Gary Lewis

That's a good point, Pete. If the alternator is bad and you do my test the light will still be on when all the fuses are pulled.

The seal should be a press-fit. And a plugged vent will cause a leak somewhere. Either of the axle seals or the pinion seal, or all of them. I'll have to check on the flange question later.

Good plan. Bad diodes could cause a drain, and you could blow diodes with the over-voltage problem.

You might want to pull the positive cable to charge the battery.

A dyno run is probably only necessary if there are questions about some aspect of a build. For instance, can you pack that many frictions in that clutch pack and get it to release. But, when someone is building a tranny in a case that no one involved has seen run, it would prove that the case isn’t porous. And, it would point out any leaks that might case the tranny to have to be pulled and re-sealed. So it isn’t necessary, but would be insurance that all is well.

Ahhh, we are talking at cross-purposes. You are talking about this thread and I’m talking about taking all the pertinent info from this thread and creating a separate web page for the how-to. Here are my thoughts about various approaches: Facebook: Nice for chatting with people, but horrible for documentation. People jump in and take the conversation in multiple directions. And most search engines don’t find things on FB so the documentation will never be found. Threads: Better than Facebook as the discussion will be indexed by search engines, but still poor for documentation. Whiteboards: This is my term for a locked thread, which I’ve allowed authors to do in the Projects folder. So you, as a member, can create documentation without others taking the discussion hither and yon. Web Page: By far the best way to document. You get to keep the topic on your train of thought, and there are far more tools available, like captions to pics, or galleries of pics, or text beside pics, or even embedded spreadsheets or interactive pages where clicking on something takes you to another part of the page. My plan has been to take the salient points from this thread and create the appropriate web page to House it. In other words, use this thread to tease out the issues in order to make the web page “correct”.

You are making excellent progress!!! And a toolbox with a latch. Good find! 👍 I do think the bracket stands the box away from the fender a bit. But spacers should do it as well, although that will be fiddly to assemble with all the separate pieces. If so, I may have a solution. Interesting catch on the HVAC bulb. I was going to work the question of tank switches later by comparing the two controls, and would have missed the bulb.

If you click on Topic View you should get this page. And if you click on the indicated link you should go to the last post. But if it doesn’t work the please tell me what hardware and software you are using.

I thought that there was a Buick 800 CFM Q-Jet that might have had the larger primaries like the SuperDuty one? But my ‘72 390 wasn’t too big. That Q-Jet provided more power and economy than the 2100 did.

Sounds like a good plan. And one you can tell me how to do when the time comes. 👍

Thanks for the reply. I think we are thinking alike on the "stock" build. If Ford thought the upgrades were necessary then why would I think they aren't? As for other modifications, there are two that I'm thinking would be good - the number and quality of the clutch plates, and the torque converter. My limited knowledge says that Ford used more clutch plates in the transmissions behind the bigger engines than those behind the smaller engines. So, I'd like to ensure I have enough to handle the torque of this engine, which is a bit more than a stock 460 but not nearly as much as a stock diesel. And on the torque converter I want one that is going to handle the load w/o slipping, and generating heat. Last, you've said something that reminded me of something Steve said that I forgot to document. He doesn't dyno all of the transmissions that he builds as the dyno is at the school where he teaches. But, that implies that he will dyno them, and it would be nice to know that it works well before I put it in the truck.

But, if you do as I outlined above and click the link below "Last Post" you will be taken to the latest post in any given thread/topic. You may need to scroll up a bit to find the last post you've read, but you'll be starting at the bottom instead of the top. I'm sure I'm missing something, so please try me again.

I do notice that there is more metric on the 1990 than on the Bullnose trucks, so they made some "progress" - if that is progress.

I agree that it is better to err on the small side. But, one thing to check out when selecting a 4bbl carb is the air flow potential of the primaries, and not just the air flow potential of the whole carb. After all, you'll be running on the primaries the vast majority of the time, so we really ought to compare those specifications from one carb to another. Unfortunately the vendors don't provide us with the flow specifications on the primaries, just the whole carb. And while we can try to deduce those specs by taking a ratio of the size of the throttle bores of the primaries vs the secondaries, that is fraught with problems since the primaries usually have better boosters/venturi than the secondaries do, and that makes them flow less percentage-wise. So, about all that we can do is compare primary throttle bore sizes between carbs. And the two carbs we are talking about give us an interesting example: The 600 CFM Edelbrock 1406 has larger primary throttle bores (1 7/16") than the 625 CFM Street Demon (1 3/8"). Not only that, but the Eddy has an earlier style of boosters that probably is less restrictive than the "Triple-Stack" boosters on the Street Demon. Basically, the Street Demon is much closer in design to a Quadrajet than to an AFB/Performer. The AFB/Performer is a "squarebore" carb, meaning the primaries and secondaries are roughly the same size, while the Q-Jet is a "spreadbore" carb, meaning the primaries are much smaller than the secondaries. In my opinion, an equally-sized spreadbore carb will give better economy and part-throttle driveability than a squarebore due to the smaller primaries. And, you can usually get similar economy and part-throttle driveability on a larger spreadbore as compared to a squarebore.

You will notice there are no vendors here. Nor fees. Nor advertising, at least not "commercially". However, if we start up cottage industries around these trucks then there might be some advertising in a sense. For instance, if Reamer comes up with a tail light bracket for the Flaresides we might create a folder for things like that. As for Facebook, I use it to keep up with people. But I don't see the value in it for things like we do here. It just doesn't lend itself to this. Anyway, are you suggesting that we have a DIY section on the website? A how-to section?

