80-96-list-digest Thursday, August 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 290



=======================================================================
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 - Power seats for sale and wanted
FTE 80-96 - 96 F150 with OBD - Check Engine Light
Re: FTE 80-96 - 93 F-150 w/302
RE: FTE 80-96 - F150 4.9L EGR question
Re: FTE 80-96 - ford rv van
Re: FTE 80-96 - ford rv van
Re: FTE 80-96 - Ford RV questions/ 350 7.5l 460 etc
RE: FTE 80-96 - Universal Joints
Re: FTE 80-96 - 93 F-150 w/302
FTE 80-96 - Re: U-joint
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: U-joint
Re: FTE 80-96 - Universal Joints
FTE 80-96 - fuel gauge prob.
Re: FTE 80-96 - F350 Front Axle U-joints
FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Truck Driving Schools (2 of 2)
FTE 80-96 - RE: '93 F150 w/302

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 03:25:26 PDT
From: "Bryan Snyder"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Power seats for sale and wanted

Morning everyone!

For sale-- I have a set of gray full power bucket seatsin exc condition
from a 93 Ford taurus SHO for sale. They have only two wires to hook up
and have FIVE switches for all the functions! Only the recline is manual
and it has two power lumbars. They are in exc shape and have no cracks
or holes. Theve been conditioned every two weeks and armoralled once a
week. These are however wide, very supportive seats and fit best in a
full size vehicle.

Wanted-- I'm looking for a set of gray leather Full power buckets from a
95- up Ford explorer, similar to the Eddie Bower type seats. Must be in
exc to mint shape. Mail me with a price.

Thanks all.
Bryan
Rangerstx hotmail.com

______________________________________________________
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: 19 Aug 98 07:28:41 EDT
From: CharlesASkarsaune eaton.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 96 F150 with OBD - Check Engine Light

Any body know of a way to read the codes on a vehicle with the OBD system
other than going to the dealer and forking over your bank account?
My check engine light on my late 96 F150 4wd has come on and while
it runs ok, I want to correct whatever has tripped it.
Thanks in advance,
Chuck

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 07:54:14 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 93 F-150 w/302

Hi, I'm new to this list and a new owner of '93 F-150 XLT with a 302 and
a 3- speed auto (84k miles).

I traded a Geo Metro that got 50+ mpg for the truck. :-) I knew the
mileage wasn't going to be good, but I expected better than the 15-16
mpg I'm getting. Is this normal?

According to most on this list your are getting better than average mpg!

I'm not a speed freak, and performance is good, but if there were some
simple things I could do to help performance or gas mileage, I'd like to
hear about them.

K&N air filter(some don't agree with this), cat back exhaust(flowmaster
is 230.00 through summit). Advance your timing a few degrees and run
high octane gas, underdive pulleys also help alot! Could also get rid of
the fan for an electric one! These are most of the basics if you still
want more get a cam, mass air conversion, roller rockers, bigger
throttle body!

Are there any known problems with this vehicle (especially engine or
transmission) that I need to watch out for?

5.0 is very reliable but I would image you have the AOD or AODE tranny
they do have their share of problems!

It's got smaller tires on the front now, but I plan to replace them with
larger ones when they need replacing. Should I have the speedometer
recalibrated if I do that? Any recommendations for all-season tires for
mainly on-road use?

The speedometer does not work off the front tires so in should not
matter unless you have 4 wheel ABS!!!

Chris
94 Lightning
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:25:09 -0500
From: DuaneKaufman LunarCorp.com (Duane Kaufman)
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - F150 4.9L EGR question

Hello!

Thanks for the reply!



>>The engine operates fine without it now, so the concerns about it aren't
an
>>issue.
>>
>>Aside from the cost of putting things back on that are plain missing
>>(Exhaust tube from exhaust to EGR valve, EGR valve, miles of vacuum hose,
>>and Lord knows what else) I do not have the time or inclination to replace
>>something that will serve to lessen power output and fuel economy. I just
>>want to preserve the diagnostic capability of the EEC system in other
areas.



>As to the above:

>Did you notice how quite the list got after your last post?
>
Actually, I didn't notice a decrease in traffic. If you are offended by my
post, indicate _you_ are offended by my post.

