Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:50:33 -0600 (MDT)
From: (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V1 #284

fordtrucks61-79-digest Tuesday, October 14 1997 Volume 01 : Number 284

Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961-1979 Trucks Digest
Visit our web site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
In this issue:

Ron's Bronco ["rons" ]
t98 trans ["JAMES MERLO" ]
Re: t98 trans [Don Grossman ]
79 E150 supervan [Bob Elliott ]
Difference between 360/390 (FT#282) [Alan Mittelstaedt
Splitfires vs. Champion Gold (FT#283) [Alan Mittelstaedt
Edelbroke/FE swap.. The final? chapter. []
Edelbrock/FE woes. Thanks... []
FW: electronic ignition [Tim Baker ]
Re: Cooling system question [ (marko maryniak)]
Re: 73 360/c-6 into 68 [ (marko maryniak)]
Re: Edelbrock/FE woes. Thanks... [Randy Collins ]



Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:50:07 -0400
From: "rons"
Subject: Ron's Bronco

Chassis # -------------U15SLFB4633
Rear axle bearing----Bower RB1579
GVWR-------------------6400 LBS/2902 KGS
Front GVWR----------2990 LBS/1356 KGS
Rear GVWR-----------3580 LBS/1623 KGS
Rims---------------------15 X 8 OJJ
Tires----------------------10-15C 35 PSI

This is the first time I have written for help but I have been reading
every post that has been received. Above are my 79 Bronco specs.
Is the G transmission a C4 and if so what will it take to replace it with
a C6?
What vehicles will have a C6 that fits mine?
I have removed the rear axle bearing on the left because it has failed. I
presume that the reason is the low fluid level of the rear axle assembly
which usually gets the left rear bearing first because of the crown in the
road. It's the first to go dry.
The axle is a semi-floating that is illustrated on page 169 of my Haynes
manual ( Ford Pick-ups & Bronco 1973-1979 ).
The problem is the rear axle is not what is supposed to be there. I have
taken home the bearings that the local company's have given me to replace
it with and they all are larger shafts than I have. Their numbers do not
match mine on the bearing race which is Bower RB1579. This number is on
the seal race pressed on the shaft. As usual the rear axle does not have
the info tag on it. HELP!
Really appreciate any help.
Ron--Bronco Lover


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:24:29 -0500
Subject: t98 trans

I have a t98 trans attached to a 62 292 y block. What are my options for
attaching this trans to different motor/bellhousing. A 351W would drop
like a charm into my truck and the t98 would support any build of the 351.
Being able to attach a 429 to this trans would be almost too much to ask.
"Everyone" seems to say that the t98 is "basically the same as the later
t18/t19 and NP435 (although I don't why the New Process would be similar).

I would like to keep the trans if possible and use it.
Jim Merlo


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 19:58:04 -0800
From: Don Grossman
Subject: Re: t98 trans

> I have a t98 trans attached to a 62 292 y block. What are my options for
> attaching this trans to different motor/bellhousing. A 351W would drop
> like a charm into my truck and the t98 would support any build of the 351.
> Being able to attach a 429 to this trans would be almost too much to ask.
> "Everyone" seems to say that the t98 is "basically the same as the later
> t18/t19 and NP435 (although I don't why the New Process would be similar).
> I would like to keep the trans if possible and use it.
> Thanks
> Jim Merlo

Just make sure that what ever motor you get for your truck that you also
pick up the correct bell housing for that block. The T-98 will live a
long and happy life with just a little bit of care. Basicly making sure
that the gear oil is changed regular and topped off. I do have a NP 435
just waiting for the big clutch rebuild and a NP205 just in case the
Spicer 24 ever buys the farm. ;)
- --
Don Grossman

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


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:30:00 -0500
From: Bob Elliott
Subject: 79 E150 supervan

