Stupid ? time again

Topic: Stupid ? time again (Read 1713 times) previous topic - next topic

Stupid ? time again

Reply #15 – February 24, 2006, 08:31:27 PM

LOL! I did a lot of reading...also, hanging around the Ford garage while your car was getting other warranty repair work done had its benefits.

What I have come to know, anybody can know if they start digging around the junkyard a little bit. Comparing parts is knowledge just waiting to be discovered.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #16 – February 24, 2006, 08:46:50 PM

Quote from: EricCoolCats

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.).

Well at least they used to. The Zephyr and Mark LT (esp the Mark LT) prove that they are just Ford's with Lincoln badges on 'em. :)

I'll add to Eric's list:

Tripminder: 1980
Keyless entry: 1980
Graphic EQ: 1984, perhaps? The first car I saw it in was a 1984 EXP

Let me try to stump Eric on a few:

window cranks? (both chrome and black plastic)
square power mirror switch?
digital clock?

The only one I know for sure is the clock, but lets see what E-man knows off the top of his head. :)

Stupid ? time again

Reply #17 – February 24, 2006, 09:02:07 PM

Quote from: EricCoolCats

the heavier 8.8" rear end (by 80 lbs., and I'm sticking with that number! LOL)

Ya know, when I do my TC rear swap this spring I'm gonna have to weigh both rear ends and solve this question once and for all...

In respect to the original intent of this thread, I've got another question: Why do so many people even care how many lug nuts are holding their wheels on? I would bet that there is not a single case of a wheel coming off one of these cars (or any other car, for that matter), where "not enough lug nuts" was the cause, except of course in cases where the owner didn't put all the nuts on. Regardless of how many lug nuts hold the wheel on it all comes down to the C-clip in the axle. That sucker breaks and it doesn't matter if you've got 80 lug nuts. In the front end you've got a single spindle nut with a cotter pin.

Sometimes even within a car line there are different lug nut numbers - a V6 Accord has five, a 4-cyl has 4. A Neon with 13" wheels has 4, a Neon with 14" wheels has five. A mid 60's six-cylinder Mustang had four, a V8 Mustang had five. Even the Fox Mustang had one model with 5-lug wheels - the SVO. For 73-99 GM trucks, 2WD had 5, 4WD had 6. Toyota trucks were the same - 5 lugs for 2WD, 6 for 4WD. For 87-90 Dakotas there were five lugs, then 91-04 had six lugs, then 05+ has five again. And the "Bondurant Birds", the 87 5.0 converted Turbo Coupes the Bondurant driving school used, had 5-lug front wheels (Lincoln rotors) and 4-lug rear wheels (stock TC).

It all comes down to this: The Fox chassis was originally intended as a small-midsize economy car. Ford simply never saw any reason to change the lug count except on the SVO Mustang (probably just to make it "different" and the Lincolns (probably to make them upscale). Four lug wheels have served most Fox cars perfectly well for over two decades.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #18 – February 24, 2006, 09:12:26 PM

Quote from: Thunder Chicken

Ford simply never saw any reason to change the lug count except on the SVO Mustang (probably just to make it "different" and the Lincolns (probably to make them upscale). Four lug wheels have served most Fox cars perfectly well for over two decades.

Yup, the SVO's brakes and front suspension (control arms, spindles) was lifted from the 1982 Continental. Ever since the original Cadillac Seville of 1976(?) was a run away success, Ford knew they had to make a smaller luxury car and a modified Fox was the best they could budget at the time. Turned out pretty good, overall.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #19 – February 24, 2006, 09:47:19 PM

Quote from: pro-five-oh

Yup, the SVO's brakes and front suspension (control arms, spindles) was lifted from the 1982 Continental. Ever since the original Cadillac Seville of 1976(?) was a run away success, Ford knew they had to make a smaller luxury car and a modified Fox was the best they could budget at the time. Turned out pretty good, overall.

