Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:47:51 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #233
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, November 21 1997 Volume 01 : Number 233



=======================================================================
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: Question about my new K&N... [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Re: Mileage [Iguannna aol.com]
Re: Ranger turn lights [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: gas mileage [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption [tgstoner umich.edu]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230 [Bill Morgan ]
Chevy Humor [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: Bedliners [William Stret ]
Re: Bedliners [Eric W Sneed ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230 ["Mike Jones"]
RE: axles [Brett Gudgel ]
Re: I doubt it ["C. E. White" ]
Gas Milage [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Rice spanked Ranger? [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230 [Thom Cheney ]
Re: axles [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Rice spanked Ranger? [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Mileage ["Chad Royse (Netcom)" ]
One More Time ["Mike Wiatt" ]
'85 Ranger Advice ["Douglas" ]
Re: One More Time ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Ranger turn lights ["R.L.H.O." ]
Axles [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
V10 [JOUZA1 aol.com]
Erased [JOUZA1 aol.com]
Re: V10 [John Yee ]
Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption ["Mark E. Monninger"
F150 Brakes [peakbzsrvc juno.com (Mike Mueller)]
Replacement Gas/Brake Pedals for 97 Ranger? ["Robert Stinnett ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:39:40 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re: Question about my new K&N...

I know this pertains to my Mustang GT (circa 1988), but I don't know if
Ford has changed any of this for OBD-1 & OBD-2 vehicles. The computer is
always learning. Ford computers retain info from the last 40 starts.

To reset the computer:
1) Fully warm up the engine.
2) Disconnect the battery for 30+ minutes.
3) Reconnect battery and start vehicle.
4) Let vehicle idle for >/= 5 minutes.
5) Drive vehicle

6) Word has it that after the 5 min. idle, really "standing on it" a
"number of times" will yield best (more?) power. Some drag guys do this
each time they go to the strip. Of course the computer will unlearn all
this good stuff if you don't keep doing it. But it's probably not a good
excuse for the cops.

Don't worry about the odo.

Have fun!


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Question about my new K&N...
Author: ghb gte.net at KOLLSMAN
Date: 11/20/97 12:59 PM




I put in my K&N about two weeks ago. Does the engine's
computer go through
an adjustment period with the change in air flow? I didn't
notice any real
improvements the first week or so but lately it seems as if
there may be a
difference.
Also, it seems like in the past someone mentioned that after
making a mod
that you should disconnect your battery and force your computer
to reset
and have to learn how to operate efficiently all over again
given its new
components. Do I remember this correctly? If so, how long
should the
battery be disconnected? Will this cause the odometer to reset?
Thanks for the lesson.
ghb
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer
- --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
|
| Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:26:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Iguannna aol.com
Subject: Re: 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?
>
>
I used to get 34mpg on the highway with my '92 4x2 2.3 5sp. I had no cover,
and ......GASP! my tailgate on!

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:50:07 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:42:45 -0200 "R.L.H.O."
writes:
>Hi folks !
>
>I'm looking up for 97 Ranger white turn lights. Any ideas where I
>could
>find it on the net?
>
>Regards,
>
>Rodrigo Heitzmann


Are you talking about the bulbs? Or are you talking about clear light
signal assemblies?

Please dont tell me your going to Rice you're truck out. I've seen too
many rice spanked Rangers.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:50:07 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: gas mileage

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:28:31, -0500 KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J
TENNEY) writes:

Well, if your lucky and the wind is 20+ mph to your back, its possible
to get 40mpg :-)


>My truck was a regular cab, shortbox, 4x2 with a 5 speed manual.
>There isn't a lot of wight there. Also, I didn'y hammer on the truck.
> The 2.3L didn't have a lot of power, so I didn't act like it did.
>The 25 mpg and 37 mpg were during the summer, too. How did I get 37
>mpg? I was driving on flat land and I was following my grilfriend's
>dad's van pulling a open car trailer going 55 mph the whole time.
>Maybe I was in the "draft" from the trailer, I don't know. I didn't
>have any mods on the engine, and I changed oil every 3000. I only
>got 37 mpg going to Oklahoma and coming back home to MN on the
>highway. I never got 37 mpg any other time except for 100% highway.
>One more thing...that was the only time I have driven 55 mph on a 65
>mph speed zone! I really didn't have a choice but to follow the van.
>
>Josh

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:28:44 -0500
From: tgstoner umich.edu
Subject: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 jurixsys alaska.net (j sutcliffe) wrote:
> Sorry. I have NO patience for this Ranger mileage thread. I just bought
a
> Ranger 98 XLT 4.0 L. It gets great mileage. What are you people whining
> about????
**********************************
On my own Ranger with the 3.0 / 5-speed combination, I've noticed that
keeping the tires inflated to 35 psi improves the gasoline mileage quite a
bit. I've actually gotten better mileage at 70 miles per hour with the
tires at 35 pounds and the bed completely full of firewood, than I have on
the same trip at 75 miles per hour with the tires at 30 pounds and the bed
empty. By the way, in both cases my tonneau cover was installed so you
won't be able to get me involved in the tailgate on / tailgate off
discussion.

