80-96-list-digest Sunday, June 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 204



=======================================================================
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:

FTE 80-96 - give the six more credit
FTE 80-96 - Re: Off to Carlisle
FTE 80-96 - 5.0 Ranger
FTE 80-96 - 96 Ranger 4WD 4.0l perf. mods?
FTE 80-96 - Ugly vs. "pretty" 4WDs
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Off to Carlisle
Re: FTE 80-96 - Ugly vs. "pretty" 4WDs
FTE 80-96 - 99 F250/350
Re: FTE 80-96 - 96 Ranger 4WD 4.0l perf. mods?
Re: FTE 80-96 - give the six more credit
Re: FTE 80-96 - 96 Ranger 4WD 4.0l perf. mods?
FTE 80-96 - F-150 Speedometer adjust
FTE 80-96 - Cooper SST Radials
Re: FTE 80-96 - Cooper SST Radials
FTE 80-96 - low oil pressure
FTE 80-96 - Bronco and other stuff
Re: FTE 80-96 - Bronco and other stuff

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

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

Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 16:27:43 -0500
From: butch
Subject: FTE 80-96 - give the six more credit

People, I own several Fords and my favorite is a 1980 F350 with a 300
six. I use the truck in business. It is a six wheeler with a dump body.
This truck has hauled, plowed snow, and has trailerd my Loader-back hoe
since I purchased the truck from my uncle in 1985; he had purchased it
new. The combined gross vehicle weight of the truck unloaded with the
trailer and machine attached is 14,000 lbs. The truck has over 90,000
miles on it now and is still going strong. I made only several
modifcations which include a Jacobs Omni Pak (which replaced a Jacobs
Compusensor) and an Edelbrock intake manifold #5557 which was a complete
bolt in without any modifcations and left all emisions intact. I also
use Amsoil Synthetics in all my equipment. So to you people who trash
the six I am going to quote an article from an Off Road magazine when
they tested an F250 standard with a 300 six several years ago, " I COULD
HAVE HAD A V-8, BUT WHY?
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:35:10 EDT
From: FordboyDZ aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Off to Carlisle

Hello grouchy list members,
Guess only us 460&Diesel guys know how to
debate without getting p.o.'d. I'll try to cheer
you guys up with some pictures from the
Ford Nationals in Carlisle. I'll send them to Ken
and maybe if he's got the time & space he can
put them on the site. I'm going to pass the word about
the lists & website so we can pick up some more
true FORD TRUCK ENTHUSIASTS!
C'ya
Dave Zarnesky
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 09:27:31 EDT
From: Cullo aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 5.0 Ranger

I am interested in talking to someone who has wired an EFI system into a non-
EFI vehicle. I am at the point of attaching the wiring harness and computer.
I have a 93 HO 5.0 EFI form a Mustang going into an 87 Ford Ranger and must
merge the two systems. Any help would be welcome. I have Helm wiring manuals
for both vehicles but when I look at the wiring diagrams my eyes start to
water.
Thanks Dart
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 09:38:14 -0400
From: Farrell Woods
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 96 Ranger 4WD 4.0l perf. mods?

Hi,

Since I'm new to the list I'm looking for a bit of guidance. In
particular I'd like to know if there are ways of getting better
performance out of the 4.0l V6 that aren't terribly invasive.
I'm aware of the K&N filters - I'm wondering if there are things
available like new proms that tweak the timing curve, better
ignitions, etc. Maybe headers if I feel real ambitious...

I'm also thinking of Bilstein shocks on all fours. I've noticed
that under moderate to heavy braking, if I hit a bump that wheel
will hop a bit which causes it to stop momentarily, which in turn
causes the ABS to start doing its thing. This is annoying and
increases stopping distance, so I'm looking for a way to keep the
tires planted a bit better.


