80-96-list-digest Tuesday, December 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 409



=======================================================================
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 - Overheat
FTE 80-96 - TSP Information
FTE 80-96 - 351W History
RE: FTE 80-96 - More F250 ( '85 diesel, auto, 4x4 ) Questions
FTE 80-96 - GT-40
FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat
FTE 80-96 - snow&ice recommendations?
Re: FTE 80-96 - snow&ice recommendations?
RE: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat
FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed
FTE 80-96 - ISP search
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed
RE: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed
Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 Stroker?
FTE 80-96 - 351W buildup
Re: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat
Re: FTE 80-96 - snow&ice recommendations?
FTE 80-96 - Re: FTE Perf - Super Chip
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: FTE Perf - Super Chip
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: FTE Perf - Super Chip
FTE 80-96 - Sport cars vs. Trucks

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 07:06:41 -0600
From: "Ferino, Chris"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Overheat

Running 200-210 in park at idle is completely normal - most folks running
hopped-up Mustangs on the Mustang lists I frequent are happy with that,
unless they're running SCCA or circle-track events, and even then that's at
the top end of their acceptable level.

I think you're gonna be just fine. After all, an engine does need to heat
up in order to be most efficient - there IS such a thing as running too
cold.

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 05:33:03 PST
From: "joseph virga"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - TSP Information

Howie:

Try Alldata's website at: www.alldata.com/consumer

Joe Virga

87 Bronco
94 T-Bird

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 09:30:33 -0500
From: Frederick Rauscher
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 351W History

I've got a very worn,(rod knock, oil leak, lots'o blowby, original 351W H=
O
in =

my 1985 Bronco. I have access to a complete, good running 1978 351W. =

I'd like to put in the 1978 as-is, then slowly rebuild 1985 at my leisure=
. =

$'s are a limiting factor. Does anyone know of any differences between
the two engines? Can I use the 1985 exhaust manifolds and electronics =

for the 1978. Also, could I use the 1985 heads and intake on the 1978? =

Reliability and emmisions are a big concern. Performance, for now, is no=
t
a concern.

Thanks in advance.

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:23:29 -0600
From: Ron Madurski
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - More F250 ( '85 diesel, auto, 4x4 ) Questions

A leak in the fuel system would cause a drop in mileage. Make sure the
fuel filter is sealing properly and that none of the injectors is
leaking (If it starts right up after sitting for a day or so the latter
is probably not the problem...).

My windshield leaked pretty badly and would drip from several places.
New windshield (the old one was cracked so it had to be replaced) took
care of the problem.

Not sure about the fresh air vent but I'd bet it is just clipped on or
held in by a couple of sheet metal screws.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Craig Rubin [mailto:crubin foxinternet.net]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:38 PM
To: FTE 80-96
Subject: FTE 80-96 - More F250 ( '85 diesel, auto, 4x4 ) Questions


Hi all,

Fuel mileage
What could cause the mileage to drop 20 to 25% over the last couple of
tanks? The fuel filter and air filter were changed approx. 2k miles
ago.
Would dirty fuel injectors cause this ? How often do they need to be
serviced or replaced? The truck has 119k miles on it and I am not sure
is
the injectors have ever been serviced. Does fuel additive cause this?
There has been no change is driving habits, I think.

Water leaking in cab
I noticed water that came into cab after I washed some crud off the
windshield and fresh air intake vents. On the right side of the cab,
drips
from bottom of heater core box. On the left side, dripping onto area
where
floor meets kickboard, just forward of e. brake pedal. Is something
plugged
up? and or was water pressure from hose to high? or ??? How to remedy?

Pine needles
In fresh air compartment in front of windshield. How to remove?

Thanks in advance,

Craig Rubin
crubin foxinternet.net


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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:02:13 -0500
From: "Chris"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - GT-40

I'm trying to find a more efficient and attractive intake for my '88 F150
302 EFI
AOD
4x4
4" body lift
35x12.50x15
and am leaning toward the GT-40 intake or the Cobra intake and would
appreciate any help available . Would these intakes work on my engine ? What
other mods would be necessary for a mildly hot street and off-road engine ?
Would I need a new throttle body , if so how big ? Would I need new
injectors , if so how big ? Would the expense of mass air be advisable ?
Thanks in advance .

Chris


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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 17:00:35 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat

The registration email problems with the chat have been
corrected. If you've already registered, you'll have to
register again.

If you use AOL, you cannot use the chat at this point.
AOL's browser is brain damaged and will not talk through
ports other than 80 and 8080. The chat client requires use
of ports 3334-3336. Please don't complain to me about it,
it's AOL's fault. I know of no other ISP that has this
problem. I'm working on a telnet version of the chat, but
I cannot promise that it will work with AOL. If it means
alot to you, switch providers.

Also, the chat may or may not function behind a firewall,
depending on whether ports 3334-3336 are filtered out.

Other than the email problems (which have been corrected),
this chat server has been rock solid and will not be
replaced. I have neither the time nor money to invest in
another server. I've already spent nearly 40 hours in
the last month on the chat problems.

If your browser doesn't work, try upgrading it to the
latest version since the upgrades for Netscape and
Internet Explorer are free. I cannot solve browser Java
implementation problems. Numerous bugs exist in earlier
implementations of Java that have been corrected.

I've talked to many people, both chat server admins and
the chat users on their systems, about this server and
99% of the responses were positive.

Ken Payne
Admin

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 14:06:11 -0800
From: Nathaniel Ingersoll
Subject: FTE 80-96 - snow&ice recommendations?

Hello all.

I've got a '97 F350CC4x4PS (yada yada) which did fine last year, but for
whatever reason, this year it is having some traction problems...

Right now, I've got 33x12.5 16.5 tires (on 9.75" rims) which are a pretty
big block tread design; traction's fine as long as there's at least a little
bit of the fluffy white stuff on top of whatever's slick. However, when I
find pure hard-pack or ice, the beast will barely move.

Local tire shop (I _have not_ yet shopped around - this place is right next
door to where I work so I dropped in there for a gander) suggests one of the
following:
- sipe the tires; ~$40 total, expect some more traction
- get these walnut shell tires plus studs; they've got 9.5" tires
for the 16.5; total about $400
- get some spare 16" rims ($200?) and tall-skinny tires for those,
probably studded (about $700 total)

Anybody have experience with the siping? I could try it ($40, what the
heck) and see. Any experience with the walnut shells? Pros vs cons of the
studs? Suggestions? Flames?
Thanks.

N. Ingersoll
mailto:ningersoll packetengines.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:40:13 -0500
From: "Michael Redden"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - snow&ice recommendations?

Hi:
I don't know where you live, but if you have a long winter,
why not get some chains?
You can remove them fairly easily. I'm sure you've already
thought of that, though :

mike

michael redden enter.net


> Hello all.
>
> I've got a '97 F350CC4x4PS (yada yada) which did fine last year, but for
> whatever reason, this year it is having some traction problems...
>
> Right now, I've got 33x12.5 16.5 tires (on 9.75" rims) which are a pretty
> big block tread design; traction's fine as long as there's at least a
little
> bit of the fluffy white stuff on top of whatever's slick. However, when
I
> find pure hard-pack or ice, the beast will barely move.
>
> Local tire shop (I _have not_ yet shopped around - this place is right
next
> door to where I work so I dropped in there for a gander) suggests one of
the
> following:
> - sipe the tires; ~$40 total, expect some more traction
> - get these walnut shell tires plus studs; they've got 9.5" tires
> for the 16.5; total about $400
> - get some spare 16" rims ($200?) and tall-skinny tires for those,
> probably studded (about $700 total)
>
> Anybody have experience with the siping? I could try it ($40, what the
> heck) and see. Any experience with the walnut shells? Pros vs cons of
the
> studs? Suggestions? Flames?
> Thanks.
>
> N. Ingersoll
>
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 17:32:17 -0600
From: "Baldwin, Dave"
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat

Ken,

Thinly veiled contempt for AOL, eh? I knew I'd never use them after they
tried to sell their user list! I'm sure it doesn't bother some people, but
I found that annoying. Nothing like "harvesting" your own members!!

By the way, do you have any ISPs that you would recommend for those who may
be looking? I know this would only be your opinion, but I'm sure you deal
with a LOT more ISPs than I (or most of us) do.

Regards,
Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Payne [mailto:kpayne ford-trucks.com]

If you use AOL, you cannot use the chat at this point.
AOL's browser is brain damaged and will not talk through
ports other than 80 and 8080. The chat client requires use
of ports 3334-3336. Please don't complain to me about it,
it's AOL's fault. I know of no other ISP that has this
problem. I'm working on a telnet version of the chat, but
I cannot promise that it will work with AOL. If it means
alot to you, switch providers.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:10:33 EST
From: Nelson9 aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed

I've only gotten one reply to a few really serious technical questions. I
guess this forum is just a chat room for kid stuff. Not that that's all bad
but it would have been nice to get some good info. I'll be cancelling my
subscription as this is cluttering up my e-mail with talk about why Fords are
better than Chevy's and what truck is cooler, etc... Sorry I waisted anyones
time with my questions.
Jim
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:21:30 -0500
From: "Michael Redden"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - ISP search

For those of you who are interested, CNET
did a very thorough
review of both national and local ISPs, a couple of months ago.
They asked users to vote on their ISPs
service, speed, cost, etc...
Earthlink was a national ISP that got very high
reviews. Some local ones got good marks, too.

I use a local one, for now. I've had them
for a few years but won't hesitate to change if
they don't continue their cheap, fast and good service!

Mike

michael redden enter.net
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:21:19 -0800
From: "sam weatherby"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed

I have only been here a few days.
What questions are you needing answered?
-srw

Sam Weatherby http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://insert.com/sammy
SWeatherby UsWest.Net A-SamWe Microsoft.com
'70 Grabber Sportsroof Mustang
'93 F-150 XLT Lightning
'98 HD FXD Super Glide
'78 Monarch
'65 F100

- -----Original Message-----
From: Nelson9 aol.com
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, December 07, 1998 4:22 PM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed


>I've only gotten one reply to a few really serious technical questions. I
>guess this forum is just a chat room for kid stuff. Not that that's all
bad
>but it would have been nice to get some good info. I'll be cancelling my
>subscription as this is cluttering up my e-mail with talk about why Fords
are
>better than Chevy's and what truck is cooler, etc... Sorry I waisted
anyones
>time with my questions.
>Jim
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 20:19:15 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat

At 05:32 PM 12/7/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Ken,
>
>Thinly veiled contempt for AOL, eh? I knew I'd never use them after they
>tried to sell their user list! I'm sure it doesn't bother some people, but
>I found that annoying. Nothing like "harvesting" your own members!!

I had no problem with them until the beginning of Summer when
AOL added a "feature" that allows a user to reject email from
someone. I get hit with dozens of bounced emails each day
because someone is so lazy that instead of unsubscribing they
simply block email from us. On a couple of occasions when
the volume of bounces was bad (100+ per day), I came close to
blocking out all new subscriptions from AOL members. I don't
think that per capita AOL has more or less "good" users. Its
just that the large number of subscribers (20% of our list members)
makes the problems a common occurance.


>By the way, do you have any ISPs that you would recommend for those who may
>be looking? I know this would only be your opinion, but I'm sure you deal
>with a LOT more ISPs than I (or most of us) do.

I've had zero mail failures from Mindspring in the last two
years (except when someone cancels their account but that
happens with all ISPs). I was with Mindspring since they
were two local guys running an ISP in their garage (5 years
ago). I just recently switched, but only because they don't
have 56k dialup where I'm at (actually they do but their
V90 modems don't talk well with mine. Netcom has lots
problems. flashnet seems pretty good and so does CRL.

As far as truck content goes.... we are taking several steps
to insure that all members can use the chat, including AOL
members. AOL members will just have to wait a little longer
than others while we put a solution in place. This week we're
putting in a telnet version of the chat. If it does not
work, I've figured out how to add plain HTML chat. The HTML
chat (ie, page refresh) is a last resort item because it
causes high server load.

Ken

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 20:26:43 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed

At 07:10 PM 12/7/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I've only gotten one reply to a few really serious technical questions. I
>guess this forum is just a chat room for kid stuff. Not that that's all bad
>but it would have been nice to get some good info. I'll be cancelling my
>subscription as this is cluttering up my e-mail with talk about why Fords are
>better than Chevy's and what truck is cooler, etc... Sorry I waisted anyones
>time with my questions.
>Jim

I've seen tons of technical questions answered. Perhaps you only
think yours are important? Looks like you're the one being childish,
ie, pouting. I have suggestion since you think the service is so
bad: go pay a mechanic $50 bucks an hour to answer your questions.



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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:19:27 EST
From: FLR150 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: disapointed

Jim,
I am sorry to say that I haven't seen any of your questions. I am a member of
both the lists and the digest version. As all of us make our best effort to
answer any questions that we can (if we can), I believe that maybe you should
just wait and re-ask your questions. Trust me when I say that some of the most
knowledgeable people on the issue of Ford trucks are members of this list and
answer as many questions as they are able. I for one since joining this post
and digest have learned much and I know I will continue to do so. Most of
these members will bend over backward to find out the info you seek and will
contact you off list to answer the questions if need be. I am sorry that you
feel this way, as I believe most of the members will be as soon as they read
your post. If you don't continue to take advantage of this list, I hope that
you can find a better source of info or conversation on the Ford truck. But I
don't think you can.
Wayne Foy
'94 F150 Flareside Supercab
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:55:41 -0500
From: Lord_Xaenon
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 302 Stroker?

At 10:49 PM 11/29/98 -0000, you wrote:
>While reading through my SVO catalog during some "quality time" (on the
>porcalin throne) last night I was thinking that it might be a better idea to
>get a stroker 302 when the time comes to rebuild the 302 in my Bronco
>instead of upgrading to a 351. So I wanted to throw the idea out and see
>what people thought of it.
>I know the 351 would be less hassle and the block itself is sturdier than a
>302 block, but I think the stroked 302 has some definite advantages
>--More aftermarket parts for the 302 (especially those of us with EFI)
>--If I want a beefier block I can always get a Boss 302 block from SVO with
>4 bolt mains
>--I could do it to my current 302, instead of shopping around for a 351.
>I do not need massive amounts of HP to make me happy, so I think the little
>extra I got from a stroked 302 would be enough for me. Any feed back would
>be appreciated.

I would still go with a 351W, just because it was designed specifically for a
351-cid displacement. Ford made EFI 351Ws, and there are performance EFI parts
available for the 351W; stuff like performance intakes (upper and lower),
internal
parts, and such.

The 351W is a sturdier block, that's for sure. It can handle a 400 hp buildup
without even breaking a figurative sweat. And you can get 351W 4-bolt main
cylinder blocks from Motorsport, last I checked (it's been a few years), though
they DO tend to be expensive. On the other hand, a 4-bolt main block isn't
likely necessary with the 351W.

Yes, you are correct; there are more parts available for the 302 than the
351W.
However, that does NOT mean that there aren't ANY parts. The aftermarket
finally
woke up to the fact that there were MILLIONS of these engines out there and
that Ford fans were going to figure ways to replace their 302's with something
a little more likely to whup on some Chevy butt.....like a 351. After all,
just about every Chevy guy out there has a 350; which puts any Ford guy with a
302 at an automatic 48-cid disadvantage.

As I said, my choice would be the 351W. I think it'll cost less in the end, and
you'll be happier with it overall, unless there is some specific reason you'd
want a stroker 302. And hey, if you like the idea of a stroker engine, the 351W
block can handle a 4-inch-plus stroke for over 400 cid! Just something to think
about....



Mark.







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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 21:21:51 -0500
From: "Michael Redden"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 351W buildup

A friend of mine recently decided to put a new four bolt main 351W in his
Mustang. It cost him around $1800 for the block and he's using a Paxton
supercharger. This time he's having a shop do the buildup (did the 302
himself).
They've run other identical supercharged 351Ws on the
dyno and come up with between 1100 and 1200 HP.
I couldn't believe it! I guessed 700 -800HP.
He just wants to make sure that the big block Chevys get
squashed, I guess...
I wonder what HP a non-supercharged 351 could make?

Mike

michael redden enter.net
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:59:54 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Chat

Soooooooooooooooo Ken, what do you really think about AOL?

Bob


Ken Payne wrote:

> The registration email problems with the chat have been
> corrected. If you've already registered, you'll have to
> register again.
>
> If you use AOL, you cannot use the chat at this point.
> AOL's browser is brain damaged and will not talk through
> ports other than 80 and 8080. The chat client requires use
> of ports 3334-3336. Please don't complain to me about it,
> it's AOL's fault. I know of no other ISP that has this
> problem. I'm working on a telnet version of the chat, but
> I cannot promise that it will work with AOL. If it means
> alot to you, switch providers.
>
> Also, the chat may or may not function behind a firewall,
> depending on whether ports 3334-3336 are filtered out.
>
> Other than the email problems (which have been corrected),
> this chat server has been rock solid and will not be
> replaced. I have neither the time nor money to invest in
> another server. I've already spent nearly 40 hours in
> the last month on the chat problems.
>
> If your browser doesn't work, try upgrading it to the
> latest version since the upgrades for Netscape and
> Internet Explorer are free. I cannot solve browser Java
> implementation problems. Numerous bugs exist in earlier
> implementations of Java that have been corrected.
>
> I've talked to many people, both chat server admins and
> the chat users on their systems, about this server and
> 99% of the responses were positive.
>
> Ken Payne
> Admin
>
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 19:04:38 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - snow&ice recommendations?

Siping helps, it removes more of the tread. The only draw back to this one is if
you are on the hard top more often than not, you may be accelerating wear.

If it's only a foul weather thing, you may want to consider a second set of
tires.

Bob


Nathaniel Ingersoll wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> I've got a '97 F350CC4x4PS (yada yada) which did fine last year, but for
> whatever reason, this year it is having some traction problems...
>
> Right now, I've got 33x12.5 16.5 tires (on 9.75" rims) which are a pretty
> big block tread design; traction's fine as long as there's at least a little
> bit of the fluffy white stuff on top of whatever's slick. However, when I
> find pure hard-pack or ice, the beast will barely move.
>
> Local tire shop (I _have not_ yet shopped around - this place is right next
> door to where I work so I dropped in there for a gander) suggests one of the
> following:
> - sipe the tires; ~$40 total, expect some more traction
> - get these walnut shell tires plus studs; they've got 9.5" tires
> for the 16.5; total about $400
> - get some spare 16" rims ($200?) and tall-skinny tires for those,
> probably studded (about $700 total)
>
> Anybody have experience with the siping? I could try it ($40, what the
> heck) and see. Any experience with the walnut shells? Pros vs cons of the
> studs? Suggestions? Flames?
> Thanks.
>
> N. Ingersoll
> mailto:ningersoll packetengines.com
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:21:25 EST
From: CRGREENE1 aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: FTE Perf - Super Chip

Hey John,

Do you happen to know the phone number or website address for the company that
you specified..I'm trying to find a good chip for a "92 F-250...

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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 23:43:44 EST
From: FLR150 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: FTE Perf - Super Chip

GOTO http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superchips.com and they can tell you where the nearest dealer
for you is, or you can order the chip straight from them.
Hope this helps,
Wayne Foy
FLR150 aol.com
'94 F150 Flareside Supercab
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 00:21:26 EST
From: CRGREENE1 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: FTE Perf - Super Chip....


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.