I will comment on the 3.0 liter engine though. After having the 2.3 /
5-speed combination in my first two Rangers, I'm quite happy with the
performance of this little V-6 in normal driving, hauling a load, or towing
either of my small Boston Whaler boats. As I recall, the 2.3 engine was
rated at just less than 100 horsepower, which I certainly believe is
accurate after having had two of them. I believe that the 3.0 was rated at
147, and the 4.0 was rated at 160 horsepower. Obviously I've had occasion
to drive them all and the nearly 50% increase in power going from the 2.3
to the 3.0 is very noticable and welcome. The 9% increase gained in going
from the 3.0 to the 4.0 is barely noticable to me though, although the
greater increase in torque which also is gained may well make quite a
difference if you have an automatic transmission or are towing heavier
loads.

Tom Stoner
Ann Arbor, MI
1996 Ranger XLT Super Cab
1996 Taurus LX
tgstoner umich.edu

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:41:37 -0600
From: Bill Morgan
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230

Randy Kindler wrote:

> >ooooh...skip the 5.0 conversion....*THAT* would be awesome...SHO motor
> >in a Ranger......hmmmmmmm.........
> >
> ooooh, ooooh.....How 'bout a supercharged 3.8 from a T-Bird Super Coupe?
> It's even rear wheel drive.

Hey, also a good possibility and more low end grunt than the SHO. Take your
pick and yeeehaaa...

Bill Morgan
93 Ford F150 MarkIII Conversion
sho4go internetwork.net


- --
MZ

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 08:14
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Chevy Humor

Frogy,

Man their gonna cut and weld major portions of the frame. Come on this is
pathetic. It's not like there is a shortage of 92' chevy stepside trucks
out there. I personaly would not allow it. I would raise hell until my
insurance totald the truck out. Dude he was rear ended by a car going
45mph while he was sitting still. Fu%% it, buy a new truck. I mean c'mon.
You know chances are the bed they put on his truck is gonna be from a
burned truck, and and it just all sounds like a nightmare to me. Anyway I
do not dout that a shop could fix it right, but I've seen more that would
rather half ass a job and save a buck than spend the time to do it right.
Anyway like I said not my truck I just would not allow it.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:49:43 -0800
From: William Stret
Subject: Re: Bedliners

Gary Gadwa wrote:
>
> Bedliners
> If you are serious about taking care of your Pickup Bed go with ARMA
> Lining or RHINO lining. The slide in Bed Liners are "bad news"! They are
> slipperyer than you can imagine and they trap unwanted moisture under
> the liner. I have the ARMA lining chose it over the Rhino lining just
> because ite sprayed in hot rather than cold. Great Bed protection!!!
> Totally water proof, non slip, insulating, very durable, lifetime
> guarantee, can even be custom colored. I went to the trouble to
> sandblast the bed of my 1990 F-250 Supercab first. Not necessary. Again
> if you are serious about truck bed protection get the sprayed in liner.
>
> Gary Gadwa
> Stanley, Idaho
> 1990 F-250 351 4X4 Supercab Pickup
> 1996 Explorer
> 1931 Victoria Steelback

Stanley, Idaho???? The net really is getting pervasive huh?
I live in CA now but was born and raised in Idaho Falls so am quite
familiar with your area - beautiful country (a tad chilly in the
winter though, don't you think?).

What are you doing with the 31 Vicky? Restoration, street rod,
or ....?

Bill

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:28:06 -0800
From: Eric W Sneed
Subject: Re: Bedliners

Great until you start tossing lumber, or any other objects in the
bed.Then the bed will be full of dents.

