
the caliper mounting brackets (you must pull the axles)
calipers
rotors
flexable brake hoses and associated mounting clamps....

---

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.