Jump to content

JBNeal

Members
  • Posts

    4,907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Community Answers

  1. JBNeal's post in Fuel Tank Installation for Pilot-House Express and Chassis Cab Trucks was marked as the answer   
    While removing photobucket pics from posts on here and replacing them with pictures stored in gallery albums, I noticed on several threads issues with mounting fuel tanks, with the mounting hardware, with tank to cab seals, and with replacing with the Tanks, Inc. W-series reproduction as it is quite a bit cheaper than the B-series reproduction or using the Gas Tank Renu service.  So I consulted the parts manual, which raised more questions as to what that book said and what contributors on here said (including myself).  Now that I have a better understanding of what's going on, I figured that I should document my findings for future information searches done on this subject so that there is little ambiguity on this subject.  Special thanks to Brent for verifying the B-4-D-126 tank mounting 🏆
     
    According to the factory parts manual, there are several variations on fuel tanks for B-series trucks, but I'm only going to focus on B, C, and D express and chassis cab models.  Panels, chassis and cowl, and export models have different part numbers than the express and chassis cab models, and I do not know what the differences are other than that.  Basically, there are 4 different rear mounting brackets used on 2 different tanks with 5 different mounting configurations for the 9 different frame designs.  The parts manual, as usual, only shows one configuration (B-1) as a general guide for parts replacement.

     
    FRONT MOUNT
    On B-1, B-2, and B-3 models, the front of the fuel tank mounts to the crossmember, with bolts threading into weldnuts on the fuel tank.  Shown is a fix that I did when the weldnuts stripped out and/or broke off, leaving just a hole in the tank mounting flange to run a bolt through before the tank went off to be Renu'd.
    additional information - B-series fuel tank comparison

     
    On B-4 models, the frame and fuel tank were redesigned so that the mounting bolts with the frame flex springs were located on the front of the tank.  These springs are slightly different than the rear springs used on earlier models and have different part numbers in the parts manual.  However, the parts manual appears to have an error that lists the bolt spacer as 15/16", when these appear to be somewhat shorter.  But this a minor issue that can be dealt with at any well stocked hardware store or an online source if replacements are required.

     

     
    REAR MOUNT
    On B-1 and early B-2 models with 108" and 126" wheelbase, mounting bracket 589572 is used with frame flex springs.

     
    On later B-2 and all B-3 models with 108" and 126" wheelbase, mounting bracket 1269979 is used with frame flex springs, as there was a change to the frame design.

     
    On B-4 models with 108" and 126" wheelbase, the fuel tank was mounted directly to the crossmember.  The parts manual notes that mounting bracket 1269979 is used, but I believe this to be in error as the profiles do not match up.
     
    On B-1, B-2, and B-3 models with 116" wheelbase, mounting bracket 589571 is used with frame flex springs.  (yellow line added to highlight bracket profile at frame)

     
    On B-4 models with 116" wheelbase, mounting bracket 1393998 is used.  (yellow line added to highlight bracket profile at frame)

    Note the two larger holes in the foreground crossmember; these are the mounting holes that are used on the 108" and 126" frames, as this crossmember is located closer to the transmission.
     
    Tanks, Inc. has offered their W-series replacement tank since about 2012, and in recent years has provided some support with making this work in the B-series.  moparpro has recently offered a replacement B-series tank that is based on the original design, but apparently with modern metal surface treatments to resist oxidation.
     
    There has been some debate about the installation of frame flex springs, both in usage and material composition.  Modern zinc plating alternatives are cost effective improvements over the original unplated springs and hardware; deviation from that is a personal choice as performance gains here can be negligible period.  Removing the springs can be done if truck is under light duty on improved roads, but I have a parts truck without these springs and that metal tank has an oil-canned surface from presumably a rough service life...skip this little design element at your own peril.
    Sealing the cab at the tank filler neck took several forms in the B-series, with 3 part numbers listed in the parts manual.  B-1s used a foam rubber piece on top of the tank; early B-2s used a different style; and later B-2s, B-3s, and B-4s used a simple piece of rubber over the filler neck inside the cab.  Since few people will see this detail, use whatever remedy you feel comfortable with to keep out the dust and critters, I won't tell the nitpickers
  2. JBNeal's post in JC SERIES – DELUXE PRODUCTS CORPORATION – LA PORTE, INDIANA was marked as the answer   
    Spiffing up these canisters is fairly straightforward, but it’s important to be patient, clean thoroughly, and pay attention to the details.  The cosmetic restoration would be meaningless if the filtering functionality is lacking.

