Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:55:28 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #231
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, November 20 1997 Volume 01 : Number 231



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

Decision Made ["Bryan Jordan" ]
Mileage [jurixsys alaska.net (j sutcliffe)]
re: Gas mileage ["Grady Byram" ]
Re: gas mileage [Gardner ]
Re: Mileage [jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
re: tailgate removal [Iguannna aol.com]
Question about my new K&N... ["Grady Byram" ]
Re: Decision Made [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Another bushing question. ["Grady Byram" ]
Polyurethane vs Rubber ["Dave Resch"]
Fwd: Vanir [JOUZA1 aol.com]
Re: Another bushing question. ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Gas Coupons ["Bryan Jordan" ]
Re: gas mileage [Primusdrmr aol.com]
3.0 [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: 3.0 [Gardner ]
Re: 3.0 [Bill Morgan ]
Need Help ["Dave L." ]
Re: SHO in a Ranger - Was Re: Flaming the 3.0 [fwise juno.com]
Brake Caliper [Christopher Smith ]
Re: Aero Mirror Removal (How?) - Like This [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Please help [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: 3.0 ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: 300 I6 Oil Pan Removal - Help! [Pengy67 aol.com]
Re: Need Help ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Need Help ["Bruce A. Ramirez" ]

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 19:29:21 +0100
From: "Bryan Jordan"
Subject: Decision Made

Thanks Everyone,

To answer a few questions, I did mean 100 mph. I presently do the
Heidelberg - Berlin run in a Honda Del Sol with a 125 HP 1.6 L. I do it
safely also, the Honda tracks like an anvil.
I have never had a truck, (except for driving my father's 65
International), and someone at work reminded me of the aerodynamics, or
lack thereof.

Terry Rowe, T Cheney & Froggy's comments helped alot, even the neg comments
from others.

Also the guys at work reminded me we're not talking about a large amount of
money between the gas mileages. 15,000m a yr mpg = 555.55 gal X 1.25
$\gal = $ 694 per year vs $ 852 for 22 mpg. A difference of $ 158 a year.
Just don't take the wife to dinner a few times and ......

Bryan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:44:14 -0900 (AKST)
From: jurixsys alaska.net (j sutcliffe)
Subject: Mileage

Sorry. I have NO patience for this Ranger mileage thread. I just bought a
Ranger 98 XLT 4.0 L. It gets great mileage. What are you people whining
about????
Note: I've been driving a Range Rover that gets like 10 mpg and only runs
on a premium so maybe my senses are a bit dulled.



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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:53:56 -0600
From: "Grady Byram"
Subject: re: Gas mileage

Although I don't have a Ranger (I have a 2WD F150 ext. cab w/ a 5.0L & 3.55
rear end) one thing that I have learned recently is about the "lead foot"
correlation. The faster you drive, the more gas you use. Being an
impatient person, I HATE that fact, but there isn't much we can do about
it.

I learned this last weekend on a trip from Austin to Houston. I was
cruising along at 65-75 mph sucking up gas like it was going out of style.
I decided to do a little test and slowed her down to 60 mph for the
remainder of the trip. Very significant difference. I haven't done the
math yet but I could tell by looking at my trip odometer vs. my gas gauge
that there was a considerable difference. Miles per 1/4 tank went from
about 40 or worse to 50 or better.

Given the fact I was hauling a 14ft Jon boat on a trailer w/ rinky-dink
little tires, I really didn't need to be going very fast anyway. I
estimate that my mileage pulling the boat 60 mph was better than pulling
nothing 70 mph. My 5.0 doesn't seem to notice the boat is even back
there.

ghb

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:05:01 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: gas mileage

Primusdrmr aol.com wrote:
>
> 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.
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+


Gear ratios make a big difference in gas mileage...also type of
transmission...but the big difference is the way YOU drive!

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:51:55 +0000
From: jsruss postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Mileage

Yeah I'll have to agree with this guy . If you want good mileage go
buy a car . Try 33"ers on a 4.0L lifted 6" and then you'll have a
justifiable complaint (11-15mpg) .





To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
From: jurixsys alaska.net (j sutcliffe)
Reply-to: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Subject: Mileage
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 18:44:14 +0000

Sorry. I have NO patience for this Ranger mileage thread. I just bought a
Ranger 98 XLT 4.0 L. It gets great mileage. What are you people whining
about????
Note: I've been driving a Range Rover that gets like 10 mpg and only runs
on a premium so maybe my senses are a bit dulled.





+-------------- 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 13:56:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Iguannna aol.com
Subject: re: tailgate removal

From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Tailgate Removal

I do not want to get into the particulars on the gas milage deal here. I
have listend to both sides on this and both sides have a good point.
Personaly I never run with mine off, the truck just looks better when I'm
not showing off all the scratches inside the bed. Anyway what I did want
to comment on was the structural side of it. Down the road you realy can
tell when a truck has been run without the gate. There seems to be flex
in the back of the bed on older trucks that have been run without it,
plus when one is in a wreck you cant tell me the truck will hold up
better on side impact without it. I guess thats why they make those L -
shaped bars that bolt to the back corners of the beds (it's for the
off-roaders I think). Anyway my 2 cents worth.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

I have seen these trucks and how the be bows out a bit at the top, my friend
had an '84 F-150 like this, couldn't get the gate up or down very good. I
was just thinking about the brackets that bolt into the bed to strengthen it
myself. Try this: sit in your bed have someone drive you around and see how
much wind is actually back there hitting your gate. I think you will be
surprised how little there is, the front of your truck already went through
the air and your bed is just following it, drafting it if you will..... food
for thought

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 12:59:43 -0600
From: "Grady Byram"
Subject: Question about my new K&N...

I put in my K&N about two weeks ago. Does the engine's computer go through
an adjustment period with the change in air flow? I didn't notice any real
improvements the first week or so but lately it seems as if there may be a
difference.

Also, it seems like in the past someone mentioned that after making a mod
that you should disconnect your battery and force your computer to reset
and have to learn how to operate efficiently all over again given its new
components. Do I remember this correctly? If so, how long should the
battery be disconnected? Will this cause the odometer to reset?

Thanks for the lesson.

ghb

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:00:43 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re: Decision Made

Bryan,
I'm one of those that may have been a little tough on you, but now I have a
question.
I would not have thought you could buy gasoline in Germany for $1.25 per
gallon, what gives?



______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Decision Made
Author: bryanjor metronet.de at KOLLSMAN
Date: 11/20/97 7:29 PM




Thanks Everyone,
To answer a few questions, I did mean 100 mph. I presently do
the
Heidelberg - Berlin run in a Honda Del Sol with a 125 HP 1.6 L.
I do it
safely also, the Honda tracks like an anvil.
I have never had a truck, (except for driving my father's 65
International), and someone at work reminded me of the
aerodynamics, or
lack thereof.
Terry Rowe, T Cheney & Froggy's comments helped alot, even the
neg comments
from others.
Also the guys at work reminded me we're not talking about a
large amount of
money between the gas mileages. 15,000m a yr mpg = 555.55
gal X 1.25
$\gal = $ 694 per year vs $ 852 for 22 mpg. A difference of $ 158 a year.
Just don't take the wife to dinner a few times and ......
Bryan
+-------------- 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 13:11:49 -0600
From: "Grady Byram"
Subject: Another bushing question.

My 95 F150 (2WD, 5.0, ext. cab) has a loud creaking in the front end. It
mainly occurs at parking lot maneuvering speeds when turning or going over
bumps. It started off quiet and inconsistent, now it is very consistent
and very audible. It seems to only be occuring on the drivers side, but
maybe I can't hear it on the passenger side since my side is making so much
racket. Also, I can feel it on the floorboard with my left foot - but it
is kind of faint.

Do you think this may be the radius bushings or the bushings between the
frame and the body? How can you tell if a bushing is shot? Ford has a TSB
for replacing #1 crossmember rivots with bolts but that is more for a
"popping" sound than a "creaking". The service rep also suggested taking
off the transmission crossmember, buffing the contact points and
lubricating to get rid of the noise.

