Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jimbo71 on January 01, 2019, 12:50:10 AM

Title: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: jimbo71 on January 01, 2019, 12:50:10 AM
(https://d32c3oe4bky4k6.cloudfront.net/articles-videos/-/media/uscamediasite/images/story-images/2018/08/08/vacation_truckster_101.ashx?modified=20180807202117&mw=1920&hash=95B9E5963C174A71A6AA1E27786992C5E280970E)

1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Twice the headlights
Four times the woodgrain
Half the EPA mileage
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: caldera on January 01, 2019, 10:11:32 AM
I ordered an Antarctic Blue Sport Wagon with the optional "Rally Fun Pack", but the Truckster sure is a beauty!
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Volron on January 01, 2019, 12:39:35 PM
Does it come with, or without the leashed bumper? :D
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 01, 2019, 01:06:33 PM
Does it come with, or without the leashed bumper? :D

Must include the auto dog walking unit.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: pembquist on January 01, 2019, 02:29:16 PM
Does the matching luggage cost extra?
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Mister Fork on January 01, 2019, 03:55:02 PM
Noticed the optional dog leash there on the back...
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 01, 2019, 05:08:26 PM
Extra seating on the roof for deadbeats...... nice plus.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: fuzeman on January 01, 2019, 06:00:18 PM
Are those Rook hub-caps?
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: lunaticfringe on January 02, 2019, 05:43:56 AM
that's a Crown Victoria insignia. I'd drive that.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: jimbo71 on January 02, 2019, 11:51:38 AM
Extra seating on the roof for deadbeats...... nice plus.

I see what you did there  :D
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: CptTrips on January 02, 2019, 12:46:19 PM
You wouldn't think something like that could fly.

The trick is, it's able to get airborne only because it's so ugly the Earth repels it.

:cool:
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 02, 2019, 01:21:16 PM
You wouldn't think something like that could fly.

The trick is, it's able to get airborne only because it's so ugly the Earth repels it.

:cool:

It cab fly only when signage is present.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: jimbo71 on January 03, 2019, 11:30:20 AM
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AnyNextCougar-size_restricted.gif)
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: 100Coogn on January 03, 2019, 11:48:46 AM
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AnyNextCougar-size_restricted.gif)

 :rofl  Yep, 50 yards...

Coogan
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: AKKuya on January 03, 2019, 08:00:28 PM
When you release troops for the base capture, you hear Holiday Road playing.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Volron on January 03, 2019, 09:27:43 PM
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AnyNextCougar-size_restricted.gif)

Tha'll buff right out.  :P
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 04, 2019, 09:43:15 AM
That short flight makes me think of cold beer.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Oldman731 on January 04, 2019, 10:10:36 PM
That short flight makes me think of cold beer.


I'll bet you live in the South.  Smokey is still your hero.

- oldman
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 04, 2019, 11:46:09 PM

I'll bet you live in the South.  Smokey is still your hero.

- oldman

Texas
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Oldman731 on January 05, 2019, 12:10:02 AM
Texas

OK.

Deep South.

- oldman
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: lunaticfringe on January 12, 2019, 09:21:15 AM
Beer: the state drink of TEXAS!!! :D
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: lunaticfringe on January 12, 2019, 09:24:21 AM
You wouldn't think something like that could fly.

The trick is, it's able to get airborne only because it's so ugly the Earth repels it.

:cool:


5.0 (302) or 5.8 (351w) good engines both will move.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 12, 2019, 01:06:08 PM


5.0 (302) or 5.8 (351w) good engines both will move.

Bet you think Ford when you think 302.

A 327 with a 283 crank makes a chevy 302. Dirt trackers loved them. Setup right 10000 plus rpm. Whoot
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: 1ijac on January 14, 2019, 05:05:54 PM
Was the mother-in-law strapped to the roof yet in the above scene?


One-eye
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: 100Coogn on January 14, 2019, 05:40:33 PM
Was the mother-in-law strapped to the roof yet in the above scene?


One-eye

She didn't get strapped to the top of the car, until sometime after that jump.

Coogan
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Mano on January 15, 2019, 12:45:44 PM
Where is JC?


(https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7b7eHmShdVRyvQc/giphy.gif)


 :D
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Skuzzy on January 16, 2019, 12:27:55 PM


5.0 (302) or 5.8 (351w) good engines both will move.

Nah, the 351W was a truck motor.  351W w/Cleveland mains....now that makes some hurry-up stuff.

In that monster-mobile a 385 series engine would be the ticket.  572 cubic inches of sheer nastiness.


I'll bet you live in the South.  Smokey is still your hero.

- oldman

You don't get it.  See, we have thing thing in Texas that starts out with "Hey Bud, hold my beer." and ends up in some Darwin stunt.

I am thinking, that is where Shuffler was going with his comment.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 16, 2019, 04:31:28 PM
Nah, the 351W was a truck motor.  351W w/Cleveland mains....now that makes some hurry-up stuff.

