Calif Emissions

CZLN6

2K+
VIP
Howdy All:

I'm looking at a couple of 80s Mustangs with 3.3s from California. Can anyone tell me the differences between a Calif 200 in a 1981 Mustang and similar car from the other states? I know California was doing engine smog certifications to maintain registration for road use, and I know there were differences in the 70s. My search pertains to internals, such as CR as well as add ons such as EGR pumps, catalytic converters and gear ratios.

For example, were the fast burn catalytic exhaust manifolds required on all calif/em 200s?

I know that many of the anti-smog devices of that period were used in all states, but curious if California required something more. Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks, in advance.

David
 
CZLN6":ysurglmq said:
Howdy All:

I'm looking at a couple of 80s Mustangs with 3.3s from California. Can anyone tell me the differences between a Calif 200 in a 1981 Mustang and similar car from the other states? I know California was doing engine smog certifications to maintain registration for road use, and I know there were differences in the 70s. My search pertains to internals, such as CR as well as add ons such as EGR pumps, catalytic converters and gear ratios.

For example, were the fast burn catalytic exhaust manifolds required on all calif/em 200s?

I know that many of the anti-smog devices of that period were used in all states, but curious if California required something more. Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks, in advance.

David


1. Yes, CA required more emimision than the rest of the USA. This ment some stick shift options weren't around for Hi Alt areas like CO as well.

Specifically,

My mom bought me the book
51ydmbZgDuL._SX384_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Ford 1903 to 1984 (By The Auto Editors Of Consumer Guide)
David L. Lewis (Author), Mike McCarville (Author), Lorin Sorensen (Author)
ISBN-13: 978-0517414439
ISBN-10: 0517414430

For all the drive train options, see 1978 to 1983 sections. It has very few mistakes, its a Great Book.


CA 1980-1982 B and 1983 X codes all had Secondary AIR lines to the exhaust and the specific VECI details shows what that is in a schematic manner.

Everywhere else, the air tube was a simple EGR line. Same detail applies to the C code 250 engine for 1980 in Monarchs, Granadas. You could have a 250 C code or 255 D code in CA that year. The CA emissions 250 got the secondary air tube.

For Cali, secondary air tubes

With

1981FordMustang200cylinderhead.jpg


80sCATEXH200cid_zps248e8fe6.jpg


IMG_6818.jpg


Without.

1981200exhaust01_original.jpg



2. All 3.3 and 4.1 1980 cars got primary light off and secondary oxidation converter.

All 1980 to 1983 3.3's got primary and secondary cats. The 1978-1979 3.3 T code Foxes, and X shell 4.1 L codes codes got just one.


To confirm, the kinds are listed in the EO replacements for CATCO converters


3. Auto Transmissions. The grey and Blue low and high mount stuff has been discussed formerly. The BV code C3 was the common basic auto box from 1979 to 1983. The C4 was a regional thing, possibly by DSO.

Low mount blocks were all C5's.

Its likely that the 1980 3.3 auto XR7's and T birds were C3 or C4 autos, but some EO BB blocks were cast for low mount transmissions.


There was no C5 untill 1982 to fit to a low mount EOBB block

4. The 1980-1982 B code engines for 1981 model year had the option of a manual wide ratio 2.47 axled BW T4. I think based on what I;ve read, this was withdrawn from CA after 1982; all X code 1983 Foxes were automatic.

5. Ford did some seriously smart gearbox ratio changes for the 1981 model year.

All I6's had one set of ratios, the V8's another

/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=2491

RogueS":ysurglmq said:
i just acquired an srod tranny

the codes are
RUG EM DC17
E2ZRAA 2914

i am guessing that this is an 82 tranny from the E2 part
anyone have any idea what the gear ratios are, i see the list of
Ratio #1: 3.29 1st, 1.84 2nd, 1.00 3rd, 0.81 4th, and 3.29 Rev.
Ratio #2: 3.07 1st, 1.72 2nd, 1.00 3rd, 0.70 4th, and 3.07 Rev.

Do all of the years from 79-82 have the same set of those two ratios or what? and if so, how do i determain which ones i have?

Also, how the heck do i get this thing into reverse, i'm only finding 4 gears, i read about this lockout lever or something, but there isn't one on the one i have




The 3.08 axle SROD's had 3.29 1st, 1.84 2nd, 1.00 3rd, 0.81 4th, and 3.29 Rev

Last year was partway thru 1981; the T4 replaced it with exactly the same overall ratios, but a 25% steeper axle ratio. The ratios were lowered (rasied numerically) to compensate.

2.47 axle ratio BW T4's had 4.03 1 st, 2.37 2nd 1.50 3rd, 1.00 4th and 3.76 Rev. Other AMC and S10 Chevy T4's were different. Based on this, I strongly suspect Ford was able to add the new gearbox without having to recertify it for 1981 emissions as it has the same gear ratios in the FMV Test 75 emmissions and MPG City and Highway cycle.


6. There were no ways Ford could change the compression ratios as they ran the same 22 thou D8 steel head gasket all the way through, and no chamber cc changes. The SAE and NHRA websites, and the B code service pdf on the net show no changes.



The listed bhp, lb-ft and compression ratios on the net are based on the SAE Net J1349 rating details in Fords documents, but they all vary. Most is due to the fan clutch engagement figure, which is a few hp. The rest is due to the Secondary AIR, and the wheelbase of the car its fitted to.


