highway Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Drivetrain is the same 390 4bbl C6 combo common to all issues of this truck (not the 460 as claimed on some boxes in this series) but is inaccurate for the 77-79 trucks as it was replaced with the 351M & 400 engines in 77. Of course, the 300 six and 302 V8 were optional in these as well as the 460 in the 2wd trucks. Rep stock fans will want to do their research on the rest of the drivetrain, among other things, as the divorced np205 transfer case is accurate for the pre 77 trucks only and should be joined to the transmission on the newer ones. Actually Mike, if I remember correctly from owning two Ford cars and a 79 Bronco with the 351M (Bronco and 1976 Mercury Cougar) and the 400 (77 Ford LTD), those engines are in the same engine family as the 390, the FE family and the related FT (Ford Truck) family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine Some 78-79 minutia. If I recall, from rebuilding mine, the Stones truck would have to be a late 78, not sure of the month, or it could be a 79. Early 78 PU & Broncos had round headlights. Correct Kent, I'm not sure of the month either, but the kit is only a late 78 or 79 truck, just as the related Model King Bronco released in the early 2000s was. I made sure I picked that up to build a replica of my long gone 79 Bronco. I sure miss that truck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Thanks for that link. It's a pretty thorough and informative listing of the Ford engines and, most importantly, it does clearly state the differences between the Windsor (221,260,289,302,351w), the FE (332,352,406,360,390,428etc), the 335 series (351C, 351M,400) and the 385 series (429,460). The 335 and FE's share nothing in common. The 335 and 385 engines do share the same bell housing pattern though. As for the headlight issue, again, it is a trim level difference (ranger-rectangle, custom-round), not a production date that distinguishes these for the '78 model year. They were built side by side from aug '77 to jul '78. mike Edited August 23, 2017 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Looking at the chrome tree from the '79 Bronco, Round2 would have done better with this kit if they had put the Bronco's chrome tree and red tail light lenses in it. We would have gotten the right front bumper, an open grille, much better wheels and the swing away mirrors. Not to mention the nicer tail lights. I also just noticed on my Bronco kit that it also came with the wagon spoke wheels with lug nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
explorer2770 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 I just picked one of these up yesterday. First time ever buying this kit, I skipped over the Model King release, so I'll have to wait and get this one built before I decide to buy more. Two questions: Has anyone ever opened up the grill on this kit? I've tried this in the past with the '99 Silverado and was wondering if that has been tried successfully with this grill. Second, does anyone have any recommendations for parts to use to turn this into a DRW 4x4 configuration? I'm thinking of turning this into another flatbed brush truck once I get the Silverados finished and would rather have a DRW configuration over the SRW that it currently has so the boys can carry more water to the fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjracing Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Anybody remember a black moldings edition '79 F-250/350 trucks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted March 20, 2014 Author Share Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Bronco chrome... Great tip, Roger. Now I'm looking for an affordable one... good luck with that mike Edited October 6, 2017 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) ...does anyone have any recommendations for parts to use to turn this into a DRW 4x4 configuration? I'm thinking of turning this into another flatbed brush truck once I get the Silverados finished and would rather have a DRW configuration over the SRW that it currently has so the boys can carry more water to the fire. Best bet is probably the Dana 70 from the monogram '91 F350 dually for the rear and maybe a leaf spring mounted front Dana from one of the monogram Dodge Ramchargers... mike Edited March 21, 2014 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabrux Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Both of those items would be a touch too big (1:24 scale)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) As a wise man once said, 'We're modelers, we can fix that' Dana's are massive at any scale and I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference to most of us. Real picky guys can wait for the dana in one of the new Moebius offerings or pretend a 1/24 D60 from a hemi muscle car is a D70 ... As far as black-out trim, I can only think of the 77-79 free wheeling option mike Edited