PotM GrandMarq.NET - Panther Headquarters Forum Index PotM
GMN Chat Room GMN's STORE!! GMN's Gallery Please!!
Page 26 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1624252627 LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 530

Thread: My 1987 Mercury Colony Park

  1. #501
    GMN Regular DerekTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    5,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiggie View Post
    Doesn’t help that you’re cooling the expansive guts of a wagon. I’ve always thought wagons should have gotten a higher output HVAC system. I’d imagine it’s quite toasty in the jump seats in the summer heat. They did it with dentside F-Series trucks (and Broncos), they could have done it on a Panther.
    Did they really? I always thought the trucks got just one A/C setup. Seems to me the best way to do it; engineer and outfit according to the maximum demand whether or not the given vehicle is opted that way.

    If you don't already have that special ceramic window tint in your car I highly recommend it, as it'll cut down on the greenhouse effect for sure.
    1985 LTD Crown Victoria - SOLD
    1988 Town Car Signature - Current Party Barge

  2. #502
    Wagon Addicted Tiggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bedford, VA
    Posts
    5,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DerekTheGreat View Post
    Did they really? I always thought the trucks got just one A/C setup. Seems to me the best way to do it; engineer and outfit according to the maximum demand whether or not the given vehicle is opted that way.
    The heater cores specifically came in two sizes: small and big. Small was standard on standard cab trucks. The big was for extended cab trucks and the 78-79 Broncos, but optional in standard cab. They all used basically the same heater box, but the heater core mounting was slightly different to allow the different sizes. The A/C I think was one size fits all though. Same principle could be applied though.
    1988 Crown Vic Wagon - daily
    1990 Country Squire - weekend cruiser, former lawn ornament
    Other: 95 Ranger, 74 F250, 68 Mustang, 94 Mustang
    Sold: 1982 LTD and 1987 Crown Vic

    GMN Box Panther History
    Box Panther Horsepower and Torque Ratings
    Box Panther Production Numbers

  3. #503
    Road Warrior Kodachrome Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Evans, GA
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    So TecNickal came down in his '90 LTC today and we went out to the junkyard. Decided the wagon would be a smart choice if we needed room for large objects. Pilfered plenty of goodies for his car and mine.

    Anyway, this let me see how the e-fan helped with the A/C. It certainly helped reduce the weird temperature shift you could get between sitting stopped at lights and moving. It also started getting cold faster, as before it would take a moment before it would adequately start cooling. Certainly not a arctic blast, but comfortable cool, so I'll say the fan setup is a winner here.


    Now while we were at the yard, we stumbled across an '87 Mark VII LSC. That said, it featured the HO 302, so we snatched the PCM out of it. Now in the HO thread, I noticed '86-'88 Mustang are recommended for '86-'87 Boxes. Should I have any issues using that particular Mark VII PCM since it's the HO engine vs the LoPo configuration? If it's good, shenanigans might be planned going forwards since plenty of other supporting features are in place if you get my drift. Just need two components to have everything...

    We also got plenty of '90 LTC stuff from a donor car for his. He got a bumper filler that wasn't dinged, the door guards, washer tank, a good steering shaft, and some other little odds and ends. Pretty good haul for everything today.

    My Cars:
    -1987 Grand Marquis Colony Park LS (325K Miles) - April 2017 POTM Winner
    -1989 Sable LS Wagon (88,710 Miles) - Sold
    -1997 Grand Marquis LS (210K Miles) - The Daily Workhorse & March 2015 + January 2019 POTM Winner

  4. #504
    I'm an air-conditioned gypsy gadget73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    37,612

    Default

    Should be fine. Just mind that its the 200 hp HO, it uses E6 heads. Vaguely possible that with a hotter than stock HO it will run lean a little quicker than the 225 hp version would.

    86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
    5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley

    91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE, triple black (Timewarp) - poly front bushings, KYB struts and shocks, Holley SystemMax1 lower intake, SilverFox AOD valve body,

    1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal

    Quote Originally Posted by phayzer5 View Post
    I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousers

  5. #505
    Road Warrior Kodachrome Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Evans, GA
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gadget73 View Post
    Should be fine. Just mind that its the 200 hp HO, it uses E6 heads. Vaguely possible that with a hotter than stock HO it will run lean a little quicker than the 225 hp version would.
    Interesting to note. I guess in that case I'll eventually acquire injectors and a HO firing order camshaft, and then sometime later actually do something with them. I guess a AOD HO shift governor would also be smart so it's not shifting at 3800.

    I'll probably open this computer up and inspect the internals. There's a little corrosion on the outer case (I suspect it's from the mounting location in the passenger footwell; Nick extracted it from that mess back there), but it looks fine otherwise. No signs of being a re-manned unit or anything.

    Didn't really think about going HO, but I figure with slowly picking up the supporting modifications with time, why not eventually go whole hog? The real question will be what camshaft I want. I'll likely keeping stuff in the stock selection given I'm still with speed density and I don't want to super kill my fuel economy. I know the Explorer stick and regular HO stick are both reasonable options, just where they make all the power is the real difference, along with a little power difference. I'm somewhat looking at the regular HO one simply because I think 3.27s should be enough to mitigate the loss of some of the low end LoPo torque, but I'm sure smarter minds will answer that.

    My Cars:
    -1987 Grand Marquis Colony Park LS (325K Miles) - April 2017 POTM Winner
    -1989 Sable LS Wagon (88,710 Miles) - Sold
    -1997 Grand Marquis LS (210K Miles) - The Daily Workhorse & March 2015 + January 2019 POTM Winner

  6. #506

    Default

    Ive been looking into doing an ho swap minus heads and one thing Ive been curious about is what cam I should run. Would a cam out of say an f150 give any increase in power in our cars? Or a 5.0 explorer cam since it was an ho cam and was geared more towards low end torque which would help with our heavy ass cars lol. I dont think e7s would do much seeing as the 86 and 87 mustang had a small difference in power with heads being one thing Ford changed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #507
    Road Warrior Kodachrome Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Evans, GA
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 87GrandMarq View Post
    Ive been looking into doing an ho swap minus heads and one thing Ive been curious about is what cam I should run. Would a cam out of say an f150 give any increase in power in our cars? Or a 5.0 explorer cam since it was an ho cam and was geared more towards low end torque which would help with our heavy ass cars lol. I dont think e7s would do much seeing as the 86 and 87 mustang had a small difference in power with heads being one thing Ford changed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The '86 and '87 Mustangs had a 25 HP difference. The '86s got the E6 heads like our cars got from '86 to '91. The E6s have a heart shaped combustion chamber, which was supposed to be high swirl deal for more efficient combustion. That said, they don't flow that great, not saying E7s stock are much hotter, but there's certainly a difference. The pickups didn't get HO firing order until 1994, they rode LoPo style until then, except sometime after '86 they also got E7 heads so I'm sure they're plenty grunty. Based on what I've seen online, those trucks prior to getting the HO firing order were rated at 185 HP.

    Going based on what's available at https://www.automobile-catalog.com/, here's the 302 Explorer and Mustang HP/Torque ratings:

    1989 Mustang: 225 HP @ 4200 RPM | 300 FT/LBS @ 3200 RPM

    1996 Explorer: 210 HP @ 4500 RPM | 280 FT/LBS @ 3500 RPM

    Now while the Explorer stuff on paper doesn't look as hot, reportedly it still does better in the midline punch area vs the HO stuff that seems to live more on the high end punch area.

    It's up to you if the heads are worth it to you or not. I know a head job may not be the most exciting thing, but if you picked up a cheap/free set (I'm sure E7s certainly don't have much of a demand anymore, I got mine for free, just had to travel to get them) and maybe did some work to them like a gasket match port job, you'd have a little bit more go-go in the power department.

    My Cars:
    -1987 Grand Marquis Colony Park LS (325K Miles) - April 2017 POTM Winner
    -1989 Sable LS Wagon (88,710 Miles) - Sold
    -1997 Grand Marquis LS (210K Miles) - The Daily Workhorse & March 2015 + January 2019 POTM Winner

  8. #508
    I'm an air-conditioned gypsy gadget73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    37,612

    Default

    Explorer cam if you're not changing the heads. They're done for over about 4500 rpm, which is close to where the stock cam is done at. I ran one for a while in my car. The E6 heads don't breathe at RPM so its pointless to have a cam thats good for lots of engine speed. The HO cam has crap for power under about 2500 rpm too. If you've ever driven a stock HO with an auto, you floor it and it sort of picks up speed until the engine gets there, then its like turning on a switch and it goes. Not good in a heavy car with tall gearing. Upgrading the intake helps somewhat with that but its still not amazing.

