kishy's 1985 Country Squire

[gadget73]

that was pretty much the experience I had with repair bearings on my car. Tried a second set and they failed in short order, so I just gave up and bought new axle shafts. Not sure if it was damage to my originals that prevented the seals from working or what but two identical failures in a small amount of time killed my motivation to keep fooling with it.

[kishy]

Yeah, as I recall you warned me about that. Lesson learned. Long term game plan for this one has a different rear end in it entirely, so I'm not going nuts pre-emptively fixing things right now if I can avoid it. After my trip I'll be buying some axle shafts though, since I'll want a good set for whatever I end up putting in this. I have a set of 90+ (idk, 90-97?) shafts, and the axle likely to go in this is probably the 97 3.27 open that I have, but I also have an 88 3.55 LSD I'd like to use somewhere as well.

Today, I set about finishing the work of yesterday.

I removed the inspection cover from the bottom of the bellhousing and verified that the majority oil loss off the bottom of the bellhousing is not coming from within. It is running down the top and appears to be the rear seal of the intake manifold to the block at fault. It's a pretty severe leak and is probably getting corrected before the trip. The trip will be approximately 3200km, and with fresh oil and minimal leaks I can probably make that trip without adding oil. With the current leak, I'd probably be down a full quart just due to the leak alone.

I noticed that the brake rotors, which are directional, were in the opposite boxes for the actual parts as per the part numbers engraved into them. I swapped them between sides.

I tightened the diff cover bolts and filled it with fresh 80W90.

I rebuilt the driver side drum brake with new parts and cleaned off the oil while I was there. I adjusted both rear brakes.

I replaced all of the brake fluid in the car with fresh ATE Typ 200 racing DOT4 fluid.

I replaced the fuel filter and air filter.

While mounting the wheels back on the car, I rotated them (rears straight forward, fronts crossed to the rear - I might have done that backwards but whatever, they're all in new spots now).

Heading out shortly to break in the pads & rotors, and then try to get an idea of if the fuel economy has changed at all. I am aware the Tripminder is not the most exactly accurate thing, but it is at least consistent with itself, therefore an improvement should show up using it.

[jaywish]

The 90 and up axle housings are the wider housings which are a nice minor upgrade to the 89 and down vehicles.. Can't remember if the axles are different but I suspect they are. The carriers and gears are interchangeable.

[gadget73]

if i had it to do again, I'd have just done the complete axle swap but Scott had just rebuilt the stock diff, traction lock, swapped the rear control arm bushings and done the disc brake swap for me. At that point it was a choice of stick new axle shafts in, or swap the whole thing and transfer all the bits out of my original rear into this other housing. It was less work to just swap the axle shafts.

[sly]

I think I'm the only person on this forum that has had a good experience with a repair bearing. The Mad Marquis had a repair bearing on it when I sold it from when it was installed when I did the wide range gears and had the rear axle rebuilt around that time. Still trucking when I sold it many moons later.

[gadget73]

other people have had them work, I suspect it probably depends on the specific bearing and exactly what condition the axle itself is in. If the area where the new seal lip rides is not good, its just not going to work.

[kishy]

Yeah, the wider track is part of the goals. Just bump the wheels out a tiny little bit. The axle shafts do change for the wider rear end, and those are the shafts I have a set of new ones of. So depending on what I put in this car, I may already have what I need.

Do keep in mind about the repair bearing:

• The bearing did not fail; its integral seal did for its own reasons (e.g. bearing slop did not cause the leakage through an otherwise healthy seal). But since the seal doesn't seem to be readily available, seal failure means you replace the whole thing.
• The one that failed is the one (of the two installed at the same time of different designs) that only had an outer seal. Most on the market have both an inner and outer seal and do not lube the bearing with gear oil. This one does. It is also entirely possible that this repair bearing was defective from new and was supposed to have that inner seal, in which case it's a miracle it didn't leak on day one. It has given me 20,000km.

Following my earlier reply, I took the car out and did the break-in procedure on the brakes. The car stops very confidently now. That isn't to say it didn't before, but it was only good for a couple really solid stops before and then it would go kinda soft on me. It feels like it can take more abuse now.

I then drove about 40 minutes to my friend's place and drove it at a few different speeds. I was specifically monitoring for fuel economy as per Tripminder, as well as vibration (re: new rotors from China may be poorly balanced) or undesirable road manners (re: tire rotation). It's pretty well behaved but there is a strange vibration that comes on at about 90kmh and goes away just past 100kmh. I didn't think to try shifting out of OD to narrow down engine vibration, so that's something to check.

