Gary Lewis

Sure, if you want a challenge..... CB Radio. Ok, let me see what I can find....

SD Spring. I did not talk to anyone, I figure I am just gonna have to modify the kit to work for me since they don't have the truck in front of them. I haven't seen any updates from Vince or the other guy, so I guess I'll just have to see how it works for me. Cool! Keep us posted.

Jonathan - I briefly, and only briefly, thought about using the ZF clutch plate with the T19 pressure plate and the original flywheel. Then I realized that I'd have a mismatched clutch and pressure plate. And that down the road when my offspring need to replace that clutch they'll be confused. Further, I remembered that mixing throwout bearings and pressure plates doesn't work very well when I tried it on Dad's truck - and had to pull it apart and replace the throwout bearing. Plus, this pressure plate is much bigger than the one for the T19, and Scott assured me that I need the HD clutch. So I bit the bullet and ordered the right flywheel.

Thanks for the reply. 2 that say the red top has got issues down the road and not a long road (Cory) at that so blue it will be. I meant to pull the vacuum line for the drive home to test and forgot, will have to do that before I use the truck tomorrow. I will also see if the Allen wrench will fit. Hope I get lucky as I was not looking forward to finding one for a Ford 300 six motor, everything is for v8's. On the clutch I don't think it is dragging but it is grabbing close off the floor and I don't remember adjusting it there. Will have to go over the clutch linkage and adjust the clutch to see if that helps. Other than being a pain to shift and the grinding that comes up the stick to your hand (the pain part) I can live with it for now. Thanks Dave ---- Dave - I think the Allen wrench you want to try is 1/8" not 3/32". However, I'm not sure that is accurate information because it comes from guys who are known to say things that aren't very accurate. It is from this thread on FTE. Seriously, I did a search for "crane adjustable vacuum advance ford 300 six" and the very first result was a thread on FTE. And when I started reading the text of the first post, before I even clicked on the search results, I thought "That sounds familiar." Indeed it was/is.

Finding a 2wd ZF5 with the SBF bellhousing I believe is much easier than finding the 4x4 version. I saw a couple of them at the local junkyard go to the crusher. I'm sure there's a much lower demand for them than the 4x4 versions. But remember...a ZF5 has a hydraulic clutch, which I know you don't like. Shaun - Which kit did you get? Did you talk to Erik? Tell him you are on here? Dave - You are sure your alignment guys know what they are doing - right? Bad toe-in can cause problems. Cory - I was going to say it is possible to use a mechanical clutch linkage on a ZF5. I did it, although it did take some modifications to the throw out arm. But then I remembered that the small-block ZF5 has a concentric hydraulic slave cylinder internal to the bell housing, so that won't work and I won't mention it.

With the 300 six and an AOD you should be knocking on the door of 20 MPG. David is with his, and while his has the manual tranny with OD, the AOD should come close. So you may well have a worn engine. But I'd still run a leak-down test to make sure before you decide to rebuild it. And speaking of rebuilding it, someone on here has to try Scotty The Mad Porter's 300 build. He's one of the premier gurus on the 460, but he says he does a mean 300 as well.

Good idea, David. He said the HD clutch is the way to go. So it is on order. And while I was at it I asked what his thoughts were about: Throttle Body: OEM is fine unless you want it to really rock above 3,500 4,000 rpm Injectors: 26# Accel from Summit Racing Well, two steps forward and one backward is still progress. And any progress is good - right, Jim? Got the clutch kit in from LuK today. The good news is that it came with two pilot bearings, both of which are true bearings and not bushings. (The T19 has a smaller pilot on the input shaft than does the ZF5, and the kit fits both.) But the bad news is that the pressure plate is bigger than the one that was on Big Blue previously and it won't bolt onto the flywheel. The flywheel I have has three pairs of tapped holes, but the flywheel I need will have four pair of tapped holes, like the one shown below that is now on order from Amazon. But, it won't be in until Friday the 6th, so I won't get the tranny installed until after then. So I think I'll get the various plugs and taps for the plenums installed while the engine is on the stand. And then install the engine and start working on the front dress. While the serpentine bracketry is clean, I think it may need to be prettier.

