Messages

    "20 ft.lbs." on a 5/16" x 18t fastener requires a "good", aka. one of the "higher", grade ratings and though the O.E.M. fastener (in good condition) is capable and I understand what the manual calls out, don't forget your also pulling down on an aluminum intake manifold (?); so I generally will not pull them past "18 ft. lbs.", which is quite suitable for the application.

    And yes, re-torque later.   

    Scott. 

     Today it seems, value is all about the "presentation", this being what the vehicle itself exudes, and then the "song & dance" presented by the marketers!  The buyers don't put forth the effort to become educated on the subject matter, nor really care anymore; it's all about the "experience" now!    

     Scott.

    As for B.A.T. and their involvement in producing successful sales, check this one out!

    https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1979-ford-f-250-97/

    I have "attempted" to comment twice, in that the V.I.N. number being presented for this "F250 4 x 4" is not for such!  And the "Dealer/Seller" seems to be aware of an "issue", but also doesn't seem to be so very concerned!  Which is somewhat surprising, as part of the licensing agreement to become a "Dealer" states that the Dealer is responsible to establish that the "paperwork" at least seems reasonably proper, but to be passing knowingly "bad" paperwork can cost you your license (perhaps more)!   

    And then there is for example my efforts (and probably others) in commenting in which B.A.T. has chosen to hold while: "Your comment is being reviewed by BaT staff" and then has been removed as being considered "not constructive",  is now knowingly and actively participating in the sale of this vehicle!   

   And then, as for the buyers, and what it is that they might find important,  just watch them continue to bid for the vehicle, even though there's enough commenting that B.A.T. allowed to "slip-through", that even if your not familiar with the proper V.I.N. configuration, should put one on notice!   

    Scott.   

    Yeah, I have a few those with the "cast-in pinion snubber", "hooded" or "guarded" version also, which seem to bare the "D2OW-4668-C" casting number, but I didn't bring up that one as I just 'assumed' it wouldn't be relevant here. 

    But, how sure are you on the thought that the un-machined examples would be of "later" production and particularly out of "trucks" (originally); and the '85 F150 H.O. unit doesn't count as it also presents other differences which side-line it here.  This as I don't recall ever finding one there, that as being obviously original anyway; although I'll also be the first to say "I ain't seen it all", for sure, and to reiterate the saying of: "never say never"?  But also, based on my 'bad' memory, I had the impression that those un-machined units might have actually been "earlier" examples in production, but I very well may be wrong, hence my inquiry? 

    To bad the "casting date codes" couldn't provide us some guidance, but it seems Ford chose to not include a year in the casting identifier, only month and day, so don't think rummaging through my "stuff" would really help greatly. 

    Scott.

    If your concerned for the "date code" you didn't mention it?   

    Also, I've noticed that there are different executions in that some of these will distinctly present a machined surface about the retaining bolt (5 pcs.) circumference face, whereas others provide no evidence of this machining operation at all?  Any ideas out there on the "when & why's"?   

    Scott.

It's a real Caveat emptor environment and BATs involvement seems to be helping to write bulletproof descriptions that really lack any proofs.

    +1   

    Scott.

    Is that a "Nodular" case?    O.K., the picture provides for a somewhat limited observation but, if I'm holding my head and thinking right, the ribbing doesn't seem correct for such? 

    If it actually is, Ford did reintroduce the "N" case for the 1985 F150 "H.O." trucks so 'maybe' that's a possibility? 

    Scott. 

It is VERY difficult to get the engineering details on the intent of the "pressure valve".
Even people like Jon Vermersch can't answer that question.

I see things differently on occasion?

    Well. . . . lets' see if "we" can aid you in seeing things . . . . "differently"!    

    How bout maybe, you grab one of these a-dap-tors and wrap your lips around one of the steel hose fittings sticking out of the aluminum casting, and blow!     And in doing so, noting where your effort might emanate from, and then practice the same with the other fitting.  If the valving is functioning correctly, I think you'll conclude that this "by-pass" valving 'is' presenting a "normally closed" positioning; this dictating, before any heat is considered, that the flow 'is' being routed out through the cooler plumbing, then received back and routed to the block; therefore this as being the "normal" function.   

