Saginaw for a serpentine IDI: brainstorming

[Gary Lewis]

One unfortunate thing about the 6.2 remote reservoir is that it is just a fill tank. It only has the outlet to the pump and no return to it so it does not circulate. Not a big real I suppose, it seems like something GM did on vehicles where the pump was difficult to access for maintaining the fluid level. It would be better though if it had a return and circulated through the system.

Yes, that really isn't huge advantage. And, depending on how busy it gets under Big Blue's hood with the second battery, coolant reservoir, EFI air inlet tubing/air cleaner, and power distribution box lining the driver's fender, there may not be room for that.

[85lebaront2]

One unfortunate thing about the 6.2 remote reservoir is that it is just a fill tank. It only has the outlet to the pump and no return to it so it does not circulate. Not a big real I suppose, it seems like something GM did on vehicles where the pump was difficult to access for maintaining the fluid level. It would be better though if it had a return and circulated through the system.

The G30 I worked was the same way. My 1995 Lincoln Continental has a remote reservoir that the fluid return goes to. The Ford CIII pump is on the side of the block on the right front of the car and the PS lines literally circle the powertrain. It is a plastic tank and FWIW (Gary Lewis) there is a factory installed filter in the return line. My Chrysler T&C minivans (2003 & 2005) had the reservoir on top of the engine with a fine mesh strainer molded into it. When it got dirty the pump whined horribly. On these the return goes to the reservoir and the pump then draws from it. The 3.3 and 3.8L pumps are aluminum, but the 2.4L is cast iron and looks like a Saginaw with the small can and remote reservoir.

[85lebaront2]

The G30 I worked was the same way. My 1995 Lincoln Continental has a remote reservoir that the fluid return goes to. The Ford CIII pump is on the side of the block on the right front of the car and the PS lines literally circle the powertrain. It is a plastic tank and FWIW (Gary Lewis) there is a factory installed filter in the return line. My Chrysler T&C minivans (2003 & 2005) had the reservoir on top of the engine with a fine mesh strainer molded into it. When it got dirty the pump whined horribly. On these the return goes to the reservoir and the pump then draws from it. The 3.3 and 3.8L pumps are aluminum, but the 2.4L is cast iron and looks like a Saginaw with the small can and remote reservoir.

Some pictures for your edification. These are from the 1993-94 truck service manuals on DVD (I just have the iso files).

Power steering pump installation, 7.5L MFI engine

[Gary Lewis]

Some pictures for your edification. These are from the 1993-94 truck service manuals on DVD (I just have the iso files).

Power steering pump installation, 7.5L MFI engine

Power steering pump and reservoir, Econoline RV stripped chassis

Power steering pump installation, 4.9L MFI gasoline engine

Power steering pump installation, 5.0L and 5.8L MFI gasoline engines

Yes, it needs a brace on the 460 and possibly others, it is item 3C718 in the pictures.

Bill - Thanks for those pics. I do see the brace on the 460, but not the others.

However, I also see that the van had a remote reservoir that was apparently connected to a cap with a nipple. Right? So, with the right cap and reservoir I could mount it wherever I have room - assuming that reaching the cap on the pump itself isn't going to happen easily.

[85lebaront2]

Bill - Thanks for those pics. I do see the brace on the 460, but not the others.

However, I also see that the van had a remote reservoir that was apparently connected to a cap with a nipple. Right? So, with the right cap and reservoir I could mount it wherever I have room - assuming that reaching the cap on the pump itself isn't going to happen easily.

Only the stripped chassis for an RV, the captions the way the manual comes out are way above the pictures, the caption for the first picture was on the bottom of what would the cover page for the section Since they were small enough once I scanned them, I just posted them as they came out. The biggest thing, with the 1988-89 E-Series it should list that brace on the CD, now you just have to find one, maybe a new unicorn? I will try to check next time I get to Pete's.

[Gary Lewis]

Only the stripped chassis for an RV, the captions the way the manual comes out are way above the pictures, the caption for the first picture was on the bottom of what would the cover page for the section Since they were small enough once I scanned them, I just posted them as they came out. The biggest thing, with the 1988-89 E-Series it should list that brace on the CD, now you just have to find one, maybe a new unicorn? I will try to check next time I get to Pete's.

