Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 14:30:37 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #271
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, December 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 271



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

300 I-6 engine [tfam swbell.net]
Re: int. wiper relay: 92 F150 ["Chuck D" ]
Re: metric system ["Chuck D" ]
Re: Ford Bronco II/Ranger [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #269 [Michael Melson
Re: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion) ["Steve Brown"
E4OD Stuff [Andrew T Vincitore ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #269 [Michael Melson
1999 Ford "Suburban" [Jimmy Quinn ]
Re[2]: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion) [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Re: 1999 Ford "Suburban" [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Re[2]: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion) ["Steve Brown"
Frame size difference between F150 and F350? ["Beaman, James"
Small truck list [JOUZA1 ]
Re: metric system [John Randall ]
Re: Frame size difference between F150 and F350? [Chad Royse
Re: Small truck list ["Grady Byram" ]
Re: 1999 Ford "Suburban" [John Yee ]
Recommended Weight for Snow Traction. [RandalDGazdecki eaton.com]
Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction. [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Re: Frame size difference between F150 and F350? [Jay Chlebowski
Limited Slip Questions [Tyler Abbott ]
Re: Warning Chime [Midwest96 ]
RE: Frame size difference between F150 and F350? ["Beaman, James"
Turbo [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
RE: Frame size difference between F150 and F350? [John Yee
351 H.O. ["Casey Vandor" ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 06:16:30 -0800
From: tfam swbell.net
Subject: 300 I-6 engine

Over the past ten years I have used two E- series vans provided by my
employer, an E-150 and currently an E-250. Both of these vans were with
an auto transmission and efi, Both vans would knock and sound like the
engine was rattling when accelerating if I was using 87 octane gas. If
Iused a higher grade or even added higer octane gas to a nearly full
tank of 87, the knocking and rattling would not happen even with the
hardest acceleration. L.D.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 07:26:00 -0600
From: "Chuck D"
Subject: Re: int. wiper relay: 92 F150

I have a '92 XLT and it too does the samething, If I remember correctly,
there was a TSB on this, I have the CD of TSBs if you would like me to look
it up for you ??

- -----Original Message-----
From: Derek Whiteside
To: fordtrucks80up listservice.net
Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 3:51 PM
Subject: int. wiper relay: 92 F150


>My (new to me) 92 F150 4.9L 5speed XLT 4x2 makes an audible "click"
>whenever I have the wipers on intermittent. Sounds like it's coming
>from the passenger's side of the cab. Clicks every time the int.
>wipers kick in. I am wondering if this is normal, or do I have
>something to worry about? I don't want to be stuck without wipers here
>in Rainy Oregon...
>
>Thanks,
>
>Derek Whiteside
>derekw rocketmail.com
>
>ps: I have only been on the list about 10 days now, and have found it
>to be very helpful. thanks, everyone, for your input.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
> >
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
>| List removal instructions on the website. |
>+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 07:35:00 -0600
From: "Chuck D"
Subject: Re: metric system

>>
>
>I had no idea that saying 'we thought we kicked that metric system all
>the way back across the ocean' would freak people out. Face it folks,
>we DON'T USE THE METRIC SYSTEM IN THE U.S.!!

then why is it that a lot of the nuts & bolts on my truck are metric ??

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:07:59 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: Ford Bronco II/Ranger

Try checking the power steering pump. This was the case with my 95. It
kept pulling to the right and every time I took it to the alignment shop,
they would ask me what was the problem, everything checks out fine.
Someone on the list had told me to try and flush the power steering fluid
out and replace it. Sure nuff, that's all it needed.




silent.bob juno.com
95 Ranger 2.3L, SVO OHC
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordRanger.com (Ranger Site)
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.FordManTed.com (Mustang Site)

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:59:38 -0800
From: Michael Melson
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #269

> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:29:25 -0800
> From: Michael Wray
> Subject: RE: Clearance lights
>
> I cannot seem to figure out how the hell to change the bulbs. The
> were pre-installed when I bought the truck. (its an 86, not new). I
> looked and looked and looked....... I took out the screws on the side
>
> and the base was sealed to the top of the cab. So that didn't work.
> I looked for a way to pry the top off, but it looked all sealed. Do
> I have to pop of the top plastic and then re-seal??

