Interesting.  Must use transistors for switching the high current on/off to the fan(s). 

July 23rd sticks in my mind, 57 years old this year. 

RTM wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

We get into this debate a lot, and I'm not looking to rehash it, but I see no reason not to run a quality electric fan.  I've had one on my '67 for well over a decade with zero issues.  The problems people claim with electric fans are the result of shoddy wiring and cheap fans.  Every new car you buy has an electric fan.  If they were so failure prone the OEMs would still be using mechanical fans.  I run a SPAL fan with a controller I built. 

 
My only view on it all is I like the simplicity of a mechanical fan and one less electrical thing to have to wire up and or worry about. I’m not the best at electrical wiring but can fumble my way through with the help of the internet and the forums.

Can those with the CVF measure the distance you have between the front of the water pump pulley to the radiator?

I'm all for simplicity too, but I also like the 20HP my electric fan is not robbing from me (yes, its an estimate, but there was an episode of Engine Masters where they tested fans and the results were eye opening).  I'm by no means an electrical guy either, but I can lay things out, solder wires, etc.  I did it once, did it right, and now honestly I think about it as much as I do the fan in any other vehicle I drive. 

We get into this debate a lot, and I'm not looking to rehash it, but I see no reason not to run a quality electric fan.  I've had one on my '67 for well over a decade with zero issues.  The problems people claim with electric fans are the result of shoddy wiring and cheap fans.  Every new car you buy has an electric fan.  If they were so failure prone the OEMs would still be using mechanical fans.  I run a SPAL fan with a controller I built. 

Awesome!  The needle on the boost gauge in my WRX needs to be repainted, so looks like I know what to use.  I've used Testor's paints for a lot of car stuff over the years.  They have a couple colors in the Model Master line that matched black trim paint perfectly, and some of the metallic colors work great for the silver of parts that are not chrome.  Going from building model cars to real cars seems to have had some advantages. 

Mach1Driver wrote:

RPM, aka Bearing Bob wrote:

Guys that use a chassis like this usually have a shop build the car, and aren't thinking about what they could also use the money to buy.

Too true. Its the sort of thing you see a lot of on Kindig builds, where price seems to be no object. 
 

Yep.  They are the This Old House of car builds for sure.  I remember watching that with my Dad and how he used to say stuff like "they must have a money tree out back", and "Budget?  Oh, no, we can't work on anything that has a budget."
 

It clears.  I have a factory AC compressor on my car.

Ron, some people may just be luckier than others on the bracket.  Mine failed.  There are a bunch of posts about failures on various forums.  Having messed with accessory drives on various makes and models over the years I can tell you no factory mounting system is anywhere near the way Borgesson mounts that pump, basically relying on bolts and spacers, which can flex with no triangulation.  Overall they build a great system, but the pump bracket and lower column bearing leave a lot to be desired. 
 

John Ha wrote:

It seems like you could add subframe connectors to the stock car and have essentially the same thing

Ding, ding!

I know no one wants to hear this, but Ford has never exactly been known for their power steering pumps.  The GM derived Saginaw pump by contrast was more or less the industry standard for decades.  In fact everything that wasn't a GM that was built by a company that didn't want to design their own pump (AMC, International, etc,) simply bought pumps from Saginaw.  Personally I would use the Saginaw pump.

What I will say is that the Borgesson mounting bracket for the pump is at best Mickey Mouse.  It flexes too much and causes noise and can allow one of the bolts to fail.  Engineer a better mounting system or you can run a Fox accessory drive with a serpentine belt and an adapter to mount the Saginaw pump in the Ford PS bracket (Wild Horses 4x4 has them).

Another thing worth noting is that the Borgesson lower column bearing is also at best Mickey Mouse.  Get the Mustang Steve one instead. 
 

IMO a colossal waste of time and money.  You can get whatever front or rear suspension you want in a classic Mustang without the need of this.  If you need the rigidity because the car makes so much power then you need a roll cage anyway, for safety if nothing else.  To me, this is a solution in search of a problem. 

Rudi wrote:

Bullet Bob wrote:

I always thought that the Mustang II saved the Mustang marque.  Oil crisis, gas rationing, long lines, people giving away perfectly good 16 mpg "big" cars for very little down against $2500 Toyotas and Datsuns that would get a bit over 20 mpg.  When thing started to settle down Ford came along with the Fox which, IIRC, had a 4-banger, a V6 and a weak sister 302 for engines.  But  the name was still alive and they had something to build on.  JMO

 
That has always been my recollection as well with many magazine articles that support that.
There are many other theories but the production numbers seem to prove the point.

I did some reading on the origin of the Fox platform.  Development was green lit by none other than Lee Iaccoca in '73.  The idea was to replace the Mustang II and Pinto compact chassis with a universal chassis which could be used across Ford's divisions and sold in both the US and Europe.  The first running prototype was actually a '75 Ford Cortina (only sold in Europe) which used torsion bars in the front instead of coil springs (thank God that didn't make it to production).  The first cars sold using the platform were the '78 Fairmont and '78 Mercury Zephyr.  The redesigned Mustang followed in '79. 

Interesting that we've often talked about how the Mustang was slated to die in favor of the Pinto, but there's no mention of that in anything I read.  Keep in mind that Iaccoca was responsible for the Mustang.  It was his baby, and he was president of Ford.  Ultimately he would have had to be the one to kill it, which seems unlikely.  What was slated to happen was that what would become the Mustang II was slated to be based on the Maverick, not the Pinto, but in ended up being based on the Pinto.  This seems the origin of the urban legend about the alleged demise of the Mustang in favor of the Pinto.  Iaccoca was even quoted as saying, in response to declining Mustang sales that "The Mustang

Bullet Bob wrote:

I always thought that the Mustang II saved the Mustang marque.  Oil crisis, gas rationing, long lines, people giving away perfectly good 16 mpg "big" cars for very little down against $2500 Toyotas and Datsuns that would get a bit over 20 mpg.  When thing started to settle down Ford came along with the Fox which, IIRC, had a 4-banger, a V6 and a weak sister 302 for engines.  But  the name was still alive and they had something to build on.  JMO

Ah, the 255 V8.  Dark days.  Dark days.  But we made it to the other side.  Thus proving the maxim I try to live by: This too shall pass. 
 

Steve69 wrote:

My wife had 1987 firebird formula with the 305.  That thig was a dog.  My 1979 Mustang stock 5.0 could blow the doors off of that.  

I have an '86 IROC with a 350 and its not much better.  It handles like its on rails.  The rear suspension (torque arm) is definitely better than the Fox setup, but overall the Fox is just a better car and always had much better aftermarket support (of course they sold more Mustangs each year than Camaros, Firebirds, and Corvettes combined).  Yeah, the 305 was a boat anchor.  Under 4" bore with a long stroke.  Wouldn't rev, but it didn't matter because a TPI couldn't flow enough air after 5,000RPM and the HEI wouldn't throw a spark after 5,500RPM.