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 #358
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 Sunday, December 19 1999 Volume 03 : Number 358



=======================================================================
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 - re: 302 knock
FTE 80-96 - Taking a Hiatus Florida Bound
Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock
Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock
FTE 80-96 - Re: 80-96-Water Injection
Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock
FTE 80-96 - Sometimes Hard To Start
FTE 80-96 - RE: Ford and Ch**y
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust Manifold
Re: FTE 80-96 - Too Much Power...
Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: 80-96-Water Injection
FTE 80-96 - Re: Recommendations ??
Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust Manifold
Re: FTE 80-96 - Sometimes Hard To Start
FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Web site updates
FTE 80-96 - the smell
Re: FTE 80-96 - the smell
FTE 80-96 - Coupla questions re: 300/6
Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: 80-96-Water Injection

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:26:10 -0600
From: "DannyF"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock

> I have a 96 F150 with the 302,it has about 79k on it. When sitting
> idle after it is warmed up, it sounds like something is knocking in the
> bottom end of the engine. sometimes it does this and sometimes it
> doesn't. I am using 10w30 like the manual says to. However, I have never
> heard of a bottom end of a 302 giving anyone problems.
> Rich

As has been discusssed here previously, the 302 bottom end is
pretty darn reliable. Notice all the thousands of hopped up
Mustangs getting the piss run out of them and still going? How
about the tons of fleet 302's still running at 150-200K mi? Those
are the ones that have had avg. maintenance.

I think the other poster's comment on the 302 lower end from the
machine shop is just a generalization. When you have so many on
the road sure the machine shop is going to see the
abused/neglected ones.

Onto your problem. Although a suspected lower end knock can be
many things, I dismissed mine in a '90 300-6 w/75K mi. It sounded
exactly like your describing. I told myself, "can't be a lower end
knock". The 300 is also known for a strong lower end. Anyway,
while pulling a boat 80 mi from home, the engine started knocking
badly and I had to be towed home.

Pulliing the pan revealed the obvious. The oil pickup screen was
90% covered w/a 1/16" layer of "coke". An obvious indication of
what the previous owner had *not* done...regular oil changes. I had
only put 10K on it and changed the oil maybe 3 times. No way new
oil was going to open up that screen.

Obvious question: did you buy the truck new?
Danny
danf01 worldnet.att.net
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:34:47 -0500
From: "Eric J. McTague"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Taking a Hiatus Florida Bound

No white Xmas for me !!!.

Heading down to Warm Mineral Springs Florida.

ETA -- Tampa International Airport 12 Noon Sunday.

Be there for about a week.

Signing off of all my mail list later this evening(Sat night)until I
return.

If anyone that gets the digest & saves them, could send them to me when
I return, it would be much appreciated.

E-mail me off the list.

Like I said, will be around till tonight. Leaving early am Sun.

Later.

E

- --
"EJ" In Hamilton Township, New Jersey, suburb of Trenton
On digest where availabile, not regular mail
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.tripod.com/Olds_luvr/photoalbum/photoalbum/index.html
E-Mail: oldsluvr bellatlantic.net
The "Fleet"
1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais.
1985 Oldsmobile Toronado.
1992 Lincoln Mark VII LSC.
1992 Ford F-250 Reg-Cab 4WD Pick-Up.
1994 Toyota Camry Sedan (my other halves ride).
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 10:49:19 -0700
From: "Jim"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock

Date sent: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:03:36 -0500
From: Rich
Organization: "Lead me not into temptation. I can find it myself."
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock
Send reply to: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com

I have a 96 F150 with the 302,it has about 79k on it. When sitting
idle after it is warmed up, it sounds like something is knocking in the
bottom end of the engine. sometimes it does this and sometimes it
doesn't. I am using 10w30 like the manual says to. However, I have never
heard of a bottom end of a 302 giving anyone problems.
Rich
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

The problem with the 302 in the PU is that if you run the
number 7 and 8 plugs wires side by side for any length
you wil get an induction firing in the #8 hole when the #7
fires because of the consecutive firing order of these two
cyl's. this will cause a preignition of #8 and will lead to
detonation if allowed to continue , results are piston
damage and in my case pounded out the rod bearing in
#8. years ago in the 351m/400 era they had the same
problem. reroute your plug wires, and fix the knock. as far
as everyone guessing about what the knock is it could be
monkey in your oil pan with a big hammer... you wont
know UNTIL you take it apart! Also on EFI versions the
pcv hose draws on the number 8 cyl due to where it is
located in the plenum, unscrew the elbow , put a pipe
plug in it and relocate the connector to the center of the
plenum above the support bracket. you need to remove
the plenum to do this to keep metal chips out of your
engine. any AERA affiliated machine shop should have
tech bulletins on both of these problems and yes Ford did
machine the two rear cyl's a little looser than the other 6
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:59:17 EST
From: FLR150 aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock

In a message dated 12/17/99 9:41:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, LGRanch aol.com
writes:


order.
I do know that Ford changed the firing order in their mustangs because of
the
problem. >>
That also depends on the YEAR of the 302. My '94 has the same firing order as
the 351 and the Mustang and I again I state that I beat the crap outta mine
and have yet to have a problem with it.
Later
Wayne Foy
'94 Flareside SC
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:32:04 EST
From: ADCSRWS aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: 80-96-Water Injection

Les,
You will have to forgive an old sailor that's maybe inhaled to much exhaust
fumes.

- -ADI (Anti Detonation Injection System) A water - isopropyl alcohol solution
injected into the cylinders to reduce detonation (Pre-Ignition) during high
power settings like for Take off.
- -SP2H Neptune. A USN Anti Submarine Warfare aircraft of the 50's 60's and
early 70's vintage. Turned 2 (R3350 32WA compounded 18 cylinder radials) and
burned 2 (J-34 WE-36 Axial flow jet engines)
- -Pre takeoff Mag check. The 2 reciprocating engines have duel magnetos with
one spark plug powered by each mag. in each cylinder.
A mag check consists of shuttling each mag off, in turn, to verify both plugs
in each cylinder were firing properly. Even the loss of one plug, at high
power settings, caused a significant loss in power produced. This is not good
for a takeoff at high density altitude, gross weight, and short runways. The
paperwork after the crash is just to time consuming.
I doubt that you have any of these items/features on your Ford Truck but we
can shop around.
It has been 25 years sense I have messed with a Neptune, but just thinking
about them brings back a 1000 sea stories and a few fairy tails.
Hang in there!
Dick
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:59:55 -0600
From: "Shawn & Jennifer Clark"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock

Wayne Foy wrote:
>>
3 words...Chronic Piston Slap. I have a 94 5.0 and I also race it. My truck

has done this since I bought it 2 years ago. I have done MAJOR mods to it
and
also run N2O on it. I have yet to have any breakage of the bottom end and
my
truck STILL does this. I have tried using all types and kinds of oil, from
full race synthetic to blends, different weights, and still no change.
According to a buddy in the machine division at FOMOCO, it was a common
problem due to the machining tolerances they had programmed into the
machines
at the factory," Some came out a little looser than others". I guess unless

you want to do a complete teardown and rebuild...we gotta live with it.


Thanks for the info. This fits well with what I have seen. I don't
rebuild engines, but of the Ford parts I have worked with the fit up has
been loose. I don't know if this is because of gaps built into the design,
or loose production tolerances. I suspect this is one of the major
culprits in the
"I-get-13MPG-while-you-get-16MPG-what-is-wrong-with-my-truck" problem. For
the record, my truck runs 13 MPG whether I run it hard in town, cruise the
interstate for 700 miles, or my wife drives it (much gentler on the go
pedal.) I'm hoping that my recent plug change will improve the mileage,
but I have not driven it much recently.

This seems to boil down to luck of the draw. If the production tolerances
are loose, one person gets a jewel of a truck, and the next might get a
heap. The person with the truck that runs well is irritated by the
"whiner" while the other guy thinks the first person is delusional. I'm
not just picking on Fords here, Chevy and Chrysler have these sorts of
trouble as well (don't even get me started on Chrysler...) The looser the
tolerances and/or the lower the quality of the materials, the greater the
probability that any given vehicle will have problems (regardless of the
fundamental design quality.) This is a place where our domestic automakers
could learn something from the Japanese. Toyota, Nissan, and Honda do turn
out some lemons, but they are fewer and farther between. The materials and
fit up in my Nissan and Honda are first rate. There are problem areas, but
the problems are noticeable exceptions rather than the rule.

Happy Holidays,

Shawn Clark
e-mail: sd&jkclark tyler.net


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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:46:45 -0600
From: "Justen Noakes"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Sometimes Hard To Start

Folks,

Got in the truck yesterday, everything started fine. Stopped to get donuts
about a block away and when I got back in the truck wouldn't start. I had
to
get the clerk to give me a jump (always have cables). It started right up
on the
first try while connected to the jumper cables...OK the battery is finally
shot I thought.