I am new to this net, but I need to ask a few questions. I want to =
change my 5 hole 1/2t suspension to 8 hole 3/4 t. Is there any year 3/4t =
pu I-beam suspension that will fit? Is there any year 3/4t Van =
suspension that will fit? (I have a 77 3/4t pu parts truck)=20


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:25 -0700
From: Alan Mittelstaedt
Subject: Difference between 360/390 (FT#282)

> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 05:05:09 -0500
> From: "Donald R. Screen"
> Subject: Re: Difference between 360/390 (FT#278)
> > different crank, rods, and pistons. There should be a difference in the
> > cylinder head casting number. I have loaned out my FE book with casting
> > numbers for ID of the crank and heads, but here's a shot at it anyway.
> Alan,
> What's the name of the FE book that you have that shows casting numbers
> for IDing the crank and heads? My Ford FE library is growing steadily,
> but still don't have a book like this. Is it a factory shop manual?
> Got my Ford Red book from Only took about 3 days from
> ordering to receipt! Has great VIN, options, motor info...well worth the
> $8.71 price...shipping was $3.95. Answered completely my questions about
> what is included in the Ranger XLT package. Many of these list questions
> can be answered using this little book.
> Don
> Allen, Texas


I can't remember the exact name.. I think it's something like "How to
Hot Rod Big Block Fords" or something of that nature. It has a blue
cover, yellow title, and has a nice picture of a 428/Mustang engine bay
on the cover (I wish that was my car!). I got my copy at Champion's in
the literature section. It also has a section on the 385 series
engines. I wish I could get ahold of my dad.. he has it, and he drives
over the road. Won't be hearing from him for a while :-(. It has
crank, rod, block, head, and maybe manifold casting numbers. Lots of
good information, wish I could share it with you. Hope you can find a
copy, I'm looking for another, my dad likes mine too much! If I find
another copy, I'll post the ISBN number or other info to the list.


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:44:39 -0700
From: Alan Mittelstaedt
Subject: Splitfires vs. Champion Gold (FT#283)

> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:01:51 -0400
> From: Ken Payne
> Subject: Re: Tune up ideas (FT#281)
> >
> >..snip..
> >
> >> replace the plugs. What do you guys think about Splitfire Plugs? Are they
> >> worth the extra cost?? Would I be better off with the Champion Gold plugs
> >> for half the cost?
> >
> >Brett--
> >
> >I broke down and bought a set of S-fires for a 302 I had in a Merc, and
> >a SAAB (Slob?) 900. Only the 302 fared any better, and in only one


> The only really good way to test them would be to buy new Champions
> and Splitfires and test them both. The response you got from the
> Splitfires could have meant you just needed new plugs.

Agreed. The Champion Gold series were unavailable when I installed the
S-fires, but I will probably be trying them in my truck, for hoots. I'm
not gonna spring for S-fires again. Too little bang for the buck (the
very reason I recommended the C.G.'s, or NGK, Bosch, Autolite, AC, or

> I've met many a person who said "I put them in an it idled better,
> milage increase and throttle response was better." Then I find out
> they had 35,000 miles on the old plugs.

Me too. However, I did it as an experiment, and I only changed one
variable, the plugs. The Merc had a stock EFI 302, so fuel mixture was
out of my control, and I left the nitrous disconnected (just kidding, no
nitrous). I stayed with the same heat range plug (assuming that the two
brands correspond) also. The plugs I replaced (Champion resistor style)
had about 5K miles on them in the Merc, 3K in the SlAAB. The rest of
the ignition system was also freshened at the time of the previous plugs
in the Merc (new wires, cap, rotor, O2 sensor, checked timing) *before*
the S-fires were installed. The SlAAB (another EFI engine) got the
whole shootin' match with the S-fires, so results are not reliable as
data there.

Ken, do I make any sense now? I hope I am not sounding Altavozian!


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:14:10 -0700
Subject: Edelbroke/FE swap.. The final? chapter.

Well the '71 is back on the road again.

