Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 80-96-list); Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server <listar ford-trucks.com>
To: 80-96-list digest users <listar ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: 80-96-list Digest V2000 #210
Precedence: list

==========================================================
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 Thu, 05 Oct 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 210

In This Issue:
Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Re: f15o 4wd 300I6 1981 duel tanks
1981 F-150 Dual Tank Problem
Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Re: Was Catalytic Converter, Now Continuous Tune-Up
Re: Was Catalytic Converter, Now Continuous Tune-Up
Re: Catalytic Converter
Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Re: Propane Power.
Re: Propane Power.
Re: 1981 F-150 Dual Tank Problem

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

From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:10:39 -0700

>Replies within


I have been accumulating info on acquiring a Ford V8 ... it needs to be
90-or-later if I want to drop it into my Amigo and still smog it in CA (I
do).

I had picked the H.O. version of the 302 ... which I believe only came in
the Mustang, and a handful of full size cop sedans. I knew there are LOTS
of other donor vehicles with the same block (Grand Marquis, Crown Vic,
pickup, van, etc.) but they don't have the same power and economy package

>Most Grand Marquis, Crown Vics and their Lincoln counter parts also came
from the factory with a >5.0L HO

for which the H.O. is recognized.  Heck, there's more than a few variations
of Mustang motors... Ford changed the 302 multiple times over the years.
For the 90's the big milestones are: hyperutectic slugs come stock in

>88-92 maybe a couple years earlier came with even better forged pistons.
The switch to
>hyperutectic pistons is actually a step down.

93-and-up motors, and I believe Ford revised the water pump and accessory
package in 94 to make a shorter, narrower powerplant. Of course, in the
late 90's, Ford built the SOHC and DOHC 4.7 "modular" engines, but they
aren't yet sufficiently cheap for my budget, and they measure very wide
compared to the Windsor motors.

Several folks have been pushing me to go with the 351 Windsor from the

>I dont now how big the Amigo engine bay is but the 351 is a few inches
wider and taller than the >302 if size is a concern

truck line, suggesting that the fuel economy won't be all that different
from a 302... but I worry. I'm thinking that the 302, in near-stock form,
will provide 100% better hp and torque than my stock inline four, and still
keep me moderately frugal with respect to gasoline. Call me a dreamer....
35" tires pretty much kill fuel economy, regardless.

So that's the intro; here are the questions:
1.) I prefer a MAF injection scheme (better adaptability and better
economy) -- did any vehicles produced after 1990 (smog gating factor for
me) come with a 351W  with MAF? I know some came with the 351W set up for
speed-density.

>Supposedly CA emission equipped trucks were MAF in 95,  the Mustang 302 HO
was MAF from 88 on.
>All 351W got MAF in 96 but they also got OBD II which complicates things
like you mentioned.

2.) I intend to run a manual transmission... so I believe I need to focus
on the early 90s donor vehicles, which only had OBD-1. In CA, running an
OBD-II computer requires that you use the tranny for which the computer was
built.... are there any 351W's produced after 1990 that used a manual
transmission?

>351W backed with a manual tranny was an option for all pickups made in the
90's

I dug through the archives, but didn't find enough info for a decision, so
now I'm polling the group's collective late-model wisdom.

Randii
Randy Burleson
Managing Editor
4x4Wire, the Outdoor Recreation Network (ORN)
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.4x4wire.com

=============================================================
To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
Please remove this footer when replying.

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

From: "Serian" <serian mailandnews.com>
Subject: Re: f15o 4wd 300I6 1981 duel tanks
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:18:26 -0400

> I am slowly working through things that can go wrong at
> this stage of my vehicles life.Surprised to find that there
> are no fuel filters visible in the engine bay.
>
> Are these in the tank , how do I maintain them ?

If you have a carbureted system, the fuel filter screws into
the carburetor at the fuel bowl.  If you have EFI, and not
a carburetor, the fuel filter will be located along the frame
of the truck.

I would guess that a 1981 F150 is carbureted; if there is
no fuel filter at the carburetor, apparently someone removed
it in the past and never put one back in.

The 6-300 came from the factory with a Carter YF or YFA
1V downdraft carburetor; the filter is a Fram G22A or its
equivalent, and it screws into the carburetor body at the top,
on the forward facing side of the carb.
(At least it does on my '83)





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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 13:30:17 -0500
From: "Bill P" <peco onramp.net>
Subject: 1981 F-150 Dual Tank Problem


When I put gas in both tanks, the gasoline always siphons from the back tank to the front tank.  If I just use off of the front tank, it stays full until the back one goes empty.
Recently, the truck was parked on my driveway with the back slightly higher than the front (the back sits high due to overload springs) and both tanks had gas in them.   Gasoline leaked from the white rectangular plastic canister located just behind the radiator  (I couldn't tell if the gas was leaking from the canister, or if it had only accumulated there until it dripped off).  I removed the gas cap from the front tank and let it sit for a while.  When I came back, gas was leaking out of the fill spout of the front tank where I had removed the gas cap.
Ideas?  Any help will be appreciated.  I just don't want to start replacing parts, Easter Egging.
Bill P.