Went to work (had a presentation or would have gone to get battery then) and
sure
enough had to be jumped again after work (expected that).

This morning, hoped in and it started right up. Soooo, I took the battery to
Monkey
Wards and had them test it...OK under the regular test and the load test
(gotta
love Motorcraft). Cleaned cables, connectors, posts, top of battery (looks
good!).
Corrosion wasn't that bad, I try to keep an eye on it, but there was some
build up.
Put battery back in, truck started right up. Went out an hour ago to go to
the store,
and what do you know...click, click, click and finally it started. I none
the less took
the wife's car.

What's going on...The truck is a '95 F-150, 300 I6, 5spd., will have owned 5
years
in May..so the battery (OEM) is at least 5 years old and has probably been
on-line that long
as well.

Is it the battery? Starter?

I have never had a problem with my truck and I don't want to get stuck
because of a damn
maintenance item.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Justen Noakes
San Antonio

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:07:16 -0800
From: "Isaac Godsey"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - RE: Ford and Ch**y

What's the point of building a work truck on a car chasis? Yet another
reason Ford's are better! lol

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:14:35 +1100
From: les williams
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust Manifold

I do not dispute the advantage of replacing the stock manifold system with
extractors, but the discussions in the past has never really explained why the
Stock manifolds crack in the first place, and saying 'they just crack' is what
the local Ford dealer will tell you, it is not a valid reason on this forum.
Whilst a lot of people have a problem, a hell of a lot don't, do a tour of
second hand truck yards, and the majority are still running with the stock
manifolds. So what is different ? I am still running the cast manifolds, and up
to a redline of 5,000 rpm, since this is a propane engine, the torque band is
lower, I see no real need, apart from cracking 'a good reason' to change.
Well, I may have stumbled over a published reason why Fords (and others) do
crack cast manifolds and how to prevent it from happening to you. (unless you
are looking for an excuse to install headers, then read no further!!)

If you have the book 'Performance Modifying Ford Trucks', by R. Johnson, or go
to your book shop, open to page 60 and do a quick read, there is a quite a
'discussion' regarding the evils of back pressure, and serious heat build-up
especially in a truck, that will cause the exhaust manifolds to warp, twist and
crack. To paraphrase the chapter - Make damn sure the exhaust system is
freeflowing. (When you 'break the glass' are you sure it will ALL come out? &
not just collapse in on it's self. I do agree with Alex's points ) I do think
the explanation is quite pausable, and thinking back thru the sands of time,
what other engine's were notorious manifold crackers, and there are a few. The
top award in my experience in OZ, has to go to the Chrysler/Dodge slant six
engine, specifically between cylinders 3 & 4, then 4 & 5. Now that's a cast
manifold & muffler system that SUX. The only people that didn't have cracked
manifolds in this case were usually little old ladys' that only used the car to
drive to, and from church on Sunday, never ever pushing the rpm's beyond 1500.
I did own a car or two with these engines and the second thing you did after
buying it (deceased estate sales, Hmmm), was rip out the stock system, replace
with extractors and a free flow system, and pick up about 30% increase in
performance to boot.

In my own stumbling way, just adding to the confusion! ;-))

Regards

Les
Lost In the land of OZ


ken haley wrote:

> There are no good exhaust manifolds for 302s. Switch to headers. Mustang GT
> headers will clear automatics and can be picked up for $25 around here. A
> pair each of high flow communistic converters and turbo mufflers from
> JCWhitney, a little exhaust tubing, and you are in business, for less than
> than cost of a new OEM manifold, which is just going to crack again, anyway.
> Doug Thorley and Hooker both make headers that fit well, also.
>
> Ken
>
>



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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 10:14:54 +1100
From: les williams
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Too Much Power...

Ken,
Yep, the one and same! A product that sorts the men from the boys and their
money. This definitely not a product where if a little is good, then a lot must
be better!
There is no disputing the product works well with petrol, it will work with
propane, with the same results, with the advantage (theoretical) of only mixing
gases. The real problem is the Knowledge Base on this combo of propane & NOx is
very limited - ok non-existant. Geez, Ken - one step at a time. People are flat
out understanding the concept of Mono Propane installs, let alone getting
performance with it......It's like the Dancing Elephant, it's not the fact of
how well it can dance, it's a bloody wonder that it can dance at all......;-)

But I'm still havin' Fun ......in a Ford ......in OZ........

