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 V3 #316
Reply-To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Sender: owner-80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Errors-To: owner-80-96-list-digest ford-trucks.com
Precedence: bulk


80-96-list-digest Wednesday, November 10 1999 Volume 03 : Number 316



=======================================================================
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 - R-34 refrigerant
Re: FTE 80-96 - Temp Gauge Problem
FTE 80-96 - Damper removal
FTE 80-96 - re:Radiator and converter
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold
FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:
Re: FTE 80-96 - RE: Temp Gauge Problem
Re: FTE 80-96 - Soot
Re: FTE 80-96 - RE: Temp Gauge Problem
RE: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold
Re: FTE 80-96 - Stupid question
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:
RE: Winch/Suspension lift: WAS: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar
FTE 80-96 - R-134a refrigerant
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:
FTE 80-96 - R-12 vs. R-134 refrigerant
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:
FTE 80-96 - TPS '85 F-150
Re: FTE 80-96 - R-12 vs. R-134 refrigerant
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold
RE: Winch/Suspension lift: WAS: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar
Re: FTE 80-96 - TPS '85 F-150 I6-300
FTE 80-96 - FTE 80-96 Uneven acceleration...STILL
FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold
FTE 80-96 - Ford Adjustable Timing Advance
Re: Winch/Suspension lift: WAS: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar
Re: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant
FTE 80-96 - re: Side marker lamps
FTE 80-96 - Zoops Brackets
FTE 80-96 - RE: Exhaust manifold (& whistle)
Re: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant
Re: FTE 80-96 - Ford Adjustable Timing Advance
Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar Detectors
Re: FTE 80-96 - Zoops Brackets
Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar Detectors
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold
Re: FTE 80-96 - re:Radiator and converter
FTE 80-96 - Zoops Brackets
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:25:19 -0500
From: "Michael McCarthy"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant

Ken,

I have heard varying reports about R134A but it worked fine in my system.
Just as cold and no problems so far. BTW they sell as conversion kit at the
local parts store for about $40 and it is easy to do. You might want to
think about it.

Michael McCarthy
Export, PA

- -----Original Message-----
From: ken haley
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 8:18 PM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant


>Okay, peeps, new thread:
>
>My son just came in spitting nails. It seems the local auto AC repair
>emporiums all charge $75 to hook up to their machines to check your AC's
>freon charge. That's $75 just to hook it up!!!! On top of that, R-12 is $38
>a pound. Gee willikers, what a rip-off. This is a new install aftermarket
>system and will take 5-6 pounds.
>
>The complete charge, using R-34 and compatible oil, will run about $65,
>including flush, special gauges, and valves. This will save the kid about
>$200.
>
>Anyone every use R-34. Does it cool well? Any problems with it? How does
>R-34 affect component life? It sure would be nice to be free of R-12.
>
>Ken
>
>______________________________________________________
> >== 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, 9 Nov 1999 06:32:58 -0500
From: "Michael McCarthy"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Temp Gauge Problem

Danny,

So many messages about radar that I missed your original reply to my post. I
know it is in full overheat because extremely hot water is pouring out
everywhere. Also, I just put a brand new 195 degree thermostat in my truck
and the temp gauge reads just below the "N" in Normal on the gauge or about
1.3 scale. If the gauge reading is linear (a big assumption on my part) then
the half scale reading would be about 290 degrees. BTW I have an old
radiator so it may overheat easier than some others. Got to change that
thing soon.

Michael McCarthy
Export, PA

- -----Original Message-----
From: DannyF
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Date: Monday, November 08, 1999 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Temp Gauge Problem


Mike, what makes you think your in "full overheat" just because
your in the mid range? Just because it normally runs below the N?

Recall the guy who actually measured the rad temp w/a
thermometer? Mid range was ~200-210. Thats normal temps for
some engines.

I had to run 300 mi pulling a boat out of OD and ran in the mid
range doing 65 and wasn't nervous at all. Doing 60 would lower to
the O in NORMAL.

Its my opinion that the Ford truck temp gauge is big but covers a
narrow temp range....a 1/4" movement of the needle only raises
temp maybe 10 degrees.

I might just put this to rest and do my own evaluation w/a
mechanical temp gauge.

Danny
> This subject has come up before and I think the conclusion was that there
> is
> not much you can do about it. I changed the temp sensor and it didn't
> change
> the gauge reading at all. My temp gauge reads about the same as yours.
> At
> half scale that I am in full overheat. I just note the normal reading and
> as
> long as it stays there I ignore it.
>


Danny
danf01 worldnet.att.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: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:06:05 -0500
From: Jason.D.Odor jci.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Damper removal

I am in the process of rebuilding my 93 302, included in the rebuild I
wanted to change the cam and timing chain. Well my question is, how are
you supposed to remove the damper after you have removed the pulley from
the crankshaft? It has a large nut and when turned it just turns over the
crankshaft. Any help would be great. Also, anyone have any
recommendations on what duration cam I should look at, I'm thinking
something mild?

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 07:02:02 -0500
From: Rich
Subject: FTE 80-96 - re:Radiator and converter

Any idea how much a new radiator will run for our trucks? Mine is a 96
f105 4x4, auto,ac. I can' believe it is leaking already. The past 2
morinings I have seen antifreeze on the ground, seems like it is coming
from the bottom of it somewhere. I also managed the task of changing the
auto trans fluid yesterday. Does anyone know if the converter has a
drain plug on this one> It has the 302, with the 4r70w trans.
Thanks,
Rich
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:17:31 -0600
From: "Steve Schmeckpeper"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold

- ----- Original Message -----
From: James Poylio
To: Ford Truck List
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 10:39 PM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold


> Hello--
>
> I have two unrelated questions.
>
> One: Is the left exhaust manifold on a 1990 F150 302 V8 any more prone to
> cracking than the same part on the same engine for any other model year?
> I ask because mine cracked (of course), and I want to know, before I go to
> the salvage yard to get a replacement, if there's any reason not to get
> another 1990 exhaust manifold. That is, will the "new" one crack too?

