fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #172

Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:56:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest

ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest

ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #172
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up

ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest

ListService.net

fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, October 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 172

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

MORE 1999 specs [KNBD87D

prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
re: Ranger Engine Swap [KNBD87D

prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
(Fwd) Re: Off-Road Equipment [jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Re: Off-Road Equipment [jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Performance chips ["Mike Wiatt" ]
Ford trucks post (fwd) [Mike Ginter SA ]
Re: performance chips ["Stephen M. Brown" ]
Re: Performance chips [jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Re: OIL (Synthetic + Rant) ["Dave Resch"]
Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger [jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Throttle Body ["Mike Wiatt" ]
Re: Throttle Body [jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Other Lists? [Tony Rio ]
re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger [KNBD87D

prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY]
Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's [Luke Wells ]
Throttle Body -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
Re: Throttle Body -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
Other Lists? -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger -Reply ["John Rogers"

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:40:14, -0500
From: KNBD87D

prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: MORE 1999 specs

Hey all,

7.3L does have increased power. All I know is the torque is rated at
a massive 500 lbs.-ft....WOW!
Also, full pictures won't be available until Nov. 5. I do have a
small picture of the grille, and I am mailing it to Ken to put on the
website. Building of the 1999's F-Series start on Jan. 5th '98.

Josh
KNBD87D

prodigy.com

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:46:25, -0500
From: KNBD87D

prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re: Ranger Engine Swap

If I were you, I would drop a 5.OL and a Mustang 5 speed. If you
install a 4.0L, you will have to install a larger tranny and rearend
anyway, so putting in a 5.0L would be best. A 4.0L only gives you
160 hp and the 5.0L with give you 220 hp...which would you rather
have? Plus, there are many more perf. parts available for the 5.0.

Josh

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:03:10 +0000
From: jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Off-Road Equipment

Forwarded message:
From: Self
To: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net
Subject: Re: Off-Road Equipment
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:34:55

Wow , I don't think I've ever seen someone outfit such a huge truck
for" serious off-roading" . What do you consider serious ? Your right
in that being so long is going to exclude you from many trails .
Where do you wheel ? Did you see some show last night that ran a
story on Tonya Hardings F-250 4x4 extended cab . That thing could
never get on the trails in the state that I live in
N.C.(Tellico,Uwharrie,etc.) without some serious pinstripping if you
know what I'm saying . One great advantage you have over most is
those axles . As far as prices go on the things that you listed , go
out and look through some off-road magazines and find the best prices
that way .

JR RANGER

From: BRIGANDBAR

aol.com
To: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net
Subject: Re: Off-Road Equipment
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 18:05:30 +0000

I have an F-350 4x4 Crew Cab (Powerstroke) and an begining to prepare it for
some serious off-roading. I'd appreciate any information on the installation
of ARB Air Lockers, the price, ease of installation, results, problems etc.
I'm also looking for a source to get a good buy on a portable GPS unit to
use with the truck. I've looked at a couple of Magellan units that seem to
do everything I need, but I can't find any discounted prices on them. I know
that there must be a place to get them out there.

These are long trucks, and that has some disadantages, but also a few
advantages as in wheelbase span. Has anybody had any experience and or
problems with water ingestion or anything.

+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up

listservice.net, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request

listservice.net |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:34:48 +0000
From: jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Off-Road Equipment

Wow , I don't think I've ever seen someone outfit such a huge truck
for" serious off-roading" . What do you consider serious ? Your right
in that being so long is going to exclude you from many trails .
Where do you wheel ? Did you see some show last night that ran a
story on Tonya Hardings F-250 4x4 extended cab . That thing could
never get on the trails in the state that I live in
N.C.(Tellico,Uwharrie,etc.) without some serious pinstripping if you
know what I'm saying . One great advantage you have over most is
those axles . As far as prices go on the things that you listed , go
out and look through some off-road magazines and find the best prices
that way .

JR RANGER

From: BRIGANDBAR

aol.com
To: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request

listservice.net |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:30:53 PDT
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: Performance chips

I too plan to put a chip in my 4.0 Ranger. After talking to everyone I
know who has used one I have decided on the Superchips one. They seem to
offer the biggest improvement. I heard something about the jet chips rev
limiter being set at the stock 4800rpm?? And Ive heard that the
Hypertech just doesnt do much. Like I said this is just what I ve heard
and if anyone else has more info on this let me know. By the way, if you
pay anywhere from $225-250 your not getting a bad deal. The lowest Ive
seen them is $225.

