Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:11:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #185
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, October 23 1997 Volume 01 : Number 185



=======================================================================
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: Dual Tanks and Oil Pressure Gague [David Hertzberg
1998 F150 Lightning ["Townson, Charles (SRMC)" ]
Re: 97 Ranger cutting out 100+ mph [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
PS vs. ATS ["Ryan Penner" ]
Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks [FOMOCONUT aol.com]
RE: Update - Bad Bearings, etc..... [Michael Wray
F150 6 cylinders [Tony Rio ]
ADMIN: Sticker information [Ken Payne ]
Re: Dual Tanks and Oil Pressure Gague ["David J. Baldwin"
Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Winter Tires ? -> tire sizing info[A] [Thom Cheney
Re: F150 6 cylinders ["David J. Baldwin" ]
93' Ranger STX 4x4 3.0 [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: Lifter Replacement [PhilDyson aol.com]
Oil Pressure Gague [David Hertzberg ]
re:1998 F150 Lightning [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Tailgates and Mileage [David Hertzberg ]
Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks [Joe Maleski ]
Re: Ranger 103mph cutout [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Tailgates and Mileage [Midwest96 aol.com]
FI cleaning [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Tailgates and Mileage [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Ranger 103mph cutout ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks [Joe Maleski ]
Re: TIRES [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
Aluminum Wheels - Recommendations? ["Robert Stinnett ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 05:01:45 PDT
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: Re: Dual Tanks and Oil Pressure Gague

Dave Baldwin: i did not see your diatribe: is the bottom line--as i assume-- that
electronic sensors are vastly inferior to mechanical? please tell me how
difficult it is or isn't to replace the electronic with a mechanical unit. do you
just replace the first with the second and run the wire into the cab?? or could i
leave the existing one in there, and simply add a mechanical? i've got several 1/2
inch plugs on the block of the 7.3 (one right in front of the oil filler tube and
another on the block below the exhaust manifold on the driver's side) that i
imagine i could use for a second gague.

regarding the diode/resistor, it is spliced into the wire running to the sending
unit; the diode and both ends of the wire connected to it are all wrapped in a
plastic insulating sleeve about one and one half inches long. it looks like it was
original with the truck. as far as i can tell the diode thing is not in the
schematic.



David and Leila Hertzberg
Greystoke Farm
Gaithersburg, Maryland
301-482-0016
ACdhertz us-state.osis.gov


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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:16:32 -0400
From: "Townson, Charles (SRMC)"
Subject: 1998 F150 Lightning

I read somewhere that Ford was going to market an extended cab version
of the F150 Lightning in the 1998 model year. However, I cannot find
any specifications or pricing on such a model. Does anyone know if
this model is being sold in the 98 model year? Any information on the
specs?

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 09:42:19 EDT
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: 97 Ranger cutting out 100+ mph

On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:02:47 -0500 "David J. Baldwin"
writes:
>Mike Wiatt wrote:

>You might try looking in to the presence of a vehicle speed limiter.
>The EEC also knows what vehicle speed is, and it is possible that they
>limit the Ranger top speed because of stability concerns.


This is true. A Ranger will start to "float" at 100mph.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------
/ / \(..)/ -----
////// ' \/ ` --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Shop)
//// / // : : --- http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
// / / /` '--
// //..\
=======UU====UU===[silent.bob juno.com]=[95 Ranger SOHC 2.3L]=
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:57:53 -0600
From: "Ryan Penner"
Subject: PS vs. ATS

Can some one please tell me what the differnce between an ATS
turbo charger and the PS turbo is. I really waant to buy a PS but I cannot
afford the newer trucks, so I have been looking at the older
models which I know you can put the ATS unit on.

thanx.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:38:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: FOMOCONUT aol.com
Subject: Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks

In a message dated 97-10-22 11:22:50 EDT, you write:


can be elevated by 50 degrees during a long trip. This is because of
two things. First, the fuel picks up heat by cooling the pump, and
second, it picks up heat from the engine when it gets to the fuel rail
(at the engine), before the excess is returned to the tank.
>>

Chuckle chuckle.... I can't imagine the fuel in the tanks of my 460 powered
F-350 ever heating up that much.. there is just not enough that ever
re-circulates...:) I pass everything but gas pumps..... just a small attempt
at big block humor... My creed : I gave up drinking so now I drive vehicles
that take up for the expense.... Great trade off......


