Register now to get rid of these ads!

Projects Early Sixties F100 Project

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Rand Man, Aug 21, 2021.

  1. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    26C08F41-213F-4CCA-8C7F-C36F58A813FB.jpeg 048950C6-52F8-4650-AD11-A7F373A68B88.jpeg 7E0BEA0B-549C-47D3-ACC4-958344D611C3.jpeg 4D14C4D1-6AAA-46DE-90BE-651C95FC6AC7.jpeg FA11364D-3807-418A-8E81-DD4FC1676D63.jpeg 91ADA539-DF17-41FC-81D4-E87B3F8D3D4B.jpeg I have been wanting a pickup truck for a while now. I’ve had several in the past. Once you have had a truck, you wonder why you don’t always have one.
    I bought a Ford F100 pickup a couple days ago. Somebody went and put the wrong grill on it, so I’m gonna do something about that. Plans include bed shortening and maybe an engine trans swap. It has the original 352 V8, which I think is a good engine. It has a three speed manual though. I have a bad leg now, so I’m pretty sure I will be looking for an automatic transmission. I have a 460 V8 ( is that engine off-topic ). Are overdrive transmissions off-topic? I don’t think so. With the price of gas these days, a regular old C6 seems like a waste.
    Has anyone shortened the bed/wheelbase on one of these? They make it look easy on YouTube. I have seen them make multiple cuts on the bed sides. I think with this particular truck, one cut, in front of the axle would turn out fine. Please explain why I’m wrong.
    I also know where I can find what they call Unibody bedsides, from a 1961 Ford. Since I will probably have to hire the work done, I might not be able to afford that conversion. I love em though.
    I have decided against the unibody.
    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2021
  2. ken bogren
    Joined: Jul 6, 2010
    Posts: 982

    ken bogren
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I have a 61 f100 with a 460 and C6. I doubt any amount of OD will compensate for the lousy gas mileage of the 460.

    And the 460 is a very heavy engine, something like 720 pounds.
     
    chryslerfan55 and loudbang like this.
  3. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    Forget about the 360.

    I only mentioned the 460 because I have one in the rollback truck I’m not using. It sucks gas like a MF in that one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2021
  4. Lucky Duck! The first truck I bought when I turned 16 was a 1966 F-100. I love that body style. The 352 and 360 are great engines, maybe a little expensive to find parts for. I like FE engines, but the last year they built them was 1976. Personally, I would put a 351W with an M5OD in mine if I had one. I realize it’s not traditional, but sometimes you have to work with what is available. Nice truck!
     

  5. Hollywood-East
    Joined: Mar 13, 2008
    Posts: 1,803

    Hollywood-East
    Member

    Good lookin truck...
    I'd 289/302 it, lower it, Wouldn't cut it up to Short bed, Lowered 8" look much better than short roll'n.. .02
     
    mrspeedyt likes this.
  6. Appears to be a 65 66 twin I beam truck , so engine swap is east enough . Been awhile since I've had one stripped down to the chassis , but I am pretty sure the holes to move the rear spring pads and hangers to a short box are already drilled into the frame from factory .move forward and cut 2 ft off the rear of frame. No cheap way around overdrive for an fe motor , best to use a 302 , 351 as overdrive is widely available , or take the easy way and put a 350 chev in it . 20210515_133711.jpg 20181008_112520.jpg 20181008_112613.jpg
    1964 390 5speed 8ft box ,straight axle removed and 66 twin I beam suspension installed
     
  7. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    I think I’m leaning towards a 351W and AOD trans. That’s interesting about the holes for rear suspension!
     
  8. Bigmac48
    Joined: Apr 3, 2017
    Posts: 565

    Bigmac48
    Member
    from Dundalk Md

    yep ford in a ford !!!!!! Of topic but I know the later fords 67-79 lotta guys (not me) put newer crown Vic front suspensions under them also they use the newer 4.6 and trans out of the donor car , not sure if earlier frames have same dimensions ,make it yours , good luck , enjoy ,like all the examples you posted ,love your avatar!
     
    chryslerfan55 likes this.
  9. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    I considered the Vic front. Some say they are too wide. Since this one has twin-I-beam, it should ride great. I will probably get lowered axles.
     
    WhitewallWill and loudbang like this.
  10. NWRustyJunk
    Joined: Jan 2, 2017
    Posts: 456

    NWRustyJunk
    Member

    Those are such cool old trucks. I have a '66 f250 and '72 f100 in my stash that I need to do some thing with eventually.
     
