Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:10:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V1 #175
Reply-To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-digest Thursday, August 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 175



=======================================================================
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:

Lists ["Paul G." ]
Re: Overdrive unit ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
[none] ["John F. Bauer III" ]
Digest Question [JonP27604 aol.com]
panasonic stereo console [jniolon uss.com]
Gross vs. Net HP [John Strauss ]
Re: fordtrucks-digest V1 #174 [flat-head juno.com]
Re: Econo Trannys ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Digest Question ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Gross vs. Net HP ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Sender unit ["Harvey, Blaine" ]
Re: Digest Question ["Payne, Kenneth" ]
1960 and older list ["Lee Hardy" ]
Re: Re: ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback [Ctrucknut aol.com]
Re: RE: 351C Horsepower Question [Ctrucknut aol.com]
Re: Peculiar gasoline question ["Dave Resch"]
RE: Question - Overdrive transmission options [Kevin Kemmerer
RE: Installing Solid Axle [Kevin Kemmerer ]
RE: 351C Horsepower Question [Kevin Kemmerer ]
RE: Gross vs. Net HP [Kevin Kemmerer ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:54:19 -0700
From: "Paul G."
Subject: Lists

I like the lists as now. Why? Because I find it interesting and
informative to read what others are doing to their trucks, since the
general theory applies to others of different eras...generally, this
list greatly increases my general knowledge of Ford Trucks, and if I was
on a list geared for my 55 panel, I would miss a lot of stuff.

Paul G.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:56:43 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Overdrive unit

> 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

With such a small engine the options are rather limited. If you keep
the 4.10's it will put you at 2851 rpm with stock 29" LT tires at 60
mph or 2506 with 33" tires. If you want to keep the grunt then you
have to go to an overdrive and most I've seen only give you .25 - .8
ratio increase over 1:1. A .8 reduction will give you the equivelant
of 3.30 which will put you at 2295 with 29" tires and 2017 with 33's
which would be lugging the heck out of that engine IMHO.

One possibility which comes to mind is the AOD with a high stall
converter (1500 rpm) and higher rear end gears but I don't know what
the overdrive on the AOD is so I can't get specific and I'm not sure
if the 240 has the same small block flange as the 300 I6 so it may
not even be an option, don't know.

What do your tires actually measure on the diameter? Does anyone
know what the overdrive ratio is on the AOD?

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:12:19 -0400
From: "John F. Bauer III"
Subject: [none]

I've got a 77 E250 4WD with a 460 and C6 and, like some recent posts,
looking for an overdrive solution for highway travel. I also have this
burning desire for a manual trans. I've looked over Advanced Adapter's
NV2500 swap with use of existing transfer case (have clutch pedal +
brackets, need pressure plate + also mention potential drive shaft mods) and
the total looks to be about $3000. Has anyone had any experience with
Advanced Adapters, either in a similar context or just plain general
opinions about the company? Don't want to get my heart and wallet set on
this exciting project and find I'm knee deep in expensive parts and bad advice!

Any comments either to the group or personally appreciated,
John
bauerjf ix.netcom.com

96 F150 302 daily driver
77 E250 460 4WD fun stuff, http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://bauer.simplenet.com/jbauer/van.html

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: JonP27604 aol.com
Subject: Digest Question

Ken
I do not know if any one else is having a problem with the digest list
but it seems they are not coming to me in order.

Example: Digest v1 #162 thru #168 came between 8/22 and 8/26 with no problem
Digest v1 #171 and #172 came on 8/27
Digest v1 #169 and #174 came on 8/28
Digest v1 #173 have not received yet

I am not complaining but it is hard to keep up with the conversations when
they are not coming in order. Do you recomend going to "Live" instead?

As for splitting the list. I vote to keep it the same for now unless
bandwidth is the problem. I have not seen that to be the case yet but I am
still new here.