    The T-handle for the lids houses the bypass check valve, and I have found that a #1 Phillips-head screwdriver can be used to clean out the passage and move the check valve for cleaning.  This handle also holds the perforated dome in place with either a hex nut or a speed nut.   This perforated dome has two sizes, depending upon whether the lid has a raised handle opening or a recessed handle opening.  Both require an appropriately sized soft copper gasket.




     




    Note the original orientation of the brass fittings before removing.


    Removing the brass fittings can be done carefully by using a spare flare nut to keep the brass from deforming.  Hold onto that canister like an uppity teenager in a headlock, and the fittings should unthread.


    With that bottom fitting removed, the inlet flow restrictor can be seen.  On two of my canisters, I could see a glob of goo in the flow tube, so I used my long shaft #2 Phillips-head screwdriver and rotated while working it back and forth, scraping the tube walls of crud, and was able to dislodge and remove that goo and rinse it thoroughly with aerosol brake cleaner.


    I wiped down the canisters with parts cleaner, and sure enough, on the 45JC and a 49JC canister, I found specks of yellow flakes in the area where I expected the DELUXE decal to be.  But the paint was in such bad shape, I was not able to save any sizable remnants.  I removed the tool rest from the bench wire wheel buffer and was able to clean up the surfaces well.  After cleaning with Dawn like them parts were a slicked up duck, I could see OUTLET stamped in the 49JC canisters but not the 53JC canister; the 45JC canister, not so much.  That’s when I started to notice some differences in the lids.  Apparently, my 45JC lid did not get the corporate info stamped into it that day.  And the lid that came off of the ’49 was unlike any of the others I have as it calls out a different gasket.  Lids either have a raised center hole, or a recessed center hole.

     

     


    I painted with Rustoleum rusty metal primer and gloss black, as I have had good results over the years with these coatings being durable and not fading too badly from heat.  Original decals for the 48JC and 53JC cansiters line up relative to the center of the outlet port and the center of where the clamp bolts in place.  On canister 1504092, the clamp and decal switch places.  On the 45JC canisters, the faint stamping of OUTLET appears to be so that the decal will place closer to the port so as not to be blocked by the clamp.

     

     

     

     

  3. JBNeal's post in Dad’s Old Scout was marked as the answer   
    that oughta buff out
  4. JBNeal's post in 2001 Dodge Ram 2500 Random ABS Warning Light, Slow Brake Pedal Return, and Brakes Not Releasing was marked as the answer   
    It has been a long three years of exasperation and discovery, but after 2 master cylinders, 10 hydroboost units, 4 power steering pumps, 2 steering gearboxes, 7 brake hoses, 17 brake calipers, 4 hub assemblies, 4 wheel speed sensors, a proportional valve, a salvaged hydraulic control unit, and a refurbished ABS control module, the QuadCab has taken several test drives in 70°F+ weather without any ABS warning lights.  The brakes are not perfect yet, as the ABS light came on during a short drive, but that was coupled with a momentary herky-jerky movement in the steering wheel, which might be air in the hydraulics after hydroboost #10 was installed.  This underscores the balancing act of the power steering and power brakes needing to be kept in good working order with quality components so that both aging systems can function properly.
     
    As cooler weather had arrived, it became apparent that the power steering pump was groaning almost non-stop, so I opted to replace it under warranty.  Pump #3 was short-lived, as it blew out on a trip back from Waco, leaving remaining power steering fluid with a burnt odor.  Once pump #4 was installed and system flushed, hydroboost #8 began to fail, presumably from the burnt fluid degrading seals.  Hydroboost #9 lasted about a week and began to have issues, and upon removal, it was clear that the input shaft seal had started leaking.  Hydroboost #10 seems OK but the brake pedal does not snap back after being released, which it was able to do the first few test drives, with pedal return taking about a second to complete; #9 was taking almost 2 seconds to return after release.
     
