Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:04:41 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V1 #173
Reply-To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-digest Wednesday, August 27 1997 Volume 01 : Number 173



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1979 And Older Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, 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: peculiar gasoline question ["Dave Resch"]
Re: Question - Overdrive transmission options ["Gary, 78 BBB"
Re: Question - Overdrive transmission options [Don Grossman
RE: 351C Horsepower Question [Randy Collins ]
RE: peculiar gasoline question [Tom Hogan ]
Re: peculiar gasoline question ["Mark Mech" ]
Re: Interior 51 ["Kevin" ]
Overdrive unit [Alan Mittelstaedt ]
Merc Trucks [Dave ]
ADMIN: Too many digests? [Ken Payne ]
Re: Tranny Grind [Ctrucknut aol.com]
ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback [Ken Payne
RE: peculiar gasoline question [DC Beatty ]
RE: Question - Overdrive transmission options [DC Beatty
Re: 68 Ford Brake swap???? [Don Grossman ]
Re: Question - Overdrive transmission options ["George Shepherd"

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:14:02 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: RE: peculiar gasoline question

I have to second Steve Delanty's recommendation to read the gasoline FAQ
at :



This is great! Anyone w/ a web browser and an interest in gasoline
internal combustion engines would be well served to read this!

A Note to Ken: You might want to consider a link to this site from the web
page. I believe it is just as informative as the "Snake Oil " articles you
have links to.

that increase the calorific content?>>

As for nitromethane, according to the articles in the gas FAQ, nitromethane
increases the volumetric efficiency of the engine because of its lower
stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (1.7:1). Nitromethane's specific energy at
stoichiometric ratio is a bit more than twice that of iso-octane (i.e.,
normal gasoline). Thus, to realize any benefit from burning "nitro" you'd
have to recalibrate your mixture from normal gasoline air-fuel ratio of
about 14:1 (i.e., rejet your carb).

>Could be. But is it possible that it is a more *efficient* motor fuel? I
am in
>Colorado and they force us to use this crap gas with MTBE added to it. I
guess
>it's extra oxygen. They used to switch to it only in winter but now I
guess some
>gas stations are using it full time so they can charge the higher price
full
>time.
Again, according to the gas FAQ articles, MTBE, ethanol, and other
"oxygenates" are used as octane enhancers to replace more toxic aromatic
hydrocarbons (evaporative emission problems) and, of course, lead.

The crap gas we use in CO is mandated because oxygenates are purported to
reduce the smog-forming tendencies of exhaust gases. The problem is that
oxygenates cannot contain the same specific energy content as gasoline
because they already have oxygen in their molecules. (The author of the
gas FAQ refers to them as pre-used hydrocarbons.:-)

>I knew right away when they would switch over to it as I seemed to use
more >gas for the same amount of driving.

As shown in the table that Steve copied in his original posting, ethanol
has less than half the specific energy of gasoline. MTBE and TAME (the
other two oxygenates I've seen around Denver) have about 3/4 the specific
energy of normal gas. In my 1980 F250 w/ 351M, I notice a painful
performance drop when I use gas with ethanol. MTBE and TAME run much
better in my truck.

> I was thinking that maybe I could mix some
>of the good gas with more of the crap gas (say, 10:1 or something) and get
>more mileage from a tank.

Actually, there are a lot of very complicated things going on w/ gasoline
blends. There are about 30 or so different hydrocarbons in gasoline, and
their ratios are constantly being tweaked at the refinery for various
production reasons and mandated regulatory reasons. Gasoline blends vary
from summer to winter (not counting the mandated oxygenates), for among
other things, to control the boiling point to prevent vapor lock in summer
(higher boiling point) and condensation in the winter (lower boiling
point). Therefore, it seems like it would not be a good idea to stock up
on summer gas to use in the winter, especially in a place that gets as cold
as it does in CO.

> My truck was designed to use higher octane gas I
>believe. I have been using about 85 octane.

By the way: the oxygenates do not adversely affect the octane of the gas.
(Remember, they also use oxygenates as octane enhancers.) Interestingly,
oxygenates tend to have very high octane values although they are low in
specific energy compared to normal gas.

If you're getting away w/ 85 octane, consider yourself lucky. My truck
takes 91 octane to keep from pinging and running on after the ignition is
turned off. And together we share that uniquely American joy of paying
more for a government mandated less at the pump all winter.

