Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 80-96-list); Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:05:30 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:05:30 -0500 (EST)
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 #228
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 Sun, 29 Oct 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 228

In This Issue:
Re: shocks
Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.
Re: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford
Re: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.
Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
Re: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.
Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
ADMIN: Off topic
Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?

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

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:39:06 -0700
Subject: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
From: Joan and Walt Posluszny <redstone home.com>

Some pertinent experience here.

I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock shocks
with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were great
on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a kidney
belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it wasn't
comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop smooth,
not even the freeways.

I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure the 2
front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them in the
correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]  I've
had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they are
just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too soft and
spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far, the
stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble opinion.

Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their adjustability...but
I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else buy
them and tell me how they feel.

My 2-cents.  Walt
>
> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: Shocks
>
> WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
>
> I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen anyone
> with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question, though.
> Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will two do
> the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well spent".
>
> Thanks again to all of you.


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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:58:23 -0600
From: Ezekial <ezekial mmind.net>
Subject: Re: shocks

I put of a set of RS9000's on my ol 88 F-150 2wd.  I went through 3
different shocks on one side, they kept blowing.. and I am not that
awesomly ruff on them, but pretty ruff.  Then it has set about a year,
and I decided to take them off to test fit on my 93 4wd, and well both
are blown.

I am never buying another Rancho product.

--

Ezekial (Derrick)
93 F-150 4x4, 351, SC, SB
66 Fastback Stang, 289HP, 4sp
96 Conv. Stang, 3.8, lil add ons
www2.mmind.net/ezekial/

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

From: "Terence Underwood" <terenceu1 prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:20:14 -0500

I've heard many similar complaints on the Bronco mailing list about he
Rancho 5000's in the quad front setup.  Every comment I've seen says they
make their truck ride like a log wagon.  Many who buy the 5000's in the end
switch to 9000's.  I think the 9000's would make a great choice, I've never
once heard a bad comment about them.

Terence Underwood
terenceu1 prodigy.net

'95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
'94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed

-----Original Message-----
From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Joan and Walt
Posluszny
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:39 AM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [80-96-list] Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?


Some pertinent experience here.

I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock shocks
with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were great
on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a kidney
belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it wasn't
comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop smooth,
not even the freeways.

I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure the 2
front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them in the
correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]  I've
had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they are
just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too soft and
spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far, the
stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble opinion.

Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their adjustability...but
I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else buy
them and tell me how they feel.

My 2-cents.  Walt
>
> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: Shocks
>
> WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
>
> I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen anyone
> with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question, though.
> Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will two do
> the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well spent".
>
> Thanks again to all of you.

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


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

From: "Dave Harmier" <dharmier pdq.net>
Subject: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:50:00 -0600

Does anyone have any experience, good or bad, with Parallel Port CDRW
drives? My machine is an early '98 AMD K-5 166 with NO usb capability. I
have a CD drive and Two Hard Drives, so I'm not too sure I can use an
internal IDE drive. I bet someone knows all about this!!!!

Ford stuff: The '92 had starting trouble... a new negative cable and a
SUPER cleaning of the other connections has fixed it.

The Beast: Blew the crap out of a Kumho tire on the right rear. Eek! Panic!
NOT!!!!
Also hit a bump and passenger window fell down. Three 1/4" nuts in place of
all that crumbled plastic has done the trick.

The '91 took a stone in the condenser (A/C) about $300 later she's good to
go.

Dave H.
90 F 350 Crew LWB Diesel (The Beast)
91 F 150 SC LWB 5.8 (Dads)
92 F 150 SC SWB 5.0 (Sisters)

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:27:16 -0800
From: chuck sanborn <slammer deltanet.com>
Subject: Re: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford

At 09:50 AM 10/29/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Does anyone have any experience, good or bad, with Parallel Port CDRW
>drives?
>I have a CD drive and Two Hard Drives, so I'm not too sure I can use an
>internal IDE drive. I bet someone knows all about this!!!!

I use an HP8200i, ide cdrw.  It is a slave drive.  I took out (but will put
back in)
my other cdrom drive.
Chuck


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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:44:21 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy <bobkennedy uswest.net>
Subject: Re: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.

Find the book on your mother board. If you have 3 IDE devices now, then you can
probably support a fourth. This means that you have a primary and secondary IDE
interface on your motherboard. The issue may be whether or not you have and IRQ
left.
You may have to disable something to use the CDRW.

