Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 03:50:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #157
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, October 10 1997 Volume 01 : Number 157



=======================================================================
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: K&N KIT FOR 4.0L 93 RANGER [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
drudis ford.com [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: 98 Rangers...and then some [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: vanir throttle body [KSMIKE ]
Re: vanir throttle body [Thom Cheney ]
RE: TRANSCOMMAND ["Stephen M. Brown" ]
ADMIN: Sept archives on web site [Ken Payne ]
Re: a tale of two trucks [Dan Simoes ]
Re: Paint Problems [Todd Metzger ]
Re: a tale of two trucks [alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)]
Bronco II Warm Air Induction ["GEORGE A. WISEMAN JR."
Nekkkid 460.. and rustin' [FOMOCONUT ]
Re: Ranger Clutches ["Mark J. Salvetti" ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:01:08 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: K&N KIT FOR 4.0L 93 RANGER

On 8 Oct 1997 09:05:10 -0700 "Patrick Ward"
writes:
>I don't think K&N makes a filtercharger injection kit for a 4.0L do
>they =
>???


The only thing I have seen is a filter replacement for all 93 and up
models.

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:01:08 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: drudis ford.com

Begin Forward
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the front airdam/foglights to fit a 1995 Ranger.
Looking for the factory original stuff (Rager STX or Splash version).
Not really interested in just aftermarket foglight lights.

p.s. Coul someone forward this to the Ford Truck list, or Ranger
website.

Regards,
Darius Rudis drudis ford.com
Ford FM&SP - Systems
Room 219-B Westpark Center Dearborn (313)84-50209
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
End Forward

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:01:08 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: 98 Rangers...and then some

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:24:03 -0500 "Jim Bielecki"
writes:
>
>
>> models. The cab seemed like it was a lot bigger too. My friend was
>> telling
>> me that they are expecting a 4 door (like the D*dge quad cab) some
>time
>> next year.
>
>"Automotive News" ran a picture of the proposed four door Ranger in
>their
>August 4th issue. The cab is very large with nearly full-size back
>doors
>that are hinged in the front and not the rear like the 3 door Ford and
>Chevy (I'm not sure how Dodge does it). It would be best to describe
>the 4
>door Ranger as a "crew-cab."

Ranger Crew Cab, now thats something worth waiting for! :)

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:56:58 EDT
From: KSMIKE
Subject: Re: vanir throttle body

I added the 65mm tb with a lot of other mods...(headers, airfilter, vortech
supercharger, larger mass air......) so it was hard to determine how much hp
increase it added. I've heard to expect about 5-10 hp out of a larger throttle
body.

but....the basic bolt ons for a 4.0 is K&N Filter, Headers, Cat Back Exhaust,
Throttle Body, Larger Mass Air Meter, Mixture Adjuster, Chip, .....you'll get
maybe 30 hp (but just guestimating) for about $1,400.....is it worth it??

or.......a vortech for $2,500 give you about 80 hp........

A note of caution.........the A4LD auto trans (unless it has been beefed up
since 94) is weak....

Actually the best combo might be a 5.0 efi engine with an AOD
transmission.....$$$$$$$$$

If Ford got their act together the 4.0 V6 OHC would be a sweet engine in the
ranger, it screams!

Sorry if I rambled on....


Mike

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 10:06:05 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: vanir throttle body

KSMIKE wrote:
>
> If Ford got their act together the 4.0 V6 OHC would be a sweet engine in the
> ranger, it screams!
>
> Sorry if I rambled on....
>


great info... thanks. I agree that Ford could make the 4.0 a
screamer.... guess I'll look into the mods myself.

thanx

TC

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:43:22 -0500
From: "Stephen M. Brown"
Subject: RE: TRANSCOMMAND

> From: "Mike Jones"
> Recently, I've seen postings related to how well the Trans Command (and
the
> other one on the market, which name escapes me) works. This really
piqued
> my interest, since I HATE the way my Expedition (5.4L w/E40D) shifts at
> full throttle. One question: Does the Trans Command (or the other one)
> raise the full-throttle shift points? As it is now, full-throttle shifts
> are at 4500 rpms. Silly. That wonderful OHC engine, and it shifts like
a
> clapped out '77 LTD.