I spent this morning calling and/or going to various parts houses
looking for the right spacer to make the edelbrock carb work on my
new, fancy, doesn't-fit-so-good edelbroke manifold.
NOBODY had what I needed. A couple places normally stock them, but
were "out of stock". )-:
I even paid my buck and made a quick tour thru the local pick'n'pull.

An odd little parts/speed shop across from pick'n'pull said that they
make them at their other shop??? It's supposed to be $20.
He said He'd get me one and let me see it tomorrow...
Well, that's cool, but I need the truck desperately tomorrow morning,
so I still gotta do something today! I finally go home and do what I
should have done in the first place. Took a piece of 3/32" aluminum and
carved it to shape with the jig saw and die grinder, drilled some bolt
holes with the drill press, and punched out the intake bores with the
chassis punch set and finished them with the die grinder.
Voila! an adapter plate!
I put a gasket down on the intake, put my adapter on, another gasket,
then the stock pcv/spacer plate, one more gasket, then the carb.

It works fine now and I'm back on the road.
I got the timing set back to 9btdc (where it used to be happy), got
the carb idle mix screws readjusted and drove it a bit to warm it up.
Got the idle mix fine tuned a little better, than shut it down to
change the oil and get rid of any odd bits of trash and the little bit
of coolant that got down the valley when I pulled the manifold.

Went for a nice 30 mile drive to get some early impressions about
performance. It's definately different than before...

General impressions about this installation:

Well, as You know by now this wasn't an easy installation.
The ends of the ports were not really centered side to side with
respect to the heads. Not terrible, but not as good as a stock manifold.
They also needed a little work with the grinder to fix a few that
weren't very clean at the opening. After the preliminary die grind work and
a good cleaning, 2 coats of self etching primer and 3 coats of Ford blue
made it a thing of beauty.
During installation the pushrods didn't clear the manifold and needed quite
a little help with the die grinder. (and a pinhole welded up)
Two different stock manifolds have been on this motor with no problems,
but the
pushrod holes in the edelbrock weren't centered up correctly around
the pushrods. Some were fine, but others were off by 3/32"!! Thanks guys...
Also, the distributor hole is cut way bigger than the stock hole, and
is off center by over 1/16". I expect this to be an oil leaker. We'll see.
The little deal about needing a different carb spacer to make the edelbrock
carb fit cuz the stock spacer wont work was kinda icing on my cake.
That's just an excuse to con another 35 bucks out of people...


This manifold puts the top of the carb about 1-1/2" higher than the
stock manifold. This isn't a problem for me cuz there's lots of hood
height. It makes the carb idle mix and speed screws much easier to
access. That's cool. It also gives much more clearence between the
air cleaner and the duraspark/large cap distributor, which is a blessing.
It was very tight before.
One thing I hadn't thought about, was the taller manifold makes the throttle
linkage about 1" to short! Not a problem since my homade linkage has LOTS
of adjustment range. If You have an auto trans, something would have to
be done about the kickdown linkage length also...


Now mind You, I've only got about 30 miles on this thing, and I'm
gonna reserve final judgement until It's got 1K or so on it...

No obvious oil or coolant leaks yet. THATS good!
There is a definate improvement in low end/light throttle "crispness"
It has always been pretty good, but there is a smoothness and
responsiveness to small, quick changes in throttle angle that wasn't
quite there before. Performance from idle to about 1700 rpm is
smoother and pulls a little harder. Those 25 mph top gear (1000rpm),
part throttle roll-ons are crispier down low now. This is an improvement
on what was already quite acceptable.
Once You got to about 1800 rpm, this motor has always started to pull
quite good. From 2200 to 4500 it was very strong. It pulled pretty good
to 5K with the D4TE manifold.
Now it wakes up even more. From about 1700 up it really pulls good.
It definately has more torque in the 1700 to 4K range.
In top gear this is about 45-95 mph which is a nice place for it.
The edelbrock seems to make excellent power in the lower and mid range,
but then runs out fast. From 4300 to about 4700 it fades fast, and
definately isn't pulling as well as the D4TE as You aproach 5K.
Torque peak feels like it must be around 34-3500 rpm.
This is on my calibrated butt-o-meter mind You, so YMMV.

