What's new
What's new

The haulers' group official truck thread . . .

james robert

Stainless
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Location
Ft. smith Ar. U.S.A
Hi all, I have found Archie's posts very interesting as I have a 1967 Ford 3/4 ton camper special with the 390 four speed. His posting has flung a craving on me to rebuild this truck, over time I have gathered the things that will be needed to convert it to a 460 and would like to put a fifth over tranny out of a later model one ton truck in it.

My question has anyone done this conversion and would a good used fifth over trans be cost prohibitive as I am on a very lean budget.

Thank you.

James
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will be glad to share truck info . . .

Haulers are often interested in trucks, so I have made this into the haulers' group official truck thread.

I have some chores to do right now, but I will be contributing soon . . .

P.S.: For now it looks as if the non-working password problem was fixed by removing the password completely. This will be fine for now, but we need more security when we next hold an election. Please do not post elsewhere that no password is needed or post the URL of this sub-forum.
 
Engine & trans swapping . . .

James,

Regarding your 1967 Ford 3/4 ton camper special:

Do you want the "fifth over" trans to get gas mileage without needing to change the rear axle ratio? I think that the camper specials had a Dana 60 or Dana 70 rear axle. While it is not as easy to change out the ring & pinion on these axles, used ring & pinion gears are available for reasonable prices on eBay, in 3.54 and 3.73 ratios. Take a look at your rear axle -- if it has a cover on the back, it is probably one of the Dana axles. The first thing I would do is find out what ratio you currently have.

In my experience (plus what I have read), "fifth over" 4-speeds & 5-speeds were not very common until recently. If you lucked out and found a good one cheap, it would be the easiest bolt in solution, but the odds are against you, especially if you want it to bolt directly to a 460 bell-housing. I would expect that your 4-speed transmission is a Borg-Warner T-98. (It could also be a NP-435.) I have owned a number of the T-98's and liked them. I did a lot of my towing when I moved using one that I put spliced overdrive onto. I managed to break the overdrive once, but liked the combination so much I went to the trouble to get another set of 50-year-old gears to get it back on the road. I have still have this transmission and do not have any use for it. Send me a private message if your are interested in it.

Archie

P.S.: I think that 1967 was the last year that they put the 352 engine in pickups. All you need to do to upgrade to 390 is to change out the crank and rods. Unless you really need the extra cubic inches, this is a lot easier to do than to change to a completely different engine series. The 460 is a great engine, but unless you get a special deal, one of these will probably cost more time and money than sticking with the original 390 series engines.
 
Having owned a dreadful '87 F250HD with trailer towing package, carb equipped 460 , C6 and 3.55:1 axle for over 20 years before scrapping it, I suggest if you do bother to go with a 460 be sure to get a proper cam in it if you want it to get out of its own way at low speeds with a low (numerical) axle ratio.

John Oder
 
Archie, The engine could be a 352 I have not checked the bore and stroke. I have owned a few 352s and did not like the gas mileage that I got with them compared to a 390 this is the reason I assumed it had to be a 390 for an old 3/4 ton truck it got good mileage. I figured a long time ago that if you are towing a large load the more cubes the better I may be wrong but in my mind the bigger the engine the less it will labor under a load.

Thanks for the offer on the tranny be careful of what you offer I might just take you up on it:D

John, the 460 that I have came out of a burned van so I assumed that it was a truck engine and should be cammed for torque if not I will have to rebuild it and probably put an RV cam in there.

Right now I'm just looking for input on how to go it will be a while before I can start such a project the truck is in MO and I will have to fix the trailer to bring it back and before that the welder needs to be worked on. I have a thousand irons in the fire each depending on something els being fixed.

Thank you.

James
 
John, I have been thinking about what you and Archie said I know what you mean about 460s that could not get out of there own way but only in cars I have never seen this with a truck engine maybe I should stick with the 352/390. I bought the truck back in 96 after the big tornado to do cleanup work and for an old truck with an engine that was about wore out it gave me a lot of good service. It got to where it was burning to much oil and the transmission would jump out of second gear. I have replaced the king pins and rebuilt the brakes and the body is solid and being a long time shade tree mechanic and salvage yard guy I hatched a scheme to upgrade it to a super 3/4 ton. The 390 is a good engine maybe I should stick with it.

Archie, Thanks for jogging my memory I had one of those T 98s in a 65 F100 with a 390 that I had done a frame up rework on and sold it before I had a chance to really use it. I bet those transmissions are getting hard to find It is the type with the pull cable?

Thank you.

James
 
Transmission/overdrive splicing . . .

