Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:50:28 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, November 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 229



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

Aero Mirror Removal (How?) [Jay Chlebowski ]
re: Powerstroke comments [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
2.3L to 4.0L engine upgrade [David ]
re: Chevy Humor [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
RE (2): Powerstroke comments [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Gas mileage ["The Lublin Family" ]
Re: 2.3L to 4.0L engine upgrade [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Re: gas mileage [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: gas mileage [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Complaint [Tony Rio ]
Re: Chevy Humor ["Ryan Penner" ]
Re: Powerstroke comments ["Ryan Penner" ]
gas mileage [David ]
Re: Re: gas mileage [Psnowball aol.com]
Re: Re: gas mileage [Psnowball aol.com]
re:explorer radius arm bushings [Bob Fiddes ]
Re: gas mileage [Bob Fiddes ]
Re:Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info [fwise juno.com]
F150 brake linings and components [MEB8100 aol.com]
Re: Powerstroke Comments [Jason Lester ]
could use some clutch help:) [Quintin ]
Oil Pan Removal ["Leo Mosley" ]
Re: radius arm bushings [OMEGA296 aol.com]
Tailgates and mileage... [Bob ]
Re: Needed Info [cdkelly juno.com (Christopher D Kelly)]

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

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 17:20:58 -0000
From: Jay Chlebowski
Subject: Aero Mirror Removal (How?)

Howdy All!

Ok, here's the deal (and I thought it would be soooo easy!).

I've got the regular, non-power, aero mirrors on my 97 F350. Of course,
I can't see a thing with them when I've got a trailer behind me, so I was
wanting to replace them with either the low-mount swing-out mirrors, or
the big RV mirrors. It turns out that the bolt holes for the low-mount
mirrors are closer in than the bolts on the aero mirrors (which would
leave 2 nice little holes in the door), but that the RV mirrors use the
same bolt holes.

Anyway, from the outside, it looks like all I need to do is remove the 2
bolts and my aero mirror should fall off. Well, I pulled those two out,
and there's some sort of large iron "brace" (for lack of a better term)
that extends into the doo in the center of the mirror. I figured there'd
be a big hole there, but thought it would only be used by the power
mirrors.

No amount of lifting or twisting on the mirror would make that brace
slide out of the hole. I got the mirror to move about 1in from the door,
but couldn't get it any further than that.

Has anyone take these off before, and/or can someone check a shop manual
and let me know how it's done? I need to get these things off!

Thanx & Best Regards,
Jay

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:14:27, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re: Powerstroke comments

Alan,

You cab get an Allison Automatic, but you must get it with the F800
series right know. Hopefully the F800 replacement will allow air
brakes and an Allison auto. You can get air seats, but you must have
air brakes. The E4OD HAS been upgraded. Ford tells us 65% of the
parts are new...now they call it the 4R100. The new trucks will be
worth looking at, but if you want, go to your closest Heavy Truck
Dealership and check out the F800s. We have some here in MN, but
they are all hydraulic brakes, except for one, but it does not have
an air seat. We also only have one left with an auto.

Josh
Lakeland Truck Center
So. St. Paul, MN
KNBD87D prodigy.com
612-450-5321

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:07:55 -0500
From: David
Subject: 2.3L to 4.0L engine upgrade

I was wondering if anyone could offer advice on putting a 4.0L V6 in my 94
Ranger which has a 2.3L. Are there any major modifications I will have to
make? Does any anyone know what kind of gas mileage I should expect? Where
can I get a 4.0L new or used at a fairly reasonable price.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:18:57, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re: Chevy Humor

Is that kid nucking futs? I have heard and seen cars damaged way
less that that and get totalled out. I don't understand....he should
have learned the truck was junk when he first bought it. Hey, maybe
now that a body shop is fixing it, the truck WILL be better than new..
..
Josh

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:21:54, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: RE (2): Powerstroke comments

James,
I still don't know about tow ratings. We don't have anything else
from Ford. I am still waiting....