If you can wait til next week, I'll have my JET Shift Command from JEGS
mail order. Once I give the thing a look over & read the installation
manual, I'll update the list with what I find. If it looks good, I'll
install it and let you guys know how it performes on my 95 bronco with the
E4OD.

steve

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 09:05:46 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Sept archives on web site

September archives are on the web site. I changed the
archive page over to a table based page so the archives
(and the list splits) make more sense to newcomers.

http://www.ford-trucks.com

Archives are in ZIP format, using maximum compression (Mac
users make sure your "Zipper" supports maximum compression)
and long filenames (sorry 16-bit Window users). Our archives
go back to the very beginning of the list - only the first
two weeks of the list aren't archived (which is a shame).

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Simoes
Subject: Re: a tale of two trucks

> >2) My brother in law has a new 97 F350 crewcab diesel.
> >Build date is 6/97. We noticed this weekend that under the
> >truck, lots of things are rusted, like the brake calipers,
> >the center driveshaft, and paint is peeling off the rear diff.
> >I told him it seemed to me that the truck had been under
> >water or something... Does this seem remotely possible for a
> >vehicle that is now under 4 months old to have this much
> >rust? Not sheetmetal mind you, just underneath. Anything painted
> >black is clean and shiny, except for that peeling on the diff.
>
>
> Well, the peeling paint on the differential is caused by the diff getting
> HOT. Not much you can do there, other than using synthetic lube, or
> getting a bigger diff. If the brake calipers were painted, they'd
> peel quicker than the differential; brakes convert a lot of energy
> when they're working! The driveshaft could probably be painted, but
> then it would cost a few cents more to build the truck.

So you're saying that it is normal for a $30,000 truck to
start rusting, when I doubt this happens with $7000 korean
crapboxes. From what I've heard, this seems to be the
norm. Still, if it was my truck, I'd be screaming bloody
hell...

Still not sure what is wrong with my Ranger - I'll post an
update when I know.

| Dan |
- --
Dan Simoes dans ans.net
ANS Communications http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://coimbra.ans.net/dans.html
100 Manhattanville Road (914) 701-5378 (voice)
Purchase, NY 10577 (914) 701-5310 (fax)

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 15:28:34 +0000
From: Todd Metzger
Subject: Re: Paint Problems

Laura Dale wrote:

> The paint recall was for the 1988-89 trucks/SUV - mostly the silver paint
> used seemed to fail - to the point where the paint was literally peeling
> off the truck. We had it redone in 1992 - it was only three years old
> and we felt this was just unacceptable performance from Ford.

I agree with you, that this is unacceptable. I wasn't paying attention when
you originally posted though, I was referring to the problem that Ford had with
fading paint that was caused by their negligence in properly researching an
improved painting process that they employed in the mid-80's to early nineties
for painting many of their trucks/SUVs/vans. I didn't realize that you were
talking about peeling paint until I reread the article. You are correct
though, they will usually repaint the vehicle if it fails the tape test and you
complain to them enough. As for the fading paint, you are almost stuck there.
It takes much more complaining to get this fixed. If something is incorrect
here, somebody please let me know. This is what I have read and learned over
the past few years to be true. Thanks for listening everyone.

Sincerely,
Todd Metzger
tmetz umr.edu
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.umr.edu/~tmetz/car.htm

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:30:13 -0700
From: alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: a tale of two trucks

>> Well, the peeling paint on the differential is caused by the diff getting
>> HOT. Not much you can do there, other than using synthetic lube, or
>> getting a bigger diff. If the brake calipers were painted, they'd
>> peel quicker than the differential; brakes convert a lot of energy
>> when they're working! The driveshaft could probably be painted, but
>> then it would cost a few cents more to build the truck.

