Return-Path:
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:12:03 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks-digest)
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks-digest V1 #172
Reply-To: fordtrucks ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks-digest Wednesday, August 27 1997 Volume 01 : Number 172



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

351C Horsepower Question [Dan Wentz ]
Bought the 68 f100 [Joe DeLaurentis ]
Exhaust/Rims????For 68 [Joe DeLaurentis ]
Re: Wander and xfer cases ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Installing Solid Axle ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 351C Horsepower Question [John MacNamara ]
Books Available [Joe DeLaurentis ]
RE: 351C Horsepower Question [Kevin Kemmerer ]
RE: Wander and xfer cases [Kevin Kemmerer ]
RE: Wander and xfer cases ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
re: Exhaust/Rims????For 68 ["Payne, Kenneth"
Re: Wander and xfer cases [marko helix.net (marko maryniak)]
Brakes, update ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: Wander and xfer cases ["Gary, 78 BBB" ]
Re: 351C Horsepower Question [SARHOG aol.com]
Question - Overdrive transmission options [SuperMagot aol.com]
Interior 51 [billjhs ]
302 specs ["Mark Mech" ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 03:10:04 -0700
From: Dan Wentz
Subject: 351C Horsepower Question

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

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 Digest ----------+
| 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 07:22:05 -0400
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: Bought the 68 f100

Well folks,
with all my questions about the 68, I finally went out and bought it..
So i am the owner of a 68 F-100..I think this truck is tighter then
my 83 Bronco!
Joe
+---------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts -- 1979 and Older Digest ----------+
| 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 07:24:07 -0400
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: Exhaust/Rims????For 68

ANybody know of a bolt on dual exhaust for the 68 f100 with a 302??I
saw ones in jc whitney anybody use them????Also what size tire
> can I fit on a stock 68??Will a 32" tire fit?????????What are you
guys with the 68-72's using for aftermarket rims???
joe
+---------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts -- 1979 and Older Digest ----------+
| 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 07:45:27 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Wander and xfer cases

> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:05:07 -0700
> From: terry samek

> Hi,
> I have recently aquired a 1977 f150, full time four wheel drive,
> with a 460.It's in pretty good shape and I plan to restore it.It
> tends to wander and I'm wondering if there are any standard problems
> with the steering on these trucks.Also the full time four wheel
> > drive is a system I know nothing about.The transfer case has high,
> low and neutral positions but also lock positions for high and low
> ranges.Any info would be appreciated.

Sounds like an NP203. Is the case cast iron? There are part time
kits for those but it you want part time with the 460 I suggest
replacing it with an NP 205 which is gear drive and considered by the
experts to be the strongest light truck case ever built. You can get
heavy duty input and output shafts for it to make it even stronger.

Wander is usually due to tight king pins or ball joints which won't
allow the weight of the vehicle to force the steering linkage back to
center easily. Minor bumps tend to move the linkage and the
stiffness due to old grease or wear etc. tends to keep it where it
moves so constant corrections have to be made. Looseness in the
linkage, steering box or steering column u-joints can cause some as
well but usually if the alignment is good looseness isn't as likely
as tightness due to the above unless of course it's so loose that the
alignment won't stay consistant.

- -- Gary Peters --

(Mine)78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6
(Mine)78 Bronco, 4wd, 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
(Daughter's)92 Tempo
(Daughter's)92 T-Bird
(Wife's)94 T-Bird
(Son's)90 F-150, I6
(Son's)76 Blue Bird School bus
All mine to work on, maintain etc..
+---------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts -- 1979 and Older Digest ----------+
| 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 08:09:21 +0000
From: "Gary, 78 BBB"
Subject: Re: Installing Solid Axle

> From: "Kevin"
> Subject: Re: Installing Solid Axle
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:05:37 -0000

> Don't take this wrong, but, WHY? Everyone esle is going to better
> suspension and you are going back in time.

They don't make them like they used to :-) IFS is only better in the
eyes of him who has invested in it. I deliberately chose the 78/79
as my goal to avoid it like the plague, but I like simplicity.

If I had more time and money I would have Dana 60's at both ends, not
cuz they're the strongest, even though the dana's 35 splines make
it a little stronger than the ford 9", but because they have full
floating axles which are inherently stronger and won't curb you if
one breaks and there is a fair range of after market gears and parts
> for them. The ford 9" solid cast housing is much stronger than any
dana ever thought of being but its non floating axle makes it less
desirable for off roading.

If I had the money I'd have ford 9" converted to full floating
spindles and disk brakes at both ends but thats for dreams, movies
and cartoons, I'll never do it.

- -- Gary Peters --

(Mine)78 F-150, 2wd, 460, C-6
(Mine)78 Bronco, 4wd, 351M, Np 435, Np 205, 33's
(Daughter's)92 Tempo
(Daughter's)92 T-Bird
(Wife's)94 T-Bird
(Son's)90 F-150, I6
(Son's)76 Blue Bird School bus
All mine to work on, maintain etc..
+---------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts -- 1979 and Older Digest ----------+
| 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 05:14:02 -0700
From: John MacNamara
Subject: Re: 351C Horsepower Question

Dan Wentz wrote:
>
> 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
>
> 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 Digest ----------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+
Dan: Around about that time, the factories started giving horsepower
ratings at the rear wheel instead of the flywheel and that accounts for
the drop (along with compression).

Thanks

John MacNamara

78 F250 4X4 Supercab
67 GT500
66 427 Corvette
+---------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts -- 1979 and Older Digest ----------+
| 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 08:28:35 -0400
From: Joe DeLaurentis
Subject: Books Available

goto
www.classicpickups.com
They have 6 books on the F-series..Including the F-series Red book for
$8.75...Just some info
Joe
+---------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts -- 1979 and Older Digest ----------+
| 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 10:28:39 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: 351C Horsepower Question

in 71 they may have quoted gross HP, and in 72, net - including all
accessories and losses. during the musclecar days the advertised HP was
very embelished and in some cases (like the dodge hemi) the companies would
rate the HP at the torque peek, when in fact it made more HP higher
RPM's. 72 was the year many emissions where added, yes. and compression
usually dropped and cams got smaller and carbs got rejetted etc.
the first thing to do is find out if the engine itself changed, or if only
the advertised HP changed.

sleddog

- ----------
From: Dan Wentz[SMTP:dwentz earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 6:10 AM
To: fordtrucks-digest ListService.net
Subject: 351C Horsepower Question

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

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 Digest ----------+
| 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 10:36:19 -0400
From: Kevin Kemmerer
Subject: RE: Wander and xfer cases

in my 77 f150, i found two things that helped create a bump steer problem.
one, is the high lift. i don't know if yours is lifted, but if it is ,
the bar that goes from the axle to the housing, to locate the axle
sideways, is at a steep angle. this causes bump steer big time.
especially if it is softly sprung and shocked. a set of rancho 9000
shocks on front reduced much of my problem. this doesn't cause wander
though.

another problem i have noticed with ALL the front axle housings i have put
in my truck, is that the pivot point where that bar connects to the axle is
loose. the hole in the axle allows the bolt to "float", creeated very
loose steering. i have bushed them, but drilling out the hole for an
aluminum-bronze bushing is not easy. if it is loose here, you will see it
move when someone turns the wheel right-left.....

---

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.