Bullnose Enthusiasts Forum

Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Classic

List

Threaded

407 messages Options

12345678 ... 21

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

This post was updated on .

Certainly if Vern had the block decked or had taller pistons installed that possibility exists

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

85lebaront2

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Jim, Gary, the F3TE heads do have larger valves, but the 1968-87 pistons have a 0.230" deep pocket in addition to small valve reliefs, roughly 21 ccs compression height is 1.760" (pin to crown), 1988-93 pistons have a 0.072" pocket with small valve reliefs, roughly 7 ccs and a compression height of 1.760" (what is in Darth's new engine), 1993-97 have a 0.180" pocket with valve reliefs, roughly 16 ccs and a 1.770" compression height. The E7TE and F3TE heads have a roughly 100 cc combustion chamber volume.

I did a number of calculations based on bore, heads, HG and piston to get what I wanted. I wanted the block decked but the gentleman building the engine didn't want to do it that way. FWIW, the deck height increased by 0.020" in 1972 along with a head change to drop the compression.

Bill AKA "LOBO" Profile

"Getting old is inevitable, growing up is optional" Darth Vader 1986 F350 460 converted to MAF/SEFI, E4OD 12X3 1/2 rear brakes, traction loc 3:55 gear, 160 amp 3G alternator Wife's 2011 Flex Limited Daily Driver 2009 Flex Limited with factory tow package Project car 1986 Chrysler LeBaron convertible 2.2L Turbo II, modified A413

Gary Lewis

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Bill - Thanks. What is the deck height for 1972+ engines? I'll want to check BB's deck height against that spec to see if it has been decked and that they didn't use taller pistons.

We shall see what the mongrel setup looks like as I pull it apart and envision installing the FI heads. Gonna resemble Johnny's Caddy.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

Dad's: '81 F150 Ranger XLT 4x4: Down for restomod: Full-roller "stroked 351M" w/Trick Flow heads & intake, EEC-V SEFI/E4OD/3.50 gears w/Kevlar clutches
Blue: 2015 F150 Platinum 4x4 SuperCrew wearing Blue Jeans & sporting a 3.5L EB & Max Tow
Big Blue: 1985 F250HD 4x4: 460/ZF5/3.55's, D60 w/Ox locker & 10.25 Sterling/Trutrac, Blue Top & Borgeson, & EEC-V MAF/SEFI

1986F150Six

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

This post was updated on .

Gary Lewis wrote

BWe shall see what the mongrel setup looks like as I pull it apart and envision installing the FI heads. Gonna resemble Johnny's Caddy.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Johnny+Cash%27s+Cadillac+song+YouTube&view=detail&mid=6F7E1EC4BE045FAE4A476F7E1EC4BE045FAE4A47&FORM=VIRE

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

In reply to this post by Gary Lewis

Scott Johnston'shttp://reincarnation-automotive.com/ site Reincarnation High Performance has all the incarnations of deck height and chamber volume.
The 460 Ford forum is a wealth of information too.

You say Vernon was meticulous about documentation. Surely there is information on engine internals???

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

Gary Lewis

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Thanks, I’ll go look at Scott’s site again.

But Vernon had no documentation on the engine. When I asked he said the “mechanic” did all that and he didn’t get any documentation. When Vernon discovered it leaked terribly, partially because it had no valve cover gaskets, he tried to go back on the guy - to no avail. Then the guy wouldn’t even answer the phone. So he got nothing. 😩

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

. It's really a shame when bad things happen to good people.

Saddens me to hear he was taken advantage of like that.

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

Gary Lewis

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Yes. He was so fed up with it, and I don't blame him one bit, that he got completely out of Bullnoses. Wanted nothing to do with them.

David - You found the right song! Thanks.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

salans7

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

In reply to this post by Gary Lewis

Gary Lewis wrote

And, of those I'll see which had a D60 front axle, which should then give me the list from which to go shopping.

Should go like this: 1986 was the first year for the D60, but only on the F350. That carried all the way until 1997. F250's still had a TTB D44HD or D50 all the way until 1997. In 1995, when the F150 and Bronco switched to bolt on brake calipers, that's when the D60 did as well. But it also gained ball joints, so 1985-1994 D60's have Kingpins, 1995-1997 have balljoints.

Gary Lewis

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Shaun - Good to know. So, any 1986 to '94 4wd F350 w/a 460 or diesel would give me both the cross member and the suspension with king pins, and from '95-'97 would give me the same but with ball joints. Right?

But, is there much reason to prefer either ball joints or king pins?

And, do we know that the cross member stayed the same for all those years, or is that something I'll determine with the MPC?

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

Nothing Special

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Gary Lewis wrote

.... But, is there much reason to prefer either ball joints or king pins?....

Conventional wisdom is that kingpins are stronger, but ball joint Dana 60s aren't exactly weak.

Another difference (that Shaun also mentioned) is that the ball-joint axles also had different brakes. I think people feel that the newer brakes are easier to service. And some people seem to feel that the newer brakes are a bigger improvement that kingpins, and therefore prefer the later axle.

Bob
Sorry, no '80 - '86 Ford trucks
"Oswald": 1997 F-250HD crew cab short box, 460, E4OD, 4.10 gears
"Pluto": 1971 Bronco, 302, NV3550 5 speed, Atlas 4.3:1 transfer case, 33" tires
"the motorhome": 2015 E-450-based 28' class C motorhome, 6.8L V-10
"the Dodge": 2007 Dodge 2500, 6.7L Cummins

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Nothing Special wrote

Conventional wisdom is that kingpins are stronger, but ball joint Dana 60s aren't exactly weak.

Another difference (that Shaun also mentioned) is that the ball-joint axles also had different brakes. I think people feel that the newer brakes are easier to service. And some people seem to feel that the newer brakes are a bigger improvement that kingpins, and therefore prefer the later axle.

Bolt on calipers v/s the older style pins with a rubber core to retain them.

My preference would be kingpins because ball joints are such a pain to change out.
But, to each his own.
Ask Bill which he prefers, since he has kingpins (albeit 2wd)

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

85lebaront2

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

In reply to this post by Nothing Special

Real kingpins, not tapered roller bearings are pretty well indestructible if you grease them regularly. Darth's are 33 years old and 142,000 miles and still have no side play, up and down yes, side to side no.

If I were going to go to 4WD I would damn sure find a way to keep my front coil springs, granted it's no Lincoln, but still rides way better than a leaf spring front end.

Bill AKA "LOBO" Profile

85lebaront2

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

In reply to this post by Gary Lewis

Gary, deck height 1968-1970 were 10.3, 1971 went to 10.310 and 1972 up are 10.322, you can see from the piston information I posted where Ford raised the compression height from 1.760 to 1.770 to make up for part of it.

Bill AKA "LOBO" Profile

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

In reply to this post by 85lebaront2

A leaf spring front end with RSK and super duty springs is supposed to be pretty plush.

I've driven a few F-350's with RSK and they are already light years ahead of the ride and turn radius of my truck.

Super duty springs are longer, so it makes a difference where you attach the shackles to the frame.

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

Gary Lewis

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Bill - I don't want to have to engineer anything, so expect to be going with leaf springs. But, the D60/SD/RSK approach sounds quite interesting.

As for the deck heights, I'll refer back to your post when I get the engine out and apart.

Jim - Do you have guestimates for the ride height increases for what I think you folks have said the options are, like these:

F350 stock springs

F350 springs and RSK

SuperDuty springs

SuperDuty with RSK

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

This post was updated on .

To the best of my knowledge (and I am not expert) a D60 swap with 350 springs will net you about 2" over a stock F-250 TTB.

The RSK will gain another *correction 2-2 1/2"* depending on how the rear shackle mounts are attached.

When I was looking into it I saw that Sky had two templates to drill the mounts, giving this range of lift.

I really don't know where Superduty springs would put you because I've never driven one, but have a look around their website.
The documentation and instructions are there for the '85-'91 kits for OBS and Superduty springs

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

After reading SORD's Superduty RSK instructions it states the use of stock rear spring mounts will result in a 3" lift over stock F-350 (but with bad shackle geometry) and using their low profile brackets you get the standard 2" RSK lift with much improved shackle angle.

There are side by side pictures for the two in their instructions.

Hope this helps.

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

Gary Lewis

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Thanks. Reading that helped my understanding a bit. And 2" of lift, coupled with dropping the rear about the same would make the truck look better - and ride dramatically better.

Gary, AKA "Gary fellow": Profile

ArdWrknTrk

Re: Issues With Big Blue!?!?!

Administrator

Well, 2" of lift going from a 250 to 350 front end, and another 2" for the RSK.

I'm guessing that the difference between 350 and Superduty kits is the projection of the front brackets because they mention in the Superduty kit instructions having to notch the lower rear edge of the front bumper.
This must be where they accommodate the longer Superduty spring.

Jim,
Lil'Red is a '87 F250 HD, 4.10's, 1356 4x4, Zf-5, 3G, PMGR, Saginaw PS, desmogged with a Holley 80508 and Performer intake.
Too much other stuff to mention.

12345678 ... 21