Gary Lewis

Good luck to you! We will hope it is just what you are looking for - at a good price.

I talked to him about that several years ago. He wasn't too impressed. The stock rods are good for the power numbers they got, he has pistons on the shelf to fit those rods so there's no need to off-set grind the crank, he likes Trick Flow heads and Weiand intakes better than Edelbrock's, and has his own cam grinds that work well with the 400's he's built. Other than that, he liked it.

Welcome! The 400 is my favorite engine, and can be built into a powerhouse. I have one I'm planning to put Ford's EEC-V EFI on. On the clutch, make sure you read this: Driveline/Clutches & Linkage. The Clutch Linkage tab explains about the need for a reinforcement plate if going to a hydraulic clutch. Are you keeping the NP435? Have you thought about a ZF5 swap to get the overdrive? What kind of new seats? Later model seats can be added, as described here: Interior/Seat Interchangeability. Anyway, you might want to create a thread in the main section, or the project section, for your truck and its upgrades. And we will follow along.

Bill - I hadn't even thought about the plant-to-plant differences. But this approach facilitates that because we can talk about door locks and turn signal lenses and, within them, discuss the probable consolidation of hardware to a sub-set of the plants.

Keith Dickson, Mr FORDification, just added a page to his website on the model year differences for the 1967 Ford trucks. And that got me to thinking about the Yearly Differences tab on the Bullnose FAQ's page here. As I told Keith on Facebook, ours doesn't hold a candle to his. So I've been thinking about how to upgrade ours, but I'd like your input. Here are my first-blush thoughts: Coverage: Instead of doing a single year, like Keith did, I think ours should cover all seven years of the Bullnose era. Format: Heretofore we've used a bulleted-list approach of changes for each year. That works, but it makes it difficult to find what you are looking for if you are trying to find a specific topic. And, it makes it difficult to do pics, like Keith did. Instead, I like his approach of listing the topic, like doors or engines, and then detailing the changes between the years for that topic. And, I think should use pics. But, what are your thoughts? Suggestions?

Let us know how it goes, and good luck.

That makes sense. Thanks!

Rick - That is interesting. From your research and experience did the late 84’s get that “early ‘85” trim? I saw something recently that seemed to say that they did. But that would require them to have had the 85/86 Tu-Tone scheme wouldn’t it?

Michael - That looks like a very nice truck. Well done! 👍 As for the hub caps, there’s no easy way to determine what ones came with the truck. The only way is if you can find the build sheet, as explained here: http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/build-sheet-interpretation.html. I’m not sure we can tell even then though. Or, a Marti report might. But, when I get home I can put info on the website that show what hub caps were available when and for what models. Perhaps that will help?

You can also see the change in mirrors, grilles, and lettering on the hood in those pics.

Rick - I didn't know that. Good to know. Thanks! I'll add that to the Bullnose FAQs. All - Here's a pic from the '81 brochure to show the way the Tu-Tone was done then: And here's a pic from an '85 brochure:

The gas tank is pretty well protected, but I can imagine driving off a ledge with a high spot between the tires and having that high spot hit the fuel tank before it gets hung up on the bumper. And getting hung up on the bumper will happen if you get serious enough about what trails you run. I've had both back tires of both my CJ5 and my early Bronco hanging in the air with the bumper sitting on the rock the tires just drove off. And those vehicles will drag their tail less often than an F-250. So if you can, I'd suggest a skid plate under the fuel tank. But if not, you'll be OK on most of the trails you are likely to do. I do plan to have a skid plate. I have the factory one off Dad's truck, but if I remember correctly it is a flat plate. Instead, I think I need the skid plate from the Bronco with a 32 gallon tank, which is D8TZ 9A147-A. Then I can shim it off the frame a bit to clear the 38 gallon tank. Bronco Graveyard has it: https://shop.broncograveyard.com/1978-1979-Ford-Bronco-Skid-Plate-33-Gallon-Only/productinfo/20254/. But I don't know if it will fit a pickup. Does anyone know? Another option would be to shim the one from Dad's truck. Thoughts?

That is a steal! I paid something like $800 for Huck, the 1990 F250 half truck. The frame was cut at the back of the cab, so I didn't get the rear axle nor bed, but I got the drive shafts, tanks, fuel lines, 460 and EFI system, E4OD, etc. So you are getting quite the buy. But, you are also getting quite the inventory. You need to meet Ray/NotEnoughTrucks. I think you and he are cut from the same cloth.