Cory - WelderScott, who has a '78 F150, put a RedHead in and it has some slop. Last I knew he was hassling with them to get it replaced. I'll ask him on Sunday. But, I agree with you that once off center the worn boxes do better. And you can take a little bit of that out with the lash adjustment, but you are adjusting for a worn spot and then when you get off center it is now tight. There's just no way but to replace the box. Dave - I understand the sentiment. Changing out the box is not easy nor fun, so I'd want to do it once and for all. Given that, I'd go with a BlueTop. The RedHead in Dad's truck is tight, so may have been done back when they were turning out better work. But something has slipped there from what I've read and been told, like from Scott, and I can't recommend them. On the pinging, I'd bet it is because you aren't adding the exhaust gas. So the mix is crisp and the burn rate fast, as opposed to the mix diluted with exhaust gas, which burns much more slowly. So they dial in a lot of vacuum advance because it is under light load that the EGR kicks in. And your test of plugging the vacuum line to see if the pinging stops is the right thing to do. But you may already have an adjustable can. Go in there with a really small Allen wrench, typically 3/32", and see if it engages in a screw head. Crane says to turn the screw counterclockwise 2 turns at a time until the pinging goes away. As for the tranny, make sure the clutch isn't dragging. If it is that can really make shifting difficult.

Well, I did climb the Microfiche Tower and checked out the 1982 version of the MPC. And, as I expected, there was an entry in it for the tonneau cover. But, surprise surprise, it wasn't an E0TZ but a D1TZ. Yep, the 1971 - 79 tonneau was the one they sold for the Bullnose trucks. So I've modified the new Tonneau Cover page to reflect that info, including this from the 1973-79 catalog:

Gary, I see you're catching up on some projects today! Did you take a day off from being retired?>..lol. I'm just kidding, I know you're a busy guy! Yes, that's it! I re-retired. Basically having a slow day and not doing anything in the shop, which gives me time to compute.

Some of you may be wondering where the idea of moving the site to Wordpress stands. After all, it has been almost two months since anything was said about it. Basically, the move apparently isn't going to happen. Chris/ckuske did a bunch of work trying to find an automated way to resolve the problems that he found and finally came to the conclusion that it would be less work to rebuild the site page by page on Wordpress than it would be to figure out how to automagically migrate it. And rebuilding it would be a huge, HUGE pain! So I went back to my issues with Weebly and determined that I can live will all but one of the problems, and that is the pain it has been backing the site up, as described in the previous post. But, I also discovered that the problem of having "network failure" during a backup was a lot worse than I'd described. In fact on this tablet, which had been the least bad one to use for downloading the backup, a recent test had me have to resume the backup probably 30 times over a span of 12 hours to finally get it done. Clearly that wasn't acceptable. So I did some looking for ways to fix that problem. And luckily I seem to have found one - Auto Resume Downloads extension for Google's Chrome browser. The reviews of it are mixed, but it works a treat for me. I'm now able to start a download on any of my computers and it will run to completion in a couple of hours with no babysitting on my part. Yes, there are "network failures" along the way, but in a minute or so the download automatically resumes. Given that, I've now started adding pages to the site again. And each time I add a page or documentation to an existing page, I go through the process of causing Weebly to generate a backup and then I download the file and save it.

Added a new section called Accessories (Documentation/Accessories), and two new pages in that section: Tie Down Hooks: Cory spotted some tie down hooks for the little Ranger, but that gave me enough info to find them in the MPC. So I thought I ought to document them before the info got away. Tonneau Cover: I'd recently run across the tonneau cover in an early accessories catalog, so thought I'd document it since my teacher told me that you can't have a heading with only one thing under it. However, when I dug into it I found a mystery - the 1981 accessories catalog has the tonneau for the F-Series trucks listed, but the 1986 accessories catalog says it is only for the little Ranger. On the other hand, the MPC does not have that part number. But it does have an illustration for it. And, on Facebook some poor soul asked about a "dipstick holder" for his IDI. The folks on their showed their true worth and bashed him. (Don't you just love how much help some of the FB'ers are. ) So I went to the Documentation/Engine/IDI Diesel page to help him. And while we have all of the part numbers for that engine, we didn't have the illustrations for the IDI's. So I added a tab and the 11 illustrations I could find in the MPC.

