Lugging at speed/No power at WOT

[ArdWrknTrk]

A decision has been made. I'm working with the block/head I have.

I posted the following on another Forum I'm a member of (not a truck/car forum):

Pulled the heads apart tonight.

Good news: the valve seats look OK. A re-lap wouldn't hurt though.

Bad news: the intake valves are NASTY... like on a GDI. Probably due to all of that blowby oil circulating (it was beyond what a catch can would fix, even the oil cap hose was blowing oil). Right now I have the Cylinder 2 Intake valvetrain (other than the push rod) soaking in MMO to see if I can loosen the carbon. As for the head itself, I'm told oven cleaner will KO the crud.

Ordered parts. $420 for what I bought after shipping and tax ($344 at RockAuto, $17 at Amazon, $19 at eBay, and $30 at WalMart). List of parts:

-Rering Kit: Includes rings, rod/main bearings, and a gasket/seal kit (includes valve seals)

-Pistons (Hypereutectic, not plain cast like the stock turds)

-Rear main seal

-Water pump (my shaft had a lot of play, no leak, but no good

-Thermostat

-Engine and transmission mounts

-flexplate (mine had chowdered teeth)

-Air Filter (wix, of course)

-Alternator belt (mine is "new", but already missing teeth and falling apart. I fucked up the tension for a long time and shredded it)

-New connectors for the coil and TFI module

-Spark plugs

-Lower rad hose (old one had a metal spring inside, which was rusted to pieces).

-Fresh oil and filter. I'll be running pennsoil platinum 5W30 and a motorcraft filter.

-Fresh coolant. What came out isn't old (changed it last fall), but filtering didn't clean it up.

-Ground cable for battery (existing setup was hacked and fell apart in my hand. $12 fix from walmart of all places)

Not included is tools and other stuff, which I have about $120 invested in so far. But tools keep.

Today I cleaned up the valves and head. Oil Pan is sitting. Are the cleaning jobs perfect? No. Better than what I had? By far.

I also got the choke stove tubes redone last night (used 1/4" copper tubing and the insulater sleeve out of a failed repair kit). The lower "port" on the manifold seems oversized. I tried to solder it, but my map/pro torch ran out of gas, and I don't know if such will hold up to the heat of the manifold. What's a good way to seal it up? (The way it's routed, it's on the cold side, not the hot side, so other than being unfiltered, a leak here isn't completely an issue?)

A leak here is necessary.

IDK what you consider oversize.

3/8?

1/4"?

If it were me, and I wanted to close it up some, I'd probably hammer a shell casing in there and call it good with the primer pocket opening.

[Gary Lewis]

A leak here is necessary.

IDK what you consider oversize.

3/8?

1/4"?

If it were me, and I wanted to close it up some, I'd probably hammer a shell casing in there and call it good with the primer pocket opening.

I think the cold side goes up to the carb and pulls in filtered air. Doesn't it? If so, I'd want to try to duplicate that and get the connection at the manifold as tight as possible. But I've seen manifolds glow red, so I'm not sure solder will hold. I think brazing would, but that takes a lot of heat.

[ratdude747]

A leak here is necessary.

IDK what you consider oversize.

3/8?

1/4"?

If it were me, and I wanted to close it up some, I'd probably hammer a shell casing in there and call it good with the primer pocket opening.

Why is a leak necessary? It's a closed system. One tube goes to the top of the carb (pulls filtered air from above the choke), the other goes into the choke coil assembly (and from there, to manifold vacuum). I don't want the tube rattling out and/or sucking in soot and other unfiltered crap around the mainfold port. I have the tube retained with a zip tie for now, but it's ugly and I don't trust it. Hence why I tried soldering it... wetting did make the tube thicker, but not enough to help once shoved in while hot (Without my hotter torch, I don't have enough heat to wet the solder to the steel/iron port).

Oversized enough that the tube isn't a press fit. I tried various tricks with my flaring set but none made something that would fit correctly. I removed the remains of the rotted away tube by drilling undersized (7/32") until the tube was fragmented (and removed the fragments) or the tube caught and spun out. The former happened here, and I suspect my drill chowdered the port while fragmenting the remains of the tube.

I don't have a 22; the only casings I have are 40's and 9's. Way too big.

[ratdude747]

I think the cold side goes up to the carb and pulls in filtered air. Doesn't it? If so, I'd want to try to duplicate that and get the connection at the manifold as tight as possible. But I've seen manifolds glow red, so I'm not sure solder will hold. I think brazing would, but that takes a lot of heat.

See the post I was writing when you posted.

Here's some pics to illustrate the system:

(yes, my bench is a disaster right now. Been busy )

In detail:

This is the connection giving me trouble.

This one was a nice press fit.

These are the connections. The flare fitting on the left is where heated air goes to control the choke. The hose on the right is the filtered air source above the choke butterfly

This is how I made a flare to seal the hose better. Using my flaring set, I stuck extra tube out of the die, and lightly did the first operation of a double flare. Not pretty, but effective?

