Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:35:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #173
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, October 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 173



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

Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
Other Lists? -Reply -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger -Reply -Reply ["John Rogers"
Fitercharger vs Cold Air [Luke Wells ]
Re: New to list - Dana gearing ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Ranger Engine Swap ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's [Joe Maleski ]
Re: Off-Road Equipment [Joe Maleski ]
Re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger [ERI302 aol.com]
Re: Ford trucks post (fwd) ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Throttle Body -Reply -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
Re: Throttle Body -Reply -Reply ["John Rogers" ]
Re: Throttle Body -Reply -Reply ["David J. Baldwin" ]
What did you say? -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply [john.doe ero]
4.0 upgrade article in OR magazine [john.doe erols.com]
Re: Throttle Body -Reply -Reply [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
89 Bronco II - payload package 2? [John Yee ]
Mr. Rogers' automated reply feature [john.doe erols.com]
Re: Mr. Rogers' automated reply feature [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.n]
Re: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's [Geoffrey Hoffman ]
Re: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's [Chris Kelly ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:51:45 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's -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 16:54:45 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: Other Lists? -Reply -Reply

I will be away from the office until October 23. 1997.
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 16:55:44 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger -Reply -Reply

I will be away from the office until October 23. 1997.
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 19:14:35 -0400
From: Luke Wells
Subject: Fitercharger vs Cold Air

I was wondering if anybody knows what makes up a cold air induction vs a

K&N filtercharger system(the one which replaces the factory air filter
box). My friend has a Honda with cold air induction and I have no idea
what differs from the filtercharger. (ie. hp level gain, which is
higher?)

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:26:53 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: New to list - Dana gearing

Michael Wray wrote:
>
> Also, with all this talk about the crudy oil pressure sending unit.
> Is there a mechanical in-dash replacement? Or a different sending
> unit that will actually show the correct pressure?

Michael,

I can't answer your axle questions, but I do have an interesting tidbit
about the oil pressure--and Ford instrumentation in general.

I had exposure to development of the gauge drivers in some later-model
Ford vehicles, and one of the interesting things I found was that the
instruments like coolant temperature, voltage, and oil pressure are
actually designed with a rather large flat-band in the "normal" range.
What that means is that the needle only points to one spot, even though
your temperature might actually change significantly--and I mean like 50
degrees significantly, not just two or five! Same for oil pressure: if
you have more than about 20psi, it's going to say you're fat and happy!

Why would they DO this?!? Actually it is quite simple: many MANY
customers bring back vehicles for warranty work based on the fact that
the needle doesn't tell them something that makes them feel
"comfortable". So the objective from instrument panel design is to make
the gauges display "good" readings as long as the values are within
"normal operating range".

Now there has been some of this going on for some time, and I don't know
how your '86 was done, but if you (and anyone else) really want to know
what your systems are doing, get some REAL instruments.

So here's what has been going on:

Movement--this is a bad thing. People don't want to see instruments
moving, especially if they think that something bad may come of it. The
only instruments that need to display movement are Speedometer,
Tachometer, and Fuel.

Oil pressure--anyone that has ever had a real oil pressure gauge knows
that when the engine is cold, you get lots, and when it's hot, it drops
off. It drops off more when the engine gets lots of miles on it, and it
goes pretty low when idling in hot weather. In general, people think
high oil pressure is a good thing, so we make the gauge read over
halfway on the scale, but not so high that they get concerned. Also,
pressure sensors that put out a signal proportional to pressure are much
more unreliable than simple pressure switches (the kind they use with
lights). Great (if you like doing things this way) thing about this oil
pressure circuit is that you can drive it with a simple pressure switch,
and no-one's the wiser! There's no more information here than with a
light!

Temperature--this usually doesn't move that much once the thermostat is
in control of things, but thermostats aren't perfect: some regulate a
little high, and some a little low. We don't want people to ask
questions though, so if we are between, say 160 and 210F, we will just
point a little below halfway. Reason: if people see it over halfway,
they think the engine is going to melt down, and if too low, will take
it in for service because they think that they are not getting enough
heat out of their heater! This is the worst one because you get returns
on both ends.

