Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list 80-96-list); Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:39:00 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:39:00 -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 V2001 #17
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, 22 Jan 2001 Volume: 2001  Issue: 017

In This Issue:
Bad coolant air bleed proceedure
Re: brake booster removal techniques?
Re: brake booster removal techniques?
[superduty-list] 5.4 engine woes
Twin I beam front ends ...
Re: Twin I beam front ends ...
Re: Twin I beam front ends ...
SB42 Rollback, additional info
HELP - Carb Icing!!
Re: Twin I beam front ends ...

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

From: Fred Moreno <fmoreno dualcurve.com>
Subject: Bad coolant air bleed proceedure
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:52:27 -0700

Jim wrote:

Phred!
Yikes, man! I would never suggest anyone loosen the hose clamp with
the
engine running! I always loosen the clamp with the engine hot
(system under
pressure) but shut off. That pushes the air out easily.

Regards,
Jim Cannon

Hey Jim don't worry that ain't NEVER going to happen again. And I don't
believe you suggested it anyways. Just seemed like a great way to get air
out of the system....boy howdy.
I don't know where my mind was at the time. It was one of those situations
where just about the time you are doing something like that the brain
finally wakes up a moment too late and ask "why are you about to do that?"
No chance to work on vehicles this weekend, too many other chores. Can't
wait for the days to get longer and the time change. When is that by the
way?

"God Bless John Wayne": Bumper sticker seen on very big 1 ton Ford Crew Cab
4X4 dually.

Just a little smarter,
Phred, El Paso, Tx



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

From: RiTruckGuy aol.com
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:16:59 EST
Subject: Re: brake booster removal techniques?


I did one the week before last and ended up sliding a long pry bar down
between the top of booster and firewall.....it put up a bit of resistance,
the suddenly popped out.  This didn't cause any collateral damage to any
other components.  Its likely that the silver bracket (I believe its the
steering column support) you see has shifted slightly and is pinching the
booster bolts.

Bill
97 F150 SC 4x4
82 F100 Flareside 4.9

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:35:52 -0800
Subject: Drop Kits
From: Vic Erwin <vic webdigs.com>


Hey-

I'd asked a little info on this a while back, decided I was going to sell
the truck, now it looks like I'm going to keep it.... Anyway.

I'm thinking of either doing a 3/4 or 5/5 (like the idea of keeping a little
bit of a rake). Don't know if I'd like to lose as much ground clearance as I
would with the 5/5, but the radicalness of it seems cool.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an I-beam swap will give me a 3" drop up front
and I can get 2" more from springs. In the rear, I can go up to 4" with a
shackle kit, or 5" with an axle flip.


Two questions:

1) The two popular companies seem to be AIM and DJM. Is one better than the
other, or is there another company that's better?

2) Is the axle flip kit a bad idea for trucks that do a lot of towing -
general purpose of my truck is to two my race car and trailer (under
4500lbs).

Thanks
-Vic


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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:34:41 -0600
From: "Justin Schick" <jschick aafp.org>
Subject: Re: brake booster removal techniques?


Yep, a buddy ended up having the perfect tool. I soaked the front and back sides twice with Liquid Wrench, and he brought over a pry bar about two feet long. Once side had a point to it, the other was flattened (like a screwdriver).

I had to laugh at the thought of three grown men pulling on the thing the day before to no avail, whereas it took me all of two minutes with the 'super tool' the next day...

Thanks for the input!

Justin 85 F-150 300 / 4spd / 4X4

>>> RiTruckGuy aol.com 01/22/01 01:16PM >>>

I did one the week before last and ended up sliding a long pry bar down
between the top of booster and firewall.....it put up a bit of resistance,
the suddenly popped out.  This didn't cause any collateral damage to any
other components.  Its likely that the silver bracket (I believe its the
steering column support) you see has shifted slightly and is pinching the
booster bolts.

Bill
97 F150 SC 4x4
82 F100 Flareside 4.9



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

From: Nite4x aol.com
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:26:35 EST
Subject: [superduty-list] 5.4 engine woes


   Hi, my name is Joe, and this post is actually for my uncle.  He has a 99
250 SD XLT 4x4 RC LB, 5.4, 5spd, with 30k on it.  After bring it to the
dealer for an oil consumption problem, he was told that the engine needed to
be replaced, and would be under warranty.  There was no explanation other
than the engine is "Bad".  Anyone else run into a similar problem?  My
concern is for the three other 99 Expeditions in the family, with the 5.4
motor.

