1990 F250 Front Sway Bar & Crossmember

[Gary Lewis]

This is offered first to Darin/Oz Econoline/F100 as he's asked me about it, but if he doesn't want it then it will be available to others.

This is a front sway bar from a 4wd 1990 F250 w/a 460. It includes the crossmember, sway bar, bushings, u-brackets, and fasteners.

First, here's a picture of Dad's front frame showing the holes for mounting a sway bar. Darin - You can compare that with your frame.

And here's the holes on the crossmember itself:

Darin - If you need more pics or measurements please let me know.

And here's the crossmember, sway bar, fasteners, etc:

[ArdWrknTrk]

Inches?

How colonial!

[Gary Lewis]

Inches?

How colonial!

I have a scale that is inch on one side and metric on the other. But it is 12” Long and wouldn’t fit.

[PetesPonies]

Inches?

How colonial!

40 years ago, while in school, my teachers told me the metric system would be the way everything is measured. Well 40 years later, it is not. The Imperial System is still used, even in some high tech instances.

[Gary Lewis]

40 years ago, while in school, my teachers told me the metric system would be the way everything is measured. Well 40 years later, it is not. The Imperial System is still used, even in some high tech instances.

I wish Ford had made up its mind whether it was going metric or not. These trucks are a mix of both, and it is a pain to figure out which.

Anyway, Darin has said he wants the crossmember, but not the sway bar. So that's available should someone want it.

[85lebaront2]

40 years ago, while in school, my teachers told me the metric system would be the way everything is measured. Well 40 years later, it is not. The Imperial System is still used, even in some high tech instances.

Pete, the reason it isn't, our government. For all the talk about going metric, it isn't happening any time soon. One of the big reasons is fasteners, specifically the method of determining class of fit. The English system makes a tighter fit by making the bolts larger (not much, just a few thousandths on small ones), metric is done by making the holes smaller so it makes all the fastener strength tables no longer valid. I retired from a major defense contractor, Huntington Ingalls Industries, we build Navy ships, and even the newest aircraft carrier is still measured in inches, feet and yards and bolts are torqued in ft-lbs and in-lbs, even in-oz.

We tried a number of years ago to get back into commercial shipbuilding and designed a metric double hull tanker, named the "double eagle", it was more of a turkey. When the first ship, built in two sections, machinery and cargo, was to be joined in the shipway, it was 3" short! I told my supervisor, I knew what the problem was, metric conversions adding up errors till in 333 feet, we lost 3". He told me that was BS, a week later everyone in the yard got a metric conversion card.

I used to keep a Mercedes-Benz specification book in my desk, because it had a 10 place conversion table in both directions, English to metric and metric to English, more than once someone who knew I had it would come ask me to do a conversion for them.

[85lebaront2]

I wish Ford had made up its mind whether it was going metric or not. These trucks are a mix of both, and it is a pain to figure out which.

Anyway, Darin has said he wants the crossmember, but not the sway bar. So that's available should someone want it.

So is damn near every other thing Detroit built in those years. The assumption was, as new components, bodies etc. were introduced they would be metric. Great, then how do you explain a K-car, introduced in 1980 as a 1981 model complete with a new all metric engine. Body is full of English size fasteners, particularly the splash shields. They must have had a surplus of 3/8 head self tapping screws.

[Gary Lewis]

So is damn near every other thing Detroit built in those years. The assumption was, as new components, bodies etc. were introduced they would be metric. Great, then how do you explain a K-car, introduced in 1980 as a 1981 model complete with a new all metric engine. Body is full of English size fasteners, particularly the splash shields. They must have had a surplus of 3/8 head self tapping screws.

I do notice that there is more metric on the 1990 than on the Bullnose trucks, so they made some "progress" - if that is progress.

[PetesPonies]

Pete, the reason it isn't, our government. For all the talk about going metric, it isn't happening any time soon. One of the big reasons is fasteners, specifically the method of determining class of fit. The English system makes a tighter fit by making the bolts larger (not much, just a few thousandths on small ones), metric is done by making the holes smaller so it makes all the fastener strength tables no longer valid. I retired from a major defense contractor, Huntington Ingalls Industries, we build Navy ships, and even the newest aircraft carrier is still measured in inches, feet and yards and bolts are torqued in ft-lbs and in-lbs, even in-oz.

We tried a number of years ago to get back into commercial shipbuilding and designed a metric double hull tanker, named the "double eagle", it was more of a turkey. When the first ship, built in two sections, machinery and cargo, was to be joined in the shipway, it was 3" short! I told my supervisor, I knew what the problem was, metric conversions adding up errors till in 333 feet, we lost 3". He told me that was BS, a week later everyone in the yard got a metric conversion card.

I used to keep a Mercedes-Benz specification book in my desk, because it had a 10 place conversion table in both directions, English to metric and metric to English, more than once someone who knew I had it would come ask me to do a conversion for them.

Its more than the Government. When I was teaching, I not only taught Auto and Architecture, but I also taught Pre-Engineering. My program brought Engineers from the field to work with us some and talk with the students. I often asked about the measuring systems used . and was told straight from them . .it's still all mixed. And we are talking classified Aerospace stuff . . not low tech at all. And not only in the US. Obviously a vendor or Engineering group builds for sale and the clients desires. I was told of a VERY expensive space build that was shot into space and was supposed to land . .that crashed. The reason was found that someone had some the conversions wrong in their calculations :) whoops !! It's still humans LOL

[PetesPonies]

I do notice that there is more metric on the 1990 than on the Bullnose trucks, so they made some "progress" - if that is progress.

The 80's were the true mix and match years. Not just the Bullnoses, all of the Fords. A Fox bodied car, you need both sets of tools . .or know what is close and will work :) Certainly most of the fasteners, and such, are metric on the newer Fords. so the auto industry is more metric than some. But we still have 15" wheels :) The venture into metric sized wheels and tires didn't do too well in the 80's.