I wish Ford had made up its mind whether it was going metric or not. These trucks are a mix of both, and it is a pain to figure out which. Anyway, Darin has said he wants the crossmember, but not the sway bar. So that's available should someone want it.

Dave - Don't miss that if you use an 85-86 control, like you have, you can't easily do the water shutoff valve.

I hope you have safe travels and a fun visit - with Bill as well as your sister. Looks like you are all set.

Ok, I think I have the answer: The 1980-84 Integral A/C controls can easily be adapted to provide vacuum to a valve in Vent and in A/C Max. But the 1985-86 Integral A/C controls cannot. However, the earlier controls may be able to be used in the later trucks. Read on.... I'm going to show you why and how, below, but want to write it up for the website and need your guidance on how/where to do that. My thinking is to put a tab called something like Improvements on the HVAC/Integral A/C page, and then show the info below on that tab. Plus, I'll place a link in the Resources folder here on the forum to that page so people can more easily find it. Thoughts? As for why and how the 1980-84 controls can be modified to control a valve, here's the table from the 1981 shop manual again. Notice that the vacuum source is port 7, and that port 1 isn't used. However, it has vacuum to it in both the Vent and A/C Max positions, but none other, which is perfect for controlling a valve closing off the flow of hot water to the heater core as we would have no heat in Vent or A/C Max, but heat in all the other positions. And here are the ports on the switch, with port 1 being open. But, here's the connector for the vacuum harness, and you can see that port 1 doesn't have a hose on it. In fact, it is blanked off. Here's a side view of that connector and you can see that there's plenty of room to drill the connector and insert a piece of either hard plastic tubing or a piece of brass tubing, onto which you can slip a vacuum hose. But, why can't that be done on the 1985-86 Integral A/C controls? That's because the two unused ports, #'s 5 & 6, are not connected to vacuum in Vent and A/C Max. They are only connected to each other, and that doesn't help. So, what can be done? Change out the 1985-86 control w/a 1980-84 control. But that will also mean you'll need the 1980-84 vacuum harness and will have to change the pinout on the blower switch connector. And, that won't work with a 1985-86 truck with electric fuel pumps and dual tanks as the tank switch is much more complex than the earlier switch. However, I'll check to see if that switch can be swapped, which would solve the problem.

Dave - I have a 1985/86 vacuum harness as well as the control cable that you can have. However, I suggest you read a bit further before deciding. One reason is that if Jonathan is shipping you the connector already then it might keep the costs down if he were to ship you everything. But, that means he has to source the parts. And, then comes the question of what parts. If I were you I'd seriously consider going with a 1980-84 control. That's because of what I've just found and will write up on the Vacuum Controlled Heater Control Valve thread ASAP.

Good points. I'll bet $'s had a lot to do with it. By the way, I have this hardware from Jim and the huck: Two of the 2" x 7/16" thick washers One of the C-shaped spacers, but probably more if I dig Four of the 3" x 1/8" washers Four of the washer w/the cross cut in them Will that be enough? If not, what else do you need? I should have it and you won't have to ship anything.

Dave - I should have an extra vacuum harness. And, I may have the cable as well. It will make things sooooo much easier. I will look this afternoon.

As an update, Brandon and I had a phone conversation last evening that pointed out something that had been bothering me about what Steve said but I’d really not realized. He apparently told Brandon in a face-to-face conversation that he thinks a good “stock” build would be what I need. And in our conversation he said a “stockish” build might suit me. My problem with that idea is that I don’t know what he means by “stock”. Part of my confusion is because there was, obviously, no stock E4OD for a 1981 F150. Second, Ford apparently put several upgrades in the transmission through the 90’s. From what I can decipher from the Baumann site: In 1992 they installed a revised sun gear and rear case bushings to provide longer wear life and better lubrication. In addition they added 4-pinion planet carriers on some models. In 1994 they installed a thicker converter clutch piston, which prevents the formation of cracks which relieve fluid pressure from the apply side of the clutch, causing it to slip. Further, 4-pinion overdrive planet and input shaft assemblies replaced older 3 and 4 pinion units which tend to develop cracks in the carrier under heavy loads. And, there was a center support update kit which replaced a wear-prone bushing with a ball bearing and contained a new overdrive stub shaft. In 1995 they added a higher displacement front pump, which provides more fluid capacity for faster engagement of reverse and greater lube flow. In addition, somewhere along the way they added a stronger overdrive clutch cylinder snap ring which will not dislodge. And, new forward clutch friction plates with hardened internal splines to cure "chatter" and "no-drive conditions. So I’m having a hard time understanding “stock” or “stockish”. But if any of you see what I’m missing please enlighten me. Hopefully Steve’s proposal will shed some light on it as well.

You are implying there are “good ones”. From what I’ve read there are just ones that haven’t proven to be bad - yet. 😈 Seriously though, the idea of an oil/water exchanger isnt a bad one. The Subie we have has exactly that as part of the cold-weather package and it helps warm the engine oil in the winter to boil off condensation. My guess is that there is some electrolysis going on with dissimilar metals that causes the problem when people don’t change their coolant regularly. So, did Ford decide in 1990 that the oil/air cooler wasn’t adequate? Or why did they change?