Restore of my 1986 Bronco XLT

[ReneH]

Today I've checked the oil-level...I've lost 600ml oil in total. I haven't checked how much miles I'm driven, but let it be 100 more...so about 850 or so.

As it seems, the engine looses more oil than only the amount through the PCV...

I've to check it, when I'm back from holidays...

[Gary Lewis]

My math says 600 ml is about .6 quart.  In 850 miles that isn't good but it isn't bad.  You could put a lot of oil in for the cost of working on the engine.

[ReneH]

Hmm...That calms me down, but I don't like it, if things not working as they should.

I will do the test, when I'm back, to see where the oil is vanishing...maybe it's a work, when I'm changing the C6 to the E4OD.

If my wallet is able to, I also plan to change the intake mainfold to the HIGH-RAM from Holley and I also thought about changing the heads, if this will bring me more efficiency...

When doing this, the truck will stay some weeks and I also can replace the ECU and the rest of the wires for all other electrical components, as I've done this currently only for the engine wiring...

[Gary Lewis]

I've run plenty of engines that used a quart in 1000 miles.  Not ideal, but they didn't suffer from lack of power due to that.  So I'd run it.

As for the changes you mentioned, I don't know about the intake and what it would do.  But you might not want to change to aluminum heads if they don't give you at least a 1-point compression boost.  Summit Racing explains it here.

[ReneH]

OK, thanks for the link, Gary. So it seems, I should stay with my heads.

The thing is, that I've read that the original 1986 302 heads are not very "good" whatever this should mean. My heads and my deck were planned, as the block was re-worked for installing the stroker-kit, so they should fit optimal without any tension in between.

I'm not 100% satisfied with the exhaust mainfolds, but I'm currently still thinking about to construct and mill me a kind of adapter-plate to get a better fitment or maybe let a friend of mine (a specialist for custom racing mainfolds) construct me new headers

When other heads won't bring more efficiency, I don't need them. I my opinion the truck has enough power for its use, but not less. Durability and efficiency are the current aims, therefore I have bought the E4OD.

I'm convinced, that one of these intakes will work better for my needs, especially with the new EEC-V and the MAF, cause of the single TB and the better position of the injector ports.

Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4

[ArdWrknTrk]

Aluminum heads aren't likely to be more durable.
They may better stave off hot spots, but married to an iron block you can't avoid differential heating and electrolysis
And as Gary mentioned, unless you're going for compression numbers beyond what iron can safely handle on pump fuel the only advantage I can see is port flow and volume (if you're racing!)

If you want more efficient ports and chambers there's always the GT40 & GT40-P heads from a '90's Exploder or Mountaineer.

You say the exhaust manifolds don't fit?
Are they warped?
Maybe it's the Y-pipe that isn't right?
Headers are hot and usually come with their own set of problems like spark plug and starter clearance.

I ask these questions coming from back when the transition of carbureted performance 5.0's to FI, and 351 swaps were what we had for trackable Mustangs.
Windsors are great engines, but you seem to have a lot of problems getting them right over there where there isn't a grass roots knowledge base. (which is fast disappearing through attrition here as well)

[ReneH]

OK, if I think about it, I've heard about this GT40-heads from someone in the past.
I will check the availability over here.

My stainless steel exhaust mainfolds "fit" so far...I've bought shortys and built own downpipes
and the whole rest of the exhaust. All made from stainless steel. The mainfolds itself have had
the problems that I've heard about also from products of well-known brands regarding the fitting.

I've adopted them to the heads and the bolts. Everything is very tight there, as you know...

As the ports in the heads are rectangular and pipes are round, there is not much space for the
bolts. My plan is to build an adapter or at minimum a space plate, that solves this problem with
longer rectangular pipes and then a floating transformation to adapt round pipes.
As the plan is to mill this adapter by CNC machine, it will be much better, than the common
0.3" stainless-steel sheet on which the pipes are welded on.

When I have time, I'll construct the adapter in solidworks and start a threat here to present my 3D-model of the adapter.

[ArdWrknTrk]

That kind of port mismatch is rather unfortunate.
Tubular headers I've seen have mandrel expanded ends where they meet the head, and at least a good approximation of the rectangular profile.

Be aware, if you decide to go with GT or GT-P heads that the intake and exhaust sides are different than what you have now, so you might want to model from gaskets that fit those heads and make sure you leave spark plug clearance.

[Gary Lewis]

Wow, you guys made a lot of progress while I was sleeping.  Good progress!

I think the GT or GT-P heads are a good way to go.  But there are differences, and you might want to read about those differences.  This article might help, but there are plenty of others out there as well.

One of the things to consider is the difference in combustion chamber size.  I don't know what heads you have but the GT-P heads have a bit smaller combustion chamber and will probably raise your compression ratio a bit.  That might require you to run the higher octane gas you were talking about earlier.

And there's the spark plug position that tends to be a problem with headers.

Just things to think about.

[mat in tn]

just reading up on the last couple weeks of this thread. it seems that you are getting good use out of this vehicle now. that is great. as to the oil consumption, that might just settle down. as Gary said, it's not really a major concern. I know it's not perfect but it's not far from normal fifty years ago. and this engine was basically designed in 1962. I guess we each must decide what an acceptable loss is over a span of miles. just don't run out! or low as it is a cooling mechanism.
do I understand that you rebuilt and used the original 1985/6 cylinder heads on a 347 stroker? if so, I'm not sure that you are going to benefit enough in mpg or usable power to do any change unless you buy "good" heads. and that can easily be 1-2k dollars here. how you drive is the biggest point. you are planning a swap from the c6 to an e4od and this is going to change a lot. possibly more than you expect. how well your engine carries a load is going to get tested as while rpm will be lower it will need more torque per the same vehicle speed. this may work for you or against you depending on how you drive.
 

[ReneH]

Thanks Gary for the link, I will study it by time!

I have the 1985/12 factory 302 heads, so very close to 1986. I don't remember the part number. But they're the absolut factory-heads for that year of construction.

I've got the information in the early beginning of my problems with the engine, before I've bought the stroker-kit in the FSB-Forum, that the original heads are not very good. As a matter of time and money, I've decided not to change the heads at this time.

As I have bought the Bronco, I haven't had any experience about this truck. Later, while talking in the FSB about my problems, it turned out, that my truck originally was equipped with an AOD, that a former owner changed to a C6. Also the interior was changed. Someone put the Eddie Bauer seats of a 90th Bronco in it, same with the interior trim...and the vent windows...all from a 90th truck.

So, I've already have gone a long way of learning...

But back to the heads: I'll read the article, that Gary linked above and see, what I will be able to get here.
My aim is to build a reliable, long-lasting truck for driving into holidays. I don't want to win races and I also don't drive this way. I accelerate slowly and try only to put load on the engine, when it's warm.
Regarding to the explanation above, aluminium heads won't be the right for me.

As I've a good engine workshop nearby, I'll send them the heads to measure and rework, if necessary to be sure, that I'll install good hardware.

So, after this long post, another question:
Does somebody know E85 fuel? It's available here in France...
85% Ethanol and 15% 95 octane gas...very, very cheap...is my engine and fuel-system able to deal with it or could it damage something?

[ArdWrknTrk]

EEC-IV or -V isn't going to compensate for the much increased fuel consumption of that much ethanol.
You need a lot of compression and ignition advance to take advantage of E-85 and I'm not sure that your injectors could ever flow enough to use it, even with custom mapping.

One can make a lot of power with E-85 because ethanol has an octane rating of 112, and E-85 is somewhere around 107 R+M/2, (American) BUT the stoichiometric ratio of ethanol is maybe 9:1, opposed to petrol at 14:1.
Methanol is even worse at 7:1

My baby brother has a Taurus Police Interceptor that is "Flex Fuel" and turbocharged.
It is an absolute beast when driven on E-85 but fuel consumption suffers badly.

