>From kpayne ford-trucks.com Sun Oct 11 06:13:06 1998
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:13:06 -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 #353
Reply-To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com


80-96-list-digest Sunday, October 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 353



=======================================================================
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 - Exhaust headers
FTE 80-96 - won't go into gear
Re: FTE 80-96 - won't go into gear
Re: FTE 80-96 - won't go into gear
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - Octane
FTE 80-96 - How much damage did I do?
FTE 80-96 - 80 F-250 Engine-Tranny Compatability

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:33:29 -0700
From: Rob Bryan
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust headers

The manifold may mot be warped, but it might be cracked. Check the noisy
manifold for that.

Rob

At 7:56 PM -0400 10/09/98, DHall8577 aol.com wrote:
>I have a 94 I-6 300 c.i. and recently developed an exhaust leak in the front
>exhaust header [mine has a split header 3 and 3 ] Ford does not put an exhaust
>gasket when new from the factory. So I had to purchase an aftermarket header
>gasket, I believe it was a gates product. So anyway, I replaced it and it
>sounded great for about a month and now it is doing it again in the same
>place! Any ideas? I think we can rule out the fact that the headers are
>warped due to the fact that it is a split header, too small of a surface area
>for it to warp. Has any body else had this problem? By the way I don't now
>if it makes a difference, but I have 178,000 miles on this motor, 90% highway
>driving.
>
>Dave
>== 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: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 10:51:46 PDT
From: "Casey Vandor"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - won't go into gear

I hate to drag this up again, but it is only 10 degrees out, and my t-18
will not go into 2 gear (I can upshift into 2, but coming out of 3, it
isn't possible) until the thing warms up, (5 miles down the road) I
have 75w-90 in there now, is there a non-synthetic I could run that is
more viscous? The napa guys here don't use the synthetic and the 75w-90
is all they sell. If synthetic is the answer, is there a brand name I
can look for? If 10 degrees makes it sticky, I can't imagine -60....
What was I thinking when I came here? LOL

Thanks
Casey Vandor

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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:28:25 +0000
From: Garr&Pam
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - won't go into gear

Casey Vandor wrote:
>
> I hate to drag this up again, but it is only 10 degrees out, and my t-18
> will not go into 2 gear (I can upshift into 2, but coming out of 3, it
> isn't possible) until the thing warms up, (5 miles down the road) I
> have 75w-90 in there now, is there a non-synthetic I could run that is
> more viscous? The napa guys here don't use the synthetic and the 75w-90
> is all they sell. If synthetic is the answer, is there a brand name I
> can look for? If 10 degrees makes it sticky, I can't imagine -60....
> What was I thinking when I came here? LOL
>
> Thanks
> Casey Vandor

I like redline products, but amsoil is good too!
Chris
94 Lightning #381
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 15:42:03 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - won't go into gear

Casey Vandor wrote:

> I hate to drag this up again, but it is only 10 degrees out, and my t-18
> will not go into 2 gear (I can upshift into 2, but coming out of 3, it
> isn't possible) until the thing warms up, (5 miles down the road) I
> have 75w-90 in there now, is there a non-synthetic I could run that is
> more viscous?

Casey,

The problem may be that it is TOO viscous. Oil thickens as it gets colder,
so we usually need to select a lower viscosity at lower temperature. I
don't know what the recommended lubes are for your T-18, but if a lower
viscosity is recommended in the frigid arctic where you are, then I'd try
that.

I had a car once that I purchased and it had the same problem--couldn't get
into second going either way. Checked the manual and it said to use SAE 30
in the gearbox. I couldn't believe it, so I got another opinion, and sure
enough--SAE30. So I uncorked the tranny, and the stinkiest 90 weight gear
oil came out of there--evidently the previous owner hadn't bothered to check
and put gear lube in there instead of the SAE 30 that was supposed to be in
there. Replaced it with SAE30, and I was on the road with no problems.

Not recommending SAE30 for your gearbox. Just an example of how too thick
of a lube can cause this problem. I think your balk rings in the gearbox
can't sync up the speeds inside, so it won't let you go in. If you hold
pressure on it long enough, it probably will eventually let you go back--but
I'd try checking the lube first.
- --
Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
- --------------------------------------------------------------


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

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 19:13:11 -0400
From: troyw mfi.net (Troy Williams)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Octane rating for '84 F-150

On 9 Oct 98, at 21:25, Andre Roy wrote:

>> >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.
>>
>> Duh! Why didn't I think of it earlier? I guess I've just lost it.
>>
>Lost what? ;-)

What little mind I had left.

>> If the 87 does make the truck knock off the bat, is there any kind of
>> octane boost or something that will stop it from knocking to maybe
>> minimize any damage to the engine?
>>
>Don't fill it up. Put maybe a half tank in there. If it does knock, fill
>up with higher test, sort of to average it out.

Alright, that'll work.

>Or, there are octane boosters available at speed shops and parts stores.
>But be sure to find a place that sells the stuff first. Don't want to be
>running around with your engine sounding like Baja Marimba Band (or a
>chevrolump)

Oh, I think Napa has something like it. If they don't, I'm sure Auto
Zone would. If they don't, then I guess I pay even more for the 94
to try and balance it out.

You might be a redneck if... The fountain at your wedding
spewed beer instead of champagne. - Jeff Foxworthy


Troy Williams
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mfi.net/~troyw
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 19:13:11 -0400
From: troyw mfi.net (Troy Williams)
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Octane

On 9 Oct 98, at 7:02, Posluszny, Walt (POSL) wrote:

>Technically you can run the lowest octane gas your engine will tolerate
>under your normal driving conditions without pinging or knocking.
>Regardless of Octane.

What normal driving conditions? I drive in the mornings at a top
speed of a whopping 35 MPh to school, and then I do around 50 to
55 on my way to work after school, and then around the same
speed back, or just until I hit town and then have to slow it down to
35 again on Pine. :)

>I'd like to hear the logic behind this statement. Although I agree that
>carbon build-up isn't very good for any engine....I do not understand how
>running higher octane gas can cause this. In fact, one could argue that
>carbon deposits could be less due to the additional detergent additives in
>higher octane furel and the fact that little to no-pinging or knocking
>would occur under any circumstance.

Maybe the different additives would cause it to build up inside the
system. I don't know. I'm just the junior mechanic here.

>General Note : Higher octane gas provides more resistance to self
>ignition over lower octane gas, as well as higher additive levels (such as
>detergents, etc..in most cases). The best place to start is with the OEM
>octane recommendation for your vehicle and then adjust only if necessary
>due to your specific engine conditions, your driving style or local
>climate conditions. Octane needs may change as those three variables
>change.

Alright, where would I find that for an '84 F-150? I do not have
the vehicle manual. That's why I am asking about it here.

You might be a redneck if... You think 'Meals on Wheels' is another
name for roadkill. - Jeff Foxworthy


Troy Williams
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.mfi.net/~troyw
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998 20:08:05 -0700
From: kroger ucla.edu
Subject: FTE 80-96 - How much damage did I do?

Please give it to me straight. I don't need to explain how I feel about this.

I got an 88 F-150 4x4 a week ago, with 78,000 miles on it. When I looked at
the truck, the owner and I were looking at how the hub lockouts worked, and
the result is I've been driving around LA three days with one front hub
locked (2 HI) -- nobody ever took the hub out of lock. I think it was my
fault.

This included about 50 - 100 miles on the freeway at up to 75 mph.
The vibration was so bad when, after buying it, I took it on a cruise Wed
evening, that I thought I was losing a tranny, differential, etc. etc.

Friday all the u-joints (5), the half shaft, and the front bearings were
replaced in an effort to diagnose and cure the problem to no avail. Today I
was about to switch the spare and the left front wheel, and it occured to
me to check the hub settings. The right one was locked. I unlocked it and
went for a drive on the freeway up the pass. The vibration was gone. The
truck coasted freely. The left front wheel had made a ratcheting sound
several times turning tight left turns, that now is gone.

Now the truck drives very much like my brother's practically new one,
but I occasionally feel a faint ghost of the grinding feel through the soles
of my feet.

I had just bought this to move to New Jersey with. I'm switching
employers and basically had no money left in excess of my anticipated
moving expenses to do any major work on the truck, so the degree of
my relief might approach the degree of my feeling sick about what
I did. I can and will bear any expense of repair when I'm relocated.
This truck is beautiful, midnight blue, 302, and like new everywhere
except what I've rendered. The owner meticulously maintained it
and it's only by great luck that I managed to be the first there when
it appeared in the ads.

I expect I did major damage to everything in both differentials and the
transfer case which will greatly shorten their life if not cause damage
that may show up soon. I probably will make it to New Jersey though. Yes I
know how much it costs to rebuild all those.

Thanks for any thoughts. This is a great list, BTW. Sorry for being so verbose.

Jim


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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:31:59 -0400
From: "Kerry Struble"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 80 F-250 Engine-Tranny Compatability

I've got an 80 F-250 with a 4-spd tranny and a blown 460. The 460 is a
replacement (I believe it originally had a 351). Aside from rebuilding, I've
been considering putting a smaller engine back in, maybe another 351. Can
anyone tell me for sure if any smaller engines would be compatible with the
4-spd tranny, headers, m-mounts, p/s, etc? Someone told me any of the
M-series engines would be, the Chilton's book seems to indicate that the
original engine would have been a 351W. Any input appreciated.

Kerry Struble
Wolfeboro, NH
strummn1 ....


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.