Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:47:19 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #121
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, September 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 121



=======================================================================
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: Exhaust ["C. E. White" ]
Re: Injector Cleaners ["S. Spaulding" ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Ford Motorsports Catalog [Keith Srb ]
Re: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...) ["C. E. White"
RE: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip [jlester naxs.com (Jason Lester)]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 [Bill Funk ]
Re: octane ratings... [Bill Funk ]
Re: K&N HP or Mileage? ["Bob Leifer" ]
Differential [Dave Armbruster ]
Spongy Brakes on 86 E-150 Ford Clubwagon [Matthew Miller
re: High Octane gas [Randy Kindler ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #120 [Randy Kindler ]
Another Weird Colorado Gas question [Randy Kindler
Say what? [Jerad Heffner ]
Say what? [Jerad Heffner ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119 [Bill Funk ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:17:24 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: Exhaust

Dave Armbruster wrote:
>
> First off, I'm NOT a mechanical engineer (nor an english teacher), but I
> think that 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.

A properly tuned engine creates very little CO (even without a Catalytic
Convertor). Primary reason for Catalytic Convertors is to eliminate
unburned hydro-carbons which help to create smog. There is no doubt that
a catalytic convertor will greatly reduce CO, but this is not the prime
reason for the convertors.

> 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.

It is not possible to chemically convert CO into H2O... well I guess it
is (break the CO down to O and C and add H), but not in this situation.
And I don't think you can get much less harmful that H2O (unless you
have way too much of it).


> The CO2 you could concievably smell as a sweetish kind of smell under the
> right conditions, but the H20 just drips of the tailpipe. So, all cars and
> trucks that have catalytic converters will drip some amount of water from
> the tailpipe, I guess more so the newer the cars, since the emissions have
> been getting tighter steadily (my '97 Ranger has two converters one right
> after another). As the exhaust system heats up, the catalyst must be very
> hot to start the reaction, the water evaporates before it is exhausted.

The H2O is produced as water vapor right from the start. Until the
exhaut system heats-up some of it condenses and drips out the rear (or
holes in the pipes of older cars).

BTW, I am a Mechanical Engineer. I am not an English Teacher so please
forgive me for the spelling.

Ed

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:24:54 -0700
From: "S. Spaulding"
Subject: Re: Injector Cleaners

Charles,

Techron seems pretty aggressive, but I don't think anything compares to
cleaning them with a professional cleaning system that connects directly
to the fuel rail.

Steve

Charles A. Biggs wrote:
>
> 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
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:29:33 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

C. E. White wrote:
>
> selling it in trucks. I think it is related to the original OHV 6 Ford
> started making around 1950. Ford also made a "small block 6" (Falcon 6)
> that was the 144, 170, 200 and 250 I think.

That takes me back. A friend of mine had a Falcon station wagon ('62
year, I think) with the 144 in it. Man, you could get out and push it
faster than that old mill could. Best part was the vacuum operated
wipers: they didn't work if you were accelerating, and in that car, you
were ALWAYS accelerating...slowly, but always!

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin Texas Instruments, Inc.
(972) 480-2345 8505 Forest Lane, MS 8749
email: baldwin ti.com Dallas, TX 75243
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:34:15 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Ford Motorsports Catalog

How does one obtain one of these catalogs?

Keith Srb herbie netvalue.net
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box, Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:47:22 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...)

Well I don't agree with some of the things you wrote....

> 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.

I don't know of any reason why this would be true in general. There are
some manufacturers (Amoco) who claim that their high test is "cleaner"
that other grades. I don't doubt that this is true, but it is not a
by-product of the higher octane. It is true because of other
manufacturing steps. I believe that there is as much difference between
different batches of unleaded as there is between regular and high test.

> 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.

This is not a function of octane. There was a time when certain
Manufacturer's put more of the cleaning agents in high test gas than in
regular (Exxon comes to mind). Now must of the major brands have the
same additive packages in all grades. Texaco and Philips 66 used to
advertise this fact.

> 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.

Well this is theoretically possible. I agree that if it pushes you over
the edge you have other problems.

> 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)

Unless your car has some method of either detecting the octane level of
the gas or detecting spark knock there is no reason to believe that
higher octane gas will improve your gas mileage. In fact higher octane
gas usually has less energy content than regular. For cars that can make
adjustments based on the octane of the fuel, it is possible to improve
gas mileage slightly. There is no way you will increase it enough to
cover the extra cost of the high test fuel. I owned a 1986 Mercury Sable
that had a knock sensor. I tried to detect a difference in gas mileage
between regular and high test. I never could.

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

If the mod leads to spark knock higher octance gas may be necessary.

> 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.

High octane gas can actually cause problems. Most manufacturer's have
released service bulletins warning against using high octane gas. I read
Ford's TSB on this. It listed a bunch of drivability concerns like hard
starting, stalling and hesitation. Step 1 was to ask the customer if
they were using high octane gas. If the customer said yes, the
technician was supposed to tell the customer to switch back to regular
for at least 3 tankfuls to eliminate the problems. The manufacturer can
tume an engine to work better with high test. I think Cadillac does
this.

Ed

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:56:18 -0400
From: jlester naxs.com (Jason Lester)
Subject: RE: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip

A quick look in the 1997 F250/F350 Powertrain/Drivetrain manual shows that
there is no listing for a front locker in any of the models. Both the
10.25" Ford, Dana 60, and Dana 80 rear axles have lockers available. The
10.25" and Dana 60 are of the limited slip type while the Dana 80 is a true
Detroit Locker. Neither the Dana 50 or Dana 60 front axle have front
lockers available from the factory. They are available through the
aftermarket.

Jason



> Someone made a reference to an item that I've been curious about for
> some
> time -- namely that when you order the limited slip option on the
> F350,
> you get both a front & rear limited slip.
>
> I've got a 97 F350 4x4 Crew Cab PowerStroke (5-speed w/manual hubs &
> 3.55
> gears), and I'd love to be able to verify whether or not my stout Dana
> 60
> has a limited slip in it. Anyone know how to check/verify it?

>Hi, Jay...The shop manuals will have the info you want, in the section
>that interprets the VIN.
>While the shop manual set can look expensive, they are probably less
>than 1% of what you paid for that truck, and are a great investment.
>Maybe someone on the list has the manuals, and can tell you what the VIN
>numbers for the axles are for that truck...

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:25:23 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119

> 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?



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

Brian,
The *only* difference between octane ratings is the speed of the flame
front in the combustion chamber. The energy content per measurement is
the same, so simply using higher octane gas can't give you better
mileage, or cooler running, or most of the other things claimed for it.
Of course, this assumes that your engine is running properly. If not,
all bets aqre off, and perfume may run better than any gas you can buy;
then again, it may not. :-)
Bill

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:25:43 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: octane ratings...

> 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?



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

Brian,
The *only* difference between octane ratings is the speed of the flame
front in the combustion chamber. The energy content per measurement is
the same, so simply using higher octane gas can't give you better
mileage, or cooler running, or most of the other things claimed for it.
Of course, this assumes that your engine is running properly. If not,
all bets aqre off, and perfume may run better than any gas you can buy;
then again, it may not. :-)
Bill

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:05:15 -0400
From: "Bob Leifer"
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?

Just a few more numbers to add to the Ford engine line up.1
I had a '58 F100 and a '63 F250, both of which had 292 V8's in them. In
those days, there was also the 272 and 312 V8's, which I believe all had the
same block.

Bob Leifer

- -----Original Message-----
From: C. E. White
To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Date: Thursday, September 18, 1997 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: K&N HP or Mileage?



>David J. Baldwin wrote:
>
>> Wasn't there are 290 six in the Ford lineup at one
>> time? Maybe I'm thinking of some other manufacturer.
>
>There was a 144, a 170, a 200, a 240 and a 250 among other....but I
>don't think there was a 290 Ford.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:07:18 -0600
From: Dave Armbruster
Subject: Differential

I am trying to track down what an axle code 91 (from the inside of the
driver's door) represents. Can anyone find that one out, or at least point
in the right direction?

Thanks
Dave

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:09:41 -0400
From: Matthew Miller
Subject: Spongy Brakes on 86 E-150 Ford Clubwagon

I need HELP!! Still have a spongy pedal. All new components from
calipers, wheel cylinders, pads, shoes, springs, 2 Raybestos master
cylinders, bled lines till the oil prices went up. Van stops OK but will
not lock up wheels as it did in the past. Performed engine off test, foot
on pedal, crank engine power booster test ; according to Ford
manual-passed. What am I missing? HELP! Thanks, Matt

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:46:18 -0400
From: Randy Kindler
Subject: re: High Octane gas

If your engine doesn't ping, you don't need high octane. All the name
brand oil companies use the same additives and detergents in regular as
premium. I do have an octane question,though. In Colorado, the octane is
lower than in the rest of the country. (85 reg. - 89 premium) I asked a
gas station guy about this, and he said that at high altitude, less
octane is necessary. It seems to me that because of the thinner air, you
would want higher octane. Any ideas?

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:58:00 -0400
From: Randy Kindler
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #120

> (4) I remember the old 351 Windsor and 351 Cleveland
> engines. Hot-rodders in the 60's and '70s preferred the
> Cleveland. What was the difference in these (other than one came
> from the Cleveland plant and the other in the Windsor plant)?
> The Windsor appears to be a big small block which continues as the
> 5.8L. What was the Cleveland?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> - --
> Best Regards,
>
> Dave Baldwin
> Dallas, TX
I beleive the 351C was a big block similar to the 390.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:32:45 -0400
From: Randy Kindler
Subject: Another Weird Colorado Gas question

In Colorado, during winter months, all you can buy is oxygenated fuel.
(Gasoline with 10% mix of either alcohol or MTBE) In winter, we get
temperature inversions which hold smog low to ground, increasing
pollution. Oxygenated fuel supposedly decreases emissions by lowering CO
output. My question is this: In a vehicle with an oxygen sensor, if the
sensor detects more oxygen, wouldn't the computer just enrichen the
air/fuel mixture, causing more fuel consumption to keep the emissions at
a constant rate? So you would burn more fuel to have the same amount of
emissions. I know my mileage drops signifigantly during the months that
we have to run oxygenated fuel. Local politicians are proud of this
program, saying that air quality has improved every year since its
inception. I suspect that the biggest reason for this improvement is
that every year more non-computer controlled cars are off the road. I
apologize for this non-ford question, but there are a lot of smart folks
on this list, and I've been curious about this for a long time.

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:02:28 -0500
From: Jerad Heffner
Subject: Say what?

No big thing here, and not Ford truck related, but to the mailing list. . . What is this line about commercial e-mail?

Was that intentionally put as a reminder? Or just someone's tagline? Not that it relates to me, I'm just curious. It seems out of place to me.

Jerad Heffner
'84 Ranger 4x4
Indiana, United States

Mark A. Ross wrote:

> 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
> > 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
> > what could be causing this?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Eric
> My 94 Ranger did the same thing. Look at the swaybar bracket see if it shows signs of hitting the tie rod end. If so the bracket may be bent or broken.
>
> WARNING! All unsolicited commercial e-mail will be charged a $500 U.S.
> proofreading fee.Failure to pay within 5 days of receipt of such billing
> will result in legal actions.The sending of such e-mail constitutes
> acceptance of these terms.
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 23:02:39 -0500
From: Jerad Heffner
Subject: Say what?

No big thing here, and not Ford truck related, but to the mailing list. . . What is this line about commercial e-mail?

Was that intentionally put as a reminder? Or just someone's tagline? Not that it relates to me, I'm just curious. It seems out of place to me.

Jerad Heffner
'84 Ranger 4x4
Indiana, United States

Mark A. Ross wrote:

> 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
> > 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
> > what could be causing this?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Eric
> My 94 Ranger did the same thing. Look at the swaybar bracket see if it shows signs of hitting the tie rod end. If so the bracket may be bent or broken.
>
> WARNING! All unsolicited commercial e-mail will be charged a $500 U.S.
> proofreading fee.Failure to pay within 5 days of receipt of such billing
> will result in legal actions.The sending of such e-mail constitutes
> acceptance of these terms.
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +-- Visit Our Web Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/ --+

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

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:44:59 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119

>
>
> 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?
>

here we have most of the well known but untrue things about octane all
in one place...

> 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.
>

High octane doesn't pollute any less or more than lower octane, as long
as the engine is designed to run on the lower octane.There's no extra
junk in low octane gas.

> 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.
>

No extra junk, won't gum up injectors.Not to be confused with the fact
that some gas additive packages *used to* gum up injectors (Shell was
famous for this), when FI was not as universal as it is not. Has nothing
to do with octane rating, especially as tetraethyl lead is no longer
used as an octane booster.

> 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.
>

Octane rating has nothing to do with engine heating, as long as engine
is designed to run on low octane fuel.

> 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)
>

High octane gas has no more specific energy (no more calories) than
regular gas per measurement.It can't give you better mileage.

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

Higher octane than called for won't give you better throttle response.
If anything, it would give *slower* response (but no so you could
notice) since the higher octane slows the flame front.

> 6) Engine mods: Many types of performance engine mods require high....

---

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.