1986F150Six

Scott, you are very welcome for the opportunity to spend more of your money [not mine]! Make a point to ask Mr. Lewis if he has any idea of how much of his hard earned $$$ I have spent???

And here is the driver's side [on the photo he circled the passenger side, but stated he wanted driver's side]. https://www.dennis-carpenter.com/en/trucks/exterior/body-mouldings/e1tz-1329315-aa-molding-lh-rear-lower-cab-corn https://www.rearcounter.com/E1TZ-1329315-AA-parts974250.html

Which would raise the compression by ~ 1/2 point!

The box photo shows a Cxxxx, but the side of the box indicates Ford. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-NOS-Dee-Zee-custom-grille-Ford-1980-1986-truck-Bronco-80-81-81-83-1984/254440185764?hash=item3b3dd11fa4:g:y~8AAOSwcrJd5Dlo

No, those are two very different parts. E0TZ 9929038-A is for the upper trim on a regular cab and it is only about 2" long. E1TZ 1329314-AA is the lower trim on a Supercab, which is what you have and this is the part you circled. And it is much longer. https://www.dennis-carpenter.com/en/trucks/exterior/body-mouldings/e1tz-1329314-aa-molding-rh-rear-lower-cab-corn https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-OEM-Ford-1981-1985-Truck-Super-Cab-Moulding-1982-1983-1984-F150-F250-F350-/123604563169

Not really. I just thought it was neat as it seems to be left over stock of something old and was remanufactured to Ford's standards.

Ray, Will the Dual Port [dual plane] intake work with the FI unit? The reason I ask is that there is an Offenhauser C manifold which is open and a 2 or 4 barrel carburetor can be oriented any direction. With the Dual Port, a 4 barrel carburetor is used and the primaries are nearest the valve cover. When others have used a 2 barrel with the Dual Port intake, an open 1" thick spacer has been used.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-REBUILT-65-74-FORD-300CI-6-CYLINDER-HEAD-C5TZ-6049-CX/401950212707?hash=item5d96198263:g:FCcAAOSwE-pdxGRS

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-OEM-Ford-F-Series-LH-RH-E0TZ-13064-Chrome-Black-Headlight-Doors-80-86/153591252102?epid=1769775048&hash=item23c2c08486:g:K6MAAOSwl-NdR4qa

https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-OEM-Ford-Air-Duct-Assembly-Vent-Part-EOTZ18471C/192580799719?epid=14020829335&hash=item2cd6b5cce7:g:vQ8AAOSw0O9bGR9H And another one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Ford-OEM-Airduct-Assembly-E0TZ-18471-C-FB4/352587014594?epid=14020829335&hash=item5217d2e1c2:g:--YAAOSwgGhcWbVs

Here you are, Cory. I have used one like this, before. https://www.amazon.com/Dorman-Help-47311-Restrictor-X-0185/dp/B000CO7APW

Or, do as Ford did for stellar gas mileage... put a 2.47 rear end with manual OD!!!

My family lived in Baton Rouge for 11 years. My wife was born in New Orleans. Miss the great food!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1980-1986-FORD-F100-F150-F250-F350-BRONCO-WOODGRAIN-RADIO-DASH-BEZEL-PANEL/392559364439?hash=item5b665c8957:g:Zh0AAOSwkfRd36Jm

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-OEM-FORD-1985-1997-F100-350-P-S-SHIELD-STEERING-SHAFT-LOWER-E5TZ-3F540-C/401976778397?epid=1411124006&hash=item5d97aede9d:g:IzMAAOSwutpd4Cfk

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Ford-Carburetor-Spacer-EGR-Plate-4-9-E4TZ-9A589-H-E4TE-9A589-GB-CM2417E/133254191584?hash=item1f069199e0:g:NUkAAOSwsnVd3ukN

Hmmm... grumpin and I were thinking along the same lines. Here is another choice: https://www.amazon.com/Industrial-Air-Contractor-CTA5090412-Compressor/dp/B002MKP5PQ/ref=pd_sbs_469_t_0/146-6078116-3502509?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B002MKP5PQ&pd_rd_r=8cd7e338-2bad-4bc3-b454-c26c717f521a&pd_rd_w=zQhXq&pd_rd_wg=ZX5eC&pf_rd_p=5cfcfe89-300f-47d2-b1ad-a4e27203a02a&pf_rd_r=9G98F42GXM1JZ77DBX3G&psc=1&refRID=9G98F42GXM1JZ77DBX3G