Details:- Compression ratio 8.4 in B code PDF
8.5 to 8.6 eleware

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... hop-manual

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... comparison
Colorado 1981 vs CA 1982. Both B code engines. No 1982 Manual option for CA 1982 Capris or Mustangs, but yes for other Foxes (Zephyr's and Fairmonts.

Figures vary from 91, 92 or 94 hp for 1981, to 87 hp for 1982.

xctasy":ysurglmq said:
Go for the one with 8% more power, the Co 81 with 94 factory horsepower. 7 hp more. You also have the option of putting a T5 on it without any issues.


NB// I think NHRA association publishes SAE data for the cam by inclusion, along with head(s), block, conrod and crank castings details. Found acess to it on FordSix many years ago.

There is a standard 1981 and 1982 Factory manual, covers those engines.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1088245-300ci-engine-specs.html is a picture of the F150 4.9 details.

Terrymwalsh (Capri1981 from FordSix) and Stormin' Norman

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthr...-3L-engine-specs-from-the-factory-shop-manual



The 1981 Ford 3.3 is rated at 94 hp, and the 1982, 87 hp. But the 9.73:1 compression isn't.

http://www.nhra.com/competition/classification.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

The casting data is all wrong, but lift is 370thou for both cams, intake and exhaust, both years.

http://www.nhra.com/competition/blueprints.aspx



Despite the extra smog equipment, the 1980 to 1983 cars were up to 9.5 extra in horsepower and 6 lb-ft extra in torque over the 1978 to 1979 T codes.

The B and X code header is 4-1/4", but not fully into the exhaust header pipe; its annular area is just cousioned boundary layer, so its very efficent.
There is a rather mistake ridden report here. Based on quotes, there could be 12.5 hp and 7 lb-ft extra if anyone is silly enough not to crosscheck the 4speed SROD Mercury Capri 3.3 RS Hatch article on page 64 to 66 in Motor Trend March 1981.

MotorTrendMarch1981.jpg


I'm sure it did a 19.08 second quarter mile at 71 mph and a 90 mph top speed.

I had my 1981 Hatch to 95 mph with ease. On that car with a 0.46 drag factor, 20.8 sq ft frontal area, and 190 section tires, that acceleration rate and terminal trap speed speed requires 87 hp at least to move a 2640 pound car with two testers and a full tank of gas, and only 67 hp to make 90 mph, and 78 to make 95 mph and just 90 flywheel hp to make 100 mph.

Feed in 3055 pounds and 87hp into the http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php program.

is 19.07 seconds and MPH of 70.86 MPH.


If we accept that the 97.5 hp at 4000 and 161 lb-ft 1400 rpm is Jim MacQueen's eye sight error while perhaps proof reading under a Helmick Covered Bridge ,

( along with the Holley VV 2-bbl carb -it was a Holley 1-bbl 1946C
and a Ford mistake, the 2.49 final drive ratio -it was a 3.08:1 axle with 0.81 overdrive 4th on the last SROD's before the T4 got subbed in later in 1981 with the 2.47 axle)

in this March 1981 Motor Trend article

http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Literatu ... 1981_2.jpg

then the real Detalis were ex SAE and from http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... comparison

Info depends on where you look. The Mustang site mustangattitude.com for T and B codes.

Has 87HP for 1982 http://mustangattitude.com/cgi-bin/...show=All&view=engine&optn=B-code&comm=&page=1

, and 94 hp for 1981

http://mustangattitude.com/mustang/engine_allhp.shtml


http://www.foxtbirdcougarforums.com/showthread.php?32233-Ford-Fox-Engine-Reference-Guide

The engine code is the 5th digit of the VIN on pre-81 models
The engine code is the 8th digit of the VIN on 81-up models

1979-79 Mustang
200 CI (3.3L) 1bbl I6
Vin code: T
compression: 8.5:1
horsepower: 85hp @ 3600rpm
torque: 154 lbs-ft @ 1600rpm
Availability: 1978-79

1980-88 Cougar
200 CI (3.3L) 1bbl I6
Vin code: B, T
compression: 8.6:1
horsepower: 91hp @ 3800rpm
torque: 160 lbs-ft @ 1600rpm
Availability: 1980-82

1981-82 Granada
200 CI (3.3L) 1bbl I6
Vin code: B, T
compression: 8.5:1
horsepower: 88hp @ 3800rpm
torque: 154 lbs-ft @ 1400rpm
Availability: 1981-82

1983-86 LTD
200 CI (3.3L) 1bbl I6
Vin code: X
compression: 8.5:1
horsepower: 92hp @ 3800rpm
torque: 156 lbs-ft @ 1400rpm
Availability: 1983

1983-86 Marquis
200 CI (3.3L) 1bbl I6
Vin code: X
compression: 8.5:1
horsepower: 92hp @ 3800rpm
torque: 156 lbs-ft @ 1400rpm
Availability: 1983


94.5 hp was the rated amount for a 1980 B-code manual, but it varied from 87 to 94.5 nominal 1980 thru to 1983, with any number of ratings between 87 and 94.5.

Torque was the same or up to 6 lb-ft more, at less rpm, depending on year.

In addition, Ford at some stage had to detox the engine for manual gearboxes, while some areas didn't have that option. Even when Ford retarded and played with the camshaft, the result was still more power and more torque with this exhaust in an era where there was now a mandatory air pump, and secondary AIR in CA models. The 1980 B code model had 9.5 hp extra over the 1979. Then it varied according to other changes in 1981, 1982, and 1983, but always more than 85 hp by 3 to 7 hospower. Rated torque was often up despite the variances.
 
First thing is first.


