 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not repost, forward or otherwise publish messages contained in these archives without consent from the respective author(s). These archives may not, in whole or part, be stored on any public retrieval system (FTP, web, gopher, newsgroup, etc.) by individuals or companies, without consent of the respective authors. Received: with LISTAR (v0.128a; list 80-96-list); Thu, 11 May 2000 19:14:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:14:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server To: 80-96-list digest users Reply-to: 80-96-list  ford-trucks.com Subject: 80-96-list Digest V2000 #84 Precedence: bulk ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts 80-96 Truck Mailing List Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ 80-96-list Digest Wed, 10 May 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 084 In This Issue: Re: Reverse Lights Propane question Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert 81 Bronco Australian Odometer Miles or Kilometres Re: 81 Bronco Australian Odometer Miles or Kilometre fuel pump question : intro/fuel pump question Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 Fuel pump questions... Re: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 Re: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 Re: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 Re: : intro/fuel pump question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Terry & Carolyn Welshans" Subject: Re: Reverse Lights Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 19:44:00 -0500 Joe asked: >I am trying to fix my reverse lights on an 82 E350 The switch >is located on the left side of the transmission. It has 2 wires >coming up from it and attaches to a connector under the hood. >I have power from the connector under the hood but when I plug >the two together still no luck. Is it the switch itself? Joe, pull the plug and jump the wires that do not go to the switch together at the plug. One of these should be battery positive, the other goes to the back up lights. With battery positive on the wire to the backup lights, they should light up. If they do, the switch may be bad. If not, start looking for trouble in the wiring that goes back to the lights, or a loose ground wire in the light assembly. Terry Welshans Lockport, IL http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=238749 http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.chicagoweb.net/tractors ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 22:48:55 -0500 From: Tom Wiggins Subject: Propane question Question for you guys running propane; What kind of mileage you getting from those 351W? Do you lose 10% when you advance the timing? How do they perform at high alttitudes? Tom Wiggins Valley Center, Ks. ------------------------------ From: "Shawn & Jennifer Clark" Subject: Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:30:41 -0500 les williams >>Unfortunately, unless there is legislative change, my God, what am I saying!!, there is no real reason automotive change apart from Style & Performance. Would Ford or any other auto manufacturer voluntarily reduced the pollution levels of the 60's if it wasn't for legislation ? It would be nice to think the changes over the last 20-30 years were just because they are good guys, and enjoy spending money on smog systems you don't want.- it just doesn't reflect reality!! << Exactly, simple economics. Free market capitalism is very efficient, but a certain amount of regulation is required to balance a company/individual's right to make profit with the needs of the whole community. That's why monopolies are restricted and/or broken up and the reason the original Clean Water legislation and Food and Drug Administration regulations were set up. When rules are written properly they put everyone on a level playing field. Typical mindset in the U.S. is that everyone wants to reduce emissions and have cleaner air...as long as *they* don't have to pay for it or be inconvenienced in any way. My industry is heavily regulated and we can't fart without reporting a release. When you point out to people that some of the largest sources of engine emissions left are lawnmowers, tractors, boats, and jet skiis, they look at you like you just stepped off of a spaceship. But don't get me started on the ill-conceived reformulated gasoline (using MTBE). It has been a waste of money and boondoggle from the start. I never could prove to myself on paper that it would reduce emissions. >> I did think your post would have provoked some sort of a response, or maybe it was tooo well balanced, and produced the 'noddy effect' - see above - media production.<< Actually, I want to compliment the whole list for not turning this into a flame war whether or not list members might disagree on such a controversial topic. The lack of namecalling here is credit to the entire group. I expected an attack or two as being a flake or commie, but none of that happened. I guess I can take off the Nomex now. >>Just out of curiosity, what sort of fuel/energy saving systems were you involved in, if your allowed to talk about it, that is.<< Mine have all been chemical process related--an energy intensive industry. I'm presently doing process development/pilot plants but did process & equipment design before that--including grass roots plant design. At times we came up with nifty, operable heat integration schemes on projects that would cut ~20% of the total high pressure steam usage in the design. Unfortunately, the relatively small factored cost of the installed equipment typically nullified the savings. In this industry capital is king, it seems that if you can cut capital by running with poor efficiency then that is what you end up doing. I've seen alot of this over the past ten years. There are plenty of energy saving projects out there, but they won't be implemented until there is a significant long term rise in energy cost or regulatory changes which favor the projects. Shawn Clark e-mail: sd&jkclark tyler.net ------------------------------ From: "John Watson" Subject: 81 Bronco Australian Odometer Miles or Kilometres Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 22:42:37 +1000 All, Does anyone know if the Australian Bronco's imported in 81 had the odometers in miles, although the speedo was in km/h ? I have just purchased one and filled the long range tank and it tells me I have used 40+ Litres for 180 km 's or miles. I just thought it seemed a bit excessive consumption for a 351 Auto ??? Thanks John ------------------------------ From: Mc Gregor JAMES Subject: Re: 81 Bronco Australian Odometer Miles or Kilometre Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:39:10 +0200 John , I have an 81F1504wdI6swb imported into South Africa around the same time and my understanding is that my speedo is in miles and km/h while the odometer (mileage counter) is in miles. Maybe our US brethren can give us some mpg figures for conversion into km/litre. James ------------------------------ From: BAH NWC.EDUSubject: fuel pump question Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:08:53 -0500 >The question that has brought me out of >hiding is..... I need to replace the fuel >pump soon......I would like to have an >external mounted fuel pump..and not have >any pump in the tank at all! I remember >working on a Ford of some sort a few years >back that had a frame rail mounted fuel >pump. Anyone familiar with these?...... >are they a stand alone pump?......or do >they use these as a pusher or something? The early EFI trucks (like my '86 F-150) used a high-pressure "pusher" pump that's mounted along the frame rail...but it is NOT a stand-alone, there is a low-pressure pump mounted in the tank that supplies a reservoir that feeds the high-pressure pump. With my dual tanks, I have 3 fuel pumps! Bruce Hanson Apple Valley, MN ------------------------------ Subject: : intro/fuel pump question From: craig n eggerman Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:35:29 EDT I have not done this on a permanent basis, but have done it a few time on trail rigs when the primary fuel pump quits. Usually J##ps. The secret to success is to place the pump as close to the tank as possible so that the pick up or suction pressure is as low as possible. I use to carry one of those cheap in line pumps that you can buy out of J C Whitney. Mount it next to the tank (It must have a good ground), find a hot wire with a switch (usually the tail lights), cut and connect the fuel line and instant fuel pressure when you turn the lights on. Just remember to turn the lights off when you stop. Pump pressure is real important. You don't want 90 psi on a 10 psi system. Any permanent set up would still have to pick up out of the tank through the existing electric in tank fuel pump that had the positive electric line disconnected. This works as detailed above. You would be better served if there was a way to pull and replace the old pump with just a tank dip tube like there is in a tank in a truck that just has a mechanical fuel pump on the engine. Some times the problem is the sock filter on the end of the pump being plugged. An external pump will have trouble picking up any fluid if the sock is plugged. Ford likes to sell you the entire sending unit for $300 +/-. Most of the time it is only the pump or sock that is shot and a new one can be installed in the sending unit with minimum hassle. In my 89 E350 with a 460 in a single tank, I have used a NAPA pump P74067 that is $60 compared to $300. Craig Eggerman juno.comCasper,Wyoming O|||||O ________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:01:09 -0500 From: Steve Deis Subject: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 I have an '88 F-150 with 2 tanks. I'm replacing both pump/sender assemblies as the rear tank pump is shot, as is the front tank sender. Some questions for the list (still waiting on my shop manuals)... 1/ What's the easiest way to remove the rear tank?? Some observations...first, I've pulled the filler assembly from the rubber hose connected to the tank. Noticed a 1-inch rubber hose inside the filler that looks like it extends into the bottom of the tank (!?). Why's it there?? Next, looks like tank can't be lowered because rubber filler hose crosses the left side frame rail, above the rail. Hose clamp on the tank side can be felt, but there's no room to get a socket on it. Finally, it looks like once the straps are removed, there's still a ton of stuff (particularly the metal return line) that will prevent the tank from being lowered enough to pull the old pump unit and reinstall the new one...any suggestions?? 2/ Front tank looks easier, though I'll holler if I find something weird on that one also. Thanks for any help/advice. steve in tx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:02:54 -0500 From: Steve Deis Subject: Fuel pump questions... Your Bronco has 2 pumps: low pressure combined with fuel sender in the tank, and high pressure mounted along the frame side rail. I'm in the middle of replacing 2 in-tank pumps on an '88 F-150 right now. Some things I'm thinking: Looks like you could mount an in-line low pressure pump on the frame rail near the tank. The exiting pump assembly would need to be pulled from the tank, the pump removed, and the space the pump took replaced with metal tubing. I bought an in-line pump for an IH that I had...it worked very well, and was about 40 $. Using the high pressure pump without a low pressure pump supposedly puts too much wear & tear on the hp pump, with resulting early burnout. Also, apparently high pressure pump is more of a 'puller' than a 'pusher', like the in-tank pump. If you're looking for an in-tank assembly, best price I've seen is from Atascadero Ford in CA. E-mail is ford parts-outlet.com. Prices were 20per cent off Ford MSRP. I got same prices from Lone Star Ford in Houston, but it would have cost me an extra 8 per cent sales tax. There's not nearly the deals available in Ford part discounts on the web compared to what's offered for other makes. hth steve in tx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:59:02 -0400 From: S Spaulding