>So you want all the diagnostic capability in the ECC but you are willing to
>cripple one of the most important inputs. Its your truck and you can run
it

The EGR/EPS is currently crippled, and I did not do it. From what I gather,
the
ECC can diagnose over 30 kinds of errors, of which 13 or so lead to a 'CHECK
ENGINE'
light coming on. My purpose in asking this question involved the use of this
light to indicate the other 12 errors (besides the known one) should/when
they occur.

>the way you want, but to kludge up a resistor to provide a pseudo input to
>the computer doesn't seem to be a good way to correct the problem.

My intent was to utilize the collective knowledge of the group to gain an
understanding of the emissions control system. I think I have now a fairly
clear
idea of _your_ thoughts on the issue, but I have already given thought to
trying
to put everything back as it was, and, as easy for me as that would be (both
mentally
and physically) I would learn zilch about how the system operates as a
whole.

>The Check Engine light is illuminated due to an error in a sensor on a
major
>engine subsystem. What other codes are stored in your computer? Perhaps
>this is more significant than first thought. The EGR feedback and its
valve
>position sensor are just one of many breathing sensors for correct mixture
>and emission control of the engine. The weighting of the equations in the
>ECC rely heavily on the EGR input to determine the amount of fuel to burn.

Can you educate me on the effects of each sensor input, and the weights
assigned to each term? My intuition tells me that there are important inputs
(MAP, TPS), sensors that when they go bad, the engine will not run, or runs
_very_ poorly, and then there are those that are not as important.

>If that input is incorrect due to a faulty sensor the light will
illuminate,
>and codes will be stored, occasionally (almost randomly) as the engine
moves
>through different RPM and temperature ranges. If the input is not present
>(0 volts), the light will remain illuminated and a preset value will be
used

Am I to infer that the wiper of the sensor is pulled down when not
connected?
As opposed to floating high?

>to keep the engine running. This is sometimes called the 'limp-home' mode
>as the engine will usually be running very rough.

What are the defaults used in this mode? Does _all_ sensor input go to
default
values, or only the one found 'bad'?

>All those "other areas" of diagnostics desired to be preserved depend on
the
>rest for correct engine operation. The indication that the engine runs
fine

Whoa! that sounds really odd to me, as I would hope that the _diagnostic_
use of the ECC is separate from its _operational_ behavior. The error codes
seem to indicate diagnostic capability even if _one_ sensor fails.

>without the EGR is probably more due to coincidence than engine condition.
>The reason the sensor in the EGR is variable is due to the valve changing
>position due to other sensor inputs, such as O2, MAP, TPS, temperature,
>etc., across a broad operating range.

I beg to differ on the 'coincidence' charge, for a number of reasons:
1) Exhaust gas can't be a large portion of what the engine breathes, as
power
output would fall to unacceptable levels. Do you know how much (as a
percentage)
of the incoming charge is actually EG, with EGR fully open?
2) I think the other sensors you mention are still on-line and working, as
I do not think the truck would perform as it does if they weren't.
3) Feel free to educate me, but it seems to me that the O2 sensor and the
MAP/TPS
could very well be doing their respective jobs, and whatever effect the
EGR/EPS has on the calculation is offset by the O2 and MAP/TPS
contributions.

>Good luck, but this will probably come back to bite you soon.

Well, at least _asking_ the question already has. I would hope that other
netizens could offer me slightly more substantial information.

Duane

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:20:28 -0500
From: Noel & Inga Hupe
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - ford rv van

At 04:05 PM 8/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 02:09 PM 8/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:02:30 -0500
>>>To: 80-96list ford-trucks.com
>>>From: Noel & Inga Hupe
>>>Subject: ford rv van
>>>
>>>I just recentely purchased a RV van called Getaway on 1 ton ford econoline
>>chassis, with a 350...7.5 l , geez it's big mother. I'm wondering if any1 on
>>this list could help me find info regarding the van, i've tried without any
>>success.Thanks, Noel
>> Sorry, i forgot to mention the van is an 1988, with 82,000 k's in mint
>>condition, it never saw snow yet.
>>
>> Noel Hupe
>>
>
>First, its probably a 351, not a 350 (Chevy engine). What
>kind of information are you looking for?
>
>Ken Payne
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>hi ken,
thanks for the reply, i just would love to hear from the same van
owners regarding good or bad info on the van i may need to know, Noel

