SPArKy_Dave

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?p=5540936 http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11397518&page=41

Ideally, I would think you'd want the static height, so the UCA on a slight upwards angle - so the angle increases with spring compression. And a static height, with the LCA as close to straight as possible. That's how my XG ute is set up. Unfortunately, at those parameters, ball-joints really need to be wedged as the angle is too severe, and there's no factory suspension travel left. There are wedge blocks (or wedge nuts) included with the different upper ball joint wedge kits, available out of the USA. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mustang-Shelby-Falcon-Upper-Control-Arm-Ball-Joint-Wedge-Kit-1964-1965-1966-/221956009088?hash=item33ad9bec80:g:XDYAAOSwsB9WBhPX&vxp=mtr http://opentrackerracing.com/product-category/shop-by-year/1967-mustang/ Open Tracker parts in Australia - http://www.cfcomponents.com.au/lca.html

So because I was interested, I've been doing some research into the new VSB14 rules, and current editions of the ADR's. I'll edit the thread, to include a bunch of links and extra info tomorrow. On the Vicroads document VSI-8 'vehicle modification guidelines', I've found that there is no-longer a blanket minimum ground clearance rule of 100mm for all vehicles. In fact, almost all vehicle 'lowering' information has been deleted from the document. AND the 100mm clause has been deleted from the current ADR 43/04......... (which covers ground clearance among other things) 6.4. ‘Ground Clearance’ The ‘Ground Clearance’ of a vehicle, other than an L-Group vehicle, measured from a horizontal road surface to any point on the underside of the vehicle except the tyres, wheels and wheel hubs must, under the conditions of ‘Maximum Loaded Test Mass’ loading as specified in the relevant braking rule, be not less than: 6.4.1. [This clause has been deleted] 6.4.2. for the mid-point between any 2 consecutive ‘Axles’, the dimension in millimetres obtained by multiplying the distance between those 2 ‘Axles’ in metres by 33.33; and 6.4.3. for any other point, ‘Ground Clearance’ is such that if the wheels of one ‘Axle’ are on one plane and the wheels on the next consecutive ‘Axle’ are on another plane which intersects the first so that the angle between them is 7 degrees 38 minutes the point will pass over the apex transverse to the vehicle formed by that intersection, as shown in Figure 1. In place, there is a new clause, describing, that vehicles must comply with 'Running Clearance', - 6.6 The ‘Running Clearance’ of a vehicle, other than an L-Group vehicle must be not less than 100 mm. (definition, cut and pasted from VSB14 below) Running clearance, of a vehicle, means the distance from the surface on which an unladen vehicle is standing to the lowest point on the vehicle excluding unsprung mass. Vehicles built to comply with the Third Edition ADRs must comply with the ground clearance requirements of ADR 43/.... Vehicles built to comply with ADR 43/04 must also comply with the running clearance requirements. All other motor vehicles with more than 3 wheels must have a ground clearance of:  at least 100mm at any point within 1 metre of an axle; and  at least one-thirtieth of the distance between the centres of adjacent axles at the midpoint between them (refer Figure LS1); and  at any other point — at least the distance that allows the vehicle to pass over a peak in the road with a gradient on either side of 1:15, if the wheels of 1 axle of the vehicle are on the slope on one side of the peak and the wheels of the next axle are on the slope on the other side. 8]Note: Unsprung mass, is basically anything not held up by the springs. (axles, wheels, brakes, diff, etc.) 8]Also note, it seems each new edition of an ADR, 'Invalidates' the earlier versions to a degree - 8]1.3. REPEAL 7]1.3.1. This Standard repeals each vehicle standard with the name Australian Design Rule 43/04 – Vehicle Configuration and Dimensions that is 7](a) made under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Standard Act 1989; and 8] in force at the commencement of this Standard. 8]1.3.2. This Standard also repeals each instrument made under section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Standard Act 1989 that creates a vehicle standard with the name Australian Design Rule 43/04 – Vehicle Configuration and Dimensions, if there are no other vehicle standards created by that instrument, or amendments to vehicle standards made by that instrument, that are still in force at the commencement of this Standard. 