January 10, 2019 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highway Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Best bet is probably the Dana 70 from the monogram '91 F350 dually for the rear and maybe a leaf spring mounted front Dana from one of the monogram Dodge Ramchargers... mike The rear end in the F350 and the F250 kits from Monogram are NOT Dana 70s, but a Ford 10.25 corporate rear end. How do I know this to be sure?? I own a 90 F350 with that rear end and compared it to the kit piece. Dana 70s were offered in some, and the front drives in 4x4s like mine are Dana 60s, but the rear ends in those kits are definitely the Ford 10.25 unit, NOT Danas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris guthro Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The Dana 70 is used in dodge duallys more I think. And maybe the cab and chassis f450 2wd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbox55 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The Dana 70 is used in dodge duallys more I think. And maybe the cab and chassis f450 2wd The Dana 70 is also very common in Chevrolet and GMC duallies from the late '60s-early '80s. It also pops up in some single wheel GMC applications and Chevrolet single wheel Camper Specials. IHC also used them, for both front and rear axles (Dodge also used in the front in some years). The Willys FC with duals also used it, as well as one oddball option on the CJ2/CJ3, which also had dual wheels for rear mounting of heavy equipment, such as a post hole auger. As far as I know, there isn't one in scale. As highway stated, the one in the Monogram F350 is the 10.25" Ford axle, rather than the Dana 70. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris guthro Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The 10.25 can also be converted to single rear wheel as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highway Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 The 10.25 can also be converted to single rear wheel as well! Yeah, because it is found in the 1:1 F250 and F350 SRW models as well as the Monogram F250 and F350 kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) ...it's a 10.25 Not a D70.... That'll learn me for assuming without double-checking the box Maybe these Ramcharger parts are a little closer... might have to switch that front pumpkin side for side 'where can I find chrome valve covers for this kits 460' As this model never came with an actual 460, only a 390 through all the variations, you'll have better luck with kits that had FE engines like the Cobras, Fairlanes etc. If you're wondering about finding a real 460 for it, you could probably use the 429's from the Revell '70 Torino or possibly the amt '69 galaxie as the outward appearance of the 429/460 is pretty close to identical. mike Edited January 10, 2019 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1972coronet Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Dodge didn't --and still doesn't-- mess around when it comes to axle choices for their 4x4 (or even 4x2) pickups ! Dana 60 front with a Dana 80 rear ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmerc2003 Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Actually Mike, if I remember correctly from owning two Ford cars and a 79 Bronco with the 351M (Bronco and 1976 Mercury Cougar) and the 400 (77 Ford LTD), those engines are in the same engine family as the 390, the FE family and the related FT (Ford Truck) family. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine As a correction, the 351 "M" was a taller deck Cleveland block by one half inch which when combined with the longer stroke crank made the 400CID engine. The blocks look similar to a Cleveland but are taller. The 351 M and 400 are the same block and share the 460 bell housing bolt pattern. They are in no way related to the FE family. To make a 351 M / 400 for this truck the best best would be the 351C out our the '70 mustang kit with a 2bbl carb to be factory correct as neither production motor left with a 4bbl carb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) Just to reaffirm BigMerc's comments here...the FE series, Ford "335 Series" (351 Cleveland, 351M, 400) and the Ford "385 Series" (429, Boss 429, and 460) were each separate engine families. The "335" and "385" series engines used a similar design approach, but were still different engines series and did not share parts between them. The "FE" series is an entirely different design, having been engineered 10 years prior to the "385" and 12 years prior to the "335" engine families and using the different engine design principles common to V8's in the domestic industry at that point in time. I also agree with Bill that the best way to a 351M or 400 would be to start with the 351 Cleveland in the Revell '70 Mustang Mach 1 first issued in the 2000's. TIM PS - also wanted to note here that the Ford SuperDuty engine family, which comprised