Return-Path:
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:10:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #180
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Tuesday, October 21 1997 Volume 01 : Number 180



=======================================================================
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 Oil additive stuff [Claude King ]
engine change? [Darrin Liesche ]
Re: Tornado [Steven McCullough ]
RE: Tranny change? [Michael Wray ]
RE: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and doesn't stay running ["Dave Resch"
Re: Tornado [Pengy67 aol.com]
Re: Tornado [Todd Metzger ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #179 [Bill Funk ]
4.11 Gears Bronco??? ["Josh Armstrong" ]
Re: Gas mileage [Bill Funk ]
Re: cow magnets [Bill Funk ]
RE: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and doesn't stayrunning []
Re: F350 w/ two batteries [Steve Field ]
Re: F350 Dual battery [Rendell9 ]
Re: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and doesn't stay running [bigguy
Re:96 ranger 4x4 with 2 1/2 rancho susp. lift ["Mike Wiatt"
Re:Underdrive pulleys ["Mike Wiatt" ]
Question regarding altitude [cfoye BayNetworks.COM (Chris Foye)]
Re: cow magnets [Geoffrey Hoffman ]
1997 Ford Ranger ["Bitting, Greg" ]
Re: 1997 Ford Ranger [bigguy ]
Lowering to level [Luke Wells ]
RE: 1997 Ford Ranger ["Bitting, Greg" ]
motor honey [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Question regarding altitude [Thundercraft ]
fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #177 [Andrew T Vincitore

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:59:55 -0400
From: Claude King
Subject: More Oil additive stuff

I've been using Tufoil, a PTFE and moly additive. The manufacture claims in
the three ball test, that they have the lowest drag of all lubes. I can't
prove that it has made my engines last longer, I change oil every 3K and
add 4oz. as the manufactures suggests. What I do know is that it made my
old diesel tractor a lot easier to start, and I've used the lube in
numerous electric motors that were about to give up due bearing drag. Ever
single motor I relubed the busings or bearings with tufoil is still
running, some for more than 8 years. I've also saved numerous sealed
bearings by putting a small hole in the dust seal and then injecting tufoil
into the bearing. I also mix it with a high quality lithium/moly grease for
gear cases and wheel bearings. No a single bearing lubed with it has
failed. I also add it to manual transmissions and really smoothed up the
shifting. The patent on this oil claims that their PTFE is a dipolar
molecular makeup thus it not suspended but in solution. All I know is that
it does not settle out, I got jugs of it over two years old without
settling. So maybe it just a good oil, but everything from hair dryers to
can openers to tractors seems to work fine with it.

//ck

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:37:17 -0400
From: Darrin Liesche
Subject: engine change?

As a new subscriber I have some questions I'm hoping someone out there can
answer. I currently have an '87 F150 with the I6 engine, 4spd with OD
manual transmission, and four wheel drive. I'm considering changing to the
5.0 V8 provided this is not too expensive of a swap. Hopefully, with as
many salvage yards as there are around here, this will not be too difficult
or costly. My questions are as follows: Just how much more horsepower can
I expect from the V8? Which engine is more reliable in the long run? Can I
keep the existing transmission and mate it to the V8? Are engines which are
used in four wheel drive trucks any different from those used in non-four
wheel drive trucks? In other words, if I change to the V8, must the engine
come from a four wheel drive truck? Is my current transfer case compatible
with a V8? Thanks in advance for any responses.

Darrin

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:46:38 -0500
From: Steven McCullough
Subject: Re: Tornado

What about electric fans vs. those flex fans. I would think that an
electric fan would free up a little extra HP, since I can tell a
significant difference in acceleration when my fan thermal clutch engages.
They would cause more battery draw at idle, but then they may give you
better A/C performance at slow speeds/stop and go traffic.




