Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:23:01 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #193
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Monday, October 27 1997 Volume 01 : Number 193



=======================================================================
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: Tailgates and Mileage [David Hertzberg ]
RE: Front end shimmy [David Hertzberg ]
RE: Engine Heater for P/S [David Hertzberg ]
Oil pressure saga/Fan clutch [David Hertzberg
Re: 94 Ranger 2.3L [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
RE: Silent Bob - 105 mph limiter [greg.medert gsa.gov]
97 vs 98 Rangers ["Grady Byram" ]
Contemplating 98 purchase... [Don Vanco ]
Re: 97 vs 98 Rangers [Don Vanco ]
Re: 97 & 98 Rangers. [Jared ]
RE: Ranger driveshaft ["Patrick Ward" ]
Hard Tonneaus ["Judy Thill (MG MSMAIL)" ]
Stainless Steel ["Judy Thill (MG MSMAIL)" ]
Re: 94 Ranger 2.3L [Thom Cheney ]
Re: 97 vs 98 Rangers [Thom Cheney ]
re: Ranger Rims ?????? [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: All this stuff about high speed in Rangers ["David J. Baldwin"
2.3 L power [Luke Wells ]
4.0 intake ["Mike Wiatt" ]
Re: All this stuff about high speed in Rangers [Thom Cheney
Re: Tire Diameter Calculation [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #191 [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Front end shimmy [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Winter Tires ? [Midwest96 aol.com]
2.9L V6 Help [Pete Wilhite ]
Re: MORE POWER, 2.3L [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Tailgates and Mileage [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Front end shimmy [Pete Wilhite ]
Re: 2.3 L power [Don Vanco ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #191 [Don Vanco ]
Re: Front end shimmy [Don Vanco ]
Re: Hard Tonneaus [droberts MIT.EDU (D Robertson)]

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 06:04:44 PST
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: Re: Tailgates and Mileage

craig: seems to me you don't need any written proof, since you've established it
yourself!
>
>I was curious because I have a tonneau cover on mine, and have definately
>seen an improvement in milage, but I was wondering if there were any articles
>proving this. I am very interested in the aerodynamics of trucks (esp.
>F150s) because I was looking at trying to improve both mileage and speed on
>mine, but was also thinking of looks. Anything in that area will help.
> Thanx,
>
>Craig
>+-------------- 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 -----------------+


David and Leila Hertzberg
Greystoke Farm
Gaithersburg, Maryland
301-482-0016
ACdhertz us-state.osis.gov


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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 06:13:31 PST
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: RE: Front end shimmy

have you had the tires balanced? if they are out of balance, rotating won;t help
much. have the shop where you go adjust the computerized balance machine to the
smallest margin of error in the measurement. then try the wheels again. good luck


>I have a 1996 F150 with 40K miles on it. It has developed a terrible
>shimmy when I hit a severe bump or rut in a road. The shimmy is so
>severe that I have to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. Needless to
>say this would be very dangerous in a freeway situation.
>
>I thought perhaps it was a shock absorber problem and replaced the front
>shocks. Still this did not fix the situation.
>
>This has happened now 3 or 4 times. I have had the front end checked and
>nothing was found to be wrong. It was suggested that the tires were the
>cause and that rotating the tires might correct the situation. This was
>done, but the shimmy still happened.
>
>I do suspect the tires as they are the original tires and are probably
>out of balance, etc.
>
>If anyone has experienced such a thing, please let me know. Thanks!
>
>Ken Justice
>www.workingmat.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 -----------------+


David and Leila Hertzberg
Greystoke Farm
Gaithersburg, Maryland
301-482-0016
ACdhertz us-state.osis.gov


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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 06:17:42 PST
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: RE: Engine Heater for P/S

