Saved from the Demo Derby: 1990 Country Squire

[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.

[kishy]

10" and 11" are the same but can't speak for the legs. Master parts catalog lists 15/16" bore for all 1980-89 (the years the copy I have covers). 2004-ish Motorcraft Catalog lists 15/16" for 10in drums and 1" for 11in drums. I used the 1" on my 88 and haven't been too pleased with the brake feel since. I am using 15/16" on this one...

Odd that the newer catalog retro-specs a different size. WCs are one of the parts on my to-buy list for my wagon and I ran into this question so I left it alone until I could verify.

As long as the overall length/travel length of the pistons is appropriate the smaller diameter ones should be fine...my worry would be if there's longer travel required and you end up popping the pistons out of the WC down the road. I'll be rebuilding my brake system from scratch with a newer style MC (no valve on the frame rail), new hard lines, 95-97 front brakes but keeping the 11" drums.

If I'm understanding the hydraulics of it correctly, the larger diameter WC would give crapper pedal feel on account of taking more force at the master to create the desired amount of friction at the drums. Maybe they found the 11" drums had accelerated shoe wear vs the 10" and that was the solution to get more brake balance up to the front (use a larger diameter WC)?

[Tiggie]

Also...given the context of the wheel cylinders: am I understanding correctly that 10" and 11" drums use the same wheel cylinders, the 11s just have a longer little leg thing that pushes on the shoes (which is not an integral part of the WC itself)?

Some brands list one part for 10 and another for 11, but some brands list the same for both.

10" and 11" are the same but can't speak for the legs. Master parts catalog lists 15/16" bore for all 1980-89 (the years the copy I have covers). 2004-ish Motorcraft Catalog lists 15/16" for 10in drums and 1" for 11in drums. I used the 1" on my 88 and haven't been too pleased with the brake feel since. I am using 15/16" on this one...

I pulled my rotors off today, grease was not original but the one side did look a bit like that. Outer bearing got hot at some point and baked the grease around it.

Nothing like petrified grease to make bearings angry. My bearings looked okay, so I am hoping that the grease was a bit more greasy ten years ago when this last hit the road.

How does the water pump and cooling system look? Original?

Looks untouched. The brake system was relatively new before it was parked, but other than that this thing is unmolested. It has had spark plugs and a couple heater hoses replaced, but otherwise is untouched.

[Brown_Muscle]

Ahh I just read through this entire thread. I love that you brought this thing back from the dead! I was kind of sad to read you were selling it, but glad to hear you are keeping it, and going to make it a driver! It looks like the frame is in great shape from some of the pictures I saw, so that's a big plus. Glad to see you're replacing all the brakes, I had a similar experience with the rotors on my wagon- not fun.

How does the water pump and cooling system look? Original?

[gadget73]

I pulled my rotors off today, grease was not original but the one side did look a bit like that. Outer bearing got hot at some point and baked the grease around it.

[Tiggie]

Will keep that in mind about the TC sending units. I suspect this one will prove flaky given how awful the fuel system was on the car. The old fuel dissolved the float or either it never had one factory... so yeah.

No wind today but cold as forecasted. Got the final wheel bearings cleaned and repacked, new caliper and all four wheels on the ground. Brakes seemed to gravity bleed but haven’t stepped on the pedal yet.
Yesterday’s front wheel bearings had been messed with before, today’s was pure virgin. 27 year old grease:


Rotor pitting from the slumber period I suppose:


Got to tighten the adjustment on the rear brakes a bit but otherwise brakes are hopefully done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VicCrownVic]

That's right, you mentioned that in another thread about the Alldata info. I think one possible explanation that was mentioned was that there could have been a mid year change which might account for the two different sending units listed in Alldata. If that is the case the older units should be the metal half circle housing for the resistor and float arm axis while the newer '90+ (wagon) compatible units will have the plastic housing. Easy to ID that way if pulling one from a TC in the JY, but you'll still want to check the resistance range. I bring my cheap HF multi-meter to make sure the range is correct.

'89 TC on the left, Old box (with leaky float) on the right below:
The float and float arm are different, but it will work.

[kishy]

Progress!

I skimmed through the thread and saw a link to your fuel level sending unit repair thread. A sending unit from an '89 TC (analog dash for sure, but I would imagine digital used the same unit that year ('88- digital dash sending units had a wider resistance range up to like 220ohms IIRC)) will work for you if you ever need a replacement. Unlike all the other '79-'89 boxes, '89 TC's did not use the old resistance range, they used the new resistance range like '90+.

AllData suggested that the 89 TC could be had with two different resistance ranges depending on gauge type; one of which is the 90+ range and one of which is the normal box range.

I was not able to conclude with certainty which was which, and AllData is also not always dependable given that it's based on interpretations of factory shop manuals, not the direct text of the shop manuals themselves.

Also...given the context of the wheel cylinders: am I understanding correctly that 10" and 11" drums use the same wheel cylinders, the 11s just have a longer little leg thing that pushes on the shoes (which is not an integral part of the WC itself)?

Some brands list one part for 10 and another for 11, but some brands list the same for both.

[VicCrownVic]

Progress!

I skimmed through the thread and saw a link to your fuel level sending unit repair thread. A sending unit from an '89 TC (analog dash for sure, but I would imagine digital used the same unit that year ('88- digital dash sending units had a wider resistance range up to like 220ohms IIRC)) will work for you if you ever need a replacement. Unlike all the other '79-'89 boxes, '89 TC's did not use the old resistance range, they used the new resistance range like '90+.

[Tiggie]

Progress today. I think this needs to be usable car instead of a yard ornament.

Replaced almost new 9 year old wheel cylinders with new ones (old were frozen from the slumber period).


Front calipers were next. Decided to repack front wheel bearings too which took a bit longer than expected, so only got one side done before I said “screw this it’s cold”.

Supposed to be colder tomorrow. Might do the other side Friday. The highs are pretty much the average low for this time of year. Figures since I have some time off!

Gonna try to register and insure this as a limited use classic. The registration is no problem, the only qualification in VA is that it be 25 years old. The insurance is the challenge. They need pictures and the weathered woodgrain patina isn’t desirable for a 1990 as it would be for a 1955.

Very much considering a roll of contact paper as a temp solution. Would look the part and since it’s not out in the weather or driven in anything wet. May hold up for a year or more? $25 for the one bad side sounds much better than the $685 for the correct 3M Dinoc, at this time. Would save me $300 a year on car insurance if it qualifies for Classic, so that would pay for real dinoc in a couple years when I am ready for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TecNickal]

Good to see those being used instead of sitting on the side of my garage under lean to hanging out with the leaves and spiders.

[P72Ford]

This car has come a long way!

White over red is a good look.