Return-Path:
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:50:20 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #235
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Sunday, November 23 1997 Volume 01 : Number 235



=======================================================================
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: bedliners [Ken Justice ]
Re: Bedliners [Eric W Sneed ]
steering fluid overfill-92 Ford Exporer (Eddie Bauer) [Linda Beal
Re: steering fluid overfill-92 Ford Exporer (Eddie Bauer) [mrkrispy webtv]
Re: heat stove [Iguannna aol.com]
Anti-Lock Rear brakes ["Freddie L. Cummings" ]
Re: V-10 [Gary Gadwa ]
Re: 300 six in a Ranger [fwise juno.com]
3.0 or 4.0? [fwise juno.com]
"check engine" Light [ALLEN BALDWIN ]
Re: V10 [JOUZA1 aol.com]
3.0 vs. 4.0 [Blest25913 aol.com]
Gas mileage [NATWAT aol.com]
Re: 300 six in a Ranger [Nathan Heid ]
Re: V10 [Nathan Heid ]
new guy [" Cary and Jeff" ]
Re: V10 [Gardner ]
Re: V10 [Paul Laughlin ]
Re: "check engine" Light [Jake Morvant ]
Re: V10 [silent.bob juno.com]
Re: Ranger turn lights [silent.bob juno.com]
Re: Rice spanked Ranger? [silent.bob juno.com]
Re: Rice spanked Ranger? [silent.bob juno.com]
Re: V10 in F series [bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)]
Re: bedliners ["Froggy" ]
Re: 1981 E-150 / F-150 Rear axle Ratios????? [PhilDyson aol.com]
Re: 3.0L Ranger and Fuel Consumption ["Jim Bielecki"
Ranger Stereo System [SNOOP22222 aol.com]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #234 [SNOOP22222 aol.com]
Re: Ranger Stereo System [Ron Pike ]
Re: Ranger Stereo System [Nathan Heid ]
Re: new guy [Midwest96 aol.com]
3.0, 4.0, 5.0 etc. [Midwest96 aol.com]

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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:05:59 +0000
From: Ken Justice
Subject: Re: bedliners

There have been several comments about bedliners recently and perhaps I
can add some insight to this subject.
I sell a cargo control mat to both dealers of spray in liners and slide
in liners and regularly hear the pros and cons of each product.
The slide in liners have an advantage in that they can be replaced
easily. This is important if you regulary carry potentially damaging
cargo (engines, concrete blocks, etc.). But a slide in bedliner is
definitely much more slippery than a spray in liner.
T he spray in liner looks real nice and fits the contour of your bed
nicely, but I'd hesitate to put a heavy engine or other potentially
damaging cargo directly on the srayed in surface. The spray in is very
tough but can gouge, etc. (Just like the slide in liner can be damaged.)
The spray in is also more expensive than the slide in. Though I think
(my opinion) that the spray in looks much, much better as it fit the
original contour of the bed.
No matter what, the two types of liners share a common problem. And
that's how I make my living.
Ken Justice
www.workingmat.com

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:21:59 -0800
From: Eric W Sneed
Subject: Re: Bedliners

I've used them in the past, they do not prevent dents and dings. Sprayed
on liners are probably the proper choice in rainy parts of the country,
but If you are going to use your truck for "hard work" those sprayed on
liners don't quite work as well as slide in liners.

My $0.02

Eric







Froggy wrote:
>
> Eric, apparently you haven't had much exposure to the sprayed in linings.
> A little common sense loading of your truck will eliminate the dents and
> dings even without the linings. use your truck...don't abuse it. The
> spray in linings are excellent protection, even with the occasional
> dropping or tossing of lumber!......no offense intended...just my
> $.02.............froggy
> ----------
> > From: Eric W Sneed
> > To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> > Subject: Re: Bedliners
> > Date: Friday, November 21, 1997 11:28 AM
> >
> > Great until you start tossing lumber, or any other objects in the
> > bed.Then the bed will be full of dents.
> >
> > Just my $0.02
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > William Stret wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary Gadwa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bedliners
> > > > If you are serious about taking care of your Pickup Bed go with ARMA
> > > > Lining or RHINO lining. The slide in Bed Liners are "bad news"! They
> are
> > > > slipperyer than you can imagine and they trap unwanted moisture under
> > > > the liner. I have the ARMA lining chose it over the Rhino lining just
> > > > because ite sprayed in hot rather than cold. Great Bed protection!!!
> > > > Totally water proof, non slip, insulating, very durable, lifetime
> > > > guarantee, can even be custom colored. I went to the trouble to
> > > > sandblast the bed of my 1990 F-250 Supercab first. Not necessary.
> Again
> > > > if you are serious about truck bed protection get the sprayed in
> liner.
> > > >
> > > > Gary Gadwa
> > > > Stanley, Idaho
> > > > 1990 F-250 351 4X4 Supercab Pickup
> > > > 1996 Explorer
> > > > 1931 Victoria Steelback
> > >
> > > Stanley, Idaho???? The net really is getting pervasive huh?
> > > I live in CA now but was born and raised in Idaho Falls so am quite
> > > familiar with your area - beautiful country (a tad chilly in the
> > > winter though, don't you think?).
> > >
> > > What are you doing with the 31 Vicky? Restoration, street rod,
> > > or ....?
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > +-------------- 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 -----------------+
> > +-------------- 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 -----------------+
> +-------------- 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: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:10:27 -0500
From: Linda Beal
Subject: steering fluid overfill-92 Ford Exporer (Eddie Bauer)

