This is the flywheel that needs the larger bearing?

 

Yes. Won't have it for a couple more days though.

 

Got the clutch/flywheel today. That was one heavy box......... Had a warning label that said "2 person lift only". Naturally, I ignored that and carried it into the shop by myself.
Vendor cut me a heck of a deal on it. Under $300, before tax. Just a shade over with tax included. Less than the cost of the upgraded input shaft, once shipping was factored in..... I'll get pics later, but it's pretty obvious why the 13" setup requires the starter spacer, the ring gear is ~1/4" further forward.

 

We had a 92 Dodge W250 (3/4T 4wd) in the shop today that was powered by a Cummins. The frame on those looks way flimsier than an F100 frame. Really eased my mind about whether my truck's frame can hold up in the long run. Pretty sure it will be fine. Heck, that dodge frame didn't have any boxed sections, and the rails looked to be about the same thickness and dimensions as mine. It had some minor cracking issues right where the steering gear and front spring hanger are attached. I still cannot believe that section wasn't boxed, given the stress it has to face.
How did dodge manage to stay in business selling trucks built that poorly? Oh yeah, they hired Jack Roush (yes, that Roush, the Ford guru) to figure out how to make a Cummins fit, and then signed an exclusive contract for that engine in the North American light duty truck market.........
I knew the older GM trucks had inferior frames, compared to the same GVW rated Ford, but I never knew how bad the dodge frames were..... I think the frame under the B2300 (Ranger, rebadged) is stronger....

 

Seems all our Ford trucks have crack issues at the steering box (where the frame is boxed) so I don't find it strange that W250 has problems.
Lifts and wide tires only make it worse.
Perhaps that is more indicative of jumping and rock crawling, IDK.

 

I recently talked to my nephews, one of which is a mechanical engineer, who said that many of the frames of that era across all manufacturers crack at the same point due to the hard spot created by bolting the steering box directly to the frame. The fix is to install spacer tubes with the steering box end of the tubes something like 1/8" off the frame. That way the box doesn't touch the frame and there is no hard spot.

Reminded me of the advice I got, from Jim and Brad IIRC, on my fix.

 

With the way the frames need to flex, any time you make a rigid spot, you make a crack hazard. It really isn't necessary and maybe actually detrimental to totally box a frame. You don't want it to be too rigid or you will have all kinds of cracking. That s why you also won't find a heavy duty truck made real solid, they need to flex to absorb the twisting from motion on the road, as well as the torque from the motor trying to pull those heavy loads from a dead stop.

One other reason why the steering box area would be a source of cracking is that all of the force is pretty much concentrated into one spot, a point load. It is much better to have distributed load, as the whole beam or such is working, not just one spot. That is why gusseting works, it helps spread out the load area.

 

Gussets need to taper off to nothing or you are just displacing the point load.

It is just the same with fillets when bonding.

 

Yeah, the cracking at the steering box is made worse by guys running wide tires, and cranking the wheels while sitting still on a hard surface, or worse, in deep mud or soft dirt. I spent enough years driving manual steering vehicles (and still have a couple) that I have a habit of making sure the vehicle is moving a little before trying to crank the wheels around.

The dodge frame only being 3"-4" tall where the steering box and front spring hanger are located doesn't help, especially given the front bumper that was bolted on just ahead of the spring hanger.
That particular truck spent 15-20 years serving as a brush fire rig. As such, it had a water tank and pump mounted on the back, and spent many hours driving around thru wooded areas and open fields all over the county. True milage is unknown, as the odometer quit counting at 168K, several years before the fire dept sold it. No telling how many of those miles were spent covering rough terrain, while loaded rather heavy.

My point was this, if that frame managed to hold up to those conditions, then my frame should be more than capable of holding up to normal conditions with the added 3-400 LBS of engine/trans combo, given that it already looks beefier than the W250 frame.
The 94+ dodge frames are much more substantial than the 93 and older. I've heard of numerous frame failures in the 93 older trucks, with or with the cummins. I now understand why.
The engine I bought came out of a truck that had only seen 120K, but after 2 dash fires and a broken frame, they sent the cab/chassis to the shredder.


