Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:51:13 -0700 (MST)
From: (fordtrucks61-79-digest)
Subject: fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #163

fordtrucks61-79-digest Thursday, March 19 1998 Volume 02 : Number 163

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:

Re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match? [Mike Schwall ]
Re: Intro ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Dana 60-2's [BDIJXS ]
RE: 351s, strokes [Sleddog ]
Re: King pin sizes. ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
Re: Brake Hoses ["Dennis K. Austin" ]
T-Birds and FE's [Tyler Wilkins ]
Re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match? [CandyDMan ]
Re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match? [CandyDMan ]
RE: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft [Randy Collins ]
Re: Brake Hoses [Ken Payne ]
FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft [Tyler Wilkins ]
Intro and Throttle Linkage?? [CLARE WATERMAN ]
Loooking for guy with 390intake F/S [Joe DeLaurentis ]
Re: Intro and Throttle Linkage?? [GMPACHECO ]
78-79, F350 front driveshaft ["Michael R. Masse" ]
Throttle Doohicky [Pat Brown ]
Re: restrictor plugs [sbest ]
RE: 351s ["Chris Samuel" ]
Engine Wars?? ["Chris Samuel" ]
Re: 302 to 351W swap [Serian ]
Re: 302 to 351W swap [Serian ]
351W parts [Serian ]
Re: Loooking for guy with 390intake F/S ["Garry & Molly Catalano"
Re: 460 noises ["Ron" ]



Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 16:02:17 -0600
From: Mike Schwall
Subject: Re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match?

>I tried to do the same thing with my '78 F150 302. The clutch that is used
>with the T-5 works the opposite of the stock truck clutch. The truck
>clutch pushes on the clutch fork, the T-5 (as used in mustangs) pulls on
>the clutch fork.

As Gary pointed out, changing the truck clutch disc to match splines will
enable you to keep the stock clutch linkage, etc. Been a long day for me :)



Home Page:


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:15:43 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Intro

> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:44:46 -0800
> From: sdelanty
> Subject: Re: Intro

> I made a "puller" for mine.
> My steering wheel has two 5/16" fine thread (5/16"-27?) bolt holes

Believe it or not a vibration damper puller will work too. You just
need to get the right size bolts and some flat washers. Just barely
makes it but it does! :-)

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:18:15 EST
Subject: Dana 60-2's

Hey Dana People,

Does anyone else here have a Dana 60-2 rear axle (semi-floating)? I have one
with a 5-lug pattern (1/2 ton). I would like to put bigger brakes on it, or
disc brakes...but none seem to be available. Dave R. and I are thinking that
maybe the 60-2 sitting at a local junkyard out of a 3/4 ton might be the same
housing, except with the bigger brake drums. We were thinking that maybe I
could slide my 5-lug axles into this newer unit, but this still leaves me with
the problem of finding bigger 5-lug brake drums.....

Any ideas here???

Hey OX, your Dana 60 front axle project sounds awesome!


Colorado Jeff


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:16:20 -0500
From: Sleddog
Subject: RE: 351s, strokes

well gary, long strokes need alot of breathing ability to make rpms. a 400
with a 4.125 (chevy) bore and 3.75 stroke needs a lot less breathing
ability at any specific rpm than say a 400 cid with 3.870 bore and 4.250
stroke. (olds) i chose these extremes as an example because the ford falls
in the middle.

so, the monster 460 blocks (500 - 600 and bigger) have a set of aftermarket
heads on them to get them to breath. yes, you can build 514 cubes with the
standard heads and still make power, but not at higher rpms. the bigger
engines need heads that flow around 380+ intkake & 270+ cfm exhausts or
more to turn the higher rpms.

basically, piston speed doesn't have much to do with the powerband - it is
all in the breathing ability. piston speed is only an rpm limiting factor
and even still, with modern parts, very high piston speeds are usable.


