This will take you to the main site where there is history, technical information and other information on these cars.
This takes you back to the main page of the forums.
This is the control panel to change your password, information and preferences on this message board.
Click here if your lost your password or need to register on this message board. You must be a registered user to post. Registration is free.
Search this board for information you need.
Click here to buy cool Squarebirds mechandise.
Click here to support Squarebirds.org. For $20 annually receive 20mBytes webspace, a Squarebirds e-mail address and member's icon on the message board.
  #11  
Old 09-13-2007, 02:52 PM
tbird430's Avatar
tbird430 tbird430 is offline
Super-Experienced
 
Join Date: Jun 18 2007
Posts: 2,616
tbird430 is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb

It also acts as an overflow tank or a fluid "catch" reservoir. When the car's engine is stop (not running) fluid expansion occurs.

We should also only be filling these expansion tanks approx. 1/2 way. I run mine on the seem inside the tank (where the 2 halfs come together). This keeps a coolant mixture from "burping" out every time you kill the engine...
__________________

The 1960 Ford Thunderbird. The WORLD'S most wanted car....

VTCI Member#6287.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-13-2007, 04:00 PM
tarps3 tarps3 is offline
Super-Experienced
 
Join Date: Jul 21 2003
Posts: 837
tarps3 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hawkrod - count me among the ignorant masses who are causing you consternation with our postings.

My '64 Galaxie didn't have the low-slung radiator like my TBird but it too had the expansion tank. The radiator for the Galaxie was also quite large - huge in fact. It seems that if the primary purpose of the tank was to elevate it above the engine, then there would have been no reason for adding it to the Galaxie.
Like most people on this board, I'm not a professional mechanic and won't pretend to be one, but my common sense tells me that the tank allows the system to hold more coolant than it would without it. That's gotta help somewhat.

The fact that so many of us have had better results with the addition of a different fan or a shroud can't be ignored. If it were an uncommon occurance, there probably wouldn't be so many postings about it.

You know, Ford also put drum brakes on these Birds as a cost-saving measure. I don't thnk many would disagree that the stopping power of these cars is sub-standard - as is the cooling. Just because it came from the factory that way doesn't make it optimal.
__________________
Casey
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-13-2007, 06:32 PM
frank58 frank58 is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: May 28 2006
Posts: 356
frank58 is on a distinguished road
Default

I had 3 sqbirds back between 1967 and 1970 overheating was never a problem for me either. It will be a long time before I even have to think about my '58 overheating, I'll let you know in a couple of years.
I'm afraid that I'm kind of a purist.... although I know everyone has different tastes and with 50 years of technology to work with it's no wonder so many want to "modernize" their rides .. brakes, ignition, cooling, carburation, etc, etc, but it does make me think that there are less and less original birds out there. But I am still fascinated by the wonderfull work (all of it) and all the love we all put into our birds.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-13-2007, 07:09 PM
Alexander's Avatar
Alexander Alexander is offline
Webmaster
 
Join Date: Oct 30 2002
Posts: 3,338
Alexander is on a distinguished road
Default

The Squarebirds with air-conditioning definitely overheated in traffic when new. I have spoken with several owners and mechanics who were there when the cars were new.

The engines and radiators of these car in the past 50 years have accumulated deposits on the walls, which prevents good heat transfer. This is one reason the cars are more prone to overheating now than when new.
__________________
Alexander
1959 Hard Top
1960 Golde Top
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2007, 01:32 AM
Hawkrod Hawkrod is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Oct 31 2005
Posts: 288
Hawkrod is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarps3 View Post
Hawkrod - count me among the ignorant masses who are causing you consternation with our postings.

My '64 Galaxie didn't have the low-slung radiator like my TBird but it too had the expansion tank. The radiator for the Galaxie was also quite large - huge in fact. It seems that if the primary purpose of the tank was to elevate it above the engine, then there would have been no reason for adding it to the Galaxie.
Like most people on this board, I'm not a professional mechanic and won't pretend to be one, but my common sense tells me that the tank allows the system to hold more coolant than it would without it. That's gotta help somewhat.

The fact that so many of us have had better results with the addition of a different fan or a shroud can't be ignored. If it were an uncommon occurance, there probably wouldn't be so many postings about it.

You know, Ford also put drum brakes on these Birds as a cost-saving measure. I don't thnk many would disagree that the stopping power of these cars is sub-standard - as is the cooling. Just because it came from the factory that way doesn't make it optimal.

You are mistaken about Galaxies. Next time you are standing next to a 64 Galaxie raise the hood and put a level on the radiator top. It is just above the front of the intake manifold. I have one here, the hose runs UP from the radiator to the expansion tank. Hawkrod
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2007, 01:37 AM
Hawkrod Hawkrod is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Oct 31 2005
Posts: 288
Hawkrod is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird430 View Post
It also acts as an overflow tank or a fluid "catch" reservoir. When the car's engine is stop (not running) fluid expansion occurs.