James,
Check to see if your Cowl-Hood Gasket is leaking. A leaker will drip water
directly on the exhaust manifold (s). Cold water and red hot iron definitely
don't mix

Smeck


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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:16:26 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:

Ken Woods wrote:

> Looking at Ramsey winches, but am pretty clueless as to what I need to
> look at, and how big I need to go.

My 78 Bronco weighs in at 6600 lbs. I'm guessing your stock weight is
prob pushing 6000???. I consider my Warn Xd9000i barely adequate with a
snatch block. For the extra couple hundred, I wish I had gone with the
12,000 lb. If you mud and get really stuck, eventually you will need it.

> Also slightly confused about mounting options.

One nice thing with the 9000 lb winches is you can use 2" rec hitches.
Here is mine on the back with warns multi-mount kit.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/BRONC_DETAILS/winch1.jpg

You can mount it on either end, but over hang becomes much more of a
problem with this setup. It also sits kind of low

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/BRONC_DETAILS/bump3f.jpg


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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:21:19 -0600
From: "Steve Schmeckpeper"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - RE: Temp Gauge Problem

- ----- Original Message -----
From: David Anderson (EUS)
To: '80 Ford Truck'
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 4:00 PM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Temp Gauge Problem


> For all those not believing these funky ford temperature gauges, I suggest
> measuring the DC voltage at the ECT sender. Some of the books give a nice
> table showing coolant temp as a function of voltage. I can copy that
table
> to this list if anyone wants it.
> David Anderson
>
Dave,
Which book is that, and does it graph the response of any of the other
sensors?
Smeck


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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:24:46 -0600
From: "Steve Schmeckpeper"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Soot

- ----- Original Message -----
From: ken haley
To:
Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Soot


> I noticed the guy from the parts counter buying all the pinstripe tape
> Walmart had today. I asked what he would want so much tape for. He
answered
> that the detailing guys put tape on every vehicle sold from that lot. This
> mandatory dealer installed "option" is priced at $99. The tape cost $4.97
a
> roll, plus sales tax. Vaseline, anyone.
>
> Ken

And I wuz just goin' to the dealership to get a roll ;^) Thanks Ken!
Smeck

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 07:27:20 -0600
From: "David Anderson (EUS)"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - RE: Temp Gauge Problem

>>>Dave
can you post it please
Joe>>>

Sorry, my book with the temp vs voltage table is not with me today. I will
post it on Wednesday.
David Anderson

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:37:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mark F. Burgo ( Mark F. Burgo"
Subject: RE: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold

James,

How bad is the crack. I have a crack in the exhaust manifold on my 351 and it
is to be welded this morning. I have found most can be welded and checked for a
good fit. May need to be machined before replacement. I think YMMV is that
any part that gets as hot as a manifold and then splashed or immersed in water
has a high chance of cracking and changing shape. This is what causes the
problem.

Your second question have you checked the bearings in the PS unit and
alternator. I had a similar problem and it turned out to be the PS pump
bearings. Replaced them and the whistle went away....

Mark

On 09-Nov-99 James Poylio wrote:
> Hello--
>
> I have two unrelated questions.
>
> One: Is the left exhaust manifold on a 1990 F150 302 V8 any more prone to
> cracking than the same part on the same engine for any other model year?
> I ask because mine cracked (of course), and I want to know, before I go to
> the salvage yard to get a replacement, if there's any reason not to get
> another 1990 exhaust manifold. That is, will the "new" one crack too?
>
> Two: (I don't expect any real help here; the problem description is far
> too vague.) My truck, the same 1990 F150 302 V8, produces a steady
> middle-
> frequency whistle while sitting at idle. It probably produces it at
> speed,
> too, but the noise would be drowned out. I've tried to locate the source
> of the whistle in the engine compartment, but its source and cause still
> elude me.
> What part(s) of the vacuum system could produce this sort of sound,
> assuming
> that the vacuum system is at fault?
> Should I check for air intake leaks with an unlit propane torch?
> This whistle isn't accompanied by any other obvious problems; the
> truck runs great. The sound is just annoying, and I'd be glad to be rid
> of it.
>
> Thanks for any help you can offer, and I've enjoyed reading your
> postings to this list for the past week.
>
> James Poylio
> '90 F150
> == 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, 09 Nov 1999 08:35:51 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Stupid question

ken haley wrote:
>
> OX,
>
> Have you tried SuperGlue remover?
>

Not yet, but I have considered a torch :-)

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:04:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Dwight Dempsey
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:

does anyone know about how much a 94 bronco weighs
stock and what kind of winch you would sugest for it??

- --- James Oxley wrote:
> Ken Woods wrote:
>
> > Looking at Ramsey winches, but am pretty clueless
> as to what I need to
> > look at, and how big I need to go.
>
> My 78 Bronco weighs in at 6600 lbs. I'm guessing
> your stock weight is
> prob pushing 6000???. I consider my Warn Xd9000i
> barely adequate with a
> snatch block. For the extra couple hundred, I wish I
> had gone with the
> 12,000 lb. If you mud and get really stuck,
> eventually you will need it.
>
> > Also slightly confused about mounting options.
>
> One nice thing with the 9000 lb winches is you can
> use 2" rec hitches.
> Here is mine on the back with warns multi-mount kit.
>
>
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/BRONC_DETAILS/winch1.jpg
>
> You can mount it on either end, but over hang
> becomes much more of a
> problem with this setup. It also sits kind of low
>
>
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/BRONC_DETAILS/bump3f.jpg
>
>
> OX
> == FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info
> http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html
>


=====

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 08:52:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mark F. Burgo ( Mark F. Burgo"
Subject: RE: Winch/Suspension lift: WAS: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar

Ken,

First I would consider getting a new set of tires. If they are mostly bald this
is the most likely cause of getting stuck.

