Return-Path:
From: fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 10:09:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: t3.media3.net: lof set sender to fordtrucks-digest-request lofcom.com using -f
Subject: fordtrucks-digest Digest V97 #149
X-Loop: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
X-Mailing-List: archive/volume97/149
X-Distributed-By: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.lofcom.com/
To: fordtrucks-digest lofcom.com
Reply-To: fordtrucks lofcom.com

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

Content-Type: text/plain

fordtrucks-digest DigestVolume 97 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:

Re: Hot Paint [TNickolson aol.com ]
Re: Hot Paint [Randall679 aol.com ]
Re: Stereo noise [kel-cel ccinet.ab.ca (kel-cel ) ]
RE: 74 cougar [Dan Wentz ]
RE: Advance curves? Or is that price [Dan Wentz ]
Re: paint colors for 1963 f-100 [OldTrux aol.com ]
ADMIN: To those who recently sent in [Ken Payne ]
AC Installation [Mike Schwall ]
Re: AC Installation [Chris North ]
carburetor question [DC Beatty
More AC info [Chris North ]
Re: carburetor question ["Donald R. Screen"
Re: AC Installation [Mike Schwall ]
Fuel Cell Advice [Dan Wentz ]
Re: 460 Maximum Compression Ratio? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: ADMIN: To those who recently sen [GMPACHECO aol.com ]
Re: Advance curves? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 460 Maximum Compression Ratio? ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
paint colors for '63 [John Strauss
Re: Fuel Cell Advice [SARHOG aol.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-digest-request lofcom.com
Unsubscribe: http://www.ford-trucks.com/unsubscribe.html
____________________________________________________________________


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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 17:14:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: TNickolson aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Hot Paint
Message-ID:

Try William Hursch, 396 Littleton Ave. Newark NJ 07103-2290. Phone
201-642-2404

Tom

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 17:43:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randall679 aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Hot Paint
Message-ID:

KRYLON used to have a yellow engine paint

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:06:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: kel-cel ccinet.ab.ca (kel-cel )
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Stereo noise
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I have installed countless stereos in this series of Ford
Truck. My advice to you, put in a replacement wire from the
charging system to the ampmeter. The existing yellow wire
runs through the passenger firewall, over the radio cavity(!)
and to the charge light (or gauge if so equipped).
Instead, run a new 10 or 8 G wire along the firewall inside the
engine compartment and through the driver's side to the same spot.
This is the only way to eliminate the inducted noise to the tape head.
Unless you upgrade to a CD player (no magnetic tape head) you can
waste countless hours trying to shield the cassette from the high
level of radiated noise from the charge line.

All in all this job can be done in an hour, with very little expense.
Good luck!

Kelly.



>To Ford Truck enthusiasts
>
>I have a question to see if anyone else has run into this problem when
>trying to install a aftermarket stereo in a 1980s Truck or Bronco. I
>have a 1984 full size Bronco and have a Sony radio and cassette player in
>it. The radio works great but the tape player makes a buzzing noise in
>the background. I called around some local stereo installation shops and
>found that there is a wiring harness in the dash that runs just above the
>radio. Apparently this wiring harness creates an electromagnetic field
>that interferes with the tape head one the cassette player. Any ideas on
>the best way to fix this or get around this problem?
>
>Thanks
>
>Dave
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>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
>Unsubscribe: http://www.ford-trucks.com/unsubscribe.html
>
>
>
-- The Spongbergs --
Kelly, Colleen, & Dallas

"Keep your stick on the ice."
Red Green (aka Steve Smith)

email - kel-cel ccinet.ab.ca

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:20:17 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
To:
Subject: RE: 74 cougar
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>The easiest at-a-glance way to tell the difference between a Windsor and
>a Cleveland (or 351M/400, which used the same head design as the
>Cleveland) is to count the bolts on the valve cover or look at the shape
>of the valve cover. The Windsor has 7 bolts on the valve cover and uses
>the same style valve cover as the small block 289/302. The Cleveland
>uses 8 bolts on the valve cover. Looking from above the head, the
>Cleveland valve covers are square on the ends (rectangular overall),
>where the small block (Windsor) valve covers are trapezoidal shaped
>(narrower at the top -- toward the intake manifold).