Just my $0.02









William Stret wrote:
>
> Gary Gadwa wrote:
> >
> > Bedliners
> > If you are serious about taking care of your Pickup Bed go with ARMA
> > Lining or RHINO lining. The slide in Bed Liners are "bad news"! They are
> > slipperyer than you can imagine and they trap unwanted moisture under
> > the liner. I have the ARMA lining chose it over the Rhino lining just
> > because ite sprayed in hot rather than cold. Great Bed protection!!!
> > Totally water proof, non slip, insulating, very durable, lifetime
> > guarantee, can even be custom colored. I went to the trouble to
> > sandblast the bed of my 1990 F-250 Supercab first. Not necessary. Again
> > if you are serious about truck bed protection get the sprayed in liner.
> >
> > Gary Gadwa
> > Stanley, Idaho
> > 1990 F-250 351 4X4 Supercab Pickup
> > 1996 Explorer
> > 1931 Victoria Steelback
>
> Stanley, Idaho???? The net really is getting pervasive huh?
> I live in CA now but was born and raised in Idaho Falls so am quite
> familiar with your area - beautiful country (a tad chilly in the
> winter though, don't you think?).
>
> What are you doing with the 31 Vicky? Restoration, street rod,
> or ....?
>
> Bill
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:28:28 -0500
From: "Mike Jones"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230

[Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:00:00 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re[2]: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info
He meant 100 mph. Left lane on the Autobahn (sp?) lives at a speed of 90 -
135+ mph when traffic allows. The point is that you need to be a real
driver and have a real car to be in the left lane. He may be qualified but
the Ranger isn't.
BTW, you guys should crop your replies. You are sucking up major amounts of
bandwidth if you don't.
My $0.02.]

And you think the Ranger is any worse than the little european and japanese
tin boxes going that fast? I'd feel better in a Ranger at 100 than one of
those little things at 80, anyday. Lighten up...

Mike J.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:13:00 -0800
From: Brett Gudgel
Subject: RE: axles

I'm new to the list, but not to owning a Ranger. My first Ranger was a
92 w/ 3.0 5 speed, 2wd. I drove it 113,000 miles before selling it, and
upgrading to a 96 w/ a 4.0 4x4. I never had to do any repairs to my 92,
other than new brake pads and U-joints. Needles to say I am more than
impressed with Rangers in general. Anyway my question is how can tell
what type of axle and transfer case are in my 96 Ranger 4x4? Thanks,
and sorry if this has already been covered

see ya,
Brett
96 4.o 4x4

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:12:03 -0500
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re: I doubt it

Randy Kindler wrote:
>
> You mean to tell me that the 2.3(old Pinto motor was designed off an
> European motor, I doubt it.)

Well there was nothing in common between the 2.0L German 4 Cyclinder and
the 2.3L American 4 Cyclinders (except that they were both used in
Pintos). I guess if you say they were both 4 Cyclinders you could say
the 2.3 was designed off the 2.0, but almost nothing else was the same
(I owned two 2.0s and one 2.3). If you want to see a really weird 2.3,
get an old Courier. Mazada built Chassis/Cab, Jatco Automatic
Transmission, Bed Built in California, optional 2.3L eninge. The Engine
Short Block was built in Brazil, but all the accessories (including
carburetor) were Japanese. I hated the damn carb. In fact I hated the
whole truck. You should have seen it when it got old. The paint on the
bed which was built in California did not fade, the cab faded like
crazy. We ended up with a dull apple green cab and a bright ugly apple
green bed.

> Yup, Its true. The 3.0 is the most American of the lot. The 2.3 is a
> derivative of the German built 2.0, and the 2.9 and the 4.0 are both
> derivatives of the German 2.6/2.8 V6s that originally made their American
> debut in the old Mercury Capri. In fact, the early Ranger 2.8s and some 2.9s
> were manufactured in Germany.

I thought they were all manufactured in Germany...and that the 4.0L Push
Rod Engine still is. There were also 2300 cc and 2400cc versions sold in
Europe. The engine was derived from a V-4 that was originally degined
for the Front Wheel Drive Cardinal Car that Ford had designed for the
American Market in the early 60's. Lee Iaccoca killed that project when
he took over the Ford Division and released the Mustang instead. I have
worked on the V-4 in Industrial Equipment. It was a nice little engine.

> Personally, I would buy the 4.0. Along with
> the extra power, you get the 8.8 rear end instead of the 7.5. They aren't
> all that much more expensive, either. I wouldn't consider the 3.0 a slug,
> though.

My Father has a 3.0L in a Ranger. The previous 2 Rangers had 2.9L. I
don't see any difference except that the 3.0 has never leaked any oil.
Both of the 2.9L V-6s had problems with leaking valve covers.