Thirsty?  http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://allwetwater.com


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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:31:21 -0400
From: James Oxley <luxjo thecore.com>
Subject: Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?

Randy Burleson wrote:
>
> I have been accumulating info on acquiring a Ford V8 ... it needs to be
> 90-or-later if I want to drop it into my Amigo and still smog it in CA (I do).
>
> I had picked the H.O. version of the 302 ... which I believe only came in
> the Mustang,

And Capri till 86. Also, late 80's MKVII's

> and a handful of full size cop sedans.

Never seen one with 5.0 HO, only 5.0 non HO and 351W carbed.

I knew there are LOTS
> of other donor vehicles with the same block (Grand Marquis, Crown Vic,
> pickup, van, etc.) but they don't have the same power and economy package
> for which the H.O. is recognized.

Trucks have better low end torque due to truck intake setup and cam.

> Heck, there's more than a few variations
> of Mustang motors... Ford changed the 302 multiple times over the years.

87-93 is virtally unchanged.

> For the 90's the big milestones are: hyperutectic slugs come stock in
> 93-and-up motors,

Forged pistons came in 86-93, much better than hypers. 86 did not have
valve reliefs. 89 up was mass air 88 up in Ca.

and I believe Ford revised the water pump and accessory
> package in 94 to make a shorter, narrower powerplant. Of course, in the
> late 90's, Ford built the SOHC and DOHC 4.7

4.6

"modular" engines, but they
> aren't yet sufficiently cheap for my budget, and they measure very wide
> compared to the Windsor motors.
>
> Several folks have been pushing me to go with the 351 Windsor from the
> truck line, suggesting that the fuel economy won't be all that different
> from a 302..

Probably won't depending upon tranny/gearing. Don't think you need 351
in Amigo.

. but I worry. I'm thinking that the 302, in near-stock form,
> will provide 100% better hp and torque than my stock inline four, and still
> keep me moderately frugal with respect to gasoline.

Stock broncos turn in 13-15 on the highway with 35's and 4 spd. Figure a
MPH or 2 for 1000 lbs less weight.

Call me a dreamer....
> 35" tires pretty much kill fuel economy, regardless.
>
> So that's the intro; here are the questions:
> 1.) I prefer a MAF injection scheme (better adaptability and better
> economy) -- did any vehicles produced after 1990 (smog gating factor for
> me) come with a 351W  with MAF?

Try 1995 truck motors in Ca. used OBD-I, EEC-IV, but had mass air.

>I know some came with the 351W set up for speed-density.

All truck motors came that way, 302-85 up and 351W-87 up to 95. All 96
(96-97 for F250/350) were OBD II, mass air, EEC-V, YUCK!!!

> 2.) I intend to run a manual transmission... so I believe I need to focus
> on the early 90s donor vehicles, which only had OBD-1. In CA, running an
> OBD-II computer requires that you use the tranny for which the computer was
> built.... are there any 351W's produced after 1990 that used a manual
> transmission?

Maybe on some F350's.

> I dug through the archives, but didn't find enough info for a decision, so
> now I'm polling the group's collective late-model wisdom.

Hope this helps.

                              OX


78 Bronco Custom, 400, T-18, 14 bolt/detroit/4.56, D60/detroit/4.56, 44
boggers, 9" lift
79 Bronco XLT, 351M, C6, D60/detroit/4.10, D448lug/Lokrite/4.10, 38.5
SX's, 4"lift
79 Bronc XLT, 351M, C6, 35 BFG AT's, 2" lift
86 Capri, turbo 5.0 (13.4 107)
90 Talon AWD turbo (12.7 104)
95 F250-460,4WD (16.9 82)

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

From: Fred Moreno <fmoreno dualcurve.com>
Subject: Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:45:24 -0600


Randy asked;

...here are the questions:
1.) I prefer a MAF injection scheme (better adaptability and better
economy) -- did any vehicles produced after 1990 (smog gating factor for
me) come with a 351W  with MAF? I know some came with the 351W set up for
speed-density.
2.) I intend to run a manual transmission... so I believe I need to focus
on the early 90s donor vehicles, which only had OBD-1. In CA, running an
OBD-II computer requires that you use the tranny for which the computer was
built.... are there any 351W's produced after 1990 that used a manual
transmission?

