fordtrucks-digest V1 #4

Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:15:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest

ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest

ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V1 #4
Reply-To: fordtrucks

ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest

ListService.net

fordtrucks-digest Wednesday, August 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 004

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 05:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Rotureau
Subject: Suspension and 390s

Hey Folks,

Haven't posted much lately, but got a couple of questions for any and
all:

(1) Has anyone seen (or done) a four bar rear suspension set up for a
1964 F100. You know, the kind with the four bars, coil over shocks
and panard bar replacing the leafs. I have seen these kits in the
mags for early models (thru '56) but nothing for the '58 - '66. I
have replaced the front suspension with a Volarie set up and would
like to finish the "street rod" job. No I don't do off-road or heavy
hauling with this truck. Daily driver...

(2) Now this is non-truck question so forgive me... I have a '64
TBird (390/4V). The 390 kinda relates to trucks, right :-). Had a
miss (or surge) coming off idle, replaced ALL ignition parts, rebuilt
the 4100, replaced the vacuum advance (AutoZone). Miss still there
and a awfull knock (sounded like rods). Weeeell, disconnected the
vacuum advance to check timing, dwell, etc, and the miss was not there
when I came off idle. Came up to 3000 rpm, smooth as can be, no miss,
no knock. Plugged the line to carb, jumped in and went for a drive.
Smooth, good acceleration, no hesitation (for a 4500lb car with the AC
on). What gives? This is a "dual advance" distributor and the
mechanicals seem to be working just fine... What would cause the
vacuum advance push the timing so far forward. The part number on the
advance I got was correct even according to Ford. All other vacuum
stuff is working fine (and Lord knows there is a ton on the these old
Birds) - this is a 390 question, not a Tbird question. BTW, the
engine has 81K on it, has had a complete head workup done - new
springs, lifters, push rods, valves, milling, etc.

I would appreciate opinions/help on either of the above...

Thanks,

===
Bill in Texas
'64 Thunderbird Hardtop
'64 F100 Shortbox

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.rocketmail.com

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:22:09 -0500
From: "George Shepherd"
Subject: Re: Rusted bed screws on Ranchero

Spray them liberally with penetrating oil and leave for 2 days.

- ----------
> From: MadPoodle

aol.com
> To: JBair

webtv.net; owner-fordtrucks

ListService.net;
fordtrucks

ListService.net
> Subject: Re: Rusted bed screws on Ranchero
> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 4:21 AM
>
> Before breaking out the smoke wrench, have you tried a hand impact?
Usually a
> few smacks on the impact with a suitable hammer (Personal pref 48oz
deadblow
> oooh oooh oooh ;-) usually does the trick....
>
> l8tr
>
> Scott

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul
Subject: Security..my truck stay mine

Thanks to everyone who gave their .02 on my silly questions and ID
inqueries. It came in real handy and kudos to Kenneth the admin for getting
the list going again in such a short time.
I now own a mostly stock rock solid 4x2 1975 F250 crew cab w/390
4V, Np-435 4-speed, Dana 60 3.73. Has anyone put a on hood lock? What did
you use? A large chain/lock is effective but crude and a hidden kill switch
will be useless unless the hood is secure. As a last resort I'll put on a
stock inside the cab "pull", but will it fit on the earlier years? What
kind of gas milage are the rest of the worlds 390's getting out there? I'm
getting 7.8 mpg but that will improve. ; ) I also recieved my ford 1975
shop manuals with more info than you can shake a stick at.....if I can help
anyone with numbers, info,blah,blah,....

Thanks, a new old ford truck owner.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:06:35 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: Rusted bed screws on Ranchero

>I need to get the bed off my Ranchero to replace the shocks-but the screws
>are partially rusted on and I can't get a grip on them. Any suggestions as
>to removing these screws? Would a propane torch give me enough heat to
>loosen?
>
How are you going to remove the "bed" from a Ranchero? This would require
removal of the entire body, wouldn't it?

_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, _} jstrauss

inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:52:54 -0700
From: sdelanty

inetport.com
> \( Texas Fight!