Jon E. Purut
JonP27604 aol.com

1965 F100 Daily Driver
1965 F100 Parts Truck Hoping To Revive As F350 Super Duty
1970 Mustang Fastback
1993 Escort Wagon (wifes car)


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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: jniolon uss.com
Subject: panasonic stereo console

o.k. everyone look in the garage

I'm looking for an overhead console made by Panasonic several years..
for my 53 F-100 truck

there were several models but all had at least a stereo, equalizer and
dome light.

any information on these and or prices will be appreciated..-email me
here or at jniolon uss.com

thanks

john

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:52:41 -0500
From: John Strauss
Subject: Gross vs. Net HP

A lot of you guys are saying "net" horsepower is measured "at the rear
wheels." This is not correct I don't believe. Net horsepower can best be
described as "as installed in the vehicle". This means all accessories are
in place, stock manifolds are used instead of dyno headers, and the exhaust
is in place so that all losses are realized. But it's still measured at
the flywheel. If you measured at the rear wheels, then each available gear
ratio would have to get a different rating.


_
_| ~~. John Strauss
\, _} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight!

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:10:06 -0600
From: flat-head juno.com
Subject: Re: fordtrucks-digest V1 #174

A list for just us people with '60 and older trucks wuold be a really
cool deal!! It'd sure cut down on the amount of stuff I personally have
to wade thru.
Mike Wright

- ---The two Major items to
- ---come out of Berkeley are
- ---UNIX and LSD.
- ---This is probably not a coincidence.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:23:06 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Econo Trannys

> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:12:19 -0400
> From: "John F. Bauer III"

> I've got a 77 E250 4WD with a 460 and C6 and, like some recent
> posts, looking for an overdrive solution for highway travel. I also
> have this burning desire for a manual trans. I've looked over
> Advanced Adapter's NV2500 swap with use of existing transfer case

I've read articles which seem to imply that they have a good
reputation but no personal experience with them.

There is a new kid on the block in the form of the NV 5600 made for
medium duty trucks with a 600# input rating and 6 speeds including an
overdrive. I expect Advance Adapters to come out with adapters for
it soon but they already have adapters for the Dodge version of the
NV4500 which is a 5 speed rated at 450# or so but there are a few
little machining things you have to do to make it work on the 460.
They have a manual which explains every step of the procedure and the
whole thing will be under $3000 if I understood the details
correctly.

Another Ford option is the ZF 5 speed model no 547 which has the big
block bell housing and is made for the 460 with a 470# input ratiing
but it has a mixed reputation for not liking abuse and must be kept
full since it uses ATF. This is the transmission Ford uses on it's
HD light trucks and LD medium trucks right now with the 460 or diesel
engines coupled with the BW 1356 transfer case. Both are aluminum
housings but the two of them together will be around $3000 brand new
and will bolt right up with little or no fuss.

I've got a manual and thought that's what I wanted too since I had
always had autos and craved the REAL truck feel of the stick but
there is a lot to be said for a properly set up auto. Manuals are
NOISY! The whole drive train is cast iron and telegraphs every
little vibration to the floor board and shift levers etc.. It has
33's with a 3.5 gear and runs the 351M at 2139 at 60 which is about
right based on my 14 mpg economy. My 78 PU has the 460 and "wide
ratio" C-6 with 2.75 gears. With 29" tires it runs 1912 at 60 mph
and seems quite happy there at 12 mpg tho I suspect 2k or 2100 might
give me better mileage. It also has terrific get up and go from the
stops.

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:40:48 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Digest Question

> From: JonP27604 aol.com
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Digest Question

> Ken
> I do not know if any one else is having a problem with the
> digest list

Can someone explain to me what the advantage of the digest is? I can
see two possibilities, less disk wasted space due to larger file size
if you haven't partitioned your disk (I have no partitions larger
than 255 meg so I get a 2k file cluster) and fewer files if your mail
box has some kind of limit. Is there another reason?


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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:58:32 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Gross vs. Net HP

> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:52:41 -0500
> From: John Strauss
> Subject: Gross vs. Net HP

> realized. But it's still measured at the flywheel. If you measured
> at the rear wheels, then each available gear ratio would have to get
> a different rating.

It would also have to take into account the friction and inertia in
the transmission and rear end as well as rolling resistance of the
tires on the rollers which have a different effect than flat ground.

What you say has been echoed many times and is the correct
desctiption IMHO :-)

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

- -- Gary --

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:18:00 -0400
From: "Harvey, Blaine"
Subject: Sender unit

Anyone know where I can find parts for power steering assist
(non-integral) setup for a 76 4x4 full time F-250?

The worn part is attached ahead of a hydraulic unit with four hoses
connected. It is a ball end fitting into a socket type affair that is the
manual connect for the steering. Ford says no can supply. Any
suggestions would be appreciated.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:17:28 -0400
From: "Payne, Kenneth"
Subject: Re: Digest Question

>> Ken
>> I do not know if any one else is having a problem with the
>> digest list

Nope. I think your email server is giving them out of order. They're
coming in fine at home and work.