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:46:39 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Question - Overdrive transmission options

> From: SuperMagot aol.com
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:41:21 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Question - Overdrive transmission options

> I have a 70 1/2ton 2WD SWB with a 460 and a C-6. The rearend has
> 3.7 gears. At around 60mph, the engine is doing 3000RPM.

The cheapest solution would be to find a late 70's c-6 with the wide
ratio gear set and go to 3.00 or 3.5 gears. I'm running 2.75 gears
with 29" tires and wide ratio for roughly 12 mpg and lots of low end
take off torque in low gear. My feeling is that I could improve the
mileage with 3.00 gears but not really sure.

NV has come out with a new 5600 or 5200 6 speed manual for medium, HD
trucks which will be available from Advance Adapters soon and may
have bell housings etc. available for the 460 (we hope). It is rated
at 600# (cast iron case)

The ZF 547 is a 5 speed used in large engine ford trucks and is rated
at 470# but uses ATF and is not noted for longevity (al case). It
has the big block bell housing already built in.

I try to get my gearing set up for the road to give me roughly 2k to
2100 at 60 by what ever means. My bronco with 351M is at 2139 and
gets 14 (roughly).

The swift of foot and slow of wit
have more off road experiences

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:56:21 -0700
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: Question - Overdrive transmission options

SuperMagot aol.com wrote:

> I have a 70 1/2ton 2WD SWB with a 460 and a C-6. The rearend has 3.7 gears.
> At around 60mph, the engine is doing 3000RPM.
>
> Thats just a little to high for me, especially for such a light truck and a
> big engine.

Pull out the third member and drop in one with a set of 3.0 and leave
your trany alone. This sounds much easier than a trany swap.
- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net


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

Phase 172: rebuild front suspension

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:37:19 -0700
From: Randy Collins
Subject: RE: 351C Horsepower Question

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCB30E.4B1F7C80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Don't' forget that the post 1971 models came with a retarded timing gear.


Randy Collins
Boise, Idaho
rcollins micron.net

1975 Ford F250 4WD Supercab "Muscle Truck"
Soon to have the following Randy installed options:
460 C-6



- -----Original Message-----
From:SARHOG aol.com [SMTP:SARHOG aol.com]
Sent:Wednesday, August 27, 1997 2:39 PM
To:fordtrucks ListService.net
Subject:Re: 351C Horsepower Question

Dan posted:

I was just looking through an old Chilton's manual when I noticed something
odd. In 1971 the 351C 2V was rated at 240 HP, which is about what I'd
expect. But then in 1972 (the year I have) HP was only 164!!! Did they
add a bunch of emissions stuff in 72 to rob over 70 horses? Or did they
start measuring HP some other way? I mean, 76 horses is a lot--where did
it go?

~Dan

Your second guess is correct. They used to measure gross horsepower right
off the flywheel with little or no accessories (i.e. alternator, AC
compressor, etc.). Then, due to insurance rates I think, they went to
measuring net horsepower at the rear wheel with accessories. A little of
this is speculation on my part, so y'all feel free to jump in.

John Z
67 F-100 460/C-6




- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCB30E.4B1F7C80
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCB30E.4B1F7C80--

+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1979 and Older --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks listservice.net, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks-request listservice.net |
+-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:37:33 -0700
From: Tom Hogan
Subject: RE: peculiar gasoline question


Could be. But is it possible that it is a more *efficient* motor fuel? I
am in
Colorado and they force us to use this crap gas with MTBE added to it. I
guess
it's extra oxygen. They used to switch to it only in winter but now I
guess some
gas stations are using it full time so they can charge the higher price
full
time.

I knew right away when they would switch over to it as I seemed to use
more gas
for the same amount of driving. I was thinking that maybe I could mix
some of
the good gas with more of the crap gas (say, 10:1 or something) and get
more
mileage from a tank. My truck was designed to use higher octane gas I
believe. I
have been using about 85 octane.

