Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 03:50:20 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V2 #15
Reply-To: fordtrucks
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest

fordtrucks-digest Monday, January 19 1998 Volume 02 : Number 015

Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1960 And Older Trucks Digest
Visit our web site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To remove yourself for our list send email to:
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
In this issue:

Re: '59 F100 [Scorch1278 ]
flathead thermostat Ford Service Letter [JRFiero ]
Re:3:52 gear ratio, ring and pinion gears [TNickolson
Re: Calling Ford Chemists - Vinegar? [Randall ]
9" rears [jc& terry ]
ADMIN: Web chat reminder [Ken Payne ]
F100 Nationals Booth [Ken Payne ]
Tilt Front [JSanc82344 ]
Vinegar as rust remover. [GEGK00A ( DAN LEE)]
Re: fordtrucks-digest V2 #14 [Ray Cardogno ]



Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 09:49:48 EST
From: Scorch1278
Subject: Re: '59 F100

dear sir,
i know of someone that might sell their 223 motor to you for about 100-200.


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 11:59:09 EST
From: JRFiero
Subject: flathead thermostat Ford Service Letter

While installing thermostats in my '51 flathead, I ran across this Ford
service letter re thermostats and housings. It specifically says passenger
car engines, so I'm not sure how it relates to the truck motors, but I don't
know how it would differ. I'll reproduce it in total below, but basically
Ford came out with new thermos and housings , the housing having a deeper
counterbore where the thermo sits, because the thermostat has a thicker
flange. You can't mix and match without varying the number of gaskets, as
explained below.
I have a selection of both housings, and the counterbore difference is
obvious. Unfortunately, all seem to have been torqued a bit much, so I'll
have to file them flat, which will negate the deeper counterbore. Seems then
I'll have to go with two gaskets. There is a Ford gasket part number below,
but Stant 27138 BB 38 is damn close, and it has one self-adhesive side.
I'm going to make the assumption that I have the thicker thermostats.

THERMOSTATS - 1950 AND 1951- No. P105
Two new thermostats 1BA-8575-A and B with higher temperature settings and a
new water outlet connection 1BA-8592-A with a deeper counterbore have been
released for production and service for 1950 and 1951 8-cylinder passenger car
The 1BA-8575-A thermostat and 1BA-8592-A water outlet connection became
effective in production of 1950 8-cylinder passenger car engines approximately
October 24, 1950.
The temperature setting for the 1BA-8575-A thermostat is 157 to 162 and
177 to 182 for the 1BA-8575-B thermostat. The thickness of the mounting
flange of the new thermostats were (sic) also increased necessitating the use
of the new 1BA-8592-A water outlet connection with a deeper counterbore to
accommodate the thicker flange.
In service the 1BA-8575-A or B thermostats may be used with the old water
outlet connection, providing two 8BA-8255-B gaskets instead of one are used.
Also, old thermostats 8BA-8575-C or D can be used with the new water outlet
connection if two gaskets are used. When stock on these old thermostats
becomes exhausted, use the new thermostats for service on 1949 cars.
The following chart shows the number of 8BA-8255-B gaskets to use with the
various combinations of thermostats and water connections.

Number of
Thermostat Outlet Connection Gaskets to Use
1BA-8575-A & B 1BA-8592-A 1
1BA-8575-A & B 8BA-8592-A 2
8BA-8575-C & D 1BA-8592-A 2
8BA-8575-C & D 8BA-8592-A 1


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:11:36 EST
From: TNickolson
Subject: Re:3:52 gear ratio, ring and pinion gears

I have an original 1952 F1 and I am looking for a source for parts to change
my rear end gear ratio. I am using the originial rear end housing that
currently has a ratio of 4:11. That is to low for me when I am trying to drive
on the highway. I am looking for a source of new ring and pinion gears that
will give me a gear ratio of 3:52 or something in that range. I would prefer
new gears on even a completely rebuilt rear end. I don't want to change the
housing but only the gears. Thanks for the help

Tom Nickolson


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:23:58 -0600
From: Randall
Subject: Re: Calling Ford Chemists - Vinegar?

> My intent was to get
> the rust off, and I accomplished that using vinegar once before on an
> old pair
> of pliers I found buried in the backyard, but they came out all
> pockmarked.
> Probably the rust, but could it have been the vinegar?