John L. Miller
96 F-350 4x4
68 F-250 4x4
92 Mustang

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 08:15:53 -0700
From: Michael Wray
Subject: RE: Update - Bad Bearings, etc.....

OK, here is the latest on this issue.

First, thanks to all for the suggestions and input.

I called the shop yesterday to find out when to come get the truck.
I spoke with the service manager. He says 'I think you need to come
down here and take a look at this'. Of course I'm pissed, jump in the
wifes truck and head on down to the shop. I get there, the truck is
still on the rack and the bottom end is still apart. The service
manager takes me to my truck and starts explaining that its toast. He
explains that it looks like either someone ran it without an air
filter for a while or something... because it is full of a bunch of
gritty stuff. I look at the bearings and the crank, they are
definitely toast and need to be replaced. I mean gone, down to the
copper on the bearings.

He explains that the best way to go about this is to completely
change the engine. I start finger everything up inside the engine and
find that for the most part, there is nothing gritty. On the front of
the crank I can feel some grit, but in the oil that is still hanging
around, inside the pistons, on the cylinder walls, on the engine
walls, etc.... I don't really feel anything. I spoke with my Uncle
who has been a Ford Mech for ever and ever and ever (you get the
idea), and he explains that the best bet is to have the engine
changed, but take it to his work so I can get everything at his rate
(10% over cost and labor is 1/2 price!). I start thinkin'... Hmmmmm
Sounds great, but, no funds for this. So after talking to him a bit
more, I decided to take the chance part (I really hate that) and have
them replace the crank, bearings, and oil pump. Button it up and I'll
change the oil a BUNCH of times in the next few weeks.

So.... Since I just bought the truck from a private party, and I
really got the shaft, is there any recourse I have legally? Not
saying I don't want to go NUKE his house.... But I am keeping under
control. ;^}

Michael (using duct tape for control) W.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:26:33 -0600
From: Tony Rio
Subject: F150 6 cylinders

Tom....

The V8 is always really nice to have. However, the 4.2L V^ should haul
your load pretty well. I have a 94 F150 with the older 4.9L 6 cylinder, and
let me tell you... That puppy hauls!. I came back to Chicago from southern
Missourri with a full load of fresh cut firewood in the rear-end, and my 17'
fishing boat trailered behind, and had no problems doing 70 to 75mph in
the hills, and 75 to 80 mph in the farmland areas, even with the AC on.
In the mornings, I commute in the Chicago area and the truck has
tremendous get-up-and-go. As an additional plus, when I get up behind
some idiot in a BMW who's on the cell phone doing 55mph in the left lane,
and he\she looks in the rear-view mirror and is all he sees is grill and Ford
emblem... Well, they get their butt out of the way real quick!!
As for gas mileage, no load in town, I have seen as good as 22mpg on
the highway, about 18 in the city (and I still see this after 75k miles).
Under load it is ranges about 18 highway, 15-16 city.

Tony


>In the specifications page, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of
>difference between the 4.2 liter V-6 and the 4.6 liter V-8 used in the
>F150. This is the same reason that the Ranger I'm currently driving has
>the 3.0 engine rather than the 4.0, and I've not been disappointed with it.
>Still, I'm leaning toward the 4.6 engine if I get an F150. I tow an 1,800
>pound boat fairly often, and also occasionally haul a bed full of
>firewood.
>Which engine would you recommend, and why? Is the EPA fuel mileage
>rating
>of 15/20 anywhere near accurate for this engine in this truck?

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:38:54 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Sticker information

First I need to offer everyone who has been waiting on stickers
my sincerest apologies. I have **not** sent any out yet. The
job search got more hectic than I could have imagined. I flew
out of town twice for interviews, plus I've been doing 2-3
interviews daily (not including spending 90% of my evenings on
the phone with recruiters).

I have received a total of 4 offers, 3 of them yesterday. I have
accepted an offer and will begin working on Monday. Today I fix
the brakes on the truck and my wife's Escort, they're long overdue
(Escort is scraping metal!) and I can't put it off any more.
Tomorrow I mow the lawn (4 weeks overdue) and catch up on all the
things I've promised my wife I would do.