engine displacements in three sizes including a 534 cubic inch version, was yet another Ford engine family separate and apart from the 3 above. To my knowledge, the only Ford SuperDuty engine in scale is the outstanding example in the AMT Ford C-600 (really a C800 or 900 due to the engine) Stake, Tractor, and Van kits. This engine was correctly identified on the box art of some versions of this kit, but also misidentified as a 361 on some others such as the Stake Truck, which was the "displacement" for the Heavy Duty version of the Ford 360 truck motor in the FE engine family. Edited March 27, 2014 by tim boyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Just something I'd like to point out, related to the earlier discussion of a suitable Cleveland engine. I'm using a Scale Modeling by Chris engine in one I'm making into a '78 Custom. The SMBC engine is a fine little piece, but be aware- I had some issues with starter clearance against the 2wd front suspension crossmember. I'd suggest cutting down the starter, try to fit it a bit closer to the block and or move it a bit further back toward the bellhousing, or (if you really don't care about underside detail) leave it off altogether. I cut a notch out of the crossmember to clear it, the trimming isn't visible once the engine is in place and the body is mounted, but it's something to think about. The SMBC kit I used came with a separate C6 trans, but I used the AMT kit trans instead, as there is a locator pin molded to the pan of the kit piece. I haven't tried the Cougar or NASCAR kit engine block in one yet, so I can't say for sure if there'd be any clearance issues with those as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim boyd Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Just something I'd like to point out, related to the earlier discussion of a suitable Cleveland engine. Chuck....just read your comments about the appropriateness (or more accurately, the inappropriateness) of SBC engines in Ford vehicles in your latest "Inspiration Files" in the new issue of MCM (#185) . Right-on! Interesting car you featured...it appears to be Michigan-based but i don't recall seeing it at any of the hot rod events I've attended in the area....anyway, enjoyed your feature. Sure would make a cool model car! Best regards...TIM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Chuck....just read your comments about the appropriateness (or more accurately, the inappropriateness) of SBC engines in Ford vehicles in your latest "Inspiration Files" in the new issue of MCM (#185) . Right-on! Interesting car you featured...it appears to be Michigan-based but i don't recall seeing it at any of the hot rod events I've attended in the area....anyway, enjoyed your feature. Sure would make a cool model car! Best regards...TIM Thanks, Tim! I feel that the best place for a small block Chevy is in a boat... I hear they make a fine anchor. I saw that car at the big show up in St. Ignace in 2012- the piece says "last year", which was correct when I wrote the article back in 2013. Should have just mentioned in the text it was the 2012 show. Live and learn, I suppose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 .... the dana in one of the new Moebius offerings.... A tad off topic, but about that... Would the Dana be correct for a 2-wheel-drive 1/2 ton Bumpside? Every such '67-72 I've ever seen has a Ford 9". 3/4 and 1 tons are another ballgame, and I know those did have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk11 Posted April 27, 2014 Author Share Posted April 27, 2014 (edited) Yes, the D60's definitely were available with the five lug axles in the F100's, Chuck. I had a '67 F100 with a 352 4spd and D60 that I parted out a few years ago. I sold the diff to a gent restoring a Hurst Scrambler. Needed the extra beef to handle the 401 he was mounting upstream... ...besides, the hemi D60s had to come from somewhere ... mike Edited November 25, 2017 by mk11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Huh. Guess it must have depended on how the truck was equipped. My grandfather's '68 F-100 had the 390 and 3-speed manual, and it had the 9". The truck is long gone now, but the axle has been underneath a pro street car for about 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 A tad off topic, but about that... Would the Dana be correct for a 2-wheel-drive 1/2 ton Bumpside? Every such '67-72 I've ever seen has a Ford 9". 3/4 and 1 tons are another ballgame, and I know those did have them. I don't think it would be Chuck. I've never seen one under a half ton Ford pickup myself. But,that doesn't mean it never happened though. I would venture to say that the few that do have the Dana were probably ordered that way or swapped in at some point in the truck's life. Regardless, my bump side will have a nine inch rear end under it. A Ford without a nine inch is just "wrong" IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.