- ----------
From: Gary, 78 BBB[]
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: 351s, strokes

Yeah, 0.150" of stroke isn't much compared to .360" more bore. Ya
can't beat cubes for more power, no way, no how :-) Longer strokes
mean higher piston speeds so torque motor is all you can make it.
Course ya see 500 - 600 460 (429) stroker motors that have more than
4" stroke and make big revs too, so how do you reconcile that?

78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6, 235's
78 Bronco 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
78 Lincoln Town Car, 460, C-6, 19.5' long!

- -- Gary --


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:28:20 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: King pin sizes.

> Ken,
I think there must be some confusion. I sat down at Kennedy Auto Parts
with one of the old timers and discovered that there were many different
sizes of Ford Truck king pins in diameter and length. Also, the
location of the "key" to retain the king pin is also cut in different
lengths. On some years there were several different sizes available.

The first set of king pins for the '74 given to me was MOOG #8524N which
did fit the spindles and the I-Beams. However, the key was in the wrong
place. So, we switched to MOOG #8496N which stated it was for the
'65-'66 Ford truck. The diameter was the same according to the parts
catalog. All I can say is that it worked. My spindle are very smooth
and turn without any binding or vibrations. I would suggest that jce
spend sometime with an old timer at his local parts counter and do some

- -=DENNIS=-
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:17:53 -0500
> From: Ken Payne
> Subject: Dennis K. Austin: Fwd: disc brake conversion
> Dennis K. Austin or anyone else who can answer this,
> This question came to me regarding the 65-72 disc brake
> conversion guide. Since I don't have a 65 and have only
> done this conversion on a 67 & a 68 I can't help this person.
> Could you or anyone else offer them some advice? Post it
> here and cc to them ( By putting it here we
> all gain the knowledge.
> Thanks,
> Ken
> >Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:18:40 +0000
> >From: Ken Smith/Jennifer Nall
> >Reply-To:
> >Organization: World Ford / Hollywood
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
> >To:
> >Subject: disc brake conversion
> >
> >to kenneth payne--
> >
> >regarding the special instructions for the
> >1965 conversion, you state to use the 73-79
> >spindles using the 65 kingpin set. The 1965
> >kingpin sets are .8592 in diameter and the
> >73-74 pins are 1.2305 in diameter. Please
> >clarify the conversion.
> >
> >please email o thanks for your help.
> >Steve Tokarz


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:37:57 -0600
From: "Dennis K. Austin"
Subject: Re: Brake Hoses

I did run into one little problem about the brake hoses on the
conversion, maybe you did too, but forgot?. (Weather has been bad
here...keeps on raining.) The '74 hoses fit everything fine, BUT I need
about two more inches in length. I hand turned the spindle to duplicate
a sharp turn and the hose started to stretch. I sure would hate to pop
one off in a tight turn. So, I am off to the parts place here again to
see if I can get another set that is a bit longer. Maybe there is a
difference in length for a 4x4 even though I am not building a 4x4. If
I find it and it works I will send you the brand and part number to add
to the article.

- -=DENNIS=-


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:53:37 -0600
From: Tyler Wilkins
Subject: T-Birds and FE's

Hello all! My hard-drive crashed the day after I told you all about the
T-Bird I was planning to buy, so I haven't gotten any of my e-mail since
I sent my last one, so I have missed any posts that may have been
adressed to me.

Since then I have gotten in touch with the owner through much searching
to get a phone number (the realator was absolutely NO HELP!). Anyways
here is the new info. He told me I could have the car for $400 (Not
that I have $400 right now but hopefully i'll be able to get it before
next week when he puts it in the paper, NO!!!)! Which isn't too bad.
He said he had a wholesale guy offer him $1000 last summer but he hasn't
started it since summer so he said $400 as is with no gaurantees that it
will even move. Whats even better is that the motor (390 4v) was
rebuilt about 30K ago. And the car recieved a serious overhaul just
before it began to sit. The floor is shot in it but the visible body
has not a spot of rust on it. (Although it could use a serious wash
job!). I have pictures of it but need to get them scanned if anybody is
interested in seeing it (it ain't the prettiest T-bird made but it is
still a cool car). Anyone have a scanner? I hope to have it soon......
Just thought I'd fill you all in. One correction from my earlier post,
it isn't a ragtop as in convertable, I don't know why i said that, it
simply has a black vinyl top.