Certainly better than the Cimarron :D

Stupid ? time again

Reply #20 – February 24, 2006, 11:05:48 PM

Quote from: Thunder Chicken

Certainly better than the Cimarron :D

Except for I see Contis about as often as I see Cimarrons these days.

But the 80s Sevilles are still common, both in town and on eBay. I don't get it.:)

Stupid ? time again

Reply #21 – February 25, 2006, 12:17:15 AM

Quote

Let me try to stump Eric on a few:

window cranks? (both chrome and black plastic)
square power mirror switch?
digital clock?

The only one I know for sure is the clock, but lets see what E-man knows off the top of his head.

Window cranks are 1978 (Fairmont) or 1979 (Mustang). They should be both the same though.

Digital clock should be 1980-ish. They were square-Bird issue for sure.

Square mirror switch...I'm not aware of anything before 1985, but if I were to guess, maybe 1984 Mark VII?

Some of the cars that y'all own, I've never seen in the boneyard here, so I'm not familiar with like ALL of the Fox cars.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #22 – February 25, 2006, 03:17:49 AM

Not to derail the thread, but the other day I saw one of those Caddy Cimarron....things.
It looked like a...well, a F&%^ed older cavalier/sunbird...please don't tell me they made a Caddy out of an econmy car....
If they did....hmmm, what were they thinkin'??

Stupid ? time again

Reply #23 – February 25, 2006, 03:22:36 AM

why yes....yes they did. nice huh?

Stupid ? time again

Reply #24 – February 25, 2006, 07:39:31 AM

i think that was caddie's attempt to make a "nice" car everyone could afford, i rember learning about em in school lol. im sure they were still nice tho, probley worlds better than a base cavalier

Stupid ? time again

Reply #25 – February 25, 2006, 10:50:04 AM

I don't remember them as being 'quality' vehicles...there was a lot to be questioned about the Cimmaron since it was built here in Lordstown, OH. The magazine reviews were very critical at the time. If memory serves me right, the J-car was the last platform to see duty in all of GM's divisions (Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird/J-2000, Buick Skyhawk, Olds Firenza, Cadillac Cimmaron). Maybe that's why GM did it...just to complete the puzzle. Some things should just be left undone.

Stupid ? time again

Reply #26 – February 25, 2006, 11:10:27 AM

Quote from: EricCoolCats

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.

Thats not quite the only reason. People would thrash the cars, yes, but not letting it idle for a minute or two wasnt the ending factor. A big problem with the cars was that they also didnt have a bypass valve from the factory. Basically meaning, under full boost, you get off the gas, the throttle blade closes, and the turbo is still spinning, and air is still flowing, and then its an abrubt stop in the intake, forcing air BACK through the turbo. Thats call compressor surge. That is what killed my stock IHI turbo. It puts massive stress on the bearings.

Quote

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.

While they are a 2.3L turbo, and very similar, the turbo system was very different. They used a draw through carb setup. Basically meaning that the carburator was on the turbo inlet, the turbo sucked the air through the carb, then blew it into the engine. The big difference is, there is no such thing as compressor surge, you let off the throttle, the air stops flowing to the turbo, so it just freewheels untill it stops, or you get back onto the throttle.

Quote

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.

Whoa dude, where did you get this from? In 87-88, they used a totally different turbo, that was water cooled (the 85-86 Garretts were also water cooled, 84 is a toss up). The 87-88 also got a top mount intercooler, which is an air-to-air style intercooler. Even with the water cooling and intercooler, parts still broke, and they still did warranty work on the Warner-Ishi turbos, just wasnt nearly as bad. As for the intercooler, it is a spearco core, with ford endtanks. You may be confusing the Spearco FMIC kit you could buy on the aftermarket, but thats a 100% different setup.

Quote

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.

