7.3 Powerstroke into dentside - Page 2 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Brand Specific Tech > Ford
Notices

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2019, 11:21 AM   #26 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Member # 177092
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mj View Post
what is "big power" to you?
have you been around a built 7.3?

your vid shows a measly 400hp
You are getting way off track here seeing as the OP hasn't said a word about wanting to build up the 7.3L he is using for this swap. I specifically said:

"Personally I would put in an IDI or DT360 since both are cheap, reliable, and all mechanical. The IDI with a turbo can hang with a 1st gen Powerstroke pretty well with some free IP adjustments."

As for my statement about "big power," I would consider big power to be well over 600HP at the wheels. There are very few 7.3L Powerstrokes running around out there with that kind of power, and a big part of that is how much it takes to get there with a 7.3L Powerstroke.

It is pretty expensive and you need to change a lot to get a 7.3L to 500WHP, whereas many other diesels (such as a 6.4L) can get there with a tune and some simple bolt ons. The IDI on the other hand is difficult to make a ton of power with as well because the aftermarket is almost non-existent for theses engines, so everything needs to be custom fabbed or purchased from the couple of very small IDI performance shops.

If you have some sort of super sweet, affordable power recipe for a 7.3L, I am all ears. But just to get to 500WHP you are going to need a set of injectors (~$2K) and an aftermarket turbo setup (~$1.5K-$4K) at a minimum. Also don't forget about supporting mods like studs, valve springs, pushrods, intake, exhaust, fuel pump/system upgrades, probably a HPOP, and custom tunes. Oh, and don't forget, if you have a powdered metal rod motor, you have a good chance of throwing a rod through the block, and 500-550WHP is generally recognized to be about the limit for the factory forged rods as well.

I own a 2000 Powerstroke and have a little more than $1,000 in performance modifications. For those interested: Hydra chip, WWII, 4" exhaust with Banks Power elbow (fancy EBPV delete), and the Ford/Donaldson AIS intake. I haven't had it dynoed in its current configuration, but since it will walk away from a buddy's LLY pulling very similar loads on hills, I think I am putting down somewhere around 300WHP in my 80HP tow tune. I never run it in the 140HP extreme tune, but based on others' dyno results with the same tuning, it would likely come in around 325-350HP. The reason I am sharing, that is about what a 7.3L Powerstroke is capable of without dumping money into it. Keep in mind that most 7.3L Powerstoke trucks only cost about $4,000-$12,000, so I doubt many people are going out and dumping $5K+ to get 500HP+ out of these trucks. I know there are high horsepower 7.3Ls out there but I haven't personally been in one that was any faster than mine which is pretty mild. I have personally driven a 600HP LBZ and have ridden in a couple of ~500HP Cummins, but I have never been in a 7.3L at or above 400HP.

As to the "measly" 400 HP, I was demonstrating that the IDI is capable of respectable performance with a modded IP and a decently sized turbo system. 400WHP is more than any stock newer truck that I know of and is plenty for towing. I wasn't claiming that the IDI is the better high performance choice over the 7.3L Powerstroke, but my point is that if your power goals are modest, as most peoples are, the IDI is an option worthy of consideration. I think most people would be pretty satisfied with 400WHP.

Last edited by '84 Bronco II; 04-05-2019 at 11:39 AM.
'84 Bronco II is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-05-2019, 12:24 PM   #27 (permalink)
Registered User
 
bassdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member # 44979
Location: P-eblo
Posts: 1,785
Man after some rough measurements I don't think the 1356 is going to fit anyways. I'm showing it about an 1-1/2" into the frame rail. I guess it's doable with some frame mods not sure if it's worth it though. 205 might be the way to go. I don't really care about the low range. Honestly this thing might see a dirt road once in a while that's about it.
that 1356 is a wide bitch.
bassdude is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 04-05-2019, 12:33 PM   #28 (permalink)
Registered User
 
bassdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member # 44979
Location: P-eblo
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by '84 Bronco II View Post
You are getting way off track here seeing as the OP hasn't said a word about wanting to build up the 7.3L he is using for this swap. I specifically said:

"Personally I would put in an IDI or DT360 since both are cheap, reliable, and all mechanical. The IDI with a turbo can hang with a 1st gen Powerstroke pretty well with some free IP adjustments."