I have the brace that Jonathan sent with the pump and bracket Came from an E350.

[Ford F834]

One unfortunate thing about the 6.2 remote reservoir is that it is just a fill tank. It only has the outlet to the pump and no return to it so it does not circulate. Not a big real I suppose, it seems like something GM did on vehicles where the pump was difficult to access for maintaining the fluid level. It would be better though if it had a return and circulated through the system.

Time for an update on the Saginaw situation now that I have measurements from a pulley off of a 1989 351W Econoline. The results are not as favorable as I would like, but I still think I have options to make this work. I will give the result first and then walk through the math.

 

If I were to be able to mount the two forward Saginaw bolt holes flush with the existing inside bracket bosses for the C2, (and I pressed the pulley hub flush with the pump shaft tip) the belt plane would be 0.0125” forward of the others. (Let’s just call it zero given the measurement techniques). This does not jive with the thread that talks about having to space the whole pump 5/8” back for pulley alignment. Maybe there is a better pulley to be had (with less rear offset that would allow for a spacer/adapter) but I have not found one yet… the take home point is I have no space for an adapter like the PSC horseshoe unless I don’t press the pulley all the way on.

 

The math is as follows: Let’s start with the pumps. I measured from the shaft tip to the bolt mounting faces. I measured the forward pair on the Saginaw:

C2: 2.350”

Sag: 2.800”

 

Next I measured the pulley bore depth, from the tip to the inside rim of the hub:

C2: 0.750”

Sag: 1.000”

 

Next I measured the offset from the rear pulley face to the inside rim of the hub:

C2: 0.500”

Sag: 0.750”

 

I noticed that with both pulleys flat on their backs, the plane of the belt ribs did not match. The Saginaw has a thinner rim and sets the belt plane 0.0625” closer to the pump.

 

The thickness of the bracket measured at the bosses for the C2 bolts is 0.350” and prior to removal the space between the pulley and the bracket face measured 0.750”.

So for the C2 the math is 2.350” mounting face to shaft tip, minus 0.750” bore depth minus 0.500” offset, minus 0.350” bracket thickness = 0.750” space between the pulley and bracket.

For the Saginaw 2.800” mounting face to shaft tip minus 1.000” bore depth minus 0.750” offset, minus 0.350” bracket thickness plus 0.0625” (for the different rim thickness) = 0.7625”

Note: the Saginaw pump body mounting bolt holes are M10-1.5

With a bore depth of 1.00” I could potentially get away with not fully seating the pulley. So one option would be to try to fashion an adapter (1/4” thick?) that would fit between the pump and the bracket. The bracket would have to mount to the pump with counter sunk cone headed Allen bolts, and the adapter would have to be tapped to accept bolts through the three C2 holes in the bracket. The bolts would have to be very short and secured with thread locker.

Another option would be to put a steel plate on the outside of the bracket (between the pulley and the bracket face) and use counter sunk Allen bolts to go all the way through into the pump body. The bracket would be sandwiched in between. The tricky part would be fastening the steel plate to the bracket, since there might not be room for fasteners on the back side where the C2 holes are. But if necessary new holes could be drilled. I feel that with this design one would have to use exact spacers between the pump and the steel plate to ensure that the shaft stayed perpendicular to the belt plane.

I am open to whatever design ideas and input you may have. Gary, this kind of comes full circle to your original comment about welding in a piece of aluminum plate. My concerns are still strength since the bracket is so thin, combined with the fact that there is essentially zero room to add any kind of reinforcement. It occurs to me that getting the mounting plane exactly right may be difficult. This is potentially the cleanest solution, but also the furthest from my comfort zone as far as what I have experience doing.

I will close with one last stray picture that I took of my power steering fluid cooler that I pulled from a 1999 F250 Super Duty.

[Gary Lewis]

Time for an update on the Saginaw situation now that I have measurements from a pulley off of a 1989 351W Econoline. The results are not as favorable as I would like, but I still think I have options to make this work. I will give the result first and then walk through the math.

 

If I were to be able to mount the two forward Saginaw bolt holes flush with the existing inside bracket bosses for the C2, (and I pressed the pulley hub flush with the pump shaft tip) the belt plane would be 0.0125” forward of the others. (Let’s just call it zero given the measurement techniques). This does not jive with the thread that talks about having to space the whole pump 5/8” back for pulley alignment. Maybe there is a better pulley to be had (with less rear offset that would allow for a spacer/adapter) but I have not found one yet… the take home point is I have no space for an adapter like the PSC horseshoe unless I don’t press the pulley all the way on.