Thanks,

DC Beatty

1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302



I live in California and we have to use that *#$%^^* !!!)(* $$$#&! #$#$
gas too. I've heard that it is supposed to reduce emissions, but if our
mileage goes in the toilet and we have to burn more of the stuff then
aren't we at best negating any benefit or worse putting more of other
pollutants in the air? I read that MTBE reduces only certain pollutants
not all of them which would support my theory. I also remember hearing
that now the noxious stuff is leaching into our ground water. GREAT now
I can watch tumors the size of baseballs growing on my kids while I pay
more for #(*^&$%*&%>> ? ! &^$# bleeep bleep explicative deleted gas
that does not take me as far so that I can buy more of the crap!!!!
AUUUUGH!!
I'll end with:
MTBE SUCKS!!
The companies that make it SUCK!!
The stations that sell it SUCK!!
The regulatory agencies that make us use it SUCK!!
We need to start a grass root campaign to get this garbage removed from
our fuel!!

The preceding rant was brought to you courtesy
Tom H.
Support me if you can... Flame me if you must.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:16:02 -0700
From: "Mark Mech"
Subject: Re: peculiar gasoline question

We use this *%*&%^&% in Az. too.
It vaporlocks and in addition to being less efficient, you need to richen
your mixture futher defeating it's purpose. The emmissions that are reduced
are not dangerous and recent info says that it increases the emission of
NOX or is that NOS which is definately more dangerous. We need to get
enough people with enough documented problems to start a class action suit
against there states and the feds. The corn lobby has a great deal to due
with the gasahol in the north.
The mtbe isnt as bad for your engine but it still sucks.



Mark Mech
1913 E. El Parque
Tempe, Arizona 85282
aerofoam earthlink.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~aerofoam/

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:11:32 -0000
From: "Kevin"
Subject: Re: Interior 51

After some research, the headline in question is 7 pieces

- -----Original Message-----
From: billjhs
To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 11:43 PM
Subject: Interior 51



>Hello,
>
>My 1951 F-1 has no cardboard interior, Does anyone know how many pieces
>the headliner comes in ??? Is is a headliner, quarter panels below the
>headliner, a piece under the window and two pieces below the window ??
>Thanks
>Bill
>1951 f-1
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1979 and Older --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks listservice.net, |
>| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks-request listservice.net |
>+-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+
>

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:47:05 -0700
From: Alan Mittelstaedt
Subject: Overdrive unit

I have a '68 F-250 with a 240/4-speed with granny low. The rear end is
a Dana 60 with 4.10 gears. My question is this: Are there any
reasonably priced overdrive units that can handle decent amounts of
torque? I like the low end grunt that the 4.10's and g-low provide me
(even with a 240!), but I would like to be able to drive on the highway
without winding the truck out completely, and save a little engine
wear/gas. Obviously the 240 is not a King Kong motor, but I don't want
the OD unit wearing out or breaking prematurely due to a poor design,
after a mild tow or load. Thanks in advance for any input.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:41:24 -0700
From: Dave
Subject: Merc Trucks

I own two Merc pickups, a 53 and a 54. I was wondering if anyone
>knew how many were made during these years. Any other good
>information would be interesting also. It is very hard to find
anything on
>Mercs!!
>
>Dave Lewis

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:48:30 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Too many digests?

The digest is very configurable. How to you guys/gals like the
frequency of it? Too often? You'll also notice that a digest
always comes at 4:00am, I can't change this.

- -Ken
List Administrator, 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8
Our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ctrucknut aol.com
Subject: Re: Tranny Grind

The synchronized transmission was not used until 1953. The transmission in
the pre-1953's are a spur-type.

Hope This Helps,
Ctrucknut

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 21:40:38 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback

1. CGI script being tested which will let us randomly
rotate banners submitted by members.
2. CGI script which allows us to have password protected
web pages. Many possible uses of this.
3. Many new web pages being tested.
4. New user survey form being tested. This time the
user survey results will go on the web site (just the
year/model/engine)
5. New voting form for a split into 3 lists! I've received
a few emails about the possibility of this. It was
suggested that we split along these lines:

a) 1959/60 and older trucks
b) 1960/61-1979 trucks
c) 1980 and newer trucks

A diesel split was also suggested. The user survey should
give a indication of which split makes the most sense or
if two new lists makes sense. This new list server costs
less than the previous one so we can afford it. Current
lists would keep the same addresses.
6. Domain registration. This would allow us to have an address
independent of any provider - no more tracking down links to
the site if we change web providers.
7. A couple of people mentioned helping out with the administration
of the lists. Thanks! But.... the new list server cuts my
administrative tasks from about 50 chores per night to about 10.
Its no longer eating all my time.