At 12:55 PM 10/21/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:33 AM 10/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Ken Payne wrote:
>>>
>>> You can try your $20-$50 gimmicks if you want to. I'm going to
>>> stick with cams, intakes, headers, polishing ports, low resistance
>>> dual exhausts, chips, underdrive pulleys, aluminum drive shafts,
>>> etc. All these cost money.... like I said earlier: you can't
>>> get something for nothing.
>>>
>>
>>okay...you brought it up. What is the list's opinion of the
>>underdrive pulleys? Parts guy at Ford says the alternator will turn
>>too slowly to do its job. Any experiences out there?
>>
>>Thom Cheney
>>'97 Ranger 4X4 S-cab STX
>>
>
>If you do a lot of city driving I wouldn't use them. Also, water
>flow through the cooling system is dramatically decreased. There
>are (expensive) high volume water pumps designed for under-drive
>pulleys but the alternator is still an issue. Its a trade-off,
>battery life -vs- some extra performance. Most practical item
>instead (IMHO) of underdrive pulleys is one of those special fans
>that "flatten out" as they speed up. When you're move at 55 they
>don't pull any air, hence slightly less load on the engine. At
>55 you've got more than enough air moving through the radiator
>without help from the fan.
>
>So in closing, I tend to agree with the parts counter guy. If
>you don't keep the vehicle moving you're eating the battery.
>
>
>
>+-------------- 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 -----------------+
>
>
Steven P. McCullough
Graduate Research Assistant
Section of Diagnostic Imaging Physics
U.T. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Office - (713) 792-0789
Fax - (713) 794-5272

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:55:57 -0700
From: Michael Wray
Subject: RE: Tranny change?

Since reading the e-mail on the engine change... I thought about doing
a tranny change. I don't know the exact tranny that is in my '86 4X4,
F250 w/351, but it does not have OD. What tranny should I look for?
Is there one that will just swap in?

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:11:59 -0600
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: RE: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and doesn't stay running

>From: Michael Wray
>Subject: RE: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and
>doesn't stay running
>
> At first they thought it was the control module, then after
>connecting a manual oil pressure gauge they found that the
>pressure was nil after warming up. They explained that the
>bearings need to be changed. They explained that they can do

Whoa, dude!! This is getting weirder by the day.

> When I got to the shop, they started the truck. I saw the oil
>pressure gauge sitting at about 5psi at idle and it seemed like it
>was running out of whack. Not missing or anything, but as if the
>crank was slopping around. They explained that what the
>

5 psi at idle is OK. Normal pressure for a warmed up, broken in engine
w/out some hipo hi-volume pump should be around 10 psi per 1K rpm. What
did the oil pressure do at higher engine speeds?

What do you mean by the crank "slopping around?" A few hundredths of an
inch of bearing wear would be enough to drop oil pressure severely, but I
don't know that you could even feel any looseness in the crank with really
shot bearings. If the crank was moving very much out of alignment, which
it sounds like you're describing (maybe the shop is telling you that), you
would have some way major problems with the pistons up in the cylinders,
and maybe the connecting rods and wrist pins, too. At that point, nothing
short of a complete overhaul would be worthwhile.

>I can see where the timing might have an effect, but I would expect
>that it is was off a tooth it would running rough with a bit of a
>backfire or something like that. Am I correct?

Yes, pretty much. The severity of the symptoms, though, would depend on
things like what the cam profiles are, whether it was advanced or retarded
(direction of the error), etc.
> I think they are correct that the bearings are bad and need to be
>changed (hopefully not the crank). Am I off base here.... Are they
>trying to get more money???
This whole thing sounds really suspicious. If it was my truck, I think I'd
have it towed to another shop, preferably one with some reference from a
friend or co-worker, and get another diagnosis. I know the tow is
expensive (and paying off the shop you're in now), but it sounds like
you're already looking at some big bucks repairs here, and spending a few
more might be a worthwhile investment in not getting screwed. Bottom line:
an expensive repair to get things right is worthwhile, but throwing good
money after bad is just not prudent.

Good luck.

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pengy67 aol.com
Subject: Re: Tornado

In a message dated 97-10-21 09:07:58 EDT, Todd M. wrote:
> Several people in the explorer newsgroup had complained about the
ineffectiveness of the air tornado a little while ago. >>

When considering any modification and they give you a number - this is THE
BEST gain they can find. ie "gain of 5 hp 4500rpm" means JUST THAT, you
can't expect a 5 hp gain throughout the powerband. Forget the hyped up
numbers, ask for a dyno output for the test vehicle (hopefully the same as
yours) before and after their product was fitted (no tinkering in between
allowed - if they install their whatzit and advance timing and fill with 93
octane between runs....). The area under the curve (total HP over rpm range)
is the important thing, not their maximum claimed gain. And just because it
worked on a 3.0L doesn't mean it will have the same effect on a 4.0L
either.....