I didn't notice it, no, but it probably came from the same truck that the bed parts came from...lol. These builds almost always arise from what they have on hand...bunch of old trucks kickin' around the farm...tear 'em all apart and build one! I agree. It is almost like "We have all these parts, so let's see what we can make with them, regardless of how ugly the result is."

Yes, accessories would be cool. I find a lot of this stuff very interesting...mainly as a Bullnose enthusiast...I have no need for these hooks. I came across a Bullnose Bronco for sale yesterday and noticed a switch under the dash that looked sort of like a factory add-on. I could barely read the print on it, but I discovered that it was a rear window defrost switch. I didn't even know it was an optional accessory until I checked the 1982 (I think) facts book. But back to the tie-down hooks. I still find it interesting that they seem to be way more common in the west. I'm curious if there was a marketing reason for this?...Or just a style preference by region...who knows. Side note...but related: I bought a new Silverado (for my work) early in 2013, and since it had to be silver, the dealer was checking the neighboring provinces, one of which is New Brunswick, where they get a lot more snow then we do. He said the dealers there order most of their trucks with limited slip diffs and all-terrain tires. Here, where the weather is much milder, the trucks mostly have all season type tires and open diffs. Just goes to show you the differences in how they order trucks based on the region. Out in western Canada, the Bullnoses were often all XLT's and Lariats, etc. Out here in the poverty stricken east coast, all bare bones strippers with no options! Ha! Ok, we have a new section on Accessories, and a new page: Documentation/Accessories/Tie Down Hooks. And, for grins, I added another page: Documentation/Accessories/Tonneau Cover. But, as it shows, Ford appears to have taken the numbers out of the catalog by 1994, as I explained on that page. Perhaps I can climb the "Microfiche Tower" and check out my 1982 version of the MPC later and confirm that the part numbers are E0TZ 99501A42-A and -B. Other suggestions for accessory pages?

According to Wiki, the 3rd generation of the E-Series went from 1974 to 1991. That's a long stretch. "During its sixteen-year production run, the exterior of the Econoline/Club Wagon would remain nearly unaltered. In 1978, the Super Van/Super Wagon was introduced; based on the 138-inch wheelbase, it was a rear body extension allowing for extra cargo room or an extra row of seating (for up to 15 passengers). In 1979, a minor facelift updated the grille design; round headlights were replaced by rectangular units. In 1983, the Ford Blue Oval was added to the grille, replacing the "FORD" lettering on the hood." Wow! That IS a looooong stretch. So this might be an '87 van w/a Bullnose Flareside bed. Right?

I can't find them in the 1986 accessory catalog, and it is the most thorough, nor the MPC, nor the 1986 price list. But, I only tried calling them a "tiedown", "tie-down", "tie down", or "anchor". What else might they be called? Gary, Happened to come across these tie-downs below while searching for other junk. They are not the same as on the Explorer above, but they do appear to be Ford parts. https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-OEM-Ford-1984-1992-Ranger-Pickup-Truck-Tie-Downs-1985-1986-1987-1988-1989-90/123611093647?hash=item1cc7cb9a8f:g:bMEAAOSwvrJcPRkv Cory - Well spotted! You found enough info to let me find them, as shown below. So the question now becomes how to put this info on the website. I'm thinking a new set of pages called Accessories. It would look like Documentation/Accessories/Tie Down Hooks. Thoughts?

I've seen a few like that on the highway, but only with a flat bed, not a Flareside bed. Strange. Bizarre even. But it has a Bullnose bed, or at least fenders. And wouldn't the front wheel well openings have changed in '87 on the vans like they did the pickups? So this looks like a Bullnose van instead of an '87. Or, did maybe the vans not change that year?