Tripminder would have me believe the fuel economy is unchanged at higher highway speed but possibly mildly increased at sustained lower speeds.

• 90km/h 55mph 22mpg
• 110km/h 68mph 19mpg
• 115km/h 71mph 15mpg (but driving into a decently strong wind where above was not)
• During the same leg of the drive as above, I pulled over and unplugged the O2 as a sanity check. 115km/h 71mph 9mpg (the O2 is definitely doing something helpful).
• 120km/h 74mph 14mpg (same wind conditions as above)

Upon arriving near home, I filled the tank to do a manual calculation. Below mileage is thoroughly mixed city and highway, with more of the highway being on the higher end of the speeds listed above.

• 273.7 km or 170 miles
• 46.25 litres or 12.22 gallons
• 13.9 MPG

So it would appear the Tripminder is about right. It's gotta be an aero problem. I'm not expecting 30mpg but it would be nice if it could match the Lincoln which I've recorded as 17.5MPG at 90MPH and 21.5MPH at 75MPH. Since the leading edge of the car is critical to its drag I wonder if I'm losing an mpg or two from the windshield being set too deep and the reveals being absent. I also suspect that taking off the roof rack spoiler might give me another little bit as well.

And...maybe one of those lightbulb moments:
Also worth noting the codes I got. 32 EVP low, 34 EVP high, and 44 secondary air injection inoperative. The thermactor solenoids are present but nothing else is, so obviously it isn't going to work, but I thought the solenoids being present would prevent a code. But I'm pretty sure, and a quick Google supports this, the presence of a 32 and/or 34 will cause the computer to cancel EGR usage. This might be what's killing my MPG so dramatically. It might also explain why this car has always felt a little more sluggish than the 84. Some of the operating theory here seems to be that when the computer disables EGR, it also kills a bunch of timing advance as well.

Getting both a low and high code for EVP suggests the sensor is totally jacked. That's fine, I'll rummage through my crap and see if I have one kicking around that checks out. Not the end of the world to buy one. Also could pull the whole valve off the 84 for testing purposes, I suppose.

[87gtVIC]

Nice work going over everything for your up coming trip. Hoping nothing interesting occurs because of this preventive maintenance.

[gadget73]

solenoids not being present gives a different code. I forget what, but its some circuit fault, not a system fault. The way it tests the thermactor is to watch for the O2 to swing lean when it starts dumping air into the back of the head. If it doesn't shift, you get a 44 (and a 94 with SEFI since there are 2 sensors). This actually also serves to test the O2 sensor so its kind of a multi-function deal if all the bits and baubles are intact and functional.

Shouldn't have any effect on fuel economy though since it stops pushing air into the head by the time it gets into closed loop mode.

concur on 32 and 34 at the same time says the sensor is FUBAR. Besides timing, it also leans out the fuel mix a bit when the EGR opens, so you're not getting that either. Neither will do good things for your highway fuel econ.

[kishy]

Dug into the EGR stuff tonight. I kinda went at this from all sorts of angles at the same time rather than any sort of logical sequence.

Based on the combo of 32 and 34, I assumed the EVP sensor would be no good. This reasoning is based on the fact that, if the sensor has gone out of spec both above and below minimum values while the computer has been watching, its internal potentiometer is clearly scratchy and has shorts and opens, so it can't be trusted.



I dug through the collection of spare bits and found a few EVPs, all of unknown working order. I picked one that felt smooth to operate and which seemed to look alright sweeping across a multimeter and installed it. I did have the valve off the car and while I did, I verified the smooth and full range of motion of the valve, and its ability to hold vacuum. I test drove the car, cleared the codes, and read them again.

KOEO on demand pass, keep alive pass
KOER 44, 32 (EVP low)
34 is gone.

I drove back home to research a bit. I looked at a few pieces of data, perhaps the single most useful one being this TomcoTechtips article: http://www.tomco-inc.com/Tech_Tips/ttt32.pdf

I went out to the car and did the following:

• Verified both EVR solenoids (control and vent) get +12V when key is in run
• Used output state mode to verify the computer is commanding on the solenoids and that the voltage change to do so is making it to the solenoids, and that the solenoids physically feel like an actuation is happening inside. Did not test that they hold/pass vacuum as disturbing the fittings on them looked like it would be asking for trouble.
• While doing the above, discovered the vacuum line to the EGR valve is completely broken off. It is unclear if I did this earlier tonight or if it's been like that for a while. I replaced the length of line with new.
• I tested for 5V reference voltage to the sensor and found 5.00V.
• I tested signal return from the sensor and found a clean smooth sweep on the analog meter, and a range of 0.81V closed to 4.60V open on the digital meter.

