OK, I got a kinda stupid question that's been bugging me lately. It may have been discussed before, but oh well. Why is it that our cars never came as 5 bolt from the factory, or even the mustangs for that case? I mean I had an '84 Dodge Shelby Charger that was 5 bolt, but they also came as 4 bolt. Wouldn't you figure that Ford would have the option for it, even as part of a package, I mean, our cars are a good deal bigger and heavier, but no option for a 5 bolt? Sorry for the rant, and if I brought up an old subject, but like I said, it's been bugging me lately.
Here is another case of ford being weird with that kinda stuff the only focus you can get a 151hp 2.3 in is the ZX4 ST. They dont offer it in any of the hatchbacks, except when they were still making the SVT but thats a whole other story.
i believe the saying is... "Ford and their infinite wisdom" probably trying to save a buck for a stud and lug. which isn't a bad thing... i got five lug on my car right now... but only four lug nuts :P i'm also cheap and never bothered adding the extra lug when i converted it.
The year was 1978...automakers were in the midst of an oil crisis...Ford's plans were to cut costs and start manufacturing parts in metric measurements as well as American standard. The new Fox/Fairmont platform was introduced and hence, the 4-lug spec was born...as well as the infamous TRX metric rims. And we got the legacy.
We also have interior reading lamps (in the back sail panels) with a 1968 part number, and the IVR is dated from 1971. But nobody ever complains about those. ;)
That is very interesting, where did you get the info.
Mustang books and some parts research history. I'm actually compiling a parts list for our cars as we speak. My neighbor has the identical reading lamps in his 1969 Mach I.
It's just Eric. He came that way. If they ever have a Fox body version of Trivial Pursuit, he'll dominate.
LMAO that's amazing. It isn't really a stupid question, I've wondered about it myself. Another thing I wondered was why did the TC get the better braking system when it is the lighter car? Eric?
Because it was the faster/sportier model. More speed = a need for better braking.
Actually I think that the TC was the heaviest of the Fox Thunderbirds.
Yep I noticed that too. A guy in my Thunderbird club has a 73 Thunderbird. It has the same reading lamps and dome light as mine!
Actually...when you add up the weight of the extra wiring, thicker carpeting and padding, the larger suspension components, the ABS system, the extra sensors, the heavier 8.8" rear end (by 80 lbs., and I'm sticking with that number! LOL), and the 16" wheels and tires, it's not lighter by much. ;) But I think when Ford split the XR7 from the TC in 1987, they decided to make the TC its technical flagship, whereas the XR7 was more of a tried-and-true solution (V8).
Essentially the 'Bird and Cat turned around FoMoCo's fortunes and they suddenly had all this cash to play with in 1984-85. So we all got the new dash and interior in '85...cool. Well, one of the biggest issues that Ford heard from its dealers was the continual problems with the non-intercooled turbos. They just burned up...I think mostly because of the owners thrashing the cars, but possibly because they weren't that hearty to begin with. See, there's this thing called the "owner's manual" that usually resides in the glove box, and it seems that turbo-4 owners didn't like to read them much because they'd have found out that the 2.3t needed more maintenance than a non-turbo engine. They also would have learned that they needed to keep the car running for about a minute after they parked the car, and before they turned off the engine, to help the oil circulate heat out of the turbo unit. Did they bother to do that maintenance or otherwise follow those instructions? Why, heavens no. Therefore...ka-BLAM, instant warranty claims. There was a LOT of warranty work on the turbos back then, which is funny because Ford was using virtually the same motor since 1979 on the Mustang, but you didn't hear any bitching until the early TC and XR7 turbo models. If anything, the addition of EEC-IV to the turbo-4 was a godsend for that engine, but it still couldn't solve the heat issues. Ford was just losing money left and right replacing those turbos. So, with the new '87 TC, Ford added the air-to-water intercooler (adapted from the dealer-installed Spearco FMIC). This helped make the car more owner-friendly as far as maintenance and parts longevity, and Ford pretty much solved their biggest issue with the 2.3t. The bonus was a significant boost in power as well, thanks to the ram-air style hood.
Finally they had a Fox car worthy of approving a large brake upgrade (although you and I will argue that ALL Fox cars needed bigger brakes!). They were also working on the Mark VII at the same time...if you look at the '87 TC and the '87 Mark VII, their timelines, their options, their principles were very similar to each other. But as you may know, Ford has always treated Lincolns differently, meaning they got their own unique parts (bigger brakes, 5-lug, different ABS system, etc.). So that leaves the TC as its own enigma, a sort of test bed for future cars including the 1993 Mustang Cobra/Cobra R, and the SN95 Mustang program. The one part of the TC that was truly groundbreaking--the adjustable suspension--is now obsolete and nobody makes replacement shocks and struts for them. The braking system more or less found its way into Mustangs. The 1994-98 Mustang V8 rear end essentially was a TC rear end. The 1994-98 Mustang control arms came directly from a TC. Even the SN95 spring rates are very similar. The Mustang essentially grew into the TC's footprint, falling under 2" short of its wheelbase.
Long answer, I know, but you can see how the TC became a very integral part of Ford's early 1990's plans, and also provided both the parts and the knowledge learned from the TC.
But Oldraven is right...the TC topped out at ~141mph so it required bigger brakes. :)
I thought of a few other parts that have their origins in the early-to-middle 1970's:
- Power seat switch (1978 Lincoln Town Car)
- Power seat motors (mid-1970's midsize Fords)
- Window switches (1980 XR7/Thunderbrick)
These parts are dated around 1983 for our cars because the switchgear is anodized/painted black. The earlier cars had chrome switchgear but internally are identical to what we had. So they are all the same, just different visual finishes. I also believe the buttstuffog clock was early 1980's or older.
Alright...y'all got me all fired up now...who's got some more? ;)
EDIT: Oh yeah, that dome light, almost forgot about that...it is early 1970's in origin.
That still doesn't explain why I have a 1973 Thunderbird dome light in my car :raspberry . LOl j/k :D
Anyone else feel like they just put an encylcopedia down? ;)
:cheers:
tgif
LOL! I did a lot of reading...also, hanging around the Ford garage while your car was getting other warranty repair work done had its benefits. ;) What I have come to know, anybody can know if they start digging around the junkyard a little bit. Comparing parts is knowledge just waiting to be discovered.
Well at least they used to. The Zephyr and Mark LT (esp the Mark LT) prove that they are just Ford's with Lincoln badges on 'em. :)
I'll add to Eric's list:
Tripminder: 1980
Keyless entry: 1980
Graphic EQ: 1984, perhaps? The first car I saw it in was a 1984 EXP
Let me try to stump Eric on a few:
window cranks? (both chrome and black plastic)
square power mirror switch?
digital clock?
The only one I know for sure is the clock, but lets see what E-man knows off the top of his head. :)
Ya know, when I do my TC rear swap this spring I'm gonna have to weigh both rear ends and solve this question once and for all...
In respect to the original intent of this thread, I've got another question: Why do so many people even care how many lug nuts are holding their wheels on? I would bet that there is not a single case of a wheel coming off one of these cars (or any other car, for that matter), where "not enough lug nuts" was the cause, except of course in cases where the owner didn't put all the nuts on. Regardless of how many lug nuts hold the wheel on it all comes down to the C-clip in the axle. That sucker breaks and it doesn't matter if you've got 80 lug nuts. In the front end you've got a single spindle nut with a cotter pin.
Sometimes even within a car line there are different lug nut numbers - a V6 Accord has five, a 4-cyl has 4. A Neon with 13" wheels has 4, a Neon with 14" wheels has five. A mid 60's six-cylinder Mustang had four, a V8 Mustang had five. Even the Fox Mustang had one model with 5-lug wheels - the SVO. For 73-99 GM trucks, 2WD had 5, 4WD had 6. Toyota trucks were the same - 5 lugs for 2WD, 6 for 4WD. For 87-90 Dakotas there were five lugs, then 91-04 had six lugs, then 05+ has five again. And the "Bondurant Birds", the 87 5.0 converted Turbo Coupes the Bondurant driving school used, had 5-lug front wheels (Lincoln rotors) and 4-lug rear wheels (stock TC).
It all comes down to this: The Fox chassis was originally intended as a small-midsize economy car. Ford simply never saw any reason to change the lug count except on the SVO Mustang (probably just to make it "different" and the Lincolns (probably to make them upscale). Four lug wheels have served most Fox cars perfectly well for over two decades.
Yup, the SVO's brakes and front suspension (control arms, spindles) was lifted from the 1982 Continental. Ever since the original Cadillac Seville of 1976(?) was a run away success, Ford knew they had to make a smaller luxury car and a modified Fox was the best they could budget at the time. Turned out pretty good, overall.
Certainly better than the Cimarron :D
Except for I see Contis about as often as I see Cimarrons these days.:yuck: But the 80s Sevilles are still common, both in town and on eBay. I don't get it.:)
Window cranks are 1978 (Fairmont) or 1979 (Mustang). They should be both the same though.
Digital clock should be 1980-ish. They were square-Bird issue for sure.
Square mirror switch...I'm not aware of anything before 1985, but if I were to guess, maybe 1984 Mark VII?
Some of the cars that y'all own, I've never seen in the boneyard here, so I'm not familiar with like ALL of the Fox cars. ;)
Not to derail the thread, but the other day I saw one of those Caddy Cimarron....things.
It looked like a...well, a F&%^ed older cavalier/sunbird...please don't tell me they made a Caddy out of an econmy car....