Ford Truck Content:
I have a few pairs of truck 390 headers in my garage from past trucks i
have parted out, think these would work on the T-bird? I have a feeling
they wouldn't but i thought i'd ask anyways. I have a feeling they
would hang down too low.

Tyler Wilkins

'73 F-250 4x4 360, 4-speed, 33" BFG Muds
'79 F-100 4x2 400 "Under Construction"
Coming soon to a garage near me....... 1967 T-Bird 390 factory power
doors, locks, and AC!!!!!!


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:04:03 EST
From: CandyDMan
Subject: Re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match?

In a message dated 98-03-19 15:49:52 EST, you write:

bolt pattern in the 302 at one point so make sure you get the later >>

This odd bolt pattern was in the 1965 1/2 an earlier 260/289. The early
models had five bolts in the bell housing, while the newer ones have six.

Dennis Candy


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:13:10 EST
From: CandyDMan
Subject: Re: T-5 & 78 I6, will they match?

In a message dated 98-03-19 16:56:08 EST, you write:

pulls on the clutch fork.

You could always use a hydralic clutch to get around this problem.

long behind a 300 six, unless you drive like an old lady and don't tow
anything heavy.

There is also an upgraded, "Super-Duty" T-5 available from Motorsport (Part #
Not sure if it would work all that well in your Econoline. The Gear Ratios
are as follows 1st-2.95, 2nd-1.94, 3rd-1.43, 4th-1.00, 5th-0.63
This transmission is also in the over $1000 price range!!

Best bet if you want Overdrive is to convert to a Pre-86 (no computer) AOD
transmission. I'm on a search for one of them for my Dad's truck.

Dennis Candy (Candyman)
1970 F250 Crew 4X4
1964 Merc Comet (almost ready for the road, again!)


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:11:52 -0800
From: Randy Collins
Subject: RE: 78-79, F350 front dirveshaft

I have been told that the 78-79 F350 front driveshaft did not have the
double cardan joint that the bronco (and maybe F-250) did. If this is
true?? If so, I assume that it is because the F350 had the dana60 front and
could not fit the double cardan.
I am in the process of welding radius arm mounts (froman old dana 44 front)
to a 79 dana60 front, to put in my 78 Bronco. I need to know about the
driveshaft to know if I need a straight DS to pinion angle (using double
cardan) or the same angle as the DS to transfer case flange (not using
double cardan).
I have also been told the U-joint size on the front DS is the same for
F150-F350. Anyone know for sure??

Funny you should post this at this time. Actually it's not very funny at

I am in the process of installing the drive lines in my project Ford. The
project truck has a 77 1/2 to 79 F250 4WD front frame rails grafted to it.
The front end holds the late model style reverse rotation Dana 44 and has
a C-6 with the married type 205 behind that. When I put it together I used
the SHORT transmission to transfer case adapter. The drive line that was
on the donor truck (F250 77 1/2 to 79) had the cardan type front drive
line. Guess what? The cardian joint won't clear the C-6 oil pan. I tried
turning the drive line around so the cardan joint is at the differential
but the angle is too steep and the drive line won't turn.

When I talked to my drive line guy he said he didn't think the trucks with
the reverse rotation differentials and married 205's had cardan joints.
Maybe not but because my truck has been lifted I have no choice but to use
one. The current plan it to try to locate a yoke for the differential that
is shorter this will move the cardan joint closer to the transfer box. I
hope that this and a little grinder work on the C-6 case will give me the
clearance I need.

I'll know in a day or so if this works.

Moral of the story...use the long adapter...even if it means that new drive
lines must be made.