Are you talking about Ford clearance lights, or aftermarket? I have
factory clearance lights on my '90 F-150, to change the bulbs, I remove
the screws from the lens, then pop the lens off. The lens is usually a
bitch to remove, because it sits in constant sunlight, and is rarely
removed. It basically bakes itself to the gasket. Try prying on it, but
be careful not to break the lens.

- --
Mike
'90 F-150
'67 Shelby GT 500 wannabe
Ponyboy's Garage- '64 1/2-'68 Mustang parts
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~ponyboy428/
I'm always looking for '67-8 Shelby and Mustang fastback specific
parts.
Also 428 CJ specific parts, let me know what you have.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:18:01 -0600
From: "Steve Brown"
Subject: Re: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion)

> From: Bill Funk
> Subject: Re: Turbo vs Super
> > From: JOUZA1
> > Subject: Turbo vs Super
> > I am thinking of purchasing a supercharger or turbocharger for my 4.0
> > V6. But
> > I am also going to keep it as my daily driver so I was wondering wich
> > one is
> > actually better for the engine. I plan on keeping my truck for years
> > to come
> > because I like it so much. I also dont want to loose the pretty
> > decent gas
> > milage from the V6 wich will help me keep that mpg?
> Neither.
> And either one will reduce the life of the engine.
> You simply cannot super- or turbo-charge an engine and get free power.
> You pay for it in reduced engine life and gas use. (Also tires)
> The bottom end and the rings are not designed for the extra power and
> pressures. The head gasket is another weak point.
> If you really want more power *AND* reliability, go with a larger
> engine, or rebuild the one you have to handle the extra power.
> Otherwise, you stand a very good chance of damaging that engine over
> time.
> Bill Funk.

Hmmm....I disagree. I added a supercharger to my Bronco with the 351. If
I stay out of wide-open-throttle, I get the same mileage I got before.
Obviously, I had to switch to Premium gas, so operating costs are up.
Turbocharging makes an engine MORE efficient, and can increase gas mileage
if done correctly. I would not do a turbo in the garage...find a good
mechanic. I know little about Ford's V6 (even tho' I had the old 3.0 in a
Taurus), but there are several guys who regularly post to mailing lists
with supercharged Mustangs who have well over 100,000 miles with no trouble
whatsoever. The tire issue is again only if you hot-rod around alot. But
that would happen regardless of added power...if you're taking corners at
high speed or gassing it at every stop light, you're gonna burn tire.

I agree that if you spend a lot of time under boost (drag racing, etc.),
you will drastically reduce engine life. But heck, even without forced
induction, if you drag race, you're reducing your powertrain life. So I
would say that there is some trade off, but Mr. Funk is a little too
discouraging here. But, do NOT expect to re-coup ANY of the costs of the
forced induction....

steve

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:01:00 -0500
From: Andrew T Vincitore
Subject: E4OD Stuff

Regarding the E4OD Questions, you'll find alot of really good info at "Th=
e
Drive Train Page" (just plug that in your search engine). Complete
explanations of E4OD problems and solutions. Also just try searching E4OD=

in your browser. You'll get alot of good hits. I am worrying about mine s=
o
I figured I better get up to speed.

Andrew

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:21:12 -0800
From: Michael Melson
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #269

fordtrucks80up-digest wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:33:44 -0600
> From: bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)
> Subject: Michael Wray : Brakes binding -
> Unknown oil leak
>
> OK..... I was cruzing down the road the other day when I noticed that
>
> the '86 F250 (351) was pulling a lot to the left. After stopping and
> checking for a flat. I checked the brakes. The drivers front was
> HOT. It was as if the brake had been engaged while I was driving. I
> also noticed that the front passenger side was warmer than the rest.

Michael,

I would try rebuilding the caliper on the wheel in question, it sounds
like the piston is sticking. Good luck.

> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:34:51 -0800 (PST)
> From: Derek Whiteside
> Subject: PLEASE HELP: strange vibration/lugging
>
> I have a 1992 F150 4x2 Supercab XLT. Has the 300 cid I-6 and a 5
> speed.
> snip
> and the only
> thing that worries me at all about it is this 'strange vibration.'
> snip
> So, does anyone know what I'm talking about? It may be just some
> normal harmonic vibration or something, but I'm worried about fuel/air
>
> mix problems or maybe a torn/busted motor or tranny mount?

Derek,

Check your driveshaft for dents, large scratches or any kind of
disfigurment. Driveshafts are infamous for causing vibrations that are a
pain in the ass to track down. If you see any dents or problems, replace
it.

This is assuming that you have already checked all engine, trans, and
rear mounts to make sure none are broken, and checked all wheels for
missing weights.

As for that owners manual, check boneyards and swap meets. Good luck.


- --
Mike
'90 F-150
'67 Shelby GT 500 wannabe
Ponyboy's Garage- '64 1/2-'68 Mustang parts
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://home.earthlink.net/~ponyboy428/
I'm always looking for '67-8 Shelby and Mustang fastback specific
parts.
Also 428 CJ specific parts, let me know what you have.

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:43:48 -0600
From: Jimmy Quinn
Subject: 1999 Ford "Suburban"

I have heard several references from friends that Ford will be releasing =
a "Suburban"-like vehicle, though larger, in 1999. One person told me =
that they had heard it would be based on the 350 Crewcab 4x4 frameworks. =
Several people have said they saw mention of it in periodicals, but of =
course no one remembers exactly where. Does anyone have any knowledge of =
such a truck? Know of any articles about it? Pictures? Specifications?

Jimmy Quinn
jquinn b-r.com

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:14:15 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re[2]: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion)

Let me understand! I assume the original poster was not going to do any
thing but "add on" this turbo or blower with no other modifications, right?
I suggest that, with no other modifications to increase normally aspirated
volumetric efficiency, there is no way that he is going to get better gas
mileage. Just is not going to happen. This fallacy is a holdover from the
late "70"s....add a turbo, add mileage.

I agree there is an implied increase in compression ratio when the turbo is
working but that is offset by an increase in exhaust backpressure within
the engine. In a non-factory installation, at 60 mph throttle settings I'll
bet the turbo is just freewheeling. What you have then is the same engine
doing the same work with the same inefficiencies hence the same gas
mileage.

If you clean up the intake and exhaust systems (I'm talking from where the
air enters the 1st opening of the inlet system on through to the last
outlet opening of the exhaust system) and choose exactly the right turbo
(compressor size, turbine size, aspect ratio etc. etc.) you might realize
added mileage. That is not what the add-on turbo guys do. They build turbo
systems that add power when throttle settings are mid to wfo.

Thanks for listening,
Bob Ford


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion)
Author: "Steve Brown" at KOLLSMAN
Date: 12/19/97 2:18 PM




> From: Bill Funk
> Subject: Re: Turbo vs Super
> > From: JOUZA1
> > Subject: Turbo vs Super.............

> because I like it so much. I also dont want to loose the
pretty
> > decent gas
> > milage from the V6 wich will help me keep that mpg?
> Neither.
> And either one will reduce the life of the engine.
> You simply cannot super- or turbo-charge an engine and get
free power.
> You pay for it in reduced engine life and gas use. (Also
tires)
> time.
> Bill Funk...............

Hmmm....I disagree. I added a supercharger to my Bronco with
the 351. If
I stay out of wide-open-throttle, I get the same mileage I got before.
Obviously, I had to switch to Premium gas, so operating costs
are up.
Turbocharging makes an engine MORE efficient, and can increase
gas mileage
if done correctly. I would not do a turbo in the garage...find
a good.................

discouraging here. But, do NOT expect to re-coup ANY of the
costs of the
forced induction....
steve
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer
- --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
|
| List removal instructions on the website.
|
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:29:01 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: 1999 Ford "Suburban"

Jimmy Quinn wrote:
>
> I have heard several references from friends that Ford will be releasing a "Suburban"-like vehicle, though larger, in 1999. One person told me that they had heard it would be based on the 350 Crewcab 4x4 frameworks. Several people have said they saw mention of it in periodicals, but of course no one remembers exactly where. Does anyone have any knowledge of such a truck? Know of any articles about it? Pictures? Specifications?
>

I have seen some grainy spy-type photos of this rig. Ford had said it
was going to build the truck for the South American market. I guess
they have need of large vehicles that can be easily modified with armor
plating and heavy bullet-proof glass. Ford had orginally said the truck
would be "too big" for the US (odd to hear that from the same company
that won't sell the cool Puma coupe here because "Americans like big
cars"), but they are reconsidering since Chevy can't keep up with the
demand for Suburbans & we seem to be on an endless bigger is better
kick.

gas is cheap, what the heck.