Josh

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:51:46 -0500
From: "The Lublin Family"
Subject: Re: Gas mileage

Our 89 Ranger with the 2.9 and 5 spd od gets about 16 MPG. It is an
extended cab 4X4 with oversize tires and a topper. The engine has lots
of miles on it too.

My 81 F-150 with the 300 Six got 19 MPG When I first bought it in May.
It has a bad carb and needed a tune-up too. After I tuned it up it got
21 MPG. Now that the trans slips so bad, it gets around 12!

The 68 F-350 I had with a 390 and 4 spd got 6 MPG on a good day!

Chris "Lube" Lublin

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:29:48 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: 2.3L to 4.0L engine upgrade

If you are going to go through the trouble of putting in a new motor
go with the 5.0L 302 .




To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
From: David
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Subject: 2.3L to 4.0L engine upgrade
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 23:07:55 +0000

I was wondering if anyone could offer advice on putting a 4.0L V6 in my 94
Ranger which has a 2.3L. Are there any major modifications I will have to
make? Does any anyone know what kind of gas mileage I should expect? Where
can I get a 4.0L new or used at a fairly reasonable price.



+-------------- 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: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:35:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: gas mileage

In a message dated 97-11-19 13:01:49 EST, you write:


increase a bit.

Josh >>

I don't understand this. I know it's true, because it happened to my truck,
but why?

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:42:37, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: gas mileage

When the engine is new, all of the internal parts are "tight." After
a few thousand miles, the engine "loosens up" and begins to run more
efficient. I can't mechanically explain why, but it just happens.

Josh

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:49:26 -0600
From: Tony Rio
Subject: Complaint

Karyn....

Call your State Attorney Generals office and State Consumer Board. The
dealership has to, by law, provide you with an entirly new vehicle, or
refund the money that you have given them. All states of the union have
"lemon laws". Walk into the dealership, demand a brand new working
vehical, or your money. If they hassle you tell them that your lawyer will
be contacting them. They will probably fork up a truck or the cash real
fast... If they don't, get a lawyer to contact the dealership and Ford
customer service.
Also, call your back or lending institution where you got your loan from.
Tell them of the situation, and ask about putting a stop on your payments
for the loan. You are not leaglly responsible to pay for goods or
services which are sub-standard or non-existent.

Tony


What can I do about my Lemon? The dealership has had my Ranger "97"
>since October 1. It's now Nove. 18. and they told me they have no idea
>what is wrong with it. They have put on 3 fuel pumps, new pressure
>lines, a fuel pump regulator, a new brain box and still don't know what
>is wrong. I have filed 6 complaints with the 800 ford # and they too
>have done nothing. It still sits in the dealerships garage

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:02:58 -0700
From: "Ryan Penner"
Subject: Re: Chevy Humor

- -----Original Message-----
From: Cassis, John
To: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 11:52 AM
Subject: Chevy Humor



I've got a great chevy story for you guys. This kid I work with has been
looking for a used truck. I realy tried to persuade him into a
Ford.....but you know these young kids today. Anyway so dip-shi* goes and
buys a 92 Chevy full size with a vorshi* v-6. Bought it from another kid
(wich I realy found stupid, I would never buy a used car that looked like
a kid owned it). Anyway the kid gets rear-ended on his way to work last
week. Some guy doing about 45mph never hit the breaks just slammed into
him at a light. No one was hurt but the kids truck was totaly fu%&ed up.
I mean big times. So were all telling him its a bummer his truck is
totaled. The bed is totaly smashed up to the rear fender wells, the drive
shaft was inserted into the back of the trany an extra few inches, the
motor shifted, I mean this truck is wasted. So he comes in the other day
telling us that his truck is being fixed. Now I've heard of this befor
but if it was my truck there is no way I would allow it, but they are
going to saw off the back half of his frame and weld in new frame. This
guy thinks it will be as good as or better than new. I mean come on give
me a break, I do'nt care how good of a body shop you go to that truck
will never be the same. I guess it will give a whole new meaning to the
term "chevy flex". Anyway just had to share this funny tid bit with
yall'. When he gets it back I'll tell you how bad it dog-tracks down the
road. I know I'm rambling but the kid realy believes it will be good as
new.....hehehehehehehe.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

In some states modifying the frame or even touching it is illegal.
I would just ask for the money to go purchase a new FORD that way he not
only gets a new NICE truck but a FORD.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:05:06 -0700
From: "Ryan Penner"
Subject: Re: Powerstroke comments

- -----Original Message-----
From: The Hepburn
To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 12:39 PM
Subject: Powerstroke comments


>Hi all.
>
>I was at the local International dealer yesterday picking up
>some oil and a filter for my '90 F350 and decided to pump the
>parts guy for any information he might have on the '99 version
>of the Powerstroke. First he told me that I could not put a
>Powerstroke in my truck without spending tons of money, because
>the engine is so different from the older 7.3. Then he went on
>to say that people with Powerstrokes who want more power can get
>it quite simply. He says that the engine, as supplied by Navistar,
>is spec'ed at 565 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels - Ford turns
>down the injector pump because of limitations in the drive train.
>Apparently, if you're willing to live with a shortened lifetime on
>your drivetrain, you can have the pump turned up some and get some
>respectable power out of that baby, not that it's anemic in it's
>Ford configuration!
>
>We then talked about the new Super Duty line from Ford, and again
>I was pleasantly surprised. He steered me over to the brochure
>rack and pulled out a brochure on their medium duty 4000 line: low
>profile trucks, wheelbases from 140" up to 254", cabs from standard
>3-seaters to nice dual cabs that can seat 8, either the T444E engine
>in configurations from 160 hp up to 230 hp or an impressive DT466E
>six cylinder (7.6 L!) available with 190 hp and 520 lb-ft of torque
>up to 250 hp and 660 lb-ft of torque (Take that, Dodge/Cummins owners!).
>
>Automatic transmission by Allison and all the creature comforts. And
>the price tag starts around $35K and goes up to about %50K depending
>on configuration.
>
>Sure muddies up my decision...do I go with an F550, or do go with an
>International?
>
>---
>
>Alan Hepburn |
|
>National Semiconductor | DON'T TREAD ON ME
|
>Santa Clara, Ca |
|
>alanh galaxy.nsc.com |
|
>


Well you could go with both! :) You could get the international and stick
Ford emblems on it. Or you could get the international and see
what the chances of putting a ford body on it is.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:30:47 -0500
From: David
Subject: gas mileage

In response to the message posted by KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
I would like to know how you can get 25mpg (city) and 37 mpg (hwy)! That
seems to be very high. I have a 94 Ranger 2.3L (55k)w/ a bed cover and I'm
lucky to get 20mpg (city) and 25 (hwy). Does anyone have any other ideas
on improving gas mileage?

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:53:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Psnowball aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: gas mileage

Toreoador red, 2x4. auto. extracab. shortbed. no frills. I guess mine, too,
is about 15 or so. I filled it up on Tues and will do the math when I fill
it again. I used to fill my Toyota once every 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 weeks (depending
on if I went anyplace after work) Now I fill the darn thing every week. Other
than the mileage, I like it fine. I wish it had more inside cab room-I'm a
larger person and miss the roominess of my Toyota. I also miss the little
bench in the back of my Toyota
(it was an extra cab, too). I hate putting stuff on the floor in the Ranger
and not being able to reach it.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:55:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Psnowball aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: gas mileage

from the responses I got, and thank you everyone, it seems as if most of us
are in the same boat. I think Ford needs to work on better mileage.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:58:57 -0700
From: Bob Fiddes
Subject: re:explorer radius arm bushings

Yep, mine used to be that way too. I'll call the shop and get the
application tomorrow and post it for you. I am really happy I found a guy
who knew his stuff cause I tried the factory replacements and urethane
bushings. Neither lasted and as a matter of fact, the factory ones lasted
longer than the urethane versions.

