Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:07:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #123
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, September 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 123



=======================================================================
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: Air Breather/PCV filter!!!!! ["Lou Guerriero" ]
Re: high octane gas [Bill Funk ]
Re: Ford Motorsports Catalog [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Injector Cleaners [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: Voting results [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #121 ["Mike Jones"]
RE: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip ["Beaman, James" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #122 [MadPoodle aol.com]
Front diffs [dean etgn14.webo.dg.com (Baruffi)]
Re: RV CAMS V1 #120 [Gary Gadwa ]
Re: High Octane gas ["C. E. White" ]
Re: Under Drive Pulleys V1 #120 [Gary Gadwa ]
Re: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip ["C. E. White" ]
2.9 L EFI engine ["KLS" ]
Re: 2.9 L EFI engine [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Another Weird Colorado Gas question ["Dave Resch"]
Re: 2.9 L EFI engine [droberts MIT.EDU (D Robertson)]
Re: 2.9 L EFI engine [John Yee ]
Re: 351 Windsor/Cleveland question ["Dave Resch"]

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 07:13:22 -0400
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: Re: Air Breather/PCV filter!!!!!

Hi, Me again...

Still hoping for a response, I will re-post (sorry). I am trying to
find the PCV/Airbreather filter in my 88 Bronco II 2.9L EFI engine. My
Haynes is no help.. the couple of suggestions I've had don't help either.

Starting to wonder if the part really exists.....>

Also, I would vote to go to a small truck/large truck list...

And for the guy who asked... I'm a Canuck... and It will suck to
have to have a VISA to visit my FAMILY in the US.

Maybe I should just get a green card...eheheheh

Later, Lou.

There is nothing so disturbing as the annoyance of a good example: Mark
Twain

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: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:36:26 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: high octane gas

> 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?
>

He's right.Higher altitude means less air pressure; this is, to the
engine, just like having a mechanical choke in the on position. This
makes the engine run richer, which lowers octane needs.
You guys ask good questions!

Bill Funk

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:14:48, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: Ford Motorsports Catalog

Keith,

You can get a Ford Motorsport Catalog at your local Ford dealer.
Retail value is $5.00

Josh

ps. My blood runs FORD on four, and HARLEY on two, also.

'98 Ranger XLT 4x2 shortbox reg cab 4.0L V6 stick-mine
'66 F-250 4x4 352 V8 4 speed 9400 original miles-dad
'64 Galaxie Conv. 352 auto-dad
'97 Explorer EB SOHC 4.0L-mom
'93 Splash 4.0L 5 speed reg cab-brother
'97 Converson Van 5.4L Triton V8-dad
'95 Harley Dyna Low Rider-I love it
'96 Harley Custom-dad's

I could go into history- but I'd be talking forever.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:47:50 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: Injector Cleaners

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 20:24:54 -0700 "S. Spaulding"
writes:
>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.


I did this to my Ranger once it hit 50K. It made a big difference.

silent.bob juno.com
95 Ranger 2.3L

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:47:49 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: Voting results

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:15:55 -0400 Ken Payne
writes:

>The issue was whether to split the 1979 & older truck list into
>two lists: 1960 and older/1961-79
>
>Badge wars are bad enough. All of the trucks here are "real."
>I've seen some of the Rangers put to some hard work and I'm sure
>their owners are just as proud of them as I am of my truck.

Thank you. I am proud of all Ford trucks new & old, small or big, and
this is why I have subscribed to the FTE list.

silent.bob juno.com
95 Ranger 2.3L 65K, and hard at work.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:10:47 -0400
From: "Mike Jones"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #121

>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?

Because the air density is lower as you go up in altitude (shorter column
of atmosphere pushing down) your engine's cylinders do not fill as
completely (volumetric efficiency decreases) and so cannot develop the same
brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) as it can at lower altitudes. Which
means it is not as prone to detonation, and so does not have the same
octane requirements it would at lower altitude. The owner's manual for my
Expedition, though, specifically recommends against using 85 octane fuel
even at higher altitudes. Apparently it breathes well enough that Ford is
concerned. (we have 85 octane fuel here in Idaho, too.)

Supercharged engines, including most turbos should never use 85 octane
fuel. They are not affected nearly as much (or in some cases at all until
you get way up there) by altitude.

Mike J.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:11:18 -0500
From: "Beaman, James"
Subject: RE: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip

> naxs.com[SMTP:jlester naxs.com] wrote:
>
>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

This is getting a little off charter, but I seem to remember reading in
rec.autos.4x4 that no 4 wheel drive vehicle has ever been offered from
any factory with a front LSD or locker. Can anyone think of exceptions?
It sems like there would be a few.