As for my statement about "big power," I would consider big power to be well over 600HP at the wheels. There are very few 7.3L Powerstrokes running around out there with that kind of power, and a big part of that is how much it takes to get there with a 7.3L Powerstroke.

It is pretty expensive and you need to change a lot to get a 7.3L to 500WHP, whereas many other diesels (such as a 6.4L) can get there with a tune and some simple bolt ons. The IDI on the other hand is difficult to make a ton of power with as well because the aftermarket is almost non-existent for theses engines, so everything needs to be custom fabbed or purchased from the couple of very small IDI performance shops.

If you have some sort of super sweet, affordable power recipe for a 7.3L, I am all ears. But just to get to 500WHP you are going to need a set of injectors (~$2K) and an aftermarket turbo setup (~$1.5K-$4K) at a minimum. Also don't forget about supporting mods like studs, valve springs, pushrods, intake, exhaust, fuel pump/system upgrades, probably a HPOP, and custom tunes. Oh, and don't forget, if you have a powdered metal rod motor, you have a good chance of throwing a rod through the block, and 500-550WHP is generally recognized to be about the limit for the factory forged rods as well.

I own a 2000 Powerstroke and have a little more than $1,000 in performance modifications. For those interested: Hydra chip, WWII, 4" exhaust with Banks Power elbow (fancy EBPV delete), and the Ford/Donaldson AIS intake. I haven't had it dynoed in its current configuration, but since it will walk away from a buddy's LLY pulling very similar loads on hills, I think I am putting down somewhere around 300WHP in my 80HP tow tune. I never run it in the 140HP extreme tune, but based on others' dyno results with the same tuning, it would likely come in around 325-350HP. The reason I am sharing, that is about what a 7.3L Powerstroke is capable of without dumping money into it. Keep in mind that most 7.3L Powerstoke trucks only cost about $4,000-$12,000, so I doubt many people are going out and dumping $5K+ to get 500HP+ out of these trucks. I know there are high horsepower 7.3Ls out there but I haven't personally been in one that was any faster than mine which is pretty mild. I have personally driven a 600HP LBZ and have ridden in a couple of ~500HP Cummins, but I have never been in a 7.3L at or above 400HP.

As to the "measly" 400 HP, I was demonstrating that the IDI is capable of respectable performance with a modded IP and a decently sized turbo system. 400WHP is more than any stock newer truck that I know of and is plenty for towing. I wasn't claiming that the IDI is the better high performance choice over the 7.3L Powerstroke, but my point is that if your power goals are modest, as most peoples are, the IDI is an option worthy of consideration. I think most people would be pretty satisfied with 400WHP.

My Plans are right now to get the motor in there and have a good running vehicle with the bugs worked out. I've got two decent running motors. but they're both a little long in the tooth being a little over 300K each. I was thinking new injectors, glow plugs and any fix any other issues I could get to easy with them out of the truck. As far as spending big money for some huge horsepower motor... nah. I had a 2000 F-250 with a 7.3 and that thing ran pretty good with a cheap tuner and nothing else. If I can get the 77 to run anything like that I'll be happy.
bassdude is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2019, 12:41 PM   #29 (permalink)
Registered User
 
bassdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member # 44979
Location: P-eblo
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyredneckanyhow View Post
Im currently doing it in my 78 crewcab. Using the 78 frame,firewall etc. Only thing i did was an aluminum 1" body lift for teh mbrp downpipe to clear. Made the 97 7.3 harness into a stand alone unit. Its really not that hard. Running a 6" lift.
The radiator and intercooler all fits behind the core support?
bassdude is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-05-2019, 12:49 PM   #30 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4243
Location: Westcoast Canuck... eh?
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassdude View Post
Man after some rough measurements I don't think the 1356 is going to fit anyways. I'm showing it about an 1-1/2" into the frame rail. I guess it's doable with some frame mods not sure if it's worth it though. 205 might be the way to go. I don't really care about the low range. Honestly this thing might see a dirt road once in a while that's about it.
that 1356 is a wide bitch.
All the '80+ F-series tcases are wide. Not sure if they got wider still for 99+, but a Ford 271 is several inches wider than a dodge 241DHD also.

I think you'll find the Ford 205 fits the ZF with a notch for the shift rail and custom shifter. You may be able to swap a 31-spline input into the Dodge 271 if you want more reduction.

Do consider the girth of the 7.3 and suspension height that may be needed for the front driveshaft to clear everything... (clutch fork/slave, oil pan, filter). The later trucks having extra diff offset and tcase width is probably no accident...
__________________
Dodge cobbler... (1stgen cummins theme)
u2slow is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-05-2019, 04:41 PM   #31 (permalink)
Safety third!
 
Dr.Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Member # 168243
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 11,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassdude View Post
Man after some rough measurements I don't think the 1356 is going to fit anyways. I'm showing it about an 1-1/2" into the frame rail. I guess it's doable with some frame mods not sure if it's worth it though. 205 might be the way to go. I don't really care about the low range. Honestly this thing might see a dirt road once in a while that's about it.
that 1356 is a wide bitch.
I'm not seeing your pic. Just me anybody?

If you're honest about this thing rarely needing 4x4 then I think the 205 will get it done. I sure wish someone had made a 2.5 or 3:1 gear set for these as I think people would be all over it... but the claimed reason for not doing it was low interest.

I have a shitload of room with my 205 in a 1983 chassis. I just made a new crossmember and ditched the stock one (for now, peobably add it later with some modding for frame stiffness) and it's amazing how much room is left in there.
__________________
-Dave

Quote:
By the way, Irregardless does pass spell check and it is a word. The meaning is exactly the same, you just want to play games

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For the best deal on 8 lug disc brakes click here-->
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dr.Danger is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-06-2019, 12:19 AM   #32 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
jones518's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Member # 152143
Location: Arroyo Grande, Ca
Posts: 329
sounds like a cool project, and yeah, I'm not seeing the pics either. If you need help or want to outsource the harness, hit up Mark Fugazzotto (his email is [email protected]). The guy builds e-fuel systems and also built a jig to mod harnesses for installs in old trucks.
jones518 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-06-2019, 11:46 AM   #33 (permalink)
Safety third!
 
Dr.Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Member # 168243
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 11,335
Oh yeah, I'd stick with minimal lift. 205 puts the front driveshaft output a lot closer and gives a terrible driveshaft angle if you have any more than a couple inches. Mine didn't get good untill I added 8" of length with a 203.
__________________
-Dave

Quote:
By the way, Irregardless does pass spell check and it is a word. The meaning is exactly the same, you just want to play games