I can't afford to pay anyone to diagnose this and I don't want to tear my
truck apart trying a thousand different things if there is a obvious
solution. So any help is greatly appreciated. THis noise is driving me
nuts. I'm about ready to pull a move like that guy in Cape Fear - strap
myself under the truck and have someone drive around till I can figure it
out.

Thanks,
Grady
Austin, TX

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:29:11 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Polyurethane vs Rubber

OK guys:
I am starting to gather information and parts for my next Fun Ford project,
rebuilding the stock suspension on my 1980 F250 4x4 (reg. cab, 133" wb). I
have found a source of reasonably priced, used leaf springs in good
condition. Now I am looking at the other components.

I have heard that for "hard-core" off-road usage, polyurethane bushings
reduce your suspension flexibility, but I don't do Rubicon runs in my F250.
Besides, the way the frame flexes on this baby, I don't think I'd loose
much overall flexibility in the bushings anyway.

A spring-maker guy once told me that the reduced flexibility of
polyurethane spring bushings causes extra stress on other frame and
suspension components. This seems plausible, but I'm not sure how
significant it would really be.

I'm looking for long-term durability and decent on-road handling (since
that's where this truck lives 98% of the time) and the ability to withstand
occasional low-speed off-road jaunts w/ heavy loads.

Here's the question: should I use polyurethane or rubber (OEM-type)
bushings in the front and rear leaf spring eyes and shackles? What are
your opinions/experiences? If I go w/ poly bushings, who are the best
manufacturers? Are there any special considerations when using poly
bushings (i.e., lubrication, maintenance, etc.)?

I could go either way, since the cost for new bushings seems comparable for
both types.

So far, I have been using poly bushings in the front axle pivot brackets
(damn TTB system!) for the last 4 years and 100K+ miles w/ no problems.
(Unfortunately, every time I drain oil out of the engine, it runs all over
the crossmember and washes the front axle pivot bushings, and the poly
bushings hold up to such abuse much better than the rubber ones.)

Thanks for your input and advice.

Dave R. (M-block devotee)

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:34:31 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Vanir


accidently errased it from memory. And any othr ford web pages would be off
help. I had a whole bunc of favorite places and now they are all gone.
Thanks. >>


- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Vanir
Date: 97-11-20 13:57:05 EST
From: JOUZA1
To: Fordtrucks80up listservice

Could Sombody Please give me Vanir website address please. My dad accidently
errased it from memory. And any othr ford web pages would be off help. I
had a whole bunc of favorite places and now they are all gone. Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 13:41:09 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Another bushing question.

Grady Byram wrote:
>
> My 95 F150 (2WD, 5.0, ext. cab) has a loud creaking in the front end. It
> mainly occurs at parking lot maneuvering speeds when turning or going over
> bumps. It started off quiet and inconsistent, now it is very consistent
> and very audible.

I have the same truck, same year, 3.55 LS rear. I also have the
creaking. I don't let noises bother me (too many British cars), but I
must admit that at 28K miles, it seems to be getting worse. It seems to
happen mostly when turning and the body leans. It's still under
warranty, so I'll ask about it the next time I'm in, but if anyone knows
what the source of this is, I'd like to know about it, too.

Grady, you mentioned in another post that your truck towed your boat
"like it wasn't even there". I don't know about you, but I'd like a
little (lot) more torque off the line--that my 5.0L won't deliver. It
revs great though, puts out good power once it's wound up. I'd get the
5.8L if I had it to do over.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:51:01 +0100
From: "Bryan Jordan"
Subject: Gas Coupons

B Thomas

In Germany the military & DOD civilians get gas ration coupons. About 200
liters cost $ 80. OOPs - exact calc comes to $ 1.52 gal. if 3.8 liters per
gallon.

Im signing off for today. About 9 pm over here.

