Unfortunately unforseen financial difficulties forced me to sell before I could do anything beyond what was seen in the video. And I don't recall if there was a separate gray tank or not. But be aware, for many RVs of this vintage (especially "base" models like the Brave) only had a single tank for both black and gray water, so it is entirely likely you only have one. Your best bet will be to crawl underneath and look. You will have a fuel tank near the fuel filler neck, and some kind of sewer tank attached to the sewer dump. If there is only a single tank attached to the sewer dump, you only have the one. If there are two, then likely one is black and one is gray.

@ yep you’re right… black tank only. Thanks for your response.

If you're ever in SE Arizona, let's see if we can schedule a build!

@@oldschoolautomotive2660 nice I got a 1991 f-450 crewcab that has Been stretched

Glad you enjoy it! Hoping to be able to bring content more regularly in the near future!

The FPR is on the driver side of the fuel bowl. And yes, fuel is drawn under suction into the LPFP, which then pumps that fuel under low pressure into the bowl/filter housing. From there, it is pulled into the HPFP and pressure is boosted to 55+ PSI. From there, it goes into the heads at the rear, feeds the injectors, and any unused fuel returns through the FPR, and then back to the tank via a return line. Yes, there is also a filter screen with the original FPR, and I think you're right on how it works, but I chopped this part off and used the original FPR with my E-fuel conversion long ago, and I don't fully remember. (Google "tightwad mod" if you're interested in learning how I recycled my FPR this way). At any rate, your understanding of the fuel system so far is spot-on. There is a troubleshooting flowchart floating around the internet that is very helpful. But in a nutshell, you should determine that you have fuel flowing to the injectors at the proper PSI (spec is 55+, with 65+ being ideal, but it *will* run or at least kick with very little fuel pressure at the injectors; mine will run, albeit like crap, with zero fuel pressure). Once you have fuel, you need to make sure you have High Pressure Oil. Often disconnecting the IPR is a good way to troubleshoot, because when disconnected it will default to full pressure, so as long as your HPOP is good, your injectors will be getting the 2000-3000 psi of oil they need. The last part of the equation is firing the injectors, which is accomplished by the PCM/ECU and the CPS. When cranking, make sure your tach is registering RPM. If not, your CPS or ECU might be at fault. Regardless, if the tach isn't moving, it WILL NOT fire the injectors. Also, make sure the starting system is in good shape, as the ECU won't even attempt to fire the injectors until at least 300-500 RPM. If it's cranking slow, there's no use in wasting your time until you fix the slow crank issue.

Unfortunately a family emergency hit this past summer, and I was forced to sell it. 😭 With any luck though, I'll be able to find another and pick up where I left off in a few years. In retrospect, it'll be better to start off with one in better shape. 🤷

@@oldschoolautomotive2660 sorry to hear about the challenge you faced. Im working on a 72 D18 winnabego brave.

I just saw the first video. Sorry to had to bail on the project due to family problems.

Each job is different, and the final cost reflects that, but a *very* rough ballpark estimate is around $1500 and $2000 in labor. That's for measuring, cutting, and welding; ready to go to the body shop for them to do primer, filler, and paint (we're not set up for bodywork... yet). It's entirely possible such a job may come in cheaper, since having already done one just like that, the experience makes for faster work the second time (vs the "one-off" custom work we usually do). Check out our Facebook page below, and send us a direct message to discuss your project! facebook.com/OldSchoolBell?mibextid=ZbWKwL

@oldschoolautomotive2660 great work. It's a market for those , test the waters. I will congratulate you later

Unfortunately, there will never be a follow-up video, as a family emergency forced me to sell it to a friend with the option to buy it back, but it was subsequently stolen. =(

Normally yes, but in this case sandblasting was necessary first for several reasons (one of which was to identify if the seat platform was going to need replacement or not). In a multi-employee restoration shop, all the cutting and hot work could be accomplished quickly enough after blasting that flash-rusting wouldn't be an issue. But since I'm a one-man operation, it will take several weeks to get all the hot work done, and there would be so much flash-rust that the body would have to be blasted again. So for my needs, it makes more sense to prime the blasted areas, clean off the primer near the welds, then apply primer to the fresh metal and welds. Or to say it another way, my situation dictates that I'd end up either blasting twice, or spraying primer twice, and I'd much rather spray primer than blast. But you're totally right, if you have the option to do the hot work first, that's absolutely the best way to go!