- ---------------------------------------------
pyro152

hotmail.com
'94 Ranger Supercab 4.0 5 speed
The Ford Ranger Pages
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/7894
- ---------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:40:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: Mike Ginter SA
Subject: Ford trucks post (fwd)

>> I am wondering if anybody else has had any trouble with the E4OD
>> automatic transmission used with the powerstroke diesel.
>
>CUT
>
>> Is the E4OD a product that is not capable of its intended and
>>
>> advertised purpose?
>>
>> Harold
>
>Nope, that's actually a fine transmission.
>However, it *is* an electronic overdrive, and that's where the caution
>comes in.
>No overdrive should be used when the engine would be more "comfortable"
>in a lower gear. That means that if you are losing RPMs, take it out of
>OD. This has nothing to do with the tranny's ability to pass the torque
>or tow the weight, but rather with the abuse on the clutches when it
>shifts under loads. You do not want that transmission to "hunt" for the
>best gear. Each shift takes its toll, especially under load, with a long
>torque arm that the OD gives. Just hit the little button, let it go into
>drive, and save the tranny from any unnecessary shifts. It will thank
>you by lasting longer.

CUT

I recently purchased a 1993 Extended Cab F140 4x4 with 351 and 3 speed
O.D. transmission that I assume is the E40D. The truck has approximately
79k miles. Something in the driveline (trans? probably) grumbles/vibrates
a little between 1000 and 1500 rpm while in O.D. I have had someone else
tell me that this is the first sign of my trans going out. Your e-mail
(Bill Funk) certainly makes logical sense, and I will definately follow
this pratice (already do actually). But having purchased the truck used,
the damage may already be done.

My question is this:

Would I be better off having this transmission serviced and possibly rebuilt
or at least repaired now, or should I wait until it finally breaks? In other
words, is this E40D problem I have heard so much about somewhat preventable
if taken care of early? Less expensive to fix if taken care of early?

Any advice regarding this question would be most appreciated.

Mike Ginter

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:15:28 -0500
From: "Stephen M. Brown"
Subject: Re: performance chips

Hmmm...well anyone who's been on here very long has seen a thread or two
already about performance chips. I would do a LOT of research before I
bought a chip for your FORD. Ford's computers are pretty neat little
pieces of equipment.

Downsides to chips:

If you do what some makers do (put a new chip in-line with the Ford EEC-IV
computer and its sensors), the computer can learn its way around the chip
after a while. Meaning you have to disconnect your battery & clear its
memory occasionally to get any performance gains back.

Apparently, a lot of chip makers merely advance your spark curve, meaning
you must run premium fuel, or you'll get knocking. This can cause trouble
if you have already advanced the base timing yourself.

Upside:

Some chip makers use sophisticated equipment & dynos to tune specifically
your vehicle and computer "catch code". They provide you with a chip that
plugs into the EEC-IV test port and overrides its onboard memory, so that
it CANNOT learn its way around the upgrade.

My advice: do a lot of web surfing (especially the Mustang guys....they
know what works, and aren't afraid to bash what doesn't). Also search on
Dejanews; you'll come across hundreds of p.o.'d Ford owners who bought
chips that did NOTHING but lighten their wallet.

steve

> From: "Jerry Dean"
> Subject: Re: performance chips
> not yet, but I plan to buy one myself. the only problem is the cost.
> since it is a computer module replacement, it costs around $250.00. let
me
> know if you have luck finding it cheaper and how much performance
increase
> it gives you.
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net
> Subject: performance chips
> >Since theres been a lot said about performance exhaust systems , can
> >anyone say if aftermarket performance computer chips work on a 4.0L ?
> >Superchips claims horsepower increases of 15hp and 30ft.lbs. of
> >torque on a 96 4.0L Ranger. Has anyone used one ?
> >JR RANGER

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:02:51 +0000
From: jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Performance chips

I also have heard that Superchips work best for the Fords . The
cheapest price that I've seen is also $225 . When you get your chip
let us know your results.