I at one time in my life, long ago, was considering lifting and adding all the
other gadgets to my trucks. Then I drove a friends that had these things and
really didn't like the feel. It made the truck harder to get into and really
didn't handle near as nice as it did originally.

I just kept good tires on the truck and took my time when driving. Got stuck a
lot less. I also never went alone, always have a friend go with you and carry
a tow strap. First if something bad ever happened you have someone you can
expect to go and get help for you. Second you don't have to add all the weight
of a winch to help bog you down.

If you are dead set on having a winch make sure you install it as per the
manufacture and read as much as you can for proper operation. Had a friend
that is now paralyzed from the waist down because he didn't get the cable
locked properly and when it slipped it came at him and snapped his back. They
are good tools but can be cause a lot of damage.

Mark

On 09-Nov-99 Ken Woods wrote:
> uumm....yeah.
>
> Anyhow.
>
> Hey guys, I'm _finally_ going to start mod'ing my truck.
> '89 F250, 302, 5spd, 3" body lift, mostlybald BFG AT's 35x12.50x16.5
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.kens.com/truckpics
>
> I got stuck the other day, and didn't like it very much.
> Twas not fun. At all. Espcially considering that it was cold, I had
> shorts on, and no shovel. Anyhow, I digress, and y'all don't need to know
> the sorted details of that debacle.
>
> Looking at Ramsey winches, but am pretty clueless as to what I need to
> look at, and how big I need to go. Also slightly confused about mounting
> options. Thoughts?
>
> Also considering a 4" suspension lift.
> What products should I be considering?
>
> --
> Ken Woods
> kwoods kens.com
>
> "Motorcycles, I know. 4wd stuff, I'm still learning."
>
> "Never listen to a friend that says 'naah, it's not deep' without checking
> it yourself"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> == 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, 09 Nov 1999 09:11:41 -0500
From: slikness mindspring.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - R-134a refrigerant

I've had several vehicles converted to R-134a and they have all done fine. You can find some info on this from Vintage Air. They have a catalog with a documentary in front of the differences between R-134a and R-12 that is really good. They also have a web site and may have some info posted there also. Basically, there is a pressure difference in the two refrigerants and if this is not accounted for in the pressure switching then you will not get effective cooling. Vintage says that R-134a has better heat transfer capabilities and therefore has more efficient cooling potential than R-12. One issue of concern is the condenser for R-134a should typically have a larger surface area than one for R-12, however, most systems are efficient enough to handle the conversion without changing the condenser. The drier/accumulator, however, does need to be changed to a R-134a complient component.

Anyway, I'm not an expert, but ask the people that sell auto A/C units for a living at Vintage Air and check their web site at www.vintageair.com.

Slik


>Anyone every use R-34. Does it cool well? Any problems with it? How does R-34 affect component life?
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 09:45:51 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:

Dwight Dempsey wrote:
>
> does anyone know about how much a 94 bronco weighs
> stock and what kind of winch you would sugest for it??
>

Between 4900-5200lb, depending upon options. A 9000 should be fine
unless you sink it deep in mud or want to pull it long distances up very
steep hills.

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:00:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Ken Woods
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:

Cool.

Bigger is better, I'll start looking for a 12K opund.



Question:
How did y'all get this poor dude out?
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/DILYSI/JIMswamp.jpg


- --
Ken Woods
kwoods kens.com

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:09:46 -0600
From: BAH NWC.EDU
Subject: FTE 80-96 - R-12 vs. R-134 refrigerant

>From: "ken haley"
>Subject: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant

>Okay, peeps, new thread:

>Anyone every use R-34. Does it cool well?
>Any problems with it? How does R-34 affect
>component life?

The only saving will be in the cost of the
refrigerant, with R-134 being significantly less.
Labor charges for hook-up, evacuation, etc., are
the same. (I work part-time in the service dept.
of a Ford dealer.)

The problems:

R-134 is not as efficient, although for
cooling the (relatively) small cab of a
pick-up, this will probably not be a factor.
Systems designed for R-134 have larger
evaporators and condensers to compensate.

R-134 is more corrosive. Long-term
component durability for items designed
for use with R-12 might be questionable.

Different hoses and seals (o-rings) are
needed for R-134, although most components
made in the last few years will handle
either.

From what I've seen, the jury is still out on
converting an R-12 system to R-134. (The A/C
guys in our shop do not recommend it.)

In my opinion, if you plan to keep the vehicle,
I'd suggest sticking with the refrigerant the
components were designed for. It'll cost more
up-front to have it charged, but if the system
is sound you might save money in the long-run
if the components (like the compressor) last
longer.

Bruce Hanson
'86 F-150
Apple Valley, MN


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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:23:32 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: Winch/Suspension lift:

Ken Woods wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> Bigger is better, I'll start looking for a 12K opund.
>
I figure eventually, I will get a 12K for the front of my monster and
keep the 9K portable for the back of it or the swamped truck you see
below.

BTW, there is an off-road list within the Ford truck mailing lists. May
want to join to get more opinions. Traffic is low.