>Can someone explain to me what the advantage of the digest is? I can
>see two possibilities, less disk wasted space due to larger file size
>if you haven't partitioned your disk (I have no partitions larger
>than 255 meg so I get a 2k file cluster) and fewer files if your mail
>box has some kind of limit. Is there another reason?

1. Many systems limit the amount of email they'll store for a user.
An example is AOL: 100 messages. If you don't check your mail
often you could overflow your mailbox and bounce messages. Get
4 or more bounces and you automatically get unsubscribed.
2. Many people receive the list at work and cannot spend the entire
day wading through all the messages. The digest has an index at
the top, really handy.
3. Many people get it so they can archive messages easily.
4. Many members only read the list and don't post. Less email is
better for them.

There are many advantages to the digest. Digest members out number
live members (as opposed to dead??? :} ) by about 15%.

- -Ken

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:17:48 -0400
From: "Lee Hardy"
Subject: 1960 and older list

Hi Ken: I am all for a 60 and older list simply because the technology was
very basic back then and a question can be answered equally basically.
Todays advanced technology simply doesn't apply, and although well meaning,
many replies to questions asked are not applicable. Keep up the good work.
Our members are growing only because they are satisfied and are telling
others. Lee Hardy

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ctrucknut aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: ADMIN: Things in the works - need feedback

Hello,
I don't know about you guys but I think a third list would be great. I
think it would really help those of us who are more into pre-1957 Ford
Trucks.

- -Ctrucknut

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:31:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ctrucknut aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: 351C Horsepower Question

Dan,
The Edelbr*ck ad is probably referring to horsepower at the flywheel,
because the horsepower at the rear wheels would depend on the accessories,
rear end, gears, etc.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:40:01 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: Peculiar gasoline question

>Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 20:20:53 -0700
>From: sdelanty sonic.net
>Subject: Re: Peculiar gasoline question.

>However, the problem is that because a percentage of Your fuel is now
>oxygen it causes the motor to run leaner.
The way I read the gas FAQ, the main problem w/ oxygenates (including MTBE,
ethanol, etc.) is that the oxygen they contain simply makes their
hydrocarbon component unavailable for combustion -- it's pre-burned, if you
will. The oxygen contained in the MTBE is not available for combustion
either, therefore it doesn't contribute to "leanness."

>With modern EFI setups, the O2 sensors detect this leanness and
>compensate for it by widening the injector pulswidths to richen things
>back up again. The net result is that more fuel is burned, so gas
>mileage goes down, altho HP should stay the same.
The O2 sensor may be somewhat fooled by the presence of MTBE or another
oxygenate, but what I think is really going on is that the engine's power
output (monitored by the computer) decreases for a measured amount of fuel
(also monitored by the computer) so the system compensates for the loss of
power by increasing fuel input. (My right foot does the same thing
automatically when I'm running MTBE fuel in my truck, and my gas mileage
suffers accordingly.)

The reason engine power goes down for a given amount of fuel is because the
fuel itself has a lower specific energy (energy/mass) because of the
oxygenates, and therefore, the engine requires more volume (actually mass)
of fuel to produce the same power.

Whether carburetor or EFI, rich or lean is not the main issue. Although
there is a slight stoichiometry change w/ the oxygenate in the fuel
(thereby changing the ideal air-fuel mixture, i.e., lean/rich) it's the
specific energy of the fuel that makes the most difference -- it just
doesn't have the right oomph per gallon!

>Aackk!! 85 octane?? What are You burning, kerosene?
>I've not seen anything less than 87 here in CA.

Do you live near the coast, Steve? Here around Denver, at 5280 ft MSL
altitude (approx 1625 m), an engine's octane requirement would be 2.5 to
7.0 numbers lower, based on the formulas in the FAQ (-0.5 to -2.5 per 300
meters above sea level). The "regular" gas around here is 85 octane, 87-88
is mid-range, and premium is 91. A few places have that fancy shmancy 92
octane racing gas:-). At lower altitudes, gas stations should stock higher
octanes.

