77 LTD II

[rusty ol ranger]

Ok so i went out and did some messing around today...

I pulled the dash bezel off, removed the fake clock insert, shined behind the dash and *luckly* all the wireing was intact. It doesnt seem like mice really did anything to it besides chew some insulation. So im happy there.

I pulled the battery out of rusty 2.0 and stuck in, hooked back up the solenoid wires, and seen what was working and what wasnt....

Shitty pic. I know. But all the lights on the bottom of the dash (radio, hvac, wipers, etc) fuctioned fine, as did the dome light. However the cluster as you can kinda see needs attention.

I may end up having to A) source a different cluster, as the top plastic brackets disentgrated (i maybe able to washer them, i dont know) or B) Install the sport cluster i bought for it...but that requires some wireing harness work from what ive read, but its pretty cool as it has a tach and gauges instead of idiot lights

The radio, wipers, blower, and switcher doors all worked properly.

I then got ballsy and tried to crank the engine. Nothing. Damnit.

Got out wacked the solenoid (original) and hit key....we got crankage. Perfect.

All exterior lights worked, minus the ones ive stolen bulbs from over the years. So it seems the electrical system is still intact...thank god...i was worried about that.

I did rediscover a rusthole in the floorpan, but it should be pretty easy to patch with some sheet metal.

Now come friday im going to start working on that poor old windsor. As of now i need a carburator (its seized and missing parts), alternator, waterpump, radiator hoses, and probably associated brackets assuming i cant find them where i orginally started working on it in 2006 (i found the last insurance paper)

All that stuff in addition to the timing set....which i have...but needs to be put on.

More updates to follow.

 

[Josh B]

I couldn't help it much either. That's with a 100% brightness and 25% contrast

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I couldn't help it much either. That's with a 100% brightness and 25% contrast

Thanks for trying

 

[19Walt93]

We sold a pile of LTDs with 302s and 351s, quite a few with 351Ms, a big handful with 400s and no 460s, even though they were an option. Most of our LTDs were 4 doors or wagons, we seemed to get T Birds instead of 2 door LTDs. If you tear it down, some 87 and up Mustang or F series E7TE heads are a cheap upgrade, as would a double roller timing chain. FMXs were decent transmissions, they were used in police cruisers for years and took an awful beating. They share a lot with the Borg Warner CW trans, rude and crude but durable as a hammer.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

We sold a pile of LTDs with 302s and 351s, quite a few with 351Ms, a big handful with 400s and no 460s, even though they were an option. Most of our LTDs were 4 doors or wagons, we seemed to get T Birds instead of 2 door LTDs. If you tear it down, some 87 and up Mustang or F series E7TE heads are a cheap upgrade, as would a double roller timing chain. FMXs were decent transmissions, they were used in police cruisers for years and took an awful beating. They share a lot with the Borg Warner CW trans, rude and crude but durable as a hammer.

Yeah ive always heard the FMX fell smack in between the C4 and C6 for durability.

I figured just about any 351w head would be an upgrade over the 70's smog ones...or am i wrong?

 

[ekrampitzjr]

I think there's some confusion here between the LTD and the LTD II. The LTD was full-sized and originally had been the Galaxie. Later it became the LTD Crown Victoria, then just the Crown Victoria. The 1977–1979 LTD II, which is what we're seeing here, was a mid-sized Torino with a new body. The Torino/LTD II floorpan and chassis went back to the mid–1960s Fairlane.

Ford sold a variant of the Fairmont as the LTD in the early 1980s with the intent of replacing the full-sized LTD, which is why the "Crown Victoria" name was added to the big one. Then the 1986 Taurus was going to replace the Crown Vic, just as the front-drive Probe was going to replace the Mustang. None of that happened.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I think there's some confusion here between the LTD and the LTD II. The LTD was full-sized and originally had been the Galaxie. Later it became the LTD Crown Victoria, then just the Crown Victoria. The 1977–1979 LTD II, which is what we're seeing here, was a mid-sized Torino with a new body. The Torino/LTD II floorpan and chassis went back to the mid–1960s Fairlane.

Ford sold a variant of the Fairmont as the LTD in the early 1980s with the intent of replacing the full-sized LTD, which is why the "Crown Victoria" name was added to the big one. Then the 1986 Taurus was going to replace the Crown Vic, just as the front-drive Probe was going to replace the Mustang. None of that happened.

I dont believe the LTD II chassis dates back to the 60s. From what ive read it dated to the 72 torino. I could be wrong though.

But yes, the LTD was the big version, the LTD II a "midsize" (even at 4000lbs and 20 ft long)...according to fords ads it sought "to combine the big LTDs luxury with the mustang II's sporty spirit"

The LTD II, Elite, gran torino, cougar (77-79) T bird (77-79), montego, and possibly the 77-79 Contenitial (not 100% sure on that one though) were all basically the same car. As was the 72-79 Ranchero.