In that monster-mobile a 385 series engine would be the ticket.  572 cubic inches of sheer nastiness.
351W.        351M.        351C

Quote
You don't get it.  See, we have thing thing in Texas that starts out with "Hey Bud, hold my beer." and ends up in some Darwin stunt.

I am thinking, that is where Shuffler was going with his comment.

DING DING DING DING
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Oldman731 on January 16, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
You don't get it.  See, we have thing thing in Texas that starts out with "Hey Bud, hold my beer." and ends up in some Darwin stunt.

I am thinking, that is where Shuffler was going with his comment.


And I'm thinking:  I knew that.

- oldman
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 16, 2019, 09:07:06 PM

And I'm thinking:  I knew that.

- oldman

I'm sure you knew.... now hold my beer and watch this....

(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/97845FKMj_w.jpg)
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: OldNitro on January 17, 2019, 07:27:52 AM


5.0 (302) or 5.8 (351w) good engines both will move.

The windsor motors were always limited, because of the tiny exhaust ports..
The the way they are structured, there is no way to open them up without
running into a headbolt or water jacket.. That was always the major issue with em!

The only way Ford could make em really go, was add the 351C4V angle valve heads..
Combine the Hipo 302, and Cleveland 4V heads = the legendary Boss 302..
There is a way to convert them yourself, I know several ppl who have made their own
"Boss 351 Windsor"

These days, ya just push the easy button and get a set of Dart Windsor heads, DONE!
Seems that all the old Hot Rod tricks are vanishing, as the people who know them pass away!


Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Skuzzy on January 17, 2019, 09:46:01 AM
I prefer Trick Flow's Twisted Wedge heads.

The Windsor base heads were all designed by the team that did all the truck engines, thus low end torque was the call for the day.  Smaller ports, lower RPM.

The Boss 302 and 351C 4V Cleveland heads were insane and went too far to the other side.

Being a Ford fan in the 60's was painful.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Mister Fork on January 17, 2019, 02:53:51 PM
My friend had a 1981 Ford LTD Tankwagon with the 5.8 L (351 cu in) 351 Windsor V8 engine, and when his dad bought a Volvo, he gave it to him not thinking we wouldn't work on it and just drive it around. I think it was called a Custom 500 back then.

[irish accent on]
No sir.  We didn't leave it alone.  No sireee. Timmy did welding at da local college and I 'elped him build a custom header kit and straight flow exhaust and put on a four barrel carburetor.  Jebus. Dat thing would FLY buddy.  Yesssir.  Rocket.  It was nutz. We would be on the cross-town arterial road doing at least 140 mph. Cops couldn't ticket what they couldn't see (or believe).  We called it the J.e.s.u.s. Wagon. More on that later.
[irish off]

What sucked is that it would go through a tank of gas in two day.  Being poor college(Tim) military(me) guys, we would have to drive it conservatively to get at least 2-300 miles in a tank.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Shuffler on January 17, 2019, 04:16:02 PM
My friend had a 1981 Ford LTD Tankwagon with the 5.8 L (351 cu in) 351 Windsor V8 engine, and when his dad bought a Volvo, he gave it to him not thinking we wouldn't work on it and just drive it around. I think it was called a Custom 500 back then.

[irish accent on]
No sir.  We didn't leave it alone.  No sireee. Timmy did welding at da local college and I 'elped him build a custom header kit and straight flow exhaust and put on a four barrel carburetor.  Jebus. Dat thing would FLY buddy.  Yesssir.  Rocket.  It was nutz. We would be on the cross-town arterial road doing at least 140 mph. Cops couldn't ticket what they couldn't see (or believe).  We called it the J.e.s.u.s. Wagon. More on that later.
[irish off]

What sucked is that it would go through a tank of gas in two day.  Being poor college(Tim) military(me) guys, we would have to drive it conservatively to get at least 2-300 miles in a tank.

 :rofl

I swear dad, me and Jimmy didn't haul no hogs in the stationwagon.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: OldNitro on January 18, 2019, 10:03:50 AM
A little clarification.. (from memory not wiki)

Windsor generally refers to the small block family of engines produced at the Windsor Ontario plant..
Started with a 230cid? V8 in the 1961 Fairlane.. Ford never used the 'Windsor' designation, until the 351W had to be differentiated in parts manuals from the 351C 'Cleveland' pattern engine.. So when I use the term Windsor, I refer to all the SB fords of that pattern, not just the 351W..

Actually It was a pretty good motor for the early 60s.. Compact, and a bit lighter than it's arch rival the Small Block Chevy.. It always did well when paired with a 4 speed top loader, in a lightweight chassis, like Fairlane Comet Mustang Falcon, and the AC Cobra, Sunbeam Tiger, GT40..

