Saved from the Demo Derby: 1990 Country Squire

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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)?

[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]

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).

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[DerekTheGreat]

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