Bob


Dave Harmier wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience, good or bad, with Parallel Port CDRW
> drives? My machine is an early '98 AMD K-5 166 with NO usb capability. I
> have a CD drive and Two Hard Drives, so I'm not too sure I can use an
> internal IDE drive. I bet someone knows all about this!!!!
>
> Ford stuff: The '92 had starting trouble... a new negative cable and a
> SUPER cleaning of the other connections has fixed it.
>
> The Beast: Blew the crap out of a Kumho tire on the right rear. Eek! Panic!
> NOT!!!!
> Also hit a bump and passenger window fell down. Three 1/4" nuts in place of
> all that crumbled plastic has done the trick.
>
> The '91 took a stone in the condenser (A/C) about $300 later she's good to
> go.
>
> Dave H.
> 90 F 350 Crew LWB Diesel (The Beast)
> 91 F 150 SC LWB 5.8 (Dads)
> 92 F 150 SC SWB 5.0 (Sisters)
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

--
2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
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"



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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:56:54 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy <bobkennedy uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?

Well, I need to toss my .02 in here. The missus has a '92 Bronco, 4" lift, 2"
body lift. 35" BFG MTs. With a Trailmaster steering stabilizer on it, this thing
rides down the road as smooth as a Caddy. The passenger side shock as been
destroyed, (if you've seen her in the mud, you'd understand) and I'm going back
with the RS 5000's. Either that talk with RTC and get a set of Cepek's. The RS
5000 has ridden well and had the snot beat out of it. I'll go back to them in a
minute.

Bob


Terence Underwood wrote:

> I've heard many similar complaints on the Bronco mailing list about he
> Rancho 5000's in the quad front setup.  Every comment I've seen says they
> make their truck ride like a log wagon.  Many who buy the 5000's in the end
> switch to 9000's.  I think the 9000's would make a great choice, I've never
> once heard a bad comment about them.
>
> Terence Underwood
> terenceu1 prodigy.net
>
> '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Joan and Walt
> Posluszny
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:39 AM
> To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: [80-96-list] Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
>
> Some pertinent experience here.
>
> I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock shocks
> with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were great
> on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a kidney
> belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it wasn't
> comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop smooth,
> not even the freeways.
>
> I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure the 2
> front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them in the
> correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]  I've
> had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they are
> just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too soft and
> spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
> supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far, the
> stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble opinion.
>
> Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their adjustability...but
> I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else buy
> them and tell me how they feel.
>
> My 2-cents.  Walt
> >
> > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> > From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> > Subject: Re: Shocks
> >
> > WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
> >
> > I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen anyone
> > with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question, though.
> > Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will two do
> > the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well spent".
> >
> > Thanks again to all of you.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

--
2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
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: "Terence Underwood" <terenceu1 prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:33:07 -0600

Yes, I'm a software engineer and head tech support for a video editing PC
that my company produces.  I have LOTS of experience in this area.  You have
support for 4 IDE drives, 2 per IDE interface.  One will be a master and one
a slave.  Usually the best way to go is to have your HD's as the masters,
one on each interface, and the CD-ROM's as the slaves.  Making them master
or slave is as easy as setting a jumper on the back of each drive.  See your
manuals for jumper settings.  If you have no manuals, the settings are
usually illustrated on the top of the drive.

You may also need to setup the interfaces in you BIOS configuration,
depending on whether your BIOS is auto-configure or not.  You will not have
to worry about having an open IRQ, as IRQ's are set per interface and not
per drive, and you are already using both interfaces.


Please feel free to email me off list for further instruction!

-----Original Message-----
From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Dave Harmier
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 9:50 AM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [80-96-list] A Question about CDRW? and a bit of Ford Content.


Does anyone have any experience, good or bad, with Parallel Port CDRW
drives? My machine is an early '98 AMD K-5 166 with NO usb capability. I
have a CD drive and Two Hard Drives, so I'm not too sure I can use an
internal IDE drive. I bet someone knows all about this!!!!

Ford stuff: The '92 had starting trouble... a new negative cable and a
SUPER cleaning of the other connections has fixed it.

The Beast: Blew the crap out of a Kumho tire on the right rear. Eek! Panic!
NOT!!!!
Also hit a bump and passenger window fell down. Three 1/4" nuts in place of
all that crumbled plastic has done the trick.

The '91 took a stone in the condenser (A/C) about $300 later she's good to
go.

Dave H.
90 F 350 Crew LWB Diesel (The Beast)
91 F 150 SC LWB 5.8 (Dads)
92 F 150 SC SWB 5.0 (Sisters)
=============================================================
To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
Please remove this footer when replying.