Randy Collins
Boise, Idaho

1975 Ford F250 4WD Supercab "Muscle Truck"
Short Block Completed...Stage II head work


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:40:21 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: Brake Hoses

At 06:37 PM 3/19/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I did run into one little problem about the brake hoses on the
>conversion, maybe you did too, but forgot?. (Weather has been bad
>here...keeps on raining.) The '74 hoses fit everything fine, BUT I need
>about two more inches in length. I hand turned the spindle to duplicate
>a sharp turn and the hose started to stretch. I sure would hate to pop
>one off in a tight turn. So, I am off to the parts place here again to
>see if I can get another set that is a bit longer. Maybe there is a
>difference in length for a 4x4 even though I am not building a 4x4. If
>I find it and it works I will send you the brand and part number to add
>to the article.

You did it too? Turn your calipers over. I put them on upside
down and they wouldn't reach. Its easy to do. Make sure the
hose connection is near the axis of the spindle inside of the
outside. This will give you about 2-3" extra. I was boneheaded
enough to purchase some custom hoses that would reach, got under
the truck and realized what I did. Unfortunately, you can't return
custom hoses.



Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:49:21 -0600
From: Tyler Wilkins
Subject: FE Oil Pump Priming Shaft

Anyone have a Oil Pump Primimg shaft they would want to sell or borrow
me? I'll pay for shipping to me and back plus $5 or something if I can
borrow it. The local parts shop wants $87 for one! They want like $8
for one for my 351M. Whats up with the high price for the FE one?
Anyways let me know, I know I could always make one, anybody made one
that has any suggestions on the best way to do it?

Tyler Wilkins


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:00:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Intro and Throttle Linkage??

Hello Guys

I've been lurking now for about a month. now ive got a problem that i
think you experts can help me out with so this is a good opportunity to
de-lurk myself ans see if i can get some help.

Ive got a 71 f250/360/c6 daily driver that i love. Im in the midst of
converting it to a 4v and am putting in an edelbrock performer carb. The
intake went in fine, but now im having throttle linkage problems.

the way the original autolite 2100 worked was that it required a "pushing'
force on the throtttle lever to open the throttle. since stepping on the
gas pedal basically results in a "pulling" directed force, the stock
linkage served to introduce a lever that converted the pull of the gas
pedal to a push on the throttle to open it up.

well, in spite of the fact that i got the ford throttle lever kit, the
edelbrock throttle lever will never work with the original linkage. why?
because opening the edelbrock throttle requires a "pulling" force on the
lever. thus, there is no need for the linkage that converts the pull of
the gas pedal to a push on the throttle.

so the question is: can i construct a rod that directly connects the
throttle lever on the carb to the gas pedal connection? what about a
cable connection between these two? am i retarded?

let me know if y'all have an easy solution!



Clare M. Waterman-Storer, Ph.D.
Department of Biology
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC, 27599


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:15:20 -0500
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: Loooking for guy with 390intake F/S

I'm looking for the guy who I'm supposed to meet at Spring Carlisle
to pick up the 390 Manifold..I dont have your email address...
- --
Aka. Fordguy
1968 F-100 4x4 302 Np435 Bone Stock down to the wheel covers
1970 F-250 4x4 390 Np435 The Beast


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:19:11 EST
Subject: Re: Intro and Throttle Linkage??

Used the same setup(straight rod) I have a picture if you are interested..

Mike in Seattle


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:15:44 -0600
From: "Michael R. Masse"
Subject: 78-79, F350 front driveshaft

This isn't going to answer your question directly but here is what I do
know, and it may give you some insight.

I bought a used rear driveshaft from a '79 Bronco at a boneyard to
replace the one on my '78 thinking to myself "no problem, direct swap."
Turns out that is a no go. Ford switched things around inbetween those
years. The U-Joints on the 79's are considerably larger then the 78's.
I went to a place that specializes in drivelines, and luckily the guy at
the counter was very knowledgeable about Fords of that era. He got me a
couple of "combination" Spicer U-joints that have 2 ends the size of a
78, and the other 2 ends are the size of a 79. I needed two because the
driveshaft needed the larger U-joints, but both the T-case and diff
needed the smaller ones. I can try to look up the part number if you
want me to.