I can say from experience that it's far more important to get the TRUCK drawn first, than any of the parts. If you don't have the truck's shape accurately, no bumper you design will fit the way you want. So spend some time re-re-measuring the truck, and then comparing it to your drawing. When I drew mine, I found I needed to draw the truck past the closest body mount bolt on the top of the frame, and almost to the axle on the bottom. That's good advice. I've done a bunch of measuring, but I know it needs to be dead-on, and surely I've missed some things. So when I draw it up in 3D I'll remeasure. But, is it important to draw the truck forward where things are going to attach? I can understand measuring to ensure that the frame rails are parallel, but why does it need to be drawn? The reason I ask is that the frame isn't straight. It is only straight for maybe 18" before it bends up, and than comes back down farther forward. So drawing it accurately past the first bend is going to be a pain. And, since nothing I'm doing on the bumper will connect up there, I'm trying to understand the need to do so. But if it is needed I'll do it.

If you hit the Control key and the "+" key at the same time the screen zooms in. If you hit Control and "-" it zooms out. When things have happened to me where I can't see the Post or Preview buttons they come back into view by zooming out - but I haven't tried in. On enlarging the reply box, if it happens every time for you then you can try the zoom trick. See if it makes a difference. Perhaps we can figure out what is going on, or at least give the programmers enough data to find it. As for the menu, what zoom ratio are you using? Can you try another one and see if it changes?

Welcome, Sully! We aren’t as big as FTE, but we make up for that by the friendliness and willingness to help each other. 😉

My bumpers started with channel, and they have flat surfaces to stand on. https://supermotors.net/getfile/1043883/thumbnail/rearbumper.jpg I don't see the advantage to having their centers aligned. It certainly won't strengthen the bumper, or prevent the bending that I described before. The strongest simple arrangement is with the forces (impact & vehicle's CG/momentum) in line with the structure (bumper & its connections) between those forces. That would mean the bumper ABOVE its attaching structure (assuming the impacts come from lower, like rocks & most cars); i.e.: receiver & tow eyes at the BOTTOM of the bumper face. But the strongest for the weight is with half the structure at the top of the bumper face, and half at the bottom. That resists impact anywhere, and torque FAR better than having all the attachment centered (like a hinge, which resists NO torque). That's why there's an advantage (especially for F-series) to add structure below the frame - you don't have access to the top of the frame like Broncos do, due to the bed's overhang. I don't see any advantage to that, either. You'll never be pulling or pushing between the receiver & eyes, so having them aligned doesn't affect strength or functionality. In which direction? Assuming your required angle is that precise, but you could also accomplish a greater angle by moving the receiver forward into the bumper, or moving the axle back. What angle do you need? No, a rock will not follow a line, unless the truck is on level ground, in which case "angle of departure" is meaningless. A rock will follow some curving, irregular path relative to the moving truck, depending on its position, and the truck's suspension. It's really "MAXIMUM angle of departure", meaning the greatest angle between 2 flat surfaces that the vehicle can drive squarely through. Obstructions that stick up from either surface, or driving at an angle across the break between the surfaces is too unpredictable & complex to calculate or design for. This is a cleaned-up version of a Ford diagram: https://supermotors.net/getfile/846565/thumbnail/eblinedimensions.jpg And to some degree, those numbers are moot. My truck doesn't have the approach or departure angles to take many of the trails I've driven successfully. Look at the first 2 pics & last 2 videos in this album: https://supermotors.net/getfile/96528/thumbnail/plow2.jpg BTW I think your fish plates & gussets are largely dead-weight. My bumper has none, and it's almost strong enough to lift the 3-ton truck. The forward tubes for my receiver, and those under the frame are 1/8"-wall. https://supermotors.net/getfile/292107/thumbnail/rear-seethru-s.jpg So many thoughts, where to start. (And I'm sure I won't address all of them.) On the placement of the tow eyes and receiver for the strongest bumper, with your recommendation the angle is already extended back to the bumper at essentially the bottom of the bumper, and in line with the frame. So there's as much strength at the bottom as we are likely to get, and it is close to the corners. And, the receiver was moved up to gain departure angle. Not that there is a magic departure angle, but the current receiver is 6" lower than in this plan, so this is much better. I don't expect Big Blue to be like a Bronco, but I might as well make the angle as great as is reasonably possible. And I think we are there. As for aligning the centers, it was just what happened when I raised the receiver up like you suggested to tee with the cross piece. I really like that idea since it makes strengthening the welded joints much easier by using fishplates top and bottom. And, I like the fishplates because I like overkill. A piece of strap 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 1/4" doesn't add much dead weight, but it will add a lot of piece of mind. The bumper could be shorter up/down by an inch, making it 4" wide and 5" high. But, to keep the angles coming back to the bumper the reduction in height would need to be at the top. However, that would let you see into the innards under the bed, and I don't like that idea. So I'm happy with the 4 x 6 size tube - if I stay with a tube. As for the rock, I take your point about it being complex. And maybe I'm not explaining my thinking very well. But the idea was that if you were to start a climb with a rock in the middle of the road then if the rock clears the differential it'll clear the gas tank. Does that make sense? But I think I'm ready to move on to the spare tire mount. No, I'm not saying I'm done with things to this point but, as I've found, working on the next part frequently changes the previous parts. So I need to take the next step and see what happens. Last, this is going to be a slow process. My friend at church, the one with the metal fab shop, has a form of cancer. He's going to be undergoing his third round of chemo/radiation, and this one doesn't have a finish date. He was gung ho to help on this, but I suspect his attention will, and rightly so, be elsewhere. Given that, I'm not in a hurry to get the design done. Also, I think now is the time to turn to 3D CAD. So I need to make the existing parts three dimensional and get them into the right position with respect to the z-axis. And that is going to take some time. Having said that, y'all please don't stop sending ideas. I really appreciate them.

