Return-Path:
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:36:54 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #276
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Monday, December 22 1997 Volume 01 : Number 276



=======================================================================
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: power door locks-94 [rockinghorse webtv.net (Randall Goolsby)]
Re: Sport Truck Competition??? [Gardner ]
Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction. [Chad Royse
Re: Limited Slip Questions [Chad Royse ]
1999 Ranger. [RandalDGazdecki eaton.com]
Re[2]: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction. [bthomas Kollsman.com]
Re[2]: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction. [bthomas Kollsman.com]
RE: 94 F150 Power Door Locks ["Steve Brown"
Ford "Suburban" ["Judy Thill (MG MSMAIL)" ]
Grab rails for the cab [cfoye BayNetworks.COM (Chris Foye)]
Re: int. wiper relay: 92 F150 ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Source for 2l and 2.3l Performance Parts [Jmark6969
Re: ADMIN: Web pics, integrity and chat [Thom Cheney
Re: Sport Truck Competition??? [Thom Cheney ]
Ford Suburban [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: "Suburban" [Chad Royse ]
Ranting about Winter Weight. [Tony Rio ]
Re: Ford Suburban [John Yee ]
Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction. [Paul Laughlin
Re: Ford Suburban [Thom Cheney ]

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 05:06:49 -0800
From: rockinghorse webtv.net (Randall Goolsby)
Subject: Re: power door locks-94

Sounds like a shorted switch on left side to me. Randy

















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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:23:29 -0500
From: Gardner
Subject: Re: Sport Truck Competition???

JOUZA1 wrote:
>
> Tell me about I love sport truck but that test was bogus. All the trucks
> should have been based on their base package or one their best package. how
> can you compare the mopar 5.9 to the gm 2.2? I know it is chevy but evrybody
> should have a fighting chance to win.
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

It would not matter...none of the manufacturers could be able to compare
any of their set ups to the Dakota...I know its a Dodge but it is in a
class all by itself...until someone else decides to put a v-8 in their
trucks.

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:13:21 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.

I had a 94 Ranger 4.0 superCab 4x2 and I used the sand tubes as well. I put four across the back lined up side by side for a total of 280lbs. It worked great. I also think one could spend their time more wisely worrying about seatbelts and responsible driving than on one's sand bags. But in conclusion, the best snow investment I ever made was my 97 250HD 460 SuperCab 4x4.

RandalDGazdecki eaton.com wrote:

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



- --
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: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:28:42 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: Limited Slip Questions

By description you missed one. I 'think' it's a torque sensing diff that I am thinking of. In my 97 250HD 4x4 with a limited slip 3.55, it acts completely open until you
start to lose traction. For example when I take off up a wet hill (typical pickup scenario) one wheel will start to spin and I barely move. Then in about two seconds the
second wheel grabs tight and the rear-end will wonder a little bit until the wheels stop free spinning.

Randy wrote:

> I tried to send this yesterday and it appears it didn't work, so I'm
> sending it again, since it took me a while to write it:
>
> >
> > Tyler Abbott wrote:
> > >
> > > 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-
> > >
> > Tyler, good q's. Generically 'posi' referres to a 'limited-slip'
> > differential, not a locking-diff which is usually called a 'locker'
> > deriving from the Detroit Locker. It comes from the *cough* GM
> > posi-traction rear end. A limited-slip rear-end cannot operate as a
> > fully locking differential. First, let's look at on 'open' diff to help
> > explain this. Your diff contains a number of gears in it. Two of them
> > are connected directly to the axleshafts, these are called the side
> > gears. They are parallel to each other and have a space in between
> > where the 'spider gears' are and are sitting perp. to the side gears.
> > On an 'open diff' there is NO resistance between the two side gears.
> > Therefore, when you drive down the road in a straight line, BOTH
> > axleshafts receive torque from the Carrier gear via the pinion being driven
> > by the driveshaft and turning the side gears (got that?). When one tire loses
> > traction, however, the torque is delivered to the tire w/the LEAST
> > amount, because the spider gears allow one axleshaft to spin at a
> > different speed than the other, hence the name differential (to
> > differentiate axleshaft rotation). These are great for dry pavement
> > whether and allow cornering to be easy.
> > Now for the limited-slip. It is the same as the open except that the
> > side gears have some type of resistance placed
> > against them, by either clutches or springs. This 'friction' causes the
> > spider gears NOT to give-way until a certain amount of torque is reached
> > that surpasses the amount placed on the gear by the clutches. Once that
> > 'break-away' torque has been reached it acts just like an open-diff.
> > You can get different pressure clutches depending on your needs/tastes
> > (tasty, isn't it?).
> > The reason for either of these types of diffs is cornering. Both an
> > open diff and a 'slip' allow the wheels on a vehicle to turn at
> > different speeds while cornering, therefore, no hops or squeals. Also,
> > they will allow you to handle icy, slippery conditions better than
> > full-locked. Ever watch a dragster kick sideways out of the burn pit?
> > Not exactly what you'd want to be doing on icy roads now, right?
> > Ok, now on to the king of the diffs. The full locking posi diff. These
> > devices will turn both axles at the same rate all the time. They do not
> > have spider gears and the side gears are locked into one another. These
> > are what most real 'wheelers want in their rear diffs and some like 'em
> > in the front. The problem occurs when driving home and you turn on
> > pavement (mud will allow the tire to spin) and your inside tire starts
> > sqealling (like a pig) and/or hoping. Now Detroit Lockers have angles
> > built into the teeth between the two side gears to allow them to
> > disengage when cornering WHILE COASTING, but not under torque or they
> > wouldn't be lockers now would they.
> > There is one exception to the locker on dry pavement. ARB Air-Lockers.
> > They are an open-diff when not turned on, but via an air compressor/tank
> > set-up you can hit a switch and the diff becomes FULLY LOCKED in 1/10 of
> > a sec. Very cool, but not very cheap. This is the best all-around type
> > of locker and I believe it can be done by the do-it-yourselfer, but I'd
> > have to check on that if you wanted more info. Some lockers can be
> > installed at home like the Lock-Rite (which, not that I think about it, may also allow an open diff on the pavement - can check if ya want), but usually Detroits must be
> > installed by a pro. This was lengthy but I think it answers all of your
> > q's about 'posis' and 'lockers'. If you have more or if my book here
> > wasn't clear enough just let me know either directly or thru the list.
> >
> > ^^^^
> > ---
> > ----
> > ---
> > ---- ----
> > --- --- is spinning at a different rate
> > ---- -------------- of speed, or in this case, one side
> > --- --- rotates while one does not (x)
> > ---- ----
> > --- ---
> > ---- --------------
> > --- --- ^
> > ---- ---- axleshaft
> > --- -> ---
> > ---- ---> ----
> > --- -----> ---
> > ---- -------> ----
> > ^
> > spider gears
> >
> > Btw, to help clarify (?), the spider gears rotate w/the Carrier gear all the time.
> > But when driving straight, they have no rotation or rpm's of their own, since
> > they are turning w/the side and carrier gears all at the same time. Only when
> > you get axle differentiation do the spider gears begin to rotate allowing one side
> > gear to spin at a different rpm than the other. Or in this example, allow one axle
> > to rotate (left) while the other (right) does not rotate at all.
> >
> > Sorry to be so long winded, but that's about as condensed as I can
> > clearly (?) explain it.
> >
> > Later,
> > Randy
> +-------------- 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

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

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

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

Date: 22 Dec 97 09:38:45 EST
From: RandalDGazdecki eaton.com
Subject: 1999 Ranger.

I know 1999 is a long way off, but I heard some interesting rumors at the Ford dealers this last weekend.
RUMOR #1 Ford has redesigned the 4.0L V6 with overhead cams and can push out 205 Horse. Alas, they are not offering it on the Ranger - only on the Explorer (Maybe 1999).

RUMOR #2 The Ranger's will get a V-8 in 1999 or 1999.5 modeled after the F-150's.

If someone can verify either of these I will hold out on buying a 98.

Also, thanks for all the feedback on putting weight in the back for traction. Sounds like I might have hit a nerve here-or-there.

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:42:33 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re[2]: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.

Come on guys. The "unscheduled load" is the load the rear window sees when
the "traction weight" tries to come through the window after you
hit something. It's a TECHNICAL term.
Most people put these weights at the back of the bed where it does some
good for traction. When you hit something or something hits you, depending
on the situation and the weight restraining system (most I've seen don't
exist) this weight can come flying through the cab
(rear window). Think about it!
Bob Ford


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.
Author: "Jeffrey Hansen" at KOLLSMAN
Date: 12/20/97 2:10 PM




If one believed "Bob Ford", then pickup trucks are not designed
to carry any
load?
He wrote ...
>>Don't do this. Manufactures don't design for these
unscheduled loads.