1. The Emmisions Calibration placard is avaliable from Four Eyed Pride (FEP), and, by exception report, you can find out what changed for gearbox, state and the B and X VIN codes engines. The right question just needs to be asked, and wammo!, you've got FoxChassis on the case.

The low mounts had placards like CJ 232 AB for 1982 CA emissions, the high mounts, IJ 204 AA for my 1981 CA emmsssions.

C and I govern the engine sub catagory type, the next were engine class and whatever engineering revision.

Right now, the info is there with Marti and FoxChassis. FC actually has a lotmore info because he can just ask, and a Four Eyed Pride membership will check, and return the info, whereas the Mercury records have been trashed, and the Marti reports are Ford based reports, and Ford decides to restrict certain detail on what info goes out. Real world info often beats the shoulda, woulda, coulda of the Corporate Engineering Editcts.


2. Past Precendent on vehicle emmissions. The CA and Hi Alt areas in the 78 to 79 3.3 liter T codes deleted the 3 speed column or four speed floorshift gearbox option, and replaced it with the C3 or C4 to meet the FMV emissions standards. If the car got an air pump, it was related to the addition of a manual transmission, which are dirtier than automatics due to lift off unburnt fuel emmissions during down changes.

3. After 78-79, air pumps were manadatory everywhere, and it was the mandatory secondary AIR that allowed the manual gearbox cars to pass emissions in CA and Hi Alt areas to CO. The difficulty in getting gearboxes probably governed the removal of the T4 for the 1982 Mustang and Capri 3.3. Apparently, the 4 speed floorshift option wasnt there for the 105.5" wheelbase Foxes for 1982, nor did the first of the X code 3.3 1983 LTD's and the last 3.3 1983 Fairmont/Zephyr have it.

4. Checking the CAFE fuel consumption figures for each year confirms what axle and transmission and emissions packages there were, which gives clues as to what combinations were actually avaliable.

5. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Law, each axle combo had to have a CAFE and emission cycle certification. The Fox I-6 B and X code ratios of 3.08, 2.73, 2.47 weren't able to get a limited slip differential before 1981, and so the axle size could be 6.7 or 7.5", and the trans codes are very specfic for 80, 81, 82 and 83.

So a clue is for an alternative optional MPG figures showing another ratio or emmissions requirement.

The 1981 and 1982 and 1983 CAFE City and Highway MPG figures tell you what changes existed in all 50 States.

http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1981/Ford/Mustang
http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1982/Ford/Mustang
http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1982/Ford/Fairmont
http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1983/Ford/Fairmont
http://www.aboutautomobile.com/Fuel/1983/Ford/LTD



super4ord":d36ticnr said:
I just bought a Bright Bittersweet Orange 1980 Mustang coupe from a man in Irving Texas about 3 weeks ago. I drove it 194 miles back home to Oklahoma City. I really enjoy driving it!

It has the 200 6 cyl with the catalytic exhaust manifold, and the secondary lines to the manifold.
A previous owner removed the smog pump, but I think everything else is there.

It has the SROD 4 speed and 3.08 rear gears. It does have a catalytic converter under the car too before the muffler.

It has power assisted disc brakes, power steering & air conditioning. AC was nice on the trip back! The car has 20K miles on the odometer. I'm sure it must be 120K.

This is way too light of a car to need power steering. I oversteer the daylights out of it. I just changed to a smaller diameter aftermarket steering wheel. This has helped. More to come later

Darrell

I've driven and worked on nearly all Ford's 70's to 00's power steered cars from all over the world. The Australian Ford Fairmont GXL and Ghia, the European Ford Granada 2.8 Injection, the Ford Cortina 2.3 Ghia, the Australian Ford Cortina 4.1 Ghia were just the same; Ford decided on 4 pounds of rim pull stationary, and didn't much care if that dropped at 65 mph.


Jaguar did exactly the same thing with the V12 XK-E (E type), XJ-6 and XJ-S with Adwest power steering. It takes three out of theses six things to get artificial feel.

1. Front of the IFS steering gears create great stability, rather than rear mounted steering gear, which reduces understeer, and make cars fidigity.
2. Bishops variable ratio with increased sharpness as the steering wheel is turned
3. Rack and Pinion steering need Quality Assurance engineering normal distribution values less than one standard deviation away from the mean percentile of the SPR characteristics, and ex Rocket Scientist/ Ford systems engineer Chuck Misler from K house described the interplay between the torsion bar and sleaves and steering gear as " the most complicated feedback system around ".
4. Ackerman must suit the chassis wheelbase and track.
5. Castor built in to improve stablity
6. Engine or vehicle Speed sensitive power steering (over width tires can help dial it up for effort too)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eudfJPHf7DE

The early Fox had the first two pefectly arrayed, the last 4 were very wrong from 79 to 85, and corrected in stages.

1986 (First of three SPR and ratio and pump capacity changes, with the final in the 15 thou thicker torsion bar 2001 Cobra steering),
1987 (Ackerman and Castor)
and 1996 (dedicated Motorcraft C-III pump/Hydroboost split)

It had an appaling lack of castor, the wrong Ackerman on the 5" shorter narrow track 79-86 Mustang Fox, and the early Ford or TRW racks didn't have assured machining, so most of them were super senstive, as well as overtly light.


I spent one night listeing to a braodcast by Chuck Misler from K house, who noted how dand COMPLICATED the torsion bar feedback algorithim is (he called it a Nimmitz diagram or something) and then realised I could only do the track rods, caster, roller top, up size the tire size from 185's to 235 or 245's and nolathane the idler, track and new pitman arm on my power steered Falcon. Doing that, my steering guy was so delighted, he said "its very solid on the road, not like any normal XE Falcon powered steering car".