On Saturday I will begin sending out stickers (or I'm going to prepare
a list so my wife can do it on Monday). Please do not send any more
orders for them until I give the group the "okay" as I've really gotten
behind with many things and it will take time to catch up. It will
take several days to send them all out, I've got a ton of orders for
them.

I feel really terrible about this whole sticker thing, it hasn't
gone the way I expected it to.

Sincerely,
(hat in hands)
Ken
Admin

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:42:52 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Dual Tanks and Oil Pressure Gague

David Hertzberg wrote:
>
> Dave Baldwin: i did not see your diatribe: is the bottom line--as i assume-- that
> electronic sensors are vastly inferior to mechanical?

No, actually the bottom line is that the instrumentation "conditions"
the signal from the sensor to tell you what you want to see. They've
had a lot of warranty returns because customers (some who don't know
WHAT they're talking about) think the gauge is pointing to the wrong
position. In a nutshell: the instruments will read "normal" unless
something is about to go seriously wrong.

> please tell me how
> difficult it is or isn't to replace the electronic with a mechanical unit.

If you want to use the instrument panel gauges, impossible. These are
driven (at least over the past 5 years or so) by custom circuits. Not
much you can do here. It's not that you couldn't rip the electronics out
and just drive the air-core gauges, but you would have to develop your
own electronics and calibrate it. I certainly couldn't give you
direction via email. If you want to try it, go for it, but only do it
if you're into electronics and enjoy that kind of thing--cause you'll be
busy for a while!

If your vehicle is older than 5 years or so, the instrumentation may
have been less adulterated than it has become recently--but the accuracy
is still not going to be great. Oil pressure sensors that are more than
just a switch (they provide a continuous signal proportional to
pressure) are somewhat unreliable, and I have had two go out on me
personally.

On the other hand, the old-fashioned Bourden tube type mechanical oil
pressure gauges seem to be quite reliable--at least in my experience.
I've had some in 30 year old cars, and they never gave me any trouble.
You have to run a tube from the engine to the instrument in the cabin,
thus you have the possibility of an oil leak in the cabin. That is the
only drawback I can see to a mechanical pressure gauge.

BTW, I have not had problems with other electric sensors. Temp sensors
are durable, with little to go wrong. Voltage is electrical to start
with. Vehicle speed and engine speed sensors are robust and efficient
electrically. Fuel is the next weak link, but I think there are fewer
problems historically than with oil pressure.

> or could i
> leave the existing one in there, and simply add a mechanical? i've got several 1/2
> inch plugs on the block of the 7.3 (one right in front of the oil filler tube and
> another on the block below the exhaust manifold on the driver's side) that i
> imagine i could use for a second gague.

Or you could insert a pipe tee fitting in the existing place and run
both. I'm not an expert on the 7.3L, so someone else will need to
direct you to other pressureized oil-galley locations.

> regarding the diode/resistor, it is spliced into the wire running to the sending
> unit; the diode and both ends of the wire connected to it are all wrapped in a
> plastic insulating sleeve about one and one half inches long. it looks like it was
> original with the truck. as far as i can tell the diode thing is not in the
> schematic.

If it's not in the schematic, it's probably a modification. Why? Who
knows?

Another instrumentation "dark secret" used in the past: I can't
remember the vehicle, but there was at least one instance of an oil
pressure sensor that they replaced by a oil pressure switch, and then
summed the tachometer signal with the oil pressure signal. This made
the oil pressure gauge move with engine speed, even though there was no
true oil pressure signal. Customers complained that their oil pressure
gauges didn't move with engine speed (and they should, of course). So
they gave the customers what they wanted. It doesn't MEAN anything, but
it looks right--and that's what counts! HAH!

Your resistor thing is what reminded me of this. Could be that your
vehicle was one of those involved. Perhaps there was a TSB on how to do
this, and the dealership made this mod under warranty. The pressure
sensor could be screwed up, too. Might change it and see what happens.

Good luck. Keep us posted.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:46:21 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks

FOMOCONUT aol.com wrote:
> Chuckle chuckle.... I can't imagine the fuel in the tanks of my 460 powered
> F-350 ever heating up that much.. there is just not enough that ever
> re-circulates...:) I pass everything but gas pumps..... just a small attempt
> at big block humor... My creed : I gave up drinking so now I drive vehicles
> that take up for the expense.... Great trade off......

