Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:28:37 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #230
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, November 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 230



=======================================================================
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: F150 brake linings and components ["Townson, Charles"
1980 f150 brake booster [IMATOOLMAN aol.com]
1996 service manual [dean etgn14.webo.dg.com (Baruffi)]
Re: Needed Info [Bill Morgan ]
Re: Tailgates and mileage... [Bill Morgan ]
Sneek Peek [LPal2084 aol.com]
Re: tailgate removal [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: Needed Info [Nathan Heid ]
Re: Oil Pan Removal ["Mark E. Monninger" ]
Re: gas mileage [Primusdrmr aol.com]
Re: F150 brake linings and components [alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)]
Chevy Humor [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info [Eric W Sneed ]
Re: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info [Steven McCullough
Re: Needed Info [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Ranger Speaker Box Std Cab [Iguannna aol.com]
Re: Ranger Speaker Box Std Cab [Nathan Heid ]
Repair report - 1992 5.8L EFI ["Beaman, James" ]
another 1999 truck picture -350 supercab [John Yee ]
Correction to Re: Flaming the 3.0 [fwise juno.com]
Re: Could use some clutch help [fwise juno.com]
Re[2]: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Re: Please help [DRRangr93 aol.com]
RE: gas mileage [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 06:41:20 -0500
From: "Townson, Charles"
Subject: RE: F150 brake linings and components

The load is indeed too high and you would be much better off with
trailer brakes. You should also check your state's law in this regard
as pulling certain trailer lengths/weights often requires trailer brakes
by law.

-----Original Message-----
From:MEB8100 aol.com [SMTP:MEB8100 aol.com]
Sent:Wednesday, November 19, 1997 9:49 PM
To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Subject:F150 brake linings and components

Vehicle: 1993 F150 4x4 XLT, Supercab, 5.0 with 5 speed

Does anyone have any suggestions for improved brake linings or
other
components for this vehicle. It is used primarily for towing
about 3,500
lbs. w/o trailer brakes. The front rotors especially warp alot
and use up
pads quickly. Is the load too high without having trailer
brakes? I've been
told that there are improved aftermarket front rotors available
but don't
know where to look.

Thanks!
Mark Biederbeck
MEB8100 aol.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: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:24:20 -0500 (EST)
From: IMATOOLMAN aol.com
Subject: 1980 f150 brake booster

I'm having a problem with my brakes
when I depress the pedal and release it the pedal doesn't come all the way
back to the top, after pulling it back up about an inch or so I hear a vacuum
leak sound coming from the area where the pedal rod goes into the booster.
The brakes also seem to drag a little if I don't pull the pedal back up
after braking, could my booster be bad?
I've already adjusted the rod to the master cylinder to factory spects
but the pedal problem is still there
Any ideas? How do I tell if it is infact my booster that is bad and not the
master cylinder?
thanks tony

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:52:02 -0500
From: dean etgn14.webo.dg.com (Baruffi)
Subject: 1996 service manual

I just received my 1996 Powertrain Control/Emissions Diagnosis Manual from
Helms yesterday. It covers all Vehicles with OBD I (EEC IV) and OBD II in
2 seperate manuals. I could not just by the one I needed (OBD I) for
my F-250 HD.

My question is: Is anyone interested in the OBD II manual? It covers ALL Ford
vehicles for 1996. It is still shrink wrapped and comes with a nice binder and
locating tabs to put in the manual. NOTE: this is only the Powertrain Control
and Emissions Diagnosis Manual. It is not the full service manual.

I paid $160.00 for Both OBD I and OBD II. I will sell the OBD II portion for
$60.00 plus shipping.

I have all the original boxes and it has not been taken out of the shrink wrap.

