Gary Lewis

Steve thanks for the link but ..... when I first moved in in 2015 I had the service to the garage upgraded so I could run my air compressor and lights installed because the 2 - 8' lights were not enough to do any work in there. I added 5 more 8' lights and if I ever want to I can wire in the 2 old lights but I don't need them yet. On the project I did order the radiator & the AC condenser. It would be nice if they came in for this weekend as they are talking a snow / ice storm late Saturday into Sunday and if so I may not have work Monday and could work on the truck. I got them thru Rock Auto, I was able to get both less S&H for the same price of just the radiator thru Auto Zone. Dave ---- Might they arrive on Saturday?

Thanks, Steve. I have a tab on the back of the swing arm as a positive stop, and have planned to put UHMW on it to prevent a metal/metal contact. But, the spring-loaded hook idea may be what I'm looking for. I can envision the ramp, probably out of UHMW as well, but haven't pictured the mechanism that will operate the hook. It's an over-center arrangement I'm sure, but do you have a picture of it? It will actually grab the filler panel rather than the front of the bumper as the bumper is a tube. But I do have an angle on the front of the bumper as a filler panel to keep the yuk off the top of the bumper, so could create a slot in that for the hook to grab. However, there's no easy place for the mechanism to go as the spare tire can come down w/in about an inch of the receiver. So I'm struggling with what the mechanism looks like and where it would go. I do appreciate the help. Well, I think I'm "there". I extended the lower swing arm 3" past the center to the left and added a 1/2-13 bolt, a couple of 1/2" nuts, and a spring. In the view from the left side shown below you can see into the left and of the swing arm. The bolt is held up when the swing arm is open by the spring, and then the head of the bolt is against the swing arm when the bolt is fully engaged with the bottom nut, which will be welded to the top of the bumper. But, since it is .445" thick it'll not hit the tailgate when the swing arm is out and the 'gate is open as there is about 1" of clearance there. In addition, there's the spring-loaded pin-latch. Or, should I say there's supposed to be one? It is apparently shy and all you can see is its knob and the filler/spacer that positions it away from the swing arm. Intentionally not shown as it hasn't been drawn yet is the UHMW pad that goes on top of the bumper in the center. It'll be 1/2" thick so won't bother the tailgate and it will have a ramp on the rear edge to guide both the swing arm as well as the pin of the pin-latch up and off the bumper. It'll serve as the rest for the swing arm as well as have a notch into which the pin will drop to hold the swing arm closed temporarily. In addition you can see the tab on the back of the swing arm that prevents it from going too far forward and hitting the tailgate. However it hasn't, as yet, been spaced back to allow room for a piece of UHMW to be glued to its from to prevent metal/metal contact. Anyway, tomorrow I'm going to do all of the dimensioning, meaning to add dimensions to the drawing. And, I'll create individual views of each part with those dimensions showing, so the work can get started. Thanks to everyone for their help in this quest!

Vinny - That is Rembrant's truck, and it is Peggy's Cove, as explained here: http://forum.garysgaragemahal.com/Is-that-Rembrant-s-Bull-tp17009p17015.html. But, do you really want this question in the Picture Gallery? I could include it in the thread above if you'd like.

That's great news! And great progress! I'm envious, for sure.

Yes, saying the slippage will be suchandso is a huge over-simplification. Slippage is dependent upon so may variables that it becomes quite complex. Those variables include: the stall RPM of the converter, and even the stock converters had different stall points; the load on the vehicle, as the slippage goes up with the load; and the RPM, as slippage decreases as the RPM goes up, assuming a constant load. On the torque converter, I found the table below in the 1986 Light Truck Facts Book today. Note the different multiplication #'s for the different applications. And there is no multiplication w/o slippage. So, while we could do a lot more research on the subject, I don't know that I'm smart enough to incorporate the findings into this spreadsheet. But, for those wanting to read, here are a couple of things I've perused: Wikipedia: Oddly enough, this is a fairly informative write-up. Hot Rod: This provides info from a different angle. And, it suggests that slippage is probably in the range of 3 to 5% of the RPM. So, should we change to a percentage slippage? Or, if I can figure out how to do it, give the user the ability to use either % or a fixed RPM?