3.1.2. Vehicles certified to any of the “Acceptable Prior Rules” as shown below in the Applicability Table for a particular vehicle category are deemed to comply with this national standard: I also plan to gather info from across the world, on what other 'Transport Departments' deem an acceptable minimum ground clearance. California - V C Section 24008 Modification of Vehicles Modification of Vehicles 24008. It is unlawful to operate any passenger vehicle, or commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, which has been modified from the original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway. Amended Ch. 462, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1, 1985. Canada - Clearance height 7.091 A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 4 500 kg must have a minimum clearance for all parts of it, other than the wheels in contact with the level roadway, that is no lower than the lowest point on the rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway. [en. B.C. Reg. 167/2006, s. (a).] New York - no minimum ground clearance, but here's a link to their 'street legal' rules in general - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/VAT/III/9 New Mexico - no minimum ground clearance either, and here's a link to their vehicle laws - http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter66 New Jersey - no minimum ground clearance rules, here's a link to their vehicle laws - http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/index.html New Hampshire - 266:115 Equipment Required of Custom Vehicles. – (i) Bumpers, fenders, and hoods. IV. The ground clearance for a custom vehicle shall be such that the vehicle shall be able to be in motion and functional while on its 4 rims on a flat surface, and no part of the suspension, steering, or chassis shall touch that surface. Their vehicle laws in full - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XXI-266.htm Nevada - no minimum ground clearance rules, here's their vehicle and traffic rules - http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484.html Nebraska - no minimum ground clearance rules, here's their vehicle laws - http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s60index/s60index.html Montana - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws - http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/61.htm Missouri - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws - http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c307.htm Mississippi - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws - http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/63/ Minnesota - Minnesota Statutes 169.73 - Bumpers, Safeguards Subd. 3. Bumper restrictions. ;or b: has a suspension system or body so modified that the height of the vehicle or any bumpers varies more than six inches from the original manufactured height for the vehicle. Link to their full vehicle laws - http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/minnesota/mn-statutes/minnesota_statutes_chapter_169_vehicle_equipment_safety Idaho - TITLE 49 MOTOR VEHICLES CHAPTER 9 VEHICLE EQUIPMENT 49-965. Modification of vehicle to reduce road clearance beyond certain limits unlawful. It shall be unlawful to operate any passenger motor vehicle which has been modified from the original design so that any portion of the vehicle other than the wheels has less clearance from the surface of a level highway than the clearance between the highway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the highway. Link to their full vehicle laws - http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49.htm Illinois - 625 ILCS 5/12-607) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-607) Sec. 12-607. Suspension System. (a)except that it is unlawful to operate a street rod or custom vehicle when the suspension system has been modified from the original manufactured design so that the horizontal line from the front to the rear bumper varies over 7 inches in height when measured from a level surface of the highway to the lower edge of the bumper. 625 ILCS 5/12-607.1) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-607.1) Sec. 12-607.1.Frame and floor height. No such vehicle shall be modified to cause the vehicle body or chassis to come in contact with the ground, expose the fuel tank to damage from collision or cause the wheels to come in contact with the body under normal operation. Link to their full vehicle laws - http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ChapterID=49&ActID=1815 Hawaii - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws - http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/hawaii/hi-statutes/hawaii_statutes_chapter_291 Texas - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/TN/7 Florida - no minimum ground clearance, here's their vehicle laws - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XXIII#TitleXXIII Utah - 41-6a-1631. Prohibitions. (1) A person may not operate on a highway a motor vehicle that is mechanically altered or changed: (a) in any way that may under normal operation: (i) cause the motor vehicle body or chassis to come in contact with the roadway; © so that any part of the vehicle other than tires, rims, and mudguards are less than three inches above the ground; Link to their full vehicle laws - http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/chapter.jsp?code=41 Washington - WAC 204-10-036 Suspension. A motor vehicle must: (1) Have a minimum ground clearance to allow the vehicle to be in motion on its four rims on a flat surface with no other parts of the vehicle touching that surface Also see - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.680 Link to their full vehicle laws - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=204

Sounds like an over-pressure cut out. Blockages or overcharging causes this. Blocked condenser/ poor airflow Or moisture within the refrigerant lines, causing ice crystals to form and block the TX valve, thus causing over-pressure. Has the AC system been worked on in recent times?

