Return-Path:
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 03:50:22 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #242
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, November 29 1997 Volume 01 : Number 242



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

351M/400 Years [abbott ]
Re: 3.0L differences [fwise juno.com]
transmission [JOUZA1 aol.com]
Re: ?Cleveland in an F-Series? [Jason Lester ]
Headers [JOUZA1 aol.com]
Re: 2.9 upkeep: [cdkelly juno.com (Christopher D Kelly)]
Re: oil [Iguannna ]
Re: oil [Filip M Gieszczykiewicz ]
Re: Headers [BiggRanger aol.com]
351 W/M [abbott ]
Re: Headers [Midwest96 aol.com]
87 Ranger [Craig Atkisson ]
Re: Headers [YIASCA aol.com]
Re:transmission [Geoffrey Hoffman ]
90 model ranger questions [Dinga15 aol.com]

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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:23:25 -0800
From: abbott
Subject: 351M/400 Years

When did ford discontinue the 351M/400's in the F-Series, I'm guessing 81/82.
Thanks
- -Tyler-
Tyler

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:37:52 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Re: 3.0L differences

On Tue, 27 Nov, cspencer bconnex.net wrote:
>I was curious to know if all the 3.0L engines found in various Rangers
are
>all identical.

>I've heard people talk about a 3.0L called the VULCAN, or something on
those
>lines.

All of the 3.0L engines used in Rangers are the same basic engine. They
DO NOT have any parts in common with the 2.9L engine that they replaced.

Ford does have more than one 3.0L engine (SHO, Duratech, Vulcan).
However, all of the Ranger 3.0's are of the Vulcan variety. This engine
was originally designed for the Taurus. While the Ranger engines are all
basically the same, there have been minor changes over the years that
have caused differing HP & Torque ratings. I believe that it was in 95
that Ford made several changes to decrease NVH (Noise, Vibration and
Harshness) problems for the engine (probably more for the Taurus than the
Ranger, but since they changed the tooling, Rangers benefited also. I am
not certain, but I believe that the changes were mostly in the block,
increased stiffness and the like. Does anyone know of any other changes?

For 98, Ford made a change that led to a substantial boost in torque,
while HP remained the same as the 97. From what I have read, the major
(only?) changes were a redesigned intake manifold and (perhaps) a
separate throttle body. Previously, the throttle body was cast integrally
with the upper intake manifold. I've not yet seen one in person, but have
seen a picture that seems to indicate a separate throttle body. Has
anyone seen one up close and personal yet? Does anyone know of other
differences?

Hope this answers your question.

Fred Wise
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 11:57:39 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: transmission

Can sombody tell me exactly what a shift kit does. Is it a good thing to
have and is it a available for a manual transmission.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:12:26 -0500
From: Jason Lester
Subject: Re: ?Cleveland in an F-Series?

That's a pretty common misconception. The 351C was only made three years:
'71, '72, and '73. It may have been in the trucks during those, I'm not
sure. It definitely was never in an '82 model as stock. Maybe he's
thinking of the 351M, which is very similar to the Cleveland except for the
heads.

Jason


>I was have an argument with a friend of mine today, over the idea of a fully
>stock 82 F-250 with a 351 "Cleveland". I was sure a Cleveland was never
>available in a F-Series.
>He says his Father who has since sold the truck saw 351 "Cleveland" under
>the hood on the sticker. I've never even seen an engine code for a "C" in a
>ruck, besides I was sure the "C" was discontinued long before 82.
>hat do you think? What can I tell him to prove it?

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:13:24 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: Headers

I was told if you put headers on you have to change the gaskets evry 6
months. Is this true? I was also told if your truck is an evry day driver
headers will ruin your engine is this true?

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 13:50:12 -0500
From: cdkelly juno.com (Christopher D Kelly)
Subject: Re: 2.9 upkeep:

I have heard oil company recommend up to 8,000 miles between oil
changes...auto manufactures recommend the 3,000 mile ratio. That is for
severe driving conditions as stated in most manuals but normal conditions
are 5,000 miles! Depends on what you thinks best.

On Thu, 27 Nov 1997 20:08:54 -0700 "Ryan Penner"
writes:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ILuvTruks aol.com
>To: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
>Date: Thursday, November 27, 1997 12:38 PM
>Subject: Re: 2.9 upkeep:
>
>
>>Hey Sam,
>>I'm in the same boat as you are. Only on my 86 Bronco II XLT 4x4's
>2.9, I
>>have the engine out, I'm just waiting on the new one. As for motor
>oil, I
>>have always run Castrol GTX 10W-40 in my cars and tried to change it
>about
>>every 2500 miles or so and filter. I don't know who said it, but if
>you do
>>go synthetic, I agree to do it on a new engine. I haven't had any
>experience
>>with synthetic personally to say much more, but I change the oil so
>>frequently, to me it's not worth spending the extra money. In my
>personal
>>opinion, I think any regular motor oil is fine. It's actually better
>in
>one
>>respect that you change it more often, thereby cleaning out the
>engine and
>>pan. Just keep it consistant. Pick a good brand and stay with it.
>Don't
>be
>>one of these people who buy whatever happens to be on sale, changing
>oil
>>brands every 3000 miles. Also don't switch back and forth brands of
>anything
>>for that matter. Spark plugs, wires, filters, etc. Change can be
>good, but
>>consistancy can be even better when using good quality parts. We
>should
>keep
>>in touch, seeing as how we're both in the middle of re-building our
>2.9's,
>>maybe we can help each other out.
>>Clay
>>
>>
>>S. HALL wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> First I'd like to thank everyone for their quick and informative
>>responses with my
>>> last mail regarding a 1994 Splash. (a couple weeks ago) I ended up
>keeping
>>my old
>>> 87 Ranger and swapping out the tired old motor for a
>remanufactured
>>replacement. I
>>> would have liked to upgrade to the Splash but I've got one more
>year of
>>college left
>>> and just couldn't afford it. (even if the bank said I could!) I
>have a
>>3year/36000 mile
>>> warranty on the new engine so if it doesn't work out I can
>re-exchange
>it
>>(God forbid!)
>>> for another one. I've noticed some mail recently regarding valve
>cover
>>leakage on these
>>> 2.9 ltr motors, conversely I've noticed some pretty knowledgeable
>>responses about this
>>> motor. I wanted to know what oil (synthetic?/weight?) you guys
>would
>>recommend for the
>>> new motor -I can tell you that it's at about 4000-10000 feet most
>of the
>>time and that its
>>> about 20-80 degrees fahrenheit here during the winter. I ran
>quaker
>state
>>10-40 in the old
>>> motor, but I was thinking of going with Mobile-1 10-40 in the new
>one. I
>>also wanted to know
>>> about any special precautions I should take when installing the
>new one
>>(rechecking the heads
>>> , crank, etc for the correct torque values?) which is claimed (by
>Checkers
>>and Spartan) to be
>>> ready to "bolt in and go". I have the old motor 90% of the way out
>and
>the
>>new motor in the
>>> garage waiting, but I wanted to ask these questions before I get
>too far
>>along. I considered
>>> having Ford put in one of their remanufactured motors,but the
>warranty
>was
>>only 12month/12000
>>> miles and the cost was pretty much double! Thanks for all the help
>and
>any
>>info is greatly
>>> appreciated,
>>>
>>>
>>> -Sam H.
>>>
>
>I was wondering why so many people change their oil so often. I
>change mine
>every 5000 miles just because it is cheaper that way and you don't
>waste so
>much moeny on oil and stuff. I have even heard of people going 7500
>without
>changing their oil. With today's oils it does not seem like a very
>good
>idea to change it so often, because it wastes so much.
>
>
>
>
>+-------------- 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, 28 Nov 1997 14:01:55 EST
From: Iguannna
Subject: Re: oil

In a message dated 97-11-28 06:06:03 EST, you write:


mine
every 5000 miles just because it is cheaper that way and you don't waste so
much moeny on oil and stuff. I have even heard of people going 7500 without
changing their oil. With today's oils it does not seem like a very good
idea to change it so often, because it wastes so much.
>>

I never change my oil, just change the filter every year or so. My 2.3 Ranger
burns a quart every 500-1000 miles (depends on how much mercy I give it) so I
am always changing it. It has been this way for more than a couple years now.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 16:15:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Filip M Gieszczykiewicz
Subject: Re: oil

You (Iguannna) wrote:
> I never change my oil, just change the filter every year or so. My 2.3 Ranger
> burns a quart every 500-1000 miles (depends on how much mercy I give it) so I
> am always changing it. It has been this way for more than a couple years now.

Greetings. As "silly" as that may sound... Saturn told us that our 92 SL2
burning a quart every 1000 miles was "normal for this engine"... So much for
the advantage of a 4-cycle engine over the 2-cycle engine... [sigh]

The most ironic aspect of this story is that just about every "evironmental"
major at University of Pittsburgh drives a blue-smoke-belching-oil-burning
82-86 Honda Accord... I can't help but smile every time they drive by. Duh!

Take care.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:50:25 -0500 (EST)
From: BiggRanger aol.com
Subject: Re: Headers

I don't know who you've been talking to about headers but I've been running
headers on allmost every engine I've ever had, and never had a problem. It is
true though if you buy a cheap set of headers you'll be replacing gaskets
every so often because the flanges are not thick enough, but if you buy
copper backed gaskets and torque everything to spec you'll be fine. As for
shortening the life of an engine, that is not likely, a good set of headers
will give you a little more power and increase your gass mileage. In fact a
good set of headers will make your engine run better.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:25:45 -0800
From: abbott
Subject: 351 W/M

In the years of 351 W/M (both Windsor's & M's offered), what were the
deciding factors that put each engine in a truck? Was it a total Customer
option, or were there diferent factors.
Thanks
- -Tyler-
Tyler

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:01:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Headers

In a message dated 97-11-28 18:44:58 EST, you write:


running
headers on allmost every engine I've ever had, and never had a problem. It
is
true though if you buy a cheap set of headers you'll be replacing gaskets
every so often because the flanges are not thick enough, but if you buy
copper backed gaskets and torque everything to spec you'll be fine. As for
shortening the life of an engine, that is not likely, a good set of headers
will give you a little more power and increase your gass mileage. In fact a
good set of headers will make your engine run better. >>

Is there someplace to find more information on headers?

Thanx,
Craig

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:16:01 -0800
From: Craig Atkisson
Subject: 87 Ranger

Hi,

I have 87' ranger with a 2.9, I have 108,000 miles on it. I had the clutch
replaced about a 1 1/2 yrs ago...when iam down shifting to 3rd it makes a
kinda grinding noise, its to noticeable but annyoning, 2nd gear is by far
the worse of the two gears, and I have the clutch all the way to the floor.
What can I do to make my down shifting more smoothly? My next question is I
have a nosie piston on the passanger side....and it only is noise when I
have to foot on gas going down the street, I realize that its has 108,000
miles on it and its gonna make some noises, but is there anyway to quite it
down? also it dosen't burn an ounce of oil:)


Thanks,
Craig
marvin1 sttl.uswest.net

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 22:46:15 -0500 (EST)
From: YIASCA aol.com
Subject: Re: Headers

does any one make a good set of HEADERS for a 94-98 Ford Ranger Splash 3.0L
truck? I have done numerous mods to my ranger and i'm looking for a little
better power!

dave

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

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:28:19 -0500
From: Geoffrey Hoffman
Subject: Re:transmission

At 11:57 AM -0500 11/28/97, JOUZA1 aol.com wrote:
>Can sombody tell me exactly what a shift kit does. Is it a good thing to
>have and is it a available for a manual transmission.

it is not available for manuals. what it does is change the way automatics
shift. They make ths shifts happen harder and faster, which is useful for
high load situations, either racing, where speed counts, or towing up hills
or other heavy-load situations, cause the time period of a normal automatic
shifting will cuase the car to lose a fair amount during the lulls in
shifting.

I dunno, i have heard that it is not really a good idead for just normal
cruising, cause it makes things a little harder, and a little less
comfortable.

anyone here use one? i had a chance to get one really cheap, and i let it
go. good or bad idea?

see ya...

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

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:25:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Dinga15 aol.com
Subject: 90 model ranger questions
....

---

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.