Now then you say, what does that have to do with my D60 F350 axle?
After I installed my 79 driveshaft, I picked up a '77 D60 rear axle from
an F250 to swap in place of my 9". The U-joint size of the yoke on that
is exactly the same size as the 79 F150/bronco U-joint. So when I get
around to installing it, I'll be able to use a regular U-joint and chuck
the combination one for that end of the driveshaft. Even though your
axle is off of an F350, it's still a D60, and as long as it's from a 77
through 79 (I don't know about any other years, but they might be the
same also) All you will need is the combination U-joint I mentioned

As far as double cardan or not for the front shaft, (and I'm just purely
speculating about this part) I doubt you would have a problem fitting
your current shaft w/double cardan. Even though the yoke on the D60 is
going to be a little bit closer to your T-case, The lift you have
should compensate for this.(6"+ right?) I could be way off base, but
that's just my opinion.

Basicly what this all boils down to is: You just need 1 combination
U-Joint with your current setup if your're going to keep your original

I know you've mentioned before that you want your truck to be as
bulletproof as possible, and especially if you're going through the
hassle of putting a D60 up front, I would suggest getting a front
driveshaft from a '79 and swapping your t-case yoke to take the larger
u-joint instead of using a combination U-joint at the t-case end. Hell,
just swap the entire T-case and rear driveshaft at the same time to beef
up all of the U-joints. The "weakest link in the chain" rule still
applies, but since the U-joints are the weakest link in the chain,
beefing them up cant hurt.

> I have also been told the U-joint size on the front DS is the same for
> F150-F350. Anyone know for sure??

If all of the parts are from 79, yes, Possibly after that also, but
definately not before 79.

Hope this helps.

By the way, The $$ for your 4" springs will be going out in tommorrow's

- -Mike
'78 Bronco


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:39:05 -0800
From: Pat Brown
Subject: Throttle Doohicky

Dana Wrote:
>That's what that dohicky on the intake manifold is for.

And Steve Wondered:
> Say, uhhh, what's this here doohicky You speak of?

My 68 F100 had one, and my 70 F250 has it. It looks sort of like
a mouse trap standing on end, with three rods coming off. One
rod from gas pedal connects through a bell crank to the second
rod running to the throttle. The pivot point then connects to a
second bell crank, the upper end of this crank connects through
a rod to the firewall. Quite often all of this monkey motion is
worn out and discarded by owners and/or mechanics trying to get
the throttle to work again. It's job, just like Dana said is to
prevent 'positive feedback' in the throttle linkage, especially
in the case of a broken mount.

Anyone remember GM's fiasco in the
early 70's? It seems that broken motor mounts, and the stuck gas
pedals that when along with them were causing A LOT of accidents.
A massive recall followed, with GM dealers installing lots of little
safety cables (steel cables with thimbles) between exhast manifold
bolts and control arms as I recall, holding the engine down in case
of a broken mount. My mom had a '66 Impala 327, I discovered the flaw
one morning one my way to (high) school, soon after getting my
license. Fortunatly no accident, but I amused my classmates spinning
donuts in the parking lot while I frantically tried to figure out
how to stop the car (The Key! The Key!). If you look at a ch**y small
block motor mount, you will see a couple of hooks formed in the steel
that will hold the mount together in case of rubber separation.

Pat Brown
Sebastopol, Sonoma County (Think Wine country), California, USA


Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 07:35:38 -0400
From: sbest
Subject: Re: restrictor plugs

>>Steve writes: >>Have any of You other FE guys done this "restrictor
>>trick" yet? If You're carefull and adventurous it can be done in a
>>couple hours without removing the heads..
>>Yes Steve - this is one of the other things I did when I was racing,
>>but its hardly necessary for an every day driver that may be hotrodded
>>once in a while. I used allen head set screws with a .060" hole
>>drilled in them.
>>Azie>>Ardmore, Al.

