sequential mechanism?

[Ken Lang <imperialken@xxxxxxxxx>]

Æyn,

If you're unable to locate working parts to restore the sequential signal
operation, you can always upgrade to the electronic version.  I've heard
good things about the STS-1 module sold by www.webelectricproducts.com

I've been thinking of adding this feature to both my 67 and 68.  I just
haven't gotten around to ordering the modules yet.

Ken
67 Crown 4 Dr Ht
68 LeBaron 4 Dr Ht


-----Original Message-----
From: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of aeyn
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 4:42 PM
To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IML: sequential mechanism?

Fred (et al),
   You are correct.  The headrests were mandatory on Jan 1, 1969;
however, were optional prior to that date.  To obtain the relays
and Cam motor/Solid state Sequencer for a 1969 Imperial look for
the items from a 1968-1970 Cougar or Thunderbird.  The car before
I bought my 1969 Imperial in 1971 was a new 1970 Cougar.  I
studied the Sequncer system in it and also in the 69 Imperial and
they are identical.  It must have been made by a 3rd party for
each company.

Æyn

--- Frederick Joslin <fljoslin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Aeyn:Yes, it is a 69 Lebaron coupe.The rear turn signal control
> parts
> were removed by a previous owner. I was not even aware that
> this car had
> sequential rear signals until I read it on the club web site.If
> it makes
> any difference I believe that this is an early car. Assuming
> that the
> front seat is original, it does not have the head rests which I
> believe
> were mandated Jan 1st 1969.
> 
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: aeyn
>   To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Subject: IML: sequential mechanism?
>   Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> 
>   Fred,
>   I take it the you have a 69. Do you still have the original
>   parts? If so, was it solid state or Cam motor? Also, are the
>   relays still in place?
> 
>   Æyn
>   Had 69 from 1971-1980
> 
>   --- Frederick Joslin wrote:
> 
>   > Hi Dwain:On my car the heat riser valve was quite loose,
> hench
>   > the
>   > rattling, and having the counterweight rotated clockwise
>   > against the stop
>   > was the cold engine off position. The sequential mechanism
> has
>   > been
>   > entirely removed from my car. It is on my list of things to
> do,
>   > but
>   > pretty far down.
>   >
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Kinkodw@xxxxxxx
>   > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   > Subject: Re: IML: Heat riser rotation?
>   > Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:32:42 EDT
>   >
>   > Fred, Thanks for the quick reply. I have the counterweight
>   > rotated all
>   > the way clockwise against the stop looking at it from the
> top.
>   > I guess
>   > this means the valve is then closed and directing exhaust
> thru
>   > the intake
>   > manifold. Luckily I just did this "correction" as some of
> the
>   > letters
>   > stated that the counterweight needs be rotated clockwise
> toward
>   > the front
>   > of the vehicle. Luckily I've only had it out once since
>   > rotating it,
>   > maybe 40 miles worth. I'll rotate it towards the rear of
> the
>   > vehicle in
>   > the morning. hopefully this will lock the valve open
> bypassing
>   > the intake
>   > manifold. Thanks. By the way, do your sequential turn
> signals
>   > function
>   > correctly? I'm having a bear of a time with mine.Only two
> of
>   > the three
>   > taillights sequence on either side when activated and the
>   > emergency
>   > flashers just stopped working.. Thanks again, Dwain'69
>   > Lebaron..
>   >
>   >
>   >
>  
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   >
>   > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Fred Joslin
>   >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>