Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Stupid ? time again (Read 1712 times) previous topic - next topic

Stupid ? time again

OK, I got a kinda stupid question that's been bugging me lately.  It may have been discussed before, but oh well.  Why is it that our cars never came as 5 bolt from the factory, or even the mustangs for that case?  I mean I had an '84 Dodge Shelby Charger that was 5 bolt, but they also came as 4 bolt.  Wouldn't you figure that Ford would have the option for it, even as part of a package, I mean, our cars are a good deal bigger and heavier, but no option for a 5 bolt?  Sorry for the rant, and if I brought up an old subject, but like I said, it's been bugging me lately.
'86 cougar gone to the big yard.
'86&'88 Jeep Comanches.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #1 –
Here is another case of ford being weird with that kinda stuff the only focus you can get a 151hp 2.3 in is the ZX4 ST. They dont offer it in any of the hatchbacks, except when they were still making the SVT but thats a whole other story.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #2 –
i believe the saying is... "Ford and their infinite wisdom"  probably trying to save a buck for a stud and lug.  which isn't a bad thing... i got five lug on my car right now... but only four lug nuts :P  i'm also cheap and never bothered adding the extra lug when i converted it.
84 TC 302 -5.0L/t5/7.5 locking rear and a 3.45 gear, Edelbrock Intake, Aluminum Heads, Edlebrock 65mm Throttlebody, Edlebrock Cam, 24lb injectors & MAS Air Sensor calibrated via chip,  BBK headers, Catback H pipe, Magnaflow lers :evilgrin:
:pics-stfu:

 Project Thread with pics

Stupid ? time again

Reply #3 –
The year was 1978...automakers were in the midst of an oil crisis...Ford's plans were to cut costs and start manufacturing parts in metric measurements as well as American standard. The new Fox/Fairmont platform was introduced and hence, the 4-lug spec was born...as well as the infamous TRX metric rims. And we got the legacy.

We also have interior reading lamps (in the back sail panels) with a 1968 part number, and the IVR is dated from 1971. But nobody ever complains about those. ;)

Stupid ? time again

Reply #4 –
Quote from: EricCoolCats
The year was 1978...automakers were in the midst of an oil crisis...Ford's plans were to cut costs and start manufacturing parts in metric measurements as well as American standard. The new Fox/Fairmont platform was introduced and hence, the 4-lug spec was born...as well as the infamous TRX metric rims. And we got the legacy.

We also have interior reading lamps (in the back sail panels) with a 1968 part number, and the IVR is dated from 1971. But nobody ever complains about those. ;)

That is very interesting,  where did you get the info.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #5 –
Mustang books and some parts research history. I'm actually compiling a parts list for our cars as we speak. My neighbor has the identical reading lamps in his 1969 Mach I.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #6 –
Quote from: t-bird85
That is very interesting,  where did you get the info.


It's just Eric. He came that way. If they ever have a Fox body version of Trivial Pursuit, he'll dominate.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #7 –
Quote from: oldraven
It's just Eric. He came that way. If they ever have a Fox body version of Trivial Pursuit, he'll dominate.

LOL, I see....

Stupid ? time again

Reply #8 –
Quote from: oldraven
It's just Eric. He came that way. If they ever have a Fox body version of Trivial Pursuit, he'll dominate.


LMAO that's amazing.  It isn't really a stupid question, I've wondered about it myself.  Another thing I wondered was why did the TC get the better braking system when it is the lighter car?  Eric?

Stupid ? time again

Reply #9 –
Quote from: DakotaEpic
LMAO that's amazing.  It isn't really a stupid question, I've wondered about it myself.  Another thing I wondered was why did the TC get the better braking system when it is the lighter car?  Eric?


Because it was the faster/sportier model. More speed = a need for better braking.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #10 –
Quote
why did the TC get the better braking system when it is the lighter car?


Actually I think that the TC was the heaviest of the Fox Thunderbirds.

Quote
We also have interior reading lamps (in the back sail panels) with a 1968 part number, and the IVR is dated from 1971. But nobody ever complains about those.