> Question:
> How did y'all get this poor dude out?
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.thecore.com/~luxjo/DILYSI/JIMswamp.jpg

That poor sap is ME!!, heehee. Wasn't hard, mostly deep water, not a
huge amount of mud. Getting it running again was a little more
difficult. Ign switches don't respond well to being swamped. I only paid
350$ for that truck, so I figured what the ......

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 09:25:43 -0600
From: Andy Norris
Subject: FTE 80-96 - TPS '85 F-150

Seemed to make a world of difference in my '89. Mine was acting up enough
that I was thinking I'd just had a lemon unloaded on me. When the new TPS
went in, though, the thing sounded great. I sure am glad I did buy this
truck. It cured my never-having-anything-to-spend-money-on problem.

Andy


At 05:16 PM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Does the TPS matter all that much?
>
>Michael McCarthy
>Export, PA
>
>== 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, 09 Nov 1999 10:27:38 -0500
From: James Oxley
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - R-12 vs. R-134 refrigerant

BAH NWC.EDU wrote:
>

SNIP!!

> R-134 is more corrosive. Long-term
> component durability for items designed
> for use with R-12 might be questionable.

All that and you need to make absolutly sure you get all te old oil out
of compressor and the rest of the system. The oils do not mix well and
will ruin the system if mixed. Some suggest removing compressor and
flushing heavily before refilling with new oil.

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 10:57:36 -0500
From: "Michael J. Pasznik, Jr."
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold

>Two: (I don't expect any real help here; the problem description is far
>too vague.) My truck, the same 1990 F150 302 V8, produces a steady
>middle-frequency whistle while sitting at idle.

James,
You sure this is coming from the engine compartment? My fuel pump makes a
noise similar to the one you're describing. From the driver's seat I only
hear it when the front tank is on, probably because it's a whole lot closer
to me than the pump in the back tank.
Just a thought.
- -Mike
'95 F150 4x4

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:18:54 -0700
From: "Giddens, Scott"
Subject: RE: Winch/Suspension lift: WAS: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar

Umm, maybe it's your tires (?) I myself prefer not to get stuck in the first
place and embarrass myself.

As for the lift I would start with a Rancho suspension kit for a 4" or more.

Interesting color for a truck, looks great with mud on it :)

Scott

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Woods [SMTP:kwoods kens.com]
Hey guys, I'm _finally_ going to start mod'ing my truck.
'89 F250, 302, 5spd, 3" body lift, mostlybald BFG AT's 35x12.50x16.5
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.kens.com/truckpics

I got stuck the other day, and didn't like it very much.
Twas not fun. At all. Espcially considering that it was cold, I had
shorts on, and no shovel. Anyhow, I digress, and y'all don't need to know
the sorted details of that debacle.

Looking at Ramsey winches, but am pretty clueless as to what I need to
look at, and how big I need to go. Also slightly confused about mounting
options. Thoughts?

Also considering a 4" suspension lift.
What products should I be considering?

- --
Ken Woods
kwoods kens.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, 9 Nov 1999 11:22:57 EST
From: FULSZBRONC aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - TPS '85 F-150 I6-300

mpmccarthy worldnet.att.net writes:
>
Interesting question so I pulled the '85 factory service manual
to see what you were referring to, since the TPS is quite important to
drivability. I haven't actually had my hands on one of these in a few years,
but according to the manual it is bolted to the side of the carb and actuated
by the throttle shaft. Maybe the link was not obvious to you, but it would
run BAD otherwise.
Alex
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:20:18 -0800
From: "Dennis"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - FTE 80-96 Uneven acceleration...STILL

Worked extensively this weekend doing ignition system checks:
Found burnt spark plug wires and was exstatic, but alas it made no
difference.
Coil; Primary and secondary resistance OK
Timing: base timing 10 BTDC, and computer advances to 30BTDC durng test
Ignition Module: All resistance checks OK, replaced with known good module,
seemed to help idle but no help on stumbling accel, module bolts are 7/32
PIP: Tested for presence of AC voltage, More than 25VAC present with key on
engine off, with running there was 16 VAC specs call for 3.5 to 8
Spout: also reads 16VAC while running , but none when not running.
Manifold Vacuum: 17 hg steady. To low?
Another little problem noticed...The vacuum modul that controlls the
GR( one line to egr, one line to the vacuum canister...The module wheezes
when engine turned off.
How does the temp sensor that is located by the thermostat work? It has an
electrical connector, a heater hose and a vacuum line to bottom of throttle
body. I think my problem is temp related , any way to test?

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

89 F250 351W FI C6 67,000 miles and real clean, Once the truck is warmed up
it has a rough idle and a stumbling acceleration, the harder the load the
worse the stumbling, I think it's there when cold but much less pronounced.
About at my wits end and relly need some more help. Here's what I have done:
TPS... 0.5Volts at idle 4.5Volts full throttle both cold and hot and smooth
transition.
O2.... Around 0.5Volts when heated up, appears to be working properly.
EGR... had a egr code, cleaned and replaced gasket, code gone.
EVP... Reads normal with no jumps when operated.
MAP... Frequency type, checks out perfectly.
IAT... Reads according to specs
IAC... Had a code that indicated the ecu couldn't raise idle during KOER
test, removed and cleaned code gone, working normally.
FPR... Replaced unnecesarily
Ran all fuel pressure tests outlined in the Haynes manual, passed with
flying colors.
Checked base timing, right on the money 10BTDC.
Replaced fuel filter, plugs, wires, cap, rotor, air filter, crank breather
filter, also have run one bottle of techroline thru tank to no avail. Also I
no longer receive any codes from the ECU. Tonight I will peer under the hood
when it is dark and look for dancing spark. The truck never pings either,
and always starts right up, no matter how cold.
Haven't done any thing with the Managed Air System, can it cause these
problems? And does it comunicate with the computer? Can I disable this
system, if yes how? I have the serpentine belt or I would just unhook it.

