Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I Still Like The Way Ford Motor Company Does Things (sometimes)

This is topic I Still Like The Way Ford Motor Company Does Things (sometimes) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002407

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-24-2003, 05:43 PM:

I still like the way Ford Motor Company does things. (for the most part, anyway)

My Ford Escort didn't have a cruise control. I decided to rectify that. So, I pussyfooted off to the junk yard and struck a deal with my longtime friend who runs the damn place. He said, "Yeah, just go up on the hill and get everything you need to put one on your car. You can have it for 35 bucks."

Done deal.

So, I went up on the hill. I started unscrewing, screwing, cussing and scratching my butt trying to figure out just what I needed to do the job. I got the steering wheel with all the buttons, diaphragm linkage and adapter to the throttle linkage, the diaphragm assembly, the speed sensor that goes inline with the speedometer cable, vacuum hoses and vacuum dump valve and the wiring harness for the speed sensor and diaphragm assembly plus all the nuts and bolts to go along with it. I threw all the crap in the back of my other car, and hauled it home. When I ripped my steering wheel off my car, I noticed the clock spring only used two dicks. The steering wheel with all the buttons wanted three dicks.

Oops...forgot the speed control computer and the clock spring wiper with three dicks. Another trip. Unscrewed the speed computer, and noticed a wiring loom was much different from mine. I thought "Aw, shit." Much to my surprise, Ford made an "add-on" wiring harness to accommodate factory add-ons without having to splice into existing wire loom.

Just simply unplug the brake light switch, and two other plugs, the two-Dick wiper, replace the two-Dick wiper with a three-Dick wiper, plug all the shit in, and presto! No wiring splices to be made, and no damage to the original loom to make it compatible. Then simply stuff the add-on loom under the dashboard and secure it to pre-drilled holes in the brackets so the wiring does not foul or chafe on bare metal surfaces.

Oops...forgot something. The little plastic trigger that actuates the vacuum dump valve when the brake is applied. No biggie....I'll get that tomorrow. When I clip that on the brake pedal and install the speed sensor, the cruise control will be fully operational.

The point I am getting at is Ford's electrical designing engineers seem to have some foresight, unlike General Motors. Whenever I attempted to do something like this on a GM product, it is nothing but a major nightmare. Nothing seems to fit, splices have to be made, and when you get done, it will finally work (if you are lucky.)

I wanted to put a power driver's seat in my Chevrolet Breadbox. After I looked it over carefully, I abandoned the idea. The electrical interface was totally incompatible with a power seat. I would have to replace the entire wiring harness under the dashboard. With Ford, just get an auxiliary wiring loom from a junkyard and plug it in and it is done.

To be fair, there are some areas where Ford really missed the boat! The AXOD transmission used in the Taurus comes to mind. It was one of the worst that was ever designed. On the other hand, General Motor's Turbo 350 was, without a doubt, one of the best.

Oh, by the way. You don't need a steering wheel puller to remove a steering wheel. Just simply use brute force with a slanted forehead and rip the damn thing off. Loosen the nut but DO NOT REMOVE IT! (not just yet)

Then get yourself in a good mechanical position where you can pull and wiggle like hell, and POP! Off it will come. The nut you left on will prevent you from flying through the rear window when the wheel lets loose! Nothing like going ass over tea kettle with a stearing wheel planted in your teeth.

Posted by Andrew Duggan (Member # 1302) on 08-24-2003, 10:54 PM:

I'm in the process of buying and restoring a '62 Ford Falcon, and was, just five minutes before reading that, looking into taking off and replacing the steering wheel. Good to know [Smile]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-24-2003, 11:14 PM:

Andrew,
Have you ever seen the Falcon that looks like a ranchero? I don't remember what’s its called but they are the coolest vehicle around.

