About your brake pads, did you post pictures of your handy work when bending the ears? It would be helpful to look at them if at all possible. If you did post them, what post in here are they on?

 

Oddly enough, the later style does fit some of the lines better than the earlier style. From the rear you see that it follows the angle of the bed at the top whereas the original unit just goes straight up. But, it doesn't fit well at other spots. So, it literally depends on the viewpoint.

 

Here is my 0.02 worth on the lights. I really like the way the back up lamp lens wraps all the way around on the ones that look as though they have too much air in them. However, The style looks like death eating a saltine cracker. I like the ones with the sharper lines on them as well. Just would like for the reverse lens to wrap around the side also. Seems like it would illuminate the side of the truck a little as well as where you were headed or maybe I mean where you were heading backwards.

 

My thoughts exactly. However, the angular lines of the '86 fit the overall look and style of your truck.

 

I think I read somewhere that the newer than '86 model lights had a chrome backing on the inside to make them more reflective, while the '86 and older did not. Personally, I would just prefer to have the brightest light possible.

 

I know that when I installed the lights in my "new" bed (96) I was amazed how much brighter everything including the backup lights became.

 

No, I didn't. But, I do plan to dig into the front brakes again to figure out why they are dragging so will take pictures and post them. Maybe tomorrow.

I'm not sure I understand "death eating a saltine cracker", but I agree it would be nice to have the wrap-around backup lens. However, since both of my backup lamp bulbs were seriously coated in dust (see the attached picture, and the BU bulb is the one on the right) and the passenger's side wasn't working at all I'll bet even the original style unit will provide a lot more light than I've had.

Oddly enough, it is the '86 style lens that has the chrome, or shiny, backing. The '87 unit has a matte finish. The second picture, below, is of the reflective surface of the '86 style taken through the bulb opening, and the third picture is of the '87 style's reflective surface, with what you are seeing being the light coming through the lens itself and hitting the reflector. As you can see, the '86 is much shinier than the '87. And, for reference, these are the Glo-Brites and are made in the USA.

Are your lights the same as the '87 ones?

 

I saw the same kind of thing when I put the 92-96 tail lights in my truck.
I wanted new 80-86 style lights, but no one had them in stock. One of my old lights was busted, and I did not want to get a ticket, so I just took the later style lights.
The additional light output was enough for to just leave them in place.

 

I put one of each on for my brother and he came to the same conclusion I had - the '86 tail lights are the best look on our trucks. I put the '87 one on first and he was thinking that really made the truck look better over the old ones. But when I out the '86 light on he said "that's the one". So, I installed them for the drive home from KS. And, a pair of new lights really makes the truck look much better.

 

Gary, I am using the '90 taillight harness with the wiring from the '96 bed (both were partially FUBARed). As a result I have the later style bulbs rather than the '86 bulbs and sockets. The reason for the use of both harnesses is the dually peculiar wiring in back. The clearance lights run off a relay (same as the '86 system) while the tail and license lights run directly off the headlight switch.

 

I pulled them up at O'reilly's and they are the Glo-Brite part # 258-1 and part # 259 Correct ??..

I wonder why that one side is 1$ more than the other side...???

No big deal, just curious..

Also Auto-Zone was considerably higher on their lights..

 

Bill - Makes sense to me about the later lights.

Trav - Those are the right part #'s. Dunno why one has a -1 after it, nor why one is more expensive. But, you can get the TYC lights from Amazon for less, and Bill's son Matt (Archion) says they are also good.

As for Dad's truck, on the trip to KS today I noticed a slight vibration. It is at too high of a rate to be tires, and it isn't detectable at 55 but is at 65 and is most noticeable on the transmission and t-case shift levers. When I take the tranny out of gear at 65 the vibration doesn't change until the speed drops off and the vibration drops accordingly. So, I'd bet it is something to do with the drive shaft - especially since I just had it off and replaced the u-joints. But, I just checked and there are no dings on it and the balance weight is still on. And, all of the marks I put on it before taking it off line up perfectly, so nothing from the t-case's output yoke to the drive shaft's input yoke has changed. Guess I'll pull the drive shaft off again tomorrow, but I can't imagine what it is since the new u-joints went in so nicely. Your thoughts?

Also, I got 14.7 MPG on the trip, which is almost exactly the 14.5 I got on the last round so my brake work didn't magically fix things. But, the brake drums ran cool, although there is still a little bit of drag on the RR at one point in the rotation so I need to address that. However, the LF rotor was hot to the touch and when I got home and put the truck on the lift that wheel has drag the whole way around. And, the RF drags some as well. So, more work to do on the brakes.

And, I have a noise in the cab that is probably a resonance with the exhaust. It comes on at about 1700 R's and pretty well goes away by 1900, which means that driving between about 57 and 63 is noisy. Today I wondered if it might be inlet noise so I turned the air cleaner's lid over for a test on the way home. That didn't make a bit of difference so after about 40 miles I pulled over, shut the engine off, and opened the hood to turn the lid over. But, I checked the thermometer in the radiator cap and noted that it read 140 while the mechanical temp gauge had been showing the engine at ~195. However, while I was turning the lid on the air cleaner over the overflow tank did its thing - overflowed. I quickly looked at the thermometer again and it showed 180, and then I closed the hood and started the truck up to keep from losing much coolant.

So, why did it overflow? The tank was about 1/3 full when I started the trip, and it is still about 1/3 full now that it has cooled so I didn't lose any coolant to speak of. The tank is a later model tank that has the hose going in at the bottom, but is overall the same size as the original tank. The owner's manual doesn't say anything about how much coolant to keep in the tank, but instead says to maintain the coolant between the bottom of the radiator's filler neck and a point 1.5" below that. I want to keep some coolant in the tank when cold to ensure that no air is in the cooling system itself. But, what's been your experience? How much coolant do you keep in the system?

 

Gary, I can look tomorrow and see what my 86 owners manual says. On the front brakes, it wasn't till probably late 90s before the "no drag" calipers started appearing. I bought "loaded calipers" when I did mine a few years ago, it was cheaper than rebuilding the old ones and a lot easier too.

 

Loaded calipers? What are they? I bought new, not rebuilt, calipers with phenolic or ceramic pistons.

What did they change to make the no-drag calipers? I thought all calipers had a square-cut seal that pulled the piston back when the pressure released.

 

Gary - I will bet you need to increase the aintifreeze concentration.

The cooling system keeps it cool by pumping the fluid through the system and air passes through the radiator.

Sitting still with the engine off, that doesn't happen and it absorbs all the heat in the cast iron.

If the concentration isn't high enough - or the cap isn't keeping the correct pressure - it can boil.