If interested, give me a call: 508-898-7369 (work) 413-245-6156 (home)

Email: dean etgn14.webo.dg.com

Thanks,
-Dean

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:35:46 -0600
From: Bill Morgan
Subject: Re: Needed Info

Christopher D Kelly wrote:

> You mean to tell me that the 2.3(old Pinto motor was designed off an
> European motor, I doubt it.
>

Actually,
The 2.3 was introduced in Pintos and Mustang II's in the 1974 model year. The
powerplant was U. S. designed and most units were manufactured in Brazil.
However, that model year also saw the last use of the venerable German made
2.0 and just as you think your 2.3 is a better performer than a 3.0, so the
2.0 was a better performer than the 2.3, but reliability was a problem-solid
lifters, overhead cam design. The 3.0 has the same advantage over its 2.3
sibling. It will last much longer without problems than the 2.3 with its
traditionally poor oiling system i.e.: expected cam life-less than 90,000
miles. Further, if you will check the web for performance parts for the 3.0,
you'll find that there are actually quite a bit. And if your feeling really
adventurous, find yourself a wrecked or ragged SHO, use a bell housing from
an Aerostar, and drop the SHO 3.0 in your Ranger, then you could give this
guy with the El Camino a run for his money, even if he has his tailgate down.
Heh, heh, heh...

Bill Morgan
93 F150 MarkIII Conversion
sho4go internetwork.net
- --
MZ

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:35:56 -0600
From: Bill Morgan
Subject: Re: Tailgates and mileage...

Bob wrote:

> I have a 1970 El Camino SS. Putting the tailgate down does two things
> for my application, I think... Ive noticed that my top speed increases
> with the gate down, from around 130 to 135+ I havent checked it at the
> track, as I should, yet.
>
> The second thing it does is it gives better weight transfer when I
> launch. If I have it up then I can only leave at about 2000rpm before
> it breaks loose.
>

uhhh, Bob

In light of recent postings relating to Rangers doing 100 m.p.h., your pass
at 135 makes them all seem rather insignificant...also, when you say it
breaks loose at 2000 rpm, are you talking about the tranny, the tires or
the tailgate? Heh, heh, heh...

Bill Morgan
93 F150 MarkIII Conversion
sho4go internetwork.net

- --
MZ

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:10:51 -0500 (EST)
From: LPal2084 aol.com
Subject: Sneek Peek

Hi Guys,
I plan on buying a 1999 Ford 350 Crewcab, 4X4, Powerstroke when available.
Does anyone know of any sneek peek pic's of the F350's. Dealers around me
don't have anything on paper. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks All
Larry Palazzo
LPal2084 aol.com

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:06:56 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: tailgate removal

On the subject of tailgate removal, I have to say that removing the
tailgate
will increase mpg BUT only if you go 55 mph or slower, and faster it
really
doesn't make any difference if you have the tailgate up or down, you're
mpg
are pretty much going to be the same.

If you do go 55 or slower w/ the tailgate down, you are going to see
about
2 mpg gain. Since going slow saves gas anyway with the tailgate up or
down
there really isn't much of a reason to keep the gate down based on saving
gas
alone, unless your broke and really need to save a buck. :-)

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------
/ / \(..)/ -----
////// ' \/ ` --- 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, 20 Nov 1997 10:11:48 -0500
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: Needed Info

A>Actually,
>The 2.3 was introduced in Pintos and Mustang II's in the 1974 model year. The
>powerplant was U. S. designed and most units were manufactured in Brazil.
>However, that model year also saw the last use of the venerable German made
>2.0

What are the origins of the 2.0 in my '87 Ranger?

>and just as you think your 2.3 is a better performer than a 3.0, so the
>2.0 was a better performer than the 2.3, but reliability was a problem-solid
>lifters, overhead cam design.

Not true of the 2.0 Ranger! It makes 80 horsepower and 100 lb*ft of
torque, but mine seems to have held up better than most 2.3's I know of.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:13:48 -0700 (MST)
From: "Mark E. Monninger"
Subject: Re: Oil Pan Removal

I've been trying to get the pan off a 2.3L in an 89 Ranger. The manuals
have essentially the same procedure but I have serious doubts that it'll
work. I can raise the engine a couple inches but then it runs into the
firewall. It looks to me like I still need 2 or 3 more inches before I can
remove the pan. It's beginning to look like it's engine pull time.

Anyone out there been successful in removing the oil pan from a 2.3L
Ranger engine without removing the engine?

Mark

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Leo Mosley wrote:

> According to the Haynes manual I have, they suggest raising the engine from the
> front with a jack under the oil pan. They say to use a thick wooden block
> between the jack and oil pan. The procedure says to raise the engine about 1
> inch, and support the engine mounts with wood blocks. It then says to drop the
> oil pan onto the cross member, and then reach in and remove the two oil pump
> inlet tube to oil pump retaining bolts and washers. It then says you can remove
> the pan, although you may have to rotate the crankshaft so the counterweights
> clear the pan. The procedure also mentions removing the radiator (I guess this
> provides extra clearance when the engine is lifted). I haven't tried this, but I
> would think it may be better than lifting by the harmonic balancer. I would also
> be concerned about lifting the engine 3 or 4 inches, as opposed to 1.
> Leo
> 87 F150, 302
>

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:03:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Primusdrmr aol.com
Subject: Re: gas mileage

In a message dated 97-11-20 10:56:40 EST, you write:


Date:97-11-20 10:56:40 EST
From:perfgauge xtalwind.net (David)
Sender:owner-fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Reply-to:fordtrucks80up ListService.net
To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net

In response to the message posted by KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
I would like to know how you can get 25mpg (city) and 37 mpg (hwy)! That
seems to be very high. I have a 94 Ranger 2.3L (55k)w/ a bed cover and I'm
lucky to get 20mpg (city) and 25 (hwy). Does anyone have any other ideas
on improving gas mileage?
>>

There must be something wrong w/ yer truck, cause i have always got good
milage (35 mpg) on my 87 ranger w/ 80,000 on it...I have a spoiler, and bed
cover, but that would not make that much of a dif.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 08:09:20 -0800
From: alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: F150 brake linings and components

> Does anyone have any suggestions for improved brake linings or other
> components for this vehicle. It is used primarily for towing about 3,500
> lbs. w/o trailer brakes. The front rotors especially warp alot and use up
> pads quickly. Is the load too high without having trailer brakes? I've been
> told that there are improved aftermarket front rotors available but don't
> know where to look.

In my opinion 3500 lb is about triple the weight where trailer brakes
are needed. If you look in your owner's manual, you'll find that the
recommended limit for trailer brakes is on the order of 1000 to 1500
lb. Anything heavier than that is placing way too much work on the
truck's braking system, and things will not work as designed, as you've
found out with warped rotors, worn pads, etc. You'll probably also
find that your brake fluid has heated up considerably, and the soft
parts in the calipers, wheel cylinders, etc. have been compromised
as well.

Do yourself, and others on those long downgrades, a favor and have brakes
put on your trailer. It's only a matter of time before something fails
catastrophically.

- ---

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 08:37
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Chevy Humor

Well the kid is not nuts......stupid yes. Talked to him yesterday
afternoon. The bodyshop is going to cut his frame between the cab and bed
and weld in new frame. I would be screeming at my insurance to total the
truck out. It just kills me. This kid realy believes that the truck will
be "good as new". Now I know that welds are considerd the strong point or
something on that affect, but the kid believes that his frame will
actualy be stronger than befor. What a LOOSER. But what realy kills me is
it a freakin' chevy, not like it a rare bird or anything. If he is so
stoked on it total, the truck and buy one just like it. Anyway I thought
you guys would get a good laugh out of this. Oh by the way they had to
take a few weeks to locate parts for the truck. Bet the bed new/used bed
comes off a burned truck....hehehehehehehe.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:03:59 -0800
From: Eric W Sneed
Subject: Re: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info

fwise juno.com wrote:
>
> On 18 Nov, Christopher Kelly wrote:
> > the 3.0 SUCKS! As weak as the 2.3 and uses as much gas as the 4.0, the
> 3.0 is a waste of time. I think the 3.0 is a >Mazda motor and the 2.3 and
> 4.0 are ford motors
>
> Christopher, Christopher, Christopher!
>
> As an owner of a 3.0 powered Ranger (94 Supercab), I must respectfully
> disagree. The 2.3, while American designed and built, is an evolutionary
> update of the European Ford 2.0. The 4.0 is an update of the 2.9, which
> drew heavily upon the European 2.6 & 2.8 V6 engines.
>
> The 3.0 was, to the best of my knowledge, built initially for the
> Taurus/Sable (but is not to be confused with the relatively new Duratech
> 3.0 which has overhead cams and 4 valves/cylinder), and later put into
> the Ranger (replacing the 2.9) and the Aerostar van. This engine is known
> as the "Vulcan."
>
> Having owned 2.3's in Pinto's and Mustang/Capri's, I am aware that it is
> a tough, easily modifiable engine. It is also too underpowered for
> serious truck usage (re: the number of posts that hit this list asking
> for how to derive more power from the 2.3). It is fine in standard cab
> Rangers that don't do a lot of hauling, but even in an unloaded Supercab
> it is at the edge of its useful envelope. This is also why you can no
> longer obtain a 2.3 in any Ranger with 4wd.
>
> As for using as much gas as the 4.0, I have not found this to be the
> case. I consistently get 19-21 mpg in town, and 24-26 on the highway,
> with that rising to 27-29 at altitude (over 5K feet). I even got 30.2 on
> one tank, mostly above 9K. The 4.0's with which I am familiar get more on
> the order of 17-19 in town and 22-24 on the road, YMMV.
>
> Is the 3.0 a powerhouse? Not hardly. Would I like more power? You bet!
> Does the 3.0 do the job I ask of it (largely commuting, light (~500#)
> hauling and high altitude vacationing)? Yup. I have also towed a 3000#
> shredder (not a lot of fun, as I have the 5 speed, but it got the job
> done), and carried loads in excess of 2400# (again, not recommended, but
> if you have to haul it, you have to haul it). I would not have wanted to
> try either job with the 2.3.
>
> In response to Bryan Jordan's initial question as to why the 3.0 is
> listed as "least popular" on the web (I think he meant the Ford Ranger
> Pages and not FordRanger.com), I don't know, and I was surprised to see
> that myself several weeks ago. I find the 3.0 to be a good compromise in
> terms of initial cost, fuel economy and horsepower. I would also like to
> see more aftermarket parts available, for, as someone once said, "You can
> never be too rich, too thin, or have too much horsepower!" Or something
> like that.
>
> At any rate, this is not intended to be a flame toward Christopher, but
> simply another point of view, that may help Bryan make his decision. I
> also agree with a couple of other posts that no Ranger is going to be
> happy at 100mph for 6 hours. Is it possible that he meant 60 Kilometers
> per hour? This would be about 62 mph, and any Ranger can handle that.
> Given that he's talking about the autobahn, I strongly doubt it.
>
> Sorry for the lengthy post,
>
> Fred Wise
> 94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+
Humm... 60kph=62mph? I have to disagree with that. I think 60kph=37.5mph
would be more accurate. anyways my .02 cents

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:08:03 -0600
From: Steven McCullough
Subject: Re: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info

I think he meant that 100 kph = 62 mph. Typo's, what a bitch.