Paul,
From what an old engineer told me one time about Chevrolet is that when designed the Chevrolet is designed top notch and if built according to that design they would be very reliable and worthy of any bodies garage. The problem is that the bean counters step in after the design process and look for ways to save money and cut corners and before you know it you get an inferior product. However the 67 and 68 Chevy C10 I had where still going strong and the same could not be said for the ford counterparts of the day.
As the old saying goes, FORD=F(Found On The Road Dead) or another saying "Dust to Dust, Ashes to Ashes, If it wasn't for Fords our tools would rust" [Smile]

I like Chevy's but I also like Fords to a degree and I am considering buying one but I wont be caught dead driving another Dodge, I hate em.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-24-2003, 11:53 PM:

Sam, another: FORD = Fix Or Repair Daily [Big Grin]

I own both a Ford and GM product. They're both are great. I've not had any problems with either and I'm NOT very easy on ANY of my vehicles...never have been. They are a tool to serve me and I want the power and the performance and I want it NOW! [evil]

>>> Phil

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 08-25-2003, 12:05 AM:

Andrew,

I am a strong Falcon enthusiast. My baby is my '65 Ranchero that I am in the midst of working on. Anyhow, I'll be glad to help ya out in your quest. I have tons of info regarding restoration tips, upgrade-modifications, parts sources and club information. My e-mail is WKUTLER1506@yahoo.com

Sam:

From 1960 thru 1965, the Ranchero was based on the Falcon design. There were 2 and 4 door sedans, 2 door convertibles, 2 door hardtop and sprints, 2 and 4 door station wagons, Rancheros and panel delivery trucks. The Rancheero was basically a 2 door stationion wagon with the top rear enclosure removed, and the panel delivery had a special enclosure. The 1964 1/2-1965 Mustang was also based on the Falcon chassis. Ford also produced modified AFX Falcons for 1/4 mile drag racing.

1960-1963 Falcons had the "soft round nose". 1964-1965 the sheetmetal from the beltline down was changed to the starburst design. I can write extensively about equipment and optionss, so if ya have questions, then please ask.

My baby is a 65 Ranchero 66H. This was a deluxe with bucket seats of which only 990 rolled off the assembly line. I am in the midst of doing extensive work to this car, the goal being to upgrade the performance, safety and handling w/o compromising the origonal sheetmetal. There are loads of bolt on performance items now being made for these cars, everything from instruments, suspension, engine, braking, etc.

Andrew, if your interested in a new steering wheel, then look into Grant. They produce specific kits to adopt their custom steering wheels to specific automobiles. If you plan on changing the steering column, then look into Flaming River products to see if they have an application. There is also a kit out that you can use to convert your origonal 6 cyl over to a 289.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-25-2003, 01:25 AM:

Sam, Every "Shovvie" I ever had was a pile of crap. [Big Grin]

First GM product: 1950 Chevrolet. Dip 'n Piss engine oiling system. Works fine...as long as you don't exceed 45mph. You'll burn up the babbit rods.

Second GM product: 1952 Buick Special, equipped with Dyna-Slosh transmission coupled to the Buick Dyna-Trash Fireball 8 engine. Burned up the rod and main bearings in two engines.

Third GM product: 1953 Buick Special. Rod and main bearings went out. Had to take a train back to the base because the damn thing went HS 700 miles out of Memphis.

Fourth GM product: 1956 Buick Special. Manual transmission. It loved eating clutch plates and pressure plates. The release fingers on the pressure plates would just break off. The poppet balls in the transmission never did "pop" correctly. Couldn't get the damn thing out of low gear unless I took a crowbar and forced the transmission linkage.

Fifth GM product. 1955 Chevrolet. Not a bad car, with the exception of a few minor details. Front end ball joints were ready to fall out, overhead valve oiling system was deficient, and the bell housing was cracked. But yet, the car was never obused or driven that hard.

Sixth GM product: 1960 Chevrolet. Had a turbo-glide transmission and a 348 engine. Dropped the transmission in it. Head gasket problems with the engine.

Seventh GM product: 1962 Chevrolet. Front end would not stay in alignment.

Eighth GM product: 1974 Chevrolet Caprice. 148 HP 350 engine. Leaked oil and always marked its spot just like a dog. One of the biggest piles of crap I ever owned besides a Ford Taurus. See 1994 Chevrolet Breadbox. Same shit...only on a different shovel.

Ninth GM product: 1974 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup. Busted block.