Phred's attempt to reply;

California went to MAF systems well ahead of the rest of the 49 states. I
recommend searching for a 1995 F-250 with the 351 and a manual tranny. Our
Mitchell manuals says these existed. These are  still OBD I.
You might even find some 1994 model year vehicles but I'm not certain what
would be under the hood.

Good luck,

Phred KD5AQB
Autotronics Control Corp, El Paso TX, a great place for off-roading...

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

From: Craig.Wallace emotors.com
Subject: Re: Was Catalytic Converter, Now Continuous Tune-Up
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:47:07 -0500

Bob Kennedy asked "Have you ran the codes?"....

Will do this weekend.  I'm getting tired of the guessing game.  I have never
ran codes on a vehicle before, but have a manual at home describing how to
do it.  I am going to get a basic voltage/ohm meter this weekend at Wally
World and figure this thing out.

My wife is giving me $$ for my birthday (10/25) to get a 3" lift for my
truck.  What a woman!!  I can't wait........but I HAVE to figure this
nuissance out before I add it on.

Later,
Craig Wallace
'94 F150 300 I-6
Brighton, Il

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

Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:31:27 -0700
From: Bob Kennedy <bobkennedy uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Was Catalytic Converter, Now Continuous Tune-Up

I volt meter is all I use. It's an analog type so the meter sweeps are easy to
see.
I hear ya about the missus'. Mine is the same way.

Bob



Craig.Wallace emotors.com wrote:

> Bob Kennedy asked "Have you ran the codes?"....
>
> Will do this weekend.  I'm getting tired of the guessing game.  I have never
> ran codes on a vehicle before, but have a manual at home describing how to
> do it.  I am going to get a basic voltage/ohm meter this weekend at Wally
> World and figure this thing out.
>
> My wife is giving me $$ for my birthday (10/25) to get a 3" lift for my
> truck.  What a woman!!  I can't wait........but I HAVE to figure this
> nuissance out before I add it on.
>
> Later,
> Craig Wallace
> '94 F150 300 I-6
> Brighton, Il
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

--
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superford.org/cgi-bin/sf.cgi?uid=default&vr2=1&ID=311
86XLT/5.0/AOD/8.8/D44 4.56 Detroit/EZ, 36x12.50x16.5, 6"/0"



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

From: "Nelson Vasconcelos" <NelsonV mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Catalytic Converter
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:35:36 -0400

Yes, I have a code reader and I read the codes. That's how I found the EGR
problem.

I'm gonna do some more trouble shooting tonight.

Thanks,

Nelson
89 Ford F150 4x4
300 L6, 5sp
4" Skyjacker lift, 3" body lift, 33" BFG AT's




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

From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:29:22 -0700

Replies Within:

> I had picked the H.O. version of the 302 ... which I believe only came in
> the Mustang, and a handful of full size cop sedans.
The HO came only in Mustangs and the Lincoln LSC's.

> I knew there are LOTS of other donor vehicles with the same block (Grand
Marquis, Crown Vic,
> pickup, van, etc.) but they don't have the same power and economy package
for which the H.O. is     > recognized.
The 302's in the standard passenger cars and pickups did not have roller
cams

> For the 90's the big milestones are: hyperutectic slugs come stock in
> 93-and-up motors,
The earlier forged pistons were better as far as performance goes.

> Several folks have been pushing me to go with the 351 Windsor from the
> truck line, suggesting that the fuel economy won't be all that different
> from a 302...
I would stick with the car 302's.  The intakes are lower profile and will
fit under the hood easier.
A 5.0 HO will give a light weight vehicle like the Amigo all of the power
you could want.

:
> 1.) I prefer a MAF injection scheme (better adaptability and better
> economy) --
The Mustang HO's were all MAF for the years you are looking at, 90 and
later.  The trucks went to MAF around '95.  The advantage of the car
injection system is they are SEFI instead of the trucks batch fire system.

> are there any 351W's produced after 1990 that used a manual transmission?
Any EFI truck.  But, you don't have to run a manual trans ECM to a manual
or an auto to an auto trans on the EEC IV system.  I have a auto calib ECM
with my 4 speed in my Bronco.  It will work just fine.

My advice would be to find a 90-92 Mustang 5.0.  It will have MAF, SEFI, car
intake for lower hood profiles, and the easier to adapt EEC IV system.  If
you need any help as far as the swap goes, just email me.  I've done a
couple of them in the past and have access to a lot of people on the Early
Bronco list that have as well.