Regards

Les
Lost in the Land of OZ


ken haley wrote:

> Les, are you referring to NOx? One of my Mustangs loves that stuff! A
> definate kick-in-the pants (3, actually, it's a computer controlled 3-stage
> system) in a 2800 pound car with 490 cubic inches painted ford Blue.
>
> I've yet to see any NOx kit ready-to-bolt-on. Minimum rpm lockouts, line
> vents, ping-sensitive ignition retard, and research are required to prevent
> a millisecond of stupidity from scattering engine parts hither and yon.
>
> Ken
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:23:40 -0500
From: Blake Malkamaki
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - re: 302 knock

>That also depends on the YEAR of the 302. My '94 has the same firing order as
>the 351 and the Mustang and I again I state that I beat the crap outta mine
>and have yet to have a problem with it.
>Later
>Wayne Foy
>'94 Flareside SC

My 1978 F-150 with a 302 is still running strong with 240,00 miles. I never
had the engine apart, except putting in a new timing chain about 15 years
ago. It used very little oil and never had any knocks. I did however,
always keep the oil changed, and usually used 15W-40 or SAE 40 weight.


Blake
Little Mountain
Concord, Ohio
Early Oil Well Historian http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/oilwell
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
"Society is safest when the criminals don't know who's armed."
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject...."


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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:27:00 -0500
From: Blake Malkamaki
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: 80-96-Water Injection

>Les,
>You will have to forgive an old sailor that's maybe inhaled to much exhaust
>fumes.
>
>-ADI (Anti Detonation Injection System) A water - isopropyl alcohol solution
>injected into the cylinders to reduce detonation (Pre-Ignition) during high
>power settings like for Take off.
>-SP2H Neptune. A USN Anti Submarine Warfare aircraft of the 50's 60's and
>early 70's vintage. Turned 2 (R3350 32WA compounded 18 cylinder radials) and
>burned 2 (J-34 WE-36 Axial flow jet engines)
>-Pre takeoff Mag check. The 2 reciprocating engines have duel magnetos with
>one spark plug powered by each mag. in each cylinder.
>A mag check consists of shuttling each mag off, in turn, to verify both plugs
>in each cylinder were firing properly. Even the loss of one plug, at high
>power settings, caused a significant loss in power produced. This is not good
>for a takeoff at high density altitude, gross weight, and short runways. The
>paperwork after the crash is just to time consuming.
>I doubt that you have any of these items/features on your Ford Truck but we
>can shop around.
>It has been 25 years sense I have messed with a Neptune, but just thinking
>about them brings back a 1000 sea stories and a few fairy tails.
>Hang in there!
>Dick

Many of the early fire trucks also had dual magneto ignition. A friend had
an American LaFrance with a straight flathead engine that was about 6 foot
long.


Blake
Little Mountain
Concord, Ohio
Early Oil Well Historian http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://little-mountain.com/oilwell
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
"Society is safest when the criminals don't know who's armed."
"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject...."


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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:30:11 EST
From: BRIGANDBAR aol.com
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Re: Recommendations ??

Gang:

I need some help in the form of a recommendation of a shop to do an
installation. The goals, in order of priority are: a shop experienced in
ARB Air Locker installation, that does them (relatively) frequently, and that
knows what they are doing and can get it done correctly the first time,
reasonably close geographical proximity to Bowlin Green, Kentucky and fair
(as in a reasonable discount off of MSRP and reasonable labor charges)
pricing.

I know that this is asking a lot, a fair, honest shop that knows what it is
doing, and does it right the first time.

I want to install ARB Air Lockers on the front and rear axles of my '96 Ford
Bronco. Its a basically stock XLT (only changes are 32x11.50 tires and front
and rear receiver hitches for the winch mounts), 5.8l (351 Engine), E4OD
automatic transmission, 3.55 ratio diffs., and automatic (I know, guys go
easy on me) hubs. I want an upgraded compressor (I haven't been impressed
with the standard one that ARB produces for their lockers, but I'm willing to
listen. I would like to be able to air up if necessary, but this isn't an
absolute as I can buy a 12vdc compressor to do that if I have to), and driers
in the air line(s) to avoid the problem of freeze- ups at higher altitudes.

I'm also interested in hearing from anyone that has the ARB air lockers
installed. I've been at this for a year now, and cannot find a shop that
fills the bill.

Your help, and your experiences will be greatly appreciated.

And, you'all have a Merry Christmas and a safe Y2K New Year.

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:39:48 EST
From: FULSZBRONC aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Exhaust Manifold

lesw cyber.net.au writes:

> the second thing you did after
> buying it (deceased estate sales, Hmmm), was rip out the stock system,
> replace
> with extractors and a free flow system, and pick up about 30% increase in
> performance to boot.