James Beaman
james.beaman lmco.com
Houston, Texas

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:15:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: MadPoodle aol.com
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #122

In a message dated 9/19/97 6:05:55,
owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net wrote:

>

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.edelbrock.com has complete online catalog and info......

Scott

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:30:31 -0400
From: dean etgn14.webo.dg.com (Baruffi)
Subject: Front diffs

Jason wrote:

>Jason

This is getting a little off charter, but I seem to remember reading in
rec.autos.4x4 that no 4 wheel drive vehicle has ever been offered from
any factory with a front LSD or locker. Can anyone think of exceptions?
It sems like there would be a few.


Yes, ford offered a LSD for its front dana 44 on the F-150. I ordered
a 1995 F150 4x4 with the 302 and got a limited slip in the front axle. I
verified it was a limited slip by jacking up both front wheels and then urning
one. The other wheel went in the same dircetion (once the hubs were locked).


I have a question about my 1997 F-250 HD 4x4. Will a dana 60 F-350 monobeam
front axle bolt to my F250 HD frame with no mods? I want to convert
my F-250 HD to an F-350. I was unable to get an F350 extended cab short bed
so I ordered the F250 HD. But I like the dana 60 solid front on the F-350.
Any ideas?

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:41:51 -0600
From: Gary Gadwa
Subject: Re: RV CAMS V1 #120

For those inquiring about RV Cams. Crane's Compu-Cam for Fords is what I
installed in my 1990 351 4x4 F-250HD Supercab. The Torque gains are very
noticeable. However, my cam change is coupled with alot of other
modifications. I'd like to see an actual Dynamometer Torque and
Horepower test with the Crane Compu-Cam. Anybody know of a Web site that
may have conducted such tests???

GARY GADWA
STANLEY IDAHO
1990 F 250 4x4 Supercab
1996 Explorer
1931 Victoria

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:50:00 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: High Octane gas

Randy Kindler wrote:

> 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?

Spark knocking is related to peak compression pressure (among other
things). If you have lower atmospheric pressure you should have lower
peak pressures. So I guess what the attendant told you would be true.

Ed

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:52:19 -0600
From: Gary Gadwa
Subject: Re: Under Drive Pulleys V1 #120

Dave Baldwin's questions about Under Drive Pulleys.
Well--- for what its worth I've been running a three some of under drive
pulleys on my 1990 351 F250HD 4x4 Supercab for slightly over 2 years
now. I haul a 3000lb. 9 ft 10 inch camper and have never had an
overheating or water pump problem. Even in places like Death
Valley....However, I will mention that the Alternator (Mines a 80/100
amp) will turn noticably slower thus output voltage is down some
especially a concern if you're running alot of options and charging a
couple of batteries.
Dyno tests indicate a 6 to 10 HP gain to the rear wheels....I think
this simple modification is worth it.

GARY GADWA
STANLEY IDAHO
1990 F250 4x4 Supercab
1996 Explorer
1931 Victoria

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:08:01 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip

Beaman, James wrote:

> This is getting a little off charter, but I seem to remember reading in
> rec.autos.4x4 that no 4 wheel drive vehicle has ever been offered from
> any factory with a front LSD or locker. Can anyone think of exceptions?

Well I have a friend with a 1989 Ford F150 that claims he has a limited
front axle......I emphasize claims.

Ed

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:40:49 -0500
From: "KLS"
Subject: 2.9 L EFI engine

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCC4F0.E0508620
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Can someone point me towards a thorough explanation of the computer
trouble codes for this 1986 vintage machine(2.9L EFI auto w/ac). I've
been able to follow the procedure to extract the codes(mostly emission
stuff..i.e. EGR, MAP sensor etc), but need more info on isolating and
repairing problems before I start replacing emission parts. The engine
accelerates well and is strong, but runs rough at idle in gear at ,for
instance, a stop light. Raising the idle a bit (with foot on the brake)
seems to smooth it out but, the idle of course, is controlled by the
computer and appears to be "un-adjustable" manually. If it wasn't so
politically and environmentally incorrect, for two cents, I'd start
stripping all this emissions stuff off the darn thing, even If I had to go
back to a less efficient ignition system! Thanks to All