    I was still getting the ABS warning light, so eventually I found a mechanic that actually knew how to work on this truck, as the local dealership and 2 prominent repair facilities basically shrugged in ignorance of such obsolete technology.  We spitballed ideas on how to deal with the odd readings he was getting on his scanner, especially while taking a half-hour test drive.  I mentioned to him that both front hubs have been replaced twice, as dragging replacement calipers were heating up the hub sealed bearings to the point of cooking the grease that would purge out, making them difficult to rotate by hand, and that this high heat could possibly have fried the wheel sensors I replaced in 2018.  This possibly explained some of the live data readings, but the storing and clearing of default codes by the ABS module was confounding as neither of us had seen this before.  I surmised that the module had bad components that were leading to this erratic behavior, so I found a nearby outfit that could refurbish the module.  With the refurbished module installed, no codes were stored on the first three test drives.
     
    About 40 hours of work have been done on this ol' buggy in the last 4 weeks...that puts the tally to well over 200 hours work in the last 3 years, with less than 50 hrs being to replace components, and the remainder to replace defective components under warranty.  That's a LOT of time spent doing the same tasks repeatedly, while other projects have been put on hold.  I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I have done enough work to get this to pass inspection in February and to have a functional ABS for the remainder of my usage of this machine...had a close call with a UPS truck the other day, which underscores the lurking risk of getting T-boned by an uninsured motorist
  5. JBNeal's post in Hood Bumper Replacement for Pilot-House Trucks was marked as the answer   
    While doing an audit on my attachments to update some picture albums, I found some questions that were asked that seemed to have some conflicting information in these two threads:
     
    This reminded me of some conflicting information that went on about shock absorbers that I cleared up awhile back, so I decided to see if I could find some clarity for this little hood bumper detail.
     
    The first thing to do was to crack open the parts manual, finding information on hood bumper part numbers, as well as bumper locations on COE hoods and radiator baffles.  Studying this information, I found several points to ponder:
    Effectively, there were 3 hood bumper part numbers, with a serial number break on the B-1 models. From the part descriptions, there appears to be hood bumpers for all COE models that are also used on B-1 and B-2s. The B-3 and B-4 models that moved the hood bumper from the radiator baffle on the B-1 and B-2s to the lip on the hood have a different part number, and quantities are listed as required across the board. The B-1 and B-2 radiator baffles had different part numbers for trucks larger than the 1-tons.  
    But the parts manual has some conflicting information here when comparing part numbers in Group 15 - Hood and Group 7 - Cooling.  The radiator grille illustration clearly shows 4 bumpers in this baffle, but the hood bumper part numbers show quantity 2 for almost all B-1 and B-2 models.  Since I do not have a truck larger than 1-ton, I can only go on the picture posted by Bradley S. that shows that more than likely the larger trucks have the 4 holes shown in the parts manual, as the dozen of baffles that I have only have 2 hood bumper holes.  I also have never laid eyes on a COE hood, so I'm guessing that its size warrants the use of 4 hood bumpers, even though its parts manual illustration only shows 1.
     
    Next was to gather dimensions on what hood bumpers (or evidence thereof) that I have.  The hood bumpers all mount in 1/4" holes, but vary in diameter in B-1s and then by height when moved from the radiator baffle to the hood lip on non-COEs.  It appears on one of my early B-1s that the hood bumpers were about 5/8" diameter (Mopar 846797), then the later B-1s increased to 3/4" diameter (Mopar 985563).  The thickness appeared to be about 1/4", but them crusty old remnants were obviously pancaked, so I'd guess they were originally in the 3/8" thickness range.  These two part numbers are so close in size, and with no change in the baffle they mount in nor the hoods they contact, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the latter number should supercede the former number.  As indicated earlier, the Mopar 995066 hood bumpers were 3/4" diameter, and a hair over 1/2" thick.
     
    So I followed up on some part numbers I found here and there, and apparently NAPA carries replacements:
    Mopar 846797  --  Mopar 985563  --  BK 6652262
    Mopar 995066  --  BK 6653122
     
    Roberts "fat" hood bumpers and DCM hood bumpers are apparently only for the B-1 / B-2 / COE hood bumpers, not the B-3 and B-4 models that their descriptions allude to.  BK 6652262 is a hair over 1/4" thick, whereas the BK 6653122 is about 3/4", dimensions I verified since an area NAPA had both in stock.  Roberts "thin" hood bumpers look very much like BK 6652264 (also available locally), and are only about 1/8" thick.  I've updated the parts manual listing to reflect this clarification.
     
