Return-Path:
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:01:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #110
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, September 13 1997 Volume 01 : Number 110



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks80up-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

351 swap in 88 f/s bronco [Mobleaudio aol.com]
Re: Aftermarket Fuel Pump [Bill Funk ]
FS: Ranger [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Ranger mileage? [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Rough running 4.9L six 90 Ford truck ["Charles A. Biggs"
Re: Rough running 4.9L six 90 Ford truck [tglundy juno.com (Tim g Lundy)]
Ruff Idle-Poor Gas Mileage ["Bill" ]
84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP? [Jeffrey Scott Gaines ]
Re: 5.0L mileage [Lehmandp aol.com]
Re: Superchargers [Lehmandp aol.com]
Re: 84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP? [Lehmandp aol.com]
Re: 4.0 swap into a 2.3 Ranger [Lehmandp aol.com]
Re: 84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP? [Lehmandp aol.com]
302 truck (4X) sump specification [yhtlines surfari.net]
Re: Ranger mileage? [helotie juno.com (Mark A Helotie)]
Automotive Home Pages [Jerad Heffner ]

=======================================================================

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 06:37:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mobleaudio aol.com
Subject: 351 swap in 88 f/s bronco

I have a 1988 f/s bronco with a dead 302f.i. engine. I also have a 351f.i.
engine(also in need of a rebuild) out of a 90 f/s bronco with all accessories
still on it. I also have the computer, but can't remember if i have the
wiring harness. What else do i need to do this swap?i.e. are the harnesses
different, and will everything bolt right up?

My truck has a 4" rancho lift with 33x12.50x15" on 15x10" A.R.E. wheels, but
i want a 6" lift(i already have 15x36x15 dick cepek radials). What's the best
lift kit and what should i do about the steering? I have heard many different
opinions on the subject. Plus, i would like more power than the stock 351.
Can anyone suggest a rebuild kit or a long block with enough power to run the
big meats? I want to stay emissions legal on this vehicle, and like every one
else, on a budget.

Thanks for any help that you can give,
Leslie Zettler

1988 f/s Bronco, 1986 mild custom Pontiac Trans Am, 1986 f/s Bronco(stock,
300 c.i., auto), 1978 Chevy Caprice Classic 4dr(parts car), 1977 Chevy Impala
4dr, 1969 Chevy Camaro(radical custom-under construction, very slow,
construction)

***If anyone has any car stereo questions, I will gladly help out in any way
I can. That's what I do ;-). Just send me an e-mail with your question at
mobleaudio aol.com. Thanks again

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 07:22:19 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: Aftermarket Fuel Pump

> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:35:43 -0700
> From: Joe Maleski
> Subject: Anyone Had Luck Ordering Parts Online?
>
> This past Monday after doing an internet search I found about a half
> dozen
> or so Ford dealers who have web pages for their parts departments,
> offering
> on line quotes (via E-Mail) and UPS shipping after credit card
> authorization over the phone. OK, so now it is Friday afternoon and
> so far
> *not one* response to my request for pricing on a couple of fuel pumps
> to
> solve that pesky vapor lock problem.
>
> Question: Have any of you had any luck ordering parts this way? Any
> recommendations short of just going down to the local dealer and
> buying the
> things the old-fashioned way? By the way, Carter does indeed make an
> aftermarket fuel pump, but the price is $170.00.

It's been a while since I've done this, but for a truly fine inline (not
in-tank) fuel pump, check out the local heavy equipment dealers (Case,
John Deere, etc.). Their pumps are powerful and rugged. Cost may be a
little on the high side, but the things usually last forever.Make sure
you get a 12V model, not a 24V.
Bill Funk

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:08:43, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: FS: Ranger

For Sale: 1995 Ranger XLT, regular cab, shortbox, 4x2, and bright
red in color with a grey interior. The truck is fully loaded with
power windows, power locks, power mirrors, A/C, tilt, cruise, AM/FM
cassette with premium sound, remote keyless entry with anti-theft, 6
disc CD changer, ps, pb, aluminum wheels, sliding rear window, 60/40
split bench seat, and a 4 cylinder and a 5 speed. 5 year/75,000 miles
full coverage extended warranty (expires 5/2/2000). 27,000 miles.
Babied and economical. 25 mpg city and easy 30 mpg on the highway.
I got 37 mpg a few times on the highway! E-mail: KNBD87D prodigy.com
or 1-800-456-0243 and ask for Josh. $9500 O/BO

Josh

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:10:19, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Ranger mileage?

Hi all,
Can anyone tell me the mileage I could expect to get with a 4.OL and
a 5 speed manual in a regular cab 4x2 Ranger?

Josh

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:59:31 -0500
From: "Charles A. Biggs"
Subject: Rough running 4.9L six 90 Ford truck

I am still trying to solve the rough idle and "flat" excelleration of
my 1990 F-150 six. I have replaced plugs, dist cover and rotor, wires,
fuel filter and air filter with absolutely no improvement. I ran
diagnostics on it and the only thing I could find out of spec was that
the MAP sensor read 152 Hz at about 20 feet elevation with the engine
off (specs are 157-163 at sea level.) Does anyone have experience with
these readings to know if this small difference could cause my rough
running problems?



TiA,

Chuck Biggs

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 14:20:56 -0400
From: tglundy juno.com (Tim g Lundy)
Subject: Re: Rough running 4.9L six 90 Ford truck

ckeck your catalytic converter it my be pluged..

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:43:07 -0700
From: "Bill"
Subject: Ruff Idle-Poor Gas Mileage

I have a 1990 F-150 with a 302, fuel injectors and a 2 speed O/D tranny.
It has always had a ruff idle and poor mileage, 11 mpg. There also seems to
be a miss at highway speeds. But it has the get and go when I need the
power. I have replaced the fuel and air filters and also the O2 sensor. I
even took in to a Ford dealer and had the fuel pressure checked and also the
injectors cleaned and checked. Additionally, they hook up a computer
troubleshooting system and we drove around to isolate the problem. No
luck...no fault codes. Everything was within computer spec? The truck is
very dependable, never had any problems mechanically, except brakes. I do
have a problem with peeling paint, but that's another subject. Does anyone
have any suggestions on what I might try next...short of selling it? All
comments are appreciated.

Thanks,
Bill Coates

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:19:02 -0700
From: Jeffrey Scott Gaines
Subject: 84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP?

I've had a 1988 Bronco II 2WD 5-speed, and now own a 1989 4WD w/AT, both
with the 2.9L V6. My 1988 had 128,000 niles on it, and I pulled my 1984
Dodge 400 convertible from Atlanta, GA to Clearwater, FL on a dolly, with
the back full of boxes and furniture, running the cruise control (in 4th
gear) with no trouble. I love this engine! My '89 has 102,000 and runs
flawlessly. My Chilton's manual rates the engine at 140 hp, with 170
ft.-lbs. of torque. The 2WD got 21/24 mpg. My 4WD gets 18 mpg around town,
but that's been with the air conditioning running wide open during my first
Florida summer. (I haven't taken any long road trips to be able to gauge
the highway mileage, but I'm figuring around 20-21 mpg.

Anyway, I've also dreamed of a 302 in mine, but until this engine gives me
trouble, I'll stay with her - I have many friends who've owned Bronco
II's/Rangers/Aerostars with this same engine, and they seem pretty rugged -
one friend's stepmom has an '89 4WD automatic with 187,000 miles she's been
using to deliver the mail (ALL stop-and-go) through the Pennsylvania snow,
and has never had any trouble. It's a smooth, fairly torquey engine that
won't make you stop at the gas pump every 2 days.

Good luck!

J. Scott Gaines

>
>Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:51:02 -0500
>From: Jerad Heffner
>Subject: Re: 84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP?
>
>It's pretty bad when you reply to your own e-mails!
>
>What about the 2.9L? There's also the 2.8, but problems with the lifters
abound,
>so i've been told. I believe the '86 and newer models could have the 2.9 V6?
>Anyone have HP numbers on that? and maybe gas milage too?

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lehmandp aol.com
Subject: Re: 5.0L mileage

In a message dated 97-09-12 23:04:40 EDT, you write:



How does the oxygen sensor impact mileage? I'm not questioning your
knowledge, I'm trying to learn. Point to note: my brother got all of the
mechanic smarts in the family so you have to speak slow and use small words
with me when it comes to working on cars - I'm more computer savvy.

Also, how was the non-firing injector diagnosed?

2 days ago I had some 265/75/15s put on my truck (replaced 235/75/15s).
This was after my mileage appeared to start tanking. Front-end alignment
may be an issue, the truck is not tracking well lately.

Thanks again for the help.

Grady

ps Do you know which digest your other posting was in?
>>

Dear Grady Byram,

Thanks for getting back to me with your questions! You asked for me to
"speak slow and use small words" so please bear with me and the length of
this response.

Oxygen sensor:

According to the Chilton's, "Ford Full Size Trucks" repair manual (p/n 8136)
and "Ford Thunderbird" (p/n 8268) -- we've got two 5.0Ls in the family -- the
oxygen sensor is used to measure the difference between the oxygen content of
the exhaust gases so the EEC-IV can compare it to that of the outside air.
This difference is the "combustion efficiency" of the engine. Since this
sensor sits in the path of exhaust gases, it's going to get coated and will
eventually need to be replaced. In fact, the "Ford Full Size Trucks" manual
indicates that the oxygen sensor (EGO) must be replaced every 30,000 miles.
Which I found interesting that none of the information that came with my
brand new pickup (in 1992) mentioned anything about this! But this explained
why my well cared for pickup started running lousy at around 55k miles.

The non-firing injector (the long version of the story):

Ever since new, the engine had a fair amount of vibration at idle. Nobody
ever really thought anything about it. The guys at Ford thought it was
normal. "It's the new emission controls," they said. So fast forward over
five years and 65,000 miles later and one day the truck started to feel like
it was running out of gas (I've got two tanks and have taken the first tank
to empty several times, the engine starts to shake and jerk like the gas is
sputtering into the injection), but this time the tank was about 1/2 full
(yes, I'm an opptimist!). About that time the "check engine" light came on.
I quickly switched over to the full tank and things settled down. Once I
got back home, I plugged in my engine trouble code reader and read a "lean"
code. Part of the trouble code read test is the Key-On-Engine-Off sequence.
You can hear the fuel pump wind up and all the other relays and solenoids in
the engine compartment click on-off. I switched over to the "bad" tank and
turned the key-on-engine-off and the pump had an abnormal low tone to it.
Hum, does all this add up to a bad fuel pump? The guys over at the local
Ford dealer were awfully quick to agree with me -- even though the "bad" fuel
pump sounded normal when I demonstrated it to them.

They installed the fuel pump (~$600) and still didn't run very well so they
moved it into their "driveability department". By the time they were done,
and for a total of ~$950, they replaced the fuel pump, the (8,000 mile old)
oxygen sensor, spark plugs, air filter(s), and put injector cleaner in the
fuel. The truck went to them with realitivly fresh filters and plugs and I
had just ran DuraLube fuel treatment. So, needless to say, the truck still
didn't run very well.

Not too impressed with the dealer's level of help, I went elsewhere. Oh,
they were willing to take another look at it, but that sounded like another
"paddling".

I ended up at a Ford Motorsport dealer/shop. The truck was recently paid-off
and I've always wanted to do a little more in the horsepower department. But
before getting too serious, I had them start by checking into the problems I
was already having; they called it checking the "calibration" of the engine.
Everything checked out perfect without any new parts and by now the truck
was running better. They think I got ahold of a tank of bad gas; even though
I always use the highest quality brand.

Well, by now I had been bitten by the performance bug! (I've included the
past email post which mentions all the mods.)

The starting point for the mods (or so I was told by the salesman that is no
longer with this shop) is the Mass Air conversion. This includes the mass
air meter (mounts between air filter and throttle body), new computer, and
new injector wiring harness (changes the engine from bank-to-bank injection
to sequential-port-injection). When they finally got everything together
(another long story) and road tested, they realized they had the wrong
computer because it wouldn't communicate with the E4OD transmission which
relies on the engine computer for the shift points. So, back when on the
stock computer. The mechanic noticed a new "miss" in the engine and when
looking. Three hours later, he had found and fixed the wiring to the
number-6 injector. He had become suspicious when the wire color codes at
this injector didn't match the diagram in his Chilton's manual.

Tire size:

Your new 265/75/15's are close to my 31's. The math for diameter is:

convert 265mm to inches: 265 / 25.4 = 10.433" (this is the "tire" not
tread width)

figure the tire profile in inches: 75% of 10.433" = 7.8"

overall diameter is twice the profile plus wheel diameter: 2(7.8) + 15 =
30.65"

I'll bet the truck looks better now!

Now, don't forget to include the odometer error when calculating your fuel
mileage. You'll need to convert diameter to circumference to find the
percentage difference. The 235's come out to 90.7" and the 265's to 96.3"
which makes them almost 6% bigger. (I measured mine against 20 miles of
highway mile-markers to come up with a 5% error). Now, multiply the miles
driven by 1.06 and divide by gallons to get your actual mpg.

Here's a little trick I use to "measure" the perfect tire pressure. After
about 30 minutes at continuous highway speed, pull off and quickly measure
the temperature of the tire tread with your finger-tips. Hotter center vs.
edge of the tread indicates too much pressure (and vice versa). You want
that tire's tread to lay flat against the road. Differences in outside edge
versus inside edge (difficult to tell the difference) would indicate poor
alignment. Adjust the tire pressure by about 2-4 lbs. (varies on the degree
of temperature difference and sidewall composition of your tires -- truck
tires have stiff sidewalls) and check again.

While you're at it, check the temperature of the wheel lugs with your
finger-tips. They should be warm, but not too-hot to touch. If they are
that hot, have the wheel bearings checked immediatly!

I've also heard from several Ford owners that their front brake calipers bind
so that the pads don't release from the disk. I've heard of red-hot rotors!
With your truck pulling to one side, jack up that front corner and see how
hard it is to rotate the wheel by hand. You should be able to get the wheel
to spin at least one half a turn by itself without too much effort.


Well, enough for now. Have fun!
- -David Lehman


P.S. Here's the post to fordtrucks80up ListService.net mentioning the
performance mods:

No problems, just some news!

Several months ago, I mentioned plans to upgrade my '92 F-150 302 with Ford
Motorsport components.

The mods were to begin with the Mass Air conversion kit. However, during the
road-test, it was discovered that the computer in the Mass Air kit would not
communicate with the E4OD, so they put the original computer and wiring
harness back on. BTW, in so doing, they also fixed a problem with the #6
injector wiring. It was never wired correctly from the factory!

Current condition of the project: [all eight cylinders ], GT-40 alumninum
heads, 1.6 ratio roller rockers, GT-40 intake manifolds, 65mm throttle body,
19 lb/hr fuel injectors, Borla stainless headers, Edlebrock RPM series
cat-back exhaust, stock cam, stock catylitcs, stock bottom-end, stock
computer. For responsibilities sake; I've added cross drilled front rotors
and "extreme performance" pads. I almost had the anti-sway bars on, but they
sent the wrong parts. :-(

Stock engine is rated 185HP 3800rpm, 270lbs/ft 2400rpm.

Results: I'm under the impression that the little engine is currently
putting out between 300-320HP. Too soon to tell on the fuel consumption, but
so far it looks consistant with previous 14-17mpg. (I'll have to get it on
the highway -- and stop peeling out, for the good numbers! BTW, all time
best as stock was 21mpg with 235/75/15 tires and 3.55 gears. I've had 31"
tires for several years--getting the afore mentioned 14-17mpg.) The
performance "envelope" is roughly equivalent to my wife's [stock] '93
Thunderbird 302.

Future: I still want the Mass Air conversion to best optimize all of these
new components. We're looking into the 5.8L H.O. (Lightning) kit w/E4OD
control. Will have to change the cam to change the timing so it matches the
H.O. engine. Expecting 340-360HP. This should put the performance envelope
close to a stock '91 Mustang GT I once owned! Not too bad for a 3-ton 4x4!

Just having fun with a paid-off Ford!
- -David

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:23:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lehmandp aol.com
Subject: Re: Superchargers

In a message dated 97-09-12 04:31:08 EDT, you write:


Date: 97-09-12 04:31:08 EDT
From: REK3 worldnet.att.net (Randy Kindler)

I'm considering adding a supercharger to my '95 F150 5.8L. The systems
from Vor-tech and Paxton look similar. I also saw a trick looking Rootes
type blower on a Mustang from Ford SVO. Does anyone have any experience
with these systems? What are the advantages/disadvantages? Will the
stock engine handle the extra boost as the blower manufacterers claim? I
would appreciate any input. >>

Dear Randy Kindler,

I highly recommend thorough research!

In the Ford Motorsport '97 catalog, page 15, they have a supercharger kit for
your truck. Part number M-6066-T50, $2449. Unless you've got the Lightning,
then it's M-6066-T51, $2549. 50 states street legal. No mention for any
other requirements other than a 110 liters/hr fuel pump.

However, same page, drop down to next item; EFI Mass Air conversion kit.
This item indicates that it is "required before making ANY performance
modifications to engine and powertrain of EFI trucks. Some California trucks
have mass air."

I've been toying with my 5.0L engine lately. You may have noticed my post a
few days ago. Since getting "bitten" by the performance bug several months
ago, I've been reading everything I can get my hands on relating to the EFI
small block Ford V8.