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

From: "Terence Underwood" <terenceu1 prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:38:28 -0600

They are very sturdy shocks, I agree.  But the originator of this thread was
looking for a smooth-riding shock for a stock vehicle, and IMHO the 5000's
won't fit the bill.  Your longer travel may make the ride much smoother than
the limited travel of the stock setup.  You didn't state, do you have the
quad front setup?  5000's work great with the 2-shock setup.

Terence Underwood
terenceu1 prodigy.net

'95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
'94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed

-----Original Message-----
From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Bob Kennedy
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:57 AM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [80-96-list] Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?


Well, I need to toss my .02 in here. The missus has a '92 Bronco, 4" lift,
2"
body lift. 35" BFG MTs. With a Trailmaster steering stabilizer on it, this
thing
rides down the road as smooth as a Caddy. The passenger side shock as been
destroyed, (if you've seen her in the mud, you'd understand) and I'm going
back
with the RS 5000's. Either that talk with RTC and get a set of Cepek's. The
RS
5000 has ridden well and had the snot beat out of it. I'll go back to them
in a
minute.

Bob


Terence Underwood wrote:

> I've heard many similar complaints on the Bronco mailing list about he
> Rancho 5000's in the quad front setup.  Every comment I've seen says they
> make their truck ride like a log wagon.  Many who buy the 5000's in the
end
> switch to 9000's.  I think the 9000's would make a great choice, I've
never
> once heard a bad comment about them.
>
> Terence Underwood
> terenceu1 prodigy.net
>
> '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Joan and Walt
> Posluszny
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:39 AM
> To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: [80-96-list] Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
>
> Some pertinent experience here.
>
> I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock
shocks
> with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were
great
> on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a kidney
> belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it wasn't
> comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop smooth,
> not even the freeways.
>
> I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure the
2
> front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them in
the
> correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]
I've
> had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they are
> just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too soft
and
> spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
> supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far, the
> stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble opinion.
>
> Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their adjustability...but
> I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else buy
> them and tell me how they feel.
>
> My 2-cents.  Walt
> >
> > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> > From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> > Subject: Re: Shocks
> >
> > WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
> >
> > I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen
anyone
> > with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question, though.
> > Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will two do
> > the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well
spent".
> >
> > Thanks again to all of you.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

--
2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
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"


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


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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500
From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: ADMIN: Off topic

From the Ford Truck Enthusiasts Acceptable Use FAQ for
our mailing lists:

-No blatantly off topic posts.

This includes replies to off topic posts.  Please discuss
computers on someone else's nickel.  Search engines are
great resources but they are useless when they're not used.

Thanks,
Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts


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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:30:04 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy <bobkennedy uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?

2 front shocks 2 back shocks. If the RS 5000s are purchased for the correct
lift, (none in his case) they should function the same as a set for the 4" lift.
Wouldn't you think?


Bob


Terence Underwood wrote:

> They are very sturdy shocks, I agree.  But the originator of this thread was
> looking for a smooth-riding shock for a stock vehicle, and IMHO the 5000's
> won't fit the bill.  Your longer travel may make the ride much smoother than
> the limited travel of the stock setup.  You didn't state, do you have the
> quad front setup?  5000's work great with the 2-shock setup.
>
> Terence Underwood
> terenceu1 prodigy.net
>
> '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Bob Kennedy
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:57 AM
> To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> Subject: [80-96-list] Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
>
> Well, I need to toss my .02 in here. The missus has a '92 Bronco, 4" lift,
> 2"
> body lift. 35" BFG MTs. With a Trailmaster steering stabilizer on it, this
> thing
> rides down the road as smooth as a Caddy. The passenger side shock as been
> destroyed, (if you've seen her in the mud, you'd understand) and I'm going
> back
> with the RS 5000's. Either that talk with RTC and get a set of Cepek's. The
> RS
> 5000 has ridden well and had the snot beat out of it. I'll go back to them
> in a
> minute.
>
> Bob
>
> Terence Underwood wrote:
>
> > I've heard many similar complaints on the Bronco mailing list about he
> > Rancho 5000's in the quad front setup.  Every comment I've seen says they
> > make their truck ride like a log wagon.  Many who buy the 5000's in the
> end
> > switch to 9000's.  I think the 9000's would make a great choice, I've
> never
> > once heard a bad comment about them.
> >
> > Terence Underwood
> > terenceu1 prodigy.net
> >
> > '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> > '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> > [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Joan and Walt
> > Posluszny
> > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:39 AM
> > To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: [80-96-list] Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
> >
> > Some pertinent experience here.
> >
> > I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock
> shocks
> > with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were
> great
> > on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a kidney
> > belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it wasn't
> > comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop smooth,
> > not even the freeways.
> >
> > I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure the
> 2
> > front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them in
> the
> > correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]
> I've
> > had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they are
> > just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too soft
> and
> > spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
> > supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far, the
> > stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble opinion.
> >
> > Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their adjustability...but
> > I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else buy
> > them and tell me how they feel.
> >
> > My 2-cents.  Walt
> > >
> > > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> > > From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> > > Subject: Re: Shocks
> > >
> > > WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
> > >
> > > I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen
> anyone
> > > with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question, though.
> > > Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will two do
> > > the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well
> spent".
> > >
> > > Thanks again to all of you.
> >
> > =============================================================
> > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > Please remove this footer when replying.
> >
> > =============================================================
> > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > Please remove this footer when replying.
>
> --
> 2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
> 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"
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