James,

Your first post mentioned your interest in a "good used fifth over trans". Mine is available "to a good home". This trans has been completely rebuilt and is about half way through its useful life. The synchros a all in good shape. I had it installed in my 1965 Mercury towing vehicle and made over a dozen cross-country hauls with it. All the running gear was working fine when I had a roll-over accident caused by a high-speed fishtail accident. I came out OK, but the car did not, nor did the 20/24 G&E shaper I was hauling at the time.

t_98_t_85od.jpg


The reason for the long mid-section adaptor is that I did this "splice" with a 100% bolt-up approach and all stock parts carrying torque. (The housing/adaptor is a steel weldment and is extremely robust.) The first 4-speed trans I put an overdrive onto was a T-10 and I used a weld to splice the shafts. This worked well -- I did the modification in 1969 and the trans is still in a 1956 Ford in Leavenworth, KS. With the extra torque that "grannie" can provide in a truck transmission, I did not want to test the limits of welded shafting. (I did once do an emergency repair of an intermediate shaft in a high-end tractor pull transmission. It broke its shaft and needed a quick fix for the final event the next day. We welded the shaft and it took its class! If anyone ever needs to do this, I can relate the details.)

Anyway, I am putting with the Roadranger in my F-350 and I do not think I can ever break it with a 390 in a one-ton, so I do not think I will ever need the 4-speed/OD. It is free to a good home and, James, you are first in line. Regarding transportation, I can get it as far as OH -- after that, the other members in the haulers' group should be able to get it to your end eventually.

P.S. If the pull-cable you are mention is for the overdrive, the answer is yes. The pull-cable locks the overdrive out and there is a solenoid that I actuated with a toggle switch for a totally manual operation. With this trans/OD combo the close-ratio overdrive splits all the gears very well. Ratios are:

6.40
4.70
3.09
2.27
1.69
1.24
1.00
0.73​

I was very happy with this trans -- the only thing I did not like was the extra work of splitting gears, a problem the Roadranger single-stick system handles very well.
 
Last edited:
Archie, I wouldn't mind having that transmission but I feel as though I should offer something in return How about the bell housing motor mount pedestals and flywheel for adapting a 460 to a ford pickup. I'm thinking if you can get it to Dave Kamp's place I still owe him a big press and a chain hoist. The next time he comes this way he could bring the tranny and pick up the press, hoist and the 460 parts if that is cool with him. Even if you dont want the 460 parts they would be at Dave's Central transfer station for whomever might want them including him.

Let me know if there is something you may need for your truck project who knows I might have it.

Thank you.

James
 
I already have too much stuff . . .

James,

I spent a good number of hours fabricating and then using this old transmission. More and more I am working on undoing my tendencies to be a pack-rat -- making room in my shop and reducing the number of my projects to a manageable number. In this case, all I want is to see this transmission find a good home where it can be useful to someone. The other alternative is the scrapper, sooner or later.

With the above in mind, I do not need any compensation. I'll strap it on a pallet and get it as far as Craig's place in OH. After that it can likely get moved west with some other stuff that is at Craig's.

While a 460 might have been a possibility for my F-350 at one point, I am pretty far down the road with the 391 rebuild and consider that to be locked in, so I would not want any parts. (One other option I was working on was a 300 I6 and I have a core 240 engine and a lot of parts such as an Offenhauser 4-barrel intake manifold, FI exhaust manifolds, and a steel scattershield. These are all available, but I have about $500 invested I would like to get out of them. They are available if anyone is interested. The 300 Ford is a great truck engine.)

Confirm that you want it and I'll send it down the road . . .

P.S.: James, I appreciate all the help you provided in the formation of the haulers' group and the on-going effort on your part to be one of its best customers . . .
 
Archie, I will take you up on it and there is no rush take your time. I told my brother about fixing the old 3/4 ton and he got excited about it we need a truck that will haul a heavy load so hopfully this spring I will have the trailer up in shape and ready to bring the old Ford back from MO.

Speaking of a 300 six I just pulled one out of a parts truck that I had traded for back before the 91 F150 burned I have been looking for a good F250 body to put it in but no luck there must not have been very many F250s made with the 300 six. I really like that engine you cant kill them and it had more torque then the 302 I have now.

I have a question years ago I bought a 1965 3/4 ton for parts I guess they were called an F200 then I haven't looked at it in a while anyway it has a six cylinder. I'm wondering if it is a 223 or did the 3/4 ton have a bigger six.

I can understand the packrat thing I need to unpack a few rats my self maybe all the other pack rats on here will start a packrat exchange and clearing house.