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:18:20 -0700
From: sdelanty

sonic.net
Subject: Re: CDI Ignition Module

>> But what's with the "CDI CONNECTIONS"???
>> The duraspark setup sure ain't no Capacitive Discharge unit, it's just a
>> simple transistor switch.

> I took CDI CONNECTIONS for See Da Instructions for Connections.
> Everyone was out partying in those days, who had time to build a CDI?

Yeah, I was a HS sophomore and kind of an electronics nerd back then...
But I didn't build it for me, a friends brother *paid* me to build it for
his 440 roadrunner. A guys had to make beer and drug money somehow! (-:

>> Many were offered as assemble Yourself kits thru Heathkit and others.
>> (I built one in '75)

Keep on truckin man,

Steve Delanty
1971 F100 FE390

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:07:46 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: Harmonic balancer

> Date: 19 Aug 97 21:56:03 EDT
> From: DC Beatty
> Subject: RE: Harmonic balancer

> They need to be yanked with a steering wheel puller. This keeps it
> from pulling apart.
>
> > Will someone PLEASE tell me if a harmonic balancer can be
> > repaired

They make a nice, inexpensive damper puller just for that purpose and
it really does make the job easier, in fact if you have an axle slide
hammer you could probably use the crows foot part with a bolt of the
right thread in the center to do it since the design is almost
identical. (slots might be too far apart tho)

- -- 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: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:31:29 -0500
From: Kevin Lindstedt
Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine

At 07:03 AM 8/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>
Has anyone put a on hood lock? What did
>you use? A large chain/lock is effective but crude and a hidden kill switch
>will be useless unless the hood is secure. As a last resort I'll put on a
>stock inside the cab "pull", but will it fit on the earlier years? >

My 1978 F150 came with a factory *locking*, i.e. key operated, inside hood
pull - not sure it would fit your '75 but I'd think it should. Finding one
might be another story :-)

Kevin
1978 F150 Ranger Lariat 460/C6 2wd

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:43:20 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Gears

> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:49:58 -0400
> From: Joe DeLaurentis
> Subject: Gears

Don't know which list it's from but it bounced from his personal
address so I'll try this:

> Gary,
> what gears are you running with your 460 and 33's???

I've run 3.5, 3.25, 2.75 and 4.11 at various times with various sizes
including the 33's. In my 78 PU with 29" tires a wide ratio C-6 and
2.75's I get the best economy (about 12) and due to it's awsome
torque, more than adequate performance. In the 4x4 van with standard
C-6 gearing, 4.11's and 33's I got 6 - 8 mpg and with 3.25's about 10
but the engine wasn't running it's best either and I used stock
converters in both trucks. My personal feeling about this is that you
need to keep the engine rpms around 2k - 2100 rpm at 60 for best
economy with any of the near stock big blocks including the 351M/400
or 429/460. I was told to keep it at 2500 since that's a typical
stock engine torque peak but I've found that with torque cams 2k -
2100 is better but then you need proper gearing in the lower gears (as
evidenced by my experience with the van) to get you up to speed
without lugging too much or the economy suffers again. The 78/79
vintages came with wide ratio C-6's from the factory in many (perhaps
all) cases so I lucked out there. This is serviced with the E4OD pack
now with a few special washers added according to the SVO catalog.

In the bronco with manual 4 speed, 351M, 3.5 gears and 33" tires it
lugs a bit in low (second) but gets pretty good mileage at 60 (about
14) When I put in the 460 I will probably keep the 3.5's as the
4.11's will spin the motor too much wasting economy (again, as shown
in the van). 3.25 might be closer to optimum but there are not really
any strong 3.25 ring gear configurations so we have the 3.00 or 3.5 as
best choices and I think the 3.0 would be too tall with 33's (3.25's
came in Lincolins and big wagons and such back in the 70's with the
460 and 400 engines)

It really depends on the transmission lower gearing ratios and
camming of the engine. Taller transmission gearing will average
better mileage with slightly lower rear end gearing and higher cam
overlaps will need more revs for drivability and will have higher
torque peak rpm, 2.5 - 2.8k rpm or even higher, torque cams typically
will like to cruise around 2k rpm. Of course you can use higher stall
converters with autos to overcome some of this and run slightly taller
rear gearing but manuals will wear out clutches and lose economy if
you gear them too tall.

