Return-Path:
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:50:45 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #284
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Tuesday, December 30 1997 Volume 01 : Number 284



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

Subject: Re: exhaust [Robert Hackney ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #283 [Bill Funk ]
Re: Firing order [silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)]
Re: Intermittent Wiper Switch ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: check engine light on? ["David J. Baldwin" ]
RE: Clearance lights [Michael Wray ]
Re: high octane burns slower! [Iguannna ]
Re: the metric police [Iguannna ]
rear axle ["Ned" ]
Tonue or Shell for Ranger [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Re: Clearance lights ["David J. Baldwin" ]
RE: Clearance lights [Michael Wray ]
Re: Tonue or Shell for Ranger ["Joe Merchak" ]
F150 Conversions [Tony Rio ]
Tonnue Covers & Shells [CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)]
Web site [Tony Rio ]
Re: Ranger mileage [bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #283 [Cerveza6 ]
460 headers? [William Martin ]
F350 Diesel Engines [Stephen Barclay ]
Powerstroke slow speed shutdown? [rsmall isgroup.net (Robert Smallwood)]
Octane [rsmall isgroup.net (Robert Smallwood)]
RE: 1999 Towing info [Mitch Biarsky ]
Re: exhaust [Randy ]
Re: Exhaust Systems [Randy ]
Re: Clearance lights [Randy ]
Re: 460 headers? [Randy ]
Re: 460 headers? ["Andy Haydock" ]
Re: Ranger mileage [FastRngXLT ]
Re: Tonue or Shell for Ranger [Midwest96 ]

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 07:37:59 -0500
From: Robert Hackney
Subject: Subject: Re: exhaust

>From: Bill Funk
>Subject: Re: exhaust
>
>
>Well, the math says:
>the area of a circle is pi*(r*r) where pi=3.14159 and r= diameter/2.
>The areas then are:
> 2" pipe - 3.14sq. in.
> 2 1/4" pipe - 3.94 sq. in.
> 3" pipe - 7.068 sq. in.

>So, two of either the 2" or 2 1/4" pipes are better than one 3" pipe,
>but a single 2 1/4" pipe isn't anywhere as good as a 3" pipe.
>If cost is a great factor, I'd go for the single 3" pipe. Best bang for
>the buck.

>From my point of view 2 2" pipe = 6.28 sq. in. not as good as a single 3" pipe.
2 2 1/4" pipe = 7.88 sq. in. better as far as area is concerned, but still not
as good as single 3" pipe when it comes to flow. 2 2 1/4" pipes have more
surface area ( more friction) than a single 3" pipe, so the single 3" is the way
to go.

Bob




















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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 07:09:09 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #283

> From: george cummings
> Subject: Re: exhaust
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
> > Well, the math says:
> > the area of a circle is pi*(r*r) where pi=3.14159 and r= diameter/2.
>
> > The areas then are:
> > 2" pipe - 3.14sq. in.
> > 2 1/4" pipe - 3.94 sq. in.
> > 3" pipe - 7.068 sq. in.
> >
> > So, two of either the 2" or 2 1/4" pipes are better than one 3"
> pipe,
> > but a single 2 1/4" pipe isn't anywhere as good as a 3" pipe.
> > If cost is a great factor, I'd go for the single 3" pipe. Best bang
> for
> > the buck.
> >
> > Bill Funk
>
> WHAT THE HELL???? Look 3" pipe is better when you are running alot
> of
> horse power. If you have a stock motor the best set-up the 2" or 2
> 1/4".
> Casey said it best, if you want alittle bit more torque, then add an
> h-pipe right after the header or manifold. You didn't specify if you
> had
> a stock or high performance engine.

Kinda difficult to add a crossover pipe to a single pipe exhaust, isn't
it?

> And Mr. Funk, I still don't know
> where you go off saying that higher octane burns slower, letting more
> fuel in the cylinder. You oviously didn't study chemistry when you
> went
> to school. I asked my chemistry teacher the same question, and he
> replied that it doesn't make sense that higher octane burns slower, so
>
> answer this, if you say that higher octane burns slower, then wouldn't
>
> that mean that the engine would perform poorly?

