kishy's 1984 Town Car

[kishy]

>gutless

We have already established that since my 3.08 CFI car keeps up with Derek's 3.27 SEFI car, it is at the very least not significantly more gutless than a SEFI lopo.

I'm kind of curious to know what differed for the CFI HO cars (Fox sedans - police LTD I think). Better heads? More aggressive cam?

---

So, the car must have heard me and decided to prove me right re: "Almost every defect the CFI system can experience can apply to SEFI"

Went out to start the car today (very wet, raining all night, relative humidity has to be near the max). Nada. Cranked and cranked and cranked, the occasional sputter. Throttle, no throttle, no change. Started kinda panicking as I need the car first thing tomorrow morning.

Plugged in a different TPS (not installed, just as a quick test to see if anything would change). No change.
Plugged in a different ECT (same arrangement as above). No change.
Swapped MAP. No change.
Tried with SPOUT unhooked. No change.
Swapped TFI. No change.
Checked fuel pressure. 40PSI after one prime = checks out OK.
Conclusion at this point is logically a "mechanical spark" issue rather than the computer not telling it to do the right stuff.
No visible arc points on wires.
Swapped coil after an "a-ha" moment, and that was it. Fired right up. It must have a break somewhere causing humidity to make it short.

Battery was near dead after all this, so it's on the charger, and CFI soldiers on...

One of these days I'm going to just break down and buy a bunch of proper good coils and stop dicking around with the used stuff. It is somewhat of a critical failure point, after all.

[gadget73]

I never said the SEFI lopo was sufficiently not-gutless either. I just think these cars should have had more power from the beginning.


The CFI HO was a different cam, larger injectors, and a different ECM tune to play happy with all that. I believe they had the same E5 heads that non-HO CFI cars had in 1985. Mostly it was the cam, the injectors were just because it allowed the engine to move more fuel. I seem to remember Pete playing around with this at one point on his 85, using the HO ECM and throttle body, but it didn't run right because the cam wasn't there to complete the package.

[Stocker]

That's exactly what I post the stuff for. It's a record for myself and others to hopefully find if needed in the future. I'm at least partly inspired to write an EEC-IV CFI Troubleshooting Guide, which at the end of the day is not entirely dissimilar from EEC-IV SEFI, or maybe any other engine management system, but specifically does not say the words "throw it in the trash" at the end of the flowchart.

I, and likely many others, would owe you a beer (or non-alcohol alternative) at the very least for that. I've had a carb swap in the back of my mind since I bought my car, but... it's my daily driver and I don't want to tear it apart as long as it still runs. Yet by the same token, it doesn't run "correctly" but since it still drives reliably I'm not inclined to dig too deeply into it lest I make something worse.

[kishy]

I never said the SEFI lopo was sufficiently not-gutless either. I just think these cars should have had more power from the beginning.


The CFI HO was a different cam, larger injectors, and a different ECM tune to play happy with all that. I believe they had the same E5 heads that non-HO CFI cars had in 1985. Mostly it was the cam, the injectors were just because it allowed the engine to move more fuel. I seem to remember Pete playing around with this at one point on his 85, using the HO ECM and throttle body, but it didn't run right because the cam wasn't there to complete the package.

Fair enough. They could have used a little more 'go' for sure. I just don't see a suggestion to SEFI swap being a meaningful upgrade without also HO/Explorer swapping in the process.

I'll have to keep my eyes open for a HO CFI car (it's a long shot). If one turns up I'll strip it of the HO stuff for experimentation, probably in the wagon at that point (which should have E5s).

I, and likely many others, would owe you a beer (or non-alcohol alternative) at the very least for that. I've had a carb swap in the back of my mind since I bought my car, but... it's my daily driver and I don't want to tear it apart as long as it still runs. Yet by the same token, it doesn't run "correctly" but since it still drives reliably I'm not inclined to dig too deeply into it lest I make something worse.

I think with careful evaluation of what your car does we could probably get it in better shape. The behaviour of my car now versus how it acted when I bought it is a night and day difference, and while the troubleshooting road to get where I am now was long, itemizing everything in a simple ordered list would probably make it a project to span over a couple dedicated weekends to get the car into good health. Being able to take out all the changes from the list that have later been proven to not help would make it reasonably straightforward.

