>From kpayne ford-trucks.com Wed Oct 7 21:58:25 1998
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:58:25 -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 #349
Reply-To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com


80-96-list-digest Wednesday, October 7 1998 Volume 02 : Number 349



=======================================================================
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 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
FTE 80-96 - F350 gas or diesel?
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
FTE 80-96 - gas prices
Re: FTE 80-96 - Redline, Rust prevention, Manual Hubs
FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
FTE 80-96 - 93 Ford XLT 302 5.0
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - Redline, Rust prevention, Manual Hubs
FTE 80-96 - 98 F-350 4WD Transfer Cases
FTE 80-96 - 84 4WD Clutch Woes
Re: FTE 80-96 - 84 4WD Clutch Woes
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305
RE: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305
Re: FTE 80-96 - Brake Line clip
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

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

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:16:04 +0200
From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rnar?= Huse"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

>> BTW, how much is gas down there in Florida? I live in Brighton, IL, but get
>> gas in the St. Louis area which is currently running around 85-87 cents a
>> gallon for 87 octane.

OK, guys, sit down and hold on to something!
Gas is here approx. USD 4,5 a gallon, diesel around 4,3 $/gallon

And no; we don't have a whole lot of gas-powered V8s here, but some
diesels. A new Suburban 6,5 TD, Grand Cherokee V8 or loaded E-350 TD all
run about USD 90.000,- A peculiar fee structure rates the E-350 and
Suburban 2500 as professionals' trucks with lower fees, the state budget
for next year proposes to annul the fees on 7000#-plus vehicles
altogether. (Sales tax of 23% still apply, though).

Food for thought?
- --
Bjornar Huse
Aalesund, Norway
Tel. +47 92 45 01 56
Fax. +47 70 10 24 31
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://bryggen.bgnett.no/~bjornar
1 Son, 3 yrs
1 Groenendael, 4 yrs
1 1990 Ford E-250 Club Wagon 7.3 diesel, 3.54, E4OD
1 1994 Ford Escort 1.3
1 1986 Ford Escort 1.6 Wagon
Oh, yes, one 1971 wife, too!
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:42:49 -0400
From: jlucs peddie.org (jlucs)
Subject: FTE 80-96 - F350 gas or diesel?


I'm looking to trade in or sell my '96 F250XLT E4OD Supercab 4x4
and buy a used F350.

I'm looking at buying a used '95-'97 F350XLT Crew Cab 4x4 SRW
automatic.

A) Should I be aware of any problem years that I should stay away
from or configurations of trans and rears?

B) What would be better a gas or diesel motor? What will
probably do alot better mpg and hold up better and maint.
costs of it? I have no problem w/ the noise of a diesel which
some people do.

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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:46:03 -0400
From: troyw mfi.net (Troy Williams)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

On 6 Oct 98, at 10:04, Wallace, Craig wrote:

> I've got a '94 F-150 XLT 300 I-6 4.9 L and my manual specifies 87 octane.
> But then again, 89 may be recommended for the V-8 in your manual. I have,
> though, on one occasion had spark knock, but just decided to never get gas
> at that station again (perhaps they have water in their gas....I wouldn't
> put it past them). I've had my truck almost two years now and have never
> had a problem with 87 octane other than the one occasion. Give it a try
> and see if you experience any knocking.

Alright. Thanks. I will give it a shot this week. If I can save a little
bit of money, it will be worth it.

> I've read where 89 octane is not much different than 87 other than just a
> few more detergents. Can someone elaborate a little more on the
> difference between the two? There's not much difference in the cost
> (mostly a penny or two...depending on where you buy gas).

Wanna bet? The 87 is under $1.00 a gallon down here in Ocala,
FL. The 89 goes from $1.09 on up.

> BTW, how much is gas down there in Florida? I live in Brighton, IL, but
> get gas in the St. Louis area which is currently running around 85-87
> cents a gallon for 87 octane.

Wish we had those kinds of prices down here, or I wouldn't be so
frustrated over it.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:46:03 -0400
From: troyw mfi.net (Troy Williams)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

On 6 Oct 98, at 23:51, BigRed wrote:

> Not much better here in northern MN at about $1.15 a gallon. It'll be up
> to about $1.20 or so when snow flys so they can make a few extra bucks
> from our snowmobiles too.