Pete, i don';t think i saw the original post. if you cannot install a block heater
for whatever reason, there ore other products out there that heat the engine quite
well. i recently bought a "heat sticker" that I attached to the underside of my oil
pan. plugged it in for three-four hours and the oil (15w-40) was very warm. you
can get one through NAPA; you attach it with clear RTV silicone. i help mine on
with duct tape for about three days. then removed the duct tape, put a thin layer
of fiberglass isulation on top of the element (measures about 5x6 inches, reaches
200 degrees f), then replaced the duct tape, and have left it like that. you can
also apply these "heat sticker" --which are very, very thin--to the engine block as
well. it won;t work as well as an internal block heater, but will definitely help.
good luck. (ps: product line for these stickers is called "Zero Start" and they
operate out of minnesota. parent company is called phillips-temro, i believe).
david


>Was this a standard item? I cannot find the plug for one on the '95
>that I bought this year. I fear trying to start this puppy when the
>temp goes down considering the 15-40wt oil required.
>
>Pete
>+-------------- 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 -----------------+


David and Leila Hertzberg
Greystoke Farm
Gaithersburg, Maryland
301-482-0016
ACdhertz us-state.osis.gov


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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 06:55:41 PST
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: Oil pressure saga/Fan clutch

To conclude--for the time being anyway--the saga of my oil pressure problem: I
went to NAPA and got a 6 dollar oil pressure switch for the truck, installed it,
and now the needle on the gauge on the dash goes right to the middle (with the old
switch, the needle would hover at the "L" mark). Also, the needle now does not
move when I switch fuel tanks. Nor does the needle appear to move when I
accelerate or decelerate. Bottom line: the gague still doesn't tell me a damn
thing, but seeing that needle in the middle of the pressure range sure makes me
feel better! :-)

I have yet another question for the list and would appreciate any advice. Is it a
rule of thumb that if you cannot manually move the fan when the engine is cold
(i.e., left overnight) then the fan clutch has gone bad? Are there any
exceptions to this? I know that when I start my truck in the am, the fan
turns; my assumption is that it is not supposed to turn until the engine
reaches a certain temperature. Is this so?? Thanks. David

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:25:53 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger 2.3L

On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 19:40:48 -0500 (EST) SNOOP22222 aol.com writes:
>Hey, I got a 94 ranger with a 2.3l engine. Does anybody out there
>know of
>some fairly easy ways to get more horse power and/or torque out of it.
> I
>heard that a K&N air filter is a good start. Know of anything else?


How bout one of dem' turbos? Worked for the Pinto, and the T-Bird.
Can't
see why it wouldnt work on a 2.3L Ranger.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------
/ / \(..)/ -----
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Shop)
//// / // : : --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[silent.bob juno.com]=[95 Ranger SOHC 2.3L]=
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: 27 Oct 97 10:18:00 (-0500)
From: greg.medert gsa.gov
Subject: RE: Silent Bob - 105 mph limiter

- --UNS_gsauns2_2726865699
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline



Silent Bob,

My most humble apologies. Was having a spat with the wife. Did not
mean to take it out on you. Normally I'm a pretty nice guy.

As previously stated on the board:
I am not sure of the 97 Rangers, but 91-95 for sure with the 4.0 have
the 105 mph approx. speed limiter. I am not sure about the 3.0 and 2.3
since we have not been able to reach these speeds with those engines
due to lack of HP. This is through personal experience as well as a
good friend owns/operates a Ford Performance Specialists shop.
According to my source, even the Lightning Trucks have the limiter. He
and I have researched this and have looked into getting into the
factory programming to defeat. He has also contacted Ford and verified
this. This was not cost effective, so we decided to let the
after-market performance chip people do it for us. Superchips, Inc.
can provide this service at no extra charge and in fact are doing this
as standard on their performance chips.

I am not sure the reason Ford put this speed limiter on their trucks,
but is in fact there. I think the best offered reason was that trucks
are generally not that stable at such high speeds and not safe for the
driver and especially others on the road.

I agree .... drive sensible.


