www.ColoradoClassicBroncos.com

Tub cutting is fun. I think everyone should do it!

Hurry up and get it done already. I think it's been under the knife longer than its been driven.

Don't you think your kids are going to fall through that hole?

Shhh! Don't tell them!

OK, could use some design critique. Pics of the rear setup are below. I'm making good progress. Turns out this is way easier to do the second time. Both hoop mounts are 2" .25 wall DOM. Probably overkill, but I had it spare and it only added 10lbs to the design over 1.75" .120 wall. The front mount extends the full width of the frame above the rear crossmember, tying the hoops together. It'll get some tabs welding it to the crossmember at points in the middle to increase stiffness. The current plan is to have both hoop mounts above the frame, with plates fully encircling them and running vertically down both sides of the frame. I'm hoping this will spread the twisting load on the frame enough after it's linked and coilover-ed. I may completely box in the area between the two 2" tubes with plate to improve rigidity and spread the load more evenly. The distance from the face of the frame to the back side of the hoop is about 6.5". I could inset the hoop into the cargo area, but I don't really want to lose the space if I can help it. I'm already going to lose some to the shock.

The shocks will mount below and somewhat inboard of the hoops. I'm guessing the centerline of the upper mount will be at least 1" inboard of the back of the hoop. The lower mounts will attach to the back side of the axle. I'm hoping I can get away with not having to run a cross bar behind the rear seat. I may tie the top of the shock hoop into the roll cage by using sandwich plates at the top of the wheel well. I'm hoping to get stuff tacked in in the next few days and will post pics. I _really_ don't want to screw this up, and would like to not have to modify it should the rear of the rig get linked. The goal is to be able to weld in the links, throw the springs on and wheel it.

As an aside, I'm really digging the pierced tube mounting of the shock hoops. Besides the cool appearance, it makes it ridiculously easy to tinker with the layout.

Seems like your horizontal tubes will be right where the 23 gal rear fuel tank will be - if you are running one. Do those tubes run all the way across the frame to the drivers side?

Interference with the tank, as mentioned could be an issue. I am guessing you already thought that out though. I would be fine with that design once it was tied into the cage. It would probably be okay for just shocks without that tie in but there is no way I would trust it with supporting the weight of the rig on coil overs. Are you planning on isolating your cage while tying to the frame? If you are going to go solid mount then no worries tying the hoop right in but if you're isolating the cage when tying to the frame then you will need to also isolate the hoop from the cage. That will allow the hoop to flex some. Tied right into frame with the cage and you'll have a little additional noise from the hoop tie in but it should be negligible.

The front one does, and goes over the crossmember so it clears the tank. The rear tube only extends to the inner edge of the frame. the plan to tie in the cage is to weld a short piece of tube to the sandwich plate with a 1.5" diameter poly bushing inside it. I'll use a couple of shock tabs off the top of the hoop to tie into the bushing. It'll give a little flex, but will also isolate noise, vibration, etc. My sense is the same as yours-not tying it in is likely fine for a shock, but a bad idea once it's carrying the full weight of the rear of the truck.

Justin, take a look at the FEA results below.

I ran the first one with 1.75" x .120" tubing for the hoop, 2nd one is .188" for comparison. Stresses are listed in psi. Min. yield stress for 1020 stress-relieved is 50-55ksi (ksi = psi x 1000)

Some assumptions I made:

- The two 2" tubes are fully welded to the frame and the frame is rigid enough to handle the loading. Cross bracing the tube like you've shown will help it out.

- all tubes are 1020 DOM steel

- The shock tabs place the centerline of the shock roughly halfway between the tube and frame rail.

- 4Gs was the loading, assuming 800lbs/corner sprung weight. This is based on what I've seen out of my truck. My front spring buckets have already experienced 3G+ loading from hitting a smooth wash at speed. It didn't fully bottom the bumpstops, so loading could go higher. Frankly, dropping off of something hard should have go issues hitting 4Gs



Conclusion:

It could work, but .188" tubing would give you more margin. Stresses to load is roughly linear in this case, so if you want to figure stress for higher loading, just multiple.

