Gary Lewis

Yes, it really DOES look GOOD! You are going to be so proud! It is a bummer that work tends to get in the way, but if you are doing a staycation then maybe you'll get a lot more done? I'll bet you can't wait.

Well summed, Jonathan. I particularly like your last sentence, and fully agree. The reduced engine noise because the RPM at 65 MPH on Dad's truck went from 2800 to 1900 was well worth the cost of the swap. And that doesn't even address the 2 MPG hoped-for increase in MPG due to the T19 to ZF5 swap on Big Blue. Currently Big Blue gets 11 MPG, so a 2 MPG increase gives 13 MPG. Assuming gas is $3/gal my math says it'll take 37,750 miles to make the $1500 cost of the fully-rebuilt ZF5 up. I expect to drive BB that far, so I suspect I'll save money eventually with the swap. However, the cost of the ZF5 was a one-time expenditure and filling BB up is a very frequent event, and it is that frequent reminder of the very poor MPG he currently gets that is galling. Can you tell I'm looking forward to getting the ZF5 in?

The wiring is shown below, which is out of the 1985 EVTM here: http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/charge--power-distribution-gas.html on Page 17. And if the wire circled in red is the one you mean it won't work leaving it off. If you turn to Page 18 in the EVTM, shown further below, you'll see where that yellow wire goes - to the ignition switch. It feeds a lot of things, including the ignition. The shunt is the black/orange wire, marked Shunt in the first diagram, and it is what isn't up to handling the full output of the 3G alternator. It is probably rated at a max of 70 amps as the largest alternator available on these trucks was a 70a unit. So you might get by leaving the shunt in if you never run the battery down very low, which would require the alternator to go to max output. Or you can wire around the shunt. Run a #10 wire between the two connections circled in maroon and that will bypass the shunt as well as the ammeter. Good to go.

There's supposed to be a spring behind the door panel, as shown below with the red circle. Perhaps yours doesn't have that and the big washer, 23370? If I remember correctly the door panel goes between 23370 and the spring, and the spring keeps the window crank pushed into the cab and tries to center it so it doesn't wobble as much.

That would certainly deal with the limitation on droop I experienced in my F-150. If it works in real life as well as it looks there it would seem to be a great thing! Agreed. However, Firestone doesn't think so. I also found this in the TruckSpring Times: But, in all of my reading on the internet I've only found one person who had trouble after installing the Daystar cradles. In his case the air bag missed the cradle and hit the tire, cutting a groove in the sidewall. But I'm guessing that he didn't get the cradle properly centered under the bags, which caused the problem. In fact, some of the people reported having to offset the cradle on the bracket to get it centered, and I'd bet he didn't. All of the MANY others reported good success with the cradles. Articulation was back to what it was supposed to be and there were no problems of the bags not going back into the cradles. So I think this is the way I'll go, assuming that I do take leaves out of the springs and then need more load-carrying capability.

If by "the yellow wire" you mean the yellow white wire, then the alternator won't work if you don't hook that wire up. Or, maybe I should say it'll work w/o regulation and the output voltage will go very high. Don't do that. But if what you are worried about is the ammeter, then you could do the 3G conversion and leave the ammeter. It is a bit risky as the shunt may melt if the alternator is required to recharge a dead or very low battery. But if you are careful and charge the battery up before starting the truck the first time you should be ok.

What do y'all think?I've done some searching to see about the Daystar cradles and ran across this video that I thought might help you see how they work:

Well, we are grandtwinless for the weekend, and I got to play in the shop today - before weedeating and mowing. (Without getting the mower stuck, again, David. ) I media blasted the other brake caliper and then phosphated both of them. Here's one of them, although in person they looked a lot more gray than brown. And here they are after being powder coated. (Jim - I must have gotten the wrong bottle of powder as I was sure they were going to come out red. ) But, in doing the phosphating I got the bores as well. I don't think that will hurt anything, but what do y'all think? Here's a shot of the bores on one of the calipers. Note that I didn't get powder into the bores, which I did by slipping the old pistons in, applying the powder, and then pulling the pistons out. Also, I bought the new issue of Outdoor X4 magazine, and there's an article in it called Built For Adventure. In it a guy explains how he built a 2011 Toyota Tacoma pickup into and overlander. And one of the things he did was to add Hellwig air bags and Daystar cradles for those bags. So I went to the Daystar site and read this: What do y'all think?

Nice truck, but I seriously doubt it'll bring $14,500. But here's hoping!

That's a Duraspark II, and there is no EEC, which stands for Electronic Engine Control. That can be determined by the blue grommet where the wires come out of the box - the classic telltale of a DS-II box. The DS-II system was the simple system that used a reluctor in the distributor to signal to the box in the picture when to fire the ignition. No computer anywhere to calculate anything. As for the 12A199, that is Ford's generic part number for a "Modulator assy.-ignition (breakerless)", as shown in the Master Parts Catalog. To get the whole part number you need a prefix, like D9VZ, and a suffix, like -A. Put that together with the generic number and you have D9VZ 12A199-A, which is the whole part number for a box like that. You can see all of the part numbers here: Electrical/Ignition and on the Ignition Modules tab.

