Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 03:50:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #176
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Monday, October 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 176



=======================================================================
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 [Bill Funk ]
Re: EGR system robbing power? ["S. Spaulding" ]
Rough Idle - Ranger 4.0L ["Lare/Eric" ]
Re: EGR system robbing power? [Steven McCullough
Re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger [MadPoodle aol.com]
1996 Ford Ranger Rear Bumper For Sale [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Re: EGR system robbing power? ["C. E. White" ]
Re: Exhaust [silent.bob juno.com]
Re: 5.0 engine swap [silent.bob juno.com]
Re: Exhaust ["C. E. White" ]
Re: EGR system robbing power? [Steven McCullough
Re: Exhaust [Steven McCullough ]
Re: Exhaust [Geoffrey Hoffman ]
TIRES [bigguy ]
Re: TIRES [john.doe erols.com]
Re:TIRES [Geoffrey Hoffman ]
Re: TIRES [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Re:TIRES [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Re:TIRES [Geoffrey Hoffman ]
Rattle [Gary Snook ]
dash swap [Mobleaudio aol.com]
Crazy ideas [Steven McCullough ]

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 04:20:29 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: Exhaust

> From: Midwest96 aol.com
> Subject: Re: Exhaust
>
> Josh,
> I live near Detroit, and one of my brother's friend's dad builds
> mustangs.
> I talked to him, and he siad that the only reason exhaust system are
> put on
> is because of noise. He also said that it would not hurt an engine to
> have
> no backpressure on it, but that it would be really loud. I found this
>
> doubtful...? What kind of performance increase would I get by
> changing
> exhaust? Thanx again,
>
>
> Craig

He's very close to being right.Today, exhaust systems are designed to
reduce emissions, too, but the
early exhaust systems were to cut noise, and route the exhaust away from

the passengers.
Current exhaust systems are restrictive because of their very design;
the
cat will introduce a restriction of its own. The engine designers use
the
exhaust restriction to reduce the combustion temps, reducing NOx
emissions somewhat.
You can open up the cat-back part of the exhaust system without too
much emissions increase on today's computer-controlled FI engines.
As for peformance increases, consider that the engine is, aside from
providing power to move the vehicle, a large air pump. It takes energy
to draw the air/fuel mixture into the cylinder, and it takes energy to
push the exhaust out. Anything you can do to reduce the amount of
energy needed for these operations will increase efficiency, either
improving performance or fuel mileage, or both. As the average RPM
increases, the benefits rise, too.
It is not necessary to use the high $ exhaust systems you see advertised

in many magazines. Any decent muffler shop with a mandrell bender
can fix you up with a larger diameter cat-back system. Stainless is
nice (and expensive), but regular exhaust pipe will last for many years
even in snow country if rinsed off once in a while. On many trucks, the
cat is so restrictive that a muffler may not be needed (ask the shop
to let you fire the truck up with just the cat & no muffler to see if
that's OK for you). For my '91 F-250 w/460, it was almost quiet
enough without a muffler, but I had a muffler put on anyway. Now
it's still about as quiet as stock, but mileage on a recent trip from
Phoenix to Casper, WY, on the cruise control at 65, went up from
12.2 MPG to 13.4 MPG, almost a 10% improvement. If we cruised
at higher speeds, the improvement would be greater (but I guess I'm
a fuddy-duddy!).
Hope this helps.
Bill

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:17:40 -0700
From: "S. Spaulding"
Subject: Re: EGR system robbing power?

The EGR also cools the combustion chamber, reducing detonation. Don't
block it off.