Bryan

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:27:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Primusdrmr aol.com
Subject: Re: gas mileage

In a message dated 97-11-20 12:33:29 EST, you write:


Date:97-11-20 12:33:29 EST
From:bcenter digitaldune.net (Bob Fiddes)
Sender:owner-fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Reply-to:fordtrucks80up ListService.net
To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net

Yep, don't run with the AC on, stay at 55mph or lower on flat land or down
hill. Other than that, I find it next to impossible that any 2.3 in a
truck body would get 37mpg. I had a Tempo with a 2.3 HSC, 5 speed and was
able to pull 39mpg out of it by doing the above. With normal driving of
65-75mph and AC it would get 29-32mpg depending on the terrain I was in.
It goes without saying that the Tempo has an advantage in weight, aero
dynamics and gearing.
>>
Yeah, Well, I assure you i get 37 mpg. I dont have AC, but....... It is a 5
spd. 2wd 87 eanger w/ 100,000

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 14:02
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: 3.0

Christpher,

I must argue the 3.0 has much more power than the 2.3. I had the 2.3 in
my 92 regular cab 2x4, and traded it for my 93' STX 4x4 with a 3.0.
Granted it's not a beast, but I've run mine for 83,000 miles. I've run it
very hard with about half those miles towing about 1500lbs, and it has
performed quite well. There was a considerable difrence towing between
the two trucks. In the 92' with the 4 banger I never could get over 65mph
towing unless I had a tail wind or was going down hill. My 93' with the
3.0 will run pretty good until you get into steep hills. But it
definately will run 75 or better while towing.....just takes a little
time to get there. Anyway its realy not a bad motor.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:05:50 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: 3.0

Cassis, John wrote:
>
> Christpher,
>
> I must argue the 3.0 has much more power than the 2.3. I had the 2.3 in
> my 92 regular cab 2x4, and traded it for my 93' STX 4x4 with a 3.0.
> Granted it's not a beast, but I've run mine for 83,000 miles. I've run it
> very hard with about half those miles towing about 1500lbs, and it has
> performed quite well. There was a considerable difrence towing between
> the two trucks. In the 92' with the 4 banger I never could get over 65mph
> towing unless I had a tail wind or was going down hill. My 93' with the
> 3.0 will run pretty good until you get into steep hills. But it
> definately will run 75 or better while towing.....just takes a little
> time to get there. Anyway its realy not a bad motor.
>
> John Cassis
> The Danger Ranger
>
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+

I really want to apologize for my post...I was not saying that the 3.0
was a bad motor...just saying that it is not a happy medium in my
opinion...It has a little more power but not a whole lot compare to the
2.3, and on the other end the gas mileage is not that much better than
the 4.0...I got the 2.3 for the sake that I felt the 3.0 liter was not
worth the extra money and the 4.0 would have defeated my purpose of
having something that was going to keep me out of trouble...tickets.
This is just my opinion and I was not trying to offend anyone. I guess
what I am saying all or nothing...just the way I feel! My intention was
not to put down the 3.0...or any FORD motor just to express my thoughts!
Anyway to the guy who posted the sho motor idea...will it work?
Chris
(I'm at a friends house if you are wondering why the address is
different)

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 15:51:45 -0600
From: Bill Morgan
Subject: Re: 3.0

Gardner wrote:

> Anyway to the guy who posted the sho motor idea...will it work?

Wouldn't it be great...
Will it work? Absolutely!!! If you check out any of the SHO sites, you will
find that the engines have been transplanted into a number of different
applications. One I recall immediately is a Triumph TR8 and I am sure that took
a whole lot more fabrication than planting one in a Ranger. I know for a fact
that the Aerostar bellhousing will fit the bolt pattern on the back of an SHO
engine. After that it becomes a matter of tranny, and engine mounts and
driveshaft. This combo sould have to be used in a street machine since the
power band is so high in the rpm's. But, just imagine an extended cab, lowered
Ranger with the proper suspension set-up with an SHO motor and 5 speed tranny.
Hooooo Boy!!! Think of the folks you'd surprise.

Bill Morgan
93 F150 MarkIII Conversion
sho4go internetwork.net

>
>



- --
MZ

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:00:15 -0500
From: "Dave L."
Subject: Need Help

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BCF5D5.EE996240
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would assume that most people know about the little screw (idle stop) =
under the hood with the sticker that warns you not to adjust in a CCW =
direction.....Despite the sticker and all of the warnings from my father =
and friends, I adjusted that screw in both directions many many =
times.......I know, its my own fault......