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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:39:35 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: Question - Overdrive transmission options

you want simple, cheap and functional? try changing the rear end gears.
that 460 will pull a tall gear easy. i use a c6, 33" tires and 3.50
gears, and the 460 has no trouble with it. if you have the room, and spare
tires, put taller tires on and that'll do alot for you right there. don't
forget to change the speedo gears if you change tire or gear ratios.

there are some 5 speeds that'll take over 400, (450 i think) lbs.ft. the
tremec and richmond 5 speeds do i thnk.

i saw an article in a 4 wheeler mag for a company that beefs up the ea4od
(or a4od?) to take the torque still retaining the lockup converter. anyone
else see this article? i remember calling for info, and then forgeting it
because the price was too high and i would still need to change drive shaft
lengths and some other smaller details would be custom made.

sleddog

- ----------
From: SuperMagot aol.com[SMTP:SuperMagot aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 1:41 PM
To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Subject: Question - Overdrive transmission options

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: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:57:10 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: Installing Solid Axle

solid axles are not really going back in time. the best sport utes use em,
and it is one reason i bought a dodge in 94. off road there are adv/disadv
to ind. or solid axles. in the end in my opinion, solid axles are the way
to go. besides, dana 60,70,80 axles are A LOT beefier than the 1/2 ton
axles. i have found that my 77 ford f150 4x4 wears tires great, but my 94
dodge destroys tires as fast as i can put them on the front! i can't seem
to fix this though. not sure what to do as all specs are on target. one
more reason i love these mid 70's fords so much! (even with a wheel
alignment by tape measure and a slightly tweeked frame!) i will never buy
a truck with indedpendant axles in front for any serious work or play.



- ----------
From: JonP27604 aol.com[SMTP:JonP27604 aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 7:42 PM
To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Subject: Installing Solid Axle

Why am I wanting to go backward in time? I guess the same reason Ford
did when they made the Solid Axle an opton on late model F350's and called
them Super Duty (look for them on any Ford New Truck lot). When you do a
lot
of hauling or towing the front of the truck is lifted causing to much
positive camber on the front tires with IFS systems. This causes the tires
to
wear mainly on the outside edges. If that is all you use the truck for
(i.e.
tow trucks) then count on spending a wad on tires since they wear out
faster.
In fact, reintroducing the solid axle was Fords responce to complaints from
tow truck operators for this very reason.

I will use the truck for some trailer towing but also I think it will
just look "Baaaaaadd." Think of it as "Retro Custom"


Jon E. Purut
JonP27604 aol.com

1965 F100 Daily Driver
1965 F100 Parts Truck Hoping To Revive As F350 Super Duty
1970 Mustang Fastback
1993 Escort Wagon (wifes car)









+-------------- 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: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:05:57 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: 351C Horsepower Question

you got it! any of these aftermarket companies give their hp ratings at
the flywheel. but, the also run perfect jetting, free flowing exhaust and
a big bell shaped thing ontop of the carb with no air cleaner. the temp is
held perfect and all variables are held stable (usually in the direction of
more power!)

also, there is more than one way to dyno an engine, for axample: the
engine can be pulled from low rpm at wot to max rpm accelerating the whole
way, or it can be held at certain rpm intervals(like every 500) under max
load at wot. these two ways give different "pictures" of the motor.
though i can't say how different.

another thing, ignition timing is run perfectly. they do many dyno pulls
(at edlebrock for example)` adjusting all variables till they get it
"right".

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dan Wentz[SMTP:dwentz earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 1997 1:33 AM
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: RE: 351C Horsepower Question

>the first thing to do is find out if the engine itself changed, or if only
>the advertised HP changed.

I'll do that. Makes sense to lose that much through the drivetrain. So
when I read the Edelbrock ads claiming to give me 400 HP if I use their
manifold, carb, cam, heads, headers, exhaust, and click my heels 3 times
really quick they'd probably be talking about HP at the flywheel, right?

~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






+-------------- 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: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:09:27 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: Gross vs. Net HP

this is as i understand it also. "as installed in vehicle."
chassis dynos are not used much, even though they really give the most usefull info.

sleddog

- ----------
From: John Strauss[SMTP:jstrauss inetport.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 1997 8:52 AM
To: Ford Trucks List
Subject: Gross vs. Net HP

A lot of you guys are saying "net" horsepower is measured "at the rear
wheels." This is not correct I don't believe. Net horsepower can best be
described as "as installed in the vehicle". This means all accessories are....

---

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.