Regards,

Ed

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 10:20
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Gas Milage

I dont know what you guys are complaining about. I was impressed that
mine got 17.2mpg on the highway last weekend went from Houston to Austin.
I ran solid 70 on the way their and 75 to 80 on the way home. I've only
ben getting 15mpg around town. You guys should be happy with you 20 and
up numbers. Just out of curiosity does a camper or truck top have
negative effect on your mpg? I added a Raven truck top to mine. It is
molded perfectly for a Ranger. It follows all the lines of the body all
the way around. Should my milage improve do to the aerodynamics now or
should it be worse do to the added weight of the camper? The truck is a
93' STX 4x4 with a 2 1/2" lift(in front just to level the truck out) 8"
whels and 31" tall tires. Seems like befor the camper my milage was 17mpg
in town and 19 to 20 mpg on the highway. Now as said befor its 15mpg in
town and 17.2 mpg on the highway. Does this sound right or do you think
I've got a sensor out......like the throttle position sensor or something
like that? The truck runs fine....same as always. I just had not checked
my milage in quite some time and was surprised when I relized how it had
dropped off. The only thing that has changed since the 17 to 19 numbers
is the camper. Anyway thanks in advance for your input.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:22:15, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Rice spanked Ranger?

If you excuse my french, but what the hell is a rice spanked ranger?
I would really like to know. Thank you.

Josh

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:26:36 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230

Mike Jones wrote:

> And you think the Ranger is any worse than the little european and japanese
> tin boxes going that fast? I'd feel better in a Ranger at 100 than one of
> those little things at 80, anyday. Lighten up...
>

no way... apparently you haven't driven a good one.... I'm not talking
about Hyundais (although, that would tecnically be a Korean tin box).

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:32:29 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: axles

Brett Gudgel wrote:
> Anyway my question is how can tell
> what type of axle and transfer case are in my 96 Ranger 4x4? Thanks,
> and sorry if this has already been covered
>

check the sticker on your door frame...it gives an axle code that you
can look up in your owners' manual (my '97 4X4 lists a code
#96....meaning 3.73 ratio). Not sure about the transfer case...I
think it is a generic Ford offering...anyone else know!?!?


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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:36:52 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Rice spanked Ranger?

MR JOSH J TENNEY wrote:
>
> If you excuse my french, but what the hell is a rice spanked ranger?
> I would really like to know. Thank you.
>
ummm... I think he is describing a Ranger that has been modified to
look like the endless stream of lowered, multicolor, boom-chaka-mobile
japanese import trucks.

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:37:01 -0800
From: "Chad Royse (Netcom)"
Subject: Re: Mileage

For your reading pleasure...

I typically got 15 - 20 MPG from my 1994 Ranger Supercab 4x2 4.0. On a trip
from Ohio to Colorado, pulling a 1970 11ft Popup camper, I got 20 MPG on the
highway.

Now my 1997 F250HD SuperCab 4x4 7.5 E4OD with 3.55 gears typically gets 10MPG,
12 if I do some serious highway mileage!

j sutcliffe wrote:

> Sorry. I have NO patience for this Ranger mileage thread. I just bought a
> Ranger 98 XLT 4.0 L. It gets great mileage. What are you people whining
> about????
> Note: I've been driving a Range Rover that gets like 10 mpg and only runs
> on a premium so maybe my senses are a bit dulled.
>
>
>
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+



- --
Chad

_________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Ch.5, Sub-ch.II, Sect.227(a)(2)(B), a
computer/modem meet the definition of a telephone fax machine. Pursuant
to Sect.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual
monetary loss or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. Any
unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a fee
in the amount of $500US per occurance. E-mailing denotes acceptance of
these terms.
_________________________________________________________________

!! O I would rather be...
\O/ _O _O #=\ ___ __ _ _
__#__\#_\#____H_ \ | _ \__ _ / _| |_(_)_ _ __ _
_ ( : \ \ : )(\ | / _` | _| _| | ' \/ _` |
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|_|_\__,_|_| \__|_|_||_\__, |~~~~~
|| |___/

New River - 1995, 1996, 1997
Fall Gauley - 1997 x-StRe M!!

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:42:43 PST
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: One More Time

I posted this a while ago and got 0 responses.
Maybe I will have better luck yhis time.


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 too 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. I just dont wanna burn up my
engine.

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 besides harder starts on cold mornings.

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: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:51:13 -0500
From: "Douglas"
Subject: '85 Ranger Advice

Hi folks,

I just aquired an '85 Ford Ranger from a friend for nothing due to a
(presumably) trashed transmission and their current status as unemployed.
The engine is a v6 with 230,000+ miles on it and is clearly in need of some
major work, the most obvious need being a new transmission. It is my
intention to make this truck a nice long-term project for the spring/summer,
since I already have reliable transportation. However, I've never
owned/worked on a truck before, so I thought I would solicit any advice you
folks might have to offer. I assume others have done similar rebuilding
jobs on old trucks, can anyone offer some advice or guidance? Anything at
all would be appreciated. Thanks.


