Gary Lewis

I wonder if we need a new section. Maybe called "Reference"? A place where we could collect details we want to get back to, like hose sizes or bolt torque spec's. Things that we may need to know and just need a place to keep them for future use? Thoughts?

Gary that is a fantastic chart, any way we can integrate that into the forum database? Sure. But where? Ideas? Thoughts?

Schrader valves weren't installed on the early EFI systems. I think mid-year '86 is when they arrived. I think. I know you said you have 6v coming out of the inertia switch, but you also said "where the others gave me anywhere from 10-12" and I don't understand what that means. So let's take it one step at a time. Do you have 12v into the inertia switch in Start? If so, do you have 12v out of the inertia switch? That switch should be closed except after a major impact, so you should have exactly the same voltage coming out as going in.

Glad to have you around; I myself and I know plenty of others have had a few bones to pick to LMC over the last few years I think a lot of people want basic restoration stuff, and there are a lot of oddball parts for these trucks that are difficult to come by or when we do, very expensive. I'm not sure how feasible that would be for you guys to implement on some things, but as far as I'm concerned this forum will provide you with a pretty extensive background into these trucks. Honestly, if you look past the factory feedback carbs and injection, they aren't all that dissimilar to the 70s trucks. Perhaps Gary and myself could get a thread going were we try to consolidate the most common things that are sought after on these trucks so that we can provide you will a steady database to get rolling with once you finally settle in with LMC. I'm very excited that someone with an interest in these trucks will be finally sitting behind the curtain in a major restoration outlet. I hope there is some way than I can contribute to your catalog. Keith - What would be the biggest help to you in your new job? How can we help you help us?

Good question, and one for which I didn't know the answer. But a bit of Googling tells me that which the tubing OD is accurately represented, the hose ID isn't quite. MercRacing has the table shown below. The easiest row to look at is the 2nd one with 7/16-20 thread size. The tubing size is 1/4" but the actual hose size is .22". But I think the hose will actually say it is 1/4" hose. So apparently hose sizing is slightly smaller in OD than the "size" shown on it so it'll tightly fit the tube.

Excellent! Did you happen to mention the forum and that we sent you? If so that may be why he was so happy to talk to me today.

No worries, we'll get there. But, in your intro you said you have three trucks, but you don't have a signature. Having one is highly recommended as if we know the details about your truck we are better able to accurately answer your questions. And speaking of questions, you have one about your '86 w/a 302 and EFI not getting fuel. Assuming it has a single tank (you didn't say and don't have a signature telling ), the schematic below depicts the wiring for your truck. It is from Documentation/Electrical/EVTM/1986 EVTM and then the Electric Fuel Pump Control section. And you have power after the inertia switch? Do you have a pump on the frame, as shown in the schematic? Does it have power?

Welcome! Glad you joined. Who's the friend? Is he a member here as well? And, where's home? We have a map (Bullnose Forum/Member's Map in the menu) and we'd love to add you if we had a city/town/zip. Who knows, you may be a neighbor!

Welcome to the forum. However, I was hoping that you would follow what I said in the email I just sent you: So before we start troubleshooting your Bronco, which we'll be happy to do, please introduce yourself in the New Members Start Here folder.

Yes, last I knew there was an error in the Z-bar area on the bushings or seals, but I don't remember which. I talked with a nice young lady there about it when I found it several years ago, but it didn't get corrected in the catalog. But overall the catalog is very helpful and usually accurate.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!! Well done, Keith! I know him!!! I hope you'll keep us up to speed on what is going on at LMC.

Jim - Hope you get it sorted tomorrow. Scott - I do think the original keys were aluminum, and I doubt they lasted very well. I have some for Dad's truck around here somewhere, and maybe a set for Big Blue.

Frank - That's good to know. This is something that is frequently asked, and somehow we need to determine what the size(s) are. However, the screen grabs below are from the MPC, with "9324" being the base part # for fuel line. So, what do we make of this? I see both 5/16" and 3/8" used.

Sold!

Sold!

Note that this relay only fits 1980 - 83, with the exception of the 6.9L. However, since the 6.9L didn't arrive until 1983, I think the MPC is wrong. EOTZ 9C792-A 80/83 F-U100/350 - - w/factory installed speed control 80/ 6.9L

Do you want the good news or the bad news first? Oh, the good news! One bit of good news is that there is no bad news. Just another layer needing to be peeled - and that is finding a dip stick. I actually have three dip sticks: The universal braided one that is on Big Blue's old engine; the NOS one Vernon included with Big Blue; and the one that came on Huck, which fits the pan I'm using and which has an o-ring fitting. That leaves the one on the old engine out as it screws in. And the NOS one is way too short. So I tried using the one that came on Huck, but it is going to take a lot of bending in order to get around the header, and I'm not sure I am good enough to do that. Given that, I called Scott and he recommended getting one from Lokar. But, I took a look at their site and got confused. Do any of y'all know which one might be needed? Or do you know of other options? But, back to the good news - the passenger's side header didn't move when I torqued it down, so I have the same 1/8" of clearance to the tranny as I did before torquing. And, I did torque it down, to the best of my ability. The book says to start torquing in the center and work out, so I did. And luckily the one I started with was accessible with a socket, so I torqued it to 30 lb-ft. Then I tested it with my 3/8" Craftsman box/open wrench and learned that 30 lb-ft is about all I can do by hand. So that's how I "torqued" the others, twice around. With that done I added the tranny crossmember and gussets and took this shot: But, you can see in that pic that the clutch slave cylinder isn't installed. However, about that time the postman brought the clutch lever boot, so I installed the lever, boot, and slave, as shown here: That was my day and now I'm toast and awaiting your comments, especially on the dip stick.......