On another forum, I saw where a guy in Austrailia claimed to have a 90 F150 that he swapped a 6BT into in 93. He also claimed that Ford offered this engine as a factory option, but few were sold. He attributed that to the relatively unknown engine at that time.
Of course, as all things go, if it's on the internet then it has to be true........

Another guy recently swapped a 351W/C6 to 4BT/NP435 in an 82 F150, and had run it over the scales before and after. Says it gained about 150 lbs total. The 4BT is about 150 lbs lighter than a 6BT (750 vs 900), so I'm looking at about 300 lbs of added weight, right over the front crossmember. Many guys have added that much (or more) weight in the form of a bumper/winch combo, which attaches to the front of the horns, along with 4-6" lifts.

300lbs is about the same as 1 big guy, or a couple smaller guys sitting in the seat, so I'm sure Ford took that into consideration........

 

Spent a little time tinkering on the engine yesterday. The injection pump, lines and injectors had been removed, but came with the engine. I couldn't find the correct size woodruff key for the pump shaft, so I just loosely put it in place and set about sorting out the injection lines.
I hate it when someone who doesn't know what they are doing takes something apart and doesn't keep up with all the hardware. Makes it that much time consuming to put it back together.
I never found any diagram or documentation about where #1 on the pump is. Later 24V engines use a similar style pump, and #1 is at 6 o'clock. I tried that, and all the lines seem to fit correctly. Had they been left tied together in 2 bundles of 3 lines, it would have been very easy to know their exact layout. The fitment of the lines leads me to be almost positive I had it right, since they almost all fell right into place.
Had to take them back off, since the pump cannot be installed without that keyway. At least I have a good idea of their layout, so it will be much easier to put them back on.
Still not sure if I am going to send the pump for a rebuild, and get new injectors, or just go with them as-is. I know it was running when pulled out of the truck, and had to run pretty decent since they had tried to swap the pump and injectors to a newer engine, only to discover there is a difference between the intercooled and non intercooled engines.

Progress is slow, but steady. Would rather do it right, instead of having to go back and redo stuff down the road.

 

Yes, it is a huge pain when someone pulls things apart and put the pieces in a pile, or a bucket as I once did. (That was a Stovebolt 216.5 and I didn't realize that the rocker arm stands take a special bolt, and when I put the wrong one in the sharp corner of the stand peeled a piece off of the bolt and ultimately split the stand.) But, glad you got it figured out. One piece at a time and, ultimately, you'll be there. That's what I keep telling myself.

 

Yeah, I'm getting it there.

I am ready to have it done though. Fuel prices just keep going up, and I'm sure this will return at least 24 MPG when completed. Hard to argue with that kind of number, from a full size pickup.......

 

Was a bit slow this afternoon, so I called the local deisel injection shop and talked to them about the pump and injectors. They felt the pump should be good to go, given the claimed miles on the engine. They also felt the injectors should be good, till I mentioned how carboned up the injector bores in the head were. They came to same conclusion as I did, not seated correctly and allowed combustion to leak past. Told me to send over the injectors, and they'll clean them up, inspect and replace anything that needs replaced. Oh, and since we do a lot of business with them and this is a personal project, they'll cut me a heck of a deal. They're also gonna supply me with a couple little items I need to finalize the pump install correctly.
I told them what I had, and what it was going into. They wanna see it when it's done......
Sometime in the next few days, I'll be taking/sending the injectors over for a tune-up......

Today also marked my 1 year anniversary of working there. Hard to believe how much has changed in a year. I went from dreaming about doing a diesel swap, to the point I have most everything gathered up to do it. Who knows what will happen in the 2nd year........

 

Cool! That's a big help and a huge savings.

 

Yeah, it helps. I thought about getting new injectors, but too many places want to sell "marine" injectors, that use a different tip angle. Sure, they flow a bit more fuel, but the piston is different for a marine application than for an on-road engine. Using marine injectors in a road use engine, can lead to excess unburned fuel in the lower RPM range. More power up high, more smoke/haze down low. I'm not going for big power, just big MPG numbers.
In stock form, the 6BT should have ~50% more HP/tq than the 300, and yield 2-3 times the MPG, at the same time. I know a 4BT could yield even better MPG, but I have less invested in the engine and trans than what most 4BT's are selling at. Besides, the "cool" factor of an inline 6 diesel is worth the ~150 lbs extra, and a couple less MPG.