Would appreciate detailed information on what reprecussions an overfill
can have to the system (see subject). I live in the Middle East (UAE)
and have had many problems with my Explorer related to improper
servicing. This is latest in the continuing saga.
They overfilled it. It started leaking. They replaced a seal, at their
expense after I insisted I wouldn't. It's leaking again. Am I justified
in expecting them to put it right? Thanks for your input. I'm a layman,
but it's difficult to get reliable information when you're outside the
USA.
LM BEAL

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:42:29 -0500
From: mrkrispy webtv.net (Ian Holter)
Subject: Re: steering fluid overfill-92 Ford Exporer (Eddie Bauer)

LM BEAL, Yes you should have them fix it right. an overfill of the
powersteering unit can and will cause seal failure, high pressure hose
failure , and possiable internal pump damage.
Good Luck Ian

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:46:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Iguannna aol.com
Subject: Re: heat stove

In a message dated 97-11-22 08:24:35 EST, you write:


pass
the California inspection. God bless Michigan's emissions. If the air temp
in
your area getts any cooler than 30 degrees F, you might want to keep the
stove connected.

BiggRanger aka Darren >>

Nah, I ripped all the stuff out and I never noticed a difference, but for
california you cannot modify you air box at all. Some people cut holes in
the bottom where the inspectors don't see it so easily.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:27:51 -0500
From: "Freddie L. Cummings"
Subject: Anti-Lock Rear brakes

Hi All,
I have a '91 F150 4x4 e4od 5.0. I had problems with the anti-lock dash
light being slow to extinguish after cranking. I removed and checked
the fuse to the anti-lock brake system and now the light stays on
constantly when the engine is running. Do I have a trouble in the
system or is there a special procedure for replacing the fuse? Thanks
for any help you can share.
Freddie

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:39:38 -0700
From: Gary Gadwa
Subject: Re: V-10

I would like to hear what an owner says about the 98/99 V-10 Engine????
I've been trying to spec out a Type I Ambulance and No company will
offer the V-10....They say FORD will not supply it in the F-350
Ambulance Chassis. This really makes me wonder about the V-10. Here in
Stanley Idaho where the Temps really do drop to 60 Below Zero and often
hover at 30 below we have been skeptical of the 7.3 Turbo Diesel but it
seems we have no choice since you can't get the 460 either!!!
Open to comments or thoughts???
I've been considering the V-10 for my next F-250 ?????

Gary Gadwa
1990 F-250 4X4 Supercab
1996 Explorer
1931 Ford Victoria

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:43:30 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Re: 300 six in a Ranger

On Fri 21 Nov, Chris Lublin wrote:
Anybody on the list ever try dropping a 300 Six in a Ranger or
ever
seen/heard of it being done? When Mom's Ranger ends up mine, I
may try
dropping a 300 Six in there.

Chris, while I haven't taken a tape measure to a 300, I have a feeling it
would end up sticking out past the front bumper of the truck, or is you
reworked the crossmembers and shortened the drive shaft, you would have
to reach behind you to shift (hope your Ranger is a Supercab :-) ).

Seriously, the Ranger was designed for 4cylinders and "V" sixes. I think
that the 300 inline six, while a great engine, is way too long to fit.
But hey, it would make for a real conversation piece!

Has anyone seen my shoehorn?

Fred Wise
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:37:18 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: 3.0 or 4.0?

On Fri 21 Nov, Ryan Penner wrote:
I currently own a '91 F-150 4x2 that I would like to get rid of
in favor of
a Ranger. Now if I want an extended cab XL A/C 4x4 is there
going to be a
big difference in go speed between the 3.0 and 4.0?

