Return-Path:
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 03:50:20 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #234
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, November 22 1997 Volume 01 : Number 234



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

Cold Air Induction [BiggRanger aol.com]
Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption [Gardner ]
Gas Milage [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: Bedliners ["Froggy" ]
Re: Gas Milage ["Froggy" ]
Re: Ranger turn lights ["Ryan Penner" ]
Re: Ranger turn lights ["Froggy" ]
Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption ["Ryan Penner"
Re: I doubt it [cdkelly juno.com (Christopher D Kelly)]
Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption ["M.Monninger"
Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption [onbelay bit-net.com (Mark Schnei]
Re: 85 Ranger advice. ["The Lublin Family" ]
1981 E-150 / F-150 Rear axle Ratios????? [AZYacht aol.com]
E 250 [" Cary and Jeff" ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:13:41 -0500 (EST)
From: BiggRanger aol.com
Subject: Cold Air Induction

Speaking from experience..... I have installed a turbo charger on my 2.3L in
my 1993 Ranger with no modifications to the EEC-IV. The mass air flow sensor
does exactly that, measures the mass of the air entering the engine. The
EEC-IV bases all the fuel calculations off of these measurements, and those
recieved from the oxygen sensor.
If I'm not having any problems packing in 12 psi of 200 degree air I doubt
you'll have any problem with a little cooler air with no pressure behind it.

P.S. about the heat stove... That has to be there and be functional to pass
the California inspection. God bless Michigan's emissions. If the air temp in
your area getts any cooler than 30 degrees F, you might want to keep the
stove connected.

BiggRanger aka Darren

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://members.aol.com/biggranger

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:35:46 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption

Mark E. Monninger wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+

I have to disagree there is tremendous difference between a 3.0 and a
4.0! Next time you get a chance try to run with a 4.0 from the light!
Then you will see the difference. The 3.0 cant even beat the old 2.9
EFI...friend of mine had one, automatic and a guy we knew worked at
Mazda had a 3.0 5 speed and got whopped by the 2.9 with 150,000 miles on
it!

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 15:48
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Gas Milage

Dad always said if you wanted good gas milage buy a cheap chevy, and what
you save on gas you'll spend on parts. But if you want good dependable
trasportation buy a Ford and dont wory about your mpg. This is my third
one
and I have to agree with the old man.

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

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:19:16 -0500
From: "Froggy"
Subject: Re: Bedliners

Eric, apparently you haven't had much exposure to the sprayed in linings.
A little common sense loading of your truck will eliminate the dents and
dings even without the linings. use your truck...don't abuse it. The
spray in linings are excellent protection, even with the occasional
dropping or tossing of lumber!......no offense intended...just my
$.02.............froggy
- ----------
> From: Eric W Sneed
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: Bedliners
> Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 11:28 AM
>
> 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 -----------------+
> +-------------- 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 19:31:06 -0500
From: "Froggy"
Subject: Re: Gas Milage

John, I would have thought the mileage would increase by improving the air
flow....even with the addition of a few hundred pounds. Live and learn.
Anyway, how did the 21/2" lift change the handling and ride of your truck?
I'm considering the same load-level kit for mine. If I don't use the LL I
might opt for the 3" softride from Skyjacker. I don't want to totally
sacrifice my riding comfort but I've raised too many other trucks to
believe it won't have some effect on it. If anyone has raised a 88-92
ranger 4" or less, I'd like to hear your opinions on handling, ride,
mileage etc. I'm not a novice by any means, I just haven't altered a
ranger. By the way, is anyone in the Roughriders 4x4 Club in Bossier City?
I helped start that club when I was stationed at Barksdale in 1974? See
ya........froggy

- ----------
> From: Cassis, John
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Gas Milage
> Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 5:00 AM
>
>
> 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
>
> +-------------- 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 17:42:40 -0700
From: "Ryan Penner"
Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights

- -----Original Message-----
From: Silent . Bob
To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 7:52 AM
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.


Rice your truck out? What does that mean?

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:41:41 -0500
From: "Froggy"
Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights

Rodrigo, man I didn't know anyone didn't know what rice is...I'm eating
some tonight!!!..Rice is a grain food, contains high starch, a staple food
for Japanese but highly desired by many of us here in USA. At my house we
eat rice with chili, stir fried vegetables, with butter on, with stewed
tomatoes, etc. it is also slang for japanese products, ie "rice burner" is
slang for a japanese built vehicle...Hope this helps. Your not ignorant
when your smart enough to ask questions!!!!!!....froggy

- ----------
> From: R.L.H.O.
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights
> Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 3:05 AM
>
> 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 -----------------+
> +-------------- 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 17:48:04 -0700
From: "Ryan Penner"
Subject: Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption

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.