Obviously, this is incorrect. A half-ton pickup is designed to
haul a half
ton, or 1000 pounds. It is not an "unscheduled" load in the
least, it's
what a truck is designed to do. While certain loads could
indeed come
crashing into the operator, bags of sand placed over the back
wheels,
secured in the bed with 2x4's or what have you is not in any
danger of
shifting in any sort of accident.
I drive my '88 Ranger XLT here in Ohio, where the snow hangs
around for
awhile, melts, then comes back. I don't carry weight in the
bed, and every
time it snows and the rear end slips around, I curse myself for
not carrying
any weight. Maybe I'm just a masochist.

+-------------- 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: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:50:51 -0500
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
Subject: Re[2]: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.

Again it was a technical term. Wow, such a heated debate. Ah, the power of
words!
Bob Ford


______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.
Author: "maxfli" at KOLLSMAN
Date: 12/20/97 3:52 PM




Unscheduled load, that the most ridiculous thing Ive ever
heard, do you
thing the manufacturer made trucks just to look good. Their
made to haul
stuff. Adding weight in the rear of a empty truck to gain snow
traction is a
benefit, not a safety hazard as long as you use your head about
what you put
in the back. A couple or three bags of sand in the back can
help on those
snowy roads as long as you dont drive like a mad man and think
your
invincible because of the extra traction you have gained. A
couple extra
hundred pounds of weight in the back should do fine, good luck
and be
careful.
Brad
- -----Original Message-----
From: bthomas Kollsman.com
To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
;
RandalDGazdecki eaton.com
Date: Friday, December 19, 1997 1:22 PM
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
>-----------------+
>
>
>+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer
- --------------+
>| Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net,
|
>| List removal instructions on the website.
|
>+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- -----------------+
+-------------- 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: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:26:01 -0600
From: "Steve Brown"
Subject: RE: 94 F150 Power Door Locks

Norman,

After I had my door hinges repaired (don't ask), a very similar thing was
happening in my 95. Seems that when they took the door off, they pulled
the wires a bit too much & partially disconnected the wires that go to the
power locks (they run through my aftermarket alarm "brain"). It was a
quick fix...just traced the wires & found the loose connector. If you
can't find it, a decent shop could probably trace through it very quickly.

steve
> From: "Norman Maranda"
> Subject: 94 F150 Power Door Locks
>
> Hello Fello Ford Owners I have a question concerning my power door
> locks on my 94 f150. My locks started suddenly acting up; the lock switch
on
> the driverside door does not work at all and the passenger side switch is
able
> to unlock both doors but it does not lock the doors. As to what might be
wrong?
> Is it possible for a bad driverside switch to affect the passangerside
switch
> too. Gotta run thanks in advance for the info

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:09:54 -0600
From: "Judy Thill (MG MSMAIL)"
Subject: Ford "Suburban"

If someone hasn't mentioned it already, there is a Truckin' magazine out
there that had an article on the new BIG Ford SUV. I can't remember the
name of the magazine but it was in a Freightliner repair shop.

Judy

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:01:33 -0800
From: cfoye BayNetworks.COM (Chris Foye)
Subject: Grab rails for the cab

Hey Everyone,

I just recently bought a 97 Crew Cab 4x4 with the PowerStroke and am I a
happy puppy, I love the truck, it's a blast to drive. The wife likes to
drive it more than I do. Anyway, what happened to the grab handles for the
inside? When I take turns, I see my passengers grabbing for anything
available to avoid being thrown around, no I don't rip around corners, I
think it's just the size of the truck that makes the turns seem fast.
Has anybody put grab handles inside their cab? If so, where did you get
the handles from and how did you mount them so, you don't rip out the
panels. I haven't taken off the panels to see whats behind them. I was
thinking about putting at least 3 in the cab. One on the inside top panel
over the doors on all but, the drivers side and possibly one on the
windshield pillar or the door pillar so people have something to grab as
they get inside the truck on the passenger side and the back seats.
I have seen the outside mounted grab handles but, I like to keep the lines
of the truck clean. Plus it would be kinda funny to see people reaching
outside the window to hold on during turns.

As always the list is a great resource.

Thanks for your help.