Thanks,

Joe
Lost in jersey
92 F150 Nite 4x4 302 AOD 33's
Locked K&N Dynomax ACCEL
92 Mustang LX

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

From: "les williams" <lesw cyber.net.au>
Subject: Twin I beam front ends ...
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:55:50 +1100


Hi All,

Please accept my apology for seeking advise a little outside the normal
operating era (80-96) of this list.
Can anybody tell me when the twin 'I' beam front ends started on the 2X4
F100 series  ? I thought it was around 1955, US time of course !!

I have a 1964 F100 with propane fuelled 351 clevo (with 7 bent pushrods) to
a  mustang (??) auto overdrive box into a 9" rear end, with the 4.11(?)
gears ... Bugger ... as if thats not enough,
I have a problem, the front axle is a single beam, similar to an F250-350. I
thought it should be a twin 'I' beam ... I can't find any excess rivit holes
etc to indicate brackets being removed, etc. Very Curious ... But then I
could be very wrong.

The other problem is the propane mixer, a pathetic little weiner, an Imp*o
225 into a stock 2 BBL inlet manifold. No wonder it wont pull over 2500 rpm.
On goes a Funnell Web hi riser and an M&M mixer. We'll see 6,000 rpm, yet
...Of course stopping the rig is another sad story ...

regards

Les, still lost in the land of OZ







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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:49:02 -0500
From: Ken Payne <kpayne ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: Twin I beam front ends ...


At 05:55 AM 1/23/01, you wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>Please accept my apology for seeking advise a little outside the normal
>operating era (80-96) of this list.
>Can anybody tell me when the twin 'I' beam front ends started on the 2X4
>F100 series  ? I thought it was around 1955, US time of course !!

1965.

Ken Payne
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts



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

From: rexbennett eibiz.net
Subject: Re: Twin I beam front ends ...
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:05:56 -0600


Les,
What Overdrive Auto tranny do you have bolted to this Cleveland motor?

Rex

-----Original Message-----
From: 80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com
[mailto:80-96-list-bounce ford-trucks.com]On Behalf Of les williams
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 4:56 AM
To: FTE 80-96 ford truck list
Subject: [80-96-list] Twin I beam front ends ...



Hi All,

Please accept my apology for seeking advise a little outside the normal
operating era (80-96) of this list.
Can anybody tell me when the twin 'I' beam front ends started on the 2X4
F100 series  ? I thought it was around 1955, US time of course !!

I have a 1964 F100 with propane fuelled 351 clevo (with 7 bent pushrods) to
a  mustang (??) auto overdrive box into a 9" rear end, with the 4.11(?)
gears ... Bugger ... as if thats not enough,
I have a problem, the front axle is a single beam, similar to an F250-350. I
thought it should be a twin 'I' beam ... I can't find any excess rivit holes
etc to indicate brackets being removed, etc. Very Curious ... But then I
could be very wrong.

The other problem is the propane mixer, a pathetic little weiner, an Imp*o
225 into a stock 2 BBL inlet manifold. No wonder it wont pull over 2500 rpm.
On goes a Funnell Web hi riser and an M&M mixer. We'll see 6,000 rpm, yet
...Of course stopping the rig is another sad story ...

regards

Les, still lost in the land of OZ









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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:16:10 -0800
From: Chuck Sanborn <slammer deltanet.com>
Subject: SB42 Rollback, additional info


Just to keep you all up to date on this intened Smog Rollback thing:
Chuck

Posted with author's permission

Hi guys,

As you may recall, there were announcements on this forum regarding an
attempt to perform an end-run around SB42 and reinstate '66-73 cars in
California's smog check program, which would undo all the hard work that we
undertook in getting the laws changed back in 1997.

Following the announcement of a public hearing to be held on the matter, I
drove to Sacramento on the morning of Jan 18th and met up with Rick Moseley,
president of Gold Country Panteras, and Roger Andriesse, president of the
River City Shelby Club, along with Terry from Total Control, and together we
went to the meeting with the intent of voicing our concerns.

