Steve83

That's for the RED lines; the blues are before those mods.What about anywhere you might move to? Or where anyone to whom you might want to sell the truck might live?Those are the big systems that people like to delete, so if you keep those, you might as well keep the PCV & vapor systems, too. Read this article:
http://www.fourdoorbronco.com/board/...ssions-SystemsHmm... Going from the engine's ~200 lb-ft to somewhere around 600 in 1st gear to somewhere around 1,500 with the TC... Seems like a lot to me. But you'll NEVER approach it with an old 5.8L. The E4OD was used successfully behind the 7.3L PSTD in F550s for many years.Right. Read that caption.Of course. The diff is offset to the driver's side.No, that's voodoo physics. Vehicles rock to one side on acceleration because of engine torque. Not because the axleshafts are torsion springs (they aren't).No, you can't change the angles in a TTB.

SaltEater

Red is intake, carb, heads, and cam, blue is carb and intake on stock engine (near bottom of the article).

As for emissions; I don't know why anyone who drives their vehicle more than a 1/4 mile at a time would delete the egr, the pcv valve seems like the best way to keep everything clean (with proper routing, i have read about the #8 cylinder), and i'm not sure if i'll need the thermactor AIR if i'm using new cats. I'll keep the vapor system too (why waste fuel thats not making power?), but I wonder if it's worth looking into a returnless system? A quick search brings me to another thread you commented in on a different forum, so i may as well ask, can it be done, and pros and cons of returnless vs return system?

My e4od is a '93, not a '98, nor is it an '04 4r100. There are a lot of upgrades I'm going to have to look at (i have picked up the atgs manual for it) and I doubt the p.o. did any before i got the truck, but you never know. I have been keeping an eye out for a used 4x4 trans, i would rather build it over time and swap it in when i need to.

The 5.8 won't always be so old. I have a 351w roller engine on a stand and am in the process of saving for and choosing parts. Making the e4od surivive being behind it when i'm done is a very real concern. And since the tires I have now and the tires i'm likely to get are only rated for 99 mph, giving up some top speed seems fine to me.

I doubt i'll ever sell the truck, they're not worth anything to begin with, and i'd never spend a dime on it if I did. I don't have to dump money into it, but I want to instead of making payments on something new. Plus, I get to learn about how it all works which has been interesting so far.

Reread what i said about my car. It's an east/west transverse engine. Any engine movement under load would be fore and aft, not side to side. I'm not saying I want to change the angles on the ttb (though with enough cutting and welding you can do anything you like). What i'm saying is the intermediate shaft ford used was likely set to a length so that the driveline angle from the wheel to diff height was the same. The only reason I brought up torque steer is because theres a disparity between I.D.'s on some of the left/right seals and bearings in the op.

Some toyota 4x4 vehicles have offset diffs front and rear, and a quick search does pull up complaints about torque steer in 4x4 and awd vehicles. How much of it is bull****, i don't know. If you don't believe torque steer is a problem for some vehicles, nothing I say is going to change that.

Steve83

I didn't actually read the article, so I'll take your word for it. But I still think the torque peak is close enough to the max RPM that you can consider torque to increase over the whole driving range.Then why take the chance? It's not heavy or parasitic enough to justify the risk of taking it off, IMO.Look closer. My comment was actually about the return system used on these trucks. And the original question was about swapping a newer engine/PCM/fuel system into an old truck. That's what you'd have to do to use a returnless system.There weren't enough functional changes for me to consider them to be different transmissions. It was simply a change to the way Ford named them that caused later versions to be called 4R100.I'm not a slushbox tech, but I've worked at elbow's-length from a few, and they gave me the impression that those were durability upgrades; not strength. Look at the list of TSBs at the bottom of this caption:


(phone app link)Right - it's always getting older. Not IMO. But it's your truck & trans.I've always considered buying a new vehicle to be "dumping money"; particularly when financed.I'm all about that!True, but the engine movement isn't the issue. It's how the torque affects the way the chassis' weight is applied to the wheels. And the way the engine is mounted to the chassis (even a transverse engine) will determine which side of the vehicle has more traction. Ford put these trucks' drivetrains slightly offcenter to try to even-out the traction under hard acceleration.Yeah, but that's a whole other kettle of worms, and it would only make the situation worse. The TTB isn't the greatest IFS design to begin with, and it only gets worse when you twist it around.I don't follow you - it telescopes, so its length isn't set.Actually, at normal design ride height, the diff should be in direct line between the wheels, just like a solid axle. So there should be no angle anywhere in it, normally (on flat terrain).I think I might see what you're getting at now, but I think you're reading WAY too much into those subtle differences in sizes. Here's what I mean: there might be a difference in the ID of the upper & lower radiator hoses - or even the 2 ends of the same hose. That DOESN'T mean there's a different volume of coolant passing through. It's just an insignificant difference that makes producing the vehicle easier/cheaper. Same for any difference you might see in the TTB axleshafts. It's not due to precise analysis of the loads on each shaft; it just makes it easier to build the axle. Maybe it's quicker & easier to bore the 2 bearing or seal holes by using one machine drilling through the casting from 1 side in 1 pass, so the cutting tool is slightly larger on the entrance side, meaning the seal is slightly different to fill in that hole. Or maybe something else. I really don't think Dana analyzed that axle design to the extent you seem to be suggesting. If they had, it might work better & last longer with less maintenance. But then it probably would have been too expensive for Ford to put it on a billion trucks.Not having read what you did, I'm confident saying it's A LOT. It absolutely is. ...for SOME vehicles. Just not these trucks.

SaltEater

A lot of those upgrades seem to take place from 94-97. The 4r100 is supposed to handle 1000 lbs of torque (including the multiplication from the TC) because powerstroke guys kept breaking the e4od. I guess some bits can be retro fitted to the e4od, but not many.


And you're probably right about overthinking it, there could be all kinds of variance in manufacturing tolerances and the assymetrical design of the front axle throws the whole thing into question. I'll just order it up and if a seal turns out to be wrong there's always the local parts store.