Tenth GM product: 1994 Chevrolet Breadbox. V-6. Not enough power to pull a fly off a cow turd. The most uncomfortable piece of shit I ever drove. Seat belts so damn uncomfortable to wear it makes you want to risk a no-seatbelt ticket. Gas hog. Overdrive is worthless because of the lack of engine power.

I have had GM, Ford, and Chrylser products. The best of luck I have had was with Ford products. I had one dog in the Ford line: That was that 1991 Taurus. I rate that thing in the same catagory as the 1994 Chevrolet Breadbox as well as the 1974 Chevrolet "Crappie".

With GM in general, the radiator must have been on the low end of a totem pole. Overheating in the early Chevrolets and Buicks seemed to be normal. Never had any problems with Ford's cooling systems. I never had a Ford that left me stranded with a major mechanical malfunction. But I sure as hell have with GM products!

The Washington State Patrol drives Fords. The Crown Victorias to be specific. The troopers love those things. Many law enforcement agencies used to drive the Chevrolet "Crappies". (The Upsidedown Jelly Bean). The problems they had were cracked frames and after a high speed chase they had to be towed in because the brakes didn't work due to brake fluid boiling. The calipers were designed shitty. They dumped those things in favor of Ford. Jack from Port Orchard might remember that flap. The city police of Bremerton and the Katshit County Sheriff's Department had those Chevrolets. (Ummmm - that's Kitsap County)

OK, Sam. I know some people swear by GM and curse at Ford. I swear by Ford and curse GM. I buy the shit that seems to be the most reliable. And it sure is hell is not GM products anymore. But yes, I agree with the Chrysler products. I had some of them, too. (along with a Voltswagon, but I wont' go into that one.) [Big Grin]

But I have to admit...Josh's mom had a Geo. It is a good car. Josh's sister is using it now. I guess they have had very good reliability with that thing. Josh has a Geo, also. His Izoozoo finally died. That car was a zoo. I was the one who changed the front struts in that thing two years ago because they were worn out. The transmission was loose, and it finally dropped by deciding to lose a few gears. That forced Josh into buying another car.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 08-25-2003, 08:43 AM:

If that Escort is a '93 or later it's a Mazda in disguise.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-25-2003, 09:03 AM:

That 91 Taurus was one big piece of crap. My dad worked for a company that suplied weather strip parts for fords. When that model was being made he was constantly having to go up to the ford plant to inspect the parts that they sent to them. Ford was trying to say that the parts were not what they specified. Turns out that it was what they specified but that there apparently was a design flaw in the door. That just put a bad taste in my mouth for that perticular car.

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 08-25-2003, 09:13 AM:

quote:
Then get yourself in a good mechanical position where you can pull and wiggle like hell, and POP! Off it will come. The nut you left on will prevent you from flying through the rear window when the wheel lets loose! Nothing like going ass over tea kettle with a stearing wheel planted in your teeth.

Especially if the steering wheel has an air bag. [Eek!]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-25-2003, 09:36 AM:

Paul,
Come on, you like Chevy,s, your just afraid to say it [Wink]

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-25-2003, 09:57 AM:

I guess our family has been lucky about getting reliable cars:

1969 GMC Pickup truck (1972-1981): Had around 200000 miles on it when we traded it in. Very powerful V8 engine and comfortable, smooth riding, but really drank gas. Had the "350" engine in it. Automatic transmission, 3 speed.

1971 Volkswagen Bug (1971-1979): Had around 190000 miles on it when we sold it to a guy that lived near us. We saw it go down the road for years after selling it to him. Extremely reliable car. 4-speed manual transmission.

1979 Toyota Corolla (1979-1986): Had almost 200000 miles on it when traded in. It would have lasted forever since it didn't have enough power to tear up anything. Had the weakest 4 cylinder engine. :-) Economical car and extremely reliable. 5-speed manual transmission.

1980 Honda Civic (1984-1991): Had around 190000 miles on it when sold. Developed an aggravating accelerator pump problem that we had trouble fixing, although the guy we sold it to fixed it drove it for a long time afterwards. Extremely reliable car. had 4 cylinder engine but was more powerful than the Toyotas we had. 5-speed manual transmision.