Steven McCullough wrote:
>
> Here's a question regarding emission systems...I've been reading
> up on the EGR system on my wife's 2.3L mustang (I suspect some problems),
> but I guess this applies to any engine. My understanding of the EGR system
> is to re-introduce exhaust gas into the intake to reduce emmissions,
> supposedly
> this only happens at higher RPM, since at low RPM's it causes rough running
> (poor idle).
>
> Wouldn't this be robbing a significant amount of power at higher RPM's?
>
> I'm tempted to place a blocking plate between the exit of the EGR valve and
> the intake
> so that the valve works as normal, but no exhaust reaches the intake.
>
> I know, I don't want any 'greenies' griping at me about emmissions, this is
> just
> a thought.
>
> +-------------- 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: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:00:33 -0400
From: "Lare/Eric"
Subject: Rough Idle - Ranger 4.0L

About 8,000 miles ago (59,000 on the truck currently), I noticed that the
idle on my '94 Splash 4.0L was beginning to get a bit rough. At the
exhaust outlet it almost sounds like a miss of sorts - every two to four
seconds it will sort of 'puff'. At about the same time, the temperature
gauge begin to cycle from midway to very near the bottom of the gauge.

I took it to the dealership and they told me that this was pretty typical
for a truck with this many miles on it that was almost four years old -
which I expected them to say.

Does anyone have any ideas as to what could be causing the rough idle
problem, and, could the fluctuating temperature be related, or is it just a
coincidence?

I haven't gotten into this (or these) problems much yet, since they don't
seem to affect the performance or mileage of the truck, although both
problems seem to be getting more pronounced. Figured it high time to
diagnose this one before I have a serious problem on my hands.

Recently, I replaced (as general maintenance) the O2 sensors, PCV, plugs,
plug wires, & air filter.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Eric S. - '94 Splash 4x4 4.0L

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:54:54 -0700
From: Steven McCullough
Subject: Re: EGR system robbing power?

I've heard this comment regarding cooling the combustion chamber elsewhere,
but
as of yet I don't buy into it - how does displacing cool outside air from
the normal
intake with hot exhaust gases cool the exhaust chamber 'better'.

Unless the thermo properties of exhaust gas lend it towards better heat
transfer?

I would sure appreciate a comment from anyone on this...before I go and
screw up
something

Steve



At 09:17 AM 10/19/97 -0700, you wrote:
>The EGR also cools the combustion chamber, reducing detonation. Don't
>block it off.
>
>Steven McCullough wrote:
>>
>> Here's a question regarding emission systems...I've been reading
>> up on the EGR system on my wife's 2.3L mustang (I suspect some problems),
>> but I guess this applies to any engine. My understanding of the EGR system
>> is to re-introduce exhaust gas into the intake to reduce emmissions,
>> supposedly
>> this only happens at higher RPM, since at low RPM's it causes rough running
>> (poor idle).
>>
>> Wouldn't this be robbing a significant amount of power at higher RPM's?
>>
>> I'm tempted to place a blocking plate between the exit of the EGR valve and
>> the intake
>> so that the valve works as normal, but no exhaust reaches the intake.
>>
>> I know, I don't want any 'greenies' griping at me about emmissions, this is
>> just
>> a thought.
>>
>> +-------------- 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 -----------------+
>+-------------- 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: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 11:51:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: MadPoodle aol.com
Subject: Re: Where's the 5.0L in the Ranger

Crawford Performance, Miami Fl, has built quite a few 302's, and rumour has
it, a few 351's.... Neat packages, clean install, very subtle little rocket
ships.


l8tr4u

Scott

93 F250 S/C, 351
92 Bronco, 351

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 12:36:06 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: 1996 Ford Ranger Rear Bumper For Sale

For Sale:
Rear bumper from a 1996 Ford Ranger(chrome&gray steps) practically
brand new . Make reasonable offer . Located in central N.C. Will
also trade for a new rock crawler black bumper with built in hitch .
E-mail at jsruss worldnet.att.net

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:18:49 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: EGR system robbing power?

