80-96-list-digest Thursday, July 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 237



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980-1996 Trucks and Vans
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
majordomo ford-trucks.com
with the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list-digest" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: FTE 80-96 - Lincoln 9" rear with disc brakes
FTE 80-96 - Re: SUV Survey
Re: FTE 80-96 - Lincoln 9" rear with disc brakes
FTE 80-96 - Re:Catalytic converter
FTE 80-96 - RE: Feedback Solenoid
FTE 80-96 - Vapor Lock - Thanks for all the help!
FTE 80-96 - roadhog's...and trail destruction
FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!
Re: FTE 80-96 - roadhog's...and trail destruction
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!
FTE 80-96 - Fwd: Suzuki4x4: Fwd: This will make you mad!!
FTE 80-96 - Ken Payne
Re: FTE 80-96 - Ken Payne
RE: FTE 80-96 - Vapor Lock - Thanks for all the help!
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!
FTE 80-96 - RE: Fuel Injector Cleaner
FTE 80-96 - Re: Anti SUV Survey
FTE 80-96 - Re: Suzuki4x4: Survey
FTE 80-96 - Re: Aftermarket doorlocks
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Anti SUV Survey
FTE 80-96 - Car & Driver this month
FTE 80-96 - New tires for the truck......
FTE 80-96 - Re: Anti-SUV survey

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 07:17:12 -0500
From: "Rick Wojciechowski"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Lincoln 9" rear with disc brakes

John Miller wrote:

> Hi gang ran across a nice Lincoln 9" rear end complete assembly with disc
> brakes today at the boneyard for $175.00. Does this sound good? I don't
> need it right now so I thought I would pass it on to everyone. If it's good
> enough I just might buy it for safe keeping.... what do you all think? If
> anyone needs it let me know privately and I'll give you the info...

If you don't then I will. :-) What year was it ?
- --
Thanks,
Rick Wojo
'83 Fsize BRONCO,Stock I-6,"The BROWN BULL",33x12.5x15-Mud Blasters
'92 Mstng 5.0L
'95 eclipse-Wife's(For Sale)


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:09:50 EDT
From: JDavis1277 aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: SUV Survey

Yes, the survey results were very surprising. Now, if only they would do an
18 wheeler survey ;=)
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 09:45:03 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Lincoln 9" rear with disc brakes

>From: "John Miller"
>Subject: FTE 80-96 - Lincoln 9" rear with disc brakes
>
>Hi gang ran across a nice Lincoln 9" rear end complete
>assembly with disc brakes today at the boneyard for
>$175.00. Does this sound good?

Yo John:

>From what I've seen, I'd say that $175 for a 9" disc rear end is a steal!
Last time I asked around here (Colorado), they were getting $500 for them
at the boneyards.

Grab it and keep it stashed until you need it, or pass it on for a profit
(and still a bargain) to another Ford trucker.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 07:48:27 -0800
From: Casey Vandor
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re:Catalytic converter

I am pretty sure it is illegal, but then how do I find what was it was
originally equipped with? The build sheet said high-altitude exhaust,
but that doesn't tell me much. Anybody that has a stock 83 351W, could
you let me know what you have? (only a muffler or muffler and cat.....)

Thanks
Casey Vandor







== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 08:46:09 -0700
From: "Posluszny, Walt (POSL)"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Feedback Solenoid

Thanks for the tip Dave,

Can I assume from your note that you changed out the feedback solenoid on
the carb and the pinging went away? If that's the case... I'm off to the
dealer................. Mine too pings like mad on reg. gas all the
time(except idling of course). I unplugged the Feedback Solenoid once and
truck seemed to have noticeably more power but couldn't tell about the
pinging because I had Supreme in the tank. The exhaust did smell awfully
sulfurery thought so I assumed it was running too rich and hooked it back
up. I've been living with this since 1984. Thanks Walt
===============================================================
RE: Ignition Timing/pinging
I had a similar problem on a 86 F-150 w/ 4.9L . The carb on my truck is a
feedback type. The feedback solenoid on the carb failed and it would ping
like mad all the time. Several dealers and several independent garages
could not find the problem. They kept blaming the EGR. I also fooled with
the timing but it really hurt performance. I forget how I finally figured
it out it was several years ago.

Dave

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:28:28 -0600
From: "Linda Lawrence"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Vapor Lock - Thanks for all the help!

Just wanted to update all on the posting I made with my vapor lock problem.
I got many great replies, thanks, guys, for all the help.

Yes, I found that the fuel line runs very close (2 inches or so) to the
exhaust. Also, in the engine compartment the fuel pump is fairly close to
the exhaust manifold. Also, the fuel line running over the engine was
resting on it! Almost everywhere the fuel goes, it's HOT!

So far:
I made a metal shield and fastened it between the fuel pump and exhaust
manifold.
I wrapped the fuel line with aluminum foil ( running over the engine).
Since the problem doesn't happen until the engine heats up (it happened
again yesterday), I'm assuming that the main area to fix is in the engine
compartment?

Roger
Laguna, NM

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:53:55 EDT
From: FSTFORDS aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - roadhog's...and trail destruction

It's obvious that you don't have a complete understanding of the world around
you and aren't paying attention too other polluters and how they are managed.

I myself pay over $300 a year to access the public land my taxes pay for and
strongly uphold the moral's of "PACK IT IN, PACK IT OUT," destruction is a
very broad term and obviously your org. uses it negligently. I foresee strong
opposition from many sides if you can't be little bit more diverse in seeing
the truth and reality of the way the majority of off-roading enthusiast's use
there vehicles.

In short, you don't have any idea of what your talking about.

AND, this roadhog thing your on...get a clue...pick on the truckers...and the
old cars......my vehicle runs less than 100ppm and my CO's are well within
tolerance!


Michael long
Tacoma, WA
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 12:55:20 -0500
From: Ezekial
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!

No one responded to my post yesterday so here it is again cause I really
need to know this.......

Someone I talked to said you could advance the timing on a 88 302, and
it is a truck block, to what I think was 13 degrees for more power. Is
this correct???

And also I removed one cat on my truck and the muffler. Now the exhaust
exits through the first cat then to pipe which ends about 2 feet behind
the cab and faces toward the ground. Since then my truck has bogged
down bad off the line. At night it seems to be a bit faster. Anyone
know how to solve this?? One of my friends with a 96 experiences my same
situation except he still has 2 cats on it and no muffler.
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:09:39 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - roadhog's...and trail destruction

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?
Did you send this to the wrong place?

You'll catch more flys with honey. Perhaps you ought
to learn to argue without calling people clueless and
saying they don't know what they're talking about.

Ken Payne
PS - My 67 F100 runs very clean. Properly tuned old
vehicles are clean. That's a clue for you.

At 01:53 PM 7/9/98 EDT, you wrote:
>It's obvious that you don't have a complete understanding of the world around
>you and aren't paying attention too other polluters and how they are managed.
>
>I myself pay over $300 a year to access the public land my taxes pay for and
>strongly uphold the moral's of "PACK IT IN, PACK IT OUT," destruction is a
>very broad term and obviously your org. uses it negligently. I foresee
strong
>opposition from many sides if you can't be little bit more diverse in seeing
>the truth and reality of the way the majority of off-roading enthusiast's use
>there vehicles.
>
>In short, you don't have any idea of what your talking about.
>
>AND, this roadhog thing your on...get a clue...pick on the truckers...and the
>old cars......my vehicle runs less than 100ppm and my CO's are well within
>tolerance!
>
>
>Michael long
>Tacoma, WA


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:14:51 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!

At 12:55 PM 7/9/98 -0500, you wrote:
>No one responded to my post yesterday so here it is again cause I really
>need to know this.......
>
- -snip-

Can't answer your question, but let me give list members some
advise....

Before posting a question twice, let it go for a couple of
days. 70% of the users get the digest version of the list and
the digest doesn't go out until 4:00 am (EST) the next morning
and they may not see it until they get home from work the
next night.