I was originally under the impression that the panel we were sitting before
had the ability to issue regulations and policy, but as it turns out, they
are merely an advisory committee, basically set up to offer suggestions to
the governor.  Apparently the Feds had told the governor that California's
air was still too dirty, and demanded that he do something about it, so the c
ommittee was tasked with coming up with ideas.  None of their proposals could
become policy without the introduction of legislation before the state
assembly.

Most of their proposals had to do with fine particulars of the smog testing
program (including issues such as eliminating or modifying the current
six-year exemption for testing of brand new cars, etc.), but seemingly
everyone in the audience was there to speak up regarding the proposal to
essentially undo the exemptions granted by SB42 several years ago.

The first surprise was that of the ten members nominally on the committee,
only four could be bothered to be present, meaning that they lacked a quorum
and thus no "official" business could be conducted.  They then immediately
opened the floor for public comment.

Several classic car owners and members of classic car clubs spoke up against
the notion of re-introducing smog tests for our cars, but virtually all of
them were graduates of the Neville Chamberlain school of negotiations, in
which one immediately concedes a substantial amount and only works to protect
that which is most important to them.

Most were arguing that their cars saw such limited mileage that they posed
virtually zero impact on the environment.  The committee members then asked
for suggestions to allow "classic" car owners to be exempt from testing,
while still subjecting owners of "non-classic" '66-73 cars to smog checks.
Proposals included proving "classic" status through having a collector's car
insurance policy, or generating a list of "approved" classic cars, or
eliminating the "underhood" inspection and simply testing tailpipe emissions.


Surprisingly, many of those testifying before the committee failed to realize
this was a classic case of "divide and conquer", and were more than willing
to support schemes that protected their own narrow interests while perhaps
throwing their buddies to the dogs!  The folks who had multiple cars that saw
little mileage were more than happy to support an exemption scheme for
low-mileage cars, but to hell with the guy who drives his '67 Mustang 10K
miles a year--let him go and face the Smog Nazis.  The guys who had
exceptionally clean cars, or had spent megadollars installing modern motors
or fuel injection in older cars, were more than happy to subject themselves
(and everybody else) to tailpipe tests as long as the underhood inspections
were dropped, and to hell with the guy with the hot cam in his carbureted '69
Camaro.

When my turn came to speak, I took a different approach and tried to argue on
EVERYBODY'S behalf, and questioned the entire legitimacy of the proceedings,
arguing that thanks to SB42, the issue of who should and should not be
subjected to smog checks had been thoroughly settled in a compromise measure
that passed with overwhelming support.  I also urged the members of the panel
to seriously question the "facts" being presented which stated that '66-73
cars were responsible for a sizable percentage of the state's total smog,
since these figures are being generated by highly partisan entities who have
their own personal agendas to advance.

Some background:  Oil companies have been heavily fined by the state and
federal governments for continually producing pollution well above acceptable
standards.  Rather than taking the time (and money) to clean up their dirty
plants, they have taken to a rather nefarious scheme, whereby they purchase
older cars (for $700) and then crush them, and take "pollution credits" which
are applied towards the total pollution generated by their plants.  The
theory is that old cars are generating pollution while driving, so if the oil
companies destroy a certain number of old cars, that offsets the excess
pollution they are generating, and thus they are allowed to continue without
sanction.  I've read one estimate that each $700 car they crush saves them
anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 in costs required to clean their plants,
making it a very sound investment for them!

The repeal of the smog check for '66-73 cars has deeply hurt this program,
because many cars were being turned in for destruction only because they
failed their smog tests, and their owners didn't consider it financially
prudent to spend the money required to bring them into compliance.  Now these
cars are no longer tested, and thus are no longer being offered up for
destruction in significant numbers, which is therefore costing the oil
companies mega-dollars in fines.

The composition of the board was rather fascinating; one fellow is a "car
guy" with a modest collection of collector cars, including a '73 Jensen
Interceptor.  Another rather sinister-looking fellow is in fact an agent for
Chevron, so you know whose interests HE is looking out for!