[ArdWrknTrk]

Why is a leak necessary? It's a closed system. One tube goes to the top of the carb (pulls filtered air from above the choke), the other goes into the choke coil assembly (and from there, to manifold vacuum). I don't want the tube rattling out and/or sucking in soot and other unfiltered crap around the mainfold port. I have the tube retained with a zip tie for now, but it's ugly and I don't trust it. Hence why I tried soldering it... wetting did make the tube thicker, but not enough to help once shoved in while hot (Without my hotter torch, I don't have enough heat to wet the solder to the steel/iron port).

Oversized enough that the tube isn't a press fit. I tried various tricks with my flaring set but none made something that would fit correctly. I removed the remains of the rotted away tube by drilling undersized (7/32") until the tube was fragmented (and removed the fragments) or the tube caught and spun out. The former happened here, and I suspect my drill chowdered the port while fragmenting the remains of the tube.

I don't have a 22; the only casings I have are 40's and 9's. Way too big.

Sorry

I was interpreting your oversized hole in the manifold, as the air inlet from the carb.

It's obviously not a closed system.

Air comes from the filter housing, through the stove, across the bimetal spring in the housing, to a port open to manifold vacuum.

 

[ratdude747]

Sorry

I was interpreting your oversized hole in the manifold, as the air inlet from the carb.

It's obviously not a closed system.

Air comes from the filter housing, through the stove, across the bimetal spring in the housing, to a port open to manifold vacuum.

*the exhaust manifold stove * is a closed system in respect to the manifold itself (no leaks per design, isolated from the exhaust gases or outside air). It's an open system once you get to the air filter obviously.

[ratdude747]

*the exhaust manifold stove * is a closed system in respect to the manifold itself (no leaks per design, isolated from the exhaust gases or outside air). It's an open system once you get to the air filter obviously.

As it turns out, my steel timing gear is 100% stock:

Apparently the fiber gears weren't universally used until 1986. Go figure.

My gear has a slightly different number (E1TE 6256A2A), but ford part number convention, it's the right part, only a mass production part (from the "E" engine group), not a replacement part (from the "Z" service parts group). The "A2A" indicates that it's a couple minor revisions from the original 1981 part number, which for a 1983/1984 produced engine, would make sense.

Learn something every day. Things make a lot more sense now.

[Gary Lewis]

As it turns out, my steel timing gear is 100% stock:

Apparently the fiber gears weren't universally used until 1986. Go figure.

My gear has a slightly different number (E1TE 6256A2A), but ford part number convention, it's the right part, only a mass production part (from the "E" engine group), not a replacement part (from the "Z" service parts group). The "A2A" indicates that it's a couple minor revisions from the original 1981 part number, which for a 1983/1984 produced engine, would make sense.

Learn something every day. Things make a lot more sense now.

Actually, E1TE 6256-A2A is not a part number. In Ford's infinite wisdom, as of 1965 numbers on parts are not "part numbers". They are either ID or engineering numbers. Which is why your number has an "E" and not a "Z" in the prefix. And part number suffixes are usually single characters, like "A" and not "A2A", which is a sure sign of an ID #.

I have three books, courtesy of Bill/Numberdummy, that correlate ID #'s to part #'s. I'll look up your ID # later and see what the part number actually is, but it will probably be E1TZ 6256-A. (And one of these days I'll scan them and put them on here so everyone can find their part number from the ID number.)

In this snippet from the MPC I've circled the Part Number column and Description column. Sometimes they'll put an ID # in the Description column, but didn't in this case.

[ratdude747]

Actually, E1TE 6256-A2A is not a part number. In Ford's infinite wisdom, as of 1965 numbers on parts are not "part numbers". They are either ID or engineering numbers. Which is why your number has an "E" and not a "Z" in the prefix. And part number suffixes are usually single characters, like "A" and not "A2A", which is a sure sign of an ID #.

I have three books, courtesy of Bill/Numberdummy, that correlate ID #'s to part #'s. I'll look up your ID # later and see what the part number actually is, but it will probably be E1TZ 6256-A. (And one of these days I'll scan them and put them on here so everyone can find their part number from the ID number.)

In this snippet from the MPC I've circled the Part Number column and Description column. Sometimes they'll put an ID # in the Description column, but didn't in this case.

I get you. Probably the same part, just different ID's. The number I reported was cast into the gear. Not that it matters since I'm not replacing it; this was just to confirm that the engine is (probably) stock.

I deal with this with Toyota all the time (I'm an engineer for a Tier 1 Supplier). They do it (part/engineering numberr) as "general number" - "ID number"-"revision-"dash code". The "dash code" indicates a singular master component, in my world (body shell stampings and assemblies), usually to call out a stamping that receives welded fasteners ("-99", usually) as a "complete" part/subassembly, before the fasteners are welded (raw stamping).