JR

From: "Mike Wiatt"
To: fordtrucks80up

ListService.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net
Subject: Performance chips
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 20:30:53 +0000

I too plan to put a chip in my 4.0 Ranger. After talking to everyone I
know who has used one I have decided on the Superchips one. They seem to
offer the biggest improvement. I heard something about the jet chips rev
limiter being set at the stock 4800rpm?? And Ive heard that the
Hypertech just doesnt do much. Like I said this is just what I ve heard
and if anyone else has more info on this let me know. By the way, if you
pay anywhere from $225-250 your not getting a bad deal. The lowest Ive
seen them is $225.

- ---------------------------------------------
pyro152

listservice.net, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request

listservice.net |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:40:42 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: OIL (Synthetic + Rant)

>From: David Hertzberg
>Subject: Re: OIL (Synthetic + Rant)
>
>have tried a product called Tribotech, and the fact is that it did
actually
>improve my mileage by about 10 to 15 percent in my diesel (I miswrote
>earlier when I noted I experienced a 7 percent increase in mileage). I
>measured the mileage improvement over a period of about 5 weeks. I
>made no changes in my driving habits, and purchased my fuel at the
>same station. You clearly are quite knowledgable and I would appreciate
>your insights; what could this stuff have done to lead to the improved
>mileage? The manufacturers claim the product's secret and patented

Yo David:
I am no expert, just a very skeptical beneficiary of a couple of semesters
of college physics and a couple of mechanical engineering courses. I would
speculate that what Ken (and Steve Brown) suggested about some additives
using chlorinated hydrocarbons, like in machining lubricants, may well be
the case with the Tribotech additive you mention. Otherwise, without
knowing the exact conditions under which your truck is driven/maintained,
there is no way I could guess what causes or contributes to its
performance. Basically, that is the problem with anecdotal evidence; it is
not a controlled, repeatable experiment with all the variables accounted
for.

>ingredients actually "bind to the metal surfaces" in the engine in a
>unique way and offer a money back guarantee if there is no discernable

This particular claim is pretty vague and essentially meaningless. You
could say that about millions of possible chemical compounds, including
caustics and acids that would corrode the metal into dust.

>but I find his experiement compelling. At the same time, will ANY engine
>from which the oil has been drained and on which a new filter has been
>placed run for 30 minutes with just the residual oil remaining inside? (A
>friend of mine who builds dragsters says yes.) I would appreciate your
>comments.

I remember Pat Goss from his stint w/ the PBS Motorweek show back in the
late 80s. Nothing against PG, he seems like a nice guy who has obvious
experience working on cars for many years, but if he sells a product in his
shop and endorses the product, you and I know he is being paid to do that.
Not that being paid is bad (I love to get paid), but being paid to endorse
a particular product certainly compromises one's appearance of objectivity.
Everyone has a price, and if someone gave me enough money, I'd tell you to
put Jello chocolate pudding in your engine.

Some additives claim that microscopic metal particles will effectively
"plate" bearing surfaces, filling in scratches and other surface
irregularities, which at first blush seems plausible and enticing.
Actually, standard engine oils have a zinc additive which does the same
thing. The only problem is that this additive doesn't come into play until
there is no oil whatsoever on the bearing surface (ouch!). This is
probably the thing that allows engines drained of lubricant to run for
quite a while (at least long enough to impress the people watching the
infomercials).

Ultimately, it all boils down to the fact that no additive product maker I
have ever seen can produce any scientific evidence that their product does
anything worthwhile. On the other hand, all the major oil producing
companies belong to the American Petroleum Institute (API), which among
other things, sets specific standards for all types of lubricant
performance, which API members certify that their products meet. These
standards, including all the related testing procedures and specifications,
are freely published and readily available to any person or organization
interested.

>Your explication of synthetics was interesting and informative. Yet you
>do not indicate the frequency of oil changes with synthetics. What would
>your recommendation be?
I would recommend that you purchase only lubricants that have an API rating
(either conventional or synthetic) appropriate to the service requirement
of your engine (as specified in your Ford owner's manual or factory service
manual), and then follow the lubricant manufacturer's recommendations
regarding frequency of changes, filters, etc. On my truck, I would follow
a combination of recommendations that yielded the most conservative
treatment for my engine, probably eating a few more oil changes than
absolutely necessary in exchange for a long and productive life for the
engine.