I hava an Exell spread sheet I use to compare ideas on this sort of
thing and just saw an article on formulas in one of the off road
magazines which will help you figure it all out. I did it the hard
way but they use constants which eliminate some of the math.

- -- 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: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:08:24 -0700
From: sdelanty

pacific.net

63 Ford F-250 4x4 67' 390, t-98, Spicer 24, Dana 60, Dana 44

Phase 172: rebuild front suspension

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:35:05 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: Suspension and 390s

OTTOMH i can't recall where, but i have seen back halves for trucks
(chevy?ford?years?). you just cut the frame section out and weld in this
section which has all attatchment points for coil overs and four bar links.
they are usually skinnier than frame for fitment of larger meats, and are
used many times to lower the back of the truck also. maybe summit has info
on one.

why do you want four link for daily driver? if using heim joints they will
wear out fast on DD, and also transmit lots of noise vibration. if you
want a truck that hooks well for drag racing, a leaf spring setup can work
even down into the low 10's. have you thought about using radius arms?
some chevys had them in back and i saw an older bronco fitted with the
chevy parts and it looked good and worked well. the arms are massive and
are not castings - so they can be welded/cut/formed easily.

all in all, it will be a mostly custom job however you decide to do a
suspension without leafs.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Bill Rotureau[SMTP:gypsybill

rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 1:55 AM
To: fordtrucks-digest

ListService.net
Subject: Suspension and 390s

Hey Folks,

Haven't posted much lately, but got a couple of questions for any and
all:

(1) Has anyone seen (or done) a four bar rear suspension set up for a
1964 F100. You know, the kind with the four bars, coil over shocks
and panard bar replacing the leafs. I have seen these kits in the
mags for early models (thru '56) but nothing for the '58 - '66. I
have replaced the front suspension with a Volarie set up and would
like to finish the "street rod" job. No I don't do off-road or heavy
hauling with this truck. Daily driver...

(2) Now this is non-truck question so forgive me... I have a '64
TBird (390/4V). The 390 kinda relates to trucks, right :-). Had a
miss (or surge) coming off idle, replaced ALL ignition parts, rebuilt
the 4100, replaced the vacuum advance (AutoZone). Miss still there
and a awfull knock (sounded like rods). Weeeell, disconnected the
vacuum advance to check timing, dwell, etc, and the miss was not there
when I came off idle. Came up to 3000 rpm, smooth as can be, no miss,
no knock. Plugged the line to carb, jumped in and went for a drive.
Smooth, good acceleration, no hesitation (for a 4500lb car with the AC
on). What gives? This is a "dual advance" distributor and the
mechanicals seem to be working just fine... What would cause the
vacuum advance push the timing so far forward. The part number on the
advance I got was correct even according to Ford. All other vacuum
stuff is working fine (and Lord knows there is a ton on the these old
Birds) - this is a 390 question, not a Tbird question. BTW, the
engine has 81K on it, has had a complete head workup done - new
springs, lifters, push rods, valves, milling, etc.

I would appreciate opinions/help on either of the above...

Thanks,

===
Bill in Texas
'64 Thunderbird Hardtop
'64 F100 Shortbox

_____________________________________________________________________
Sent by RocketMail. Get your free e-mail at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.rocketmail.com

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:29:30 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine

> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Paul
> Subject: Security..my truck stay mine

> 4V, Np-435 4-speed, Dana 60 3.73. Has anyone put a on hood lock?
> What did you use? A large chain/lock is effective but crude and a

I put one on my van out of a 74 Merk. You just need a little
ingenuity to make some mounting brackets for the handle inside the
cab (or maybe I used that as well, can't remember), the latch bolted
right on as I recall. I used the whole latch mechanism and replaced
the van's with it. I imagine a truck version would be more likely to
fit but don't know for sure :-)

- -- 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: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:41:27 -0600
From: "Gene E. Bray"
Subject: Harmonic balancer

Re Edward Dunmyre's query, from Hemmings Motor News August 1997, harmonic
balancer rebuilders:
Winslow Mfg; 5700 Dean Ave; Raleigh NC 27604; 919-790-9713
Damper Dudes; 5509 Cedars Rd #2; Redding CA 96001; 800-413-2673 (orders)
or 916-244-7225 (info)
Damper Doctor; 1055 Parkview Ave; Redding CA 96001; 916-246-2984

Yesterday pulled a harmonic balancer pulley off a 360 or 390 cid FE family
engine to replace the tiny original on my 352 engine. It weighs about four
times as much and is thicker with a larger diameter and has a separate
pulley fastened by screws to the balancer hub (not cushioned). To match
this I felt it necessary take also the water pump pulley to keep same
relative rpm; the shorter crank spacer (between the balancer and oil
slinger on which the front seal runs) to keep the same axial location of
the accessory belt groove; the timing chain cover and pointer to provide
the reference point to allow accurate timing on the larger diameter timing
index; and one longer machine screw to match one changed boss on the timing
chain cover and allow proper attachment to the block. This means on the FE
family the conversion is not simple but it is easier than replacing the
engine due to a torsional vibration problem, if it works.

BTW, the NOS replacement I first attempted did absolutely nothing to reduce
the problem even tho my original dampener had badly checked rubber on the
exterior. A critical comparison of the two showed the key way to TDC
angles exactly the same within 1/10th degree. (I didn't use a flange-type
puller to remove.)

It would seem to me that replacing harmonic dampeners is not rocket science
as long as the mechanical issues above are addressed. That is to say it is
very unlikely that the spring constant (durometer) of the rubber and the
sprung mass is finely tuned to that of the engine beyond assuring that any
harmonic frequencies torsionally are above the engine rpm range. That
being satisfied, the dampener merely stores energy when the crank attempts
a short duration speed-up and releases that energy on the reverse short
duration swing. This keeps the crank from harmonic torsional oscillation
centered on the average short term RPM. Obviously the larger the cushioned
mass, the larger the energy storage capacity and the more capability it has
to manage firing impulse/torsional springiness situations.

This type of dampening has really noting to do with the spin balancing
commonly associated with tire/wheel combinations. Usually engine
components like the dampener, flywheel, crank shaft, piston and rod sets
(the latter matched by individual weights) are rotationally balanced by
drilling out metal in some perimeter, non-functional area.

I gather also that so-called mass balanced engines had some combination of
these components balanced as an assembly rather than individually, in an
attempt to reduce manufacturing costs. That approach does raise hell when
replacing individual components. I am not an automotive engineer so these
observations are merely based on common engineering principles. If any
list addressees with specific experience and knowledge in this harmonic
dampener area know I'm off-base with any of these observations, I'd welcome
corrective input.

Gene E. Bray (208)888-3293
gebray

primenet.com

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:46:18 -0400
From: BARRY PRICE
Subject: 300 to 302 conversion

Here's the plan, I currently have a 1965 F100 with an In Line six 300 CID
engine. I plan to drop a 302 in it's place but I would like to keep the
standard 3 spd transmission. Is this possible and what do I need to get
to finish this project? I know where I can get the Engine Mount
conversions, what I really need to know is what it takes to adapt the std
3 speed to the 302. (The shifter is on the column)

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:13:47 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: 76 F100 Question

> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:22:01 -0700
> From: Don Grossman
> Subject: Re: 76 F100 Question

> Except for the supercab's. The SuperCab was built on the F-250
> chassis and had a leafspring front end. The first year for the coil
> was the 65' BTW.

Which explains why the super cab has the F-250 steering box on it! and
the fact that F-250's have leaf springs explains why they also mount
on the inside of the frame instead of outside like the broncos and
f-150's of that vintage. Boy am I learning a bunch today!

- -- 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: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:22:13 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine

> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:31:29 -0500
> From: Kevin Lindstedt
> Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine

> My 1978 F150 came with a factory *locking*, i.e. key operated,
> inside hood pull - not sure it would fit your '75 but I'd think it
> should. Finding one might be another story :-)

Yes, I saw one on a bronco. Real heavy duty outfit and it's shown in
my service manual too. Maybe it can still be had from Ford? Don't
know.