1981 Toyota Pickup truck (1981-1990): Don't remember how many miles were on it, but we sold it to the same guy that bought the 1980 Honda Civic and he drove it for a while. Extremely reliable truck. Had rather weak 4 cylinder engine. 5-speed manual transmission.

1987 Buick Somerset (1986-2002): Had around 190000 miles on it when I sold it. The lady that bought it from me had excellent luck with it until she totalled it in a wreck. Had 3.0L V6, automatic transmission.

1990 Chevrolet Pickup Truck V6 (1990-1992): A good truck, but my parents wanted a better one with an extended cab. They traded it in a couple years after buying it. It had a 5-speed manual transmission and my parents, getting older, didn't want that anymore, and I didn't either, since our driving is city driving.

1992 Dodge Pickup Truck V8 Automatic (1992-present): Very good truck, doesn't yet have 100000 miles on it.

1995 Pontiac Bonneville 4DR 3.8 V6 (1994-present): Excellent car. Has just over 99000 miles on it, but not quite to 100000. 4-speed automatic (in the highest gear, 65MPH is 1900 RPM.) Very economical for its size, getting nearly 30 MPG on the highway.

2002 Mercury Grand Marquis (2002-present): So far so good. Rear wheel drive -- Lots of room to work around the engine as a result.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-25-2003, 11:49 AM:

Mike, you have to remove the airbag from the steering wheel first even before you can get at the nut on the steering shaft. The airbag part is held on by two screws in some cases. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-29-2003, 09:37 AM:

Of course you can take a look at what Ford was building in 1955 and what Chevy was building which was light years ahead. It took Ford quite a while to play catch up. As for trucks I'll still stick with Dodge Trucks. They are tough as Fords but have alot nicer ride. The Cummins is also ALOT more reliable diesel than the Ford Power Joke is....

Just as a note: A best friend of mine went to work for GM about 10 years ago and works as an engineer at the stampping plant in Grand Rapids. He refuses to own a GM product!

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-29-2003, 12:45 PM:

Mark said:

quote:
The Cummins is also ALOT more reliable diesel than the Ford "Power Joke" is....

Mark, you nailed that one on the button. International Harvester supplied the Power Joke engine. The one in my truck has known issues such as busting injector lines on No. 1 cylinder.

By the way...Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who is a retired state trooper. We were talking about patrol cars and he mentioned that one of the reasons they like driving Fords is because they are much easier to maintain and they seem to be more more relialble. They hold up to "beatings" they have to take much better. To be fair, he also mentioned that he had a Ford as a POV, and it was a true POS. I had one like that, too. It was a Taurus. He didn't say what kind his was.

He said Chryslers don't hold up to the beating the cars get but they are faster and more powerful. GM has too many reliability issues.

As a side note, I finished installing the factory cruise control on my Escort. Works great! No troubleshooting or crap like that. [beer]

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-30-2003, 11:48 AM:

but police cruisers have special things done to them because of what they are used for. I think the suspensions are different designs and engines are modified designs.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-30-2003, 12:16 PM:

Darryl, that might be. But they still find Fords more reliable and easier to maintain that their GM and Chrysler counterparts.

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-31-2003, 03:06 AM:

I've only owned two trucks so far, but I like Ford's so far.

I've had my F150 for a little over two years and it has about 116,000 miles and the only thing that has gone wrong is the clutch cylinder pushrod broke a couple of weeks ago. Not a major repair but a huge pain in the neck.

Like I said, I don't have much to compare to but I've had good experiences with Ford so far.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-31-2003, 01:13 PM:

The booster cylinder will go bad in all of them. GM uses them, too. So does Dodge. I never liked that setup. A seal blows in the booster cylinder and you have a nice steady clutch engagement while you are sitting at a stoplight. [Big Grin]

A friend of mine had a Datsun pick-up (maybe it was a toyota) when one of the "O" rings started to allow hydraulic oil to leak by. That was in Seattle. Stoplight city.