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For the best deal on 8 lug disc brakes click here-->
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Dr.Danger; 04-06-2019 at 11:50 AM.
Dr.Danger is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-07-2019, 08:13 AM   #34 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Member # 104943
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassdude View Post
The radiator and intercooler all fits behind the core support?
Im using a 1st gen 12v cummins radiator and a 7.3 superduty intercooler. They both fit nice.
crazyredneckanyhow is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2019, 08:12 AM   #35 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
landen300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Member # 861326
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by mj View Post
yes there are a lot of 1356s but ford didnt trust them behind a powerstroke which is why they use a 4407 and then a 271
My 95 Powerstroke has a 1356 in it, So they were paired up at some point.
I know the bigger cases weren't available until ~96 so my 95 (and probably 94's) is probably a stop-gap measure. It's technically probably not spec'd well enough for a Powerstroke engine, but it works!
__________________
Ford Guy
landen300 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2019, 09:03 AM   #36 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Member # 213911
Location: Onterrible
Posts: 509
I have a 205 in my '89 with a 80's kp60. The drive line angle is terrible.
If going with a 205 I would look for a 78/9 D60. Having a 05+ 60 and a terrible drive line angle sort of defeats the purpose. The same era case/diff offset will be the better choice.
ironfist is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-08-2019, 03:08 PM   #37 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Member # 39959
Location: Yreka, Jefferson State
Posts: 311
Man I'm stoked on your project! I was on the fence about trying this for a couple of years until I just sold my 'Stroke about a month ago. I'm gonna drink the Kool Aid and 12 Valve swap a '75 Supercab. But I really really hope you go through with this and keep us all in the loop. Best of luck!
scallywag is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-09-2019, 12:20 PM   #38 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4243
Location: Westcoast Canuck... eh?
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by landen300 View Post
My 95 Powerstroke has a 1356 in it, So they were paired up at some point.
I know the bigger cases weren't available until ~96 so my 95 (and probably 94's) is probably a stop-gap measure. It's technically probably not spec'd well enough for a Powerstroke engine, but it works!
My '95 had the ZF5-s42 (not the s47) and 1356 with the PSD. Still adequate for hauling stuff around with a mild tune, lifted and locked on 35's. (10.25" eventually shed r&p teeth though ) The s42's ratios are preferable IMO. IIRC, the 4407 had a fixed rear output.

Are there clocking ring options for the later tcases to better fit the older chassis?
__________________
Dodge cobbler... (1stgen cummins theme)

Last edited by u2slow; 04-09-2019 at 12:21 PM.
u2slow is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-09-2019, 12:50 PM   #39 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
landen300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Member # 861326
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2slow View Post
My '95 had the ZF5-s42 (not the s47) and 1356 with the PSD. Still adequate for hauling stuff around with a mild tune, lifted and locked on 35's. (10.25" eventually shed r&p teeth though ) The s42's ratios are preferable IMO. IIRC, the 4407 had a fixed rear output.

Are there clocking ring options for the later tcases to better fit the older chassis?
I have an S5-47 at home sitting waiting to go into my 95 in place of the auto, I should look at the ratios on the tag on the side. I thought the first gear on the 47 was deeper than the 42, the OD's I can't remember how close they are in relation. I guess it depends on what you want! I did hear that a lot of the issues with reverse that can develop on a 42 were addressed on the 47.
The 4407's I've seen are fixed yoke, should be 1350 as well.
__________________
Ford Guy
landen300 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-09-2019, 04:49 PM   #40 (permalink)
Safety third!
 
Dr.Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Member # 168243
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 11,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by landen300 View Post
I have an S5-47 at home sitting waiting to go into my 95 in place of the auto, I should look at the ratios on the tag on the side. I thought the first gear on the 47 was deeper than the 42, the OD's I can't remember how close they are in relation. I guess it depends on what you want! I did hear that a lot of the issues with reverse that can develop on a 42 were addressed on the 47.
The 4407's I've seen are fixed yoke, should be 1350 as well.
S47 is the deeper one, and the rare one due to only late production years, which makes it the more expensive one. Also has the higher torque rating. It's roughly 5:1 vs. 4:1. For street driving, S42 probably is the more preferable gearing. For wheeling, most are going to want the S47.