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:05:17 -0600
From: Allen Stearns
Subject: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant

Ken,
I had my 89 Aerostar a/c R-12 system vacuumed out and leak checked at a
local AC shop for $20. I got an R-34 do-it-yourself kit at Pep Boys
for around $24 and a guage for the low side for $4.00. It takes less
than an hour to install. I've been using it for a couple of years with
no problems. It cools as good as R-12 did except when idling less than
2000 rpm, (i.e.,at traffic lights etc). This saved me paying a local
shop $195.00 to convert it for me.
Al

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:28:45 PST
From: "ken haley"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold

Fortunately, the manifolds on my Bronco with 302 are okay. It has a SROD and
I've yet to find headers to fit an 83 bonco with 302 and SROD. Anyone have a
source? I'm considering a hydraulic throwout bearing so the clutch linkage
will be gone, and then used factory Mustang 5L headers (IMHO, the best
header deal on the planet for 302 trucks) will fit.

On my son's Bronco, the SROD and NP 208 were replaced with a C4, and factory
Mustang shorty headers bolted right in without the clutch linkage in the
way. The shorty headers really wake up the Performer cam and intake,
providing a wider powerband (especially over 3500 rpm) and more power from
idle up. Same exhaust was used with manifolds and headers (2 inch with turbo
mufflers and H-pipe), with only the headpipes modified to fit. We had to go
up 2 sizes on the main jets with the headers, too. For a stock or near stock
302 or 351W with automatic, check with the Mustang racers for a used set of
factory shorty headers. They go for $25 a set around here and last a long
time. Any good muffler shop can weld up a new crossover and/or headpipes for
you.

John's cost for his Bronco:

Used headers------------25
2 cans header paint----- 8
ARP header bolts--------21
FelPro gaskets----------19
Headpipes---------------33
- --------------------------
Total------------------106

With an almost 3 mpg gain in fuel efficiencey, it will not take long to
recoup John's $103 headers.

About headers:

1) Buy good quality headers. Comparison shop CAREFULLY. If you have to use a
hammer to get them in, shouldn't you be curious about the rest of the
engineering? Generally, Hooker, Doug Thorley, and Hedman make parts that
fit. At least I've never had problems with them. I've had problems with
Cyclone and seen problems with a few sets other people have ordered from JC
Whitney. I've also seen Cyclones and JC Whitney headers bolt right up. Ask
around before plunking down cash. Cheap headers can have 1/2 the flange
thickness of good headers, an invitation to blown gaskets. Check the quality
and gauge of materials carefully.

2) Some manufacturers have several different designs of headers for the same
application. This is because each design is intended for a different
application. A 460 used for sand drags or truck pulls is very different from
a 460 used for hauling the marching band trailer. Hooker Super comps would
be out of place hauling marching band trailers. Hooker Comps would be out of
place on a super modified sand dragger. If in doubt, consult the
manufacturer.

3) Headers are usually steel and prone to rusting. Manifolds rust, too, but
are much ticker and take longer to rust through. Aluminized coatings are
good. Ceramic coatings are better. A good set of coated headers will last
for years. If you are really wealthy, there are stainless headers for other
applications that can be adapted, especially Mustang headers.

4) Use quality gaskets. The junk that comes in OEM quality kits is going to
leak eventually, no ifs, ands, or buts. Spring for aftermarket gaskets
designed for headers, such as Fel-Pros. Lucky for us, Mustang 5L came with
headers from the factory. Sometimes header type gaskets can be found in the
Mustang section of the catalog.

5) Use bolts intended to mount headers. I don't know why this makes a
difference, but my 460 Bronco with Hooker Comps blew OEM type gaskets like
crazy with plain grade 5 bolts. Stainless header bolts from ARP and Fel-Pro
gaskets didn't help much used separately, but used together I've had no
leaks in 2 1/2 years, even running hard across sand and diving into a creek,
which was what did in the original manifolds (hot manifolds + cold water =
cracked iron). Also, use Loc-Tite and a torque wrench.

6) Follow manufacturer's instructions. DUH!

NET: Doing new headers right costs as much as new manifolds. If you can find
a set of factory headers that fit, the cost drops dramatically. At $33
dollars a set (counting paint), and the supposed reusability of aftermarket
gaskets and bolts, I won't mind replacing them every few years if they rust
out.

Also, if you match the design of the header to your intended application,
then tune accorgingly, you can gain more power, more mpg, and better
throttle response. Maybe computers will adjust tune automatically, I don't
know. Combined with a freeflowing exhaust, the benifits of headers increase
exponentially. One thing is for sure, without a good exhaust, no other mods
will make much difference.

Headers are the difficult, expensive part of a good exhaust. Read on for
some low-cost solutions for the rest of the system.

On smog-legal exhausts:

If you run a catalytic converter and are setting up a smog legal exhaust,
consider an H-pipe before a pair of inexpensive aftermarket converters
($54.95 + shipping from JC Whitney)and try that without mufflers. I had a
302 LTD wagon set up like this, and it rumbled nicely, but was barely
audible with the windows up and AC on, even at WOT. (The 4bbl inatke was
louder.)

Many muffler shops have a special: duals with glasspacks for $100. If your
truck has a transfer case in the way of a cheap dual exhaust kit, this is
the way to go. Tell the shop to forget the glass packs and just run straight
pipes. Cut out the places the converters need to go, clamp them in, and hook
up the air tubes. You can always add mufflers later if the exhaust is still
too loud for you. Smog-legal duals for less than $250. All new parts. Beat
that!