He then got my 1983 Cortina, and was amazed that I brought along a spare powered rack, rare as rocking horse sh!+, and my gear bearing housing was CNC machined from aluminum stock and sleaved with stainless steel. I asked him to "do the same with my TF Cortina as you did with my XE Falcon..dial up the castor and make it heavy on the road".

He said he couldn't because he couldn't change
the caster,
the camber,
the torsion bar size, or
the Ackerman,

and why the heck did it have a 1976 IFS cradle instead of the correct 1982 one?

So some Fords are REALLY hard to heavy up in the steering department.


My 1981 Mustang 3.3 was the same as the 1980 Mark II European Granada and 1982 TF Cortina Ghia V6.

I knew exactly why its was that way, its those 4 missing things above, so I spent from 2010 to 2015 just enjoying it, and learning to drive it with a delicate hand, like you'd drive a power steered V12 XK-E. The 200/60 hr 390's I put on it helped a little, the two realigments not at all, the new shocks and dropped tire pressures didn't help a bit.

Once you've driven a modified to H-E-A-V-Y weight power steering car with heaps of castor, race car style camber-in, and 235 section tires, you just make allowances when you get stuck with a ultra light rack and pinion power steering car. The 81 Fox Mustang I6, even at 95 mph, and on NZ roads, it was just magnificant, and you do "just get used to it". Its like going from a Ferrari Daytona to a power steered Chevette in some ways.


You won't understand it, but its the huge amount of impact harshness which so spoils the European Granada and Cortina, and all X shell Mustangs and Falcons. Even the 1980 US market X body Granada has some impact harshness, and its got ultra compliant controlled wheel recession tie rod ends. Bridge filler joints, cement exapansion cracks, kerbs, and gravel roads exhibited none of the choppiness you'd find in those..it is totally absent in the Fox. Enjoy it!

A/C is the one reason I wouldn't dispense with the factory iron exhaust header.

The only other way to keep it with headers is the low mount dealer Sanden like on Eric the Car Guys Fairmont 3.3

Low_Mount_Dealer_I6_AC_Unit.jpg
 
Howdy All:

Thanks to all. I do appreciate it all. It will take some digesting. It is still hard to separate factual cause and effect from FoMoCo advertising hype. But it's a place to start.

Another puzzle is the difference in strut mounting between early and late Foxes. Any info there? Early struts are apparently fairly scarce.

And, the owner is advertising the car as a 1981 GL. I can't find a GL model until 1982 model year? What am I missing?

Thanks again.

Adios, David
 
CZLN6":z5tx54co said:
Howdy All:

Thanks to all. I do appreciate it all. It will take some digesting. It is still hard to separate factual cause and effect from FoMoCo advertising hype. But it's a place to start.

Another puzzle is the difference in strut mounting between early and late Foxes. Any info there? Early struts are apparently fairly scarce.

And, the owner is advertising the car as a 1981 GL. I can't find a GL model until 1982 model year? What am I missing?

Thanks again.

Adios, David


1. Yep, thats why we follow the rules first, then see what actually happened second.

Some think I jump to conclusions, but I do so because I've spent all my life with mechnaics, engineers and some of the best racers around, and from there information, I see the exceptions right off, and they are what prove the rules.

Being an SAE member is all the help you need.

The way you are doing it is the Right Way.

2. on that other forum....I do recall Fox struts changed, in WHEELS, TIRES, BRAKES & SUSPENSION

Jack Hidley, JA Cook and wraithracing (Trey) have covered the changes.


3. The trim levels have been a constant problem, my car was supposed to be a 1983 GL Notch/Coupe, but it was a 1981 Mustang L.

People call white speckled sheep whatever they like. What it is?


Probably an L, like mine. The trim levels, FoxChassis has already written about.

He has collected info as well as personally paid for research, which he is quite prepared to continue if requested. Some of it he knows right away, others, cost a Marti report, or some other scheme. Because of your status in the in line comunity,and your desire to do only the right kind of research, I'm sure he'll help out.

Feel free to post this link and PM him, or start a thread.
 
need some info, give some info, share it round.
I like that!
nice site!
 
chad":n4i66vi7 said:
need some info, give some info, share it round.
I like that!
nice site!

lol, what people don't realise is that WHAT IS SAID it has to be found to be from an Authorized Source. Just sayin it aint nothin, its got to be proven.


My proofs are the SAE, and literature searches. I read and feed. I have sources which I always included if I can. But, to quote REM's King of the Birds, I do stand on the shoulders of giants, and for some people that leaves 'em cold.

Issac Newton. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants....


Fox Suspension Struts...you'll like this

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ifications

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ifferences

Replacement later struts have a bolt spacing change as well. The holes are further apart on '87+ spindles.
The upper strut mount bolt spacing changed in 1990 ,you have to elongate the top hole on each strut to make them fit.

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... -strut-out

The drillings changed at various times, and the widht of the K member after 1989.

So some parts don't work together without work.

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... mont-build

Mike1157;1695747 said:
If you want to put anything wider than a 17 x 7 up front, You are going to push the tire out farther than you want it to go by using the late model K member. The front LCA's are significantly longer than stock Fairmont fender will accommodate.
I have the stock 78 K member, w/ a 17 x 8 up front and by the time it was lowered to where I wanted it to ride at, getting the front end/tires back to alignment spec required a set of CC plates. Those plates barely have any adjustment left.
The reason I say 17 x 7 instead of 17 x 8's is that you are going to lose an additional .750 clearance by using the 90 Mustang front end/LCA. It is that much longer than the stock Fairmont arm.