Chris

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:08:13 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: int. wiper relay: 92 F150

Lehmandp wrote:
> Dave,
>
> You mention trouble with the wiper switch on the turn-signal stalk. Mine's
> acting up, too. What happened to yours? Warrenty replacement? Approx. cost?
>
> Thanks,
> -David :-)

Mine started acting up after a year, and by age two, was impossible to
tolerate any longer. It was still under warranty and was replaced free
of charge. I don't know how much it would've cost. Others out there
may have an idea.

There's nothing more frustrating than an intermittent intermittent
switch!

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:36:55 EST
From: Jmark6969
Subject: Re: Source for 2l and 2.3l Performance Parts

hey

i got a 96 2.3l ranger and i am looking for some performance parts. would you
give me the address for those parts? thanks

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 07:56:20 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Web pics, integrity and chat

Ken Payne wrote:
>
> Web Site Pictures
> -----------------
> About 2 weeks ago I was informed by a member that another
> site had taken several graphic images from our pictorial and
> was using them on his page without permission. I do not hold
> the copyright to these images, the owners of the trucks do.
> I simply put them on the site for the world to enjoy. I do,
> however, feel that I have an obligation to the owners of the
> vehicles on the site. They need to know that I will not use
> the pictures for commercial gain.
>
> Whenever I have been approached by an individual concerning
> use of the pictures I've always asked them to question the
> owner. In this case no one was asked. The pictures where
> put on a commercial Ford truck restoration page. I emailed
> the admin, asking him to either remove the pictures or
> get permission. I was ignored. Yesterday I sent another
> email stating that if action was not taken I would contact
> their provider (who has a strict policy against such things).
> Today I got an email telling me I was hassling him and he
> was merely trying to show what restored trucks looked like.
>
> He did not offer to take the pictures off or contact the
> owners. Instead, he told me that it was **my** responsibility
> to get the owners in touch with him. I have contacted his
> host provider concerning this and the matter is no longer in my
> hands. If you have any comments, questions, or concerns please
> email me privately (this stuff doesn't belong on the discussion
> groups) at kpayne mindspring.com.
>

Ken, you did absolutely the right thing. I am a graphic artist and I am
faced with this issue quite often. I have seen a business card produced
from an illustration of an early Bronco I did for a friend's web site.
It is stealing, plain and simple. This medium (meaning the WWW) makes
it simple to acquire images. All you can do is keep the honest people
honest.

Keep up the good work,

Thom Cheney
Portland, OR

(PS.... hope the provider nailed the b*st*rd)

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 07:44:53 -0800
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Sport Truck Competition???

Luke Wells wrote:
>
> I want to vent about an article in the newest issue of Sport Truck
> magazine. It is a competition about sport truck of the year. In this
> article they compared 98' models of sport trucks in about six different
> categories. I can't remember all of the categories but I think it was
> 1/4 mile, towing, 0-60, 60-0, and mile time. The trucks that were
> compared were the Mazda B2000(4.0 V6), the Ch*vy S-10(2.2L 4cyl), GMC
> sonoma(4.3L V6), Nissan Frontier(4cyl DOHC), Dogde Dakota(5.9L V8),
> Ranger Splash(3.0 V6). Great contest huh? The magazine states that the
> representative automotive organizations(ie, Ford, Dodge) sent them their
> best example of what would compete in the contest. Yeah right, but guess
> what truck won, ta da the Dogde Dakota. Now I don't want to slam the
> whole contest, ok but I will of course the Dodge won it was the V8 235
> horsepower, 0-60 slammed everybody, 60-0 slammed, 1/4 mile duh, mile
> don't ask, towing killed the competition. The only thing it lost in was
> gas mileage, duh. I have already written to the magazine and bashed them
> for a poorly put together charade. I was just tryin to get some other
> people to do the same, because ford being the smart company it is would
> have never in reality sent the 3.0(not to bash the 3.0).And where was
> the Tacoma? Well if you want to check it out it is on the newstands now.


I have rarely seen a vehicle comparison that was based on an even
competition. Sport Truck mag is not a very big entity in the magazine
world, I imagine Ford has sent all of its really cherry press vehicles
to other magazines for same kind of testing/comparisons. The magazines
do those comparisons to get you to buy them. It apparently worked!

tc

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 08:55
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Ford Suburban

I have seen two conversions here in Houston. One I see pretty often in
the building accross the street from my office. Looks like a crewcab
truck with a Bronco top on the back pretty cool looking like a four door
bronco. Has anyone else seen these. I am assuming they are costom
conversions of some sort. They dont look like an aftermarket conversion
though they look like the real deal, but no such vehicle exists. Anyway
just curious if any of you guys have seen anything like this before, and
why has'nt Ford done this?