Yep I noticed that too. A guy in my Thunderbird club has a 73 Thunderbird. It has the same reading lamps and dome light as mine!
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #11 –
Actually...when you add up the weight of the extra wiring, thicker carpeting and padding, the larger suspension components, the ABS system, the extra sensors, the heavier 8.8" rear end (by 80 lbs., and I'm sticking with that number! LOL), and the 16" wheels and tires, it's not lighter by much. ;) But I think when Ford split the XR7 from the TC in 1987, they decided to make the TC its technical flagship, whereas the XR7 was more of a tried-and-true solution (V8).

Essentially the 'Bird and Cat turned around FoMoCo's fortunes and they suddenly had all this cash to play with in 1984-85. So we all got the new dash and interior in '85...cool. Well, one of the biggest issues that Ford heard from its dealers was the continual problems with the non-intercooled turbos. They just burned up...I think mostly because of the owners thrashing the cars, but possibly because they weren't that hearty to begin with. See, there's this thing called the "owner's manual" that usually resides in the glove box, and it seems that turbo-4 owners didn't like to read them much because they'd have found out that the 2.3t needed more maintenance than a non-turbo engine. They also would have learned that they needed to keep the car running for about a minute after they parked the car, and before they turned off the engine, to help the oil circulate heat out of the turbo unit. Did they bother to do that maintenance or otherwise follow those instructions? Why, heavens no. Therefore...ka-BLAM, instant warranty claims. There was a LOT of warranty work on the turbos back then, which is funny because Ford was using virtually the same motor since 1979 on the Mustang, but you didn't hear any bitching until the early TC and XR7 turbo models. If anything, the addition of EEC-IV to the turbo-4 was a godsend for that engine, but it still couldn't solve the heat issues. Ford was just losing money left and right replacing those turbos. So, with the new '87 TC, Ford added the air-to-water intercooler (adapted from the dealer-installed Spearco FMIC). This helped make the car more owner-friendly as far as maintenance and parts longevity, and Ford pretty much solved their biggest issue with the 2.3t. The bonus was a significant boost in power as well, thanks to the ram-air style hood.

Finally they had a Fox car worthy of approving a large brake upgrade (although you and I will argue that ALL Fox cars needed bigger brakes!). They were also working on the Mark VII at the same time...if you look at the '87 TC and the '87 Mark VII, their timelines, their options, their principles were very similar to each other. But as you may know, Ford has always treated Lincolns differently, meaning they got their own unique parts (bigger brakes, 5-lug, different ABS system, etc.). So that leaves the TC as its own enigma, a sort of test bed for future cars including the 1993 Mustang Cobra/Cobra R, and the SN95 Mustang program. The one part of the TC that was truly groundbreaking--the adjustable suspension--is now obsolete and nobody makes replacement shocks and struts for them. The braking system more or less found its way into Mustangs. The 1994-98 Mustang V8 rear end essentially was a TC rear end. The 1994-98 Mustang control arms came directly from a TC. Even the SN95 spring rates are very similar. The Mustang essentially grew into the TC's footprint, falling under 2" short of its wheelbase.

Long answer, I know, but you can see how the TC became a very integral part of Ford's early 1990's plans, and also provided both the parts and the knowledge learned from the TC.

But Oldraven is right...the TC topped out at ~141mph so it required bigger brakes. :)

Stupid ? time again

Reply #12 –
I thought of a few other parts that have their origins in the early-to-middle 1970's:

- Power seat switch (1978 Lincoln Town Car)
- Power seat motors (mid-1970's midsize Fords)
- Window switches (1980 XR7/Thunderbrick)

These parts are dated around 1983 for our cars because the switchgear is anodized/painted black. The earlier cars had chrome switchgear but internally are identical to what we had. So they are all the same, just different visual finishes. I also believe the buttstuffog clock was early 1980's or older.

Alright...y'all got me all fired up now...who's got some more? ;)

EDIT: Oh yeah, that dome light, almost forgot about that...it is early 1970's in origin.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #13 –
That still doesn't explain why I have a 1973 Thunderbird dome light in my car :raspberry . LOl j/k :D
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #14 –
Anyone else feel like they just put an encylcopedia down? ;)



:cheers:

tgif