If they did....hmmm, what were they thinkin'??
why yes....yes they did. nice huh?
i think that was caddie's attempt to make a "nice" car everyone could afford, i rember learning about em in school lol. im sure they were still nice tho, probley worlds better than a base cavalier
I don't remember them as being 'quality' vehicles...there was a lot to be questioned about the Cimmaron since it was built here in Lordstown, OH. The magazine reviews were very critical at the time. If memory serves me right, the J-car was the last platform to see duty in all of GM's divisions (Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird/J-2000, Buick Skyhawk, Olds Firenza, Cadillac Cimmaron). Maybe that's why GM did it...just to complete the puzzle. Some things should just be left undone. ;)
Thats not quite the only reason. People would thrash the cars, yes, but not letting it idle for a minute or two wasnt the ending factor. A big problem with the cars was that they also didnt have a bypass valve from the factory. Basically meaning, under full boost, you get off the gas, the throttle blade closes, and the turbo is still spinning, and air is still flowing, and then its an abrubt stop in the intake, forcing air BACK through the turbo. Thats call compressor surge. That is what killed my stock IHI turbo. It puts massive stress on the bearings.
While they are a 2.3L turbo, and very similar, the turbo system was very different. They used a draw through carb setup. Basically meaning that the carburator was on the turbo inlet, the turbo sucked the air through the carb, then blew it into the engine. The big difference is, there is no such thing as compressor surge, you let off the throttle, the air stops flowing to the turbo, so it just freewheels untill it stops, or you get back onto the throttle.
Whoa dude, where did you get this from? In 87-88, they used a totally different turbo, that was water cooled (the 85-86 Garretts were also water cooled, 84 is a toss up). The 87-88 also got a top mount intercooler, which is an air-to-air style intercooler. Even with the water cooling and intercooler, parts still broke, and they still did warranty work on the Warner-Ishi turbos, just wasnt nearly as bad. As for the intercooler, it is a spearco core, with ford endtanks. You may be confusing the Spearco FMIC kit you could buy on the aftermarket, but thats a 100% different setup.
Actually, the TC, Mark VII, and the early SC's use the same ABS system. Its packaged slightly differently in the SC's, the accumulator is mounted differently, resovior is different. etc, but its the same stuff. The 93 Cobra actually uses a TC rear, TC rear brakes, and Mustang front brakes. The 91-92 Mark VII also uses TC rear brake brackets and calipers, but their own rotor.
The original shocks and struts were made by Tokico, and the SC's also used a Tokico system, which is identical in design, but due to the MN12 suspension differences, they used different "packaging"
Nice job, Eric!
I am 99% sure the clock first saw the light of day in the 1979 Lincoln Versailles. The older models had an-old school Cartier chronometer, but the digital clock was obviously more hi-tech. :)
Jeeves, that makes sense. I've never seen a Versailles in the boneyard...and if I did, I'm positive the rear end would be missing. ;)
Shawn, a few things:
- The point of people not reading the owner's manual is that the turbo-4 cars were NOT like their V6 and V8 counterparts. Yes, people beat the hell out of them. But they also did not seem to maintain them according to Ford's specs. Again, I acknowledged the turbo design limitations for the early cars as being a factor also. It was essentially a disaster waiting to happen, and Ford ended up losing on all sides because of their generous warranty coverage. I believe even a replacement turbo unit back then had a 3-year/36K mile warranty. So people could essentially feel that they never had to maintain the motor, and could beat on it all they wanted, and when it broke...hey, no problem, Ford covers it. How long did it take Ford to figure this out? Looks like 4 model years to me. :)
- The carb setup on the Mustang, while different, still didn't claim the amount of problems as the EFI turbo setups. If you think about it, EFI made the engine management wonderful, but presented a lot of new problems that you mentioned. The carb turbo was much simpler, therefore not much bitching about it. But that's progress for you. Unfortunately the 1983-86 TC's bore the brunt of the blame for "new technology" being more complex. People were right about that, but it wasn't all Ford's fault--a lot of the blame had to be on the owners as well.
- Yes, I was talking about the aftermarket FMIC. Not the actual unit itself, though....they adapted the
principle of it. It took Ford less than 2 years to offer a solution for the turbo unit failure, but you had to either go aftermarket (voiding the warranty) or have the dealer install their more expensive version (which kept the warranty intact). But that was the Band-Aid until the factory version appeared on the 1987 TC.
- I've got this info from Kirschenbaum's Mustang book (pp. 385-86):
Now he's known to be wrong in a few areas of the book. But he also lists some part numbers that corroborate his statement:
Rear Rotor - F3ZZ-2C026-A (listed as 10.07" diameter, .945" thick)
Rear Caliper, R - F3ZZ-2552-A
Rear Caliper, L - F3ZZ-2553-A
A few other part numbers are listed for "rotor adapter bracket supports", "rotor adapters", and parking brake cables...all carry F3ZZ (1993 Mustang) part numbers. Now that doesn't mean they're not the same as earlier cars (including the TC), but it does at least prove that Ford redesigned
something different on those parts for the 1993 Cobra, so technically they are different. When looking at this list of parts, it almost looks as if you can just order them all, and bolt them right up to a standard Mustang rear end...which I suppose could make that into a virtual TC rear.
And FYI...1988-94 Lincoln Continentals also use the TC rear calipers.