yes i am still agreeing with you, i'm not c0(k blocking you settle down....

i do know you've had alot more valuble input to these forums than I have arm79

i guess what i'm trying to say isn't they didn't engineer them to fail prematurely per say. But i still stand by the point of lean manufacturing, as also you've agreed with me about cutting back in vital areas. They've infact cut back in plenty more areas you just don't hear people whinging about. theres lists of problems fords had 30 years back they still haven't fixed today.thats all about lean manufacturing and development choices and all sorts of other corporate bull. They just aren't making things stronger to cope with new stresses = saving heaps.

The bottom line is Ford never has, taken the long term into account when designing these vehicles, it's just a matter of better material availability in the past that has seen the reliability some are used to. Heaps more involved here like outsourcing raw/processed/assembled materials reflected over time. As far as i'm aware they don't still manufacture original early e series transmission parts ? Meaning use of parts would be new old stock.

Why do people lunch standard half shafts but turbo ones have supported some pretty fair power ? Lean manufacturing and cost cutting in models that 'don't need it'

Why should Ford put turbo strength half shafts in non turbo cars though????

I think your definition of lean manufacturing is different than mine. Lean manufacturing to me the removal of anything not to do with producing the product. So removing the warehousing and replacing it with Just In Time parts... Replacing humans with robots... Outsourcing Customer Service, etc, etc...

Cost cutting is simply that, taking everything out of the end product, leaving just enough to make it work properly.

For instance, I don't believe there is any difference in half shafts. The IRS cradle in BA to FG is exactly the same for every model, from XT to GT-E. Same control arms, same half shafts, same bushes, etc, etc. The only difference being a stronger diff for the turbo and V8 models and camber adjustment on BA XR and FPV models.

The cost cutting comes in when Ford decided to remove the camber adjustment from mid life BF models... And swapping the rear XR discs from ventilated to solid... Or using XR6 springs and shocks in an $80,000 Force 6... Or XT front upper control arms on FG FPV's that end up causing massive brake shudder. etc, etc...

I've never heard for stock half shafts lunching themselves on stock standard cars... Lowered cars yes as it will eventually kill the CV's. Go have a visit of the XR6T forums and have a look at all the drive shaft, half shaft and rear bearing issues, on stock cars. Not modified.

An excellent example is when Ford decided to upgrade the tailshaft on all utes and tried to use the same tailshaft across all models. Testing found this wasnt good in turbos and V8's. The tailshaft would explode. Ford persisted and released the cars and had a large amount of warranty claims. The fix was to replace the tailshaft with a BF one.

why did you use a XF power as an example? they had a mechanical 3 speed. not a electronic 4 speed

because krisisdog i'm lazy and couldn't find early e series output quick enuf.. still makes the same point though. want to show me the figures ? when did 4 speed come in? eb ?

and arm79 i've never lunched a set of half shafts myself because i don't abuse my car, i'm just going from what i've heard around the traps and i'm not a member of other ford forums as i merely coudn't be bothered.. So thats pretty intresting, Thank you.

what model did they try to standardise the tailshafts on ? not a good thing to fail..... hehe

and how do the upper control arms cause brake shudder ?

first released on the 30th anniversary EA Falcon

ea2 was the first to have 4 speed auto, pretty sure it was 1990

and how much power did they have ? around 140kw ? at around 5000 ? rough guess.

troyman could you tell me if vct xr heads still have xr valve springs ? i remember reading somewhere that they didn't use the xr head for the vct models, which is why theres a:
4.0 sefi (157kw),
4.0 xr6 vct (172kw)
4.0 ghia vct (168kw) and a
4.0 HO (164kw).

Confusing lol i don't know much about au's.

Either have I. I believe the main problems come with excessive power, which will snap the shafts... Or lowering, as it throws the resting angles of the CV's out, and when you power down with any engine, it throws the angles out more, past their range of motion and they go pop.



FG utes. They decided to use CV joints all through the tailshaft along with a weaker leaf spring system. Worked fine in N/A I6's... But in high torque engines, it was not only bending the leaf into an S-shape but popping the CV's. This showed up in testing and Ford's solution was to torque limit first gear more. But it was a big problem after release, specially when owners used their cars as they were supposed to... As in carrying things in the tray.



In an effort to make the cars ride softer, Ford designed the upper rear control arm mount to be thinner than the chassis mount itself. So the arm could move around a bit and absorb some of the shocks. Worked well in everything but FPV's with Brembo's, specially the 6 piston setups, where some sort of brake harmonic at low speeds would cause the upper arm to vibrate in its mount, made worse by that thinner control arm mount. Apparently the vibration was that bad it was enough to rattle teeth from gums and limbs from joints. The result was a new upper arm casting for all FPV's.

Main question was how did Ford not notice this during testing? Or did they and hope owners wouldnt notice. lol

Maybe you should frequent some of the other sites. Alot of them have people that work on the production lines. One bloke on XR6T forums works in the "Quality Assurance" team and is always there to explain how and why Ford f**k up and the reason behind new parts and noticable cut backs in production parts.

Doesn't matter how much power they had. Torque is the killer. Don't confuse power with torque.

If you manage to dig up an internal BTR production manual, it describes all the upgrades they made to the boxes from EA onwards. Stronger this, stronger that, bigger pumps, bigger converter necks, self adjusting bands, stronger a***, ribs on cases to reduve NVH.

I think I still have a copy on my old laptop. Was an interesting read.

But the fact is, up until EL, they actually made an effort to make the boxes stronger and more reliable to match the engine upgrades. AU onwards, they went backwards.

And the power differences between the Ghia VCT and XR VCT is down to a more restrictive exhaust. But its the torque levels and torque rpm range that separated the engines. Base I6 and XRHO I6 were the same bar the cam.

the au vct uses the same valves ,valve springs and rockers as the non vct xr tickford head..
the heads are basically identical except for the casting to the front of the head (for the vct unit), cam gear and cam...

awsome! sorry to hijack the thread...

Thanks Troyman.

Very intresting about the control arm chatter, i always thought they were small even in the au, i'm used to the boxcar.
I don't confuse power with torque, i was describing them handling more overall output rather than more power, i just got carried away.
I've never had much to do with autos untill i bought the bf.
I think Ford needs a full time seperate PR team to handle all these questions lol

They do have one.

It's called Ford CRC.

But they are f**k useless.

sounds like my local service department

what come first? EA2 or 30th anniversary?