    This may or may not help
  6. JBNeal's post in CA parts truck, trailer, etc. eBay find was marked as the answer   
    FOR SALE: nice truck bed trailer with custom bumper, but looks like there are parts o' plenty available from this seller. Maybe y'all left-coasters can duke it out for this stash
  7. JBNeal's post in Illinois project--needs finishing was marked as the answer   
    FOR SALE in the Land o' Lincoln...looks like an "easy" finish.
  8. JBNeal's post in Low-Side Bed [CA] was marked as the answer   
    FOR SALE: low-side bed in Californee...any takers?
  9. JBNeal's post in Step-Side Bed Find: Colorado was marked as the answer   
    anybody want some super-rare bed accessories ?

  10. JBNeal's post in Content Control in Build Threads was marked as the answer   
    I was doing some research during another cold'n'rainy day and noticed some OT content on one of my build threads.  Looking at four of my build threads, only one had content that stayed on topic, and two others had significant OT content.  I have reached out in the past to participants when they went off the rails to remind them that they were going OT on my build thread, in each instance I was summarily blown off and told that was how the internet works.  At any rate, the only way that I can see for a thread originator to control content on a build thread is to report posts, but I get the impression that is generally frowned upon as it puts a burden upon moderators on censoring members.  Is reporting posts the only way to control content, or am I missing something?
  11. JBNeal's post in Another MN fixer-upper was marked as the answer   
    FOR SALE: looks like a B-1 with a B-4 low-side bed...but this turn signal looks to be located so as to be operated by the driver's, um...knees?

  12. JBNeal's post in B4 fixer-upper in Wisconsin was marked as the answer   
    How'bout this li'l gem...anybody up for the challenge? It even has the optional hood ornament, heater & rear bumper!
  13. JBNeal's post in FLUID DRIVE EMBLEMS on eBay was marked as the answer   
    FLUID DRIVE EMBLEMS

  14. JBNeal's post in Truck-O-Matic on eBay was marked as the answer   
    FOR SALE in Minnesota...looks like a good candidate for a Spring Special clone.

  15. JBNeal's post in Firewall pic 59-60 pickup was marked as the answer   
    This may or may not help: 
     
    https://www.townwagon.com/powergiantregistry/display.php?serial=1360136797
    https://www.townwagon.com/powergiantregistry/display.php?serial=1160120133
  16. JBNeal's post in photobucket restrictions due to 3rd party hosting was marked as the answer   
    So it looks like I found the feature I was looking for...instead of inserting the URL of the gallery picture, I insert an existing attachment...
     
    and from the next pop-up window, I can choose Post Attachments or Gallery Images...
    from either choice, the window populates with all attachments or images that I have saved to this site, and there is a search engine in this window to assist...
    I can now organize pictures in albums and use the search function in the pop-up window
    So it looks like I can move forward with getting away from photobucket and moving images onto this site 🏆 
    The next challenge is dealing with memory space allocation...