Mike1157;1695748 said:
Dug these up from when I first attempted fitment on a set of 17 x 9's
fronttireclearance_zpsf55675da.jpg


Looks Ok until you attempt to steer it.

fronttireclearance2_zps340191f3.jpg


This is with stock LCA's and 94 spindles. I ended up getting everything to work w/ 17 x 8's
 
"17s R da new 15s."

OK, so,
we got the early 60s thru late 70s emissions systems pretty well documented.

Still havin trouble (leastways ME) wid bout 6, 8 yrs - the last of da 70s thru the early TB systems...

All those weird, colored, tiny, fragile, plastic vac lines; stuff all over the carb ! A/c units wid doors, canisters, hoses & lines -
No idea what wuz goin on in Cali.
 
Fords EVTM (the Electrical and Vacuum Troubleshooting Manual ) is an example of how North Americans are interested in respecting the people who actually service there rides. Its 150% helpfull.

Fords VECI (the Vehicle Emission Control Information Label) is an example of the Japanese style "no one gives a crap" attitude, which is sort of like how the the Japanese operate on everything else, probably due to the one person ruling over 60 people systems. (This is not specifically anti Japanse sentiment, but its an example of how difficult the Automobile becomes, when no one has a list of where everything goes and what its called). A VECI alludes to about 85 systems of evaporative and four gas pollution reduction, but it doesn't tell you enough unless yu are a trained Ford technican for those years of vehicles.

That 1978 to , I think, 1986 emissions Ford crap isn't well dealt with. It was due to the six generations of integrated Fuel and Igntion System change from 1977 to 1987.


In a V8 setting...

Ford did things in a full systems approach to avoid problems. When making an automobile, you have complete freedom to customise the emissions vac (VECI decel alludes to this}, fuel and electrical systems changes.

It is the Ford Motor companies Priveledge to conceal thses matters, not to be a big brother, but to just eliminate problems when a Trained Ford Service Technician spanners your car.

Ford does all that since when it leaves the factory, or gets dealer service, nothing is screwed over. Its like a Rubics Cube or a pre cut key barrel. None of us really know exactly what the part differences are, so you are going to do minimum changes to get the system managable.

Note the six epic systems changes just on V8's;-

For 77 to 95, FoMoCo had
1. a 2-bbl 2150 Carb,
2, 2-bbl 2700 or 7200 Variable Venturi,
3. MAP Speed Density CFI,
4. 4-BBL,MAP Speed Density Port EFI, and then
5. MAF Port EFI game plan.


The Electronic engine controls moved in six versions...


1. absolutley no Assembly Line Diagnostic Link ALDL conection, and no MCU, EECII, EEC III, or EECIV Electronic Control Unit. All non Hi Alt AND non CA 4.2 D codes, nearly all 5.0 Carb 2150 F codes, and certanily, every 83-85 50 states M code 5.0s

2. An MCU fuel only or Fuel and Idle system for 2-BBL Variable Venturi carbs; On 77-79's, called EECII

3. An EECIII Fuel and Igntion and B-MAP Speed Density CFI, which used straight Apollo Vac Signal Data Link Code dplication, and pre XT Motorola Electronic Control Unit. It remains the most advanced set up ever, a very good one, but complicated to truble shoot. The Duraspark III is quite possibly the smartest igntion system for its time, bat sh!+ crazy, but so reliable, you can unhook some of the computer links, and it'll still run.

4. An updated EECIV Fuel and Igntion and MAP Speed Density CFI, which used TFI


5, the Hybrridized Bosch LE II and D Jetronic system, which is the port EECIV system, first in MAP form.

6. Then in MAF form.


Not being anti FoMoCo, but I reckon Chevrolet got it all sorted with the first 1984 CrossFire Corvette visually enhanced engine. America was proud again, not worried about the cost of doing things right. They used bought in Aussie PBR/Girlock brakes, and trashed the cars in the outback. They had electric overdrive gearboxes, and a focus on electronics to reduce service. Ford did the same thing with the Port EFI cars, and the whole emmissons VECI stuff got to be a lot more fun, although the 86 to 93 Fords are really notorious for needing wire traces as the stuff ages.


For me, my 81 Mustang towered over anything the Aussies and Kiwis screwed together. It started first pop always when cold or hot. It was smooth and quiet, and its engine systems were 100% sorted. Ford really made the 1980 to 1983 small sixes 100% vacuum and electric, with no electronics bar the Duraspark II.

To everyone, an 80 to 83 3.3 six lookes like a MCU or EECIV feedback engine like the 4.9 Big Six, and it just scares people, but it wasn't at all like the feedback engines.

I really do like all the Carter YFA 1-bbl carbed 2.3's, 4.1's and 4.9's,
the Holley 1946 1-bbl 3.3's,
Carter Weber 2-bbl 5740 1.6 Escorts,
the Holley Weber 5200/6520 2-bbl 2.3's.
the totally oddball cut down small six 1-bbl Holley 6153 and CFI HSC 2.3'S and EFI HSO 2.5'S

I like EEC, MCU, CFI, TFI, EFI,

All of them had some real, good honest to G""d hard work put into them.


And for the V8's and V6's too.


Best ever documents were Ak Millars Impco Techncal Service bulletins from when I worked at the Power Board doing LP Gas conversions and servicing. They explained the 1978 to 1985 US Ford engines in great, but concise, detail.