LOL, Volvos too I guess! :D

The 289/4V in the 63 Fairlane/Comet chassis, with 4 on the floor, takes the credit for the 'first muscle car', beating the F85 Olds by 6mo, and the GTO by a year.. Carol Shelby built his whole legend by tuning 289 and 302s.. Creating a dynasty in Sportsman Road Racing that lasted thru most of the 60s, and a legacy that lasts to this day.. But no matter how good the Builder/Tuner, the head design was always the limiting factor..

While the old 60s Windsors may have been on the anemic side, modern alloy heads remove those limits on the ole Windsor.. And in the 60s, Fords made some MAGNIFICENT Big Block engines! So the 60s weren't all bad for Ford! Galaxy500 w 427SOHC and the Fairlane Thunderbolt for example!

The Cleveland was a whole leap ahead.. Many 351C guys have a set of 4V heads/manifold sitting under their workbench.. But USE the 2V heads, because they are more tractable in use, offering a more moderate power curve.. LOL, the 2V Cleveland heads flow as well as the Hiperf SB Chevy iron "Spike" 2.02 heads..

Ford actually produced relatively large numbers of the 4V Cleveland heads too, well into the mid 70s.. Grand Torino GT used em, and they were often found in those ugly "Elite" models.. Ford had to keep producing them for the public due to the Nascar 'homologation rule'.. After Nascar limited displacement to 352cid, the Cleveland 4V was the best engine goin.. Ford ruled until Chevy complained, and Nascar made the Fords use a restrictor plate, in the name of 'fairness'.. Ford kinda dropped out after that!

Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: GrandpaChaps on January 18, 2019, 05:37:15 PM
(https://d32c3oe4bky4k6.cloudfront.net/articles-videos/-/media/uscamediasite/images/story-images/2018/08/08/vacation_truckster_101.ashx?modified=20180807202117&mw=1920&hash=95B9E5963C174A71A6AA1E27786992C5E280970E)

1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Twice the headlights
Four times the woodgrain
Half the EPA mileage

THIS should be the July 4th "shoot the Santa" type aircraft.  lol   :airplane: :banana:
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: Skuzzy on January 19, 2019, 11:43:19 AM
A little clarification.. (from memory not wiki)

Windsor generally refers to the small block family of engines produced at the Windsor Ontario plant..
Started with a 230cid? V8 in the 1961 Fairlane.. Ford never used the 'Windsor' designation, until the 351W had to be differentiated in parts manuals from the 351C 'Cleveland' pattern engine.. So when I use the term Windsor, I refer to all the SB fords of that pattern, not just the 351W..

Actually It was a pretty good motor for the early 60s.. Compact, and a bit lighter than it's arch rival the Small Block Chevy.. It always did well when paired with a 4 speed top loader, in a lightweight chassis, like Fairlane Comet Mustang Falcon, and the AC Cobra, Sunbeam Tiger, GT40..
<snip>

Sort of.  The 4.38" inch bore spacing was common on the 221, 255, 260, 289, 302, 351W, 351C, and 351M engines.  The 221, 255, 260, 289, 302, and 351W are in that "Windsor" family as they were all produced in the Windsor plant. 

The 221 through the 302 share the 8.2" deck height while the 351W got 9.5" (NOTE:  There were two versions of the 351W.  The early ones used a 9.48" deck and the later ones went to 9.5" and is considered the standard for that engine), the 351C had a 9.2" deck, and the 351M had a whopping 10.297" deck. 

The 351W and 351M got a much larger main of 3", while the 351C used a 2.749" main leaving the rest to use a 2.249" main.  Rod journals were also increased from 2.123" to 2.311" for the 351W/C/M.

None of the major engine components are interchangeable between the 351W and 351C/M, while many of the major components are interchangeable between the C and M.  The smaller Windsor family of engines all share many components or are interchangeable, such as the connecting rod which is the same for the 221, 255, 260, and 289's.  The 255 and 302 use the same crankshaft, and so on.

The thin wall casting Ford pioneered for these engines did give Ford an edge in weight over the competition, yet they are also known for their durability as well.  Still some of these engines were just poor performers, for many different reasons.  The 255 and 351M (the whole M family) were just horrible.  For those engines it was very poor timing as they hit when the whole movement to clean up the emissions got started and were not designed for all the devices that had to be attached to try and make them run cleaner.
Title: Re: 1983 Wagon Queen Family Truckster
Post by: OldNitro on January 19, 2019, 07:55:22 PM
LOL, the "400 Ford".. Ford guys kinda pretend that one didn't happen.. :bolt:

Yeah that 351M400 was a waste of perfectly good cast iron, along with the iron cased FMX trans that was usually paired with it.. You could always ID it by the large bell housing pattern, same as the 429/460, where the Windsor/Cleveland used the small pattern.. That tall deck engine was designed to replace the old FE blocks in the Pick ups.. But it kinda ended up as the corporate engine for the mid late 70s.. Why, I don't know, they had much better options.. I worked on WAY too many of them back in the day, I swear I never saw one that lasted past 100K miles.. I was glad when they passed into history!

But in that era, all the US manufacturers were having serious QC issues..