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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 06:45:57 -0700
From: rokkinhorse webtv.net
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Ugly vs. "pretty" 4WDs

I hear this kinda crap all the time anymore it seems like.A 4wd doesn't
have to have a lift kit,lockers and a beat up muddy body to be useful.It
depends on what the rig is going to be used for.Not everybody here on
this list feels the burning need to take their equipment out and trash
it on a weekly basis,or even an occasional basis for that matter.I have
both,and each one has an intended purposes.The truck is great for
hauling stuff,running the ridges up in the woods,hunting,towing and
general screwing around off-road.The Bronco on the other hand stays
pretty much on the blacktop.It is the rig of choice when the snow and
ice start flying due to its open front and rear diffs,4WABS and short
wheelbase.It goes better,stops better and is more manueverable than the
pickup could ever be.The Bronco is the rig of choice for long trips due
to its good 17mpg economy and comfort,handles exceptionally well on the
open road with the sway bars,and is frankly alot of fun to drive.If the
long trip includes a trip over unknown roads and the blacktop turns to
gravel and then to hills with ruts,no problem;better to have it and not
need 4wd,than to need it and not have it.This happened to us last year
in eastern Idaho,while on vacation.No 4wd would have meant a 100 mile+
detour.Would I consider lifting it? No freakin way.Why sacrifice safety
and roadability? The point of this post isn't to flame anybody,but to
offer another perspective to those who will listen.To those who won't:
to each their own,whether you personally like it or not. Personally,I
question the sense of someone who would add a lift ,lockers and the rest
to a perfectly good truck or Bronco that's gonna see off-road duty 20%
of the time or less.Just another opinion:-)


Randy
94Bronco EB-5.8 85 F-250 4x4-460
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.htm?detailid=47
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 09:51:51 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Off to Carlisle

At 08:35 AM 6/6/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Hello grouchy list members,
>Guess only us 460&Diesel guys know how to
>debate without getting p.o.'d. I'll try to cheer
>you guys up with some pictures from the
>Ford Nationals in Carlisle. I'll send them to Ken
>and maybe if he's got the time & space he can
>put them on the site. I'm going to pass the word about
>the lists & website so we can pick up some more
>true FORD TRUCK ENTHUSIASTS!
> C'ya
> Dave Zarnesky

Feel free to send them over, just give me a warning!
I'll make space.

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
http://www.ford-trucks.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 10:01:39 -0700
From: Gene Ball
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Ugly vs. "pretty" 4WDs

Thats right!

rokkinhorse webtv.net wrote:

> I hear this kinda crap all the time anymore it seems like.A 4wd doesn't
> have to have a lift kit,lockers and a beat up muddy body to be useful.It
> depends on what the rig is going to be used for.Not everybody here on
> this list feels the burning need to take their equipment out and trash
> it on a weekly basis,or even an occasional basis for that matter.I have
> both,and each one has an intended purposes.The truck is great for
> hauling stuff,running the ridges up in the woods,hunting,towing and
> general screwing around off-road.The Bronco on the other hand stays
> pretty much on the blacktop.It is the rig of choice when the snow and
> ice start flying due to its open front and rear diffs,4WABS and short
> wheelbase.It goes better,stops better and is more manueverable than the
> pickup could ever be.The Bronco is the rig of choice for long trips due
> to its good 17mpg economy and comfort,handles exceptionally well on the
> open road with the sway bars,and is frankly alot of fun to drive.If the
> long trip includes a trip over unknown roads and the blacktop turns to
> gravel and then to hills with ruts,no problem;better to have it and not
> need 4wd,than to need it and not have it.This happened to us last year
> in eastern Idaho,while on vacation.No 4wd would have meant a 100 mile+
> detour.Would I consider lifting it? No freakin way.Why sacrifice safety
> and roadability? The point of this post isn't to flame anybody,but to
> offer another perspective to those who will listen.To those who won't:
> to each their own,whether you personally like it or not. Personally,I
> question the sense of someone who would add a lift ,lockers and the rest
> to a perfectly good truck or Bronco that's gonna see off-road duty 20%
> of the time or less.Just another opinion:-)
>
> Randy
> 94Bronco EB-5.8 85 F-250 4x4-460
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thewowfactor.com/bigbroncos/detail.htm?detailid=47
> == FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:11:55 -0700
From: "Mike"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 99 F250/350

I am looking at picking up a one of the new trucks. Anybody have any
comments on the "shift on the fly 4wd"?
What are the break in requirements of a PSD? I assume I should not just hook
up the 8k lb trailer and take off.
Looks about $30k for F250 xcab XLT 4x4 PSD 6 spd.

thanks,
mike miller
85 F250 xcab 4x4 6.9 banks


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

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 10:49:19 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 96 Ranger 4WD 4.0l perf. mods?