Good point! That decides it! I'm going to build a 460 stroked past 500
c.i., and replace that 5.0L I've got now. I knew there had to be a good
reason to support this. Thanks.

Do you think my automatic would take it? Hmmm.


- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 07:46:16 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Winter Tires ? -> tire sizing info[A]

Geoffrey Hoffman wrote:
>
> well, they are are going to be different tires. you can ask someone for
> more specifics on advantages of wider or narrower tires for snow, cause i
> am not really sure.
>

think tall and narrow for snow tires!!


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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:00:07 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: F150 6 cylinders

Tony Rio wrote:
>
> Tom....
>
> I have a 94 F150 with the older 4.9L 6 cylinder, and
> As for gas mileage, no load in town, I have seen as good as 22mpg on
> the highway, about 18 in the city (and I still see this after 75k miles).
> Under load it is ranges about 18 highway, 15-16 city.

Congratulations, Tony. You're the first person I've heard of that gets
over 20MPG with a full-sized truck! People tend to sell the straight
six short, but they're really pretty good engines. I got the 5.0L, and
as I recall, there wasn't too much difference (torque/hp) between the
4.9L six and 5.0L V8. There's only 2 cubic inches between them.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 10:35
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: 93' Ranger STX 4x4 3.0

I'm kind of new to this, been listening for a few days and I have a few
questions for you guys. I own a 93 Ranger STX 4x4 with a 3.0. I have a 2
1/2" Rancho kit in the front so the truck sits level with the back. I
have 8" chrome wagon wheels with BFG 31x10.5 Radial All Terain TA's. Also
I have a Raven truck top. Here are my questions:

1. My gas milage has gone to sh**t. I am getting 15mpg city or highway. I
did a complete tune up - plugs, cap, rotor, & wires. Also I ran a pint of
tolune with a full tank of gas to clean the injectors. (If you look at
the ingredince of injector cleaners one of the main ones is tolune) But
anyway the tune up did absolutly zero for my gas milage. I know I was
getting between 17 and 20 at best befor. Any ideas on this.

2. Since I installed the lift kit and went to the larger tires I am
having some problems when I am towing. One the check-engine light comes
on after about two hours of towing. Comes on and off. Once I get back
home and unhook the boat thats it. Let the truck sit overnight and the
check engine light wont come on again untill I am towing again. My boat
and trailer are only about 1400lbs. The other problem when towing is when
I get into the hill country I have a real hard time. Befor with the stock
wheels and tires I did not have any problems. Would you suggest
re-gearing the truck or going with a performance chip, K & N air filter,
and a better exhaust? If so wich chip and exhaust are best.

3. Last question. My four wheel drive quit working. When you push the
button to engage it you here the clicking noises but nothing happens. How
do I trouble shoot this problem? Is it the module on the trany???? I am
realy stumped with this one. Dont realy know how or what to check, any
ideas?


Thanks,
John Cassis
Houston, Texas
cassis universal.usa.com

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: PhilDyson aol.com
Subject: Re: Lifter Replacement

In a message dated 97-10-23 01:53:08 EDT, Mark wrote:


I'm posting this for a friend without Internet access.

He has a 1989 Bronco, 5L V8, about 88K miles.

His engine had a tapping noise, that a mechanic friend diagnosed as one or
more bad lifters. When he went to replace them, he found several that could
be easily compressed by just pushing down on the pushrods. No obvious wear
on the old lifters, including no cupping or mushrooming. Rockers were
supposedly OK too.

He bought and installed 16 new TRW lifters, reassembled everything, and when
he started the engine, it actually made more noise than before. He ran it
this way for a while, but the noise didn't improve.

Took everything apart again, and found 6 of the new lifters were very soft.
He exchanged all 16 for new ones, put everything back together, and the
tapping sounds got even worse again.

What's he missing here?

It just occurred to me that when I replaced the head gasket on my wife's
Sable (3.8L V6), I had to rotate the crankshaft until each lifter was at its
lowest position before tightening the corresponding rocker arm bolt. I have
no idea if my friend did this, or if it even matters on a V8. Seems to me it
would.