> I tried some allen set screws, but the only ones my local hardware
> store had were made of some kind of hardened material and after I
> toasted 2 drill bits on the first one I went to plan B...
> Steve

Try heating the setscrews up red hot and allowing them to cool slowly
before drilling. This will soften them up so you can drill them.
Locktite works but I prefered to peen over the the last threads of the
threaded bore after installing the setscrew restrictors so there is no
hardened bits of locktite floating around in the oil passages. They will
probably never come out if you bottom them out but...

I did this on a couple Clevelands with great success in maintaining
oil pressure. Can the "M" blocks use this as well?

Steve Best, Nova Scotia,
6.9 litre diesel Ford van, full-time 4 wheel drive
"Hang on kids, we're going through..."
4 wheel drive van page:
Tire chains, camping gear, tools and first aid stuff too...


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:01:18 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: RE: 351s

From: Sleddog
>Hmmm, interesting idea. but, stroke doesn't "make" torque, it only limits
>the engine to being built as a torque motor.

Stroke, and the lack there of absolutely does have a direct influence on
Torque production. Though it is not the sole determinate.
Stroke is not a limit to RPM, IF the selection of the rest of the components
reflects the desired operating range.

> my new 460 build according to
>the desktop dyno should be making about 500 #ft at 2000 rpm. and, it won't
>fall below that until about 8000 rpm, with a max near 5000rpm, of 700+ #ft

I do hope that you are not actually believing the numbers that you are
getting from your "Desk Top Dyno" program. These programs are anything but
accurate! A tool and even a useful one but they all are not even close to
giving actuate power output numbers! While researching the various
"Cyber-Dyno" programs, I input actual build specs. for 10 engines that we
selected from our real world data base and ran them through several of the
Sym. programs. While some were better then others none were really close to
the results that actually happened on the real dyno. Most like "Desk Top
Dyno" were optimistic to say the least for high pro Street Engines and way
off for Race Engines.

> find me M motor that can match that! (really, I would like to
>find one! i'd put it in my other truck!)

You will be hard pressed to find a naturally aspirated 460 that will do it,
for any length of time, on a real Dyno, burning anything that you can get
from a gas station.
Yes I can deliver such an engine, when and where do you want it? You do
have cash....

>really, the 460 makes more torque. the 400 just feels like it has more on
>the bottom, because it gets so anemic after a couple of rpms there's no
>"punch" at the top!

In factory trim the 78-79 460 was rated at 357 Lb/Ft 2200 RPM with a 4BBL
while the 400 was rated at 315 1800 RPM with a 2BBL (Numbers from
Chilton). Install an equivalent intake system and adjust the Ign. and Cam
timing accordingly, and the 400 out powers the 460 all the way through the
RPM range that most Street engines operate in, lives just as long, weighs 80
plus pounds less, and uses less fuel to do it all. (Isn't that right Dave.)
But... If we are going drag racing I want the 460!

79 Bronco

Experience: What you get when Guano Happens!


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 19:43:37 -0800
From: "Chris Samuel"
Subject: Engine Wars??

In my spare time I do custom machine work for a race engine development shop
(Dyno, Flow Bench, Cam Pro Plus, and the rest of the good toys). We do
everything from small blocks to big; from every manufacturer including
Mercedes, and yes the General.
There are several things that I have learned over the years:
(1) Nothing beats rectangular dollars! except luck!
(2) Above 8 grand it simply doesn't matter who manufactured it you are
going to
run into the same type of problems, OILING! and that's with a dry sump. (SEE
(3) There is a minimum of 35 HP in the oil pan on a wet sump. (SEE #1)
(4) There is no such thing as too big a main or rod journal, in any
based engine, but there are some that are too small. (SEE #1)
(5) Air flow is everything! More is always better. (SEE #1)
(6) A Single plane intake manifold makes more power under the curve
then a Dual
plane, and a Tunnel makes the most. It is the Carb that makes one or breaks
the other. (SEE #1)
(7) With in reason there is no such thing as too big a Carb; but there
are more
wrong types of Carbs then there are right. (SEE #1)
(8) Carbs make more power then Fuel Injection, until the price of the
injection system goes over $15k and then it may be a toss up! (SEE #1)

The point of all this?