Yes!!! I should have said that. And, you can do it even if you don't blow the sock off.

You need to get ethanol-proof hose. Modern fuel hose is. And I do think it is 3/8". But, there is a sock in the tank and it can get plugged. The old mechanic's trick is to put air pressure on the line going in and blow the sock off. It is more like a strainer than a filter and it might catch flys, but not much more. However, pull the cap off the tank when you do that.

If the engine hasn't been run in an hour or so the choke should be closed. But if you aren't getting fuel then the problem is between the tank and the pump. There's a rubber hose from the tank to the hard line, and if you have two tanks there's another hose from the hard line to the switching valve, then another from the valve to the hard line. And then the hose from the hard line to the fuel pump that you mentioned. The original material does NOT like ethanol. When I got Dad's truck one of those hoses dripped fuel when the truck was off. The line didn't really have a hole in it, it had just turned to sponge. When I pulled it off I mashed it into a ball and it stayed! But if they can leak fuel out they'll leak air in, and that air can kill the vacuum that the pump creates to move fuel. So I'd replace all of the hoses. However, I also had one that wouldn't prime, so I pressurized the fuel fill to the tank with just a few psi of air. That got fuel to the pump and after that all was good, it never failed again.

LOL! I've seen it suggested that one of them would make two masks so I'm not sure 'bout the bidirectional bit. Perhaps it is an Italian name? There they say "bi-turbo" instead of "twin-turbo".

Sorry to see that, Clay. Hope someone on here wants it. I'll put your pic on here to help:

Right, Cory. With the ZF5 behind the engine that's now in Cal's Rusty, Dad's truck got ~14 MPG running 65 MPH. Our calculator says that with the 30" tires and 3.50 gears it was turning 1936 RPM. But Big Blue's 460 is supposed to be turning 1795 at the same speed. So if it was engine speed BB should get better than 15 MPG. And we all know that's not going to happen. When I get the EFI on Big Blue I'm going to be able to say "You can't get better MPG than this with a 460" since I'll have a fresh Scotty-built engine, EFI, ZF5, headers, etc. And if I get 14 MPG I'm gonna be thrilled - and incredulous. There's just something about the design of the 460 that makes it thirsty. I don't know what it is, but it doesn't endear me to that engine. Maybe the Scotty-built engine will at least put a smile on my face - as I fill up with gas frequently?

That's funny! But your parrot's dead. (Reminds me of a meeting back when I was working. Twenty or thirty people in the room and one guy said something about a parrot. I responded "Your parrot's dead" and another guy said "He's only sleeping." The rest of the room looked at us like we were crazy!) On the risk of creating an alternative group, I think that's pretty much a given. There are Facebook-only people, and there are forum-only people. And then there are those, maybe 5 to 10%, who dabble in both. Thinking through the advantages and differences, I see that the way I have my Facebook account set up I get a notification of someone posting on certain pages on Facebook, and always get a notification when someone responds to a post of mine. But I don't get that on the forum as the notification comes in via email, so I have to go look. And, I'm one of the few of the members silly enough to have subscribed to the whole forum, so I get email notification for anything posted. So for me Facebook posts would be much more likely to elicit a quick response due to the notification. But I can't do a Google search and find things on Facebook like I can the forum. And documenting something on Facebook, like a build, would seem to be fruitless. And, Facebookers seem to sign up for multiple Bullnose pages, where that doesn't seem to be as prevalent on forums. So Bullnose pages tend to have very large memberships. For instance, Bullnose Fords 80-86 has 40.8K members & Bullnose Ford Truck Group (80-86) has 14k. And we have 696 as of this morning. So if you need a quick answer or want to sell something then one of those pages would probably be better. However, with that large of membership there's no way you can have a good handle on who to trust, so how do you know which answer is correct? Bottom Line: The only reason I can see starting another Bullnose page is if we think we can do it better, like keep the language in check and be uplifting rather than down-putting. I'm going to have to watch a bit more closely and see which of the ones I'm part of that do a good job already. I know one that does, and that's Keith's FORDification, but that's not Bullnose. However, maybe some of the Bullnose ones already do. If so, then it begs the question of why we'd want to get into Facebook. What am I missing?

You may have already solved it. Let's hope it stays dry this afternoon.