My 1984 F150 2wd Flareside Project "Blue Mule"

[Gary Lewis]

Interesting Q&A.  When I first looked at the rear brake application info in the brakes page (Driveline/Brakes) I saw that it says Parts List No. 2 for all F150's, regardless of year.  So that would seem to say they only had one size.

But, if you scroll on down to Parts List No. 2 you find:  



So, it looks like the wheel cylinders got smaller a/o 10/83 rather than larger.

[Rembrant]

Gary Lewis wrote

So, it looks like the wheel cylinders got smaller a/o 10/83 rather than larger.

Very interesting. Thanks Gary. My 1984 was built in 12/83, and definitely had 15/16" bore wheel cylinders, so that's what I'll order up.

Thanks again Gary!

[Steve83]

Rembrant wrote

...options for rear brake wheel cylinders. 15/16" bore and 1" bore.
...
It likely doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things...

I'd guess it's a way of biasing the rear brakes for wheelbase, bed size, & cargo capacity/trailering.  The larger bore would be for lighter-duty trucks, because it would cause less piston travel/braking force (same volume, larger area) on the back wheels.

[Rembrant]

What do you guys do when making new fuel lines for the carbed trucks?

How do you make the bead flares on the ends of the steel line?

I can do brake line flares, but they're not the same as fuel line flare where rubber hose is meant to slip on.

[Steve83]

Why would anyone use steel???



That's cheaper, easier, & better in every way.  It'll never degrade unless you set the truck on fire, in which case steel tubing won't really help anything anyway.

[Rembrant]

Steve83 wrote

Why would anyone use steel???

That's cheaper, easier, & better in every way.  It'll never degrade unless you set the truck on fire, in which case steel tubing won't really help anything anyway.

LOL...Steve, you're killing me here...every time I mention a part that has lasted for 35 years, you tell me it's no good, poor quality, and unreliable...lol.

Anyway...that's fine. This is why I'm asking. My truck still had the original steel line, and I was going to replace it with the same.

How does this nylon tubing work? Does it just slide over the barbs on the fuel pump and sending unit, same as rubber hose would? Will it be OK running within a few inches of the exhaust headers?

[vicp21]

I usually just do an inverted flare like a brake line then slide it over and clamp.  I don’t my kit has a fitting for what you’re talking about.

[FuzzFace2]

I don't know if I would use the plastic line close to heat like a header but from tank(s) to pump I would do.

To install someone posted you would heat the end of the line so it was a little soft and then push it onto the barb. When it cools it shrinks a little it will be tight, You can then put a clamp on it to be sure.

If you do the metal line I have just put the rubber hose on it and never had any issues of them coming off. Now I have not tried this what if you tried to flare the line but only the 2nd part not the first?
Dave ----

[Gary Lewis]

No, I wouldn't use any line close to a header or exhaust.  Especially not rubber or plastic.

As for installing, I heated mine w/a heat gun and it slipped right on.  But when it cooled it was "there".

[Rembrant]

I think I'll just go with a steel fuel line the same as it was from the factory. It lasted for 35 years, it will last another 35. I'd like to get the bend up front a little tighter to the frame to keep it further away from the exhaust, so we'll see how it goes.

New booster and master cyl will be in tomorrow, so if all goes well, I'll be running some brake lines this weekend.
Popped the old booster off this evening so I can bring it in with me and avoid the core charge (and the non-refundable tax that goes with it...another pet peeve of mine...lol).

Ordered four new cab mounts and a few other odds and ends from LMC. I drilled the head of the LR cab mount last night, and it looks like it's coming out with the recip saw. I assume all four of them will be like that. The core support mounts were hateful to remove as well.

Plugged in my new fuel tank sending unit to check the fuel gauge operation, and it's working exactly like it's supposed to. Good news there.

[Gary Lewis]

I think Ford's core supports and cab mounts were designed by someone named Lucas.  Probably Joe's brother Larry, Prince of Rust.  They are of a design that truly "holds water".  