That's what's needed when you look over those things today,

an understanding of the basics,
where to go to get the pictures.

Fords VECI and Autozones on line Ford Six data is very poorly gathered together stuff which is really hard to summarise. They've done a good job, but I think they need a "Ford Fox X, and S shell Six handbook" to cover the 78 to 83 3.3 and 78 to 80 4.1's...they are just so hard to fathom!


Dennis and David, you guys rock, and I can see why the 80 to 83's were such a tough nut to expain within the rules. Full explaination of those emissions era Fords would have increased the Handbook to a whole Encyclopedia.
 
“…Ford really made the 1980 to 1983 small sixes 100% vacuum and electric, with no electronics bar the Duraspark II.

To everyone, an 80 to 83 3.3 six lookes like a MCU or EECIV feedback engine like the 4.9 Big Six, and it just scares people, but it wasn't at all like the feedback engines.

I really do like all the Carter YFA 1-bbl carbed 2.3's, 4.1's and 4.9's,
the Holley 1946 1-bbl 3.3's,
Carter Weber 2-bbl 5740 1.6 Escorts,
the Holley Weber 5200/6520 2-bbl 2.3's.
(left out/omitted : Holley 6153 and CFI HSC 2.3'S and EFI HSO 2.5'S)

I like EEC, MCU, CFI, TFI, EFI,

All of them had some real, good honest to G""d hard work put into them.

And for the V8's and V6's too.

Best ever documents were Ak Millars Impco Techncal Service bulletins from when I worked at the Power Board doing LP Gas conversions and servicing. They explained the 1978 to 1985 US Ford engines in great, but concise, detail.

That's what's needed when you look over those things today,

an understanding of the basics,
where to go to get the pictures…”

All v e r y helpful,bro. Glad for the post. Thank you!
Now,
FIRST I need to go read the high school auto-shop text FrenchTownFlyer's referred me to when I asked for a reference. Then I can understand, catch up to you all…then I can peruse what YOU have sent along. But yaknow, I don't think I ever really will - catch up. Glad I got ford6…friends.
:eek:
 
CZLN6":20tco7ba said:
Howdy All:

Thanks to all. I do appreciate it all. It will take some digesting. It is still hard to separate factual cause and effect from FoMoCo advertising hype. But it's a place to start.

Another puzzle is the difference in strut mounting between early and late Foxes. Any info there? Early struts are apparently fairly scarce.

And, the owner is advertising the car as a 1981 GL. I can't find a GL model until 1982 model year? What am I missing?

Thanks again.

Adios, David

Hi David, With the beginning of the third gen Mustangs models Ford used the letters L, GL, GLX, to denote the trim levels. Plus the GT that was also brought back in 1982 after a 12 year hiatus, when the Cobra model was dropped after 1981 (1980 & 1981) there was also a limited edition (the Pace Car) in the first year (1979) to celebrate the second time the Mustang was chosen to Pace the Indy 500.

Trim Levels
The L is the base model trim, these were built from 1979 to 1984.
GL is the mid level trim and was usally the best selling model, these were built from 1979 to 1983.
The GLX was the top level trim package, these were built from 1979 to 1983.

Most people now use the later model struts by slotting the one hole a little its an easy fix. Hope that helps you good luck :nod:
 
Things were a little more complicated than that. There was never a 1981 GL. There was an SS for 82, and there was supposed to be GLX to replace the Ghia in 1981. However, 1981 was the last year for Ghia, but the detail below is for the 1982 model year.

Zee_ss.jpg


The physical naming convention was changed in 1981, Ford had some major naming issues with style house Ghia and the SS name tag, used for over a year in the Escort. The latter was being trageted by the ADL, and Fo Mo Co were aware that GM's use of the contintious SS name tag allowed them to use it as well. It had the S label in European Escorts, Cortinas, Granadas and Capris, so Ford kept it on the Escort for a year, then backed off. The US Granda Sports Coupe had an S package...it was easy just to push things along and see how things sat...

The SS was therefore an initial planned 1982 Mustang addition, and IIRC, the GT's were listed as SS's before the first run of Mustang 5.0 buck codes, but then all got changed to GT stamped buck codes.


Just like Ford spelling Litre wrongly in the 1966 Galaxie 7 Litre, they were at it again in Fall 1981 press release Mustangs Air Cleaner...


and its SS emblazoned dash board

and also with its non standard 270/290 degree ex 1972 351 Marine cam (it was a 256/274 in production).

[There was a reason 1982 press 5.0 Capri RS and Mustang SS/GT's accelerated faster than the 1986 EFI GT's and all 83-85 4-bbl 5.0's...they really were running a 1972 351W Marine, the 1995 Mustang SVT R351 cam, not that milder production 1973 Tornio 351W and later Lightening F150 cam...]

In fact, the first GT's got a decel GT badge because of it.. . . so many changes....

Zee_ss_let_a_liter_last_a_little_longer.jpg


For 1981, the Cobra nameplate trim package was recinded in the USA, but the term was kept, as the carb turbo was not withdrawn in the Canada market, and EFI Turbo's still used it.

GL , GT were 1982 additions

GLX were therefore 1982 additions, as Ghia trim package was recinded for 82's


http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ong-Island

FoxChassis":31gm9em0 said:
The '82 Mustang SS was a legitimate model. However, the few that actually made it to dealer lots were re-badged as GTs. The '82 GTs that you find with a "GT" sticker on the hatchback liftgate were probably ones that were originally badged as "SS". The SS badge was originally from an '81 Escort application, and was listed in Ford parts as a badge for an '82 Mustang. I bought the last NOS one a couple years ago.