TC

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:02:06 -0600
From: "Steve Brown"
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Turbo vs Super (a differing opinion)

> Let me understand! I assume the original poster was not going to do any
> thing but "add on" this turbo or blower with no other modifications,
right?
> I suggest that, with no other modifications to increase normally
aspirated
> volumetric efficiency, there is no way that he is going to get better gas
> mileage. Just is not going to happen. This fallacy is a holdover from the
> late "70"s....add a turbo, add mileage.

I think we agree....yes, if you just "bolt" on a turbo, you won't get
increased mileage. If you work to optimize the intake/exhaust/ignition
system, you *should* see some gains.

However, I doubt a Turbo could be done in a late-model Ford without some
optimization of said parameters (the EEC-IV or EEC-V would throw fits if
the injectors weren't able to increase fuel flow to match increased
airflow, it couldn't get the catalyst light off temp as fast as it does
with normal aspiration, etc.) A turbo almost begs for intake & exhaust
port work to make it worth it. A supercharger does not necessarily require
those mods...tho' I did headers & aftermarket cat-back...so that could be a
factor in my mileage.

Again, any MPG gains would likely NEVER pay for the cost of the whole
system.

steve

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:56:37 -0600
From: "Beaman, James"
Subject: Frame size difference between F150 and F350?

In know some of the differences between F150, F250 and F350 chassis
(1996 and before) are in the axles, suspensions and wheels. My question
is are there differences in the frame besides in length? If so, what
dimensions are different? In other words, if I took an F150 frame and
put F350 axles, suspension and wheels on it, would it be the same as the
F350?

James Beaman
james.beaman lmco.com
Houston, Texas

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:39:37 EST
From: JOUZA1
Subject: Small truck list

thanks

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:31:54 -0600
From: John Randall
Subject: Re: metric system

At 07:35 AM 12/19/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>>
>>
>>I had no idea that saying 'we thought we kicked that metric system all
>>the way back across the ocean' would freak people out. Face it folks,
>>we DON'T USE THE METRIC SYSTEM IN THE U.S.!!
>
>then why is it that a lot of the nuts & bolts on my truck are metric ??
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
>| List removal instructions on the website. |
>+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+
>

Actually we HAVE BEEN into the metric system for years, sometime when you
get time, check the sizes of bearings. That is, convert those goofy sized
dimension to metric and see if they come out as even numbers instead of some
random english number. Back in the 60's while serving my apprenticeship at
Gisholt Machine Tool, I noticed the sizes were NOT standard english sizes,
but instead converted nicely into even metric numbers.

John

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:21:57 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: Frame size difference between F150 and F350?

Sometimes there are different tranny's, 4x4's definately have different
transfer cases, larger rotors and drums on the brakes, and I'm not sure if
the frame itself is different but there is definately more and sturdier
cross-members. This is off the top of my head. Perhaps, some one else can
provide more details.

Beaman, James wrote:

> In know some of the differences between F150, F250 and F350 chassis
> (1996 and before) are in the axles, suspensions and wheels. My question
> is are there differences in the frame besides in length? If so, what
> dimensions are different? In other words, if I took an F150 frame and
> put F350 axles, suspension and wheels on it, would it be the same as the
> F350?
>
> James Beaman
> james.beaman lmco.com
> Houston, Texas
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+



- --
Chad

_________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Ch.5, Sub-ch.II, Sect.227(a)(2)(B), a
computer/modem meet the definition of a telephone fax machine. Pursuant
to Sect.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual
monetary loss or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. Any
unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a fee
in the amount of $500US per occurance. E-mailing denotes acceptance of
these terms.
_________________________________________________________________

!! O I would rather be...
\O/ _O _O #=\ ___ __ _ _
__#__\#_\#____H_ \ | _ \__ _ / _| |_(_)_ _ __ _
_ ( : \ \ : )(\ | / _` | _| _| | ' \/ _` |
//~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|_|_\__,_|_| \__|_|_||_\__, |~~~~~
|| |___/

New River - 1995, 1996, 1997
Fall Gauley - 1997 x-StRe M!!