The 87 octane is running around 98 to 99 cents a gallon. The 89 is
up to around $1.09, I'm sure that it's going to go up past that. It
does depend on where I stop. The 89 was down to around $1.03 a
week or so ago, it's made this big of a jump in just a few days, I'm
sure that it's going to go up even further.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:46:03 -0400
From: troyw mfi.net (Troy Williams)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

On 6 Oct 98, at 11:55, Andre Roy wrote:

> That's the best advice there, check the owner's manual. It will specify
> the grade. Any higher than you need is just being charitable to the oil
> companies. ;-)

Thanks for the advice, just that I don't have the owners manual or I
would have referred to it already. I have spent quite a bit of time
looking around for information on this vehicle, just there isn't much
available. I think maybe the age of the vehicle has a little
something to do with it too.

> Well, I'm no chemist, but that never stopped me before ;-). There is
> some extra anti-knock agents in it. In the old days, that would have
> been tetra-ethyl lead, now adays it ...
>
> There may, or may not be more additives in it.

I'm not sure, I figured there would have been something in it. I am
just wanting to make sure that I don't do any damage to my
engine. I guess I will try it on one tank and see how it runs.

> There's likely even less difference in cost to the oil companies. Most of
> the extra cost is "value added" The value is being added to their bank
> account.

I would like to know why the 89 can be around $1.11 at one place.
$1.09 at another, and then I have seen one place that sells it for
$1.24. I'm just not getting it. I am fed up with the gas stations
playing these games around here, lower the price for a while, and
then jack it back up almost overnight. It's not mainly the money
part of it, just the point behind it. I have noticed the 87 seems to
stay pretty much the same, maybe just a few cents difference at
different gas stations.

> Sorry about the ranting. But the bottom line is, run what doesn't make
> your truck knock. Anything higher is a waste of money. If you want
> detergents, evert five tanks or so, run one of the fuel injection
> additives through the tank.

What are the detergents supposed to do, stop the truck from
knocking? Thanks again.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 07:47:44 -0400
From: "jerrypurkis"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - gas prices

gas prices in ohio as follows bp-$1.01-$1.12-$1.19
citgo-.95-.$1.01-$1.14/sunoco--.96-$1.29 all of these are self serve
if you want full serve at sunoco the price will go as high as $2.00 for
the 94octaine take care have a good ford day..jerry

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

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 07:15:40 -0500
From: "Rick Wojciechowski"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Redline, Rust prevention, Manual Hubs

Geoffrey Schrag wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> Thanks for the help with the other questions. -here are a few more!
> 1. It looks like I have my hub leak fixed with new thicker o-ring, The cap
> is still a little loose, I can press on it and it moves a little. There is
> a large "lock ring" that comes in the Ford hub rebuild kit about the
> thickness of coat hanger wire that is supposed to go on but when I put it
> on the gap between the cap and hub looks too wide?-do I have to put this
> thing on?

Geoff,
If your talking about what I think your talking about then " YES " you
do have to put it in. What I think you are talking about is the ring that
goes in the hub housing in the recessed area. Yes it is supposed to be
thick. The purpose is to keep the rest of the gears off the manua turn
cover. If you do not have that in, then the gears will not be in the right
alignment and position so the manual 4WD hub will probably not work
and you probably will tear something up. So is this what you are referring
too ? The retainer ring that I have suggested to the group to get out
with the dental tool set.


- --
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, 7 Oct 1998 07:44:15 -0500
From: "Gary W Beyer"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

How does running a higher octane gas cause carbon build up?

Gary


>Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:04:10 -0400
>From: "David Butts"
>Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Octane rating for '84 F-150.

>I'll go one step further. If you don't have pinging, then your shouldn't
>run more that 87.

>You are causing more carbon buildup running a higher octane gas, and
>hurting your engine.


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

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 09:16:36 -0400
From: Andre Roy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

Troy Williams wrote:
>
> I would like to know why the 89 can be around $1.11 at one place.
> $1.09 at another, and then I have seen one place that sells it for
> $1.24. I'm just not getting it. I am fed up with the gas stations
> playing these games around here, lower the price for a while, and
> then jack it back up almost overnight. It's not mainly the money
> part of it, just the point behind it. I have noticed the 87 seems to
> stay pretty much the same, maybe just a few cents difference at
> different gas stations.
>
Rant mode again :-/ What with the long weekend approaching up here, gas
prices just jumped something like 3 cents a litre. "Normal seasonal
variations, no collusion" according to the gas companies. Seasons for
the variations always start just before the long weekend.

> > Sorry about the ranting. But the bottom line is, run what doesn't make
> > your truck knock. Anything higher is a waste of money. If you want
> > detergents, evert five tanks or so, run one of the fuel injection
> > additives through the tank.
>
> What are the detergents supposed to do, stop the truck from
> knocking? Thanks again.
>
Detergents are cleaning agents. The clean, or at least, help clean the
injectors or the carburator. The anti-knoking agents are what raises the
octane rating (resistance to ignition), which is what keeps the engine
from knoking.
- --
Andre, Somewhere ...
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:38:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Michael Whities
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 93 Ford XLT 302 5.0

I was wondering if anyone had any documents that you could send me for
removing and reinstall new speakers in my truck. Also, will the 94 Ford
Lightining tires and rims fit on my truck. What would be a good price for
them being used?

Thanks in advance,

Michael

Michael D. Whities
bigmike netdoor.com
bigmike pager.netdoor.com
mwhities netdoor.com
mwhities pager.netdoor.com


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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 09:51:01 -0400
From: "David Butts"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

Something about it not igniting as quickly or thoroughly, and leaving
deposits. I've been told that the higher octane builds carbon quicker. I
have seen a set of 350 heads, that the guy ran with racing 104 octane fuel
on a stock engine, and they were carboned up pretty bad after 40K, so I
never questioned the reason I was told.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary W Beyer
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 9:01 AM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150


>
>
>How does running a higher octane gas cause carbon build up?
>
>Gary
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 10:04:10 -0400
>>From: "David Butts"
>>Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Octane rating for '84 F-150.
>
>>I'll go one step further. If you don't have pinging, then your shouldn't
>>run more that 87.
>
>>You are causing more carbon buildup running a higher octane gas, and
>>hurting your engine.
>
>
>== 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, 07 Oct 1998 13:40:17 -0400
From: "Mike S. in FL"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

That's what we Floridians get for not having an income tax. (so what's
a non-tangible tax?) Oh well, we've got to pay-off our politicians or
they'll go where the money's better. After all what's government for if
not to provide employment? (How do we get off-topic like this????)


Troy Williams wrote:
>
> On 6 Oct 98, at 10:04, Wallace, Craig wrote:
>
> > I've got a '94 F-150 XLT 300 I-6 4.9 L and my manual specifies 87 octane.
> > But then again, 89 may be recommended for the V-8 in your manual. I have,
> > though, on one occasion had spark knock, but just decided to never get gas
> > at that station again (perhaps they have water in their gas....I wouldn't
> > put it past them). I've had my truck almost two years now and have never
> > had a problem with 87 octane other than the one occasion. Give it a try
> > and see if you experience any knocking.
>
> Alright. Thanks. I will give it a shot this week. If I can save a little
> bit of money, it will be worth it.
>
> > I've read where 89 octane is not much different than 87 other than just a
> > few more detergents. Can someone elaborate a little more on the
> > difference between the two? There's not much difference in the cost
> > (mostly a penny or two...depending on where you buy gas).
>
> Wanna bet? The 87 is under $1.00 a gallon down here in Ocala,
> FL. The 89 goes from $1.09 on up.
>
> > BTW, how much is gas down there in Florida? I live in Brighton, IL, but
> > get gas in the St. Louis area which is currently running around 85-87
> > cents a gallon for 87 octane.
>
> Wish we had those kinds of prices down here, or I wouldn't be so
> frustrated over it.
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

- --
Remove the 'downto.' for email responses.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 12:40:36 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Redline, Rust prevention, Manual Hubs

>From: Geoffrey Schrag
>Subject: FTE 80-96 - Redline, Rust prevention, Manual Hubs
>
>1. It looks like I have my hub leak fixed with new
>thicker o-ring, The cap is still a little loose, I can
>press on it and it moves a little. There is a large
>"lock ring" that comes in the Ford hub rebuild kit
>about the thickness of coat hanger wire that is
>supposed to go on but when I put it on the gap
>between the cap and hub looks too wide?-do
>I have to put this thing on?

Yo Geoffrey:

I think the metal ring you're referring to goes into the groove down inside
the hub housing to hold the locking unit body in place. You can get these
retainer rings in varying thickness to accommodate for wear in the hub
housing and locking unit body. When the parts wear and clearances enlarge,
they allow the locking unit to sit farther out toward the outside of the
hub housing and allow some space between the cap and end of the hub housing
where grease/oil can leak out.

On my 1980 F250, I had to use an extra o-ring between the cap and hub
housing to seal in the oil. Since the hub service kits come w/ a new
o-ring, I always put the new ring in the groove where it's supposed to be
on the cap and put the old one out under the end of the cap, so it gets
pinched between the cap and hub housing when the screws are tightened.
Since I started doing this, I have not had any more hub leaks.

>2. Just wondering if anyone knows what the
>redline is for a 1980 351M? Couldn't find this
>info in several manuals.

I don't remember a specific number, but I believe the redline is around
6000-6500 rpm. I have taken my stock 351M up to 5200 rpm w/ no problems,
but that's pushing it pretty hard. So far, my engine has over 160K miles
on it w/ no major problems.

Good luck w/ your truck.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)


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

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 12:45:01 -0600
From: Jeff Fisher
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 98 F-350 4WD Transfer Cases

Little tidbit of info I have learned recently, one of my buds just
bought a new F-350, Power Stroke Diesel, 4WD. Took it up elk hunting and
the transfer case puked all over itself. Another bud up on the
mountain bought the same setup, his x-fer case blew up while
hauling a load across Nevada. While bud #1 was talking to the
guys at the shop about when his truck would be fixed they said they had
a transfer case in stock just a couple days earlier but had to put it in
another new Ford that just hatched it...

Well, seems if I personally have heard of 3 failures of brand new
transfer cases then Ford must really have a problem... Sounds expensive
to me... Is Ford letting the customers functional test their new
stuff?...

If ya got a new 4WD Ford I'd be checkin with the shops...

Jeff \|//

================o00o==(_)==o00o================
No matter where you go.. There you are...
======================== 0ooo. ================
.oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 13:04:29 -0600
From: Jeff Fisher
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 84 4WD Clutch Woes

Hey all:

84 F-250 XLT, 4WD, 460, 4 sp manual.

Wrote a while back about my clutch acting up and finally got around to
changing out all the clutch components, lots of fun was had by all.

Initially the problem was that pressing the clutch pedal never fully
disengaged the clutch and the pedal did not return fully after being
actuated.

Swapped out all the clutch components only to have it do the exact same
thing!!! Damn, gotta hate when that happens. Call me a numbskull but
this method of trouble shooting led me to believe it was a problem with
the hydraulic actuating system... Looking at the linkage I found it very
well worn, causing the master cylinder rod to not fully actuate.
Searching through a junk yard I found out that the newer trucks came
with an adjustable master cylinder push rod to help remedy this problem
by allowing you to make up for worn components.

Lesson to learn from this is to check your clutch linkage for wear. In
particular look at the point where the master cylinder push rod connects
to the clutch linkage (it's located to the right of the steering column
inside the cab). I would pull the pin, take the rod off, inspect the
plastic bushing and replace it if it looks worn. Easy and cheap
insurance to prevent future problems. I will now keep and eye on this
point and keep it greased. I replaced the plastic bushing with some
brass shim material, I'll see how this holds up for me.

Hope this helps...

Jeff \|//

================o00o==(_)==o00o================
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise..
( and today I played the fool :-)
======================== 0ooo. ================
.oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 15:03:05 -0500
From: "Rick Wojciechowski"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 84 4WD Clutch Woes

Jeff Fisher wrote:

> Hey all:
>
> Lesson to learn from this is to check your clutch linkage for wear. In
> particular look at the point where the master cylinder push rod connects
> to the clutch linkage (it's located to the right of the steering column
> inside the cab). I would pull the pin, take the rod off, inspect the
> plastic bushing and replace it if it looks worn. Easy and cheap
> insurance to prevent future problems. I will now keep and eye on this
> point and keep it greased. I replaced the plastic bushing with some
> brass shim material, I'll see how this holds up for me.

Jeff, Well look at it this way. You have become a better, wiser person
from this. And just think you know the workings of the truck better
and you won't have to do it again for a while. :-) Also, it could
be worse. You could of pulled it apart replaced everything then
have the rear main seal go out within the next few days. And find
yourself doing the same da*n thing three weeks later like me.
Now, the first time I became a better person, the second time was
a PITA. :-)

- --
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, 7 Oct 1998 18:33:12 -0400
From: nwo4life4ever juno.com (Tom Kirkbride)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

Is the Ford 5.0 liter engine a 302 cubic inch engine or a 305? My friend
are in an argument and need the correct answer.

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 15:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Whipkey
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

302




- ---Tom Kirkbride wrote:
>
> Is the Ford 5.0 liter engine a 302 cubic inch engine or a 305? My
friend
> are in an argument and need the correct answer.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.juno.com
> or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:12:46 -0600
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

The Ford motor is commonly refereed to as the 302, The GM motor is commonly
refereed to as the 305.
Likewise with the Ford 351 and the GM 350.

GM does not often use liters when referring to their motors. If it is called
a 5.8 liter that is usually a clue it is not a GM engine.

To convert liters to cu in multiply liters by 61.02. but that is not the way
the car manufacturers converted it.

The problem is that the US uses the inch system and they have converted from
cubic inches to liters. Then they commonly round off the liters to a nice
round number like 5.0. To convert cubic inches to liters you multiply cubic
inches by .01639. So actually a 302 is 4.949 liters. So to match ratings
with the foreign car market they expressed the engine sizes in liters and
rounded the number off to 5.0.

The GM 305 is closer to 5 liters than the Ford motor. The trap people fall
into that confuses them is they try to convert liters to cubic inches and
they get 305 cubic inches for a ford 5.0 liter motor when they convert it
back the wrong way not taking into account it was converted the opposite
direction, from cubic inches to liters.

Example: 302 cu in x .01639 = 4.949 L (Ford)
305 cu in x .01639 = 4.998 L (GM)

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nwo4life4ever juno.com [SMTP:nwo4life4ever juno.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 4:33 PM
> To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305
>
> Is the Ford 5.0 liter engine a 302 cubic inch engine or a 305? My friend
> are in an argument and need the correct answer.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 19:33:02 -0400
From: Andre Roy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

Tom Kirkbride wrote:
>
> Is the Ford 5.0 liter engine a 302 cubic inch engine or a 305? My friend
> are in an argument and need the correct answer.
>
302.

But 5000cc ( = 5 litres) = 305.1 cubic inch. SO there's a bit of
rounding going on at Ford.

FWIW cc / 16.387 = CI
cc = litres * 1000

Watch out for rounding, not all 5.0 litre engines are the same 5.0.

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

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

Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 19:17:47 -0400
From: Andre Roy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Brake Line clip

John Fletcher wrote:
>
> Ok, I am working on my dads '86 F-150 4X2 302 C-6. anyway how do you
> get those brake line clips that hold on the rubber lines up front off?
> the clips are reversed so that they are up against the frame rail. I
> need to know soon so I can get the truck inside!
>
Pull'em straight out. Pliers, vice-grips, whatever turns your buckle.
Save 'em if you're putting everything back.

Up against the frame rail is how they're supposed to be.

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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Whipkey
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

There's more than a bit of rounding going on. ;-)
The engine in question used to be referred to as the 302, now it's
refered to as the 5 liter (or litre).
Heck even my HONDA Shadow is referred to as an 1100, but it's
actually only 1080 or something like that.

D.W.

>
>
> But 5000cc ( = 5 litres) = 305.1 cubic inch. SO there's a bit of
> rounding going on at Ford.
>
> FWIW cc / 16.387 = CI
> cc = litres * 1000
>
> Watch out for rounding, not all 5.0 litre engines are the same 5.0.
>
> --
> Andre, Somewhere ...
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

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

Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 22:01:15 -0700
From: Randy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 or 305

The 'rounding' does serve SOME purposes. I mean it's alot cooler to
say my Shadow is 1100 than "yeah, I have a Shadow ten-eighty". Honda
300EX four wheelers are only 282, now there's a stretch. Hmmm, now I
wonder what the actual displacement was on my old V65 Magna 1100
whether or not the real cc's calculated out to 65 cubic inches,
wouldn't that be like 1065 cc's?

Btw, The Chevy 350 is a 5.7 and the Ford 351 is 5.8 liters. Probably
just to help distinquish them from one another. The Ford 300 and
Pontiac 301 are both 4.9, the Ford 302, Chevy 305 and Olds 307 are all
5.0 liters. Really a 2 cubic inch difference makes like a .03 diff in
liters, so it's just a matter of pref for the guys at the mfg. putting
a tag on them. Pontiac was thrilled to be able to put 6.6 liters on
the old T/A's because they came w/both 400 Pontiacs or 403 Olds motors
and it made no diff on the emblems. And since that's already too much
info on this subject, I'll stop right there.....


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.