The trunk floor has a built-in access door for servicing the fuel sender so one does not have to drop the fuel tank. My experience tells me, however, that when the good Ford taketh away, the good Ford also giveth. Additionally, noxious gas fumes emanating from hidden 50-year-old fuel hoses with rusted twist clamps can be hard to find when many mechanics, both amateur and professional, would never expect them to be hidden in such a manner. The cavity behind the aforementioned splash shield is a nice home for 50-odd years of detritus, the kind of detritus that will rust fenders, causing previous owners to bondo over said rust and not look any further into its root cause. ![]() This fuel hose, one of three, is completely hidden from sight behind a splash shield. And while “intense” may be a strong adjective to describe a nice year in the garage (a bad day in the garage, and so on and so forth…), I have found some of Ford’s engineering choices “very distressing.” ![]() My experiences with the Thunderbird, however, have been a little more frustrating, maybe a 5 or a 6. For example, my experience so far with General Motors products of the 1960s and ’70s that aren’t Corvairs has been on the green side of the scale, maybe a 2 or a 3. If we instead modify the pain scale to relate to antique car ownership, I can simply and directly relate my thoughts and emotions regarding the “ownability” of my fleet. If you’ve ever been to a doctor’s office, the pain scale will be familiar, although I’ll never understand how someone suffering from “discomforting pain” could be smiling. ![]() Therefore, I’ve certainly had a few late to the game questions for Ford’s engineers since I bought my ’63 T-Bird last year, questions that mostly start with “Why?”. Having maintained a growing fleet of mid-century Americana from Detroit’s Big Three longer than I’ve been driving, however, I am in a unique position to judge such sundry criteria as the ease of maintenance, parts availability, and general functionality of the cars that collectively form our automotive heritage and landscape. The '61-'62 front shock uses a 'bayonette' style mounting stud at the top and bottom of the shock: the bottom goes through the upper control arm.I am not a mechanical engineer, nor a professional mechanic. As you observed, the '61-'62 bottom mounting is different from '63, in part because the upper control arm is different between '61-'62 and '63-'66. 'Bird front shocks are pretty much non-interchangeable with others with exception of 1964-1966 T-bird fronts, and those may require the shock tower 'cap' and other parts that you find on '64-'66s. Is anyone CERTAIN of sibling 1963 Ford/Mercury models that shared the same shocks as Thunderbird? suggested for FRONT 1963 shock?Ģ) anyone know the size of bolt 304880-S?ģ) can "Loop Bushing, Cross Pin" be modified to work on '63?Ĥ) this whole exercise would be easier if the shock manufacturers included "Thunderbird" in their list of search options, but do not. No dimensions for that bolt in the Ford catalog.ġ) any model nos. The 1960-64 Ford Car Master Parts & Accessories Catalog, p 1399, "Illustration Section 30, p.71" is a 1963/ diagram, fixing the lower mount with bolt 304880-S. ![]() It seems there are several aftermarket rear shocks to choose from. My research turned up only one shock designated "front" and that is Monroe-Matic Plus #32066, which includes "Lower Mount Type: Loop Bushing, Cross Pin", which seems to be the fastening for 61/62 but NOT 1963. I'm not certain these are factory size or spec, and want to be certain of my replacements. I'm looking for front shocks to replace the ones installed when I bought the car.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |