|
|
Return-Path: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:50:22 -0700 (MST) From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest To: fordtrucks80up-digest Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #212 Reply-To: fordtrucks80up Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest fordtrucks80up-digest Monday, November 10 1997 Volume 01 : Number 212 ======================================================================= 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 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: One More Try, I Need Help Converting a 1985 F-150 4X4 5.0 EFI to Mass Air Metering ["Lopez, Raoul" Re: Golf Games [Tuobay Catalytic converter bolt q's [Luke Wells ] Re: Golf Games [Midwest96 Re: Quad shocks for F-150 4X4 [Bill Funk ] 1997 F-350 Powerstroke Moaning 7.3 update and ?? [zeb Re: Conversion vans ["Froggy" ] 84 Bronco Ignition Problem ["Gene E. Utterback, EA, ATA, ATP" 1999 Ford super duty ["jason" ] At home throttle body ["D's nuts in yo mouth" ] Re: 5.0L mileage [Lehmandp ======================================================================= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 08:19:10 -0600 From: "Lopez, Raoul" Subject: One More Try, I Need Help Converting a 1985 F-150 4X4 5.0 EFI to Mass Air Metering Does anyone have any technical expertise in this area? I have a 1985 F-150 4X4 with a 5.0 EFI. I spoke with someone on the Ford Motorsport SVO Tech Line about converting my '85 to mass air. Their reply was Ford makes a conversion kit for '87 and newer 5.0's but 85's and 86's were excluded for some reason and they couldn't help me. If I can convert I believe it makes the addition of cams, headers, superchargers, etc. easier. Does anyone have any info on converting an '85 from speed density engine management to mass air metering? Thanks, Raoul Lopez Rlopez ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:36:05 -0500 (EST) From: Tuobay Subject: Re: Golf Games If I wanted entertainment I would not have linked up with the Ford Enthusiasts! Put your funnies where the sun does not shine. B. Carothers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:15:35 -0500 From: Luke Wells Subject: Catalytic converter bolt q's Does anyone know how to get the bolts off the catalytic converter for a 96 Ranger. These are the ones closest to the headers, are these bolts able to come of with a wrench or are they heat welded on? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 13:02:39 -0500 (EST) From: Midwest96 Subject: Re: Golf Games In a message dated 97-11-09 12:21:41 EST, you write: Enthusiasts! Put your funnies where the sun does not shine. B. Carothers >> I appreciated it. Craig ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 14:43:50 -0700 From: Bill Funk Subject: Re: Quad shocks for F-150 4X4 > From: Jeff Fairbairn > Subject: Quad shocks for F-150 4x4 > > Hi, > > Does anyone know, what company makes a good bracket for double shocks? > I = > would like to put double shocks on each front wheel on my '96 F150 > 4X4. = > My guess would be that Rancho would make it. Also would this take the > = > "dipping" out of it that I get in corners with the big tires on. > > Thanks, > Jeff Jeff,Extra shocks won't do what you want. Multiple shocks are intended to keep the heat per shock down, and thus reduce fade. With multiple shocks, each shock is softer than the original, single shock (or, should be; otherwise, you just get a harsher ride). What you want is a better anti-sway bar to reduce that dipping or sway. Bill Funk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 18:46:01 -0500 From: Jan Campbell Subject: 1997 F-350 Powerstroke Moaning HELP! I am experiencing an almost deafing noise around 1500-2000/2600-3000 rpm. I have been made aware of 2 TSBs concerning this problem. Is there anyone out there who would know what they do for this problem? I would hope the remedy would be more than prying the exhaust to create added space, working at a dealership for a period of time, brings to mind some of the questionable practices of a number of mechanics, "flat-rate". Thanks for any input. Thanks to Ken Miller, for your most appreciated input. Matt Campbell, Proud Owner ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:34:29 -0700 (MST) From: zeb Subject: 7.3 update and ?? Hi All, So last I posted, I thought I would be in the midst of a rebuild now, but 3-4 weeks w/o my ride, I could not do. Postponed it to next summer, and loaded a battery charger/starter and a generator, in case I got stuck someplace w/o a plug in, to get me thru the winter. Well, there was a parting-out F-350 w/ a 7.3, in the classifieds last week, I bought the 7.3. Gonna replace gaskets and seals. Question: Should I do valve work, as long as the engine is in prep mode? Anything else to consider?? TIA, Zeb '88 F250 FWD X-cab ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:38:00 -0500 From: "Froggy" Subject: Re: Conversion vans Sam, I have a hi-top and as long as it isn;t windy, it's terrific! When windy, you're constantly correcting on th eopen highway. It's a lot of vehicle for daily use. Make sure you get a high quality conversion (not fake wood). It will look nicer alot longer. I love mine on trips (just finished one to texas from Daytona). Good luck! Consider a minivan if you don't have to have the conversion. I've had an Aerostar and aN Astro and liked them both. The Astro was an exceptionally nice Luxrider conversion.........froggy - ---------- > From: STATX5 > To: fordtrucks80up > Subject: Conversion vans > Date: Saturday, November 08, 1997 9:40 PM > > Hi Group > > I've owned ford pu trucks for many years now and I'm completly satisfied. A > stange thing is happening, my three little ones are getting bigger and are > complaining about lack of elbow room in the back seat of my extended > cab,especially on those long trips! Well any way they almost have me > convinced to buy a conversion van, just wondering if anyone has any words of > advise on Ford models!! (Never owned a van ) > STILL KEEPING THE 89 F250 4X4 EXTENDED CAB!!!! > > Thanks In Advanced > Sam (Statx5 > +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+ > | Send posts to fordtrucks80up > | Send Unsubscribe requests to fordtrucks80up-request > +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:37:56 -0500 From: "Gene E. Utterback, EA, ATA, ATP" Subject: 84 Bronco Ignition Problem HELP!! I have a 1984 Full Size Bronco with a 351M, 4bbl Holly Carb and Electronic Iginition. I know I have a carbuerator problem. The floats are sticking and the carb loads up and floods easliy. If the truck doesn't start on the first or second try, it won't start till the carb dries out. I have been trying to restore this truck and have done almost no mechanical work at all. The Bronco had 28K on the Jasper engine and transmission when I bought it three months ago. I stripped out the interior including the dash, seats, & carpet. I was careful not to cut, pull, or damage any wiring. Since I've started putting the truck back together, it has developed a nasty ignition problem. Sometimes it starts and sometimes it doesn't. The problem seems to be nondiscriminatory. It happens at odd times with no apparent common demoninator. Sometimes it won't start. Other times it starts and dies. Sometimes it dies before I can move it. Sometimes it dies while I doing 65. I've replaced the ignition switch, ignition switch module, ignition module, coil, battery, and solenoid. I've checked every wire and connection I can think of. Someone in PEPBOYS (not an emoployee - a customer who overhead me talking with my mechanic) suggested that perhaps the ignition switch module actuating rod, actuated by the ignition key, needs adjustment. Neither my wrench not I have ever heard of this. Is this legitimate? Also, if anyone out there has any suggestions I'd gladly appreciate whatever help is given. Thanks for listening, Devient Gene ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 23:39:24 -0500 From: "jason" Subject: 1999 Ford super duty The new ford transmission for gas M50d (std) 5 speed w/od 4R100 HD 4 speed electronic w/od . And for diesel it's M60D 6 speed manual w/od Four wheel disc braks standard. ABS opt.New steering components ,enhanced suspension for improved ride,handling, responsiveness and maneuverability. F 350 Reg cab 4x2 Length 226.6 width 80.0 wheelbase 137.0 rear overhang 52.2 Vehicle ht. 76. headroom fr 41.3 legroom 40.8 shoulder rm 67.0 Looks very mean Very large sport type mirrors on TWO stalks very ugly. May have built in electric running boards. (no one is sure) Not as pretty as the dodge. I'm sitting here looking at a large picture that I picked up at the So fla Auto show and I still can't decide if it's ugly or not. the grill is similar to the Dodge but definitly not as nice. All salespeople were angry that it wasn't art the show since it was at the SEMA show a few days earlier I beleive the V-10 will be teamed with a 4.30 rear end. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:18:21 -0500 From: "D's nuts in yo mouth" Subject: At home throttle body http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://falcon.laker.net/moparman here is a dodge site with a do-it-yourself mod for the throttle body. Check it out ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:32:00 -0500 (EST) From: Lehmandp Subject: Re: 5.0L mileage Hi Grady, Engine is now running smooth and powerful. Est. 300 hp. I havent put her through a "high mileage" test since the mods. Just back and forth to work. That extra power is lots-o-fun! Maybe I should cool-it and check the mileage. It really hasnt been that much worse so the difference could be my foot. The engine builder thinks because it is now much more efficient, that it should be better than before. Well, what do you know. After looking over my mileage journal, I cannot find the 21 mpg incident. Since I have the two tanks, I normally take the first tank to a set distance. Then I fill the first tank first, make a mental note of the gallons, divide by the miles by the first tanks gallons just for my satisfaction but dont write it down. One time, we came through a serious snow storm beginning in Redding, California up through the Siskiyou summit (4310 feet elev.). In 4-wheel drive while in the storm. Speed from 30-50 mph in the night. Things cleared up by Grants Pass. Didnt get gas until Vancouver, WA. I looked it up in my mileage book; 12-28-92, 442.8 miles, 23.36 gallons, $28.02, this calculates to 18.79 mpg. That was quite a night. The dog got sick at the top the summit while I was negotiating 12" deep snow. Had the fiberglass canopy and about 1,000 lbs. of stuff in the bed. Your questions have prompted me to "computerize" my mileage journal with Excel. Since buying this truck new in December 1991, Ive stopped 190 times for gas in 68,694 miles. (Figures include the speedometer error between the original 235s, 30x9.5x15 snow tires, and current 31x10.5x15s.) Ive pumped 4577.7 gallons for an average of 15.01 mpg. The difference between May/June (tied at 16.07 mpg) and January (lowest at 13.60 mpg) is larger than the difference between the 235's (15.51 mpg) and the 31's (14.83 mpg). Cool, now I dont feel so bad about the 31s! Of course, the average since the engine mods is 13.25 mpg as compared to 15.47 mpg (September) to 14.98 mpg (October). Hum, maybe I should give it a rest Bottom line, if you want good mileage, run the "correct" size tire, live in a temperate zone, and drive mellow. Have fun! - -David :-) In a message dated 97-11-03 11:16:18 EST, you write: > Thanks for the additional info. I read your message some time back but am > just getting around to replying. So was it the non-firing injector that > was causing all of your problems or did your rough idleing symptoms go away > with the other fixes. I think I'm going to try and get my hands on a K&N > over the next few weeks and see if that helps. I may try the O2 sensor > after that. > > I've been mulling over whether to turn in my truck or not on something new. > I was looking at Rangers but too small. Then I thought about getting a > new F150 4x4 ext cab V6 but Ford doesn't offer that. I guess that extra 3 > ft. of cab is too much for the 4.2L. However, it is an option on the reg > cab long bed 4x4. That seems odd. Anyway, I think I'm going to stick with > what I have and try to figure out why my mileage sucks. I love my truck, I > just wish it got better mileage and was 4wd..... 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 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.
|