Thanks, Steve. I have a tab on the back of the swing arm as a positive stop, and have planned to put UHMW on it to prevent a metal/metal contact. But, the spring-loaded hook idea may be what I'm looking for. I can envision the ramp, probably out of UHMW as well, but haven't pictured the mechanism that will operate the hook. It's an over-center arrangement I'm sure, but do you have a picture of it? It will actually grab the filler panel rather than the front of the bumper as the bumper is a tube. But I do have an angle on the front of the bumper as a filler panel to keep the yuk off the top of the bumper, so could create a slot in that for the hook to grab. However, there's no easy place for the mechanism to go as the spare tire can come down w/in about an inch of the receiver. So I'm struggling with what the mechanism looks like and where it would go. I do appreciate the help.

Today I added a page which shows the gear ratios for all the transmissions used in the Bullnose trucks. It's at Driveline/Transmissions/Transmission & Transfer Case Gear Ratios. And, the information therein comes from the annual Light Truck Facts Books, so should be accurate.

That's my understanding. So, go to the calculator page and enter .73 into the transfer case variable in to figure out what it'll do.

No! NO! That’s not what I was saying. Not at all. 😢 I just want some feedback - and not from a carb. 😉 Please, give me some feedback and then go back to the intake/carb discussion.

Art - I told you the folks would be interested. Bring on the build!

Guys - PLEASE don't think that I want to cut off the conversation about the intake on a 300 six. You know me, I'll chase rabbits all day long, and a multi-carb'd six sounds like something I'd really like to do - and see. However, I've made some changes to the calculator on which I'd like your input. Then go back to the 300 and the intake discussion. I've added a page which has the transmission, and in the case of 1986, the transfer case gear ratios for every year. This info is from the Light Trucks Facts Book for each year, and should be accurate. It is at Driveline/Transmissions/Transmissions & Transfer Case Ratios. (I ducked the cleanup of the whole transmission set of pages - for now. ) And, I've put a link to that page on the calculator page (Driveline/Calculators) so people can see that the ratios listed are from Ford. And, along the way, I did some formatting, although I'm not done, and I added the close-ratio/diesel T-19 ratio in the Other column and added notes to that effect. (I also added an IF statement that shows a blank cell as a result of the calculations in the Other column if someone enters only 3 or 4 gear ratios. Otherwise the results showed ERROR. ) And, I have some questions for y'all: 1. Are the pages legible enough? They are MUCH sharper via the file itself and I'm not happy 2. Does this answer the question(s) about the source of the gear ratios well enough? 3. Are the notes simple enough? 4. Is it ok to treat the diesel T-19 that way? I really don't want to add a column as I'm afraid the width will be too much and cause people to have to scroll.

That would be a very nice addition to get RPM down and MPG up. Do you know the OD ratio on that? And, I remember that it works with any of the 4-speeds that have a separate bell housing. And that it won't work for you due to the small input shaft's strength vs the output of your diesel. Right? Speaking of ratios, I was just thinking that I needed to add to the calculator the ability to check what a Ranger or GV would do. Then it dawned on me that it is already there - just use the Transfer Case ratio variable and enter the gear splitter's OD ratio.

