Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 80-96-list); Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:03:05 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:03:05 -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 #242
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 Mon, 20 Nov 2000 Volume: 2000  Issue: 242

In This Issue:
Fuel mileage
Re: was newbie, now traction
Re: was newbie, now traction
gear ratio for '93 Ranger
gear ratio for '93 Ranger
Re: gear ratio for '93 Ranger
Re: Fuel mileage
It's not physics, it's magic!
Service Cds
Diesel supplement
Location of Knock Sensor
Re: was newbie, now traction

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

From: "Sam Means" <smeans inetport.com>
Subject: Fuel mileage
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:19:44 -0600

There was an" Inventor" in the late 1960's from , if I remember correctly,
El Paso ,Texas who had a Ford Thunderbird capable of 140 MPG. The inventor
supposedly had a heater in the fuel line that "pre- vaporized"  fuel so that
only fumes were ingested into the cylinders. I think subsequent tests and
inspections revealed he also had a hidden gas tank.
When the big push came in the 1970's to develop leaner burning engines, it
was discovered that as the mixture was leaned, the average mean free path
between molecules of fuel increased to the point there was no ignition. When
an opportunity to ignite came along, the mean free path was statistically
greater than the spark plug gap resulting in high probability there would be
no fuel molecule within range of the spark. So..it was decided to increase
the spark plug gap to increase the likelihood of catching a molecule in the
right place. Increasing the gap required..you guessed it..increasing the
coil output voltage as mentioned in a previous post from Les from down
under. See we old guys are good for something.
Honda, in the late 70's or early 80's, developed a two stage combustion
process to get around this problem. Their solution was to ignite a
sufficiently rich mixture in a small chamber adjacent to the main cylinder.
The flame from the sub chamber served to ignite a very lean mixture over the
piston.
Basically, it boils down to this: in order for the engine to produce maximum
power, there must be enough fuel available in the mixture to burn all the
oxygen contain within the ingested air. A mixture slightly richer than
"Stoichiometric" is used for  internal cylinder cooling and to prevent
pinging.


Bruce; I was very happy and not suprised to see so many other inventors
who have had reached                  the same conclusion: The internal
combustion engine is capable of 2-5 times better fuel
                 economy with little changes. I too have stumbled on to
fantastic, supposedly unachievable fuel
                 economy. I have a 1987 Ford F150 Four wheel drive
pickup truck with a 302Cu In V-8, Fuel
                 Injected (Sequential port) and the Ford EEC-IV engine
Management system. For the past 3
                 years, I have averaged 42 to 85 MPG while running on
the front fuel tank (the truck has two
                 tanks). The reason for the increased mileage is that
the in tank fuel pump is defective, it runs
                 HOT HOT HOT. So, guess what is supposed to cool the
pump? The gasoline! When you run
                 the truck with 1-5 gallons in the front tank, the fuel
is heating up to 100 to 140 degrees F prior to
                 reaching the fuel injectors. Since this heated liquid
is pressurized in the fuel delivery system, it
                 can't vaporize. But, once it reaches the cylinders, it
vaporizes at a fantastic rate. Since fuel
                 injection systems use a closed loop design, unused
fuel is returned to the fuel tanks. The
                 computer determines the fuel injector pulse width
duration based on exhaust pipe sensors (O2)
                 to determine the appropriate fuel/air mixture. So the
system determines it needs much less
                 gasoline for a given air mixture at each cylinder.
When the gasoline super evaporates, the O2
                 sensor senses an overly "rich" mixture, then starts
retarding the fuel injector pulse width to lean
                 out the mixture. This mileage gain is not dependent on
gasoline supply, I have used Texaco,
                 Amoco, Super America, Phillips 66, Holiday Gas, with
no variation. Also, there is no mileage
                 degradation over time as you have reported with the
TCC systems. This phenomenon is
                 repeatable and occurs with NO modifications to the
truck, engine, computer, or fuel system. The
                 Fuel tank has the original cap which starts venting at
1.4psi. When I use the rear fuel tank, I get
                 the normal 13 MPG. There have been no derivability
problems, the truck runs the same on either
                 tank. I have applied for a grant from the Department
of Energy (NIST) to further develop an
                 add-on system for all sequential fuel injected
vehicles that could be cut-in during automobile
                 manufacturing as well. My grant application has made
it through 3 of the 5 rounds of evaluation. I
                 also am filing a provisional patent application (good
for 1 year), the invention is called the "Fuel
                 Vaporizer & Economizer" Ford Motor Company has shown
interest, they requested me to sign a
                 release document and send them all my data. I refused
of course. The EPA has a test program,
                 but it cost $6,000 to test one vehicle. They require
two vehicles for testing that represent the
                 majority of vehicles on the road today and in the
foreseeable future. I have not spoken about this
                 device in public, only family and a few close friends
are aware of it. I am working to add fuel tank
                 heaters (360Watt) and controllers to a GM vehicle to
see if we can duplicate the mileage gains. I
                 am looking for your recommendations, suggestions, and
any detailed explanation on why my
                 system works so well. Thank you for your help. Mark
Sampica