Kevin Sharpe
shak worldnet.att.net
217-785-5403 Office
217-785-5282 Fax
- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCC4F0.E0508620
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


color=3D"#008000" face=3D"MS SystemEx"> Can someone point me =
towards a thorough explanation of the computer trouble codes for this =
1986 vintage machine(2.9L EFI auto w/ac).   I've been able to =
follow the procedure to extract the codes(mostly emission stuff..i.e. =
EGR, MAP sensor etc), but need more info on isolating and repairing =
problems before I start replacing emission parts.  The engine =
accelerates well and is strong, but runs rough at idle in gear at ,for =
instance, a stop light.  Raising the idle a bit (with foot on the =
brake) seems to smooth it out but, the idle of course, is controlled by =
the computer and appears to be "un-adjustable" manually. =
 If it wasn't so politically and environmentally incorrect, for two =
cents, I'd start stripping all this emissions stuff off the darn thing, =
even If I had to go back to a less efficient ignition system! =
 Thanks to All Kevin Sharpe
color=3D"#0000FF">shak worldnet.att.net
color=3D"#008000">217-785-5403 Office217-785-5282 Fax

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCC4F0.E0508620--

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:03:25 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: 2.9 L EFI engine

KLS wrote:
>
> Can someone point me towards a thorough explanation of the computer
> trouble codes for this 1986 vintage machine(2.9L EFI auto w/ac). I've
> been able to follow the procedure to extract the codes(mostly emission
> stuff..i.e. EGR, MAP sensor etc), but need more info on isolating and
> repairing problems before I start replacing emission parts. The engine
> accelerates well and is strong, but runs rough at idle in gear at ,for
> instance, a stop light. Raising the idle a bit (with foot on the brake)
> seems to smooth it out but, the idle of course, is controlled by the
> computer and appears to be "un-adjustable" manually. If it wasn't so
> politically and environmentally incorrect, for two cents, I'd start
> stripping all this emissions stuff off the darn thing, even If I had to go
> back to a less efficient ignition system! Thanks to All
>

I don't know squat about the codes, but I'd be looking at dirty
injectors.

TC

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:13:49 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: Another Weird Colorado Gas question

>From: Randy Kindler
>Subject: re: High Octane gas
>snip
>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?
Actually, since the engine's compression ratio is one of the main factors
in its octane requirements, the thinner air reduces the octane requirement.
At higher altitude, the effective compression ratio is lower. Generally
accepted formulas say the octane requirement of an engine drops 0.5 to 1.5
points per 300 meters altitude above mean sea level.

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

>From: Randy Kindler
>Subject: Another Weird Colorado Gas question
>snip
>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
The oxygen sensor detects only O2, which is the free oxygen molecule
available in air. It does not detect oxygen in other molecules (H2O for
instance), including oxygen that occurs in combustion products (CO2 for
instance). The extra oxygen in oxygenated fuel is in a hydrocarbon
molecule (such as ethanol or MTBE), and thus, it is not available for
combustion, nor does it contribute to O2 in the exhaust gas stream.

By sensing O2, the engine computer determines how much oxygen remains
available for combustion in the exhaust gas. Leftover O2 in exhaust gas is
a symptom of lean mixture (too much air, not enough fuel). The computer
uses this information to adjust fuel/air mixture to achieve a
stoichiometric reaction (i.e., the exact fuel/air ratio necessary to
produce 100% combustion), which is the most efficient use of the fuel.
Since air intake at a given throttle position is fixed, the computer
controls the injectors to regulate the fuel to achieve stoichiometry.

>emissions. I know my mileage drops signifigantly during the months that
>we have to run oxygenated fuel. Local politicians are proud of this
The reason fuel mileage drops is because the oxygenates have oxygen already
in their molecules, which makes them, in a sense, "pre-burned"
hydrocarbons. Actually, they can be burned, but because there is oxygen
already in the molecule (unlike the pure hydrocarbon components of
gasoline), the specific energy (energy per mass) of the oxygenate is less
than that for "pure" gasoline. In the case of MTBE, its specific energy is
only about 25% that of gasoline.

When you add a substantial amount of oxygenates into gasoline, you reduce
the overall specific energy of the fuel. When your engine computer detects
the lower power output for a given amount of fuel, it adjusts by increasing
the fuel input, and thus, your mileage drops acordingly because it takes
more fuel volume (actually mass) to go the same mile. If your engine is
carbureted, your right foot makes the same adjustment automatically, with
the same effect on fuel mileage.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)
1980 F250 4x4 351M

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:25:55 +0100
From: droberts MIT.EDU (D Robertson)
Subject: Re: 2.9 L EFI engine

Dear Kevin:

Did you get any codes out ? I had a similar problem with a 86, 5.0l . Rough
idle no codes , I cleaned the idle air bypass valve and throttle body. The
idle air bypass valve bleeds air past the trottle when it is closed . It
located near the throttle , mine looked about the size of a D-cell battery
w/2 wires coming out the bottom. I removed the entire assembly from the EGR
out and cleaned eveything with carb cleaner ;several years later and it is
still going well.

