>From kpayne ford-trucks.com Fri Oct 2 06:11:48 1998
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com (80-96-list-digest)
To: 80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Subject: 80-96-list-digest V2 #341
Reply-To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com


80-96-list-digest Friday, October 2 1998 Volume 02 : Number 341



=======================================================================
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 - Re: 5.8L rough idle
FTE 80-96 - Steering problems
FTE 80-96 - Bad Gauge Reading with Dual Fuel Tanks
Re: FTE 80-96 - Pre hunting inspection tune up
FTE 80-96 - B&M ShiftPlus Hell
FTE 80-96 - Cheap 100HP
FTE 80-96 - Transmission controller
RE: FTE 80-96 - '86 Ranger problem

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:27:12 -0400
From: "Christopher Maher"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: 5.8L rough idle

Mike, thanks to you and all who responded to my question. It's been a long
time that I have lived with it and finally someone had an answer that makes
sense. I have to rebuild my 5.8 now anyway, so while I am in there I will
replace the cam with a 91 or 92 version, or one of the aftermarket grinds.
I don't mind a lopey idle in a race car, but not in the vehicle I have to
drive everyday. Again thanks
Christopher Maher
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hammock
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: September 29, 1998 12:48 AM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: 5.8L rough idle


>This is my first post to this list so please bear with me. I am an
>automotive technician by trade with 20+ years of experience and am
>employed by a private university that has a 55 vehicle fleet. I also have a
>great deal of experience in high performance engines.
>
>All 88-90 5.8L engines idle rough due to aggressive cam timing. This was
>covered in
>a TSB back in 1990. I own an 88 F-150 4x4 and complained about it under
>warranty at 34k miles. They did the same stuff--- cleaned injectors, new
>EGR valve, etc. Truck didn't run any different. Stapled to the back of the
>work order was a photocopy of the TSB. I knew this was going to be the case
>as it is not hard to tell a rump-rump cam.
>Basically it was a snow job for them to collect some warranty money from
>Ford.
>
>All 91-92 5.8L engines had a cam with more valve lift but shorter cam
>timing numbers (Lightings excluded- they are there own beast.) Power stayed
>the same but the idle smoothed out. At work, we had a 92 E-350 that was
>purchased new and at 104k it still would not slop your latte on the dash at
>idle. Unfortunately the van took a LF corner shot on the freeway and that
>was the end of that.
>
>93 and up 5.8L finally got the roller cam. 94's also got sequential fuel
>injection instead of the previous batch fire set-up. This made things even
>smoother. We had one of these also but the van did an imitation of a turtle
>on it's back down in Mexico a couple of months ago.
>
>An alternative cam is out now from Edelbrock. No E.O. yet but it's numbers
>are interesting. Check it out at their website. Crane also had a cam in
>their Compucam 2000 line but I do not know if it is still offered.
>
>I have an Edelbrock 5.8 EFI intake, 56mm throttle body, and a TES system
>for my truck. Just need to find the time to install it all. Truck is
>currently equipped with a Dynomax cat-back system and a K&N air filter. The
>cat-back was good for 3 tenths and 2 mph in the 1/4 mile. I hope to pick up
>another 5-7 tenths with the extra stuff. I run the truck down the track to
>verify that improvements are real and not just seat of the pants better. I
>don't worry about fuel economy as it is the same no matter how I drive it-
>10 city, 12 hwy with a C-6 and 3.55 gears.
>
>Also 5.0L trucks do not run the same cam as 5.8L's. Lift and cam timing
>numbers are completely different.
>
>Sorry for the long post but I hope this helps.
>
>
>
>
>
>== 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: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:32:42 -0500
From: "Chad A. Dietrich"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Steering problems

I hate to ask this type of question, but as always it doesn't act up
when I take it to the shop. So I'm hoping that someone else has heard of
a problem like this.

When I'm driving I'll hear a rubbing noise from the front and then
the wheels will shift to the right and I'll be fighting the steering
wheel for control. At first it only happend when I would turn right and
then later on it would happen when I was just driving down the road.
Everything would be going fine then I would hear the rubbing noise and
feel a shap pull to the right. My tie rods are all new and I have a
rebuilt steering sector that only has 1000mi on it. Could worn ball
joinst cause it? Could a rotor or somthing be loose?
Thank you,
Chad

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:13:15 -0500
From: Pete Kraus
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Bad Gauge Reading with Dual Fuel Tanks

jerrypurkis commented:

>hello all i wanted to ask this question again i have a 86 f250 with duel
>tanks when using the rear tank after 5-6gals it drops to empty any
>thoughts?

The gauge on my '89 F250 4x4 diesel does the same thing with the rear
tank switched on. Front's okay. It's been that way since I bought the
truck in '91. I seem to recall getting a quote of a couple of hundred
dollars to fix it but can't remember what the mechanic (or was it the
dealer) said was wrong. I decided I could live with resetting the trip
odometer to zero each time I switch tanks (I always top up when I refill).
After about 200 miles, I switch over to the front tank. I probably could
go longer, but I've been told it's not a good idea to let diesel tanks run
too low.

If anyone knows of an inexpensive fix, please let us know.

Pete
Pete_Kraus emory.org


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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:25:09 -0400
From: nuke
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Pre hunting inspection tune up

what about your gun and hunting equipment? I thought the truck was just
supposed to be transportation to get you there? Just kidding

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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 19:44:25 -0400
From: Ben Havens
Subject: FTE 80-96 - B&M ShiftPlus Hell

(my apologies to those here who already read this on the BigBroncos list)

Moral first: Don't buy cheap "miracle mods", especially ones that splice
into your truck's computer. Anyone who's not familiar with it, the
ShiftPlus is a little black box with a switch. It splices onto 2 wires on
the computer harness and gives you firmer shifts. The switch lets you make
it firm, real firm, or stock feel (mush). Theoretically at least.

To sum up:
About 3 very long months ago I bought a ShiftPlus for $40 bucks from Summit.
Ignoring repeated admonishments to SKIP the Scotch-Lok connectors it came
with (sorry Randy), I used them anyway, thinking "Hey, they came with it,
they must be OK to use." Maybe yes, maybe no. Who the hell knows. Randy
did not use them and his ShiftPlus works all right, last I recall hearing,
while I and another Bronco owner (his is almost identical to mine) both end
up with trannies that slam HARD from gear to gear, all the time, even after
pulling that rotten little black box. A couple of trips to FORD and we are
both diagnosed with shorted PCMs. The circuit the ShiftPlus taps into is
supposed to vary resistance to control the line pressure in the tranny.
That circuit shorted, resulting in tons of line pressure. Not quite $500
later, we are both back to mushy stock shifting, which I appreciate a little
more now..

Lesson learned, but damn, talk about expensive...
Anyone else who has the ShiftPlus, and it hasn't broken your truck, care to
pipe up in defense of B&M? I got some choice words for what I think of 'em,
but you guys don't deserve that :-) Anyone considering buying the thing, I
would seriously recommend you reconsider. You are playing with fire. Maybe
get a Banks TransCommand. Me, I'll stick with nothin. Nothin is fine.

Ben
bhavens online.emich.edu




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

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

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 17:21:55 PDT
From: "Bryan Snyder"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Cheap 100HP

There is NO cheap way of getting 100HP other than nitrous. You can
however get 100HP easily with bolt ons. I figured a couple of routes you
could go. 1.) Find a 86-92 Mustang 5.0 and put that in, it has 225Hp and
300 FT lbs of torque. Quite a bit more than your current engine. You
would however need to use the computer from the car engine and it should
be a very easy swap. GT 5.0 respond very well to bolt ons such as
headers, chips, bigger throttle bodies, K+N's, cat back exausts and high
flow converters etc. 2.) Keep your current engine and use bolt ons such
as bigger manifolds, chip, exaust, throttle body etc. If you went with
number 1 you start out with more and have to buy less but you still have
to buy another engine( most places will take yours as a partial trade.
Number two keeps the engine you have in the truck and ready to use but
you start out with less ponies and have to buy more parts Even little
parts to get 100 more ponies add up very quickly. Also the mustang
engine years I gave you came factory with forged pistons, later ones
came with hyperutectics, so the stang engine will be in a position to
better cope with the added power right from the start. Personally, I
would get the GT engine and add parts as my budget would allow. The
added power of the GT engine compared to yours should keep you amused
until you get more stuff! Also, have you considered a shift kit from a
reputeable maker? One of these alone will usually pick up your trap
speed and time with no other mods and also enhance tranny life and can
be had with out being to harsh and can be installed in an hour or two.

Hope this helps,
Bryan Snyder

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 20:56:14 -0400
From: "Matt Fitzsimmons"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Transmission controller

I know, this isn't exactly the run of the mill question.

I'm looking for information on stand alone controllers for latest crop of
computer controlled transmissions.

We are building a twin turbo 400 ci fuel injected engine using a DFI
contoller. The DFI of course, doesn't have anything to do with the tranny.
So I need to find a stand alone controller, or information on how the
transmission is controlled so that we could possibly build our own
controller.

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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:44:21 -0500
From: "Bob Johnson"
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - '86 Ranger problem

Steve,

Amen.

Bob

- -----Original Message-----
From: Steve Best
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: '86 Ranger problem

>Do I ever get peeved at shop incompetence. I got tired of doing all my
>own repairs at one point so I bought a new car and took it back to the
>dealer for any work that needed done. It took 4 trips for them to find
>what was draining the battery after 3 days, the trunk light. Their fix?
>They removed the bulb!!!
>

>
>Cheaper and quicker to do it myself next time.


Also:

Andre,

Thanks for the info re: 3-wire O2 sensor, high impedance volt meters and
especially grounds/shorts. I'll look into it.

And I'll keep you posted. Actually, she's running pretty well today - about
20 mpg on the last tank, only a couple of very brief hesitation/black smoke
episodes.

Bob

And:

Michael,

Good info re: resetting the computer - might explain why after my most
recent "fix" the truck didn't immediately run better, but has been improving
(over a tankful or so). Thanks.

And I hate resetting those radio presets and clock too!

Bob

- ----Original Message----

From: Skerrett, Michael


>Each time I change a sensor or do something that would change the
performance of the engine I always disconnect power from >the computer for
about 1 minute to erase its memory. The manual says you should run your
vehicle for about 10 miles on the >next start and try to have an even
balance of steady open throttle and city driving for those first 10 miles.
I usually >pull over and stop the engine after the first 10, restart the
engine and run another 10 back.
>
>Then try removing power (I pull off a battery cable, but alas, then I have
to reset my radio channels).


And

Dave,

Thanks. I'll check my upper end for air-tightness. Anything to get this baby
running consistently well. When all is right, she's a fun drive. A real pain
when I'm just stumbling along and laying a smoke screen any WWII destroyer
would be proud of...

Bob

- ----Original Message----
From: Dave Armbruster

>I had a similar problem with my '97 Ranger 4.0L ...
>
>I tore into it, ... noticed that the upper intake (big plastic
>air box with a molded "4.0L" on mine) to fuel rail gasket was....


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.