Jasper is a name I see frequently. But some of the local parts houses, like O'Reilly's or Advanced may also have them. Or crate engines, as they are called, could be an option.

Danny - You said earlier "Another question, what would make the key switch real stiff? Feels like it’s binding up." There are at least two reasons - the lube in the ignition switch itself has dried up and/or the switch is binding, or the linkage in the steering column is broken/binding. If you go to the Electrical/Ignition page and click on the Ignition Switch tab you'll see a discussion of how to remove and re-install the switch. I'd pull the switch and see if the key now turns smoothly or if it still binds. If it binds or is rough w/o the switch you know it is the linkage in the column. If the linkage seems to be the problem you can see several links here (http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/steering-columns1.html) that discuss how to repair it. But if the problem appears to be the switch then lube it and re-install it as described in the previous link.

I've never heard that one, or done any calculation that would suggest it. But basic entropy graphs show that about TEMPERATURE - the higher the engine's peak combustion temperature, the more-efficient it is (thermodynamically). Your quote implies that the cycling (rotating mass of the engine components) is the greatest loss, and that an engine with no moving parts (like a ramjet) must necessarily be the most-efficient. A ramjet is certainly thermodynamically-efficient, but it's not fuel-efficient (MPG), which is what we're really talking about. And all things being equal, the most-efficient mechanical engine is a Stirling, which has very low compression ratio. I disagree strongly with that... Fluids can't be "pulled" - only pushed. And the engine doesn't push the air outside - the earth's gravity does that. The engine has to push the air in the crankcase out of the way for the piston to go down. That's irrelevant of the throttle or its size. But an open throttle allows air to flow into the engine, balancing out the pressures above & below the piston, making it easier to pull the piston down. That might seem semantic, but it's a physical fact: the engine uses NO energy to move air past a closed throttle plate. Only to push the air around inside the crankcase, to compress it into the combustion chamber (and higher CR means more loss there), and to push it out of the cylinder during the exhaust stroke. That's what the MythBusters & Top Gear experiments were about (although the TG one was intentionally slanted to produce the result they wanted, for entertainment reasons). That has always been my philosophy when I'm harassed about driving such a large, heavy, vehicle getting such low MPG; I'd rather pay for that extra gas than lose the safety, durability, & utility. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion, but Sideflop may be getting confused. So to cut to the chase, regardless of what was said in engineering classes or what we can read on line, the bottom line is that gearing does matter. Bob proved that for us with his test of different gear selections in the same truck, with a diesel engine, on the same day in the same weather conditions. To reiterate, his instantaneous readings, given by the vehicle's ECU, were: 55 MPH: In 4th the engine was turning 1579 RPM and got 21 MPG. But by shifting to 3rd it was turning 2224 RPM and dropped to 16 MPG. That's a 24% reduction in MPG for a 29% increase in RPM. 77 MPH: In 4th @ 77 MPH it was turning 2224 RPM, the same as in 3rd at 55 MPH. And at that RPM it was getting 16 MPG. But by pulling it down into 3rd at that speed it was turning 3113 RPM, which reduced the MPG to 11, which is a 27% reduction in MPG for a 29% increase in RPM. Granted, those were not the average MPG's he got with the truck. In fact, they are much higher than what he got. But they indicate that changing the engine's RPM w/o changing anything else does change the vehicle's economy. And then back to the original question: To that I'll say again essentially what I said earlier to answer that question: "15-18 mpg going 65-75 mph" is pretty doggone good for a heavy truck, and I'd be delighted with it 3.54 is a decent ratio for towing as well as cruising light since it has the engine at an RPM where it has the torque to tow in 4th gear However, the limiting factor is the lack of an overdrive gear in the transmission. If a ZF5 were to replace the T19 then you could tow in 4th just as you do today, but when running light shift into 5th and enjoy better MPG as well as reduced engine noise due to the reduced RPM's. Note that I'm not quantifying the increased MPG. But a 24% reduction in RPM will yield some increase in MPG.