 

The math is as follows: Let’s start with the pumps. I measured from the shaft tip to the bolt mounting faces. I measured the forward pair on the Saginaw:

C2: 2.350”

Sag: 2.800”

 

Next I measured the pulley bore depth, from the tip to the inside rim of the hub:

C2: 0.750”

Sag: 1.000”

 

Next I measured the offset from the rear pulley face to the inside rim of the hub:

C2: 0.500”

Sag: 0.750”

 

I noticed that with both pulleys flat on their backs, the plane of the belt ribs did not match. The Saginaw has a thinner rim and sets the belt plane 0.0625” closer to the pump.

 

The thickness of the bracket measured at the bosses for the C2 bolts is 0.350” and prior to removal the space between the pulley and the bracket face measured 0.750”.

So for the C2 the math is 2.350” mounting face to shaft tip, minus 0.750” bore depth minus 0.500” offset, minus 0.350” bracket thickness = 0.750” space between the pulley and bracket.

For the Saginaw 2.800” mounting face to shaft tip minus 1.000” bore depth minus 0.750” offset, minus 0.350” bracket thickness plus 0.0625” (for the different rim thickness) = 0.7625”

Note: the Saginaw pump body mounting bolt holes are M10-1.5

With a bore depth of 1.00” I could potentially get away with not fully seating the pulley. So one option would be to try to fashion an adapter (1/4” thick?) that would fit between the pump and the bracket. The bracket would have to mount to the pump with counter sunk cone headed Allen bolts, and the adapter would have to be tapped to accept bolts through the three C2 holes in the bracket. The bolts would have to be very short and secured with thread locker.

Another option would be to put a steel plate on the outside of the bracket (between the pulley and the bracket face) and use counter sunk Allen bolts to go all the way through into the pump body. The bracket would be sandwiched in between. The tricky part would be fastening the steel plate to the bracket, since there might not be room for fasteners on the back side where the C2 holes are. But if necessary new holes could be drilled. I feel that with this design one would have to use exact spacers between the pump and the steel plate to ensure that the shaft stayed perpendicular to the belt plane.

I am open to whatever design ideas and input you may have. Gary, this kind of comes full circle to your original comment about welding in a piece of aluminum plate. My concerns are still strength since the bracket is so thin, combined with the fact that there is essentially zero room to add any kind of reinforcement. It occurs to me that getting the mounting plane exactly right may be difficult. This is potentially the cleanest solution, but also the furthest from my comfort zone as far as what I have experience doing.

I will close with one last stray picture that I took of my power steering fluid cooler that I pulled from a 1999 F250 Super Duty.

First, I like the cooler.

Now, for the pump. Your measurements seem to confirm what I found earlier - that there's no way that the Sag pump needs to be set back 5/8" given the pulley you have. But, let me measure the pulley I have and see if they are the same. Maybe I can do it this afternoon.

In fact, is there a number on your pulley?

If our pulleys are the same, meaning the 351W's and 460's used the same pulleys, then maybe there aren't other pulleys with different offsets to be had. But, what about boring a C2 pulley to fit a Saginaw's shaft? Or, turning a Saginaw shaft down to accept a C2 pulley?

Would the C2 pulley give us enough room to install a spacer? If I understand your measurements correctly there's 1/4" more offset on the Saginaw pulley vs the C2 pulley, so that would give us room for a 1/4" spacer - right?

[Ford F834]

Time for an update on the Saginaw situation now that I have measurements from a pulley off of a 1989 351W Econoline. The results are not as favorable as I would like, but I still think I have options to make this work. I will give the result first and then walk through the math.

 

If I were to be able to mount the two forward Saginaw bolt holes flush with the existing inside bracket bosses for the C2, (and I pressed the pulley hub flush with the pump shaft tip) the belt plane would be 0.0125” forward of the others. (Let’s just call it zero given the measurement techniques). This does not jive with the thread that talks about having to space the whole pump 5/8” back for pulley alignment. Maybe there is a better pulley to be had (with less rear offset that would allow for a spacer/adapter) but I have not found one yet… the take home point is I have no space for an adapter like the PSC horseshoe unless I don’t press the pulley all the way on.

