1986F150Six

Dk46, I tried to find some switches [used or NOS], but only saw one used single switch. I did run across a kit which specifies it is for our era trucks. Be cautious and investigate, but it may work, even though not original. https://www.ebay.com/itm/1980-86-Ford-Truck-F-Series-Power-Window-Switch-Kit-w-Harness-fs-box-t19-351m/264317888889?fits=Year%3A1980%7CModel%3AF-150%7CMake%3AFord&hash=item3d8a92e979:g:EgUAAOSw4Ohc1hW0

Quite rare... https://www.ebay.com/itm/80-86-Ford-F150-Bronco-Blue-A-PILLAR-WINDSHIELD-TRIM-F250-F350-81-82-83-84-85/153510380784?hash=item23bdee84f0:g:FkgAAOSwudFc8ybu

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1985-86-Ford-F150-Bronco-BLUE-Lower-Door-Panel-Pockets-OE-F250-F350-81-82-83-84/163715939457?hash=item261e3afc81:g:bYAAAOSw7sBc8upK

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1980-1987-FORD-F100-F250-TAIL-GATE-CHAIN-BRACKET-NUTS/192519293051?hash=item2cd30b487b:g:EF0AAOSwDDxa3bvS

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1980-81-82-83-84-85-86-FORD-F100-F250-F350-TAIL-GATE-HINGE-LH/192478281139?epid=1018869362&hash=item2cd0997db3:g:sQsAAMXQfvlSj0Tg

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1980-86-Ford-Truck-F150-250-Tail-Gate-Tailgate-Support-Arm-Handle-Hinge-Set-L-R/323842090040?hash=item4b667e2438:g:zesAAOSwKEtc~Vw-

https://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Ford-Rear-Drum-Hub-Assy-E4TZ1113B-For-85-89-F-250-F-350-Single-Rear-Wheel/401793350486?epid=1741940388&hash=item5d8cbffb56:g:LuAAAOSw9HNdDrQ-

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1979-1983-FORD-TRUCK-NP-208-TRANSFER-CASE-SHIFTER-LEVER-4X4-f150-f250/323840969260?hash=item4b666d0a2c:g:2hcAAOSwkQddDlnj

https://www.ebay.com/itm/80-81-NOS-FORD-F-150-F-250-BRONCO-GRILL-EOTZ-8600-A-ARGENT-SILVER-FLAWLESS-COND/362686284636?hash=item5471c9835c:g:d0kAAOSwOIxcq1Z-

Not with FI Tech, but on FTE, there is a moderator [AbandonedBronco] who has a stand alone FI system made by Holley. You could contact him or read his thread. It is found in the six cylinder forum... his engine is a modified 4.9L.

It always is wise to get several quotes!

The dog looks happy!

Gary, I will have a friend with me [if you are looking for total attendees]. Any idea as to when you will contact the Casino regarding a block of rooms?

Another idea: http://www.powertechengines.com/HEC/HEC649I-EngSpecSheet.pdf

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1981-Ford-F-150/283521763902?hash=item420336ca3e:g:2AoAAOSw2bhdCmhQ

A coat of wax would not hurt! They look good!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Ford-E3TZ9189C-Fuel-Tank-Selector-Valve/372692860972?hash=item56c639c02c:g:dCkAAOSwhUZc7wf6

https://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Ford-Engine-Cooling-Fan-Clutch-YB-435-E3TZ-8A616-T-For-Ford-4-9L-300-I6/333241145522?epid=191918474&hash=item4d96b858b2:g:n98AAOSw8ttdC-aQ

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EOTZ3131A-STEERING-KNUCKLE-LH-1980-UP-FORD/264368580944?hash=item3d8d986950:g:CW0AAOSwjrNdCkwA

I see the Super Bee!

Proverbs 27:2?