At 07:47 PM 11/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>You mentioned a bushing with a sleeve, could you by any chance find a model
>year or part nos for us. I getting tired of changing them myself. Ford has
>revved the bushings at least three times to make them stand up. I figure a
>new set with every set of tires.
>
>//ck
>
>
>+-------------- 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: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:03:13 -0700
From: Bob Fiddes
Subject: Re: gas mileage

Yep, don't run with the AC on, stay at 55mph or lower on flat land or down
hill. Other than that, I find it next to impossible that any 2.3 in a
truck body would get 37mpg. I had a Tempo with a 2.3 HSC, 5 speed and was
able to pull 39mpg out of it by doing the above. With normal driving of
65-75mph and AC it would get 29-32mpg depending on the terrain I was in.
It goes without saying that the Tempo has an advantage in weight, aero
dynamics and gearing.

At 08:30 PM 11/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In response to the message posted by KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
>I would like to know how you can get 25mpg (city) and 37 mpg (hwy)! That
>seems to be very high. I have a 94 Ranger 2.3L (55k)w/ a bed cover and I'm
>lucky to get 20mpg (city) and 25 (hwy). Does anyone have any other ideas
>on improving gas mileage?
>
>
>
>
>
>+-------------- 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: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:39:29 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Re:Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info

On 18 Nov, Christopher Kelly wrote:
> the 3.0 SUCKS! As weak as the 2.3 and uses as much gas as the 4.0, the
3.0 is a waste of time. I think the 3.0 is a >Mazda motor and the 2.3 and
4.0 are ford motors

Christopher, Christopher, Christopher!

As an owner of a 3.0 powered Ranger (94 Supercab), I must respectfully
disagree. The 2.3, while American designed and built, is an evolutionary
update of the European Ford 2.0. The 4.0 is an update of the 2.9, which
drew heavily upon the European 2.6 & 2.8 V6 engines.

The 3.0 was, to the best of my knowledge, built initially for the
Taurus/Sable (but is not to be confused with the relatively new Duratech
3.0 which has overhead cams and 4 valves/cylinder), and later put into
the Ranger (replacing the 2.9) and the Aerostar van. This engine is known
as the "Vulcan."

Having owned 2.3's in Pinto's and Mustang/Capri's, I am aware that it is
a tough, easily modifiable engine. It is also too underpowered for
serious truck usage (re: the number of posts that hit this list asking
for how to derive more power from the 2.3). It is fine in standard cab
Rangers that don't do a lot of hauling, but even in an unloaded Supercab
it is at the edge of its useful envelope. This is also why you can no
longer obtain a 2.3 in any Ranger with 4wd.

As for using as much gas as the 4.0, I have not found this to be the
case. I consistently get 19-21 mpg in town, and 24-26 on the highway,
with that rising to 27-29 at altitude (over 5K feet). I even got 30.2 on
one tank, mostly above 9K. The 4.0's with which I am familiar get more on
the order of 17-19 in town and 22-24 on the road, YMMV.

Is the 3.0 a powerhouse? Not hardly. Would I like more power? You bet!
Does the 3.0 do the job I ask of it (largely commuting, light (~500#)
hauling and high altitude vacationing)? Yup. I have also towed a 3000#
shredder (not a lot of fun, as I have the 5 speed, but it got the job
done), and carried loads in excess of 2400# (again, not recommended, but
if you have to haul it, you have to haul it). I would not have wanted to
try either job with the 2.3.

In response to Bryan Jordan's initial question as to why the 3.0 is
listed as "least popular" on the web (I think he meant the Ford Ranger
Pages and not FordRanger.com), I don't know, and I was surprised to see
that myself several weeks ago. I find the 3.0 to be a good compromise in
terms of initial cost, fuel economy and horsepower. I would also like to
see more aftermarket parts available, for, as someone once said, "You can
never be too rich, too thin, or have too much horsepower!" Or something
like that.

At any rate, this is not intended to be a flame toward Christopher, but
simply another point of view, that may help Bryan make his decision. I
also agree with a couple of other posts that no Ranger is going to be
happy at 100mph for 6 hours. Is it possible that he meant 60 Kilometers
per hour? This would be about 62 mph, and any Ranger can handle that.
Given that he's talking about the autobahn, I strongly doubt it.

Sorry for the lengthy post,

Fred Wise
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:48:35 -0500 (EST)
From: MEB8100 aol.com
Subject: F150 brake linings and components

Vehicle: 1993 F150 4x4 XLT, Supercab, 5.0 with 5 speed

Does anyone have any suggestions for improved brake linings or other
components for this vehicle. It is used primarily for towing about 3,500
lbs. w/o trailer brakes. The front rotors especially warp alot and use up
pads quickly. Is the load too high without having trailer brakes? I've been
told that there are improved aftermarket front rotors available but don't
know where to look.

Thanks!
Mark Biederbeck
MEB8100 aol.com

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 23:13:30 -0500
From: Jason Lester
Subject: Re: Powerstroke Comments

You can't turn up the pump on a Power Stroke like you can on conventional
diesels. The pump is completely computer controlled. To turn it up, you
have to add a computer chip which will run you $300 or more. I read in
Four-Wheeler magazine a while back that one Ford PSD they tested was
actually making 60 more ft.lbs. of torque at the real wheels than the
engine is rated at the flywheel! Reminds me of the 428 Cobra Jets from the
'60s .. it was rated at 385hp from the factory, but most agreed it was
actually more like 500.

Jason

>it quite simply. He says that the engine, as supplied by Navistar,
>is spec'ed at 565 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels - Ford turns
>down the injector pump because of limitations in the drive train.
>Apparently, if you're willing to live with a shortened lifetime on
>your drivetrain, you can have the pump turned up some and get some
>respectable power out of that baby, not that it's anemic in it's
>Ford configuration!

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:42:25 -0600
From: Quintin
Subject: could use some clutch help:)

Hello all,
I've got a 87 Ranger xlt 2.9L. There is virtually no freeplay in the
clutch and I think it may even be beginning to slip a bit. I get a
sharp chatter/vibration when I try to take off quick from a stand
still. If someone could walk me through the adjustment id greatly
appreciate it, I havent done much clutch work. Or if you have other
ideas of what it may be causing the rough take off.

Thanks in advance,

Q

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

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:40:25 -0800
From: "Leo Mosley"
Subject: Oil Pan Removal

According to the Haynes manual I have, they suggest raising the engine from the
front with a jack under the oil pan. They say to use a thick wooden block
between the jack and oil pan. The procedure says to raise the engine about 1
inch, and support the engine mounts with wood blocks. It then says to drop the
oil pan onto the cross member, and then reach in and remove the two oil pump
inlet tube to oil pump retaining bolts and washers. It then says you can remove
the pan, although you may have to rotate the crankshaft so the counterweights
clear the pan. The procedure also mentions removing the radiator (I guess this
provides extra clearance when the engine is lifted). I haven't tried this, but I
would think it may be better than lifting by the harmonic balancer. I would also
be concerned about lifting the engine 3 or 4 inches, as opposed to 1.
Leo
87 F150, 302

> To get the oil pan off you must lift the engine up to allow for
> clearance of the oil pump pickup. This is not as hard as it sounds.
> First remove all engine mount bolts (1 mount under tranny, 1 mount under
> each side of engine). Take a look at the top of the engine back by the
> firewall and see if there is anything that would hit when you raise the
> engine up. I don't think there is on the inline six. You only need to
> raise it about 4 inches. Next place a floor jack under the harmonic
> balancer and raise the engine up about 3 or 4 inches.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 03:23:54 -0500 (EST)
From: OMEGA296 aol.com
Subject: Re: radius arm bushings

Check out this page

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.glue.umd.edu/~singletn/exp.html

i was told the poly bushings are the best, guess i will try them on my 93
Exp. soon !

>I was wondering how hard it is to change these. I have a '93 Explorer. I
>am sure that there is a fair amount of work to change them, but any ideas
>on what i would need or whatever? i am getting that slight "clunk" every
>now and then right under the drivers feet, and i don't think they have ever
>been changed....

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:49:21 -0900
From: Bob
Subject: Tailgates and mileage...

Well most of you will sneer at me, but I have to add something on this
subject...

I have a 1970 El Camino SS. Putting the tailgate down does two things
for my application, I think... Ive noticed that my top speed increases
with the gate down, from around 130 to 135+ I havent checked it at the
track, as I should, yet.

