Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 03:50:25 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #236
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Monday, November 24 1997 Volume 01 : Number 236



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

[none] ["Gary Snook" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229 [Bill Funk ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229 [Bill Funk ]
Re: new guy [Ken Payne ]
Re: ["C. E. White" ]
Re: Gas mileage [Keith Srb ]
Re: Ranger Stereo System [DRRangr93 aol.com]
Ck eng light [Steve ]
Re: [Bob Fiddes ]
Leaking Gaskets [Bob Fiddes ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229 [Midwest96 aol.com]
Reply to Reply to Ranger Stereo [SNOOP22222 aol.com]
Re: Liters? [fwise juno.com]
Re:Ranger Stereo ["Mike Wiatt" ]
BedLiners Again [Gary Gadwa ]
Re: Ranger Stereo System [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Ranger Stereo System [silent.bob juno.com]
Filtercharger [JOUZA1 aol.com]
cold air induction. [JOUZA1 aol.com]
BBK Brothers [JOUZA1 aol.com]
Ranger Oil Pressure problem [William Street ]
Re: Ranger Oil Pressure problem [Nathan Heid ]
Re: Ranger Stereo System [Mobleaudio aol.com]

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 08:02:06 -0600
From: "Gary Snook"
Subject: [none]

My Father has a 3.0L in a Ranger. The previous 2 Rangers had 2.9L. I
don't see any difference except that the 3.0 has never leaked any oil.
Both of the 2.9L V-6s had problems with leaking valve covers.

Regards,

Ed


I too had leaking valve cover gaskets on my 2.9. Also new of at least 2
other 2.9 owners with the same recuring problem.

Gary

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:52:06 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229

> From: MEB8100 aol.com
> 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

Good Grief!!
3500 pounds without trailer brakes? Is there a state or province where
that's legal?
Yes, that's too much for your stock brakes.
Your front brakes take the brunt of braking with a trailer, and yours
are showing exactly what happens when you overload them.
New rotors are not the solution; trailer brakes are. Your current
situation is unsafe, and most likely illegal.
You *can* get pads that have a high metallic content, and these will
handle the heat of the high braking loads better, but won't work well
when cool, or under light braking loads. The rotors will still have to
deal with the heat, though.
I'd seriously consider finding a way to use trailer brakes; 3500 lbs is
just too large a trailer to tow with them.

Bill Funk

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 00:42:39 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229

> From: Midwest96 aol.com
> Subject: Re: gas mileage
>
> In a message dated 97-11-19 13:01:49 EST, you write:
>
>
> increase a bit.
>
> Josh >>
>
> I don't understand this. I know it's true, because it happened to my
> truck,
> but why?

In modern engines, just about the only real metal-to-metal contact
between movinbg pqrts is between the piston/rings and the cylinder wall.
When new, the cylinder wall has cross-hatching in it to allow oil to
escape the oil scraper ring (who's function is, as it's name implies, to
scrape oil from the cylinder walls on the downstroke) just enough to
lube the compression ring(s) (the upper ring(s) in a ringset), and to
cool the cylinder wall during the firing cycle. [As an aside, ALL
gas/diesel engines burn oil; if they didn't, they'd burn the cylinder
walls].
Break-in is the period when the rings conform themselves to the cylinder
walls, and the minor imperfections of the cylinder walls are shaved off.
A properly broken-in engine still shows cross-hatching in the cylinder
walls, and the rings have conformed themselves to the cylinder walls.
When this happens, compression rises slightly, friction drops sharply,
and oil still coats the cylinder walls to protect them. The slight rise
in compression and the drop in friction account for the better mileage;
the proper oiling of the cylinder helps ensure long engine life.
To understand how to accomplish a good break-in, you need to understand
what happens during the break-in procedure. The rings need to actually
heat up to the point where they brcome plastic, then be cooled so that
they take on the shape of the particular cylinder wall they are in. To
do this, the engine needs to be accellerated lightly, then have the
throttle closed. This accelleration heats the rings so that their edges
sctually start to melt, and they begin the conformation process. When
the throttle is closed, the rings are cooled by oil-quenching, which
freezes the new shape, and also serves to harden the edges. Over a
period of time (usually 1000-2000 miles), the rings will no longer melt
under accelleration, and will be properly shaped to that particular
cylinger wall.
This means that, during break-in, the speed should *NOT* be kept
constant, but rather varied (without hard accelleration).
When to stop the break-in cycle? Usually, when you start to notice the
MPG rise, it's almost soup. A few more hundred miles, and it's ready for
normal use.
If you do this, and the engine starts to smoke, it's time to see the
dealer. Under the warranty, the rings should be replaced; if you've done
this right, and they smoke, then one or more sets are defective, or a
cylinder wasn't honed properly.