I never said that high octane gas lets more fuel in the cylinder.
What I said is that the higher the octane, the slower the flamefront is
(which is the same thing as saying that it burns slower in the
compustion chamber). This is the way things are. I can't answer for your
chemistry teacher.
Does this mean the engine will run poorly? No. The diffeence in speed of
the flamefront isn't great, just enough to retard the peak pressure
enough to stop some forms of pinging.
I'll stand by what I say.

Bill Funk

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:36:02 EST
From: silent.bob juno.com (Silent . Bob)
Subject: Re: Firing order

On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:54:08 EST Shadorite writes:
>hey all,
> hey i got a 84 F150 and need the firing order for the flugs. If
>you
>know send em to me Thanx all
>
> Wayne

It might help if you told us what engine you have. Other than that
"flugs" can fire in any order you want them to. :)



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: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:36:12 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Intermittent Wiper Switch

Mark H. Neblett wrote:
>
> I've noticed a couple of folks talking about "intermittent"
> intermittent wiper switches -- here's what worked on my '94 F-150 and
> my wife's mother's '95(?) Tauras wagon:

Mark,

Thanks for the switch-rebuild rundown. I have seen a few notes from
people with this problem, and if it's really this easy I might just do
it myself instead of taking it to the dealer next time.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:47:40 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: check engine light on?

R. Carson wrote:
>
> I was advised by a local parts retailer to never unplug the batter as this
> can permanetly trash the memory modules with voltage spikes etc. Any one
> heard of this recommendation?

The electronic modules have internal protection to prevent voltage
transients from taking them out. This doesn't mean that care shouldn't
be taken. If you remove the battery connection while the engine is not
running and the ignition is off, you will minimize the risk.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 10:29:05 -0800
From: Michael Wray
Subject: RE: Clearance lights

What the heck is a whitworth wrench???

I looked at the light and did not see anything where any wrench
would fit in. :(

- -----Original Message-----
From:David J. Baldwin [SMTP:baldwin ti.com]
Sent:Thursday, December 18, 1997 3:53 PM
To:fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Subject:Re: Clearance lights
You probably need a Whitworth wrench set to do it. Good luck!

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:03:06 EST
From: Iguannna
Subject: Re: high octane burns slower!

High octane fuel does burn slower, I would stake my life on that. The old
Honda 125cc 5 cylinder motorcycles had to be run on low octane fuel somewhere
around 85 octane I think. This was back in the 70's. The Honda made peak
power at 22,000 rpm and there wasn't enough time for the high octane stuff to
burn at that engine speed. Don't believe? Check it out, it was quite a
machine.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:06:04 EST
From: Iguannna
Subject: Re: the metric police

In a message dated 97-12-29 06:00:58 EST, you write:


1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8. For the 351ci (5.7l ?) the firing order is
1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8, with a factory cam. (I put a 302 cam in my 351 and have
to use the 302 firing order.)
You will have to get 6cyl info from somebody else if you need it, don't
have any info on them.
>>
The 302 is really 4.9 liters, but since Ford already had a 4.9 they rounded it
up to 5.0. The 351 is 5.8 liters. Take the c.i. displacement and divide by
61.1 to get the displacement in liters. Have a nice day!

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 02:20:49 -0500
From: "Ned"
Subject: rear axle

Does anyone know where I can buy a rear axle relief valve for a 95 Ford
F150. The small mushroom cap valve has fallen off the end of the hose that
runs from the axle. All the dealerships in my area only carry the older
style that screws directly into the axle. Both dealerships admitted that
they cannot find anyone who carries this specific part. Even Ford seems
confused. The older style does fit, but can become clogged with mud when
offroading.