- --UNS_gsauns2_2726865699--

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:39:42 -0600
From: "Grady Byram"
Subject: 97 vs 98 Rangers

Given the factory deals being offered to close out 97 Rangers (2.9% and
$1500 cash back). I'm considering trading in my 95 F150 - mainly because I
want something with 4WD (and better mileage would be welcomed as well - my
F150 gets about 13mpg). I've noticed a lot of the the people on this list
are really excited about the 98s. Just wondering if there is anything
wrong with the 97s that makes people this way. Seems most of the
excitement stems around the front suspension - but I'm just guessing and I
haven't been keeping up with posts lately.

If I get one, I'll definitely be going 4.0L V.6. The only towing
requirements might be a 14-16ft jon boat with about a 20-25hp motor. Other
than that, hauling a dog box and hunting/fishing supplies will be the only
other hauling requirements. What rear-end ratios are available/suggested
for 4.0L/4WD. Also, I'll probably go w/ a manual tranny.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Grady

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:41:07 -0500
From: Don Vanco
Subject: Contemplating 98 purchase...

Hello -
I'm new to the list as of this AM. I'm contemplating buying a new Ranger
(Splash/Flareside 4X2 w/4.0V6) and was wondering if there are any of you
out there that have one already.
I've got to admit I'm really not a "truck person" (for whatever that
means) - having just sold a 1996 Mustang Cobra (well, it's being sold
tomorrow).
My plan is to lower the truck if possible - but due to the changes for 98
I'm wondering if anyone makes parts for that as of yet.
Anyway - general feedback would be appreciated.....
Is there a list archive somewhere I can peruse??
Thanx
Don
1986 Mercury Capri
1986 Mustang SVO
1996 Mustang Cobra

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:24:24 -0500
From: Don Vanco
Subject: Re: 97 vs 98 Rangers

At 09:39 AM 10/27/97 -0600, you wrote:
> Just wondering if there is anything
>wrong with the 97s that makes people this way. Seems most of the
>excitement stems around the front suspension
I too am contemplating one of the new Rangers - and the front suspension
has a lot to do with it. Ford has finally built the chasis on a "full
frame" - adding about 400% more stiffness to the front end. Also - the
front now has power steering (?new?) & a dual A-arm suspension - much more
like a car than a truck!

>other hauling requirements. What rear-end ratios are available/suggested
>for 4.0L/4WD. Also, I'll probably go w/ a manual tranny.
I believe the 4X4 can get a set of 3.73s - the 4X2 can only get 3.55s

Don

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 10:53:39 -0600
From: Jared
Subject: Re: 97 & 98 Rangers.

I think you might as well get a 98. The price isn't that big of differance.
There's many new features in the 98's you will like. Get the 4.0 and the
manual tranny. One tough S.O.B. of a truck. Good luck finding the one you
want.

Jared
88 4X4 Ranger
86 2X4 Ranger
89 Aerostar
94 4X4 Explorer
98 Supercab F-150 4X4 ( nextweek)

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

Date: 27 Oct 1997 09:03:15 -0700
From: "Patrick Ward"
Subject: RE: Ranger driveshaft

I don't know if you have to lube it every 5000 mi. But my 93 4X4 S-CAB =
with
36,000 on it was making a "THUD" when i would stop or start. After =
several
trips to the Ford garage and a transmission rebuild $$$$. They finaly =
figured
out it was the splined yoke where the driveshaft connects to the trans. =
It's
designed to slide back and forth when you start and stop. After all the =
B.S
i went through with Ford they slapped some teflon grease on it and =
charged
me 90.00 more dollars. It's real smooth now.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:49:18 -0600
From: "Judy Thill (MG MSMAIL)"
Subject: Hard Tonneaus

>Thanks to all who responded to me about toys for my new truck.
I just got it last week and love it! I got >some input on hard tonneau
cover basics, but am now looking at specifics...>Does anyone have an
opinion (good or bad) on any of these specific >brands ... Leer,
A.R.E., Century, Dynaglass and New Vision. I have >seen the Leer and
the A.R.E. and I know the A.R.E. is the one that >actually covers the
edges of the bed, which is one of the >recommendations I received - to
have it cover, especially the front of >the bed. PLEASE send me your
opinions on quality and durability. >Thanks!