Jason
'69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435
'96 F250 Ext Cab 4WD Powerstroke E4OD
Happiness is a handful of warm deer guts



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

From: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>
Subject: Re: Propane Power.
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:30:16 +1000

Les,

Thanks for the info.

I got a message from Jose in cairns who has a 1990 f150 4x4 5.8 efi with
figures of:

           I get on a highway run 5.5 to 5.7 Km/Litre on ULP and 3.7 to 3.9
Km/Litre on LPG.
that seems a little more than a 10-15 % increase.

What mileage do you get around town ??

For some strange reason, I have been getting a lot better milage on petrol
over the last few weeks. I've only has the truck since may, it seems to get
4.2km/l, up to 430 km per tank.... hooray.....
I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the warm / hot weather we have
had in the last 2 weeks.

I have another curly question you might have an answer to (it has been on
the lists, but no responses worked).
I have a clean / flushed radiator and heater box (that the water flows
through great).
I am running coolant and have a new thermostat.
The temperature guage sits on 1/3.
But my heater never gets above luke warm.
Someone suggested switching the top and bottom heater hoses, but it didn't
make any difference.

I had put a hotter thermostat in it, the heater worked fine, but the temp
guage nearly hit the danger zone in traffic.




John


----- Original Message -----
From: "les williams" <lesw cyber.net.au>
To: "John Watson" <johnw illawarramercury.com>; "FTE 80-96 ford truck list"
<80-96-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: 4 October 2000 11:35
Subject: [80-96-list] Propane Power.


