Saved from the Demo Derby: 1990 Country Squire

[Tiggie]

I am either slow or have too much other crap to do. Or both. Well finally got the intake and valve cover gaskets replaced. Replaced all hoses except lower radiator hose which will get done when I fix the power steering leak. New plugs and wires. New crankcase breather. Fresh antifreeze. New vacuum hoses. New blower motor resistor.

Engine wasn’t spotless inside but not the worst either.

Old intake gaskets were old felpro, so someone has been there before.

Seven plugs were autolite, well used at about 0.065 gap. One was a Motorcraft at about 0.085 gap. I assume that’s original. It was the one behind the smog diverter valve.







Next up is power steering pump reseal. Or maybe fixing the lock actuator so that the wife can actually open her door from the outside. I could play the gentleman card and say I don’t want her to have to open the door herself?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hearsesrock427]

Every time I see a >1987 box wagon I can't help but think how cheap Ford was. They got the revised front end but nothing whatsoever was done about the aging ass end. Least the could have done was make the bumper flush like the front.

Look at the back and the rear 3/4. Imagine if the rear bumper was only as wide as the outer edge of the tail lights. It'd throw off the proportions even on a steelside. It'd be like '98+ with the whale tailed booty going on. Narrow before the rear wheel arch, gets a bit wider at the wheel well/arch, and then narrows out again. I don't think the wagons were expected to be sold for as long as they did- remember the new panther platform in '79 was hot on the heels of the gas crises and nobody knew 100% if people would continue buying big cars and/or if fuel prices would drop to sane levels again. Anyway, what if we did the opposite of making both bumpers flush- make them both big wraparound/cow catcher type! Mount an '87- front bumper so it more or less matches the rear. Imagine you'd need some sort of custom bumper filler panel (think slack tried mix and matching '87- and '88+ on his '89 and ran into that problem) but imagine it'd look sick.

+1 on late model Ford wagons KW. They tended to not have drastic cosmetic changes in a given model's production run. Saves money and they figured it wouldn't hurt sales enough to make it a net loss, so to speak. See the same thing with the roundy Escort wagons.

[TecNickal]

Glad to see its sticking around. That wagon looks GREAT. I have all but three of my cars on classic car insurance (Haggertys). 66, 89 and 90. Less than $200/year on each with full coverage on every one. Haggerty never even asked for pics of the 89 or 90!

Now just need to sell a couple of the newer cars to get them off of my primary daily coverage (2x 2003 Town Cars and a 2003 BMW).

[LRGMARG]

Nice job on bringing it back to life..... Now it looks be in better shape befitting of an LS swap

[DerekTheGreat]

Oh gawd, you brought chills and shudders with "Taurus" and "Sable"

[Kodachrome Wolf]

Every time I see a >1987 box wagon I can't help but think how cheap Ford was. They got the revised front end but nothing whatsoever was done about the aging ass end. Least the could have done was make the bumper flush like the front. Guess I should be thankful they made them at all? I mean, they did kill off the coupes...

They did similar stuff with the Taurus and Sables. The 1992-1995 wagons kept the same rear end as the 1986-1991 wagons. They did the same thing to the 2000-2004 ones as the kept the rear end from the 1996-1999 models. Occasionally there was a slight modification to one of the light lenses (an amber turn signal was available), but otherwise stayed exactly the same in style and shape.

Ford just seemed to have a knack on their last wagons to just update stuff in front of the C-pillar and leave everything behind it the same as the original design until it was no longer do able.

[Tiggie]

Every time I see a >1987 box wagon I can't help but think how cheap Ford was. They got the revised front end but nothing whatsoever was done about the aging ass end. Least the could have done was make the bumper flush like the front. Guess I should be thankful they made them at all? I mean, they did kill off the coupes...

I agree, but I am getting used to it I guess. Ford saw dollar signs, I’m sure. Wagon buyers were old school folk anyway, less retooling means more money. Wagons were outselling the deuce 4 to 1 Merc, or 2 to 1 Ford. I still contemplate picking up the early style hood, header, and bumper. I would get it if it were a paint match for sure.

[DerekTheGreat]

Every time I see a >1987 box wagon I can't help but think how cheap Ford was. They got the revised front end but nothing whatsoever was done about the aging ass end. Least the could have done was make the bumper flush like the front. Guess I should be thankful they made them at all? I mean, they did kill off the coupes...

[Tiggie]

Insurance company called. Said they thought it worthy of insuring as a classic, and they felt it should be around $5000. I thanked them for the compliment, but politely declined that figure. Their minimum is $3000, we settled on $3500. My driving is quite limited with the classic insurance, but that is perfect with me and the use of this car. I don’t need another daily driver, and I don’t need the sky high insurance payments that go with typical insurance.

Kishy - she’ll be riding the 14’s for a while. Likely until I fix the woodgrain and trim to make it a reasonable cruise night car.

Plans for the next couple weeks (not in order):
1.) Visit DMV tomorrow to get antique tags.
2.) Diagnose oil leak.
3.) if oil leak is the intake, dig into that.
4.) Replace blower motor resistor.
5.) Finish flushing old brake fluid, I don’t think it all came out for the rear.
6.) Power Steering Pump Rebuild (leaks)
7.) Replace lock actuators in front doors.
8.) Repair/Replace front right window motor.
Whatever else pops up that needs immediate attention.

Far out plans (not in order):
1.) Vinyl conditioner for the seats. They are rock hard and I don’t want them to crack.
2.) Woodgrain replacement for driver side and trim refinishing, all sides.
3.) Turbines and Tires.
4.) Repair a bit of damage around right taillight.
5.) Cut out and patch the only rust - bottom of left rear quarter.
6.) Touch up and buff this 1990 paint job. Repaint crosses my mind, but you only have original paint once and i’d Like to save it if it can be saved.
7.) charge A/C. And make functional.
8.) dye some interior plastic that has faded.
9.) Shocks? Does it need them? They are squishy but it floats without bobbing, so this is yet to be decided.
10.) odometer gears!

I think there is a saying about the best laid plans of mice and men...

I thought about an HO conversion... but I don’t think it’s needed. This car will run circles around my 88. It’s warm butter smooth and i’d like it to stay that way. I think i’ll even keep it single exhaust and quiet muffler... I am getting soft. I also think it’s time to do a compression check on the 88 because either this 90 is a factory experimental high performance lo po, or the 88 isn’t getting its 5.0’s worth of functional cylinders.

[gadget73]

1991 was the end of drum brakes. Towncar limos had them but thats into the land of weird rare stuff.

[kishy]

the valve screwed into the 91 MC is different internally than the disc/disc ones even though its physically similar. When you say "later master cylinder" I picture the 98-02 style. If you're using the 91 parts it should be fine.

Yeah, I used to think of it as a 90+ part (presumably used through the last year of drum brakes which is...what, 94? Or did any Aero ever come with drums at all?) but then I found a junkyard 88 that has it, with the exception of only having one front output down to a splitter on the frame rail. So IDK. In any event, I'm referring to the same setup a 91 has.

Tiggie, wagon looks goooooood, but the 14s have to go lol. If you went to something with a larger overall diameter it'd be like swapping rear gears (not really, but kinda). Didn't realize there was a Country Squire emblem on the tailgate, must be an 88-91 thing...

[gadget73]

My 91 does not have any frame-mounted valve (and I do not believe it ever had new lines put on, they had perfect factory bends), and has rear drum brakes. The newer MC has a thread-in valve that goes inline with the rear brake line, I can only imagine it's similar to what you described...but it's a factory drum setup.

That's the MC I'm putting in all 3 of my boxes with the earlier style, when the time comes for each (wagon first since it has no good lines left on it anywhere).

the valve screwed into the 91 MC is different internally than the disc/disc ones even though its physically similar. When you say "later master cylinder" I picture the 98-02 style. If you're using the 91 parts it should be fine.

[Tiggie]

Cold as dead mans poop out.

Glued some emblems back on:




Sent these to insurance today. Hopefully will hear back Tuesday? I would guess most insurance reps are off tomorrow? Hubcaps from the old 82. I like them better than the wire spokes. Yes it’s riding on 14’s! And 11in drums are a tight fit.













Drove it ~7 miles yesterday and 5 today. It’s quiet. No squeaks, rattles, or even muffler noise. It’s smooth. All very very different from the 88.

Noticed an sizable oil leak from back the of engine. Haven’t had motivation to crawl under it. I would guess intake. Looks like a project for when it’s warmer... aka April. Or July!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kishy]

the trouble with changing the valves is that drum brakes need very different valving than disc brakes. You want to retain your stock prop valve or its not going to work right. That messy frame valve contains 3 parts, a pressure reducing valve, a hold-off valve, and a residual pressure valve, plus the shuttle valve that makes the idiot light work. You need all 3 of those for drums, rear disc just need a pressure reducing valve.

Bigger piston needs more fluid to move the same distance, so basically you get more pedal travel to make up for it. You will get more force out of it though because of the increased surface area. If the shoes are adjusted a little on the tight side it probably wouldn't be enough pedal travel to really matter.

My 91 does not have any frame-mounted valve (and I do not believe it ever had new lines put on, they had perfect factory bends), and has rear drum brakes. The newer MC has a thread-in valve that goes inline with the rear brake line, I can only imagine it's similar to what you described...but it's a factory drum setup.

That's the MC I'm putting in all 3 of my boxes with the earlier style, when the time comes for each (wagon first since it has no good lines left on it anywhere).

[gadget73]

the trouble with changing the valves is that drum brakes need very different valving than disc brakes. You want to retain your stock prop valve or its not going to work right. That messy frame valve contains 3 parts, a pressure reducing valve, a hold-off valve, and a residual pressure valve, plus the shuttle valve that makes the idiot light work. You need all 3 of those for drums, rear disc just need a pressure reducing valve.

Bigger piston needs more fluid to move the same distance, so basically you get more pedal travel to make up for it. You will get more force out of it though because of the increased surface area. If the shoes are adjusted a little on the tight side it probably wouldn't be enough pedal travel to really matter.