Most of the speakers were arguing against the repeal of the '66-73 exemption;
virtually none of the other proposals drew any attention.  Some speakers were
the owners of smog-check businesses, and while most predictably argued for
the repeal, at least one formally stated that he felt that since they had
been exempted by law, it would be wrong to reverse the law.

After lunch, a representative from CARB (California Air Resources Bureau)
gave his presentation.  His was the most astonishing testimony of the day,
because the first thing he did was agree wholeheartedly with the large
assemblage of collector car owners!  He stridently argued AGAINST
reintroducing the smog check for '66-73 cars, stating that they were an
insignificant part of the whole pollution problem, and that due to attrition,
were becoming even less significant with every passing day!

This came as quite a shock, since most people knew that the CARB folks were
deeply against SB42, and presumed that they would do whatever was in their
power to get it overturned.  This spokesman actually questioned the validity
of the findings which painted '66-73 cars in such a negative light.  However,
he argued in favor of eliminating one aspect of SB42, the 30-year rolling
exemption.  Under current law, starting in 2004 and continuing every year,
cars which are 30 years old or older will be dropped out of the smog check
program.  He argued that since the program really began only in the 1970's,
those cars are the only cars which have been subjected to testing since new,
and which had clearly established standards from their date of manufacture.
Therefore, in his opinion, since they have been held to a given standard
since new, there was no reason to change that policy, and the fact that they
have catalytic converters was significant, since the removal of these items
could radically increase their emissions.

Following the meeting, I had the occasion to speak privately with some of the
friendlier members of the committee.  They seemed quite earnest in their
desire to help clean the environment while at the same time protecting the
interests of the car collectors and hobbyists, and were almost desperately
looking for a viable scheme that would enable us to be exempted while still
requiring testing for "lower-class" older automobiles.  Some were in favor of
a simple tailpipe test, others were in favor of exemptions for people whose
cars are insured by classic car policies, but nobody seemed to have a really
firm proposal that they stood behind, and in fact they were eagerly hoping to
get ideas from the public.

I also spoke privately to the CARB spokesman, and he frankly told me that in
his opinion, regardless of what the board might suggest to the governor, he
felt there was no way that any legislator would dare bring forth proposed
legislation subverting the '66-73 exemption since that aspect of SB42 had
proven so popular with the public, but he felt fairly certain that the
30-year rolling exemption would be overturned.  This would be good news for
owners of 1973 and earlier cars, of course, but would the owners of 1974 and
later cars stuck with the smog check program forever.

I came away from the meeting much more confident than when I entered the
room.  It seems likely that the protections offered to 1973-and-earlier cars
are more-or-less cast in stone, since there is virtually no support (even
from the state's environmental agencies) for the notion of overturning it.
But if I were the owner of a 1974 or later car, I wouldn't necessarily be
confident that the promises that SB42 held out to me would in fact come to
pass.

I intend to continue to follow the proceedings of this panel, and report
accordingly.  You can follow legislative issues that affect our hobby (and
the businesses that support it) at: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.acccdefender.org,
www.smogrfg.com, www.enjoythedrive.com, and www.sema.org.


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

From: "Bowman, John" <jbowman mtt.ca>
Subject: HELP - Carb Icing!!
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:18:13 -0400


My 1983 F100 (302, 2v) suffers from a bad case of carb icing for the first
4-8 minutes of operation only when the temperature is around freezing and
the humidity is high. I have tried all the usual stuff. Made sure the carb
pre-heat tube is connected to the heat stove on the exhaust manifold and the
air intake. Made sure the vacuum operated flap on the end of the snorkel of
the air intake. The heat riser valve on the exhaust seems to be fine. Is the
something I am missing or is there anything else I can do?

*************************
J.A. Bowman
1983 F100 a.k.a. "Big Red"
Nova Scotia, Canada
email: mooster canada.com
*************************

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

From: "Jason Derra" <derrar internetcds.com>
Subject: Re: Twin I beam front ends ...
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:51:45 -0800


Twin I beams were introduced on 1/2 and 3/4 tons in 1965.  I think the 1
tons got them in 66 or 67.
Jason
'69 Bronco 5.0 HO EFI, NP435 ....


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.