Voltage--same thing as oil pressure. People want to see it on the high
side, but not so high as to cause alarm. Also, if you're in traffic at
idle with lights, wipers, and AC on (hey, you get that in Houston a
lot), you don't want any voltage sag to alarm anyone unless the battery
is about to go flat.

Fuel--here we want to show how much fuel is in the tank, but we don't
want it to start moving around when the car goes around curves. Now we
could install baffles in the fuel tank to prevent this, but it is
cheaper just to let the fuel slosh around in there and average the
reading electrically. Some of the circuits are REALLY good about this,
and they are rock-solid going around freeway interchanges and stuff like
that. Actually, I feel that this is one very good thing that they have
done.

Since these methods were adopted, I have it on good authority that the
warranty returns are way down. It's a peculiar thing, but people like
to see instruments (rather than "idiot" lights), but since most people
don't comprehend what the instruments say, the functions of the
instrumentation had to be "dumbed down" to tell people what they WANT to
see, not what conditions actually are.

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:44:11 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Ranger Engine Swap

bLAckguArd wrote:
>
> To
> that end, and to the end of the fact that I'm tired of being thumped
> as I race other kids to school in the mornings, I am considering
> putting a 4L V6 into the truck.
> Does anyone know what sorts of difficulties would be involved in
> this swap? For example, would it be a direct bolt-in swapover, or are

Yeah, I hate a wimpy truck, too.

Be warned: if you live in a state where the emissions Gestapo keep a
tight reign on things, you might end up with a truck you can't get a
licence for.

Other than that, I think I would consider dropping a 5.0 (302) in that
bad boy. Actually, I like the thought of the 347 stroker motor--a 302
with a longer stroke (3.4" to be exact). You could melt down a pair of
tires in about 30 seconds with that, I'd imagine.

I'd swap the engine/trans both. Of course you're in for some work if
you want to figure out how to get the appropriate emissions/ engine
> control equipment sorted out.

If you did 4.0L, I would imagine that you could get a wiring harness,
new engine control and ignition modules, and replace everything. It
would probably be cheaper to sell the one you have, and buy a 4.0L
model. Easier and faster, too.

Good luck. Let us know what you're up to.


- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
Dallas, TX
- --------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:35:11 -0700
From: Joe Maleski
Subject: Re: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's

The most obvious difference between the two 4.0 liter engines is that
ford's is a V6 and the Jeep engine is an inline 6.

Jeep did use a 2.8 liter V6 for a while in the Cherokees and Comanches,
maybe that's the engine you are thinking of. Jeep's V6 was sourced from
GM. Back in '84 my Ranger pickup had the Cologne-built 2.8 liter V6 and
when I compared the two the ford engine (as well as the entire truck) felt
much better.

Joe

>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

************************************
Joe Maleski
Santa Clara, CA
1994 F-250HD SuperCab, 460/5-spd, two ailing in-tank fuel pumps...

mailto:jmaleski auspex.com

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:44:30 -0700
From: Joe Maleski
Subject: Re: Off-Road Equipment

I have Off Roaded my F-250 SuperCab with the 8' bed quite extensively and
it has performed very well. I think that ARBs on this truck are a waste of
money, you'd be better off with a Detroit Locker. If you want a low-cost
GPS check out the discount boating catalogs such as West Marine. Water
ingestion has not been a problem, though I've not had the chance to ford
anything really deep with it.

The biggest issue with the truck is its extreme size. It is not easy to
make a 180 degree turn on a tight trail and the width (especially with the
Camper on) invites pinstriping. The truck has amazing traction, though.

Joe

>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.

************************************
Joe Maleski
Santa Clara, CA
1994 F-250HD SuperCab, 460/5-spd, two ailing in-tank fuel pumps...

mailto:jmaleski ....

---

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.