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

From: "Conrad" <conrad conrad.uk.net>
Subject: Re: was newbie, now traction
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:44:42 -0000

Hello again, thanks for all the info about my van. I've used it to start
various wheels in motion.

Next thing, while at Brands Hatch with weekend, my traction fears were
confirmed when I got stuck in the mud. Took about 20 mins of rocking etc
to get out. The jeep would not have even noticed it, so nor did I until
I got stuck.

I like the sound of the powertrax no-slip, but from reading one review
it sounds like it might be a bit obtrusive. Anyone using this diff mind
discussing it, or any other diff options for a street use vehicle?

Also, the tires looky like nasty cheapo jobs. I have scorpion S/Ts on my
jeep which are ok in mod, and really grippy/quite on the road. Are these
a good choice for the van (255/70x15)?

thanks all,

Conrad

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

From: Chris Hedemark <hedemark bops.com>
Subject: Re: was newbie, now traction
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:08:19 -0500

Conrad,

Save yourself some money.  Get either the Powertrax Lock Right or the
Detroit EZ-Locker.  I have the latter but the two are identical save for one
inconsequential part.

I've got this in the back of my Bronco.  I go through mud in 2WD now (TRUE
2WD) with the hubs locked but for the most part I get through without having
to shift my transfer case.  My tires are Uniroyal Laredo 31x10.50x15 street
tires.  It drives the modified Jeep TJ guys crazy when I take my largely
stock Bronco anywhere that they go (and a few places they won't go).

Having a locker in your truck does take some getting used to.  The Bronco is
short wheelbase so it is more obnoxious in my truck than it will be in your
van.  Basically if you get on or off the gas abruptly it tends to make the
vehicle lurch to one side or another.  In a Jeep it is enough to almost
cause a lane change.  In a Bronco it causes a slight lurch within the
confines of your lane.  By learning to manage the application of your foot
to the accelerator, most of this is avoidable.  If you apply gas through
turns you'll hear the tires chirp but if you lay off the gas or only apply
it lightly you won't have that problem (though you may hear some clicking
from the rear, which is normal).  I have yet to hear a "bang" as others have
described.

Cost for part: $240 from Macromotive.com (with Bronco club discount)
Cost for installation in 8.8" rear: $125 (though I got estimates up to $175)

I've done some incredible feats of traction in this truck with the locker
installed.  Enough to twist the body up and wonder if the windshield was
going to pop out (crossing a drainage ditch at 45 degrees with two opposite
corners of the truck completely off the ground).

Never heard of Scorpion S/T's.  Sorry.  I've had great success with Cooper
mud tires.  My hands down favorites for mixture of street and mud would have
to be BF Goodrich Radial Mud Terrain.  I'm wearing down the Bronco tires as
fast as I can to justify getting a set of 33" MT's (33x9.50 which is as big
as I can stuff in there without a lift or cutting).

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Conrad [mailto:conrad conrad.uk.net]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 10:45 AM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [80-96-list] Re: was newbie, now traction


Hello again, thanks for all the info about my van. I've used it to start
various wheels in motion.

Next thing, while at Brands Hatch with weekend, my traction fears were
confirmed when I got stuck in the mud. Took about 20 mins of rocking etc
to get out. The jeep would not have even noticed it, so nor did I until
I got stuck.

I like the sound of the powertrax no-slip, but from reading one review
it sounds like it might be a bit obtrusive. Anyone using this diff mind
discussing it, or any other diff options for a street use vehicle?

Also, the tires looky like nasty cheapo jobs. I have scorpion S/Ts on my
jeep which are ok in mod, and really grippy/quite on the road. Are these
a good choice for the van (255/70x15)?

thanks all,

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

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

From: kb9odg.mark juno.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:45:59 -0600
Subject: gear ratio for '93 Ranger

I have two questions for the list.  One, what would the rear axle ratio
be in a '93 Ranger 4x2 with the 4.0L and auto?  If it helps, it was a
regular cab/long bed.  I'm also guess that it has the 7.5" rear end,
right?  Two, is/was there a change in carrier size for different gear
ratios, sorta like the Dana 44?  Thanks!

- Mark Reimers KB9ODG
'66 Bronco 5.0L and AOD, 3.5" susp. lift, 3" body lift, 35" tires ...
'87 F-150 XLT 4x2 300 I-6, 4-speed, straight pipe ...

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

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

From: kb9odg.mark juno.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:46:25 -0600
Subject: gear ratio for '93 Ranger

I have two questions for the list.  One, what would the rear axle ratio
be in a '93 Ranger 4x2 with the 4.0L and auto?  If it helps, it was a
regular cab/long bed.  I'm also guess that it has the 7.5" rear end,
right?  Two, is/was there a change in carrier size for different gear
ratios, sorta like the Dana 44?  Thanks!

- Mark Reimers KB9ODG
'66 Bronco 5.0L and AOD, 3.5" susp. lift, 3" body lift, 35" tires ...
'87 F-150 XLT 4x2 300 I-6, 4-speed, straight pipe ...

Sorry Ken!
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

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

From: "Nichols, Josh" <Josh.Nichols svseeds.com>
Subject: Re: gear ratio for '93 Ranger
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:51:54 -0800

It should have the 8.8 rear.  You can use the same carrier for all ratios.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: kb9odg.mark juno.com [mailto:kb9odg.mark juno.com]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 12:46 PM
To: 80-96-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: [80-96-list] gear ratio for '93 Ranger


I have two questions for the list.  One, what would the rear axle ratio
be in a '93 Ranger 4x2 with the 4.0L and auto?  If it helps, it was a
regular cab/long bed.  I'm also guess that it has the 7.5" rear end,
right?  Two, is/was there a change in carrier size for different gear
ratios, sorta like the Dana 44?  Thanks!

- Mark Reimers KB9ODG
'66 Bronco 5.0L and AOD, 3.5" susp. lift, 3" body lift, 35" tires ...
'87 F-150 XLT 4x2 300 I-6, 4-speed, straight pipe ...

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
=============================================================
To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
Please remove this footer when replying.

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

From: "Andrew Abrams" <marcellus_metalcasters hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel mileage
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:38:09 -0500

While I was in college in the mid 70's, we examined energy balances in a
thermodynamics class.  There I learned that there is a certain amount of
energy contained within any fuel source; i.e., a fixed number of BTU's per
gallon of gasoline which would equate to an equivalent horse power.  I'm at
home and do not have the numbers in front of me of the values.  Our
professor was really into alternative energy sources and conversions, solar,
wood, alternative engine designs like the sterling engine and various
turbine designs.

We also did calculations on the required horsepower to push a certain
vehicle front through air at various speeds and compared it to one with a
smaller front.  It was amazing how much more hp it took at the then maximum
highway speed of 55 than at 35 mph.  Again I don't have the particulars, it
was 25 years ago.

