file: fox94c.html
collected by: [email protected]
06 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Marty Udisches)
[email protected]
Well, this weekend was a bit of a suspension-o-thon for a few of us
trackies... My recent purchase of Koni struts/shocks and Eibach springs, and
subsequent donation of the severly-cut 5300-C springs to Jay Fletcher dictated
a Springfest wrenching day to get the various bits moved around. Chris Behier
was kind enough to come by to lend a much-needed hand.
Since my car has nearly 80k miles and way too many track events on its current
spindles, I went ahead and got a set of take-off spindles from Diversified
Products. (Hmm, wonder which Cobra R my spindles came from... :-).
Anyway, things progressed fine except for when it came time to removed the
spindles. I tried the trick I saw skod use, with a puller and an electric
impact wrench. After breaking two pullers trying to remove the driver's side
tie-rod end from the spindle, I thought I'd move along to other parts of the
spindle. The ball-joint end of the driver's side spindle came off without a
problem, as did the tie rod end of the right side spindle. The ball joint end
of the passenger side spindle was as frozen as the tie rod end of the driver's
side spindle.
So there I sat, with two spindles half-off and two broken pullers. (The second
one just broke where the "cup" accepts the bolt. Since it was toast already,
I was able to use just the bare bolt to pull with.) If I had been so lucky as
to have the tie rod end side on both spindles be stuck, and have the ball
joint sides come loose, I could have just unthreaded the tie rod ends. I'll
be putting on the 90+ tie rod ends eventually... But noooo. We even tried
Jay's pickle fork, but this wasn't able to budge either of the frozen ends...
So, I buttoned everything back up, but would like to change spindles before
the upcoming Mini Nats, which is now less than three weeks away.
Anybody have any ideas how I can get those spindles loose? Would heating the
spindles up with a torch allow them to expand enough? Or would that just
heat-treat the spindles and make them brittle???
06 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 6, Marty Udisches wrote:
> Anybody have any ideas how I can get those spindles loose? Would heating
> the spindles up with a torch allow them to expand enough? Or would that
> just heat-treat the spindles and make them brittle???
Heat is the answer. Well, that, and perhaps a little penetrating lubricant
like Liquid Wrench. Put the LW right at the junction between spindle and
tapered stud, and let gravity and wicking action carry it in. Then, with a
nice simple propane torch, start heating. Carry the flame evenly over the
spindle body, heating it evenly around. The heat will increase the wicking
action of the lubricant, in addition to causing the spindle to expand around
the stud.
Expansion should loosen the spindle's grip on the stud about the time that it
gets up to about 350-400degF, which is far too low a temperature to be
metallurgically interesting. If it gets to cherry red, you'e obviously gone
_way_ too far, but it won't take that much. Heat it as little as you can get
away with. Perhaps just the tiniest tap or two (use one hand, not both!)
with the ball-pein hammer of your choice might help also, but I'd rather see
you use an additional 50degF more than an additional 3 whacks.
I used to have a favorite cheapie J.C. Whitney puller that I used for
recalcitrant ball joint studs. I'd put the puller on, preload the _bejeezus_
out of it, and start warming things up. The assembly would usually pop loose
after just 20 or 30 seconds of persuasion, before things really got started
getting toasty at all. I loaned that puller out once, and it never came
back... Sigh.
When you reassemble things, use a smear of anti-sieze on the stud. You'll be
very thankful that you did, the next time you need to change spindles. That's
the biggest reason that mine popped loose so nicely that time that you and I
were doing the Spindle Swap From Hell.
07 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 6, Clifton Koch wrote:
> I checked over the computer and fuel pump circuit wiring, and this
> seems to be an incompatibility between the SD and MAF wiring
> harnesses. There is no wire going to pin 19 of the computer. A check
> of the probst manual shows that this indeed should be connected to the
> fuel pump power circuit. My car schematics shows a supposed
> connection to the fuel pump power circuit, but the pin in the
> connector is colored black, apparently indicating not installed. I
> checked all of the wires going to the computer connector, and the fuel
> pump power wire is plain not there. Maybe I'll hook it up someday if
> I find one of the computer pins to add the wire with, but for now I'll
> live with the error code.
Ok, there's always a _very_ good chance that my schemati are in error.
Wouldn't be the first time! But another issue comes to mind. There are about 4
different FPM configurations that I know of used on 5.0 equipped Ford products
(between the Mustang and the different fatrides). The earliest injected cars,
like my '86, don't have _any_ FPM setup, although they do have the pigtail on
the fuel pump ground lead. Later speed-density cars do have the FPM setup, but
they monitor the voltage drop in the fusible link on the fuel pump ground line
(presumably to eliminate having to do a 12v-5v level conversion, which would
cost them two extra resistors on the EEC-IV board...). The latest SD and
earliest MAF cars are _supposed_ to monitor the 12v FP power on the hot side
right at the relay, and some of the fatrides run a sense line clear back to
the fuel pump and monitor it there. For the later cars, they seem to have
decided to spend the money on the two resistors.
However, the cutover dates between one config and another are probably not
well controlled, and there's every reason to believe that there are cars out
there that will give you a "permanent code 95" as a result. If the harness and
the EEC-IV revisions didn't match, that'd do it. After all, the FPM circuit is
hardly mission-critical. It is trivial to diagnose the fuel pump system
without EEC-IV intervention, so that's a function that the engineers would
probably sign off against.
I think that there might have been inductive spiking problems with monitoring
the voltage drop on the ground side of the motor. That, or they figured out
that if the fusible link opened, they'd have +12v on that input pin, and might
fry the processor, thus requiring the input voltage divider _anyway_. Some
fine beancounter might have pointed out that they could save 4 feet of 22ga.
wire, and that that wire was more expensive than the two resistors. Who knows
what sorts of topics came up and drove the revision?
In any case, it seems to me that they might well have deleted the FPM stuff
entirely for some number of cars between revisions of the EEC-IV, to avoid
long-term reliability issues. But that's the purest form of speculation on my
part. Gawd only knows how many revisions that box has gone through over the
years! I'd love to have a comprehensive listing of all the revs, TSBs, cut-in
dates, and suchlike, but that's really whistling in the wind...
07 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 7, Brad White wrote:
> so what do you think, should i take it back and ask them to get it
> even closer to specs? they had to drill out the rivets I know ...
> makes me wonder, since that is a radical adjusment from stock, and
> nothing has been done to the suspension...
I wouldn't worry too much about the size of the change. After all, Ford's
factory alignment specs are just about as wide open as they can be. For your
'91, they call out caster as "+1.15deg to +2.65deg, +1.9deg nominal". Camber
is spec'd at "-1.35deg to +0.15deg, -0.60deg nominal". And toe is "-0.25in to
0in, -0.12in nominal".
This is basically a good way to guarantee that the car won't turn hard right
and ram the wall in the assembly building as it rolls off the line, but little
else. I am quite convinced that it is a long way from optimal for any purpose,
from tire life to cornering performance. Your "before" numbers were right on
the factory spec nominals. Amazing, isn't it? They probably copied them down
right out of the book. There's no way your car actually hit the nominals right
on the head, especially if they ended up with all that cross-camber
afterwards!
+-1.5deg camber variation is acceptable? Not on _my_ car. Frankly, I have
never yet seen a late Mustang that couldn't benefit in every way from just a
tiny amount of non-factory attention to the front end alignment. But a lot of
people are very concerned that "the factory riveted it there, so it must be
right!"
Trust me on this one. The factory riveted it there so that the parts wouldn't
fall off as the tub made its way down the assembly line, between the station
that the struts and spindles are installed and aligned at, and the station
that torques down the mounting bolts.
07 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Jay Fletcher)
[email protected]
Last weekend list members Marty Udisches, Chris Behier and I installed Marty's
old cut 5300-C springs in my 89 coupe. We intended to swap over his Monroe GP
struts as well, but it was fairly obvious that they had expired.
The car now sits quite low in front. I am considering putting a thicker rubber
spacer at the top of the front springs to bring the ride height back up a tad.
The control arms are noticably non-paralled to the ground now as well. Any
thoughts on this approach to suspension height control?
The front of the car is also noticably underdamped as well. A circuit through
my favorite twisty, hilly back road yielded them overall impression that the
car is more "twitchy" now than before. It's a bit scary when bumps are
involved. The car gets upset easier and is a bit less predictable. Of course
this is a first impression and I may be able to relearn the car's response
characteristics. Is this what you mustang suspension gurus out there would
expect from this swap (still have the stock struts)?
With the lowering of the car in mind I purchased a set of Central Coast
Aluminum offset rack bushings. Unfortunately, they didn't arrive until
yesterday, so the above driving impressions include the bump steer effects. I
swear, those are the most expensive hunks of simple to machine aluminum I've
ever seen. Their profit margin is HUGE on those things. Anyone with a lathe
and a drill press should strongly consider making your own!
I have one concern about the offset bushings. The offset hole is drilled
extrememly close to the OD of the bushing. The wall thickness is less than
0.020" at one point. Are there bending stresses imparted from the rack
attachment bolts to the bushings which could cause them to break through this
thin section? I am a bit skeptical about how safe these things are!
07 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
[Whoops. That empty message resulted from one-handed typing while eating
lunch...]
[email protected] (Jay Fletcher)
7 Jun 1994 11:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Last weekend list members Marty Udisches, Chris Behier and I installed Marty's
old cut 5300-C springs in my 89 coupe. ...
The car now sits quite low in front. I am considering putting a thicker
rubber spacer at the top of the front springs to bring the ride height
back up a tad. The control arms are noticably non-paralled to the ground now
as well. Any thoughts on this approach to suspension height control?
Ideally the ball joint's center should be lower than the bushings at the K-
frame end. Parallel to the ground is acceptable, sort of. Beyond parallel,
the camber curves get even less desirable than they are in the stock
configuration, with increasing positive camber on the outside wheel as the car
rolls -- exactly the opposite of what you want for handling. This is why
Griggs and Slot Car modify the control arm mounting locations on the K-members
of their race cars: to keep the camber curve sane.
This effect shows up as "washing out" in the corners. When I first installed
my Eibach race springs, I neglected to reinstall the factory rubber spacers on
the lower end of the front springs. The result was that the car would point
into corners beautifully, but would require additional steering lock in mid-
corner as the car rolled and the camber went positive. Reinstalling the
spacers made cornering much more pleasant and predictable.
The front of the car is also noticably underdamped as well. A circuit through
my favorite twisty, hilly back road yielded them overall impression that the
car is more "twitchy" now than before. It's a bit scary when bumps are
involved. The car gets upset easier and is a bit less predictable.
This may be the interaction of several effects: the camber problems noted
above, misalignment from the change in ride height, and bump steer, all
magnified by the inadequate damping. I'd suggest getting an alignment pronto,
and installing performance struts and shocks as soon as your budget permits.
With the lowering of the car in mind I purchased a set of Central Coast
Aluminum offset rack bushings. Unfortunately, they didn't arrive until
yesterday, so the above driving impressions include the bump steer effects. I
swear, those are the most expensive hunks of simple to machine aluminum I've
ever seen. Their profit margin is HUGE on those things. Anyone with a lathe
and a drill press should strongly consider making your own!
Yup. I think someone posted dimensions for these bushings a while ago. If
not, they should be easy to measure. The right answer is (again) to relocate
the mounting holes in the K-member, but that takes real work...
I have one concern about the offset bushings. The offset hole is drilled
extrememly close to the OD of the bushing. The wall thickness is less than
0.020" at one point.
I wouldn't worry about this. I would (and do) worry about the bushings
rotating in their mounts. This could cause sudden and unpredictable changes
in steering angle as cornering loads increase. You really should find a way
to pin the bushings in place (and I should too, but I haven't to date). Just
cranking down on the bolt isn't the right answer, as you could stretch or
break the bolt, and friction alone is not enough to hold the bushings in
place. -- Chuck
07 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I wouldn't worry about this. I would (and do) worry about the bushings
> rotating in their mounts. This could cause sudden and unpredictable
> changes in steering angle as cornering loads increase. You really
> should find a way to pin the bushings in place (and I should too, but I
> haven't to date). Just cranking down on the bolt isn't the right
> answer, as you could stretch or break the bolt, and friction alone is
> not enough to hold the bushings in place.
This is truly trivial to do. I just drilled and tapped each rack ear for a
3/8-24 dogtooth setscrew, and that has served very well to lock the bushing in
place. Well, that, and the fact that I smeared the various interfaces quite
liberally with Loctite 271...
08 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
>Thicker rubber spacer is fine, I am going to do that with my uncut Eibock
>race springs tomarro. The ball joints NEED to be lower than the inside
>pivit point of the control arm. If you have the arms pointing "up" than
>the role center will be way below the ground. BAD!!
Can you quantify "BAD!!"? The earth won't stop rotating if your outer pivot
is higher than your inner, I can assure you. The stock RC height is about
20mm. If you lower the front by 20mm (.78") beyond stock, the RC will then be
about -32mm (1.26") below ground. So if your car is lowered .75", you're RC
is more than likely below ground.
The roll center on Baer Racing's World Challenge A group car is 5" below
ground. I can assure you it plunges straight to the deepest bowels of Hell
under any jounce at all. Their control arms are relocated, but they felt
that it was more important to get more anti-dive than it was to get a higher
roll center. Lowering the car may lower the roll center more than you'd like,
but it also lowers the CG.
Scott Sharp's '93 TRANS-AM car had a static RC 1" below ground, as reported in
_Racecar Engineering_ (though that is a very stable RC -it most likely doesn't
move much). There are countless IT and A Sedan Mustangs (where control arm
relocation is not permitted) with RC's below ground. Many of these cars
handle very well.
Bud Jasman won two CP National championships with a roll center several inches
below ground. He hasn't won a championship since he raised it above ground..
I just don't like to see complex problems simplified to the point where we
simply say BAD!! and leave it at that. Chuck had written some things about
this the other day that I didn't agree with and did not have time to fully
respond to. As I recall, he wrote that the low RC created a bad camber curve.
I don't think you can find anything in any of the popular suspension texts to
support that position. I could have an RC that is far below the ground and
have Excellent camber curves. Puhn's book explains the subject quite well.
If my recollection of what Chuck wrote is in error, I apologize.
>> Is this what you mustang suspension gurus out
>> there would expect from this swap (still have the stock struts)?
>
>Poor role center.
Cream filled or cherry?
>Check to see if you need the offset rack bushings. You just might not.
Very true. The aluminum rack bushings are a good idea, though offseting the
hole isn't often the best way to go. The adjustable tie-rod ends offer much
more versatility. I believe Grigg's sells them. Stock Car Products and
Coleman can also set you up with the parts necessary to make your own.
>I know the guy who designed them for CCM. They were desined for a 86
>T-Bird with 7 deg. of caster. I know people who put these in and have had
>MORE bumpsteer!!
Calling them "designed" is definitely stretching things, particularly when you
associate them with such a specific application. They are a very trivial
piece. Great for your very first attempt at turning something on a metal
lathe. Depending on how much your car is lowered, they still might not be
enough - you might have to put a spacer between the tie rod end and the
steering arm.
17 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware)
[email protected]
> I have a friend that has a problem with an 89 5.0 with
> a mystery leak in the power steering. It is now neither
> power nor steering. We have been unable to find a leak at
> any of the hose connections, despite cleaning and inspecting
> on a number of occasions. Still, there is fluid all over
> the underside of the hood and on the engine near the
> reservoir. Could it be possible that the cap is leaking?
One very common failure mode for the power steering pumps used in the late
Mustangs is for the pump input shaft seal to fail. This allows the fluid to
leak out onto the input shaft, where it is carried out and slung off the OD of
the drive pulley. This leads to a characteristic narrow oil stripe up the side
of the battery, and across the underside of the hood.
This can be caused by extended operation at high revs (I killed two pumps in
track use in exactly this manner, before I started running underdrive
pulleys). It can also be caused by overheating the fluid, running the fluid
level too low, or simple wearout. In any case, if you're striping the battery
and hood, it's time to replace the pump. This is hard to reproduce at idle,
BTW. But the fluid will be blowing right out at 2000-3000 RPM, when the pump's
outlet pressure is up bouncing off of the relief valve limit.
Puking fluid out the cap should only happen in a collision (or an off-course
excursion like Brian's), or in the case of boiling the fluid in extreme
overheat. To blow fluid out of the cap, you need to have fluid being rammed
out the outlet line from the rack back to the pump's reservoir faster than the
pump can source it. This will happen if you've banged a curb or done something
else that made the steering move faster than the input commanded by the wheel.
Trackies who have to deal with excessive steering kickback from radical
alignments and sticky tires have this happen all the time, as they bang apex
curbing and so on. One list member who runs a great deal of power and _very_
big tires has had his entire cap blow right off the reservoir under these
circumstances, oiling the track. Right in front of me... I now run a hose from
a drill port in the cap to a separate puke tank for this reason, BTW.
You surely shouldn't be seeing this kind of behavior on the street!
Check the inside of the pulley, back between the pulley and pump. I'd bet that
you'll find the source of your leak in there.
19 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
mustangs%[email protected]
I thought the Mustang/Capri and Thunderbird/Cougar racks were different, with
the T/C rack being slightly wider. I was flipping through the Summit catalog
and they show their part number FMS-M3504-A 15:1 Ford rack which is supposed
to fit both. I checked my SVO catalog, which shows M-3504-A "to fit all Fox."
I don't know where I got the idea the T/C racks were wider. I wish I'd
checked more closely - Mustang racks are rare and precious around here, while
Thunderbird racks are common. I recently bought the only non-bent junkyard
rack available in a 50 mile radius.
20 Jun 1994
"John L. Kordash"
> I don't know where I got the idea the T/C racks were wider. I wish
> I'd checked more closely - Mustang racks are rare and precious around
> here, while Thunderbird racks are common. I recently bought the only
> non-bent junkyard rack available in a 50 mile radius.
Over the winter I replaced the rack on my '88 T-bird TC with a rack from a 89
Mustang GT.
You are correct - the T-bird is wider overall. I had to screw the ends out
some 3/4 inch or so on each side. The rack itself however, was identical.
I think the important thing here is to make sure that the rack you get is a
15:1 ratio.
20 Jun 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
I've been trying to figure out why MM&FF as well as others say to set the
Mustang TPS at .98 volts closed position. Well Scott G. and I have a common
theory but so far no confirmed facts. Our theory is that the EEC has a set
TPS voltage to shut off the Smog Pump, EGR and A/C. By upping the idle TPS
voltage, reaching the shut-off point would come sooner thus freeing power for
the wheels.
Anyway, I decided finally to just reset mine and see what happens and I found
an easy way to check the voltage without piercing or cutting the wires.
I just slid 2 small copper wires down the black and green wires underneath the
green rubber/silicone seal on the connector mounted by the throttle body until
they hit the back of the individual pins. When the wires are removed the seal
is again established. Be careful not to force the wire so it bends and
contacts two pins or you'll get a short. You can verify by pulling the
connector apart and checking for continuity between pins. Don't measure
resistance on the computer (EEC) side of the connector because you'll apply
voltage. My meter is 9 volts. This circuit normally sees no more than 6
volts.
So what was my factory TPS setting? The answer .977 volts! I didn't change
it. I expected .7xx volts. Maybe the SVT people tweaked it for me :-).
20 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 20, Kristin Brown wrote:
> happened once in the dead of summer last year, and also this past (very hot)
> weekend. I had been driving the car around a while, and had also been running the
> AC pretty continuously (both times it happened).
>
> The first time it happened, the car just died at a stoplight...
> you could start it, but it wouldnt stay running.
> This past weekend, it started stuttering, and running rough, and then every
> time i came to a stoplight, it would stall even if i was trying to rev it up
> and keep it running.
>
> Both times, letting the car sit for a while solved the problem, but this past
> weekend i had to stop once after that, when on the highway i stopped being
> able to acclerate and i lost power until i finally just wasnt going anywhere
> any more. Sitting a short time fixed this also.
>
> should also have mentioned that i *did* dump the codes and it turned up
> nothing.
>
> Also, the car seemed to be backfiring a bunch too, when it was having the
> trouble running when i came to a stop....
As with many intermittent problems, you'll find tracking this one to be a
major pain. But I'd be willing to bet that you'll find that the problem traces
back to the TFI module and/or the Hall Effect pickup in the distributor. The
TFI module is the preamp that actually listens to the Hall sensor and sends
the raw spark timing pulses to the EEC-IV for processing. It is the gray
module attached to the side of the distributor with the wiring harness plugged
into it.
This module is very heat sensitive, and is living in a very nasty environment.
Here's something to watch for the next time the car begins misbehaving. Watch
the tach. If it behaves perfectly well (shows steady RPM), it's almost
certainly _not_ the ignition pickup hardware. If, on the other hand, the tach
needle jumps erratically, falling nearly to zero and then catching back up to
the correct engine speed (often accompanied by a backfire), it's probably a
marginal TFI module.
I have never personally seen a bad Hall-effect sensor, but they do happen
(right, Walt?). If the Hall-effect sensor dies, there'll probably be no tach
indication at all, and the EEC-IV will probably set code 14 or 18. If, on the
other hand, the TFI module is just getting brain-damaged and noisy from the
heat, you'll probably get an erratic tach reading (along with some erratic
spark timing), and you may well get no codes at all.
Some of the earlier Hall Effect modules are reputed to be made of a plastic
that deteriorates with age and solvents, but I believe that your car is too
new to be affected by that issue (which primarily affected '86-'87 cars).
Yours is the first instance I have heard of in which letting the module cool
would bring it back to life. Vehicular karma is clearly on your side, but
don't count on it. I've now killed 3 TFI modules as a result of heat-related
problems (at the track), and all of them just up and died outright.
Reproducing this in a driveway will be hard. You need to have the distributor
body (which serves as the heatsink for the module) pretty toasty to have it
happen. Crank the A/C and wait for a hot day. Or get a spare TFI module and
swap it out on spec, using *lots* of the heatsink compound Ford gives you...
In any case, I'd focus my diagnostic efforts there. If the fuel pump is
healthy, IMHO the chances are nearly 100% that this is the source of the
problem. Hope that helps!
21 Jun 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
[ Regarding adjusting initial timing ]
The in-line SPOUT connector thingy is a few inches away from the distributor
in the bundle of wires that connects to the bottom of the distributor. The
wires connect in the front of the distributor so finding the bundle of
wires should be easy.
[ About taking off EGR ]
The EGR can be removed without removing the throttle body/EGR spacer.
21 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Well last night I wanted to bump my timing up a little, but ran into an
immediate problem. In order to get the base timing at idle, I need to disable
the timing advance (like ya'll didn't already know that). Well, I went to
disconnect the in-line SPOUT connector when I realized that I had no idea what
I was looking for. The mechanical systems manual doesn't cover this at all,
and I don't have the emissions manual. Somebody want to clue me in? It's a
'90 GT.
There's a little connector hanging off the wiring harness to the distributor.
The SPOUT connector is a little plug (about the size of a sugarcube) stuck in
this dangling socket.
I also dumped the codes last night (first time in five years and 25000 miles).
Everything checked out OK except for the dreaded code 31. Guest I'll pull the
EGR valve sensor tonight. This doesn't look to be too tough. Is there
anything I need to do to the spacer, or can it stay in place?
The EVP sensor is a piece of cake to install. 5 minutes and $30 for parts,
max.
However, the 31 code can be caused by more than just the sensor. Most likely
is crud in the EGR valve itself. The factory says "don't clean it" but
several members of this list have had great success doing just that.
You will need a new gasket for the EGR valve (under $5 at any self-respecting
dealer), but the cleaning itself is again a simple task and won't take much
time either. -- Chuck
28 Jun 1994
[email protected]
> I was just rereading an installation of a new fuel pump. He said that when
> the low fuel light came on he still had about 5 gallons or so.
> My question is: When did ford stop using theses light in the mustang.
> From experience, I know my 93 GT doesn't have one or at least it doesn't
> work.
I believe that the Low Fuel indicator went the way of the dodo at the same
time as the Instrument Voltage Regulator and the thermoelectric gages. This
was a midyear change during the '87 model year, apparently (it is no longer
mentioned in the '87-or-later shop manuals, in any case). The actual Low Fuel
circuit is really pretty brain-dead, since it was a comparator that had to try
and measure the resistance from the sender in the tank by observing its
behavior with the 12-volt pulse train that comes out of the IVR. This
comparator had a very long integration time (once again, to keep the light
from flashing and annoying non-auto-literate owners), and was really not a
good design. My experience with mine was that it would come on someplace
between 1/4 tank and 3/4 tank, depending on the ambient temperature. Not my
idea of a useful instrument.
Interestingly, that was the only LED in the Graphic Diagnostic Indicator panel
in my '86 that ever actually came on. The other indicators for headlight out,
taillight out, and Low Washer Fluid level, never so much as blinked once, even
when they _should_ have. Oh, the test button worked, but that wasn't quite
what I had in mind...
I reverse-engineered the display, and the low-fuel comparator module that
hangs up behind the glovebox, some time back. Somewhere I have the schematic.
It's a discrete design, with actual individual transistors. How quaint! It'd
be trivial to do an actual _working_ low-fuel indicator for either a
thermoelectric or magnetic-gage car, if you really wanted to. Suffice it to
say that I believe you could do much better with a simple comparator driving
the LED directly, and a nice stable 15-turn trimpot for the trip level adjust,
if you were so inclined.
I wasn't. I recycled the space in the console to locate 2 1.75" gages to
monitor the electrical system, and removed the resistance wire links that are
in series with the headlight and taillight filaments that were used to provide
a voltage drop to detect current flow in the lamps for the lamp-out
indicators.
That's one reason that the headlights and taillights are brighter in the '87-
and-later later cars, BTW (ignoring the obvious benefits of the aero non-
sealed-beam headlights). The lamp-out sensing scheme drops about .8v across
that link at a nominal 13.5v supply to the lamp, and that's power that isn't
delivered to the filament. That's also one reason that simply sticking more
powerful non-DOT headlights (like Hella's non-sealed-beam lamp/reflector
conversions) in the '86 and earlier cars _really_ doesn't work, unless you do
some rewiring. Not only does the light switch burn up, but the *harness
itself* is designed for a very specific load. If you double the current draw
at the lights, you also double the voltage drop at the current-sensing link,
and the lamp output suffers. I don't think that that was ever a really well-
thought-out design, and I'm surprised that it lasted as long as it did...
29 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 26, Joe Huesmann wrote:
> A few weeks ago I recall we had a thread about having to replace the bolts
> in the rear control arms when installing new control arms. Does this also
> have to be done (nuts & bolts) for the front control arms?
Strictly speaking, it does not _have_ to be done. However, if the car is going
to see duty on the racetrack, it _should_ be done periodically. If the bolts
have been overloaded (due, say, to crash damage), or damaged on their outer
surfaces (by having lost preload so that the bushing inner sleeve rotated on
them, causing surface galling and damage that could nucleate cracks), they
should be replaced.
I have been throwing mine away every couple of seasons. When I go to Heim
joints in the control arms, they will start going in the trash maybe a bit
more often, as the Heims couple shock loads more directly into them, so their
fatiguw life will be shorter.
On a street car, they are nearly immortal, barring crash damage. On a track
car, they are a scheduled maintenance item, since their failure could cause a
premature and dramatic parting of the car and its wheel.
While I'm talking about control arms, I'll mention finally having seen the
failure mode in the upper rear control arms that Brian St. Denis reported. One
of the other late-model folks with a '90 or so car had one upper rear control
arm completely fail, and the other partially fail, at the track event this
past weekend.
What happened was that the bushings in the axle center section are very soft.
As the axle deflects laterally due to cornering loads, the bushing center core
displaces, the upper arms cock over, and the hardened steel outer bushing
shell comes into direct contact with the mild steel arm stamping. Basically,
the bushing shell acts as a dull flycutter, and over time it galls a nice
circle out of the side of the control arm. It essentially cuts a washer out of
the arm. When the metal gets thin enough, this disc that is partially cut
pulls right out of the arm. In the car I saw, one arm had cut itself fully
away from the center section bushing on *both sides*, and the other ha failed
on one side, but was still hanging on by the other side. The car in question
got "very loose", and the driver brought it in to check on it.
Loose? I'll say. He's a very luck guy.
I never managed to incur this failure mode with the police/taxi axle bushings,
and I doubt that you could deflect urethanes enough to do it. But if you're
running a late Mustang in roadracing use, and you have the stock upper
bushings in the center section on the axle, please do pull the arms and check
for any signs of galling or metal-to-metal wear on the inner surfaces that
might be cause by the bushing outer sleeves under deflection.
It looks just like a cookie cutter was used to cut out bushing-shell sized
washers. A first sign of this occuring would be some filing or metallic debris
on the center section below the bushings. This is also signaled by metallic
grinding or clunking sounds under _heavy_ cornering loads (much heavier than
you're likely to encounter on the street). Take this seriously, folks, this
can easily happen if your car sees a lot of track use with the stock bushings.
Urethanes or P/T center section bushings seem to be an adequate fix, in the
short term.
30 Jun 1994
[email protected]
On Jun 29, Charles Smothers wrote:
> Anybody know if the ol' TRX wheels will fit over the 11" brake rotors.
>
> I'm planning my brake upgrade and would like to keep running
> the TRX's on the street. Besides, I kinda like how they look on
> my '83 GT, and I want the car to look stock so that it doesn't
> attract attention.
Hmm. I'm led to believe that they will not, although I have not personally
tried that combination. The notes I have in my archives indicate that the
backside of the caliper body will foul on the tapered bead relief on the
wheel. The best solution is to find someone with the '87-up brakes, and just
try it. But I'd give it no better than a 20% chance. Then report back here on
what you find, so we could put that one to bed.
Sorry about that!
11 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 10, Bob Wise wrote:
> Let me pose an alternate question, that is near and dear to anyone running
> an AS mustang:
>
> Given that you may not remove the upper control arms in AS, but may do
> anything you like with the bushings, which is better:
>
> 0) Pure stock setup... Something below must be better!
Yes.
> 1) The GW arm with stock bushings
> (this will work)
Until it breaks... In roadracing use, you should check for cracks at the the
point of highest stress (the junction between the forward extension of the
arm, and the runner that extends across the pinion centerline to pick up the
opposite mount hole on the center section) before every event, and several
times during the event if possible. You may find it useful to remove the
powdercoat and repaint in with cheapo Krylon. The powdercoat is tough enough
to hide cracks, but the Krylon will chip at the edges of any crack, making it
more visible.