We should also only be filling these expansion tanks approx. 1/2 way. I run mine on the seem inside the tank (where the 2 halfs come together). This keeps a coolant mixture from "burping" out every time you kill the engine...
Actually that is not correct anymore than the top tank on a regular radiator does the same exact thing. An overflow tank is outside of the sealed cooling system. Cars with the radiators higher than the engine have air space in the top of the radiator to allow for expansion and to keep from running air through the cooling system. These cars were built with the radiator low and so that can't happen so the tank was mounted high to get the same exact result. The capacity of the tank has no bearing on additional cooling and the proof of that is the total capacity is no more than other Fords without the tank. That is why it is called an expansion tank. The radiator performs this exact same action if the top of the radiator is above the top of the engine. keep in mind that it actually cost Ford more money to make cars with the tank than without. Ford is famous for cost cutting and would not produce a vehicle with a part it did not need if there was a less expensive alternative. There were other Ford products being built at the same time that did not use a tank because they had a higher hoodline. The tank was an expense related to design, in those days it was much more important how a car "looked'. Hawkrod
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-16-2007, 05:48 PM
byersmtrco's Avatar
byersmtrco byersmtrco is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 28 2004
Posts: 1,607
byersmtrco is on a distinguished road
Default

Funny the expansion tanks were a "Ford" thing in those years. Chevrolet's never had them. Cad . . . other GMs never did. Although some of the new ones do (plastic of course) Chrysler products didn't have them (to my knowledge) Those cars had bigger radiators too.

I've been around TBirds my whole life. When I was born I was driven home from the hospital in my 60 Conv.(seriously) Running hot has been a concern since day one. It rarely OVERheated and boiled over or stalled, but it was ALWAYS close. My dad ALWAYS kept this car (mechanically) in tip top condition. He didn't really sweat the cosmetic stuff, but that car was always ready for a cross country trip (even though the farthest east it's ever been is Reno NV. When you'd shut it off coolant would spit out, or you could hear it boiling in that (stupid) tank.
We've known several other people over the years with TBirds and running hot was ALWAYS an issue.
Alexander is correct in that things like smaller radiators and weak little fans and puny sway bars and those ****y little Falcon/Mustang size brakes we cost cutting measures. Ford was hurtin in those years. Many car historians believe that the 58 (to some degree) and the 59-60 TBirds really bailed Ford out.
I'm all for restoring them to 100 % authenticty (IF) it's going to sit in a museum. But if we're (I'm) going to drive this car out in the real world, I'm going add these items that make it a safer and more mechanically sound (and fun) car to drive.
__________________
John Byers
1960 Convertible (Orig owner)
Pic of car with my son Justin (15 Y/O 6'1")
Poss 3rd Gen T/B owner
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-18-2007, 03:39 AM
Hawkrod Hawkrod is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Oct 31 2005
Posts: 288
Hawkrod is on a distinguished road
Default

I am kind of surprised by the comment or thought that the Tbird did anything to bail Ford out given the fact that in those years Ford was the biggest and best. Did any of you guys know that Ford was the number one selling car of 1957? Total production of US cars (no trucks) was 1,676,448 and only 21,380 were tbirds (hardly worth mentioning). In 1958 it was 987,975 with under 38,000 being birds, and 1959 was similar with a whopping jump to 1,462,140 cars with about 67,500 being birds. By comparison, the 57 Chevy sold 1,508,931 not counting vettes, in 58 they sold 1,216,597 to beat ford but then again in 59 they lost the lead with only 1,436,954. What these numbers are meant to show is that Tbirds only impact was as a showroom draw and that Ford was not weak which is why they were able to absorb the financial disaster that was Edsel in 1960. The Edsel fiasco would bankrupt any of the big auto makers today but at the time Ford had so much money they could afford to loose a few hundred million here or there! Ford was not only healthy but robust at the time these cars were made and any suggestion to the contrary is a mistaken impression. Hawkrod
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:27 AM.

Driving, racing or working on cars can be hazardous. The procedures and advice on this website including the message board are opinion only. Squarebirds.org and its webmasters and contributors do not guarantee the correctness of the advice and procedures. The Squarebirds.org and its webmasters assume no liability for any damage, fines, punishment, injury or death resulting from following these procedures or advice. If you do not have the skills or tools to repair your car, please consult a professional. By using this site you agree to hold harmless the Squarebirds.org, its authors and its webmasters from any resulting claim and costs that may occur from using the information found on this site.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Any submissions to this site and any post on this site becomes property of Squarebirds.org . The webmasters reserve the right to edit and modify any submissions to this site. All material on this is site is copyrighted by the Squarebirds.org. Reproduction by any means other than for personal use is strictly prohibited. Permission to use material on this site can be obtained by contacting the webmasters. Copyright 2002-2016 by Squarebirds.org.