Took the car out for a test drive with the repaired vacuum line and re-tested. I am back to 44, 32, 34 again.

Now, according to the Tomco piece, minimum EGR value is supposed to be 0.83V and maximum is supposed to be 4.30V for a car equipped with the black EVP, which is what came off when I started and is what I believe is correct for the CFI 5.0. I am not sure how firm that spec is because I couldn't find it authoritatively from Ford, but if it is a very firm spec, then it is indeed both under minimum and also over maximum.

A new (as in truly new) EVP may be the answer here.



As much as a pain this can be (it hasn't actually annoyed me yet), I enjoy breaking out the multimeter. This kind of diag is maybe my favourite.

[gadget73]

poking around the master parts manual, emissions related stuff is all by calibration code. Not sure which you have exactly but these are the possibilities for an 85.



assuming this is not a CA car but I don't rightly know.

these are the possibilities based on those cal codes, but it appears every single one uses the same part, E43Z-9G428-B which does indeed appear to be the black sensor.

[kishy]

Wow, that's some...stuff. One of these days I'll get as good at looking through that thing as you are.

It does appear that the Motorcraft EVP for all of those configs is the same part - CX-863A - and that's good, because I bought a NOS one of it a few days ago on eBay and it should be at my friend's place in Detroit in the next few days. The idea was that if I can't find something that works among my collection of crap, at least the right part will be somewhere I can get it.

I was reflecting on what the codes actually mean and I've concluded that I don't fully understand them, partly because the codes have subtly different definitions depending on where you look them up. It is pretty clear that a 32 means the sensor has gone below the minimum value that is supposed to be possible for a closed valve, but a 34 could mean a few different things. Does it mean the value is too high while the valve is not being passed any vacuum? Or does it mean the value has exceeded the range for a fully open valve?

Hopefully, further parts-swapping gets me there. And if I have to rob from the 84 to get this working, so be it.

[gadget73]

32 means its too-closed. Most of the time thats a bum sensor. 34 is usually stuck partly open, or also could be a bad sensor. If its measurably above the voltage limit and you know its fully closed, see if the O ring under the sensor has gone totally flat. If thats good, take a file and remove a bit from the end of the sensor and keep doing that until its in the proper range if the sensor has a smooth sweep on the ohm meter.

http://www.grandmarq.net/oldfuelinjection/page35.html

[kishy]

I put the analog ohmmeter on each of the black sensors at my disposal again and operated them all by hand. All of them fail to sweep through their range nicely. The one I put on the car fails the least, but it still fails with a complete open circuit at one point in its travel. You have to tweak the shaft just right to get it to happen, but it happens.

Regardless of the lack of a good sensor, I then studied how the valve is operating, as well as my spare identical valve. I de-carboned both of them considerably and found they are approximately equal in apparent wear and how they work, with one being a little smoother to open initially, but basically they should be fine.

Local parts store can't get one of these sensors for a few days. It would appear the 84-85 CFI sensor is a little special and not regularly stocked. The same seems to apply to the parts stores in the Detroit area. So I'm stuck waiting for the Motorcraft part to arrive and we'll see if that changes anything. Unfortunately, the eBay seller has moved very slow in shipping it and its delivery estimate is Monday. Not the end of the world but I'd prefer to sort this out quicker.

I pulled the complete valve and EVP off the 84 Town Car and put it on the wagon. While installed in the 84, it has been a solid performer. That car did not have EGR codes whenever I last scanned it forever ago, and you could audibly hear the EGR control and vent solenoids clicking in the right circumstances, and its fuel economy is a fair bit better than the 85. Further, the 84 has been running on an 85 Crown Vic computer for years now, so any calibration difference between them should be basically none. Seemed like a good combination of parts to bring over.

Well, I put it in the wagon, used my code reader to clear the codes, and took it for a test drive. Highway economy is unchanged. Codes 44, 34, 32 appear again.

So I'm not sure what to make of that. Obviously I should test this combo of valve and sensor to make sure the values look sane but I had hoped "worked in the other car" was good enough.

[DerekTheGreat]

Try the '85 Crown Vic's computer on your wagon, perhaps?