Even easier than that is to look at the thermostat housing. If it is on
the intake manifold and faces foreward, then it's a Windsor. If it is on
the block and faces straight up then it's a Cleveland. The Cleveland is
also just a whole lot bigger physically than the Windsor.

~Dan

1992 Ford Mustang LX
1950 Ford F1, 351C-2V
Check out my F1 page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:27:07 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
To:
Subject: RE: Advance curves? Or is that price curves?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Regular 87 octane normally runs around $1.15. Near where I work there is a
>Diamond Shamrock and a Race Track gas station that have a price war almost
>every month. Regular 87 can get as low as $0.97 a gallon and 93/94 octane
>can get down to $1.15.

WOW!!! Gas where I live just went up to $1.34 for 87. 92 is probably
close to $1.60--don't know for sure though since I haven't gassed up the
truck lately. California sucks.

~Dan

1992 Ford Mustang LX
1950 Ford F1, 351C-2V
Check out my F1 page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: OldTrux aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: paint colors for 1963 f-100
Message-ID:

My '66 F100 4x4 was origionally Ragoon Red? I have not been able to find out
what Ragoon Red is supposed to look like. Do you have a color sample or
formula?

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 19:17:49 -0400
From: Ken Payne
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: ADMIN: To those who recently sent in pictures
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I started to update the pictorial this evening and found out
that although I still have the pictures I lost all the information
about each picture.

I have three pictures:

1. Baby blue 68-72 F100, chrome bumpers, and chrome wheels. http://www.ford-trucks.com/truck1.jpg

2. 73-79 black or dark blue monster truck, 5 chromed lights
on the roll-bar, I think it has an Orion (can't read it
well in the pic) tint bar across the front windshield.
http://www.ford-trucks.com/truck2.jpg
3. Non-unibody early/mid 60's F100, short bed.
http://www.ford-trucks.com/truck3.jpg

These were submitted within the last 2 weeks. If one belongs
to you, let me know and send in the description you would like
for the web pictorial.


-Ken
List Administrator, 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8
Our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
(subscribe/unsubscribe forms on the web site)
fordtrucks lofcom.com is the 1979 and older truck list,
fordtrucks80up lofcom.com is the 1980 and newer truck list..
(Email me if you're on the wrong list)

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 20:03:26 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: AC Installation
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I finally decided to put AC in my non-AC '78 F150. These long and hot
Texas days are getting too hot to handle. I went out to the bone yard
today and spent three hours ripping out the AC stuff from a '78 Ranger XLT.
The truck had a 460 in it, super cab, and dual tanks. I grabbed the
entire wiring harness, condenser, evaporator, AC box inside and outside,
ducts, entire dash and dash pad (which was surprisingly in cherry
condition),all hoses, and controls. I didn't grab the compressor since I
want to install one of the newer round compressors, not those cheap square
York compressors. I figure a compressor off of an '85 or so F150 with 302
will work. I plan on buying a new compressor anyway. I rather pay the
core charge than buy a core from a junk yard.

I have everything to do the change. I just need to cut the hole in the
firewall and piece the parts together. I need to buy new hoses since I
will be using 134a refrigerant.

One thing I need is a schematic of the wiring harness that has the color
codes. I grabbed the whole thing. I will most likely use the harness I
got from the donor truck since it is set up for AC and mine isn't.

I will keep the list posted on this conversion - since some of the people
on the list might want to do the same thing. I will have it on my web page
also (url is in the sig below).

Mike

P.S. If anyone has a wiring diagram/schematic with color codes, please
email me - thanks


_____________________________________________

Email: mikes intx.net
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.intx.net/mikes
Ford Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.intx.net/mikes/fordarea.htm

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 21:28:34 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chris North
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: AC Installation
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Mike is planning a AC installation:

>
>I have everything to do the change. I just need to cut the hole in the
>firewall and piece the parts together. I need to buy new hoses since I
>will be using 134a refrigerant.