Glad the new sending unit worked so well.  Another layer of onion peeled.  

So, you might have brakes this weekend?

[Rembrant]

Gary Lewis wrote

I think Ford's core supports and cab mounts were designed by someone named Lucas.  Probably Joe's brother Larry, Prince of Rust.  They are of a design that truly "holds water".  

Glad the new sending unit worked so well.  Another layer of onion peeled.  

So, you might have brakes this weekend?

Ha! Well, that is exactly what was so frustrating about those core support mounts. The way they thread together, they're impossible to do anything with once seized from the rust. I spent way too much time removing them, only to find out the steel mounts on the frame were bad and I ended up replacing them anyway. If only I knew then what I know now...

I'll have brakes this weekend...in boxes...lol. I'll start installing stuff...no idea how far I'll get, but my optimism is high.

[Gary Lewis]

Brakes - in boxes.  That's a good one!

Did you ever see the movie Bedazzled?  I think whomever designed those mounts is closely associated with that guy.  And, they are laughing their heads off as we try to figure out how to get things apart w/o damaging everything.  

[Steve83]

Rembrant wrote

...you tell me it's no good, poor quality, and unreliable...lol.

Don't take it personally!   I just think Ford's reasons for changing to the newer stuff were mostly good, so I always think of using newer parts/materials first.

Rembrant wrote

Does it just slide over the barbs on the fuel pump and sending unit, same as rubber hose would?

Even easier - it doesn't need clamps.  Ford didn't even use a clamp where that tubing was subject to 100psi gasoline on top of the engine, and I've never seen or heard of it leaking.  I don't use heat, either; just a drop of clean motor oil.

Rembrant wrote

Will it be OK running within a few inches of the exhaust headers?

Probably not, but I wouldn't run steel line that close, either.  Even if it doesn't hurt the tubing, it would likely boil/vapor-lock the gas inside.  But it's easy to route the nylon over the frame - it doesn't take a bender to wind it around some curves to move it away from the heat.  If there's really no other routing for it, a small heat shield will do wonders for keeping the temperature down.

Gary Lewis wrote

...a design that truly "holds water".

A small groove in the bottom of each lower body mount (or the top of the lower mount's washer) will allow water to drain.  Filling the top "funnel" with anti-seize lube will reduce how much water can get in, and pre-treat the bolt for future removal.  A huge flat washer on top will block most of the water from ever getting in.

Rembrant wrote

The way they thread together, they're impossible to do anything with once seized from the rust.

Read this & the NEXT several captions:

[Rembrant]

Steve83 wrote

Don't take it personally!   I just think Ford's reasons for changing to the newer stuff were mostly good, so I always think of using newer parts/materials first.

Read this & the NEXT several captions:

Haha...don't worry, I don't take it personally, I just think it's funny.

Interesting captions. Thanks for sharing. I did as you mentioned with the mounts and added some antiseize and grease, etc. The truck is now stored inside and only driven in the summer, so future rust will not be much of an issue, if any at all. Nobody is daily driving this stuff here, and certainly not in the salty winter.

Interesting on using the bottle jack to move the cab over. I need to move mine a little bit, and was wondering how I was going to do it. That answers that. I believe my cab is cocked a bit on the frame which is causing some body alignment issues with the core support.

[Gary Lewis]

Good how-to Steve.  I don't have one of those Vise-Grips, but next time I'll get a pair.  Good excuse.  

And next time will be when I tear Big Blue down for the engine/tranny/fuel system work as the core support has to be replaced.

[Rembrant]

Steve83 wrote

This is the '82 body tub/firewall with '84-91 clutch MC & '87-96 brake booster/MC.





Or connect it to the fluid level switch.

Steve,

Couple questions:

I dropped by the Junkyard to grab a plug and wires for the master cylinder low fluid level switch. That was no problem. Done, chop chop.

I noticed though that the rear port on the master has a fitting between the master and the line. Is this just an adapter to go from the larger port size to the smaller port? Do I need this piece? I see it is also on the master in your picture linked above.