Thanks,
Ned

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 13:08
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Tonue or Shell for Ranger

I have a 93' 4x4 (3.0/5-speed)and have a Raven shell on mine and realy
like it. The only down side is gas milage. Granted it was'nt great to
begin with, first i added 8" wheels and 31" tall tires. Milage dropped to
between 21 highway and 18 around town. Then when I added the top milage
dropped to 19 on the highway and 15 around town. If I realy baby it I can
get it to about 16 around town. If you look at tops check out the Ravens.
They fit on fords rolled bed sides very well and they dont have that
funky trim piece on the bottom. Cost about $900 for a shortbed Ranger.

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:34:52 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Clearance lights

Michael Wray wrote:
>
> What the heck is a whitworth wrench???
>
> I looked at the light and did not see anything where any wrench
> would fit in. :(
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J. Baldwin [SMTP:baldwin ti.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 3:53 PM
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: Clearance lights
> You probably need a Whitworth wrench set to do it. Good luck!

Sorry, Mike, bad joke. I don't know if you remember all of the
SAE/Metric unit controversy (I'm not trying to stimulate any more of
that painful dialog), but one person wrote in to mention the "Whitworth"
sizes that were used in English cars in the past. These were neither
SAE (inch) or Metric (millimeters).

I knew at one time what the metric "meter" was derived from, but the
base 10 units system is much easier to use, if unfamiliar to many in the
US. The inch measure was based on the width of King Henry's thumb at the
first joint (or some such nonsense).

The Whitworth sizes were just weird. I don't know where they came from,
or who is responsible for developing it. I believe that Snap-on
actually made a set of wrenches for these at one time. I don't know if
they still do. Of one thing I am confident: they're not using this
stupid system anymore!

My reference to you needing a "Whitworth" wrench was just me joking
around. I sympathize with you--sometimes you wonder how things were put
together. Sorry for the wild goose chase and misinformation. I hope it
didn't cause you much grief.


- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:34:21 -0800
From: Michael Wray
Subject: RE: Clearance lights

Hey no problem. I didn't spend any time looking for any Whitworth
wrenches. I kind of figured it was a joke. hahahahaha

I think what I am going to have to do is just take it all apart....
Somehow! hahaha
Probably a BFH (big ??????? hammer). 8^O

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:51:00 -0500
From: "Joe Merchak"
Subject: Re: Tonue or Shell for Ranger

John

You should check out you engine. I have a 93 XLT 4X2 3.0/auto with 8" wheels
and 31" tires. It is a long bed with a Hi-Rise cap and I get 21 in the city
and 26 highway and that is using oxygenated gas. In the summer I get 23 and
28. I dont think the 4X4 should rob that much in fuel mileage......I could
be wrong though...


- -----Original Message-----
From: Cassis, John
To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Date: Monday, December 29, 1997 2:27 PM
Subject: Tonue or Shell for Ranger



I have a 93' 4x4 (3.0/5-speed)and have a Raven shell on mine and realy
like it. The only down side is gas milage. Granted it was'nt great to
begin with, first i added 8" wheels and 31" tall tires. Milage dropped to
between 21 highway and 18 around town. Then when I added the top milage
dropped to 19 on the highway and 15 around town. If I realy baby it I can
get it to about 16 around town. If you look at tops check out the Ravens.
They fit on fords rolled bed sides very well and they dont have that
funky trim piece on the bottom. Cost about $900 for a shortbed Ranger.

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, 29 Dec 1997 16:21:44 -0600
From: Tony Rio
Subject: F150 Conversions

There is also one of these F350 conversions bombing around the
Chicago west suburbs. I have seen it three times now on I-355, twice
being driven by a 50-something guy, and then once it passed me in the
right lane by a kid (I assume his son) doing about 90mph! Hmm...
wonder how that HUGE green truck gets overlooked by the state
troopers...