Judy Thill
Fire Operations Officer
Maple Grove Fire Department

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:56:26 -0600
From: "Judy Thill (MG MSMAIL)"
Subject: Stainless Steel

Another question on additions to my new F150. I desperately need step
bars (I am only 5'6). I was looking at the Westin chrome which are
warranted for 5 years. However, someone else has a new stainless steel
version with a lifetime warranty. I also saw a stainless aerodynamic
bug deflector. Looks like chrome. I like the looks of both. Anyone
have any opinions on using stainless products to dress up their truck
and how well they really last, especially with harsh Minnesota winters?


Judy Thill
Fire Operations Officer
Maple Grove Fire Department

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:36:41 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: 94 Ranger 2.3L

SNOOP22222 aol.com wrote:
>
> Hey, I got a 94 ranger with a 2.3l engine. Does anybody out there know of
> some fairly easy ways to get more horse power and/or torque out of it. I
> heard that a K&N air filter is a good start. Know of anything else?

Really, the easiest way, is to take it to a dealer and trade it in for
a new Ranger with a 4.0.

Other than that, you will be doing the K&N filter, possibly an
aftermarket exhaust system, moving on to a performance chip (Do they
make one for this engine?), looking for a hi-performance cam, maybe
even a turbocharger. If all of these mods don't help, try swapping in
a 5.0 liter and get it over with in one mass infusion of cash.

Whatever you decide..... good luck!

- --
Thom Cheney
Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:11:53 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: 97 vs 98 Rangers

Hey Grady. I faced the same dilemma about 2 months ago. Whether to
wait for the 98's or get the killer deal on the 97. I went with the
'97. Josh will tell you how great his '98 drives, but I really have
no complaints with my '97 4X4 S-cab. I drove a '91 2wd Toyota xtra
cab for 6 years before getting my Ford. I think this truck handles a
mite better, even with the much higher stance & big muther-hunkin'
tires. I guess I could have afforded an F-150, but since I bought a
smaller truck, I could afford the STX package and most of the goodies
I wanted. I rarely haul anything major & there are only 3 of us
(until we get the dog).

My suggestion is to drive both & see if you can live with the old
suspension (I think all the '97 4wd trucks are equipped with a
handling pkg...that helps!!).

One caveat that I have mentioned before.... Ford has a BAD habit of
working out the kinks on their buying public. If you decide on the
'98 be a little prepared to be part of the experiment.
- --
Thom Cheney
Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:27:12, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re: Ranger Rims ??????

Bolt pattern is 4.5" circle.
14"s are standard on 2WD, 15"s are standard on Splash
15"s are standard on 4WD

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:47:14 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: All this stuff about high speed in Rangers

jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Hello List members ,
> All this talk about rev limiters and fuel cut off has got me wanting
> to express my opinion on this . First , going 100mph+ in a Ranger or
> any vehicle on a public road is illegal and very dangerous ! Second ,
> why would someone want to go 100mph+ in a truck that is not made for
> such speed (tires , design , etc.) Usually these are the people that
> end up killing others!! In my opinion if you want to go so fast go to
> a speed way .. It's a good thing Ford has a speed limiter because
> you might end up dead . This is not a flame to anyone just a
> reminder that there are others and their families on the same roads
> you drive .

If you wipe in a Ranger at >100MPH, you're probably roadkill anyway,
whether there's a speed limiter or not. They probably should have made
it lower.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:59:46 -0500
From: Luke Wells
Subject: 2.3 L power

Review for 2.3L 4CYL Performance
1.K&N(little or no difference)
2.Exaust cat backs with flowmaster or comprable I just use flowmamas
3.Remove air baffle and muffler
4.Headers
5.Good luck charm, preferably a lucky clover but my horseshoe has gotten
me out a few jams
6.buy a 4.0 or better install a 5.0

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:19:04 PST
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: 4.0 intake

I was thinking of making a custom cold air induction system for my
ranger. Of course I was going to get rid of the heat stove pipe that
comes off of the exhaust manifold. I have a question though. We have
been talking (some arguing!?!?) alot about the EEC in these trucks. I
believe that the EEC adjusts the air fuel mixture in the truck.