Ken Payne



== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:33:27 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!

Yes if you bump up your timing and run higher octane gas then you will
get some hp from it. I run 14 degrees in my Lightning, factory is 10! I
always run 93 or better. Hope this helps
Chris
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 14:34:17 EDT
From: FSTFORDS aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Fwd: Suzuki4x4: Fwd: This will make you mad!!

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --part0_900009258_boundary
Content-ID:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

In a message dated 7/9/98 10:56:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
drew_huber email.msn.com writes:

> DJ JONES wrote:
> >
> >> As I get stuff like this I will try to send it along if I don't see it
> >> posted out here. Once again trying to make us look like the bad guys!
> >> DJ
> >>
> >> >Subject: This will make you mad!!
> >> >
> >> >Something has got to be done about these GAG's!!!
> >> >
> >> >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.foe.org/act/trails.html
> >> >--
> >> >Kevin Curry
> >> >Red '94 Hummer Fast-back "HummuH"
> >> >Kevin RedHummer.com
> >> >
> >> >Campbell's Law of Auto Repair:
> >> >"If you can get to the faulty part, you won't have the tool to remove
> >> >it."
> >> >


- --part0_900009258_boundary
Content-ID:
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path:
Received: from relay18.mx.aol.com (relay18.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.18]) by
air11.mail.aol.com (v45.18) with SMTP; Thu, 09 Jul 1998 13:56:15
-0400
Received: from liam.avenza.com (liam.avenza.com [205.207.138.1])
by relay18.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id NAA13285;
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:55:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom localhost)
by liam.avenza.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA20333
for suzuki4x4-l-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:55:31 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: liam.avenza.com: majordom set sender to
owner-suzuki4x4-l Avenza.com using -f
Received: from UPIMSSMTPUSR05 (smtp.email.msn.com [207.68.143.177])
by liam.avenza.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20329
for ; Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:55:29 -0400
Received: from drew - 153.34.13.126 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:55:25 -0700
From: "Drew Huber"
To:
Subject: Re: Suzuki4x4: Fwd: This will make you mad!!
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 12:55:04 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Message-ID:
Sender: owner-suzuki4x4-l Avenza.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: suzuki4x4-l Avenza.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

I'll bet none of those people have ever been off-road. Either in a vehicle
or by foot. Just sitting around trying to come up with a way to seem like
they're doing something good. I personally run with a couple of
organizations and we have hauled trash out of the woods a lot of times. It
wasn't left by anyone that is serious about off-roading, and your absolutely
right about the trash on the side of the roads. I guess we need to start a
web site to abolish paved roads! More trash and pollution there than in the
woods. What do you think?

Drew Huber ---- Team Zuki ----
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.off -road. com /~teamzuki
- -----Original Message-----
From: Alvin
To: suzuki4x4-l Avenza.com
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Suzuki4x4: Fwd: This will make you mad!!


>
>
>DJ JONES wrote:
>
>> As I get stuff like this I will try to send it along if I dont see it
>> posted out here. Once again trying to make us look like the bad guys!
>> DJ
>>
>> >Subject: This will make you mad!!
>> >
>> >Something has got to be done about these GAG's!!!
>> >
>> >http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.foe.org/act/trails.html
>> >--
>> >Kevin Curry
>> >Red '94 Hummer Fast-back "HummuH"
>> >Kevin RedHummer.com
>> >
>> >Campbell's Law of Auto Repair:
>> >"If you can get to the faulty part, you won't have the tool to remove
>> >it."
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ______________________________________________________
>> >
>
>I suggest every one go to that site and respond to there email don't flame
>them just say not all off-roaders are irresponsible and there's more
>irresponsible people on the streets and highways tossing trash and such
>.... and that there are more hikers messing up habitats than off-roaders
>being a hiker I see it all the time people throwing cans bottles ect.
>around and cigarette buts geesh sorry smokers but that's nasty and they
>are around for long time.
>and if still hot gee smoky didn't mean to start a forest fire .... any way
>think you get the idea also suggested they maybe go on a outing with
>off-roaders to see what there all about before condemning them. and they
>talk about expense of off-road trails I reminded them that most trails
>have fee's for off-road Vehicles yeah DJ that site made me mad hehehe
>do goober's not doing there home work kinda piss me off !
>--
>Alvin R Barker a.k.a. the Dark Unicorn
>Traveler, Adventurer, Handy man, boy at heart!
>dunicorn scc.net
>(http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.scc.net/~dunicorn/)
>
>