I would find out more about the 134a, and the system you are going to use
it in before I used it. Despite what DuPont wants the public to believe,
134a is not a drop in replacement for R12. The 134a has a bad reaction
with the oils used in some compressors, causing the system to die after a
few years. Do a web search using HotBot or some other search engine for
134a, and I am sure you will find more than enough information to convince
you not to use the 134a.

If the system you are going to put it in was designed for R12, then you
should really use R12. The sizes of the condensation coils, expansion
coils, and the calibration of the expansion valve are optimized for the R12
refrigerant. Even if you flush the system free of oil, you aren't going to
change these, so the system will not work as well.

If you are going to be rebuilding an R12 system, _do_ replace the hoses,
o-rings, and seals with the newer barrier rubber systems. The R12 moleclue
is small enough to diffuse through the older nitrile rubber parts (although
very slowly).

Despite what the eco-nazi's want you to believe, R12 is available, and will
be for some time. It is (artifically) expensive, but cheaper than a new
compressor. By the time R12 is no longer available, there will be more
suitable replacements (they are available now, although DuPont is trying to
keep them off the market).

Do a little research. From what I have heard, 134a is bad news for older
AC systems. Like I said, if the system was designed for R12, then use R12.
There is a lot of R12 stockpiled, and the newer cars don't use it, so I do
expect the price to come down.

Just my $.02

chris north

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

Date: 10 Aug 97 22:40:56 EDT
From: DC Beatty
To: "'FORD TRUCKS'"
Subject: carburetor question
Message-ID:

Hello. I have a '67 F-100 with a 352. It has the original Motorcraft 2 bbl. I am
wondering if this might have originally come with the thick metal spacer that
goes under carburetors. I am sure that this part has a name, but I have no idea
what it is. This spacer on other vehicles often has a vacuum port for the PCV
valve to hook up to, and later in the 70's they had the EGR valve hooked on to
them.

Does anyone know if this truck is supposed to have this piece?

Thanks for the help. BTW to those who helped me with my stuck lifter question,
it freed itself up just by driving around and changing oil once. I like it when
stuff like this happens!!!

Later,

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:16:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chris North
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: More AC info
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I just took my own advice and did a search on the web. While it is time
consuming, I did find a site that seemed to be very informative but not
obviously slanted toward a particular product.
Try:

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

It is a big site, and I only browsed some of the areas, but I found it
informative. They will also get you EPA certified (for a fee).

This is not the best site, or the only site, and I have no affiliation,
yadda, yadda, yadda. It is just the results of about half an hour of
surfing.


chris north

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:50:59 -0500
From: "Donald R. Screen"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: carburetor question
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

DC Beatty wrote:
>
> Hello. I have a '67 F-100 with a 352. It has the original Motorcraft 2 bbl. I am
> wondering if this might have originally come with the thick metal spacer that
> goes under carburetors. I am sure that this part has a name, but I have no idea

Hi DC,
Well I just spent a great deal of time fooling with this very part
on my 360 FE V8 (1974 XLT Ranger). The only name I have come across is
"carb spacer". On my 74 it is used to route exhaust gases through the
carb spacer (from the left back side of the spacer) to the back side of
the spacer where an EGR valve is supposed to be mounted with an input
and output side. Input from the exhaust, output back to the intake
manifold. On my truck, a previous owner had used silicone sealant to
block the exhaust crossover passage and replaced the EGR carb spacer
with a non-EGR carb spacer. Not legal in pollution controlled areas but
good luck finding anyone out there who knows this type of information.
Sure they know EGR belongs on a 1974 vehicle, but I would challenge them
to tell me exactly where on this vehicle.