Another way to cheap duals, if you have headers with flat flanges, is a
universal dual exhaust kit without mufflers. JC Whitney has a 2 1/4 inch kit
for $58.29. Add in $109.90 for converters in place of the mufflers, 39.92
for a pair of stainless air tube kits, 14.95 shipping and handling (to my
address), for a $167.34 smog-legal exhaust for a 2WD with headers.
Performance need not be expensive.

Avoid "glasspacks", because most have louvers clogging up the air flow
through the tube. Those without louvers are too darn loud. All those louvers
create a lot of resistance due to turbulance. Flexible pipe is undesirable
for the same reason--too much internal turbulance (Actually did some
flowbench work that bore this out). In fact, glasspacks can have more
resistance to flow than stock mufflers. Frankly, glasspacks are obnoxiously
noisy unless very long, and the long ones obnoxiously restrictive. There
really is NO good reason to use them. Glasspacks send this message to the
world: I'M AN OBNOXOUS SHOWOFF WHO DOESN'T REALLY KNOW A DARN THING ABOUT
PERFORMANCE OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES.

Turbo mufflers are a method of baffling developed for the turbocharged
Corvairs in the late 50s and early 60s. (What, you didn't know C***y built
turbocharged horizontally opposed 6 cylinders nearly 40 years ago? Best car
C***y ever built. May Ralph Nader rot in a mudbog.)The design criteria was
less restriction. Since the turbo muffled sound to some degree, the
engineers could design a louder muffler and still end up with a quiet
exhaust. The design has about 2/3s the restriction of regular mufflers.
Convex reflectors, passive baffles, and bigger tubes in the more expensive
brands reduce resistance to 1/2 that of standard mufflers. Watch out for
cheap turbo mufflers, though. Many have 2 1/4 or 2 1/2 inch nipples on each
end tapered down to 1 3/4 tubes in the muffler. Look down the inside of the
nipples with a flashlight--you can easily see the constrictions in the
crummy ones. Summit has turbos up to 2 1/2 inch with full size internal
tubes for $14.75 plus shipping, about $3 more than the cheapest glasspacks
anywhere.

On crossover (H-) pipes:

H-pipes balance backpressure between dual exhausts. This doesn't seem to
make much difference at high engine speeds, but often provides increased low
and midrange torque and drivability, usually worth 10-15 horsepower at the
torque peak, which tends to also flatten out some. It is common to have to
go up one size on low speed jets when an H-pipe is installed. H-pipes are
cheap and provide power where we need it for daily driving, especially
around town, on the boat ramp, and offroad. Clamp on H-pipe kits go for
$30-40.

The cleanest H-pipe setup I ever saw was 2 1/2 duals running side-by-side,
and 2 y-pipes that went to single 3 1/2, welded end-to-end: dual 2 1/2-to-3
1/2-to-dual 2 1/2. I stole this idea for my 460 Bronco to balance the duals,
one side is longer than the other because both run just inside the right
frame rail (the transfer case is in the way on the left side). Summit turbos
are mounted just before the axle, the pipes exit behind the rear wheels.
Sounds good cruising Sonic, but drowned out by the 44 inch Mudders on the
road.

I hope yall can take some of these ideas and make them your own. Hopefully
you've found some affordable ideas for stepping up to tuned exhaust.

Ken

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:06:18 -0700
From: Fred Moreno
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Ford Adjustable Timing Advance

luxjo thecore wrote regarding super duper intelligent dudeski FULSZBRONC

Any idea what that module goes for? Does it move the whole curve, or
change the curve in any way (is it linear)?

OX

Yeah, I can tell you it is a direct replacement box for the Duraspark
ignition that you should not have to pay more than $150. If you do, email
me, I work at the manufacturing plant, Autotronics Controls Corp (MSD
ignition etc..) but I am in one of the Alternative Fuels division. You might
of caught the Les and Phred show /comments from time to time on this list
regarding how wonderful Ford powerplants love the taste and smell of
propane.
The 8778 works by giving the operator of the vehicle a 15 degree range of
timing while driving. It is a linear device and the knob for the dash is
just a 10K pot. This unit actually retards the timing from zero to 15
degrees depending where the knob is set. During the installation, usually
one re-sets the factory ignition timing somewhere in this 15 degree range.
Most people re-set it such that their factory timing is right in the middle
of the range, so they can bump up their timing 7.5 degrees or back it off
7.5 degrees while driving down the road.
This product is geared towards people with RV's and trucks that really work
but occasionally run empty. Sometimes it's nice to be able to twist the
distributor (that's dizzy's to some of you readers) while driving up the
side of a mountain, or if you are driving something with the aerodynamics of
a grand piano moving sideways into a head wind...Once installation is
completed and the timing is re-set, this module does not change the timing
automatically, it is done manually by the vehicle operator.
It is designed to assist the operator of the vehicle avoid pinging and
knocking inside the engine. BTW, we also make a knock sensor for those
operators with carburetors instead of EFI.
But this box is not just a replacement, because it does have a hell of an
ignition built in with it. It is not a multi-spark ignition, but produces
considerable more energy than the stock Duraspark.
It appears that FULSZBRONC is a sharp cookie because he achieved the same
ajustable timing results without the purchase of an after-market product.
But contact me directly about getting your unit repaired, if its not a
potted/sealed unit we can work with it, no big bucks involved here, just
customer service.

Woof, woof (Kelly's Heroe's)

Phred Moreno
1995 F-150 4X4 Mazda impregnated, +159,000 miles and going strong with that
nasty smelling stuff we call propane.