    86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
    5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley

    91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE, triple black (Timewarp) - poly front bushings, KYB struts and shocks, Holley SystemMax1 lower intake, SilverFox AOD valve body,

    1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal

    Quote Originally Posted by phayzer5 View Post
    I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousers

  9. #509

    Default

    I know the e6ís are bad but Im still not convinced swapping to e7ís will result in a power increase thats worth the time spent on swapping them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #510
    I'm an air-conditioned gypsy gadget73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    37,612

    Default

    to stock E7, no. They suck too honestly. Slightly better at higher rpm, but only marginally so. You might get another 500 rpm of useful power with the HO cam but thats about it, and thats even questionable if you're using the stock intake. If you're going to the bother of changing heads, I wouldn't waste my time on anything less than a GT40 or GT40P and it needs a better intake too. Even a ported stock-type will be an improvement with stock heads if it evens out the airflow. The middle runners can move as much air as the heads can move, but the outer runners, especially #5, are a pretty big choke point. Getting them to flow basically equally helps.

    86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
    5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley

    91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE, triple black (Timewarp) - poly front bushings, KYB struts and shocks, Holley SystemMax1 lower intake, SilverFox AOD valve body,

    1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal

    Quote Originally Posted by phayzer5 View Post
    I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousers

  11. #511

    Default

    Ive heard that runner is pretty bent, I do have an ho upper on it so thats an increase but I still have the lopo throttle body and egr spacer on it for now. What ratio rockers do these engines have from the factory? Is it 1.5 or 1.6?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #512
    Wagon Addicted Tiggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bedford, VA
    Posts
    5,025

    Default

    1.6 stock.

    I think the only real difference in the lo vs HO upper is the size of the opening for the inlet.
    1988 Crown Vic Wagon - daily
    1990 Country Squire - weekend cruiser, former lawn ornament
    Other: 95 Ranger, 74 F250, 68 Mustang, 94 Mustang
    Sold: 1982 LTD and 1987 Crown Vic

    GMN Box Panther History
    Box Panther Horsepower and Torque Ratings
    Box Panther Production Numbers

  13. #513
    Road Warrior Kodachrome Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Evans, GA
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    So I opened up the Mark VII PCM to inspect the capacitors. They all looks great, however I’m actually concerned about the board:

    I can’t tell if the protective coating is doing that cracking (still seems squishy to me) or if the printed circuits are junk. Hopefully it’s not the latter. No idea if this is what parked that car before it wound up in the yard. The Mark VII it came out of was last tagged in ‘08.

    Also, I’m just shopping around on the remaining components. I see Melling makes a HO camshaft under SYB51, but has anyone tried it? It also covers cars that would have had the Cobra cam (like ‘92 T-Bird), so I don’t want to grab something that won’t play nice. If anything, I’ll get a correct used one off of eBay. Not exactly something I feel like gambling on working right with speed density.

    My Cars:
    -1987 Grand Marquis Colony Park LS (325K Miles) - April 2017 POTM Winner
    -1989 Sable LS Wagon (88,710 Miles) - Sold
    -1997 Grand Marquis LS (210K Miles) - The Daily Workhorse & March 2015 + January 2019 POTM Winner

  14. #514
    I'm an air-conditioned gypsy gadget73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    37,612

    Default

    Looks like cracks in the conformal coating to me. If there were going to be cracks, it would be in the board itself, not just the copper. Honestly the copper is usually forgiving enough that the board can crack and the foil will remain intact.

    86 Lincoln Town Car (Galactica).
    5.0 HO, CompCams XE258,Scorpion 1.72 roller rockers, 3.55 K code rear, tow package, BHPerformance ported E7 heads, Tmoss Explorer intake, 65mm throttle body, Hedman 1 5/8" headers, 2.5" dual exhaust, ASP underdrive pulley

    91 Lincoln Mark VII LSC SE, triple black (Timewarp) - poly front bushings, KYB struts and shocks, Holley SystemMax1 lower intake, SilverFox AOD valve body,

    1984 Lincoln Continental TurboDiesel - rolls coal

    Quote Originally Posted by phayzer5 View Post
    I drive a Lincoln. I can't be bothered to shift like the peasants and rabble rousers

  15. #515

    Default

    I wouldnt buy that melling cam due to the price


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #516
    Road Warrior Kodachrome Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Evans, GA
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 87GrandMarq View Post
    I wouldnt buy that melling cam due to the price


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I was only asking about it in case I don't pick up a decent condition used one. I'm not trying to get outside of the functional range of speed density and just want it to run smoothly with everything installed. That'd be a lot of work just to find out it doesn't play nice with the car.