Steven McCullough wrote:
>
> I've heard this comment regarding cooling the combustion chamber elsewhere,
> but
> as of yet I don't buy into it - how does displacing cool outside air from
> the normal
> intake with hot exhaust gases cool the exhaust chamber 'better'.
>
> Unless the thermo properties of exhaust gas lend it towards better heat
> transfer?
>
> I would sure appreciate a comment from anyone on this...before I go and
> screw up
> something
>
> Steve

The "hot exhaust gas" is an inert gas that has no effect on the fuel/air
ratio. It displaces part of the normal charge of fuel and air with inert
gas. This acts to slow the combustion process, reduce peak
pressures/temperature, reduce the production of NOX and reduce the
chance of knocking. I do not know how your EGR is calibrated, but the
last time I checked one of my cars with EGR (a 1986 Mercury Sable), the
EGR was shut off at Wide Open Throttle, so it would not reduce maximum
power. I also had a 1986 Ranger 2.9L with EGR, it never knocked. My
Father's 1990 without EGR alway had problems with part throttle knock.
The gas mileage for the two trucks was about the same. I concluded
disconnecting EGR was not a good thing. YMMV

Ed

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:40:24 -0500
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: Exhaust

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Midwest96 aol.com writes:
>He also said that it would not hurt an engine to
>have
>no backpressure on it, but that it would be really loud. I found this
>doubtful...? What kind of performance increase would I get by
>changing
>exhaust? Thanx again,

Ummm... You need back pressure or you can damage the valves.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:40:31 -0500
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: 5.0 engine swap

On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:19:29 -0600 jimpitcock juno.com (Jim & Star
Pitcock) writes:
> For those of you that have gone to the 5.0, what expenses did
>you run into? Did you just start collecting parts over a period of
>time or did you just do it all at once? Did you have it professionally
>done or did you do it yourself? Any words of wisdom is greatly
>appreciated!


You are looking at over $6,500

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:35:52 -0400
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: Exhaust

silent.bob juno.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Midwest96 aol.com writes:
> >He also said that it would not hurt an engine to
> >have
> >no backpressure on it, but that it would be really loud. I found this
> >doubtful...? What kind of performance increase would I get by
> >changing
> >exhaust? Thanx again,
>
> Ummm... You need back pressure or you can damage the valves.
>

I have heard this as long as I have been involved with cars. I have
never understood why people say it. I have never seen any actual proof
either way. I did knock the entire exhaust manifold off a MF-175 Tractor
when I was 12. I ran the tractor long enough to finish the mowing I was
doing and to drive it back to the shop. The valves lasted for another 23
years (of course we did put on a new exhaust manifold as soon as we
could get it). I don't think you could get much less back pressure than
that. It seems that Drag CArs run very short pipes. I would imagine that
properly sized pipes would have less back pressure than no pipes at all.

Ed

Ed

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:51:11 -0700
From: Steven McCullough
Subject: Re: EGR system robbing power?

Thanks for the replies, looks like I won't be messing with it, besides
thats illegal isn't it ;)

Anyway, I'm not sure about the position of the EGR valve at WOT for this
particular engine, the manual only suggests that its closed at idle, cold
temps, and should be partially open at 3000 RPM (althought, I don't know
how much)

Anyone have suggestions for problems with loping when at idle...sometimes
the thing will get to bouncing between 500-1200 RPM - most of the time it
will dampen itself and smooth out, but occasionally it will begin to get
larger and larger RPM swings before I finally have to punch it a little to
straighten things out. Its an 89 2.3L OHC fuel injected - I've cleaned the
EGR valve (thats what got me interested in this whole discussion) and it
works fine, but no help. I'm not sure what to target next - no vacuum
leaks. Perhaps
the idle air control is sticky?

Thanks





At 03:18 PM 10/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Steven McCullough wrote:
>>
>> I've heard this comment regarding cooling the combustion chamber elsewhere,
>> but
>> as of yet I don't buy into it - how does displacing cool outside air from
>> the normal
>> intake with hot exhaust gases cool the exhaust chamber 'better'.
>>
>> Unless the thermo properties of exhaust gas lend it towards better heat
>> transfer?
>>
>> I would sure appreciate a comment from anyone on this...before I go and
>> screw up
>> something
>>
>> Steve
>
>The "hot exhaust gas" is an inert gas that has no effect on the fuel/air
>ratio. It displaces part of the normal charge of fuel and air with inert
>gas. This acts to slow the combustion process, reduce peak
>pressures/temperature, reduce the production of NOX and reduce the
>chance of knocking. I do not know how your EGR is calibrated, but the
>last time I checked one of my cars with EGR (a 1986 Mercury Sable), the
>EGR was shut off at Wide Open Throttle, so it would not reduce maximum
>power. I also had a 1986 Ranger 2.9L with EGR, it never knocked. My
>Father's 1990 without EGR alway had problems with part throttle knock.
>The gas mileage for the two trucks was about the same. I concluded
>disconnecting EGR was not a good thing. YMMV
>
>Ed
>+-------------- 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: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:57:50 -0700
From: Steven McCullough
Subject: Re: Exhaust