>
> Hi John,
>
> I have sent this via the ford list, because there are others on the list
> with some LPG experience and I'm sure will let me know if I may be
> leading you astray. ;-))
> Ok now we can get down to more specifics.
>
> The real world economy of LPG varies as wildly as it can with petrol on
> any V8, the saving grace is that it costs half the price of petrol,
> unfortunately, I am not a shining example of economical driving
> practices. :-)) The best guide I can give you is Parramatta to Foster,
> as quick as possible, used 100 ltrs, the return trip, not exceeding
> 100kph, about 66 ltrs. My Effie weighs in at 2.97 tonne.
> An '81 Cleveland on gas is no problem, I would strongly recommend a mono
> LPG installation. By going LPG, anything to do with petrol can be
> removed, including smog equipment, charcoal canisters etc. There will be
> nothing to plug them into. Any future mods to the engine can be
> optimized for LPG. This is another big subject, but not for now.
> My preference for M&M (OHG) mixers v's Impco is the simplicity of the
> M&M and no diaphragms to split or leak. The best comparison I can make
> is the SU carby's vs the Stromberg cd150's, both look similar both work
> the same way but one uses a rubber diaphragm, prone to rupture, and the
> other doesn't. I'd use the SU any day. I think nephew Phred should be
> the one to add comments in this direction. The M&M is a performance
> orientated product.
> So when the Holley gets the flick, you will need the mixer, an adapter
> to the throttle body, a throttle body and a blanking adapter to close of
> the egr etc. Depending on the hood clearance a stock air cleaner should
> fit O.K. If the engine vaccum is very good at cranking speed, a cold
> start control may not be needed, My Effie doesn't need one, but the
> Fairlane did. The big problem here is installing correctly, NO vacuum
> leaks, and the PCV is correctly installed. THIS IS IMPORTANT. If the
> engine 'floods' on a cold start, yes it is possible to flood a gas
> fuelled engine, and it backfires, the resulting sump explosion will
> double or even triple the engine oil capacity !!! seen it done, not
> recommended.
> The condition of the engine, or more importantly the valves, if they are
> worn, LPG wont help to restore them. The good news is, there are plenty
> of people doing hardened seat replacements for ULPetrol, and that's
> exactly what we need.
> The next problem area and I hope Phred concurs with me here, is the
> subject of electrical fittings. The installer is not fitting a stereo or
> driving lights, where  failure is just an inconvenience. Even in an LPG
> only install, when you turn the ignition key, numerous relays and
> solenoid valves are activated in the engine bay and back at the tank.
> Look for an installer that uses 'quality fittings' and knows how to fit
> them.
> There is a number of don'ts installing the tank(s) and the plumbing,
> mainly concerning the clearance of exhaust systems, and of course ground
> clearance.
>
> Because this is custom work, the real important thing to consider is to
> pick an installer you feel comfortable talking to and is prepared to
> spend a little time explaining what you get for your money. IF you pick
> the installer on a cheap price only, be warned now, going to a different
> installer to try and rectify problems is not an option, he may be the
> only person importing that line of equipment, and no one else has or can
> get parts, especially when it gets to $10 ring mixers etc - the M&M
> costs around $400. Performance isn't cheap.
>
> The other 2 important points is to have a *very good* ignition system,
> and the cooling system. The regulator needs coolant water to prevent it
> from freezing ... I'll leave Phred to explain the theory & practice of
> ignition requirements ...
> Bronco's, because of the short body length, the tank is usually a Very
> Big Tank behind the front seats, in the cargo area. There may be other
> options. A.P.A tanks do have a web site, but the last time I looked, it
> was mainly aimed at the trade.
>
> You comment on the poor(?) LPG economy of the Commodore (for the US
> members, a locally produced compact Chebby ) is exactly the opposite to
> what I had been told. It doesn't use enough LPG to justify its fitment.
> I could be horribly wrong here, but maybe it's because the LPG is
> computer controlled between petrol & LPG use. The switch over point is
> about 2800 rpm. Even with my big foot, it would be possible to drive
> around town and not exceed 3000 rpm The problem as I understood it is
> the petrol to gas usage is not good. Answer ? Drive Faster !! ;-))
>
> The current economy you are getting, Hmmm, Well, err, at the risk of
> offending you, I have to agree with your dyno shop. When you made the
> requests for help over the holley and economy, I had nothing to add, so
> said nothing. I have a GT falcon that needs 165 litres (36 Imp Gallons)
> to do the same milage. Please bear in mind, we are driving around in
> vehicles that display all the aerodynamics of a Brick Sh*thouse. - and
> if you count the concrete slab, nearly as heavy.
>
> Your probably wondering who the hell is Nephew Phred, I keep referring
> to, - Phred is involved in the Alternative Fuels division of MSD
> Ignitions, What he doesn't know about the theory and practice of Propane
> usage and how to mix it and ignite it, isn't worth knowing - and he
> drives a dual fuel F150, in the US of A. I'll convince him one day, to
> step over from the 'Dark Side' and ditch the petrol.;-))
>
> I hope this helps and if you have any more questions, I'd be suprised if
> you didn't, feel free to ask.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Les
> Lost in the Land of OZ
>
>
>
>
>
> John Watson wrote:
> >
> > Les,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'mn looking into converting my '81 351 C Auto Bronco to gas.
> >
> > I had a couple of questions:
> >
> > What are the real, around town MPG figures for gas trucks.
> > I have heard you can get equal top end power and increase low end torque
> > from gas over petrol, what setups / mixers etc are needed.
> > What should I look out for in a gas conversion (potential snags) , any
brand
> > equipment to reccomend ??
> > I have heard varying comments, such as a late model commodore uses twice
as
> > much gas as petrol and therefore there are not really any savings.
> > I was thinking of switching to straight gas, can you get a gas tank the
size
> > to swap out the petrol take.
> > What distance can you get out of what size tank ??
> >
> > I only get 350 - 420 odd km to my 100-120 litre tank now, the local dyno
> > shop seemed to think it was acceptable, I think not.
> >
> > Do you know of any good sites with info on LPG conversion.
> >
> > Any info would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > John Watson
> > '81 Bronco XLT 351C C6 Auto with a 600 Holley peice of crap.
> >
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
>


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

From: PSales264 aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 21:35:21 EDT
Subject: Re: Propane Power.

sounds like your heater core is air bound. while the engine is running re
move the heater hose that is highest, let the water flow out  then put it
back on and tighten it up again the makes sure there isn't a slug of air in
the heater core stopping the movement of water  good luck, PHIL

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

From: "Wallace A. Gustafson" <cobra2004 earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 1981 F-150 Dual Tank Problem
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:59:29 -0700

Call the Local Ford Dealer --- There is a NTSB Recall out for this problem.
Have VIN for truck so they can check to see if it has been done.

Wallace A. Gustafson -- a.k.a. Cobra
1991 Ford Mustang 5.0 LX Convertible (Cobra & Police Interceptor
Modifications)
1991 Ford F-150 XLT Lariat (Police Modifications -- In Process)
1976 Kawasaki KZ900 A4 (Restoration Project)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill P" <peco onramp.net>
To: <80-96-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 11:30 AM
Subject: [80-96-list] 1981 F-150 Dual Tank Problem


>
> When I put gas in both tanks, the gasoline always siphons from the back
tank to the front tank.  If I just use off of the front tank, it stays full
until the back one goes empty.
> Recently, the truck was parked on my driveway with the back slightly
higher than the front (the back sits high due to overload springs) and both
tanks had gas in them.   Gasoline leaked from the white rectangular plastic
....

---

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.