Thank you.

James
 
James,

The last year of the 223 was 1964. I have owned a few and they are sweet-running engines, but not really up to hauling because of their four-main crankshaft (the 240/300 has seven main bearings). In 1965 both the 240 & 300 variations of the same engine took over the six-cylinder chores for Ford. The 300 is the only serious engine for a truck -- they even put a few in F-350's over the years, so if your 1965 F-250 has a six in it, it is probably a 300. (If you didn't know: a 223 engine has four intake manifold runners and a 240/300 has six.)

I have your name on the transmission & will take it to OH when appropriate. If there is room on the next westbound run from Craig's, I will do it sooner. If not, I will hang onto it until later so as to avoid crowding Craig. It is possible that I can bring it along the next time I visit my Daughter in CA, but I will expect you to buy me a steak dinner and give me a tour of your shop.
 
Archie, You are embarrassing me, allot of this stuff I should remember although I did not mess with the six cylinders that much I owned a few and one of them was a 1964 F100 with a 223 six that could hardly pull it self up a steep hill I sold it and bought a 1966 F100 with a 289. Before that I had a 1957 1/2 ton with a 292 and several 1/2 ton Fords made between 1957 and 1960 while I was working at the salvage yard I got my hands on a 312 thunderbird engine and my big dream was to put it in a 57 3/4 ton but ended up selling everything before I could find a good truck to put it in. I used to know what brake drums would interchange between all the models. It has been a long time since I have worked on the old model Ford pickups and I thank you for taking me down memory lane.

If you show up at my door step you will be an honored guest and if there is time I will grill the steaks my self. As far as a tour of my shop all there is right now is an old shed but its possible that I will be started on a regular shop by then.

Thank you.

James
 
OK I added a cool (to me) truck to my chevy gmc collection today. It will eventually haul some machinery :D

88 C60 tiltbed. Runs good, takes a while to get up to speed since it has the small- big block 366 in it but it went 65 down the highway . 5 speed, 23,900 gvw. Has 24.5 in wheels

Its in pretty good shape. Has a fresh insp sticker on it and new registration also. Showing 118k. New water pump.

Im thinking about putting a 454 TBI injection setup on it, I have all the parts except the harness which I can get cheap enough , or may just rebuild the carb. Will also do a tune up. Back tires are very good, left front is new, right front is crappy and im going to replace it.

The tilt bed works, I just need to put new ends on the control cables at the cab end, we had to cut the rusted handles off so we could pull the cables with pliers.

The seat needs work.

I drove it 50 miles home, it was south of houston
 

Attachments

  • c60r2.jpg
    c60r2.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 5,028
I would consider the 460 the best engine Ford ever made. Put a 429 timing gear on the crank to get rid of the retarded cam timing will fix your no low end power problem, plus better gas milage. I used to put smaller chambered 429 heads on 460's all the time for a little more compression and that's still a good swap. Most of your 460 heads are really restricted in the exhaust ports by a casting that looks like it was for air injection. With a thermoquad carb, you should be able to get really good milage. I've gotten 22 mpg on the highway in a Ranchero with the above mods, plus a mild cam. 391's are prone to breaking the nose on the crank, even tho Ford made it larger than the 390, which didn't really break too many cranks
Good luck with your project!
 
Truck vs. passenger car engines . . .

Greg,

I am not looking to start an argument, but . . .

greggv said:
. . . 391's are prone to breaking the nose on the crank, even tho Ford made it larger than the 390, which didn't really break too many cranks . . .

I have not heard that any 391's did have a crankshaft-nose breaking problem. Because Ford design engineers knew that 391 engines would be installed in F-600 and C-600 medium-duty trucks that would have additional accessories such as air compressors driven from pulleys mounted on the crankshaft-nose AND because the C-600's were cab-over models that mounted their fans directly on the crank snout, they increased the size of the crankshaft-nose from the beginning (as far as I know). These cranks are forged steel cranks that are much more resistant to fatigue over very high numbers of cyclic loads than the nodular cast iron cranks used in passenger cars. The forged steel cranks that were used in the 427 racing engines were made by cutting down the nose (& back ends) of the truck forgings and rebalancing them for the 427's internal balancing -- the 391 uses an external (or Detroit) balancing scheme. These are very strong cranks . . . this is why they were used for NASCAR races. Until aftermarket 427 cranks became available, hot-rodders cut down many 391 cranks to keep their 427 engines running.

I had the 391 core and complete set of parts for the installation because the engine had been in the truck for over 400,000 miles. Among other things the 391 has to offer is a 13" long-style clutch -- I will be putting in a fresh driven disk to suit the Roadranger, but after all those miles, the old disk does not show much sign of wear at all.