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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:53:15 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: "Suburban"

Self humiliation can be very amusing!

george cummings wrote:

> Are you all stupid? What do you think the Expedition is? What
> differences could there be in an Expedition and a Suburban..wait don't
> even try to get technical about it.. The point is, the Suburban is a
> Silverado with four doors and a shell. Now the Expedition, or Bronco for
> those who didn't know, is an F-150 with four doors and a shell!
> +-------------- 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: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:56:07 -0600
From: Tony Rio
Subject: Ranting about Winter Weight.

Last winter my soon-to-be-wife and I were traveling up to Northern
Wisconsin in my 94' 2wd F150 to my parents house for a week of
snowmobiling, and it was just our luck to travel the morning of one of the
worst snow-storms to hit the Midwest that year. We left Chicago at 5 in
the morning, after mother nature had dumped about 14 inches of snow
overnight.
We battled our way at 25 mph to Madison before the wind came across
I-90, and spun us around twice before depositing us in the median. Two
full tanks of gas (stopped in Janesville to top off), and a few duffle bags
in the back. Luckily, I had also brought along some chain and a
come-along, and there was a steel barricade about 50 feet away (thank
God we didn't hit that!), so I was able to pull us out.
We promptly pulled off the expressway and stopped at a local lumber
yard we found. We purchased eight 70 pound tubes of sand, and laid
them directly over the rear axel. once back on the highway, the rear end
stayed glued to the pavement, and we had no further problems.
Up until the time we went into the ditch, it was very apparent that the
rear end of the truck was too light, as the rear end kept trying to blow
sideways in the wind. You can say what you want about 4x4, but it
wouldn't have helped a lick.
Again this year I put the sandbags back in, (secured down of course)
and the truck stays put. Yes my fuel economy goes down, but oh well...
For those of you who put bags back there, a trick I learned... Get some
rubber skid pad (like you use for throwrugs on tile floors) and put it
under the bags. I really keeps them in place!

By the way, last spring I had a Ford Aspire pull out in front of me, and I
T-boned it at about 35 mph. The bags, not being secured moved forward
on impact about 12 inches. One bag did slide all the way forward and
impact with the front of the bed. But, it stayed down on the floor. I am
convinced that I you would have to hit pretty hard to get one really
airborne to where it would crash through the back window. I just don't
think there is enough space between the bags and the front of the bed
for the bags to get high enough before they would impact with the steel
bed. Now if they were against the tailgate... I would probably agree with
you. Talk all you want about physics and theoretical science, I'll stick
with what I've proven to be true.
With a little planning and common sense, There is no doubt in my mind
that putting the tubesand into the truck for extra traction is a sensible and
safe practice.

Thanks!!!
Tony

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

Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 09:18:58 -0800
From: John Yee
Subject: Re: Ford Suburban

It was probably done by an aftermarket conversion company called
Centurion. I looked into this about 10+ years ago. I vaguely remember they
were in the low to mid $20k's, which was faily expensive by comparison.
It was a crew cab, blended with a bronco back end as you describe. Leather
captains chairs and seating for 7 were some of the things I remember.

The only competition to a surburban, which was thousands less at the time.

They also did interior work on the pickups. Stepside options for F150's,
when they weren't available from Ford, stuff like that.

A quick web search for Centurion turned up nothing though.

- -john

>
>I have seen two conversions here in Houston. One I see pretty often in
>the building accross the street from my office. Looks like a crewcab
>truck with a Bronco top on the back pretty cool looking like a four door
>bronco. Has anyone else seen these. I am assuming they are costom
>conversions of some sort. They dont look like an aftermarket conversion
>though they look like the real deal, but no such vehicle exists. Anyway
>just curious if any of you guys have seen anything like this before, and
>why has'nt Ford done this?
>
>John Cassis
>The danger Ranger
>93' STX 4x4 3.0/5-speed
>
>+-------------- 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: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:16:53 -0800
From: Paul Laughlin
Subject: Re: Recommended Weight for Snow Traction.

bthomas Kollsman.com wrote:
. When you hit something or something hits you, depending on the
situation and the weight restraining system (most I've seen don't exist)
....


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.