Radiator Puke Tank

[76BroncoPete]

If I only need 4% reservoir capacity of my appr 384 oz system then I'd only need a pint capacity reservoir. That's what I had for decades but with the 460 stroker it would always burp about another pint or more on to the ground.

My theory based not on my ability to explain the physics behind it because I don't need to in this case (and most of you know I'm a numbers/engineer geek) but because I have a different situation than most Broncos that I tried to explain earlier.

When my HP numbers grew from a stock 289 to now 3+ times what the stock 289 ever generated the huge boiler fired heater I run now - called a 460stroker- generates a HUGE amount of btu's extremly quickly thereby (explained to me by an engineer at Griffin I think that's where it was) creating what he said was a much bigger rush/push/bubble/amount (for lack of a physics accepted term) of superheated water out thru the tstat and into the radiator. This "superheated" water as he put it created a large surge and expansion that would need to be expended out the overflow into the tank. Take an engine making 1/3rd the HP and the tank could be MUCH smaller he said. Hence the reason I needed to go to a full quart instead of 12+ oz or so which worked well for so long.

Back when I had my 289 or 351 with the tube running down to the ground the only time I dumped any fluid would be when the radiator was still accidently covered with cardboard from winter time. Pull that out and the water would sit a 1/2-1" below the neck pulling boat trailers, tent trailer, boat on top of the Bronco, over 12,000ft gravel mountain passes in 100deg heat with kids/6 weeks worth of gear- never mattered. It DOES matter with stooopid HP WHEN it is being generated tho.

Thanks for posting this

 

[sprdv1]

I know right...?? How many of this and that have we replaced over the decades? I keep track I guess because I do stuff like weigh almost everything that comes off or goes on my Bronco... I like details (usually the ones that don't matter! lol )
So for me it's been 5 radiators but 6 engines.

lol, and the list continues to grow

 

[sprdv1]

Marti says it was built 3/25/68.
Fill neck was in original radiator.
Never had the high surge tank in top radiator hose.
However Lutz Ford kept trying to sell me two upper radiator hoses (with a gap for the surge tank).
I finally took the original single hose to the parts counter, and after a couple of calls to district parts desk they figured out which hose I needed.

good info

 

[sprdv1]

So I was correct. A larger radiator might require a larger recovery tank.
In theory?


You're welcome.
But I don't always add them for my health. It's for yours as well.
I don't like spitting anti-freeze mixtures (or even dirty water) down on the pavement any more than the rest of the tree-hugging Bronco owners did. Since we have an option not to do that, I prefer to catch and return instead.
Rather than release...

Paul

lol, definitely not

 

[Oldtimer]

But every other 68 Bronco with a 289 got the surge tank, and the single piece upper radiator hose didn't exist until the 1969 model year.

I'll look thru my slides one day to prove this wrong. My '68 did NOT have a surge tank. It DID have a one pc upper rad hose. It did NOT have a tank to t-stat hose.... and of course it didn't have the hardware.

So in my search to find a suitable upper radiator hose I came across this.
The MPC does not list different radiators for 68/69, but the upper radiator hose changed at ser# C70001 when they went to a side flow radiator with an integral fill neck.
My 68 is D12056 built in March of 68.



As a side note:
If looking for a upper radiator hose for a stock V8 in a 68 and later Bronco the
Gates 20626, Napa 7389 and Dayco 70786 upper hoses are not long enough, despite what manufactures list them for.
A Continental 60710 (Goodyear) is longer and will work.
The label on Continental mentions D70786. I assume they want you to cut it to length to use it in that application.

Amazon.ca

 

[DirtDonk]

Good info.
You also have a 351, and what looks like a non-original radiator from here.
I wonder if that, along with perhaps the engine being tilted in the V-notches on the frame, would be enough to misalign a hose.
Especially a too-short one!

 

[Oldtimer]

It is a 4 row core, but inlet is in same place.
1" body lift and 351, but the issue is fore & aft fitment. more than left to right.
If hose is installed on radiator, it would be into the fan.

 

[jeffncs]

I use this on my mustang and the broncos will also see them too…. You mount it parallel to the main radiator.

https://www.cjponyparts.com/cj-clas...MI2IDPwaGhggMVHUB_AB0JYQlCEAQYBCABEgKEtPD_BwE

 

[jamesroney]

So in my search to find a suitable upper radiator hose I came across this.
The MPC does not list different radiators for 68/69, but the upper radiator hose changed at ser# C70001 when they went to a side flow radiator with an integral fill neck.
My 68 is D12056 built in March of 68.

View attachment 913179

Well, there you go! Running change in the 1968 model year starting in January.

I'll look thru my slides one day to prove this wrong. My '68 did NOT have a surge tank. It DID have a one pc upper rad hose. It did NOT have a tank to t-stat hose.... and of course it didn't have the hardware.

snip...
Someone is wrong about this and it's not me or Oldtimer. It's ok, I was wrong already once today and have a long way to go to fill my quota just for the day.

Yeah, you keep saying that...and I'm not going to argue with you.

But every other 68 Bronco with a 289 got the surge tank, and the single piece upper radiator hose didn't exist until the 1969 model year. So yes, it is possible that you have the only Bronco produced in 1968 that someone left the assembly line, ran to a hardware store, bought a hose, ran to a radiator shop, invented a radiator with a cap on it, brought it BACK to the assembly line, and installed it after the engine was assembled, and before it was installed in the chassis. Then they managed to delete the surge tank, upper hose, tank to thermostat hose, and the hardware. All in less than TakT time of about 90 seconds.

I haven't had a chance to check the MPC on service parts for your build date. It is also possible (and vastly more likely) that there was a mid 68 running change in production. March is about 2/3 of the way thru the year. But I think the change happened in the 69 model year. Could have happened in March of 68.

Easy enough to verify. I figured someone that actually knew would chime in.

All right, @Oldtimer, @nvrstuk said "someone" is wrong, and it isn't you two. That kinda leaves me. I said it was most likely a running change in 68. But I thought it happened in 69.

It turns out it WAS a running change in 68, But I was wrong about the upper hose. It has a C8 part number.

So I get to be wrong. I'll take it!

 

[nvrstuk]

Well, there you go! Running change in the 1968 model year starting in January.



All right, @Oldtimer, @nvrstuk said "someone" is wrong, and it isn't you two. That kinda leaves me. I said it was most likely a running change in 68. But I thought it happened in 69.

It turns out it WAS a running change in 68, But I was wrong about the upper hose. It has a C8 part number.

So I get to be wrong. I'll take it!

So after all this I was right?? LOL

That makes twice this yr... already!!!

 

[Oldtimer]

It's not about right or wrong.
It's about helping the next guy find an answer.

Plus we're all married here, so we're never right

 

[nvrstuk]

... but "2" is a record for me in one year!