> 2) GW arm with heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in all arms
> (bind problem?)
Big-time. The stock geometry itself will bind like mad with rigid bushings and
no arm. The GW arm would just make it worse.
> 3) GW arm with heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in just the
> lowers (bind problem?)
No, it would work. But keep an eye on the arm.
> 4) GW arm with heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in just the
> uppers (bind problem?)
Yes, it would probably bind pretty badly, expecially at the extremes of roll
travel.
> 5) Torque-arm with panhard/watts _and_ the upper control arms, but
> with the bushings in the upper arms replaced with foam rubber (something
> very soft!) and stock lower bushings. The idea here is
> to have effectivly removed the upper arms.
This would work very well. But now, your point of highest stress is probably
the axle end of the Panhard mount. So _that_ should have the powedercoat (if
any) knocked off, so you can watch _it_ like a hawk for cracking. I can't even
_begin_ to describe how much of a beating the components that locate the axle
laterally take in roadracing use.
> 6) Torque-arm with panhard/watts _and_ the upper control arms, but
> with the bushings in the upper arms replaced with foam rubber (something
> very soft!) and heim-joint/ball-joint lowers. (I don't _think_ this
> will bind, but may bind for large suspension movements.)
> BTW, this is my preferred setup.
Huge win. Major win. Massive win. This is a very sweet setup, and is very
tunable. I'm running it now. No bind at all. It is pretty amazing, with the
car up on jackstands and the springs and dampers out, to be able to support
the axle under the center section and move it through fully 20 degrees of roll
range with one finger. No bind. It is also tunable for roll steer, if you
either buy or make lower arms with ride-height adjustments. I use the Griggs
arms with the adjustable spring perches and they are very nice indeed.
> 7) Heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in all of the rear bushings, and just
> a panhard/watts. (bind problem?)
Might as well just bolt it in rigidly. You'll have about 2 degrees travel in
roll before is locks up solid. The car will be, as they say, just a bit
loose...
> 8) Heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in all of the rear bushings, and nothing
> else.
Ditto 7, except you might get 4 degrees.
> These seem to be the rear suspension options. Some of these may not
> work because of bind. I would appreciate comment from the list.
>
> And just for laughs, which of these combinations (of the ones that
> will work) should retain the quad shocks? I believe the torque-arm
> solutions remove the quad-shocks, what about the others?
As soon as you use _any_ solution that replaces the flabby, soft oval bushings
in the stock lower arms (urethane bushings, aftermarket arms, Heims, whatever)
you can pitch the quad shocks. Their only purpose is to control the axle's
torque reaction to try and control the windup as the soft bushings deflect, in
order to prevent axle hop on heavy acceleration and braking. And they don't
even do a very good job at _that_. Good bushings demote the quads to the rank
of "baggage", very quickly.
This is getting to be only marginally applicable to street Mustanging, so I'd
suggest that we take any further discussion of race-specific (and especially
_rules_
...
13 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
I'm finally getting interested in upgrading the suspension on my '89 GT, so
I'd like to hear some opinions on an overall (front + rear) street suspension.
I'm willing to sacrifice some ride quality, but I don't want it so bone
jarring that the car falls apart, either. :)
As I've said before, I really think some form of improved rear control arms is
a must. The stock lower arms have way too much slop in them, and the uppers
tend to self-destruct in track use. I'm pretty happy with the police/taxi
arms.
I've already got 16" Fitti 5 stars with 245 rubber all around, but that's all
I've done for my suspension. I'd definately like to lower it an inch or so --
as with the lower profile tires, the car looks like it rides way too high on
the tires. Cockpit adjustable shocks would be "neat", but I haven't seen
Tokico's or anyone else's priced out lately ...?
There are lots of choices for springs out there. I like the Eibach race
springs myself.
I'm reasonably sure the Tokico cockpit-adjustable shocks are the most
expensive option for the street; the regular Tokicos are as expensive as (if
not more than) the Bilsteins. IMHO cockpit adjustability is a neat idea, but
I can adjust my Konis in a matter of minutes on the road (of course I have the
equally pricey Koni SPSS shocks in the rear). The added convenience isn't
worth the cost to me.
The weak link on most struts is the seal and bushing at the top of the strut.
I saw a photo of the Bilstein struts last night and was impressed. Instead of
the spindly little strut rod, Bilstein's high-pressure gas shock technology
allows them to turn the usual design upside-down, putting the strut body on
top. This provides a nice fat surface at the top of the strut to handle the
lateral loads. Now if only they were adjustable, I could justify their
price...
In short - What's a good spring/shock/brace/rearend mod combo for a fairly
serious street suspension without sinking a rediculous amount of money in it?
This is becoming a broken record for me. Get weld-on subframe connectors.
Global West's are widely available, Maier Racing's are a little stronger but
may be overkill. IMHO the only strut tower brace worth considering is
Maier's. Many seem to prefer the K-frame braces over strut tower braces.
Kenny Brown's K-frame brace is good, but a local fabricator may be able to do
as well for less.
The ultimate answer for chassis bracing is a well-designed, welded-in roll
cage, but this isn't really practical for most street uses. Keep it in mind
if you get serious, though. -- Chuck
14 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 14, Robert Cavaleri wrote:
> I recently liberated some suspension parts from a wrecked (driver's
> side impact) '91 GT (25,000 mi) that someone was parting out. I
> managed to get the rear upper & lower control arms, the front A-arm
> assembly including struts, disk brakes, and front stabilizer bar, as
> well as all four springs. The recipient will be an '82 GT.
Interesting! I suspect that you'll find the front brake upgrade much to your
liking. Transplanting all the front parts into the car will go quickly, and
should work very well. The '82 GT front springs were anemic 395lb/in straight-
rates, and your '91 GT springs are 425-535lb/in progressives. You'll like that
of course, the more, the merrier. Also, upgrading from the '82 GT's 1.0" front
antiroll bar to the '91's 1.30" bar will increase the front roll stiffness
tremendously. All in all, I suspect that you'll like the results.
> The '82 does not have a 4-link rear, so I would like to know the pros
> & cons of putting one in, and if there are kits on the market for
> making this conversion. I figure that the 4-link would really help
> eliminate wheel hop on hard acceleration and cornering as found in
> autocrossing, and would also help reduced axle sway, thus keeping the
> axle under the car.
You do have a 4-link, all Foxes do. But you don't have the quad shock setup.
The benefits of changing over to the later arms is less clear to me. I'm not
sure what year they made the ill-fated change to the oval bushings in the
lower rear arms, but if your car is early enough to have avoided them, you'll
want to _keep_ your stock arms (assuming the bushings are intact and in decent
shape).
Look at the bushings in the front of the lower rear arms. If they are
circular, about 1.5" diameter, they are almost equivalent to the desirable SVO
Mustang and Police/Taxi parts (the rubber is slightly softer). If, on the
other hand, they are about 4" x 2" ovals, they are the later style that has
led to our general distaste for the rear suspension in the later Foxes.
If you have the soggy bushings, you might as well just go ahead and go
urethane in all but the center section ears. You might also see if you can get
the '91 rear antiroll bar. The one you've got is .50", and the '91 will have a
significantly stiffer .79" bar that is also a better (more corrosion
resistant) alloy.
I'm not convinced that the quad-shock setup really does much good. Its purpose
was to try and band-aid the axle slop with those oval bushings, and it really
had a tough row to hoe. With the better bushings in place (either small rubber
or urethane), I think that the quads are really not very useful. They
certainly do interfere with tire selection, since they pose the first hard
interference limit as you widen the tire inboard. I'd have to say that if you
have good bushings, don't worry about them.
Now, having said that, I'll make an offer. If you (or anybody else on the
list) want my old quad-shock brackets (from the chassis side), you can have
them for $10 plus shipping. Just let me know. You'll need to do some work to
mount them, asn the earlier cars don't have the captive hardware in the
subframe rails for them. I also regret that I don't have the axle-end
brackets, but those are available for $20-30 from Currie Enterprises, and can
be installed by any reasonable axle shop.
> Speaking of which, if I switch the 8.8 to a 9" w/disks, fabrication
> would be necessary I suppose. I plan on getting a 9" from a Lincoln
> here shortly.
You _could_ do that, but then you'll probably end up spending sizeable cash
getting it narrowed to the right width for the Mustang. Almost all the 9"
housings are set up for 1.5" wider track than you'd like. Currie will set you
up a brand-new 9" housing with all the Fox bracketry welded on (including the
quad-shock brackets, if you like), so it's just a bolt-in.
If you do go with any of the Lincoln axles, you'll very likely need to upgrade
to the Lincoln calipers and mater cylinder as well, to preserve the brake
bias. The stock Mustang MC and disks on the front with the Lincoln disks on
the rear will lead to a very tail happy car under braking, one that likes to
lock up its rears before its fronts...
15 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 15, John Tabako wrote:
> I just swapped in a set of 3:55's into my 93 GT. I had the 3:08's
> before and this is a nice change. After I installed the new gear I
> swapped the speedo gear to a 20 tooth piece. The end result isn't
> too good - my speedometer is off. It reads 5-10 m.p.h. faster than
> actual. I called my local Ford Motorsport dealer and was told it was
> as accurate as possible. Is this true? I've read some info about a
> 23T gear - is that what I should use? Thanks for any help.
Right. The '90-up T5s have an 8-tooth speedo drive gear, instead of the 7-
tooth version on the early cars. This drive gear was actually introduced as a
running change late in the '89 model year, so some '89s may have it as well.
With the 8-tooth drive gear, you'll need a 23-tooth driven gear, and it was
available from Motorsport, part number M-17271-C, in the '93 catalog. It has
mysteriously disappeared from the '94 catalog, however. There have been
sporadic reports of these gears having much shorter than optimal lives.
If I remember correctly, Texas Turbo was also one source mentioned for them
(apparently they had them custom molded), as well as Downs Ford. This was
discussed just after the first of the year, and I don't think that the
reliability problems have been solved just yet. If anyone who was involved in
this thrash has more concrete data, please get in touch with John directly,
and let Andre know as well so that we can get this into the FAQ.
15 Jul 1994
[email protected]
Subject: Re: 3:55 speedometer woes
[email protected]
On Jul 15, Ken Corpus wrote:
> >A better and more expensive solution would be to go to a speedometer
> >shop and have them install an adjustable speedometer thing-a-ma-bob.
> >Costs about $100 plus some labor to have it calibrated.
>
> The other more expensive solution would be to adjust your tire size to
> accomodate or alleviate the difference in speedometer error. Which
> would most likely also include a wheel change, which could easily end up
> being over a $1000.
>
> nah nah, my solution is more expensive than yours :-)
Actually, a middling-expensive but *extremely* practical solution is to take
the car to a good tranny shop, and have them pull the tailshaft housing and
swap in one of the old yellow 7-tooth drive gears (P/N E3ZZ-17285-A).
While they're in there, they can replace the tailshaft bushing (which is
probably pretty beat up due to the crummy factory driveshaft balancing job),
and maybe even send the driveshaft out for truing and balancing, and
freshening of the U-joints. Then, with the 7-tooth drive gear, you'll need a
black 20-tooth driven gear (P/N C1DZ-17271-A), and that combination is nearly
immortal.
That might end up costing $200, but the improvement in driveline smoothness
and tranny tailshaft bushing health might very well make it worthwhile. I'll
advocate _anything_ that gets folks to get their driveshafts looked at...
15 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 15, Ken Corpus wrote:
> Here's something I've learned while researching the police/taxi parts:
>
> I' sure we all know by now that the parts referred to are not actually
> parts from a Police/Taxi Mustang, they are from a Fairmont/LTD.
> Interesting enough, these are for the 2.3L and 3.8L versions.
>
> My question is since its safe to assume that the V8 weighs more than
> the 4 cyl or 6 cyl, would it also be safe to assume that the newer part
> is a better choice than the older parts from the 4/6 cyl Fairmont chassis?
No, not necessarily. The bushings have been designed and set up over the years
to help soften up the ride on these various Fox cars, according to the NVH
requirements for the model year and *price point* that the car was to sell at.
As it turn out, the lighter/low end cars often required less compliance in
their suspensions in order to achieve the level of NVH performance required.
One other way to look at it is that the NVH requirements are much less for a
base Fairmont than for a top-line loaded Thunderbird. Wahtever the reasoning,
it is almost always true that the smallbore cars got _stiffer_ bushings than
the V8 cars.
21 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 21, Mike G McFaul wrote:
> This is just a quick note on the heater core stuff -- re: wrong
> diameter tubes in water pump...
>
> I think Ford finally got it right in '86 and later vehicles. I would
> be surprised to find that error on any car produced after '86... But
> then stranger things have happened :-)
Strange indeed. Turns out that from '86 right up through '93 Ford had it wrong
as well, you see. They tap the heater flow off of the intake manifold with
some 5/8" hard line, and they run it aft past the EEC-IV's coolant temp
sensor, and the pickoff for the EGR coolant feed. As near as I can figure,
they use 5/8" because the sensor itself needs a large boss to mount in. They
reach the aft end of the hard line, and go into 5/8" hose to the core inlet.
The core outlet comes back in 1/2" hose, to 1/2" hard line, to a 1/2" hose to
the waterpump inlet.
This is, of course, exactly the wrong way to do it, since it guarantees that
the biggest pressure drop is imposed right across the core itself. But Ford
has a solution. They insert a flow restrictor in the 5/8" hose from the hard
line to the core inlet. This restrictor has a 1/4" hole in it, so that does
provide a very useful pressure drop that should help keep your core alive.
It's not perfect, but that's how they do it, for better or worse.
So, if you're popping heater cores, please check the larger of the two hoses
that goes aft to the core at the firewall from the hard lines. If the larger
of the two has no restrictor in it, you will most assuredly _continue_ to pop
cores. Usually, the restrictor is in the hose just an inch or two aft of the
end of the hard line, and you can feel it without removing the hose.
You _have_ to have this restrictor for decent heater core life. It is about $1
from a dealer, if I recall correctly. There is also a Special Service (police)
version that supposedly has a smaller hole, but I have not confirmed this. If
you don't have anything in there, get one. The problem was not a "mistake in
hose sizes", the problem was "Oops, we left out the restrictor".
I don't know about '94s. But the tooling for that plumbing has been long since
paid for, so I'd be willing to bet a case of damaging beverage of your choice
that the '94s still have the fat heater core feed, and still require a
restrictor. Anybody with a '94, could you check and get back to me?
22 Jul 1994
[email protected]
> Well, I don't have my '90 GT manual with me, so I can't tell you the exact
> page, but I'm 99% sure it said 10-15 ft-lbs; is this a typo?
>
> Can you reference the 6-9 ft-lbs?
>
> I picked up a rubber gasket from a the local performance shop; I'm not
> sure of the brand, but is the torgue specification usually different for a
> rubber gasket vs. the stock cork? (I didn't look to see if the gasket had
> specifications on the package)
Oh, boy, here we go again. I have the short-form Ford specification books for
'86-93, inclusive, here in my office. It helps a great deal in sorting out
some of the questions for the list as they come up... I just ran back through
them, year by year, until I hit the spec change. I quote numbers out of them
all the time, since they're small and concise. It's easy to find what you need
in a hurry.
I only have the '93 full shop manual here. At home, I keep the '86 and '87
manuals. I really ought to get some of those manuals for the intervening
years, too, but that starts to run into sizeable cash... At least the spec
book for each year is only $16 or so, and Helm already has _enough_ of my
money.
I just looked up the same value in the '93 shop manual, and guess what? It
quotes 12-15ft-lb as the proper valve cover bolt torque spec. The '93 specs
manual says 6-9ft-lb. Oh, joy, another documentation nightwierdie. Now we get
to take a majority vote of the manuals, call Ford, and see which one's in
error... And then inform the list, so that I don't send people off to use the
wrong values. Thanks for pointing this out.
Hey, it's only a factor of 2... Is there any wonder why the service guys, who
slavishly follow the Ford doc to the letter, often make leaks worse?
Thanks, Ford, for the consistency. If I find out for sure, I'll let you know.
All the spec books from '89-93 claim that it's 6-9ft-lb, but it is _entirely_
possible that the tech writers have been playing cut-and-paste with us again.
They did that with the front brake sizes from '87-90, and were wrong every
freakin' year...
The rubber gaskets will probably have a different (higher) torque spec than
the cork versions. If they have metalling preload spacers, they can be torqued
down significantly tighter without allowing the cast cover to warp due to the
long unsupported spans between bolts.
23 Jul 1994
Joseph Edward Huesmann
[email protected]
Hi all... Just thought I'd tell how my installation went. Last Saturday I
had planned on installing yellow Koni struts, Maximum Motorsports
caster/camber plates, and Energy Suspension polyurethane control arm bushings.
I had borrowed an air compressor from work and bought an impact wrench at
Sears. Problems occurred when the impact wrench could not get the strut-
spindle bolts off. A rented electric impact wrench fared no better on the
passenger side but got the drivers side strut off. So I was able to get all
of the drivers side apart.
Since I couldn't do any more at the time I decided to try to get the rubber
control arm bushings off the control arm I got off the car. Torched up the
shell and pulled on the inner sleeve--pow! The thing comes shooting out the
shell and sprays burning rubber on my right arm. Ouch. I was much more
careful with the other one, but that one didn't explode.
At this point, Tom Stangler (first) suggested a breaker bar and pipe to get
the other strut-spindle bolts off. I went out and bought 'em and it worked
even though I had to jump up and down on the pipe.
The Energy Suspension bushings now come with their own outer shells so I
thought I should try to get the old ones out. Well, I thought by bending and
deforming them they'd loosen up and come out. I used a concrete press at work
for this which only succeeded in deforming the whole control arm around the
shell. There are times when you just can't be bothered to fix something you
f*cked up, so I just went out and bought a control arm at a boneyard. I
decided that it would be easier to just cut off the new shells and stuff the
poly bushings into the old shells already in the arms. Well, I torched up the
shells and got smart this time--I used a long rod with a T-end to pull the
rubber bushings out. So, I used a C-clamp to pry the poly bushings into the
shells. Then I drilled and tapped the shells for some 1/4" 28 zerks I got,
which worked quite well. At this point everything went back together pretty
smoothly although I had to use a jack to persuade the bushings to fit back
into the crossmember. Just a lot of sweat and cleaning agents.
I haven't really set the camber to what I want yet but initally the front
seems more stiff--dunno whether its the Konis or the bushings. The steering
seems to have much less of a centering force/tendency now (caster set as far
back as possible). Of course it may be just that I've become used to driving
a Taurus wagon over the past week. Also, I think I must have flip-flopped my
rotors because the brakes seem to need a little more pressure (the pedal
travel is still the same though) and I guess they just need to reseat
themselves. The pads are pretty evenly worn.
That's pretty much how it went. The thing about putting several parts on at
once is that you're not sure how much each affects the car. Thanks again to
those who gave ideas for the strut-spindle bolts!
29 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> At this time, there are no vendors making high tech, performance pads
> that *properly* fit the steel piston LSC calipers...
>
> The pads that you really, really _want_ would fall into the D346
> Police outline. These have much thicker backing plates (.220, that
> will resist warping better than the feeble .198 of the D150s), and
> antirattle clips that are a perfect mate with the big piston.
>
> Of course, nobody *makes* 'em, except with beaterbox semi-met linings
> that you don't want...
Hey, guys, guess what? I was _wrong_. I spent some more time with my
local PF rep last night, moaning and bitching about how they just kept
ignoring me about these pads. And he went back into his stock and dug out a
set of them. Yup, the D346 Police pads, with the heavy backing plates, right
there in my hot little hands, in Performance Friction's very useful CM-S
"black" street compound. I asked him why he hadn't told me about them before,
even when I asked about them by the FMSI number, and he said "Because they are
a Crown Vic pad, not a Mustang pad..."
Oh. Indeed. How silly of me.
Turns out, PF are _still_ ignoring me, but they found that they couldn't
ignore the Highway Patrol of some southern state or another that needed
several hundred sets for their Crown Vics. So proper pads are available, at
least from that one vendor, and the spring clips are a perfect no-brainer mate
to the steel-piston 73mm calipers. The PF lit only mentions the Crown Vic
application for these pads, and no other cross references.
The best news of all is that the spring clips provided with those pads are
snap-ons, rather than riveted on, which means that you can simply take them
off the pads and *keep* them when the friction material wears out. You could
then use that spring clip to _adapt_ any of the D199/200/431 pads properly (at
least after you break off their original clips), in case the D346s are out-of-
stock the next time you try to get them..
If you're in the Bay Area, Jeff James at South Bay Motorsports h
...
29 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
If someone could point me in the direction of the person who decided to use
Torx heads on the caliper pins on the "older" 10" front brakes, I'd be much
appreciative as I'd like to go to something very painful to him/her. Last
night I attempted to replace the rotors and calipers on the front of my '85
Capri. First item on the agenda (well, after the battle to get my cheap new
grease gun to accept a tube of grease) was getting the old calipers off. No
problem, thought I, as I'd bought a set of Torx "sockets" specifically for
this purpose.
Well, the caliper pins were rightously locked in place after not having been
touched since over 50,000 miles and 4 years ago. I managed to get the one of
the driver's side pins out, but the second pin resisted. I got it partially
unscrewed when it got reluctant again. Further efforts simply resulted in
bending the edges of the Torx socket.
I soaked the second pin in penetrating oil for whatever good it would do and
moved to the other side. The socket was extremely difficult to keep in the
caliper pin head due to the bent edges. Finally I managed to get it to hold
while I was suppling some torqe. *SNAP* Did the pin break loose? No, the
Torx socket broke.
Well, this eveining I'll go in search of another Torx socket (hopefully a
little better quality than the one from the "Lysle" set that I broke). If a
new socket doesn't do the trick (and it may not as the heads of the pins are
showing some damage from my efforts), does anyone have any suggestions on how
I can get those pins out? I don't have any power tools at home, so will have
to borrow/rent/buy if necessary.
And I thought this would be a nice simple job. With the Capri, I should have
known better...
29 Jul 1994
"Eric R. Nelson "
[email protected]
I have decided to finally replact the flex lines on my 88 GT with braided
stainless lines. This is for two reasons: I want a firmer pedal, and at 100k
miles, those rubber flex lines have gone way too far. Chris Behier wrote an
excellent article recently, and I am using his parts list for the earl's lines
and fittings. While ordering the stuff, however, The guy at Earl's (they are
incredibly friendly and helpful) and I got a little confused. What I need to
do now is list each of the parts and the intended use. Someone please let me
know if this is right. I am a total novice at plumming terminology, so here
is what I think should happen.
2 3/8# Banjo stainless steel braided lines 18" long These are the flex lines
for the front calipers. They connect to the caliper through a banjo fitting
and crush washer on one end, and connect to the hard lines using a 7/16"X24
flare to -3 inverted flare adaptor. IS THIS RIGHT
1 3/8" _BANJO_ stainless steel braided line 14" long This is for the rear
axle hop line. This is where the Earl's guy and I really go screwed up.
First, He said he had never seen an axle hop line connected using a banjo
fitting. Is this correct for a mustang. If so, we could not decide which
side the banjo went on, axle or frame. So, instead of the banjo fitting, he
set me up with another 7/16"x24 to -3 fitting for the chassis hardline to flex
line connection. I assume the flex line connects to the axle hard lines
through the 3/8x24 female T fitting. Two connections to the hard lines, and
one to the Flex line. Earl's set me up with a 3/8X24 to -3 inverted fitting to
conect the T to the flex line. According to Chris' list, I should have sone
use for 3/8x24 to -3 male to male adaptor, but I can't see what that is.
My basic problem is this: I think I have a good handle on how the front lines
go together. If not, please correct me. My understanding of the axle hop
line and its connections is tenuous to say the least. I would really
appreciate it if someone would lead me by the hand explaining exactly what
fittings go where on each side of the rear flex line. Thanks for hearing my
plea. nel
...
Correct. You salvage the bracket from the stock flex line by cutting the brass
tee block off of it, and you then fasten the new Tee to it.
> Earl's set me up with a 3/8X24 to -3 inverted fitting to conect the T to the
> flex line.
> According to Chris' list, I should have sone use for 3/8x24 to -3 male to
> male adaptor, but I can't see what that is.
That last adapter is what you use to connect the Tee to the flex line, and the
adapter seals to the Tee with a single crush washer. The part number in the
list is correct. I don't know what the Earls guy gave you, but it _may_ be the
right part, if the hex on it is large enough to seal with a crush washer.
> My basic problem is this: I think I have a good handle on how the front lines
> go together. If not, please correct me. My understanding of the axle hop
> line and its connections is tenuous to say the least. I would really
> appreciate it if someone would lead me by the hand explaining exactly what
> fittings go where on each side of the rear flex line.
You're going to have to get under the car and _look_ at it. The banjo goes on
the chassis (forward) end, you route the hose in a flat loop, and terminate it
on the male-male adapter that you've installed in the "stem" of the Tee. Each
"branch" of the Tee gets one of the two hard lines that run down the axle
tubes, with no further adapters or hackery.
That's one minor problem with Chris's article, as it made a few points a
little unclear in the installation process. If anyone else is confused on
this, please get in touch with me directly, as his article is based directly
on information from my article "Building the Perfect Pony". I'm grateful to
Chris for pointing out that Earl's had changed their part numbers since BTPP
was first written, but his article did kind of cloud exactly how it all went
together for some folks.
Here's the correct parts list:
> For the front lines, you'll need:
>
> 2 Earl's #63010218 18" 3AN-banjo assembled, tested flex hose
> 2 Earl's #989549 7/16"x24 Female SAE flare-3AN adapter
> pkg 10 Earl's #177003 10mm, 3/8" crush washers (always keep spares on
> hand)
>
> For the rear axle hop, you'll need:
>
> 1 Earl's #581531 3/8"x24 Male SAE flare-3AN adapter (make sure,
> if you get some cross-reference part, that the hex is large
> enough to seal on a crush washer).
> 1 Earl's #972050 GM Tee- 3/8"x24 in, 2 3/8" SAE flare outs
> 1 Earl's #63010214 14" 3AN-banjo assembled, tested flex hose
> 1 of those spare crush washers from above.
>
> For the rear hop, you salvage the bracket that secures the existing
> tee, and use it to mount the new tee. It just requires minor bending,
> and the drilling of a 1/4" hole to mount the new tee, once you remove
> it from the existing flex line.
18 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 16, Joe Huesmann wrote:
> Unfortunately, there was no way I could
> get the passenger strut-spindle bolts off. The impact wrench didn't
> work, even heating the nuts and using penetrating oil. I split two
> sockets trying to unlock them. The only other thing I could think of
> besides getting a massive impact wrench would be just to take a carbide
> circular blade to the things, splitting the bolt shank and nut and hoping
> the two nut halves fall off.
I have a nice Craftsman 18" breaker bar, a 24mm impact socket, and a 6 foot
length of pipe that I have occasionally called into use on the more stubborn
nuts I have encountered. I hate to abuse hand tools, but there are times that
invoking the Lifetime Warranty is in order. And I've never broken it yet,
unbelieveably.
The sad thing is that what you're actually doing right _now_ is probably the
most effective, which is to walk away for 24 hours and let the penetrating
lube have a realistic chance to penetrate. So many poeple pour that stuff on,
and then immediately go nuts with the wrenches, before it even has a chance to
get in there to do some good.
> (btw, man, those rubber bushings sure stink when you set them on fire!
> And they're sure messy when they explode out of the shell!)
It's a bit late now, but you didn't need to heat them quite _that_ much to ge
tthe top nuts off. 350degF will do. That's just enough that the rubber just
barely begins to smoke a bit, and _then_ wail on it with the imapce wrench.
One other thing that helps in gettng the strut nut off, just for what it's
worth (and this wouldn't have helped you either!), is that it's best to pull
the spindle-strut bolts first, releasing the spring preload. If the spring
load is still supported by the strut, that binds up the threads, worsening the
problem. And also leading to the spring slamming the control arm into the
ground when the nut finally does come loose, unless the arm is well
supported...
18 Jul 1994
[email protected]
On Jul 15, Scott Persson wrote:
> I'm about to attemp to take the rear end out of my wreck '84 SVO
> Mustang and was wondering if anyone has done this type of job. It's the
> early '84 so it doesn't have the quadra shock set up.
The control arm bolts and nuts are all 18mm. The shock mount bolts perversely
have 15mm heads and 18mm nuts. The brake line has a 12mm banjo bolt, and the
parking brake cables can just be unhooked from the lever bridge bar up in the
tranny tunnel. Removal shoul dbe about a 20-minute job. If the car was rolled,
assume that both axle shafts are bent, and are therefore scrap. Maximum
allowable runout is .030 at the wheel rim. Identify any bent shafts so that
you can pull them and throw them away. If they are bent, take a ball-peen
hammer and beat the shit out of the bearing race areas on the axle, so that no
unscrupulous scrap dealer can stumble across them and sell them to somebody
down the road as "good used axles"....
> I've got the power steering unit of the my rolled '84 SVO, but not all
> the way. How do I disconnect it from the spindles? I've removed the
> nut from the top and tried to get it off? Do I use a hammer and beat
> it off or do I need some type of special tool to pry it away?
Use a two-jaw puller. You might as well go down to Sears or your local
hardware store and buy one now, since you'll need it to separate the spindle
from the ball joint stud anyway. _Gentle_ heating of the steering arm woth a
propane torch to 300-400degF may help, as may penetrating oil. hooke the
puller jaws over the arm, run the puller's jackscrew down onto the stud, and
torque it down to a comfortable level of tightness. It should pop the tapered
stud loose, but given the of nature, it may not. In the case of extreme
reluctance, you can tap on the top of the jackscrew or the side of the arm in
an effort to shock the stud loose, but more often than not you'll simply knock
off the puller. Don't hit the tie rod end, or you'll ruin it.
If the car was rolled, assume that the spindles are bent. When you get them
loose, take them to a good front end shop that has a spindle gage, and ask
them to check them for straightness. If they are bent, immediately take a
ball-peen hammer and beat the shit out of the bearing race areas on the
spindle, so that no unscrupulous scrap dealer can stumble across them and sell
them to somebody down the road as "good used spindles"....
There _is_ a theme here. I've lost some money, a lot of time, and earned a few
gray hairs as a result of buying parts that shoudl have been scrapped.