OK Les, what was the FIRST thing you did when you bought a Walter P.
Chrysler? (paint a Blue Oval on it?)
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:54:32 EST
From: FULSZBRONC aol.com
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Sometimes Hard To Start

Quite often, I've solved similar intermittent no-start complaints by
changing out batteries that load-tested good. Sadly, load tests don't
always find the batteries with problems. Check the basics like clean and
tight electrical connections .....and make sure the starter bolts aren't
coming loose. By ear, does the engine turn over as fast as it used to?
Starter sound normal or does it seem to drag? After 5 years service, your
battery is on borrowed time now anyhow. Starter relays rarely fail, but are
often replaced (needlessly) by well meaning techs trying to chase down
gremlins. Starters can act up also, but from my experiences with the 4.9L
starters- they are nearly bullet proof. So, you'd best advised to visually
check everything and buy a GOOD battery....like a Delco or Motorcraft (if
your original battery had a sight-glass, it was made by Delco)
Alex
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:55:47 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: FTE 80-96 - ADMIN: Web site updates

Pictorial additions:

1950 F1
1965 F250 Camper Special
1972 F600
1979 F350

Later,
Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts
== FTE: Uns*bscribe and posting info http://www.ford-trucks.com/faq.html

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

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:03:49 -0800
From: mcphoto
Subject: FTE 80-96 - the smell

I left my F150 ('89) in the garage for several days this week.
The gasoline smell was very heavy. No spots on the floor; the
truck started right up. Both tanks are full. This isn't the first
time this has happened. The odor seems to
be worse when I have a full aux. tank (rear tank). Could this
be a venting problem? It gives my garage a great manly, workin'
on trucks smell, but I'm wanting to stop a problem before it gets
worse, if there is one.

Max W. Cottrell
'89 F150

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 22:27:31 -0800
From: "Kevin Crandall"
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - the smell

Max my 94 F150 smelled like that one time. Turned out to be a leaking front
tank. I would only notice the smell after I filled up. One morning I took
look and noticed the tank leaking. The leak was from the top of the tank and
would only leak when full. I think you should look into it because leaking
gas is pretty dangerous. Good luck to you.

Kevin

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "mcphoto"
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 1999 1:03 AM
Subject: FTE 80-96 - the smell


> I left my F150 ('89) in the garage for several days this week.
> The gasoline smell was very heavy. No spots on the floor; the
> truck started right up. Both tanks are full. This isn't the first
> time this has happened. The odor seems to
> be worse when I have a full aux. tank (rear tank). Could this
> be a venting problem? It gives my garage a great manly, workin'
> on trucks smell, but I'm wanting to stop a problem before it gets
> worse, if there is one.
>
> Max W. Cottrell
> '89 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: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 00:36:26 -0800
From: "Tom Humphreys"
Subject: FTE 80-96 - Coupla questions re: 300/6

Hi,

I just recently bought an 83 F250 with the 300 inline 6. I have not had
previous experience with this motor. I was intrigued by the bolt-on panel
on the driver's side of the engine, below the head, on the side of the
cylinders. I bought the Chilton's for the truck and from the exploded view
it looks like it simply covers a cavity which the pushrods run through. Is
this accurate? If so, why did they design it this way? Is there some
maintenance job that can be done through this accessway? If it is simply a
void space and the want to keep oil in, why wouldn't they just cast it into
the cylinders?

Question 2: The Chilton's manual describes a system for adjusting the
valves which essentially says: Bring the cylinder to TDC. Tighten the
adjusting srew on the rocker until you can no longer spin the pushrod, then
tighten it one full turn more. OK so, my experience with adjustable valves
is all air-cooled; Japanese bikes and VW's. On those you are trying to
adjust for small (.006 mm) GAPS between the rocker and the valve stem. Does
this motor have solid lifters, or hydraulic? Is this an accurate valve
adjustment method? I basically trust the good folks at Chilton's but my
instincts are screaming, "run away, run away!"

Thanks for any help you can give,
Tom Humphreys, West Seattle
'71 Westy "Mach Schnell"
'67 Beetle
'83 F250

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 20:07:37 +1100
From: les williams
Subject: Re: FTE 80-96 - Re: 80-96-Water Injection

Hi Dick,
Thanks for the info. It just goes to show, no matter how new an idea may be to
you, more than likley it's all been tried before. I don't have the dual plugs per
cylinder, but exotic ignition does exist. See your friendly MSD ignition
supplier, and ask to look at the catalogue, in particular towards the end, under....

---

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.