I was told once that in the event that you basically have no exhaust you
run a good chance of damaging valves as soon as you kill the engine because
'cold' air can sneak back up and induce thermal shock on the 'hot' exhaust
valves. I guess that is only in extreme cases though

At 06:35 PM 10/19/97 -0400, you wrote:
>silent.bob juno.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 16:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Midwest96 aol.com writes:
>> >He also said that it would not hurt an engine to
>> >have
>> >no backpressure on it, but that it would be really loud. I found this
>> >doubtful...? What kind of performance increase would I get by
>> >changing
>> >exhaust? Thanx again,
>>
>> Ummm... You need back pressure or you can damage the valves.
>>
>
>I have heard this as long as I have been involved with cars. I have
>never understood why people say it. I have never seen any actual proof
>either way. I did knock the entire exhaust manifold off a MF-175 Tractor
>when I was 12. I ran the tractor long enough to finish the mowing I was
>doing and to drive it back to the shop. The valves lasted for another 23
>years (of course we did put on a new exhaust manifold as soon as we
>could get it). I don't think you could get much less back pressure than
>that. It seems that Drag CArs run very short pipes. I would imagine that
>properly sized pipes would have less back pressure than no pipes at all.
>
>Ed
>
>Ed
>+-------------- 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: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:56:50 -0400
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Subject: Re: Exhaust

At 6:35 PM -0400 10/19/97, C. E. White wrote:
>that. It seems that Drag CArs run very short pipes. I would imagine that
>properly sized pipes would have less back pressure than no pipes at all.

from a fluid dynamic stance, fluids flow more easily through a pipe than
just a hole of the same diameter, beleive it or not.

we did an experiment in draining fluid from a bucket: one was a hole, and
one was a tube of the same size. the tube drained _much_ faster....

see ya...

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:07:47 -0400
From: bigguy
Subject: TIRES

I know this question has been asked before but, I never really caed till
now. What is the biggest tire that I can put on my 94 Ranger 4x4 (no
lift totally stock) without hitting the sides or fenders? I know
nothing about tires and specific detail would be appriciated.

Thanks,
Jim

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:27:40 -0400
From: john.doe erols.com
Subject: Re: TIRES

>I know this question has been asked before but, I never really caed till
>now. What is the biggest tire that I can put on my 94 Ranger 4x4 (no
>lift totally stock) without hitting the sides or fenders? I know
>nothing about tires and specific detail would be appriciated.


I have 32x11.50 Radial Rovers on a 93 Ranger 4x4. This is the biggest tire
that would fit the STX wheel (7"?). I am using Superlift 2" lift springs in
the front and have experienced no rubbing on the street. When researching
the topic it seems most folks considered a 31" tire closest to the factory
"big" tire. I suspect you'd have trouble with anything bigger w/o some
lift.

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:08:08 -0400
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Subject: Re:TIRES

At 7:07 PM -0400 10/19/97, bigguy wrote:
>I know this question has been asked before but, I never really caed till
>now. What is the biggest tire that I can put on my 94 Ranger 4x4 (no
>lift totally stock) without hitting the sides or fenders? I know
>nothing about tires and specific detail would be appriciated.

for the explorer, which is mostly the same size, we can use 31x10.5. you
don't want to go much bigger without changing the ratio anyway....

see ya....