As stated above, this particular GT was far too late in the production run to have been originally badged as an SS. The seller has been trying to sell this car for a few years now, and has been shown to be a scammer in regards to this car actually and originally being badged as an SS.

1981-ford-escort.jpg


http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ivia/page2
FoxChassis":31gm9em0 said:
.......

1982 Mustang VIN codes (less engine code):
P10 = L/GL coupe
P12 = GLX coupe
P13 = GLX hatchback
P16 = L/GL/GT hatchback
 
Howdy All;
Sorry to say the purchase of the new (Old) California 1981 Mustang GL has fallen through. I do appreciate all the info and will catalog and save just in case another potential new (old) ride pops up. Thanks again.

Adios, David
 
Oh boy,
oh well, let's C if another develops…
Good Luck, thanks for the try.

I'm lookin 4 an old abused inexpensive oil pan & the tube/screen for one of those (rear sump 200 ci).
Or just the tube'n screen. I have a rear sump 170 pan that could B adapted.
 
xctasy":f6qj7eyq said:
[There was a reason 1982 press 5.0 Capri RS and Mustang SS/GT's accelerated faster than the 1986 EFI GT's and all 83-85 4-bbl 5.0's...they really were running a 1972 351W Marine, the 1995 Mustang SVT R351 cam, not that milder production 1973 Tornio 351W and later Lightening F150 cam...]

I never knew this!

When I was in high school my friend's dad had an '82 GT that was - as he described it - "all original." It looked the part, but in the '90s, even in California the idea of a mint twelve year old Mustang seemed like fantasy. That thing was a rocket ship - almost scary fast when you wrapped in 1982 era Ford NVH treatment (or lack thereof). By then I had taken on more than a few people in the family's Volvo 740t (which *was* fast) but this '82 Mustang was tangibly quicker. It drove like a legitimate muscle car. Guess now I know why!
 
thesameguy":3u78cewn said:
xctasy":3u78cewn said:
[There was a reason 1982 press 5.0 Capri RS and Mustang SS/GT's accelerated faster than the 1986 EFI GT's and all 83-85 4-bbl 5.0's...they really were running a 1972 351W Marine, the 1995 Mustang SVT R351 cam, not that milder production 1973 Tornio 351W and later Lightening F150 cam...]

I never knew this!

When I was in high school my friend's dad had an '82 GT that was - as he described it - "all original." It looked the part, but in the '90s, even in California the idea of a mint twelve year old Mustang seemed like fantasy. That thing was a rocket ship - almost scary fast when you wrapped in 1982 era Ford NVH treatment (or lack thereof). By then I had taken on more than a few people in the family's Volvo 740t (which *was* fast) but this '82 Mustang was tangibly quicker. It drove like a legitimate muscle car. Guess now I know why!

All production GT's and RS's for 82 certainly did not have the basic D2ZZ-6250-B 1972 351C Cobra Jet cam profile on a Windsor 351 master, called the D2JE 6250-BA .

Instead, the production cars were given the D3OE-6250-AA part number for 351 W Torino cam's. The press cars were a lot stronger than the 4-bbl 83 to 85's were. By the time the production 82's rolled out, they were considerably slower over the 1/4 mile and in 0-60 figures. The rated hp was down to 157, from 161 hp quoted, and each press car from the first Hot Rod and Car Craft articles had less acceleration than the press demo's.

Asside from the 82 5.0 cam, FoMoCo had two other emission area killer bump sticks, the D2JE 6250-BA 351 W "Marine" cam, and a very slighty more tame E0OZ 6250-A, the factory 171/165 hp 80-81 5.8 Ford LTD cam. The GT 5.0 cam in production had a lot less lift and duration than the press cars.

The October 1981 Car & Driver article had already down ratcheted the Consumer Guides Mercury Capri RS accelration figures from the Dearborn press release 5.0.

CampD_csaba_s_1981_0ctober_mercury_capri_artical.jpg


Even on a 1981 4.2 liter 255 with headers, 4BBL carb and the twin cat 80-81 5.8 Ford LTD exhaust, that D2JE 6250-BA Marine Cam was part of the reason Csaba Csere's Capri in (Car and Drivers October 1981 article gave a 132 mph top wack,and 160 HP from just a mildly tickled 4.2 Windsor Quad Exhast 4-bbl AOD Mercury Capri. Up from the 115 hp of the 1981 engine.

CarandDriversOctober198142Windsor190HPQuadExhast4-bblAODMercuryCapriExhastview2.jpg

CarandDriversOctober198142Windsor190HPQuadExhast4-bblAODMercuryCapriExhast.jpg

http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Literature/Magazines/CarAndDriver_Oct81_2_01.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Literature/Magazines/CarAndDriver_Oct81_2_02.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Literature/Magazines/CarAndDriver_Oct81_2_03.jpg
http://www.ascmclarencoupe.com/Literature/Magazines/CarAndDriver_Oct81_2_04.jpg



You can debate how much each modification gave what extra hp and lb-ft like we did in the 80-83 I6 exhaust/ Autolite 1101 1-bbl discussions six months ago, but the engine packages with the hotter cam were always significanly better. Edsell Ford II championed the 5.0 GT, he was in Australia when Holden Australia played the same game back in the late 70's and early 80's when GM Holden played with with optional 276 degree cams and big vlave heads on otherwise stock 4.2 and 5.0 engines, they played around with cam retard, aftermarket electric cooling fans and dealer fitted dual exhausts, and provided a plethora of info to confuse and conquer, but if a cam or carb change alone gives 18 to 20 hp, then with the right other components, its the gateway to much, much more.