Ryan, as the happy owner of a 94 Ranger Supercab 4X2 with the 3.0 , I
would suggest that you go with the 4.0 for your projected 4X4. While the
horsepower difference between the two is small, the torque difference is
substantial. Both the Supercab and the 4X4 hardware add significant
weight, and the extra torque is very nice, particularly if you actually
plan to take the truck off-road. If the truck will be a pavement queen,
then unless you need the four wheel drive for northern winters (Not a
problem down here in sunny South Central Texas. Should be a balmy 70 this
afternoon), I would suggest you not get it and save some money, mileage,
and maintenance hassles. but for a 4X4, I would suggest the 4.0

If you can find a copy, the Fall edition of Road & Track's "Open Road"
has a test on the 98 Ranger 4X4. It is well worth reading. I don't care
for the new front sheetmetal, but I sure do like the looks of the new
front suspension.

Enjoy,

Fred Wise
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:04:44 -0500
From: ALLEN BALDWIN
Subject: "check engine" Light

The "check engine" polution warning light on my 95, 3 liter Ranger
stays on for two days out of five. The dealer says all is ok and not to
worry. It seems more frequent on wet days. Does anyone have any ideas??
Allen

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:13:02 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: Re: V10

are the V10's in any of the upcoming f-series picuptrucks.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:43:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Blest25913 aol.com
Subject: 3.0 vs. 4.0

In a message dated 11/22/97 8:24:35 AM, you wrote:


big difference in go speed between the 3.0 and 4.0? I know about MPG and
other stuff so don't bother with that. This is the truck I plan on buying
within the next year or so, just because I do not like the big truck for in
town. (I would love to have both a 4x2 2.3l ranger plus a F-350 PS but that
will never happen:)) so I was looking at prices, and configerations and all
that good jazz.
>>

Please, for your own good, go with the 4.0. I got the 4X4 extended cab with
the 3.0. It has a lot of trouble on hills, even on the interstate.
I have the automatic, and have to take it out of overdrive on hills because
it will constantly 'hunt' between 4th and od. I assume the 4.0 would have the
power to keep it up to speed on hills. My transmission was relaced at 44K,
and I think one of the reasons for this is the small 3.0 engine.
Ron Trampe

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 13:49:34 -0500 (EST)
From: NATWAT aol.com
Subject: Gas mileage

John,

The decrease in your gas mileage probably results from the increased drag
from your camper shell. The best gas mileage you will receive is without a
camper top and with your tailgate up. Tests were performed in the Lockheed
windtunnel in Atlanta to show that a trucks gets better gas mileage with the
tail gate up. "Believe it or not.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:20:36 -0500
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: 300 six in a Ranger

A>Anybody on the list ever try dropping a 300 Six in a Ranger or
>ever
>seen/heard of it being done? When Mom's Ranger ends up mine, I
>may try
>dropping a 300 Six in there.
>
>Chris, while I haven't taken a tape measure to a 300, I have a feeling it
>would end up sticking out past the front bumper of the truck, or is you
>reworked the crossmembers and shortened the drive shaft, you would have
>to reach behind you to shift (hope your Ranger is a Supercab :-) ).

>But hey, it would make for a real conversation piece!

Mount the 300 on a pylon in the bed with a pusher-prop in a cage.
Sure it will look stupid, but you have a 300 six in a Ranger, and you'll
be the only air boat on the highway!
Seriously, somewhere I once saw a picture of an old truck with a radial
aircraft engine and propeller mounted like this. It was probably done just for
the sake of taking the picture.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:22:40 -0500
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: V10

At 01:13 PM 11/22/97 -0500, JOUZA1 aol.com wrote:
>are the V10's in any of the upcoming f-series picuptrucks.

How 'bout in the Rangers?

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 11:34:56 -0800
From: " Cary and Jeff"
Subject: new guy

I mean like you guys keep repeating your bad selves. Well I just bought a
93 E 250 with 4.9 six. What can I expect in gas milage. The computer read
that the overdrive was slipping or something like that. Is this a big
problem or should I back off on the use of OD around the hills and town ?
The motor has been totally rebuilt. All the vital fluids changed and I'm
ready for a trip to La Paz. Howmydoing? baron

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:02:30 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: V10

Nathan Heid wrote:
>
> At 01:13 PM 11/22/97 -0500, JOUZA1 aol.com wrote:
> >are the V10's in any of the upcoming f-series picuptrucks.
>
> How 'bout in the Rangers?
>
> +-------------- 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 -----------------+


Lets just hope for the V-8 soon...V-10 is quite a bit of pressure.
Probably not interested but mid season next year Do*ge is coming out
with an R/T Dakota...5.9 liter...lets hope ford does domething similiar
and SOON!!!