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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:40:27 PST
From: "ken haley"
Subject: Re: Winch/Suspension lift: WAS: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar

Ken,

Get the biggest #$^$# winch you can. Ratings are a joke. Get a snatch block
and a Snatchum to protect the trees you hook to.

Mount the winch under the bed, away from greedy eyes, and a fairlead behind
the license plate, also away from greedy eyes. It only takes 10 seconds to
remove the license plate for access. Trucks are nose-heavy enough, and a
rear-mounted winch will balance that out some. It is often impossible to go
further, even with a winch on the front. A simple roller will allow the
cable to be pulled by a pre-installed chain through a piece of pipe to a
second fairlead on the front of the truck, anyway. Or you coul;d just store
the cable through the pipe and winch it to the back if you need it out the
back. A rear mounted winch is handy for loading big things on flatbed
trailers, too, such as broken Chevys and portapotties, but I repeat myself.

Ken

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:08:39 PST
From: "Christopher Worley"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant

I converted from r-12 to r-134a on my '94 Mazda B2300 that I had. It would
cool you out of the truck on most summer days (this is Texas if
I told you it kept up in the 110 degree temps I would be lying). But it did
keep you ample cool. It ran fine while I had it and was running real good
when I sold it a year later. One component that I went ahead and replaced
along with the conversion is the Accumulator. It set me back about $34
dollars. A few A/C guys told me you would have better luck in the long run
by changing the accumulator out on a retrofit such as this.
Also Invest some of the A/C system flush and flush out all of the hoses, and
condenser. Be sure you replace the oriface tube hell it only costs $3.00,
after you get it put back together take put some gauges on it and vaccum the
system down. Let it sit for a few minutes and make sure it holds. Then
charge it up and go for it.

Good Luck,

Chris


>From: "ken haley"
>Reply-To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
>To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant
>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:15:32 PST
>
>Okay, peeps, new thread:
>
>My son just came in spitting nails. It seems the local auto AC repair
>emporiums all charge $75 to hook up to their machines to check your AC's
>freon charge. That's $75 just to hook it up!!!! On top of that, R-12 is $38
>a pound. Gee willikers, what a rip-off. This is a new install aftermarket
>system and will take 5-6 pounds.
>
>The complete charge, using R-34 and compatible oil, will run about $65,
>including flush, special gauges, and valves. This will save the kid about
>$200.
>
>Anyone every use R-34. Does it cool well? Any problems with it? How does
>R-34 affect component life? It sure would be nice to be free of R-12.
>
>Ken
>
>______________________________________________________
> >== 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, 09 Nov 1999 17:25:15 -0500
From: Rich
Subject: FTE 80-96 - re: Side marker lamps

I have a 96 F150, in which the side clearance lights are out in the
front. How the heck do you get at them to replace them? I see 2 screws
on the top of the trim bezel, but i also see one that holds it on from
the bottom, how do you get to the bottom one?
Rich
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 15:59:45 -0500
From: slikness mindspring.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Zoops Brackets

Say, some of you folks have been following my 300 I6 to 351W swap in my '82 F150. Well, as I've said before, my biggest headache was the alignment and mounting of the front end accessories and after trying to fabricate my own set up, I finally broke down and bought a complete set of brackets and accessories from Zoops out in California. Now, you have heard me sing their praises before and I'm gonna do it again. I finally got around to mounting their power steering pump this weekend and because Fords tend to have a bunch of different configurations for timing chain covers and water pumps, mine was not really built for the Zoop power steering pump bracket. But, by using some longer bolts and a 1/2" spacer along with the adjustability of the bracket, I was able to get everything mounted and lined up.....Except, one adjusting bar did not work, so... I figured out the type of adjusting bar I needed and sent a request to purchase the additional bar. Well, I received an e-mail t!
!
he very next day saying the bar was in the mail at no extra charge. Awesome!!

Next problem: The altenator that I got from them had a high pitch whine (almost sounded as if I was turbo charged) and I did not want to have to send the altenator back and wait for them to send a new one out and have my truck down in the meantime. Solution: Zoops had the altenator manufacturer give me a call and they are shipping a new altenator out and I will be sending the old one back after I replace it. AWESOME!!

I tell you, it is refreshing to finally see an organization that treats their customers with a little concern and will sympathize and work with unique situations. I am really impressed with these folks and I thought you guys should hear some positives during a period when we especially seem to get poor service from our dealers.

Slik

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 16:57:27 -0600
From: "Dave Harmier"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Exhaust manifold (& whistle)

James Poylio wrote

>Hello--

>I have two unrelated questions.

>One: Is the left exhaust manifold on a 1990 F150 302 V8 any more prone to
>cracking than the same part on the same engine for any other model year?
>I ask because mine cracked (of course), and I want to know, before I go to
>the salvage yard to get a replacement, if there's any reason not to get
>another 1990 exhaust manifold. That is, will the "new" one crack too?

James, I have a 92 w/302 and my left side is cracked in two. I think they
ALL do it, 302, 351, and 460. If I weren't such a cheap, lazy b&st#&d, I'd
already have shorty headers in place.

All I can say is GOOD LUCK on finding one in a junkyard that's NOT cracked!


As to your whistle.. If I get my ac control switch (which vents switch)
between stops, it'll hiss pretty good. I'd say listen around under the dash
too!

Dave H.
Houston

P.S. The right side has a hairline crack as well, It is just a matter of
time!

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 15:32:15 PST
From: "ken haley"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - R-34 refrigerant

I'd like to thank everyone for the advice on the AC we are adding to a
Bronco that never had one. We've decided to convert to R-134a because John
plans to keep the truck forever and R-12 is no longer DIY.