> what it is. This spacer on other vehicles often has a vacuum port for the PCV

I have not seen any with a PCV hookup. Usually the PCV hookup is
physically on the base of the carb instead of the carb spacer.
Usually close to a 3/8 inch fitting. Maybe 7/16...I'd have to check.
My new Edelbrock carb has a 1/4 NPT fitting on the back for hooking up
the brake booster to a manifold vacuum supply.


> Does anyone know if this truck is supposed to have this piece?

I do know that you can run without this spacer. Especially since
your truck is a 1967 (No EGR). Does your carb have a PCV hookup?
The only other purpose I have read about for the carb spacer is to
increase intake manifold plenum volume...thus increasing torque a few
percent. Better fuel/air mixing...something like that. I have seen new
carb spacers for sale at Super Shops. They also sell carb adapter
plates which are almost identical but serve to adapt say a spread bore
carb to a square bore manifold or a square bore carb to a spread bore
manifold. A plain carb spacer would just raise the carb up off of the
intake manifold and increase the intake plenum volume.
It may also help shield some of the heat away from the carb, thus cooler
fuel which is good for making power. Holley sells carb heat shields
that mount in the same location.
Whadda think sleddog...Have I got all this straight?
DC..I can't tell ya if your truck came with one originally but I don't
think it would hurt your torque too much to run without one. Mine
cleaned up nicely (looks like cast aluminum).
The previous owner of my truck also saw fit to remove the EGR TVS. So
there are zero remnants of my EGR system. I still have the PCV system
installed and hooked up.

Don
Allen, Texas

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

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:49:46 -0500
From: Mike Schwall
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: AC Installation
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 09:28 PM 8/10/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Mike is planning a AC installation:
>
>
>I would find out more about the 134a, and the system you are going to use
>it in before I used it. Despite what DuPont wants the public to believe,
>134a is not a drop in replacement for R12. The 134a has a bad reaction
>with the oils used in some compressors, causing the system to die after a
>few years. Do a web search using HotBot or some other search engine for
>134a, and I am sure you will find more than enough information to convince
>you not to use the 134a.
>
>If the system you are going to put it in was designed for R12, then you
>should really use R12. The sizes of the condensation coils, expansion
>coils, and the calibration of the expansion valve are optimized for the R12
>refrigerant. Even if you flush the system free of oil, you aren't going to
>change these, so the system will not work as well.
>
>If you are going to be rebuilding an R12 system, _do_ replace the hoses,
>o-rings, and seals with the newer barrier rubber systems. The R12 moleclue
>is small enough to diffuse through the older nitrile rubber parts (although
>very slowly).
>
>Despite what the eco-nazi's want you to believe, R12 is available, and will
>be for some time. It is (artifically) expensive, but cheaper than a new
>compressor. By the time R12 is no longer available, there will be more
>suitable replacements (they are available now, although DuPont is trying to
>keep them off the market).
>
>Do a little research. From what I have heard, 134a is bad news for older
>AC systems. Like I said, if the system was designed for R12, then use R12.
>There is a lot of R12 stockpiled, and the newer cars don't use it, so I do
>expect the price to come down.
>
>Just my $.02
>
>chris north

I did an R12 to 134a conversion on a J*ep Che*okee recently and it worked
out flawlessly. The compressor was cracked so I had to replace it, used
the original hoses, and bought a new dryer and expansion valve (system
hadn't been used in years). I drained all the oil from the new compressor
and measured and put in the 134a oil. Bought the system flush and flushed
out the condenser, evaporator, and all hoses. Replaced all O-rings and put
in the measured amount of oil in the evaporator and condenser then sealed
it up and put it on a vacuum for an hour then charged the system. AC works
great. Only problem I have is that I found a small leak in the low
pressure hose. It has been working great for over a month. I had hoses
made for it and I plan on installing them within a couple weeks.