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:00:26 -0800
From: Paul Laughlin
Subject: Re: V10

JOUZA1 aol.com wrote:
>
> are the V10's in any of the upcoming f-series picuptrucks.

As far as I know, the 460 is being replaced with the V10. Paul
in Portland OR

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:20:19 -0600
From: Jake Morvant
Subject: Re: "check engine" Light

At 01:04 PM 11/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>The "check engine" polution warning light on my 95, 3 liter Ranger
>stays on for two days out of five. The dealer says all is ok and not to
>worry. It seems more frequent on wet days. Does anyone have any ideas??
>Allen

This may not be a problem. A few months ago I sprayed some engine cleaner
under the hood to make it look nice and shiny. The directions on the
product said to cover up the distributer and wash the cleaner off with a hose.

Well the next day I noticed that the "check engine" light turned on. It
stayed on for a few days and then, when the engine fully dryed (I guess)
the light turned off (and hasn't turned on since).

I don't know why your light turns on during wet days unles you're
frequently driving through three feet of water.

- -Jake

>+-------------- 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: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:12:25 -0600
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: V10

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:45:05 -0500 (EST) JOUZA1 aol.com writes:
>Can anyone tell me if Ford has put there V10 into any of the 98
>models. If
>so wich ones.


I've seen some E150's with the new v10

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:11:36 -0600
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: Ranger turn lights

On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 06:05:12 -0200 "R.L.H.O."
writes:
>Hi Bob,
>
>I'm talking about clear light signal assemblies. By the way...what's
>Rice ?
>I'm from Brazil and I guess this is a slang, right ? I'm sorry about
>my
>ignorance.
>
>Thanks in advance for replying.


That's okay. The new trend these days seems to be to put clear turn
signal assemblies on their cars and I've seen this done with "Rice
Burners".
And if you want to know what a Rice Burner is, go to this site:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://icse2.ucsd.edu/~bmhong/riceboy/

BUT, to be informative and helpful, the answer is, no. I do not know of
any clear
turn light assemblies for the Ranger.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:02:43 -0600
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: Rice spanked Ranger?

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:22:15, -0500 KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J
TENNEY) writes:
>If you excuse my french, but what the hell is a rice spanked ranger?
>I would really like to know. Thank you.
>
>Josh


hehehe, Well IMHO, a "Rice spanked Ranger" or any other truck, would be
any truck that has Turbo Tip (one of those 5" or greater exhaust tips) ,
its exhaust sounds like a chain saw, 16" performance tires, and a
spoiler. And im talking about the big
plastic wings, not like the ones that they really use in truck racing.

What really sux, is one day I saw a Ranger just like mine (same color,
same year) but with the above applied to it.

"Rice Spanked Ranger"

And if you want a visual concept of it, go to this site:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.icso.net/~fox/rice/rr.gif

Some one I know did turned my truck into a "Rice Spanked Ranger" using
Photoshop.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:04:31 -0600
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: Rice spanked Ranger?

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 10:36:52 -0500 Thom Cheney
writes:
>MR JOSH J TENNEY wrote:
>>
>> If you excuse my french, but what the hell is a rice spanked ranger?
>> I would really like to know. Thank you.
>>
>ummm... I think he is describing a Ranger that has been modified to
>look like the endless stream of lowered, multicolor, boom-chaka-mobile
>
>japanese import trucks.
>
>--
>Thom Cheney
>Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese


Yeah, but more toward the Japanese import look (and sound) than anything.
Low-Riders are in a class by themselves.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 15:37:04 -0600
From: bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)
Subject: Re: V10 in F series

I had heard that initially Ford had some problems getting the truck to
pass crash tests with the big engine (too long?) but the E series doesn't
have to pass the same test. If it doesn't have to pass now, perhaps
higher standards are coming and that is putting off production. Again,
only a rumor.