Everybody, please help keep the scrap parts out of the used parts stream!
18 Jul 1994
[email protected]
On Jul 18, Ken Corpus wrote:
> 1) The survey does not appear to take into account the regularity, or lack
> thereof, of the oil changes.
> 2) The survey also does not appear to take into the account the activity or
> driving habits of the vehicle.
Good points, of course. It might also be instructive to note what the
progression of consumption rates have been over the lifetimes of the higher
mileage cars, such as mine. It amuses me no end to note that in gentle, normal
highway driving (which is to say, during the offseason), my car's consumption
rate drops off to ~1qt/2000 mi. Problem is, I generally get to a track event
about once every 3000 miles, and at the track I blow through a quart per
weekend (1qt/250 os so miles), so the rates are always somewhat, shall we say,
inflated...
Since new, my car has swallowed a quart every 2500 miles or so, so my current
rate really hasn't changed materially in the life of the car to date. I claim
that it has stayed around that base rate, modulo oil leaks and valve guide
wear (which I have a _lot_ of), since the rings seated. And that includes very
close to 10K miles at WOT, high revs, and very high operating temps.
I think that in general it is a mistake to read too much into the small sample
of cars we have here. Probably the best thing I can think of to summarize the
survey is that "5.0s may or may not consume some oil". If your consumption is
less than the canonical 1qt/1000mi figure, your plugs aren't showing signs of
oil fouling, and the puddles that form under your car from the more or less
inevitable valve cover, lifter valley, and rear main seal leaks are below EPA
Superfund levels, then you're quite likely OK.
On the other hand, that puff of blue smoke on the overrun after you lift out
of the throttle, or the 6-inch dia. puddle that forms under the car overnight,
might well indicate something that requires your attention sooner than
later...
Consumption rates of up to 1qt/1000mi should *not* be considered pathological.
The shop manuals call out 1qt/900mi (after the initial 7500mi) as a maximum
consumption rate for vehicles "in normal service". Sounds like nobody on the
list has a 5.0 that's even close to the threshold of "tired", at least in an
oil consumption sense. Not even Andre's old Capri.
My motor is tired. But I have surely gotten more than my money's worth from it
already, and there's more where that came from...
19 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 18, Chuck Fry wrote:
> If you MUST spend money on ignition parts, get an MSD-6AL spark box and
> a set of MSD or Ford Motorsport wires. Or just get the wires. Hell,
> get Jacobs' wires, they seemed to work fine on my car.
But watch your step with even their plug wires. Back when I was young and
foolish, I bit on their ad ("Kajillions more HP, no radio noise, practically
free, and it's guaranteed or your money back!") and bought a set of their plug
wires and the "Doctor's Guide to Optimizing Your Ignition" direct from Jacobs
via mailorder.
Well, the plug wires didn't come anywhere _near_ fitting (I guess that the 5.0
_is_ a kind of unusual application, after all), and the book was quite
amazingly content-free. I called their customer service department to get an
RMA number to return both, and was curtly informed that their "money-back
guarantee" didn't apply to electrical equipment or books.
Oh. Imagine my surprise! Since all they _sell_ is electrical equipment and
books, I guess that was meant to tell me to go screw. And I don't like that.
After about 4 months and way too much abuse to describe here, I did indeed get
my money back (by having my credit card company refuse the charge). Last time
I talked to them, they were still claiming that they "never received my return
UPS shipment" after they finally grudgingly did give me an RMA. Amazingly, the
UPS trace documents indicate that they did in fact sign for it, so that was
good enough for my credit card company. Thanks you, UPS. I was not impressed
with what passed for customer service there, needless to say.
Good luck collecting on their guarantee claims, unless you buy something from
them that's not "electrical equipment and books". I'd go so far as to suggest
that you very carefully document *every* transaction and phone call you might
have with them, including getting the full name and title of each Jacobs
employee you speak with. You may find that such diligent recordkeeping is very
useful, in the fullness of time...
Caveat emptor.
Opinion follows. When their stuff is used on every frontrunning Trans-Am, IMSA
GTO, and NASCAR Late-Model Sportsman car that I look at (as the MSD product
line is), I'll believe their claims. As it is now, their products are
conspicuous by their absence in racing paddocks across the country. As I see
it, the reason is simple: professional racing folks have no patience for
fluff.
19 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 19, Bob_Wise wrote:
> Is the legal PBR caliper for AS the dual piston Cobra-R, or the single
> piston Corvette caliper?
>
> Sorry for these questions, I've lost the pertinent issue of
> Sportscar. :-(
Dual piston Cobra R. Which is also, except for the size of the mounting bolt
holes, identical to the dual piston non-FE7 (JL9? I can't keep track of these
GM numbers) Corvette part. The 12.5" x .810" JL9 Corvette parts, whose numbers
I believe are 10104471/10104472 for the caliper and 10104476/10181205 for the
anchor plates, are the ones you want.
Apparently, you do _not_ want the FE7, 13" x 1.1" setup. I don't know what the
mounting bolt size is for the smaller caliper. If it's like the FE7 stuff, it
has 14mm mount holes, as opposed to the 12mm used for the SN-95 Ford
mountings. Or if you're welding up spindle ears on '87-93 Mustang spindles,
just drill 'em for 14mm and leave the GM mounting stuff alone- the parts are
probably cheaper there.
Until the Comp Board changes their minds, anyway, and clarifies the situation
to indicate that everybody has to run MGB-GT rotors and calipers for safety
and cost reasons...
If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. Please! I can't keep the GM stuff
straight, and I just have one old dog-eared fax to work from, and they call
everything FE7 this and J55 that and I have no freakin' _clue_ what all that
shit means.
All I know is that the FE7 stuff is the _good_ (ZR1) stuff, and you can't have
it- at least this week.
22 Jul 1994
[email protected] (John Dettori)
> I have heard an awful lot about parts of the SVO Mustangs on this
> list, but I was wondering is someone(s) can summerize all the
> differences between it and other mustangs (both before 87 and after).
> More specifically I would like to know about the brakes and suspension
> and any other tid bits. I know quite a bit of the basics already but
> it would really be interesting to see it all summerized.
OK Russ, you asked for it! You are talking to the NUMBER ONE SVO fan on the
planet, a regional director for SVOOA (owners association), and recent
attendee of the SVO Nationals at Indianappolis (held in conjunction with SAAC-
19). If you'd like, I'll send you a sample newsletter, the Turbo Times that
will probably give you the flavor of what you asked.
HISTORY
Essentially, Ford got back into racing in the late-70s, and created Special
Vehicles Operations to oversee, provide support for, and manufacture parts for
factory and private-backed Ford racing efforts. They did a hell-of alot of
good racing in Europe; emerging from those efforts was a 2.3l 4cyl that put
out > 700hp normally aspirated! In 1983, Michael Kranefuss was appointed head
of SVO, and he made it his mission to produce a car to win the market
recognition that he wa getting on the track. The idea for a hi-tech Mustang
was born. From 1984 - 1986 the market had "Ford's ultimate BMW killer" (C/D
Sept '84).
EQUIPMENT
The SVO Mustang has quite a few differences from the other Mustang hatchbacks:
- different front fenders - 2.3l Intercooled Turbo engine w/
- aero grille canted valves 35lbs FI
- Marchal fog lamps overhead cam variable timing
- Bi-plane spoiler 4-bolt mains hi-vol fuel pump
- functional off-center hood scoop a header into dual exhausts
- Modified T-5 trans w/gears matching the power band
- Hurst 5-speed shifter
- 7.5" rear w/3.73 traction lok rear
- 16" 5-stud wheel hubs
- 4-wheel disc brakes
- 16"x8" aluminum rims w/Goodyear Eagle 225-16VR tires
- Re-worked Front Suspension geometry
- Quad shock rear (original)
- adjustable koni struts up-front
- Incredible seats
- standard: deluxe interior, pw, pdl, ps, a/c,tilt,8k tach,gauges,Ford prem.
am/fm cassette, fold-down rear seat.
- More fun than any other car I've ever driven!
They only made 9844 cars! With 210bhp in a 2985 lbs package that doesn't spin
the wheels, I surprise quite a few late model GTs! Currently ranging from
$3,500 - 12k with the average being about $5k, the CAR IS A STEAL!
Collectibility, guaranteed. Hope you enjoyed the 60-sec. blurb! Drive one,
you'll know what I mean. Or call 1-705-525-SVO1 and speak to Dave LaRocque,
President of the SVOOA.
22 Jul 1994
Dan Malek
[email protected]
Add to the list (we should probably make this a FAQ):
>Exterior:
Different front fenders. They have a slightly different roll and a "crease"
to make the front facia fit properly. You can use standard Mustang fenders,
but the fit will not be quite correct and a real SVO-head can tell the
difference.
Different side mouldings (which are no longer available, BTW)
Rear rocker panel "extensions" (fender skirt)
Different trim behind the rear window
Various types of SVO badges (none, decals, or metal-like substance)
>Interior:
Different gauge and idiot light layout, with boost gauge.
>Mechanical:
All had 7.5 inch T-Lok rear. Early '84 used 3.45 ratio, later was 3.73.
Early '84 had lower (numerically higher) first gear (4.03:1).
Different rear suspension bushings (according to Skod not long ago).
I have also heard of relocated rear pick up points, but could never
confirm this.
Different K-frame, lower arms, tie rod ends, front bushings, sway bar.
Fairly light, constant rate springs, car is about 1" lower than stock.
Early '84 used 20:1 steering rack.
There was a factory Competition Prepared suspension package, but
these are rare.
Different master cylinder (to match larger disc brakes).
There are other differences from one year to the next, but these are
the basic changes from a "regular" Mustang.
22 Jul 1994
[email protected]
On Jul 22, Jay Fletcher wrote:
> > > Would 4 wheel disk brakes help keep the front ones from warping?
>
> The pads that came with my SSB kit are extremely grippy (and noisy). I'm
> running the PF Carbon Kevlar
> street pads in the front and I'm still locking up the rears
> before the fronts. This is with the Lincoln calipers in front and the SVO
> master cylinder with the proportioning valve gutted.
>
> I've been thinking of higher Cf in the _front_. Perhaps the PF Race pads.
Um- PF doesn't make any Carbon-Kevlar pads. Their CM-S street compound is a
carbon metallic, and it's pretty good, but its Cf is much lower than your rear
pads by the sound of it. It could be that SSB is shipping their Carbon-Kevlar
pads with their kits nowadays. "Grippy" and "noisy" describe them pretty well.
You'd probably find *for track use* that medium compound Carbon-Kevlar pads
(the CC Motorsport "blue" pads, PowrPad race pads, SSB carbon-kevlar pads, or
Porterfield carbon-kevlar pads) in front, and the special soft Carbon-Kevlars
in rear (CC Motorsport "orange", or SSB or Porterfield "soft" compounds), will
give you a pretty good balance, and decent pad and rotor life. Hawk Carbotic
race pads up front would also be a good match in terms of Cf and heat
resistance, but they will eat a set of stock rotors in a weekend (whether they
warp or not!). Last time I ran them, I took .040 off the pads, and .080 off
the rotors in a single event. Yes, the rotors wear faster than the pads.
I'm also told, although I haven't personally run it yet, thet the new
Performance Friction CM90 compound is an excellent blending of the high Cf of
the CM83 "blue" race compound, and the streetability and long rotor/pad life
of the current CM-S (CM-63, CM-68) street pads. That sounds like it would be a
great match for the CC Motorsport "orange" pads in back on the T-bird derived
rear brake kit for brisk street and middling track use.
PF CM-S pads up front, and carbon-kevlars in *any* compound in the rear, will
give you a rear-biased car, and that'll be altogether too dramatic at corner
entry.
All this discussion also assumes that you've upgraded the front calipers. If
you're running the stock front calipers (instead of the 73mm Lincoln units),
running carbon-kevlars in the rear will give you a rear-happy car, regardless
of your front pad choice. The small front calipers don't have the piston area
to keep up with the high-Cf pads in the rear. You'll have to back off to some
lower Cf compound.
For *street use*, especially for those cars that still have the stock calipers
up front, it sounds like the current hot setup is the PF CM-90 pads all
around. You *really* want to avoid any chance of rear-heavy brake bias for
street use, where driving conditions, and the driver's level of attentiveness,
are highly variable.
Regardless of anything else, a well-set-up rear disk system will extend front
rotor life considerably. But you have to take real steps to keep the front
rotors alive in track use, like spending some serious effort on ducting in
vast quantities of cooling air, and making sure that the wheels allow that air
someplace to go. Cooling is the single most important factor for pad and rotor
life, and that cannot be overemphasized. If you don't have adequate cooling,
nothing else matters bery much. The pads and rotors _will not last_.
22 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Not all SVO's that I have seen have had leather interiors, Two I looked at had
grey cloth. I suppose they might not have been stock, though.
My first mustang was an 84 Gt-Turbo, which was sort of a neat car. 2.3 liter
turbo, no intercooler, 3.73 gears (stock) T50D trans, 14" 4-lug wheels. When
I bought it, It had 79K on it, and had just had the turbo replaced with a
water-cooled unit, the crankshaft replaced, and the clutch replaced. I drove
it for 20K miles with no problems other than the water temp sensor for the FI
going out, which was $25 and an easy fix. The car was pretty quick, no 5.0 by
any means, but lively and fun. I drove it pretty hard, lots of 90mph trips
around the state. The trans started making noise in 5th and 3rd, the two
gears I used the most, sort of a light scraping, scuffing sound. My car was
red, with the non-glare black hood paint, t-tops (great, I miss 'em) red cloth
interior. It was a good car, but after a year and a half and 20K miles I was
ready to move up to a 5.0, so I did.
Oh, two problems with my 88 GT: In cold weather, the four idiot lights for low
coolant, low oil, low fuel, washer fluid, come on at the same time, and stay
on until the car warms up. THey sometimes flash, in unison, when you work the
turn signal. In warm weathe rthey work just fine.
When I say they stay on until the car warms up I mean until it gets warm
INSIDE the car, not until the engine reaches normal temp.
THe other problem I'm having is with the power sunroof-moonroof thing, it is a
glass panel that slides back to open the roof, or up in the back to crack open
like a 70's moonroof. It's starting to break dowm, like I knew it would, and
looks like the tracks are a bit worn and bent. Anyone ever had to replace
these tracks, and if so was it a pain to get parts?
26 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 26, Robert Cavaleri wrote:
> 1)Has anybody tried/been successful with an SVO to V8 swap
> of the SVO 11" 5 lug front *and* rear brake assembly? What
> are the problems, and is this viable?
It is viable, but there are certain issues that may or may not be problems.
First of all, the SVO used the '83-83 Continental control arms, spindles, and
steering rack on a unique K-frame. This led the car to have 1.75" wider track
(measured from wheel mounting flange to mounting flange). This was acommodated
by using wheels with 7/8" greater offset (1.75" versus .88" for the normal
GT). The SVO also used the Continental's axle right off the rack, which led to
a 1.75" wider track at the rear also. They are also drilled for 5 lugs on a
4.5" bolt circle.
Now, putting the SVO front brakes on an '87-up 5.0 is easy. You can simply
swap in the 73mm bore SVO/LSC calipers, since the mountings are identical, and
put on the 5-lug SVO rotors, and you'll be ready to go. But the front track
will be the stock GT track, requiring .88" offset wheels. The only way to
increase the front track to the SVO width would be with SVO control arms, or
perhaps the '87-88 T-bird Turbo Coupe arms, which are close to the correct
dimension and are even still semi-available. This gives you buckets of
negative camber, which is a win.
Putting the rear together is also easy. You can get the .875" longer axles
('82-83 Continental, SVO Mustang, Ranger pickup), the SVO Mustang brake
calipers and mounting brackets (which are still available through Ford), and
bolt it right up. However, this will leave your rear track 1.75" wider than
your front, and you'll either have to run an asymmetrical set of wheels (1.75"
offset at the rear, .88" at the front), swap the control arms as described
above, or do something else to make it all match up. And don't forget the SVO
Mustabg's unique parking brake brackets. Took me the longest time to find
those...
You'll also need the 1.125" bore SVO master cylinder, and the SVO Mustang prop
valve (or an adjustable aftermarket replacement).
I have had exactly this setup on my car. In the rear, I fabricated my own
brake brackets which are welded in place. I have a very funky non-stock
8.8"/9" axle hybrid setup, but the combination of these parts has let me have
an axle with _nearly_ the stock track width. The stock SVO rear caliper mount
brackets are flat stampings, and modifying them to offset the calipers .87"
inboard to meet up with a stock-width axle is doable, but nontrivial. I stayed
with essentially the stock track in front, as well.
Unless you are comfortable with manufacturing your own brake caliper mounting
brackets (or modifying Ford bracketry to fit), and having custom 5-lug axle
shafts made to the shorter Mustang length, there is no simple way to get the
stock Mustang track with those 5-lug brakes. If you want to go to the wider
track all around, it is much more doable, but watch out for tire/fender
interference, and more importantly for the engaged thread length on the tie
rod ends with the longer arms. It is marginal at best, and may require you to
go find SVO Mustang/T-bird Turbo Coupe inner tie rods as well. That's the fun
of mixing and matching from the Ford parts bin. Roll over any rock, and meet a
whole new challenge/feature/annoyance...
Aren't you glad you asked?
> 2)Can an 87-93 rear hatch fit onto an '82 body? I have
> located an inexpensive stock hatch with a rear defroster.
Don't know. Anyone else?
26 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 22, Joe Huesmann wrote:
> Anyway, I was just wondering whether any of the pad vendors are making
> pads with clips to fit LSC pistons, or if you just have to cut off
> the Mustang-size clip and stick on an LSC-size clip. I remember getting
> a set of these things with my rebuilt LSC calipers, though the street
> pads I got had the right size clip for the steel pistons. The pads
> are the same size, if I'm not mistaken.
At this time, there are no vendors making high tech, performance pads that
*properly* fit the steel piston LSC calipers, but there are a lot of pads that
fit well enough. There are five nearly-identical pad outlines that are used to
fit the 11" rotor Fox front brakes. The dimensions of the friction material
portions are identical. They only differ in the configurations of the
antirattle springs and the thickness of the backing plates.
They are referred to by the FMSI (Friction Materials Standards Institute) pad
outline number. The most common is the stock '87-93 pad size, which uses a 3-
prong antirattle clip on the driven pad that is intended to mate with the ID
of the 66mm steel piston. This outline is D431 (which is also the Raybestos,
PF, Wagner, and Carbomet part number, BTW. Aren't standards _great_?).
The next most common are nearly identical to the first, which are the D199 and
D200 pad outlines. These are for slightly earlier 73mm applications like the
'81-84 Crown Vic and similar cars (including the SVO Mustang), and they differ
only in the configuration of the three prongs on the antirattle clip. These
were *designed* for the thick walled phenolic piston in the early 73mm
calipers, but the spring clips actually mate remarkably well with the ID of
the 66mm steel piston in the late calipers as well. You'd almost think it was
intentional, but I'm told that this was entirely by accident. Whatever. So
most brake manufacturers stopped there and said "oh, Fox applications?
D199/D200 covers 'em all, cradle to grave. We're done. Next?"
They were wrong. There is a different family of outlines that mate *correctly*
with the 73mm steel piston calipers. They are the D150 and D346. These have
two-prong clips that extend clear to the inner and outer radii on the driven
pad, and properly engage the lip on the big steel piston. Problem is, these
outlines have been obsolete since 1981, except for the 86-89 Crown Vic Police
application. No new "performance cars" use them. The 73mm steel piston was
designed for the heavy-duty Police/Taxi/stationwagon application, you see, and
even the wagons quit using them in '81.
So the performance aftermarket ignores them, because the LSC/SVO, proper
performance cars, all came with those 73mm phenolic pistons that the D199
works just great on. Except for a few fools and brake system fanatics like
me, nobody realizes that the *steel-piston* calipers are the hot setup for
late Mustangs. And hotrod cross-references do not appear in the FMSI manual.
Believe me, I've _looked_. If you just follow the index to the right page in
the manuals, you'd miss it.
The pads that you really, really _want_ would fall into the D346 Police
outline. These have much thicker backing plates (.220, that will resist
warping better than the feeble .198 of the D150s), and antirattle clips that
are a perfect mate with the big piston.
Of course, nobody *makes* 'em, except with beaterbox semi-met linings that you
don't want. But I'm working hard at changing that, and I've been lobbying all
of the pad vendors (well, the ones who will still listen to me, anyway) that
they *really* want to tool up for these backing plates. Problem is that
everyone is making do well enough with the D199s, so there's no crying demand
for the correct pads. Just little 'ol me...
Until that happens, use whatever you can get. When I can only get D199/D200
backing plates, I just break the springs off, throw them away, and run without
them. If they rattle or squeal, you can simply use some of the antisqueal glue
goops to glue them to the piston, and that works fine for the street. For
street-only use, you could run Raybestos' D150 or D346 semi-mets, if you can
find them, and only swap to the noisy race pads for the track. Your choice.
It was necessary to invest a lot of research time in all this ancient history
to figure out what Ford, and the brake industry in general, have been _doing_
all these years. The guys from PF and Raybestos shudder when they see me
coming now...
26 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 26, Brian Kelley wrote:
> >8742-1012 Sport is the OEM front strut for the Cobra R Mustang
> >and is a double adjustable shock. No lifetime warranty.
> >**Do not order this for your 87-93 Mustang. The Cobra R from the
> >factory has 87-93 A-arms with 94 Spindles. Unless you have this setup,
> >these struts will NOT work on your 87-93 Mustang.**
>
> Not work? That is not consistent with my experience or my setup. The
> fine details are a little different between a '93 and '94 spindle and
> strut, but this is most certainly not a **Do not**.
>
> I am running '94 spindles with struts intended for a '85 and with
> struts intended for a '87-'93. With this setup the '85 struts require
> a flat spacer with two holes (just as they did when I ran them on '91
> spindles). The '87-'93 struts are a bolt-on. I am not the only
> person in Dearborn running '93 or '85 struts with '94 spindles.
>
> This isn't a big deal. In fact, I didn't bother to spend much time
> even considering the issue once I knew the exact measurements (which I
> have gleefully forgotten). The big difference (in regard to the
> strut) involves the location of the strut mounting ear on the strut
> body. Essentially, the location of the mounting ears makes the pickup
> points on the old struts a little bit closer together - the old struts
> are "shorter".
Brian, I have to differ. These very special, Cobra-R-specific struts have a
shaft that is 25mm *longer* than the normal '87-93 dimension. This was done to
acommodate the SN-95 spindle, which has a strut mount ear that is 25mm lower,
to acommodate the new hood line and strut towers within the SN-95 sheetmetal.
If you use these special longer struts in a stock (or worse yet, _lowered_)
Fox-3 application, with the tall Fox-3 spindles, you will very likely smash
the pistons into the crash stops in bump. The strut rods are *too long*,
unless you have the SN-95 spindle's lowered mounting ear.
The configuration *you* are running (early struts on SN-95 spindles) does
indeed run just fine, because the lowered strut mount on the spindle gives you
_back_ an inch of suspension travel, in the case of a lowered car. The way
you've done it, that 25mm difference is a win. Going the other way, with those
orphaned Cobra-R struts on Fox-3 spindles, would lead to two broken struts
after just a few good bumps. Ken's warning on those special part numbers is
well stated.
> For me, this is actually _good_, because I don't run the car at the
> stock ride height...
>
> When you attach a '93 strut to a '94 spindle _and_ lower the car, the
> shorter strut helps make up for that change in ride height. This
> happens because the piston at rest is more closely positioned where
> the strut designer intended.
>
> I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one.
This part is correct. But the stretched '93 Cobra-R struts are _bad news_,
unless you put together a hybrid like the car itself was. Make sense?
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
28 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 28, Michael J. Mistick wrote:
> driving: daily spirited driving to work over rolling hills and curves
> preference: would rather get more miles out of the tires than the ultimate
> performance (still want great performance though), but
> wouldn't mind having both, ride noise and harshness are not
> important
> official: the glove box label lists both the 16" and 17" GT wheels at 30psi
Then 30psi would be the *absolute minimum* I would even contemplate running,
and then only for long, cushy freeway driving. For spirited driving, I would
go significantly higher than that, at least on the front. Certainly going as
high as the max pressure rating on the tire sidewall, cold, is not excessive.
Unless you're engaging in real track driving, the total temperature rise is
only a few tens of degrees, and the pressure rise will only be 5 or 6 pounds.
I don't know those tires, or that car, very well at all. Experiment, using the
sticker values as a minimum and maybe 40psi as a maximum. You can certainly go
higher, safely (track drivers go quite a bit higher, and really stress the
tires while they're at it), but for long miles of freeway driving the
increased wear and ride harshness will probably outweigh the benefit in grip.
Only your butt knows for sure what mix of the two is right for your style of
driving, and those particular tire carcasses.
Remember one thing. In the modern era of steel-belted radial tires, the old
adage of "overinflation will wear out the center of the tread, underinflation
the edges" is a lot less dramatically true. This still has an effect on
relative wear rates, edge to center, but the radial belts and particularly the
circumferential tread belts make the "worn-out-in-the-center", grandaddy's-
Buick tire wear almost impossible to achieve. You can run the tires amazingly
hard, much harder than you *ever* could have with bias-ply tires, with only a
minor increase in the wear rate in the center of the tread. This gives you a
_very_ wide range of pressures to tune the ride and handling with, literally
the entire 30psi-42psi range.
The edges will die _much_ faster from underinflation than the center will for
overinflation.
> What about grossly overinflated tires? (violent failure possible?)
> If 40psi front, 36psi rear at operating temperature is good, what is grossly
> overinflated? (front 43psi rear 39psi? front 46psi rear 42psi?
> front 49psi rear 45psi?)
Tire mounting shops will more-or-less routinely inflate the tires to 55-60psi
to seat the beads on the wheel. This is obviously too high for extended
driving, and does begin to pose a hazard both from tire carcass failure and
from wheel failure. However, I have run 225/60-15s as high as 52psi for
specific reasons, without the car suddenly making like a cartoon balloon and
whizzing off down the road. Hot pressures in the 50s are often seen by
trackies in the throes of tweaking the last few tenths of a second out of
their lap times.
For long-term road driving, I'd have to think of about 45psi as "gross
overinflation", and 50psi as "don't do this at home".
Here's the rationale. In some of the dirt oval series, DOT type-approved tires
are used at very low pressure, and have a tendency to pull the beads off the
wheel seat under cornering loads. So the wheel makers have started making some
specialized oval-track wheels that have a rolled-in lip to retain the bead,
which requires the tire to be _grossly_ overinflated to "snap" the bead over
this lip and into place.
These guys are seeing a spate of bead failures at around 90-100psi. Thus, for
a DOT type-approved tire (since the DOT specs the bead and carcass strength),
I believe that an upper limit of 50psi leaves a sizable safety margin, at
least with fresh tires from real vendors. Just my opinion, but backed up with
conversations with the racing reps for several major tire vendors.
Certainly, do not let anyone tell you that the "max pressure" figure from the
sidewall is the pressure beyond which instantaneous, disastrous failure is
guaranteed to occur. It is _not_. The DOT max pressure spec on the sidewall
has to do with the load rating/life test procedures, and is very specifically
defined by law. But it is not the good figure of merit for the correct maximum
inflation pressure for the tire that the uninformed public often thinks it is.
Now, having said that, the disclaimers. None of this applies to those "Condor
Widebody Raised White Letter" recaps that the corner gas station sells, by the
way. But those aren't tires, anyway, they are big black paperweights... If you
are going to tune the car with the tires, they must be _good_ tires, from a
reputable manufacturer.
The same thing goes for the wheels. A 225/50-16 tire inflated to 70psi has a
sidewall area of about 280in2, so it will be exerting a force of about
19,600lb axially on the wheel (trying to pull the two wheel halves apart). The
tire can probably take it, but a cheapo wheel might have an aneurysm, and
those kinds of forces, released all at once, are what's called a "bomb" in
most languages. Cracked, damaged, and badly made wheels are _also_
paperweights. *Please be careful* if you intend to venture into the
stratospheric pressures of track use, which for the purposes of this article
we will define as "45+psi". All the bits must be in top shape, no exceptions.
> What if I get the pressures just right at daily operating temperature, but
> then go out and run really hard (still on the street)? Could it
...
> enough to cause any problems (like violent failure)? or would it just
> wear the tires out faster?
No. You'd have to drive at serious track pressures, with serious track
violence, to begin to cross into that gray area. Let's say that you settle on
38psi for the fronts, and you go out and really pound on it on some of the
nice twisty mountain roads around here. You might see a 6-7psi rise once you
were up to temp. 45psi? Not a problem, most likely. That used to be pretty
close to my track target pressure...
In my opinion, this is little hazard. But the thought does you credit! Very
few people ever pause to think that their actions might actually have a
downside...
> How much does the difference between front and rear pressure make?
A great deal. There is a correct front pressure, and a correct rear pressure,
and the absolute value of difference between them is not really very
important. You want to use the pressures to control the sidewall and contact
patch compliance to maximize the grip. The weight distribution for the '94s is
slightly different that for the older cars, so the pressure distribution will
be different as well.
On the older cars, running the rears about 4-6psi softer resulted in a much
reduced instance of wheelspin at corner exit, and better behavior under
braking and in maximum cornering. Too soft, and the tail would get unhappy
under cornering loads (you could feel the sidewalls rolling under). Too hard,
and the tail would get unhappy (you could feel the contact patches skittering
across the road). Of course, everyone else's driving style probably would have
led them to slightly different pressures. There is no magic number.
> Does this still hold true for a '94 street Mustang?
> Is there any magical/special type of pop-rivet to put in after drilling out
> the factory one when setting the camber?
I don't know about those specs- only time and hackery will tell.
As for the poprivet: drill it out and forget it. It serves _no_ mechanical
function whatsoever after the car leaves the assembly line. It is far too weak
to contribute materially as a structural member. I'm told that its only
purpose was to secure the strut plate on the assembly line, after the
alignment was done but before all the nuts were torqued down. Once it is gone,
you can use the index holes as indicators as you make minor alignment tuning
changes in the privacy of your own driveway. Each hole is *very approximately*
1/4deg in camber, for what it's worth.
29 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 29, [email protected] wrote:
> Can you put a 100 watt bulb in place of the stock 55 watt bulb that
> goes in the Fog Lamps of 85-86 GT's and SVO's? If you can, will it be safe
> or will it blow the fuse and possibly other things. Thanks in advance!
