Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:32:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, September 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 119



=======================================================================
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:

Re: PCV filter/air breather ["Lou Guerriero" ]
Re: Popping sounds [Filip M Gieszczykiewicz ]
Injector Cleaners ["Charles A. Biggs" ]
Voting results [Ken Payne ]
Ranger apoppin! [yhtlines surfari.net]
[none] [Ken Payne ]
A Hearty Thank You... [Brian Pynn ]
Popping sounds ["Charles A. Biggs" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 ["Mike Jones"]
High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...) [James Federline
Re: Voting results [BILLPEGZ aol.com]
Popping Sound ["Mark A. Ross" ]
Re: Voting results [James Federline ]
Re: Voting results [Ken Payne ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Voting results [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Voting results [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Octane ratings [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Voting results [BILLPEGZ aol.com]
Re: Voting results [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Octane ratings [Thom Cheney ]
Speaking of ratios... [Brian Pynn ]
Re: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip [Bill Funk ]
Re: trailer wiring problem [Bill Funk ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 [Bill Funk ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:05:16 -0400
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: Re: PCV filter/air breather

Hi,

I have an 88 Bronco II... I still can't find the damned PCV filter.
It's not in the air box... that's just empty.. with a sensor and
input/output.... I don't seem to see anything behind the valve cover by
the pcv valve... both suggested spots..

Anyone know for sure? I am feeling distinctly "un - automotive"
now....

I know that I've never changed this part... does it even exist?!?!

Thanks in advance,

Lou
][=====================================][
][ No Matter Where you go, there you are! ][
][=====================================][

WWW: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.easyinternet.net/louisg/
E-mail: loug easyinternet.net
ICQ UIN: 1235438

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:02:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Filip M Gieszczykiewicz
Subject: Re: Popping sounds

You (Eric D. Sipes) wrote:
> I have a 1994 F150 4x4 which for about the last 6 months has been making
> loud popping sounds (usually several in succession: pop, pop, pop) in
> the frontend when I make turns, turn the steering wheel when parked, or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> occasionally when I hit a bump. For some reason it doesn't do it every

Greetings. If you hear _several_ pops in a row during this, it's NOT the
drivetrain (u-joints, etc). I suspect a frozen (or freezING) joint or some
other steering part that should be greased but is not. Get under the front
and check for cracked or missing rubber boots on all joints!

Don't forget to check the upper and lower ball-joints on the wheels. I
had a Toyota Camry that would make horrible groaning noises that all the
mechanics said came from the (old) sturts (which work perfectly) I traced
it down to a horribly loose lower ball-joint ($35 part + $30 labor) in
the left wheel.

> time I drive it, some days it doesn't do it at all, other days it will
> do it constantly. It is really frustrating me, but my warranty expired
> in July and being on a really tight budget, I can't afford to take it to
> a mechanic if it isn't a serious problem. Does anyone have any idea

May not be a "serious problem" NOW... but, tell me, if you loose steering
ability while going 65MHh... is THAT a "serious problem" to you or just
an "ooops"? You want to wait until hanging by your ass up a tree?

[sarcasm off]

Take care.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:03:38 -0500
From: "Charles A. Biggs"
Subject: Injector Cleaners

Are there certain brands of injector cleaners (for adding to the fuel)
that are better than the others or all they all about the same in
effectiveness?


Chuck Biggs
mailto:biggs flash.net

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:04:29 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Voting results

Just counted the voting results for the split: 34 in favor,
11 against. As I said earlier, not many votes. Does anyone
care to see the comments made or is it a moot point?

- -Ken

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:05:43
From: yhtlines surfari.net
Subject: Ranger apoppin!

Jerad!

Your 'popping' 84 Ranger windshield hasn't broken yet? Mine finally spit
down the middle and that stopped the windhsield "popping" on my 83 Ranger!
It was almost a relief when it did.

Dave Lampert

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:42:04 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: [none]

Web Ratings just reviewed the Ford Truck Enthusiasts web site
> and gave us a 4 on a scale of 1-5!