FWIW, I've heard from a couple of people who weren't impressed with the
Tornado either; a filtercharger or cone filter may be a better alternative
(the Probe group swears by cone filters as a good, low $ mod). Just my .02.


Fred
waiting for that NY snow.... ;)

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:40:58 +0000
From: Todd Metzger
Subject: Re: Tornado

Geoffrey Hoffman wrote:

> At 10:15 AM -0400 10/21/97, KSMIKE wrote:
> >I have a Tornado in my 94 Explorer. Does it help? Who knows. I wouldnt believe
> >anything except independent, controlled dyno or dragstrip tests. And I haven't
> >seen any of those. I think my fuel line magnets gave me more power (sarcasm).
>
> by the way, what is the deal with those magnets? i know that they don't
> really do anything, but are they supposed to be doing? seems like a weird
> concept....
>
> --
> 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 -----------------+

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the magnets were, in theory, supposed to
almost "expand" your fuel. They thought that the magnets would separate any long
chains of molecules that had inadvertently formed during production of the fuel,
transport, etc. By breaking these long chains up, it was supposed cause the fuel
to burn more efficiently.
As for the Air tornado, I am not sure if this was stated in the original article or
not(I didn't read it, I just deleted it), it causes turbulence, actually a
spiralling motion, in the air flow. This is supposed to create a more homogenous
mixture of gas and air. However, there is already plently of turbulence in the air
flow, from your air filter, bends in the air intake tube, your upper and lower
intakes, and finally when the air stream crashes into the top of your heads. It
seems like a good idea in theory but rather poor when put to practical use.

Todd Metzger
tmetz umr.edu

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:00:30 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #179

> From: "Dave Resch"
> Subject: Re: Exhaust
>
> >From: Bill Funk
> >Subject: Re: Exhaust
> >
> >> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 15:40:24 -0500
> >> From: silent.bob juno.com
> >> Subject: Re: Exhaust
> >snippage
> >> Ummm... You need back pressure or you can damage the valves.
> >
> >I don't think that's true.
> >I think you need a way to prevent cold air from hitting the hot
> valves,
> >which means you need some sort of exhaust pipe to hold in some hot
> >exhaust.
> >I can't think of a way no back pressure itself can damage an exhaust
> >valve.
> >Bill Funk
>
> Hmmm... Seems like cold air would hit that valve on every intake
> stroke,
> and the hottest part, too.
>
> Dave R. (M-block devotee)

Not to get into an argument, but the air/fuel mixture isn't near as cold
as outside air. Plus, it only hits the face of the valve, which is
treated to withstand that environment. Where the cold air would damage
the valve is on the stem, by warping it.Bill Funk

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97 11:57:29 PDT
From: "Josh Armstrong"
Subject: 4.11 Gears Bronco???

Hi,
Dose Anyone here have a 86-92 Bronco Full size that is running 4.11 gears
in the rear end? I am thinking about replaceing the stock gears with this.
The truck is running 33" muds with a 302 and an AOD. Any comment would be
helpful. Also would\did it help the mpg or did it kill it?

Thanks
Josh Armstong
89 Bronco

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:10:34 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: Gas mileage

> From: "David J. Baldwin"
> Subject: Re: Gas mileage...

...

> On the highway, aerodynamic losses dominate. What affects this?
> Frontal
> area, and a shape that determines a coefficient of drag. Trucks are
> big
> = high area. Trucks are boxy = high Cd. What can you do to improve
> this? Lower the truck, put an air dam on the front to minimize drag
> from the bottom, and put a bed cover or shell on the back. If you
> don't
> want to cover the bed, maybe remove the tailgate.

When NASCAR went to the Craftsman Truck series races, they spent a lot
of time in the wind tunnels determining what was the best configuration
for the trucks. The end result, a compromise between aerodynamics and
"stock" looks is what we see today - s bed with a cover on it.
For the road, the best for reducing aero friction is a cap the same
height as the cab; second is a cover, and third is a tailgate in the up
position. Putting the tailgate down or removing it is the worst of the
choices.
Here's why: with the tailgate up, a "bubble" of air forms in the bed,
which slowly rotates from the cab top to the back, forward on the bed
floor, up the cab back, and so on. This bubble is seen by the air flow
as a fairly aerodynamic part of the truck, and the air flows over it.
Letting the tailgate down allows the bubble to spill, and the air flow
sees a cab followed by an empty space with a floor that moves. This is
not 'clean', and fuel mileage suffers.
This is counter to what 'intuition' says, as intuition says the air sees
the tailgate as a huge air brake, but it evidently doesn't.
Bill Funk

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:19:10 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: cow magnets

> From: Geoffrey Hoffman
> Subject: Re: Tornado
>
> At 10:15 AM -0400 10/21/97, KSMIKE wrote:
> >I have a Tornado in my 94 Explorer. Does it help? Who knows. I
> wouldnt believe
> >anything except independent, controlled dyno or dragstrip tests. And
> I haven't
> >seen any of those. I think my fuel line magnets gave me more power
> (sarcasm).
>
> by the way, what is the deal with those magnets? i know that they
> don't
> really do anything, but are they supposed to be doing? seems like a
> weird
> concept....

Here's the line...The magnets align the molecules in the fuel, so they
can better atomize producing a mixture that will burn easier, and thus
provide better fuel efficiency.
No, wait, that's not it...
The magnets align the molecules in the fuel, so they can ignite easier
with the weak spark provided by today's ignition systems(!), and thus
provide better fuel efficiency.
Ooops, wrong again...
The magnets will actually magnetize the fuel, allowing it to flow in a
more orderly fashion in the fuel delivery system (intake manifold),
reducing friction losses, and thus provide better fuel efficiency.
Or is it...
The magnets attract cows to the air fuel mixture, which produce methane,
a much cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline; this helps reduce emissions.
Yeah, that's it... The cow one is definitely the right answer.
Bill Funk

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:11:37 -0700
From: Michael Wray
Subject: RE: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and doesn't stayrunning

>5 psi at idle is OK. Normal pressure for a warmed up, broken in
engine
>w/out some hipo hi-volume pump should be around 10 psi per 1K rpm.
What
>did the oil pressure do at higher engine speeds?

The pressure went up, but not nearly what it should have. But as soon
as the engine was warmed up a little, the gauge would drop to 0. :(

What do you mean by the crank "slopping around?" A few hundredths of
an
inch of bearing wear would be enough to drop oil pressure severely,
but I
don't know that you could even feel any looseness in the crank with
really

It seemed like that crank was not spinning smoothly and well balanced.
It seemed that it was out of balance a little. The engine would kind
of move as if something was out of kilter. There is also a slight
clunking sound, not a metal on metal sound (which is good) but more of
a chungging sound. MAN is this hard to describe. :)

Yes, pretty much. The severity of the symptoms, though, would depend
on
things like what the cam profiles are, whether it was advanced or
retarded
(direction of the error), etc.

The engine is totally stock as far as I know. The timing (according
to the gun) was 12deg BTDC.

This whole thing sounds really suspicious. If it was my truck, I
think I'd
have it towed to another shop, preferably one with some reference from
a
friend or co-worker, and get another diagnosis.

The major problem here is that I need it back by this Wednesday
evening.

Damn I hate not owning my own shop! hahahaha

Michael (shopless in Seattle) W.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:52:28 -0400
From: Steve Field
Subject: Re: F350 w/ two batteries

"David J. Baldwin" writes:
>> ... Now you could probably run the jumper between two lighter sockets
and wait a few hours for the one with a good charge to replentish the one=

that's flat. Then you could remove the jumper and see if it starts. Of
course you could run down the good one if something's really screwed up,
and then you might have two vehicles that don't start.

I believe that's how those lighter-socket hookups are supposed to work,
over a few hours... I also understand you can run the one vehicle to
derive current from the engine to the socket rather than drain both...