Please let me know what you think, either via the list or send
private email to me. I especially want to hear about what everyone
thinks about a 3rd (and possibly 4th) list. Be patient if you
expect a response, given the history of these types of issues
my mailbox will probably get flooded.


- -Ken
List Administrator, 1967 Ford F100, 390FE V8
Our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

Date: 27 Aug 97 22:33:32 EDT
From: DC Beatty
Subject: RE: peculiar gasoline question

You Wrote:

government mandated less at the pump all winter.>>

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

God save the Queen!! Or however that goes.
Thanks Dave. I'll check out that site.

DC Beatty

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

Date: 27 Aug 97 22:33:30 EDT
From: DC Beatty
Subject: RE: Question - Overdrive transmission options

Will an AOD go in there?

Just a thought,

DC Beatty
1967 F-100 352
1974 Maverick 302

I am wondering if anyone outhere has any ideas for an overdrive transmission
solution. Let me first tell you what I have, and what I know.

I have a 70 1/2ton 2WD SWB with a 460 and a C-6. The rearend has 3.7 gears.
At around 60mph, the engine is doing 3000RPM.

Thats just a little to high for me, especially for such a light truck and a
big engine.

Heres options I have seen, and my comments....

Ford E4OD Tranny - Big, heavy, expensive, needs a computer to work.
A40D Tranny - doesnot fit a 460, and would probably break
Aftermarket 5 or 6 speed - would be nice, but I havenot seen any that handle
much more than 400 ft-lbs of torque. (I'd
probably break it)
I have heard of the additional gear boxes you can buy that stick on the end
of the
C-6. I have done research on these, and found that they are expensive, need
alot of maintenance, and I havenot found one that gives more than .7
overdrive.

So my question is...does anyone know of any other solutions?
Is there an aftermarket company that provides a 4-speed auto? Or maybe a
conversion of the A4OD? Or a non-computer version of the E4OD? Or a beefy
orverdrive manual that will work?

Thanks for your assistance!!




+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1979 and Older --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks listservice.net, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks-request listservice.net |
+-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:39:32 -0700
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: 68 Ford Brake swap????

Joe DeLaurentis wrote:
>
> Would a 73-79 150 or 78-79 Bronco Dana 44 front axle swap in a 68 f100??
> So i would get the better axle then the 30 plus disc brakes...????
> Joe

I was looking some things up and didn't find that Ford used the Dana 30
in the front of fullsized truck. They used the Dana 30 in the early
Bronco. double check that front end again. And set me straight.

- --
Don Grossman
duckdon pacific.net


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

Phase 172: rebuild front suspension

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 22:04:41 -0500
From: "George Shepherd"
Subject: Re: Question - Overdrive transmission options

There is no none computer version of the e40d other than the aod. Several
firms offer throttle position sensors for various carbs to allow e40d
computers to work with non fuel injection systems. Same firms offer bullit
proof input and output shafts as well as heavy duty clutch packs and bands.
E40D's can handle a beefed up 406. I though a 460 bolt pattern aod existed,
but I never actually checked it out.

- ----------
> From: SuperMagot aol.com
> To: fordtrucks ListService.net
> Subject: Question - Overdrive transmission options
> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 4:41 PM
>
> I am wondering if anyone outhere has any ideas for an overdrive
transmission
> solution. Let me first tell you what I have, and what I know.
>
> I have a 70 1/2ton 2WD SWB with a 460 and a C-6. The rearend has 3.7
gears.
> At around 60mph, the engine is doing 3000RPM.
>
> Thats just a little to high for me, especially for such a light truck and
a
> big engine.
>
> Heres options I have seen, and my comments....
>
> Ford E4OD Tranny - Big, heavy, expensive, needs a computer to work.
> A40D Tranny - doesnot fit a 460, and would probably break
> Aftermarket 5 or 6 speed - would be nice, but I havenot seen any that
handle
> much more than 400 ft-lbs of torque. (I'd
> probably break it)
> I have heard of the additional gear boxes you can buy that stick on 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.