I currently own a '91 F-150 4x2 that I would like to get rid of in favor of
a Ranger. Now if I want an extended cab XL A/C 4x4 is there going to be a
big difference in go speed between the 3.0 and 4.0? I know about MPG and
other stuff so don't bother with that. This is the truck I plan on buying
within the next year or so, just because I do not like the big truck for in
town. (I would love to have both a 4x2 2.3l ranger plus a F-350 PS but that
will never happen:)) so I was looking at prices, and configerations and all
that good jazz.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:13:00 -0500
From: cdkelly juno.com (Christopher D Kelly)
Subject: Re: I doubt it

Huh I guess the 8.8 limited slip in my ranger with 3.73 was just a
mistake then!!! All rangers are available with 8.8! That was my point in
general about the price. If you got a ranger with 3.0 and then a ranger
with a 4.0 with the SAME options the price would not vary very much!

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:25:12 -0700 "Randy Kindler"
writes:
>You mean to tell me that the 2.3(old Pinto motor was designed off an
>European motor, I doubt it.
>
>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. 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.
>Just my $.02
>
>+-------------- 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 18:24:08 -0700
From: "M.Monninger"
Subject: Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption

I suppose if all you want to do is drag race from lights there would
probably be a noticable difference in the 4.0. For normal everyday stuff
it probably doesn't make much difference.

Mark


Gardner wrote:

> I have to disagree there is tremendous difference between a 3.0 and a
> 4.0! Next time you get a chance try to run with a 4.0 from the light!
> Then you will see the difference. The 3.0 cant even beat the old 2.9
> EFI...friend of mine had one, automatic and a guy we knew worked at
> Mazda had a 3.0 5 speed and got whopped by the 2.9 with 150,000 miles on
> it!

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 01:56:50 GMT
From: onbelay bit-net.com (Mark Schneider)
Subject: Re: 3.0 Liter Ranger & Fuel Consumption

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:24:08 -0700, you wrote:

>I suppose if all you want to do is drag race from lights there would
>probably be a noticable difference in the 4.0. For normal everyday stuff
>it probably doesn't make much difference.
>
>Mark
>
>

My current truck is a 97 XLT 3.0 regular cab long bed with a cap.
Identical to the truck it replaced, a 91, except the 91 had the 4.0. I
bought this truck with the 3 liter because it was the last 4WD 97 on
the lot. Has an automatic, and I am slightly surprised after the
computer has had a chance to build a profile. The performance of the
truck is surprisingly close to the 91, except for the lack of
fire-breathin tire fryer low end torque off the line. The real
annoyance, and my biggest regret, is the performance at over 45 MPH in
overdrive, going up a hill. Where the 91 would 've just happily loafed
along, V8-like, in OD up moderate and over grades, the 3.0 has to
shift down, or worse, hunt around. I may wait for the 98's to be
"debugged" and trade in next year on a 98 closeout 4.0 liter longbed
XLT!=20
>Gardner wrote:
>
>> I have to disagree there is tremendous difference between a 3.0 and a
>> 4.0! Next time you get a chance try to run with a 4.0 from the light!
>> Then you will see the difference. The 3.0 cant even beat the old 2.9
>> EFI...friend of mine had one, automatic and a guy we knew worked at
>> Mazda had a 3.0 5 speed and got whopped by the 2.9 with 150,000 miles =
on
>> it!
>+-------------- 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 20:27:50 -0500
From: "The Lublin Family"
Subject: Re: 85 Ranger advice.

Hey man:

Pull that little 4 banger out of there and drop in a V8. A 302 or 351 W
with a beefed up C-6 will make those tires lay rubber like mad! If you
do stick a V8 in that sucker, get a narrowed 9 inch Ford rear with 4.10
Posi. Even a 255 V8 2 bbl will still make that Ranger fly! Well
anyway on the more practical side, You could drop in a 2.9 V-6 or even a
4.0 V6 If you know how to set up the electronics.

Anybody on the list ever try dropping a 300 Six in a Ranger or ever
seen/heard of it done? When Mom's Ranger ends up mine, I may try
dropping a 300 Six in there.

Good luck on the Ranger and let me know what happens.

Chris "Lube" Lublin
300 Six devotee.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:36:05 -0500 (EST)
From: AZYacht ....


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.