Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 80-96-list); Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:09:42 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:09:42 -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 #211
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
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 06:51:59 +1000
From: les williams <lesw cyber.net.au>
Subject: Re: Propane Power.
I don't doubt the figures from Jose, the problem with comparing LPG
economy is the number of ways LPG is installed and if it has to co-exist
with a petrol fuel system. I have heard claims of 5.0+ Km/ltr on LPG on
a single system Bronco, driven by a far more socially responsible person
Yesterday I was looking at a 6 Cylinder M/Benz with efi etc, the
specification of the owner is that it retain petrol fuel, 'I don't even
want the air cleaner modified'. The result is that a ring mixer was
installed in the throat of the air intake effectively reducing the
diameter by about 25%. Technically, there is nothing wrong with this, it
is a safe install, with the minimum of interference to the engine
control systems. Morally, I am outraged !!
This particular example, no way on this or any other earth will it
perform to the max. on petrol or gas. Both systems are now compromised.
I have seen a 300 cfm impco installed on a 460 cid F350, and it hit 'the
brick wall' at about 2000 rpm - Oooh Bugger ... It's the same as
pulling a 650 DP holley and replacing it with a 300 2BB and asking 'what
happened to the Zing ?'
Over the last couple of years, having taken a more in-depth study of LPG
systems, I am amazed at what I have seen being passed of as LPG
I will almost guarantee, just to show how much confusion there is in the
industry, go and talk to 6 installers and I'd be suprised if any two
will agree on any one system.
O.K. so I'm cynical !
As for the thermo/heater problem, I am using the 160F in the interests
of LPG performance and surprisingly the heater works just fine, and I
have the added bonus of the LPG vaporizer sharing the lines. This must
work. If the water level drops low, even on a hot motor, the vaporizer
will freeze, and stop the truck. Water pump checks out O.K. ?? or more
specifically, there are blades still on the pump impeller, not rusted or
corroded away ?
John Watson wrote:
> 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.
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 17:45:59 -0500
From: "Bill P" <peco onramp.net>
Subject: Re: 1981 F-150 Dual Tank Problem
Thanks for your response, Wallace. I was unable to contact my dealer today. So, I checked the NTSB/NHTSA website :
This defect isn't listed. There was one about straps on the outside of the tanks, but none concerning leaks.
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
----- 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
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.
You should be able to expect 200,000 miles outta that engine if you maintain
it :) The tappet noise is sometimes caused by no oil at start up.. I'd pull
the intake and replace all the lifters, pushrods, and cam it up a bit... :)
That seems to be my take on things though.. :)
Works well most of the time :)
>From: Andrew Antipas <aantipas sopris.net>
>Reply-To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
>To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
>Subject: [80-96-list] 460 suggestions
>Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:07:45 -0600
>I have a 1985 F350 crewcab 4x4 with a 460 and 4spd. The engine has the
>factory 4 barrel carb, air pump and egr valve. No factory catalysts.
>Don't know if Ford was able to do that on all their light trucks. The
>engine/truck has 125,000 miles on it. Does not burn oil, appears to has
>good oil pressure and runs well. However, there is a tappet making some
>noise for the first 20 minutes or so after a cold start up and then it
>goes away. I'm assuming a lifter is loosing pressure. Tried some engine
>additive with no change.
>Should I be rebuilding the engine soon? Or, could I pull the intake and
>valve train and replace the lifters? How many more miles can I expect
>out of this engine? Thanks!
>If it is time for a rebuild what would be your recommendations for
>upgrades. Intake, cam, carb, headers? Right now it is all stock under
>the hood and I could use some more power here in the Rocky Mountains. I
>tow a 20 foot enclosed car trailer or, haul a cab over camper, and
>To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
>Please remove this footer when replying.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 23:11:10 -0700
From: Randy Burleson <randii 4x4wire.com>
Subject: More 302/352 thoughts
> >Most Grand Marquis, Crown Vics and their Lincoln counter
> >parts also came from the factory with a 5.0L HO
Ummm... are you sure that is the H.O.? I did find out from an interchange
that some of the Lincolns had it.. and someone on this list pointed out the
older Capris, as well.
> >88-92 maybe a couple years earlier came with even better
> >forged pistons. The switch to hyperutectic pistons is actually
> >a step down.
Good to know... I just assumed they were cast. My bad.
> >I dont now how big the Amigo engine bay is but the
> >351 is a few inches wider and taller than the 302
That's not a huge issue... I can fit the width and I can cut the hood as
required vertically -- or run a scoop.