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:45:48 -0700
From: Brian Pynn
Subject: A Hearty Thank You...

To all of you who resonded with incredible speed and clarity to my
question on axle ratios. A few more months in this mailgroup and I feel
like I'll be able to hold my own at a dinner party of licensed auto
mechanics. Better than just smiling and nodding.

Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs your
engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong engine
> life and may in fact reduce engine life". Any truth to this?

Thanks again,

Brian Pynn
97 4x2 Ranger XL S/Cab 3.0L 5sp

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:58:50 -0500
From: "Charles A. Biggs"
Subject: Popping sounds

Eric, I had those sounds in my 90 truck and it turned out to be the
rubber gromets in the front suspension. I shot them with some brake
> fluid and the popping went away.

Ciao,

- --
Chuck Biggs
Aerospace Consultant
mailto:biggs flash.net

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:00:27 -0400
From: "Mike Jones"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118

...one of the main bi-products of the internal combustion engine
> >is carbon monoxide (not carbon dioxide, which other than asphixiation, is
>relatively harmless). CO, on the other hand is poisonous to humans and
bad
>for the environment. This is one of the reasons that the calalyst (some
>form of paladium if I remember right), that is used in the catalytic
> >converters that have been mandated on vehicles, chemically reacts the CO
to
>into much less harmful H2O and CO2.

Not to flame, but I'm afraid that CO2 is indeed the main byproduct of
*complete* combustion, no matter what the source, be it an engine or a
campfire. The goal of emissions design -- including basic engine design --
is to get to total CO2 production (no CO). CO is formed a a result of
*incomplete* combustion. You will never have totally complete combustion
in an internal combustion engine. The relatively cool cylinder walls and
other internal engine parts (valves, etc.) condense fuel vapor, fuel will
hide out in the ring lands, etc.). Engine controls are not perfect,
either. The catalyst takes care of these problems (and NOx production,
too, but that's a different thread).

The remaining problem with vehicle emissions (i.e. we're nearly at the *as
good as it will ever get* stage) is cold start, before the catalyst is up
to temp. Manufacturers are trying various ideas, such as heated catalysts,
catalysts built into the exhaust manifolds, etc. In fact, ever wonder why
when many engines start they immediately head for 1500 - 2000 rpms for a
couple of seconds? They do this so as to send a blast of CO to the
catalyst to get it lit off faster.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if the global warming doomsayers are right,
may be harmful in its own way.

Enough for now...

Mike J.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:05:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Federline
Subject: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...)

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Brian Pynn wrote:
>
> Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
> because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
> right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs your
> engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong engine
> > life and may in fact reduce engine life". Any truth to this?

Depends on how you feel about things... :)

1) less emissions: If you feel good when you pollute less, high octane is
a good thing. Lower octane gas has more junk in it that
doesn't do a whole lot for your engine and comes out
as hydrocarbon pollutants.

2) less buildup on your injectors: Dunno 'bout this one, my '96 Renger
if the first FI vehicle I've ever owned, but it makes sense - less
gunk and junk, more octane, less gum.

3) "Runs your engine too hot": well, if you know that for a fact, try
cooler plugs. After all, if high octane puts your cooling system
over the edge, somethign else is wrong.

4) higher gas milage: Rings true for most, unless you like flooring it
everywhere, in which case, you'll be putting extra wear on the
entire vehicle (a more costly scenario than paying a buck or two
extra at the pump 2 or 3 times a month, so it's another issue
entirely)

5) better throttle response and a bit more power: leads many to hit
the accelerator harder cause it's fun, negating benefit #4 :)

6) Engine mods: Many types of performance engine mods require high octane
gas to function well.

7) Tuning of todays engines from the factory is made to work well on the
lower and lowest grades of gas available. Sometimes, depending
on the vehicle and it's condition, high octane gas does nothing.
Thus, people do #6. :)

- --
James B. Federline MinnSoft Corporation
Principal Consultant "Actual Solutions To Real Problems"....

---

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.