Gary Lewis

No, I'm using coal slag. Aluminum castings need fairly heavy abrasive in order to get things off/out of it, and lighter or softer media doesn't do that. Plus, you don't want smooth surfaces for powder. It needs something with "tooth" to grab hold of. If I were doing delicate things, like a carb or pistons, then I'd go to walnut hulls and turn the pressure down. But my experience with soda wasn't good. It was too "soft". Lacked "bite". Yes, it might take paint off, but slowly. And it breaks into DUST on impact, so doesn't seem like it would be good in a cabinet. However, I don't know that as I've not tried it. And, here's what I got done today. Lots of really clean 460 parts. Next up, probably Monday, is to melt some powder on those parts.

Looks good! And, no worries about the other parts for me. I'm in no hurry and don't really need them. Let it warm up some first.

Beautiful!!! Really well done. And, at that price it is truly amazing.

For $750 you can fix a lot of things!!!! You did well.

The advert says they are "D9TZ-16606-K". But, all I find in the catalog is -A, which is an "F", -B, -C, and -D. Must have been a kit w/all 4 letters, but no longer shows in the catalog.

Well, I'M BACK IN THE SHOP!!!! Some of you know that we've had live-in grandtwins for about 7 months, so not much has gotten done in the shop. Just a bit of "computing", as in things added to the website since I could get that in between times when I was doing things with them. And, I absolutely LOVED having them here, and would much rather be with them than in the shop. But, all good things come to an end, and they went to their other grandparents as of yesterday and will be headed back to Nicaragua on the 3rd. So, today I headed out to the shop and will get some "work" done media-blasting on parts for Dad's truck as well as for a friend. (Having said that, I won't be out here tomorrow as I'm gonna watch my team beat up on David's team. ) I'm starting with the 460 parts. The valve covers had been painted with a coat of an aluminum-colored paint, but it blew off easily. And then I blasted both the outside and the inside of one of the covers, as shown below. That's because aluminum is quite porous and holds all kinds of yuk in the pores, so after blasting them you have to run the parts through the oven at 400 degrees for at least an hour before washing them again with brake cleaner and then coating them with powder. That burns the yuk up and then it'll wash off - assuming that you have most of the yuk off before baking. In this pic the cover in the background hasn't been blasted, but the front one has been and is ready to come out. And in this one the covers have swapped positions, with the one in the foreground having not been blasted: We'll see how far I get today, but wanted to put my friend David on notice, and to let my patient friend know that I actually am working on them - finally.

Maybe it is black? That's probably what U-Haul would buy.

81/86 F-U100/350 — w/o horizontal pads E2TZ 17757-A Hiqh qloss black-dealer paint to match

According to the part number it is a 1981 part in black. The A9A is always used for black, although on my page there's a star, which means it is no longer available. But, it looks brown, probably Nutmeg, which should be D3T.

Pretty! And, it looks like they are correct, although I can't find -K.

Welcome! Glad you joined. Retirement? That's me! I retired from Information Technology. How 'bout you? And, we have a member's map (Bullnose Forum/Members Map). I could add you to that if you'd like. Just give me a city.

It's certainly not. Your pic clearly shows an external fan on the alt (which is characteristic of the 1G & 2G). The ~5x5" steel box on the fender would be the external voltage regulator, as this pic shows: https://supermotors.net/getfile/859765/thumbnail/1ghd.jpg That's pretty scary, and likely a BIG part of your charging problems. The alt body should be TIGHT between the bracket & bolt head (with sliding sleeve, which your bracket still has); and the bracket should be TIGHT to the head or block; and ALL those mating surfaces should be clean & shiny metal (with electrical grease applied - NOT dielectric, or chassis, or thermal, or battery snot, or anti-sieze, or...). Try to get a well-lit focused pic showing all the wire connections on the back of the alt. My impression is that your pic shows a 1G, but there's not actually enough visible to be sure. Your alt is only marginally-tight to the bracket due to the nut & washer behind it (visible in the 2nd pic). But that same nut & washer are also PREVENTING the bracket from being truly tight against the head at that location. It should be a simple LONG bolt, and the alt body should take up all the gap between the back of the bracket & the sliding sleeve in the front of the bracket. A spacer is OK, but not ideal. Most circuits need protection, and the original protection for the charging circuit was a fusible link wire (a normal wire inside special insulation sized to burn out under specific conditions). But Ford changed the circuit design on later 3Gs & all subsequent alt.s to a MEGA fuse, which is easier for most people to understand & replace. So it's a good idea to swap to that when you swap to a 3G, and it's cheap & easy if you get a used 3G since you can get that harness section with fuses at the same JY. This one also has a fuse on the small Y wire: https://supermotors.net/getfile/876977/thumbnail/3gharness.jpg D(rain) & C(harge). That it doesn't work proves nothing - they didn't really work new, which is another reason to get rid of that circuit, and switch to a true voltmeter (like all modern vehicles). The shunt isn't a coil; it's not all in the dash; it's not really resistor wire; and it would never glow. It's a normal heavy Copper wire in the harness sections from the starter relay area to the ignition switch area. It might be wrapped or folded inside the harness to get the designed length, but it's not really "coiled". It has resistance only because it's old Copper - they didn't have the infrastructure back then to process Cu as purely as we have now. But it was never designed to have a specific resistance; they just used its natural resistance for the gauge. If you try to run a HO alt through it, the connectors would burn out long before the wire got hot enough to glow, or even melt its insulation. But those connections COULD still start a fire. That's actually all he needs to find it right there on the back of the cluster, inside the cab. Any modern DMM (even a $10 one) is vastly more-sensitive & -accurate than that old gauge. And the gauge isn't delicate at all - any DMM has ~10,000x more resistance than that old gauge, so the meter won't hurt the gauge. The shunt is large enough for what it will be doing after the alternator output is run directly to the starter relay (battery side), so it's not worth the effort or risk to pull a wire out of the harness. Just disconnect & tag the gauge wires, in case you find some other use for them later (like LEDs...). Steve - I pulled an ammeter off the shelf and did some testing. Full scale in the "C" direction takes only .170 volts. But, at that point it there is 1.0 amp running through the ammeter. Full scale in the "D" direction takes only .150 volts. And at that point there's .88 amp running through the ammeter. So, even a cheap DVM can measure the voltage when the alternator is kicking out something like its full capability. But, it takes about .02v to start seeing any movement on the ammeter, so that could be missed. And, I agree with you on the shunt being adequate to handle the normal load in the cab and, therefore, doesn't need to be replaced if the alternator's output is moved to the battery side of the solenoid. And especially if lights are replaced with LED's. But, I wouldn't want to start adding a lot of current hogs, like large audio amps, to the shunt's load. Anything big like that should have its own power source from the battery rather than come through the fuse box. But, for grins I used the E=IR equation to calculate the resistance of the shunt. Assuming that it was designed to handle the 70 amp alternators that could come in these trucks, the shunt would have to be .002285 ohms to create .16 volts across it, which is the average of the .15 and .17 that I measured. As it turns out, #14 wire has 2.525 ohms per 1000', or .0025 ohms per foot. So, that would be about right for the shunt. But, the tables say you should not run more than 32 amps through #14 wire, probably for fear that the insulation will melt or the wire will become brittle with the heat. Perhaps shunts are made of special wire and/or have special insulation like fuse links do? Wondering about the heat I used the equation that Watts = IxIxR and found that the heat produced in the shunt at 70 amps would be 11.2 watts. It isn't likely that the wire would get very hot with that much heat. But, I don't have an easy way to test that theory so don't know for sure. Last, the use of the wires to the ammeter is to run a voltmeter. That's my plan anyway. Ground one and put switched battery voltage to the other. I have already had Rocketman convert the ammeter to a voltmeter.