> >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.
All this makes me think that the right solution is to jam a junkyard 302 in
there for the short term, get past the smog referee with all the right
engine block numbers and MAF/SEFI/EEC IV electronics. After I get the SMOG
sticker, I can accumulate parts for any old 351 (not necessarily worrying
to find a 90-or-newer block -- heck, the older ones are much easier to
find), and rebuild the 351 long-block assembly to sneak under the 302
electronics when the 302 gets tired (junkyard engine, remember?). By the
time I get headers and accessories on the motor, I doubt the smog monkeys
would notice the difference in deck height... but the question is: is there
an intake that mates up with the top half of the Mustang manifold. Am I
Seems that would be the best of all worlds -- the extra displacement, the
stronger block, the MAF, the SEFI, and only OBD-I?
> >351W backed with a manual tranny was an option
> >for all pickups made in the 90's
A fairly rare one, it turns out.
>Trucks have better low end torque due to truck intake
>setup and cam.
I understand that. I'm geared at 210:1 at the moment, so I'm willing to
sacrifice a bit of ultimate low-end grunt in exchange for better highway
manners. With 4.55 axle gears and 80% overdrive, it should spin nice on top
of 35" tires.
>Probably won't depending upon tranny/gearing. Don't think you
>need 351 in Amigo.
Well, 'need' is very subjective... as is 'heavy.' For last year's big trip
to Lake Powell, Moab, and Colorado, loaded with full tanks, full gear, a
canoe, my wife, me, and the (BIG) dog, we tipped the scales just under 5K.
>Try 1995 truck motors in Ca. used OBD-I, EEC-IV, but had mass air.
I'm still looking... seems like this would be the PERFECT motor... but they
are tough to find.
Thanks for the help, guys... I'll keep looking. Rushing this won't help
matters... I have a GREAT fallback: buying a 90-92 Mustang H.O. Not a bad
worst-case scenario, IMHO.
4x4Wire, the Outdoor Recreation Network (ORN)
From: Awfanning aol.com
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:16:12 EDT
Subject: Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
In a message earlier this week, Randy Burleson wrote:
<< 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
In talking with a tech at one of the state run smog stations in the
Sacramento area, I got the impression that use of a pre-'90's donor vehicle
required the whole drivetrain to be used - fan blade to tailpipe, including
transmission. If this is not the case I would sure like to know. I have a
line on an '88 Mustang donor vehicle with the 5.0 H.O. engine and T-5
tranny, but I'd much rather use a truck transmission that's suitable to the
mechanical clutch linkage I have (or at least more suitable to truck use).
By the way, does anyone know how difficult it might be to adapt a later model
truck trans and clutch linkage system to an '82 era vehicle?
One more thing, if somebody is really ambitious there is a very nice
drivetrain out of a '98 Mustang available at a local wrecking yard. It's the
4.6l SOHC engine with T-5 trans, with 18k miles if I recall. I saw the car
come when it came in - it was pretty bad. I think they're asking under $2000
for the package.
San Jose, CA
From: Awfanning aol.com
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:29:14 EDT
Subject: Re: Ford V8 Swap - 302 vs. 351?
Jason Derra wrote:
<<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. >>
Here's sopmething I've been wondering - if you swap in a later model engine
into an older truck (like my '82 F-150), isn't there some sort of
transmission mounted sensor that will be missing as a result of not using the
corresponding later model transmission? ALso, does it make a difference what
vehicle the later model transmission is obtained from? For example, could I
use a late 80's truck tranny with a late 80's Mustang 5.0 engine?
We have a 1994 F-250 with the 7.3L non-turbo charged diesel in it. Last
year ar this time it kept eating glow plugs. (It would eat like 5 or 6 at a
time). The guy at the ford dealer said that there was some relay or
something that was bad. So we put that new part on there and replaced the 2
or 3 bad glow plugs. The truck ran great for about a week then two more
plugs, went out so we replaced them. The truck gave us no more probs thru
the whole winter season, but is acting up now. Gots any ideas why it keeps
eating the plugs? I thought maybe having like 6 brand new plugs and 2 old
plugs put alot of strain on the new ones and caused them to burn out, but
maybe I'm wrong. Is there another relay somewhere else we haven't found yet?
Should we put eight new ones in it so it will be equal pull on all of them?
End of 80-96-list Digest V2000 #211
....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
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.
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.