Art - Here are some pics of what I have. And, to post pics here, place your cursor where you want them, click the Insert Image button, click Chose File and navigate to the file, chose it and click Open, and then decide how much Resizing you want/need. If the file is less than 1.0 Mb you can choose None. But if it is greater than a meg you'll have to choose another option. The pics below are all over 1 Mb so I chose Big Size. And, once you've selected the appropriate Resizing you click Insert Image and the system will put the appropriate code in your post. But you can see how it looks before posting by hitting Preview Message. Anyway, here's Dad's 1981 engine. The best I can measure without picking the engine up is that the rear sump is 9" deep and the front sump is 7" deep. And here's the earlier pan, which is stamped D7TE 6675-BB, as shown in the bottom pic. So, it is the 1977-79 version, and probably the 4wd version as Ford usually added another character to the first suffix. In other words, I think it is likely that this is D7TZ 6675-B, which would be the 4wd version. And, the rear sump is 9 1/4" deep, and the front sump is 6 1/2" deep - both from the top of the pan rail.

I hope I am not misquoting him, but a number of years ago, he attributed the broad [desirable] torque curve to the poor intake and exhaust manifolds! I believe what he meant was that at any given RPM range [probably ~1200-2000 RPMs], a couple of the cylinders were at their peak, so as some "came on" and others "dropped off" in efficiency, the torque band was widened. Probably true, but an engine is most efficient at its torque peak. So, I would guess that the more pronounced that torque peak the better the efficiency when operating at it. Conversely, a broad torque peak would reduce the efficiency at that torque peak.

If I could pursue my dream [had enough money and talent?], I would raise compression, lightly port and polish [clean valve pockets, etc.] the head, install either F.I. exhaust manifolds or H.D. [preferable] exhaust manifold with a free flowing exhaust and find an Edelbrock 1 barrel intake manifold to use with my present carburetor. Hmmm? I might even try an adapter and install a 32/36 Weber carburetor. This would be to further the quest for best gas mileage. I think a compression ratio boost would give you the biggest MPG improvement, followed by a better intake manifold. Compression helps efficiency, and an even distribution of the air/fuel mix allows you to tune the ratio to get the best economy. And I doubt that the spider of an intake from the factory can have even distribution. It would be interesting to put a wide-band AFR meter on the individual exhausts for a 300 and see how poor the distribution is. Then you'd know if you are fighting a losing battle tuning the carb - whatever carb it is. My guess is that the end cylinders are way off from the center cylinders, so aren't contributing to the efficiency of the engine as they should be. And, if I'm right, it won't make a whole lot of difference what carb you have. Having said that, I believe that having a split manifold with two small carbs would significantly improve the distribution and let you tune the carb much more precisely. But, that's just my guess with no empirical data. Perhaps the Frenchtown Flyer knows?

I'm impressed with what you're doing and the planning. That's more tongue in cheek of what I would do, if I could afford it, because I'm not patient enough! Trying to be funny! And I went back and read the first post to see why you're not using the bed. Makes sense, room for gear. Bob: Thanks for the link. Those guys were going through many of the thought processes I/we've been going through - and coming to many of the same conclusions. And, they were using/thinking of the same clamps I've been looking at, three of which are shown below. The top one below is from Smittybilt. I know 'cause I held one in my hands yesterday at 4WD Parts when I took Janey in so she could shop for a few gifts for me. It is part #76856-05. But, it doesn't really appear as something the sell on their website, so I'll have to call them - if I can figure out how to use it. But, I haven't figured out how to use any of those. The limitations are significant, and include that I don't dare put anything more than 1/2" high on top of the bumper or the tailgate may hit it, and the big spare tire prevents placing something in the center. But, it would be easy if the lower arm went all the way across. Steve: I haven't gotten a mind's eye view of how the spindle could be used upside down, nor easily recessed into the bumper. But that's sorta moot as even if the hubs aren't cast, and you may be correct, they'd take a hole bunch of machining to get down to the diameter that would fit - if that is even possible given the size of the bearings. And to make a hub is more machining than I want to do - especially since I'm hoping to make this something that can be built commercially and/or by others. So I'm not going to use a Ford spindle. Instead I'll be using one of the commercially-available spindles meant for this purpose as they'll fit w/o obscuring the tail light and don't require a lot of modification. None, in fact. As for the swing arm, I'm going to use a closed triangle. I want a stop/rest on the far side of the swing arm that takes the load off of the spindle and ensures there are no rattles, and that is much easier to do if the arm has a component that is a fraction of an inch above the bumper. And, I'm going to have two latches - one that is easily used while "in camp", and one for traveling that is very positive that ensures the whole contraption cannot move in any direction. Just what that positive latch will be is what I'm struggling with, and that's where I'd like to have help. Grumin: A trailer would be easier in many ways, but it will also be more expensive, cut down on the already-dismal MPG, and would have to be dropped before heading out on many of the trails. But, it is something that I did consider before embarking on this quest.