 

The math is as follows: Let’s start with the pumps. I measured from the shaft tip to the bolt mounting faces. I measured the forward pair on the Saginaw:

C2: 2.350”

Sag: 2.800”

 

Next I measured the pulley bore depth, from the tip to the inside rim of the hub:

C2: 0.750”

Sag: 1.000”

 

Next I measured the offset from the rear pulley face to the inside rim of the hub:

C2: 0.500”

Sag: 0.750”

 

I noticed that with both pulleys flat on their backs, the plane of the belt ribs did not match. The Saginaw has a thinner rim and sets the belt plane 0.0625” closer to the pump.

 

The thickness of the bracket measured at the bosses for the C2 bolts is 0.350” and prior to removal the space between the pulley and the bracket face measured 0.750”.

So for the C2 the math is 2.350” mounting face to shaft tip, minus 0.750” bore depth minus 0.500” offset, minus 0.350” bracket thickness = 0.750” space between the pulley and bracket.

For the Saginaw 2.800” mounting face to shaft tip minus 1.000” bore depth minus 0.750” offset, minus 0.350” bracket thickness plus 0.0625” (for the different rim thickness) = 0.7625”

Note: the Saginaw pump body mounting bolt holes are M10-1.5

With a bore depth of 1.00” I could potentially get away with not fully seating the pulley. So one option would be to try to fashion an adapter (1/4” thick?) that would fit between the pump and the bracket. The bracket would have to mount to the pump with counter sunk cone headed Allen bolts, and the adapter would have to be tapped to accept bolts through the three C2 holes in the bracket. The bolts would have to be very short and secured with thread locker.

Another option would be to put a steel plate on the outside of the bracket (between the pulley and the bracket face) and use counter sunk Allen bolts to go all the way through into the pump body. The bracket would be sandwiched in between. The tricky part would be fastening the steel plate to the bracket, since there might not be room for fasteners on the back side where the C2 holes are. But if necessary new holes could be drilled. I feel that with this design one would have to use exact spacers between the pump and the steel plate to ensure that the shaft stayed perpendicular to the belt plane.

I am open to whatever design ideas and input you may have. Gary, this kind of comes full circle to your original comment about welding in a piece of aluminum plate. My concerns are still strength since the bracket is so thin, combined with the fact that there is essentially zero room to add any kind of reinforcement. It occurs to me that getting the mounting plane exactly right may be difficult. This is potentially the cleanest solution, but also the furthest from my comfort zone as far as what I have experience doing.

I will close with one last stray picture that I took of my power steering fluid cooler that I pulled from a 1999 F250 Super Duty.

Gary, I have good enough pictures of both pulleys that I can read the number on them (E7UA3D673FB). They are the same between the 351 and the 460. The straight six is way different in the undesirable direction. The common Chevy pulley is also worse, and the diameter is larger which will complicate finding a belt that would work. Looking at the C2 pulley I would say that thinning out the hub that much is playing with fire. The notch that the puller sits in might not be strong enough to pull it back off once you press it on. Turning down the pump shaft would probably work, but that is highly precision machine work and won’t be cheap. Then you won’t have an off the shelf pump if/when it needs replaced. Nothing about this is ideal, so I guess I have to pick my poison as far as which evil I want to contend with.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, I have good enough pictures of both pulleys that I can read the number on them (E7UA3D673FB). They are the same between the 351 and the 460. The straight six is way different in the undesirable direction. The common Chevy pulley is also worse, and the diameter is larger which will complicate finding a belt that would work. Looking at the C2 pulley I would say that thinning out the hub that much is playing with fire. The notch that the puller sits in might not be strong enough to pull it back off once you press it on. Turning down the pump shaft would probably work, but that is highly precision machine work and won’t be cheap. Then you won’t have an off the shelf pump if/when it needs replaced. Nothing about this is ideal, so I guess I have to pick my poison as far as which evil I want to contend with.

I know a machine shop that does work pretty cheaply for special friends. But, I'd have to look at the Sag shaft to see if it can even be chucked up in the lathe. So, that's a possibility, but it does create a one-off that would require the pump to be rebuilt rather than replaced.