I called the manufacturer of the kit John bought, and the word is they added
a line of R-134a kits last year. The only differences are the dryer,
orifice, and included lubricant. According to the AC people R-134a is no
more corrosive than R-12, if the proper oil is used with it. They maintain
that R-12 would be as corrosive if used with R-134a lubricant. As the
service rep explained it to me: You don't put gear oil in the motor, do you?

Since my local Advance Auto Parts actually stocks the dryer and orifice, and
I'm buying the flush and conversion kits, R-134a, and a new set of gauges
there, they are swapping even with me. The unit should be installed and on
the vacuum pump this weekend. Will let you know how it goes.

Ken

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:43:12 -0800
From: Chris McKinnon
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Ford Adjustable Timing Advance

>... but I am in one of the Alternative Fuels division. You might
>of caught the Les and Phred show /comments from time to time on this list
>regarding how wonderful Ford powerplants love the taste and smell of
>propane

I'll second that motion about Ford engines and propane. Mine runs great,
with good mileage to boot.
Chris

'84 F150
351W
NP 435
281K Km

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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:44:23 -0600
From: "Shawn & Jennifer Clark"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar Detectors

Paul, to suit your needs there is really only one: Valentine One. Check
www.caranddriver.com Valentines are not cheap, but they are worth the
money. They are durable, very well warrantied, and just about undetectable
(except visually, of course.) I have an older one (about 5 years old?)
which my wife now uses, and a newer one (about 2 years old). I did not opt
for laser detection on either of mine, since I believe laser detection is a
waste of money--by the time you detect it you are generally had based on
the reading I have done, plus I have yet to come upon a laser trap.

In all of the Car & Driver tests I have read, the Valentine has won hands
down. It is very sensitive, and the newer ones are extremely good at
rejecting false signals. My older one is less sensitive in the Ka band,
but the newer one does very well. X band sensitivity can be startling at
times. I have picked up highway patrolman over five miles away (looooong
open stretch). The directional indication and count on number of bogeys is
useful, since frequently there will be a second car trailing the first.
These indications and sensitivity make it easier to determine when you are
getting a false versus a real signal.

I have not been very impressed by other detectors, they tend to do a lot of
unintended transmitting. My older Valentine picked up falses off some of
these other detectors whenever they swept through the bands. In fact, I
used to be able to identify certain models by their "signature". My newer
detector rarely picks up falses, and when it does it is a very weak signal.
I heard alot of folks complain about Bel's, etc. failing within a year or
so, but never heard anything bad about the Valentine. Car & Driver tests
in the past showed them to be nearly undetectable (detector detector had to
be within just a few feet.) This is because they don't leak signal out the
way others do.

I'm sure there must be some unhappy Valentine owners out there, but I have
not yet come across them (this is a big list, so perhaps we'll hear from
them now.)

Hope this doesn't sound too religious. They do not prevent baldness, cure
cancer, or improve your truck's handling. They probably won't get you any
dates with a supermodel either, unless she appreciates fine electronics...

Shawn Clark

Paul asked:
>>
Can anyone direct me to a site which compares radar detectors? I know
that you can find some info in Car & Driver, etc. but I am just trying
to be lazy.
I also understand that it is best to get a radar detector which doesn't
transmit signals which can be picked up the the law's anti-radar
detector detectors (I am in Virginia).
From what I have read, the Valentine is the standard of the industry.
They do have a web site, but I was looking for a neutral comparison
site.



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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 18:09:00 PST
From: "ken haley"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Zoops Brackets

Slik,

Who's Zoop's? URL, e-mail, address, phone, anything?

Ken

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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 22:18:26 -0500
From: Martin Horne
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Radar Detectors

At 06:44 PM 11/9/99 -0600, you wrote:

> I did not opt
>for laser detection on either of mine, since I believe laser detection is a
>waste of money--by the time you detect it you are generally had based on
>the reading I have done, plus I have yet to come upon a laser trap.
>
Here on Long Island I see a lot of Laser traps going on, and believe me
when I say my laser detector goes berserk long before I'm a target. Of
course, this relies on there being other traffic about. While the cop is
wobbling about trying to get a fix on other vehicles the laser beam seems
to go everywhere, which gives me an opportunity to correct my speed and
sneak behind something moving a bit faster than me. It's worked so far,
tho' with the upped general speed of traffic I'm using it less and less.
Seems that they just don't bother when you're keeping pace with traffic.
Not even when you're the biggest thing on their horizon!
Martin Horne
'86 Bronco
Long Island, NY
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 22:30:56 -0500
From: Martin Horne
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust manifold

After much agonizing I just fitted a set of Shorty Headers I got from JC
Whitney. I have an '86 Bronco, which seems to be an odd "changeover" year
but the fellow at Discount Converters in Houston
(http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.discountconverter.com/converters/ford/trucks.htm) really helped
out and told me he couldn't see why they shouldn't fit since the part
numbers were the same from one supplier. I ordered the ceramic coated ('coz
I could) and was favorably impressed. I also got the full Y pipe cat setup
and cat-back system from Discount Converters to get me totally legal (the
headers have a CARB tag and number) and tyh eentire system was in the order
of $650, which coinsidering that Ford wanted $800+ for the cat alone seemed
really reasonable. Sounds nice - throaty yet quiet, which after my pace
setter full headers and Whitney's abonimation of an exhaust system is a
pleasant if startling change.

To get back to the point, the Shorties started at $170 a pair as I recall
with about $100 for the coating. Most dealers want $90 a side for the
manifold. One is a direct swap for the other. You pays yer money, you takes....

---

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.