At 09:03 AM 11/20/97 -0800, you wrote:
>fwise juno.com wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Nov, Christopher Kelly wrote:
>> > the 3.0 SUCKS! As weak as the 2.3 and uses as much gas as the 4.0, the
>> 3.0 is a waste of time. I think the 3.0 is a >Mazda motor and the 2.3 and
>> 4.0 are ford motors
>>
>> Christopher, Christopher, Christopher!
>>
>> As an owner of a 3.0 powered Ranger (94 Supercab), I must respectfully
>> disagree. The 2.3, while American designed and built, is an evolutionary
>> update of the European Ford 2.0. The 4.0 is an update of the 2.9, which
>> drew heavily upon the European 2.6 & 2.8 V6 engines.
>>
>> The 3.0 was, to the best of my knowledge, built initially for the
>> Taurus/Sable (but is not to be confused with the relatively new Duratech
>> 3.0 which has overhead cams and 4 valves/cylinder), and later put into
>> the Ranger (replacing the 2.9) and the Aerostar van. This engine is known
>> as the "Vulcan."
>>
>> Having owned 2.3's in Pinto's and Mustang/Capri's, I am aware that it is
>> a tough, easily modifiable engine. It is also too underpowered for
>> serious truck usage (re: the number of posts that hit this list asking
>> for how to derive more power from the 2.3). It is fine in standard cab
>> Rangers that don't do a lot of hauling, but even in an unloaded Supercab
>> it is at the edge of its useful envelope. This is also why you can no
>> longer obtain a 2.3 in any Ranger with 4wd.
>>
>> As for using as much gas as the 4.0, I have not found this to be the
>> case. I consistently get 19-21 mpg in town, and 24-26 on the highway,
>> with that rising to 27-29 at altitude (over 5K feet). I even got 30.2 on
>> one tank, mostly above 9K. The 4.0's with which I am familiar get more on
>> the order of 17-19 in town and 22-24 on the road, YMMV.
>>
>> Is the 3.0 a powerhouse? Not hardly. Would I like more power? You bet!
>> Does the 3.0 do the job I ask of it (largely commuting, light (~500#)
>> hauling and high altitude vacationing)? Yup. I have also towed a 3000#
>> shredder (not a lot of fun, as I have the 5 speed, but it got the job
>> done), and carried loads in excess of 2400# (again, not recommended, but
>> if you have to haul it, you have to haul it). I would not have wanted to
>> try either job with the 2.3.
>>
>> In response to Bryan Jordan's initial question as to why the 3.0 is
>> listed as "least popular" on the web (I think he meant the Ford Ranger
>> Pages and not FordRanger.com), I don't know, and I was surprised to see
>> that myself several weeks ago. I find the 3.0 to be a good compromise in
>> terms of initial cost, fuel economy and horsepower. I would also like to
>> see more aftermarket parts available, for, as someone once said, "You can
>> never be too rich, too thin, or have too much horsepower!" Or something
>> like that.
>>
>> At any rate, this is not intended to be a flame toward Christopher, but
>> simply another point of view, that may help Bryan make his decision. I
>> also agree with a couple of other posts that no Ranger is going to be
>> happy at 100mph for 6 hours. Is it possible that he meant 60 Kilometers
>> per hour? This would be about 62 mph, and any Ranger can handle that.
>> Given that he's talking about the autobahn, I strongly doubt it.
>>
>> Sorry for the lengthy post,
>>
>> Fred Wise
>> 94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L
>> +-------------- 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 -----------------+
>Humm... 60kph=62mph? I have to disagree with that. I think 60kph=37.5mph
>would be more accurate. anyways my .02 cents
>+-------------- 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 -----------------+
>
>
Steven P. McCullough
Graduate Research Assistant
Section of Diagnostic Imaging Physics
U.T. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Office - (713) 792-0789
Fax - (713) 794-5272

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:06:56 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Needed Info

Bill Morgan wrote:
And if your feeling really
> adventurous, find yourself a wrecked or ragged SHO, use a bell housing from
> an Aerostar, and drop the SHO 3.0 in your Ranger, then you could give this
> guy with the El Camino a run for his money, even if he has his tailgate down.
> Heh, heh, heh...

ooooh...skip the 5.0 conversion....*THAT* would be awesome...SHO motor
in a Ranger......hmmmmmmm.........