Bill Funk

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:30:35 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: new guy

At 04:30 AM 11/23/97 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated 97-11-22 20:29:58 EST, you write:
>
>
>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
> >>
>
>If you don't like it, don't get it. Nobody is forced to join and remain on
>this list.

Both this list and the 61-79 have common questions and threads which
periodically reappear. One of these days I might get the notion to
write a couple FAQs.... Many people ask the milage question, especially
people new to trucking who had no clue the milage sucked so bad.

I get amused when people complain about 20 mpg in a Ranger. 15 years
ago 20 mpg in any truck was a pipe-dream. My 67 F100 gets 8-10, 12
if I'm light on the gas!

Ken

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:21:36 -0500
From: "C. E. White"
Subject: Re:

Gary Snook wrote:
>
> My Father has a 3.0L in a Ranger. The previous 2 Rangers had 2.9L. I
> don't see any difference except that the 3.0 has never leaked any oil.
> Both of the 2.9L V-6s had problems with leaking valve covers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed
>
> I too had leaking valve cover gaskets on my 2.9. Also new of at least 2
> other 2.9 owners with the same recuring problem.
>
> Gary

The 2.9L split the valve cover gasket mating surface over the heads and
the intake manifold. I imagine this is the source of the sealing
problems. Ford did have TSBs on this. I think they released "better"
gaskets.

Ed

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

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:55:36 -0700
From: Keith Srb
Subject: Re: Gas mileage

At 01:49 PM 11/22/97 -0500, you wrote:
>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.

Don't the Craftsman Truck boys run with tail gates and bed covers? I am
sure they are going to try and run with the most efficient setup that can
for gas mileage, since gas mileage can effect the out come of a race.


>+-------------- 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 -----------------+
>

Keith Srbherbie netvalue.net
Mesa, AZ
1986 Ford Bronco II, 2.9L (I HATE LITERS) V-6, Mitsubishi 5-Speed.
1980 Harley Davidson, XLH, Rebuilt from the frame up.
1974 Ford F250 Ranger XLT, Camper Special, 390ci 4bbl, Automatic, Long Box,
Style Side.
1966 Ford F100, 240 C.I. Straight Six, Warner T-18 4-Speed, Short Box.
My Blood runs "TRUE BLUE FORD on Four Wheels and Pure HARLEY on Two Wheels!"

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:28:28 -0500 (EST)
From: DRRangr93 aol.com
Subject: Re: Ranger Stereo System

I have a standard cab, 93 ranger. i have 2 orion 10's in a professionally
built box. the box also contains two orion amps (230 and 260). i also have
orion mids and highs in the door. my truck sounds really good and gets many
head turns.