Mike

_____________________________________________

Email: mikes intx.net
Home Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.intx.net/mikes
Ford Page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.intx.net/mikes/fordarea.htm

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 00:07:24 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
To: FORDTRUCKS lofcom.com
Subject: Fuel Cell Advice
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Soon I will be putting a 16 gallon fuel cell in my 50 F1. I'm going to put
it in the bed. I can't decide if it would be better to put it at the rear
or front of the bed though. If it is at the front I will have more utility
space in the bed and it will look a little neater. But if it's at the back
it will be easier to fill and will distribute some weight to the rear of
the truck, which it seems would be desireable. Anybody got an opinion on
this?

~Dan

1992 Ford Mustang LX
1950 Ford F1, 351C-2V
Check out my F1 page: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.GeoCities.com/MotorCity/3623

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:34:37 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 460 Maximum Compression Ratio?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 05:52:46 -0500
> From: Daver
> Subject: Re: 460 Maximum Compression Ratio?

> > cams would go a long way toward my goal since they keep the valves
> > open longer with the same ramp to ramp duration spec etc. I could
> > use less overlap and still get the high rpm I need and keep lower
>
> better with a flat tappit / solid and you need to remember the
> overlap is a contributor to compression drop between static and
> dynamic.

That's exactly my point. Because rollers ramp quicker and have a
flatter lobe shape on top I get better filling which means better
efficiency with more or less stock overlaps and durations or I can
use higher lift and maintain stock over lap etc. which gives me
better filling at all speeds so my torque band is wider which is what
I'm really talking about here. Once the band is wider you can move
it up or down to suit. Since I've never used one I'm speculating
here but the pieces seem to add up to me based on what I've read and
discerned on my own concerning their advantages.

If I run static compression of 12:1 and put overlap in the cam to
make up for it a low speeds so I can use the power at rpms which I'll
never see I'm throwing fuel economy down the drain right? OTOH if I
go totally for low end torque with no overlap my compression drops to
maybe 9:1 which is good for economy at low speeds but now the stupid
thing can't breathe above 2500 rpm right? Since I'm talking daily
driver and utility and play toy in that order and since I like to
feel a little punch now and then my goal is to have my cake and eat
it too. If I can gain a few more rpms at the top and even pick up a
few at the bottom while improving my economy I will have paid for the
extra expense of the roller in spades don't you think? Am I
dreaming? Did I miss an important point which rains on my little
parade? Let me know if I'm off center here please?

-- Gary Peters --

(Mine)78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6
(Mine)78 Bronco, 4wd, 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
(Daughter's)92 Tempo
(Daughter's)92 T-Bird
(Wife's)94 T-Bird
(Son's)90 F-150, I6
(Son's)76 Blue Bird School bus
All mine to work on, maintain etc..

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 07:41:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: GMPACHECO aol.com
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: ADMIN: To those who recently sent in pictures
Message-ID:

Don't know if this was mine, but I sent in a picture 72 Ford F-100 Baby Blue
Color, if it was mine what type of info is needed. Oh by the way, what is the
e-mail address to resend , and how do I find these pictures. Mike in
Seattle

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:32:18 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: Advance curves?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 06:23:03 -0500
> From: Daver
> Subject: Re: Advance curves?

> > I can't believe all the super high advance curves I'm hearing
> > about on these lists!? All the information I have (from
> > professionals) indicates that 38 degrees of advance is adequate

> High proformance the numbers you get from me did not come from the
> "experts" they came from 16 years of first hand experience so you
> can use them or you can go through the process your self.

Please forgive me if I seem argumentative, I don't mean to imply that
my limited experience is sufficient to argue with a successfull
racer. Racing may have different additional components which get
added into the mix which I have no experience with or knowledge of.