> So you're saying that it is normal for a $30,000 truck to
> start rusting, when I doubt this happens with $7000 korean
> crapboxes. From what I've heard, this seems to be the
> norm. Still, if it was my truck, I'd be screaming bloody
> hell...

Put as much torque through a Korean differential as we put through
our differentials and it'll cook the paint off too. Same with the
brakes; dissipate enough heat and you'll cook off any paint that's
put on the caliper. The only component I'd ask the dealer about
would be the driveshaft, and I really don't think a bit of surface
oxidation is going to hurt it.

- ---

Alan Hepburn | |
National Semiconductor | DON'T TREAD ON ME |
Santa Clara, Ca | |
alanh galaxy.nsc.com | |

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

Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:21:01 -0700
From: "GEORGE A. WISEMAN JR."
Subject: Bronco II Warm Air Induction

Hi folks,

I have two '87 Bronco II's, both 4X4's with the 2.9 fuel injected
engine. Mine is a base model with a 5 speed manual transmission, while
my
wife's is an XLT model with the 4 speed automatic transmission.

I'm noting a problem during cold weather especially when temperatures
are in the 30s or lower and it's relatively moist with
my 5 speed in that the throttle sticks. It's most noticeable when
shifting in that the rpm holds 1200 to 1500 rpm and will hold this
high rpm at a stop light for a minute or so and then slowly returns
to between 800 to 1000 rpm. I believe the problem is that there is
no warm air induction system on my machine...though my wife's automatic
XLT does have a heat stove on the right manifold that inducts warm
air into the air filter housing. (This doesn't appear to be a case where
the system was taken off by the original owner as the air filter housing
has no inlet for warm air.) The decal on the front radiator support
shows the warm air induction vacuum valve and temperature sensor as
optional. I've asked several Ford dealerships why one machine would
have the warm air induction system and another not have it, and there
only answers were a cryptic "That's what that calibration calls for!"
I thought maybe it had to do with where the machine was purchased (it
was purchased new at a dealer in Ipswich Mass.), so it should have been
set up for a colder climate than a vehicle from a warmer region. I also
looked at a friend's '86 Bronco II with a 5 speed manual transmission,
and he also has no warm air induction system, though he hasn't had a
problem with the throttle sticking. (I also changed the throttle cable
when the problem first surfaced, thinking that maybe there was some
water in the cable, but it didn't help the problem.)

With all that in mind, I was wondering if anyone else experienced the
same problem and if anyone knows what the determining factor in whether
or not a warm air induction system was included. (Perhaps it's based
on whether you have an automatic or manual transmission). I doubt that
it's a case of a base model versus an XLT? Has anybody installed a warm
air
induction system on a non-equipped model and did it cause any problems?

The fuel injection started in the '86 model year so if other '86-'88
Bronco II/Ranger owners could let me know what year/model/engine/
transmission configuration they have and if the vehicle has a warm air
induction system, maybe I can figure out which machines came through
with the warm air setup. I've already found the heat stove to go
on the manifold. Now I have to find the appropriate air filter
housing and vacuum valve/temperature sensor as well as the flexible
tube that goes from the stove to the air filter housing.

Thanks for any info,
Geo.

P.S.

To Ken,

I was able to change my outgoing e-mail address locally per your
advice. Hope this posts OK now and thanks for the help.

Geo.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:28:49 EDT
From: FOMOCONUT
Subject: Nekkkid 460.. and rustin'

Well fellow Listers... I got one on the subject of rust I have been "waiting"
(procrastinating, because I am almost afraid to hear the answer) to bring out
for discussion. My "Baby", known to the sane world as a 96 F-350, 4x4, Reg
Cab, equiped with the venurable 460 has this little problem. I discovered it
during her first good bath when she was only month old or so. Just ask any of
the two legged women in my life about the baths I give this truck and you will
get an ear full about how jealous they are of this watery, suddsy, soft wool
mit attention. Anyway, I was freaked out by what I saw from the underside, ( I
always hand wash her there too ) the 460 block was bare, NO PAINT, and already
was beginning a nice coat of oarange rust. I checked it allover and sure
enough, this block was never painted. It's been a while, she has 22K miles
now, and haven't had the first reason to visit the butchers at the dealership
for any Warranty work ( I can say that having been a Mechanic all my adult
life and some before) So the Question is.... Did Ford Fail to paint all of the
96 460 blocks??? has anyone seen real longterm results of a unpainted block?..
don't really want to consider Ford offering to do anything.. I mean unless
they want to have a crate motor dropped off at my doorstep and let me do the
work.. Know what I mean? Can't wait to hear about this... I think???



Ok.. here is where it started..
when I was a wee lad.. me and my
best freind decided Fords were much
better than C%**'s because Fords were
F-100's and above and the other, Brand X
started at C-10's... True Story

John Miller
96 F-350, 4x4
68 F-250, 4x4

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

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:15:14 -0400
From: "Mark J. Salvetti"
Subject: Re: Ranger Clutches

All the discussion about the Ranger hydraulic clutches reminds me of the =
clutch and hydraulic system replacement I just suffered through on my =
1986 F-150.

I could tell my clutch was not disengaging because of the symptoms (hard =
to engage/disengage gears), and with the rear jacked up, tranny in 1st =
gear and the clutch in, the rear wheels rotated.

I also went and replaced clutch, PP, TO bearing, pilot bearing (based on =
a dealer diagnosis), only to find it was the hydraulics, which was my =
original thought.

Some tips. My Haynes says that my original hydraulic system was sealed, =
but what was actually on my truck could be disassembled. You need to =
drive out a little pin that holds each end of the hydraulic line to the =
master and the slave. I was expecting threaded fittings, until I found =
the little pin.

I bought the slave from Ford, and it was manufactured by AP. I bought =
the master from an independent shop, and it was also made by AP and =
identical to my old one. The master is easy to bleed. Don't =
bench-bleed it like a brake master. Install it in the truck and fill it =
with fluid. Connect a flexible hose to the slave end of the hydraulic =
line, and insert the end of the hose in the master under the fluid =
level. Then just bleed, pinching the hose on the clutch pedal return =
stroke. You will quickly stop seeing bubbles. Keep the hose connected, =
as the master will quickly drain by gravity.

The slave is a different story. I think the bleed fitting on it is =
useless. I don't think it's in the right place, and there is no way to =
attach a hose to it to collect the fluid that comes out. I ended up =
filling the slave with fluid while holding it at about a 45 degree =
angle. I used an eye dropper. Get as many bubbles out as you can, put =
some kind of cap over the fill hole, and shake the slave up and down. =
Take off the cap, and there will be more bubbles. I must have done this =
for a half hour before I got no more bubbles out. Also try gently =
pushing the slave rod in a bit with the slave held at the 45 degree =
angle. Wear safety glasses, because if you push it in too far you'll =
shoot out a stream of fluid. Then you'll have to start bleeding all over =
again.

To connect the slave to the hydraulic line, make sure the master has =
fluid in it, and connect the hydraulic line to the slave as the fluid =
from the master is flowing out by gravity. Kind of messy, but this will =
keep any air from getting into the slave as you make the connection.

The last thing is adjusting the clutch master cylinder stroke. This had =
me stumped for a while, as the original system in my truck had no =
adjustment. The actuating rod on the new master was two threaded pieces =
with a jam nut so you could adjust the length of the rod where it =
connects to the clutch pedal. Make sure you take out all the clutch =
pedal play. This finally got my truck to shift better than it ever has =
for me (I've owned it about 3 years).....


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.