The "official" performance test:

I don't have any 1/4 mile times for reference, but I have a standard
"relative power" test that I use here. There is a freeway onramp
near here that is a long, maybe 1/4-1/3 mile, straight but quite
steep uphill onramp. It's in a fairly rural area. It has an arrow
at the bottom of the ramp (Da starting line..) and a lamp post at
the top, just as You merge on the freeway. (Da finish line)
The technique is to not flog it, but launch gently and roll it on nicely
in 2nd gear (T-18) pull it to about 4500, grab 3rd and pull to 5K then
grab 4th and see how many MPH You are doing as YOu pass the lamp post..
Now, I can't tell You how fast I go, in case it might be illegal,
but I could rate it, say, on a scale of 0 to 100... (-;
The origional 2-bbl referance was 76 out of 100.
The best 4-bbl D4TE with edelbrock 1405 (after proper jetting was achieved)
and all the duraspark/MSD trimmings was 88. (out of 100...)
Todays 3 efforts all yielded aprox 92 at the post! That's a pretty
substantial increase...
I'll have to make some more runs to confirm it, but it looks pretty
good for the edelbrock against the D4TE. I doubt it's making much more
total horsepower than the old setup, but the 1700-4000 rpm torque is
better, and that's where it gets used most.
Also, I spent quite a bit of time getting the carb jetted correctly
on the old manifold, and there may be some improvement to be had
with jetting now on a different manifold.

Was it worth it?

I dunno yet. On a performance/$$ basis... I dunno. maybe, Barely.
$229 + intake gasket set, carb gaskets, H2O pump gaskets,
silicone sealant, a can of motor cleaner, etc, and tax and this
is a $300 installation.
The fact that it weighs 55 lbs less than stock is certainly appealing.

The fact that the casting and machine work accuracy wasn't very good
pretty well sucked. It cost me lots of extra ugly work and frustration.
This manifold is a pretty thing, but not a very accurate one IMHO.

The performance appears to be generally better.
I'll know more about that after I've had a chance to tune it
better and I've driven it a while. (And be sure it's not gonna leak

Glad it's over for now,

Steve Delanty
"So many idiots, so few meteors."


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:47:01 -0700
Subject: Edelbrock/FE woes. Thanks...

A few people wrote back about my edelbrock woes and suggested that
maybe my FE was "odd" or that the heads may have had "incorrect"
machine work done.
Altho this is a valid question, and incorrect head machining *can* screw
up manifold alignment (I've seen examples of this), I believe this is not
the case here. I aquired this motor with 165,000 miles on it and I was
apparently the first one inside it. Crank and cylinder bores were still
standard and head gaskets were OEM. The valves and seats were very worn
but didn't appear to have ever been touched.
I don't believe this motor had ever had the heads off it before.
When I had the heads worked, the machinist milled the head gasket
surface .015" to clean them up. He also milled the INTAKE surface
.015" to make an uncut manifold fit correctly. He and I discused the
need for this before He did the work. (I was previously unaware of the
need to do this and He explained it to me...)
When the motor went back together, I put a D3TE 2-bbl manifold on it
which fit just fine. Later I changed to a D4TE 4-bbl manifold, which
also fit well. The valve cover gasket surfaces on the edelbrock match
up nicely with the gasket surface on the heads, so thats a good indication
that things are O.K. with that.

It's just everything else on the manifold was out of alignment.
I think whoever was working QC at edelbrock was havin a bad day.

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions, and for letting me vent
about all this. It's been rather frustrating to say the least.

Glad it's over,

Steve Delanty
"So many idiots, so few meteors."