The much maligned "M" engines should not be raced? The "C" has a weak
Block, Heads, etc....? The 289, 302, 351W make no torque? The "FE's" are
overweight, Leakers? The 460 is the only swap motor, use it in everything!
Comments that I've heard from FORD Fans! I can't repeat what the Chebby
folks say.
I've seen 580+HP 7000+RPM "400M's" (Mud Runner); 550HP 351 Clevor
(Winsland?) using a factory FORD 4BBL intake (NASCAR); 289-351's that pulled
harder then they should have; 650 HP 427's that idled smooth! (Cobra
Repro.) and 460's that were just slugs!

All it takes is MONEY to win any engine war, or to break any rule.

79 Bronco


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:13:01 -0500
From: Serian
Subject: Re: 302 to 351W swap

>The only things you need to *fix* are the exhaust (I doubt the manifolds
>line up to the same spot) and the auto trans.

Nope ... the exhaust manifolds for a 302 will line right up and bolt on
the same as the original 351W ones. (I know this for sure ... I have a few
302's in the garage along with a 351W right next to them ... tried it, it
The exhaust pipes may need a little repositioning though due to the wider
block of the 351.

And Yep ... For the transmission, the shift linkage needs to be swapped in
for the automatic ... and, if the 351W doesn't already have one, you will need
a flexplate rather than a flywheel. ( If you need one, let me know ... I
4 spare ones for 255/289/302/351W engines. )


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:17:27 -0500
From: Serian
Subject: Re: 302 to 351W swap

If you need extra 351W parts, I have a partially disassembled 351W out of a
'74 Mercury Montego sitting in the garage that I doubt I will do much of
anything with.


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:22:08 -0500
From: Serian
Subject: 351W parts

>>Also, of course, the 302 intake won't fit in case you didn't get that.
>Correct me if I am wrong here, but you'll need a distributor too I beleive.

This is correct ... the distributor housing where it fits down into the block
is slightly larger on a 351W than it is on a 302. The "guts" are the same


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 23:23:48 PST
From: "Garry & Molly Catalano"
Subject: Re: Loooking for guy with 390intake F/S

Joe, =
We changed internet adresses Its now I have not for=
goten you. we are still finalizing plans as to what day we`re going to =
get there. I`ll be in touch with the info in a couple of days. Home phon=
e is 716-326-6050 most nights except mon and wed. =

- ----------
> I'm looking for the guy who I'm supposed to meet at Spring Carlisle
> to pick up the 390 Manifold..I dont have your email address...
> --
> Joe
> Aka. Fordguy
> 1968 F-100 4x4 302 Np435 Bone Stock down to the wheel covers
> 1970 F-250 4x4 390 Np435 The Beast
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1961 thru 1979 --------------+
> | Send posts to, =
> | List removal information is on the web site. =
> +---------- Visit Our Web Site: ----------+


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 23:49:01 -0500
From: "Ron"
Subject: Re: 460 noises

You said you had the hardened seats put in. I was just wondering if this
person, the one telling you about the unleaded fuel being the problem, is
the one who installed them. I don't really think the problem is the
unleaded fuel. I see far too many old clunkers around here running like
crazy, using the same fuels. Not saying yours is an old clunker!
May have been fuel mixture problem or timing. Sometimes an engine with
higher compression ratios, dry fuel mixture and timing that's too high
causing extremely high combustion temps, will get a lot of things.

North Carolina Ridge Runner Ron

> I had hardend seats put into my '71 460 heads. The guy at the machine
> shop said I was eating up the seats by running the unleaded fuel. I only
> ran the motor about 15,000 miles and he stated that this already caused
> some damage.
> Brian


End of fordtrucks61-79-digest V2 #163

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