Return-Path:
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 03:50:18 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V2 #69
Reply-To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-digest Sunday, March 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 069



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1960 And Older Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To remove yourself for our list send email to:
fordtrucks-digest-request listservice.net
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
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: more ?s [Rich Garber ]
Re: more ?s [Fordf3 ]
Re: more ?s [Randall ]
Re: more ?s ["Chris Hedemark" ]
Re: more ?s [JStoneF100 ]
Re: custom cab ["Garry & Molly Catalano" ]
Re: more ?s [Scott ]
Bad Luck [Ray Cardogno ]
Re: Custom Cab [FRD56F100 ]
Re: 4.3 GM as Ford Truck Engine [JRFiero ]
Re: more ?s [Rich Garber ]
more on cleaning out gas tanks [TonyDePaul ]

=======================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:32:39 -0600
From: Rich Garber
Subject: Re: more ?s

At 11:49 PM 3/13/98 EST, you wrote:
>
> 2.) I also give getting the fuel tank out of the cabin a large priority.
>I have heard many suggestions. Get a new tank and pay at least $400 for it
>(along with new pickup units, gage sending units, and lines) or get one
out of
>a donor vehicle, put at least 2 fuel filters on it, and hope of the best (all
>costing about $25). HELP!!!!

I'm going to have the same problem, Here's what I'm going to do. Remove
the sender and clean it out. The water method w/washed rocks sounds like
the safest.
Next, going with Eastwoods Gas tank sealer $35.00. hopefully that will be
all it needs.

> 3.) My latest engine choice (and here come the flames!) is a 4.3
litre V6
>and overdrive from a late model GM minivan or truck. Has anyone tried (or
>heard) of this? Is this swap going to be without much aftermarket help? I
want
>power but fuel ecomony as well. Mechanics are very keen on these engines, so
>they must be able to work on them.

I.M.H.O. a super motor. I've had two of these, very dependable. I
remember my dad putting a small buick V6 in a jeep. Supposed to be able to
get up to 400HP out of one of those. Any one done that?

Rich
54F100

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:48:47 EST
From: Fordf3
Subject: Re: more ?s

I would like to here from someone who has done the sealer in a tank with
baffles.
Instead of rocks how about large ball bearings

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:33:08 -0600
From: Randall
Subject: Re: more ?s

> > 3.) My latest engine choice (and here come the flames!) is a 4.3
> litre V6
> >and overdrive from a late model GM minivan or truck. I
> want
> >power but fuel ecomony as well.

Don't count on high fuel mileage from the 4.3. A friend has two 4.3's
one in a stock 91 S-10 and one in a custom 84 S-10 blazer and the stock
one gives 14-16 mpg at best and the ABSOLUTELY not stock one gives 7-10
mpg!
The stock one is a fi unit and the NOT stock one is built, with a
carter 4 bbl, heavy cam, headers and the top-o-the line Chevy Nascar
aluminum heads(the ones that dont come finished from the factory) in all
it is a very hot setup producing more than 350 hp (estimate, not dyno'd
yet) and that blazer is the fastest thing I have ever ridden in yet,
with an automatic trans and a 4.11 posi it will get sideways in all
three gears!(he took the 4.56 rear out to make it "driveable").
If you MUST put someone elses motor in your cherished Ford jewel then
I would suggest the Chevy 2.8 v-6 or the factory replacement 3.4. My 82
s-10 pu has 227,000 ORIGINAL miles on it and is still pretty strong, the
gas mileage is 15 on average, but keep in mind this is a very tired
little trooper.

Sam
82 S-10 (for now)
60 F-100 (for the rest of my life)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 11:50:34 -0500
From: "Chris Hedemark"
Subject: Re: more ?s

> 1.) IFS - There is an article in the last 2 truck magazines I
s*bscribe
>to that tell of a new Dakota IFS swap. It works without all of the frame
>trimming (still some - just not as much) that a Volare' (Dodge Aspen) has.
The
>most beneficial feature of this Dakota swap is it uses late model 1/2 ton
>truck pieces! I also hear that the junk yards are full of these trucks. The
>I.C. crossmember is about $650. I don't yet know what the truck pieces
>cost in my area. I would also want to know if the Dakota rear end will be
wide
>enough for my '57? The main reason I would like to change both is for same
>bolt hole diameters on front and back.
> The main reason I want to change my front end is brakes. Even if I
find a
>disc brake kit for mine, I hear these old trucks have ball bearings that
wear
>out every year or so instead of the roller bearings that later vehicles
have.


If the components will fit, and if you can get a hold of them this soon, the
handling on the redesigned Dakota and the new Durango is superior. The
downside is it uses a very strange bolt pattern so it will be awhile before
there is a really wide selection of wheels. I think it is like six on 4.5"
pattern (yes, six lugs). But the ride is almost totally un-trucklike. Not
having done this before, I don't know if I can even speculate on this or not
but would such a swap enable you to more easily bolt up something like a
Dodge 360 V8 which is another one of those "run forever" engines?