I just happened to notice that anybody beefing up 5.0L Mustangs (and such)
don't bother with the bottom end until they're pushing around 500HP. A car
with that much thump is usually struting their stuff at local drag heats.
Which is either more or less demanding than your plans...

Get more info directly from Ford Motorsports technical assistance, (810)
468-1356.

...and remember to have fun!
- -David Lehman

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:23:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lehmandp aol.com
Subject: Re: 84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP?

In a message dated 97-09-12 05:40:29 EDT, you write:


personaly
seen one in a Ranger/Bronco II but I saw a web site with it and the '91
ranger trans. in an 88 Bronco II. >>


This reminds me of a Bronco II that had a "5.0" badge on the side that I had
the pleasure of running with one day a couple months ago.

I had to make a quick trip to the office on the July 4th holiday. We were
visiting friends and happened to have my wife's '93 5.0L Thunderbird. This
guy was creeping up on my left doing about 70 in the fast lane and we were
eventually side-by-side. We were approaching a hill and the "window" was
closing on me in my lane. Not thinking about it too much and not wanting to
get slowed down behind this guy, I gave it a healthy punch and pulled in
front of him with ease.

Being somebody who doesn't like cutting people off, I had her up to about 85.
I looked in the mirror just to make sure everything was cool and couldn't
believe it. Here's this Bronco II breathing down my twin tail pipes! I gave
him the "thumbs up" and then really put my foot into it. About two seconds
later and at about 95, I'm thinking, "this is no place to race, this guy is
still right on top of me!" So I pulled over and let him by.

This tweaked my brain having so much trouble getting away from a Bronco II,
especially considering their performance reputation!

Long live the 5.0L Bronco II!

- -David Lehman

P.S. It was a very hot day, and I remember them having their windows down.
Maybe the air conditioning wouldn't fit in the engine compartment?

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:23:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lehmandp aol.com
Subject: Re: 4.0 swap into a 2.3 Ranger

In a message dated 97-09-12 12:08:19 EDT, you write:


>>

I'm starting to sound like a Ford Motorsport ad.

Two months ago they were going for about $2200. This is a new '94-'95 engine
assembly including fuel injection, distributor, fuel rails, injectors,
flywheel, "short" front cover and water pump, serpentine pulleys, production
stainless headers, 9.0:1 compression ratio, 225 Bhp. No computer, though.
While supplies last!

Have fun!
- -David Lehman

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 15:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lehmandp aol.com
Subject: Re: 84 Ranger, 2.3 L and HP?

In a message dated 97-09-12 14:12:23 EDT, you write:


performance chip. They claim 5-15% midrange torque increase along with
5-15 HP increase. Side effect: must run premium gasoline. (Not a downside
in my book.)

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

You may want to check the following website:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.tiac.net/users/goape/

Follow the thread to engine chips "chips & salsa". They compare the
superchips product with two others. Interesting.

- -David Lehman

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 12:00:56
From: yhtlines surfari.net
Subject: 302 truck (4X) sump specification


We've got a recently purchased 88 F150 302 4X. I'm asking if this is a five
or six qt sump on this motor. My Ranger 4x had a larger off road sump, I
believe, and this f150 indictes a quart low with five qts in it. THere may
be an issue with the 'dip' stick, but I want to make sure it doesn't take
six qts before I go off. My 2X F150 takes five qts. (And no, I don't have
the ability to compare the two right now!).

Dave Lampert

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 16:50:33 -0400
From: helotie juno.com (Mark A Helotie)
Subject: Re: Ranger mileage?

On Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:10:19, -0500 KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J
TENNEY) writes:

> Can anyone tell me the mileage I could expect to get with a
> 4.OL and a 5 speed manual in a regular cab 4x2 Ranger?

Hi Josh,

I have that same setup, with the exception that I have the
extended cab. I have only had my '97 for about a month,
and only driving it in town (back and forth to work). I'm
getting approx. 17.5 - 18 MPG. I'm sure it'll kick up if we
take it on a trip, but that mileage is 90% city driving.

Hope that helps,
Mark :)
[helotie juno.com]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 17:58:01 -0500
From: Jerad Heffner
Subject: Automotive Home Pages

I don't know if I am allowed to do this or not, but here I go anyway.

I have a personal home that I am revamping and enlarging the content of,
and I invite ANYONE to send me some links of their own pages or of....


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.