Gary Lewis

Well sports fans, I've just made a discovery that may have taken the Interchange page in a slightly different direction. I found that a book that Bill/Numberdummy gave me at the 2017 show has "interchange" info in it. It is a Genuine Parts Distributor catalog, which is a third-party company, and the pics thereof are below. But, suffice to say that it is MASSIVE! However, it isn't the size but the contents that made me think about the "interchange" page. The catalog shows the years that things like brake rotors, brake boosters, steering gear, fuel pumps, starters, etc interchange. So, for grins I scanned in the first pages of two sections, the front and rear brakes. So, go see what you think: Interchange/Brakes. And, let me know what you think, please. Cover: Side view: Closeup of the tabs:

Nice truck! It went for $5500, which is a very nice price for something that clean.

I had a 351W that had bad valves on three cylinders, two of which were adjacent in the firing order. It idled horribly. You wanted to shift to Neutral at a shop or you were sure the mirrors were going to come off. A bad cam can do the same thing. And you have four cylinders which aren't truly running. But, for grins you might check out the intake manifold and see which runners go to which cylinders. In other words, does one side of the carb feed those four cylinders? And, can you borrow that 500 CFM carb again and put it in gear using it? Lots easier than pulling valve covers and checking rocker movement.

That is a good price. But, like Jonathan, I'm 4wd the whole way.

I do that as well for a better look. Unfortunately those are 10 x 1.50 mm bolts, and 3/8" was too small. But I happened to have the right metric washers, so used them. So, if I want to put stainless in there I'll have to buy some of those.

Exactly. The way it is today is much more intuitive & natural IMO. For scanned docs, it seems (to someone who doesn't know better) that you could just add the pixel heights of each scanned page to get the total frame height. It would be easy to add the pixels - if they told me what they are. Unfortunately, every document comes up at 476 pixels for width, and 288 pixels for height. But the full document is ~1050 pixels high, so I don't know why they always give me "288". Anyway, glad you like it and I'll plan to do that in future. And, may clean up some of the others as well.

That would do it. Thanks!

Thanks, guys. I don't think those cad-plated washers will rust quickly at all, but could swap them for stainless. And while I agree that powder coating the whole assembly would solve the problem, that isn't practical on many of the things on the truck. But it would have worked on the radius arms, so I'll keep that in mind as I move forward.

I don't think a compression test is going to tell you much about the cam. Not that you shouldn't do it, but unless the intake valve isn't opening at all, the cylinder will probably get enough air to compress and look like it is working. I think the only way to find out about the cam, short of pulling it, is to pull the valve covers and measure the travel. And, wiped lobes would do what you've been seeing. Especially having half the cylinders not running, or not running much, given the exhaust temps.

Dawn. Marblehead! I think I finally understood what you are saying. So see if it is now what you are looking for: http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/82-25-16s-upshift-indicator-light.html FYI, when I tell Microsoft or Google to give me the embed code for a document, which I then put on the web page, the code includes width and height numbers - in pixels. I've learned that I can tell them to make the width = 100% and that works for whatever device is being used. And, I've learned that a height of 1050 pixels is about right for an 11" page. So what I usually do is set it up that way so that you see a page and can scroll - within the document. But what you are asking for, I think, is to scroll on the page and not w/in the document. Or, to put it another way, to have the whole of the document laid out on the page so you only scroll the page, not the document. Right? If so, I think I've done that. However, that may only be reasonable for documents of only a few pages. That's because I have to do the math and then do trial and error to get it right. For instance, 3 x 1050 is 3150, but that wasn't quite enough on this document, so I had to make it 3190 pixels to get rid of the scroll bar in the document. But if we like it this way then I can try to figure out exactly how many pixels an 11" page takes and get pretty close on the first try on most documents. But on things like the Body Builder's book, one part of which is 56 pages long, I'm not sure that'll work. Anyway, lets see how this works and how we like it before extrapolating to everything.

Not that it will do you much good now, but they did issue a TSB about "Seatbelts on the subject vehicles that tighten upon the driver or passengers when the vehicle is in motion".

Jim - I do have plastic-lined sockets, but they are up with my body man, John. I need to get them back, but they didn't really work all that well anyway. So I've tried several approaches. What seems to work fairly well is to put a couple of turns of tape on and use a slightly-bigger socket. Light a metric for SAE or vice versa. But it is tedious. For instance, you want to make sure the tape doesn't get under the head or then you have to get the scalpel out. However, just like the cost I'm not keeping track of the powder. But I go through lots of it. And blasting media. And cans of O'Reilly's brake cleaner. And.....