David Hertzberg mentions a "warning label" for one of the batteries
in another message. I'll pass all these notes on...

Thanks,


+ Steve Field 21-Oct-1997 11:53:14 PT
email: Scionyx Compuserve.com

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:21:40 EDT
From: Rendell9
Subject: Re: F350 Dual battery

The full jumper instructions are in the Power Stroke booklet that comes with
the Owner Manual set (1997). Unfortunately, I have lost mine and waiting for a
replacement, otherwise would be more helpful

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:32:21 -0400
From: bigguy
Subject: Re: FELP. Bad bearings?? - was-No power up hill and doesn't stay running

I had a 81 f150 with a 302 that had the same problem with oil pressure
that you are having. I had to replace the bearings on it and that did
fix the oil pressure. Now even though the bearings were worn out on my
truck i still had plenty of power.

Just my thought,
Jim
Michael Wray wrote:

> OK guys..... Here is what the shop is saying.
>
> At first they thought it was the control module, then after
> connecting a manual oil pressure gauge they found that the pressure
> was nil after warming up. They explained that the bearings need to be
>
> changed. They explained that they can do this while the engine is
> still in the truck. But, if the crank is bad, then they will have to
> remove the engine to change it.
> When I got to the shop, they started the truck. I saw the oil
> pressure gauge sitting at about 5psi at idle and it seemed like it was
>
> running out of whack. Not missing or anything, but as if the crank
> was slopping around. They explained that what the previous owner
> probably did (prior to selling the vehicle) was put a bunch of STP or
> Engine Honey or some real think oil additive in it to keep it from
> doing this. But, since I had them change the oil when they did the
> timing chain, now that it has 10W30 in it (much thinner oil), the
> problem rears its ugly head!
>
> I can see where the timing might have an effect, but I would expect
> that it is was off a tooth it would running rough with a bit of a
> backfire or something like that. Am I correct?
>
> I think they are correct that the bearings are bad and need to be
> changed (hopefully not the crank). Am I off base here.... Are they
> trying to get more money???
>
> Since I am asking to see all old parts... Is there anything in
> particular that I should be looking for?
>
> Man I really hate shops... I've been screwed WAY to many times.
>
> Michael (bend over how far) W.
>
> Thanks to all!
>
> +-------------- 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:52:24 PDT
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: Re:96 ranger 4x4 with 2 1/2 rancho susp. lift

I hate to tell you this but either Explorer Pro Comp or Superlift (I
cant remember which one) noticed this problem too. They make radius arms
designed for wide tires. I guess Rancho just didn't address the problem.
Im surprised cuz Rancho makes great stuff.

- ---------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:58:50 PDT
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: Re:Underdrive pulleys

Ummmm...I dont think that there are any underdrive pulleys available for
the Ranger. I have contacted Unorthodox Racing and have possibly
convinced them to make up a set of em. If anyone knows where to get a
set of the pulleys let me know. If nobody makes the pulleys I guess you
wont have a big decision to make though. :-)

- ---------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:19:31 -0700
From: cfoye BayNetworks.COM (Chris Foye)
Subject: Question regarding altitude

Hey Listers,

Well after doing some traveling in the Sierras of California, I was talking
with some friends of mine discussing altitude affects on power and fuel
consumption. I've got the PowerStroke and didn't notice any difference in
power and then I was kind a bragging about getting 15 mpg average after
climbing up to elevation and then running around at about 6,000 for two
days. Well, my friend seems to think that since the air is thinner at
altitude that you can get more gas into air/gas mixture and therefore get
better fuel economy as well as power. I begged to differ but, he was
adamant about his fact.
Is this true and do I owe my friend an apology for not believing him?