> 4.) My truck is not ready to be seen on a website (unless you guys
want
>to see how far I have to go), but this is a great idea. How is a site
>constructed? Will I need to get some sort of graphics software (as opposed
to
>truck parts!)? This a great idea. I look forward to seeing everybody.


Actually, if you have the camera to do it, I would *love* to see the before,
during, and after photos. As much stuff as there is out there on these
trucks it is mostly on finished trucks, and a very small amount of text
about a specific operation like installing disc brakes. It would be *great*
to have some sort of pictorial on how to build an old truck up from frame to
finish. If Ken can't spare the space then in about a month or two I can as
I am bringing a new server online for Yonderway.com with about 6 gigs of web
space. You can build a web page pretty easily without fancy graphics
software. Do you have a digital camera? Or a scanner? Most of the work
you have to do is cropping the photos which even the freeware editors can
do. If you have to adjust brightness or contrast due to poor lighting
during the photo shoot, there are some freebie graphics tools that can also
do this. I had to do this on my Dodge truck site (now gone) when I was
doing any kind of work under the truck because I couldn't get enough light
under there for good pictures.

I'll tell you what, if you have a way to get photos into the computer
(through digital camera or scanner) all you need is something like Microsoft
Front Page 98. I use it to do my whole web site. You use it like a word
processor so you don't really have to know any HTML. You just start typing,
make fonts bigger or smaller as needed, and pop in pictures where you want
them. You can just highlight something (photo or text) and click an icon to
create a link. You then surf through your web browser to the site you want
to link to, switch back to fronpage and click OK, and it sucks the URL right
out of your web browser to create the link (or you can just type it in if
you want). It comes with a photo editing tool that will perform the
operations I just spoke of. And it can also upload the page for you in many
cases (level of difficulty depends on ISP; if the ISP supports FrontPage
directly you only need an account name and password and FrontPage will do
the rest.... otherwise you have to set up an FTP script).

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:51:20 EST
From: JStoneF100
Subject: Re: more ?s

I am against cross-breeding our beloved Efies but if you must the 4.3 or 2.8
is the way to go for performance and roomy fit. But as for gas mileage the 302
with a small 4 barrell would be about the same. My own experience with a 4.3
is 15mpg tops keep in mind that this is in a full size 1/2 Ch&vy with a 700r4
and 3:42 rear end ratio.My(FORD) 59 will have a 302 or 351w(ALSO FORD). To
compensate I chose a (FORD) AOD Trans and 3:70 hopeing for maybe 12mpg. "The
opinions expressed are my own"

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 98 14:38:28 PST
From: "Garry & Molly Catalano"
Subject: Re: custom cab

Dave, =
=
According to =
a 56 dealer hand book that I have the custom cab had the following , Out=
standing Exterior Features, Custom Cab door plate,New bright metal grille=
, Bright metal reveal moldings around wind shield. Door lock on both side=
s. Outstanding Interior Features, New =
color keyed two tone seat upholstery-black and white chain stripe woven =
plastic, color-keyed copper or red vinyl bolstre and facings to harmonize=
with exterior finish, Foam-rubber cushioning--full 5" seat plus 3" seat=
back, Customized door trim and hardware,Perforated thermacoustic headli=
ning, backed by 1" of glass wool insulation, Sound deadener on floor and =
rear cab panels { standard on doors] Grip-type arm rest on left-hand doo=
r,Large dome light with manual switch, Two adjustable sun visors Illumina=
ted cigar lighter, Glass-fibre insulation on forward cab wall. Also the =
big back window was optional on any cab series 100-900 that year. This =
is always assumed to be a pickup only option but I have seen a 700 dump =
truck that had one. Why they were not more popular may have been a cost =
factor. If you need more info drop me a line. =
=
=
Garry

- ----------
>
> Can anybody tell me exactly what the differences are between a 56 custo=
m
> cab and a 56 regular cab. I have two trucks, and one has the custom =
cab
> emblems on the door. As far as I can tell that is the only difference
> (on my two trucks). However, that is assuming that there have not been
> any upgrades in the last 40+ years.
>
> Thanks, Dave S.
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1960 and Older --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks listservice.net, removal form on the web =
|
> | site. =
|
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ ----------+

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:31:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott
Subject: Re: more ?s

- ---RJC988 wrote:
> 2.) I also give getting the fuel tank out of the cabin a large
priority.
> I have heard many suggestions. Get a new tank and pay at least $400
for it
> (along with new pickup units, gage sending units, and lines) or get
one out of
> a donor vehicle, put at least 2 fuel filters on it, and hope of the
best (all
> costing about $25). HELP!!!!

On our 52 we kept the tank in the cab and for those long trips we
added a pair of saddle tanks. The tanks go on either side of the
drive shaft, not to worry, we are going to put a yoke around the shaft
for safety. Anyways, the two saddle tanks are fed through an
additional filler neck and feed into both tanks by a cross over pipe.
We put another cross over pipe on the top of venting and a solonid to
switch between the two tanks. The other option it to put a tank from
a doner vehicle behind the rear axel but then you can't put a spair
tire there. Oh yea, we made the tanks oursevles.