  17. JBNeal's post in OT parts suppliers ought to be like this OT was marked as the answer   
    When looking for hard-to-find truck parts, this is the kind of place where purt'near anything can be found. Why? Rows & rows of BOOKS, with a computer on the side. Also note the roll of paper shop towels ready to go when needed, special orders pulled & waiting for pickup, and the Pontiac GTO on the calendar. Where are the guys behind the counter? At this particular moment, they had all gone to the warehouse through the door to pull parts. And it is a warehouse, not a closet, as it has a loading dock and a forklift and street access on two sides. Yep, this ain't no AutoZone or even Advanced Auto (formerly Western Auto, which most stores used to be like this), this here is A-Line Auto Parts in Waco. NAPA is close to being like this, but most of those stores are going to the AutoZone model with everything on the computer. So when the kid behind the counter gets stumped at NAPA, it's usually because the computer is telling him nothing useful, bless his heart.
    I bring this up because of my '03 Buick Regal, a car that was in production for 9 yrs, and has been out of production for 6 yrs. This car is my commuter car, with a powerful & efficient V6, air conditioning & a smooth ride. I went to get the brakes overhauled as they have 80K on them. The rubber bushing with the accordian bellows was damaged on the front calipers by me, mistakenly soaking them in the parts cleaner with the caliper bracket to get all the muck off. The rubber swelled up & tore apart, so I went to get new ones. PART DISCONTINUED?!? I went to O'Reilly's, Advanced Auto, NAPA, AutoZone, Pep Boys & even the Buick dealer with no success. I tried A-Line as a last resort only because they are waaay downtown and the other places were within spitting distance of each other. They confirmed it was a discontinued part, but a couple of phone calls to warehouses in Houston later, and the parts I needed were on their way. The parts arrived as promised the next day and were exact replacements from AC Delco.
    As I get ready to do the tear-down on the '48 & repairs on the '49, this was a nice exercise in patience and a reminder that hard-to-find stuff can be found if ya look in the right place. NAPA has been a good store in the past, but as I have noticed the disappearance of their parts books, I have also noticed that the younger guys running these stores can't hold a candle to them beer-bellied cig-hanging-from-the-lower-lip dudes who knew how to get things done.
  18. JBNeal's post in Radiator overflow tank: bad idea? was marked as the answer   
    I'm leaning towards fabricating a 'tank' out of a piece of 3" pipe (possibly PVC) capped on both ends, with one end tapped with two fittings. One fitting would be a barbed NPT nipple for a rubber hose coming off of the overflow tube. The other fitting would be a vent of some sort...it's a work in progress
  19. JBNeal's post in OT PayPal identity verification procedure changes was marked as the answer   
    Thanks to some unwelcome changes at my bank of several decades, I made changes to my accounts several months ago. This affected my PayPal account, and I attempted to update that account information a few weeks ago to complete a small transaction on eBay. The bank account change flagged my account, and I was prompted to verify my identity by submitting 1) a photo ID, 2) proof of physical address, and 3) copy of social security card. I've had this PayPal account for several years, so I was a bit annoyed at having to prove my identity again, but the other side of that coin is that this is a security measure to protect my account, so I begrudgingly supplied a copy of my ID. I had scanned my TX DL a few weeks ago for an application of lost title to the '53 Spring Special just last month, so I had it on file anyway to send.
    Yesterday PayPal accepted my photo ID as partial proof of identity, but still required proof of address and my SS card. My address was on my TX DL that they had just accepted, and there was no way I was sending my SS card via the internets, no matter how safe them folks tell me that this might be. So I got on the telephone to hash this out, bypassing the automated service by speaking authentic frontier gibberish, which prompted the computer program to send me directly to a representative. I was simmering at this point, thinking that if a person with a thick accent answered the line, I was gonna hang up and try later in a few hours. Luckily, a nice English-speakin' lady from up yonderways greeted me with a request for my date of birth. I responded that my ID that I had just supplied had that information, and was concerned that there was a problem with my verification process. She put me on hold for about 3 minutes to look up that information, and verified my identity on the spot. This was simultaneously a relief and annoying: PayPal's system is highly automated, but it took a phone call to straighten out an error on their end that luckily went well.
    I do not recall having this much trouble when I set up this PayPal account, but the original verification email mentioned "recent changes in federal law", I'm assuming this has something to do with combatting money laundering and The Patriot Act. I have dealt with identity issues stemming from The Patriot Act before, but this time it rattled me a bit because an automated system was borderline invasive with the request for an electronic copy of my SS card. I've heard stories about identity theft, and release of SS card information is just asking for trouble. In this computer age of convenience & commerce, staying vigilant with the finances & whutnot is never-ending.
    All this to buy a barn-find NOS flathead crankshaft pulley...
  20. JBNeal's post in dash PANEL switch bypass & dome light was marked as the answer   
    This probably ain't an original idea, but I figger I'd float it out there: the PANEL switch next to the HEAD light switch seems kinda obsolete as all it does is operate the gauge back lighting. Modern autos have this lighting operated by the headlight switch, and this is a modification I'm going to implement when I re-work the '48. But the panel switch as a dummy knob kinda bothered me until just a li'l while ago...has anyone tried to wire the PANEL switch to the dome light? Or even mounted a couple of lights above the driver's & passenger's footwells under the dash? Post yer photos here if ya got'm...
  21. JBNeal's post in Radiator Identification for Non-Pressurized Systems was marked as the answer   
    When it comes to truck radiators, most folks just want them to fit inside the engine compartment and to keep the engine cooled off sufficiently without needing much attention.  When I first started working on my '48, I took my radiator to a local radiator repairman for a checkup, he ran a garden hose through it and called it good, said it looked like some of his work from a long time ago, elaborated by saying the flat-finned core was probably from an old Pontiac...there was evidence in the upper tank that the original neck was dead centered, not on the driver side.  In '95, I found two mostly intact parts trucks in a local wrecking yard, '48 and '53 half tons, with the distinctive honeycomb core radiators, which my '48 did not have.  I snagged the radiator in their '48, but when I went back a few months later to get some more parts with my lawn mowing $$$, I was informed both trucks had gone to the crusher just a few days prior...!
     
