Dennis...you listed ONE page out of NINE of the booster application chart.

Section 23.1 Pages 1 thru 9...you just listed page 5.

I made references to all the F100/350 boosters and pedals, not just for F100/150's.

That one page you posted makes me look like an idiot, or worse...when I referenced 100 boosters.

How about listing all the pages from all the 73/79 parts catalogs, instead of only showing one reference, and 1/9th of it..at that.

Each updated (I have three) parts catalog shows updated/superceded/obsoleted part numbers.

Your copy of 1973/79 parts catalog on a CD was scanned from the first printing..it has errors.

Those errors are why I invested OVER $200.00 in three sets of FORD MICROFICHE SLIDES, so that I could properly give out correct part numbers.


And I cited the parts catalog inre to my info..

Most ppl know the aftermarket parts lists are much less.

BTW: Warning dial-up users: The size of the image is way too big.

 

I lost my internet service going back for more.

I am haing modem problems for 5 days now.
It's hit and miss.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...tionChart2.jpg

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...tionChart3.jpg

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...tionChart4.jpg

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...sterFTList.jpg

 

Bill I got to say application has virtually NOTHING to do with the op's question, niether does how many boosters are available, how many applications there is, or what years ford did or did not use direct pushrods to booster. ford could have used 1 booster for all the applications if they wanted to but they choose not to and thats the question WHY did they do it that way not how many different ways, or home many different applications or how many different years but WHY.

 

Precision Booster rebuilders.

Please have a look.

http://www.precisionrebuilders.com/p...ogPHB-0398.pdf

 

It is interesting how people are getting on this side conversation that really has nothing to do with the question...

My guess would be that the whole assembly design was offloaded to bendix or whoever and they figured out how it should work. Now why they chose to implement it that way, well who knows? Is there any leverage to be gained with the fulcrum? Or is it purely for positioning? Maybe they had to lower it for clearance like someone said?

I could see ford saying something like 'the available space around the firewall opening is 4" up, 6" to either side, and 8" down and we need xxx PSI braking force and sent bendix off to design it, so they made a lever to make an 11" booster fit in there 2" down?

Or even more likely, gave out those specs and sent out a request for quotes to both bendix and ross and maybe others and took whoever was the cheapest for each application. And that's probably the beancounters at work.. not thinking of future maintenance, just keeping costs down for production. I could see some engineers being rather aggravated by that.

Just a guess, and I don't know if that is even right . I'm sure someone will chime in who has more experience. I have the 79 direct connection (and a 76 with direct connection).

Ian

 

The OP implied that Ford didn't use a direct pushrod to booster setup till the late 1970's, but the catalogs show that was done in 1965. I didn't go back any further. One truck may have that setup, one may not. You can argue to you're blue in the face that application has nothing to do with it, but I say it has everything to do with it. If application has nothing to do with it, than why would Ford have dozens upon dozens of boosters?

finis

 

and Bill how many of those boosters are actually different? I have had this discussion with more parts counter people both in dealerships and other and the honest answer is dang few. out of over 100 different part numbers you list there is probably about 5 different ones.
Application is not the point here and parts people don't see the truth of that matter. Want to know the truth, go look at an interchange book and compare it to your vaunted parts book and you will see what I mean.