  11. Roothawg
    Joined: Mar 14, 2001
    Posts: 23,165

    Roothawg
    Member

    The 360 is no mpg winner either.
     
    chryslerfan55 and loudbang like this.
  12. 360 s real dogs
     
    loudbang likes this.
  13. I personally I don't like the crown vic swap , the twin I beam is a great front end , take it to a big truck shop and have it aligned, 25 years and never had a set of tires wear on the outside .I also still have my gas tank in the cab ,figure if something broadsides me that hard it's not the gas tank I will have to worry about ,perhaps it may leave a nicer looking un burnt corpse...
     
  14. jaracer
    Joined: Oct 4, 2008
    Posts: 1,709

    jaracer
    Member

    My experience is that the 360 sucks gas about the same as a 460. The difference is that the 360 doesn't have anywhere near the power of the 460.
     
    chryslerfan55, Tman and loudbang like this.
  15. rebstew187
    Joined: Jan 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,480

    rebstew187
    Member

    Slick bumpside
     
    loudbang likes this.
  16. Had a few of the off topic trucks as well great handling trucks ,had a mercury bump side that drove like a cadillac
     
    loudbang likes this.
  17. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    Speaking of Mercury trucks, I would like to have a Mercury tailgate. Neet conversation starter in the US. 0BF9D968-2C3B-435C-A775-76AA90D3E9E7.jpeg
     
  18. Joe Travers
    Joined: Mar 21, 2021
    Posts: 696

    Joe Travers
    Member
    from Louisiana

    Had a '65 F-100 352 w/ 3-speed on the column w/ 3.50 posi-trac gear. I loved that truck. Pulled hard and plenty of power. I'd keep her in there and change the Long-type clutch out to a diaphragm-type to provide less pedal effort, if you can. An aluminum intake will take a lot of weight off the front. Bolt on a 600 Holley and plenty of scoot.

    Joe
     
  19. 6sally6
    Joined: Feb 16, 2014
    Posts: 2,005

    6sally6
    Member

    Why..........pray tell.... does a 360 "suck gas/gas hog/dawg" but a 352/390 is just great? Does 8 more cubic inches/or 30 cubic inches less.. make it a gas hog?!
    Come-on.......they are the same basic FE engine....right?!
    I can see the hate'in on the C-6 but........??
    Sorta like "everybody" usta say......that 409 mow-der is great but, the 348........piece of s---....can't keep head gaskets on it!
    Now all the Shivel-lay fellas drool all over a 348..(sweeet look'in engine BTW!)
    Why does the 360 rate so high on the 'suckage scale'?
    6sally6
     
  20. The 360 was a low comp truck engine.
    The 352 in my 67 was a lot more fun to drive than any 360 I had.
    The 360s got around 10-12. The 352 got 14-16 mpg.
     
  21. That 352 could be a lot of fun.
    The dropped beams available are some poor looking fabricated pieces. Nostalgia Sids just started dropping factory I-beams. The CV is wide and off topic here.
     
  22. deathrowdave
    Joined: May 27, 2014
    Posts: 2,942

    deathrowdave
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from NKy

    Ever see a 360 Cu with no heads ? TDC isn’t what appears to be TDC on any other FE Cu In engine I have taken apart . The piston does not reach the top of the bore . Very low compression engine , blocks are strong , all of the ones I tinkered with had ribs cast into the block . Was in 390 guts and they are good to go . 361 or 391 are steel crank engines , at least the ones I attacked were .
     
  23. B85F6764-D29B-4351-91A0-1A08A3D6E859.jpeg
    Nostalgia Sids new stuff.
    I thought about these.
    I’m not much on the steering relocation.
    If you kept the drum I beams, the steering arm bolts on. Could possibly do something different.
    If discs are desired, it’s still a possibility with drum spindles.
     
  24. Funny thing, Way back in the day I bought a '62 uni body because I needed a truck right now. Put a 390 and T-10 4 speed in it and it worked O.K. but I always hated the look of it. Now it seems they are very desirable. Whooda thunk it?
     
  25. The unibody bed sides have a different styling that matches up with unibody doors
     
    loudbang likes this.
  26. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    That dropped stock beam looks like the trick setup to me. Why has someone done that already? Old Sid has earned some business from me.
     
  27. It’s being used with 90s explorer springs.
    I’m running those springs. Much better than the old ones
     
  28. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    I didn’t know about the different doors. I think I have already dropped that idea.
     
  29. 6sally6
    Joined: Feb 16, 2014
    Posts: 2,005

    6sally6
    Member

    New Pistons is the fix, huh?.........Heads ..the same as 390?
    6sally6
     
  30. Rand Man
    Joined: Aug 23, 2004
    Posts: 4,431

    Rand Man
    Member

    Yes, it’s actually hard to distinguish the 360 from a 390, until you measure the stroke. If I rebuilt a 360, I would jump straight to the 428 crankshaft. Replacement pistons for that combo are reasonably priced. That gets you a 410 cubic inch torque monster. 1968 to 70 had decent compression. Stop hatin on the 360.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.