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:26:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Iguannna aol.com
Subject: Re: Ranger Speaker Box Std Cab

In a message dated 97-11-20 01:37:06 EST, you write:


Subject: Ranger Speaker Box Std Cab

Has anyone made a 5 sided box or bought a Q-Logic speaker box for the
standard cab Ranger? If so what size 10" 12" how does it sound? Likes,
Dislikes?

Thanks, Ron >>
You are dreaming about getting speakers that big to fit in a regular cab. I
used to have two 8" infinitys in mine. Then I got pissed and cut holes in
the bed to vent my 2 18" Kickers into the cab. Now I am happy, but the people
around me aren't....

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:35:18 -0500
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: Ranger Speaker Box Std Cab

> Has anyone made a 5 sided box or bought a Q-Logic speaker box for the
> standard cab Ranger? If so what size 10" 12" how does it sound? Likes,
> Dislikes?

I have an 8" Kicker SoloBaric in the Q-logic box made for it in my
standard cab Ranger. It performs like a much larger subwoofer but needs a
good bit of power to play loudly. It's a small box, but I still miss the
leg room.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:39:41 -0600
From: "Beaman, James"
Subject: Repair report - 1992 5.8L EFI

About a month ago now, I got in my '92 F250 w/80K miles on it to go to
work in the morning. On starting, I noticed it was running quite rough
but left the driveway thinking it could get me where I needed to go.
Well, it got worse and less than a half mile away, it died at a traffic
light. I started it one more time and it died for the final time.
Thereafter, the engine would turn over rapidly and suddenly sieze. Then
I would turn the key again and it would crank and stop again. I did not
here any cylinders firing. Disgusted, I had it towed to Firestone who
later that day, called me up with the bad news. They said it was almost
frozen up and I needed to have it towed to a shop that does major engine
work.

I found out that a neighbor named Gale has a repair shop that does major
and minor engine work, was trusted by other neighbors who had used him,
and had a reasonable rate so I had it towed to his shop. The first
thing Gale replaced was the starter. It seems the starter gear had
shattered while trying to engage on the non-moving flywheel gear. After
that, he tried turning the engine by hand and found out that it would
turn but was very stiff. The next task was to remove the spark plugs
and disconnect the coil wire. Then on trying to turn the engine again
by hand, gasoline shot out of the cylinders and guess what? The engine
now turned freely. Conclusion: the fuel pressure regulator had gone out
and so much fuel was being injected into the cylinders that it was
creating a hydraulic lock. Fortunately, it was not enough to cause
engine damage.

Gale changed the fuel pressure regulator, the spark plugs and the oil
which was now full of gasoline and the truck started and ran like a top.
I have never been so relieved to write a check for $500. I am convinced
that the regulator had been going bad for the last six months or more
due to the following symptoms leading up to the problem.

- Fuel mileage had dropped on the highway from around 17 at a
steady 65 mph to 13 or 14 at the same speed and from 12 to about 8 or 9
in town.
- Check Engine light had been coming on frequently and had
stored codes such as EGO sensor reading too rich and too lean.
- Bad smell had been coming from the catalytic converter for
awhile.
- Engine would surge at heavy load and high revs like while
pulling 6000 lb. travel trailer up a hill at 65 mph.
- Engine was starting to lope at idle but not to the point
where it would die.

After the fix, I noticed the following changes: The smell from the
converter gradually went away (it had been full of fuel), the engine
became smoother, and the check engine light began coming on less
infrequently. It still comes on briefly but I pulled the codes the
other day and it looks like it is due to EGR valve problems. The big
change was in mileage. I made a 100 mile trip at a steady 65 mph and
got 21.4 mpg! This doesn't seem right, said I, and thought it may be
due to some leftover gasoline still in the oil causing thinning which
was decreasing internal drag so I changed the oil and checked it again.
This time another 100 mile trip where I got over 19 mpg but 10 of it was
city driving where I had been getting about 11 mpg since the fix. So
subtracting a gallon and ten miles, the mileage on the highway portion
was back up to 21. Now I'm afraid to change my EGR valve for fear a new
one will harm this great mileage. This is 21 mpg from a 351 gas V8 in a
6000 lb truck with a 3.55 rear end ratio!