@@oldschoolautomotive2660 no I understand what you're doing. I've been doing this for over 60 years. However the way things work out for me I would wind up burning what I'd already painted. It's just the way things work out in this neck of the woods. I have to take the precaution to not paint it prior to all of the metal work being done.

Sorry for the incredibly delayed reply. That is no kit, that is a fully custom intercooler install. Using the intercooler from a 6.0L Ford Powerstroke, the intercooler pipes are fabricated from 3" exhaust tubing, and bends are achieved by cutting the proper angle out of a prefabricated mandrel bent section of tube which is then welded in place. The intake spider is similarly custom fabricated by cutting the flange off the original turbo to manifold y-pipe, and welding it to a series of mandrel bends, exhaust reducers, and exhaust tubing. The beauty of owning a welder and having fabrication skills is that scrap metal laying around can be transformed into whatever you want it to be!

Nope, that would only be true if they were factory-style rubber-bushed, which they are not. These are rollers, so not only can they be installed in either orientation, both Global West and OpenTracker suggest purposely mounting the perches "backwards" with the tab and spring tail outboard. Supposedly makes for a slightly lower stance, and better handling. But the bottom line is that roller perches can be mounted either way, unlike their factory counterparts.

@@oldschoolautomotive2660 - Very interesting I did not know that, obviously.

Can't wait until the motor home is running

The drop isn't meant to help with bumpsteer, it's meant to change the camber curve of the suspension to make the front end "grippier", and that it does! In the 60s, Ford was worried that a sport suspension would be a liability on the street; that a car that would oversteer would end up causing people to wreck, and thus bring lawsuits. So to prevent that, Ford purposely gave the Mustang a camber curve that would cause the car to understeer in all conditions - this was believed to be more predictable for the average driver. By lowering the upper control arm mounting point, as theorized by Claus Arning and used to good effect by Caroll Shelby, the new camber curve made the front end "stick", allowing for throttle-on oversteer/throttle-off neutral handling, rather than the factory understeer. This is much more suited to sport/performance driving, and this mod does exactly that. As to bump steer, that is addressed differently- by changing the mounting point of the tie rod end in relation to the steering knuckle. It's the subject of a completely different modification, and has nothing to do with UCA lowering and roller perches.

The project has been on hold for far too long while I work on customer cars instead of my own, but the swap (physically) is pretty easy - it's a direct bolt-in! The Rambler motor mounts and engine brackets match up to the Jeep engine - they never changed any of the mounting bosses significantly in the entire production run. If I recall, two of the three bolt holes lined up perfectly, and only one was different, but there was a cast mounting boss that still lined up. At any rate, using the Rambler mounts and brackets had the engine sitting in the bay PERFECTLY, and the 2wd Jeep transmission will just need a simple custom-fabbed crossmember. There are plenty of other small things, but getting it physically in the car is no harder than R&Ring the original engine.

You're entitled to your [wrong] opinion, but to say that the 7.3 PSD is "one of the worst diesel engine designs ever produced" is worse than just hysterical brand hate- it's downright WRONG. 7.3s *routinely* last hundreds of thousands of miles (this example is still going strong with well over 300k miles), and the *only* reason the dipstick flange repair is an issue at all is because the pickup chassis in which the engine is installed was not originally designed with room for a diesel engine (the frame design is virtually unchanged since 1980- a 17 year production run, AND the frame carries over a large portion of it's design from earlier frames of the 60s and 70s). The long and the short of it is that Ford shoehorned the 7.3 into these old body style trucks, and as a result it is virtually impossible to remove the oil pan while the engine is still installed in the truck, leading to the need for this Rube Goldberg repair. That's not a fault of the engine design (which was actually designed for school buses and medium duty trucks), that's simply a difficulty due to packaging. Let me fill you in on a little secret: practically every oil dipstick tube in existence uses either an o-ring or a gasket of some sort, and ALL of them leak eventually. The reason it's not an issue with most other engines is because those other vehicles were designed around their engines thus making things like oil pan removal with the engine still in the vehicle possible. Being able to pull the oil pan, which is possible when this engine is installed in the type of vehicles it was designed for, makes this dipstick flange repair a piece of cake. In fact, the Elegance of the multi-piece dipstick flange is apparent when you think about the fact that it allows different dipstick mounting locations for the different vehicle installations (thus adding versatility and value to the engine design), and in a medium duty truck this simple leak would be easy to repair with a minimal o-ringreplacement and maximum reusability of existing metal pieces. That's not a bad design, that's a great design! The only thing that makes this design "bad" is that the dipstick flange was not designed with Ford pickups in mind, and Ford pickups were not designed with the 7.3 in mind. It's basically I'm off the wall shoehorn job motor swap that was available from the factory. The bottom line is this: the tight packaging of the 7.3 powerstroke in an OBS Ford pickup does not make the 7.3 poor design. That claim is about as idiotic as stuffing an LS V8 into a Geo metro, then complaining when you have to pull the engine in order to change the spark plugs. Just because it's packaged so tightly that you can't service the engine doesn't mean it's a shitty engine. It just means it's too much motor for the space available, and the motor and the chassis weren't designed to work together. And the overall scheme of things, an inexpensive and fairly straightforward fix like this is a small price to pay for a million mile motor that will tow anything you can hook to it and get 20 miles per gallon doing it. Take your brand hate someplace else. We deal strictly with facts here on this channel. 🙋

As a Ford certified diesel tech, I'll say it's one of the best examples of over engineering, the sweet spot of reliability, decent power, and value for the money. I've worked on these superduties since the 6.4 era... And I can tell you.for absolutely certain, NONE of the newer engines are anywhere near as reliable. Not even the highly praised 6.7 powerstoke. Don't.get me wrong, it's ability and size and weight are extremely impressive, but that comes at the cost of reliability. LOTS to go wrong on the newer trucks like the 6.0, (high pressure oil leaks) the 6.4 powerstokes are absolutely insane to work on... and the parts are crazy expensive. The 6.7 suffers from a plethora of problems and failures as well... like def heater failures, nox sensors, exhaust temp sensors, manifold leaks, turbo failures, high pressure fuel system failures(cp3 and cp4) and on and on and on... I've seen cranks broken, dropped valves, all kinds of stuff on the new 6.7's. What I can also tell you, I've seen way too many examples of 500k+ mile 7.3's, both on the classic obs, and new body style trucks, that I couldn't count them. I had one customer that came in for service once a year, hauling cars. That's all the truck did. Never without a trailer on it. 1.3 million miles was the last time I saw it almost a decade ago. I often wonder where it's at now. I saw too many examples of extremely high milage 7.3 to pass it up. Even after experiencing the new trucks, with quiet engines and interiors, boatloads of tire frying power, heated/cooled seats, and all the fancy stuff, I saw the problems they had, and went for the "old" truck. I waited years to find the right one, an 03, the very last year. It's now nearing 300k mostly heavy tow miles, and runs extremely well. Factory everything other than a whole lot upgrades it didn't really need. Arguably the best pickup EVER produced, in my professional opinion. This is a minor inconvenience for the value you'd typically get with an old truck like this, even if you DID pay to remove the engine to fix this problem. Just some more facts for ya, before you go around looking extremely uneducated and down right stupid again, when it comes to talking about powerstokes.

Actually, I got it in trade for work I did on a 1960 Ford Falcon wagon. The Rambler was a customer car with a blown up engine, and we built a high performance 289 that we were going to jam in the Rambler. However, the customer ended up finding his dream car, a 1960 Ford falcon wagon, and not being able to afford to both buy the Falcon wagon and pay me to install the engine, so we worked out a deal where he gave me the Rambler in exchange for my services putting the 289 in the Falcon. Once the Falcon was done and the Rambler was my blank canvas, I just had to cruise the Facebook Marketplace ads until I found an inexpensive two-wheel drive Cherokee, and we were off to the races. As far as the shape the car is in, that's one of the awesome things about living in Arizona- cars here are naturally well preserved and a lot of times it's like working on a time capsule. I absolutely love it! It beats the heck out of working on the rusty and rotted vehicles that I grew up with in Northern Maine.

Plus, in my humble, uneducated opinion, the 7.3 and the 300 Six were and are some of the best, most reliable mills Ford has ever fielded.