- Joined
- Nov 3, 2003
- Messages
- 48,462
Fancy double-action cantilever-ish linkage (don't remember if Ford had a special name for it) '66 to '72. Simple 1-piece bell-crank '73 to '77.
And you never asked about aftermarket equipment and whether or not they had any hand in this, or for other potentially pertinent details in a generally normal manner either. After your first post (which was pretty reasonable actually) you simply went straight for the throat with personal insults about supposed lack of intelligence for either believing rumors, or for falling prey to scams by companies that want you to buy their products, simply for wanting to avoid a problem that other people HAVE experienced for one reason or another and, right or wrong, think they have a solution.
The OP was simply asking why some people go to cables and the others were giving their reasons. Personally I think the reason the OP felt they have seen most swapping over to cable control on their Bronco was to facilitate an EFI installation. Especially when using factory parts. But that's just one additional reason and does not take away a thing from the other's statements.
Even Ford went away from linkage to cables.
Maybe for them it was cheaper (very likely), easier to assemble quickly (same thing and also very likely), or it was just easier to make it more versatile over multiple platforms with cable (possibly very likely), but cables are what they used prior to going electronic, as you well know.
In the end, if the engine moves far enough a cable is still going to pull the throttle. But with minimal sideways (or rocking) movement, a cable is going to be ever so slightly more forgiving. And too, a direct cable attachment to an easy-to-pull lever with lots of leverage (such as on the full size pickups of the same era) is just as likely to pull the accelerator pedal down under your foot as it is to pull the throttle lever on the carb open uncontrollably.
Kind of a win for cable I'd say. Reliability aside that is.
I've seen cables fray and fail, but in the same time I've also seen cables last to this day 40+ years later. But even mechanical linkages experience various failures in time.
Whether we can explain it in engineering terms to your satisfaction or not (and hopefully someone still can), or whether they've personally had it happen or not, or whether they're using 100% stock equipment or not (as was actually brought up early in one of the very first posts) matters only for the finer details of the discussion. Not for the purpose of offering an opportunity to insult their intelligence for wanting to avoid a potential issue by being proactive without mentioning every pitfall known to man in the first post. Which is why we have these long back-and-forth discussions in the first place.
Personally I think many members hate my long posts where I actually do try to hit on all the known pros and cons of one thing or another, so try to leave some details out just to make it more readable. Some of us are just in a hurry and post a quick answer, the details to be ironed out as the thread progresses.
That's the back-and-forth of a forum discussion.
Your obvious education and attention to detail in some areas makes most of us want to hear what you have to say in spite of your often-inserted attitude, but your equally obvious lack of experience of certain occurrences (because you have not personally experienced several things under discussion in various threads, so deny their existence) does not mean that they didn't happen, or don't need fixing.
Which means we'd probably all be happy to listen to your reasoning if you could leave out the insults when you don't agree.
I know, I know... Just because something is being discussed on the internet among enthusiasts of all walks of life and levels of personal experience does not mean it's always true, or that the solutions to problems are always correct, proper, or even safe.
But they can't all automatically be discounted as so much garbage either. Maybe that was not your intention. I would like to hear a detailed explanation from someone as to why it happens more with this type of linkage. Maybe we could track down some more details. Probably have to actually show it though, with a GoPro or whatever, rather than just on paper. But we're beyond that part of the discussion for now anyway.
Believe it or not, as I said, in spite of all that I and most others would be willing to listen to your solutions, and even your assurances that it's not even an issue to be dealt with, if you actually had some reasonable insight on the subject, offered solutions or methodology to test for the problem, and just left the attitude behind the keyboard.
Paul
And you never asked about aftermarket equipment and whether or not they had any hand in this, or for other potentially pertinent details in a generally normal manner either. After your first post (which was pretty reasonable actually) you simply went straight for the throat with personal insults about supposed lack of intelligence for either believing rumors, or for falling prey to scams by companies that want you to buy their products, simply for wanting to avoid a problem that other people HAVE experienced for one reason or another and, right or wrong, think they have a solution.
The OP was simply asking why some people go to cables and the others were giving their reasons. Personally I think the reason the OP felt they have seen most swapping over to cable control on their Bronco was to facilitate an EFI installation. Especially when using factory parts. But that's just one additional reason and does not take away a thing from the other's statements.
Even Ford went away from linkage to cables.
Maybe for them it was cheaper (very likely), easier to assemble quickly (same thing and also very likely), or it was just easier to make it more versatile over multiple platforms with cable (possibly very likely), but cables are what they used prior to going electronic, as you well know.
In the end, if the engine moves far enough a cable is still going to pull the throttle. But with minimal sideways (or rocking) movement, a cable is going to be ever so slightly more forgiving. And too, a direct cable attachment to an easy-to-pull lever with lots of leverage (such as on the full size pickups of the same era) is just as likely to pull the accelerator pedal down under your foot as it is to pull the throttle lever on the carb open uncontrollably.
Kind of a win for cable I'd say. Reliability aside that is.
I've seen cables fray and fail, but in the same time I've also seen cables last to this day 40+ years later. But even mechanical linkages experience various failures in time.
Whether we can explain it in engineering terms to your satisfaction or not (and hopefully someone still can), or whether they've personally had it happen or not, or whether they're using 100% stock equipment or not (as was actually brought up early in one of the very first posts) matters only for the finer details of the discussion. Not for the purpose of offering an opportunity to insult their intelligence for wanting to avoid a potential issue by being proactive without mentioning every pitfall known to man in the first post. Which is why we have these long back-and-forth discussions in the first place.
Personally I think many members hate my long posts where I actually do try to hit on all the known pros and cons of one thing or another, so try to leave some details out just to make it more readable. Some of us are just in a hurry and post a quick answer, the details to be ironed out as the thread progresses.
That's the back-and-forth of a forum discussion.
Your obvious education and attention to detail in some areas makes most of us want to hear what you have to say in spite of your often-inserted attitude, but your equally obvious lack of experience of certain occurrences (because you have not personally experienced several things under discussion in various threads, so deny their existence) does not mean that they didn't happen, or don't need fixing.
Which means we'd probably all be happy to listen to your reasoning if you could leave out the insults when you don't agree.
I know, I know... Just because something is being discussed on the internet among enthusiasts of all walks of life and levels of personal experience does not mean it's always true, or that the solutions to problems are always correct, proper, or even safe.
But they can't all automatically be discounted as so much garbage either. Maybe that was not your intention. I would like to hear a detailed explanation from someone as to why it happens more with this type of linkage. Maybe we could track down some more details. Probably have to actually show it though, with a GoPro or whatever, rather than just on paper. But we're beyond that part of the discussion for now anyway.
Believe it or not, as I said, in spite of all that I and most others would be willing to listen to your solutions, and even your assurances that it's not even an issue to be dealt with, if you actually had some reasonable insight on the subject, offered solutions or methodology to test for the problem, and just left the attitude behind the keyboard.
Paul
Most of my response was sarcasm to some extent about an earlier response in this thread ... something about not needing to update all the "53 year old parts" in response to the bell crank binding... essentially not believing it happens I guess. 