I was watching that one. I don't know if its that they came out of the woodwork, or if they were already there in plain sight all along...lol. I don't know all of the exterior colors and dash/trim options, but I do try to use other little clues when looking for stuff online. If you get a picture of an interior, the radio will quickly tell you if a truck is an 85-86 Bullnose. If you're looking at engine bay pics, the hydraulic clutch master is another quick indicator that a truck is not an early one. Seeing the rear diff would be another clue, at least for the 1/2 ton trucks (9" or 8.8). The only exterior visual comment I had to offer was the front fender lettering....and I'm not even sure when exactly that changed. 1982? 1983? The F150 on my 1984 front fender has the long F, and I know that the earlier trucks it was shorter...but I don't know when that change took place. Yes, there are other clues I could have added. But I'd forgotten about the "F" on the fender. My page on Exterior/Name Plates shows that the change was for '82. The 1980 & '81 trucks take one badge, and the '82 through '86 trucks take another. Good point!

That range of 11.5 to 12 is about what Big Blue gets, but he's got a T19. So you are doing quite well getting that with a C6. And, that is a good improvement.

Steve - I've had that happen as well. Usually if I do a Control - it'll correct things. I had a very similar thing happen yesterday when the Post and Preview buttons disappeared. But a quick Control - fixed it. So, please try that when it happens and let me know. I can turn it in as a problem if I get some confirmation that others are seeing roughly the same thing.

I suspect a lot of tuning needs to be done with the 460. It has a Holley on it and I don't think there's been any jetting work done. But you can be sure the MPG is well south of 10, and maybe closer to 5.

Did you notice the side molding trim, Gary? I did, and scrolled back up to see if it is an '84 or '85. 'Tis an '85, and we know it is an early one at that. On that type of subject, meaning being able to spot some of the differences, Brandon/Bruno2 recently asked the question on Facebook how to tell yearly differences w/o looking at the certification label or VIN. And then he sent me a text suggesting I join the discussion because "the people that don't have high reading comprehension skills are coming out of the woodwork". Boy, was he right, with some people saying you can't tell an '82 from an '86, or anything in between. And others having equally-wrong guesses, like burled wood started in '84. My response was: But Brandon then asked how the gentleman at the FORDification show knew that Big Blue is an '85 by just seeing it drive by. And, to tell the truth I don't yet know. But I suspect that the Light Regatta Blue/Bright Regatta Blue combo of colors wasn't available in other years. So far that looks to be the case, but I don't have an '86 brochure so can't tell for sure. However, I should be able to tell on Saturday.

Just like stray cats, your friends keep coming back!!! P.S. Prashant, that is not directed at you as there are a number of us who make an annual trek to Skiatook, OK. P.P.S. How was your truck's gas mileage, Prashant? I doubt Prashant is going to see these posts. He doesn't seem to get on the forum nor know what's on the website. He had a friend with him, Greg, and they were asking some questions that are answered by pages on the site. So I showed them, and Greg was quick to say "That's it!". I got the feeling that Greg will bring Prashant back to the site when they get to CO, but maybe not the forum. As for MPG, I'm not sure that it will be all that good. They said that they'd hit 98 MPH and the truck just didn't want to go any faster.

Black, white, red, and blue would be stood start. And if you had those you’d have the right dimensions.

It is nice, and that’s a decent price if it doesn’t have rust.