Looking good! And the aluminum paint will make it much easier to keep clean.

Good news. But I'm not sure about the blue smoke. Give the change in the choke a shot, but I'm doubtful.

There are LOTS of variables in play when trying to achieve max efficiency. One is the engine RPM, but not only is the max torque important, but so is the friction loss w/in the engine. MIT has an interesting paper entitled Engine Friction And Lubrication, and in it is this chart on engine friction. As you can see, the engine friction goes up dramatically as the RPM increases. So while you may gain efficiency by the engine operating at max torque, raising the RPM by 55% will certainly increase the friction, and that might negate the gain. So it is best to get RPM down to a reasonable value AND to get the max torque to coincide with the lowered RPM. But with a C6 you are also battling inefficiencies in it as well. The torque converter doesn't have a clutch so is always slipping, and depending on the load that's usually between 200 and 300 RPM. Not only does that raise the RPM and, therefore, the friction, all of that slippage is turned into heat and is lost energy. Plus the C6 is notoriously inefficient in and of itself. And, it has no OD. The AOD is a more efficient design as it is based on the C4. Plus, it does have a mechanical lock that bypasses the torque converter, and it has overdrive. And I'm told that it is possible to build one of those to stand up to a strong 351W. But it is expensive to do and you'd have to drive a lot of miles to make it pay off.

Ken - I understand. International certainly costs a bunch. But it'll happen, so when you do PLEASE come by to see us again!

Ours is around a month before yours. It will be a little quiet for us as well the rest of the week as most of the equipment I deal with is made in the US, so there will be no orders or tech support, etc...lol. Well then, Happy Thanksgiving a month late or 11 months early to my Canadian friends. And Happy Thanksgiving right on time to my US friends. As for the rest of y'all, have a good day and reflect on how blessed you are.

Raw fuel on the floor of the intake won't hurt, but I'm pretty sure that the pull-off is opening the choke too much as that fits the symptoms. And I'll bet that just before the engine dies it tries to run again since as it stalls the vacuum drops and that closes the choke a bit. I really like the vacuum pull-off on a carb as it provides a feedback loop - lots of vacuum says the engine is running well and that opens the choke more. But if you have it set too aggressively it'll kill the engine rather than make it run better, and there's nothing you can do with the choke adjustment to fix that. In fact, in my experience it is better to have too little pull-off than too much.

Mark - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "I can feather the gas and bypass the single- pump choke set, and it'll run fine, too." But, if you mean that you can pump it a bit while it is wanting to die and it'll run then I understand. And if that's the case I think you have the pull-off opening the choke too much. I say that because that's about all that can overcome dialing in more choke, which you said makes no difference. The pull-off can overpower the choke's bi-metallic spring, regardless of how far you turn the choke housing. So I'd back off on the pull-off a bit, maybe to 1/16". And actually, there's nothing magic or precise about those measurements. They are really to get you into the ball park, but each vehicle is slightly different, so you have to fine tune from the factory settings if you want things to work spot-on.

Interesting! They are the same size tire that was on my 1984 when it was new. The cool part for me is that the much larger (wider, actually) tires that I'm running now (275/60-15) are actually the same OD as the original 215's. So, while they are much heavier by comparison, they actually kept my speedometer correct to within 1%.I know they will hurt my fuel efficiency, but I like them enough they're worth the "cost" to me.This is one of the reasons I like that link above it shows a good break down of the tire differences.That's an interesting calculator. And I was excited when I saw the "embed" info thinking we could embed it here. But, it really isn't embed code and is instead a link. We have the calculator shown below on the Documentation/Driveline/Calculators tab. And I'm wondering if we should incorporate a tire size calculation in it. Tire size calc's are pretty close, but each manufacturer's tires vary a bit in size, as you can see on the Tire Rack site. But, I think it would be pretty easy to add the tire size calculations to the spreadsheet to allow us to play what-if games. So, what do y'all think? Would it help?