[DerekTheGreat]

You know, under 61mph these cars aren't that bad. And considering the target demographic I'd say they have enough power. They're 0-60 times are faster than the 460 powered barges they replaced.
From the info I quickly gathered:
0-60= First Number || 1/4 mile = Second Number (All results in seconds)
'75 Town Car 2-door 460: 10.4 || 17.7
'78 Town Car 2-door 460: 11.6 || 18.6
'90 Town Car: 10.2 || 17.3

I couldn't find any data for '84 & up CFI stuff. HO would be interesting. I imagine the intake was also different to match the wider diameter throttle bores? Were the throttle bores wider? Did the HO set-up use the vacuum throttle modulator instead of a proper IAC?

[kishy]

Visual guesstimation...I think the CFI TB (lopo or HO likely the same) can move more air than the SEFI lopo TB. But this has not been validated in any way and the CFI flow characteristics and atomization are known to be less than ideal.

The 8805 constant rate rear coils are absolutely ineffective for heavy vacation duty. No good at all. Weaksauce compared to the Ford/Merc CC817 cargo coils which sat lower unloaded and squished easily at the top of their travel, but they held the car higher fully loaded. Lincoln rides much nicer on the 8805s in all load states though.

[gadget73]

Thats pretty much my evaluation of them. The cargos rode ass-down all the time but didn't drop too much with load, the regular ones sit and ride right but any weight it drags ass. I really need to re-connect the auto level stuff, but my plan is tot use the helper air springs that go inside the coil springs tied to the stock leveling system. Not real keen on being limited only to 2 air shocks that I don't really like very much.

Hell, I've been talking about that for years. I need to attach my front shock back to the lower control arm more urgently.

[kishy]

Today is my 2-year anniversary with this car; May 28 2016 is when I limped it home, discovering upon arrival that all of my freshly topped-up coolant had escaped (water pump and rad were colluding to smuggle it all out). I've gotta say, this car has come a long way, and with it, so has my mechanical know-how. I would not be half as skilled (dare I toot my own horn here) in making these things work properly if this car hadn't fallen into my lap. I would not have had the confidence to take on the wagon if it hadn't been for the Lincoln.

Although it's rough around the edges, I absolutely adore this car.





After further driving time, absolutely, the 8805 rear springs are here to stay. The car rides exactly how it should, and at the right height with a minimal load. Air shock or airbag-inside-coil retrofit might be the answer to the load carrying issue, but realistically the car only gets loaded like that twice a year, so it's not exactly a huge issue.

As discussed in the 'A/C Dead, options?' thread, the A/C works in this car. In brief summary:
-bought the car with known-working R12 A/C. was quite excited about this.
-over several months (heading into winter) it developed a rapid-clutch-cycling issue. not the usual way, but instantly engage/disengage/repeat with no delay. assumed refrigerant leaked down to unusable pressure.
-disconnected clutch connector so I could use windshield defrost mode without the constant racket of the A/C clutch eating itself.
-started working on plan to fix the A/C, made good progress in above-referenced thread.
-discovered the other day that the system is still pressurized, so tried jumping the pressure switch and reconnected the clutch, and found good working A/C
-reconnected pressure switch (after making no changes at all), and all is working.

Shrug. Can't fix the A/C if it already works. Not that I'm complaining.

A/C reference pics, again:







I have found the blower motor output to be unsatisfactory in all speed settings, and it also chirps once it warms up a bit. I bought a $17 Cdn closeout blower motor from RockAuto (it shipped from the same location as other junk I was already buying), and installed it tonight. To my pleasant surprise, it was made in Canada. To my slight disappointment, it came with the wrong pigtail, but I quickly rectified that.

Results are excellent. Low speed can now be felt quite usably, where before you couldn't feel it at all. Medium is now moving as much air as the old one did on High. High is almost annoying now. Good stuff.