Actually, the TC, Mark VII, and the early SC's use the same ABS system. Its packaged slightly differently in the SC's, the acspoogeulator is mounted differently, resovior is different. etc, but its the same stuff. The 93 Cobra actually uses a TC rear, TC rear brakes, and Mustang front brakes. The 91-92 Mark VII also uses TC rear brake brackets and calipers, but their own rotor.

Quote

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 original shocks and struts were made by Tokico, and the SC's also used a Tokico system, which is identical in design, but due to the MN12 suspension differences, they used different "packaging"

Stupid ? time again

Reply #27 – February 25, 2006, 12:02:42 PM

Nice job, Eric!

Quote from: EricCoolCats

Digital clock should be 1980-ish. They were square-Bird issue for sure.

I am 99% sure the clock first saw the light of day in the 1979 Lincoln Versailles. The older models had an-old school Cartier chronometer, but the digital clock was obviously more hi-tech. :)

Stupid ? time again

Reply #28 – February 25, 2006, 01:11:57 PM

Jeeves, that makes sense. I've never seen a Versailles in the boneyard...and if I did, I'm positive the rear end would be missing.

Shawn, a few things:
- The point of people not reading the owner's manual is that the turbo-4 cars were NOT like their V6 and V8 counterparts. Yes, people beat the hell out of them. But they also did not seem to maintain them according to Ford's specs. Again, I acknowledged the turbo design limitations for the early cars as being a factor also. It was essentially a disaster waiting to happen, and Ford ended up losing on all sides because of their generous warranty coverage. I believe even a replacement turbo unit back then had a 3-year/36K mile warranty. So people could essentially feel that they never had to maintain the motor, and could beat on it all they wanted, and when it broke...hey, no problem, Ford covers it. How long did it take Ford to figure this out? Looks like 4 model years to me. :)

- The carb setup on the Mustang, while different, still didn't claim the amount of problems as the EFI turbo setups. If you think about it, EFI made the engine management wonderful, but presented a lot of new problems that you mentioned. The carb turbo was much simpler, therefore not much bitching about it. But that's progress for you. Unfortunately the 1983-86 TC's bore the brunt of the blame for "new technology" being more complex. People were right about that, but it wasn't all Ford's fault--a lot of the blame had to be on the owners as well.

- Yes, I was talking about the aftermarket FMIC. Not the actual unit itself, though....they adapted the principle of it. It took Ford less than 2 years to offer a solution for the turbo unit failure, but you had to either go aftermarket (voiding the warranty) or have the dealer install their more expensive version (which kept the warranty intact). But that was the Band-Aid until the factory version appeared on the 1987 TC.

- I've got this info from Kirschenbaum's Mustang book (pp. 385-86):

Quote

"The 1993 Mustang Cobras' 8.8-inch rear-end housings are fitted with special bracketry that accommodates their unique disc brake systems. A standard 3.08:1 final drive ratio was the only factory-available gearset for the 1993 Cobras. Otherwise, the housings are identical to those used in 1986-and-later Mustangs. Early reports that the 1993 Mustang Cobra uses a late-eighties Thunderbird rear axle assembly or a special Auburn Gear aftermarket differential were inaccurate."

Now he's known to be wrong in a few areas of the book. But he also lists some part numbers that corroborate his statement:

Rear Rotor - F3ZZ-2C026-A (listed as 10.07" diameter, .945" thick)
Rear Caliper, R - F3ZZ-2552-A
Rear Caliper, L - F3ZZ-2553-A

A few other part numbers are listed for "rotor adapter bracket supports", "rotor adapters", and parking brake cables...all carry F3ZZ (1993 Mustang) part numbers. Now that doesn't mean they're not the same as earlier cars (including the TC), but it does at least prove that Ford redesigned something different on those parts for the 1993 Cobra, so technically they are different. When looking at this list of parts, it almost looks as if you can just order them all, and bolt them right up to a standard Mustang rear end...which I suppose could make that into a virtual TC rear.

And FYI...1988-94 Lincoln Continentals also use the TC rear calipers.