Last edited by Dr.Danger; 04-09-2019 at 04:51 PM.
Dr.Danger is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-10-2019, 10:58 AM   #41 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
landen300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Member # 861326
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Danger View Post
S47 is the deeper one, and the rare one due to only late production years, which makes it the more expensive one. Also has the higher torque rating. It's roughly 5:1 vs. 4:1. For street driving, S42 probably is the more preferable gearing. For wheeling, most are going to want the S47.
Agreed, I was pretty sure the ratio in first was 5.0x:1... still haven't checked yet.
For most of my unloaded driving, I'm sure I'll start in 2nd, especially with 4.10's in the truck.
__________________
Ford Guy
landen300 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-10-2019, 06:28 PM   #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Member # 177092
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Danger View Post
S47 is the deeper one, and the rare one due to only late production years, which makes it the more expensive one. Also has the higher torque rating. It's roughly 5:1 vs. 4:1. For street driving, S42 probably is the more preferable gearing. For wheeling, most are going to want the S47.
S5-42 Close Ratio
1: 4.14 : 1
2: 2.37 : 1
3: 1.42 : 1
4: 1.00 : 1
5: 0.77 : 1
R: 3.79 : 1

S5-47 Close Ratio
1: 5.08 : 1
2: 2.60 : 1
3: 1.53 : 1
4: 1.00 : 1
5: 0.77 : 1
R: 4.66 : 1

In my opinion the S5-47 has better gearing trail or street. Obviously the S5-47 1st is better on the trail, but typically you start in 2nd gear on the street, and I think the 2.60 in the S5-47 is better than the 2.37 in the S5-42. 2.37 lugs the motor a bit for my liking. When towing heavy, I would prefer the 5.08 1st to get rolling over the 4.14. Also the 4.66 reverse is a bit nicer for backing trailers than the 3.79 in the S5-42.

I would use whichever is available for the OP's application, but all things being equal, if I had my choice of either, I would take the S5-47. It is stronger and I like the 1st, 2nd, and reverse ratios better. The S5-42 does however have a better 3 - 4 split than the S5-47 which is nice when pulling highway grades loaded down.

Last edited by '84 Bronco II; 04-10-2019 at 06:29 PM.
'84 Bronco II is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-10-2019, 06:56 PM   #43 (permalink)
mj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Member # 1919
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 9,274
3-4 is a bit of a big hole in s47.
mj is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 09:21 AM   #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
bassdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member # 44979
Location: P-eblo
Posts: 1,785
not much to update on. still tearing down. Kind of sad I just got the 77 pretty much done now it's coming apart again. I've had a few different engine and trans combos in there since I started it.
Interior before.

after




Hope you guys can see these i'm not a computer expert. I'm just copying the address off of google pics. They're showing up when I preview the post.

Last edited by bassdude; 04-11-2019 at 09:46 AM.
bassdude is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 11:01 AM   #45 (permalink)
Safety third!
 
Dr.Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Member # 168243
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 11,335
Nope. To be sure, make sure the image is in a separate window and then copy image address. Click the picture icon and paste. It should just be a code until you press reply.
__________________
-Dave

Quote:
By the way, Irregardless does pass spell check and it is a word. The meaning is exactly the same, you just want to play games

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


For the best deal on 8 lug disc brakes click here-->
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Dr.Danger; 04-11-2019 at 11:02 AM.
Dr.Danger is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 11:46 AM   #46 (permalink)
Registered User
 
bassdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Member # 44979
Location: P-eblo
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Danger View Post
Nope. To be sure, make sure the image is in a separate window and then copy image address. Click the picture icon and paste. It should just be a code until you press reply.
Shoot i thought thats what I did?
bassdude is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 12:44 PM   #47 (permalink)
Safety third!
 
Dr.Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Member # 168243
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 11,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassdude View Post
Shoot i thought thats what I did?
Even if I right click and open in new tab, I can't see anything. It's just a big - symbol.
Dr.Danger is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 12:46 PM   #48 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 4243
Location: Westcoast Canuck... eh?
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by '84 Bronco II View Post
In my opinion the S5-47 has better gearing trail or street. Obviously the S5-47 1st is better on the trail, but typically you start in 2nd gear on the street
IMO, when you setup your truck to start in 2nd gear on a close-ratio box, you've thrown away a driving gear. I typically started in 1st (street) with PSD/S42/35s/4.10, except maybe rolling or downhill stops. Once I left pavement... switch to low range (2.73:1) sto avoid rowing through the big 1-2 gap the whole time. For manoeuvring trailers, low range also.