The second thing it does is it gives better weight transfer when I
launch. If I have it up then I can only leave at about 2000rpm before
it breaks loose. Whereas if I put the gate down, I can leave harder at
about 2500-2700rpm. This has to do with the added weight that was
moved rearward.

Just my findings...

Later,
Bob
Anchorage, Alaska
ascbh1 uaa.alaska.edu

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 05:16:13 -0500
From: cdkelly juno.com (Christopher D Kelly)
Subject: Re: Needed Info

Sorry I hurt your feelings but I will put my 2.3 up against your 3.0
anytime. As for pulling and hauling I sure I can do that also. The
hauling might be a bit hard with the Splash bed and tonneau cover but if
it would fit I would haul it! But thats not why I bought it, I bought for
a daily commuter and I get 27-28 mpg around town and about 32 on the
highway...I test drove a 3.0 liter and it did not seem to be much better
on power.
On to another subject..not flaming just stating my opinion. But if you
are looking for aftermarket parts try Downs Ford they offer Stainless
still headers, cat back exhaust, and superchip for your truck(maybe then
it will keep up with my 2.3....joke hehe)! I think another company called
I'll Sho U Performance sells underdrive pulleys.
You mean to tell me that the 2.3(old Pinto motor was designed off an
European motor, I doubt it.

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:39:29 -0600 fwise juno.com writes:
>On 18 Nov, Christopher Kelly wrote:
>> the 3.0 SUCKS! As weak as the 2.3 and uses as much gas as the 4.0,
>the 3.0 is a waste of time. I think the 3.0 is a >Mazda motor and the
>2.3 and 4.0 are ford motors
>
>Christopher, Christopher, Christopher!
>
>As an owner of a 3.0 powered Ranger (94 Supercab), I must respectfully
>disagree. The 2.3, while American designed and built, is an
>evolutionary update of the European Ford 2.0. The 4.0 is an update of
>the 2.9, which drew heavily upon the European 2.6 & 2.8 V6 engines.
>
>The 3.0 was, to the best of my knowledge, built initially for the
>Taurus/Sable (but is not to be confused with the relatively new
>Duratech 3.0 which has overhead cams and 4 valves/cylinder), and later
>put into the Ranger (replacing the 2.9) and the Aerostar van. This
>engine is known as the "Vulcan."
>
>Having owned 2.3's in Pinto's and Mustang/Capri's, I am aware that it
>is a tough, easily modifiable engine. It is also too underpowered for
>serious truck usage (re: the number of posts that hit this list asking
>for how to derive more power from the 2.3). It is fine in standard cab
>Rangers that don't do a lot of hauling, but even in an unloaded
>Supercab it is at the edge of its useful envelope. This is also why
>you can no longer obtain a 2.3 in any Ranger with 4wd.
>
>As for using as much gas as the 4.0, I have not found this to be the
>case. I consistently get 19-21 mpg in town, and 24-26 on the highway,
>with that rising to 27-29 at altitude (over 5K feet). I even got 30.2
>on one tank, mostly above 9K. The 4.0's with which I am familiar get
>more on the order of 17-19 in town and 22-24 on the road, YMMV.
>
>Is the 3.0 a powerhouse? Not hardly. Would I like more power? You bet!
>Does the 3.0 do the job I ask of it (largely commuting, light (~500#)
>hauling and high altitude vacationing)? Yup. I have also towed a 3000#
>shredder (not a lot of fun, as I have the 5 speed, but it got the job
>done), and carried loads in excess of 2400# (again, not recommended,
>but if you have to haul it, you have to haul it). I would not have
>wanted to try either job with the 2.3.
>
>In response to Bryan Jordan's initial question as to why the 3.0 is
>listed as "least popular" on the web (I think he meant the Ford Ranger
>Pages and not FordRanger.com), I don't know, and I was surprised to
>see that myself several weeks ago. I find the 3.0 to be a good
>compromise in terms of initial cost, fuel economy and horsepower. I
>would also like to see more aftermarket parts available, for, as
>someone once said, "You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too....

---

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.