No. This will immediately start the old "headlight-breaker-flash" cycle, where
the headlights cycle on and off as the thermal circuit breaker in the light
switch opens and resets. You are doubling the current, and the wiring and
switch are *extremely* marginal as they sit now.
For any upgrade of the lighting, be it headlights or fog lights, the
wiring harness is right on the edge and needs help. The _right_ way to do it
is to install normally-open relays that are energized by the existing filament
circuits, and provide new, properly fused and sized higher-current lines to
the loads that the relays switch.
And make sure that the relays are _high current_ devices. The startup
transient current into a 100 or 130w lamp with the filament cold can easily be
100A or more for a very short time (until the filament heats and goes
incandescent), before it falls back to the 10-11A steady state current. And
that is enough to weld the contacts closed on a low-current relay. A horn or
A/C compressor relay rated at a minimum of 30A is the hot ticket.
This probably ought to go in yet another section for the FAQ, becuase it does
come up 2 or 3 times a year.
29 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
[email protected] (Neil Narwani)
> Can you put a 100 watt bulb in place of the stock 55 watt bulb that
> goes in the Fog Lamps of 85-86 GT's and SVO's? If you can, will it be safe
> or will it blow the fuse and possibly other things. Thanks in advance!
Isn't there a legality issue in this. I believe (about 4-5years ago) there
was some law that disallowed this for street use.
This is correct, these bulbs are currently legal for off-highway use only.
The Federal DOT (or is it NHTSA?), in its infinite wisdom, has a regulation
banning lights that are brighter than the current halogen headlights. These
are the same folks who mandated sealed beam bulbs until fairly recently, for
reasons that had ceased to be a problem in the '50s.
It may not be a good idea for other reasons. I'd want to install a relay to
switch the power to these bulbs, because the current draw will double. You'll
have to go to a larger fuse for the lighting circuit. And the ~8 amps each
they draw will likely require larger wire than is stock. Then I'd worry about
the extra heat damaging the headlamp lens...
In short, although the bulb itself is a drop-in, the upgrade is not quite as
simple as just installing the new bulb. -- Chuck
29 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
If someone could point me in the direction of the person who decided to use
Torx heads on the caliper pins on the "older" 10" front brakes, I'd be much
appreciative as I'd like to go to something very painful to him/her. Last
night I attempted to replace the rotors and calipers on the front of my '85
Capri. First item on the agenda (well, after the battle to get my cheap new
grease gun to accept a tube of grease) was getting the old calipers off. No
problem, thought I, as I'd bought a set of Torx "sockets" specifically for
this purpose.
Well, the caliper pins were rightously locked in place after not having been
touched since over 50,000 miles and 4 years ago. I managed to get the one of
the driver's side pins out, but the second pin resisted. I got it partially
unscrewed when it got reluctant again. Further efforts simply resulted in
bending the edges of the Torx socket.
I soaked the second pin in penetrating oil for whatever good it would do and
moved to the other side. The socket was extremely difficult to keep in the
caliper pin head due to the bent edges. Finally I managed to get it to hold
while I was suppling some torqe. *SNAP* Did the pin break loose? No, the
Torx socket broke.
Well, this eveining I'll go in search of another Torx socket (hopefully a
little better quality than the one from the "Lysle" set that I broke). If a
new socket doesn't do the trick (and it may not as the heads of the pins are
showing some damage from my efforts), does anyone have any suggestions on how
I can get those pins out? I don't have any power tools at home, so will have
to borrow/rent/buy if necessary.
And I thought this would be a nice simple job. With the Capri, I should have
known better...
29 Jul 1994 15:07:47 -0700
[email protected] (Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware)
Subject: Re: brake flex lines
"Eric R. Nelson " , [email protected]
On Jul 29, Eric Nelson wrote:
> 2 3/8# Banjo stainless steel braided lines 18" long
> These are the flex lines for the front calipers. They connect to the
> caliper through a banjo fitting and crush washer on one end, and connect to
> the hard lines using a 7/16"X24 flare to -3 inverted flare adaptor. IS THIS
> RIGHT
That is correct. The flare adapters are attached to the brackets in
the wheel wells (you can use a file to remove the key tabs on the
bracket, and the adapter should drop right in the existing hole and
use the existing spring clip), and the hard line is attached to that.
You'll need _two_ crush washers, one above, and one below the banjo.
You make a sandwich on the banjo bolt: washer, banjo, washer.
> 1 3/8" _BANJO_ stainless steel braided line 14" long
> This is for the rear axle hop line. This is where the Earl's guy and I
> really go screwed up. First, He said he had never seen an axle hop line
> connected using a banjo fitting. Is this correct for a mustang.
It is correct. The banjo goes on the _chassis_ end, on the existing
banjo bolt fitting that is there. The Earl's banjo is thinner than the
Ford banjo, so you should be prepared to shorten the bolt by about
1/8" by trimming off the threaded end, so that it will pull the
assembly down tight and get a seal, without bottoming.
> So, instead of the banjo fitting, he set me up with another 7/16"x24 to
> -3 fitting for the chassis hardline to flex line connection.
Not useful, unless you have a 14" flex line that goes from a 90deg 3AN
to a straight 3AN. You need the parts as spec'd. Sounds like you'll
have an adapter left over.
> I assume the flex line connects to the axle hard lines through the 3/8x24
> female T fitting. Two connections to the hard lines, and one to the
> Flex line.
Correct. You salvage the bracket from the stock flex line by cutting
the brass tee block off of it, and you then fasten the new Tee to it.
> Earl's set me up with a 3/8X24 to -3 inverted fitting to conect the T to the
> flex line.
> According to Chris' list, I should have sone use for 3/8x24 to -3 male to
> male adaptor, but I can't see what that is.
That last adapter is what you use to connect the Tee to the flex line,
and the adapter seals to the Tee with a single crush washer. The part
number in the list is correct. I don't know what the Earls guy gave
you, but it _may_ be the right part, if the hex on it is large enough
to seal with a crush washer.
> My basic problem is this: I think I have a good handle on how the front lines
> go together. If not, please correct me. My understanding of the axle hop
> line and its connections is tenuous to say the least. I would really
> appreciate it if someone would lead me by the hand explaining exactly what
> fittings go where on each side of the rear flex line.
You're going to have to get under the car and _look_ at it. The banjo
goes on the chassis (forward) end, you route the hose in a flat loop,
and terminate it on the male-male adapter that you've installed in the
"stem" of the Tee. Each "branch" of the Tee gets one of the two hard
lines that run down the axle tubes, with no further adapters or
hackery.
That's one minor problem with Chris's article, as it made a few points
a little unclear in the installation process. If anyone else is
confused on this, please get in touch with me directly, as his article
is based directly on information from my article "Building the Perfect
Pony". I'm grateful to Chris for pointing out that Earl's had changed
their part numbers since BTPP was first written, but his article did
kind of cloud exactly how it all went together for some folks.
Here's the correct parts list:
> For the front lines, you'll need:
>
> 2 Earl's #63010218 18" 3AN-banjo assembled, tested flex hose
> 2 Earl's #989549 7/16"x24 Female SAE flare-3AN adapter
> pkg 10 Earl's #177003 10mm, 3/8" crush washers (always keep spares on
> hand)
>
> For the rear axle hop, you'll need:
>
> 1 Earl's #581531 3/8"x24 Male SAE flare-3AN adapter (make sure,
> if you get some cross-reference part, that the hex is large
> enough to seal on a crush washer).
> 1 Earl's #972050 GM Tee- 3/8"x24 in, 2 3/8" SAE flare outs
> 1 Earl's #63010214 14" 3AN-banjo assembled, tested flex hose
> 1 of those spare crush washers from above.
>
> For the rear hop, you salvage the bracket that secures the existing
> tee, and use it to mount the new tee. It just requires minor bending,
> and the drilling of a 1/4" hole to mount the new tee, once you remove
> it from the existing flex line.
01 Aug 1994
Theodore Chen
[email protected]
my thanks to skod for the BTPP article. i got way more useful information out
of it than from reading a whole pile of MM&FF, Super Ford, and other mustang
mags.
the BTPP talks about upgrading to SVO/LSC calipers, but doesn't say why it's
better. i guess it's pretty obvious to most people, but i'm not really sure
why the 73 mm piston is better than the 66 mm piston. i was thinking maybe
more force, but the BTPP article talked of reducing the level of assist in a
different part of the article. does the larger piston press on the pad more
evenly and hold it flatter against the disc? on my car, the left front caliper
is dragging (takes a few seconds to release after the brake pedal is
depressed), and since the car has 130k miles on it, it probably needs to be
rebuilt. so i thought this might be a good time to get the SVO/LSC calipers.
where would be a good place to get rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers cheap? i'm in the
bay area, but mail order is fine.
also, the flex hoses are apparently original, and though they look fine, i'm
going to replace them. i looked at the parts list for the braided steel flex
hoses, and i'm wondering why it specifies an 18" hose for the fronts. the
rubber flex hose itself is about 9 or 10 inches long, and it seems like
replacing it with an 18" hose would leave lots of it hanging out. looking at
the haynes manual, it appears that some models have a rubber flex hose that
goes all the way to the caliper. on my car, there is a hard line that goes
into a small metal block that is bolted to the front of the caliper. the flex
hose runs between the chassis hard line and the caliper hard line. i can see
that if the caliper hard line were replaced, the 18" braided hose would be
about the right length. however, the hard line seems to be permanently
attached to the metal block on the caliper, and i can't see why i should
replace it, anyway.
this may be a moot point if i go to the SVO/LSC calipers (which i assume won't
have hard lines attached to them), but i'd like to know if this setup (9" flex
hose attached to a hard line to the caliper) is standard, or if i have some
kind of weird setup. if i stay with these calipers, is there some reason why
i shouldn't use 9 or 10 inch lines instead of the 18 inch lines?
11 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Peter Wales reminded me that I haven't given an update on the "Superchips"
evaluation recently, so here goes:
As mentioned in the last episode of "All My Chips", I was going to run my
chip-equipped car at a track event in late June. I ran the event as expected,
and (also as expected) didn't come away with any new revelations about the
chip. (A reminder, my car is a 1992 LX 5.0 with essentially stock engine.)
I ran the car for two days at Sears Point Raceway at the Nor-Cal SAAC's Mini-
Nats. The chip had been installed in the car for about a month at this point.
The first day I ran with the chip and spent most of my time trying to get
familiar with the track. On the second day I was getting much more
consistent, so after the first two sessions I pulled the chip (after
disconnecting the battery) and ran the final two sessions chipless.
This was my first event at Sears Point, and only my second track event ever,
so my concentration was very much on driving with little thought spared as to
how quick the car felt. About the only indicator I could come up with to
guage the chip was to glance at the speedometer at the end of the straights
just before braking to get an idea what my terminal speed was.
On Saturday I was noticing relatively consistent speeds at the three points on
the track at which I paid attention, and kept a mental note of about how much
it varied from lap-to-lap. After pulling the chip my speeds were pretty much
the same, falling well within the "standard deviation" I had noticed with the
chip. In other words, in this situation I was unable to detect a difference.
Nor-Cal's going to have another dyno day on August 7, and I'm trying to beg,
borrow, or steal a spot in any way possible to get some real numbers with the
chip. I'd like to do back-to-back runs with and without the chip, but that's
not very likely. I'll probably have to rely on the numbers the car turned at
the last dyno day as a baseline (the car registered a maximum of 197 bhp, but
I later found that one of the rear calipers was sticking pretty hard and may
have cost me a few hp. Other stock vehicles were turning in around 203 bhp).
My assesment so far is that the chip doesn't appear to have hurt anything, but
then it doesn't appear to have helped anything either. Based solely on the
subjective impressions so far, I can't recommend spending the ~$200 that the
chip is commonly advertised at. However, this is all my personal opinion
derived from non-controlled conditions. The dyno needs to be the final judge,
and I'll do what I can to try to make that happen. Everything up to that is
just opinions, and I won't repeat the oft-said adage about opinions lest I
offend those with delicate sensibilities...
13 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 13, Richard Pedersen wrote:
> Everyone I know with a torque arm on their Mustang is pretty hard core
> (logically) and has at a minimum urethane with most choosing ball joints.
> Is this necessary to make a torque arm worth the effort? Are you still
> going to get the benefits of the torque arm if you keep the stock rubber in
> the lower trailing arms? What about the police arms?
You will get many of the benefits of the torque arm, all right. Most, in fact.
However, the ability of the axle to "walk" (skew with respect to the
centerline) and perform a steering function of its own will not be reduced, if
the stock lower arms bushings are retained. This will probably lead to a bent
torque arm. The lower arms are solely responsible for keeping the axle square
to the tub, The torque arm itself has essentially no strength laterally, and
its front mounting is designed to allow the nose of the arm to walk laterally
slightly to acommodate whatever roll steer there is without binding. If you
have those floppy rubber bushings, the axle will be able to move quite a ways
out of square with the tub, for example hitting a curb, doing one-wheel
burnouts or whatnot, and this will bend the arm. We've already had one report
of a bent arm here on the list due to this phenomenon.
The police/taxi lower arms will provide at least an order of magnitude
improvement in axle angular control, with little reduction in ride quality,
and essentially no increase in noise. They will be significantly
01 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
One other point I thought of while driving home last night, concerning Drew
Lynch's axle-speed-dependent noise. There are a couple of other sources of
that noise that are probably more likely than the ring and pinion, and I
wasn't thinking very clearly when I wrote that post.
Before you haul the car off to John Meitz, do a couple of quick checks. It is
very common for the 8.8" axle to experience bent axle shafts, from clouting
curbs and the like. This ought to give you a speed-dependent vibration, and a
pulsing in the brake pedal, but doesn't always. However, the runout it causes
in the brake drum on the affected side can give you a periodic "scrape". The
easiest way to check this is to jack up the rear of the car so that both rear
wheels are off the ground, and support the axle on jackstands. Chock the front
wheels so that the car won't be going anywhere. Start the car, and let it idle
in first. What you want to look for is excessive runout at the rear wheel rim
(not the tire- tires are notoriously inconsistent).
The spec calls for less than .030 runout at the wheel rim. You don't need a
dial indicator for that one. Just use a simple ruler supported on a brick or a
block of wood. If you have more than say 1/16" total runout (.062), you can
believe that your axle shaft has been tweaked. Replacements are easily and
cheaply had either at a dealer or through the used-parts world, and they go in
in half a day.
If the scrape is definitely from a brake drum, but there's only a reasonable
amount of runout at the wheel, you may have a broken spring or other cruft in
the brake assembly that is periodically scraping. Also, foreign objects (like
little chunks of gravel!) can set up a hellacious racket in the drums.
Troubleshooting with the rear end in the air should let you find it quickly.
The reason I remembered the axle flex weakness was from the experience of
another Nor Cal SAAC member at the track this weekend. He suffered a trivial
spin off in Turn 7 in his SVO, and bent an axle shaft. He borrowed a car,
drove over to Ford Auto Recyclers in Rancho Cordova (they mailorder, too: 800
720 2929), bought a yard axle shaft for $75 or so, and had the car back on the
road before the end of the day...
06 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Skod writes:
> The Ford factory shop manuals for your year. Those are available from
> Helm, Inc., (313) 865 5000. Buy them, and for the cost of just a
> couple of years of inaccurate technical articles from the magazines
> (roughly $90), you can have some nice hard facts.
Speaking of shop manuals, I'm just getting around to ordering a set for
my '94 Cobra. Seems as if Ford/Helm has changed things around a little since
the last time I ordered any or I've forgotten... Here is a copy of the
order form out of the '94 Mustang Owner Guide:
Form No. Description Price Each
-------- ----------- ----------
FPS-12193-94 1994 *Mustang* Service Manual $58.00
FPS-12106-94 1994 Powertrain Control/
Emissions Diagnosis $112.00
FPS-12140-94 1994 Car Service Specifications
Rear Wheel Drive $21.00
FPS-12121-94 1994 *Mustang* Electrical & Vacuum
Troubleshooting Manual $24.00
FPS-12136-94E 1994 *Mustang*
Wiring Diagram Only $12.00
93-VID-OM Ford and the American Dream - Videotape $19.95
I'm definitely going to order the Mustang Service Manual. I'm not entirely
sure what else is worth getting. I'm fuzzy on later year Ford shop manuals
because they've left me with the cars/trucks as I've gotten rid of them. Seems
like it used to be that the Service Manual was pretty all encompassing but
that doesn't appear to be the case any longer. The gear head in me says oh,
go on just get them all (minus the video) but the accountant in me says how
much do they overlap/are subsets, ie are the Mustang wiring diagrams included
within any of the others? $227 total for all of them is a great bargain but I
don't want to throw my money away either. So what does the net.wisdom have to
say?
One last thing, has anyone actually ordered this video? Looks from the part #
that it has to do with '93s. If it had some '94 Mustang footage or better
yet, '94 Cobra footage, I'd consider getting one to put in my historical
archives.
06 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
I can only recommend the Ford factory manual, if you're serious about trying
to get acquainted with your car. The real manual is not much more expensive
than the Haynes, and it _will_ pay for itself. While it's true that there are
always a handful of mistakes and omissions in any manual, the Ford version has
it _all_ over the Haynes, and there is information in there that you really do
want.
I must disagree with Scott here. Granted, the Haynes manual glosses over some
important details. So does the Ford service manual. Do an engine rebuild
some time and you'll notice that most of the instructions haven't been updated
since the '60s, omitting lots of details about the current configuration of
the 5.0.
Next, the bang-for-buck factor. The Haynes manual costs $20 or $25. It
includes a representative wiring diagram and some emissions tips (granted,
rather sketchy). Throw in the Probst EEC-IV book and you've only spent $55 or
so, for coverage of about 3/4 of what's in the Ford set. And much of it
applies throughout the '87-93 model years.
On the other hand, you can buy the whole Ford set and kiss $200 goodbye. It
will be authoritative, all right, but it still won't tell you everything you
need to know. And it will only be authoritative for that one model year.
And of course none of the manuals will help if you've modified the car. So
those of us with suspension tweaks, rear disc brakes, etc. will have to find
yet another source of information, which won't be as authoritative as either
the Haynes or Ford books.
I do not condone ignorance, so I highly recommend that *all* Mustang owners
buy some service manual. The Haynes meets my minimum standards at a
reasonable price, and Probst rounds it out nicely. The complete Ford set is
great if you can afford it, but it is just too expensive for me.
None of the other manuals (Clymer, Chilton, Motor, etc) is worth the
paper it's printed on, IMHO, so don't bother buying one. -- Chuck
06 Jul 1994
[email protected]
On Jul 6, Mike Carter wrote:
> Speaking of shop manuals, I'm just getting around to ordering a set for
> my '94 Cobra. Seems as if Ford/Helm has changed things around a little since
> the last time I ordered any or I've forgotten...
No, they completely changed the format of the manuals around the '89 modle
year (someone correct me if I'm wrong!). The "Shop Manual" itself used to be
published in several volumes, and used to cover all the various 2-wheel-drive
platforms. Volume A was Powertrain, Volume B was Chassis/Electrical, and so
on. As a result, some of us still refer to the "H Manual", which used to be
Volume H, the Emissions and Powertrain manual.
Nowadays, the manuals are organized differently. There is a specific shop
manual for each model, and then there is generic information on emissions in a
separate manual. They just slice the pie in a different way.
> Here is a copy of the
> order form out of the '94 Mustang Owner Guide:
>
> Form No. Description Price Each
> -------- ----------- ----------
> FPS-12193-94 1994 *Mustang* Service Manual $58.00
Right. This is the basic "shop manual" you think of, and it is specific to the
Mustang. It contains all of the procedures and specs for everything strictly
mechanical in nature, and also much of the non-emissions electrical stuff, and
is a must-have. If it's like the '93 copy I have sitting here, it is about 500
pages. It has electrical troubleshooting info, but not detailed schematics. It
has powertrain info (such as exploded views, tables of torques and clearances,
teardown/assembly procedures, and so on), but not the *magical* procedures
needed for fine tuning and setting up to emissions specs. Still, if you are
going to buy only one single book, this is it.
> FPS-12106-94 1994 Powertrain Control/
> Emissions Diagnosis $112.00
This 1200-page looseleaf magnum opus has everything you'll ever want to see
about emissions and engine control for Ford products. That's right, _all_ of
them. In addition to the 100 or so pages that are specific to whatever your
powertrain is, you also get to get the pinpoint diagnosis procedurs for the
7.4L turbo diesel and the 1.6L Mazda-built 4-banger. You will have every EECIV
trouble code, and the required pinpoint diagnostic and repair procedure, for
every symptom for every power team they made that year.... It's all there, and
for Gawd's sake, don't drop it on your toe.
It's useful, but it's a dmaned shame that they don't just pull out the right
100 pages and put it in the above shop manual. C'est la vie. At least now, I
know why those turbodiesels puke all that particulate matter, and what Code
394 is for an MECS-equipped Capri.
> FPS-12140-94 1994 Car Service Specifications
> Rear Wheel Drive $21.00
This smallish 5x8 book is a compendium of short form specs for all the rear-
wheel-drive cars. It's nice to have if you like a concise place to look up the
curb weight, the wheelbase, or the harmonic balancer mount bolt torques. This
info is redundant if you have the first book above, but it is sometimes nice
to have the info on the other cars in the line, line the T-bird and LSC (when
searching for parts, for example). For some reason, I've been collecting
these. I have '86 through '93, so I suppose it's time to lay in '94 as well...
> FPS-12121-94 1994 *Mustang* Electrical & Vacuum
> Troubleshooting Manual $24.00
This is a 9x12 or so book of interleaved schematic excerpts and diagnostic
procedures, along with some functional descriptions of the "hows" behind the
electrical side of things. The most useful info in this book has to be the
detailed descriptions of the locations of each connector, which comes in handy
more often than you'd think. The schematic excerpts are often outdated. The
tech writers usually write this book from pre-production schematics, so
running changes and so on often don't make it in here (except as big
"CANCELLED" flags spashed across the middle of pages here and there). For
ultimate accuracy, you need the real schematics, which as (supposedly) up to
date.
> FPS-12136-94E 1994 *Mustang*
> Wiring Diagram Only $12.00
No text at all- just a sheaf of 11x17 schematics, printed two sides. Wonderful
breakdowns on what colorcode, circuit number, and wire gauge each and every
circuit in the car is wired with. A wealth of information, indeed. In fact,
you have everything you need, except the _location_ of connector C394, or
splice S1843. See the book above for those.
> 93-VID-OM Ford and the American Dream - Videotape $19.95
I have a bad feeling about this last bit...
I'd recommend all but the short form spec book, and I even keep buying those.
But at a minimum, get the Shop Manual and the Electrical and Vacuum
Troubleshooting Manual. Those two give you enough information to infer,
cajole, and ferret out the rest... In short, you can get 90% of the info
you'll need for under $100.
07 Jul 1994
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
I don't know the reps name but I called in reference to bushings on another
car of mine.
I couldn't resist but to 'waste' the guy's time by asking about the TFS-93
traction device. I also asked how it compared to the Griggs' set-up.
He said the addition of a pan-hard bar in effect added another roll center.
The way he explained it was that the lower control arms created a natural roll
center (not his words but my understanding of what he said). I assume that
this is due to their lower control arms and the spherical bearing they use in
the front of the control arm. Kinda makes everything want to pivot around the
center point of a line that connects the lower control arm's mounting points
on the rear axle. This may or may not be true.
So I asked about quantative data on what hs Traction Device would do on a
relatively stock mustang.
He said "4 to 8 seconds at Willow Springs - depending on driver" He made it
sound that with the push on the Grigg's system the same gains would be seen if
you comapared a bolt-in vs. bolt-in installation. He said it would take alot
of time and money to sort our the Griggs system.
O.K. but what about on track results ...
He mentioned a Craig Widner (somewhate on the east coast) running in A-Sedan
in a Cobra R model for Pro-Am motorsports. He said he is very competative
against the Camaros and Firebirds. He is definitly using the Traction
Devicein.
Does anyone know this person? Is he on the net? Has anyone seen him run?
The sales rep also mention that they have sold maybe 200 of these traction
devices so not that many are out there.
Inquiring minds want to know....
07 Jul 1994
Subject: Book review: '79-93 V8 Mustang Specifications Guide
[email protected]
I just got in another interesting reference manual last night, after seeing it
mentioned in the magazines for a few months. It is entitled "1979-1993 V8
Mustang Specifications Guide", and it lives up to its title. It is a slim 44-
page 5x8 pocketbook-sized manual, but it makes up in content what it lacks in
bulk. In it, in tabular form, are very complete spec breakdowns for all the V8
cars. It contains the obvious stuff that can be gleaned from the shop manuals
(wheel base, cam lift, curb weight, and so on). But more importantly it goes
into greater detail, listing spring rates, production numbers in each body
style, part numbers for the crank and cam, and the specific differences
between each model year.
It notes the differences in main seal materials and designs, cam profile,
combustion chamber volume, and so on. I was actually extremely impressed with
the level of detail that they go to, such as noting the actual cutover date
for the low-noise camshaft that we've all heard about (engine build date
August 8, 1988). It also notes those items that were introduced for the 1993
Cobra, and then carried forward to regular 1993 Mustangs, and those that were
unique to the Cobra R. It is extensively footnoted to describe the history of
parts, and any other uses that they might have had in the Ford product line
other than Mustangs.
Get this book, and wow your friends with the actual front spring rate for the
Cobra R (750-850), the valve spring specs for the 1980 4.2L (74-82lb on the
seat, 212 over the nose, same as the '86s), the body code for the '79 Ghia (04
60H), the fact that the rear sway bar changed alloys in 1987 (from SAE 1090 to
SAE 5160). Shoot. So that's why mine rusted, but the later bars don't...
There's a lot of stuff in here, and it's all in 6 point type!
There are a few minor omissions, and one or two very minor inaccuracies. The
braking system is given a bit shorter shrift than I'd like, but that should
come as no surprise. I can never get enough of that stuff... The non-V8 cars
are given only footnote mention, which is unfortunate since so many useful
parts were used on the SVO Mustang, and it'd be nice to have in-depth info on
it as well. And there is no mention at all of other interesting non-Mustang
Fox cars, like the LSC and T-bird Turbo Coupe, which are also nice cars to
swap in parts from.
Still, for all that, I am quite impressed with this book. I'm glad I spent the
money on it, and I suspect that I'll be referring to it fairly often in the
context of this group. I won't go so far as to say that _everyone_ should rush
out and buy it, but if you consider yourself a true Fox Mustang nerd, you
might seriously consider it. There's a great deal of carefully researched
stuff in there that you just aren't going to find anywhere else.
The book is clearly marked "First Edition", and I intend to let them know
about the few minor inaccuracies and omissions I saw, and beat on them on
going into a bit more detail on the braking system. Maybe I can get them in
for the second edition, no?
They also mention on the title page that "Detailed discussions of all the
subject covered by these specifications, plus complete historical data on
Ford's 1979-1993 Fox-bodied Mustangs can be found in the complete (250+ page)
'1979-93 V8 Mustang Reference Guide', which will be available during 1994".
I'm gonna be on the waiting list for that one, I think.
Good book. I'll give that one four loud-pedals (on a 5 loud-pedal scale...) It
is written by Al Kirschenbaum, and published By DriveLines, PO Box 915,
Pearblossom, CA 93553-0915. No phone number listed, no ISBN available. Tell
'em the Mustangs Mailing List sent ya.
08 Jul 1994
[email protected]
> > When I took my truck in for an unrealted oil leak(s): rear main and
> > transmission case, I complained to the dealer about pinging in hot
> > weather conditions. The service manager laughed and showed me a small
> > electrical connector (kind of like a black Molex connector) and haned
> > me a small plug for it. He explained that this will "bypass" some part
> > of the computer system and advance the timing and *very* slightly
> > enrichen the EFI. Hmmm......
> >
> > I was VERY SKEPTICAL but I plugged in the thing and on the way back to
> > work (over 98 Deg. F) that day, the truck ran like. . . . well, let's
> > say that I am thrilled.
> >
> > Does anyone know what this little plug is supposed to do?!? For a
> > reference point in the engine compartment, it is near the starter relay
> > by the central fuse block. It only has two wires leading to the
> > connector.
>
> Sounds like the plug that you insert when you are setting the timing on
> the engine. This prevents the EEC from adjusting the timing as you try to
> set it to the factory specs (an annoying experience to say the least!).
>
> If this is the case and running with the plug inserted makes the engine
> run better, it sounds like the EEC microcode needs some work. Has anyone
> seen a Ford TSB that mentions this?
Actually, it's the other way around. That's called the SPOUT connector, and it
is used to provide a feedback path from the EEC-IV to the TFI module on the
distributor to control the timing. If the plug is _out_, it interrupts this
feedback, and the motor falls back into running with base timing only (as set
by the distributor's static setting), and no adaptive advance control.
If the SPOUT connector isn't there, you'll be running with the base 10 degrees
advance, across the rev, load, and temperature range. I would not be at all
surprised to hear that the truck ran like hammered dogmeat in this mode! When
inserted in the socket, that little connector allows the EEC-IV to give you
the other oh, 20 or 30deg advance you might need now and again for power. And
the handful of degrees retard that you might also need to avoid spark knock in
the hot, part-load operation. I imagine the improvement was _sizeable_.
EEC-IV controlled motors simply work like crap without that connector
installed. Its only function is to allow you to force the spark to sit right
at base timing with no adaptive advance or retard, so you can initially set up
the timing with a light (otherwise, the timing will dance around as the EEC-IV
adaptively controls the idle in real time).
Someone was a bit careless in a tuneup, or maybe in dealer prep, and left it
out. It must have been a real handful. I imagine that you'll find all sorts of
fun error codes if you run the self tests!
11 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Let me pose an alternate question, that is near and dear to anyone running
> an AS mustang:
>
> Given that you may not remove the upper control arms in AS, but may do
> anything you like with the bushings, which is better:
>
> 0) Pure stock setup... Something below must be better!
Yes.
> 1) The GW arm with stock bushings
> (this will work)
Until it breaks... In roadracing use, you should check for cracks at the the
point of highest stress (the junction between the forward extension of the
arm, and the runner that extends across the pinion centerline to pick up the
opposite mount hole on the center section) before every event, and several
times during the event if possible. You may find it useful to remove the
powdercoat and repaint in with cheapo Krylon. The powdercoat is tough enough
to hide cracks, but the Krylon will chip at the edges of any crack, making it
more visible.
> 2) GW arm with heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in all arms
> (bind problem?)
Big-time. The stock geometry itself will bind like mad with rigid bushings and
no arm. The GW arm would just make it worse.
> 3) GW arm with heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in just the
> lowers (bind problem?)
No, it would work. But keep an eye on the arm.
> 4) GW arm with heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in just the
> uppers (bind problem?)
Yes, it would probably bind pretty badly, expecially at the extremes
of roll travel.
> 5) Torque-arm with panhard/watts _and_ the upper control arms, but
> with the bushings in the upper arms replaced with foam rubber (something
> very soft!) and stock lower bushings. The idea here is
> to have effectivly removed the upper arms.
This would work very well. But now, your point of highest stress is probably
the axle end of the Panhard mount. So _that_ should have the powedercoat (if
any) knocked off, so you can watch _it_ like a hawk for cracking. I can't even
_begin_ to describe how much of a beating the components that locate the axle
laterally take in roadracing use.
> 6) Torque-arm with panhard/watts _and_ the upper control arms, but
> with the bushings in the upper arms replaced with foam rubber (something
> very soft!) and heim-joint/ball-joint lowers. (I don't _think_ this
> will bind, but may bind for large suspension movements.)
> BTW, this is my preferred setup.
Huge win. Major win. Massive win. This is a very sweet setup, and is very
tunable. I'm running it now. No bind at all. It is pretty amazing, with the
car up on jackstands and the springs and dampers out, to be able to support
the axle under the center section and move it through fully 20 degrees of roll
range with one finger. No bind. It is also tunable for roll steer, if you
either buy or make lower arms with ride-height adjustments. I use the Griggs
arms with the adjustable spring perches and they are very nice indeed.
> 7) Heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in all of the rear bushings, and just
> a panhard/watts. (bind problem?)
Might as well just bolt it in rigidly. You'll have about 2 degrees travel in
roll before is locks up solid. The car will be, as they say, just a bit
loose...
> 8) Heim-joint/ball-joint bushings in all of the rear bushings, and nothing
> else.
Ditto 7, except you might get 4 degrees.
> These seem to be the rear suspension options. Some of these may not
> work because of bind. I would appreciate comment from the list.
>
> And just for laughs, which of these combinations (of the ones that
> will work) should retain the quad shocks? I believe the torque-arm
> solutions remove the quad-shocks, what about the others?
As soon as you use _any_ solution that replaces the flabby, soft oval bushings
in the stock lower arms (urethane bushings, aftermarket arms, Heims, whatever)
you can pitch the quad shocks. Their only purpose is to control the axle's
torque reaction to try and control the windup as the soft bushings deflect, in
order to prevent axle hop on heavy acceleration and braking. And they don't
even do a very good job at _that_. Good bushings demote the quads to the rank
of "baggage", very quickly.
This is getting to be only marginally applicable to street Mustanging,
so I'd suggest that we take any further discussion of race-specific (and
especially _rules_ specific) tweaks over to the asedans mailing list. If there
is continued interest in this kind of radical surgery for street use, it might
belong here, but once we start talking foam rubber bushings, that's definitely
well into the race-specific "Letter of the rules" hackery that only us real
out-there trackies care about.
11 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Hal Baer has written a detailed article on the subject of fitting 17x9-10"
wheels in '93 and earlier Mustangs. I am told this will appear in Super Ford
in about one month.
12 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
There has been much discussion on modifications that can be made to the rear
suspension on cars intended for racing. However, since most of us here drive
primarily, if not exclusively, on the street, I'd like to discuss the
advantages and dissadvantages of the various street mods available in the
aftermarket.
For my purposes, I'd like to improve tracking and stability of the rear
without having to make expensive or drastic modifications. I like to drive the
many mountainous roads nearby, and am less in-terested in drag racing.
Preserving ride quality is also high on my list.
Here are a few things I've seen available.
1. Stock upper and lower arms w/urethane bushings at all or some of the pivot
points. Replacing all the bushings might increase bind, so would replacing
just some of them be helpful? Which locations are the best candidates (upper
bushings only/lower)?
2. Police/taxi, or boxed upper control arms. Are the bushing in the
police/taxi units rubber or urethane? Would combining the stiffer arms with
additional bushings on the other pivot points be helpful?
3. Saleen, Hotchkiss, Griggs, and others offer replacement lower control arms.
While severe road racing may stress these too much, but would they work well
on a street driven car?
4. Torque arm type suspension such as that from Griggs and Global West. The
money is now really getting spent, plus this gets beyond my own ability to
perform the installation myself. Would this improve the street handing
sufficiently to warrant the cost?
I realize that any changes to the rear may effect the front as well. I've here
and other places that option #4 essentially requires changes to the front as
well. How about the others?
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
>For my purposes, I'd like to improve tracking and stability of the
>rear without having to make expensive or drastic modifications.
>I like to drive the many mountainous roads nearby, and am less in-
>terested in drag racing. Preserving ride quality is also high on
>my list.
Here's what I would do:
Global West subframe connectors and additional supports - The difference is
night and day and well worth the effort - you then get a "feel" of what the
suspension is really doing.
Next I would consider one of the following:
1) Replace lower control arms (or at least the bushings). There was
someone on the list that made their own bushings - spherical bearings on
one end and delron (or whatever) on the other end. Interestingly enough
Global West sells the same (except I noticed the position of the delron
bushing and the sherical bearing was reverse compared to the list member.
The Global West stuff is expensive - I bet it would be worth the time to
make your own delron bushing (maybe someone on the list can help) and find
the spherical bearing someplace else (is National the big bearing company?)
2) Work on the bump steer. I've been driving my sister's IROC for about a
week now (diagnosing) and I can really tell the difference on some high
speed off ramps. With the mustang its a little tenative - I'm always
guessing on which way the front end will dart when the car begins to lean.
While it lean hard - and therefor need alot of correction or will it lean a
little and require less correction. The IROC is more turn the wheel this
much to turn this tight.
3) For the rear I would get the Global West traction device. Why? First
its almost a bolt on (I'm not sure what the front mount is like - maybe a
little bit of welding). second, it removes the need for the 'wieght' or
torsional damper on the rear axle ( does any other car require this? ).
Finally it seems to be adaquate as far as performance goes. Yes you might
be able to tweek the Griggs system more - but I bet the nut behind the
wheel would become a bigger factor. Besides, when talking real world set-
ups with the Griggs system the only post I've read was 600lbs /in springs -
no sway bar - and it still under steered. I don't know it removing the
swaybar is the hot ticket for street driving - As mentioned in #2 - I think
bump steer - especially on street roads where dips and uneven pavement can
make sudden steering changes - I think the added body roll could be an
added problem. Also I run 350# / in springs in both my corvettes and
'frim' to 'very firm' is a good description - this on a car with 50/50
weight distribution. Maybe skod has a better setup ( come-on Im SURE he's
tweaked it!!! 8) ) but I'm comfortable with the stock springs, stock ride
height, just not the suspension movements (steering movements?).
Unfortunately my budget / priorities don't allow much experimentation.
Maybe later.
I'll say this - if anyone had a way to 'bolt-in' a short-long-arm
suspension I would go this route and then definitly go with the Griggs
system. Once the front end was perfect (at least for winding roads and off
ramps) I would have no qualms about spending the extra to get the rear
suspension "perfect". Barring this, for my purposes, it seems the Global
West set-up will be more than adaquate.
My information is limited to my own experience (limited), posts on this
mailing list, talking with Global West and Herb Adams VSE, and a handful of
magazine articles. I have never talked to the other tuners like Kenny
Brown etc and cannot comment on their equipement or packages.
My only caveat about Global West - is they have a certain arogance. For a
company whose marketing is almost none existant and whose catalog doesn't
even show what their traction device looks like when assebled maybe they
should be less.... hostile...(the best word I can think of) when someone
make critical inquires on their product. Maybe it was my attitude - a
little - but its not like I came out and said "Your products suck, why
should I buy them?". I simply asked him to compare and contrast his product
with the Griggs System. I have alot of experience with vender's speaking
highly of competators products - I think this reflects positively on the
vendor - makes him seem more honest IMHO. BTW - a few well placed
compliments about the SFC's (see #1) and the guy changed his tune
considerably. But geeze..... get a better catalog or get friendlier
sales people. Maybe that's why they only have a couple 100 sold?
12 Jul 1994
[email protected]
On Jul 12, Bob Cisneros wrote:
> For my purposes, I'd like to improve tracking and stability of the
> rear without having to make expensive or drastic modifications.
> I like to drive the many mountainous roads nearby, and am less in-
> terested in drag racing. Preserving ride quality is also high on
> my list.
> 1. Stock upper and lower arms w/urethane bushings at all or some
> of the pivot points. Replacing all the bushings might increase
> bind, so would replacing just some of them be helpful? Which
> locations are the best candidates (upper bushings only/lower)?
Bang for the buck=high, reduction in ride quality=moderate, cost=low. Over
all, this is probably the low-cost optimum. If done, you should retain the
stock bushings that are pressed into the center section on the axle for the
upper arms, and replace all the others with urethanes. Please do equip the
bushings with zerks for lubrication purposes, and invest in a tube of
Aqualube. Total time to install for a moderately experienced driveway wrench,
maybe 6 hours, tops. Total outlay, less than $100.
> 2. Police/taxi, or boxed upper control arms. Are the bushing in
> the police/taxi units rubber or urethane? Would combining the
> stiffer arms with additional bushings on the other pivot points
> be helpful?
They are rubber, but much stiffer. In particular, the lower arms do away with
the large, floppy oval front bushing, and instead feature much smaller,
harder, round bushings. This setup works very well, and is quite quiet. Bang
for the buck=moderate (the arms are _expensive_!), reduction in ride
quality=low, cost=moderate. Total time to install, about 4 hours. Total
outlay, about $250.
I would not recommend boxing the upper arms. If the upper arms are retained,
and extremely vigorous driving is done, the arms will flex over their entire
length. If they are unboxed, this minimizes the stress seen at any point along
the arm. If they are boxed, this concentrates the stress at the ends of the
added stiffener, and will almost certainly lead to a massively reduced fatigue
life. I have seen upper arms that failed without being boxed. Having seen the
failure mode, I can state unequivocally that they would have failed _sooner_
if they had been boxed. I remain in awe at the abilities of the Ford engineers
to turn sheet metal into structural elements with nearly infinite fatigue
lives.
Significant stifening in the upper arms will require a change in design to
have what I would consider an adequate fatigue life in severe use. Your use
will not be as severe as mine, but that does not lessen my concern in a
fatigue sense. It simply delays the onset of cracking by some amount.
> 3. Saleen, Hotchkiss, Griggs, and others offer replacement lower
> control arms. While severe road racing may stress these too
> much, but would they work well on a street driven car?
They'd be great. You'd love the way they feel. BUT, and this is a major but,
they provide a direct path for noise and vibration to couple from the (very
noisy!) ring and pinion directly into the tub. If you use them, you can
_forget_ hearing the crickets on that Fresh Aire CD. They are not unacceptably
harsh. They are, in fact, amazingly supple. But they are noisy. Bang for the
buck=moderate, reduction in ride quality=moderate, cost=painful. 3 hours, $400
outlay.
If you go with these arms, make absolutely sure that the arm you choose has a
spherical bearing at one end. Some of the less expensive arms have urethanes
at both ends, and these will cause the suspension to bind in roll. Which begs
the question, "Why don't the _stock_ arms with urethane bushings in both ends
bind in roll, too?". The question does you credit. They bind very little,
because the open u-section stamping can twist quite freely along its length to
acommodate the difference in bushing centerlines as the body rolls. A tubular
arm will resist that twist, leading to bind. Aren't you glad you asked? Here's
another reason that boxing the arms may lead to unexpected cracks down the
road. Yes, they flex. And for a reason.
> 4. Torque arm type suspension such as that from Griggs and Global
> West. The money is now really getting spent, plus this gets
> beyond my own ability to perform the installation myself. Would
> this improve the street handing sufficiently to warrant the cost?
Ahh, the torque arm. Yum. Whee. Zoom. Works great! Bang for the buck=moderate.
Not because the bang isn't there, but the bucks do flow freely. Reduction in
ride quality = moderate, again because these parts provide a direct conduit
for noise generated by the axle to get to the bellypan. Cost? Well, it is just
the _other_ side of painful, but stops short of "requires immediate high
amputation".
But you haven't lived until you've driven a Fox with that setup. The rear is
_stuck_, and I mean _stuck!_ down. Time to install: 12 hours, plus at least 4
hours of welding/exhaust shop time. Total outlay is roughly equivalent to the
cost of 3 1976 Mustang IIs, in the current market. Call it $1100 minimum to
do it right.
The GW traction device may be a nice middle ground. But I still have my
concerns about bang-for-the-buck, brake hop, and long-term reliability. Time
to install is reputed to be about 3 hours, and outlay is around $300. Long
term prognosis for street use is TBD. If pressed, I'd have to say that hiding
and watching until some more operational experience is gained with that device
might be appropriate.
> I realize that any changes to the rear may effect the front as well.
> I've here and other places that option #4 essentially requires changes
> to the front as well. How about the others?
Hey, if we knew what was gonna happen, then it wouldn't be research!
...
strongly on the flaws in the front. None of these _require_ changes to the
front, but I can't argue that to extract the most value out of the more
radical changes, substantial revisions to the front are most useful and
rewarding.
At a minimum, you should try and adopt some of the bumpsteer reduction changes
(offset rack bushings, '91-up tie rod ends if applicable), and start dialing
in more negative camber, regardless of which approach you choose to take.
Several folks wrote me to ask why I didn't want to discuss rear suspensions on
this list anymore. The fact is that I _do_ want to discuss them here, *as far
as they are applicable to street or combination street/track Mustangs*. The
reason I advocated taking that particular thread to the asedan mailing list is
that much of the thrust of it is essentially "How do I make it better and
still remain legal under this particular perverse set of rules?". Perverse
competition rules lead to much more perverse solutions, and they may well be
_far_ from optimal for cars that don't have a strong need to conform to them.
I could just see trying to explain, 20 or 30 times, why sponge rubber bushings
were _not_ a performance enhancement, but were simply included to try to
conform to a rule that requires that there be a bushing there _even if it
doesn't do anything_. Sorry if my posting had too much of a chilling effect on
the discussion.
12 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 12, Dirk Broer wrote:
> Finally it seems to be adaquate as far as performance goes. Yes you might
> be able to tweek the Griggs system more - but I bet the nut behind the
> wheel would become a bigger factor. Besides, when talking real world set-
> ups with the Griggs system the only post I've read was 600lbs /in springs -
> no sway bar - and it still under steered. I don't know it removing the
> swaybar is the hot ticket for street driving...
Remember, that was the _rear_ sway bar that was removed. I personally am
running 350-450lb/in progressive springs and the stock rear sway bar, and I
could use just a tad bit more rear rate. I'mm currently torn between going to
450lb straight-rate springs and staying with the stock bar, or going to the
tubular SN95 bar (or perhaps making my own) and retaining the 350-450lb
springs.
Except for the mechanical noise from ther rear end, my setup is *amazingly*
streetable. I have been quite pleased. There is no additional body roll
whatosever with this setup, believe me. Even if the rear bar were gone, there
would be very little additional roll. The rear roll rate is hardly the
dominant term in the car's overall roll couple.
> Also I run 350# / in springs in both my corvettes and
> 'frim' to 'very firm' is a good description - this on a car with 50/50
> weight distribution.
Big numbers, huh? Well, remember that it is idle to discuss raw spring rates
if the suspension geometry (and therefore the leverage that the suspension
asserts on the spring) is different. It only works if the two cars have
identical suspension setups, which is true when talking about Mustang versus
Mustang. What actually matters is the _wheel rate_ which takes into account
all the leverage effects of control arm lengths and spring saddle placements.
And that is almost never discussed, because very few folks ever calculate it.
It is _not_ the number on the box the springs came in.
Anyway, with my 750-850lb front springs, my actual front wheel rate is right
at 360lb/in for small displacements around my static ride height. The
multiplier changes depending upon suspension travel. There are terms in the
equation that depend upon both the sine and the cosine of the arm's
displacement angle, for example. Just for your amusement...
A figure of merit for the multipliers in my car, at static ride height, are
.48 for the front, and .78 for the rear (if I remember correctly, as my notes
are at home), which leaves me with 360lb/in and 275lb/in wheel rates. I need
more rear, but I'll take more roll rate and keep the static rate the same.
It's all a bunch of tradeoffs. I'd guess that the actual wheel rates aren't
far off from the values you'd see for the Vette. But even with rear springs up
near 600lb/in, I suspect that the Mustang will still be softer in terms of
wheel rates, because of the leverage differences inherent in the suspension
linkages.
> Unfortunately my budget / priorities don't allow much experimentation.
> Maybe later.
Ain't _that_ the truth.
15 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
-> Baer racing's 13.2 inch front/11.9 inch rear disc brake setup,
You know that a 13.2 rotor with a caliper generally requires going to a 17"
wheel? Your choice of tires in that size is rather limited, too. The 275/40
and 245/50 should be available indefinitely, but the 245 would be a tight fit
in an early Mustang, if it will clear at all without surgery.
Baer might have found some low-profile calipers that will clear some 16"
wheels, but man, it'll be *tight* in there.
15 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
fordnatics
Dave Williams writes:
> You know that a 13.2 rotor with a caliper generally requires going to
>a 17" wheel?
The Duralights will clear just fine, as do my new 16x12 HRE's. As I recall,
the ID of the Duralights is 15.5" all the way (there is no bead clearance
ring). The problem I have is getting the street setup to package without
having to reduce the rotor size :-( But you're right - most 16" wheels won't
fit.
The 275-40-17 on a 9.5 or 10" wheel is a really nice tire, but it might look
kind of weird seeing those tires with modern rims on an older Mustang.
15 Jul 1994
Craig Eid
fordnatics
Regarding 17 inch wheels. Hal offers a 16x8 wheel that has a tight fit but
does the job.
15 Jul 1994
Ralph Nosek <[email protected]>
Dave:
I'm sitting in my office looking at a 13" Baer setup ready to be fitted to
the front of a new model...
The front wheels that I'm using are the CSA type 35 (five spoke) They clear
the PBR calipers...the rear offset is the same..however I havn't measured the
clearance on those yet. thought you like to know...
15 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 15, Ken Corpus wrote:
> Here's something I've learned while researching the police/taxi parts:
>
> I' sure we all know by now that the parts referred to are not actually
> parts from a Police/Taxi Mustang, they are from a Fairmont/LTD.
> Interesting enough, these are for the 2.3L and 3.8L versions.
>
> My question is since its safe to assume that the V8 weighs more than
> the 4 cyl or 6 cyl, would it also be safe to assume that the newer part
> is a better choice than the older parts from the 4/6 cyl Fairmont chassis?
No, not necessarily. The bushings have been designed and set up over the years
to help soften up the ride on these various Fox cars, according to the NVH
requirements for the model year and *price point* that the car was to sell at.
As it turn out, the lighter/low end cars often required less compliance in
their suspensions in order to achieve the level of NVH performance required.
One other way to look at it is that the NVH requirements are much less for a
base Fairmont than for a top-line loaded Thunderbird. Wahtever the reasoning,
it is almost always true that the smallbore cars got _stiffer_ bushings than
the V8 cars.
These parts are chosen on rubber stiffness, not on the mass of the car that
they were intended to go on. The fact is that they are more than adequately
strong for any application that might come up. What we're looking for is the
stiffest bushing that was used in any given position, regardless of
application. The Police/Taxi parts have an advantage over the standard-use
parts in that they were intended for severe, maintenance-free use, so that
arms themselves are stamped from thicker stock. At least, that's the claim. I
haven't ever broken out the calipers and measured that last bit, though. I
have made some measurements on the rubber hardness, and they are significantly
harder than stock.
It turns out that the SVO Mustang used the stock lower control arms from the
base 4-cyl '79-82 Mustang (with the smallbore round bushings). The Ford
engineers have been playing this kind of parts-bin raiding game for many
years...
15 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> I'm sitting in my office looking at a 13" Baer setup ready to be
-> fitted to the front of a new model...
->
-> The front wheels that I'm using are the CSA type 35 (five spoke)
-> They clear th PBR
Thanks for the data. When I was looking for 16s I couldn't find anything
that'd clear, of course. Just getting backspace information is like
pulling teeth; start asking about brake clearance and the wheel companies go
Twilight Zone on you. "Yes, these will clear disc brakes." Took a while to
realize they were talking about 30-odd years ago, when "drum brake" wheels
were different from "disc brake" wheels.
21 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Mike G McFaul)
[email protected]
Hi folks, I've been noticing the heater core stuff on the list and the last
post from '[email protected] (Jeff Link)' about replacing his heater core
many times like clockwork brought back fond memories of my old '85 mustang
that also blew heater cores once a year for 4 years until I found out why...
It took a guy working in the rad business for 30+ years to notice that my
heater core hoses were wrong! This was a mistake done at the factory, the
water pump had the wrong size tubes on the inlet and outlet ports of the water
pump for the heater core.
People intimately familiar with heater cores will know what I mean here...
inlet and outlet ports on a heater core are different diameters so that the
coolant doesn't blow the core. On the heater core itself the inlet tube is a
small diameter tube and the outlet tube is large (I don't remember off hand
what the actual tube diameters are). This makes sense as the should be a
pressure drop through the core. But in the case of the '85 mustang (probably
not all models produced in that year either!) the equivalent water pump tubes
were backwards. The large tube on the water pump *supplied* water to the core
and the small tube on the pump casting *received* water from the core. This
means that the coolant was 'running the wrong way' through the heater core.
Yet when you looked at the hoses, they were on in the right order!
After about a year (x4) in my case the core just 'inflated' with the
pressure... I mean you had a hard time removing the core because it
was 'blown up' and had sprung a leak! It looked really strange!
The solution was to restrict the *supply* line right at the water pump to a
smaller diameter than the *return* line. You have to do it at the pump or you
just run the risk of blowing the *supply* hose (this happened to me once
too... not a pretty sight all that coolant sprayed all over everything... :-(
I hope this helps out anyone... and to '[email protected] (Jeff Link)'
check your heater core hoses they could be causing the problems. Especially if
the core looks like its been 'inflated'...
P.S. The moral I learned: It does pay to examine the failure mode of
something, it can tell you volumes...
P.S.S. The dealer didn't know squat... they just threw away the core the first
two times -- didn't bother to look at it at all... I no longer deal with that
one :-).
21 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 21, Mike G McFaul wrote:
> This is just a quick note on the heater core stuff -- re: wrong
> diameter tubes in water pump...
>
> I think Ford finally got it right in '86 and later vehicles. I would
> be surprised to find that error on any car produced after '86... But
> then stranger things have happened :-)
Strange indeed. Turns out that from '86 right up through '93 Ford had it wrong
as well, you see. They tap the heater flow off of the intake manifold with
some 5/8" hard line, and they run it aft past the EEC-IV's coolant temp
sensor, and the pickoff for the EGR coolant feed. As near as I can figure,
they use 5/8" because the sensor itself needs a large boss to mount in. They
reach the aft end of the hard line, and go into 5/8" hose to the core inlet.
The core outlet comes back in 1/2" hose, to 1/2" hard line, to a 1/2" hose to
the waterpump inlet.
This is, of course, exactly the wrong way to do it, since it guarantees that
the biggest pressure drop is imposed right across the core itself. But Ford
has a solution. They insert a flow restrictor in the 5/8" hose from the hard
line to the core inlet. This restrictor has a 1/4" hole in it, so that does
provide a very useful pressure drop that should help keep your core alive.
It's not perfect, but that's how they do it, for better or worse.
So, if you're popping heater cores, please check the larger of the two hoses
that goes aft to the core at the firewall from the hard lines. If the larger
of the two has no restrictor in it, you will most assuredly _continue_ to pop
cores. Usually, the restrictor is in the hose just an inch or two aft of the
end of the hard line, and you can feel it without removing the hose.
You _have_ to have this restrictor for decent heater core life. It is about $1
from a dealer, if I recall correctly. There is also a Special Service (police)
version that supposedly has a smaller hole, but I have not confirmed this. If
you don't have anything in there, get one. The problem was not a "mistake in
hose sizes", the problem was "Oops, we left out the restrictor".
I don't know about '94s. But the tooling for that plumbing has been long since
paid for, so I'd be willing to bet a case of damaging beverage of your choice
that the '94s still have the fat heater core feed, and still require a
restrictor. Anybody with a '94, could you check and get back to me?
25 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Okay, I just got off the phone with the Koni guy that engineered these parts
and got the straight scoop from the horse's mouth!!
8742-1012 Sport is the OEM front strut for the Cobra R Mustang and is a double
adjustable shock. No lifetime warranty. **Do not order this for your 87-93
Mustang. The Cobra R from the factory has 87-93 A-arms with 94 Spindles.
Unless you have this setup, these struts will NOT work on your 87-93
Mustang.**
8742-1121 Sport is not the OEM part for the Cobra R. It is a replacement
front strut for the 87-93 Mustangs that is exactly like that which came OEM on
the Cobra R and is a double adjustable shock. No lifetime either. This is the
strut you want to order for your 87-93 Stang. Unfortunately, its a little
more expensive than the Cobra strut, but that's because the factory
isn'thelping your buying power.
8042-1026 Sport is the original rear shock for the Cobra R and is a double
adjustable shock. This will work on 87-93 Mustangs. No lifetime warranty,
either.
*All of the above shocks are considered hard-core racing applications and
therefore are not eligible for the lifetime warranty. There is, however, the
standard out-of-the-box guarantee of it being a good part.
All of the above are okay for street use, but remember, no warranty. There is
a multitude of adjustability over the single adjustable shocks, so you can
improve your handling to a greater degree. But since they are not eligible
for the lifetime warrant, I would consider these only if you are a hardcore
racer looking for that wide of an adjustment.
The standard Koni pieces that do come with a lifetime warranty are:
Front strut, externally adjustable , twin-tube low pressure gas,
8741-1121 (red) recommended for the street
8741-1121 Sport (yellow) recommended for light race/autocross
Rear shock, externally adjustable , twin-tube low pressure gas,
8040-1026 (red) recommended for the street
8040-1026 Sport (yellow) recommended for light race/autocross
Whew, hope that clears things up!!!
25 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 25, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> Well, I'm finally going to break down and do some major brake work
> on the tired ol' Capri.
>
> 1) Will I only be able to get new flex lines from Ford?
I'd be very surprised if you couldn't get them cheaper through the
aftermarket. Raybestos carries them, for example. If APC doesn't have them,
then some of the other more comprehensive places may have them. Mountain View
Auto Parts is a Raybestos dealer, and should be able to order them for you.
The Raybestos part number for the line is 36854, the same line is used for
both left and right.
> 2) Is the front braking system on an '85 5.0 identical to that of '87+
> 4-cylinder Mustangs?
Functionally, yes, but it's not the same part number because of changes in the
way the line is supported.
> 3) Is the rear drum setup from a '92 5.0 the same as on an '85?
Yup. '80-93, 9x1.75 drums, .750 wheel cylinder bore. Use 'em in good health.
They oughta bolt right up...
> BTW, would it be safe to use the slave cylinders from the
> '92 considering that they've been sitting dry for probably about 2 years
> now? I'm worried about the condition of the seals.
I doubt that they've actually been "dry", since it's almost impossible to get
all the old fluid out. Just pull them apart, clean the seals and pistons with
some clean, new brake fluid, then flush the heck out of them when you refill
the system.
In any other part of the world, you might have to worry about corrosion in the
wheel cylinder bore due to condensation and moisture caontamination of the
fluid. However, out here in this giant terrarium we call California, I'd bet
that there will be no problem at all. Do check the bore for corrosion and
pitting, just the same. And clean it up while you're at it.
On the lines, there's one other possibility. We might be able to make
stainless lines for that application. If you have a loose caliper, bring it to
lunch the next time we get togther, and I'll bring an assortment of banjos and
adapters. I wouldn't mind knowing what parts to spec, for the few remaining
folks who want to _keep_ their pre-'87 microbrakes...
26 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
[ This is a bit late. Blame our mail system.. Brian ]
Ken Corpus writes:
>Okay, I just got off the phone with the Koni guy that engineered these
>parts and got the straight scoop from the horse's mouth!!
Now, this wouldn't have been Mr. Ed, would it? Seriously, we appreciate your
digging into this, Ken.
>8742-1012 Sport is the OEM front strut for the Cobra R Mustang
>and is a double adjustable shock. No lifetime warranty.
>**Do not order this for your 87-93 Mustang. The Cobra R from the
>factory has 87-93 A-arms with 94 Spindles. Unless you have this setup,
>these struts will NOT work on your 87-93 Mustang.**
Not work? That is not consistent with my experience or my setup. The fine
details are a little different between a '93 and '94 spindle and strut, but
this is most certainly not a **Do not**.
I am running '94 spindles with struts intended for a '85 and with struts
intended for a '87-'93. With this setup the '85 struts require a flat spacer
with two holes (just as they did when I ran them on '91 spindles). The '87-
'93 struts are a bolt-on. I am not the only person in Dearborn running '93 or
'85 struts with '94 spindles.
This isn't a big deal. In fact, I didn't bother to spend much time even
considering the issue once I knew the exact measurements (which I have
gleefully forgotten). The big difference (in regard to the strut) involves
the location of the strut mounting ear on the strut body. Essentially, the
location of the mounting ears makes the pickup points on the old struts a
little bit closer together - the old struts are "shorter".
For me, this is actually _good_, because I don't run the car at the stock ride
height...
A shock or strut has a damping curve which varies depending on where the
piston is within its range of travel. When you lower the car, you move the
static location of the strut piston away from the designed location. This
isn't desirable.
When you attach a '93 strut to a '94 spindle _and_ lower the car, the shorter
strut helps make up for that change in ride height. This happens because the
piston at rest is more closely positioned where the strut designer intended.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one. I have tried to recall the details
as accurately as possible, but I might have missed something. But as I said,
this is really quite esoteric and inconsequential. My old struts bolt up to
this configuration and the only thing I worry about is whether it will stay
together with a 25x13 slick.
