Gary Lewis

Wow! LOOK at all those vehicle, many of which are Bullnose! Since the converter is going behind a diesel, which turns at low RPM, it is even more important to go with a converter with little slip. One article I read said "In general, the desired stall speed should be 500-700 RPM below the engine RPM at peak torque." The 1983 dealer facts book says that your engine produces peak torque at 1800 RPM. So that rule of thumb says you need a torque converter that has a stall speed between 1100 - 1300 RPM. That's low.

I've not rebuilt an auto tranny. But I have some knowledge of torque converters. I don't know what engine you have (no signature), nor what use you are going to make of the truck. But trucks and high-stall converters aren't a good combination. Trucks take torque at low RPM's to move heavy loads. High-stall converters allow the engine to wind to make power high in the RPM band, but they slip a lot at low RPM where a truck engine will be running. And, the slippage in a C6's torque converter is always with you as it doesn't have a clutch to lock it up. So, if you do go with a high-stall converter you'll have really poor MPG as the converter will be slipping a bunch, continually. For me, I'd go with a towing or RV type converter. Hughes makes/used to make one called the Mile Master that was said to reduce slippage and increase MPG. If you have enough engine then I'd go with something like that. And by that I mean, a little engine like the 302 needs to wind, but the 300 six or even a 351 has torque at low R's and doesn't need to wind. Just my $.02.

I thought you'd enjoy seeing a pic of Prashant holding it. He'd just told me you've been helping him, but I think he referred to you as "the guy in Virginia. The one with a 460 with EFI like you are going to do." I said "Oh, you mean Bill Vose? That's his valve cover."

Yup, Rosewood. Somebody found so many things today he just got lost.

Correct for 1980 & 81, only.

Yes, you are getting some nice trucks showing up. The second 1980 is really nice.

I ordered a couple sets of breather cover decals...one for the stock 5.0 GT cover, and a 2nd one for the SVO cover (To try and cover up some of the silver paint). I like it, but it doesn't fit quite right...I believe the SVO cover has slightly different dimensions than the stocker, but it looks OK at a distance...lol. I'm going to refinish the stock aluminum cover and I think this one will become a garage wall item;). Maybe I'll make a clock out of it;). It'll look good on the wall, and the other will look good on the engine. Good choices.

I had a visitor to the shop on Monday - Prashant. He's driving his '86 F150 w/a 460/ZF5 from Atlanta to Colorado, and stopped by to see me. But when we went out into the shop he spied something that he didn't think belongs. Can any of you ID it?

As you know, only F250's and up came with the diesel. And it started in '83. But that's the correct bezel for an XLT with one.

Good question! These are the right ones for the 1980 through '86 tailgates, but are in black. Someone should buy them and clone them in all the colors. There were only 37 different colors for them.

What would Bill say? 83/88 R E3TZ 18518—A 1 84/88 B

Looks to be the late-84 and early-85 stuff. But, I don't see it in the catalog. Disappeared from the brochure as well as the catalog?

This seller knows his stuff - correct for 1980 and SOME early 1981 trucks, depending on the factory in which it was built.

85/ F—U150/350 — w/o speed control E5TZ 13A805-D Black w/swirled maple trim— "Ford" Not correct for a van, in spite of what the seller says. Fits, but not correct.

It fits some Dana 50 and 60 axles. But only some. That's a complex area, so check it out first.

That part number does not show in the MPC. It should be 1020938 & 9.

Left hand, front, 1980 - 86. Just as it says.

Next, I need input on "angle of departure". The drawing below represents my feeble understanding of the subject. The upper red line is off of the differential and the lower line is off the tire. My understanding is that the angle of departure is the angle of the lower line. In this setup the bumper and the receiver hit about the same time, but the bumper hits first. So, I think this says that if I make the bumper shorter, meaning that the bottom of the bumper goes up, then the receiver will be the limiting factor. Right? As for the upper red line, my thinking is that anything that doesn't hang down past that line is fine, although it may well need a skid plate. And I've drawn in the 38 gallon fuel tank that I have. It looks like it'll be fine with a skid plate as it is within the line that a rock that clears the differential would take. Do I understand that correctly?