As documented in Dad's Truck Build, I painted the front springs, transmission mount, and several spots on the frame. But, I asked a question there that I want to repeat here. As I told Bill, powder coating can be damaged as you turn nuts and bolts. And the shock mounts typically bolt to the radius arms w/o washers, which is sure to tear up the powder. So I slipped some plated washers on, which solved the problem. However, now I'm having remorse. Do I want plated washers showing? Should I pull them, blast them, and powder coat them black, which is easily touched up if they are damaged in assembly?

Got a bit done today, albeit not all that I was hoping for. Basically, "all" I got done was to touch up the frame in four places, and painting the front springs and the transmission mount. Here are the springs, although the second coat of paint is still wet in this pic: And, the other day I bolted the shock mounts onto the radius arms. But, I did it a bit different than Ford did it. That's because the shock mounts usually just bolt on with no washers. However, as the bolt or nut heads turn while you are tightening them that will take the powder coating off. I had the right washers and discovered there was more then enough length on the bolts, so here's a pic of one: And here's a closeup, showing no scrapes or scratches. But my question is - what do you think about having plated washers showing?

That's not easily done. In fact, I am not aware of anyone that markets the whole wire harness.

Congrat's! That should work out really well. As for the wiring harness, what harness are you replacing? American Autowire advertises some wiring for these trucks.

Yep, that should do it.

Hard to argue with factory drawings, huh? I just sent a FB message to my friend, Keith Dickson, Mr FORDification. Those spec's don't match his that he's published, so I wanted him to get to see them for himself and decide what to do about his. And, wouldn't you know it, he's the one that pointed that book out to me on eBay.

I just published a new page: Literature/1985 Literature/1985 Body Builders. Go to the Appendix tab and then scroll to Page 21 to see Ford's guidance on wire current capacity. And they say #12 is good for 30 amps. That's more than I would have thought, but I don't build millions of vehicles either, so what do I know?

Well guys, thanks for waiting. See what you think: Literature/1985 Literature/1985 Body Builders.

No, I don't think it can be the ignition module as it doesn't know which cylinder it is firing. But it won't hurt to swap it. On the fuel pressure regulator, that looks like the one I have and it works well. But, I don't let anything with a Mr. Gasket brand into my shop, much less onto my truck as I've had some really, REALLY awful parts from them. So look for another brand, but one that looks like that is what I have.

Ok, Steve, the two TSB's have been merged into one document. Please see what you think.

That's a really good point. Edelbrock says no more than 6 psi, so I run a regulator set at 5 1/2.

Yes, I'd disconnect EVERYTHING associated with vacuum. You sure don't need brakes as fast as you are going and you don't the vacuum advance. Nor heater. So plug everything. Inc the line to the tranny. As for the temps, something is waaaay wrong. It looks like 3, 4, 5, & 7 aren't running anywhere near correctly. The firing order is supposed to be: 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8. Right? So could 3 and 7 be swapped? And 4 and 7? You've said, repeatedly, that you have the order nailed, but we are grasping at straws, and that looks like a straw to me. And, have you tried squirting something like brake or carb cleaner at the intake/head gasket? It may mess up your paint job, but we are grasping, so....

Well, for a test to be scientific, it has to be repeatable - which means he needs MANY identically-rusted fasteners that are in good-enough condition to test. And penetrating oil can't restore Iron that's just GONE - nothing will allow you to unscrew a fastener that has no threads, or drive head. So that's not what penetrants are for, anyway (despite it being what everyone uses them for). His test really was the correct use for those oils. Your use (and mine) is well-beyond what a few drops of oil can do, so our use isn't realistic, no matter how common it is. However, I would argue that his previous test (which I didn't see) involving multiple applications over several hours IS realistic for fasteners in that condition: https://supermotors.net/getfile/1134322/thumbnail/20180601_180411.jpg https://supermotors.net/getfile/1137770/thumbnail/20180802_170114.jpg The fact that no one does it is irrelevant - it just means they're lazy, or they waited too late to begin the process. I agree that it is irrelevant that people don't use the penetrating oils as they should doesn't make the test null. When I'm trying to get heavily-rusted items loose I hit them with heat and penetrating oil for several days in advance of really hitting them with an impact. And, just prior to hitting them with an impact I heat them again. But, this test was very well done. He demonstrated that even in a fairly-well controlled environment there is a significant difference in the torque to break a nut loose. So averaging the results, as he did, is the right approach. And, have a "control" is a good approach as well.