Any help or advice much appreciated.

Mark
1986 F-150 >>

Mark,
Your buddies cam shaft is probably worn out. Did you give the engine
time to pump up the lifters with oil? This can take a minute or two. I
would not put new lifters on an old cam. If I went thru all the hassel to
get to them, I'd go in a little deeper and swap the cam too. You can bet if
the lifters are worn, the cam is just as worn. Those lifters can only take
up so much slack in the valve train. Ford sells pushrods in .060 longer
sizes but I would inspect all the related components first. There are
several good books onthe procedure.
Good luck,
Phil

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 11:42:19 PDT
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: Oil Pressure Gague

Thanks Dave for all your advice. I'm gonna start with a new sensor--11
bucks at NAPA. Then I may do the tee as you suggest. Regards, David

......Another instrumentation "dark secret" used in the past: I can't
>remember the vehicle, but there was at least one instance of an oil
>pressure sensor that they replaced by a oil pressure switch, and then
>summed the tachometer signal with the oil pressure signal. This made
>the oil pressure gauge move with engine speed, even though there was no
>true oil pressure signal. Customers complained that their oil pressure
>gauges didn't move with engine speed (and they should, of course). So
>they gave the customers what they wanted. It doesn't MEAN anything, but
>it looks right--and that's what counts! HAH!
>
>Good luck. Keep us posted.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:30:15, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re:1998 F150 Lightning

Ford hasn't told us dealers anything yet. I only heard of the trcuk
in a Motor Trend Magazine. I hope they continue to make the can-of-
whoop-ass truck again.
Josh

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 97 12:19:14 PDT
From: David Hertzberg
Subject: Tailgates and Mileage

I am relatively new to the list so I do not know if this topic--whether one gets
better mileage with the tailgate on or off--has been discussed/debated. I raise it
only because I read an interesting set of letters in the automotive section of the
Washington Post two weeks ago and would be happy to share the information if anyone is
interested. Regards, David

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:34:32 -0700
From: Joe Maleski
Subject: Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks

I've had a few cases where I've actually heard the fuel boiling in the
front fuel tank. Coming out of Anza-Borrego once on a hot day, with the
weight of the Camper pushing me I just used third and fourth gears to slow
down on the long, hot grade. At the bottom when the road flattened out the
truck simply quit running. Wouldn't even start. I got out to pop the hood
and I could hear a gurgleing noise coming from the under the truck. When I
removed the gas cap the tank hissed fumes out of the open filler for over
five minutes. After waiting about 45 minutes, truck started again and I
was on my way. This same scenario has also played out while crossing the
salt flats on I80 out of Salt Lake City and at 9,000 feet in the Sierras.
I figure it's just standard operating procedure with these EFI 460 POS's.
Next time I'm either going to buy a diesel or a Dodge.

Joe

>In a message dated 97-10-22 11:22:50 EDT, you write:
>
>
> can be elevated by 50 degrees during a long trip. This is because of
> two things. First, the fuel picks up heat by cooling the pump, and
> second, it picks up heat from the engine when it gets to the fuel rail
> (at the engine), before the excess is returned to the tank.
> >>
>
> Chuckle chuckle.... I can't imagine the fuel in the tanks of my 460 powered
>F-350 ever heating up that much.. there is just not enough that ever
>re-circulates...:) I pass everything but gas pumps..... just a small attempt

************************************
Joe Maleski
Santa Clara, CA
1994 F-250HD SuperCab 4X4, 460/5-spd

mailto:jmaleski auspex.com

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:37:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Ranger 103mph cutout

In a message dated 97-10-22 12:30:44 EDT, you write:


computer. This is an attempt by Ford to get around putting higher
speed rating tires and for insurance purposes. They cut fuel in order
not to backfire. The only way I know to get around this is to install
a Superchips chip which deletes this feature. It also raises the
redline cutout a little. This does suck when your running side by side
with a mustang and it cuts out. Been there done that!

Greg Medert
Atlanta, GA
greg.medert gsa.gov
>>

Can anyone elaborate on this a bit more? Tx

Craig

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Tailgates and Mileage

Definately - if you're not going to post send to me Midwest96 aol.com TX
Craig

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:03:03 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: FI cleaning

What are the opinions on fuel injection cleaning. Should I do the $60
cleaning at the dealer, or dump a can of treatment in the gas tank?