There is a very good, though brief, discussion of engine oils, their
characteristics, and their usual additives at the following URL:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://vger.rutgers.edu/~ravi/bike/pages/pages/pages/docs/oil.html

I highly recommend this article for anyone interested in what motor oil
really is.

BTW, as for Ken's comment to the effect that auto manufacturers spend
"billions" to improve fuel mileage -- you better believe it. What with the
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards being mandated for all the
US-based manufacturers, fuel economy is a very real business concern. So
far, the HD trucks (w/ GVW over 8500 lbs) are still exempt from the CAFE
measurements, but Rangers and all the cars are not. Funny how the (mostly)
free market has turned the bureaucrats' intentions on their ear and made
the F-series trucks (and their counterparts at GM and Chrysler) the best
selling, highest volume production vehicles.

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:17:30 +0000
From: jsruss

postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger

Can anybody say why in the world that the Ranger does not have the
5.0L like the Explorer does ? What's up with that ? Are there plans
to have this as an option soon ? And when will there be a third door
in the supercab ? Even the new 4.2L that is in the F-150 would be a
great improvement over the 4.0L . Anybody agree ?

JR RANGER

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:39:53 PDT
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: Throttle Body

Does any body know the size of the stock throttle body on a 94 4.0L??
Thanx

- ---------------------------------------------
pyro152

postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Throttle Body

Ithink it around 60-64mm.

From: "Mike Wiatt"
To: fordtrucks80up

ListService.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up

listservice.net
Subject: Throttle Body
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 97 21:39:53 +0000

Does any body know the size of the stock throttle body on a 94 4.0L??
Thanx

- ---------------------------------------------
pyro152

listservice.net, |
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request

listservice.net |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:23:44 -0600
From: Tony Rio
Subject: Other Lists?

I was curious if anyone knew of any mailing lists that are available that
pertain to a couple of my other cars. They are:
'89 Ford Probe LX
'80 Ford Fairmont Futura
Also, does anyone know of any web site dedicated to the Fairmont, other
than at the australian Ford site?

Thanks!!!!

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:35:51, -0500
From: KNBD87D

prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger

Totally agree. I work at a Ford dealership and the question has been
asked..."Is the 5.0L or 4.0L SOHC going into the Ranger?" The
engineers say no because the SOHC is saved for the
Explorer/Mountaineer and production limits elsewhere. They didn't
have a reason for NOT putting the 5.0L into the Ranger. Maybe they
are hiding something...I hope so. The 4.2L is too wide for the Ranger.
More HP would be great to compete with the D*kota or kill the S10,
but Ranger's outsell everything anyway. Hopefully in the future we
see something, but Ford people tell us no for atleast the next few
years. Kinda Sucks. Will NEVER be a "thrid" door supercab because
the seats are mounted there, and that would be quite the ride if the
door flew open. We ARE told that there will be a 4 door Ranger in the
Spring of '98. It will be like a crew cab with a smaller box.

Josh

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:46:28 -0400
From: Luke Wells
Subject: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's

I was wondering how the V6 4.0 in the Ranger compares to the V6 4.0 in
the Jeeps. I used to own an 5 speed 89 Jeep Comanche pickup with this
engine and it hauled. The only mods I did was a 3 chamber flowmaster, a
k&n, splitfires(wow, yeah right) and I could feel a big difference from
the flowmaster. I could take most truck(V6's exept for one V-8 F-150 I
blew past) and sport utils, but now I own a 4Cyc 2.3 Ranger Splash. I
love the truck but it makes me really weary about owning a 4 banger
again, exept for maybe a rice burner( yeah right!). If any body has any
comments please post.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:51:40 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: Throttle Body -Reply

I will be away from the office from April 24 through
April 28. If you are in need of an immediate response
please contract Kathy Gray at 272-8430 or
Kgray

salud.unm.edu.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:51:41 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: Re: Throttle Body -Reply

I will be away from the office from April 24 through
April 28. If you are in need of an immediate response
please contract Kathy Gray at 272-8430 or
Kgray

....

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.