I will forward this message on to a friend who should be able to confirm
whether I have missed anything (and possibly quote the measurement difference
from memory). If there are any corrections, I'll post them, since this should
go into the FAQ (as I am certain we'll see this one again :-O
26 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 26, Brian Kelley wrote:
> >8742-1012 Sport is the OEM front strut for the Cobra R Mustang
> >and is a double adjustable shock. No lifetime warranty.
> >**Do not order this for your 87-93 Mustang. The Cobra R from the
> >factory has 87-93 A-arms with 94 Spindles. Unless you have this setup,
> >these struts will NOT work on your 87-93 Mustang.**
>
> Not work? That is not consistent with my experience or my setup. The
> fine details are a little different between a '93 and '94 spindle and
> strut, but this is most certainly not a **Do not**.
>
> I am running '94 spindles with struts intended for a '85 and with
> struts intended for a '87-'93. With this setup the '85 struts require
> a flat spacer with two holes (just as they did when I ran them on '91
> spindles). The '87-'93 struts are a bolt-on. I am not the only
> person in Dearborn running '93 or '85 struts with '94 spindles.
>
> This isn't a big deal. In fact, I didn't bother to spend much time
> even considering the issue once I knew the exact measurements (which I
> have gleefully forgotten). The big difference (in regard to the
> strut) involves the location of the strut mounting ear on the strut
> body. Essentially, the location of the mounting ears makes the pickup
> points on the old struts a little bit closer together - the old struts
> are "shorter".
Brian, I have to differ. These very special, Cobra-R-specific struts have a
shaft that is 25mm *longer* than the normal '87-93 dimension. This was done to
acommodate the SN-95 spindle, which has a strut mount ear that is 25mm lower,
to acommodate the new hood line and strut towers within the SN-95 sheetmetal.
If you use these special longer struts in a stock (or worse yet, _lowered_)
Fox-3 application, with the tall Fox-3 spindles, you will very likely smash
the pistons into the crash stops in bump. The strut rods are *too long*,
unless you have the SN-95 spindle's lowered mounting ear.
The configuration *you* are running (early struts on SN-95 spindles) does
indeed run just fine, because the lowered strut mount on the spindle gives you
_back_ an inch of suspension travel, in the case of a lowered car. The way
you've done it, that 25mm difference is a win. Going the other way, with those
orphaned Cobra-R struts on Fox-3 spindles, would lead to two broken struts
after just a few good bumps. Ken's warning on those special part numbers is
well stated.
> For me, this is actually _good_, because I don't run the car at the
> stock ride height...
>
> When you attach a '93 strut to a '94 spindle _and_ lower the car, the
> shorter strut helps make up for that change in ride height. This
> happens because the piston at rest is more closely positioned where
> the strut designer intended.
>
> I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one.
This part is correct. But the stretched '93 Cobra-R struts are _bad news_,
unless you put together a hybrid like the car itself was. Make sense?
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
28 Jul 1994
[email protected] (Clifton Koch)
[email protected]
Ok, I have another tricky question about late model Mustangs.
Is the Vehical Speed Sensor input to the EEC used in any of the engine control
strategies?
The reason I ask this is this is yet another difference I've found in my
ex_speed_density_now_MAF car. The computer was coughing up codes about the
vehical speed sensor and I was wondering what I could have messed up now. It
turns out the wires are not in the harness (the EEC connector pins are empty).
For some reason I had thought that later (post '88) cars used the EEC for
speed control functions and I figured that I'd have to live with this code,
but glancing through the schematics in the probst book doesn't show any sort
of speed control actuators/valves, so they must still use the little white box
under the dash as a speed control. So I'm thinking that the speed sensor
input is purely informational for the EEC diagnostics and trouble codes like
the secondary fuel pump monitor signal was. But then again I'm not sure, and
even though the Probst book doesn't mention this sensor in any engine control
strategies, there are wide gaps in the information provided by the book on how
things work.
I'll probably end up hooking up the terminals to the EEC regardless, so does
anyone know if these sense lines are just hooked up in parallel to the inputs
on the speed control box?
29 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 29, James Delahanty wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed a distinct "pinging" type heat-contraction sound
> eminating from under the hood after stopping the engine. The sound usually
> lasts 2 to 5 minutes, until [guess mode] some temperature differential is
> reduced, then it stops. This happens *every* time I warm up the engine, and
> maybe my memory is bad, but I don't remember this happening with the GT, or
> any other car I've owned. Is this specific to the header/head combination of
> the GT-40 302, or what? It doesn't appear to be overheating when running,
> and I've noticed no ill effects, but it's...well...a little wierd.
It is almost certainly the exhaust system cooling and contracting. If
you haven't spent a lot of time trying to snake your car's exhaust
around chassis stiffeners and suspension bits, you probably haven't
encountered the _magnitude_ of that expansion and contraction. The
H-pipe runs at about 650degF in normal street driving, and can get up
into the high 800s in track use. This is high enough to cause
significant thermal expansion, resulting in that nice stainless tubing
lengthening substantially (2-3%). That's *half an inch*!
I ran into that problem when I did my H-pipe mods to clear my Griggs
Racing torque arm installation. I had the H-pipe tubes bent to run
under the added crossmember, and left what both the exhaust system guy
and I though was adequate clearance (1/2"). Within 4 minutes of a cold
start, I'd get major rattles from the exhaust banging on the
crossmember. We finally had to leave a full 3/4" fore-aft clearance to
acommodate this thermal expansion. It moves a _mile_.
Well, shoot, if it's going to stretch _that_ much, it's gonna make
noise doing it as it cools! This is why so much of the exhaust is
mounted on long rubber hangers, or fore/aft slide mounts as at the
tranny mount. Still, the ball joints at the header/H-pipe junction are
directly metal-on-metal, and they have to do a little slipping to
acommodate all of this normal writhing around.
If I were you, I'd try retorquing the header bolts (a good idea on all
newish cars, or new header installations, in any case). I'd then
retorque the header/H-pipe and H-pipe/flow tube hardware, which has
probably loosened up a bit. It should be 20-30ft-lb, I think.
While this won't eliminate the sounds (nothing will!), it'll probably
quiet it down rather a lot. Then, I'd invest some time in just getting
used to it, frankly. Exhaust systems on catalyst cars are just going
to make some expansion/contraction noise. There are some braided metal
"gaskets" that are touted to quiet down this noise, and can be used at
the ball joints to provide some form of isolation. But I think that
they are failure prone, a waste of money, and a bad idea.
Just be glad you don't have my nice experienced car. The
expansion-noise symphony is really something, after I come back in
from a track session...
29 Jul 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jul 29, Eric Nelson wrote:
> 2 3/8# Banjo stainless steel braided lines 18" long
> These are the flex lines for the front calipers. They connect to the
> caliper through a banjo fitting and crush washer on one end, and connect to
> the hard lines using a 7/16"X24 flare to -3 inverted flare adaptor. IS THIS
> RIGHT
That is correct. The flare adapters are attached to the brackets in
the wheel wells (you can use a file to remove the key tabs on the
bracket, and the adapter should drop right in the existing hole and
use the existing spring clip), and the hard line is attached to that.
You'll need _two_ crush washers, one above, and one below the banjo.
You make a sandwich on the banjo bolt: washer, banjo, washer.
> 1 3/8" _BANJO_ stainless steel braided line 14" long
> This is for the rear axle hop line. This is where the Earl's guy and I
> really go screwed up. First, He said he had never seen an axle hop line
> connected using a banjo fitting. Is this correct for a mustang.
It is correct. The banjo goes on the _chassis_ end, on the existing
banjo bolt fitting that is there. The Earl's banjo is thinner than the
Ford banjo, so you should be prepared to shorten the bolt by about
1/8" by trimming off the threaded end, so that it will pull the
assembly down tight and get a seal, without bottoming.
> So, instead of the banjo fitting, he set me up with another 7/16"x24 to
> -3 fitting for the chassis hardline to flex line connection.
Not useful, unless you have a 14" flex line that goes from a 90deg 3AN
to a straight 3AN. You need the parts as spec'd. Sounds like you'll
have an adapter left over.
> I assume the flex line connects to the axle hard lines through the 3/8x24
> female T fitting. Two connections to the hard lines, and one to the
> Flex line.
Correct. You salvage the bracket from the stock flex line by cutting
the brass tee block off of it, and you then fasten the new Tee to it.
> Earl's set me up with a 3/8X24 to -3 inverted fitting to conect the T to the
> flex line.
> According to Chris' list, I should have sone use for 3/8x24 to -3 male to
> male adaptor, but I can't see what that is.
That last adapter is what you use to connect the Tee to the flex line,
and the adapter seals to the Tee with a single crush washer. The part
number in the list is correct. I don't know what the Earls guy gave
you, but it _may_ be the right part, if the hex on it is large enough
to seal with a crush washer.
> My basic problem is this: I think I have a good handle on how the front lines
> go together. If not, please correct me. My understanding of the axle hop
> line and its connections is tenuous to say the least. I would really
> appreciate it if someone would lead me by the hand explaining exactly what
> fittings go where on each side of the rear flex line.
You're going to have to get under the car and _look_ at it. The banjo
goes on the chassis (forward) end, you route the hose in a flat loop,
and terminate it on the male-male adapter that you've installed in the
"stem" of the Tee. Each "branch" of the Tee gets one of the two hard
lines that run down the axle tubes, with no further adapters or
hackery.
That's one minor problem with Chris's article, as it made a few points
a little unclear in the installation process. If anyone else is
confused on this, please get in touch with me directly, as his article
is based directly on information from my article "Building the Perfect
Pony". I'm grateful to Chris for pointing out that Earl's had changed
their part numbers since BTPP was first written, but his article did
kind of cloud exactly how it all went together for some folks.
Here's the correct parts list:
> For the front lines, you'll need:
>
> 2 Earl's #63010218 18" 3AN-banjo assembled, tested flex hose
> 2 Earl's #989549 7/16"x24 Female SAE flare-3AN adapter
> pkg 10 Earl's #177003 10mm, 3/8" crush washers (always keep spares on
> hand)
>
> For the rear axle hop, you'll need:
>
> 1 Earl's #581531 3/8"x24 Male SAE flare-3AN adapter (make sure,
> if you get some cross-reference part, that the hex is large
> enough to seal on a crush washer).
> 1 Earl's #972050 GM Tee- 3/8"x24 in, 2 3/8" SAE flare outs
> 1 Earl's #63010214 14" 3AN-banjo assembled, tested flex hose
> 1 of those spare crush washers from above.
>
> For the rear hop, you salvage the bracket that secures the existing
> tee, and use it to mount the new tee. It just requires minor bending,
> and the drilling of a 1/4" hole to mount the new tee, once you remove
> it from the existing flex line.
01 Aug 1994
Theodore Chen
[email protected]
my thanks to skod for the BTPP article. i got way more useful information out
of it than from reading a whole pile of MM&FF, Super Ford, and other mustang
mags.
the BTPP talks about upgrading to SVO/LSC calipers, but doesn't say why it's
better. i guess it's pretty obvious to most people, but i'm not really sure
why the 73 mm piston is better than the 66 mm piston. i was thinking maybe
more force, but the BTPP article talked of reducing the level of assist in a
different part of the article. does the larger piston press on the pad more
evenly and hold it flatter against the disc? on my car, the left front caliper
is dragging (takes a few seconds to release after the brake pedal is
depressed), and since the car has 130k miles on it, it probably needs to be
rebuilt. so i thought this might be a good time to get the SVO/LSC calipers.
where would be a good place to get rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers cheap? i'm in the
bay area, but mail order is fine.
also, the flex hoses are apparently original, and though they look fine, i'm
going to replace them. i looked at the parts list for the braided steel flex
hoses, and i'm wondering why it specifies an 18" hose for the fronts. the
rubber flex hose itself is about 9 or 10 inches long, and it seems like
replacing it with an 18" hose would leave lots of it hanging out. looking at
the haynes manual, it appears that some models have a rubber flex hose that
goes all the way to the caliper. on my car, there is a hard line that goes
into a small metal block that is bolted to the front of the caliper. the flex
hose runs between the chassis hard line and the caliper hard line. i can see
that if the caliper hard line were replaced, the 18" braided hose would be
about the right length. however, the hard line seems to be permanently
attached to the metal block on the caliper, and i can't see why i should
replace it, anyway.
this may be a moot point if i go to the SVO/LSC calipers (which i assume won't
have hard lines attached to them), but i'd like to know if this setup (9" flex
hose attached to a hard line to the caliper) is standard, or if i have some
kind of weird setup. if i stay with these calipers, is there some reason why
i shouldn't use 9 or 10 inch lines instead of the 18 inch lines?
01 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
>I have a friend that has a 93 with a build date of July '92. The questions
>are:
>1) Does it have the Hypereutectic pistons?
>2) If so, can it handle a 50hp or so shot of Nitrous??
>3) Does anyone know exactly when the hypereutectic pistons were installed?
>Any help would be appreciated.
>Joe:)
Yes, your car has hypereutectic pistons in it. And yes it can handle 50hp
nitrous. Actually it can handle 125 with no problem. 150 would require some
sort of spark retard device. Hypereutectic pistons are installed in ALL 1993
and up 302 motors. And yes boys and girls, that includes GT40s. Way to go
FORD. Actually they are good pistons, and can stand up to alot of abuse. You
just want to keep detonation away. Get a knock sensor...
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Aug 1, 0:12, Theodore Chen wrote:
> the BTPP talks about upgrading to SVO/LSC calipers, but doesn't say why
> it's better. i guess it's pretty obvious to most people, but i'm
> not really sure why the 73 mm piston is better than the 66 mm piston.
> i was thinking maybe more force, but the BTPP article talked of reducing
> the level of assist in a different part of the article. does the larger
> piston press on the pad more evenly and hold it flatter against the disc?
Better support of the driven pad is the main reason for going to the SVO/LSC
calipers. Even with the SVO calipers you can get tapered wear of the pads
under hard use, but they're definitely an improvement.
> on my car, the left front caliper is dragging (takes a few seconds
> to release after the brake pedal is depressed), and since the car has
> 130k miles on it, it probably needs to be rebuilt. so i thought this
> might be a good time to get the SVO/LSC calipers. where would be a good
> place to get rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers cheap? i'm in the bay area, but
> mail order is fine.
Auto Parts Club, several locations in the Bay Area. Rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers
loaded with "no-name" semi-metallic pads can be yours for approximately $38
each with core exchange (no, they won't notice or care that the calipers
you're sending back are a bit different than the ones you bought). There's a
membership fee of $10 per year (otherwise you'll have to pay an additional 10%
over the marked prices).
> also, the flex hoses are apparently original, and though they look fine,
> i'm going to replace them. i looked at the parts list for the braided
> steel flex hoses, and i'm wondering why it specifies an 18" hose for the
> fronts. the rubber flex hose itself is about 9 or 10 inches long, and
> it seems like replacing it with an 18" hose would leave lots of it hanging
> out. looking at the haynes manual, it appears that some models have
> a rubber flex hose that goes all the way to the caliper. on my car,
> there is a hard line that goes into a small metal block that is bolted
> to the front of the caliper. the flex hose runs between the chassis
> hard line and the caliper hard line. i can see that if the caliper
> hard line were replaced, the 18" braided hose would be about the right
> length. however, the hard line seems to be permanently attached to the
> metal block on the caliper, and i can't see why i should replace it,
> anyway.
The "small metal block that is bolted to the front of the caliper" is most
likely the banjo-fitting for the brake line. Everything from the point where
it's bolted to the caliper to the point where it connects to the chassis hard
line is to be replaced as a unit. If you go for the braided hard lines,
you'll need the full length skod specifies.
Regardless, you want to replace the flex-lines no matter what with the mileage
you've got. They won't necessarily show any visible wear before they suddenly
give up the ghost, most likely when you need them the most.
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Over the weekend I managed to remove all of the caliper pins, but it wasn't
easy. As mentioned here last week, I managed to break my Torx 45 socket
trying to get one of the pins out. I went and bought a Craftsman socket as a
replacement and proceeded to break that one as well. I finally resorted to
filing down the edges of the "pin-heads" enough that I could hammer a 13mm
socket onto them and unscrew them that way. I then had to resort to using a
punch to separate the socket and pin afterwards. What a pain.
A few problems were encountered on re-assempbly. First, the pins that came
with my new calipers were different - one set wanted a hex-drive, the other
one wanted Torx 45. Back to Sears to get a replacement for the broken socket.
Then I found that the heads of the new pins were too large to fit through the
holes in the backing plates of the new brake pads, so I got to do a bit of
filing. Finally, when I put everything together and was torquing the caliper
pins to the middle of the factory specs I managed to twist the brand-new Torx
socket.
I then proceeded to bleed the system and then take the car for a test drive.
Unfortunately, the brake pedal is total mush. I'm going to bleed them again
in hopes that it's air that I didn't manage to get out of the system on the
first try. If that doesn't work, where should I look next (the brake pedal on
this car has been quite spongy for a while, but I assumed it was just because
I hadn't bled it in ages)? Any way I can tell for certain if the MC is going
bad?
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
fordnatics
On Aug 1, 10:14, Craig Eid wrote:
> How large are the rotors that team with the SVO/LSC calipers?
The front SVO/LSC calipers work on 11" rotors, same as the 87-93 5.0L Mustangs
have from the factory (of course the SVO and LSC used 5 lugs).
02 Aug 1994
[email protected]
On Aug 1, Robert King wrote:
> What are the advantages of the SVO/LSC calipers over the 87-93 stock
> Mustang calipers? I'll be having the calipers off soon to replace the
> brake lines, and this may be a good time for an upgrade. (I think I've
> got a *slightly* warped rotor too.)
Andre already answered this (over on the Mustangs list, anyway), but I'll
repeat what he said and elaborate a bit. The biggest advantage is that the
larger piston supports the driven pad much better. In track use, when the pads
get heated up near 1300-1400degF, the smaller piston in the stock caliper
allows the pad to bend away and literally lose contact with the rotor, except
in the narrow annular ring that the piston directly bears on. In the worst
case, the piston can actually be forced right through the backing plate, just
like a cookie cutter through raw dough. Literally. I have a great example of
just such a failure, and I suppose that I should shoot a picture, scan it, and
make it available here...
That isn't gonna happen on the way to the 7-11 for more soda, though. That is
the system's response to _extreme_ overuse.
The second advantage is the reduction in tapered wear, also due to the better
support provided by the larger piston. However, it won't go away. Nothing will
correct the inherent taper-wear that is a result of the slave (outer) pad
bearing against flexible abutments, the caliper mount pins. These take one
hell of a beating, and should be replaced regularly for a car that sees major
braking loads.
The last advantage to the larger-bore caliper is a second order effect. The
larger piston area generates usable clamping force with a much lower pressure
in the hydraulic lines. This allows the system to have a slightly firmer feel,
as the effects of "swell" or "stretch" in the lines is minimized.
The brakes are a system. The 1.125" bore SVO/LSC master cylinder is the proper
mate for those calipers, so you should consider changing over to that as
mandatory as well. These calipers and MC are a great upgrade for the trackie
or anyone who exceeds the capabilities of their stock brakes on a regular
basis.
09 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Or, perhaps more appropriately, this should be subtitled "The joys of
maintaining an aging street/track car".
As part of my ongoing process of maintaining, renovating, and updating my '86
GT, I've been doing some electrical work. This process started several years
ago when I moved the battery into the right rear seat, and I finally completed
the bulk of the work this past weekend. Along the way I found some significant
problems that are endemic to the design of the car and its wiring harness, and
documenting them here might help some of you folks avoid them.
This is especially applicable if your idea of a fun weekend is to take the car
to a road course and wring it out to within inches of its life, but these
problems apply to all Fox Mustangs (as near as I can tell) as they move into
their golden years, on the far side of 100Kmiles.
The work done this weekend consisted of installing a proper battery disconnect
switch (of interest only if you're a hardcore trackie), and moving the starter
relay back to the battery location. This eliminated an extra 15 feet of 1/0
welding cable, since the high-current starter motor connection no longer had
to run clear up to the left front strut tower, and then back to the starter
motor. Instead, I intended to connect the battery to the global alternator
output hot lead with a separate #10AWG connection, and finally connect my good
ammeter, which I'd been carrying around as ballast for a year or so.
Ford designed the '86 power distribution scheme as a single-point source,
which is the hot terminal on the starter relay. All other electrical loads
hang off this point via fusible links. This was done for ease of maintenance
(since all the links are essentially in one place), but leads to a huge
congestion of links, crimps, and rat's-nested wire right at the relay (under
that black plastic cover, in case you've never looked). The scheme used in
later cars is a bit more streamlined, but only a bit.
On paper, this seems like a _great_ idea, and indeed it does work fine. But it
leads to a lot of congestion, and a hilarious number of redundant heavy-gauge
wire runs that head over there from _everywhere_ to pick up the hot. I did
some analysis of the load currents for all the loads, and decided that for my
purposes, it would make more sense to rewire the hot to be a distributed node
that ran all the way from the old starter relay location, across the radiator
support at the front to the alternator, then aft, through the firewall, and
directly to the fuse block and ammeter in the instrument panel. Thus, each
load could pick up the hot node locally through its fusible link. Tidy, but
not very maintainable unless you know where each link would then end up. Fine
for me, since I'd be the one putting them there.
Note that I'm not advocating this for everybody (shoot, not even for
_anybody_!). It's just what I was doing when I found my problems.
I ripped into the major harness and what I found blew my mind. Ford used three
types of harnessing materials. There is the usual corrugated slit harness
sleeve, there is the vinyl self-adhesive tape wrap, and there is some really
fairly tatty cloth adhesive tape. In my older car, the high underhood
temperatures and heavy vibration had led some of the corrugated sleeving to
disintegrate, particularly in the neighborhood of the original battery shelf.
That was no great problem, as I intended to replace it with my own urethane
spiral wrap sleeving. The vinyl tape had come unstuck in a few places, but was
in pretty good shape.
But the cloth tape was disintegrating. It was literally turning into powder
before my eyes. It has been doing it for a few years, and I was unconcerned,
since I thought that it was primarily used to hold the corrugated sleeving in
place. But when I ripped the harness apart, I found that it was also used to
insulate _splices_. Not the vinyl tape, which has held up very well, but the
cloth tape. In some places, the splices had shed their cloth insulation, and
chafed almst though the insulation on the *adjacent* wire (as in the case of
the splice for the heater +12v supply for the O2 sensors, and the oil-level
sender lead, in the stub harness that wraps around the oil pan).
I found a splice in the harness right in the center of the radiator support
that had had the cloth tape disintegrate, and had also ground its way through
the corrugated sleeving, to short against the bodywork. Luckily, that
particular splice was in my fog light circuit, and my fog lights came off the
car long ago to make way for brake ducts. Yowza. I'm glad I looked, and I'm
now even more glad that I put in my battery disconnect switch. One good hard
trip to the tirewall and I'd probably have had half the electrics on fire!
I then went through the power distribution harness point by point and
reinsulated the splices that needed attention, ripped out all the redundant
wiring, routed my power distibution to my liking, and generally tidied up. At
the end of it all, I had pulled about 50 feet of various redundant wiring out.
I reharnessed it all with heatshrink and spiral wrap, and I now think that
it's set to go for another 100Kmiles or so.
Places to watch out for, if your car has seen a lot of abuse: The center front
of the radiator, on the alternator-to-relay harness. The subharness that
picks up the O2 sensors and the oil level lead. The splice at the alternator
output. The area immediately under the stock battery shelf (keep acid spills
or weepage to an absolute minumum, and use lots of baking soda and a battery
mat to keep the neighborhood neutralized).
And last but not least, keep an eye on the harness right at the EEC-IV
processor box in the passenger footwell. The main harness that comes to it
passes through the firewall in a really nice, tidy grommet. Unfortunately, the
harness then rubs against a raw sheetmetal edge about 3 inches behind the
grommet! This can lead to some very interesting flakies, if the car sees lots
of G-loadings...
This is way too long already, but it does underscore that preventive
maintenance gets more comprehensive as the car gets older, especially if you
use it hard. And it also underscores that this whole process would have been
*utterly impossible* without the right doc. If your
...
harnesses is starting to turn to powder and fall off in chunks, it might be
time for a little R&R of the electrics. It might well be time well spent.
Still, for all that, I'm _astounded_ that it took this long (120Kmiles) for me
to wear that stuff out, becuase I've been working at it very hard indeed!. No
bad reflection on Ford here, for sure.
11 Aug 1994
[email protected]
On Aug 11, Neil Narwani wrote:
> I had no choice however -- the custom steering link ran right thru
> the PS pump (or at least where it used to be). I still have the
> option of relocating the pump with some custom bracket, but I'm
> really not up to the hassle.
What extra hassle? The bracketry you want is available from Ford, if I
remember your setup correctly. You are running essentially a late Mustang 5.0,
right? What you want is the pair of brackets (one cast, one stamped) from the
'87 non-A/C Mustang GT. This moves the PS pump up to the level of the heads,
about 2 inches lower than the location that the A/C compressor would have been
in. That shoudl clear any steering rig I can think of. BTW, this is the setup
I run on my car, since the A/C fell off to save the weight about 40Kmiles
ago...
These two brackets drop right on, will cost you all of $40 total, and solve
the belt routing and pump location problem outright. There's not much hassle
in that! YOu will need a couple of new 3/8 UNC bolts to mount the pump on the
nex brackets, the existing ones are too short. I think that you'll need 3
1.5", 1 4,5", and 1 7" bolt, but I slept since then. IN any case, it's no big
deal.
I even have the Ford part numbers for those brackets on the invoice at home,
but you can get them by specifying the '87 non-A/C GT. Make sure that you use
'87 as the model year, because that was the last year that the GT supported
the A/C delete as an official option. Ask for a later car, and most counter
guys will get very confused.
11 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Neil Narwani)
[email protected]
> On Aug 11, Neil Narwani wrote:
> > ... I still have the
> > option of relocating the pump with some custom bracket, but I'm
> > really not up to the hassle.
On Aug 11, Scott Griffith replied:
>What extra hassle? The bracketry you want is available from Ford, if I
> remember your setup correctly. You are running essentially a late
> Mustang 5.0, right? What you want is the pair of brackets (one cast,
> one stamped) from the '87 non-A/C Mustang GT. This moves the PS pump
> up to the level of the heads, about 2 inches lower than the location
> that the A/C compressor would have been in. ...
Ah-ha! There's the problem -- I want to keep the A/C. I was aware of the
bracket being available (but not from whom specifically), and had to decide
between A/C and PS. I chose A/C. Remember I live in South Florida. I
realized I might be able to get both in with a very custom bracket though.
That's the hassle I meant. I'm not sure how much clearance I'd have still
once the wheel wells are in, so I'll have to wait anyway.
Incidentally, during that decision process, a friend looking at the situation
said: "Well you could use a Honda A/C compressor -- I think they're
electric...". I find it strange, but maybe he's right?
15 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> 1: the previous own blew up 3rd gear replaced it and blew
> it apart again, so now I have a 4sp ;-) (no 3rd). Is there
> any ideas on a replacement gear other than stock? And is
> this a common occurrence?
The T-5 can be broken by ham-fisted shifting, it's true. Third is especially
vulnerable, particularly because the design of the single-rail shifter doesn't
incorporate any mechanical overtravel stops, which allows the possibility of
bending or breakage of the forks. It is not uncommon for tranny shops to
simply replace synchros and the like without closely examining the forks for
damage, which leads to what is known in the business as "repeat customers".
Gearboxes don't get better. They may be able to limp along for a time with
shrapnel floating around in them, but they will eventually die. The wear tends
to be exponential, once they have begun failing, and the cost tends to track
the wear. I'd recommend pulling the box and delivering it to a competent
tranny shop for a rebuild, as soon as finances allow. If you can spring for
it, have them update the box with as many of the later "World Class" parts as
are applicable.
If your style of shifting is to tickle the clutch a bit and crank on the lever
until the box somehow finds a gear, I would also recommend an aftermarket
shifter like the Hurst unit that incorporates external stops. That might stave
off a repeat performance, at least if shifter fork problems are the issue.
> 2: The low fuel light is always on. Is this wired to the
> fuel door? Any thoughts are appreciated.
No, it is wired to a comparator box that attempts to somehow determine a low
level by looking at the 12v pulses that the Instrument Voltage Regulator puts
out to the gage, and at the sender's return voltage. It is essentially a
pulsed comparator, and it's located in a plug-in module up above the glovebox.
If your fuel gage works (well, as well as any Ford fuel gage works), but the
LED is always on, you could try and find a junkyard module and swap it. I
might even be willing to sell you mine, in fact, because it's currently just
acting as ballast. It worked as poorly as any other when I still had the
indicator panel in place, which is to say that it would usually come on at
half-tank, unlees it was below freezing. Then, it'd stay on all the time.
IMHO, a better option is to remove the silly diagnostic indicator module
altogether and reuse the space for other functions, like real gages. But then
I'm widely known as a heretic. Simply sticking a chunk of black electrical
tape over the LED also works.
Not much help, I'm afraid, but the design of that whole gage system is
*fundamentally* flawed, and arguably never worked correctly for anyone. You're
not alone.
15 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
mustangs%[email protected]
From Automotive Industries, Oct 1993:
"SN95's longer front lower control arms come from the old rear-drive
Continental, and increase front track by 3.7 in on the base car, 1.9 in on the
GT."
The basic floorpan stamping (the flat bottom piece) is the same as the
previous Fox Mustangs, so if the floorboards rot out you can interchange
replacement parts. The snout, rocker boxes, transmission crossmember stubs,
and rear suspension bracketry are new.
The brake caliper description sounded pretty confused. AI is not always the
best technical resource.
The 5.0 is supposedly the one from the Thunderbird, not the '93 Mustang, as
the T-bird has "stouter seals than the older Mustang block," whatever that
means. Hypereutectic pistons. "Bearing cap bolts are longer." (doesn't say
if rod or main)
16 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Aug 16, Jay Fletcher wrote:
> I have a very strange wheel bearing problem. The outer race is loose in
> the hub! Sounds like incorrect machining to me.
> The rotor/hub is a Bendix unit...
This is a moderately common problem with both OEM and aftermarket unicast
rotors that see use on the track, especially if they are run with the bearing
preload set too tight. I have had it happen several times, and it is an
annoyance to be sure.