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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:26:00 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: TIRES

I have a 96 Ranger that had the supposedly big tires on it
265/75/15 . I also wanted bigger so I bought a set of 32x11.50x15
Bridgestone Dueler MT'S on the stock 15x7 rim . The first problem
will be that the tires may rub on the radius arms or may not . The
second problem easily solved will be the tire will rub the front
valance . Get a copping saw and cut it to clear the tire when it is
fully turned . Other than that they fit just fine ! Have the tire
place mount one to see how it will fit before you buy . I have a set
of 32x11.50x15 Bridgestone Dueler MT'S on Superior Laser aluminum
15x8 rims for sale . I lifted my Ranger 6" and want 35's . So if your
interested contact me . This set is in excellent shape and only have
3900 miles on the set .

JR RANGER 96 XLT 6" Lift



> From: john.doe erols.com
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
> Subject: Re: TIRES
> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 23:27:40 +0000

>
> I have 32x11.50 Radial Rovers on a 93 Ranger 4x4. This is the biggest tire
> that would fit the STX wheel (7"?). I am using Superlift 2" lift springs in
> the front and have experienced no rubbing on the street. When researching
> the topic it seems most folks considered a 31" tire closest to the factory
> "big" tire. I suspect you'd have trouble with anything bigger w/o some
> lift.
>
>
>
> +-------------- 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: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:34:03 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re:TIRES

Geoffrey ,
How do you know what ratio he has ? Most 4.0L 4x4 Rangers have the
3:73 gears which is perfect for 32's . I know this for a fact because
I have them ! Hell I know guys with explorers that run 3:73 that
have 35's .



To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Subject: Re:TIRES
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 97 01:08:08 +0000

At 7:07 PM -0400 10/19/97, bigguy wrote:
>I know this question has been asked before but, I never really caed till
>now. What is the biggest tire that I can put on my 94 Ranger 4x4 (no
>lift totally stock) without hitting the sides or fenders? I know
>nothing about tires and specific detail would be appriciated.

for the explorer, which is mostly the same size, we can use 31x10.5. you
don't want to go much bigger without changing the ratio anyway....

see ya....


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




+-------------- 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: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:10:26 -0400
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Subject: Re:TIRES

At 5:34 PM -0400 10/19/97, jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Geoffrey ,
>How do you know what ratio he has ? Most 4.0L 4x4 Rangers have the
>3:73 gears which is perfect for 32's . I know this for a fact because
>I have them ! Hell I know guys with explorers that run 3:73 that
>have 35's .

hey, i was just saying it is something to look at when you are getting
bigger tires. most explorers come with the 3.27. the 3.73 is good for
tires in the 32 range. and explorers with 35's are alright, it just would
probably be a bit better to go with something a little higher. i am not
saying it is not possible, just 35 inches is a lot of tire.

i did not know that rangers have the 3.73 stock. i apologize, and like i
said, i know explorers better than i know rangers.

see ya...

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 21:32:03 -0500
From: Gary Snook
Subject: Rattle

Subject: RATTLE

I have a 94' Ranger 4.0l V6 with a 5 speed. It is rattleing when I
first engage it in reverse or 1st. actually it is when I first start to
go and I am just giving it a litlle gas. If I give it a good amount of
gas it will not rattle. It seems that the vibration from the engine is
causing something to rattle. It sounds like tin ratlle ing against some
other metal. I checked the litlle guards around the cat and muffler
thinking that was the problem but they seem really tight and secure.
Has anyone had this type of problem? Could it be the metal inside the
cat itself?

Thanks in advance,

Get back under the truck and CAREFULLY recheck the cat guards. It sounds
like there is a broken spot weld on the cat. This is a common problem with
converter guards

Gary

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

Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mobleaudio aol.com
Subject: dash swap

how hard is it to swap the dash board from a 93 bronco into an 88 bronco.
what do i need to swap over? is it possible to make the digital odometer
work? any help would be greatly appreciated.


thanks,
leslie
88 f/s bronco 4" lift w/33's, soon to be 351 with 6" and 36"s
86 f/s bronco stock i-6 4.9
86 mild custom trans am
78 caprice parts car....


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.