If I bring in more cold air which has a different density and burns
better than hot air will my engine be running to rich or to lean or will
the EEC compensate for the change? (I know when you add a K&N
filtercharger to a H*nda Civic they recommend a new chip also to richen
up the air/fuel mixture a little bit.

Also, I think that to be smog legal in the great state of CA I need the
heat stove pipe. I know that it helps the engine warm up on cold
mornings and I was wondering if removing this pipe will cause any bad
effects?

Any input would be gr8tly appreciated. Thanx.

- ---------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 10:25:11 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: All this stuff about high speed in Rangers

Filip M Gieszczykiewicz wrote:
>
> JR wrote:
> > All this talk about rev limiters and fuel cut off has got me wanting
> > to express my opinion on this . First , going 100mph+ in a Ranger or
> > any vehicle on a public road is illegal and very dangerous ! Second ,
> > why would someone want to go 100mph+ in a truck that is not made for
> > such speed (tires , design , etc.) Usually these are the people that
> > end up killing others!! In my opinion if you want to go so fast go to
> > a speed way .. It's a good thing Ford has a speed limiter because
> > you might end up dead . This is not a flame to anyone just a
> > reminder that there are others and their families on the same roads
> > you drive .
>
> Greetings. All they need to add now is a small digital RF receiver
> which will command the engine into "fuel cutoff" when a coded message
> is received from some external source: police car, road block, etc.
> Didn't get inspection this year? No problem, issue a permanent chomp!
> Too many unpaid tickets? No proble, issue a "fuel cutoff" to get their
> attention. I can't wait! Don't kid yourselves, this is a _trivial_
> addition!
>
> Sweet dreams :-)
>

okay guys...time to renew that anti-paranoia prescription!!

- --
Thom Cheney
Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:28:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Tire Diameter Calculation

In a message dated 97-10-26 00:02:19 EDT, you write:



The Husker >>

???? Been awhile? ;)

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:28:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #191

In a message dated 97-10-26 15:06:57 EST, you write:


:-) >>

I have crossed 107 before, do I have a defect?

Craig

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:30:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Front end shimmy

In a message dated 97-10-26 17:55:55 EST, you write:


shimmy when I hit a severe bump or rut in a road. The shimmy is so
severe that I have to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. Needless to
say this would be very dangerous in a freeway situation.

I thought perhaps it was a shock absorber problem and replaced the front
shocks. Still this did not fix the situation.

This has happened now 3 or 4 times. I have had the front end checked and
nothing was found to be wrong. It was suggested that the tires were the
cause and that rotating the tires might correct the situation. This was
done, but the shimmy still happened.

I do suspect the tires as they are the original tires and are probably
out of balance, etc.

If anyone has experienced such a thing, please let me know. Thanks!

Ken Justice
www.workingmat.com >>

1996 were issued with 40K tires. Don't know if you have standard or not, but
mine wore out after 35K. May want to check that.

Craig

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:33:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Winter Tires ?

In a message dated 97-10-26 18:31:06 EST, you write:


well, also can't the calibrate it to the tires? when i had a jeep, and i
put bigger tires in, they just changed some gear somewhere....

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

Sorry - that's what I was meaning.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:33:19 -0800
From: Pete Wilhite
Subject: 2.9L V6 Help

Do the 2.9L to 4.0L engines use the same block? Doing a rebuild and
wondering if I could stroke my 2.9L with a 4.0L crank.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:36:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: MORE POWER, 2.3L

In a message dated 97-10-26 23:40:50 EST, you write:


DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO GET SOME BOLT ON POWER FOR THE 2.3L ENGINES IN THE
NEWER RANGERS??? I'VE HAD TROUBLE FIND AFTER MARKET PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS
FOR
IT. >>

Don't shout - it hertz my ears

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:38:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Tailgates and Mileage

In a message dated 97-10-27 06:16:44 EST, you write:


established it
yourself!
> >>

I was just curious if someone had done an article with actual tests. like
cover vs. hard top, tailgate vs. airgate. That's all

Craig

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:41:42 -0800
From: Pete Wilhite
Subject: Re: Front end shimmy

0000,0000,ffffYou also might want to reverify that
ALL the front-end bushings are ok. My Dad had a problem like this and
that's what he found.