Unfourtantly the fairmont pretty much obsoleted the LTD II as it was much smaller in physical size and offered the same interior space. Which i dont doubt because the LTD II wastes ALOT of space espicially up front...but it makes it easy to work on...hell you can get the bellhousing bolts from under the hood

 

[19Walt93]

I dont believe the LTD II chassis dates back to the 60s. From what ive read it dated to the 72 torino. I could be wrong though.

But yes, the LTD was the big version, the LTD II a "midsize" (even at 4000lbs and 20 ft long)...according to fords ads it sought "to combine the big LTDs luxury with the mustang II's sporty spirit"

The LTD II, Elite, gran torino, cougar (77-79) T bird (77-79), montego, and possibly the 77-79 Contenitial (not 100% sure on that one though) were all basically the same car. As was the 72-79 Ranchero.

Unfourtantly the fairmont pretty much obsoleted the LTD II as it was much smaller in physical size and offered the same interior space. Which i dont doubt because the LTD II wastes ALOT of space espicially up front...but it makes it easy to work on...hell you can get the bellhousing bolts from under the hood

You're right, Torino's through 71were on basically on a stretched Falcon chassis. The 72 Torino got a full frame and felt a lot more solid. I positively hated Torino Elites, they were a bloated, blinged up version of the Torino with a super long hood that used standard Torino springs so the hood wouldn't stay all the way open.
The Fox chassis LTD's(they were not LTD II's) were popular cars. Most that we sold were 3.8 V6's but a few of the 83's were ordered with the underpowered 200 ci Falcon inline six. The 200 made about 120 hp in the late 60's but was strangled down to 85 hp by the 80's. The 84-6 LTD LX's with a 302 and an AOD were sweet cars to drive. Other that the 200 equipped cars, LTD's were trouble free cars.

 

[19Walt93]

Yeah ive always heard the FMX fell smack in between the C4 and C6 for durability.

I figured just about any 351w head would be an upgrade over the 70's smog ones...or am i wrong?

If Ford thought the C6 was more durable than the FMX, the FMX wouldn't have been in cruisers. If a city/town has a bunch of transmission failures in their cruisers, next year they'll have another brand. C4's were durable if they were maintained but people resisted changing the fluid. I rebuilt well over 100 C4's and every one had dark, burnt, stinking fluid with the "tampon" still in the pan. "Tampon" is what we called the plastic plug that filled the dipstick tube hole until the tube was shoved in place on the assembly line. Mechanics have always been classy guys. Low is a class, right?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

If Ford thought the C6 was more durable than the FMX, the FMX wouldn't have been in cruisers. If a city/town has a bunch of transmission failures in their cruisers, next year they'll have another brand. C4's were durable if they were maintained but people resisted changing the fluid. I rebuilt well over 100 C4's and every one had dark, burnt, stinking fluid with the "tampon" still in the pan. "Tampon" is what we called the plastic plug that filled the dipstick tube hole until the tube was shoved in place on the assembly line. Mechanics have always been classy guys. Low is a class, right?

Howcome the C6 got used in the 250/350 trucks then?

Im genuinely curious. I know there were FMX's running around in a few 1/2 tons.

 

[19Walt93]

Howcome the C6 got used in the 250/350 trucks then?

Im genuinely curious. I know there were FMX's running around in a few 1/2 tons.

Because the C6 tolerated heavy loads better, that wasn't needed in a cruiser. A 9 inch would live forever behind a six cylinder but that would be money and weight for nothing, too.

 

[Josh B]

I started with a C-6 in the one ton Econoline van. First gear was so low you could hardly get a couple foot before it hit second.
It went down on the highway near Dallas and went as an exchange on a C-4
Both were good transmissions but the C6 had like a granny gear for first that was really made for pulling

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Because the C6 tolerated heavy loads better, that wasn't needed in a cruiser. A 9 inch would live forever behind a six cylinder but that would be money and weight for nothing, too.

That makes sense....kinda figured that was the case. I was surprised there are still rebuild kits around for the FMX.

I started with a C-6 in the one ton Econoline van. First gear was so low you could hardly get a couple foot before it hit second.
It went down on the highway near Dallas and went as an exchange on a C-4
Both were good transmissions but the C6 had like a granny gear for first that was really made for pulling

I guess ive never paid much attention. Honestly any of these old 3speeds ive owned or driven have shifted so low and butter smooth if you wernt after it i can barely notice a gear change even if im paying attention

 

[Josh B]

That makes sense....kinda figured that was the case. I was surprised there are still rebuild kits around for the FMX.


I guess ive never paid much attention. Honestly any of these old 3speeds ive owned or driven have shifted so low and butter smooth if you wernt after it i can barely notice a gear change even if im paying attention

It was a one-ton cargo van so it was made to move a heavy load.
The C-4 was all I needed for cruising, and 1st and second gears could wind. I had an easy chair behind the drivers seat, beyond that was a full bed with storage all the way around it. I near lived on the road until I just took up flying

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I thought the C6 and C4 used the same gear ratios though...

The C6/C4 both use a 2.46 first. The FMX a 2.40 first...according to a quick google search.

Maybe they are modulated different? I dont know...im not much of a trans guru