Second question...
The truck I took the connector from was a 1992-1996 2wd F150. I noticed that the rear brake line went to a module of some kind inside the front left frame rail. I had been wondering where the master cylinder line connected to the rear brake line on these trucks, but now I see there IS something there. Is this some kind of proportioning valve also?? It might be a bit hard to see, but you can see the rear brake line going into it, and then the line that goes to the back of the truck comes out the front of it.

[Steve83]

Rembrant wrote

...the rear port on the master has a fitting between the master and the line. Is this just an adapter to go from the larger port size to the smaller port? Do I need this piece? I see it is also on the master in your picture linked above.

From my first reply on the previous page of this thread:

Steve83 wrote

The '87-up (Aluminum) master cylinder & integral residual-pressure valve...

If you're using the later brake lines (no proportioning valve), connect the rear one to the RPV.  If you're using the old lines & prop.vlv., open the RPV, remove all its guts (so that it just becomes an adapter), and then adapt the old rear line to fit the RPV housing (as my earlier pic shows).

Rembrant wrote

...a module of some kind inside the front left frame rail.

That's the '93-only SCCDS location, shown at the bottom L of this diagram, and the last thing mentioned in the caption:



That's why I said:

Steve83 wrote

If you get a '94-96 cruise MC (with the black SCCDS in the port at the front)...

Under NO circumstances should you use the original red SCCDS on any vehicle at any location.  If you want to use the '93-04 electronic cruise servo (which is superior to the vacuum cruise system), always swap to the recall black SCCDS (either by using the recall adapter harness, or by splicing the connector onto the truck's original wiring) either in the '94-96 MC's front port, or in the '93 frame block in your pic.

But if you're NOT using the electronic cruise servo (either for no cruise, or the older vacuum cruise), the SCCDS isn't needed.

[Rembrant]

<quote author="Steve83">

From my first reply on the previous page of this thread:

Steve83 wrote

The '87-up (Aluminum) master cylinder & integral residual-pressure valve...




That's the '93-only SCCDS location, shown at the bottom L of this diagram, and the last thing mentioned in the caption:



That's why I said:

Steve83 wrote

If you get a '94-96 cruise MC (with the black SCCDS in the port at the front)...

Under NO circumstances should you use the original red SCCDS on any vehicle at any location.  

OK OK...that explains the confusion with the "integral RPV" in the master cylinder. You were referring to the RPV being integral to the master cylinder as it is installed or if I was to get one from a Junkyard. All along I've been referring to a NEW master cylinder, and they do not come with the RPV. I was taking "integral" to mean that the RPV was included with a new MC, and it's not. Duh. OK, fine, I need to add the later screw-in RPV to the list of parts I need for this swap.

I'll grab one from the junkyard and clean it up. Thanks Steve.

Now...the last part...
This particular truck had a frame mounted SCCDS. However, the MC had that dreaded red switch in the front. Maybe it was a later MC swapped in?>..



The reason I'm asking all these questions is because I DO NOT want to do this twice. I want to install the system, and forget about it.

Thanks for your help Steve, it is appreciated.

[Steve83]

Rembrant wrote

I was taking "integral" to mean that the RPV was included with a new MC...

Actually, my intended meaning was "it don't work without it".  You can't even connect a rear line without at least the RPV's housing.

Rembrant wrote

...it's not.

Where are you shopping?  I've only bought 1 or 2 MCs for these trucks from parts stores (they rarely go bad, so I normally buy at the JY), but I specifically remember the RPV was attached.  Maybe mine were reman, but I'd be amazed if you're actually finding them "new" w/o RPV.

Rembrant wrote

This particular truck had a frame mounted SCCDS. However, the MC had that dreaded red switch in the front. Maybe it was a later MC swapped in?

Must be - Ford didn't put 2 of them on.  Was the wiring connected to (or long enough to reach) the frame SCCDS?