In simple terms (perhaps too simple) lean mixtures burn more slowly
requiring the spark to fire sooner (cruise). Richer mixtures such as
when accellerating burn faster and so require less advance
(accellerator pump). Higher compression tends to make the flame burn
faster so less advance is required (racing engines). These are
things I know for sure but when you mix them up a lot of variables
come in to play such as cam overlap and timing, the effects of which
on spark timing I don't fully understand as yet. I could guess by I
better not do it out loud :-)

I just took another look at my bronco and I have roughly 42 degrees
total at idle with the vac and with 12 degrees static. Add in
another 24 - 26 degrees mechanical advance and you can easily get 60
total with the vac, my mistake. Actually it seems to me the fords
have 13 - 18 degrees mechanical depending on the application. I may
remember seeing 21 on one application (we make distributors at this
plant). The 60 degrees is never actually seen by the engine however
except for decelleration from high speed since the vac retards
instantly with any throttle opening. If you cruise at 60 mph and 2000
rpm the mechanical isn't all in yet (on a stock engine) and you're
pulling 10 - 12 inches at the vac so only getting maybe 1/2 of the
vac advance so you're getting about 40 degrees at cruise which, due
to leaner, lower load conditions, requires more advance according to
my sources. Now it's starting to make sense and I can see how some
people are able to run without a vac on the street if they're willing
to give up low speed, high load drivability.

I was having trouble with intermittant knocking under various
conditions which I thought I had fixed. Turns out the vac line to
the carb is a 3/16 ID and the tube on the carb is 1/8. It was
sealing part of the time giving me partial success. I hose clamped
it since I didn't have any 1/8 lying around and it works perfectly
now. Should be back up to 14 mpg now :-) :-) :-)

-- Gary Peters --

(Mine)78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6
(Mine)78 Bronco, 4wd, 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
(Daughter's)92 Tempo
(Daughter's)92 T-Bird
(Wife's)94 T-Bird
(Son's)90 F-150, I6
(Son's)76 Blue Bird School bus
All mine to work on, maintain etc..

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:46:57 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
To: fordtrucks lofcom.com
Subject: Re: 460 Maximum Compression Ratio?
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 06:33:08 -0500
> From: Daver
> Subject: Re: 460 Maximum Compression Ratio?

> > Edlebrock doesn't make a spread bore do they? I'd love to run a
> > Rochester but as I recall they are kind of tempermental? But,
> > again, what manifold would I use? Shucks, I'd even run a Holley
> > 4175 if I could find a decent dual plane manifold which didn't
> > have lots of compromises. I believe the intake manifold and
> > improperly jetted carb are my biggest problem right now but I'm
> > just guessing.
> >
> > -- Gary Peters --
>
> eddlebrock and holly both make spreed bores.

Right but for Chevys. (I remember seeing it in the catalog now that
you mention it) The bolt pattern is different from the ford. You
can mount them on a ford manifold with cobbled up adapters which
don't help the flow and detract from the original advantages of the
spread bore design but there are few, if any. dual plane ford
manifolds for the 460 made to directly bolt on a holley 4175 or
rochester or carter or edelbrock. These are all GM carb combos. I
think one FE model had a rochester on it for a year or two but none
of the newer ones ever did that I know of. I'm not saying there are
none, just that I haven't found one yet specifically stated in it's
add for that purpose. I have Holley and edlebrock catalogs, PAW,
Jeggs and Summit and SVO and, unless I missed one I haven't found one
in all of that.

It's really, really, really irritating to me that Ford chose not to
use the pattern that Holley, Rochester and Carter all chose to use
for standardization which is just another reason that Ford buffs have
to be either rich or crazy to persue the bug :-(

-- Gary Peters --

(Mine)78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6
(Mine)78 Bronco, 4wd, 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
(Daughter's)92 Tempo
(Daughter's)92 T-Bird
(Wife's)94 T-Bird
(Son's)90 F-150, I6
(Son's)76 Blue Bird School bus
All mine to work on, maintain etc..

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

Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:00:15 -0500
From: John Strauss
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: paint colors for '63
Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>i have a 63 f-100, and the body color is rangoon red, but i can't find
>anywhere where the original engine color and trim color is listed. trim
>includes the bumpers,grill, and wheels. i know the trim color is some type of
>white, but which?...colonial white? corinthian white? wimbledon
>white?...help! i need to get the new wheels painted so i can get it off the
>jack stands.
>
You can use Wimbledon White and it will match the white that Ford used on
those items although I don't think it was called "Wimbledon White" until....

---

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.