Angry Bird update and electrical ID

Sorry I guess I assume you had a wiring diagram. The diagram would probably answer most of your questions. Well worth having even though you've removed a lot of the wires.

I didn't correct your terminology with respect to the connector, but there are two junction blocks, one primary and one secondary. The primary is in fact the inside fuse box, and the secondary is up in the dash hidden away (normally, not sure about in your case). The secondary block has a number of plugs arranged in it, but no fuses. Not sure what they call that major junction you are talking about. I haven't sat down and looked at the wiring diagrams with your issues in mind so my comments are a bit on the casual side rather than specific.

That being said, the connector you are looking at is primarily a feed for the back half of the car and so I don't think it is starter related. In generally terms, the starter wires go from the key, to the transmission harness, back up into the dash, over to the round bulkhead connector that feeds the starter solenoids. The two large connectors are in close proximity, and there is a loop connector that is normally clipped to the side of the rectangular connector you have been talking about. This connector is transmission specific. The 5spds do one thing and the auto's do another. I forget which is which but in messing with the big connector, you are probably moving that smaller connector and you could be bumping the large round connector wiring too since they are in close proximity and the round connector does carry the starter wires.

If you do look at wiring diagrams, I don't think there is a 1990 diagram since the 89-90 harnesses are the same. I've only ever found the 89 harness and have used it for all my 90 wiring issues.

Dave - I did notice a high number of wires from the rear of the vehicle converged at that plug-in. Most of those I snipped, came from back there. At the same time, this first happened while I was toying with it, splicing into the reverse light wire, coming from the dash/tranny. Both times, it was my twisting or reseating that connector that resulted in success. Might the neutral safety switch be routed through there and not get connected properly? or some other cut-out to the ignition?

Thanks,
John

John,

It doesn't go through the rectangular plug. Your moving things around is having an impact on a different connector. You need a wiring diagram. Since your donor car was a 90 then you probably still have the brake interlock relay which is in the dash. I'd look there also, but you'll just need to trace it down.

The basic flow should be - key - transmission neutral switch - brake interlock relay - firewall bulkhead. There are other connections too, but those are the critical components. Look for the red/blue and white/pink 12awg wires.

Okay, I know what plug-in you are talking about (pk/w). I didn't move things too far from their original location, as it is the original wiring harness.

BTW - it is an 89. I don't think I had the brake interlock, did I?

Thanks,
John

jclars said:

Okay, I know what plug-in you are talking about (pk/w). I didn't move things too far from their original location, as it is the original wiring harness.

BTW - it is an 89. I don't think I had the brake interlock, did I?

Thanks,
John

Click to expand...

No, there would be no starter interrupt relay in a 1989.

Wow.

I have a '91 SC that I bought new and drove it ~150,000 miles. It has the manual box. After the shifter broke for the 3rd time, I parked it. That was about 7 years ago. I've just retired and have bought a '54 Ford Tudor. I'm planning to put the SC running gear under the 54. It is great to see something similar has been done before. My plan at this point may be a bit more ambitious as I plan on using the SC front suspension too. I plan to cut the front clip off in its entirety and graft it onto the 54 frame.

Where do I find more info as to how this truck came out?

David

John will correct me if wrong, but I think his truck has a Jag front end.

Ken is correct. I used a Jag XJ-6 front as it was a very simple installation. I measured the SC motor mounts relative to position in the SC and adapted them to the Jag sub-frame.

The SC shock towers are one of the main culprits of it's tight engine bay. There were enough complaints by SC users about spark plug access, oil filter access, etc. etc. that I just didnt want that part of the car. I have seen a couple examples of similar transfers to older cars and they are not pretty...

David, if you go through this thread, or do a search on user jclars on this forum, you will find links to just about all my published pics. You may find ratrodsrule.com of interest, as they have done just about everything known to their vehicles. I did a build thread on that site, but you will have to join to access the pics. It is a friendly open forum, unlike other sites that don't like the approach I took.

You are also welcome to e-mail me direct for a more detailed discussion.

Either system will result in modern comfort from your older vehicle. And a road hugging ability that is hard to duplicate! I have an MGB roadster and a MGA Coupe and the truck is better at cornering, handling and far more fun to drive.