Looks like .188 is the only way to go. Love your capabilities Jesse!

I was gonna say the same thing but Jesse beat me to it.

crawlercreations wrote:Looks like .188 is the only way to go. Love your capabilities Jesse!

Grassy-ass.

I forgot to add that bending .188 will put a JD2 Model 3 at it's limits. I broke my 1.5" die bending .250" DOM. It made one bend and broke the ear off on the second bend. I think JD2 recommends .120" max for its dies, but I will say that they only posted that restriction AFTER releasing the Model 32.

Eck wrote:I was gonna say the same thing but Jesse beat me to it.

Dude, that is so ridiculously cool. THANK YOU!

Scored a new heart for the Bronco for the best price: Free! Casting number is E9AE-6015-AA-11. Looks like I've got a non-roller block from 1989. Need to figure out the AA-11.

A would be the first generation of that particular design. AA is a later revision. Look for another set of letters and numbers, just under the part number (E9AE..) to find the actual casting date. Probably a 4 digit looking something like "2A23". Let me know what you find.

Looks like 9K13.

1989
November
13th

Ah, cool. Thanks! Any idea what the -11 indicates?

Edit: looks like it might be the mold number.

Justin wrote:Ah, cool. Thanks! Any idea what the -11 indicates?

Edit: looks like it might be the mold number.

Could be. Or another revision. Ford was doing so much tinkering with emissions stuff in the 80s and 90s it could have been they were tweaking blocks multiple times.

Could well be. Doesn't appear to be loads of info about that part or on the interwebs. This things has a ridiculous amount of emissions crap hanging off it. Will be curious to see how it looks once I get the heads and pan off.

Spent some time with the boy child today tearing down the engine to what you see below. Amazing how much crap was hanging off it. Lots of sludgy nastiness came out with the oil, along with at least a cup or two of water. Also drained water out of cylinders 2, 4, and 7. Between the water in the oil and the fact that I've got water in both cylinder banks, I'm thinking this engine sucked in a bunch of water and may have hydro locked. Open to opinions on that one, as I'm no engine expert. Hoping to get some more garage time tomorrow to pull the pan and heads and see what else we find. Even if this thing is trash, it'll mean some fun hours in the garage with my son and the parts for that coffee table I've been wanting to build.

Anyone know if any of the parts I pulled off this thing has any value? I'm assuming it's all scrap.

I'd guess the engine sat outside and ingested water that way rather than hydro locked. Possible for both scenarios but you won't know until you check the rods, possibly. If it hydro locked and it was bad enough a rod will be bent.

That's a definite possibility. The pic from craigslist had the engine outside and the pulleys are rusty. I didn't figure water could easily get in.

Further dissection. I'm guessing the cylinders will need to come out some to clean up the surface rust. Can you turn it over by hand?

Nope. Breaker bar on the end of the crank pulley resulted in the bolt being broken loose. Hope to get some more garage time tomorrow to get further into it. The boy is excited about the teardown, so it might happen.

I'm just asking, but does it matter? You're planning on machining and replacing many of the the parts (cam, rods, pistons, etc.)

Not really. I'd hoped to buy a roller block that was in good enough shape to just run, but this is more fun. The only bummer will be if the normally re-useable internals are trashed or the block is damaged. Then again, if I had to buy stuff I could rationalize a stroker....

There's a reman 5.8 in a 96 Bronco at the UPull in COS. It's an E4 block though. Still has great paint and gaskets. Damn thing looks less than a year old.

Got some excellent help from the household Bronco club and pulled the pan and valve covers. So far things don't look catastrophic. The rods all look straight and there's no visible piston damage. There's scuffing on the piston walls, so I'm guessing this engine has a decent number of miles on it. Any thoughts on whether the wear that can be seen is normal? Hoping to get the heads pulled in the next day or two.

Wear looks pretty normal to me. Only thing that looks a little odd is the coloring on main cap 2. Could be the picture, could be nothing but it could be a spun bearing under there.

Just went back out and looked at it. I _think_ they're all the same, although I don't have your level of experience. It was taken under a 250w metal halide light, so shadows and color redering are a little off.