Gary, I had to go back in time to find this: 9/13/2014 Gary Lewis Posting Legend Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Northeast, OK Posts: 32,860 Results We played with David's truck today to determine what his AFR is and what his timing is. First, we installed my AEM wideband meter and looked at the AFR: Idle: Once warmed up it was about 12.5:1 Cruise: At 62 where he ususally runs it was in the mid-15's on level ground, but climbing hills it got as high as 17.0 at one point. Power: Once the throttle was open it went as low as 11.5 but normally at about 12.0 - 12.5. That said the carb, a 1970 YF carb off of an F350, is jetted just right. It really shouldn't be any leaner, but the truck runs well so it isn't too lean. And it certainly isn't rich. Then we checked the timing. The initial timing was set at 18 degrees, which was getting good MPG but made the engine slightly hard to start sometimes. And, it pinged at full throttle, so the overall timing was too much. As for the mechanical timing, at 1700 RPM where David cruises it was giving 10 more degrees advance. Then we checked the vacuum advance and found that it was starting to advance at 10" and was giving a total of 18 degrees 16" of vacuum, and at the 14" of vacuum the truck had at 62 MPH the advance was 12 degrees. So, total advance at 1700 was 18+10+12=40. Then we turned the vacuum advance two turns clockwise, which made the vacuum start coming in at 8", gave the full advance of 18 degees advance at 14". Then we set the initial timing to 17 degrees, and the drive determined that it pinged both at part throttle as well as full throttle. So we put the initial timing at 14+, giving a total of 14+10+18 = 42 degrees at 1700 RPM. And the truck felt happier with that setting than it has.

I hope everyone enjoys time with their family... remember to be thankful for all we have been blessed with! David

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-OEM-Ford-1980-1986-Truck-Pickup-Front-Bumper-F150-1981-1982-1983-1984-1985/122540789440?epid=928655181&hash=item1c88000ec0:g:hRkAAOSwX61ZLc9K

Hmmm... black?

Nice, yes! And, the bumpers can be changed.

Yes, 4 speed manual OD. 3.08 rear gears with limited slip. 215/75 X 15 "road" tires. FuzzFace2: "Besides the rear gear what size tire you are running and the RPM "sweet spot"." The highest gas mileage, without aerodynamic assistance, is when the truck is driven 55-62 MPH. Those speeds correlate to ~1530-1730 RPMs. Gary: "I assume your 1:1 gear would have had you turning too fast?" I do not know? In earlier in-town testing, where I run my normal commute to work and never go over 45 MPH, eliminating OD for the full tank results in a 2 mpg drop. This test was repeated and returned the same results. That would be due to pumping losses, I believe. Jonathan: "But I also have to ask, do you know if the fuel blend has changed in your region between September and November? I hear a lot of chatter about winter blend fuels hurting mpg, but it is hard to sift through what is fuel related vs longer warm up times, idling, and worse rolling resistance if there is “weather” on the roads. I’m just throwing fuel blend out there as a possible variable." Yes, we have the winter blend formulation and through the years, due to all the reasons you have listed, the gas mileage has been noted to be ~1.5-2.0 mpg lower during the winter season.

Since March of 2008, when I bought my truck from the original owner, I have recorded gas mileage for every tank. Back in 2014, I made my maiden voyage to Skiatook, OK and used the extended trip [~600 miles each way] as a test. The following is a brief summary: 2014 55-62 mph with no aerodynamic modifications = 21.93 mpg [highest tank = 23.26 mpg] 2015 55-62 mph with aerodynamic modifications = 24.13 mpg [highest tank = 25.72 mpg] 2016 55-70 mph [weighted towards 65-70] with aerodynamic modifications = 22.05 mpg [highest tank = 23.46 mpg] 2017 Missing data due to having driven another vehicle. 2018 65-75 mph [closer to 75] with no aerodynamic modifications] = 19.87 mpg [highest tank = 21.3 mpg] 2019 65-75 mph with aerodynamic modifications = 21.65 mpg [highest tank = 21.95 mpg] 2019 60-75 mph with partial [aerodynamics going, but not returning] aerodynamic modifications = 19.12 mpg [highest tank = 21.17 mpg] Last week, Robert Evans [my friend who accompanied me to Skiatook, this year] and I planned a breakfast run to Tupelo, MS, via the Natchez Trace. This would give an opportunity to drive at 50 MPH [speed limit] and see what the gas mileage would be. There is a gas station very near the entrance, so the tank was filled and refilled at the same pump. The results were disappointing to me, but showed that going too slow [RPMs lower than maximum torque] results in reduced gas mileage since the engine is below its "sweet spot". 50 MPH = ~1400 RPMs 135.7 miles / 6.883 gallons = 19.72 mpg. So, driving @ 50 mph, the truck returned almost exactly the same mileage as it did @ 65 -75 mph [see the 2018 Skiatook trip results; above].