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 auspex.com

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:48:59 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger

jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> 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 ?

Yeah. I bet you could make yourself a 5.0L Ranger, since the Ranger is
similar to the Explorer. If you got the engine/trans and proper EEC and
a wiring harness out of the Explorer, I bet you could get it to work. A
lot of work though.

The 4.6 OHC in the F-150 is nice too. The 5.4L is too--drove one in an
Expedition and liked it a lot. Didn't like the price, though!

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:52:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: ERI302 aol.com
Subject: Re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger

WELL MY 1989 RANGER HAS A 5.0 WELL IT DIDNT COME WITH IT WE PUT IT IN AND WE
HAD TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS FOR THE HEADERS TO FIT AND WE PUT SOME SHORTY
HEADERS

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:02:18 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Ford trucks post (fwd)

Mike Ginter SA wrote:
>
> 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?

Before you get that serious, check out the U-joints. The prop-shaft
angles on 4X4s are high, and they wear out sooner than on 2WD vehicles.
If they get stiff, they throw the end of the transmission around (which
could lead to internal damage if left to continue) and when your
prop-shaft reaches the resonant frequency of the drivetrain, it makes a
fearsome droning noise. This is usually within a certain speed range,
and not dependent on what gear is selected.

Check this out first. It happened to me--to my relief! Beats replacing
a tranny.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:53:16 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: Throttle Body -Reply -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 16:53:16 -0600
From: "John Rogers"
Subject: Re: Throttle Body -Reply -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 19:17:52 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Throttle Body -Reply -Reply

Ken,

Can you please flame this guy? I've received a dozen or so of these
messages.


John Rogers wrote:
>
> 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.
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:19:55 -0400
From: john.doe erols.com
Subject: What did you say? -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply

Something like this happened on another list and folks went crazy... it'll
be interesting to see what happens here.



>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.

>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.

>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.

>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 20:26:20 -0400
From: john.doe erols.com
Subject: 4.0 upgrade article in OR magazine

The December issue of Off-Road magazine has a significant article on 4.0
upgrades. They stayed more in the shade-tree skill level on the
modifications/products they described... no testing, just descriptions.

They did talk about camshafts, which was cool, because nobody does anymore.
I'd be interested in hearing how well camshaft changes get through
emissions testing. The article doesn't say...

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:24:09 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Throttle Body -Reply -Reply

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought that these posts are
excessive ! Whats going on ?



From: "David J. Baldwin"
To: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Subject: Re: Throttle Body -Reply -Reply
Organization: Automotive IC Design
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 00:17:52 +0000

Ken,

Can you please flame this guy? I've received a dozen or so of these
messages.


John Rogers wrote:
>
> 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.
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+

- --
Best Regards,

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


+-------------- 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 16:39:37 -0700
From: John Yee
Subject: 89 Bronco II - payload package 2?

I have a 89 Bronco II, with the 4 speed auto
and 4:10 LS rear end.

It has the min payload package and according to the
owners guide, the GCWR is 5500 lbs and max trailer tow
capacity is 2000 lbs.

The owners guide indicates that for this vehichle to get to a
GCWR of 8500 lbs and up to 5000 lbs of trailer towing, it
requires "Super cooling and payload package 2".

And the question:

I know I have super cooling as it was standard with the Automatic,
but does anyone know what the specifics of the "payload package 2"
are?


FYI - I was looking over the 1989 brochure, and the Edmund's equivalent
price sheet that I have (from my credit union), and cannot find any
references to this payload option. The 1989 BroncoII brochure, *does* say that
when properly equipped, a bronco II can tow up to 5000 lbs, but does not
elaborate. I don't tow much with this vehicle, or plan to, but was curious
what this option consisted of.

thanks,

- -john

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:01:26 -0400
From: john.doe erols.com
Subject: Mr. Rogers' automated reply feature

Mr. Rogers has an auto-reply feature as part of his e-mail server/system. I
have it at work.
It is a royal pain in the ass when it hits a list but can be useful when
used by folks who don't exchange a lot of mail use it... but is still a
pain in the ass.
You can flame him all you want but we will all be living with it until he
turns it off.
I suggest a short-term filter set to transfer Mr. Rogers' to the trash as
the easiest solution for a while.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:04:54 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Mr. Rogers' automated reply feature

This Mr. Rogers needs to be made aware of these circumstances by Ken
when he returns . I agree that this auto-reply can be usefull , but
he should of had enough sense not to have it in effect on a list .





From: john.doe erols.com
To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Subject: Mr. Rogers' automated reply feature
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 97 01:01:26 +0000

Mr. Rogers has an auto-reply feature as part of his e-mail server/system. I
have it at work.
It is a royal pain in the ass when it hits a list but can be useful when
used by folks who don't exchange a lot of mail use it... but is still a
pain in the ass.
You can flame him all you want but we will all be living with it until he
turns it off.
I suggest a short-term filter set to transfer Mr. Rogers' to the trash as
the easiest solution for a while.






+-------------- 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 21:13:11 -0400
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Subject: Re: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's

At 7:35 PM -0400 10/17/97, Joe Maleski wrote:
>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.

right, plus the jeep is more in the order of 180 horse where the ford is 160.

one of the few things that i miss from my old cherokee.

- --
Geoffrey Hoffman gch2 cornell.edu
Cornell University http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pobox.com/~hoffy

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 21:42:14 -0400
From: Chris Kelly
Subject: Re: Jeep 4.0's vs Ford 4.0's

Geoffrey Hoffman wrote:
>
> At 7:35 PM -0400 10/17/97, Joe Maleski wrote:
> >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.
>
> right, plus the jeep is more in the order of 180 horse where the ford is 160.
>
> one of the few things that i miss from my old cherokee.
>
> --
> Geoffrey Hoffman gch2 cornell.edu
> Cornell University http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.pobox.com/~hoffy....

---

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.