Engineering fail!

[Little-Acorn]

I purchased several of the twin to the mustang, the Cougar, for my child and dang if I had any problem changing spark plugs.

Any of them have the 390?

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit

I purchased several of the twin to the mustang, the Cougar, for my child and dang if I had any problem changing spark plugs.

Any of them have the 390?

Ah haa

No, none of hers did. Hers had the smaller block engines.

Her stepfathers cougar I believe did but I never worked on his car.

Funny but last time I worked on a Cougar was probably 1984. When you asked about the 390, a light turned on. Thanks for bringing up that larger block engine.

To be honest here, I can't recall how much larger the 390 is compared to the smaller engine. I was remembering the pretty large space for the engine. or I thought so anyway.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Are you sure? Many front light assemblies are accessed through the inner wheel fenders. Jack the car up, remove the wheels, and use a upholstery fork to remove the plastic retainers.

Replace every bub in the car at the same time. While you're at the store buy replacement plastic retainers.

Yeah, on the '04 Concorde you have to remove the headlamp housing assembly, to get to the back where you then could just remove the bulb from the back of the housing... not enough clearance to remove the buld without pulling the housing first.

http://www.justanswer.com/chrysler/4...-chrysler.html

[glockmail]

Ah haa

No, none of hers did. Hers had the smaller block engines.

Her stepfathers cougar I believe did but I never worked on his car.

Funny but last time I worked on a Cougar was probably 1984. When you asked about the 390, a light turned on. Thanks for bringing up that larger block engine.

To be honest here, I can't recall how much larger the 390 is compared to the smaller engine. I was remembering the pretty large space for the engine. or I thought so anyway.

The 390 is the "FE" engine, developed in the late 50's and considered by Ford to be a "medium block" back in the day. It's a lot larger and heavier than the small block that was developed later.

The base casting for the FE is 352 cubic inches, bored and stroked by the factory up to 428. The largest small block displaced 351.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit

Ah haa

No, none of hers did. Hers had the smaller block engines.

Her stepfathers cougar I believe did but I never worked on his car.

Funny but last time I worked on a Cougar was probably 1984. When you asked about the 390, a light turned on. Thanks for bringing up that larger block engine.

To be honest here, I can't recall how much larger the 390 is compared to the smaller engine. I was remembering the pretty large space for the engine. or I thought so anyway.

The 390 is the "FE" engine, developed in the late 50's and considered by Ford to be a "medium block" back in the day. It's a lot larger and heavier than the small block that was developed later.

The base casting for the FE is 352 cubic inches, bored and stroked by the factory up to 428. The largest small block displaced 351.

Thanks for clearing that up. Her block was the same block as the 351 but had less displacement. I really did not want to buy her cars to use for high speeds.

This topic is one I had thought I forgot about.

Back when she had the cars, it had to be almost 30 years ago. Her mom was a fan of the Cougar and I paid cash for hers. When my daughter got into her teen years, she wanted one also. Plus her step dad drove one too.

[glockmail]

Her block was the same block as the 351 but had less displacement.

'67 or older would have been the 289; later years the 302 which was an identical casting, the same stroke and slightly larger bore. The 351 derived from that had the same bore and 1/2" longer stroke, achieved by a taller deck height. It resulted in an engine about 1.5" wider. Built in Windsor Canada, it became the 351W.

Mid '70's Ford went to a newer engine of the same displacement and built it in Cleveland- the 351C. It was relatively short-lived, probably because of the oil embargo. The 302 lived on until the late 90's as the 5.0 (liters).

The 5.0 Coyote that Ford built for the 2011 Mustang is nothing at all like the old small block 5.0. It's a completely modern engine using double overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. It also looks like a piece of art:

m5lp_1003_74_o+50_coyote_engine+coyote.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

'67 or older would have been the 289; later years the 302 which was an identical casting, the same stroke and slightly larger bore. The 351 derived from that had the same bore and 1/2" longer stroke, achieved by a taller deck height. It resulted in an engine about 1.5" wider. Built in Windsor Canada, it became the 351W.

Mid '70's Ford went to a newer engine of the same displacement and built it in Cleveland- the 351C. It was relatively short-lived, probably because of the oil embargo. The 302 lived on until the late 90's as the 5.0 (liters).

The 5.0 Coyote that Ford built for the 2011 Mustang is nothing at all like the old small block 5.0. It's a completely modern engine using double overhead cams and four valves per cylinder. It also looks like a piece of art:

m5lp_1003_74_o+50_coyote_engine+coyote.jpg

Thanks again. You are correct that her engine was the 289. I recall she was hoping to get the Cleveland engine. This really is almost ancient history for me. I believe her engine had the 2 barrel and the Cleveland had a 4 barrel Carburetor. My car has the double overhead cams and with the 4 valve set up too and has plenty of power and it is not as large in displacement as hers was.

My engine

north star engine.jpg

[glockmail]

Thanks again. You are correct that her engine was the 289. I recall she was hoping to get the Cleveland engine. This really is almost ancient history for me. I believe her engine had the 2 barrel and the Cleveland had a 4 barrel Carburetor. My car has the double overhead cams and with the 4 valve set up too and has plenty of power and it is not as large in displacement as hers was.

My engine

north star engine.jpg

All of the small block engines were available in high performance 4V (V= venturi, in other words 4 barrel carburetors) versions.