    While doing some research on cooling system interchange part numbers, I came across some information in the April '54 edition of the '48-'53 parts manual, and it got me to look into my stash of parts as well as the radiators in the trucks in the yard.  And to my surprise, even though these radiators looked the same at a glance, it turns out I've got a menagerie of radiators that are related but have different p#s, filler necks, overflow tubes, and core thicknesses.  My parts manual muddies up the waters even further with some conflicting information regarding replacement radiator caps.
     
    But the one thing that I can say for certain is that even with these variations, it appears that the cooling systems for the B-series and Route Vans used non-pressurized systems from the factory.  I looked into the flat-fender Power Wagons and there's indications that some systems were not pressurized thru '56 but others were depending on other criteria...I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole as I have before with other research that crossed Pilot-House parts with Power Wagons, WCs and M-37s.  This is based on the parts manuals I have and information gleaned from a few Power Wagon websites.
     
    The radiator caps for these non-pressurized radiators can be identified by their size, either 2-11/16" OD (776379) or 2-1/4" OD (795519):
    Cap 776379 is listed for all B-1 & B-2 except R/T/V/Y Cap 795519 is listed for all B-3 & B-4 except R/T/V/Y Several vendors offer non-pressurized caps depending on year specified but not by size.  Local alternatives may be available that have a slightly different look, possibly with more moderate pricing:
    Radiator Cap:  Mopar 776379  -  Stant 10232  -  NAPA 7031475
                              Mopar 795519  -  Stant 10203  -  NAPA 7031400
     
    Studying my parts manual, the breakdown for replacement radiators is by model:
    Radiator Core:  Mopar 1272945  ==  B-1-B, B-2-B, B-3-B, B-3-C, B-4-B, B-4-C
                                Mopar 1272947  ==  B-1-C, B-1-D, B-2-C, B-2-D, B-3-D, B-4-D
    The replacement radiator cap specified in a note is 795519 for both radiators...apparently Dodge was specifying the newer style production radiators with the smaller fill neck to replace the older style with the larger fill neck that had gone out of production.  
     
    Looking through my stack of spare radiators and radiators in my trucks, I was scratching my head at what I was finding:
    '48 B-1-B:  1195170 was pulled from a '48 parts truck, has the large fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core '48 B-1-D:  1195178 has the large fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core '49 B-1-D:  1195178 has the large fill neck, a discharge left overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core '51 B-3-D:  1272446 has the small fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core '52 B-3-B:  1272446 has the small fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core '53 B-4-B:  1272446 has the small fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core spare (1):  1195178 has the large fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-3/4" core spare (2):  1272446 has the small fill neck, a discharge left overflow tube, and 2-1/4" core spare (3):  1272947 has the small fill neck, a discharge right overflow tube, and 2-1/2" core spare (4):  same as spare (3)  
    As reported earlier, the 1195170 was superseded by 1272945.  But I cannot locate the other part numbers in my parts books, and at a glance, these radiators all look the same with respect to tanks, core thickness, and inlets + outlets.  The differences in overflow tube discharge direction has me a little stumped, as the left discharge radiators do not appear to have been repaired, so maybe these are deviations from Dodge specifications.  From a practical standpoint, the left discharge seems to be a defect as any sharp right turn or traversing a slope at an angle will cause coolant to drain out, whereas the right discharge would allow more coolant to stay in the tank.  The 2-3/4" core might be a repair job, but it is a honeycomb core, so maybe that too is a deviation.
     