There is no need for a pressure relief valve on these adapters. You are not going to blow up the oil filter.

    As for the "need", well, if the cooler plumbing were to become blocked, it would be very possible, if the pressure achieved that as required, and the pump 'is' very capable of such, the oil filter could "blow up", or off, or more commonly just dislodge the soft ring seal and result in a horrendous oil leak!       But probably the engineers were perhaps every bit as concerned with just a "restricted" flow problem, that beyond which is already created even when everything is functioning as delivered, and this might lead to an oil starvation issue for the engine.     

The 67-8 GT500's with the Shelby oil cooler have no "pressure relief valve"

     True, but this would appear to have been a Shelby "buy-out" product without Ford Motor Company engineering participation.  But later, when Ford decided that something was needed in other production applications, the cooler adapter devices, whether for the FE, the BOSS 302 (the topic of discussion here) or others, incorporated the "pressure" (differential) relief valve engineering.   

     So, how's your eyesight doing?    

     Scott. 

The BOSS 302 adapters have a sort of thermostatic bypass circuit . . . . 

It's a spring loaded steel ball bearing that, when seated, seals the passage to the radiator...I'm assuming.

When it's pushed off the seat with hot/thin oil, I'm assuming enough oil gets routed through the cooler to bring down the temps.

 

To my knowledge it is in fact an oil thermostat opening around 180° F. The same "technology of a ball on a seat and a thermal spring expanding with heat . . . . 

    I don't think so . . . . . Rather, there 'is' a spring-loaded ball valving function provided that is "pressure" sensitive, and that will unseat and allow (some) oil to bypass the cooler routing 'if' the pressure differential between the adapter's "outlet" (to cooler) and "inlet" (from cooler) is to great; the threshold being the pressure differential, as acting on the exposed area of the ball vs. the spring pressure value, aka. the cooler becomes plugged or a hose-line becomes crimped or crushed.   

    But I suppose, if the oil is so cold and thick as to create the pressure differential effect. this in the attempt to pump the oil the distance through the cooler and it's associated plumbing, then O.K., this might qualify as temperature responsive, but I don't think that was actually the intended function, but more of a "possible" side effect? 

    Scott

Neither are 4.30 'W' code cars so likely overkill on the resto.

    Do realize that the oil actually does need to get "hot" (up to reasonable operational temperature) and that excessive cooling function that prevents this, isn't "overkill", it's a "killer"! 

    Scott.

     It's been said before:

     The biggest problem in sports and hobbies . . . . . is money!   

     Scott.

If you are just putting around town you'll never have a problem. Lean on it for an hour or so at a track day and you may have some problems.

    No doubt!  After all, if one is to be honest, these powertrains 'were' engineered for "putting around town", O.K., with "intermittent" spirited driving occasions sure.  And I'd venture to say that most American "production" vehicles are probably reasonably capable of utilizing a range of 75-100% of their capability, for say . . . . 25-30% of the time, modulated intermittently, within each hour period of operation; after that . . . .   So, if you do choose to "track" the car, know that you 'are' (if your any good!    ) probably going to be pushing the vehicle beyond it's intended environmental application and melees very well may materialize.   

    What was the famous line, . . . . "A man's got to know his [cars'] limitations" (Harry Callahan); but then isn't that what "track-prepping" a car is sorta about?   

They [cylinder head temps] seemed to go down some when I turned the heat on in the car.

    Yes, as that sum of heated coolant that 'was' by-passing the engine radiator (heat-exchanger) is now utilizing the HVAC system's "heater-core" (heat-exchanger) with the fan on and ducting open, i.e. "air motion", before it's being injected back into the low-pressure, cool-side of the water pump.   