How do I get it back to where it should be and what are the effects of =
it being in the wrong position? I backed it out all the way untill the =
throttle plates were shut and the moved it in to stop the throttle =
plates just short of being closed.. Is this correct?

Dont ask me why I moved it in the first place, I just love to tinker.

One more question.....I went from factory 235 75R15 tires to 31 x =
10.5.....My speedometer is off by approx. 10%now, does this effect =
engine performance? If so, why would the computer care how fast I'm =
moveing?

P.S. this is on a 1993 F150 XLT Supercab 4x4 5.0L AOD

Thank in advance....


- ------------------- Dave Lindsley ---------------------------
- ---------------davecl superior.net-----------------------
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superior.net/~davecl/index.html


- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BCF5D5.EE996240
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






http-equiv=3DContent-Type>



I would assume that most people know =
about the=20
little screw (idle stop) under the hood with the sticker that warns you =
not to=20
adjust in a CCW direction.....Despite the sticker and all of the =
warnings from=20
my father and friends, I adjusted that screw in both directions many =
many=20
times.......I know, its my own fault......
 
How do I get it back to where it should be and what =
are the=20
effects of it being in the wrong position?   I backed it out =
all the=20
way untill the throttle plates were shut and the moved it in to stop the =

throttle plates just short of being closed..  Is this =
correct?
 
Dont ask me why I moved it in the first place, I =
just love to=20
tinker.
 
One more question.....I went from factory 235 75R15 =
tires to=20
31 x 10.5.....My speedometer is off by approx. 10%now,   does =
this=20
effect engine performance?  If so, why would the computer care how =
fast I'm=20
moveing?
 
P.S. this is on a 1993 F150 XLT Supercab 4x4 5.0L=20
AOD
 
Thank in advance....
 
 
------------------- Dave Lindsley=20
- ---------------------------
href=3D"mailto:---------------davecl superior.net-----------------------"=
>---------------davecl superior.net-----------------------

href=3D"http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superior.net/~davecl/index.html">http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.superior.n=
et/~davecl/index.html
 

- ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BCF5D5.EE996240--

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:55:28 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Re: SHO in a Ranger - Was Re: Flaming the 3.0

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...

I don't know about the bellhousing, as the Mazda 5speed in Rangers has
its housing integral with the rest of the transmission. Are you speaking
of the automatic? I have heard that a major stumbling block to slipping
that nice Yamaha (yes, Yamaha built the SHO V6) into a Ranger is that the
intake ends up resting against the firewall, as it cannot be rotated
180degrees. One of the drawbacks involved in trying to swap transverse
mounted front wheel drive powerplants into longitudinally mounted rear
wheel drive vehicles.

Does anyone know anybody that has made this swap? How about the new
Duratech 3.0 used in the Taurus? It is a multivalve engine, the latest in
Ford's "modular" approach to engine design. It is bored or stroked (or
both) up from the 2.5 V6 in the Contour/Mystique. I believe that Ford
took two of these, mounted them end to end on a common crankcase, and
made the 6 liter V12 used in the GT90. Of course, I could be mistaken.
Anywho, that would be a neat engine to see under the hood of an F150, eh?

Isn't it fun to speculate? Let's see, we take the new 98 Ranger with its
real independent front suspension, add the Thunderbird IRS, slip in a
Duratech 3.0, and, and and...

Keep on TRUCKIN!

Fred Wise
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:11:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Christopher Smith
Subject: Brake Caliper

I have an 85 F250 4x4 with dual cylinder brakes. I crawled under my
truck today to investigate a rattle and found that the caliper is too
loose for comfort. Nothing looks out of shape. Has anybody else had
this problem? The caliper is held in place with a retaining key and
spring. Could the spring have lost its strength? This is the only thing
I can think of besides the steering knuckle bending and I don't see that
happening. Any comments welcome.
Chris Smith
Purdue University

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:22:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Aero Mirror Removal (How?) - Like This

In a message dated 97-11-20 06:59:02 EST, you write:



Ok, here's the deal (and I thought it would be soooo easy!).