Subject: Re: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 Steve, I will respond based on changing both tanks in my '91, which may or may not be the same as the '89. The 1" hose does not go to the bottom. It will get in the way a little when you go to put it back together. Unbolt the straps and let the tank drop down some on the right. This will give you limited access to get the filler hose clamp off (still not that easy), and you can disconnect the lines from the pump. Those fittings should be the same type as on your filter. The fitting on the top line (not on the pump) pulls right out of the grommet on the top of the tank. It is not a pleasant job. Bear in mind that the bolts on the straps will not give up without a fight. Check the tanks closely for rust while they are out, because you may need new ones. Take the plastic shield off the front of the front tank and look at all the mud and moisture it collects, all in constant contact with your now-rusting tank. Steve Spaulding Steve Deis wrote: > > I have an '88 F-150 with 2 tanks. I'm replacing both pump/sender > assemblies as the rear tank pump is shot, as is the front tank sender. > Some questions for the list (still waiting on my shop manuals)... > > 1/ What's the easiest way to remove the rear tank?? > > Some observations...first, I've pulled the filler assembly from the > rubber hose connected to the tank. Noticed a 1-inch rubber hose inside > the filler that looks like it extends into the bottom of the tank (!?). > Why's it there?? > > Next, looks like tank can't be lowered because rubber filler hose > crosses the left side frame rail, above the rail. Hose clamp on the > tank side can be felt, but there's no room to get a socket on it. > > Finally, it looks like once the straps are removed, there's still a ton > of stuff (particularly the metal return line) that will prevent the tank > from being lowered enough to pull the old pump unit and reinstall the > new one...any suggestions?? > > 2/ Front tank looks easier, though I'll holler if I find something > weird on that one also. > > Thanks for any help/advice. > > steve in tx > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with> the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the > message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:53:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Lane Subject: Re: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 Wouldn't it just be easier to get a couple of buddies to come over, unbolt the bed and lift it off? Wouldn't that give access to the tanks? Roger On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:01:09 -0500, 80-96-list ford-trucks.com wrote:> I have an '88 F-150 with 2 tanks. I'm replacing both pump/sender > assemblies as the rear tank pump is shot, as is the front tank sender. > Some questions for the list (still waiting on my shop manuals)... > > 1/ What's the easiest way to remove the rear tank?? > > Some observations...first, I've pulled the filler assembly from the > rubber hose connected to the tank. Noticed a 1-inch rubber hose inside > the filler that looks like it extends into the bottom of the tank (!?). > Why's it there?? > > Next, looks like tank can't be lowered because rubber filler hose > crosses the left side frame rail, above the rail. Hose clamp on the > tank side can be felt, but there's no room to get a socket on it. > > Finally, it looks like once the straps are removed, there's still a ton > of stuff (particularly the metal return line) that will prevent the tank > from being lowered enough to pull the old pump unit and reinstall the > new one...any suggestions?? > > 2/ Front tank looks easier, though I'll holler if I find something > weird on that one also. > > Thanks for any help/advice. > > steve in tx > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with> the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the > message. > "Accomplishing the impossible only means the boss will add it to your regular duties." _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:01:40 -0700 From: Chuck Sanborn Subject: Re: Fuel pump replacement...88 F-150 At 02:53 PM 5/11/00 -0700, Roger Lane wrote: >Wouldn't it just be easier to get a couple of buddies to come over, unbolt >the bed and lift it off? Wouldn't that give access to the tanks? Ah HA!!! You just discovered a new use for my cherry picker for me.. :-) I was going to sell it as I doubt if I will have much need for it and do need the extra room in the garage. But....if it can be put to use, such as lifting the bed off the truck, well then, I can't very well get rid of it.....can I ? Chuck ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 19:17:45 -0500 From: a&b Subject: Re: : intro/fuel pump question This was in-tank pump for $60? craig n eggerman wrote: > Ford likes to sell you the entire sending unit for $300 +/-. Most of the > time it is only the pump or sock that is shot and a new one can be > installed in the sending unit with minimum hassle. In my 89 E350 with a > 460 in a single tank, I have used a NAPA pump P74067 that is $60 compared > to $300. > Craig > Eggerman juno.com> Casper,Wyoming > O|||||O > > ________________________________________________________________ > > > > > ========================================================== > To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with> the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the > message. ------------------------------ End of 80-96-list Digest V2000 #84 ********************************** ---------------------------------------------------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts 80-96 Truck Mailing List Send posts to 80-96-list ford-trucks.comIf you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send an email to: listar ford-trucks.comwith the words "unsubscribe 80-96-list" in the subject of the message. Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com ---------------------------------------------------------- .... 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 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. 
|