    Kinda relevant to the initial posters' subject of inquiry, "by-passes" . . . . hmm?   

    Scott.   

    If not provided for by the thermostat as received (some do), we found that if you just drill a small hole (say. . . 7/64" +/-) in the body of the thermostat which allows air to by-pass the closed fixture, that with tempered administration in the filling process, much less difficulty will be experienced in the initial "burping" on start-up. 

    Scott.

   

They didn't get it right on the 32 valve SVT engines either.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/1412-how-to-install-the-cobra-engineering-cylinder-head-cooling-mod

      It's too bad, that in the desperation to bring what might appear to be revelations, that the media prints/posts these quaint sort of stories, being presented as a matter of fact, which are garnered from a vendor looking to promote a product, but that may not have actually had any real testing with clinical conclusions vindicating it's actual worth!     

     I'll first say that no coolant flow path in any internal combustion engine has proven to be ideal, and that this particular cylinder head does present a rather complicated coolant flow path so it wouldn't be unexpected to anticipate challenges.  But, if we will perhaps refer to the considerations made by the manufacturer, with "real" engineers and actual product testing, though admittedly they don't "always" get it right, then we might in this aftermarket product environment ask ourselves: what might we be defeating with our bright idea?   

     Hint: This engine is still basically a "front-to-back & back-to-front" coolant path system and in this instance the engineering incorporated a "flow restriction" in the original plumbing configuration, the "story" says: it's "optional", so how much flow rerouting are we actually facilitating; and then this so as to "not" defeat the coolant flow intention across the cylinder heads ("back-to-front") as we plumb this short-cut from the back of the cylinder heads directly back to the water pump! And is this sum now not going to be passing through the heat exchanger (radiator) and since it's by-passing the thermostat restriction we're losing pressure, so aren't we actually "defeating" the cooling system in more ways than one?   

      Then, as what actually has been "established" to be the biggest issue that initiated the more commonly encountered failures associated with cylinders #7 & 8, was that the P.C.V. system was of poor execution, in a number of ways, and resulted in excessive concentrations of oil carry-over (low octane!) into those two cylinders causing detonation (heat!). And just like the "ad" stated: the harder you ran it, the bigger the problem!   

      And then it would seem, Ford acknowledged this fact with the "AIR/OIL SEPARATOR KIT(s)" developed for specific models in production and then made available through Ford Performance as an aftermarket enhancement product.   

      Remember, just because you saw it in a magazine, or more so these days, on the internet, doesn't make it true!    

      Scott. 

 
 

    Yes, the purpose for the small "By-pass" hose is to provide a coolant passage during the period of the closed thermostat which blocks the pathway to the radiator and otherwise coolant motion as a whole. And the provision for "this" coolant circulation is important in order to achieve a proper "warm-up" process and to avoid localized heating differentials of the castings.      

    But unfortunately this execution, that of bypassing the closed thermostat at the intake manifold  (the hot & high pressure side exit) and just routeing the coolant back into the water pump (cool & low pressure side inlet) is one of simplicity, and unfortunately remains unchecked (with the exception of just being a smaller passage) even after the thermostat does open, which itself is still intended to provide a sum of flow resistance for the purpose of providing a pressure increase (above the radiator cap value) within the engine proper, and therefore the by-pass "is" at this point actually defeating the intentioned efforts.    

    So, in racing applications where a thermostat is "not" going to be utilized (but there are other engineering aspects that must be considered), it "is" best to eliminate the bypass routing.  But since for street driven applications I would consider it a mistake to not be utilizing a thermostat, the bypass "is" necessary; therefore the "penny" (or nickle) idea, though has merit (though poor execution ) , this shouldn't be considered here.   

    If you'll review the design effort in the 335 series engines, one will witness where Ford engineers acknowledged this previous executions' shortcomings, this where the thermostat is just proving the feature of open or closed (with certain sum of modulation), but now acts with a "shuttle-valve" feature providing greater directional control and efficiency, pertaining to this subject.    

    Scott.