Noel Hupe

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:24:26 -0500
From: Noel & Inga Hupe
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - ford rv van

hi , thanks for the reply, your right , the van is a 460, sorry my mistake, Noel



At 10:29 PM 8/17/98 -0700, you wrote:
>If it is a 351, then it isn't a 7.5 liter, it would be a 5.8 liter. A 7.5
liter
>is a 460 cid.
>
>Ken Payne wrote:
>
>> At 02:09 PM 8/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 14:02:30 -0500
>> >>To: 80-96list ford-trucks.com
>> >>From: Noel & Inga Hupe
>> >>Subject: ford rv van
>> >>
>> >>I just recentely purchased a RV van called Getaway on 1 ton ford econoline
>> >chassis, with a 350...7.5 l , geez it's big mother. I'm wondering if any1 on
>> >this list could help me find info regarding the van, i've tried without any
>> >success.Thanks, Noel
>> > Sorry, i forgot to mention the van is an 1988, with 82,000 k's in mint
>> >condition, it never saw snow yet.
>> >
>> > Noel Hupe
>> >
>>
>> First, its probably a 351, not a 350 (Chevy engine). What
>> kind of information are you looking for?
>>
>> Ken Payne
>>
>> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
>
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

Noel Hupe

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:27:42 -0500
From: Noel & Inga Hupe
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Ford RV questions/ 350 7.5l 460 etc

At 11:05 AM 8/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Noel Hupe wrote:
>> > >>I just recentely purchased a RV van called Getaway on 1 ton ford
>> econoline chassis, with a 350...7.5 l , geez it's big mother. I'm
wondering if
>> any1 on this list could help me find info regarding the van, i've tried
>> without any success.Thanks, Noel
>> Sorry, i forgot to mention the van is an 1988, with 82,000 k's in mint
>> condition, it never saw snow yet.
>
>As others have said it is probably a 5.8 liter (351 ci) engine. Is is
>an '88 Getaway or is it actually an "88 Ford. My '88 Transvan is
>actually on an '87 Ford. They seem to buy a large group of vehicles and
>then by the time they complete the conversion, they are into the next
>model year. I can't help you on the Getaway info. However for the
>engine and chassis, there are the Hayes and Chilton manuals. They do
>leave some to be desired though. I have been considering getting the
>Ford manuals, myself. By the way, my Transvan is a dually 19 ft and has
>the 351 engine. I really doubt that they would have used the 460 in a
>van conversion.
>Paul in Portland OR
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>hi paul,
thanks for the reply, yes my van is a 460, geez, such a big motor to
pull a 1 ton van, i wonder why?, maybe because the van was built in BC, Noel

Noel Hupe

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:59:40 -0500
From: Ron Madurski
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - Universal Joints

I guess that would depend on how you view your truck (pun sort of
intended). If you are like me and enjoy tinkering with it and are
underneath it on a regular basis, go with the lubables. If, on the
other hand, you forget where your dipstick is, then go with the
lubedforlife model. Just remember that lubedforlife doesn't necessarily
mean your life...

Okay, straw poll: go with the (slightly cheaper) greasable joints or
the
lubed-for-life type? Cost is no object (they're both cheap), just
strength and longevity. The stock joints have no zercs; seems odd that
they would use the more expensive type on such a base model truck but I
suppose the good Ford works in mysterious ways. OTOH, more expensive
doesn't necessarily mean better. Perhaps the lubed-for-life kind aren't
superior, just more idiot-proof. Opinions?
lordjanusz
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:26:55 -0500
From: "Chad A. Dietrich"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 93 F-150 w/302

I have an 86 f150 4x4 Short Bed 302 with OD and I average 20-23 and thats with a
little of town driving and mostly country roads. All I have done to it was to change
the hubs (which suprisingly gave me about 2mpg) and to add a K&N also when I put my
31x10.50 tires on it I lowered my RPMs about 400. My father has a 91 F150 4x4 302 OD
and has the same config W/O hubs and he gets about 18-21mpg.
Later,
Chad

Dave Sill wrote:

> Hi, I'm new to this list and a new owner of '93 F-150 XLT with a 302 and a 3-
> speed auto (84k miles).
>
> I traded a Geo Metro that got 50+ mpg for the truck. :-) I knew the mileage
> wasn't going to be good, but I expected better than the 15-16 mpg I'm getting.
> Is this normal?
>
> I'm not a speed freak, and performance is good, but if there were some simple
> things I could do to help performance or gas mileage, I'd like to hear about
> them.
>
> Are there any known problems with this vehicle (especially engine or
> transmission) that I need to watch out for?
>
> It's got smaller tires on the front now, but I plan to replace them with larger
> ones when they need replacing. Should I have the speedometer recalibrated if I
> do that? Any recommendations for all-season tires for mainly on-road use?
>
> Thanks.
>
> P.S., for the sake of those of us who read this as a digest, please don't include
> the entire message you're responding to in your response. Thanks again.
>
> --
> Dave Sill, MaxFreedom Free-Market.net
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html



== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:09:21 PDT
From: "Casey Vandor"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: U-joint

One thing to keep in mind here, that the u-joints that have zerk
fittings on them (at least on my drive shafts) must be pulled out of the
yokes on the t-case to be greased. There is no way to fit a grease gun
tip into the u-joint when its in place. So the greased for life might
be worth the extra money.

Thanks
Casey Vandor

>>>>>>>
Okay, straw poll: go with the (slightly cheaper) greasable joints or
the
lubed-for-life type? Cost is no object (they're both cheap), just
strength and longevity. The stock joints have no zercs; seems odd that
they would use the more expensive type on such a base model truck but I
suppose the good Ford works in mysterious ways. OTOH, more expensive
doesn't necessarily mean better. Perhaps the lubed-for-life kind aren't
superior, just more idiot-proof. Opinions?

______________________________________________________
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:25:02 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: U-joint

At 09:09 AM 8/19/98 -0700, you wrote:
>One thing to keep in mind here, that the u-joints that have zerk
>fittings on them (at least on my drive shafts) must be pulled out of the
>yokes on the t-case to be greased. There is no way to fit a grease gun
>tip into the u-joint when its in place. So the greased for life might
>be worth the extra money.

I found a "needle tip" for my grease gun at Pep Boys that screws on inplace
of the regular tip. It is long enough to reach up into confined spaces.
Tip of the needle pushes into the check ball on the zerk, allowing it to
accept grease. It comes in very handy.

Later

Keith Srbherbie ford-trucks.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.netvalue.net/herbie
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, Camper Special, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box,
Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Model 1100 1bbl carb, Oil Bath Air
Cleaner, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box Style Side.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 12:52:14 -0500
From: "Rick Wojciechowski"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Universal Joints

Paul M Radecki wrote:

> This weekend (or sooner) I get to learn all about replacing U-joints. A
> quarter inch of slop is bad, right? Yeah, thought so. Guess I found
> that driveline noise... BTW, AutoZone says that Ford used two different
> front joint types for trucks like mine ('94 F150, 300ci, 5spd, 133"wb,
> 2-pc driveshaft), one of which has a different size bearing cup on each
> axis. Does this sound right? Mine appears to be the other type, with
> all bearings the same size. How do they say...? Measure once, drive to
> AutoZone twice. Measure twice...
> Okay, straw poll: go with the (slightly cheaper) greasable joints or the
> lubed-for-life type? Cost is no object (they're both cheap), just
> strength and longevity. The stock joints have no zercs; seems odd that
> they would use the more expensive type on such a base model truck but I
> suppose the good Ford works in mysterious ways. OTOH, more expensive
> doesn't necessarily mean better. Perhaps the lubed-for-life kind aren't
> superior, just more idiot-proof. Opinions?

Okay,
I just thought I would add my $0.02 here. I just got through changing
my axle u-joints on my Bronco that has the Dana 44-IFS. Now one of
the ones I replaced that was bad was a Spicer U-joint which are the
heavy-duty and this one was a non-greaseable. The Spicer U-joints
are pricey at $28.00-$36.00 depending on which ones your replacing.
Some come with Zercs and some don't. Now I still stick with the Spicer
because of the heavy dutiness of the joint. It gives me a better piece of
mind when I go 4 wheeling. If you were to compare a street u-joint
to a heavy duty u-joint it would be noticeably different. Not only that,
but I feel I will spend less time having to replace them. Now, if you
stay on the streets then the lighter type are fine. It all comes down to
the fact they all need to be changed eventually, its just you need to
buy the right ones for your trucks application and maintenance of
the parts. If you go 4wheeling then I recommend heavier duty ones.
If you stay on the road, then your okay with the autozone light truck
ones. Once again, whether they have Zerks or not, they will eventually
need to be changed. Its just if you like to tinker with your truck
as I do, then the greaseable ones are for you. Once again, just my $0.02.

- --
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:02:51 EDT
From: JSC721 aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - fuel gauge prob.

hello guys, i have an 89 e-250 4.9 with dual tanks. the rear tank is ok. but
when i switch to the front tank the needle drops to empty. even when its
full.could it be the sender? i heard there was a recall on the fuel switch.
any ideas? thanks

joe
/jsc721
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:58:32 -0500
From: "Rick Wojciechowski"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - F350 Front Axle U-joints

Pat Daniels wrote:

> I have an 88 F350 4x4 which has the solid front axle and is in dire need of
> the u-joints on the front axle being replaced as they are worn out. I'm
> not talking the driveshaft u-joints. These u-joints are on the axleshafts
> at the end of the axlehousing.

Pat,
I just got through changing mine on my Bronco which I talked
about in an earlier post on the other u-joint question. Now, I have
the Dana 44-IFS inwhich the drivers side axle pulls right out after
you take off the spindle. The passenger side is slightly tougher,
but the slip-joint helps get it out. Now I think the biggest pain
for yours is just getting to the axle, by that I mean taking off all
the 4WD stuff. I assume you have manual hubs. A couple of
tools you will want to get if you have never been inside
your hubs before:


1. 1/2" Drive Locknut Socket(if you don't have one already -
Somewhere around a 1 1/8" diam. or so.
2. Torque Wrench - The spindle bolts don't take to kindly
to any torquing past the Haynes specs. Oh, just to let you
know, if you happen to break any of the spindle bolts then
they are really easy to find at a junk yard. NOT, that I would
know. :-)

Nice to Have:
1. 4-piece Dental set(thats what I call it). Its a 4 piece set. It
contains an awl and the other 3 are very sharp ends bent at
various angles. This is what I use to get the hub retaining ring
out that is recessed into the hub. They really get under the ring
nicely. Then just use a small screwdriver or the awl to finish
prying it out. I got mine out the first time I went in there to change
my bearings with a couple of really small flat screwdrivers, and
that was a pain in the butt. But since I bought these they are
a TREMENDOUS time saver. And they are cheap too. WELL
WORTH the investment. So did you get my point yet. :-)
Oh, mine are made by Popular Mechanics.

2. Workbench Vise - Nice to have to take out the old u-joints
as well as, put in the new ones. Now when putting your new
u-joints in make sure there is some grease in the 4 caps. There
should be. Sometimes I add a smidge more and sometimes
I don't. It the needle bearings are coated then don't worry about
adding any more.

Well, let us know your progress.

- --
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: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:31:11 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Truck Driving Schools (2 of 2)

Dear Ford Truck Enthusiasts list members:

We have a new advertiser on our web site. Since the beginning,
our practice with web site advertisers has been to make a brief
announcement for 2 days (this is day 2 of 2). Please show your
appreciation to them for helping to support the web site and the
lists by checking out their site:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.webspawner.com/users/easyhaul/index.html

Easy Haul is a personalized service by Alan DeBoer Sr., who has
extensive experience as both a professional truck driver and a
certified instructor. If you've considered a career driving a
big rig, Alan offers a locating service of recognized and approved
truck driving schools in the United States or Canada. Check it
out.

We would like to you to let Alan know you heard about his service
via the Ford Truck Enthusiasts group.

Now returning you to our regularly scheduled program... (thanks
Keith, didn't mean to intrude!)

Ken Payne
CoAdmin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:05:21 -0500
From: lordjanusz juno.com (Paul M Radecki)
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: '93 F150 w/302

Dave sez:

>>I traded a Geo Metro that got 50+ mpg for the truck. :-) I knew the
>>mileage
>>wasn't going to be good, but I expected better than the 15-16 mpg I'm
>>getting.
>>Is this normal?

Look in your truck bed. Is the Geo still in there? ;-)

>>I'm not a speed freak, and performance is good, but if there were some
>>simple
>>things I could do to help performance or gas mileage, I'd like to hear
>>about
>>them.

Check the archives, esp. with regards to advancing the timing, K&N
filters and cat-back exhaust. You might also investigate the
appropriateness of your rear gearing vis-a-vis how you use the truck.....


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.