Farrell Woods wrote:

> Since I'm new to the list I'm looking for a bit of guidance. In
> particular I'd like to know if there are ways of getting better
> performance out of the 4.0l V6 that aren't terribly invasive.

Farrell,

I had a 4.0L Ranger once, and I heard (have not verified personally)
that the 4.0 is directly related to the 2.8L. What I was told was that
they increased the displacement, but the head is basically the same,
with valves and ports sized for the smaller engine. This results in
snappy low-end torque, but gets a little wheezy when it gets wound up.
You could try headers, exhaust, throttle body, and MAF sensor (if so
equipped), but if there's anything to this head thing, it won't do all
that much for you. Check it out. I stumbled across a very few 4.0L /
3.0L sites. Try this:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/vanirv6/vanir.htm

> I've noticed that under moderate to heavy braking, if I hit a bump
> that wheel will hop a bit which causes it to stop momentarily, which
> in turn causes the ABS to start doing its thing.

Mine was a regular cab 4X4 with a short box. The combination of weight
distribution, high CG, narrow track and short wheelbase really made it
nervous--especially on the pothole-laden streets of Dearborn, MI, where
we lived at the time. My wife hated it (said it made her insides
hurt). I really don't know what to tell you on this--it's very light in
the back. Maybe bolt down a 3/8 inch steel plate to the bed to even out
the weight distribution. Any weight in the back would probably help
handling, but it won't help your acceleration much.:^)

- --
Best Regards,

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


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

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 12:16:13 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - give the six more credit

butch wrote:
>
> People, I own several Fords and my favorite is a 1980 F350 with a 300
> six. I use the truck in business. It is a six wheeler with a dump body.
> This truck has hauled, plowed snow, and has trailerd my Loader-back hoe
> since I purchased the truck from my uncle in 1985; he had purchased it
> new. The combined gross vehicle weight of the truck unloaded with the
> trailer and machine attached is 14,000 lbs. The truck has over 90,000
> miles on it now and is still going strong. I made only several
> modifcations which include a Jacobs Omni Pak (which replaced a Jacobs
> Compusensor) and an Edelbrock intake manifold #5557 which was a complete
> bolt in without any modifcations and left all emisions intact. I also
> use Amsoil Synthetics in all my equipment. So to you people who trash
> the six I am going to quote an article from an Off Road magazine when
> they tested an F250 standard with a 300 six several years ago, " I COULD
> HAVE HAD A V-8, BUT WHY?
There is no doubt that the 300 six is a great work motor...lots of low
end torque. But for performance oriented people it is more logical to go
with a V8...Cheaper, parts are more available. But I can tell you if you
can find them offenhauser makes some performance parts for all ford
inline 6s. By the time you spend in making the 300 fast...you could have
drop in a v8 with some mods for the same or less money. I love my 351
Lightning and would love to see an inline six that can run as hard as my
truck
Chris
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:04:26 -0700
From: Robert Kennedy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 96 Ranger 4WD 4.0l perf. mods?

January 1998 issue of Four Wheeler magazine has an artc\icle in it, "How to
build a Ford Ranger". It covers a few basic things,take a look at it....

Bob

At 09:38 AM 6/6/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Since I'm new to the list I'm looking for a bit of guidance. In
>particular I'd like to know if there are ways of getting better
>performance out of the 4.0l V6 that aren't terribly invasive.
>I'm aware of the K&N filters - I'm wondering if there are things
>available like new proms that tweak the timing curve, better
>ignitions, etc. Maybe headers if I feel real ambitious...
>
>I'm also thinking of Bilstein shocks on all fours. I've noticed
>that under moderate to heavy braking, if I hit a bump that wheel
>will hop a bit which causes it to stop momentarily, which in turn
>causes the ABS to start doing its thing. This is annoying and
>increases stopping distance, so I'm looking for a way to keep the
>tires planted a bit better.
>
>
>-- Farrell
>== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 12:21:37 -0700
From: Jon Berman
Subject: FTE 80-96 - F-150 Speedometer adjust

Hello again,

Re: my last message on headlight adjustment, I also need to adjust my
speedometer for the larger tire size. Can this be done without taking my
truck to a speedometer shop on my 1994 F-150, 2wd?

