Hi, i have a 1963 f-750 and i was wondering if it has a 292 in it or what. It has a holly 4bbl carb and the y headers that go around the back. And if this helps any, it has the 2 belt drivin generator, ummm anything else i can look for?

Also, its been sitting for about 7 years, but i got it to turn over, but im not getting any spark so, i got a new coil, (for a 292) and im going to take the spark plugs out and clean them and try it then, it looks to have good wires. Do i need to change the oil before i start it? or anything else. Normally i would do that stuff in a heart beat, but if it doesnt run, i dont want to buy it, so the oil and stuff would be a waste of money.

When i pump the gas pedal, no gas comes out of the carb, think its the fuel filter? it may be because it have three tanks and im using the wrong one, (im using the one in the cab).

Anyways, thanks

Oh, btw, how is the 292 for performane wise? Its had a rebuild not long before it was put out in the field, so it has low miles the guy said. Also a new clutch. It has the 3spd (i think) with the 2 spd rear end.

 

Superbee have you tried pouring gas in carb to start. If truck sat the carb may have gook in it. Its also possible that float is stuck and wont let it fill up. Gas will let fuel pump pull fuel but you know that. Does it have the exhaust cross-over pipe in front of the engine, if so 292. but it also may have ramhorn exhaust. Doo valve covers have 2 center bolts, if so y-block 292.Kurt y-blocks rule!

 

so should i take the carb off and just clean it?

ill look after work to see about the valve covers.

 

superbee, you've asked the same question in multiple forums. I believe I've addressed your question in the other forum.

 

Sorry. It's got the two center bolts on the valve covers, and a ram looking headers that meet in the front. so i guess its a 292

 

Yessir! Sounds like a 292 to me as well.

 

I wouldnt jump to the 292 conclusion just yet; more than likely it is a 332 truck engine.
Rams exhaust was stock on them BTW.

A 292 intake manifold will have the fuel ports in a straight line front to back and the exhaust heated port will be set back a hair.
On the 332 they are all in line.

The part # on the intake or exhaust manifold will also help ID. OR just about any other casting ID for that matter.

 

I'm not sure if he's got a 332 if he's got two bolts sticking up the top surface of the valve cover, though.

Performance of a (whatever engine you want) in a 750? You're kidding, right? Oh, no. You're in a different world where performance indices are very different than they are for light duty anythings. As was explained to me once, a lawn tractor with 3 flat tires would give this thing a run for the money. I'm sure this vehicle will be at least as cumbersome as my 600 and that's not a bad thing depending on how you want to use it and what your expectations are. Don't expect to get any sort of fuel mileage that anyone would call decent. Just know where the nearest fuel stations are at all times. That you have three tanks tells you what I'm telling you. Be sure to bring the big wad of $$ when you fill (which will still be frequently).

Would I change the oil? Sure. How much would you be out? Peanuts, right?

BTW: The 292 would have unequally spaced exhaust ports (look at the exhaust manifold) where the center two ports are closer together than are any other two ports. I honestly don't know the porting arrangement of the 332, though.

 

"Performance of a (whatever engine you want) in a 750? You're kidding, right?"

I didnt mean was that think really fast or anything, i was just wondering, like do those have trouble going up some hills, stuff like that.

Ill check the exhaust port, thanks for the idea.

 

It would depend on speed. I just did the calcs last week on my new-to-me 600 and the engine was redlined at 60mph and those calcs were spot-on what I was feeling from it. At those rpm's, the engine was having some trouble breathing just because the lift/duration are small and so are the valves.

What we both have are certainly not revvers. I'll pull your house down, though and you would mine. At about 58 mph (the fastest I dared go with it on a 10 hour drive), I had no trouble getting up any hill between Detroit, MI to Rochester, NY, to Binghamton, NY. Mind you, I was probably only carrying 600 lbs. of payload, though. At these speeds even on the flat, I did see the vacuum gauge struggle to keep above 12" Hg. That's what's leading me to the conclusion that I've got enough power, but it's being limited by airflow. I hope I'm right because I'm in the process of spending mucho bucks to get 4.63:1's in the rear carrier in place of the 6:80's it has now.

My calculations indicate that I'll be running the same revs at 71mph that I'm running at 50mph now. Fifty is about at the upper limits of what seemed like the engine wanted to rev comfortably all day long. What I know is that the new ratio will put the engine a few hundred rpm's above the torque peak (versus way to the right of the peak) at highway speeds and I believe the new ratio would put me in a similar place on the HP curve as compared to where it is now...only on the left of the peak, not on the right of it.

All that said, I'm hoping to the Big Guy that these changes will result in virtually zero loss in hill climbing ability at highway speeds, but a drop in rpm's so that I'm not sitting there hearing the engine abuse itself and me praying the bottom end won't decide to scatter itself. I'm certain about what the rpm's will be. I sit here with the thought that at speeds lower than 40mph or so, I've always got the gearbox to play with if I need it. Prior to the operation, I was in high gear at 18mph and I mistakenly did a standing start in 4th gear which it pulled with no qualms or the usual feedback you'd expect to me at all.

Finally, I'm hoping the change will do nothing but help my 6.0 mpgs from a 359ci engine that's running beautifully. All that air in means that it has to be mixed with fuel and that engine is pumping all that in as fast as it can currently.

 

Hey, i have a two speed rear or whatever, so, as appose to the single speed, do i have more top end, or low end. or both

And what year is your truck, u have a 359?

 

Depending on the rear axle manufacturer and the gears that are installed in it, it's quite possible you have only one or the other advantage (I don't believe "neither" is a possible answer, though). What!!?? What I'm saying is that some of the two-speeds had very narrow distinctions between the gears that were back there. Some, for example, had a difference of about 7mph at a given rpm. Not much of a difference to matter, right? Yes, a 359. It's essentially the same as the 361 (in fact, displacement is truly identical down to the nth decimal place), but Ford used +/- 1 c.i. displacement differences as model distinctions. I believe the 359 is a UHaul spec'd version of the 361 and may well be a derated version of the 361.

 

ok, i got the fireing order and another number off the intake manifold, will it say anything?

Fireing order: 5486372 L128OS

Also, the spark plug wires are completly off, please tell me i can find out how they go back on, (the order from cylinder to distributor)

 

Get #1 cyl. at top dead center (you can also use the pointer near the crankshaft-mounted pulley that points to hashmarks for that). Once #1 cylinder is at TDC, find out to what distributor cap "button" the rotor is pointing to and that's the button to stick one end of the ignition wire into and the other end goes to #1 cyl. spark plug. From there, just follow the firing order you've listed and stick the other plug wires in that order around the distributor cap and you're done.

 

Well, the distributor cap has a #1 by the first one, so, what i need to know i guess, is on that engine, does it go 1-8 clockwise on the dis. or counterclockwise. And Also, how are the cylinders arranged on those 292's?

I didnt quite understand how to do what you were saying.