--
2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
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"



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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:40:05 -0800
From: Bob Kennedy <bobkennedy uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?

As I read my post, single shocks in the front is what I meant. But I'm sticking by
my thoughts about them on a vehicle with no lift.

Bob


Bob Kennedy wrote:

> 2 front shocks 2 back shocks. If the RS 5000s are purchased for the correct
> lift, (none in his case) they should function the same as a set for the 4" lift.
> Wouldn't you think?
>
> Bob
>
> Terence Underwood wrote:
>
> > They are very sturdy shocks, I agree.  But the originator of this thread was
> > looking for a smooth-riding shock for a stock vehicle, and IMHO the 5000's
> > won't fit the bill.  Your longer travel may make the ride much smoother than
> > the limited travel of the stock setup.  You didn't state, do you have the
> > quad front setup?  5000's work great with the 2-shock setup.
> >
> > Terence Underwood
> > terenceu1 prodigy.net
> >
> > '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> > '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> > [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Bob Kennedy
> > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:57 AM
> > To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: [80-96-list] Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
> >
> > Well, I need to toss my .02 in here. The missus has a '92 Bronco, 4" lift,
> > 2"
> > body lift. 35" BFG MTs. With a Trailmaster steering stabilizer on it, this
> > thing
> > rides down the road as smooth as a Caddy. The passenger side shock as been
> > destroyed, (if you've seen her in the mud, you'd understand) and I'm going
> > back
> > with the RS 5000's. Either that talk with RTC and get a set of Cepek's. The
> > RS
> > 5000 has ridden well and had the snot beat out of it. I'll go back to them
> > in a
> > minute.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Terence Underwood wrote:
> >
> > > I've heard many similar complaints on the Bronco mailing list about he
> > > Rancho 5000's in the quad front setup.  Every comment I've seen says they
> > > make their truck ride like a log wagon.  Many who buy the 5000's in the
> > end
> > > switch to 9000's.  I think the 9000's would make a great choice, I've
> > never
> > > once heard a bad comment about them.
> > >
> > > Terence Underwood
> > > terenceu1 prodigy.net
> > >
> > > '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> > > '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> > > [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Joan and Walt
> > > Posluszny
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:39 AM
> > > To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> > > Subject: [80-96-list] Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
> > >
> > > Some pertinent experience here.
> > >
> > > I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock
> > shocks
> > > with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were
> > great
> > > on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a kidney
> > > belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it wasn't
> > > comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop smooth,
> > > not even the freeways.
> > >
> > > I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure the
> > 2
> > > front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them in
> > the
> > > correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]
> > I've
> > > had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they are
> > > just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too soft
> > and
> > > spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
> > > supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far, the
> > > stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble opinion.
> > >
> > > Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their adjustability...but
> > > I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else buy
> > > them and tell me how they feel.
> > >
> > > My 2-cents.  Walt
> > > >
> > > > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> > > > From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: Shocks
> > > >
> > > > WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
> > > >
> > > > I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen
> > anyone
> > > > with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question, though.
> > > > Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will two do
> > > > the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well
> > spent".
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again to all of you.
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> > > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > > Please remove this footer when replying.
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> > > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > > Please remove this footer when replying.
> >
> > --
> > 2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
> > 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"
> >
> > =============================================================
> > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > Please remove this footer when replying.
> >
> > =============================================================
> > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > Please remove this footer when replying.
>
> --
> 2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
> 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"
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.

--
2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
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: "Terence Underwood" <terenceu1 prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:59:11 -0600

The only complaints I've heard about the shocks being too stiff have been
from those who own Broncos with quad shock option.  The originator of the
thread has the quad shock option, thus I do not recommend them to him.  Most
people who do not have the quad setup are happy with them.

Terence Underwood
terenceu1 prodigy.net

'95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
'94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed

-----Original Message-----
From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Bob Kennedy
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 5:40 PM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [80-96-list] Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?