I heard of a procedure that allows the electronic speedometer to be
calibrated by jumping a connector and pushing the "select" and/or
"reset" buttons on the face of the instrument cluster.

Thanks for any advice,
Jon
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 18:44:41 -0500
From: JJ/Rae Mead
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Cooper SST Radials

I have found some Cooper SST Radial 285/75R16 tires for a real bargan from the
local Goodyear dealer. I have never heard of Cooper tires before and was
wondering if they are any good. What kind of tire is the Cooper compared to the
BFG/MT??

JJ



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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:56:28 EDT
From: Justchev aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Cooper SST Radials

The cooper tires are not as good as the bf goodriches but they are still very
good quality. pretty good traction too. if you got a good deal on them well
you got your money worth.
== FTE: Unsubscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 23:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Richard Riley
Subject: FTE 80-96 - low oil pressure

i had the same problem with my wife's gmc jimmy. great pressure untill
it got on the highway and it would fall A LOT. i found out after i
rebult the motor that it was a clog in the oil channel after the
sending unit. i suggest changing oil with 1 qt. mineral sprits and 4
qt. oil run enging for 10 to 15 min. then drain and change fliter put
fresh oil in.

Richard Riley
96 f-150 supercab
88 gmc jimmy

>
> Friday, 5 June 98, Chris Hedemark wrote:
>
> > I have an 88 F350 4x4 that the oil pressure gauge reads on the lower third
> > or the gauge. It is above the 2 hash marks on the low side but usually
> > sits between the first hash mark and the middle. Is this normal for a 351?
> > The truck has 25,000 miles on it. I am thinkin' of swapping in a new oil
> > pump and thought I could do it by just dropping the oil pan and putting in
> > the new pump in but the Haynes manual says I have to loosen up the motor
> > mounts and jack the engine up a little. It looks like I have plenty of
> > room to do the job without having to jack the engine up since the truck is
> > a F350 4x4. Anyone ever done this or offer any advice? One last thing, is
> > the 351 in my truck a Windsor or Cleveland? It is the stock motor and is
> > fuel injected if that helps.
>
> You know I get the same thing on my F250. Sometimes the OP is nice
> and strong, just cruising around town. But I get up to highway speeds
> for more than a minute or two and the pressure drops down just below
> the N in NORMAL. Now I know it has to REV (3000 RPM) to stay at
> highway speeds but.... well.... what the &*&# is wrong with the oil
> pressure? :-/ Mine is a 5.0 EFI, FWIW.
>
> Chris mailto:chris yonderway.com
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.yonderway.com
> 1987 Ford F250 5.0L 2WD "Ugly Truckling" aka "Optimus Primer"

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

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 22:25:49 -0600
From: Ryan Penner
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Bronco and other stuff

Okay this is not ment to start any kinda war. But.... Has anyone
thought that the new heavy duty trucks have a front end that would look
really cool for a full size Bronco? I was thinking that if Ford got
smart and made a heavy duty Bronco with a PSD with the new styling, man
would that be sweet!


And on a differn't topic heres an idea for a slogan of sorts....

People who were raised correctly by their parents drive Fords. :)

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

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 23:26:03 -0600
From: Ryan Dorman
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Bronco and other stuff

It's better than no Bronco at all...

Ryan Penner wrote:

> Okay this is not ment to start any kinda war. But.... Has anyone
> thought that the new heavy duty trucks have a front end that would look
> really cool for a full size Bronco? I was thinking that if Ford got
> smart and made a heavy duty Bronco with a PSD with the new styling, man
> would that be sweet!



- --
58 F-100 292 sb 2wd
85 Bronco 300 IL6(not for long) 4x4....


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.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.