SPArKy_Dave

XD-XF have capacitive fuel senders I think? E-series (XG/XH too) have resistance based fuel senders.

An apocalypse Clevo! Just needs a part time supercharger - Mad Max style?

idle up, timing advance, fuel enrichment. some or all of those, depending on coolant temp.

You could probably wiggle that piece out of there. I can't say I've ever seen a cracked thermostat housing though. Sometimes they look cracked, but are actually just casting lines, in the die-cast alloy.

It looks like a mix of different era parts? The auto choke looks disconnected, it has a post 12/74-onwards (emissions) Oil filler cap. Having an A/C compressor on an F-truck, is quite uncommon. The heads should have a 2 or 4, cast into the front upper corner, indicating what they are. Everything will also have casting date-codes, if you know where to look. Block, heads, intake manifold, exhaust manifolds, dizzy, coil, alternator, etc.

So your F-truck has an XB panelvan engine in it. whilst rather ironically... my XB panelvan, has an F-truck engine block in it.

That's an 09/74 XB panelvan engine block. My 11/74 XB panelvan's VIN, starts with JG45PA.

Over the past week, I've been rebuilding the braking system, on my XB Panelvan. I decided to start with the rear drums first, and work from back, to front. I disassembled both sides, and inspected the condition of all the hardware, finding a few issues. 1. the rear wheel cylinders are aftermarket - both seized (but not leaking), and have the incorrect bore size. 2. the tension washers are missing, on both hand brake apply lever pivots. 3. the washer is missing from the wind-out wheel for the R/H drum shoes. and 4. all the auto adjust brackets are missing for both sides. (wear marks show they were definitely there originally) So far, I've managed to source an OEM spring kit, some new auto adjust brackets, and the correct missing washers. But I need help with the wheel cylinders... Later (11/74 onwards) XB V8's, ran 3/4" bore wheel cylinders, (presumably for more bias to the front brakes) but everywhere I've searched so far, I can only find the earlier XA/XB V8, (and all 6cyl) 13/16" bore wheel cylinders. Bosch, IBS, Protex, do not list them. Protex does list a rebuild kit for them though? They're listed clearly in the factory XB Ford parts book I have, and also in the old PBR catalogue. The factory part no, is: XB-2261-GA and the PBR number, is: P10015 Does anyone have any suggestions, who may have stock of older PBR brake parts?

That's the tricky part - it has/had the incorrect ones fitted. I do actually have a couple of 3/4 bore rebuild kits, originally thinking I'd rebuild the original wheel cylinders. Until I discovered the wrong ones were fitted... The brakes were always a bit underwhelming on the vehicle, so I assume mis-matched parts, are possibly causing the issue?

Is it a parts book? I got my info, from my Ford/Dealer XB Falcon part number book. And my old PBR brake parts catalogue, says the same. 13/16 for V8 and 6cyl up to 11/74 3/4 for V8 excl GT for V8 11/74 onwards 13/16 for 6cyl 11/74 onwards

Yeah, a pair of 3/4" bore wheel cylinders. The early standard V8's and all the 6cyl, were 13/16", and the GT's were 7/8" I think?

Fun fact - the current range of FORD Motorcraft batteries, are also made by Century. (just with Motorcraft stickers)

Then buy a mustang or Galaxie, to put it in?

Pedal Ratio The critical component in the braking equation is the pedal ratio. In operation, the brake pedal acts as a lever to increase the force the driver applies to the master cylinder. In turn, the master cylinder forces fluid to the disc brake caliper pistons or drum brake wheel cylinders. If you examine a brake pedal, you'll see the pivot point (where the pedal swivels) and the mounting point for the master cylinder pushrod are usually different. By varying the length of the pedal, and/or the distance between the pushrod mount and the pivot, you can change how much force (from your leg) is required to energize the master cylinder. This is the "mechanical advantage" or pedal ratio. This formula will help you figure it out: Input Force x Pedal Ratio ÷ Brake Piston Area = PSI. Mathematical babble? The arithmetic simply equates to the amount of force exerted by your leg times the pedal ratio divided by the area of the brake piston(s). FYI, the typical adult male can exert roughly 300 pounds of force (maximum) with one leg, and that's a bunch. Something in the order of 1/3 or 1/2 that figure is obviously more comfortable, even in a hardcore racecar. The average manual (non-power boosted) master cylinder requires somewhere between 600-1,000 PSI to be totally effective. Somehow, 100-150 pounds of leg force has to be translated into 600-1,200 PSI. The way it's accomplished is by way of pedal ratio. While changing the overall length of the pedal is possible, it's often easier and far more practical to shorten the distance between the pivot point and the master cylinder pushrod mount location. That's precisely how many racecar chassis shops modify brake pedals. Brake Line Pressure Brake line pressure is a different thing than the force you apply to the pedal. Force acts in one direction and is addressed in pounds. Pressure acts in all directions against surrounding surfaces and is addressed in pounds per square inch or PSI. "Levers" (brake pedals) can be used to change the force. Inside the hydraulic system, the surface area of the piston is what is affected by pressure. Decreasing the bore size of the master cylinder increases the pressure it can build. Pistons in master cylinders are specified by bore size. But there's a hitch: The area of a circle (or bore) is Pi–R-Squared. The area of the piston surface increases or decreases as the square of the bore size or diameter. For example, the area of a common 1-1/8-inch master cylinder is approximately 0.994-inch. The area of an equally common 1.00-inch bore master cylinder is approximately 0.785-inch. Switching from the larger master cylinder to the smaller version will increase the line pressure approximately 26.5% assuming that pedal ratio hasn't changed. As the pedal force or the pedal ratio (or both) is increased, the stroke of the master cylinder is shortened (brake line pressure is unaffected). When the size of the master cylinder piston increases, the output pressure of the master cylinder decreases. A smaller master cylinder piston will exert more line pressure with the same amount of force (pedal ratio) than a master cylinder piston with a larger piston area. There's another catch: Since the brake line fluid pressure is working against the surface of the wheel cylinder (or disc brake piston), increasing the area of the cylinder will increase brake torque. The bottom line is, if the stopping power of a car needs improvement, or if there’s a need to reduce the pedal effort, several options are available: (1) Decrease the master cylinder bore size; (2) Increase the pedal ratio; (3) Increase the wheel cylinder bore size. If the pedal ratio is increased, there will be more travel at the master cylinder piston. If the master cylinder bore size is decreased, the piston has to travel further to move the same amount of fluid. Typically, a master cylinder has approximately 1-1/2-inch to 1-3/4-inch of stroke (travel). The idea here is coordinate the pedal ratio with the bore size to arrive at approximately half of the stroke (roughly 1-inch) in order to make the brakes feel comfortable, and of course, to bring the car to a grinding halt.