Try these too - http://www.xbfordfalconshop.com/products/Armrest-screw-set-%282%29.html

Not sure if they're the same, but you could try the XR-XY screws - http://www.gtshop.com.au/product/clips--screws--bolts--brackets_25/xr---xy-armrest-screw-kit/?&?product_variant_id=2123

Auto Surplus in Mitcham Vic, are one of the ones I was thinking of. However if you have access to a press....... rebuilding the water pump yourself, is not out of the question.

I have the details somewhere..... I'd have to dig them up.

Pedders - Rear Bump Stop / Kit 4360 Bump Stop-1pk http://www.pedders.com.au/catalogue/ford/ltd/1982-1988-fd-fe

I'd like to know what in particular fails in high power BW40 boxes. ie, is it a consistent failure across many boxes? I have the BW40 in my XE wagon adjusted so gear changes are super fast and sharp on WOT. It really snaps the 1-2 gear changes. And there's room for further refinement IMO. I got to drive Dave's XF Ghia sedan last Thurs, and I found the C4 box to be a bit harsh compared to my BW40. It was marginally quicker than my wags, but harsher. Be nice if the dash speedo worked though - luckily I noticed the GPS readout speedo.

What about one of Daves 100 million BTR boxes? Just tape a bunch of those together, and call it a built C4. It'd weigh about the same.

That's just a $5.00 reverse servo o-ring. If the low/reverse band isn't adjusted - as per normal service routine, or if the adjuster nut comes loose, then the servo piston has to over extend to clamp the band, and rolls the o-ring out of it's groove eventually, pinching and tearing it. Torn o-ring = no hydraulic pressure behind the piston = no band apply = no reverse gear. The piston assembly comes out without even having to drop the valve body - it's wonderfully simple.

Oooh oooh!........... I have one of those, on the XG ute... Works brilliant!

DBA have a minimum order quantity of 50 rotors, before they'll do a run of head treating on them. So far, we haven't been able to drum up the interest. Unfortunately, I can't afford to stump up the cost of 50 rotors by myself. Thus that's where it's at.

If you think the box is holding onto top gear when slowing down, I'd try manually going back through the gears, and note what the gearbox/engine does. You should be able to progressively engine brake it back through each gear. If you find any of the lower gears gives you no engine braking effect, then the auto box likely has a problem with the C4 clutch pack. If it shudders coming back to idle, it's usually a sticky ISC (idle speed control) valve. The EL/XH motors need to be set at exactly TDC (top dead centre) on the balancer - when in KOER (Key On Engine Running) diagnostic mode. The earlier engines, are the ones which need to be set at 10 degree's before TDC. You'd know if the ECU was really in Limp Home Mode, as you'd be stuck in 3rd gear. Overly advanced or retarded timing, will result in the starter struggling to rotate the engine.

BF Egas short block would be the cheapest answer. They have the turbo rods in them, to my knowledge - to protect against bending if the gas backfires. Find a Barra from a taxi, and you're set.

So you're still running the standard dizzy with TFI and hall effect sensor? That's number three on my list.

It's a fuelling/timing issue then. look at the injectors, fuel pressure, fuel pump and IAT sensor/CT sensor and dizzy hall effect sensor, plus the TFI module. It will likely be one of those things. My EL V8 wagon has always had the exact same problem. I've done an enormous amount of research, into how the EECV engine management system works. or failing all the above...... it's got a blown head gasket (or gaskets).

Might be running too lean. The EECV computers have lean cruise for fuel saving. Or a partially blocked radiator will do that too.

What odd conditions for the seller to impose......... LOL! I would've negotiated an extra $1k or something, to keep those parts on the truck - if that's what it took. Especially the bench seat and power steering. From memory, the factory manual F-series of that vintage (5th Gen), came out of the factory with the Canadian 300 iron head six cyl. Is it a factory six? Many of the Dually and 4x4 F350's, had reverse thread wheel studs on the left hand rear wheel only - to apparently prevent loosening of the driving wheels - as the F-series 8 stud wheels aren't hub-centric.

Here's a question for you - does it have reverse threads, on the L/H rear wheel studs?

Except how they turn, steer and drive in general........ right? I put a whole heap of effort into the steering system, on the F250 we've got at work. Pulled the whole front end right down. Got a genuine Ford F-series parts manual, and imported a heap of genuine NOS stuff from the USA. (And Gaz reckon'd our one drove pretty decent before.)