> 3.) My latest engine choice (and here come the flames!) is a
4.3 litre V6
> and overdrive from a late model GM minivan or truck. Has anyone
tried (or
> heard) of this? I want power but fuel ecomony as well. Mechanics are
very keen on these engines, so
> they must be able to work on them.

That would be a great engine! We have one in our van and it has lots
of power for towing and lots of get up and go.

> 4.) My truck is not ready to be seen on a website (unless you
guys want
> to see how far I have to go), but this is a great idea. How is a site
> constructed? Will I need to get some sort of graphics software (as
opposed to
> truck parts!)? This a great idea. I look forward to seeing everybody.
The web site is easy to do once you get the hang of it. As for
graphics, pics of the truck help and you can get them on the computer
by a scanner or digital camara. Now I know that everyone doesn't have
one of these but you can do like I do and borrow them or some places
will scan pics for you. If you are interested I would make a site for
your truck.

Scott
==


1952 Ford Pickup
Please take a look at my 1952 Ford Pickup Page:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/9731/
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:22:32 -0400
From: Ray Cardogno
Subject: Bad Luck

Now that Friday the 13th is over, I've concluded It's bad luck to be
superstitious. Sorry to get off on such a useless thought. I'll turn my
thoughts around 360 degrees. Things seem to be getting more like they are
now than they ever were before. Anyhow, half this truck hobby thing is
90-percent fun anyways.

Ray C/F-100 Panel called "Panel truck"

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:31:13 EST
From: FRD56F100
Subject: Re: Custom Cab

I will think that some of the differences were in the chrome. Custom cabs had
more chrome, like the trim around the top & front windshield, chrome front
grill, chrome V8 emblem, etc.

Joe

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 17:36:30 EST
From: JRFiero
Subject: Re: 4.3 GM as Ford Truck Engine

Thought you 61-79 guys might want to weigh in on this old list subject.
RJC988 wrote, among other things -
3.) My latest engine choice (and here come the flames!) is a
4.3 litre V6
> and overdrive from a late model GM minivan or truck. Has anyone
tried (or
> heard) of this? I want power but fuel ecomony as well. Mechanics are
very keen on these engines, so
> they must be able to work on them.
>>
Well, I don't see the point. A 4.3 is 262+ inches, not much more economical
that a 302 or 289. Its 3/4 of a 350 Chevy, basically. Its not the same at
all as the various Buick V6s, and totally different than the 2.8/3.4 Chevy,
which someone suggested to the author of the post. The 2.8 is a 60 degree V6,
would be lost in the Ford engine bay. Its also gutless without lots of work
and the right computer.
Back to the 4.3. Don't be lookin' for too much economy, especially if you
want any power out of it. My Syclone was a turbo, intercooled 4.3, which at
280hp was OK, but got 16mpg on its best highway days. Once again, you'll need
a good computer to get the most out of it. You can probably build a V8 with a
better power/economy package.

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 19:40:14 -0600
From: Rich Garber
Subject: Re: more ?s

>Instead of rocks how about large ball bearings


Someone mentioned that you might want to use something
non-metalic, no since making a spark.

What about marbles?

On the 4.3, my wife gets 20-22 mpg. (of course its my wife driving)
But, towing 2500lbs, I can get 16mpg. I thought the 4.3 was first
introduced in 89, w/throtle body injection.

I would have to agree though, I would keep it ford if I could.

Rich
54F100

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

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 22:46:32 EST
From: TonyDePaul
Subject: more on cleaning out gas tanks

Hello everybody,

I forget who wrote in about cleaning out gas tanks, but here's what little I
know about it.

Last fall I used about 25 pounds of white marble chips to scour the inside of
a tank out of a '50 F-1. The truck hadn't been driven in 18 years and had been
parked out in the weather for the last 7. No cap on the tank, either. It was
about half full of dead gas, water, leaves, twigs and acorns.

I used the marble chips (a few bucks a bag at any garden shop) because they
seemed fairly soft and unlikely to strike a spark. I had heard a few gory
tales about "empty" gas tanks exploding and didn't plan to spend any part of
the afternoon whatsoever with a tag around my big toe.

First I had the tank boiled out at a radiator shop, which chemically broke
down the varnish but left a thick coat of dried gunk and rust on the inside.
You could turn it to powder just running your finger against it.

The marble chips did the job. They got through the baffles and scoured
everything clean. I used a lot of water. Kept shaking the tank and hosing it
out until the flow was clean.

It's work, though. See those forearms on Popeye? He got them shaking a gas
tank full of wet rocks over his head.

One last thing: I had a devil of a time getting the last couple of hundred
chips out. The trouble is, there's a lip around the inside of the hoo-dad
where the filler pipe hooks up. You have to keep bouncing the tank around
until the chips jump out. A few will get caught between the tank wall and the....


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.