Year-To-Year Differences?

[Gary Lewis]

Keith Dickson, Mr FORDification, just added a page to his website on the model year differences for the 1967 Ford trucks. And that got me to thinking about the Yearly Differences tab on the Bullnose FAQ's page here.

As I told Keith on Facebook, ours doesn't hold a candle to his. So I've been thinking about how to upgrade ours, but I'd like your input. Here are my first-blush thoughts:

• Coverage: Instead of doing a single year, like Keith did, I think ours should cover all seven years of the Bullnose era.

• Format: Heretofore we've used a bulleted-list approach of changes for each year. That works, but it makes it difficult to find what you are looking for if you are trying to find a specific topic. And, it makes it difficult to do pics, like Keith did. Instead, I like his approach of listing the topic, like doors or engines, and then detailing the changes between the years for that topic. And, I think should use pics.

But, what are your thoughts? Suggestions?

[85lebaront2]

Gary, that sounds like a good idea, particularly as has already been found that there were differences even between assembly plants in a given year.

[Gary Lewis]

Gary, that sounds like a good idea, particularly as has already been found that there were differences even between assembly plants in a given year.

Bill - I hadn't even thought about the plant-to-plant differences. But this approach facilitates that because we can talk about door locks and turn signal lenses and, within them, discuss the probable consolidation of hardware to a sub-set of the plants.

[Rembrant]

But, what are your thoughts? Suggestions?

The LMC Catalogs have a section with "key information" per model year, but it's pretty basic stuff. Doesn't get into very much detail.

I think it's a neat idea.

 

[grumpin]

But, what are your thoughts? Suggestions?

The LMC Catalogs have a section with "key information" per model year, but it's pretty basic stuff. Doesn't get into very much detail.

I think it's a neat idea.

I like the idea, I think broke into sections would be great.

[Ford F834]

I think this would be a great addition, Gary, and I think the sections format is a good one. However, in the 67 example the differences were just 67 vs. everything else. In our series of years we have several possibilities to cover. Having done my share of scientific writing, I have been trained to avoid using tables as much as possible... but this might be a good time to use tables....

[Gary Lewis]

I think this would be a great addition, Gary, and I think the sections format is a good one. However, in the 67 example the differences were just 67 vs. everything else. In our series of years we have several possibilities to cover. Having done my share of scientific writing, I have been trained to avoid using tables as much as possible... but this might be a good time to use tables....

Ok, I've made a VERY preliminary first stab at a page for this: Year-To-Year Changes. It is only there to see if you like the approach I'm thinking of taking, meaning using tabs for the systems/sections and bullets for each item. But, I also want to use pics where appropriate.

But, I can already tell that the tab layout I currently have won't work as we are up to 6 tabs (bet you can't easily see the 6th one), so I'll need to rethink that. Perhaps y'all have some ideas?

As for the tables, I think a table for engines and one for transmissions will be necessary. As said on that page, there are some issues we'll have to sort out, like that the 400, 460, and diesel were not available in F100's or 150's. But that will take some work, so I'll take a stab at it and let you see what it looks like.

Anyway, thoughts, recommendations, suggestions PLEASE!

[Rembrant]

Ok, I've made a VERY preliminary first stab at a page for this: Year-To-Year Changes. It is only there to see if you like the approach I'm thinking of taking, meaning using tabs for the systems/sections and bullets for each item. But, I also want to use pics where appropriate.

But, I can already tell that the tab layout I currently have won't work as we are up to 6 tabs (bet you can't easily see the 6th one), so I'll need to rethink that. Perhaps y'all have some ideas?

As for the tables, I think a table for engines and one for transmissions will be necessary. As said on that page, there are some issues we'll have to sort out, like that the 400, 460, and diesel were not available in F100's or 150's. But that will take some work, so I'll take a stab at it and let you see what it looks like.

Anyway, thoughts, recommendations, suggestions PLEASE!

Gary,

An alternative would be to break it down by year. For the 1980 model year, you could list the basics for that model year only, and then move on to the next. For example, 1983 you'd say that what engines had hydraulic clutch, etc and then 1984 say that they all got 'em. That would limit the tabs to only the Bullnose years.

 

[85lebaront2]

Ok, I've made a VERY preliminary first stab at a page for this: Year-To-Year Changes. It is only there to see if you like the approach I'm thinking of taking, meaning using tabs for the systems/sections and bullets for each item. But, I also want to use pics where appropriate.

But, I can already tell that the tab layout I currently have won't work as we are up to 6 tabs (bet you can't easily see the 6th one), so I'll need to rethink that. Perhaps y'all have some ideas?

As for the tables, I think a table for engines and one for transmissions will be necessary. As said on that page, there are some issues we'll have to sort out, like that the 400, 460, and diesel were not available in F100's or 150's. But that will take some work, so I'll take a stab at it and let you see what it looks like.

Anyway, thoughts, recommendations, suggestions PLEASE!

Ok, quickly, driveline, change is not so much F100/150 vs F250/350 as it is a weight break, over or under 8500 GVWR for the "heavy duty" emission classification. Transmissions, yeah real fun. BTW, I did see the cast iron trans showed up in the 1980 information, so maybe sometime amend that portion to include the iron case.

NSS, interestingly the 1973-79 models had it, but since they were dash mounted ignition switch and the 1980 models became column mounted, I imagine some bean counter decided it wasn't needed. FWIW, the iron case automatics had no place for a switch, and I believe had a strange reverse lamp system also. This wasn't a big issue as even the cars used a column or shifter mounted switch if needed.

C4, C5, C6 and AOT (Ford's designation) had one or a place to mount it if needed.

Radiator mount changed, A/C compressor changed, alternator, I didn't realize the 2G didn't appear until 1985.

Fuel system, maybe an engine controls (some of which is weight related). This is more applicable to engines like the 300 and 302, and some 351s. The weight class and location sold influenced a lot of that.

Hope this helps.

[Rembrant]

...maybe an engine controls (some of which is weight related). This is more applicable to engines like the 300 and 302, and some 351s. The weight class and location sold influenced a lot of that.

Then there were also the engine changes that had nothing to do with the Bullnose, like the switch to 1pc rear main seal, or the 28 to 50oz flywheel on the 302, etc, etc. That stuff would just clutter things up though...and while they happened during the Bullnose era, they weren't specific to them.