Doug
93 Ford Ranger

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:18:49 -0600
From: Steve
Subject: Ck eng light

Get them to fix it!! The manual says something to the extent of "don't
panic, but get it to your for dealership" I fought the light in mine
from the day I got it from the dealership. they of course said nothing
wrong. (I bought mine used with 39,000) At 50,000+ the light was on
permanent so I took it in but couldn't afford them to do it (I don't use
this Ford Dealership any more) but one of the Technicians did put the
code reader on it and came up with a "running rich" code. I talked to
others who told me that the 02 sensor is usually replaced at
50,000-60,000 as a preventive measure. So I bought a sensor, a socket
and replaced mine. I now have 84,000 miles and it hasn't come on sense.
My dad bought a 90 ford and the light was on permeate, and had been for
a while. He put off repairing it and it started bogging down on him one
day and died. He took it to the repair shop (not Ford) and they put a
100 dollar sensor id and a 500 dollar catalaic converter. My neighbor
also had a cat clog on his ford, so it can happen if it the system isn't
tuned right.
A few notes:
- -Emissions parts are suppose to be warranted till 50,000 miles by
federal law. (I was real upset to discover this just after 50,000 miles
when the light had been on for over 10,000 miles.
- -50,000-60,000 miles is the life span for a 02 sensor
- -The trucks computer holds a "code" for 40-50 Eng. starts (depending on
who you talk to)
- -The light is suppose to come on just after a start and then go off
according to the owners manual and chiltons manuals
A guy in this list wrote about his truck not running correctly and the
Ford "dealership said you need premium gas" --he held the manual under
their noses and said "this said I don't" --They eventually found a
problem. Hope this helps, and if any-one else has any other experiences
in this area Good luck! Steve

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:37:09 -0700
From: Bob Fiddes
Subject: Re:

Yep, I too had leaking valve cover gaskets on an 86 2.9. While they are a
pain to get off, I pulled the covers off, cleaned both surfaces very well,
and installed new gaskets with oil resistant RTV on both sides. I then
used a medium strength lock tite on the screws. I did this with about 50K
miles on it. It now has 175K and still holding tight.

It took the better part of a day to complete the job, but it was worth it
cause I don't get the burnt oil smell any longer.

Bob

>My Father has a 3.0L in a Ranger. The previous 2 Rangers had 2.9L. I
>don't see any difference except that the 3.0 has never leaked any oil.
>Both of the 2.9L V-6s had problems with leaking valve covers.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed
>
>
>I too had leaking valve cover gaskets on my 2.9. Also new of at least 2
>other 2.9 owners with the same recuring problem.
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:45:53 -0700
From: Bob Fiddes
Subject: Leaking Gaskets

Yep, I too had leaking valve cover gaskets on an 86 2.9. While they are a
pain to get off, I pulled the covers off, cleaned both surfaces very well,
and installed new gaskets with oil resistant RTV on both sides. I then
used a medium strength lock tite on the screws. I did this with about 50K
miles on it. It now has 175K and still holding tight.

It took the better part of a day to complete the job, but it was worth it
cause I don't get the burnt oil smell any longer.

Bob

>My Father has a 3.0L in a Ranger. The previous 2 Rangers had 2.9L. I
>don't see any difference except that the 3.0 has never leaked any oil.
>Both of the 2.9L V-6s had problems with leaking valve covers.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed
>
>
>I too had leaking valve cover gaskets on my 2.9. Also new of at least 2
>other 2.9 owners with the same recuring problem.
>

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:48:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #229

In a message dated 97-11-23 10:34:54 EST, you write:


between movinbg pqrts is between the piston/rings and the cylinder wall.
When new, the cylinder wall has cross-hatching in it to allow oil to
escape the oil scraper ring (who's function is, as it's name implies, to
scrape oil from the cylinder walls on the downstroke) just enough to
lube the compression ring(s) (the upper ring(s) in a ringset), and to
cool the cylinder wall during the firing cycle. [As an aside, ALL
gas/diesel engines burn oil; if they didn't, they'd burn the cylinder
walls].
Break-in is the period when the rings conform themselves to the cylinder
walls, and the minor imperfections of the cylinder walls are shaved off.
A properly broken-in engine still shows cross-hatching in the cylinder
walls, and the rings have conformed themselves to the cylinder walls.
When this happens, compression rises slightly, friction drops sharply,
and oil still coats the cylinder walls to protect them. The slight rise
in compression and the drop in friction account for the better mileage;
the proper oiling of the cylinder helps ensure long engine life.
To understand how to accomplish a good break-in, you need to understand
what happens during the break-in procedure. The rings need to actually
heat up to the point where they brcome plastic, then be cooled so that
they take on the shape of the particular cylinder wall they are in. To
do this, the engine needs to be accellerated lightly, then have the
throttle closed. This accelleration heats the rings so that their edges
sctually start to melt, and they begin the conformation process. When
the throttle is closed, the rings are cooled by oil-quenching, which
freezes the new shape, and also serves to harden the edges. Over a
period of time (usually 1000-2000 miles), the rings will no longer melt
under accelleration, and will be properly shaped to that particular
cylinger wall.
This means that, during break-in, the speed should *NOT* be kept
constant, but rather varied (without hard accelleration).
When to stop the break-in cycle? Usually, when you start to notice the
MPG rise, it's almost soup. A few more hundred miles, and it's ready for
normal use.
If you do this, and the engine starts to smoke, it's time to see the
dealer. Under the warranty, the rings should be replaced; if you've done
this right, and they smoke, then one or more sets are defective, or a
cylinder wasn't honed properly.

Bill Funk
>>
Thanx

Craig

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:38:06 -0500 (EST)
From: SNOOP22222 aol.com
Subject: Reply to Reply to Ranger Stereo

What kinda legroom is lost with the Solobaric in a Q-Logic Box

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:59:57 -0600
From: fwise juno.com
Subject: Re: Liters?

On Sun 23 Nov, Craig wrote:
>I don't really understand this liter thing. Could someone please
explain it
>to me?


A liter is a metric unit of volume. According to my 4th edition of
Burington's "Handbook of Mathematical Tables and Formulas," a liter is
equal to 61.025 cubic inches. So a 3 liter engine would be 183 cubic
inches, a 4L would be 244, and a 5L would be 305. In actuality, the true
displacement often varies several cubic inches or cubic centimeters (one
liter is 1000 cubic centimeters. Ford advertises the 3.0 L V6 as 182
inches. According to my math (which is always quesitonable), using the
listed 3.5 inch bore and 3.14 inch stroke measurements, converting to
centimeters by multiplying by 2.54 and arriving at 8.89 X 7.98, I end up
with 2971.9cc, or 181.26 inches true displacement. Or, 3 liters and 182
cubic inches. The 5.0 was listed as 302 cubic inches in the days before
the widespread conversion to metric measurement.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but...

Fred Wise
94 Ranger Supercab 3.0L

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:06:45 PST
From: "Mike Wiatt"
Subject: Re:Ranger Stereo

JL Audio makes one its called a stealyh box and will fit. There is a
link to them on my stereo page at my homepage.

- ---------------------------------------------
pyro152 hotmail.com
'94 Ranger Supercab 4.0 5 speed
The Ford Ranger Pages
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/7894
- ---------------------------------------------


______________________________________________________

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 14:18:42 -0700
From: Gary Gadwa
Subject: BedLiners Again

Ken Justice is right in every aspect. I strongly recommend the Sprayed
in BedLiner which-ever brand. However, I do use a Rubber Full Bed Mat on
top of the Sprayed in Liner and thus the Sprayed in liner holds up to
all kinds of Cargo. So lets drop the liner dispute and go on to more
exciting things.

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:09:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: Ranger Stereo System

On this subject, I have only been able to secure three out of the four panels
on my slider (F150), the second panel on the left (left slider part of
window) rattles almost constantly inc. during accel (besides radio) - Any
ideas?

In a message dated 97-11-23 19:47:45 EST, you write:


built box. the box also contains two orion amps (230 and 260). i also have
orion mids and highs in the door. my truck sounds really good and gets many
head turns.

Doug
93 Ford Ranger >>

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 20:37:02 -0600
From: silent.bob juno.com
Subject: Re: Ranger Stereo System

On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:55:25 -0800 Ron Pike writes:
>Hi,
>

> 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.