As I read my post, single shocks in the front is what I meant. But I'm
sticking by
my thoughts about them on a vehicle with no lift.

Bob


Bob Kennedy wrote:

> 2 front shocks 2 back shocks. If the RS 5000s are purchased for the
correct
> lift, (none in his case) they should function the same as a set for the 4"
lift.
> Wouldn't you think?
>
> Bob
>
> Terence Underwood wrote:
>
> > They are very sturdy shocks, I agree.  But the originator of this thread
was
> > looking for a smooth-riding shock for a stock vehicle, and IMHO the
5000's
> > won't fit the bill.  Your longer travel may make the ride much smoother
than
> > the limited travel of the stock setup.  You didn't state, do you have
the
> > quad front setup?  5000's work great with the 2-shock setup.
> >
> > Terence Underwood
> > terenceu1 prodigy.net
> >
> > '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> > '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> > [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Bob Kennedy
> > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 11:57 AM
> > To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> > Subject: [80-96-list] Re: Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
> >
> > Well, I need to toss my .02 in here. The missus has a '92 Bronco, 4"
lift,
> > 2"
> > body lift. 35" BFG MTs. With a Trailmaster steering stabilizer on it,
this
> > thing
> > rides down the road as smooth as a Caddy. The passenger side shock as
been
> > destroyed, (if you've seen her in the mud, you'd understand) and I'm
going
> > back
> > with the RS 5000's. Either that talk with RTC and get a set of Cepek's.
The
> > RS
> > 5000 has ridden well and had the snot beat out of it. I'll go back to
them
> > in a
> > minute.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Terence Underwood wrote:
> >
> > > I've heard many similar complaints on the Bronco mailing list about he
> > > Rancho 5000's in the quad front setup.  Every comment I've seen says
they
> > > make their truck ride like a log wagon.  Many who buy the 5000's in
the
> > end
> > > switch to 9000's.  I think the 9000's would make a great choice, I've
> > never
> > > once heard a bad comment about them.
> > >
> > > Terence Underwood
> > > terenceu1 prodigy.net
> > >
> > > '95 Bronco EB/351W/E4OD/BW1356/8.8 3.55 open/tow pack.
> > > '94 Probe GT/K&N cone/Dunlop SP5000/Redline lubed
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
> > > [mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of Joan and Walt
> > > Posluszny
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 1:39 AM
> > > To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
> > > Subject: [80-96-list] Shocks - Ranchos, Edelbrock, or what?
> > >
> > > Some pertinent experience here.
> > >
> > > I have an 85 F150 4x4 with a quad shock set-up. I replaced the stock
> > shocks
> > > with 6 Rancho 5000's.  I took them off after about 2 years.  They were
> > great
> > > on smooth roads and absolutely sucked on rough roads.  You needed a
kidney
> > > belt.  My wife refused to ride in the truck anymore, She said it
wasn't
> > > comfortable anymore.  Most of the roads around us are not tabletop
smooth,
> > > not even the freeways.
> > >
> > > I replaced the Rancho 5000's with 4 Edelbrock IAS shocks [I made sure
the
> > 2
> > > front ones were for a normal 2 shock front set-up and installed them
in
> > the
> > > correct position for a 2 shock front set-up since their so expensive.]
> > I've
> > > had these on for a year now and dislike them just as much except they
are
> > > just the opposite feeling of the Rancho 5000's.  These are way too
soft
> > and
> > > spongy feeling.  Frankly, I'm pissed after spending so much money on
> > > supposedly good shock set-ups....namely Rancho and Edelbrock.  So far,
the
> > > stock shocks, or their equivalents have felt best in my humble
opinion.
> > >
> > > Now maybe Rancho 9000's would be different with their
adjustability...but
> > > I'm tired of spending good money on bad shocks.  I'll let someone else
buy
> > > them and tell me how they feel.
> > >
> > > My 2-cents.  Walt
> > > >
> > > > Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 07:47:18 -0400
> > > > From: Martin Horne <flatspin optonline.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: Shocks
> > > >
> > > > WOW! That's amazing! Thanks for the warning.
> > > >
> > > > I think I'm going to go with the RS9000 from Rancho. I haven't seen
> > anyone
> > > > with a bad word to say about them yet. Just one more question,
though.
> > > > Should I replace the Quad front setup with Quad Rancho's? Or will
two do
> > > > the job? I dont mind spending the money if it will be "money well
> > spent".
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again to all of you.
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> > > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > > Please remove this footer when replying.
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> > > To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> > > Please remove this footer when replying.
> >
> > --
> > 2Big Broncos info line 206-224-3000
> > 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"
> >
> > ============================================================= ....


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.