Thanks,

Chris
Gotta love the power of the PowerStroke.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:35:22 -0400
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Subject: Re: cow magnets

At 3:19 PM -0400 10/21/97, Bill Funk wrote:
>The magnets attract cows to the air fuel mixture, which produce methane,
>a much cleaner-burning fuel than gasoline; this helps reduce emissions.
>Yeah, that's it... The cow one is definitely the right answer.

dang, well i am in vermont, so it would be particularly effective up there.
better go get them!!! :)

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:51:11 -0700
From: "Bitting, Greg"
Subject: 1997 Ford Ranger

Hello out there,
I own a 1997 Ford Ranger pick-up truck. It has in it a five speed
manual transmission attached to a 4.0L engine. I have a problem with the
truck shutting down at around 103 mph. What can I do to alleviate this
problem? Also, I would like to bolt on a little extra horsepower, where
would anyone recommend I start?
Thank you for your help.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:15:27 -0400
From: bigguy
Subject: Re: 1997 Ford Ranger

It is the rev limiter I think .

Bitting, Greg wrote:

> Hello out there,
> I own a 1997 Ford Ranger pick-up truck. It has in it a five
> speed
> manual transmission attached to a 4.0L engine. I have a problem with
> the
> truck shutting down at around 103 mph. What can I do to alleviate this
>
> problem? Also, I would like to bolt on a little extra horsepower,
> where
> would anyone recommend I start?
> Thank you for your help.
> +-------------- 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 17:33:31 -0400
From: Luke Wells
Subject: Lowering to level

I have a 96 Ranger Splash and was wanting to lower the back level to the
front
but have no clue on how many inches to do it to. I also would like to
know what
would be the most cost efficient method(no spring cutting or anything
like that)
to do so that would keep the smoothness of my ride the same. Thanx

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:35:43 -0700
From: "Bitting, Greg"
Subject: RE: 1997 Ford Ranger

I don't think it is the rev limiter, because I can take the truck beyond
redline in every gear other that first, and the only problem I notice
there is it is rough shifting at such a high RPM. The truck would rather
I skip a gear.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: bigguy [SMTP:bigguy shentel.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 1997 2:15 PM
>To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
>Subject: Re: 1997 Ford Ranger
>
>It is the rev limiter I think .
>
>Bitting, Greg wrote:
>
>> Hello out there,
>> I own a 1997 Ford Ranger pick-up truck. It has in it a five
>> speed
>> manual transmission attached to a 4.0L engine. I have a problem with
>> the
>> truck shutting down at around 103 mph. What can I do to alleviate this
>>
>> problem? Also, I would like to bolt on a little extra horsepower,
>> where
>> would anyone recommend I start?
>> Thank you for your help.
>> +-------------- 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: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:19:58 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: motor honey

To the guy with the bearing issues:

sorry... mad deletion of inbox resulted in losing your post.

Quick and cheap way to discover whether the shop is telling you the
truth about your bearings:

since it ran "ok" before the oil change....dump some more of the thick
stuff in there & see if it improves the performance. Then you will
only be out the cost of another oil change to check it out.

Thom Cheney
'97 Ranger 4X4 S-cab STX

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

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 13:47:10 -0700
From: Thundercraft
Subject: Re: Question regarding altitude

Chris Foye wrote:
>
> Hey Listers,
>
> Well after doing some traveling in the Sierras of California, I was talking
> with some friends of mine discussing altitude affects on power and fuel
> consumption. I've got the PowerStroke and didn't notice any difference in
> power and then I was kind a bragging about getting 15 mpg average after
> climbing up to elevation and then running around at about 6,000 for two
> days. Well, my friend seems to think that since the air is thinner at
> altitude that you can get more gas into air/gas mixture and therefore get
> better fuel economy as well as power. I begged to differ but, he was
> adamant about his fact.
> Is this true and do I owe my friend an apology for not believing him?

Lets see.... The air is thinner, so we can get more in???? Nahhh.
That ain'r right. In a normally aspirated engine, you get less. In a
turbocharged engine, higher altitude makes no difference since you
compressing the air anyway.

If you ever step into a piston powered aircraft you will notice that
they have a mixture lever. This is so they can lean out the mixture at
altitude (some have auto mixture controls). A normally aspirated engine
will only bring in so much volume of air. If that air is thinner (high
altitude) it weighs less. Since mixture is based on weight, not volume,
you must reduce the amount of fuel being introduced to the air otherwise
the mixture will be too rich.

Mabe that thin air reduced the drag on your vehicle? :-)

Also, you said powerstroke? Hope it wasn't getting any gas!!!!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> Gotta love the power of the PowerStroke.
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up ....


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.