My wife's vehicle is starting idle kinda rough. Thought this would be
the likely suspect.
- --
Thom Cheney
Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:09:34 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks

Joe Maleski wrote:
>
> I've had a few cases where I've actually heard the fuel boiling in the
> front fuel tank. Coming out of Anza-Borrego once on a hot day, with the
> weight of the Camper pushing me I just used third and fourth gears to slow
> down on the long, hot grade. At the bottom when the road flattened out the
> truck simply quit running. Wouldn't even start. I got out to pop the hood
> and I could hear a gurgleing noise coming from the under the truck. When I
> removed the gas cap the tank hissed fumes out of the open filler for over
> five minutes. After waiting about 45 minutes, truck started again and I
> was on my way. This same scenario has also played out while crossing the
> salt flats on I80 out of Salt Lake City and at 9,000 feet in the Sierras.
> I figure it's just standard operating procedure with these EFI 460 POS's.
> Next time I'm either going to buy a diesel or a Dodge.
>


Sounds supiciously like vapor lock to me. I doubt seriously that
gasoline would get hot enough to boil sitting in a tank....even in
Anza-Borrego. BTW....Dodge trucks are WAY susceptible to this, so
plan on lots of stops to "admire the scenery".

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:06:15 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Tailgates and Mileage

David Hertzberg wrote:
>
> I am relatively new to the list so I do not know if this topic--whether one gets
> better mileage with the tailgate on or off--has been discussed/debated. I raise it
> only because I read an interesting set of letters in the automotive section of the
> Washington Post two weeks ago and would be happy to share the information if anyone is
> interested. Regards, David

A good post recently (regrets to the author) put it very well.
Running with the tailgate down or off actually DECREASES mileage.
Best to cap it or cover it.

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:34:55 -0500
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Ranger 103mph cutout

Midwest96 aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-10-22 12:30:44 EDT, you write:
>
>
> computer. This is an attempt by Ford to get around putting higher
> speed rating tires and for insurance purposes. They cut fuel in order
> not to backfire. The only way I know to get around this is to install
> a Superchips chip which deletes this feature. It also raises the
> redline cutout a little. This does suck when your running side by side
> with a mustang and it cuts out. Been there done that!
>
> Greg Medert
> Atlanta, GA
> greg.medert gsa.gov
> >>
>
> Can anyone elaborate on this a bit more? Tx

The engine controller knows vehicle speed, and is programmed to cut fuel
when exceeding the limit. If you want to remove this feature, you need
to re-program the EEC. There are aftermarket sources for a module that
connects to the test port on the back of your EEC and reprograms the
settings.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 11:47:34 -0700
From: Joe Maleski
Subject: Re: Switching Between Dual Tanks

Thom,

I invite you to come with me on my next long trip. This problem is *very*
reproducable. The bottom of the fuel tank is usually so hot you cannot put
your hand on it.

The ford fuel pumps only pump at 45 psi - not enough pressure to overcome
the vapor lock, whick is exactly what is happening.

As for Dodge Trucks - well I've heard that they suffer from poor brakes.
That to me is a bigger problem than having to alter my trip schedule when
the weather gets hot.

Joe

>Sounds supiciously like vapor lock to me. I doubt seriously that
>gasoline would get hot enough to boil sitting in a tank....even in
>Anza-Borrego. BTW....Dodge trucks are WAY susceptible to this, so
>plan on lots of stops to "admire the scenery".

************************************
Joe Maleski
Santa Clara, CA
1994 F-250HD SuperCab 4X4, 460/5-spd

mailto:jmaleski auspex.com

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

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:43:41 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: TIRES

This is not true ! I had 32's on a 96 4x4 with no lift of any kind .



From: James Forrest
To: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Subject: Re: TIRES
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 97 03:40:10 +0000

i have a 96 ranger 4x4, and i had 31x10.50 goodyear tires mounted on
American Racing type 39 15x7 wheels, with normal backspacing. I had no
problems with tires rubbing, etc. I don't think i would go any higher.
I am assuming you have the 3.73 gears, which are good for turning them.
You could go up to a 32 but you would need a body or suspension lift if....


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.