Take Care
Dave

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 09:34:03 -0700
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: 2.9 L EFI engine

At 10:03 AM 9/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>KLS wrote:
>>
>> Can someone point me towards a thorough explanation of the computer
>> trouble codes for this 1986 vintage machine(2.9L EFI auto w/ac). I've
>> been able to follow the procedure to extract the codes(mostly emission
>> stuff..i.e. EGR, MAP sensor etc), but need more info on isolating and
>> repairing problems before I start replacing emission parts. The engine
>> accelerates well and is strong, but runs rough at idle in gear at ,for
>> instance, a stop light. Raising the idle a bit (with foot on the brake)
>> seems to smooth it out but, the idle of course, is controlled by the
>> computer and appears to be "un-adjustable" manually. If it wasn't so
>> politically and environmentally incorrect, for two cents, I'd start
>> stripping all this emissions stuff off the darn thing, even If I had to go
>> back to a less efficient ignition system! Thanks to All
>>
>
>I don't know squat about the codes, but I'd be looking at dirty
>injectors.

I don't know the codes either, but...

Since you indicate, the engine runs well at higher RPM's, i'll make the
(dangerous) assumption that the plugs, plug wires, cap and rotor are all
ok.

When the idle gets rough on my 89 bronco II (2.9), it's usually time
to clean the "butter fly" valve, that's located just past the air cleaner,
and leads into the intake manifold.

When I flip the valve open, I can usually see carbon deposits coating the back
side of the valve. Spray carb cleaner, is usually sufficient to clean it all
off. ( I spray it as far into the intake manifold as I can)

If you've never done this before, the engine will be hard to start, the first
time, and a bunch-o-smoke will blow out of you exhaust pipe. Once the smoke
stops blowing out of your exhast pipe, you should notice an improved idle.

If not...

After that, the diagnosis gets a bit more involved.
- -fuel filter
- -fuel pump
- -injectors

Hope this helps, Let us know how it turns out.

- -john

>
>TC
>+-------------- 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: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:05:43 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: 351 Windsor/Cleveland question

>> (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?
>snip
>I beleive the 351C was a big block similar to the 390.
Here's some Ford engine history, as I understand it:

Ford engines that share common design characteristics are referred to as
families. The 351 Windsor (now called 5.8) is considered a member of the
"small block" family that includes the 289/302 and 5.0.

The 351 Cleveland was the first member of an engine family called 335
(named for some internal Ford engineering project number). The 335 family
includes the 351 Cleveland, the 351M, and the 400. The 335 family was also
considered a small block engine, and the related 385 family (429/460) is
referred to as the big block.

The 390 was a member of the FE family, which also included the 352, 360,
and some others. The FE big blocks included the 427/428 engines. I'm not
as familiar with the FE family. Maybe some FE expert can add more to that
info.

I'm pretty familiar with the 335 engines (especially the later 351M and
400, which I refer to as M-blocks). I'm not so familiar with the small
blocks, including the 351W.

I know the 351W was introduced the same year as the 351C, in 1969. I
believe originally, the 351W was intended as the more mainstream engine in
this displacement class, whereas the 351C was intended as the high
performance engine. Both of these engines, I believe, were developed to
eventually replace the aging FE family 352 and 360 engines. In 1971, Ford
introduced the 400, probably to replace the FE 390 engine, although the
next year after the 400's intro, it was seriously de-tuned (probably) in
response to emissions requirements and in factory trim it never lived up to
the glory of the 390.

The 351C was built only four years, from 1969 to 1972. The last ones were
used in some 1973 Mustangs and Torinos. The 351C derived from the 302 BOSS
engine, and it used the same cylinder head design. As the emphasis shifted
from all out performance to emission control (and eventually fuel economy),
the 351C was fitted with lower compression heads and 2-bbl carburetors,
produced along with the high compression 4-bbl units.

Since the 351C was designed as a serious high performance engine, many
aftermarket companies started producing performance parts for them and they
developed a cult following among Ford racers and hot rodders, which of
course just added to the aftermarket's enthusiasm for this engine.
Nowadays, though, from what I can tell, it seems that the 351W has about as....


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.