Wow! Just WOW! What a wonderful Father's Day! Getting things done on the truck is quite a joy in and of itself, but to have your son not only send the heads out and buy a replacement but to volunteer to help you pull the engine AND to have lined up a shop is over the top. That will be a Father's Day to remember for a long, long time. As for the intake, my understanding is that the RPM Air Gap is designed for a higher RPM range than I think you'll be using in the truck. Instead, I'd recommend the Performer intake, of which Edelbrock used to say "Boosts torque from idle to 5,500 RPM." However, I cannot find the Performer on their website. According to Summit, there are three Performer intakes for the 351W: 2181: The natural, aluminum-colored intake w/o EGR, which Summit shows for $310 21813: Black powder-coated version of the 2181, which Summit has for $419 3781: The EGR version of the 2181, which Summit has for $402 I've had good luck with the 2181, and would have thought that would be the intake for your application assuming you are not going to be running EGR - see below.. But, as said, I can't find it on their website, which I wanted to do in order to compare torque curves. Perhaps you should call Edelbrock? On the serpentine question, that's a really BIG question. This link to Summit shows at least 10 pages of various "serpentine" things. And those things go from ~$200 for pulleys alone to over $2500 for a kit. But one to do the water pump, alternator, power steering pump, and A/C compressor looks to be ~$750. However, watch out for a couple of things. First, most serpentine systems run the water pump backward, so you need a "reverse rotation" water pump. Second, some of the kits are for a Saginaw power steering pump. But your pump is the Ford C2 and won't bolt to a Saginaw bracket. However, you could get a Saginaw pump, either from a van at the salvage or buy a new one, and have a better pump than your C2. As said, this is a BIG question. Big in $ and big in options/questions. On the distributor, it will be worn but should be serviceable. However, it is curved to handle exhaust gas in the air/fuel mix and if you eliminate the EGR then you'll have too much advance at part throttle when it expects the EGR system to be working. So before deciding on a distributor you should decide whether you are going to run EGR or not. And that question will open up lots of debate. I don't particularly care for EGR as it puts yukky exhaust in the intake manifold and cruds things up. But, other than that there is no downside. And it is really illegal to remove it. So you have to decide. If you stay with EGR then I'd recommend the Eddy 3781 intake and stay with the old distributor. But if you eliminate EGR then I'd go with the 2181 intake, although you could do the RPM Air-Gap, and then we need to discuss finding a new distributor with the correct advance curve. Your call.

A rebuilt engine from someone reputable would include a warranty, which you wouldn't have when doing it yourself. And, there'd be less chance of there being a problem.

Yep. If that price were correct then there'd be a big business in parting out these trucks.

In my experience you can't properly rebuild an engine for less than about $2000, even if you do all of the assembly work. That's because of the necessary machine shop fees. None of the wear items will be truly round. The cylinders as well as the rod and main journals on the crank will all be out of round. So you need to bore the cylinders, which means you also need new pistons in addition to new rings. And the crank will need to be turned on both the rod and main bearing journals, and you'll then need new bearing inserts. Plus, frequently the heads have to be reworked, meaning have the seats ground, valves turned, and new stem seals installed. Then you need the rebuild kit, with pistons, rings, bearings, gaskets, etc. I rebuilt a 351W a few years ago and had a friend who runs a machine shop do the machine work so got a good deal on the price. And he even bought the rebuild kit and sold it to me at his price. And it still cost $2000 when I was done.

Part # E3TZ 9189-C Marked E3TB 9F271-AA - contains (6) ports 83/86 E-F250/350 - - 8 cyl. diesel 83/85 E—F250/350 - - 8 cyl. 460-gas-w/electric in tank fuel pump 83/R — 4 cyl. 134 diesel

E3TZ 8A616-T 83/86 E—F100/350.U150 - - with A/C 300/4.9L marked as E3TA-LA

Looks to be the correct part for the F & U150 4wd trucks. LH side.

Wow! They look great. But I think I'll not hold my breath for the durability report.

Yes, they are old enough. But, they haven’t been taught to follow instructions. This morning was a good example of that. First crack out of the box he didn’t stop the winch when I told him to STOP. When I got onto him he said “Sorry”. I explained that sorry would NOT cut it and that he had one more chance and then he was done for the day. After that he did really well. He just hasn’t had to do as told. 😩

Yep. For sure.

Yeppers! Janey has suggested I sell it. But, it is actually appreciating in value, so.....

Sometimes, while being involved with a group discussion, one might think of something which might be considered a "rabbit trail", but has the possibility of adding breadth if not depth to the discussion. If nothing else, it might be humorous. Looking at the above list, some of these items play into the forthcoming illustration. Back in 1991 - 1994, GEO [suzuki] manufactured the Geo Metro which was sold by Chevrolet. This was a 1.0L 3 cylinder econo-box. The standard one with 5 speed manual transmission was rated @ ~46 MPG. The engineers put together a model to be the highest rated automobile offered in America, at that time. The name of this model was Metro XFi and it was rated @ 58 MPG! I drove a 1992 model for years and was able to see 57 MPG @ 55 mph. The horsepower was 48.5 vs. 55 for the standard engine. There were several changes made to greatly enhance the fuel efficiency: The camshaft was specific to the XFi engine [better torque?] The final drive ratio was 3.79 vs. 4.11 The ECU was specific to this model The pistons had 2 rings vs. the normal 3 [1 less compression ring; reduced internal friction] The XFi had only the driver's side exterior mirror [decreased wind drag] The interior was very spartan with little insulation [decreased weight] Food for thought. David - Would it be fair to revise your statement to be "At 65 mph in O.D., if there was the slightest hill in the county it required shifting to 3rd"? That's the way I've heard it stated. As for the Geo, that's incredible MPG. But, at quite a cost of creature comforts and, to some degree, safety. (I remember the day I got my Super Bee. I was going to change lanes and there was nothing "in the passenger's mirror", so started moving over. But, there was something there. There just wasn't a passenger's mirror!)