Gary Lewis

Well done! 👌

I don't know what documentation they use, but they probably have some of their own. If not, you can point them to either my page on towing or Steve's, both of which show that your truck's GCWR is 11,500 lbs. As for brakes, at least in 1985 (I don't have an '86 brochure) there were no optional larger brakes. You can see that on Page 16 of the late 1985 brochure, as they aren't listed in the items you get with the trailer/towing package.

I've used a few of those tricks. However, since most of my OCR'ing is of documents I either have on CD or have scanned, the resolution is plenty high enough for my software. So I don't have to play those games very often. And, when I do it is with Photoshop. But it has only been recently that I've realized that making a document searchable is a boon to being found via a Google search. I've put terms in the SEO section of Weebly for each page, but it is very tedious to do so. However, if the document is searchable Google will crawl & index it so that people can find it. And that might explain part of the significant growth we are seeing of people clicking on the Garagemahal entry when they search for things. As you can see from this chart showing Google clicks for the last year, around August 1st it started climbing from the roughly 60 clicks/day it had been running at for several months to about 120/day currently. And, while we are at it, here are the "unique visitors" to the site for the same period. The large spikes are from things like when the site was promoted by Keith Dickson on FORDification, when Craig Hessman promoted it on FaceBook, when I've announced new pages on FB, etc. But ignoring those, we've grown from about 140 unique visitors each day to something around 300. And all of this might explain why we seem to be having a larger number of people join the forum each week. I don't have stat's for that, but of late there have been quite a few.

You have to calculate it using your truck's VC label info and a formula in the owner's guide. https://supermotors.net/getfile/692942/thumbnail/manual83bronco.jpg This has some '86 specs, including GCWR, and the caption links to a camper loading guide: https://supermotors.net/getfile/831131/thumbnail/towaxletrans86.jpg P.6 of this brochure (which I think I still have) says an '86 Bronco could be equipped to tow 7900 lbs (which I think is VERY optimistic): https://supermotors.net/getfile/795594/thumbnail/brochure86b6.jpg BTW My Bronco originally looked like P.5, but with a tan camper & black bumpers. Comparing your '86 manual with my '85 manual that is on the Specifications/Towing page I find these differences: Auto Tranny: - The '85 manual shows an optional 3.73 axle for the 4.9L that the '86 doesn't include - The '85 manual shows a 5.0L 2V that the '86 manual doesn't - The '85 manual shows a 3.50 axle for the EFI 5.0L that the '86 doesn't 'cause the 9" had been phased out - The '85 manual shows a GCWR of 12000 lbs and 6443 kg for the 3.73 gear, but the '86 shows 12000 lbs and 5443. Clearly the '85 is wrong as 12000 lbs is 5443 kg. - The '85 manual has a 351-2V section which the '86 doesn't - The '86 manual shows that a 351HO with 4.10's has a GCWR of 13,500 lbs and 5670 kg's. But 5670 kg's is actually 12,500 lbs, which is what the '85 manual shows - Both manuals show that a 460/7.5L with 3.54/3.55's has a GCWR of 15,000 lbs and 5443 kg's. But 5443 kg's is 12,000 lbs! Ok, I quit. Both of the manuals are fraught with errors. And I didn't even get to the manual transmission section. However, since the '85 manual has more gear ratios and engines than the '86 manual does I'll stick with it.

I have Foxit, which has OCR capabilities. In fact, I've OCR'd the whole of the ~6,000 page 1980 - 89 master parts catalog, which makes it far, far easier to find things. However, that took an unreal amount of time, not only while the computer did its thing but also for me having to proof what it questioned - and it questioned things on every page. Plus I've run into problems where the OCR software crashes my computer, which means you get to start over. So, I'd rather find something that might already be a text document to save all the agro. I've done a bit of searching and haven't, yet, found a CD of the TSB's. I did find a printed copy of some of them, but don't want printed as then I do have to scan them, and that takes way too much time. I've quit scanning things myself and have instead hired the ladies at our local shipping/printing depot to do that for me. In fact, I took 8 brochures out to them yesterday to have them scan them so I can put them on the site. So, if you see a CD for sale of the TSB's please let me know. If the cost is reasonable I'll gamble that they are text doc's, but at least they'll be easy to put on the site.

Good point. But, since I like to convert what I post to searchable pdf, it would help a lot if they came that way initially. So, I'll look for them on a CD and hope that they are true documents and not pictures of documents. But, if you see one before I do, please point it out to me. Thanks!

