commando1
Old Man with a Hat
That is just too weird.
For Sale 1976 Thunderbird........and it is..........
- Thread starter moparnutcase
- Start date
- Status
hanks71440
Well-Known Member
I'm green with envy seeing that interior....yikes
70Tom
Senior Member
For some reason I could see a pimp rolling around in that car. Maybe it's the kelly green.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
I'm surprised that people are surprised. I though everyone had seen this goofy thing on Furd air cleaners.
In terms of cost-save and service-ability, it's a better idea (see what I did there?) but aesthetically I admit it's gross. Just like the obvious juice can they used as a vacuum reservoir... which people rebuild with... juice cans.
Vacuum Reservoir Build - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Vacuum reservoir.... I knew that.
moparnutcase
Senior Member
I thought it was to catch all the oil from the blow-by, it is a Ford.
MarPar
Meat Man with a Hat
They indeed did have vacuum lines everywhere, and so did Chrysler. Say what you will, but Ford's still ran better back in those dismal emission controls days than did the lean burn junk that Chysler pushed out the door. I drove them all as part of my job then. GM made the rest seem like toads - they knew what they were doing. But then, GM helped develop the catalytic converter while Chrysler and Ford didnt' have a clue as to what they could do in those years.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
I'm sure you know the intent of Lean Burn "junk" was to do without the cats GM was using. And it's not as if those early, restrictive and expensive cats were without issues. Rotten Egg smell anyone?
In the end, that LB system was compromised... but it's the same principle we use today, albeit with much faster computers and far more reliable sensors.
Sorry Carmine, I just deeply diagree with you on this one. I was there in the thick of it and saw the disaster coming. But the proponent of Lean Burn at Chrysler was an idealist (Gordon Fenn), and all we had were carburetors with poor quality control to make a lean burn calibration run reasonably well - and of course they stumbled, passed out, surged, got poor gas mileage, had no spark advance, were weak performing and still had a catalyst. California recalled the 1977 318s after they couldn't even successfully pass an emission test without passing out at least 4 times in a controlled ambient of around 70F cold start. They were ruled a safety hazard too. This was two years after the catalyst was introduced, and GM cars ran great by comparison and got way better mileage. Cars today generally do not run lean, either, as the three way catalysts would not control NOx well if they did - they must generally run at stoichiometric fuel air ratios. Lean burn is still a way off and may never make it before the electrics take over some years down the road. You don't have your facts straight.
Last edited:
mr. fix it
Old Man with a Hat
My dad was a Ford / Lincoln guy after giving up on his Mopar wagons
He owned one of these for a few years and it was a turd mobile
Worst Ford ever made my dad would holler
Ford claimed that he didn’t maintain the car and he was the reason why it burned oil and rusted in less than 1 year
It rusted faster than it could go
His Linc’s were great as well as the Marquis he had but the “Thunder-turd” didn’t last in the stable very long
But now it is a collectible
Maybe his should have been painted lemon yellow
He owned one of these for a few years and it was a turd mobile
Worst Ford ever made my dad would holler
Ford claimed that he didn’t maintain the car and he was the reason why it burned oil and rusted in less than 1 year
It rusted faster than it could go
His Linc’s were great as well as the Marquis he had but the “Thunder-turd” didn’t last in the stable very long
But now it is a collectible
Maybe his should have been painted lemon yellow
oliver
Senior Member
I don't dislike the car bit; IMO it's not any worse looking than a MK IV. I'd rather be seen in a 4 Door '76 LTD though.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
Yeah, that's another way of saying intent. And the road to hell might be paved with good ones. I didn't claim it was successful. But it's not indifferent, which is how "the lean burn junk that Chysler pushed out the door" sounds.
And when I said "the same principle we use today", I wasn't speaking of AF ratios less than stoichiometric. I was speaking of looking at sensor outputs to control fuel and spark curves electronically. That was what made LB a new technology. It became "electronic spark control" by 1980 and worked pretty well from then until its final use in 1989 M-bodies.
tbm3fan
Old Man with a Hat
This car isn't worth much of anything. Of all the different Thunderbird generations this sixth generation was the worst selling of the bunch. Believe it or not the seventh generation, 1977-79, sold way better before dropping off the charts for the eight generation of 1980-82. I'm a Ford guy and I wouldn't pay more than $2000 for that car and I maybe generous. This is just one of those rare cars where "rare" doesn't mean good nor collectibel. This car is right around Ford's near collapse in the car market precisely because of these out of step brougham cars.
Oh, and that picture is of the Ford oil breather used from 1971-79. The other is as pointed out a vacuum canister. PCV is on the passenger side valve cover like always back then.
Oh, and that picture is of the Ford oil breather used from 1971-79. The other is as pointed out a vacuum canister. PCV is on the passenger side valve cover like always back then.
Intent doesn't mean much when you knowingly put into production a system that doesn't have the technology to back it up and and yield an unreliable driving vehicle. The 1958 Chrysler 300D used electronic fuel injection for about a month before all being recalled to retrofit them with dual WCFBs that actually worked. But they knew when to recall them rather than keeping them in production for multiple years. With lean burn, they were forced to incorporate electonic timing control because the engines were so weak they didn't have much of any vacuum to control timing, and they were too heavy too. And when the NOx standards dropped in 1977, Gordon's engineers plopped huge EGR valves on the engines to further diminish what performance they had left. A terrible mess that surely contributed to their bankruptcy circa 1980. Electonic spark control was on some 1972 Chrysler models.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
You and I both know that system is nothing more than a transistor-amplified on/off switch. All timing function is mechanical. No sensor inputs. No algorithmic lines of code. Not the same thing.
And I think you're now getting into the relm of exaggeration. There are people on this board still running with LB systems. A friend bought a time-capsule '77 Cordoba with a 400 LB a couple years ago. He insisted I take a turn at the wheel just to see how nice it drove.
It worked better on a drafting board than in the field, agreed. So did variable-venturi Motorcraft carbs, Diesel 350s, CVCC cylinder heads and a host of other mandated tech from the era. No one's hands were clean.
78Brougham
"Chump"
Not to mention the time period. It was computer controlled ignition in its infancy. Most of those systems were butchered by mechanics that never took the time or had the patience to diagnose them properly. It was new and different so therefore it must be feared and rejected.
I was there, and heard a great deal about these LB cars from the field - no one was happy with them. But you can rewrite history if you like. If you have driven a LB 400 that drove great, chances are it was "retuned" by someone with some good sense. If you want to design a car to run well starving for fuel all the time, have at it. It is/was stupid. It wasn't the electronics that failed - they just couldn't respond well enough to keep the car running on a fine lean line. Kind of like trying to make a diesel passenger car pass emissions without cheating or being affordable with all the rube goldberg emissions crap under the car. What a mess.
Say what you want about catalysts, but they have stood the test of time and perform extremely well. Running at stoichiometric. Great driveability, fuel economy and performance, and low emissions. GM had it right from the beginning. Let the engine run like it should and let the emission controls clean up the pollutants.
Say what you want about catalysts, but they have stood the test of time and perform extremely well. Running at stoichiometric. Great driveability, fuel economy and performance, and low emissions. GM had it right from the beginning. Let the engine run like it should and let the emission controls clean up the pollutants.
Last edited:
Thanks, and my mistake... I have to admit, I thought it was a bright idea for a replaceable part... but I also don't think I've worked on a car with one since the 80's.
IDK if it's wrong for me to enjoy watching you guys debate automotive history. But heck, thanks for the read. You guys are two of my favorites and while I always hope the frustration won't turn ugly, the threads can be informative, nostalgic and a good read all at once.
- Status
Similar threads