    At any rate, these part numbers might be helpful in determining if your radiator might be relatively original, a replacement, or "custom"
  22. JBNeal's post in Shock Absorber Replacements for Express Models was marked as the answer   
    I dug up the shock absorbers that I pulled off of the '49 1-ton to study them a little more, as they appeared original with the DPCD logo stamped into the dirt shield.  I was able to get the p#s off of them and critical dimensions:
    F  --  1261982  --  12.38  --  20.25 R  --  1196294  --  11.75  --  18.75 I could not find neither of these p#s in the parts book nor could I find any reference to them online, so I'm not sure if these were original to the truck or if the p# I'm looking at on the dirt shield is referencing something else...these dims compare very close to the dims of the 31000 & 32207 shocks that I've been using for years from Monroe, which were listed as replacements in their interchange book back in the 90s.
     
    So I did some studying of the parts manual and Monroe's Instruction Guide, as well as Gabriel's Online Catalog (which took some digging to find), and found some more part replacement numbers that could be used.  Some shocks are more available than others, and some shocks are cheaper than others, but after putting a few more hours into researching this topic, I think we have more options available for builds and restorations.
     
    One thing I noticed in the parts manual is the specification of 1" domestic and 1-3/8" heavy duty export.  Looking at the shocks available, the common spec for passenger cars is 1-3/16" bore, with light truck shocks having a 1-3/8" bore.  I switched to a large bore shock on The Blue Bomber years ago, and it produced a slightly bouncy ride unladen but under a heavy load or pulling a trailer, the truck rode nice and smooth, and braking was much more controlled, with noticeably less nose dive.  So if you are just going to use your old buggy for commuting, then the 1-3/16" shocks should work fine, as they are a stronger design than the originals...if you plan on carrying a load on a regular basis, then the bigger shocks are a good investment.  I know when I was hauling water with both my '48 1/2 ton and '49 1-ton, I noticed after a few years that the replacement shocks (1-3/16" bore) were all leaking as I was really loading up the suspension but not moving in a hurry on any trip nor traveling tens of thousands of miles annually.
     
    B-1-B, -C, -D
    B-2-B, -C, -D
    Front  --  Monroe 31000  =  Monroe 59001  =  Monroe 32293
                   Gabriel 81147  =  Gabriel 82047
    [1-3/8"]   --  Monroe 34904  -  Monroe 37098  -  Monroe 37112
                        Gabriel 61500  -  Gabriel G63689 Rear --  Monroe 32207  =  Monroe 59017
                 Gabriel 81676  -  Gabriel 82007
    [1-3/8"]   --  Monroe 555004
                        Gabriel 61550  =  Gabriel G63949  -  Gabriel G63299 B-3-B, -C, -D
    B-4-B, -C, -D
    Front & Rear  [1-3/8"]  --  Monroe 66858  -  Gabriel 82065 The Monroe and Gabriel shocks are not exactly the same in extended and collapsed dimensions, but they are generally within 1/4" of each other.  The best way I can explain this is that the Pilot-House trucks have a certain suspension travel, as do other makes & models that have similar geometry, and the manufacturers make shocks that fall within a certain range within that travel, so several different shocks could possibly fit a certain suspension geometry and still work.  I would favor a shock that allows the spring to hit its bumpstop so that the shock is not bearing a severe load...conversely, a shock should still have some stroke left when the springs have reached max vertical travel so that the tires are not being lifted off of the ground prematurely, enabling more control of the vehicle in extreme situations.
     
    Obviously, the B-3 and B-4 shocks that are available now are more limited...just looking at the applications online, that 11/16" mounting diameter does not appear to be an industry standard as the 5/8" and 3/4" mounting diameters have been used on many shock configurations over the years.  I would list the different colors that these shocks are coated, but some of the factory descriptions do not match the pictures on their websites...also, some vendors had different colors listed from the factory website, so I reckon ya get what you get in the box
  23. JBNeal's post in adding hyperlinks and pasting from clipboard problems was marked as the answer   
    It looks like the patch has worked...I upgraded to IE 11 a few days ago, and have not had any more problems since...thanks GTK! 
  24. JBNeal's post in Clutch Torque Specs was marked as the answer   
    From the B-3 service manual:
    flywheel nuts [7/16-20]:  55-60 ft-lbs transmission to clutch housing nut/screw [7/16-20 or -14]:  45-50 ft-lbs clutch to flywheel bolt [5/16-18]:  15-20 ft-lbs
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Terms of Use