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:37:14 -0600
From: "Grady Byram"
Subject: Re: Small truck list

What are all of these "small truck list" messages??? Is there now a
small truck list?? If so, how do I prevent myself from getting the
small truck messages??? Thanks. ghb

- ----------
> From: JOUZA1
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Small truck list
> Date: Friday, December 19, 1997 9:39 AM
>
> thanks
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer
- --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
|
> | List removal instructions on the website.
|
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:58:20 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: 1999 Ford "Suburban"

At 09:43 AM 12/19/97 -0600, you wrote:
>I have heard several references from friends that Ford will be releasing a
"Suburban"-like vehicle, though larger, in 1999. One person told me that
they had heard it would be based on the 350 Crewcab 4x4 frameworks. Several
people have said they saw mention of it in periodicals, but of course no one
remembers exactly where. Does anyone have any knowledge of such a truck?
Know of any articles about it? Pictures? Specifications?
>

A drawing of the "ford-surburban" and some pictures of some prototype F350
crewcab.

It's at http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.motortrend.com/june97/tt/tt_f.html
On the 3rd of 3 pages.

For those that have the Motor Trend magazine, see the June '97 issue.
page 100.

- -john

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

Date: 19 Dec 97 13:43:33 EST
From: RandalDGazdecki eaton.com
Subject: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.

I have a 91 Ranger, 2wd, 5speed, 3.0L V6 and I want to know how much weight I should put in the back for optimum snow traction and minimal loss of power and mileage? I have brand new Dunlop Radial Rover All-terrain tires on it (LT27x8.50R14). Anybody have experience with testing to see how much weight is needed? I don't have a limited slip diff, just the stock 3.45 axle ratio.

Randy G
K.O.T.C.C.
randaldgazdecki eaton.com
"Heart of the N.S.S.N!!"

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 14:17:00 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.

Put what ever weight your head can tolerate when it (the weight) comes
ripping through the back of the cab after you have hit something or nailed
the brakes to avoid hitting something.

Don't do this. Manufactures don't design for these unscheduled loads.

Sorry, but you asked for it!

Happy headache,
Bob Ford


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.
Author: RandalDGazdecki eaton.com at KOLLSMAN
Date: 12/19/97 6:43 PM




I have a 91 Ranger, 2wd, 5speed, 3.0L V6 and I want to know how
much weight I should put in the back for optimum snow traction
and minimal loss of power and mileage? I have brand new Dunlop
Radial Rover All-terrain tires on it (LT27x8.50R14). Anybody
have experience with testing to see how much weight is needed?
I don't have a limited slip diff, just the stock 3.45 axle
ratio.
Randy G
K.O.T.C.C.
randaldgazdecki eaton.com
"Heart of the N.S.S.N!!"
+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer
- --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
|
| List removal instructions on the website.
|
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 97 13:54:22 -0600
From: Jay Chlebowski
Subject: Re: Frame size difference between F150 and F350?

On 12/19/97 10:56 AM , Beaman, James wrote:

>In know some of the differences between F150, F250 and F350 chassis
>(1996 and before) are in the axles, suspensions and wheels. My question
>is are there differences in the frame besides in length? If so, what
>dimensions are different? In other words, if I took an F150 frame and
>put F350 axles, suspension and wheels on it, would it be the same as the
>F350?

Howdy!

The short answer is: nope. Go to your dealer, and ask to see the tech
specs. All the trucks use 35,000 psi steel -- in fact, all trucks, Ford
Chevy GMC & Dodge use the same steel. And it sounds pretty impressive
until you realize that this is simple, regular, run of the mill steel.
Nothing super strong about it.