Perhaps it's best to discuss this with your local performance shop?

[Gary Lewis]

You can set the desired AFR in EEC-V via Binary Editor.  And I think you can tell it what fuel you are running, although I don't remember what all the options are.

But, there's no easy way to go from one batch of settings to the other that I'm aware of.  So if you set up for gasoline you need to run gasoline, and if you set up for E-85 you need to run E-85.

Do the Flex Fuel vehicles figure out what fuel they are running and adapt?

[ArdWrknTrk]

... hence "flexible" in what fuel they run.  

The system is constantly monitoring the % of alcohol and determines what AFR is needed.
Then it runs advance until it detects knock.
I'm pretty sure that my brother's car tightens the waste gate or has a VV impeller.
I definitely know it runs more boost on E-85.

[mat in tn]

I was going to just say simply that because it uses so much more e85 as opposed to gasoline (e10 blend) that the cheaper cost may be a wash.  so, if that is the only reason it may even be a deterrent. do the math. is it 35% cheaper and also 35% less efficient? not worth doing! then there is all the plumbing fuel compatibility. and then the monitoring system.
an 85 5.0 with an aod sounds about right as what the bronco started out with.  
as to mpg. we all watch fuel prices as these are not great on gas. you can easily spend more chasing savings then you will ever get back. I'm generally getting 13-16 depending on which truck I'm driving. whether I have od or not and this still frustrates me.

[ArdWrknTrk]

In Brazil many (most) vehicles run on pure alcohol.
They save their oil for overseas sales, and lubricants, of course.

Just like America it's mostly a jobs program that props up the sugar cane industry (instead of maize)
But reality is that sugar as a feedstock is net positive energy as opposed to what it costs to grow, harvest and distill corn.

[Ifitaintbroke]

Alcohol as in ethanol? Seems like that would wreak havoc on most older fuel systems, unless they've been doing it from the beginning of their use of ICE's.

[mat in tn]

it is harmful to older systems.

[ArdWrknTrk]

Yes, they've been doing it a long time.

[ReneH]

Yes, as far as I know, the older hoses and especially the carborateur gaskets are not alcohol resistant.
I my case, I have changed all hoses to ones made of TPU. All the other gaskets, like the O-Rings should be made of EPDM-grade rubber, what also should be fine with E85.

Regarding the economical factor, I think it also should be much better in my case. 95 octane gas is here in France and also in Germany between 1.72 to 1.89 Euro per liter. E85 is about 0.70 to 0.85 Euro per liter. I've read, that you'll need about the 1.5 about of E95. But if you look at the prices, also if I need the double about, I will come cheaper with it.

Maybe there'e a way to adapt the EEC-V profile to E85, with the help of Gary and Bill, when I change the ECU. Maybe other injectors will be useful? As carrying my laptop always into holidays, It may possible to change the profile from E95 to E85 and back, when needed.

As I also plan to install a secondary gas-tank for my auxiliary heater, connected with electric valves to the normal gas-cycle, I can run the heater with E85 and if planing to drive with it, I can switch to the secondary gas tank when running the primary tank empty, then switching the profile on the ECU, to switch to drive with E85. The same backwards, when needed to run with normal E95 gas. But maybe, we will also get E85 in Germany and it won't be needed to switch very often.

For the next steps, I'll focus on the restore of my E4OD and planning the replacement of the ECU and the rest of the wiring harness.

I'm also in negotiations with summit about two steering shafts for my Bronco and my CJ7. When back home, I'll check, if the play in the steering of my CJ7 is caused by the shaft, same for the Bronco. There's not very much play in the steering of my Bronco, but I assume, it comes from the steering coupler element. The Bronco has the same, as my CJ7 in the factory shaft.

So the priorities are like that:
- Rework the E4OD
- Planning the new wiring and installation of the EEC-V
- Searching for 90th GT4 heads and the corresponding HIGH-RAM-Intake for them.
- Installing the auxiliary heater and the secondary fuel-tank.
- Install my 360° camera system.