- --part0_900009258_boundary--
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 13:39:30 -0700
From: Gene Ball
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Ken Payne

Ken, Can you or somebody else answer this question?
I have a 1984 F150 4x4 300 I-6.
Is it possible to pass a smog test without any of the smog stuff hooked
up. And a properly tuned aftermarket carb?
I will be running a cat!
Thanks Gene

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:01:44 -0500
From: "Rick Wojciechowski"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Ken Payne

Gene Ball wrote:

> Ken, Can you or somebody else answer this question?
> I have a 1984 F150 4x4 300 I-6.
> Is it possible to pass a smog test without any of the smog stuff hooked
> up. And a properly tuned aftermarket carb?
> I will be running a cat!

Gene,
My $0.02. I don't live in an emmission testing state, but
from what I have heard, if it came with it and you take the
emmisions stuff off, they will make you put it right back on.

- --
Thanks,
Rick Wojo
'83 Fsize BRONCO,Stock I-6,"The BROWN BULL",33x12.5x15-Mud Blasters
'92 Mstng 5.0L
'95 eclipse-Wife's(For Sale)


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:21:11 -0600
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - Vapor Lock - Thanks for all the help!

Roger,

Wrapping the fuel line with foil will not help you much if it is in
direct
contact with the engine as you indicate.

Make sure the fuel line does not touch the engine block!

If you have to, put small spacers with as little contact as possible
to the fuel line. Metal spacers are OK as long as they don't directly
touch the fuel line.

I often used hose clamps with a thick piece of high temperature rubber
hose between the clamp and the fuel line and placed them over the
points the fuel line contacted the engine block. Re-route the fuel line
only if you have to.

Good luck,
Scott
-snip-
> I wrapped the fuel line with aluminum foil ( running over the
> engine).
> Since the problem doesn't happen until the engine heats up (it
> happened
> again yesterday), I'm assuming that the main area to fix is in the
> engine
> compartment?
>
> Roger
> Laguna, NM
>
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:31:51 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 timing, 2ND POST!

Your note didn't make clear whether or not you advanced your timing. I
can't believe that removing one cat and the muffler would make a serious
difference in performance. Tests on this motor that I read say that
removing the cats brings an increase in low-end torque (per Super Ford when
they tested high flow cats, X pipes and off-road pipes on a Mustang with the
same motor on a dyno--the article was called "Cat Fight", I believe, if you
want to look it up).

I doubt that advancing the spark to 13 degrees (standard is 10 deg. I
think--anyone?) would create this problem either. Did you set this with a
light, or just guess? If it is WAYYYYY advanced, it will probably bog (and
probably ping as well). I would double-check the timing.

Ezekial wrote:

> No one responded to my post yesterday so here it is again cause I really
> need to know this.......
>
> Someone I talked to said you could advance the timing on a 88 302, and
> it is a truck block, to what I think was 13 degrees for more power. Is
> this correct???
>
> And also I removed one cat on my truck and the muffler. Now the exhaust
> exits through the first cat then to pipe which ends about 2 feet behind
> the cab and faces toward the ground. Since then my truck has bogged
> down bad off the line. At night it seems to be a bit faster. Anyone
> know how to solve this?? One of my friends with a 96 experiences my same
> situation except he still has 2 cats on it and no muffler.
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
- --------------------------------------------------------------


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 15:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Havens
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Fuel Injector Cleaner

> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:50:17 -0700
> From: "Posluszny, Walt (POSL)"
^^^^^^^
> Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Fuel Injector Cleaner
>
> I can tell you unequivocally that Techron has quite a bit more
> 'stuff' in it then just Toluene. Toluene is also a normal component of
> gasoline. Walt