Whoa.. All you are going to do is pull hot air into the engine by
drilling
holes into the box. The best way to pull more cool air in is by removing
the
baffle behind the air box. Or you can buy a product that places a K&N
type
filter inside the wheel well, but you run a greater risk at sucking in
water.


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.
>
>

I put an SVO cam in my Ranger and I wouldn't do it again unless I had to
take
the head off. In fact, the easiest way to put a cam in this motor is to
take
the head off, but I had to learn the hard way. The only way you will
really
notice any more power with an SVO cam is to 1) new headers, and exhaust,
or
2) better head.

The cam alone isn't enough.

.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------
/ / \(..)/ ----- 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===[95 Ranger SOHC 2.3L]=[silent.bob juno.com]==
'//||\`
''``

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:57:27 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: Filtercharger

In The January issue of Sport Truck i saw a Filtercahrger injection
performance kit to fit 95 explorers with 4.0 V6. I was wondering if this
would also fit a 93 4.0 in a ranger. And if not would it adapt easily to it.


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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:59:35 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: cold air induction.

I was wondering if Cold Air induction and Ram Air is basically the same
thing. if it is wich is better and were can i order one for a 93 4.0 in a
ranger. If they are the same again were can i buy one for the same truck?

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:02:15 -0500 (EST)
From: JOUZA1 aol.com
Subject: BBK Brothers

I have heard that BBK Brothers has quite a few performance parts for the 4.0.
Is this true? And can sombody give me there website address if they have
one and if they dont then A phone number or some way of gettin ahold of a
catolog. Thanks alot.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:58:24 -0800
From: William Street
Subject: Ranger Oil Pressure problem

Ok so after bragging about my 90 Ford Ranger treating me so well it
appears that I may have a problem.

2.3L 4cyl, ~160K miles

I've noticed the last 2 or 3 days that when I start it the oil pressure
gauge doesn't move for about 8-10 sec. and then quickly moves up to
where it normally runs. Engine is noisier than usual during that time
and quiets down when the pressure comes up. This is new - never
noticed this happen before - fresh oil change and full.

What could it be? Oil pump or release valve? Any ideas will
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Bill

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 02:17:02 -0500
From: Nathan Heid
Subject: Re: Ranger Oil Pressure problem

At 07:58 PM 11/23/97 -0800, William Street wrote:
>Ok so after bragging about my 90 Ford Ranger treating me so well it
>appears that I may have a problem.
>
>2.3L 4cyl, ~160K miles
>
>I've noticed the last 2 or 3 days that when I start it the oil pressure
>gauge doesn't move for about 8-10 sec. and then quickly moves up to
>where it normally runs. Engine is noisier than usual during that time
>and quiets down when the pressure comes up. This is new - never
>noticed this happen before - fresh oil change and full.

How cold is it? What viscosity of oil was used for that oil change?
Maybe your oil is so viscous at start up that it's not really flowing
for those 8-10 seconds.
>Bill

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 03:36:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Mobleaudio aol.com
Subject: Re: Ranger Stereo System

>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.


Here is the only way to go IMHO. I do custom car stereo and I would install
a J L Audio micro sub 8.1. I t is one 8" sub in its own little box (comes
complete). All that you have to do is hook up power from your amp. It only
needs 100 watts, as compared to upwards of 300 or 400 for the solo-baric.
I've had many different subs, ranging from 2 15"s down to the 1 8", and i
have to say that the micro sub blows them all away (except for my 3 J L Audio
12 w 6's). It's very small, mounts easily, has great sound (big booming bass
while remaining very clear), only needs 100 W, is under $200 retail, and all
u have to do is mount it with 4 screws or bolts and put the speaker wires to
it and you're done.
Personally, I think that it's the only way to go when space is at a premium,
hell, with the quality of this sub, even when it isn't! If you have anything
else that you would like to know about it, either e-mail me personally or ask
through the list. I have been running behind lately, so you might be better
off doing it personally (doing construction on the house).....


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.