I've got the regular, non-power, aero mirrors on my 97 F350. Of course,
I can't see a thing with them when I've got a trailer behind me, so I was
wanting to replace them with either the low-mount swing-out mirrors, or
the big RV mirrors. It turns out that the bolt holes for the low-mount
mirrors are closer in than the bolts on the aero mirrors (which would
leave 2 nice little holes in the door), but that the RV mirrors use the
same bolt holes.

Anyway, from the outside, it looks like all I need to do is remove the 2
bolts and my aero mirror should fall off. Well, I pulled those two out,
and there's some sort of large iron "brace" (for lack of a better term)
that extends into the doo in the center of the mirror. I figured there'd
be a big hole there, but thought it would only be used by the power
mirrors.

No amount of lifting or twisting on the mirror would make that brace
slide out of the hole. I got the mirror to move about 1in from the door,
but couldn't get it any further than that.

Has anyone take these off before, and/or can someone check a shop manual
and let me know how it's done? I need to get these things off!

Thanx & Best Regards,
Jay >>

The first time I took off mine, I was so pissed. Here's what you need to
door. Remove the *whole* interior portion of the door panel. Once peeled
away, there is a plastic cover over the outer section of the door on the
inside. Peel this away, and you will see a shiny brass bolt. Unscrew it and
the mirror will come off. Be very, *very* careful when pulling off the
mirror. That brace is twisted and curved, and if you yank on it, you'll
scratch the paint off. If the mirrors were installed with T20 screws, take a
T25 and hammer it in. For some reason, anytime I've taken Ford mirrors off
that had T20s in them, they stripped out when going back in, and the head is
really very soft. It's not hard to insert the T25, and I've had mine off
several times now with no problem. If anyone else has any ideas, I thought
that maybe they start out as T25, but with the primer and paint that goes on
them get sized down?

Craig

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:38:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Please help

In a message dated 97-11-20 13:09:18 EST, you write:


this
morning. Then, I called back to check up on the truck and they claim that
they
can't find the horn. As in, they don't know where to find it.(YIKES!)
They even called a Ford dealer and THEY don't have any diagrams as to where
the
horn lays under the hood either. Does anyone know? Is it under the
battery?

Now I don't want to start assuming things about these mechanics, because
they
seem very compitent, but I'm getting a little scared.

One wary Ford owner,

Brian Opp,
Boston, Mass >>

There is CD program that all of the Ford dealers in my area (Downriver
Detroit MI) have that will asks for a keyword and puts the appropriate
diagram on screen. They can also print a hard copy (I have several such
sheets by now). Gorno Ford at 1.800.BUY.FORD has this, and doesn't charge a
usage fee. They'd probably be willing to fax if no one can help you out.

Craig

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:45:31 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: 3.0

Bill Morgan wrote:
>
> 93 F150 MarkIII Conversion

Bill,

Am I guessing right? Did you stick the 4-cam Mark VIII motor in your
'93?
If so, what engine did it replace, and how has it worked out?

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin
- ----------------

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 17:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Pengy67 aol.com
Subject: Re: 300 I6 Oil Pan Removal - Help!

Thanks to all who responded. Per suggestions and our suspicions, the engine
had to be lifted (by chainfall). Had to remove the EGR valve to get enough
lift, but other than that, came out pretty good.

The culprit - several pinholes on the driver's side of the oil pan, above the
drain plug. The pan was painted a flat gray (primer-like, actually) that is
peeling off most of the pan. Pretty bad for a 93. Oh well, good things come
in threes, (stumble, oil pan, ???). Thanks again for all of your advice.

Fred

PS - Chilton's manual had us pulling the whole intake, yada yada, sometimes
manuals aren't the help they should be. ;)

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

Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 16:48:38 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Need Help

Dave L. wrote:
>
> One more question.....I went from factory 235 75R15 tires to 31 x
> 10.5.....My speedometer is off by approx. 10%now, does this effect
> engine performance? If so, why would the computer care how fast I'm
> moveing?

Can't answer the "little screw" question, but larger tires will slow
your acceleration time...but if you didn't notice, it shouldn't bother
the engine.

- --
Best Regards,

Dave Baldwin....


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.