The problem is that the outer race is a fairly light interference fit on
fairly coarse tooling marks in the cast iron, so it is not uncommon to pound
the race around enough (especially in the presence of lubricants) to loosen
the assembly up during track use. That's one reason that I always clean off my
race and the hub bore with brake cleaner and install the new race dry. I
actually encourage a little galling as the race is pressed in, just to help
keep it there.
Did you use the race that came with the Bendix rotor, or did you knock it out
and use one of your own? Towards the end of my time using the Bendix rotors, I
started just using the race that they shipped, figuring that one fewer
knockout/knockin cycle might preserve my interference fit a bit. Especially
since I threw them away again so quickly...
> I thought about locktiting a new race into the hub, but I don't think the
> fit is close enough for that.
Loctite 609 Bearing Retaining Compound is amazing stuff, and I always keep a
tube in my track toolbox, just in case. I shudder to think that I actually
repaired this exact problem with Loctite at an event some years ago, and ran
for the entire second day on a crapped out wheel bearing. I lived. I also
learned, and it is this event (and one other) that convinced me to take spare
rotors to the track at all times! The temperatures you reach in track
conditions with a unicast rotor are high enough to kill most Loctite resins,
so putting that Loctite in there does _nada_ for you, after the first session.
Found that out when the race fell out into my hand in the postmortem, despite
using the "killer bombproof" stuff... It can work, in an emergency situation,
and if you keep the bearing temps below 300degF. But not if you get them up
there into the 400-450degF range.
The reason I still carry it with me now is for a "get-me-home" repair, and
nothing more. Time for a new rotor!
16 Aug 1994
[email protected]
mustangs%[email protected]
> That really stinks that we have had two problems with Bendix rotors in
> such a short amount of time because many of us (but not all) have felt
> that the Bendix rotors were a bit superior to the stock ones.
And they are. You will find them harder to kill due to thermal shock, overtemp
cracking, and general casting quality. They are not, on the other hand,
immortal, nor are they gold-plated. There will be warped ones, and there will
be miscut ones. _It happens_. Problem is, when you use up a lot of parts in
track use, you'll see a few out-of-spec ones, regardless of the source. That's
statistics for you.
Slam the Bendix rotors if you want. The fact remains that the castings are
measurably better than OEM. At no time has the claim been made that these are
the equivalent of race-duty parts, that they are unkillable, or that they are
somehow immune to the vagaries of production tolerances. They are merely the
best OEM replacement parts that we (as a group) have found to date, and are
highly cost effective.
If you have a better alternative, feel free to suggest it. But I'd diffidently
suggest that your sample size be a bit bigger than two, and your decisions be
arrived at in something other than the "gotta-get-it-ready, night-before-the-
event, now-I'm-pissed" thrash.
> If only someone would come up with a way to manufacture/sell rotors
> separate from hub assemblies for those of us who are using near stock
> braking set ups.
That's what I've been running for some years, with excellent results. All it
takes is a little time with a pencil and paper, and some money. The only thing
that's stopping me from manufacturing and selling them myself are my product
liability concerns. You see, regardless of any level of clever foolproofing I
could put into the design, there are always even more clever fools out there
who would cleverly misinstall them, have them fail, and then sue me for not
being clever enough to prevent their mistake. Probably successfully, since
juries in this country refuse to acknowledge that individuals should take some
responsibility for their own actions.
No, thank you. So I just run them myself. But if I can do it, so can you.
There's no magic. It's just engineering.
16 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> ...what are the symptoms of bearing wear or what are the ways to
> tell/look for (e.g., visual inspection)?
As Brian said, check play first. Roughness or noise are good giveaways as
well. But you do need to pull the hub assembly apart to properly check them.
The tapered rollers are amazingly stout bearings. The quickest check it to
pull the cones (the inner race/roller/cage assemblies) out of the cups (the
outer race), and clean the cups, removing all the grease so that you can
inspect the surface finish. Don't bother cleaning the cone until you know
you're going to keep it!
A good cup will exhibit no scoring or grooving. When it was new, it
was the same precision-ground satin finish over the entire working surface.
The rollers only run on 80% of it, so the outer 2mm or 3mm will be original,
and can be used for a reference. The most wear you can tolerate is a slight
polishing of the used portion of the race. Grooves, gouges, brinnelling (from
impact overloads), or a wear step that you can catch a fingernail on are signs
that the cup and cone should be replaced. It should look perfect, or slightly
polished. Nothing else is acceptable. If the cup is gone, the cone is also
gone-just pitch it without a second thought.
If this sounds very restrictive, it is. I don't have much tolerance for wheel
bearing related problems. It's either perfect, or it's scrap, to my way of
thinking. The damned things are cheap and easy to replace, using just a soft
brass punch to drive the cup out without scoring the bore. One of the
commercial bearing/seal driver kits (like the $17 Lisle version) is very
useful to put the new race in, or the same soft punch can be used to
delicately walk it in place and bottom it in the bore.
If the cup is ok, and you intend to reuse the cone, then give it a thorough
cleaning (use brake cleaner or whatever your choice of petroleum solvent might
be). A quick inspection of the cage and rollers will be good enough, because I
am unaware of any roller or cage failure that wouldn't leave enough damage on
the cup to disqualify it from reuse. But check anyway! Then repack the cage
with good high-temperature wheel bearing grease, either synthetic or dinosaur
as your religion requires. Reassemble, reset the preload to the manual specs,
and you're done.
Brian St. Denis wrote:
> I was really impressed with how small the spindle seemed. There are
> huge forces on the front tires/wheels/bearings/spindles. It sort of
> amazed me that the spindle can hold all of that force...
It certainly has its hands full. That little .866dia outer snout sees some
phenomenal loads. Back of the envelope calculations show that a 3500lb car
cornering at 1G, assuming hyper-conservatively that the entire load was held
up by the outside front wheel, would apply an overturning moment resulting in
a force of about (scribble, mumble, scratch) 14000lb applied to the spindle
snout. Not counting for dynamic effects like tire squirm, body roll, surface
changes, and all that other nasty reality stuff that makes steady-state
cornering anything _but_ steady.
No wonder you see almost 100 thou runout at the rotor plane under track
conditions due to spindle flex... And that should convince even the *greatest*
doubter that they should check their bearings often for track use. The outer
bearing is rated at only 7800lb max load at 3000rpm for 500 hours life, and
that assumes temps lower than we run in a unicast rotor and clean, fresh
lube...
18 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Marty Udisches)
[email protected]
> >Avoid sucking a bubble at the MC like the plague, folks, it is no fun at
> >all
> OK. What is the procedure for recovering from a drained MC? Is there a
> difference in procedure between the stock MC and the one used with the
> common rear disk brake kits?
I'll jump in on this one, since skod's above warning got to me too late and I
had to go thru the associated pain.
First of all, if you've got the stock '87+ 21mm fast-fill (drum brake) MC,
seriously consider throwing it on the trash heap if you suck a bubble and have
plans for rear disks. The design of the stock MC is such that normal bench
bleeding techniques are nearly impossible. After I sucked a bubble, I tried
every procedure I could come up with, including a nearly-successful "bucket
bleeding" session. The basic idea is to run fluid thru the MC in a continuous
loop, allowing air to be bled out as the fluid runs thru. Problem is, with
the stupid plastic reservior, you can't really get loops of brake line that go
from the outlet ports and back up to the reservoir. And power bleeders that
you might find at pro garages and shops aren't typically setup to mate with
the plastic reservoir, either. So I guess that leaves trying a bucket bleed
like I did (and having more patience than I), or leaving it on the car,
running fluid thru, and being happy with a less-than-perfect pedal.
With the 1.125" bore Lincoln-type MC (the real cast reservoir piece) it's a
snap to mount it on the booster, connect up the lines and just simply run
fluid thru. Since it doesn't have that silly one-way valve deal, it bleeds
fairly easily. If you want to be perfect about it, mount it in a vice, attach
two short lenghts of line to the outlet ports and loop them up so that they
terminate in their respective MC reservoirs, and slowly pump some fluid thru,
giving both long strokes (full travel) to bleed the outlet ports and short
strokes (1/4"-1/2") to bleed the inlet ports...
18 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> What is the procedure for recovering from a drained MC? Is there a
> difference in procedure between the stock MC and the one used with the
> common rear disk brake kits? Is there any other special things that need
> to be done when installing a new MC?
Hoo boy, yes, there are differences. The stock 21mm bore MC used on the '87-93
cars with rear drums is actually a stepped-bore, "fast-fill" design. This type
of master cylinder is used to attempt to accommodate the behavior of the rear
drums without the use of a residual pressure valve, which causes drag and
would be bad for the CAFE requirements (which the 5.0 stretches pretty hard
anyway!).
The way it works is really pretty simple. A conventional tandem MC has the
pushrod from the pedal bear directly on the primary piston. As the pushrod
moves, it pushes the piston forward in the bore. As soon as it move far enough
to close off the refill port that connects the bore to the fluid reservoir
(the Bosch guys poetically call this the "snifter port"!), the pressure begins
to build up in the primary system, which is connected to the front brakes.
It won't build up much, though, because the secondary piston rides in the same
bore. Once the primary refill port closes, the secondary piston starts to
move, and it closes off its own port. The important point is that the
secondary piston is moved hydraulically, not mechanically, except in the case
of a failure in one system or the other.
In any case, once both the primary and secondary have closed off their refill
ports, useful things finally happen. Any further pushrod travel actually moves
the caliper and wheel cylinder pistons, until all the play is taken up between
pads and rotors, or shoes and drums, and braking actually starts. This can
take up a _lot_ of pedal travel, especially for us trackies, as the drums sack
out. Finally, you can get to a point where the secondary piston has to
actually bottom in its bore before the primary will generate any pressure. At
this point the rear drums aren't actually doing anything whatsoever, and the
fronts do all the work. And the pedal is _way_ long.
The fast-fill MC works differently. The pushrod acts on a the primary piston
as before, but it rides in a stepped bore. It is larger at the rear, and
smaller at the front, with seals in each bore. The larger bore is called the
"fast-fill" bore, and it is 32mm, in the case of the Mustang's 21mm MC. As the
piston moves forward, it initially displaces a much larger volume of fluid
from this larger bore. The primary piston includes some cleverly designed
bypass paths, that allow fluid from the fast-fill bore to actually bypass the
primary piston, and shoot the secondary forward to take up the slack in both
systems much more quickly (or with less pushrod travel). In fact, it works by
lifting the edges of the primary cup seal and flowing the fluid annularly
around the edges, just like air entering the chamber in your old bicycle tire
pump. But once the system starts generating pressure, the primary seal seals
again, and the actual working pressure is provided by the 21mm pistons, which
results in a much lower pedal effort.
This fast-fill action is governed by a spring loaded ball valve that is
located in the primary cylinder's refill port. It allows fluid to flow from
the reservoir into the primary and fast-fill bores without resistance on the
return stroke. But on the pressure stroke, it seals until a pressure of about
100psi is reached in the fast-fill bore, and then it vents back into the
reservoir. Otherwise, the pedal would hydraulically see a 32mm piston
providing all the pressure all the time, resulting in a much higher pedal
effort. Thus, the MC uses a 32mm piston to provide the take-up and the first
100psi of line pressure, and then everything above that is provided by the
21mm bores. Pretty damned clever engineering.
All this wordy crap is intended to explain the difficulty in bleeding bubbles
out of the fast-fill MC. Get a bubble below that spring-loaded fast-fill
valve, and it's sheer hell to get it out. You have to purge it with 100psi or
more line pressure, right? So the bleeders have to be closed, and it has to be
in the car so the pushrod can act on it (you can't make 100psi with your
thumb...). And the nose of the MC has to be higher than the mounting flange to
kick the bubble out, because the fast-fill refill port is at the far end of
its bore.
But in order to get the last bubbles out of the primary and secondary bores,
you really need to tip the MC so that its nose is *downhill*, so that the
refill ports (at the _near_ end) are the highest points in the bores. But
wait! Where does the primary bore vent its bubbles? Back into the bleedin'
fast-fill valve. So you close the bleeders, set the car down flat, try and
romp the bubble out of the valve, and then tip the MC so it's is nose-low and
go back to bleeding all the corners again until the system seems firm, or
firmer. Lather, rinse, repeat. You fart around with it for several hours,
until you finally get a decent pedal again, and then you _swear_ that you'll
never burp a bubble into the MC again as long as you live.
Trust me.
Now, if you've changed to the 1" or 1.125" bore master cylinder that comes
with any of the disk kits, or you have a car like a '93 Cobra or a '94 that
_came_ with 4-wheel disks, you have a conventional, non-fast-fill MC. Fast-
fill MCs are a drum-only issue, in the Ford world. So, if you burp a bubble,
you might have to tip the MC so that the nose is lower than the mounting
flange, so that the refill ports are the highest points in the bores, and then
just retract a piston a bit in each system to push a bit of fluid back into
the reservoir. Bloop! Any bubbles go right up into the reservoir, and you're
done. You can do this either recovering from a bubble, or installing a new MC.
The shop manual suggests doing this bench bleeding of the MC by making little
loop brake lines and filling it before you even install it. I don't, because
I'm fat-fingered enough that I'd drop it, spewing fluid everywhere. And what
little paint is on my car I'd like to _stay_ there. So I just install a new MC
dry, fill it, and then do my ... the the MC is the appropriate amount
"downhill". Same thing if I accidentally burp in a bubble when bleeding before
an event.
I'm a _lazy_ sod...
Hope that helps. Sorry for the length, but I can't think of any better way to
explain it decently!
22 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
fordnatics
Chucko writes:
>MAFs have a limited dynamic range, so too big is as bad for idle
>as too small would be for WFO.
I feel that this is a rather gross (and misleading) generalization. There are
certainly circumstances where merely bolting on a larger MAF with little
thought will result in poor throttle response. But that won't be a problem in
a well thought out solution.
The 4.6L DOHC in the Mark VIII has a 80 mm MAF from the factory. This is
obviously a car where idle quality is a big concern.
Since few people can program the EEC, you may have the tweak the signal it
sees from the MAF for certain combinations.
Several of my friends have installed that MAF on their 5.0's with excellent
results. You'd be surprised at just how large the MAF's and TB's on the next
generation of lower displacement V8's are.
24 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> The '93 Service manual shows the rear axle and housing (differential)
> as "do not lift here" points. Anybody know why? I know I'd never
> use the OEM scissor there but I believe they meant "any" jack or lift.
> I've been using a piece of 2X4 about 8 inches long as a load spreader
> on the front and rear sub-frames to lift with a floor jack. I'd like
> to lift at the differential.
Wierd! My '93 manual shows the rear axle tubes beside the center section as
"rear suspension lift points", and the actual wording in the manual in the
floor jack section is "Position jacks under the rear axle housing tubes
between the suspension arm brackets and the differential housing. Do not place
jacks under the suspension brackets." That's in Section 00-02, "Lifting,
Jacking," and so on. I can't find any reference to the axle being off limits.
Now, a paranoid person might say "They didn't say that you *could* lift it by
the center section!". Well, true. But if you can lift it by the *tube*, which
is thinwall steel that's only held into the center section with 3 rosette
welds, then you sure as hell can lift it by the center section as well! I use
a jack bucket that actually contacts the center section at 3 points, and I
maneuver it to make sure that I don't mung the rear cover, which inexplicably
covers the jack notches on the cast center section. The Ranger pickup rear
cover is identical, except that it also has notches that align with the
housing notches, making it easier to jack the car this way. Just FYI, if your
car is destined for a life of being hoisted up by the under
...
wer rear arms, the front subframe tooling hose, and the front control arm
spring buckets. These latter 8 points are recommended for a 4-point frame or
suspension hoist, but they are all certainly strong enough to be used
individually, and I've had jacks and jackstands under all of them at various
points in my car's hard life.
While I've got the manual open, here's the exact wording on the use of
the onboard jack: "The service jack provided with the vehicle is only intended
to be used in an emergency for changing a deflated tire. Never use the service
jack to hoist the vehicle for any other service." Clear enough, and I doubt
that they contradict that instruction elsewhere in the manual!
19 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> Is there a way to tell physically if it's a fast fill MC? It seems
> that they could have used the fast fill system but it would be a waste
> since the rear disks would react as fast as the fronts. My car has an
> external proportioning valve just below the MC. Perhaps the primary
> setting is different than a GT.
The external proportioning valve is completely separate from the fast-fill
portion MC. BTW, does the manual mention anything about the Cobra
proportioning valve being different than the other models? I'm curious if
they changed that or not.
Out of curiosity, is the reservoir for the Cobra MC plastic or cast metal? If
cast, you definitely have a different MC than GT's and LX's.
19 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I looked in the '93 Service Manual and there is nothing about the '93
> Cobra having a different MC. The section on the MC is very sparse.
> It mentions fast fill once but doesn't explain it.
This is correct. The manual writers didn't write up a section for the Cobra,
presumably because of time constraints, or perhaps Ford internal hemming and
hawing over whether to include the rear disks or not. Documentation lead times
are _very_ long, and that has led to a lot of omissions in the past.
Unfortunately, Ford likes doing the cut-and-paste thing in their manuals, so
stuff that gets left out often never gets back in. Like, for instance, a
description of the fast-fill feature. It didn't get in when they changed to
that design way back in the '87 model year, and it never did catch up. So the
'87-93 manuals have essentially the same (incorrect) '86 wording, with only
the addition of a terse description of the "fluid control valve".
The _diagram_ got changed, but not the explanations. Oh, well. The step in the
bore is never listed in *any* of the spec manuals, either. I first got wind of
it by seeing a stepped bore listed in the Raybestos catalog for replacement
'87-93 MCs, and that got me curious. Then I got the '93 manuals, largely to
confirm my suspicions, and worked backwards from there.
Sometimes, keeping track of the Mustang's innards is more like detective work,
or perhaps archaeology, than it is wrenching...
> Is there a way to tell physically if it's a fast fill MC? It seems
> that they could have used the fast fill system but it would be a waste
> since the rear disks would react as fast as the fronts. My car has an
> external proportioning valve just below the MC. Perhaps the primary
> setting is different than a GT.
Yes. The FF MCs have a very visible step in the outside diameter of the
casting, just aft (towards the booster) of the primary refill ports (the
aftmost outlet of the reservoir). This is to accommodate the 32mm fast-fill
bore. The primary refill port allowance in the casting is also much larger in
diameter than the secondary, to leave room for the fluid control valve. Also,
all the FF MCs have plastic reservoirs, but that's not conclusive proof.
The '93 Cobra definitely has a 1.0" bore, non-fast-fill MC. It has a plastic
tank, but no step in the casting. I know this to be true, because I just
bought one of the damned things, since it is the ideal MC to use with the PBR
front setup.
The '94 Cobras have gone to a 1-1/16" bore plastic-tank non-fast-fill design,
apparently to firm up the pedal feel and to accommodate the new rear calipers,
just FYI. This makes a huge variety of MCs available that can be used to fine-
tune the Fox braking setup: 21mm, 7/8", 15/16", 1.0", 1-1/16", and 1-1/8".
Heaven. Who said you can't set these damned things up the way you want?
Andre wrote:
> BTW, does the manual mention anything about the Cobra proportioning
> valve being different than the other models?
Nope. I think that that is another minor detail that got left out, since they
don't even include the usual table of knee points and splits. But I'd be
willing to bet a beer or two that it is identical to the setup from the old
'87-88 T-bird Turbo Coupe, since that's the parts bin that everything _else_
came out of!
Maybe I can find out with a few phone calls. If so, I'll let the list know.
And sorry about the delay on that article yesterday. A machine in Sun's router
swallowed it when I mailed it at 9:15, and sat on it until 4:30 or so, for no
apparent reason. The Sun internal-to-external email black hole has at least
been identified, though. Maybe now I can get them to fix it...
19 Aug 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
>BTW, does the manual mention anything about the Cobra proportioning
>valve being different than the other models? I'm curious if they
>changed that or not.
troy: The manuals show the proportioning valves and settings to be the same
for all '93 Mustangs but I'm sure the settings are really different as Scott
mentioned. So the Prop valve and MC should be coordinated.
>Out of curiosity, is the reservoir for the Cobra MC plastic or cast
>metal? If cast, you definitely have a different MC than GT's and
>LX's.
troy: The reservoir is plastic with a screw-on lid and 2 outlets.
[email protected] (Scott Griffith) wrote:
>The '93 Cobra definitely has a 1.0" bore, non-fast-fill MC. It has a
>plastic tank, but no step in the casting. I know this to be true,
>because I just bought one of the damned things, since it is the ideal
>MC to use with the PBR front setup.
troy: I checked the casting and it is indeed "not" stepped. Bendix is cast
onto the top front. The number 31348 is stamped above a .25" counter sink and
3753P below on the MC forward end. There are no other visible markings. I
did notice the primary outlet has a smaller flare nut and is different colored
than the secondary, probably so they don't get swapped. The lines are the same
size.
So, add another 2 parts to the list of "Undocumented '93 Cobra-Mustang Unique
Parts for Future Parts Counter Reference".
Thanks to Scott for the info.
Anybody want to help me doctor up a resume for Scott so we can send it to the
Ford Technical Publications Department so he can help them out? :-)
22 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Is there a brake rotor that will fit on an '89, only with the standard
> Ford 5 on 4.5 lug pattern? Is there more than one diameter of rotor
> available?
Absolutely. The rotor from the '84-86 SVO Mustang/ '82-87 Continental works
very nicely. Luckily, for the modern Fox-derived cars, Ford stayed with one
single rotor OD. The 5-lug 11" rotor will drop right on to an '87-up Fox
spindle. There are just two gotchas, and they're minor. The first is that the
wheel mounting surface is 3mm further outboard on the 5-lug. Whoopie! If
you're shaving the clearances that close...
And the second, which is a bit more vexing, is that the outer bearing boss
(the hub snout proper) is 2.75"OD, instead of the 2.52"OD of the 4-lug rotor.
So if you had your wheels bored for the smaller snout, you get to do it again.
Luckily, the vast majority of aftermarket 5-lug wheels are set up to fit the
Impala "standard" with is 2.78"OD.
Anyway, if you're dong the conversion, presumably you're buying new wheels as
well. So they'll either come with the center bore comfortably too big, or you
can have them bored or sleeved to be a nice slip fit that pilots on the snout,
which is the strongest setup going.
But you knew that.
The Raybestos part number for that rotor is 6009, and Autospecialty is AR-
8118. I can't find the Bendix part number for it, darn it, although I know
that it's on a yellow post-it here somewhere. Shoulda typed it in... Some of
the other non-ABS late Ford fatride rotors will work as well, if you're
crawling the salvage yards. Just avoid the '89-up Thunderbird/Cougar rotors,
that Ford inexplicably decided should be set up for 5 on 4-1/4". They *look*
almost right in the yard, but then you find out later (like when you get them
home!) that they used the puny bolt circle.
22 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I saw the message about how the SN-95 Mustang has lower control arms
> from the older rear drive continental (sp?) and I've been told and it is my
> understanding that the SVO also has them. Are they the same?
They are _similar_, but not identical. The SVO's control arms were fabricated,
and the Continental and '94s are stamped. I believe that they are very close
dimensionally, and can be interchanged, but I haven't been able to confirm
that just yet. In any case, the SVO's control arms are more desirable, since
they are significantly stiffer than the stamped parts.
> Also, would the front sway bar from a 94 GT fit my SVO?
Yes, I'm told by a person whose experience I trust that this swap works just
fine, if you salvage the bar mounting bushings as well. And it is a bit of a
win in terms of weight, as well, since the '94 bar is tubular instead of
solid. I'm currently trying to find one of those to try out myself.
Dave Montgomery asked, in the same vein:
> I am interested in determining if any of the late model wheels will
> fit my 86 SVO.
I don't have the specs book for the '94s in hand yet. But knowing the story of
the development of that suspension, I believe that they will have nearly the
perfect offset for the SVO setup, both front and rear. The reason that I say
this is that the '93 Cobra has unique front rotors that add 3/4" additional
spacing outboard so that it could use the SN-95 wheels. Well, 3/4" was the
additional offset included in the SVO wheels, as well, so I'd have to say the
chances are about 95% that that will work. I'll just have to get the specs
book in, and then measure one wheel just to make sure that they aren't lying
to us, to confirm...
24 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Here's a brake question, just in the off chance _someone_ on
> this list makes a hobby of Ford brake esoterica :)
Bing! Slobber, drool. Somebody shut that damned bell off. All this salivation
makes me dehydrated...
> Can the master cylinder from the Lincolns & SVO be
> temporarily used to drive the feeble calipers and
> cylinders stock on '79 Mustangs (the 10" disc set up)?
I would advise pretty strongly against it. The hydraulic ratios would be
terrible, and the pedal effort would be very, very high.
The stock hydraulic ratio is 8.14:1. With that MC, it would fall to 4.40:1.
This would mean that for any given level of deceleration, you'd need almost
double the pedal pressure with the larger MC. This is worsened by the fact
that vacuum boosters are nonlinear, so you'd saturate the booster and get no
additional help from it at pretty modest levels of deceleration.
You could stop the car, but that ratio is pretty harsh. The pedal would be
nice and firm, though!
> Also, should the stock booster from the 10" brake
> setup be used with this MC?
Yes, I believe so. I don't have the specs on that year's booster, but I have
continued using my original '86 booster all these years, despite all the other
changes in the system, and have had excellent results.
> At some point in the future I'll be going to LSC rear discs
> and either Lincoln or PBR calipers in front, but I don't want
> to do the MC upgrade now if I can't reasonably drive the
> car in the mean time.
Decision time, then! If you're going to the PBRs, you'll want a 1.0" MC
instead of the 1.125" MC for best results. True, it's easy to change, but it'd
be nice to have the job mapped out in advance, so that you don't end up with a
whole garage full of discarded Mustang brake bits. Like me.
The 1.0" MC would give you a hydraulic ratio of 5.57:1, which would be firm
but pretty driveable with those 60mm calipers and 10" rotors. Remember, the
PBR calipers have 2 38mm pistons, for a total area equivalent to a single 54mm
piston, so you'd be right in the ballpark. The PBR setup makes up the rest of
the difference in the much larger working radius and pad area, which yields
more brake torque for the same level of clamping force...
The PBRs up front and the 11" LSC/SVO rear disks have exactly the same piston
area, so the bias would be rear-heavy, but only just. Factor in the larger
working radius of the fronts, and you have a pretty decent bias, with only a
little tweaking of the reap line pressure with a prop valve. Makes it nice to
dial in the different bias in the rain, since you'll be right in the middle of
the prop valve's range. That's going to be my setup, once I finally get it
finished.
24 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Joseph Edward Huesmann)
> Normally, when I need to raise my '91 5.0 LX off the garage floor, I
> use a hydraulic floor jack fortified with safety stands. This week-
> end I decided to try the factory gizmo Fomoco calls a jack (the panto-
> graph thingy in the spare tire wheelwell).
>
> When I put it in the jack notch (according to the user's manual) and
> started cranking on the handle, I noticed that the metal under the
> jack notch was crumpling! If I had proceeded, the car would've surely
> fallen off the 'jack'.
>
> Anyone else have this problem, and what did you do about it? I can't
> go around carrying a 60# floor jack in the back of my car for changing
> tires.
Yeah, I've had this problem before, too. The rocker panels seem to be kinda
feeble. Both sides of mine are now folded in. I have two answers to your
question about lugging around a 60-lb floor jack--one is to get a lighter,
smaller model (2.5-ton, about $30 from TrakAuto, Pep Boys, etc.). Maybe you
wouldn't want it for daily duty but it will work for flat tires. Personally I
use mine regularly. Anyway, the other answer is to use that (worthless)
"jack" that comes with the car. However, what you have to do is to keep a
small piece of steel plate and jack the car up by the subframes, putting the
steel plate between the jack and the subframe (otherwise you'll put a nice
dent in the subframe). I don't think there's much chance of the car falling
off, unless you take a shoulder to it. I use a C-clamp I have instead of a
plate. That is, in emergencies... :)
24 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> When I put it in the jack notch (according to the user's manual) and
> started cranking on the handle, I noticed that the metal under the
> jack notch was crumpling!
The jack notch is pretty weak, all right, and the stock jack itself hardly
helps matters. It should be considered to be for roadside emergency use only,
and should probably never be used more than the one or two times over the life
of the car that you get punctures while on the road. In those cases, some
sheetmetal crunching is tolerable. It is also inevitable. The only way I can
think of to avoid it is to make some nice beefy doublers and bolt or
preferably weld them on.
The best places to lift a stock Mustang with a floor jack are right under the
center of the K-frame (*not* the oil pan or harmonic balancer!), which lifts
the whole front end equally, and right under the center section of the rear
axle, which lifts the whole rear. I'm not too kindly disposed towards lifting
just one corner of the car with any type of jack from any jack point, unless
the car has been significantly stiffened.
I have the Global West subframe connectors and the 1" square supplements that
are run along the rocker seam. That reinforces it to the point that the car
can be easily lifted by the use of a floor jack anywhere along the seam. I
have marked the car's CG location so that I can simply slam a floor jack under
it and lift one whole side of the car at the track, a'la NASCAR. Makes for
nice speedy tire changes...
24 Aug 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
> The best places to lift a stock Mustang with a floor jack are right
> under the center of the K-frame (*not* the oil pan or harmonic
> balancer!), which lifts the whole front end equally, and right under
> the center section of the rear axle, which lifts the whole rear.
The '93 Service manual shows the rear ax
..
on't make 245/50ZR15 anymore) and CompTA/3s, which aren't as good as the
Dunlops but are still pretty decent tires...
>with just going with a 225/50 and live with the little speedo error, that
>is what I am planning to before the rains come... But which brand to buy,
>hey lets rehash the whole my tire is better than yours thread in a month or
>so. NOT!
The cool thing is that the 245/50s are almost exactly the same size as the
225/60s, so the error isn't that bad. If you have two cars side by side with
225/60s and 245/50s you can't really tell the difference in diameter just by
looking at them...
27 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Eric Hedstrom)
[email protected]
MR> Anyway, what are other people's experiences with this? I've been
MR> thinking about going to 245-50-16s all the way around, from the stock
MR> 225-55-16s, so I've been wondering about this sizing question too. Are
MR> the 245s too wide for factory 16" rims? (I intend to keep the tire
MR> sizes consistent all around the car for rotatability, as this is a
MR> daily driver).