    In other news, I also got a set of 1.7 roller rockers for a decent price. Figured it can't hurt at this point going forwards.

    My Cars:
    -1987 Grand Marquis Colony Park LS (325K Miles) - April 2017 POTM Winner
    -1989 Sable LS Wagon (88,710 Miles) - Sold
    -1997 Grand Marquis LS (210K Miles) - The Daily Workhorse & March 2015 + January 2019 POTM Winner

  17. #517

    Default My 1987 Mercury Colony Park

    Quote Originally Posted by Kodachrome Wolf View Post
    I was only asking about it in case I don't pick up a decent condition used one. I'm not trying to get outside of the functional range of speed density and just want it to run smoothly with everything installed. That'd be a lot of work just to find out it doesn't play nice with the car.

    In other news, I also got a set of 1.7 roller rockers for a decent price. Figured it can't hurt at this point going forwards.
    Oh then by all means. Its a shame it cost so much for a stock grind cam. Even the crap on ebay is expensive. Im with you on trying to keep it speed density and not get too crazy but I personally wouldnt spend 200 bucks on a stock replacement cam. Im considering it though since I cant find any cheap used cams. Maybe even an exploder cam, hmm.

    Im not sure if you can use those 1.7s with our flat top pistons. You might be able to but check before starting the car.

    Another thing Im curious about is how hard is it to swap to a roller cam? Would it just need the dogbone, followers and pushrods?

    Edit: What about the ES1217R cam? Its under 50 bucks on rock auto and its specs are close to that of an ho cam. The intake duration is lower than that of an ho cam but otherwise its close. Im not an expert on the subject so I dont know what kind of affect adjusting the intake and exhaust duration relative to one another would do. It is supposed to be a towing cam so Im assuming its that way to lessen the intake flow to promote low end torque?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by 87GrandMarq; 07-18-2019 at 12:52 AM.

  18. #518
    Road Warrior Kodachrome Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Evans, GA
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Late ‘85 and up is roller cam, so no need to figure out a conversion there.

    Regarding the pistons, I do have valve reliefs with no center dishing. To my knowledge it did get a replacement short block, so it easily could have wound up with whatever garden variety pistons were available on the market. No idea what type of pistons were supposed to be stock in these.

    My Cars:
    -1987 Grand Marquis Colony Park LS (325K Miles) - April 2017 POTM Winner
    -1989 Sable LS Wagon (88,710 Miles) - Sold
    -1997 Grand Marquis LS (210K Miles) - The Daily Workhorse & March 2015 + January 2019 POTM Winner

  19. #519

    Default

    The blocks are roller capable but we still have flat tappet cams unfortuneately. Not a big deal as the parts for the swap are cheap if that is in fact all thats needed.

    Do you have a bore scope? Its likely its another stock short block but Id verify by looking at the pistons. We have cast, flat top pistons from the factory so not many cams will work due to piston to valve contact.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  20. #520
    Wagon Addicted Tiggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bedford, VA
    Posts
    5,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 87GrandMarq View Post
    The blocks are roller capable but we still have flat tappet cams unfortuneately. Not a big deal as the parts for the swap are cheap if that is in fact all thats needed.

    Do you have a bore scope? Its likely its another stock short block but Id verify by looking at the pistons. We have cast, flat top pistons from the factory so not many cams will work due to piston to valve contact.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    86+ is roller for the Box 302.

    Regarding the cam, I was able to find a stock HO grind on corral.net for $40 shipped couple years back. Supposedly has 42k on it. Then again, stock Fox parts are exploding in value. Saw a stock catted H-pipe for $1350. It was NOS but still...
    1988 Crown Vic Wagon - daily
    1990 Country Squire - weekend cruiser, former lawn ornament
    Other: 95 Ranger, 74 F250, 68 Mustang, 94 Mustang
    Sold: 1982 LTD and 1987 Crown Vic

    GMN Box Panther History
    Box Panther Horsepower and Torque Ratings
    Box Panther Production Numbers

Page 26 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1624252627 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
GMN Approved Links!


www.rockauto.com www.adtr.net