Brian Rickmanbmrickman juno.com
91 Exp 4X4 EB
81 F100 2wd 351wAOD

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:20:59 -0500
From: "Froggy"
Subject: Re: bedliners

Thanks for yor insight Ken, it's always nice to hear from someone who can
speak with authority and firsthand knowledge. I agree with your assessment
and appreciate your input......froggy

- ----------
> From: Ken Justice
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: bedliners
> Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 3:05 AM
>
> There have been several comments about bedliners recently and perhaps I
> can add some insight to this subject.
> I sell a cargo control mat to both dealers of spray in liners and slide
> in liners and regularly hear the pros and cons of each product.
> The slide in liners have an advantage in that they can be replaced
> easily. This is important if you regulary carry potentially damaging
> cargo (engines, concrete blocks, etc.). But a slide in bedliner is
> definitely much more slippery than a spray in liner.
> T he spray in liner looks real nice and fits the contour of your bed
> nicely, but I'd hesitate to put a heavy engine or other potentially
> damaging cargo directly on the srayed in surface. The spray in is very
> tough but can gouge, etc. (Just like the slide in liner can be damaged.)
> The spray in is also more expensive than the slide in. Though I think
> (my opinion) that the spray in looks much, much better as it fit the
> original contour of the bed.
> No matter what, the two types of liners share a common problem. And
> that's how I make my living.
> Ken Justice
> www.workingmat.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: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:00:15 -0500 (EST)
From: PhilDyson aol.com
Subject: Re: 1981 E-150 / F-150 Rear axle Ratios?????

In a message dated 97-11-22 01:36:24 EST, you write:


I am in need of some help and this seems to be the place to go.
Can someone direct me to the stock rear axle ratios for the above vehicles
in
a two-wheel drive, 300ci,C-6, configuration. Can anyone help? I would be
most
appreciative. Thanks in advance. Gary O. azyacht aol >>

Gary,
There are many, I can't tell you what is most common in the E-150, but
F-150 is probably 3:50 Ford-9". If you'll give me the axle code off the
sticker in side the drivers side door jam, I'll tell you exactly what you've
got.
Phil

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:06:22 -0500
From: "Jim Bielecki"
Subject: Re: 3.0L Ranger and Fuel Consumption

- ----------
> From: fordtrucks80up-digest
> To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
> Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #234
> Date: Saturday, November 22, 1997 5:50 AM
>
>
> fordtrucks80up-digest Saturday, November 22 1997 Volume 01 : Number
234
>
>
>
> =======================================================================
> Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
> Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
> I have to disagree there is tremendous difference between a 3.0 and a
> 4.0! Next time you get a chance try to run with a 4.0 from the light!
> Then you will see the difference. The 3.0 cant even beat the old 2.9
> EFI...friend of mine had one, automatic and a guy we knew worked at
> Mazda had a 3.0 5 speed and got whopped by the 2.9 with 150,000 miles on
> it!

No way!! I just traded in a 2.9L 5 speed 1987 Ranger 4X4 extended cab
(160,000+ miles) for a brand spanking new 1998 Ranger equipped as the '87
but with the 3.0L engine. The 3.0L '98 is definitely quicker than the 2.9L
'87 while giving me the same gas mileage to boot. I'm especially impressed
by the 3.0L's low and mid range torque. This is a nice engine in a real
nice truck.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 01:40:20 -0500 (EST)
From: SNOOP22222 aol.com
Subject: Ranger Stereo System

Does anybody know of a subwoofer that will fit behind the seat or maybe
somewhere else in a regular cab ranger. I don't want to cut off the back of
my ranger and stick a system in the bed either. Thanx for any replies.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 01:42:29 -0500 (EST)
From: SNOOP22222 aol.com
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #234

Has anybody mounted PIAA's in a Ranger that doesn't alread have the air dam
with light holes in it. What type was used and where did you put them.
Also, if anybody knows an easy way to sqeak a few more horses out of a 2.3L
for under $200 let me know. Thanx a lot.

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

Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:55:25 -0800
From: Ron Pike
Subject: Re: Ranger Stereo System

Hi,

I have a 86 std cab ranger w/2.3 5spd and I'm thinking about a 5 sided
enclosure with a 10" sub. I've done some measuring and I should be able
to make a box big enough air space wise for the woofer, and still be
able to put my bench seat all the way back.

As far as engine mods, there is a header available form Summit racing
for $110, K&N air filter and drill a couple of holes in the air box so
more air can get to the K&N. Accel makes a direct replacement coil thats
hi output. I'm still looking into a 2.3 SVO cam (from the 2.3 turbo SVO
Mustangs) Don't know if it will work good enough yet.

Faceman..

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 02:16:38 -0500
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: Ranger Stereo System

At 01:40 AM 11/23/97 -0500, SNOOP22222 aol.com wrote:
>Does anybody know of a subwoofer that will fit behind the seat or maybe
>somewhere else in a regular cab ranger. I don't want to cut off the back of
>my ranger and stick a system in the bed either. Thanx for any replies.....


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.