If I were starting from scratch with an empty truck, I would have seriously considered a 460, but it still would not have the sodium-cooled exhaust valves and the reinforced top ring lands that the 391 offers. I like having the reserve of a true medium-duty truck engine. My 391 replaced a 428 engine that was not up to this sort of duty and had a series of exhaust valve failures.

Archie
 
Last edited:
Pardon my manners . . .

I got so focused on defending the 391 engine that I forgot myself:

Dave,

I do like your truck, but you do should "have a plan" to avoid possible problems with commercial enforcement officers who might mistake you for a commercial operator and want to see your log book and commercial driver's license. I have started to collect information in my blog. This info is not the last word, but hopefully a start. If you want to discuss any of this, feel free to start a new thread in this forum.

James,

My next trip to the west is starting to come into focus -- it will be in the fall and I will probably return on I-40, coming right through Ft. Smith where I have often stayed in the Motel-6. I will take you up on that steak!

This gives you a few more months to decide if you have a use for my transmission. I will be happy to give it to you without strings, but I would like to have some confidence that it will do you some good before I drag it clear to CA via MT and then back to AR -- as you can see from the pic, it is a big sucker. The length is an advantage because it lets you run a one-piece drive shaft.

Archie
 
Out of respect for your group I ask this question:
As non member of the hauler's group should I be seeing this topic/thread/forum.

I'm only asking out of concern that you've revealing your secret address and might want to hide it again before too long.

Again, no malicious intentions, just concern for your group's privacy

Del,
Having done his share of hauling (small scale)
 
Guests are welcome . . .

Del,

Out of respect for your courtesy, I (unofficially) bestow upon you the title of honorary member of the antique machinery haulers' group . . .

Actually you are at least the third non-member to be posting, so there are probably a lot more lurkers. There really is nothing secret happening this sub-forum -- the only reason for keeping this URL private was that we used to have a password and the forum engine's polling function made it easy (& secure) to do our elections. For some reason (following a forum engine update), the password function ceased to be functional, so we are no longer able to do things the same way as before. Milacron tried to resolve this, but found no solution. We will need to find another way to do our election of officers, but that is not a problem for the group's members or the general membership of the PM forum. The only reason I can see for this sub-forum to still exist is to avoid cluttering up any other forum with haulers' group antics.

Anyone that is a PM member can be a member of the haulers' group by simply posting the desire to join in our sign-up thread which is a sticky in the Antique Machinery & History forum. There are no dues or fees and all activities are voluntary. Members are loosely divided into haulers, transferrers, and supporters and the main function of the group is to have a database which aids contacting haulers and planning relay hauls. Anyone who is interested in saving machines from being scrapped is welcome to join. We have over 130 members across the US and even a few in Canada. I wish I could show you our map, but something changed at google maps and it stopped working on most browsers.

This last winter has been a slow time for the group and, with all the current officers residing in IA, the severe winter really slowed things down. Hauling is getting done on a small scale, but we have not been very good at publicizing it. (I had hoped that the beneficiaries of our help would do more publicity, but that has not been happening very often. I guess I should "blow my own horn" and say that I will have hauled three machines this week.) The price of scrap seems to be on the upswing, but fortunately the price of gas is holding below $3/gallon for a while.

Two years ago there was a lot of enthusiasm for forming a haulers' group. We now have a pretty good coverage of the country, but have lost some of our momentum. I would like to know what the larger group thinks about the future of the haulers' group -- many of the haulers are willing to help by hauling, but are not interested or able to participate in the operation of the group. Anyone with interest should feel free to post here or elsewhere.

Thanks,

Archie
 
...Acceptance of new member status

Well Archie:
To paraphrase somebody (Marx bros possibly)- Any group that would have me, I wouldn't want to be a part of...

Thanks. I can provide a strong back and a week mind in the furtherance of this group's efforts on and around the Berkshires (Western MA) if needed.

This probably classifies myself as supporter/enabler,
Del
 
Welcome . . .

Del,

Glad to have you, especially when you use one of my favorite quotes and motivate me to track down the source:

Groucho Marx said:
I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.

I think that the majority of the haulers' group shares this sentiment. So far those of us actually involved in hauls have had a chance to meet other forum members in person, see machines, shops, and the country-side.

Archie

P.S.: Because we are a virtual group, we actually never meet as a group -- I consider that to be a good thing . . .

2nd P.S.: A short post in the sign-up thread would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:








 
Back
Top