![]() Until, that is, time and use caused resistance to build up to the point where so little power flow was going through the AMP gauge that it virtually stopped working. Most of the time, the needle sat near the center of the gauge, an indication that all was well, and customers seemed to like that. When new, all of the connections were clean and tight and resistance was very low, so some needle movement at the AMP gauge could be seen during periods of heavy charging or discharging, yet minor changes were barely perceptible. This kept the high voltage, high amperage wiring in the engine compartment, and allowed the AMP gauge to "sample" the power flow.Ĭurrent will follow the path of least resistance, which meant only a small amount would travel through the smaller wires to the AMP gauge. Ford achieved this by running smaller diameter (higher numerical gauge) wiring to the AMP gauge. These changes also minimized movement of the needle, eliminating customer concerns. To address customer concerns, and to cut costs, Ford made a change around 1967 that eliminated the need for heavy duty wiring inside the car and gauges that were capable of handling large amounts of power. Customers didn't care for all the movement, and became concerned when the gauge indicated discharge for long periods of time, such as when idling in heavy traffic. When the battery was fully charged with minimal accessory use, the needle would sit near the center of the gauge, indicating a fully charged battery and an alternator putting out minimal current for electrical accessories. Since it was normal on these cars for the power to fluctuate somewhat depending on engine speed and accessory use, it was not unusual to have the gauge indicate a discharge at idle, then move over to indicate a charging condition once underway. Having all of the power flow through the AMP gauge meant the gauge itself had to be heavy duty, which was more costly to produce. The main area of concern on the 1964 Thunderbirds was the connection at the cowl, where the wiring entered the passenger compartment from the engine bay. Resistance causes heat, which isn't a good thing for electrical wiring. As the cars aged, connections began to corrode and get dirty, and resistance built up. When new, this design wasn't a problem, and effectively allowed drivers to monitor the charging system. A flow of power into the battery moved the needle on the gauge to show a charging condition, and a flow of power from the battery caused the needle to move to the left side of the band, indicating a discharge. In order to accomplish this, Ford ran heavy duty (smaller wire gauge number) wires to and from the gauge, so that all of the car's electricity moved through the gauge, making it register. Perched in the last pod on the right of the T-bird's new "jet age" instrument panel, the gauge advised the driver if the battery was being charged or discharged at any given time, and indicated the degree to which that activity was taking place. The first use of an ammeter (AMP) gauge in the Ford Thunderbird came with the newly-designed 1964 models. ![]() Yes, they are actually supposed to do something!įord AMP Gauge History on the Thunderbird The '64 shop manual might give a better pictorial on how it all goes together, but the fact remains that you can't compare a '61-'62 to a '63 in terms of how it is assembled.1967-1971 Ford Thunderbird and 1969-1971 Continental Mark III AMP Gauge Repair While I normally would be admonishing a person at this point to get the '62 Shop Manaul and '63 Supplement, the '63 supplement does not do a good job of showing the disassembly of the upper control arm and replacement of the upper ball joint. Save yourself for more-fun things like cleaning and painting the parts. I HIGHLY recommend spending your $$$ and taking it to a pro and let them deal with the hassle, rather than run the risk of having a coil spring popping loose and making you a statistic. The removal of the front springs is DANGEROUS without the proper compressor. Sure, it's more work, but so's pulling it all apart again to replace the shafts. With that being the case, removal of the upper arm is the best thing you can do. However, it probably would be safe to assume that the upper control arm shafts/bushings need to be replaced if there's any huge accumulation of miles and lack of lubrication for the bushings. I don't know what is available for sale or rental or how they would work, but there may be an old-timer behind the parts/rental counter that may know. The shock absorber mounting is also completely different from '61-'62.Ĭan the upper ball joint be removed with the arm in the car? Probably, provided you have the right kind of tools like a ball joint press. To repeat - the '63 ball joint PRESSES IN the upper control arm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |