PDA

View Full Version : 58 rear upper control arms


Frango100
08-06-2017, 01:16 PM
Is there someone with a 58 Bird who still uses the original spring setup who can measure the length from the rear upper control arms, bushing center to bushing center? I just would like to confirm that my control arms are the original ones (with the correct length)

Frango100
08-08-2017, 06:13 PM
No one with a 58 who can measure the length of the rear upper control arm?:(

OUR5T8BIRD
08-08-2017, 09:18 PM
No one with a 58 who can measure the length of the rear upper control arm?:(

I have a '58 with original rear coil springs .May take a bit of effort to get it up and go under for measurements . Do not have a hoist .

Astrowing
08-09-2017, 09:30 PM
Mine are off. I'll measure Friday.

Frango100
08-09-2017, 11:16 PM
Mine are off. I'll measure Friday.

That would be great Jim, thanks. Did you go with leave springs on the Bird?

Astrowing
08-10-2017, 10:08 PM
I'm going back with new bushings and the coils. All the bushings and shocks were toast.

Astrowing
08-11-2017, 04:57 PM
I measure 10 3/4 inches center to center. I turned the arm to get a perpendicular measurement through the center axis of each bushing

Frango100
08-11-2017, 11:03 PM
I measure 10 3/4 inches center to center. I turned the arm to get a perpendicular measurement through the center axis of each bushing
Thank you very much for that Jim. Tomorrow morning i will check the measurement of my Bird.

Frango100
08-12-2017, 09:50 AM
Just checked the arms on my Bird and they are exactly the same size. Still confused (or maybe even more now) why the clapper is far more open than it should be (and the diff housing pointed more down than it should).
Lower arm and axle seem to be original as well.

Astrowing
08-13-2017, 05:04 PM
Great! If the big U bolts have been off, the differential might rotate. I don't know if there is a key to ensure they are positioned correctly.

Got left lower arm off today. The big clapper bolt on right arm didn't cooperate with my impact wrench so will probably resort to cutting the bolt. I can't believe it wouldn't break it free. Lots of PB blaster on it to no avail.

Frango100
08-14-2017, 07:58 AM
Interresting that you mention the U-bolts. I wondered why they are there, since on my axle the bracket is also welded to the axle. So on your Bird only the two U-bolts hold them together? That could be the reason that the clapper doesnīt close enough on my Bird.

Astrowing
08-14-2017, 09:56 PM
The clapper separation is determined by the bushing between them. It is approximately 1 inch thick. I don't know if the axle is welded. The diagram only shows ubolt.

Frango100
08-15-2017, 08:17 AM
On my Bird the clapper separation is determined by the fixed length of the lower and upper control arms. I can close the gap of the clapper by fastening the vertical bolt, but this will put a lot of (unneccessary) strain on the control arm bushings. As soon as the axle is back from the welder, i will put it back in and check what the clapper separation does over the travel distance. There must be something not normal on my Bird.

simplyconnected
08-15-2017, 03:32 PM
On my Bird the clapper separation is determined by the fixed length of the lower and upper control arms. I can close the gap of the clapper by fastening the vertical bolt, but this will put a lot of (unneccessary) strain on the control arm bushings...As I posted in prior threads, that 'clapper' MUST have free range of motion.

The '58 T-bird rear suspension is basically a parallelogram. If you tighten the clapper, you will snap one or more upper control arms or one of the welded mounting nuts will break. Why on Earth should an upper or lower arm break? All they do is pivot, right? In all my years I have NEVER heard of axle arms OR mounting nuts breaking, especially in a luxury car.

The best way to see 'range of motion' is by removing the springs. Then, you can manually raise and lower the axle while observing the moving parts. If the axle binds, you can easily find out where the bind is. Usually, it's in the clapper (from being restricted).

The axle housing has upper bumpers and the shocks stop the axle at the lower limit. Everywhere in the middle, the axle should move freely.

This axle is strange by all accounts. Ford never used it (the clapper system) before or since, which explains why no parts are supported. No other car company used it either.

I believe the axle system was designed by Budd, Ford engineering signed off on it (for production), and Budd built it. Ford quickly dropped this axle after one short model year, and went back to leaf springs in the '59 & '60. Warranty problems and complaints were overwhelming. That is why I suggest you retrofit a leaf spring setup. - Dave

scumdog
08-15-2017, 05:24 PM
I read somewhere that initially Ford intended to run an independent rear suspension in the '58 Thunderbird but changed their mind at the last minute hence the 'clapper' system as a substitute.

simplyconnected
08-15-2017, 05:47 PM
Tom, I'd love to see that article because this system was a huge mistake.

I know that Ford was ready to install air suspension in high-end cars but that was cancelled at the last minute.

The T-bird started as a Ford design (Classic Birds) but Budd was contracted to design and build much of the Squarebird. At the same time, Wixom was cranking up. So, Budd built the Squarebird bodies. That meant, Wixom had no Body Shop. It also meant VIN numbers were stamped in various places around the car at Budd. Ford's role started with the Paint Dept., then Final, Trim and Chassis. Rear axles are installed in Chassis.

Ford had a good axle plant in Sterling Heights, MI. I believe Budd designed the original Squarebird suspension because although the axles are standard among many Ford models. This suspension is unique to the '58 T-bird. It really is a bad design which is why Ford pulled the plug on it. The production numbers never paid for all those dies and re-engineering costs a fortune, so this decision was hard to make. In short, somebody paid dearly for this blunder.

Frango100
08-15-2017, 06:35 PM
In short, somebody paid dearly for this blunder.
I have a fuzzy feeling that upon today people are paying for the blunder they made in 58. I have installed new coil springs not so long ago, so will not be that happy to switch over to a leaf spring setup. Maybe for the future.
As soon as I have my axle back, I will check the movement without the springs and without the clapper bolts. Then I will see what installing the clapper bolts will change to the freedom of movement. There must be some way to make this working, even if it maybe is not the most perfect one.

simplyconnected
08-15-2017, 10:24 PM
Looking at the mechanics of the clapper, I see a very easy solution to this...

Leave the hardware out of the clapper and let it go along for the ride.

Your springs set your axle height and your shocks control the ride. Other than that, urethane has no business dampening motion, if that was their intent.

Many millions of axles use the four-arm, coil spring setup very successfully. The top and bottom arms simply keep the axle from rolling, so it is square to the transmission (without clappers).

I know many of our '58 Squarebirds have noisy rear suspension. If the arms are still intact, the noise usually comes from loose urethane and bushings. If the axle still has freedom to move up and down, loose bushings is not such a bad thing. Tightening those clappers will break upper arms because it seizes one of the four joints (on each side) in the parallelogram.

Frango100
08-16-2017, 07:40 AM
I donīt think that it will work well without the vertical clapper bolt installed. The axle is hinged to the lower control arm, so when you accelerate, the differential will rotate backwards until the U-bolt touches the lower control arm.
The differential will rotate forward during braking, also stopped by the other U-bolt end. So there should be some medium in between the clapper ends to restrict the clapper movement, but still to give it some room to move during suspension movement.
I probably will need some new and softer rubber for in between the clappers, since the old ones look like stones.

simplyconnected
08-16-2017, 04:14 PM
Here's how I see it: Yes, the 'clapper' needs freedom of motion. The axle tube is 'U'-bolted to the upper clapper. The upper 'clappers' (axle and 'U'-bolt) pivot on a bolt through a pillow block. This is a pivot point, NOT to be restricted. The lower end of the pillow block is bolted directly to the lower arm.

(The shock absorber is bolted directly to the axle via the upper 'clapper' bracket so that part is good.)

This whole rear suspension is a parallelogram. Basically a box with the front side fixed to the frame, the back side is the axle and the upper and lower arms represent the top and bottom sides of the box (with the springs forcing the lower arms down).

http://squarebirds.org/1958tbird_details/RearSuspension/1958TbirdSuspensionrRear.jpg
The fixed frame is one side of the box. If you draw a line from A to C (or F to H) pivot points, that represents the stationary side of the box (with the upper and lower arms pivoting at the upper and lower corners).

Because the lower arms are so much longer than the top rods (these arms are the upper and lower sides of the box), the axle must be allowed to roll to compensate for the difference in swing radii.

The last side of the box is the portion the axle is bolted to. The upper arm is straight forward. The bottom axle pivot is a little harder to see because it uses a pillow block that bolt 45859-S goes through at "B". The back of our box can be seen by drawing a line from B to D (or I to G) pivot points; this is the axle.

Any tightness on that 'clapper' bolt will make the axle and bottom swing arm one peice. That would restrict the axle from rolling and it would transfer the torque to the opposite pivot point which is where your upper arm connects at the frame. They need to pivot independently. This situation would be better off with no rubber in the 'clapper'.

The very top bar is a panhard rod (E to J).

http://squarebirds.org/1958tbird_details/RearSuspension/1958TbirdSuspensionrRear2.jpg

Think about this: It doesn't make sense to connect the bottom arm in three places, which is exactly what happens when the clapper bolt is tightened. If your "U"-bolts are hitting the lower arm, that is a problem. They should be safely above the pillow block with clearance all around the nut side. It is important that they pivot about the pillow block.

I hope this helps you understand. - Dave

Frango100
08-16-2017, 06:36 PM
I just got the axle back from the welder and tomorrow I will be off, so will have some time to play around. I donīt know if its normal, but the upper clapper, which is fixed to the axle with the large U-bolts, is also welded to the axle.
I will see how the whole thing will behave without the clapper bolts installed.

simplyconnected
08-16-2017, 09:38 PM
... I donīt know if its normal, but the upper clapper, which is fixed to the axle with the large U-bolts, is also welded to the axle...Welded or not, makes no difference as long as the 'U' bolts are tight.

Remove the clapper bolt AND 5537 & 5540, sleeves, nuts, etc., from each side. - Dave

pbf777
08-17-2017, 11:47 AM
I donīt think that it will work well without the vertical clapper bolt installed. The axle is hinged to the lower control arm, so when you accelerate, the differential will rotate backwards.................
The differential will rotate forward during braking,So there should be some medium in between the clapper ends to restrict the clapper movement, but still to give it some room to move during suspension movement.

CORRECT! :D

Also, I think Ford's initial intention may have been to utilize an air suspension system, which was canceled late in the game; so '58's received the control arms, etc., but with coil springs.

Later (by '59 production), with review, without the air suspension system, the expense of the control arms vs. a simpler and cheaper leaf system could not be justified.

Was this system (link-bar) in 1958-59 truly a "warranty problems and complaints were overwhelming" :eek: scenario for Ford?

Scott.

Frango100
08-17-2017, 01:42 PM
I just put the axle in for a test and already found that the lower stops where the U-bolts front side threads. Cut the bolts shorter and now the axle will swing down further. Since i donīt have the original rear shocks installed, the down movement is now stopped by the forward side of the upper clapper brackets against the lower clapper. So i will need to get the right shocks.
Moving the whole thing up, showed that the bracket for the panhard bar on the right clapper, is hitting the right exhaust pipe, limiting its movement.
The left side can be put up until the bumper stop. I measured the distance between the clappers in full down and in full up, and its showing an amazingly 3" of difference between both positions.
So indeed, fixing the clappers would induce a huge amount of stress in the arms and bushings and probably causing something to break. But i wonder if the clapper can be left open.

simplyconnected
08-17-2017, 04:33 PM
...So indeed, fixing the clappers would induce a huge amount of stress in the arms and bushings and probably causing something to break. But i wonder if the clapper can be left open.
Not only can the clapper be left open but this is the only setup that HAS one. The important point is, you are discovering how the mechanics of this setup works and where the problem areas are. That is a good thing.

I have gone through the operation as best I can, including the argument for running without the guts inside the clappers. Bottom Line: Each of the four pivot points on each side must have unrestricted freedom of motion.

Consider this... your front 'A' arms are different lengths, just like the rear suspension arms. This causes the front axles to 'roll' as well, as they travel through their range of motion. (No clappers in front, either.) So, this rolling motion in the parallelogram is perfectly ok in the front AND rear suspensions.

Whether suspension is accomplished using a spring or an air bag makes no difference. The ride may be different but the function is the same. We have many LONG threads pertaining to the 1958 Squarebird's rear suspension but hardly any pertaining to the leaf spring setup. The '58 setup was wildly expensive to produce, including the dies to make over a dozen unique brackets for LH & RH, upper and lower arms and all the hardware (bolts, nuts, washers, urethane components, etc.), all for only one model year. It's easy to realize how leaf springs are far cheaper to manufacture, assemble and they don't need service parts like urethane pucks.

I hope this helps and I'm open to comments. An open forum like this encourages ideas and discussion from around the world. There are 'mistakes' in the '58 Squarebird that were rectified in subsequent years. This is one. Another, is using two front brake hoses on each front brake. I will get flack from this but it is my belief that 'restoring to original mistakes' is not a move in the right direction. That is why Ford made these product changes in the '59 & '60 model years. If we're playing the 'blame game', I put it squarely on Ford engineers who approved the drawings to build the product and tooling. - Dave

OUR5T8BIRD
08-17-2017, 05:35 PM
Not only can the clapper be left open but this is the only setup that HAS one. The important point is, you are discovering how the mechanics of this setup works and where the problem areas are. That is a good thing.

I have gone through the operation as best I can, including the argument for running without the guts inside the clappers. Bottom Line: Each of the four pivot points on each side must have unrestricted freedom of motion.

Consider this... your front 'A' arms are different lengths, just like the rear suspension arms. This causes the front axles to 'roll' as well, as they travel through their range of motion. (No clappers in front, either.) So, this rolling motion in the parallelogram is perfectly ok in the front AND rear suspensions.

Whether suspension is accomplished using a spring or an air bag makes no difference. The ride may be different but the function is the same. We have many LONG threads pertaining to the 1958 Squarebird's rear suspension but hardly any pertaining to the leaf spring setup. The '58 setup was wildly expensive to produce, including the dies to make over a dozen unique brackets for LH & RH, upper and lower arms and all the hardware (bolts, nuts, washers, urethane components, etc.), all for only one model year. It's easy to realize how leaf springs are far cheaper to manufacture, assemble and they don't need service parts like urethane pucks.

I hope this helps and I'm open to comments. An open forum like this encourages ideas and discussion from around the world. There are 'mistakes' in the '58 Squarebird that were rectified in subsequent years. This is one. Another, is using two front brake hoses on each front brake. I will get flack from this but it is my belief that 'restoring to original mistakes' is not a move in the right direction. That is why Ford made these product changes in the '59 & '60 model years. If we're playing the 'blame game', I put it squarely on Ford engineers who approved the drawings to build the product and tooling. - Dave

Dave: If not mistaking, did the '58 Lincoln not also have the rear spring suspension like the Bird . ( They came down the same assembly line in the new Wixom plant ) When I restored my '58, I put everything back with new bushings the way it came new. Also, no urethane pucks but rubber . Also, like you mention, I have two brake hoses in the front on each side , like original, and also have the shocks on the outside like original . ( Due to the possibility of originally having air bags in there .) Have seen some people put in double shocks , one inside the coil and one outside .

For your info, if any interest, I do have a " Service letter ", product information, dated June 20., 1958 that pertains to " rear Suspension Noise " . It covers problems and correction instructions . Also has a proper torque chart for suspension nuts and bolts .

ps. Enjoy your informative comments and , thanks for all you do.

simplyconnected
08-18-2017, 08:11 AM
I don't know about the Lincolns (mainly because I don't know anyone who owns one). It is possible the T-bird and Lincoln shared the same suspension. If true, Edsel cars might share the same as well. I know the air bag suspension program also included the Edsel. When the program was dropped, it spanned many models that were all dropped at the same time.

Front air bag suspension would have replaced the front springs, leaving no space for shock absorbers. That is the only reason for the outer shock absorbers. It's beyond me, why two brake line hoses were used. Why not one long hose? Subsequent years brought the hard line closer to the brake cylinder which required one short hose.

Many, many '58 owners complained about their rear suspension. I would love to see your service bulletin and torque specification page. Can you e-mail it to me? Here's my address:
simplyconnected@aol.com

Thanks for the kudos but it's guys like YOU, who contribute and share real facts with our international family. Thanks in advance, Martin.

Frango100
08-18-2017, 08:51 AM
Dave: If not mistaking, did the '58 Lincoln not also have the rear spring suspension like the Bird . ( They came down the same assembly line in the new Wixom plant ) When I restored my '58, I put everything back with new bushings the way it came new. Also, no urethane pucks but rubber . Also, like you mention, I have two brake hoses in the front on each side , like original, and also have the shocks on the outside like original . ( Due to the possibility of originally having air bags in there .) Have seen some people put in double shocks , one inside the coil and one outside .

For your info, if any interest, I do have a " Service letter ", product information, dated June 20., 1958 that pertains to " rear Suspension Noise " . It covers problems and correction instructions . Also has a proper torque chart for suspension nuts and bolts .

ps. Enjoy your informative comments and , thanks for all you do.

Hi Martin, how is your rear suspension working after replacing all bushings? Do you remember if the upper clappers, which are fixed to the axle with the U-bolts,
are also welded to the axle? On mine at least they are, making it impossible to change the angle of the differential yoke towards the transmission slip yoke.
Did you ever see how much the clappers open up and close down depending on the suspension travel? Even with rubber in between, there still will be a lot of stress put on the suspension arms and bushings. Its probably not for nothing that such a large bolt is used in the clapper connection. Iīm interrested in the bulletin for the torque values, could you attach it here?

OUR5T8BIRD
08-18-2017, 09:36 AM
I don't know about the Lincolns (mainly because I don't know anyone who owns one). It is possible the T-bird and Lincoln shared the same suspension. If true, Edsel cars might share the same as well. I know the air bag suspension program also included the Edsel. When the program was dropped, it spanned many models that were all dropped at the same time.

Front air bag suspension would have replaced the front springs, leaving no space for shock absorbers. That is the only reason for the outer shock absorbers. It's beyond me, why two brake line hoses were used. Why not one long hose? Subsequent years brought the hard line closer to the brake cylinder which required one short hose.

Many, many '58 owners complained about their rear suspension. I would love to see your service bulletin and torque specification page. Can you e-mail it to me? Here's my address:
simplyconnected@aol.com

Thanks for the kudos but it's guys like YOU, who contribute and share real facts with our international family. Thanks in advance, Martin.

Will have the ' service bulletin ' scanned and make a pdf of same . Make take a few days and then pass it on .

YellowRose
08-18-2017, 10:04 AM
Thanks, Martin! I certainly agree with what Dave said. Much of the information in the Technical Resource Library was obtained because of our great membership putting together Tech Tips on how they fixed certain problems with their Tbirds. We were able to put them in the TRL for posterity. Hopefully, Dave will be able to take the information you provide to him and do the same, or I will. We have a good number of '58 owners on here and I notice that more and more keep finding us! Since the front and rear end of that year of Squarebird is so different from the '59 & '60 we have had a lot of owners run into problems with them after some 50+ years of use. My reading indicates that it certainly was the intention of airbagging the '58 and the other Ford products of that year. But it was quickly determined there were problems with that, or that the bean counters stepped in and quashed that idea. It did not take Ford long to dump the front and rear end setup (in particular) of the '58's and go to leaf springs on their '59 product line.

OUR5T8BIRD
08-18-2017, 10:42 AM
Hi Martin, how is your rear suspension working after replacing all bushings? Do you remember if the upper clappers, which are fixed to the axle with the U-bolts,
are also welded to the axle? On mine at least they are, making it impossible to change the angle of the differential yoke towards the transmission slip yoke.
Did you ever see how much the clappers open up and close down depending on the suspension travel? Even with rubber in between, there still will be a lot of stress put on the suspension arms and bushings. Its probably not for nothing that such a large bolt is used in the clapper connection. Iīm interrested in the bulletin for the torque values, could you attach it here?

Frank: Tried to get under the car as much as I could and look with flashlight for now. All parts are powder painted and there is no sign of anything moving around excessively . The axle brackets seem welded to the axle and ' U ' bolts go through it and no movement there .There appears to be a upper arm support with a insulated between them . Both upper and lower insulators are compressed slightly with the spacer ( sleeve ) in between them . Would think the insulators ( pucks ) would need to be of certain size ( thickness ) for proper compression over the sleeve . I may still have the old original for size check . If memory serves me right, one was thicker than the other .

The Bird seems to drive just fine ( for a 60 year old car ) with little if any noise from the rear suspension . ( just a thousand miles since restoration ) .

Must get it up on a hoist one day and take some pictures of the suspension .

Frango100
08-18-2017, 11:58 AM
I also have the puck sized rubber insulators, but they are as hard as a rock. According the manual the thin insulator goes in between the two clappers and the thick one below the lower clapper. But on my Bird the distance is that large between the clappers, that they had put the thick insulator in between. And than still the clapper bolts where tightened to make the gap smaller. But this puts a huge amount of strain on all the arms and bushings. I will first see how the clappers behave without the vertical bolsts installed.

OUR5T8BIRD
08-18-2017, 12:20 PM
I also have the puck sized rubber insulators, but they are as hard as a rock. According the manual the thin insulator goes in between the two clappers and the thick one below the lower clapper. But on my Bird the distance is that large between the clappers, that they had put the thick insulator in between. And than still the clapper bolts where tightened to make the gap smaller. But this puts a huge amount of strain on all the arms and bushings. I will first see how the clappers behave without the vertical bolsts installed.

Frank, It almost sounds as if the pivot bushing between the two arms is missing on yours .
Just sent the pdf on the rear suspension service letter to Dave and Ray . Ray will probably post it . Can send it to you if I have your regular email address .

Frango100
08-18-2017, 12:31 PM
Frank, It almost sounds as if the pivot bushing between the two arms is missing on yours .
Just sent the pdf on the rear suspension service letter to Dave and Ray . Ray will probably post it . Can send it to you if I have your regular email address .
Yes please send it to me: f.engelgeer@td.klm.com. Thanks in advance.
There is a bushing which passes through both insulators, but its a bit rusted.

OUR5T8BIRD
08-18-2017, 01:25 PM
Yes please send it to me: f.engelgeer@td.klm.com. Thanks in advance.
There is a bushing which passes through both insulators, but its a bit rusted.

Will send it to you as well . I was referring to the pivot block with a bushing in it that mounts between the two arms, not the metal sleeve that goes inside the insulators ( pucks ) . You will see it in the parts diagram I am sending . ( part # 5555 ) .

YellowRose
08-21-2017, 04:16 PM
I just posted the 1958 Rear Suspension Noise Service Letter in the Technical Resource Library that Martin provided us. You will find it in the 1958-1960 Squarebirds Suspension section. Thank you very much for this information, Martin! I is much appreciated.

simplyconnected
08-23-2017, 05:06 PM
...But this puts a huge amount of strain on all the arms and bushings. I will first see how the clappers behave without the vertical bolsts installed. Well? Did you try running with the clappers empty?

Frango100
08-24-2017, 12:43 AM
Well? Did you try running with the clappers empty?

Hi Dave, still waiting for the differential parts to arrive, so for now the differential is out of the car. I presume it will take another two weeks for the parts to be in my hands.
I will do some other upgrades in the mean time, an electrical fuel pump (Carter)for priming will be one of them.

simplyconnected
08-24-2017, 12:35 PM
...I will do some other upgrades in the mean time, an electrical fuel pump (Carter) for priming will be one of them.I'm not opposed to an electric fuel pump, but why?

Your mechanical fuel pump already includes a check valve that is supposed to stop fuel from flowing back to the tank. Simply put, when you shut your engine off, fuel on the top side of your fuel line keeps the pump primed (even if your carb empties out). Fuel in your carburetor bowls should be enough to start the engine AND get the fuel pump going again.

If your car is hard-starting, I would look for the root cause rather than adding 'yet another d@mn thing that can go wrong'. Bottom Line: Your car ran fine for decades without any more than the original pump and carb.

Electric fuel pumps are meant for systems (like EFI) that don't have float bowls or a reserve of gas to squirt into the engine. Electric fuel pumps can deliver too much pressure; more than the carb's needle and seat can deal with. Therefore, a low-pressure regulator may also be needed. (Yet, another d@mn thing that could go wrong.)

Use all your senses when troubleshooting. Pay attention to things that are absent, as well. For example, you crank the engine but it doesn't start... Do you smell fuel, or NOT? Absence of pungent fuel smell might indicate water instead of fuel, or no liquid at all. A short length of see-through plastic in your fuel line will show cavitation, vapor lock or a bad fuel line seal, etc.