I'm no chemist, but from my experience with firearms I can tell you
that the pitting on your pliers was from the rust and not from the
vinegar. I am quite interested in the outcome of this question of yours
as I have been looking for a non abrasive method of removing rust from
firearms (that does not involve caustic chemicals like naval jelly).

1960 F-100


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:36:55 -0800
From: jc& terry
Subject: 9" rears

Part 1
bolt in a 9" rear end
from something newer? I would guess the latter, but what are some
obvious choices (vehicles, year, etc.) of the same width?

ford made 9" in almost every car and truck from 57-78. anything with the
spring perches the same distance apart would be fine. you can even cut the
perches and adjust them. measure drum to drum or disc to disc and see what
ill fit under yur truck. many many will. the lincoln versaille is popular
disc but complicated if you don't get ALL the parts. the trucks will have
higher gears 3:70 and up for pulling and burning the tires. passeger cars,
2:78 and up to 3:50 will be better for highway but with yur 460 bruiser it
will still smoke 'em. i my self used a 78 caddy deville rear disc to replace
my 9 inch for the brakes. any of them should be less than $100. BTW the
beauty of a 9" is easy to change gears and virtually bullet proof.

Also, is the big
block too big?

in hot rodding we have a saying, "there's no substitute for cubic inches" .
who ever heard of an engine being too big. maybe the pansies that knuckle
under to everything that our "big brother" gov. tells us. if god wanted us
to run 100 hp 4 cylinders in our trucks he would have never invented the 460
lincoln or the 572 caddy.

T-bird Terry


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:22:19 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Web chat reminder

Web chat in 40 minutes (8pm, EST) to celebrate our 1st anniversary.
See you there!

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:19:50 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: F100 Nationals Booth

Good News!

Peggy and I have been able to get a booth at the Pigeon Forge
F100 Nationals this May! We're organizing a group picnic and
we need to get an idea of how many people plan on being there.
Event information is on the web site. If you plan on being
at this show (which is the largest F-series show) let us know
so we can get a guesstimated head count for a picnic site.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:03:04 EST
From: JSanc82344
Subject: Tilt Front

Soon I will like to do a tilt front end to my 56 F-100 project and although
this seems like a simple procedure, I need some advice as to how to do it with
the front bumber installed. I've seen several truck with tilt fronts on
magazines but most show a truck without a front bumper. I like the tilt
front because of the great engine access, however I can see I will have a
problem locating the battery and other things since I want a clean looking
engine area.

Any tips on this will be appreciated.




Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:12:33, -0500
From: GEGK00A ( DAN LEE)
Subject: Vinegar as rust remover.

Common kitchen vinegar is 5% Acetic Acid. This is a mild organic acid.
It will dissolve rust over a period of time, also the iron in the
part being cleaned. There are better rust removers available, also
less distructive.

Dan Lee
'53 F100


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:45:30 -0400
From: Ray Cardogno
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-digest V2 #14

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:26:55 -0500
From: Ethan Vos
Subject: Opinions

I've got a 1955 F-500 dump truck that I'm in the planning stages of
building. I want this thing to be a reliable runner. No chrome or flash,
just a super reliable work truck.

I need some ideas. I think I want to keep the dump mechanism but convert it
to an electric motor instead of a PTO. I'll probably build it into a roll
off bed.

Has anyone put either a Powerstroke or Cummins in one of the early trucks?

If so, what are the pros and what are the cons?

Thanks in advance.


I ended up with my father's 1955 F-500 dump. That's what started me with
these trucks. It's been in the family since it was almost new. These were
the ideas I had for it. Last year I swapped the 239 that was in it with a
1956 272 which I had punched .030 over and rebuilt with the best (better
alloys than oem) available parts. Then I put in a 2-speed rear axle from an
F-600, beefed-up the front/rear springs, new king pins, bushings, etc.,
added power brakes, 8.25 tires (instead of 7.50 for better highway speeds),
12-volt conversion & 400 watt stereo (very important), I use this truck to
go anywhere at highway speeds and it's still relatively original with ford
parts. The pto has never been a problem. It's a relatively small truck and
it zips around great the way it is now. The difference was substantial
after my changes.

I know this does not address the diesel issue. I'm interested in seeing
what other responses you get. I am thinking about putting a diesel into my....

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.