6.9 IDI Build

[Randy Bush]

Ok where do you find the series years at for the 6.9 . I have seen it here. I have a 83, 84 core and a late model 86 in old blue.

1 series 6.9 was 83 only, not considered a viable block casting, c/n 1805440C1, for rebuilding, and can be recognized by the lightweight or narrow gusseting across the upper area in the front of the block. Also 83 6.9 cylinder head c/n 180529C1 and 1809199C1 are very prone to cracking. All 6.9 engines 84- 87 are the 2 series.

 

[Thewespaul]

The majority of 84s are not the newer block, here’s the correct breakdown of the block changes.

6.9L Old Style Block
Block Casting Number:
On left side of block (beneath oil cooler) 1805440C1
Note: Some 440 blocks are truly new style and must be visually inspected by raised donut around the block heater, frost plug (right rear). Old style below serial number 173828.
Visual Identification:
*No counter bored area for block heater
*No defined area on side of block for dip stick
*Thickness of cast iron around block heater 3/8" (.375")
Head Bolts:
*7/16, 12 point socket is used to torque head bolts
*Block tapped with 7/16-14 for head bolts

6.9L New Style Block
Block Casting Number: 1807996C1 Note: Some new style blocks have casting
number 440. Above serial number 173828.
Visual Identification:
*Has counterbored area for block heater
*Very defined relief area cast in side of block for dip stick tube.
*Thickness of cast iron around block heater 15/32" (.470")
*Latest style (not all new style 6.9) has ribs around head bolts, rear two on left side go from head gasket surface to pan rail - same as 7.3
Head Bolts:
*Same as old style 6.9

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[RDieselKid84]

Thanks Wes ,I'LL check my blocks and see what l have. The 84 E350 came in April, it was a factory order. The other two engines are spares.

 

[WarNose]

Work got in the way and I didnt get to touch the motor for a while. I took your advice @Thewespaul and torqued down the head to check the piston to valve clearance again. Numbers were all over the place again. Actually different than what I measured last time. Still plenty of clearance, ranging from .050 to .090. At the time I thought the differences must be due to the play dough moving around from the multiple turns of the crank that it takes to do a whole cylinder head at once. I oiled the pistons and valves, but still the play dough would be moved around when I pulled the heads. I don't see the lifters compressing the washers inside much at all. I checked a few lobes on the cam and they were within .001 of the spec so I'm comfortabke with that. At this point I'm pretty sure there is enough clearance and decided to bolt the heads down.

I torqued the ARP studs to 100 ft/lbs. That is 20 more than ARP suggests. I figure that I may have to put new studs if I ever have to pull the heads, but I would rather have the higher clamping force. And why shouldn't a $250 set of head studs not be able to be torqued to stock 7.3 bolt numbers? 80 ft/lbs did not feel like much at all on the torque wrench.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Shaker Breaker]

I wonder if it could be an inconsistency in the thickness of a few of the valves? Motor is looking good. Btw , I use Silly Puddy instead of play doh, not sure if that would work better. It stays in place for me.

 

[WarNose]

When I bought my injection pump the guy threw in a set if lifters that he said had only an hour or so of run time. They were really clean with no soot, so I took them. Now that I look at them closer, the rollers feel really smooth but the outside surfaces have some wear. I am hesitant to use them in my freshly honed lifter bores. On the other hand, new lifter can be quite pricey. The Clevite lifters, which I read on here have the needle bearings are $18 each. The Mellings, which I have read have don't have the needle bearings, are $11 each. Enginetech, which I have no info on, are $6 each. I really want to be sure that I get needle bearing lifters.

Here are a few pics of what I have. Seems like more than an hour's worth of run time to me. I can feel a lot of that wear with my finger nail.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[WarNose]

I wonder if it could be an inconsistency in the thickness of a few of the valves? Motor is looking good. Btw , I use Silly Puddy instead of play doh, not sure if that would work better. It stays in place for me.

I checked the valve recesstion as best as I could with dial caliper. I also checked a few with feeler gauges to make sure that the readings were in the right ballpark. They were no more than .010 from each other. It was actually probably less than that. Next weekend I'm going to try compressing one of my solid lifters in the vice.

I bet the silly puddy does work better. That play dough just moves around.

 

[Thewespaul]

If those lifters only had an hour of run time it must have been without oil because that’s a lot of wear for a like new lifter. Avoid engitech, those other options are fine. I run Johnson hi lifts in my engines. They are pricey and have a wait time since they are custom made, but they are the best you can buy. American made, and I’ve had several sets running over 4500 rpms regularly without issues

 

[The_Josh_Bear]

I like seeing this come along, thanks for sharing your build!

For the torque, 100 ft lbs is great, I think. I wish I could remember what the stock IDIT torque was, but it's more than N/A. I think 100, not sure. I think @Thewespaul mentioned the spec in another thread.

Weird about the valve clearance. But hey like you said, they all clear by plenty and that's the most important right now.

Dang that's a lot of scoring for one hour run time! I wonder what the rest of the engine looked like... maybe no assembly lube?!

 

[Thewespaul]

110 ft lbs on the idit. At 100 keep it under 17 and you’ll be fine

 

[WarNose]

So I made a real idiot mistake. When I read about doing the cooling mod, I thought I was supposed to leave the inserts out. But I just read about the guy installing studs while the motor is in his truck and @Thewespaul points out that the insert is still needed, just with enlarged holes. So now the heads need to come off again. I'm wondering if I need to replace the head studs, since I torqued them to 100 ft/lbs. This is really aggrevating, but at least I didn't figure this out any later.

 

[Thewespaul]

That stinks, but like you said better now than later. To check the condition of the studs, measure the overall length and see if it’s stretched, the lengths of the studs should be on the arp site when you look up the kit. You can also run the nut down the threads and see if it goes down easy by hand. If it’s stretched significantly or the nut binds on any part of the threads I’d replace them.

 

[WarNose]

Thank you, sir. I knew you would know.

 

[The_Josh_Bear]

So I made a real idiot mistake. When I read about doing the cooling mod, I thought I was supposed to leave the inserts out. But I just read about the guy installing studs while the motor is in his truck and @Thewespaul points out that the insert is still needed, just with enlarged holes. So now the heads need to come off again. I'm wondering if I need to replace the head studs, since I torqued them to 100 ft/lbs. This is really aggrevating, but at least I didn't figure this out any later.

Hopefully this will make you feel better:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1306098-head-bolt-stud-tech-thread-2.html
Post #16 is the torque-to-yeild test done by Justin @ R&D on the ARP 7.3 head studs. No stretch until 190+ft-lbs!!!

Edit: you are running a 6.9, doh. That's post #1 and no stretch until 130ft-lbs. Justin mentions that he would consider 120 safe for 6.9 studs.

 

[Tristan]

Hopefully this will make you feel better:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1306098-head-bolt-stud-tech-thread-2.html
Post #16 is the torque-to-yeild test done by Justin @ R&D on the ARP 7.3 head studs. No stretch until 190+ft-lbs!!!

Edit: you are running a 6.9, doh. That's post #1 and no stretch until 130ft-lbs. Justin mentions that he would consider 120 safe for 6.9 studs.

Good read Josh. Thanks for posting that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk