80-96-list-digest Wednesday, May 19 1999 Volume 03 : Number 140



=======================================================================
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 - "Shorty" headers - 5.0L F250?
FTE 80-96 - Hydraulic Clutch
Re: FTE 80-96 - Idle and code issues
FTE 80-96 - 1995 F250 - Brakes & Exhaust Leak
Re: FTE 80-96 - 1995 F250 - Brakes & Exhaust Leak
FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?
Re: [FTE 80-96 - Jacobs Ignitions - Promo sale on NOW!]
FTE 80-96 - 82 F150 Emissions
FTE 80-96 - RE:TFI Modules
RE: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?
FTE 80-96 - 94 Explorer Brakes
FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner
Re: FTE 80-96 - "Shorty" headers - 5.0L F250?
Re: FTE 80-96 - 94 Explorer Brakes
RE: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?
Re: FTE 80-96 - "Shorty" headers - 5.0L F250?
Re: FTE 80-96 - 94 Explorer Brakes
FTE 80-96 - mpg is not always the only issue...
Re: FTE 80-96 - Just a note about recalls
Re: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner
FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?
Re: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner
Re: FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?
Re: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner
FTE 80-96 - The search continues......
Re: FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?
Re: FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?
Re: FTE 80-96 - 82 F150 Emissions

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:03:33 -0500
From: Steve Randa
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - "Shorty" headers - 5.0L F250?

If your willing to fork out the dough, Bassani does make a complete
system (including the Y-pipe your talking about). I bought the off-road
package and love it!

Steve Randa

Blake Malkamaki wrote:
>

> Wow, the Y-pipe is the hard part. Ford uses some crazy, expensive,
> catalytic built into the Y-pipe that makes it hard and expesive to replace.
>
> Blake
> Little Mountain
> Concord, Ohio
> Early Oil Well Historian
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/blake
> See my new site dedicated to preserving the Big Muskie,
> the largest moving land machine on earth!
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/bigmuskie
> Web site design http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hitechdesign.com
> Desktop Publishing service
>
> == 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: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:01:44 PDT
From: "Chris Mahaffey"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Hydraulic Clutch

I've got a buddy working on a Thunderbird (I know, not a truck but still a
Ford.) He's having problems bleeding the hydraulic clutch system. His car
was originally an automatic and he's putting a 5 speed in it. He took the
master cylinder out of another car, connected it to the slave in the
transmission, and now he says he's having trouble bleeding the clutch. Do
any of you have any tips for him?
Since I'm on the digest list and he's looking for answers ASAP please
respond directly to cmahaffe joy.com.

Thanks
Chris


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.msn.com
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:07:13 -0700
From: Mark Ponsford
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Idle and code issues

>Does anyone have an idea of what is going on with my
>rig?? Recently, I pulled and cleaned my throttle body
>(Put on a new TPS for good measure). I had good results
>as far as power was concerned, but it really sucked gas,
>and did appear to idle quite high. I took my truck (88'
>302) to my mechanic to have that stupid little plastic
>clutch bearing replaced,(got tired of triple pumping the
>clutch pedal to start it) so I had him pull codes while he
>had it. He got a 45, 33, and a 13. EGR downstream, high
>idle, and something else. Anyway, when I did the throttle
>body, the negative battery terminal was off least 2
>hours.(shouldn't that reset the computer?).
> My first question is this, I was told to adjust the
>"idle linkage", and for the life of me I have no idea how
>you would adjust any part of the T.V. cable to do this.
>Second question is, would any of the above mentioned codes
>be caused by the work I did, or am I on the perrenial Ford
>troubleshooting detail for a new problem? I expected to
>have to replace the most common failing parts(EGR, TPS,
>Idle air B'pass, belts, hoses, filters, etc.), but I would
>really just like to spend the money and get the thing
>running as well as it can. I commute over 60 miles daily,
>so the gas adds up. I get anywhere from 10-14 MPG with
>Colorado mountain pass driving. Oh, the TPS checked out
>O.K. by the way. Any insight or suggestions would be
>greatly appreciated. TIA Chris
>

Hi Chris.

I also own a '88 302/5spd and have been using it almost everyday for the
last 9 years. First, the clutch problem. Did you check the firewall where
the master clutch cylinder bolts on? I had a problem with the metal around
the bottom bolt fatiguing and cracking. Thus when I pushed in the clutch,
the master cylinder would move enough to prevent the clutch safety switch
from closing. This is a known problem and there is a special bracket you
can buy to strengthen the firewall area around the clutch cylinder (I just
stacked up a couple of washers under the lower mounting bolt --- I'm cheap).

As far a gas mileage goes, I'm getting approx. 15 mpg(cdn) for all around
driving. I can get 20 mpg if I'm long distance, highway cruising.

Something I would check for fast idle is engine temp. Is the thermostat
working properly? Check the temp sending unit feeding the ECU. I'm thinking
maybe the computer thinks the engine is cold and is running in warmup mode
all the time.( would explain poor gas mileage). Also, after driving for a
while, try momentarily disconnecting the wires to the idle by pass valve
(I'm guessing here... I'm not a mechanic) but if the idle falls, wouldn't
that indicate that the computer is initiating the fast idle?

Personally, I wouldn't make any mechanical adjustments to the throttle
body. Unless they've been tampered with, I think the factory settings
should still hold true.

I hate it when I have to disconnect the battery. The truck always runs
poorly for a couple of days afterwards and I also need to redo the
clock/radio settings (I've found that the computer looses it's settings
instantly as soon as you remove a battery cable).

Mark


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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:13:11 -0400
From: "Mike Everette"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 1995 F250 - Brakes & Exhaust Leak

Greetings,

I just bought a 1995 F250. I know it needs a front and rear brake job and
it has an exhaust leak. I've done plenty of brake jobs on cars. Is there
any reason I should not do it myself on this vehicle or is there something I
don't know? Also, any suggestions on the exhaust leak would be appreciated.
Is this a problem common to Ford F series trucks?

Thanks in advance.


Sincerely,


Mike Everette
everette datamanagement.com


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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 12:44:29 -0400
From: Andre Roy
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 1995 F250 - Brakes & Exhaust Leak

Mike Everette wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I just bought a 1995 F250. I know it needs a front and rear brake job and
> it has an exhaust leak. I've done plenty of brake jobs on cars. Is there
> any reason I should not do it myself on this vehicle or is there something I
> don't know?
>
nothin' special, far as I know.

> Also, any suggestions on the exhaust leak would be appreciated.
> Is this a problem common to Ford F series trucks?
>
The V8s are the same (more or less) as the ones in Crown Vics and order
cars, nothing really special, again. The 300CID six is different. With
the very long manifold, it's theoretically more prone to warping, mine
had a leak also. This engine doesn't come with a gasket, but gaskets are
available from the aftermarket, that's what I ad to do.
- --
Andre
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 99 10:22:31 -0800
From: todd trifilm.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?

www.electricsupercharger.com
Heard about it on another group. Nobody believed it would work so they're trying
to arrange a dyno run using a subscribers car and a third party test facility.

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

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

Date: 18 May 99 10:35:18 PDT
From: William Berninghausen
Subject: Re: [FTE 80-96 - Jacobs Ignitions - Promo sale on NOW!]

Excerpts from this thread:
- ------------------
> Jacobs =3D Overkill? perhaps... but do you really care? =

> It's the end-result VS initial-cost that is important. =

- --------------------------------------
I was swayed by the book
> that Dr. Jacobs wrote on ignition systems - after reading it, it was th=
e
> main reason that I chose Jacob's system over any other (well written, a=
nd
> they obviously know what their doing). =

> =

> Check out their web site at: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jacobselectronics.com/
> =

- ----------------------------------------------- =

> --. Does the
> Jacobs do away with the TFI module? I could of sworn that I heard on
> this group that the Jacobs was overkill(cost) and didn't perform that
> much better than say for instance a Crane or MSD system.
> =

- ---------------------------------------------------
> > All the more reason to install a Jacob's Ignition System...!
> > =

- ------------------------------------------------------------ =

> > If the end result of this lawsuit is that Ford redesigns this poorly
> > designed ignition system then I think it is a good idea. My TFI modul=
e
> > went out recently and everyone I called including two Ford Dealership=
s
> > said " Oh yeah these things go out all the time". At $62.00 a pop,
> > this
> > IS a poor design.
- ------------------------------------------------
How about a round-robin on ignition theories? It looks like we all have
opinions and experience, but the newer folks (me included) might have a l=
ittle
trouble sorting it out. Here's some variables to consider:

--several stock systems over the years, Duraspark, TFI, points--they a=
ll
seem reliable up to 50-60K miles and then they go heat-sensitive--overhau=
l or
go third-party (Jacobs, Crane, MSD)?

--what's the measurable gain with third-party systems? We can measure=
mpg
and add up the bucks in an mpg gain over distance--how long to pay back $=
300
to $500 in third-party hardware? For that matter, how long does it take =
to
pay back stock overhaul costs?

--what are the other benefits worth? more power, more rpm, more
performance are much higher to quantify than gas mileage

--how do we quantify reliability? And is reliability a primary goal th=
at we
don't really mention? Don't know about you but I HATE being stuck in the=

puckerbrush or, worse, in the damn grocery store parking lot...and heaven=
help
us if the spouse is stuck anywhere...you know what I mean?

OK, I have an 82 F100 300/6 3spd with a 2.47 rear end--right, a car with =
a
really big trunk pretending to be a truck. But it's paid for and meets t=
he
current transportation needs. And it averages 15.8 mpg over the 1500 mil=
es
since a lifters-up rebuild. I might try Splitfires again for the 9%
improvement they gave me before the rebuild. Let's see--9% on an average=

$18.00 fillup is $1.62. Splitfires run five bucks, so $30/1.62 is 18 and =
a
half tanks of gas before the savings pays for the plugs. Let's say a Jac=
obs
ignition gets me 15% improvement--that's $2.70 a tankful. After I've use=
1080
tanks of gas (216,000 miles in my rig), the ignition system is paid back.=
=

There must be some other payoff somewhere, cause it sure isn't fuel econo=
my.

Whatcha think, folks?

Bill in Portland =

=


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webm=
ail.netscape.com.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary Perry
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 82 F150 Emissions

Hi Guys/Gals etc.

After reading the excellent information coming out of this group aver
the last few weeks, maybe you can help me. I bought the F150 recently
and am having a nightmare trying to get the truck through emissions
here in Gilbert, AZ. The truck originally came with a straight six but
this blew up and was replaced by a 302 from an 84 Mustang. The hoses
were not connected up correctly and first pass through the test gave
passes on the actual emissions but failure on Evap hoses and Pressure
test. A friend reconnected the hoses such that the engine ran smoother
but still failed the test for the same reasons. I've been to my local
Ford dealer to ask how the vacuum hoses should look but they advised
going to the library. This gave a few generalized diagrams but not much
else. I've got a Chiltons manual but the schematics resemble a picture
my two year old son produces and there's no indication of what the
components look like.

Please can someone tell me where I can find some pictures or good
information on what the hoses should look like under the hood. Is my
only option to stop every early 80's F150 (and there are a lot around
here) to plead to look under their hood.

Take pity on a baffled Englishman, thanks for any advice,
Gary Perry


_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:54:53 -0700
From: "Posluszny, Walt (POSL)"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE:TFI Modules

Brent McNabb said...
[snip]

> I haven't had a major problem with the TFI-IV module on my 302 EFI, on my
> second one, and the engine has 220,000 miles. My father's truck has the
> original Ford module, and is going on 180,000 miles. I think a
> lot of the failures stem from the non-application, or mis-application of
> the silicone grease onto the heatsink on the module.
>
==Brent, your a lucky man. the TFI Module is a bad design, period. My
wife's 85 merc. topaz (197,000) is on it's third TFI module....1st factory,
2nd replaced by dealer under warranty, 3rd replaced by me about 2 years ago
with lots of evenly distributed silicone..

Eric Sneed said :
[snip]

> Good Idea, I have been thinking about an after market ignition. Does the
> Jacobs do away with the TFI module? I could of sworn that I heard on
> this group that the Jacobs was overkill(cost) and didn't perform that
> much better than say for instance a Crane or MSD system.
>
> Eric
> 89 F150 L6 4x4
[snip]

== Most Jacobs ignitions leave the stock ignition components in place. I've
used one in my 85 f150 4x4 since 1986 and it blew out once about a year ago
and they replaced it for free.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:11:39 -0700
From: "McMahon, Todd R."
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?

Thanks for the info!! Please keep us informed...

Todd

- -----Original Message-----
From: todd trifilm.com [mailto:todd trifilm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:23 AM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?


www.electricsupercharger.com
Heard about it on another group. Nobody believed it would work so they're
trying
to arrange a dyno run using a subscribers car and a third party test
facility.

Todd M.
== 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: Tue, 18 May 1999 11:13:41 -0700
From: "Aaron Collier"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - 94 Explorer Brakes

Is it possible and what is the estimated cost of converting the rear
brakes on a 94 Explorer 4x4 to disk brakes? And possibly increasing the
size of the existing disk brakes (on the front) as well?

Thanks.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:30:16 -0400
From: "Golly, Scott M"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner

Johny,

Sorry this reply took so long. I have done just about everything you can do
to the Ford IFS now and think that I have a nice setup. The extended radius
arms dramatically increase wheel travel and ride. I love the suspension
travel when playing. I didn't, however, like the straight extended radius
arms because you loose too much turning radius. Definitely worth the money.

The Superunner steering is truly great. I had the stock with a stabilizer
(Rancho RS5000) and replaced the stock and stabilizer the Superunner and it
is a world of difference. I don't even need a stabilizer now and it handles
better. I do get some weird popping out of the tie rod ends but It seems
normal, just the arms shifting. Definitely worth the money

I have tested all of this stuff off road and as a whole, Everything works
phenomenal. The truck will go anywhere and do anyhting. Like I said, I
don't recommend going to far above a 4" lift unless you don't mind spending
a little more. Make sure that driveshaft angles are acceptable and that
driveshaft lengths are adequate. If you would like, e-mail me directly to
discuss what I have learned. gollys battelle.org

Scott M. Golly
Researcher/Fire Protection Engineer


Date:Thu, 13 May 1999 14:20:08 -0700
From:johny johny netapp.com>
Subject:Re: FTE 80-96 - Warping Rotors! and 3" Lift

Can you comment why you like the extended radius arms?
I'm convinced this is the way to go on a 89 Bronco II, but am curious of
your impressions. Particularly in the areas of on-road/off road ride, and
articulation.
Some comments on the Superrunning Steering too?
I've read Superlifts literature, but haven't yet found anyone that actually
has the longer radius arms and steering kit.
Looking at using 33 x 12.50 x 15 so bump steer would be of some concern on
the bronco II. Looking at 4.5 - 5.5 " lift if I go superlift. Or 3" using
James Duff. In either case, longer radius arms are in the picture.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:18:24 -0500
From: Blake Malkamaki
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - "Shorty" headers - 5.0L F250?

>If your willing to fork out the dough, Bassani does make a complete
>system (including the Y-pipe your talking about). I bought the off-road
>package and love it!
>

Steve,
Do you know what size the pipe is? Thanks.

Blake
Little Mountain
Concord, Ohio
Early Oil Well Historian
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/blake
See my new site dedicated to preserving the Big Muskie,
the largest moving land machine on earth!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/bigmuskie
Web site design http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hitechdesign.com
Desktop Publishing service


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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:30:11 -0500
From: Blake Malkamaki
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 94 Explorer Brakes

>Is it possible and what is the estimated cost of converting the rear
>brakes on a 94 Explorer 4x4 to disk brakes? And possibly increasing the
>size of the existing disk brakes (on the front) as well?
>

I know there are kits to do it on early Broncos, which have the same brakes
as F-150s with 9" rears. I have also heard of guys using parts from rear
disc Ford cars and converting their Broncos or trucks. I am not sure what
the Explorer uses for axles, but they are probably lighter duty than these.
Maybe they are the same as a Bronco 2's or Ranger's. Probably some kind of
kit out there for them.

Hey, I have some axles out of a 73 Bronco I will sell you. 9" rear and Dana
44 front. That will make that Explorer into a better machine and get rid of
that darned independent frontend!


Blake
Little Mountain
Concord, Ohio
Early Oil Well Historian
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/blake
See my new site dedicated to preserving the Big Muskie,
the largest moving land machine on earth!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/bigmuskie
Web site design http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hitechdesign.com
Desktop Publishing service


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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:53:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ken Woods
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?

This is cut directly from that web page:

Compatability information After comprehensive testing we have found that
some engines do not respond to the added air-flow from the e-RAM. The
following engine sizes will not see substantial gains from the e-RAM: All
engines above 4.7 Liters (4.7L to 5.0L require two e-RAMs) Also: To
insure proper performance results, please consult e-RACING if your car is
a 1996 or newer with an OBD2 type engine management system.

Just FYI.






On Tue, 18 May 1999, McMahon, Todd R. wrote:

> Thanks for the info!! Please keep us informed...
>
> Todd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd trifilm.com [mailto:todd trifilm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:23 AM
> To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: FTE 80-96 - A not-quite-so-super-charger?
>
>
> www.electricsupercharger.com
> Heard about it on another group. Nobody believed it would work so they're
> trying
> to arrange a dyno run using a subscribers car and a third party test
> facility.
>
> Todd M.
> == 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
>

- --
Ken Woods
kwoods kens.com

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:59:01 -0500
From: Steve Randa
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - "Shorty" headers - 5.0L F250?

Blake Malkamaki wrote:

> Do you know what size the pipe is? Thanks.
>


It's 3" after the Y-pipe and they include a 4" stainless tip. They also
have a kit that exits in front of the rear tire like the late models and
include, what they call a Nascar tip. They also cater to the Lightning
crowd with dual cats above one another.

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:04:15 -0700
From: johny
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - 94 Explorer Brakes

Almost anything is possible :-).

If you want to go the big $$$ route, folks like Brembo may have something.
I don't see anything currently listed, but a phone call might do the trick.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.brembo.com/prod_highperform.html

And if anybody knows specifics about explorers, check these guys out
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.4x4 central. com /

I vaguely remember some articles in Motor Trend a few years ago, with
explorers having gone through some tuner-modifications. But again, those
were in the high-performance brake systems similar to Brembo.

Depending on what you want to do, disks in the rear may not be a
good solution. You can get better modulation with drums in some
rock-crawling situations (from what I hear).

The explorers use 8.8 rears and dana 35's up front.


Blake Malkamaki wrote:

> >Is it possible and what is the estimated cost of converting the rear
> >brakes on a 94 Explorer 4x4 to disk brakes? And possibly increasing the
> >size of the existing disk brakes (on the front) as well?
> >
>
> I know there are kits to do it on early Broncos, which have the same brakes
> as F-150s with 9" rears. I have also heard of guys using parts from rear
> disc Ford cars and converting their Broncos or trucks. I am not sure what
> the Explorer uses for axles, but they are probably lighter duty than these.
> Maybe they are the same as a Bronco 2's or Ranger's. Probably some kind of
> kit out there for them.
>
> Hey, I have some axles out of a 73 Bronco I will sell you. 9" rear and Dana
> 44 front. That will make that Explorer into a better machine and get rid of
> that darned independent frontend!
>
> Blake
> Little Mountain
> Concord, Ohio
> Early Oil Well Historian
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/blake
> See my new site dedicated to preserving the Big Muskie,
> the largest moving land machine on earth!
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/bigmuskie
> Web site design http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hitechdesign.com
> Desktop Publishing service
>
> == 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: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:14:21 -0700
From: "McMahon, Todd R."
Subject: FTE 80-96 - mpg is not always the only issue...

Some idle ramblings in response to Bill's thoughts...

>How about a round-robin on ignition theories?
I'm all for it...

>overhaul, or go third-party (Jacobs, Crane, MSD)?
Personally, I go for QUALITY where ever possible (and finances allow). I
will research the failed component, and if it has a history of going bad, I
try to find a higher quality replacement.

>what's the measurable gain with third-party systems?
I think this is very difficult to measure (see my ramblings below).

>what are the other benefits worth? more power, more rpm, more
>performance are much higher (harder?) to quantify than gas mileage
I agree... It depends on a persons expectations.

>how do we quantify reliability? And is reliability a primary goal that >we
don't really mention?
Again, I agree... reliability and quality go hand in hand.

>Let's say a Jacobs ignition gets me 15% improvement--that's $2.70 a
>tankful. After I've use 1080 tanks of gas (216,000 miles in my rig), >the
ignition system is paid back. There must be some other payoff >somewhere,
cause it sure isn't fuel economy.
It depends on the expectations again, doesn't it? Which ignition system are
you looking at? It surely doesn't cost $2916.00 does it? How many
additional items were you looking at? A "Mileage Master" for an '82 F100,
300-CID/6cyl. has a list price of $618.00, with Jacob's promotion right now
the price is about $480.00 - and if you're getting 15 mpg (wow!), they will
still give you a guaranteed increase to 17.56 mpg...! But with your
engine, if you're already getting 15 mpg, you can't really expect to get
much more, can you? What is the best mpg anyone has seen on that engine? A
few years ago, I added up all the optional equipment from a particular
catalog and their claimed savings... I don't remember the exact figure, but
it totaled well over 50 mpg in increases!!! I should have done it, then
sued them for false advertising...!

As far as quantifying a particular component's value, consider this:
Other than in some sort of "emergency" situation, I think that we can all
safely assume that "most people" wouldn't make a change to a running vehicle
unless they're unsatisfied with some aspect of it... or unless there was
"something to gain" from the modification. Even if the "gain" is just the
extra amount of gap achieved when your buddy's jaw gapes open when he sees
it... there was still "something to gain". This being the case, I would
tend to think that it would be difficult to judge ANY modification solely on
payback/time in mpg saved.

Additionally, if a vehicle is "non-functional" enough to warrant the
replacement of ANY part (i.e.: ignition components), isn't it prudent to
judge the replacement part in the light of what was gained in the
replacement when compared to what was previously installed? (I just LOVE
run-on sentences...! ;-)

Let us assume (for simplicity) that we only have 3 options... We can
replace with factory original components, low-cost 3rd party components, or
higher-performance components. Each option, on it's own, being best-suited
for a particular result or application. Everything depends on what the
expectation is... Do expectations vary between individuals? (for those of
you who need the answer to this, please e-mail me).

If I simply want to get it running and sell the damn thing, it's the
'el-cheapo component... so for me there would be no discussion. If I'm
determined to keep the vehicle in "original condition" I have no choice but
to find the correct factory original components for that 67 Mustang,
regardless of cost or difficulty. If the desired result is higher
performance (which in itself has broad implications), again the case is
clear for that individual, although the choice may not be easy.

Personally, I feel the need to have the comparison based on the "difference
in price" between replacing the component with the exact same item, and the
item actually being purchased as a replacement (as opposed to the whole
purchase price)- AND the actual "gain" in replacing this component with
anything other that what was previously installed. The amount of GAIN can
only be quantified by that individual.

No mod should be judged purely on cost, or mpg...

Todd

- -----Original Message-----
From: William Berninghausen [mailto:berninghausen netscape.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 10:35 AM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: Re: [FTE 80-96 - Jacobs Ignitions - Promo sale on NOW!]


Excerpts from this thread:
- ------------------
> Jacobs = Overkill? perhaps... but do you really care?
> It's the end-result VS initial-cost that is important.
- --------------------------------------
I was swayed by the book
> that Dr. Jacobs wrote on ignition systems - after reading it, it was the
> main reason that I chose Jacob's system over any other (well written, and
> they obviously know what their doing).
>
> Check out their web site at: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.jacobselectronics.com/
>
- -----------------------------------------------
> --. Does the
> Jacobs do away with the TFI module? I could of sworn that I heard on
> this group that the Jacobs was overkill(cost) and didn't perform that
> much better than say for instance a Crane or MSD system.
>
- ---------------------------------------------------
> > All the more reason to install a Jacob's Ignition System...!
> >
- ------------------------------------------------------------
> > If the end result of this lawsuit is that Ford redesigns this poorly
> > designed ignition system then I think it is a good idea. My TFI module
> > went out recently and everyone I called including two Ford Dealerships
> > said " Oh yeah these things go out all the time". At $62.00 a pop,
> > this
> > IS a poor design.
- ------------------------------------------------
How about a round-robin on ignition theories? It looks like we all have
opinions and experience, but the newer folks (me included) might have a
little
trouble sorting it out. Here's some variables to consider:

--several stock systems over the years, Duraspark, TFI, points--they all
seem reliable up to 50-60K miles and then they go heat-sensitive--overhaul
or
go third-party (Jacobs, Crane, MSD)?

--what's the measurable gain with third-party systems? We can measure
mpg
and add up the bucks in an mpg gain over distance--how long to pay back $300
to $500 in third-party hardware? For that matter, how long does it take to
pay back stock overhaul costs?

--what are the other benefits worth? more power, more rpm, more
performance are much higher to quantify than gas mileage

--how do we quantify reliability? And is reliability a primary goal that
we
don't really mention? Don't know about you but I HATE being stuck in the
puckerbrush or, worse, in the damn grocery store parking lot...and heaven
help
us if the spouse is stuck anywhere...you know what I mean?

OK, I have an 82 F100 300/6 3spd with a 2.47 rear end--right, a car with a
really big trunk pretending to be a truck. But it's paid for and meets the
current transportation needs. And it averages 15.8 mpg over the 1500 miles
since a lifters-up rebuild. I might try Splitfires again for the 9%
improvement they gave me before the rebuild. Let's see--9% on an average
$18.00 fillup is $1.62. Splitfires run five bucks, so $30/1.62 is 18 and a
half tanks of gas before the savings pays for the plugs. Let's say a Jacobs
ignition gets me 15% improvement--that's $2.70 a tankful. After I've use
1080
tanks of gas (216,000 miles in my rig), the ignition system is paid back.
There must be some other payoff somewhere, cause it sure isn't fuel economy.

Whatcha think, folks?

Bill in Portland


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://webmail.netscape.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: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:37:42 EDT
From: ROlson1039 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Just a note about recalls

I heard on the television today that the cruise control switches were causing
fires on the 1992-1993 full size Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury cars and were
recalled today. Now Im no parts maven here, but I think perhaps we should all
keep our ears open on this just in case there is a defect that hasnt been
brought to light with our beloved Ford Trucks. The switches on these cars are
mounted in the steering wheel, much like the ones in the pickups.. I can't
see these switches being too different in design.
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:54:52 -0700
From: johny
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner

Thanks Scott.
Seems to confirm both Duff's and Superlifts literature.

Is the lost turning radius a function of a vendor or all long radius arms?
Duff and Superlift's designs look very similar, with Duff looking a bit
beefier. I've seen Rancho Long radius arms on a Ranger, but have
not looked real close.

How much turning radius do you loose?

One of the strengths of the Bronco II *is* the turning radius, combined with
a short wheelbase. I've done some manuevers that have truely amazed
me.

Yes, I prefer 3", with 4.5" lifts the max. Just to minimize suspension/drive
line
component changes. The Bronco II, due to lower volumes than
say a Jeep CJ-7, is going to be more expensive overall.
A 4.5" lift from Superlift, with *all* the bells and whistles was approaching
$1600 or so. Duff was still about a $1000.

Anticipating axle swaps at some point, depending on how radical the
off roading gets.:-).

Golly, Scott M wrote:

> Johny,
>
> Sorry this reply took so long. I have done just about everything you can do
> to the Ford IFS now and think that I have a nice setup. The extended radius
> arms dramatically increase wheel travel and ride. I love the suspension
> travel when playing. I didn't, however, like the straight extended radius
> arms because you loose too much turning radius. Definitely worth the money.
>
> The Superunner steering is truly great. I had the stock with a stabilizer
> (Rancho RS5000) and replaced the stock and stabilizer the Superunner and it
> is a world of difference. I don't even need a stabilizer now and it handles
> better. I do get some weird popping out of the tie rod ends but It seems
> normal, just the arms shifting. Definitely worth the money
>
> I have tested all of this stuff off road and as a whole, Everything works
> phenomenal. The truck will go anywhere and do anyhting. Like I said, I
> don't recommend going to far above a 4" lift unless you don't mind spending
> a little more. Make sure that driveshaft angles are acceptable and that
> driveshaft lengths are adequate. If you would like, e-mail me directly to
> discuss what I have learned. gollys battelle.org
>
> Scott M. Golly
> Researcher/Fire Protection Engineer
>
> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:20:08 -0700
> From: johny johny netapp.com>
> Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Warping Rotors! and 3" Lift
>
> Can you comment why you like the extended radius arms?
> I'm convinced this is the way to go on a 89 Bronco II, but am curious of
> your impressions. Particularly in the areas of on-road/off road ride, and
> articulation.
> Some comments on the Superrunning Steering too?
> I've read Superlifts literature, but haven't yet found anyone that actually
> has the longer radius arms and steering kit.
> Looking at using 33 x 12.50 x 15 so bump steer would be of some concern on
> the bronco II. Looking at 4.5 - 5.5 " lift if I go superlift. Or 3" using
> James Duff. In either case, longer radius arms are in the picture.
>
> == 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: Tue, 18 May 1999 20:29:06 -0500
From: "Dave Harmier"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?

Found Gabrial Gas Ryder LT's at Autozone...like 'em so far.
Got rear brake shoes at Hi-Lo/O'Reilly, like them so far.
Checked my calipers (Made DARN sure they could move
about freely) and they release a bit after each press of the pedal.
My right side Autozone Carbon Metallic Pads are slightly more worn
than my left side pads, but look normal..and rotors look fine.

Each front wheel moves about as easy after a brake application.

The darn thing STILL pulls right (tugs the steering wheel...not rear
problem)
And doesn't do it the same every time.

I'm stumped!!! Although I am happy my rear brakes are doing their part
again!

What now???

Also, my sisters '89 Toyota Corolla, neede a starter. I let a shop do it!!!
Too DARN much trouble for a do it yourselfer!!!!!!

Dave H.
Houston (Hot, Hot, Hot) Texas

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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 21:31:03 -0500
From: Blake Malkamaki
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner

>Anticipating axle swaps at some point, depending on how radical the
>off roading gets.:-).

My 73 Bronco axles would fit nicely under a Bronco 2 too.


Blake
Little Mountain
Concord, Ohio
Early Oil Well Historian
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/blake
See my new site dedicated to preserving the Big Muskie,
the largest moving land machine on earth!
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/bigmuskie
Web site design http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://hitechdesign.com
Desktop Publishing service


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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 21:02:56 -0500
From: Jim Cannon
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?

Dave-
It's long-shot time now:

1) Is tire inflation the same side to side?

2) Does it look like the flexible rubber brake hoses down to each wheel are
ok? Internal restrictions that you can not see from the outside can affect
braking.

3) Try rotating the tires and then testing the brakes again.

Good luck!

At 20:29 18/05/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Found Gabrial Gas Ryder LT's at Autozone...like 'em so far.
>Got rear brake shoes at Hi-Lo/O'Reilly, like them so far.
>Checked my calipers (Made DARN sure they could move
>about freely) and they release a bit after each press of the pedal.
>My right side Autozone Carbon Metallic Pads are slightly more worn
>than my left side pads, but look normal..and rotors look fine.
>
>Each front wheel moves about as easy after a brake application.
>
>The darn thing STILL pulls right (tugs the steering wheel...not rear
>problem)
>And doesn't do it the same every time.
>
>I'm stumped!!! Although I am happy my rear brakes are doing their part
>again!
>
>What now???
>
>Also, my sisters '89 Toyota Corolla, neede a starter. I let a shop do it!!!
>Too DARN much trouble for a do it yourselfer!!!!!!
>
>Dave H.
>Houston (Hot, Hot, Hot) Texas
>
>== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>
Jim Cannon
Houston, TX
'29 Ford Model A Phaeton
'63 Buick Riviera
'80 Ford F-150
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:22:15 EDT
From: DJ250r aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Extended Radius Arms and SuperRunner

u need to check out this place
HREF=3D"http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.camburg.com/links.htm">Camburg=A0 - Products
=20
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:29:22 -0400
From: "Max W. Cottrell"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - The search continues......

Our hero (me) disabled the drive train of his 1986 F150 (5.0; Mazda 5 spd,
Ford 9 inch 3.55) while at a stoplight on a hill during a rainy night. The rear
end hopped, locked up for a moment and the gears began to grind.

The trans shifter moves through all gears, but when the clutch is let in,
there's nothing but grinding.

Thus far in our saga, our hero (me) has checked the rear end (with the
help of a Ford engineer) -- lots of wear, but not enough to account for the
failure.

Tonight, I removed the shifter from the trans through the cab inspection plate.
No bad gears, no problems at all inside the trans.

The next step is to remove the transmission and check:

1: input shaft
2: pressure plate
3: clutch

Any other suggestions would be welcome at this point. To quote
everyone who's looked at it so far:

"Ain't nothin like I never seen before. You look at the rear end? Sure
sounds like the rear end to me."



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

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

Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:41:36 EDT
From: Bakend aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - OK Brake guys...what's next?

In a message dated 5/18/99 7:31:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
dharmier gte.net writes:

> The darn thing STILL pulls right (tugs the steering wheel...not rear
> problem)
> And doesn't do it the same every time.
>
> I'm stumped!!! Although I am happy my rear brakes are doing their part
> again!
>
Sounds like suspension or radius arm bushings are allowing the front axle to
actually shift when the brakes are applied. Just a guess!
D Baken
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html....


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.