Right: those heavy trucks are not OBD-II (EEC-V); they're EEC-IV, so they don't have that circuit, programming, or NEED for either. The purpose of that input is to tell the EEC not to worry about emissions because the truck isn't on the road. The PTO function is intended to be used only when the truck's engine is driving stationary equipment, like a generator or a truck-mounted hydraulic crane (like for utility work). So all the OBD-II-required emissions monitoring is temporarily disabled. And since the factory didn't connect anything to that pin (other than a taped wire), there's nothing to show in the EVTM. Yes, that's what I found a few years ago, and added to that caption. Steve - I'd not noticed that the 5.8L o/8500, 7.5L o/14000, and the 7.5L Super Duty 50 States didn't have OBD-II. But, you are right, the EVTM shows a 6-pin data link connector for those instead of the 16-pin OBD-II. Things are going to get "interesting" as I start marrying the computer to the wiring harness. I currently have a '96 5.0L/E4OD computer and a '96 California wiring harness. I'll have to check to see what vehicle the computer came from to make sure it supports Customer Use/PTO. And, it looks like I'll have to move a number of pins around on the CA harness to match whatever computer I use.

Oddly enough, D9TZ 9A589-K wasn't used on the '73-79 trucks. -J was, but not -K.

It seems like you don't have a ground on the fender. Try running a jumper from the battery's ground to the solenoid's mounting screw. That will bypass the battery/frame/fender ground path, and if you then jumper to the S terminal a good solenoid will pull in.

I saw that as well and thought "That's bigger/longer than Dad's truck, and I don't consider it little."

That's probably the case since I can't find it. But just wondered. Also, note that I cannot find either of those spacers in the 1980+ MPC. Ford may have had a non-EGR spacer, but it apparently wasn't either of those. Here are the only two shown for 1980-86. Might the leaded fuel one be non-EGR?

You are now, quite literally, on the map.

Another example of the nice trucks in the PNW being cheap.

Good info, Jonathan. I've been able to locate both of those spacers in the 1973-79 master parts catalog, and I've added a tab to the page: Engines/300 Six. I haven't been able to locate the proper gasket for this spacer, so if any of you know please let me know and I'll update the page. And, I hope it was ok to use those pics.

That's a neat idea. Hadn't thought of that. Mine's a 2-post lift, but I could put them on the lift arms.

Good thinking, Jonathan. I've had vibes on engine braking from u-joints and from slip yokes. Anything that lets the shaft move sideways, off axis, can cause that.

Yes, welcome! I like Broncos, or at least I think I do as I've never had one. Maybe some day. Anyway, that looks like it should be good when you get it going. But you are right to pull the engine to get to the freeze plugs. That's no fun otherwise. Anyway, where's home? We have a member's map (Bullnose Forum/Members Map) and I can add you to it. And, you might see that you are close to one of us.

They were both regular cab 4x2 F150 lwb trucks...I don't know what the GVWR was on them. F150's can't be over 8500. You guys also had unleaded and leaded fuel trucks. I wonder if that made a difference?

Well, that's the odd part Gary. I've seen 1980-1981 300/6 engines with EGR valves under the carbs, and I've seen two different 1986 F150's with 300/6 engines with these same EGR delete plates installed. That's in reverse order...chronologically. Strange. Were the ones with the delete plate maybe over 8500 GVWR?