John L.

I just did a quick comparison of frame dimensional data and it appears my truck was a little closer to the SC dimensions to start with. The 56 truck had tread widths of 60" front and rear. SC was 61.6 front and 60.2 rear. The Tudor was narrower at 58 and 56.

Also wheelbase is 2" longer on the Tudor, but depending on layout, may be favorable for engine bay clearances. Naturally the drive shaft will need lengthening.

For comparison, the Jag front is 59" tread width.

What is the frame width on the Tudor? I couldn't locate this online anywhere.

So it appears all doable, except the Tudor may be more challenging, as it is somewhat narrower. You will need to evaluate your fender clearances relative to all this, as my truck is fat fendered with lots of room, while the Tudor appears quite narrow. That said, if you look at the SC wheels you'll see they have a lot of offset to play with.

Sounds like my kind of challenge!

John L.

John,

Cool. Thanks for helping me think this through!

Actually, I'm thinking it will work best if I convert the Tudor to a "unibody". But, let's back up. My goal is to have my SC back with all its performance (and hopefully more) and comfort back (that you've come to enjoy), but look like the 54. I have some sentimental reasons for that and the plastic in the SC has been in the Texas sun too long...

Looks to me like I can cut the front clip off of the SC complete with the firewall and maybe even the dash and marry it to the Tudor frame and body. Then, on the Tudor. I can remove the rubber isolators between the frame and the body and weld her up. Stiffer as a result? I might even elect to cut the floor pan out of the SC and weld the body of the Tudor to that - not all of it, but maybe back to where the rails end under the front seats. That might make using the SC interior easier and the Tudor has some floor pan rust anyway. And, this would effectively lower her down a bit too. Yeah, I know I'd have to brace up the Tudor body real well before cutting the floor and the fire wall out of her.

Just ideas at this point...and maybe I should just wait for 3d printing to develop so I can print the needed plastic pieces to restore the SC.

The Tudor frame width is 42.5".

Thanks again!

David

Hi David,

Your description has jogged my memory to recall a shoebox T-bird with some of the concepts you mention. I saw it 3 years ago at the Hot Rod Run to the End of the World in Long Beach, WA. This was before I had crossed paths with the T-bird SC, but there idea was so radical I had a hard time wrapping my head around it. In fact, the old owners had a hard time explaining it to me.

As you can see, the rear kept the SC shape, so even the bodies were blended together. It was an eye-catcher!

John L.

Thanks. I've seen pictures of that one before. It would be fun to see in person. It it interesting. However, if I was going to try something like this, I'd do it the opposite, make the front SC and the rear Tudor. It would be more aerodynamic and safer. But, for me, I'm looking to maintain the 54 Tudor look and just have the ride and performance of the SC.

David

John, David,

That last pic of the purple car was just a front/rear clip kit. You bolt it on to the complete stock t-bird. I guess you would have to weld up the rear quarters. If I'm not mistaken the kits were manufactured in the Amherst or Avon lake Ohio area, right around the corner from me, so there were several running around my area for a while. They were not that impressive when looked at closely. John your truck is 100% cooler, and so is your idea Dave. You might want to look at some of the '03-04 Terminator mustang into earlier mustang swaps, as I have seen several articals in the Hot Rod rags of guys cutting the entire bodies off wrecks and dropping the earlier mustangs on the Cobra chassis (complete floorpans/lower unibody and interior). That's an idea I would love to see on a project like yours.

Adam

Thanks Adam,

After posting I did a google search for "shoebox thunderbird" and sure enough a couple of the kit cars showed up. There must not have been too many, and it appears the purple one I saw was finished a bit better. But now I know why people were kind of shunning it at the show. And why the owner was so vague about it.

I like your idea better David. It resonates with my truck, except for my Jag suspension. I wish I could say my truck was all SC.

It is likewise amazing the reactions I get from this kind of swap. Most older guys dont know what it is. Their first guess is Buick 3.8. The younger crowd is actually more in tune, partly thanks to the Mustang. But they also like the overall unfinished appearance more than the conventional hot rod crowd.

Good luck David, and post a build thread for sure!

John L.