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 ford-trucks.com>
To: 80-96-list digest users ford-trucks.com>
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" mediaone.net>
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 earthlink.net>
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" tyler.net>
Subject: Re: SEMA Action Network Legislative Alert
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:30:41 -0500

les williams cyber.net.au> wrote:

>>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" illnews.com.au>
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 mossgas.co.za>
Subject: Re: 81 Bronco Australian Odometer Miles or Kilometre
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:39:10 +0200



odometers in miles, although the speedo was in km/h ?>

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: BAHNWC.EDU
Subject: 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 juno.com>
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
Eggermanjuno.com
Casper,Wyoming
O|||||O

________________________________________________________________





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

Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 14:01:09 -0500
From: Steve Deis avdec.com>
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 avdec.com>
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 fordparts-outlet.com. Prices were 20
per 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 worldnet.att.net>
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: listarford-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 excite.com>
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-listford-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: listarford-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 deltanet.com>
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 uab.campuscwix.net>
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
> Eggermanjuno.com
> Casper,Wyoming
> O|||||O
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ==========================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to: listarford-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-listford-trucks.com

If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing
list, send an email to:

listarford-trucks.com

with 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 not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.