Most of these problems can be eliminated on all vehicles. Keep the fluid clean. Just like flushing the brake lines. It really helps keeping the cylinders and "0" rings from failing.

BTW, I asked a sheriff yesterday about the Ford Crown Victorias they drive. The suspension is the same as a standard Crown Vic. If I understand correctly, so are the engines. They opt for the biggest engine Ford builds for that particular model. The only changes between the two vehicles are some minor interior modifications such as a trunk button release is more accessable, no arm rests in the back seat, the back seats themselves, (they don't want to give a person a luxury ride to the local slammer, etc., so the law enforcement personnel can do things better, faster, and more efficiently. But he said they are very comfortable cars to drive and they do give a very good ride.

I guess one of the reasons they do not like front-wheel drive rigs is because if they have to go around a tight corner in the chase mode, the front wheels can very easily break traction if they have to mash down hard on the accelerator.

I had that happen while driving a Subaru several years ago. I was going around a slippery corner in the wintertime when the front wheels broke traction when I was accelerating. I came into the corner a little "hot" that day, the front wheels broke traction and before I knew it, I was "off the road" in the Petunia patch. [Roll Eyes]

Seems as though the only "beef" the law enforcement personnel have with the Crown Vics is this:

http://www.vehicle-injuries.com/ford-crown-victoria.htm

At least Ford Motor Company is taking action on it for the police vehicles. If you read the article, you will discover that when it was written there were about 350,000 Crown Vic police vehicles on the road involving 13 fatalities of police officers. Percentage-wise, it is almost negligable. But I still mourn for any police officer that loses his/her life in the performace of their duty.

I would still be happy to own a Crown Vic - with or without the shield. It doesn't seem to be any worse than the rest of the rear-wheel drive cars by any manufacturer with the gas tank between the rear axle and the rear bumper. As I look at the gas tank situation in my Chevrolet van I am sure if it were in a high speed rear end accident, the tank would explode. There is absolutely nothing protecting it that would keep the structural integrety of the fuel tank intact.

Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 08-31-2003, 03:41 PM:

I believe it was Chevy pickups somewhere between 78-86 that had gas tanks mounted outside of the frame just behind the doors... side collision = explosion. Can't remember for sure, does anyone else know?

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 08-31-2003, 04:41 PM:

It was the 1973-87 Chevy and GMC pickups that had the infamous "side-saddle" tanks mounted outside the frame rail. Numerous lawsuits were filed as a result of deaths caused by fuel tank explosions resulting from "t-bone" accidents. You may recall the story the NBC "Dateline" program did on these trucks, with crash-test video that was later found to be rigged by NBC so the explosion would occur. Big embarrassment...

Of course...can't forget the Ford Pinto, the granddaddy of exploding cars. Not one of Ford's "better ideas". [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-31-2003, 04:48 PM:

I'd be willing to bet that those Ford Police Interceptor engines and trannies are custom built by NASCAR! They use Fords here in Utah but have never asked the troopers that have pulled me over how they like them....... [Wink]

Mark

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-31-2003, 05:29 PM:

Jon, funny thing about the Pinto. (First of all, I would never own one) Those fuel tanks in that bucket of tin was so bad that some Ford dealerships offered a free asbestos suit if they purchased a Pinto. People still bought them until they finally went out of production. [Roll Eyes]

Mark, according to some specifications I am looking at, the police interceptor model of the Ford Crown Victoria uses a standard 4.6L (280 CID) 200 to 225HP (240HP with dual exhaust) engine equipped with police pursuit calibration (whatever that is) package and an engine oil cooler. It has an extra heavy duty battery and alternator, heavy duty drive shaft and U-joints, along with an accessory feed wire package. It also has heavy duty shocks, springs, and body mounts. It also has unique power steering gear.

It is easily adaptable to all the electronics and visual warning devices that police agencies use. It also has a trunk circulation air fan in the "prepped package" that stabilizes the enviroment for the equipment stored in the trunk.

I don't know what they use for a transmission. But I'll bet it has a shift kit. The sliding shifts of an automatic transmissions really raise hell with the clutch packs.

[ 08-31-2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]