At 02:30 PM 10/27/97 -0500, you wrote:

>In a message dated 97-10-26 17:55:55 EST, you write:

>

>
terrible

> shimmy when I hit a severe bump or rut in a road. The shimmy is so

> severe that I have to bring the vehicle to a complete stop. Needless
to

> say this would be very dangerous in a freeway situation.

>

> I thought perhaps it was a shock absorber problem and replaced the
front

> shocks. Still this did not fix the situation.

>

> This has happened now 3 or 4 times. I have had the front end checked
and

> nothing was found to be wrong. It was suggested that the tires were
the

> cause and that rotating the tires might correct the situation. This
was

> done, but the shimmy still happened.

>

> I do suspect the tires as they are the original tires and are
probably

> out of balance, etc.

>

> If anyone has experienced such a thing, please let me know. Thanks!

>

> Ken Justice

> www.workingmat.com >>

>

>1996 were issued with 40K tires. Don't know if you have standard or
not, but

>mine wore out after 35K. May want to check that.

>

>Craig

>

>+-------------- 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: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:44:44 -0500
From: Don Vanco
Subject: Re: 2.3 L power

At 01:59 PM 10/27/97 -0500, Luke Wells wrote:
>Review for 2.3L 4CYL Performance
>1.K&N(little or no difference)
>2.Exaust cat backs with flowmaster or comprable I just use flowmamas
>3.Remove air baffle and muffler
>4.Headers
>5.Good luck charm, preferably a lucky clover but my horseshoe has gotten
>me out a few jams
>6.buy a 4.0 or better install a 5.0

Well, can't really argue about the upgrade to a bigger mill, but there is
plenty of zoom in the 2.3L - and many a Mustnag GT driver have learned that
from me & my little 144 cubic inch Mustang SVO.
These motors respond extremely well to head work - get a catalog from JBA
(J. Bittle in Fla.) or PPI & you'll find some great stuff. Problem is - do
you spend money on the current motor or save it for the swap?? The
determining factor for me was weight - the front end stays nice & light &
maintains a bit of the vehicles' balance.
The biggest issue for these little mills is breathing (& cam)
Open up heads (port work + new vlalves - requires new tappets - so go to a
roller cam!)
Decent intake work (go to Mustang TB & gut lower intake. Well, polish it
at the least)
New cam + adjustable sprocket
Headers where possible.
Good exhaust.
Decent plugs & wires (this plus a good coil added 20 HP & 1,000 RPM to my
SVO!)
Intercooled Turbo (there are a ton of donor Mustangs & aftermarket
companies out there)

There are lots of guys making 350-425 horses on this motor - I'm at right
around 250 with no CPU or Injector/Compressor change...... JBA has had
cors in the 1000hp range with an essentailly stock bottom end.
Unfortunately, I can't speak to the Ranger specifically, and the dual plug
/ DIS motor may add some unique twists - but I'm sure the potential is there.
Don
1986 Mercury Capri - 135,000 miles & 88 screaming ponies!
1986 Mustang SVO (T-Bird intercooler)
1996 Mustang Cobra (sold 10-28-97)
1998 Ranger (to be ordered 10-29-97!)

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:47:51 -0500
From: Don Vanco
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #191

At 02:28 PM 10/27/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-10-26 15:06:57 EST, you write:
>
>
>I have crossed 107 before, do I have a defect?
>Craig

Wow - glad this doesn't extend to Ford cars - I'd be late for work every
day ;)
Is this something routinely (I hope) eliminated by aftermarket chips?
Don

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:52:11 -0500....


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.