The strength works between two other factors, plus the thickeness of the
steel (which alters the other two factors). They are the Section Modulus
and the RBMS (I think that's the correct abbreviation). I can't remember
which exactly, but the steel PSI (35,000) multiplied by one of the other
factors, yields the third.

Now, what do those two mean. Section Modulus is the heighth of the
center C in the c-channel of the frame. The RBMS (Relational Bending
Moment, something or other) accounts for the frame ability to flex based
upon a certain amount of force. When you then factor in different
thicknesses of steel (1/8in, 1/2in, whatever), all these values are
altered, and it gets even more confusing when you deal with the length of
boxed sections (like in the front of the frame) and the number and size
of the crossmembers.

The net result is that a F150 & F250 sticks are nowhere near as strong as
the frames under the F250HD's and F350's (and let's not even talk about
their bigger brothers, the F450 & F550). But, it makes for interesting
reading at the dealership, and if you really want to stump the salesman,
bring some of this up.

Best Regards,
Jay

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:17:24 -0800
From: Tyler Abbott
Subject: Limited Slip Questions

I believe I have a good idea of how a Locker works, but I'm confused about
Limited slip. I know there're not as "good" as a true locked, but less
noticeable in daily driving. How do they operate? Do they truly lock? Is
posi traction refering to a Locker or LS?
What was factory available from FORD, a true locker or Limited slip?
Thanks
- -Tyler-

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:34:41 EST
From: Midwest96
Subject: Re: Warning Chime

In a message dated 97-12-19 00:30:51 EST, you write:


lock mechanism itself. With the door open, if you move the "flipper" latch
that engages the bail on the door post , you will actuate the switch; maybe
it is just out of adjustment.

Bob >>
Is that new with the '97s or is it part of a package group. Have friend w/96
XLT and he still has the little stick out thingy, that the door actually holds
closed. J/C

Craig {Midwest96 aol.com}

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 14:33:55 -0600
From: "Beaman, James"
Subject: RE: Frame size difference between F150 and F350?

Jay Chlebowski wrote:

On 12/19/97 10:56 AM , Beaman, James wrote:

>In know some of the differences between F150, F250 and F350
chassis
>(1996 and before) are in the axles, suspensions and wheels. My
question
>is are there differences in the frame besides in length? If
so, what
>dimensions are different? In other words, if I took an F150
frame and
>put F350 axles, suspension and wheels on it, would it be the
same as the
>F350?

Howdy!

The short answer is: nope.

Thanks for the info, Jay. Can anyone list the material thickness and
other dimensions that are different between the light frames and the
heavy frames. That is, what are the specific numbers, in inches, for
the thickness and channel height and any other numbers that may vary
from frame to frame. Again, I am looking for a pre-1996 F-series
comparison since this was when the truck bodies basically looked the
same from light duty to heavy duty. Don't go out and measure the frame
on your truck at this point but if you have such information handy, I'd
like to see it.

James Beaman
james.beaman lmco.com
Houston, Texas

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 97 11:13
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Turbo

Don't flame me here. My friend worked for a reputable hop up shop for
quite a while and if I got one piece of good advice from him on Turbos it
was this. Turbos are very sensative pieces of machinary. When not done
properly they will cost you more than they are worth. Just adding a bolt
might not be a good idea. You need to have your motor "massaged" a bit,
the boost needs to be set right, everything has to be calibrated right or
you will end up scattering your motor or your turbo. This guy realy new
his stuff when it came to this subject. He had the fastest Toy I've ever
ridden in. His suppra with three full grown men in it would jump sideways
like no other non-v8 powerd car I've ever been in. But he had it done
professionaly. He did'nt just buy it and bolt it on. So my point is do
your home work on this or it realy could cost you. My 2 cents worth.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger
93' STX 4x4 3.0/5-speed

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

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:09:29 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: RE: Frame size difference between F150 and F350?

In the event you don't get an answer from this list, a *good* body
shop might have this information. I was recently talking to a body shop
about some Bronco II related parts, and he pulled out some book,
that had a listing of all the individual pieces. While I wasn't looking
at dimensions, it seemed thorough enough that it might.

You would think they'd have this information since they may have to straighten
out the frames on ocassion.

- -john

>
>Thanks for the info, Jay. Can anyone list the material thickness and....


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.