Thanks Mike for the "tire size" chart, that was helpful information.
I currently have 16x8 inch rims, with 245-50-16s mounted on all four. My car
is an '89 and came with 225-60-15s on 15x7" rims stock. The newer star wheels
are 16x7. You can mount 245s on them, but they are not ideal for serious
handling, if you want them to work you need an 8" rim (maybe even a 7.5"
rim...).
The 245s do rub in front (my car is not lowered), but not when turning, just
when I hit a big bump. Or when loaded down with people. The rears have never
rubbed no matter how much I have in the rear. The newer Mustangs '91+ that
came with the star wheels may not have that front rubbing problem cause the
inner fenders are slightly different to help clear the 16x7 star wheels. Its
not a big problem, but I was thinking of moving to 245-45-16s to get rid of
the problem, but then my speedo will not register correctly. Does anyone know
the % speedo error with 245-45-16s when 225-60-15s were the original tire?
30 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Various details on the status of my '83 Capri track car follows. This will
probably bore some of you to tears. I recently built a full floater 9" rear
end for the car. This replaced my old 9" (actually 8"), which had frequent
bearing problems. I also just upgraded the brakes to 13" front and 12" rear
rotors (PBR) and converted the rear control arms to teflon lined rod ends and
coil overs.
I installed the center section in my new 9" floater last night (BTW, anyone
know where the center of mass is on a 3.50 carrier with a Detroit locker? ;-)
While I'm under the car wrestling with RTV and the carrier, it never ceases to
amaze me just how much mass is concentrated in them. The housing is quite
light in comparison. I used Ultra-Copper RTV and no gasket to seal it. I
hope that will do the trick. Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions.
The floater hubs are very beefy and quite heavy. The same can be said for the
axles. I don't know how much more this will weigh than a typical 8.8", but it
probably is significant. It probably weighs quite a bit more than my old
small bearing 9" rear (which was actually a 8" housing). Too bad I don't own
a scale.
I also deburred the rotor plates and Coleman rotors. The brake caliper
brackets were originally quite straight after welding. I got talked into
trussing them a bit and that resulted in some bracket deflection. I'll be
shimming with AN washers as necessary. Hopefully I won't have to machine the
caliper anchor brackets.
The full floater hub tends to place the rotor and caliper fairly inboard on
the housing. This is good for cooling and weight distribution but can be bad
for chassis clearance. To make an unpleasant experience short, I ended up
removing the factory rear spring perch from the car. End of problem (at least
I'm pretty sure the rotors aren't going to hit :-O
The other night I finally got around to building a front driveshaft hoop
(which is the most important of the two). I haven't built a rear yet. During
the process, it occurred to me that a good safety measure would be to install
a spring between the transmission output shaft and driveshaft yoke. In the
event of a rear U-joint failure, the spring would help kick the yoke out of
the transmission. I don't *think* the spring pre-load would hurt the U-joint
life (since we're not talking about anything you can't compress with your
fingers). Hoops are best, but I think the spring isn't a bad way to go if you
don't have them.
The interior is finally painted. After much waffling, I ended up going with
red. It came out quite good (with the exception of the unavoidable
overspray).
I don't have much to do to the engine. I've got some new Probe stud girdles
to install. That will result in a couple of iterations of lash adjustment.
I've also finally got underdrive pulleys for the car. Marsh claims outrageous
power gains in the Summit catalog - 15 to 25 HP, as I recall. Right! I'll be
spinning the engine close to 7,000, so there should be some power there.
I ended up going with a 4.33" Auto Specialties crank pulley. I was tempted to
go with a 3.5" pulley, but didn't want to deprive the MSD of power in solo II
situations where the car might be starting and idling quite a bit.
The AS pulley is billet and terribly heavy compared to the stock stamped
pulleys. I called a couple of the Mustang supply places and was immediately
reminded why I don't do business with them. They had absolutely no concern
for the weight of the these pulleys. When I asked them why I should burn 5
lbs of the weight I saved going to aluminum heads on overweight pulleys, they
just sort of said "Duh". Sort of like asking Homer Simpson a car question.
One of them even suggested that it wasn't any heavier than the stock pulley.
Does anyone have a part number for a similarly sized factory pulley that will
fit a 302?
For the water pump I went with the '86 5.0 unit. It is the same size as most
of the underdrive kit pulleys and much lighter. I also have a P/S pulley from
an '84 V6 Mustang. This is substantially larger than the normal 5.0 pulley
and should really make life easier for the P/S system. I do expect that there
really should be a reduction in power lost to the P/S at high RPMs. That
serpentine belt has a tough life at 7,000.
I also hope to get around to advancing the timing. I expect some power here.
Currently I'm running a very conservative 26-28 degrees of total advance. It
is really just a matter of finding the time to safely find the upper limit and
re-jet appropriately..
I've yet to complete the plumbing for the new rear brakes. It won't be much
different than the old drum setup - two SS flex lines instead of one,
relocating the Tee from housing to inside the car and using bulkhead fittings
instead of a grommet to go through the floor. I think the new brake setup
will otherwise be a no brainer (aside from various niggling details too boring
to mention here).
I'm trying to get the car back together for a Shelby Club event at Waterford
Hills this Sunday. There is still a fair bit to do - I expect I'll spend a
good 30+ hours of quality time with the car if I'm going to make it (and I'll
probably take Friday off). Fortunately, much of the remaining work is re-
assembling of already tested and working systems (electrical). Some of that
work will be tuning the new suspension setup and shake down runs.
I'm rather eager to run the car at Waterford. This will be the first time the
car has had real brakes. I'm hoping the new 16x12 wheels will arrive in time
to get the 25x13 slicks mounted. Otherwise, I'll be running used GSCSs on
17x8's.
The big problem with getting the car together is the Feature Creature.
Resisting the temptation to g you)
8) Push your clutch in. That piece of plastic should move.
9) using your small piece of wood, use the wood to push that small
piece of white plastic up. While exerting force on the white
plastic piece, depress your clutch pedal. Hold the white
plastic in place and release the clutch. You should hear a "click"
if you were able to hold the plastic piece "up".
That click is the adjuster taking slack out of your cable.
10) adjust until you like the position of the pedal when it engages the
clutch pressure plate. You can feel the force rise.
CAUTION!!! If you make the adjustment too tight, you can cause the clutch to
be in a "slipping" mode, causing extra heat, and extreme wear. This will lead
to an untimely death of the clutch.
YMMV, and all usual disclaimers on this one!
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Jul 31, 21:54, Chris Folk wrote:
> I know that my heater core needs to be replaced however I will be unable to
> have this done for a couple of weeks. My question is this, for the past
> week or so
> my temp gauge has not been registering at all. Sometimes it will creep up to
> the "C" but most of the time it is at the absolute lowest point. Also when
> accelerating, anything of say 1/4 throttle or less results in some
> 'surging' of the engine while above 1/4 throttle it seems to 'even out'.
> What I am wondering is if there is a possible connection to my bad heater
> core and the inability of the engine coolant temp to warm up.
Loss of coolant can cause problems with temperature readings. The coolant
temp sensor (at least on the pre-EFI cars) is tapped into the rear coolant
passage of the intake manifold. If you end up with a fair amount of air in
the system (as happened with my '85 before I replaced the intake manifold
gaskets) the sensor apparently doesn't stay immersed in the cooland and you'll
get unusually low temperature readings.
> Also this is
> an '84 5.0 with EEC-IV emission control and I was wondering if the temp
> staying cold, could cause the surging. If this is the case would bypassing
> the heater core (as I have read about in recent posts) eliminate or at
> least lessen this problem?
> Thanks in advance for any and all info,
>-- End of excerpt from Chris Folk
Is the a CFI (central fuel-injection) car? If so, my faulty memory seems to
indicate that you'd have the EEC-III, not the EEC-IV. If you've got a carb,
then you don't have any computer at all.
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Aug 1, 0:12, Theodore Chen wrote:
> the BTPP talks about upgrading to SVO/LSC calipers, but doesn't say why
> it's better. i guess it's pretty obvious to most people, but i'm
> not really sure why the 73 mm piston is better than the 66 mm piston.
> i was thinking maybe more force, but the BTPP article talked of reducing
> the level of assist in a different part of the article. does the larger
> piston press on the pad more evenly and hold it flatter against the disc?
Better support of the driven pad is the main reason for going to the SVO/LSC
calipers. Even with the SVO calipers you can get tapered wear of the pads
under hard use, but they're definitely an improvement.
> on my car, the left front caliper is dragging (takes a few seconds
> to release after the brake pedal is depressed), and since the car has
> 130k miles on it, it probably needs to be rebuilt. so i thought this
> might be a good time to get the SVO/LSC calipers. where would be a good
> place to get rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers cheap? i'm in the bay area, but
> mail order is fine.
Auto Parts Club, several locations in the Bay Area. Rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers
loaded with "no-name" semi-metallic pads can be yours for approximately $38
each with core exchange (no, they won't notice or care that the calipers
you're sending back are a bit different than the ones you bought). There's a
membership fee of $10 per year (otherwise you'll have to pay an additional 10%
over the marked prices).
> also, the flex hoses are apparently original, and though they look fine,
> i'm going to replace them. i looked at the parts list for the braided
> steel flex hoses, and i'm wondering why it specifies an 18" hose for the
> fronts. the rubber flex hose itself is about 9 or 10 inches long, and
> it seems like replacing it with an 18" hose would leave lots of it hanging
> out. looking at the haynes manual, it appears that some models have
> a rubber flex hose that goes all the way to the caliper. on my car,
> there is a hard line that goes into a small metal block that is bolted
> to the front of the caliper. the flex hose runs between the chassis
> hard line and the caliper hard line. i can see that if the caliper
> hard line were replaced, the 18" braided hose would be about the right
> length. however, the hard line seems to be permanently attached to the
> metal block on the caliper, and i can't see why i should replace it,
> anyway.
>-- End of excerpt from Theodore Chen
The "small metal block that is bolted to the front of the caliper" is most
likely the banjo-fitting for the brake line. Everything from the point where
it's bolted to the caliper to the point where it connects to the chassis hard
line is to be replaced as a unit. If you go for the braided hard lines,
you'll need the full length skod specifies.
Regardless, you want to replace the flex-lines no matter what with the mileage
you've got. They won't necessarily show any visible wear before they suddenly
give up the ghost, most likely when you need them the most.
01 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
>On Aug 1, 0:12, Theodore Chen wrote:
>> Subject: Re: brake flex lines
>>
>> the BTPP talks about upgrading to SVO/LSC calipers, but doesn't say why
>> it's better. i guess it's pretty obvious to most people, but i'm
>> not really sure why the 73 mm piston is better than the 66 mm piston.
>> i was thinking maybe more force, but the BTPP article talked of reducing
>> the level of assist in a different part of the article. does the larger
>> piston press on the pad more evenly and hold it flatter against the disc?
>Better support of the driven pad is the main reason for going to the
>SVO/LSC calipers. Even with the SVO calipers you can get tapered wear
>of the pads under hard use, but they're definitely an improvement.
There are a couple of problems with only changing to the 73 mm calipers.
First, you'll get a longer pedal due to the larger volume of fluid that has to
be displaced to move the larger pistons. You can fix this by going to the SVO
1.125" master cylinder. This setup also reduces the fluid pressure needed for
a given amount of braking. The other problem is that you'll end up with even
more front bias to the brakes. To fix this you need to either change the
proportioning valve or go to bigger wheel cylinder. The wheel cylinders have
to be 1" instead of the stock 3/4". Does anybody know an application that uses
a 1" WC and will fit a stock backing plate? Alternatively, you can decide its
a good time to go to rear disk at the same time but that's getting into some
real money (~$500).
It kind of looks like I've told you to change everything doesn't it? I'm sure
you could get away with just changing the calipers but I really don't like
long pedal travel and the bias issue really needs to be dealt with.
>> on my car, the left front caliper is dragging (takes a few seconds
>> to release after the brake pedal is depressed), and since the car has
>> 130k miles on it, it probably needs to be rebuilt. so i thought this
>> might be a good time to get the SVO/LSC calipers. where would be a good
>> place to get rebuilt SVO/LSC calipers cheap? i'm in the bay area, but
>> mail order is fine.
>Auto Parts Club, several locations in the Bay Area. Rebuilt SVO/LSC
>calipers loaded with "no-name" semi-metallic pads can be yours for
>approximately $38 each with core exchange.
They also have the SVO MC for about $60.
>> also, the flex hoses are apparently original, and though they look fine,
>> i'm going to replace them. i looked at the parts list for the braided
>> steel flex hoses, and i'm wondering why it specifies an 18" hose for the
>> fronts. the rubber flex hose itself is about 9 or 10 inches long, and
>> it seems like replacing it with an 18" hose would leave lots of it hanging
>> out.
-end of excerpt
I thought 18" was way too long also until I tried it. You really don't want
anything shorter.
BTW Maximum Motorsports sells a complete kit of SS flex lines. This might be
less hassle than buying everything from Earl's.
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
fordnatics
On Aug 1, 10:14, Craig Eid wrote:
> How large are the rotors that team with the SVO/LSC calipers?
The front SVO/LSC calipers work on 11" rotors, same as the 87-93 5.0L Mustangs
have from the factory (of course the SVO and LSC used 5 lugs).
01 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Aug 1, Karl Brandt wrote:
> There are a couple of problems with only changing to the 73 mm calipers.
> First, you'll get a longer pedal due to the larger volume of fluid that
> has to be displaced to move the larger pistons. You can fix this by going
> to the SVO 1.125" master cylinder. This setup also reduces the fluid pressure
> needed for a given amount of braking.
This is the biggest problem. The pedal is long, but it is also almost
unbearably hypersensitive, with the level of boost from the vacuum booster and
the large mechanical advantage provided by the hydraulic ratios. You really
shoud consider the change to the 1.125" SVO MC _mandatory_ with the bigger
caliper upgrade.
> The other problem is that you'll
> end up with even more front bias to the brakes. To fix this you need to
> either change the proportioning valve or go to bigger wheel cylinder.
> The wheel cylinders have to be 1" instead of the stock 3/4". Does anybody
> know an application that uses a 1" WC and will fit a stock backing plate?
If you feel like experimenting, it's easy to do. The '83-86 LTD used a 13/16"
WC, the '79-80 Crown Vics with the 10"x2.5" drums used a 7/8" WC, the '79-89
Crown Vics with the 11"x2.25" drums used a 15/16" WC, and finally the '76-78
LTD used a 1" WC. They should all interchange with only the usual moderate
levels of Ford-sponsored pain, which is to say that you should expect that the
flares and flare nuts may beed to change. The _mountings _ should be at least
somewhat similar. Those are the applications, beyond that you're on your own.
I haven't done this, but I know of folks who have.
The right solution is to go to disks, but don't let that stop you...
> I thought 18" was way too long also until I tried it. You really don't
> want anything shorter.
You need the extra length to have enough to guide the line in a gently rolling
loop so that it can acommodate the suspension travel without stretching or
binding. The short length of flex line used in the stock lines is *insane*,
IMHO. I'm astounded that the amount of flexing that that short run has to go
through doesn't lead to fatigue failures in the stock lines more often than it
does...
> BTW Maximum Motorsports sells a complete kit of SS flex lines. This might
> be less hassle than buying everything from Earl's.
Yes, but I have my problems with the quality of the fittings used in their
lines. They used the Russell swage-on fittings, which are brass. These will
unquestionably work, and are probably quite reliable. However, my personal
brake-line religion dictates that any thinwall part used in my braking system
(like the hose ends!) has to be steel. If it's not fully race-bred, it doesn't
go on my car, because I _really_ have a problem with doing braking systems
halfway. I ask a lot of them.
But that's just me.
02 Aug 1994
[email protected]
On Aug 1, Robert King wrote:
> What are the advantages of the SVO/LSC calipers over the 87-93 stock
> Mustang calipers? I'll be having the calipers off soon to replace the
> brake lines, and this may be a good time for an upgrade. (I think I've
> got a *slightly* warped rotor too.)
Andre already answered this (over on the Mustangs list, anyway), but I'll
repeat what he said and elaborate a bit. The biggest advantage is that the
larger piston supports the driven pad much better. In track use, when the pads
get heated up near 1300-1400degF, the smaller piston in the stock caliper
allows the pad to bend away and literally lose contact with the rotor, except
in the narrow annular ring that the piston directly bears on. In the worst
case, the piston can actually be forced right through the backing plate, just
like a cookie cutter through raw dough. Literally. I have a great example of
just such a failure, and I suppose that I should shoot a picture, scan it, and
make it available here...
That isn't gonna happen on the way to the 7-11 for more soda, though. That is
the system's response to _extreme_ overuse.
The second advantage is the reduction in tapered wear, also due to the better
support provided by the larger piston. However, it won't go away. Nothing will
correct the inherent taper-wear that is a result of the slave (outer) pad
bearing against flexible abutments, the caliper mount pins. These take one
hell of a beating, and should be replaced regularly for a car that sees major
braking loads.
The last advantage to the larger-bore caliper is a second order effect. The
larger piston area generates usable clamping force with a much lower pressure
in the hydraulic lines. This allows the system to have a slightly firmer feel,
as the effects of "swell" or "stretch" in the lines is minimized.
The brakes are a system. The 1.125" bore SVO/LSC master cylinder is the proper
mate for those calipers, so you should consider changing over to that as
mandatory as well. These calipers and MC are a great upgrade for the trackie
or anyone who exceeds the capabilities of their stock brakes on a regular
basis.
10 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Disclaimer time: The opinions expressed below are mine and mine alone. The
results obtained and the conclusions drawn were obtained from a single test-
case, and may or may not reflect those of Mustangs in general. You'll have to
decide for yourself whether the product described below is for you. Your
mileage may (literally) vary. Caveat Emptor.
This is the final installment of my "evaluation" of an aftermarket computer
"chip" from Superchips. I'm going to include a synopsis of the previous
installments for list newcomers; the rest of you may want to skip ahead to the
section entitled "On the Dyno".
==========
Background
==========
Performance "chips" for engine control computers have cropped up for most
every make and model of vehicle over the past few years. They are supposed to
increase performance and/or improve mileage by changing the computer's
response to various operating conditions. In some vehicles (especially
turbos), this can make a significant difference.
Several months ago a relative newcomer to the list asked which of the
performance "chips" available for the 5.0 EFI Mustang was best. I responded
that, while I didn't have any first-hand experience with any chips, I doubted
that one would make a significant difference on the Mustang for the following
reasons:
The 5.0L engine is naturally aspirated, so the chip can't get any more air
into the engine (unlike turbo applications where a chip can increase the boost
limit, effectively trading off engine longevity for more power).
The version of the 5.0L used in the Mustang is not equipped with a knock
sensor, so there's no way for the computer to know when it's advanced the
timing too far. As a result, it has to set the timing off of pre-programmed
tables rather than the actual limit of the particular vehicle it's been
installed on.
In addition, unlike some other manufacturers, Ford hasn't made it easy to make
an addition to the EEC-IV (the computer used on 5.0L Mustangs). You can't
just unplug the factory ROM and replace it with another - you either have to
intercept the signals between the computer and the sensors/ actuators, or plug
into the diagnostic port. This puts limits on just how much an aftermarket
chip can do with a Ford computer.
Enter Peter Wales (or "Whales"; the spelling in his mail header and his sig
don't agree). His response was that there are three "chips" available for the
5.0L Mustang, ranked:
3) ADS
2) Hypertech
1) Superchips
The reasons given were that the ADS just attempts to fool the computer into
thinking the engine hasn't warmed up yet. This causes the computer to richen
the mixture, but as has been discussed here before there are other factors
involved in "warm-up" mode that don't make this a win. The Hypertech chip,
according to Peter, only makes changes at WOT in order to remain emissions
compliant, while the Superchips chip makes changes both at part throttle and
WOT and has a CARB exemption. He felt that the Superchips and Hypertech chips
would deliver the same power at WOT, but that the Superchip would give you
more power under part-throttle acceleration.
At the end of his post, he gave the phone number for Superchips and said to
ask for Peter Wales. When I asked, he confirmed that he was indeed the same
Peter Wales. After a few more posts from myself and others who were dubious
about chip performance claims, Peter made the following offer:
>19 May 1994 13:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
>Peter Whales
>Subject: Re: Performance Chips
>
>In fact if someone wants to be a guinea pig I will give them a chip under
>one condition - they tell everyone exactly how it works - good or bad
>and it must go on a stock vehicle.
>
>-- End of excerpt from Peter Whales
Several list members responded to this offer, myself included. My response
was:
>[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
>19 May 1994 11:28:07 -0700
>Subject: Re: Performance Chips
>
>Well, my 1992's powertrain is stock except for the following:
>
> Removed air intake silencer
> K&N reusable air filter
> Flowmaster 3-chamber mufflers
>
>Is this stock enough for you? If so, this could be an interesting
>opportunity to check out a manufacturer's claims without having to
>ante up the money first. A question - does installing your chip do
>anything (such as breaking a seal) that will void the Ford warranty
>on the emissions control equipment? If not, I might be interested
>in performing the following test:
>
> I already have a baseline hp figure (obtained on Charlie
> Rockwell's dyno) from this last January. I could install
> your chip, then arrange some time at Rockwell Motorsports to
> see the instrumented difference, both on hp and emissions.
> I'd continue to run the car on the street, and at the upcoming
> event at Sears Point, and would report all measured and
> subjective differences.
>
>This depends on me having the time, and being able to arrange another
>trip to Rockwell Motorsports. If you're serious, let me know and I'll
>check into it.
>-- End of excerpt from Andre Molyneux
Peter was indeed serious. List members Chris Behier and myself were
selected (Chris for his '94 GT, me for my '92 LX). Once we provided him
with the codes for the EEC-IV in our cars, we were shipped the chips.
============
Installation
============
The "chip" came with a single sheet of instructions. Basically you have to
get access to the computer (which is located behind the passenger-side kick-
panel), uncover the diagnostic port, clean off the connector, and plug in the
chip. The instructions state that 95% of the problems are caused by failure
to clean the connector adequately before installation.
After installing the chip, the idle sounded "funny", even after I'd given the
computer time to re-learn it's settings (having disconnected power during the
installation). On a test drive the car drove more or less OK, but the exhaust
still had a weird note to it. When I posted this to the list Peter responded
that this wasn't right, and that I should re-clean the connector and try
again. If that didn't do it, they'd ship me out a new chip.
After meticulously re-cleaning the connector and installing the chip, the
problems went away. The engine stopped idling oddly, and the exhaust note
...
=============
On the Street
=============
Before I installed the chip I spent a few days paying close attention to how
the car "felt" during day-to-day driving. After the installation I tried hard
to notice any differences. The car felt like it *might* be accelerating a
little harder, and *might* be running a little smoother, but I wasn't the
least bit sure. There may have been a difference, or I may have been psyching
myself out. Whatever the case, there wasn't a "night and day" difference that
I was able to notice. No significant differences in mileage were experienced.
============
On the Track
============
In late June I took the car to an "open track" event. This is a non-
competitive event in which you get to drive your vehicle on a race track. This
event was held on the road course of Sears Point Raceway in northern
California, and I was signed up for two days. I ran the entire first day with
the chip installed while I learned the track. On the second day my driving
was getting much more consistent, so I ran two sessions with the chip and two
sessions without.
I was unable to make any seat-of-the-pants conclusions. The car didn't feel
radically different at full-throttle, and the highest speed I attained on the
straights wasn't different with or without the chip.
===========
On the Dyno
===========
This past weekend the chip finally got it's long-awaited try-out on the dyno.
Due to the high cost of dyno time, this was done as part of a "Dyno Day" put
on by the Nor-Cal SAAC. Time was extremely limited, but fortunately we were
able to get two runs back-to-back on the dyno (one with chip, one without)
rather than having to rely on the dyno data I'd obtained last January. This
was good, as the air and dyno temperatures were quite a bit higher this time
around.
First off, I'll post the raw numbers. Horsepower was measured at the rear
wheels, and all measurements were made at WOT.
With "Superchip" installed: | Without "Superchip":
|
RPM HP HC CO O2 AF | RPM HP HC CO O2 AF
--- -- -- -- -- -- | --- -- -- -- -- --
2500 114 176 5.91 0 12.1 | 2500 113 193 7.92 0 11.4
3000 147 176 6.53 0 11.9 | 3000 145 201 9.02 0 10.9
3500 173 157 6.10 0 12.1 | 3500 167 176 8.72 0 11.1
4000 189 111 5.51 0 12.3 | 4000 185 138 8.21 0 11.3
4500 193 122 6.05 0 12.1 | 4500 186 136 8.78 0 11.0
5000 189 114 6.39 0 12.0 | 5000 180 114 8.62 0 11.1
Some things to be aware of when interpreting this data:
When the "Superchip" was installed, the computer had time to "re-learn" it's
operating parameters. Due to limited time, no "re-learn" period could be
given once the chip was removed (power wasn't cut during chip removal). Peter
Wales had indicated that there shouldn't be any learning changes between chip
and no-chip setups, but I don't have enough information on the Superchip and
the EEC-IV to confirm that.
As the dyno heats up, it will register less power. The "with chip" run was
done first, so if dyno water temperature was a factor it would get the
benefit. However, a number of other vehicles had been on the dyno immediately
preceding my car's turn, so any difference in water temperature between the
two runs was probably negligible.
Temperature and air density do make a big difference. Last January, this same
car registered 197 hp at 4500 RPM with no chip on the same dyno. That day, it
was the first car on the dyno and the air was cool.
My engine's base timing was set at 10 degrees BTDC for both runs. Some time
ago I had asked the shop owner (Charlie Rockwell), who's had lots of late-
model Mustangs on his dyno, how much difference bumping up the base timing on
an otherwise stock Mustang would make. His response was 3-4 hp. This suggests
that half of the gain seen by the Superchip could very possibly be gotten
simply by bumping the base timing up to 12-14 degrees.
At best, the dyno is probably only accurate to within 2-3%. We can likely
trust the trend that the engine made more power with the Superchip, but the
gains are modest enough that dyno accuracy could skew the results quite a bit.
Peter Wales had indicated that the Superchip ran a bit leaner at WOT than
stock, and the numbers above would appear to confirm that. Emissions appear
to be down slightly as well. A guess would be that Ford runs a bit richer to
lower the chance of detonation, but that's just a guess.
Peter Wales had also indicated that the chip is optimized for a stock engine,
and will be of progressively less use as other performance modifications are
made. Therefore, the gains noted would likely drop if and when I make any
other changes.
===========
Conclusions
===========
Ideally, I would have liked to have multiple dyno runs in which individual
variables (such as timing and computer "re-learn" time) could be played with
to obtain more information. Regardless, this is probably the best data most
of us are ever going to lay hands on. My conclusions:
1) The addition of the "Superchip" appears to have resulted in gains from
less than 1% (at 2500 RPM) to 5% (at 5000 RPM).
2) Of the gains noted, a best guess is that roughly half of the same gain
could be obtained by advancing the base timing.
3) Installing the Superchip does not appear to cause any emissions
degradation, and may actually look cleaner to the sniffer.
In my opinion, I can't recommend spending the approximately $200 that the chip
is commonly advertised at based on this experience. For that money you can do
better. A set of street-legal aftermarket headers can be had for the same or
less, or you could put the money towards a less restrictive intake tract.
These changes will continue to pay dividends as you improve the rest of the
system, not become less effective.
I'd like to thank Peter Wales for sending me the chip that made this test
possible. I'm sure the results aren't quite what he was hoping to see, but at
least he was willing to put his product to the test, which is more than you
can say for most vendors. I'll be returning the chip to Superchips within the
next few days (no refund involved, this was a free evaluation unit).
11 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs
On Aug 10, 22:41, Mike Ford wrote:
> Subject: Re: Superchips - The Final Chapter (long)
> Those Hp numbers look pretty good to me, not great, but in the ballpark of
> $20/Hp that most stuff seems to run. A few questions....
>
> Are you returning it because that was part of the trial, or do you not want it
> even free?
I could keep the chip if I wanted to. I've decided not to, for the
following reasons:
1) I believe that half the gain can be had just with the timing bump.
2) The Superchips representative stated that the chip would become less
effective as other mods are made. While I don't plan on building a radical
motor, I do have plans to improve it's breathing a bit.
3) As pointed out in my write-up, the first run on the dyno would be more
likely to show more power. One factor I didn't include, but that's been
pointed out by a couple of individuals, is that the engine was certainly
hotter the second time around and so would produce less power. One more
factor why the first pull on the dyno was almost guaranteed to show more power
than the second. A third pull with the chip re-installed would have been
nice, but there wasn't time (or money).
4) I felt that, although I hadn't paid any money for it, I should treat the
chip as if I had.
> For people running 13 degrees of advance, have you had any trouble with
> biannual smog tests? I don't do any of my own wrenching, so the idea of paying
> to have the timing set to 13, then back to 10 for a smog test, then back to 13
> every two years makes the chip somewhat more appealing to me in comparison (I
> could install the chip much easier than set the timing myself even once since
> I don't have any timing related tools etc.).
You likely won't have problems with the sniffer, but depending on where you're
located they may take a look at the base timing, and you could be failed if
you are more than X number of degrees off. Changing the timing is extremely
easy. Find a way to make a mark that shows the position of the distributor
that you can re-align to later. Buy a distributor wrench, loosen up the
distributor, and advance it a small amount (turn it clockwise). Tighten it
back down, and drive the car and see if you get any pinging under hard
acceleration. If so, back it off slightly, if not keep advancing it until it
does ping and then back it off. Make a second mark showing where your
"advanced" position is now.
Come smog time you simply turn the distributor back to the first mark, then
advance it back to the second mark when you're done. This method isn't
completely accurate and won't account for wear, but it will work and doesn't
even require the use of a timing light.
> BTW I don't suppose Andre could post some Hp numbers for other mustangs with
> various other mods, or even some pure stock mustangs? I am really curious
> about how much the typical variation is between fairly similar cars.
>-- End of excerpt from Mike Ford
Some numbers were posted after the Nor-Cal dyno day back in January. On that
day, stock vehicles (or nearly so) were averaging around 203 hp at the rear
wheels, although we did have one overacheiver who hit 214. Chris Behier's
modified pony (too many mods to list, but included "Cobra" intake, headers,
bigger MAF and throttle body, and upgraded fuel system) hit about 245.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Foxbody 1994 /part 2
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1994 /part 4