Borrowed the weatherstrip (seems to be same stuff as the trunk seal) from the cowl of the 91, to put in the Lincoln, as its was destroyed. I'm thinking that this will reduce hot engine bay air escaping into the cowl where it gets sucked into the blower intake. Adding this to the junkyard shopping list.



New Spectra CU552 3-row rad is on the way. I'll be changing the thermostat while the coolant is drained to swap the rad, probably this coming weekend. Cooling was marginally adequate before using A/C, and is now brushing up against critically insufficient. That being said I'm pretty sure 210 degrees is not going to do any harm to anything. Fan clutch was done a while ago and did bring numbers down, but not enough. If improvement is not dramatic enough between thermostat and radiator, going back to the large impeller cast iron pump will be the next step. Got the rad from Amazon US for $162 (US), free shipping, have to pick it up in Detroit though. But, I checked, and that rad currently retails for $480 Cdn locally. So...yeah.

I have a tint appointment set for next Monday. Buddy's 87 is 5% on all side windows and 20% on the rear, to make it possible to reverse at night. It looks awesome, but I think I'd find it a bit of a pain on a daily basis, especially since I back into my unlit and rather long driveway. I'm thinking 20 on the rear, something mid-high 20s (depending on availability) on the front sides, and something midway between those values for the rear sides (so there isn't a dramatically visible change across the B-pillar). Still working on this idea. I also don't want to draw in the attention of the law. Tint law in Ontario is intentionally vague. Cops can issue a ticket based on having the opinion that it's too hard to see you through the window, with no actual photometer measurement.

[Kodachrome Wolf]

Having the hood weatherstripping is seemingly more effective than it looks. The wagon was missing it's weatherstrip entirely and I didn't realize that it was supposed to have one. Once I stumbled across a Box that had one, I figured I better take it since it was in good shape. It really did help reduce the air hot engine bay air from being forced into the HVAC intake. Originally when it was missing, when I was driving at speed, the velocity of the air was similar to running the blower on the medium-high if the HVAC sliders were in a position where the fresh air door was open. With the weatherstrip in place, the blower managed air speed properly if the HVAC sliders were in a position where the fresh air door was open. It also seemed to help with some slight NHV as wind noise around the cowl was reduced since air wasn't being forced through the engine bay and then right up the windshield.

[DerekTheGreat]

I dig the pic of the taillight in twilight. Who has the nearly identical box '86 or '87 TC?

[kishy]

That's my oft-mentioned buddy, but he doesn't 'do' forums. When something breaks he typically just IMs me for guidance lol. He does the Detroit junkyard route with me sometimes, I imagine with enough planning he'd come out to a meet, but he works most Saturdays.

He drove me out to go pick the 84 up, and then tailed me home as breakdown insurance.

[DerekTheGreat]

Noice. Yeah, he should come to a meet up and JY run. I'd like to see that Townie.

[kishy]

A/C clutch has started making noise when A/C is off. It's not actually dragging the compressor with the pulley at all, so I don't think it needs attention, aside from being an annoyance.

Trying to decide tint percentages. Might go 20% on rear and all side windows. Can't touch the windshield by law. Tint guy, who is himself a car enthusiast who knows many of his customers personally, says he's never heard of 20% drawing in negative attention locally unless you were otherwise acting in a way that was just begging for a ticket. I'm kind of in between that and 20 for rear/rear sides, and 30 or a high 20s option for the front sides.

Plenty of photos of tinted boxes out there, but not too many references to what VLT% they were tinted to, so they're useless to compare to.

[87gtVIC]

I installed 20% on my crown victorias side windows. I had the rear done locally as that was something I wanted nothing to do with. Dont remember what was done to the rear but it was DARK when first installed. Now its faded and more see through than the 20% side windows.


Reference pics:

http://www.grandmarq.net/vb/showthre...l=1#post585189

back from 2010.


And now:

http://www.grandmarq.net/vb/attachme...6&d=1527363572

[kishy]

That looks really good...I mean, the back window lightened up a bit more than I'd like, but the sides look like they held up well and they looked good when fresh.

Probably depends on the choice of tint. I'm assuming some are more resistant to breaking down from sun exposure than others.

Also I don't think I've said it anywhere, so I'll say it now: that's a sweet car.