I drive a diesel VW that is about the same, and I always kind of assumed it was a diesel thing. The MPG doesn't seem to change much, no matter what type of driving or speeds I'm doing. I do tow a trailer with it once in a while, and in that case, it cuts the MPG in half. However, from rural and city driving to highway at 65 or 75 MPH, the mileage seems to stay about the same. The MPG on my wife's 2014 GLK with a twin-turbo'd diesel varies quite a bit due to conditions - and use of the blowers. Once we drove due north with a breeze from the south on state roads at 55 MPH and got 42 MPG, which was the best ever, although we backed it up with the next tank at that level. At 70 - 75 MPH it gets between 33 & 35 MPG. But if we run 80+ on the turnpike the MPG drops to closer to 30. And, the cruise control makes the MPG go down. The 42 MPG was manually feeding it, but if you use the cruise it recovers the speed too quickly and drops the MPG.

Bill - Thanks. But before you go to the trouble to scan it you might want to compare it to what I have on that page from the '85 manual. If there's no change then there's no need to scan.

I'm not a big cam guru, but I've studied the subject quite a bit. And I've come to the conclusion that a cam with not a lot of duration, which minimizes overlap, and slightly more lift than factory is a good way to go for a heavy vehicle like our trucks. And the cam you are using fits that mold. It says the torque is from idle to 5500, and that's perfect. Big Blue has a very similar Edelbrock cam and it'll put well from idle. I routinely take street corners in 3rd gear, which pulls it down to 500 RPM, and it doesn't care at all. I can't tell any difference in torque at 500, 1000, 1500, or 2000. It just "works".

My friend Scott, whom several on here met at the show last weekend, has a '78. I've helped him with it several times and I've been impressed how stout that truck is. It is an F150 and yet the tie rods are the size of Big Blue's, and far larger than those on Dad's truck. Steel inner fenders instead of plastic. And on and on..... I like the Bullnose trucks, but the previous generations were made of heavier "stuff".

I assume what Steve found is here: Specification/Towing. The simple info is from an '85 owner's manual, but I doubt it changed for '86. But I'd be curious if it did, Bill. Perhaps I need to update that page?

I like that style of box. That's the style that's on Big Blue, but that box is a lot cleaner/nicer than his. Well done!

Yes, that motorcycle lift sure looks like it worked nicely. I think now is the time to get the cooling system tester from the parts store and pump up the pressure. Most stores "rent" them, meaning you pay as if you are going to buy it and then get your money back when you return it. Anyway, hopefully the leak will manifest itself w/o heat. But, if you still can't see the source the next step would be the UV dye. However, since that probably won't mix with the coolant w/o the engine running you'll have to reinstall the tranny for that step.

Looks like a good cam for torque.

Truck is looking good! I watched the video and didn't see anything that was suspicious. Did I miss something? On the C6, if it is working well I'd leave most things alone. However, if you haven't changed the fluid lately I'd drain it, which is likely to cause a BIG mess, pull the pan, and replace the filter. Then, while you have the pan off, add a drain plug to it so you can change the fluid next time w/o causing such a mess. On the t-case, I've not rebuilt one of them. But the issue may well not be with the t-case. Instead, it may be with the seal between the t-case and the tranny. There's lots of fluid there, coming from the tranny, and unless that seal is good you'll have a leak. The factory used a gasket, and I've used a gasket/RTV combo and I've gone back with just RTV. Either work.

Cool! Congrat's. Looking forward to the report on the cam. What are you going with?

FYI: Exterior/Spare Tire Carriers. With part numbers, illustrations, etc for both the pickups and Broncos.

I like that idea of placing another hook on the side!