- -- 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: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:39:03 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: RE: Suspension and 390s

> From: Kevin Kemmerer
> Subject: RE: Suspension and 390s
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:35:05 -0400

> chevy parts and it looked good and worked well. the arms are
> massive and are not castings - so they can be welded/cut/formed
> easily.

Why not use Ford Bronco radius arms, brackets and tracking bar?
You'd have to weld stuff on the axle housing in any case so why not
just weld on the Dana 44 stuff? I've actually been thinking about
this myself and even considered using a Dana axle with the spindles
locked in place somehow (not very practical but you could always go
to 4 wheel steering that way later :-))

OTOH, I've also been thinking about leafs up front..............

- -- 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: Wed, 20 Aug 97 14:43:17 EDT
From: AM14

chrysler.com
Subject: Harmonic balancer

351M/400M are balanced the same. Use the 400 harmonic balancer and forget it.
Everything between these engines are the same except Crankshaft & Pistons.
Next time - pull it off with the correct puller!!!!!!..

WORKING TO BE THE BEST
Azie Magnusson
PROFS ID (AM14):E-Mail AM14

Chrysler.com
Tie Line (835-2578):Outside (205)464-2578

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:47:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: TNickolson

aol.com
Subject: Re: Free Old/Antique parts catalog (Announcment 2 of 3)

Flat heads are easy to work on. Any good local machine shop can do all the
work that you might require. A excellent source of parts is Patrick's in Casa
Grande, Az. 602-836-1117 and your local NAPA shop. If you want to follow a
tried and proven plan of work just follow the guide lines in "Thunder Road
Flatheads" by Bill Sinclair or a book by Ron Bishop "Rebuilding the Famous
Ford Flathead" both books are excellent and easy to follow. They also have a
section on trouble shooting. Good luck.

Tom
1952 F1

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:50:01 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Harmonic balancer

>From: reedg

ns2.cetlink.net
>Subject: 351M
>How do I change a 351M into a 400?

You use a 400 crankshaft (0.50" longer stroke) and change to 400 (or
compatible) pistons. The 400 pistons have a shorter compression height
(pin CL
to top of piston measurement). All other 351M/400 components are
identical.

>From: "Edward Dunmyre"
>snip
>I have another from a 400 motor, can I use this? Will any others work?

The 351M and 400 use the same part for the harmonic balancer.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)
1980 F250 4x4 351M

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:56:11 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Harmonic balancer

> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:41:27 -0600
> From: "Gene E. Bray"
> Subject: Harmonic balancer

> not an automotive engineer so these observations are merely based on
> common engineering principles. If any list addressees with specific
> experience and knowledge in this harmonic dampener area know I'm
> off-base with any of these observations, I'd welcome corrective
> input.

I'd say you nailed it to the wall, Gene! My only concern was/is
whether a different grade of rubber might be used in different
applications or different weight dampers as you noted about the 352
for some attempt at harmonic syncing with the crank's torsion
characteristics but all FE cranks are probably similar in that
respect so maybe it isn't as critical as I thought.

Maybe the vibration is due to a crack or flaw in the crank or even
the block or even a bad engine mount or loose something or other?
Cracks do wierd things to harmonics and can set up their own set of
pulses etc.. Just a thought :-)

I suspect the clutch or transmission input shaft in my truck isn't
quite right and causing some vibration but I'm too lazy to open it up
and look right 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: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:36:08 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: 351M/harmonic balancer

>From: reedg

ns2.cetlink.net
>snip
>How do I change a 351M into a 400?

You use a 400 crankshaft (0.50" longer stroke) and change to 400 (or
compatible) pistons. The 400 pistons have a shorter compression height
(pin CL
to top of piston measurement). All other 351M/400 components are
identical.

>From: "Edward Dunmyre"
>snip
>I have another from a 400 motor, can I use this? Will any others work?