If the 5.x:1 vs 4.x:1 makes all the difference in low range... probably go with 2.7:1 tcase... or pick a better axle ratio for the tire size.
__________________
Dodge cobbler... (1stgen cummins theme)
u2slow is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 06:12 PM   #49 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Member # 177092
Posts: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by u2slow View Post
IMO, when you setup your truck to start in 2nd gear on a close-ratio box, you've thrown away a driving gear. I typically started in 1st (street) with PSD/S42/35s/4.10, except maybe rolling or downhill stops. Once I left pavement... switch to low range (2.73:1) sto avoid rowing through the big 1-2 gap the whole time. For manoeuvring trailers, low range also.

If the 5.x:1 vs 4.x:1 makes all the difference in low range... probably go with 2.7:1 tcase... or pick a better axle ratio for the tire size.
Personally, I have never had a close ratio S5-42 truck, but I do have a close ratio T19 in my IDI, which has very similar ratios minus the overdrive:

T19 Close Ratio
1: 4.02 : 1
2: 2.41 : 1
3: 1.41 : 1
4: 1.00 : 1

My IDI has 3.54 axle gears and starts in 2nd just fine empty, but the IDI has better off-idle torque than the Powerstroke as well. 1st gear seems unnaturally low to use unloaded.

I would hate to be needing to shift into low range when maneuvering a trailer, and low range isn't practical to use to get moving from a stop with a heavy trailer, especially starting on a grade.

As far as your offroad Transfer case comment is concerned, pretty much every Ford transfer case made since the Dana20,NP203, and NP205 has a 2.6-2.7:1 low range. Offroad, 25% more torque is pretty nice. For your particular truck, a S5-47 would be similar to having 5.13 axle gears on the trail and when getting a load moving, but still having your 4.10s in gears 2-5.

I'll leave it that since the OP already has a transmission and we are just derailing the thread at this point.
'84 Bronco II is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-11-2019, 09:14 PM   #50 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Member # 52361
Location: Tucson,AZ
Posts: 4,323
OP

I'm guessing your truck is starting as a 2wd 77 f250 super cab short bed?

What's your fuel tank situation?

I'd be seriously considering a frame swap with a 05+ super duty, bolting a 1356 or 271 case in, and selling your d60 and 205 for decent money. IMO you'd come out time and money ahead, with a better finished product.

In my screwing around with these, the frames are narrow, the t case gets into the mid tank, and if this is the same width as a 77 4wd, there aren't many options for a rear tank. You're going to be hanging 2 axles, setting up steering from scratch, building motor mounts etc.

Your frame is going to be tight, and your inner fenders are going to be tight compared to the 1980+ trucks.

Is your truck an ac truck?

I'd want to stick with the 77 dash, though, depending on options, cruise control, etc, you may consider putting the newer cluster and column in.

I can't see a single pic
PROJECTJUNKIE is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fawk it! i think i`m building a vintage truck RoosterBooster Tow Rigs and Trailers 3607 02-04-2019 07:19 AM
1999 f350 7.3 Powerstroke 4x4 4 linked front and rear airbag suspension Zendros Vehicles and Trailers For Sale 10 11-15-2017 02:41 PM
1997 Ford F250 Powerstroke 7.3 4x4 diesel, NOR CAL offroadsporty Vehicles and Trailers For Sale 6 04-18-2015 08:40 PM
Ford 7.3 & 6.0 Powerstroke Turbos. StoopidMonkey Engines/Trannys/T-Cases For Sale 0 11-27-2012 04:13 PM
Opinions needed on a 7.3 Powerstroke trail rig... Steve91T Ford 28 02-13-2012 09:18 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.