To properly size the wire & fuses, you have to KNOW the current draw of each addition. To size it for unknowns, you'd have to go big, or limit your future additions to the wire size you build this with. IMO, it's easier to just wait for a need, and then build to that. The bus bar is the actual metal strip that joins several circuits. https://supermotors.net/getfile/405445/thumbnail/05busbars.jpg https://supermotors.net/getfile/405458/thumbnail/22buspry.jpg The whole assembly with fuse holders, binding posts, mounting holes, & accessory terminals is a "4-position accessory fuse block". Ford direct-powered most of those, so with modern LEDs, it's not really necessary to use relays for them. Add all the current that will potentially pass through the wire, and choose the gauge based on the length of wire & its environment (temperature). Depends on how much current the accessory draws, what heat sources it passes near, and the total length of the wire. The chart at the bottom R of this table is from Ford, but there are others linked in the caption: https://supermotors.net/getfile/832986/thumbnail/bulbsfuseswire.jpg I'd pull one of its terminals out of a connector shell, and solder the new wire to it. Then put the terminal back into the connector, and you're done. https://supermotors.net/getfile/904655/thumbnail/ctsycrctmod4.jpg ...but keep reading... Good. ScotchLok taps are probably the WORST way to splice a wire yet created. Never ever use them for anything. I call that a "pierce splice", and it's a really-good way to tap a wire without compromising the original wire's integrity (no potential for a new break or high resistance in the original wire). https://supermotors.net/getfile/910757/thumbnail/splicepierce.jpg But it's harder to bend, which can make routing & terminating it much more difficult. Besides: the main consideration should be overheating the wire; not low voltage to the load. The 3-pin connector is for the voltage regulator, which is the one (Y wire) that connects to the output; the 1-pin (Bk/Wh wire) is the stator. https://supermotors.net/getfile/843907/thumbnail/alternator3gvr.jpg That doesn't sound right to me. The last Edelbrock carb I remember installing used a 12V choke heater. The stator is used for factory carbs because they use the older 6V choke heaters, and the stator output is roughly 1/2 the alternator output. But it's also AC (because it comes directly off the stator windings); not DC (through the diodes). So not only will you be trying to trigger a DC relay with AC; you'll be tapping a ~6V circuit to drive a relay to step up to 12V; when you could simply tie the choke heater directly to a key-switched 12V circuit (assuming your heater is 12V - read the manual). I like to tap the fuel pump relay output because it's only hot when the engine is actually running, and it can handle some extra current. A tube that fits over the stator connector won't shrink down onto the wire (or even 2). Even if he removes the connector shell, the metal terminal inside is still pretty large. To use shrink tubing, the wire generally has to be cut. Steve - The 5.8 HO's, and probably the 7.5L's, used a relay pulled in by the stator current, as shown here in the 1986 EVTM: http://www.garysgaragemahal.com/carburetor-circuits.html. And I'm running a Bosch relay pulled in by the stator wire on Big Blue to power the choke on the Edelbrock. Both the Holley 4180C and the Edelbrocks have 12v heaters, and this approach works quite well. But I do agree that insulation-displacement connectors should never be used - on anything, anywhere, anytime. In fact, I think I know the final resting place of the person that invented them.

I never observed that when I converted my '83 (with the '82 body/firewall). https://supermotors.net/getfile/72285/thumbnail/wrong.jpg I thought firewall flex only affected the later trucks with the ZF trans that had such a strong pressure plate - the one that also cracked the front of the trans. I broke the original mechanical pedal bracket that I had converted to hydraulic after several years, but I never noticed any problem with the firewall. https://supermotors.net/getfile/747710/thumbnail/pedals3.jpg The only difference I noticed between the '80-83 mechanical & '84-86 hydraulic firewalls was the dimple/hole for the MC, and absence of the hole for the pushrod. That's another reason I don't think converted trucks need a brace, unless they get a trans with a HD pressure plate. The TSB says it is for 1984-on trucks, but it is really for 1983-on as the 460's and diesels came out in '83 with the hydraulic linkage - and the problems started then, as shown by the master parts catalog entry below. And the TSB doesn't say anything about which transmission the vehicle has. In fact, back on FTE we had lots of people with the problem that hadn't swapped to a ZF, just as Rembrant explained about his. The issue is the direction of the force that the linkage applies to the firewall as well as how large or small of an area to which that force is applied. The mechanical-linkage clutch pedal is part of a large assembly that bolts on in several places. And the rod goes from the pedal in an almost vertical direction down to the bell crank. So the force is in a vertical direction, and the firewall is very strong in that direction. And, the pedal assembly spreads that force out over a large area. But the hydraulic master cylinder bolts on in one small spot, which focuses all the force there, and the force is in the fore/aft direction - which is the one where the firewall has its least strength. Here's the master parts catalog entry for Ford's fix. You can see that there was a small one, E3TZ 7K509-A, and a larger one for "severely damaged" firewalls - E3TZ 7K509-B. Note that both were engineered in 1983, so it seems that Ford knew the problem was going to exist.

So, how does the truck run!

Very generous offer. Thanks!

Have you browsed/raided this site? http://www.bbbind.com/free_tsb.html You don't have to use a real e-mail to get access. I haven't because the T's & C's say you can't create any publications, let others use it, etc. So I've limited my TSB's to what I can find that doesn't have those limitations.

I can understand that background. In the early 60's I got in to amateur radio, and things were all tube then. (I remember well the 5 tube superhet circuit with the 35W4 and 50C5 tubes.) Then in the mid-60's I went to college and learned to program on IBM mainframes. In the early 70's the company I was working for bought a supervisory control & data acquisition system (SCADA) with a PDP-8 computer running it, and I wound up in charge of it - to the point that I troubleshot it to the chip and replaced the chips - which were RTL and TTL. Then I got into building computers using Intel chip sets, like the 8085 and its peripherals, and even wrote my own operating system for the computer. So electronics and I are old friends. I have a scope and a lab power supply, but no longer have the logic tester I once had, which would have made testing the tach easier. Anyway, if I remember correctly there are tach chips out there. Might one of those be used to easily repair one of the Bullnose tachs?

So, Big Blue needs the nose higher?