While the thought of a carburetor that gives us 55 mph is attractive, there
are laws of thermodynamics that just will not let it happen.  To increase
fuel mileage one must reduce the amount of HP required to move the beast
along by; reducing the amount of air the front must displace, reducing the
amount of air drag from sides/beds/undercarriage/etc., reduce rolling
friction, reduce driveline friction, and drive slower.


Andrew Abrams
Marcellus Metalcasters, Inc
Gray Ductile and Alloy Iron Castings
Steel Fabrications
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Means" <smeans inetport.com>
To: "Ford Trucks" <80-96-List ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:19 AM
Subject: [80-96-list] Fuel mileage


> There was an" Inventor" in the late 1960's from , if I remember correctly,
> El Paso ,Texas who had a Ford Thunderbird capable of 140 MPG. The inventor
> supposedly had a heater in the fuel line that "pre- vaporized"  fuel so
that
> only fumes were ingested into the cylinders. I think subsequent tests and
> inspections revealed he also had a hidden gas tank.
> When the big push came in the 1970's to develop leaner burning engines, it
> was discovered that as the mixture was leaned, the average mean free path
> between molecules of fuel increased to the point there was no ignition.
When
> an opportunity to ignite came along, the mean free path was statistically
> greater than the spark plug gap resulting in high probability there would
be
> no fuel molecule within range of the spark. So..it was decided to increase
> the spark plug gap to increase the likelihood of catching a molecule in
the
> right place. Increasing the gap required..you guessed it..increasing the
> coil output voltage as mentioned in a previous post from Les from down
> under. See we old guys are good for something.
> Honda, in the late 70's or early 80's, developed a two stage combustion
> process to get around this problem. Their solution was to ignite a
> sufficiently rich mixture in a small chamber adjacent to the main
cylinder.
> The flame from the sub chamber served to ignite a very lean mixture over
the
> piston.
> Basically, it boils down to this: in order for the engine to produce
maximum
> power, there must be enough fuel available in the mixture to burn all the
> oxygen contain within the ingested air. A mixture slightly richer than
> "Stoichiometric" is used for  internal cylinder cooling and to prevent
> pinging.
>
>
> Bruce; I was very happy and not suprised to see so many other inventors
> who have had reached                  the same conclusion: The internal
> combustion engine is capable of 2-5 times better fuel
>                   economy with little changes. I too have stumbled on to
> fantastic, supposedly unachievable fuel
>                   economy. I have a 1987 Ford F150 Four wheel drive
> pickup truck with a 302Cu In V-8, Fuel
>                   Injected (Sequential port) and the Ford EEC-IV engine
> Management system. For the past 3
>                   years, I have averaged 42 to 85 MPG while running on
> the front fuel tank (the truck has two
>                   tanks). The reason for the increased mileage is that
> the in tank fuel pump is defective, it runs
>                   HOT HOT HOT. So, guess what is supposed to cool the
> pump? The gasoline! When you run
>                   the truck with 1-5 gallons in the front tank, the fuel
> is heating up to 100 to 140 degrees F prior to
>                   reaching the fuel injectors. Since this heated liquid
> is pressurized in the fuel delivery system, it
>                   can't vaporize. But, once it reaches the cylinders, it
> vaporizes at a fantastic rate. Since fuel
>                   injection systems use a closed loop design, unused
> fuel is returned to the fuel tanks. The
>                   computer determines the fuel injector pulse width
> duration based on exhaust pipe sensors (O2)
>                   to determine the appropriate fuel/air mixture. So the
> system determines it needs much less
>                   gasoline for a given air mixture at each cylinder.
> When the gasoline super evaporates, the O2
>                   sensor senses an overly "rich" mixture, then starts
> retarding the fuel injector pulse width to lean
>                   out the mixture. This mileage gain is not dependent on
> gasoline supply, I have used Texaco,
>                   Amoco, Super America, Phillips 66, Holiday Gas, with
> no variation. Also, there is no mileage
>                   degradation over time as you have reported with the
> TCC systems. This phenomenon is
>                   repeatable and occurs with NO modifications to the
> truck, engine, computer, or fuel system. The
>                   Fuel tank has the original cap which starts venting at
> 1.4psi. When I use the rear fuel tank, I get
>                   the normal 13 MPG. There have been no derivability
> problems, the truck runs the same on either
>                   tank. I have applied for a grant from the Department
> of Energy (NIST) to further develop an
>                   add-on system for all sequential fuel injected
> vehicles that could be cut-in during automobile
>                   manufacturing as well. My grant application has made
> it through 3 of the 5 rounds of evaluation. I
>                   also am filing a provisional patent application (good
> for 1 year), the invention is called the "Fuel
>                   Vaporizer & Economizer" Ford Motor Company has shown
> interest, they requested me to sign a
>                   release document and send them all my data. I refused
> of course. The EPA has a test program,
>                   but it cost $6,000 to test one vehicle. They require
> two vehicles for testing that represent the
>                   majority of vehicles on the road today and in the
> foreseeable future. I have not spoken about this
>                   device in public, only family and a few close friends
> are aware of it. I am working to add fuel tank
>                   heaters (360Watt) and controllers to a GM vehicle to
> see if we can duplicate the mileage gains. I
>                   am looking for your recommendations, suggestions, and
> any detailed explanation on why my
>                   system works so well. Thank you for your help. Mark
> Sampica
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =============================================================
> To  unsubscribe:   www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3
> Please remove this footer when replying.
>
>