Douglas.

Douglas Aldridge
douglas bertha.net
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.bertha.net

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:27:40 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: One More Time

Mike Wiatt wrote:
>
> I posted this a while ago and got 0 responses.
> Maybe I will have better luck yhis time.
>
> 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.

You didn't mention the year your truck was made. If it has a mass-air
flow system, it will sense the mass airflow rate of intake and the EEC
will
compensate. I doubt that the mods you are asking about will make much
difference, though.


> 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 besides harder starts on cold mornings.

I think you're right. They won't let you go without it. There should
be
a flap that opens after the engine is warm, letting it draw cooler air.
If you get rid of it, you might run a little rougher until the engine
warms up. The stovepipe boosts intake air temp and helps your fuel
atomize better--and sooner--by warming up the intake system. It'll
eventually warm up anyway. It'll just take longer.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:05:12 -0200
From: "R.L.H.O."
Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights

Hi Bob,

I'm talking about clear light signal assemblies. By the way...what's Rice ?
I'm from Brazil and I guess this is a slang, right ? I'm sorry about my
ignorance.

Thanks in advance for replying.

- ----------
> From: Silent . Bob
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights
> Date: Sexta-feira, Novembro 21, 1997 12:50
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:42:45 -0200 "R.L.H.O."
> writes:
> >Hi folks !
> >
> >I'm looking up for 97 Ranger white turn lights. Any ideas where I
> >could
> >find it on the net?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Rodrigo Heitzmann
>
>
> Are you talking about the bulbs? Or are you talking about clear light
> signal assemblies?
>
> Please dont tell me your going to Rice you're truck out. I've seen too
> many rice spanked Rangers.
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request listservice.net |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 13:08
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Axles

Brett,

Look on your driverside door. There are a couple of stickers. One of them
has a section that will read axle : and a number. Look in your owners
manual and it will have a chart that tells you what number = what axle is
in your truck. For instance my 93' 4x4 has the number 87 which = 3:73
gears. Anyway hope this helps you out.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger
93' STX 4x4/3.0/5-speed

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:45:05 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: V10

Can anyone tell me if Ford has put there V10 into any of the 98 models. If
so wich ones.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:47:55 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: Erased

My dad has erased my favorite places files. I had a bunch of ranger sites on
their. Could somebody give me some of the possible websites addresses i
could have lost. Any thing dealing with ranger and ranger parts would be
appreciated.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:54:58 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: V10

At 03:45 PM 11/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Can anyone tell me if Ford has put there V10 into any of the 98 models. If
>so wich ones.

The v10's have been in the 97 and 98 econoline vans.
I believe they have also been availble prior to that to the
fleet market.

Don't recall the gearing options, but 3.73 was one option available.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:54:13 -0700 (MST)
From: "Mark E. Monninger"
Subject: Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption

I have to agree with Tom. I have a 93 Ranger/SuperCab/XLT/3.0L/5-sp that
gives me about 18mpg city and close to 30mpg cruising the interstate. It
has been a very reliable truck and so far I'm pleased with it. I've driven
the 2.3, 3.0. and 4.0 and there's no comparison between the 2.3 and the
3.0. The 3.0 wins hands down. I didn't see a lot of difference between the
3.0 and 4.0 either...certainly not enough to justify the price difference
(altho when I bought it,Ford was offering some good incentives on the
3.0/5-sp that skewed the price difference quite a bit).

My $0.02 worth...

Mark

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 tgstoner umich.edu wrote:

> I will comment on the 3.0 liter engine though. After having the 2.3 /
> 5-speed combination in my first two Rangers, I'm quite happy with the
> performance of this little V-6 in normal driving, hauling a load, or towing
> either of my small Boston Whaler boats. As I recall, the 2.3 engine was
> rated at just less than 100 horsepower, which I certainly believe is
> accurate after having had two of them. I believe that the 3.0 was rated at
> 147, and the 4.0 was rated at 160 horsepower. Obviously I've had occasion
> to drive them all and the nearly 50% increase in power going from the 2.3
> to the 3.0 is very noticable and welcome. The 9% increase gained in going
> from the 3.0 to the 4.0 is barely noticable to me though, although the
> greater increase in torque which also is gained may well make quite a
> difference if you have an automatic transmission or are towing heavier
> loads.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:16:35 EST
From: peakbzsrvc juno.com (Mike Mueller)....


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.