Never been a GM fan. My Dad had a '75 Cadillac Coupe De-ville. In the height of the Carter years the only engine available was the 500 cubic inch big block. What dummies those GM execs were, and still are. He was lucky to get 8 or 9 mpg while I was humming along averaging 17 in my '72 full sized Ford.

About ten years ago my wife's company gave her a new Chevy Trailblazer. It drove and rode exactly like my old man's Caddy. It also sucked gas like an elephant drinks water. Glad to get rid of it.

I've had Fords forever, and enjoyed much better fuel economy and a tighter, more responsive ride. My last one was an Expedition with IRS and rear air suspension. Except for the fuel economy similar to my '72 it was a great vehicle. At the time I needed a large vehicle but now I don't. The new Explorer is a FWD platform; nothing more than a glorified minivan and I won't have a FWD vehicle in my garage.

My current daily driver is a '12 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the Overland package. It's built on a Mercedes chassis, 51-49 weight distribution with fully independent air suspension and ride-height selectable from a dial in the cabin. It has the new Pentastar 3.6L V6, which is all aluminum, DOHC, twin variable valve timing, 290 HP and tuned to a flat torque band between 1400-6200 rpm. It's a sweet ride, and is by far a much better vehicle than any Ford or GM vehicle out there. And it was a lot less expensive.

[Voted4Reagan]

[Robert A Whit]

if that is yours, congratulations. Heck of a nice job. Looks good enough for car shows.

[Robert A Whit]

All of the small block engines were available in high performance 4V (V= venturi, in other words 4 barrel carburetors) versions.

Never been a GM fan. My Dad had a '75 Cadillac Coupe De-ville. In the height of the Carter years the only engine available was the 500 cubic inch big block. What dummies those GM execs were, and still are. He was lucky to get 8 or 9 mpg while I was humming along averaging 17 in my '72 full sized Ford.

About ten years ago my wife's company gave her a new Chevy Trailblazer. It drove and rode exactly like my old man's Caddy. It also sucked gas like an elephant drinks water. Glad to get rid of it.

I've had Fords forever, and enjoyed much better fuel economy and a tighter, more responsive ride. My last one was an Expedition with IRS and rear air suspension. Except for the fuel economy similar to my '72 it was a great vehicle. At the time I needed a large vehicle but now I don't. The new Explorer is a FWD platform; nothing more than a glorified minivan and I won't have a FWD vehicle in my garage.

My current daily driver is a '12 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the Overland package. It's built on a Mercedes chassis, 51-49 weight distribution with fully independent air suspension and ride-height selectable from a dial in the cabin. It has the new Pentastar 3.6L V6, which is all aluminum, DOHC, twin variable valve timing, 290 HP and tuned to a flat torque band between 1400-6200 rpm. It's a sweet ride, and is by far a much better vehicle than any Ford or GM vehicle out there. And it was a lot less expensive.

My northstar has got as much as 30 mpg. As heavy as it is, I consider that very good. I have owned both Fords and GM. This car is the best of all of them. I admit to never trying the Jeep. If I decide to get another new car, I shall plan to check them out given your high marks, Mine has computer controlled suspension but no air ride. I really want to try out the air ride. You have plenty of power too. I am guessing but it sounds like your cams are variable timing. To get a flat torque that makes sense to me.

[glockmail]

Sweet.

[glockmail]

My northstar has got as much as 30 mpg. As heavy as it is, I consider that very good. I have owned both Fords and GM. This car is the best of all of them. I admit to never trying the Jeep. If I decide to get another new car, I shall plan to check them out given your high marks, Mine has computer controlled suspension but no air ride. I really want to try out the air ride. You have plenty of power too. I am guessing but it sounds like your cams are variable timing. To get a flat torque that makes sense to me.

Yeah, "twin variable valve timing" means that the cam timing is variable. The Pentastar idles at 500 rpm in gear, near silently.

ChyCo uses a variant of my Jeep chassis in the 300/ Charger, as well as the Challenger. The Pentastar is available in each, tuned a bit differently to take advantage of the lighter vehicles.

Ford no longer makes a RWD car. Their large car is now based on a variant of a Volvo FWD chassis. My dad has owned a succession of Lincoln Town Car for years, and I've convinced him to look at the Chrysler 300 for his next. It would be the car that I'd have if I didn't need the cargo capacity of the Jeep.

[taft2012]

I noticed my dad's car, an '04 Chrysler Concorde, had a headlamp out. Being the good son I am I volunteered to swap it out for him. Little did I realize that the HID lamp assembly fits in there so perfectly. How perfectly you ask...it requires the removal of the front bumper cover to remove the whole assembly in order to access the bulb. With that type of engineering I should be thankful it doesn't have square wheels.

For future reference,you might want to check YouTube for videos on such DIY projects. I found this which would have been of assistance I'm sure.



Yet even so, I agree. An unnecessary nuisance to change a headlamp.

[logroller]

For future reference,you might want to check YouTube for videos on such DIY projects. I found this which would have been of assistance I'm sure.



Yet even so, I agree. An unnecessary nuisance to change a headlamp.

I did watch that video, among others, but the prevailing truth on DIY videos is they don't show the entirety of the process that often (read:always) includes challenges. Its like watching a thirty minute episode of this old house and thinking you can restore a Victorian home.