I'll bet! So what did you say was in that stuff Walt? ;-)

Actually I have heard good stuff about Techron in several other places as
well. It seemed to work when I used it.
I would just buy Chevron gas, but they have no stations around here. :-(

Ben Havens


== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 16:07:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Havens
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Anti SUV Survey

> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:16:18 -0700
> From: Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
> Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Anti SUV Survey
>
> >Go to http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.suv.org/index.html and take the survey. This is anti
> >SUV and needs to be told the truth.
>
> Can you disput the facts (as presented in the site)?

Can you dispute the fact that groups like the one above would like to
take such facts and lobby for the elimination or strict limitation of
light truck purchase and use? The facts of gas-swilling and trucks being
able to cream little underbuilt Matchbox cars are undeniable. Maybe
"needs to be told the truth" was intended to mean "we need to make our
(truck owners') voices heard"? I won't be purchasing another truck for
a long time (knock on wood), but I would like to see the light truck
market NOT get squeezed in the meantime. (although it might help to bring
prices down to a reasonable level...)

> Ralph Lindberg N7BSN ICQ 5988954
> RV and Camping FAQ
> Just because MS-Window's holds 90% of the market doesn't mean it's
> superior. Remember 90% of all animals are insects.

Ben Havens
'94 U150 XLT 5.8
'79 F250 Custom

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:48:22 EDT
From: ACMERCG aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Suzuki4x4: Survey

So far, the results have been published and are seemingly in favor of the SUV
market. The survey is obviously being directed at the elimination of SUV's.
To me, it just sounds like another attempt to point the finger at someone else
rather than looking at the major problems such as oil refineries and large
factories- gross polluters. The people in these watchdog groups really need
to take a look at what is going on in this country and stop looking for a
scapegoat.

Joe Downey
acmercg aol.com
1992 F-150 4x4
1987 Samurai S/T
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:09:01 -0400
From: Mark Taynton
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Aftermarket doorlocks

A companny called Parts Express sells after market door lock kits
(4-door) for $37.95 complete and act as central locking units. They also
sell door lock motors. The number 1-800-338-0531.
Good luck
Mark Taynton

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 21:15:24 -0400
From: troyw mfi.net (Troy Williams)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Anti SUV Survey

On 9 Jul 98, at 16:07, Ben Havens wrote:

>Can you dispute the fact that groups like the one above would like to take
>such facts and lobby for the elimination or strict limitation of light
>truck purchase and use? The facts of gas-swilling and trucks being able
>to cream little underbuilt Matchbox cars are undeniable. Maybe "needs to
>be told the truth" was intended to mean "we need to make our (truck
>owners') voices heard"? I won't be purchasing another truck for a long
>time (knock on wood), but I would like to see the light truck market NOT
>get squeezed in the meantime. (although it might help to bring prices down
>to a reasonable level...)

So why is it OUR faults that people are buying the small cars? I
went with a truck for safety and because I sometimes need
something that will allow me to haul osmething if necessary. IF
someone wants to buy a small car, that's their choice, but they
should be aware of the risks that come with it...

I do not want to see the trucks and SUB's limited for the use and
purchase. That is taking away our choices, and it will not go down
without a fight...

If you don't want a truck, don't buy one. If you want to try and say
the trucks are dangerous to the small cars, you have a point, but
then it's not our fault that people are choosing the small cars as
they are and pay outrageous prices for them.

Don't sit there and tell me that we re making a bad choice when it
comes to the safety of the highways. There are tons of 18
wheelers out there, they are not hazards. Heck, the drivers of
those trucks are probably the safest that I have seen yet. It's the
ones in the small cars that think they can whip around other people
like a bumble bee that cause the wrecks.