Bill: Jonathan:

Well, I missed the 1st column for the 4-speed OD that shows yet-another ratio for the F100 w/the 3.8L V6. I need to revise the footnotes. But, you are right. Too many people take what they find on the internet and assume it is correct, thereby further propagating a myth. However, I want this site to be backed up by factory documentation, like that table and, surely, others that I'll find in my quest. So, that begs the question of where to put it in order to ensure people know it is correct. And that brings us back to the discussion we had months ago about this being a quagmire. But, if I can cut and paste bits out of the factory lit then maybe it won't be so bad. And I think that means we need a "transmission ratio" page in the "Transmission" section of Drivelines. Which means I need to revise that area a bit as it is somewhat confusing at present. Then I'll reference and link to it from the Calculator page.

I don't think it is the "regulator". As shown in the illustration here (Interior/Windows), that's just the crank mechanism that moves the window up and down. Instead, assuming the '96 assembly is like the earlier ones, I suspect it is the plastic roller/slide that goes in the channel that the glass sets in. Or, that the glass has come loose in that channel. Can you pull the glass up w/o using the crank? If so, it has come loose from the channel.

Bill - Thanks, the glitch is fixed. Jonathan - Here's a table from the 1983 Dealer Facts Book, which I'm using as my source. But tomorrow I'll see what else I can find with regard to another gear set for the T-19. Anyway, see what you think. I have the 3-speed, the T-18, T-19, and 4-speed OD added. It all seems to fit on one screen - on my computer. And I'd rather not go to two pages, tabs, etc as I think it is good to be able to compare a manual tranny to an auto. Oh, and the NP205 is on. I still have a lot of cleanup to do. But keep those ideas flowing in, y'all.

Grumpin - You think I need to go with a trailer instead of a bumper w/a tire carrier? Just leave the spare in the back? Oddly enough, the guy that's going to build the bumper makes off-roading/excursion trailers.

Yes, that looks good! I've done a fair amount of welding, but nothing ever came out that good. I'm impressed.

Art! Glad you found us! The 1980-82 part # for a 351M/400 pan is EOTZ 6675-C for any truck. But the 1970-79 master parts catalog numbers for oil pans for the 351M & 400 are shown below. So, the earlier trucks used a different pan than the Bullnose ones, and there was a different pan for a 2wd truck than a 4wd truck in the 1977-79 years. So, do you know which one you need? I don't know what the differences are. I think I have a pan up in the attic of the shop off an earlier 400, but do not know what it is off of. Do you know a way of telling? Or, might measurements of the height of the front sump tell you if it'll fit?

Gary, I don’t know where F150Hub got their info., but it says that the 5.11 ratio T19 was only in 1983/1984 model years. It was mentioned a couple of times in the 1983 TV advertisements that we looked at a while back. I don’t know if that helps unravel the mystery of what years/applications got the 6.32 version, but I thought I’d point it out just in case... http://www.f150hub.com/trans/t-19.html All - I've revised the spreadsheet/calculator to put the tranny/t-case ratios below rather than to the right, and added the E4OD. But I still have some formatting to clean up. See what you think. And comments are appreciated. Jonathan - I'll try to research the T19 ratio question, but not right now. I found a latch at 4WD Parts that I want to consider for the bumper........