Here's the next iteration, but the bumper isn't done by any stretch. I'm just trying to incorporate most of the suggestions to this point. However, in this pass I'm still using a tube for the bumper, although it has been reduced 1" to a 4" x 6". Also, I've reduced the height of the tow eyes to 2 1/2" as they were originally. And I've extended the angle to the bumper. Last, I've added fishplates for the cross piece/tow eye interface. And, here's the receiver added. (Yes, the tow eye is still there.) I've raised the receiver to the height of the cross piece and added fishplates for the cross piece/receiver interface, top and bottom. At this point I think the evolution of this approach with a closed tube bumper is pretty well done - unless y'all have further refinements, to which I'm fully open. It looks really strong to me and at 6" high the rear bumper is only 1/2" lower than the original bumper. And, I think it is stout. What do you think?

That's an interesting solution. It looks factory when you can't see the PRNDL in the instrument cluster.

Steve - Good questions. The bumper is a tube because I was working on the tow eye and hitch plans and wanted to see how a tube would work. I thought that once I got the infrastructure worked out I could then explore different bumpers. But I'm starting to see that these aren't independent decisions. Yesterday, before drawing the above, I briefly looked at using a piece of channel, but the thickness of the edge and the placement of the tow eyes and receiver were such that it required a very tall bumper so we didn't have to cut the angled side. But maybe once I work out how to get those pieces pretty much in line with each other a piece of channel would be an option. But, channel wouldn't provide the 4" top surface that makes standing on the bumper to get into the bed easy/comfortable. On the angle, I see what you mean about taking it back to the bumper to provide extra support - for a tube. But, if I go with a piece of channel, I'm not sure that will be necessary, especially if I get things pretty much centered up in the channel? As for the hitch cross bar coming down in front of the receiver, I think I see what you mean. But, wouldn't another option be to take the receiver up instead of bringing the cross bar down, bringing the receiver and tow eyes closer to being in line? That would allow the bumper to be shorter, and increase the angle-of-departure, although that assumes that the gas tank doesn't become the limiting factor. I realize that taking the receiver up uses the space between the fuel tank crossmember, bumper, and tow eyes. But I'm still on the fence about creating storage there, so I'm just exploring options. Anyway, thanks for the input. Please keep it coming.

I don't buy trucks that can't be driven anymore except for parts as there's always lots more wrong than anticipated. So the price is too high. But, it has a tach and nice wheels.

Are you saying you liked the original tow eye height? Meaning 2 1/2"? That's what I was thinking I'd cut them down to, but I'm asking just making sure I understand. On the hitch height, I see what you are saying. And if I come up with another way to secure the cross piece in addition to butt-welding it to the tow eye, then I can move the hitch up about an inch. That would probably let me go with 4 x 6 tubing, meaning the bottom of the bumper would go up an inch from where it is shown in today's drawing, and only be 1/2" lower than the stock bumper. However, today's design already has the hitch about 5" higher than it currently is as it hangs way below the frame. And even if I raise it another inch I'll still have to figure out what rear tank I can use to have the bumper and not the skid plate be the limiting factor. So I have more work to do, both drawing and imagining as well as figuring out how low the 3 different tanks will hang. Anyway, thanks bunches for the input. I really need all the help I can get.

Congrat's!!

I've jacked them up using a piece of ply under the pan to spread the load. And then I've kept them up with a jack stand under the harmonic balancer. But if you have to drop the crank in back to put the seal in then that won't work very well. As for the flange on the end of the crank, it doesn't come off. So the only place I've seen the sleeve used is in the front. I doubt that your crank is grooved so you wouldn't need it in that case. Anyway, let's see what the others say on these issues.