The 5.0 Press Corp cars had a cam that was stated as being a Marine cam in nearly all the early articles, but Ford certainly didn't use it in any production 5.0 GT. But it was just $75.60 without lifters from your friendly Ford dealer in 1981...and gave another 18 to 20 hp on a 2-bbl 5.8.

The E0OZ 6250-A cam, with a few degrees less 50 thou intake duration, and something like 10 thou less intake lift, would have done nearly the same thing.

All the information was there in 1981, and Csaba Csere was ex FoMoCo, doanchaknow...that's why he knew about 3.45:1 gear sets, AOD transmissions with 1650 rpm stall ratios, Marine cams, EGR adaptors, legal 4-bbl intakes, cat back exhausts.....



Now, back to the 1980 to 1981's....any of those will generally be 3.3 in line sixes, since the take up of the 4.2 engine was so low, it ranked as a third option. The 2.3 was effectively the second option, most ticked the 3.3 engine option.


The 1980 to 1981 3.3's were frankly fuel economy disasters, no real power, and no better fuel economy than what the same transmission would have given on the 4.2.

If FoMoCo had just released a Borg Warner T4 or SROD 4 speed manual 4.2 with the free flow 1979 5.0 exhaust, it would have been a sensationally sucessfull option.

The 3.3 is exceptionally responsive to the right modifications in the same way the enemic 255 was.

See "Csaba Csere's Capri" http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ory-lesson

The automatic 255 was dyno'ed by Ak Miller at 85 rwhp in an 1980 119 hp XR7 Cougar 255

IMG_1573_zps16123564.jpg


and the 115 1981 version of it did 18.1 second 1/4 miles at 77 mph, and 11.2 second 0-60 mph times two up. .

in the June-July 1967 issues of Hot Rod
The Califonia 3 speed 1967 Mustang 200 was dynoed at 67 hp and did 19 second 1/4 miles at 70 mph, and the same 0-60 figures as the 1981 4 speed manual Motor Trend car.

Ak Miller just added the standard Falcon Six Handbook mods (head, vlave gear, igntion advance, Autolite 1101, 260 degree cam) , and got it down to 10.4 secs 0-60 with 105 rear wheel hp at 4800 rpm. With other induction systems, 115 and 125 rwhp.

It looks like after 1967, no one has moved up a gear to six cylinder GT Six teritory as Ak Miller alluded to.

http://www.cometcentral.com/tech/h2/index.html

The 250 triple carb 1971 Mavi GT, LPGas Turbo's and Fuel injected 200 and 250's that Ak worked on failed to materialise.


There was a prototype 2-bbl based on the D8 head that Mark P first talked about.

hEAD_MITT20XE20201090_eX20D7BE9430CA50CA_CARB_XD9BE94588BB_VAC20POD_XE201596_5e34_31.jpg



but it never got past the XE experimental stage...

hEAD_MITT20XE20201090_eX20D7BE9430CA50CA_CARB_XD9BE94588BB_VAC20POD_XE201596_5b26_31.jpg


Yet the Fox 4 SN95 got a tiny 4.6 with all the good gear. Its 60% a Fox underneath

and a wounderful quad cat exhaust which bolts under a Fox body

IMG_3820.jpg



Enjoy the hunt for I-6 info, but some people are going to have to break ranks to show what was really going on for the enigmatic 1980 to 1983 in line sixes, which are for me, the most fasinating Fords ever.
 
Thnx,

"...the most fasinating Fords ever…"
and a bit varied.
Some of which aren't avail in USA. I get a lill mixed up
when U go back'n forth accross the oceans, X, I'm gettin better tho ~

Prob 4 me even w/nowa daze models is they aren't true world cars (wrong nominclature?).
What I mean is a model is offered to different 'tastes' and nat regs, that can't B got all over the worl !
I want what I C in these other lands but, nooo, no can do…
Curse that ol internet (& the pic I LUV!).
 
super4ord":vkk8bp24 said:
I just bought a Bright Bittersweet Orange 1980 Mustang coupe from a man in Irving Texas about 3 weeks ago. I drove it 194 miles back home to Oklahoma City. I really enjoy driving it!

It has the 200 6 cyl with the catalytic exhaust manifold, and the secondary lines to the manifold.
A previous owner removed the smog pump, but I think everything else is there.

It has the SROD 4 speed and 3.08 rear gears. It does have a catalytic converter under the car too before the muffler.

It has power assisted disc brakes, power steering & air conditioning. AC was nice on the trip back! The car has 20K miles on the odometer. I'm sure it must be 120K.

This is way too light of a car to need power steering. I oversteer the daylights out of it. I just changed to a smaller diameter aftermarket steering wheel. This has helped. More to come later

Darrell


BitersweetOrangCoupe.jpg


BitersweetOrangCoupe_base.jpg


Nice color.Actually its A 1970 poppy red color Ive seen before, but its perfect.

Basically the same TRW Power steering option in the 2068 pound US 1981 Chevette and my 2425 pound Cortina was even ligher!



Ah, Darrell, your car is 2G Orange like ShwaSixCobra's 81 Mustang Hatch 3.3/ T4/2.47


Side
Front
Back
Interior Front
Interior Back
Engine 3.3 200
Turbo Dash Light In action


I love that color!
 
:unsure: California emissions.Is`nt that what comes out of Sacramento?Most detrimental to man or beast. :eek: :rolflmao: :rolflmao: .
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo
 
Back
Top