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:56:18 +0100
From: Tim Baker
Subject: FW: electronic ignition

- ----------
From: Tim Baker
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 9:36 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: electronic ignition

I've used one similiar on my 69 cougar and mustang without a problem I =
like it a lot and very simple to use and install along with no parts =
that will wear or go bad---though on my 56 F-100 I am thinking about an =
all MSD ign. unless someone knows something bad about them. =20

- ----------
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 11:01 PM
Subject: electronic ignition

Hello. I am new to the list and wondered if anyone has bought and =
the electronic ignition kit JCW sells. The one I wondered about fits
completely under the distributor cap. If so is it any good or can I =
over to a Ford system? Mike Bigby 66f100 custom cab =20

+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
| Send posts to, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to|
+---------- Visit Our Web Site: ----------+


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:19:00 -0700
From: (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: Cooling system question

>At 10:44 PM 10/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>I am replacing the water pump on my 1978 F-150 351 V8 several months
>>after removing it. Does it matter which heater hose goes to which
>>connection on the firewall? One appears to come from the water pump and
>>the other from the engine block.
>>If it matters, which is which? Thanks.
>Doesn't matter. There isn't any sort of valve in the heater, just
>a small radiator.

But it does!!!!

I hooked mine up wrong when I first replaced my heater control valve and
heater hoses.

There is pressure at the manifold fitting, and suction on the water pump
fitting. Thus, the heater control valve should be on the hose between the
manifold and the heater core. That way, when you close the valve, the pump
'sucks out' the hot water.

When I hooked mine up wrong, I had the valve on the hose between the heater
core and the water pump. Therefore, there was always hot fluid in the
heater core and pressure in it. This caused my defroster and heater to work
contstantly in any position, even in summer. Very uncomfortable. Not to
mention that the heater control valve is built to take pressure one way and
not the other (tends to leak if you put it in backwards.

marko in vancouver
71 f250 4x4
67 merc m100


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:26:11 -0700
From: (marko maryniak)
Subject: Re: 73 360/c-6 into 68

>At 10:15 PM 10/12/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>Anybody know if a 1973 F100 with a 360/c-6 4x4 can be transplanted
>>into my 68 f100 4x4 that has a 302 np435 4x4 now...
>Everything ought to swap over with no problems. Are they
>the same bed length? You may have to change out the drive
Should be a no brainer. The type of transfer case will matter slightly.
Measure the propeller shaft from tranny to case. Better still, just get the
one from the automatic, as the splined flange may be different at the
transmission end. Then again maybe not. Check your transmission support

As for the frame, it should be identical, plus or minus a coupla drill holes.

Get the motor mounts for the 360. They'll probably be different. Only
other issue is the radiator. A 302 in a 68 sounds like a 'plant to me. I
woulda thought 352, but what do I know? What kinda radiator is in there?
Hopefully the old 3 core top n bottom tank model, if not let the list know
so we can debate if you have enough cooling capacity (it's been a slow day).

marko in vancouver
71 f250 4x4
67 merc m100


Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:18:53 -0700
From: Randy Collins
Subject: Re: Edelbrock/FE woes. Thanks...

I can vouch for Edelbrock's casting quaility. I have a pair of Jet -
Ski's that I like to play with and of course modify. My 750 Kawasaki
has an aftermarket pipe on it manufactured by a company called Factory
Pipe. Unfortuanatly, there is a problem with the aluminum section of
the pipe that tends to stress crack. So needles to say I have purchased
a few of these aluminum pieces. Well all of them I have tried have been
the poorest examples of casting I have ever seen Try to port match an
eggshape port to a round one. Pretty challenging. I finally called
Factory Pipe to complain about the castings and guess who the said did
those castings...EDELBROCK!!!

Randy Collins


End of fordtrucks61-79-digest V1 #284

Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979
Visit our web site:
ENDTAG; } ?>