On the floor though, nobody uses them. Instead, they use the Kanban number (kanban is a paper tag used to ID a container of a part, used to manage inventory)... but that's only within our company. Toyota also uses Kanbans (hell, they invented them!), but they use a completely different numbering system that we only use when tagging containers about to hit a truck (pulled from inventory). Why? The Kanban is a letter and 3 digits, and is in big characters on the tags they use. Three "numbers", same part/assembly

Story time:

What ****s us up when we have an assembly we sell them, but within that assembly there are sometimes sub-assemblies called out and assigned engineering numbers, often that are made in-situ (within the same line that produces the main assembly). Mass production doesn't purchase them like that (unless it's used a la carte on a later vehicle design) ... but Service Parts sometimes does! When dealing with service parts made on current mass production equipment, this can sometimes be a confusing mess since half the time they invent new numbers (the whole "-99" thing, only in reverse, not every stamping with fasteners initially gets a sub-assembly number); usually, they just want the big stampings separately with any fasteners and brackets welded on (not an entire assembly which can contain several big stampings), but not always. In one case, we have an assembly that contains two sub-assemblies (one is a stamping with a critical reinforcement, the other was originally one stamping that was split in two due to being too "deep" to efficiently stamp)... but they're made in one fixture in two stations all at once. Surprisingly, all Service has ordered is the full assembly, not the sub-assemblies or raw stampings... thankfully, since we don't have a way to make the sub-assemblies by themselves (but if we needed to, it could be done, it's all just control system and robot programming that would need to change, which is what I do!). The other way this dicks things up is for parts we no longer make in mass production (typically, part production contracts include minimum 10 years of service part production after part leaves mass production)... people see the engineering number with a weird dash code and think "oh, they want stamping xxxxx, that dash is because it's discontinued", only to get a quality problem from service department because the fasteners they ordered were missing; that dash code was a poorly communicated "new part" created for/by service! In one case, we apparently ****ed this up for 2 years before somebody on Toyota's end noticed... good thing we have a service part facility that can more or less weld anything! Sucks for the body repair techs who had to hand-weld nuts not realizing that was our goof, not theirs. Doh!

[Gary Lewis]

I get you. Probably the same part, just different ID's. The number I reported was cast into the gear. Not that it matters since I'm not replacing it; this was just to confirm that the engine is (probably) stock.

I deal with this with Toyota all the time (I'm an engineer for a Tier 1 Supplier). They do it (part/engineering numberr) as "general number" - "ID number"-"revision-"dash code". The "dash code" indicates a singular master component, in my world (body shell stampings and assemblies), usually to call out a stamping that receives welded fasteners ("-99", usually) as a "complete" part/subassembly, before the fasteners are welded (raw stamping).

On the floor though, nobody uses them. Instead, they use the Kanban number (kanban is a paper tag used to ID a container of a part, used to manage inventory)... but that's only within our company. Toyota also uses Kanbans (hell, they invented them!), but they use a completely different numbering system that we only use when tagging containers about to hit a truck (pulled from inventory). Why? The Kanban is a letter and 3 digits, and is in big characters on the tags they use. Three "numbers", same part/assembly

Story time:

What ****s us up when we have an assembly we sell them, but within that assembly there are sometimes sub-assemblies called out and assigned engineering numbers, often that are made in-situ (within the same line that produces the main assembly). Mass production doesn't purchase them like that (unless it's used a la carte on a later vehicle design) ... but Service Parts sometimes does! When dealing with service parts made on current mass production equipment, this can sometimes be a confusing mess since half the time they invent new numbers (the whole "-99" thing, only in reverse, not every stamping with fasteners initially gets a sub-assembly number); usually, they just want the big stampings separately with any fasteners and brackets welded on (not an entire assembly which can contain several big stampings), but not always. In one case, we have an assembly that contains two sub-assemblies (one is a stamping with a critical reinforcement, the other was originally one stamping that was split in two due to being too "deep" to efficiently stamp)... but they're made in one fixture in two stations all at once. Surprisingly, all Service has ordered is the full assembly, not the sub-assemblies or raw stampings... thankfully, since we don't have a way to make the sub-assemblies by themselves (but if we needed to, it could be done, it's all just control system and robot programming that would need to change, which is what I do!). The other way this dicks things up is for parts we no longer make in mass production (typically, part production contracts include minimum 10 years of service part production after part leaves mass production)... people see the engineering number with a weird dash code and think "oh, they want stamping xxxxx, that dash is because it's discontinued", only to get a quality problem from service department because the fasteners they ordered were missing; that dash code was a poorly communicated "new part" created for/by service! In one case, we apparently ****ed this up for 2 years before somebody on Toyota's end noticed... good thing we have a service part facility that can more or less weld anything! Sucks for the body repair techs who had to hand-weld nuts not realizing that was our goof, not theirs. Doh!

Wow! I understood most of that.

Anyway, my 1985 Master Cross Reference List doesn't have ID # E1TE 6256-A2A. Oddly enough, it has -A1A but not -A2A, so that had to come after my book was printed in April of '85? But -A1A certainly is part number E1TZ 6156-A. So that's surely the part number for -A2A since, as you said, A2A is only a revision.

Some day I'll scan all 1060 pages of this MCR, and however many pages in the earlier and later one as well, so everyone can cross-ref their ID #'s to part #'s. But that's too much work right now. Besides, no one really knows that #'s on parts are not part #'s.