The main reason I post all this is because several people have posted
that their trucks with EFI engines have been experiencing bad mileage
after changing many ignition and emissions system components. Based on
my experience, you might try replacing the fuel pressure regulator,
especially if you recognize any of the symptoms I noted. If anyone else
tries replacing their fule pressure regulator, how about letting the
list know what the results are?

James Beaman
james.beaman lmco.com
Houston, Texas

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:58:08 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: another 1999 truck picture -350 supercab

Shamelessly ripped from Jason's power stoke page -

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.truckworld.com/Truck-Tests/99-F-Series/f-series.html

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:54:43 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Correction to Re: Flaming the 3.0

On 19 Nov, I wrote,
>I also agree with a couple of other posts that no Ranger is going to be
happy at 100mph for 6 hours. Is it possible that >he meant 60 Kilometers
per hour? This would be about 62 mph, and any Ranger can handle that.
Given that he's >talking about the autobahn, I strongly doubt it.

I should have said 100 kph, (not 60 kph) is equal to about 62 mph. Spell
checkers are wonderful, but they don't catch correctly spelled mistakes.

Fred Wise 94 Ranger 3.0L

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:50:42 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Re: Could use some clutch help

On 19 Nov, Quintin wrote:
> If someone could walk me through the adjustment I'd greatly appreciate
it, I haven't done much clutch work.

Qunitin, sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if the 87 Ranger is
like my 89 was, it has a hydraulically actuated clutch that has no
external adjustment.

The chatter may be from a clutch disc that has been contaminated by oil,
or simply worn out.

Someone else may have a more optimistic opinion, but I'm afraid you are
looking at a new clutch. How many miles are on the truck? Mileage is not
as important as usage (highway vs stop and go; running empty vs heavy
loads; towing vs running free), but clutches do wear out eventually.

Fred Wise
94 Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:00:00 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re[2]: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info

He meant 100 mph. Left lane on the Autobahn (sp?) lives at a speed of 90 -
135+ mph when traffic allows. The point is that you need to be a real
driver and have a real car to be in the left lane. He may be qualified but
the Ranger isn't.

BTW, you guys should crop your replies. You are sucking up major amounts of
bandwidth if you don't.
My $0.02.


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: Flaming the 3.0 Was: Re:Needed Info
Author: smccull gsbs3.gs.uth.tmc.edu at KOLLSMAN
Date: 11/20/97 11:08 AM





I think he meant that 100 kph = 62 mph. Typo's, what a bitch.
...............

At 09:03 AM 11/20/97 -0800, you wrote:
>fwise juno.com wrote:
.............

>> happy at 100mph for 6 hours. Is it possible that he meant 60
Kilometers
>> per hour? This would be about 62 mph, and any Ranger can handle that.
>> Given that he's talking about the autobahn, I strongly doubt it.
>>
>> Sorry for the lengthy post,
>>
>> Fred Wise
>> 94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L
>> +-------------- 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
- -----------------+
>Humm... 60kph=62mph? I have to disagree with that. I think
60kph=37.5mph
>would be more accurate. anyways my .02 cents
>+-------------- 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
- -----------------+
>
>
Steven P. McCullough
Graduate Research Assistant
Section of Diagnostic Imaging Physics
U.T. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Office - (713) 792-0789
Fax - (713) 794-5272
+-------------- 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: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:24:54 -0500 (EST)
From: DRRangr93 aol.com
Subject: Re: Please help....

---

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.