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

From: Fred Moreno <fmoreno dualcurve.com>
Subject: It's not physics, it's magic!
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 16:06:41 -0700

Tom,

The letter you included did catch my attention as well. It's classic. I'm
not going to even jump at that bait just yet. But where did he get a SEFI
'87 F150?

Hmm smells like a snake oil salesman, does he wear a plaid suit with a
derby?
Gullible has not been in the dictionary since 1994 and I don't know why.

Hopefully most of us reacted like Uncle Les and I did, with a good harty
laugh. I had to share it. Thanks Tom. That'll wake up the list.

Phred
95 F150 4X4 gasoline or propane consumer 5.0L, 5-speed. Only 13-17 mpg and
still claim earth as home.




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

From: FLR150 aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:15:35 EST
Subject: Service Cds


Gang,
Just a reminder that I am able to get Service CDs for the 1992-2001 Ford,
Lincoln and Mercury vehicles. I have a KILLER deal on them right now for the
holidays. Contact me off list.
Better to be a racer for a moment, than a spectator for a lifetime
Later,
Wayne Foy
94 Flareside SC
NLOC #484
2000 #4 Top Truck
1999 #2 Top Truck
Atlanta GA
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/flr150/index.html
ICQ#58060858



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

From: "Terry & Carolyn Welshans" <welshans mediaone.net>
Subject: Diesel supplement
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:18:24 -0600


We have a 1989 F250 7.3 IDI 4X4 pickup with an owners manual, but no supplement for the diesel engine.  He called Haynes, but they say it is out of print, and they won't give us an idea when it will become available again.  Does anyone have a spare copy available for sale or to make a copy for us?

Please reply off - list.


Terry and Carolyn Welshans
Lockport, IL 60441



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

From: "David Anderson (EUS)" <EUSDRAN am1.ericsson.se>
Subject: Location of Knock Sensor
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:56:39 -0600

Can someone tell me where the knock sensor is on a '90 F150, 4.9L six?  Haynes book suggests it's screwed into one of the manifolds but I can't find it.  I've got a bad pinging problem.  I will be checking timing first but a quick check the other night told me it's close.  I could not read the timing scale well in the dark.

Thanks,
David Anderson



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

From: "Conrad" <conrad conrad.uk.net>
Subject: Re: was newbie, now traction
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:49:56 -0000

Chris,

> Save yourself some money.  Get either the Powertrax Lock Right or the
> Detroit EZ-Locker.  I have the latter but the two are

ok, well I've studied these two now, and I must say I'm not yet
convinced. I'm after as close to limo ride quailty as I can get, and the
no-slip does seem to be worth the extra money according to the reviews
and the powertrax pdf. However, I think I'll put a lock-right in my
jeep.

> Never heard of Scorpion S/T's.  Sorry.  I've had great ....


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.