The 351M and 400 use the same part for the harmonic balancer.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)
1980 F250 4x4 351M

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jason K. Schechner"
Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Gary, 78 BBB wrote:

> > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:31:29 -0500
> > From: Kevin Lindstedt
> > Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine
>
> > My 1978 F150 came with a factory *locking*, i.e. key operated,
> > inside hood pull - not sure it would fit your '75 but I'd think it
> > should. Finding one might be another story :-)
>
> Yes, I saw one on a bronco. Real heavy duty outfit and it's shown in
> my service manual too. Maybe it can still be had from Ford? Don't
> know.

One of my Broncos has this and one doesn't. If anyone knows where
I can get a whole setup for the one without the lock let me know. It is
definately a good, solid setup.

- -Jason
79 Bronco (351M, C6, 33" BFG AT's) GRN GYNT - offroad monster
79 Bronco (400M, C6, 31" Wranglers) blue - road beast
95 Mustang GT - Eibachs, 3.55's, K&N, 13deg timing

- -----
Jason K. Schechner- Unix Sysadmin - Oracle Corp
check out www.cauce.org and help ban spam-mail.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:50:58 -0700
From: sdelanty

aol.com
Subject: Re: Security..my truck stay mine

I would also like to find out whether the inside hood latch will work on a
72' F-100

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:41:40 -0700
From: Dave
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-digest V1 #3

Is this how we send mail through this server?
Dave

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:19:45 -0500
From: "Kevin Lindstedt"
Subject: Drum Brakes - Help!

Hi all,

Just finished putting all new rear brakes on my 1978 F150. Put on new
wheel cylinders, new shoes, new spring hardware and new drums. Bled the
cylinders, got a firm pedal and buttoned everything up. However, one side
is now dragging excessively generating lots of heat. Took it back apart
tonite and compared dragging side versus non-dragging and discovered that I
have the linings on two different ways. Which is correct: long lining in
front (primary shoe), or in back (secondary shoe)? I looked at the old
linings and the last brake job was apparently done wrong also. I don't
want to glaze the new linings or worse yet, warp the drums. Thanks in
advance for your help.

Kevin
1978 F150 Ranger Lariat 460/C6 2wd (slowly rusting away....)

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

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 97 22:19:02 -0400
From: spowel4

ibm.net
Subject: Re: Drum Brakes - Help!

In , on 08/20/97
at 09:19 PM, "Kevin Lindstedt" said:

>Hi all,

>Just finished putting all new rear brakes on my 1978 F150. Put on new
>wheel cylinders, new shoes, new spring hardware and new drums. Bled the
>cylinders, got a firm pedal and buttoned everything up. However, one
>side is now dragging excessively generating lots of heat. Took it back
>apart tonite and compared dragging side versus non-dragging and
>discovered that I have the linings on two different ways. Which is
>correct: long lining in front (primary shoe), or in back (secondary
>shoe)? I looked at the old linings and the last brake job was apparently
>done wrong also. I don't want to glaze the new linings or worse yet,
>warp the drums. Thanks in advance for your help.

>Kevin
>1978 F150 Ranger Lariat 460/C6 2wd (slowly rusting away....)

Long lining in back
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
spowel4

ibm.net
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:39:45 -0500
From: "Donald R. Screen"
Subject: Re: Suspension and 390s

> the 4100, replaced the vacuum advance (AutoZone). Miss still there
> and a awfull knock (sounded like rods). Weeeell, disconnected the
> vacuum advance to check timing, dwell, etc, and the miss was not there
> when I came off idle. Came up to 3000 rpm, smooth as can be, no miss,
> no knock. Plugged the line to carb, jumped in and went for a drive.
> Smooth, good acceleration, no hesitation (for a 4500lb car with the AC
> on). What gives? This is a "dual advance" distributor and the
> mechanicals seem to be working just fine... What would cause the
> vacuum advance push the timing so far forward. The part number on the
> advance I got was correct even according to Ford. All other vacuum
> stuff is working fine (and Lord knows there is a ton on the these old
> Birds) - this is a 390 question, not a Tbird question. BTW, the
> engine has 81K on it, has had a complete head workup done - new
> springs, lifters, push rods, valves, milling, etc.
>
Have you checked the total timing? How many degrees total advance is
your setup producing...static (carb line unhooked) at idle should be
around 8 degrees BTDC, then mechanical as rpms come up should add about....

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.