You might be a redneck if... You move to another state so you can
buy beer on Sundays. - Jeff Foxworthy


Troy Williams
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://countrycorner.home.ml.org
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 20:24:06 -0500
From: Anthony Rio
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Car & Driver this month

If anyone is interested, pick up the newest issue of Car and Driver. There
are several very good articles this month. As a change of pace, they
actually did some features on trucks, and astonishingly said good things
about American made vehicles (usually it seems as though their attitude is
"if it's not a Honda or a BMW, it's crap").

There is a great comparison test on small trucks (Dakota, S-10, Ranger,
Tacoma, and the Frontier). They rate the Dakota as best, and the Nissan
dead-last (duh! on the Nissan). The Ranger ranks second, they say due to
the "nerdy" Splash styling. Otherwise they say the Ford is a tremendous
truck (which all of us already knew!). (Why didn't they get one without the
Splash options? Seeing as how they never rank the Fords first in any
competition, could it be that was the only thing they could find to
complain about? Hmmm...)

On page 111 they do a write up of the new Silverado. Although I think they
were a little to gushy overall, sometimes you have to give credit where
credit is due. My money still goes for the Ford, however, so no flaming
please....

Lastly, the best article they've done in along time (except when they test
drove the AM General Hummer) is on page 105. A great piece on the F-350
Super Duty SuperCab XLT. Any article where they affectionatly refer to
this beast as a "Big Ass Truck", and seem like they are wetting themselves
over the Triton V-10 is okay by me. Just wonder why they didn't test a 4
whell drive? If I'm spending $30,000+ on a vehicle, you can bet-your-butt
it's gonna be 4 wheel drive.

Enjoy!!

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 20:47:54 -0500
From: Anthony Rio
Subject: FTE 80-96 - New tires for the truck......

I need to get new tires for my 4x2 F-150. I will be getting GoodYear
tires, but am looking for remaks on the different types so I can try to
make a decision. Any comments or experience with the AT/S, RT/S, P-Metric,
or GSA Wranglers would be appreciated.

I currently have a set of Wrangler AT's on the truck, and they lasted about
45,000 miles. When I bought them, they were great for up at our place in
northern Wisconsin, but since we bought our 4x4 Explorer, not sure how
often we'll take the pick-up any more.

I put mostly highway miles on the truck now, and the AT's were outstanding
for traveling to and from work when the snow started to fly. However, since
the truck is only rear-wheel drive, the front wheels chew up the squared
inside edges (although at 45k, I'm not to heart-broken). Wondering if the
RT/S or P-metrics would be better suited to my driving needs? But I still
want the good traction in the wet and snow, like I get now.

At first I was leaning towards the AT/S which are replacing the AT (more
aggresive tread, but quieter), but due to the fact that I do more highway
driving, I am un sure of what the best choice is. Also, they are expensive,
but with a friends discount I can get 4 AT/S tires for about $460 (tires,
installation, and balancing... normally about $600 - $650 in the Chicago
area).

I had the HT's which came on the truck originally, but was not very
impressed. They were solid enough, but didn't stick real well in the snow.
Not that I go snow-drift driving, but the Chicago expressways can get nasty
in rush hour traffic when it' snows!

One last note... Whatever style get, it will be Goodyear. I have a close
family friend who manages a Goodyear shop, and will get them to me with his
discount.

Any help would be great!

Thanks!!!!

Tony Rio
'94 F-150 XT
'95 Explorer Eddie Bauer
'80 Fairmont Futura

== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:09:35 EDT
From: BFunk33 aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Anti-SUV survey

In a message dated 98-07-09 06:35:38 EDT, you write:

> As sent to the tree-huggers.......
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Rio [SMTP:trio tigroupchicago.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 6:35 PM
> To: 'foe foe.org'
> Subject: Your Anti-SUV survey
>
> You folks are obviously pretty obtuse.
>
> Most car manufacturers put the same engines in SUV's that they do in
> passenger vehicles (minivans, luxury sedans, econo-boxes). Many times the
> SUV weighs less than a passenger car with the comparable engine, and as
> such the engine has to pull less of a load, therefore increasing efficient
> use of fuel.
>
>
> As for "hogging the road"... In my experience it is not the vehicle. The....

---

To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.