You know what you're doing, so be creative and don't be afraid to try different tests and techniques. - Dave

Frango100
08-24-2017, 05:58 PM
Maybe in the old days with the old fuel it was working fine, but now every time I will have to crank the engine for at least ten seconds to get it to start. The fuel bowls are just empty every time. Only when I start the engine and donīt let it warm up completely and shut it down, it will start rapidly the next time. So I want/need the electrical pump to fill the bowls and keep it as a back-up in case the mechanical pump fails. (the last just as an added bonus).
I donīt know if the Edelbrock 1405 is also more prone to this problem than the original carburator, but also donīt forget that we have 27% of ethanol in the fuel here in Brazil and the bowls are just completely dry each time. I normally drive the bird at least once a week. But I donīt want to overload the starter and battery and donīt like the extended starting times, so that's the reason I will put on the electrical pump.

jopizz
08-24-2017, 06:16 PM
I donīt know if the Edelbrock 1405 is also more prone to this problem than the original carburator, but also donīt forget that we have 27% of ethanol in the fuel here in Brazil and the bowls are just completely dry each time. I normally drive the bird at least once a week. But I donīt want to overload the starter and battery and donīt like the extended starting times, so that's the reason I will put on the electrical pump.

I haven't noticed any problems with Edelbrock carburetors that I've had running dry. 27% ethanol is a lot. I have seen check valves that you can put in the fuel line to keep it from running back into the tank but as Dave mentioned you have one in the fuel pump. Depending on where you are putting the electric pump you may have the same issue if it's related to the amount of Ethanol in the fuel. If the fuel is evaporating even an electric pump may not totally solve your problem.

John

Frango100
08-24-2017, 09:40 PM
Hi John. I had put a check valve in the supply line close to the tank, but it didnīt help a bit. Still empty bowls. I will put the electrical pump with its own switch,
just to be able to fill the bowls before the start.
I want to put the pump as close as possible to the fuel tank.
Its a vane type pump, so will not have a lot of suction and should be close to the tank. The pump should supply around 6 psi, which should be ok for the float valves.

Astrowing
08-26-2017, 08:55 AM
Mine evaporates in 2 weeks requiring some cranking. If I run it the next day, it starts right up with a bump of the starter. Fords in my experience always start easily.

Once this pesky hurricane goes away, I can get back to suspension arms.

Frango100
08-26-2017, 02:12 PM
Mine evaporates in 2 weeks requiring some cranking. If I run it the next day, it starts right up with a bump of the starter. Fords in my experience always start easily.

Once this pesky hurricane goes away, I can get back to suspension arms.

Which carburetor are you running? Maybe the high amount of ethanol over here (27%) is part of the problem.

Astrowing
08-26-2017, 05:02 PM
I'm running the original Autolite 4100 carb. Venting could very well be different. In the US, the vapor pressure of gasoline is limited to either 7.8 or 9 psi depending on location and month. They allow an additional 1 psi for 10 percent ethanol. E85 ethanol can go up to 15 psi total so I'm not surprised 27% alcohol has a substantial vapor pressure and hence rapid evaporation.

tbird430
08-28-2017, 06:08 PM
Where is Anders in all of this rear 1958 axle talk??

I remember he really tore down & diagnosed his '58 Bird a few years ago. He even custom made 2-3 sets of bushings!! Until he got the right "softness" to work with the back of his '58 Bird...

-Jon in TX.

Frango100
08-28-2017, 06:37 PM
Where is Anders in all of this rear 1958 axle talk??

I remember he really tore down & diagnosed his '58 Bird a few years ago. He even custom made 2-3 sets of bushings!! Until he got the right "softness" to work with the back of his '58 Bird...

-Jon in TX.

I had send him a private message a while ago, but it seems that he has not been on here for some time.

YellowRose
08-28-2017, 06:46 PM
Unfortunately, Anders has not been active on this Forum since shortly after the new year, and has not posted for over a year... Here are four of his threads that you might want to take a look at that cover this subject...

ī58 Rear suspension "issues" ~

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10678

58 rear suspension ~

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9255

Upper Suspension ( control ) Arm Bushings, Rear ~

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8754

Project Ruth. ~

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=14357

Frango100
08-29-2017, 09:29 AM
Thanks for that Ray.

Astrowing
08-31-2017, 10:49 PM
Got it out this afternoon. PB blaster and wire brush and rocking it back and forth with the impact wrench did the trick