Latest edit - 09/03/22 Pic's and additional bearing technical/part no. info added. The current contact details, for NEWCOM Industries - http://www.reliablerackandpinion.com.au/ Edit - not sure if Motospecs can currently supply the roller tops, or not? They only sold a few hundred each year. Apparently Newcom would only do another run, if MotoSpecs ordered 5000 of the roller tops. As of 06/15, Motospec's had said no. (info originally created 08/05/14 - original thread link, down below) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Motospecs can supply the new roller top - part no. A50280RM - branded as 'Newcom', where the 'Kirby Bishop' writing was. Newcom Industries Pty Ltd, is the Pedders parent company, and who make the Pedders springs, rebuild their steering componentry, etc. http://www.newcomindustries.com/ The Newcom roller top, also comes as a part of the Motospecs full steering box rebuild kit - part no. GSB-3021 from ATP by itself, with part no. GX3025, or from Henko by itself, with part no. 3803, 72-249 Before they were available, I got some bush tops retrofitted with a bearing, by searching the Timken catalogue at Bearing Wholesalers. The existing bronze bush, needs to be machined out on a lathe, and the recess where the bush was, needs to be center bored to open it up slightly. The bearing I used, was a Timken full complement torrington race needle roller bearing, part no. 32208 (B208) B208 is a Timken branded 1.25 inch, by 1.5 inch by 0.5 inch, open ended drawn-cup full complement roller bearing assembly. The same as fitted from factory, to the later (XG?) Kirby-Bishop steering box tops, and the later over-counter spares. http://www.bearing.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Torrington-Needle-Rollers.compressed.pdf The Newcom roller top, is NOT a full complement torrington race bearing. The bearing is branded NTN, with a part no. of SCE 208A SCE208A, is actually an INA (Schaeffler) part number, so maybe NTN produced them for INA, at the time? https://medias.schaeffler.nl/en/search/searchpage?text=SCE208 Full complement, means that each roller abuts the next roller, all the way round the bearing.</p> Caged needle roller (torrington) bearings are cheaper, and have half as many rollers - which are spaced apart by a plastic, nylon or other material insert (cage). I have a NOS Ford top, which came from the factory with the torrington race bearing, (they were obviously being fitted at a later stage - XG?) - Part no. XA3580AKT. It's branded 'Kirby Bishop', and has a full complement torrington race bearing - with an outer cup part no. B208 (could be timken branded) It must be a late production item, as the wording and finish of the top, is very average - hence the sand casting mould must have been very worn out. The Newcom tops are cast very tidy, so they must've purchased and refurbed (or copied) the mould, then rebranded it too. Interestingly, the four bolt holes are tapered holes. BUT...... the holes in the Kirby Bishop top, are tapered with smaller opening on the inside, and larger on the outside. Whereas the four bolt holes on the Newcom top, are tapered opposite - with the larger end on the inside. One of them, has had the holes cast from the opposite end - ie, one top has been cast in a mould facing up, and the other, cast facing down. How (or if) that would affect the fit, I dunno. We'd have to compare it with a couple of tops, off some non-rebuilt steering boxes, to get the best two out of three or something. On both tops, the holes are cast as part of the mould, they're not drilled afterwards. Note the awesome quality control with the NOS Kirby top, in the last pic...... _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That is strange. Something must have changed? Maybe the RTV's didn't have the sensors, and the airbag module has been changed? One thing to check - often with Airbag systems, the plugs have integrated metal strips, to short the pins on un-used plugs. And/or, for plugs which get accidently un-plugged. Maybe there's an un-used connector somewhere for the seat sensor loom from the airbag module, which has lost it's shorting strip?

Even if the connector is broken off, the wires must be there somewhere?

The other connector must be there somewhere. Just un-plugged maybe? I thought all B-series had a passenger airbag?

Maybe the sensor has just been broken? Is the sensor even there? (should be same as passenger seat I imagine)

Has the seat been replaced?

Airbag code 49, is to do with a sensor under the drivers seat I think? Try checking if the drivers/passenger seats have side airbags, and/or see if the wiring underneath has come apart.

The ones in the pic are EL Falcon spark-plug lead holders.

For LPG, I'd guess 18-20L/100km around town, and 12-14L/100km freeway?

AU 3, has decent fault-code communications from memory. I'd get a scan tool onto it, and start from there? Is it dual fuel?

Does either side mirror glass vibrate, when it's in Gear? Collapsed hydraulic engine mounts in EF onwards, is quite common. Running rich, could be a worn out O2 sensor. Do a fuel consumption test, to see if you're in the ball park. E-series era, should be circa 14L/100km (or better) around town, down to 10L/100km with alot of freeway driving.