Sometimes, while being involved with a group discussion, one might think of something which might be considered a "rabbit trail", but has the possibility of adding breadth if not depth to the discussion. If nothing else, it might be humorous. Looking at the above list, some of these items play into the forthcoming illustration. Back in 1991 - 1994, GEO [suzuki] manufactured the Geo Metro which was sold by Chevrolet. This was a 1.0L 3 cylinder econo-box. The standard one with 5 speed manual transmission was rated @ ~46 MPG. The engineers put together a model to be the highest rated automobile offered in America, at that time. The name of this model was Metro XFi and it was rated @ 58 MPG! I drove a 1992 model for years and was able to see 57 MPG @ 55 mph. The horsepower was 48.5 vs. 55 for the standard engine. There were several changes made to greatly enhance the fuel efficiency: The camshaft was specific to the XFi engine [better torque?] The final drive ratio was 3.79 vs. 4.11 The ECU was specific to this model The pistons had 2 rings vs. the normal 3 [1 less compression ring; reduced internal friction] The XFi had only the driver's side exterior mirror [decreased wind drag] The interior was very spartan with little insulation [decreased weight] Food for thought.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that term. At closed throttle, the engine is pumping nearly NO air, so there is no loss - the vacuum in the cylinder pulls the piston back up. It's at WOT that the engine loses the most energy because it has to not only move the air through the cylinder - it also has to compress it. If you're talking about NET power (including the power produced by combustion), then there can never be a significant loss, or the engine wouldn't run. It would stall. When you let off the gas & it slows down, there's only a tiny loss in the engine. Nowhere near enough to affect long-term (trip vs. instantaneous) MPG. The way my ICE professor explained it was that diesel engines get better mileage than gassers for three reasons, which all contribute about the same amount. The most obvious one is that diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gas. More BTUs per gallon means fewer gallons for the same number of BTUs. The second is that diesels run a higher compression ratio. The higher the compression ratio (to a point) the more efficient an engine is. High compression gas engines are in the 10:1 range. Diesels are 17:0 - 21:1. The third reason is what I'm talking about here. It takes energy to pull air past a closed throttle plate. Gas engines don't have this loss at WOT, diesels never have it. And no, we didn't do experiments to prove that, and maybe he was all wet. But overall he really seemed to know his stuff. And to further clarify, in this discussion I'm talking about ENGINE efficiency, not VEHICLE efficiency. Vehicle efficiency is what we most often care about: how far can I get on a certain amount of fuel. Engine efficiency is how much power can I get out of a certain amount of fuel. This is one of the factors that play into vehicle efficiency, but definitely not the only one. What we did learn, both theoretically and experimentally in those courses, was that the best engine efficiency came at WOT and at the engines torque peak (a detail I hadn't included before). That's where the engine does the best job of turning the energy in the fuel into power. However, running a truck engine at WOT at the torque peak is not a good way to get good vehicle mileage! You will be accelerating like crazy unless you are either already going really fast, going up a steep hill, or otherwise pushing against a very large load, none of which is good for mileage. So for best vehicle efficiency you do have to sacrifice some engine efficiency. We typically do that by closing the throttle, but in the case of the Ford six on the lab dyno we saw that, at least in that engine, keeping the throttle open but decreasing power output by dropping the engine speed gave better vehicle efficiency. We did go through the "thought experiment" at that time to ask if that vehicle would be reasonable to drive, and came to the conclusion that probably no one would want to drive the car if it actually had that tall gearing. So for best vehicle efficiency you do have to sacrifice some engine efficiency. We typically do that by closing the throttle, but in the case of the Ford six on the lab dyno we saw that, at least in that engine, keeping the throttle open but decreasing power output by dropping the engine speed gave better vehicle efficiency. We did go through the "thought experiment" at that time to ask if that vehicle would be reasonable to drive, and came to the conclusion that probably no one would want to drive the car if it actually had that tall gearing. My son's 1984 F150: 4.9L 4 speed manual O.D. with 2.47 rear gears did return 26+ MPG on the highway [55-60 mph], but was a dog and not fun to drive. It idled @ ~8 mph and was very sluggish. "At 65 mph in O.D., if there was the slightest hill in the county it required shifting to 3rd." [edited per suggestion from Gary ] The truck received 3.55 rear gears and the speedometer was calibrated to that change. With this change, the truck was much more enjoyable to drive and the highway gas mileage dropped to 22-23 MPG. Going from 2.47 to 3.55 was a 43.7% change.

LOL. And it shows $40 shipping for me, converted to CDN would be about $500 bucks...lol. It's sweet, but not that sweet:nabble_anim_blbl: Okay, no one wants it at this price, but it still is an interesting find.

Ditto! I like it!