Also, has anyone seen up close and personal the F150 4-door
conversions? I saw an ad about 3 years ago where they took an
F150 and lengthened the frame to add on to the cab. Made the truck look
like a baby-crew cab. They left the 8' bed. The other model was a 4x4
F150 that had a lift suspension, and bigger tires. The difference was the
didn't lengthen the frame, but took the extra cab space from the bed.
Then the truck ended up with something like a 5' or 5 1/2' bed. Made the
thing look like some sort of basterdized AM General Hummer! Neat idea,
but, think I'll leave my '94 as is.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 16:03
From: CASSIS universal.usa.com (Cassis, John)
Subject: Tonnue Covers & Shells

Joe,
The sticker on the truck boasted 23 & 15. The milage on the 4x4's are not
as good as the 2x4's. When I added the 8" wheels and the 31's I lifted
the front of the truck 2 1/2" to make it level with the rear. Since then
the mpg have dropped and only got worse with the camper. I even did a
major tune up (plugs, wires, cap, rotor, injector cleaner) the full nine
yards. The truck runs fine. But maybe you are right. I've been toying
with taking it in to see if a sensor was on the fritz or omething like
that, but the other guys I've talked to in here with the same set-up get
worse milage than I am. When I get it checked out I'll let you know if
it's the top or something else. The top adds more drag on the back of the
truck and thus worse milage. I'm not trying to start a big debate here
thats just what I picked up from the guys here the last time they had the
big debate over gas milage with tailgates up or down or with a bed cover
or camper. Anyway thanks for the advice.

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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:31:31 -0600
From: Tony Rio
Subject: Web site

There is a cute web site titled "What Your Car Says About You". Nothing
about Ford, but some pretty good Ch*vy truck and J**p bashing!

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8830/saysyou.html

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:34:15 -0600
From: bmrickman juno.com (brian k rickman)
Subject: Re: Ranger mileage

On Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:51:00 -0500 "Joe Merchak"
writes:
>John
>
>You should check out you engine. I have a 93 XLT 4X2 3.0/auto with 8"
>wheels
>and 31" tires. It is a long bed with a Hi-Rise cap and I get 21 in
>the city
>and 26 highway and that is using oxygenated gas. In the summer I get
>23 and
>28. I dont think the 4X4 should rob that much in fuel mileage......I
>could
>be wrong though...
- -----Original Message-----
From: Cassis, John >
>
>I have a 93' 4x4 (3.0/5-speed)and have a Raven shell on mine and realy
>like it. The only down side is gas milage. Granted it was'nt great to
>begin with, first i added 8" wheels and 31" tall tires. Milage dropped
>to
>between 21 highway and 18 around town. Then when I added the top
>milage
>dropped to 19 on the highway and 15 around town. If I realy baby it I
>can
>get it to about 16 around town.
>
>John Cassis
>The Danger Ranger
>93' STX 4x4 3.0/5-speed
>
>+--------------
I agree. My Explorer gets 18/23 mpg, although with street profile tires
(listening to those cooper discovery's was driving me looney) and it's
got over 155k miles on it. The single best thing I did to improve
mileage was replacing the spark plugs. (with Autolite platinum) Good for
about 2mpg at the time. Oh yeah, its got the "god I hope it never quits
$$$" auto tranny.
Could the bigger tires really cut mileage that much?

B Rickman bmrickman juno.com
91 Exp 4X4 EB
81 F100 2wd 351w AOD

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 17:33:26 EST
From: Cerveza6
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #283

In a message dated 97-12-29 06:01:00 EST, you write:


>>
The firing order for the 300 (4.9 L) is153624

Jerry O
Mesa, Az.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:55:04 -0800
From: William Martin
Subject: 460 headers?

Hi there,
Im not having a lot of luck finding a set of headers for my E-350 van.
Anyone know of some real torque-monster headers for an '85 460 4V ?
Ideally I'd like them to peak at about 3000 rpm. Any leads at all will
be appreciated!

thanks,
Bill Martin

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:26:07 -0500
From: Stephen Barclay
Subject: F350 Diesel Engines

I just purchased a 1997 F250HD 4x4 plow truck and started monitoring the =
gas mileage and it's not very impressive. Are there any F350 Diesel =
truck owners out there that utilize the truck for plowing? What are the =
pro's and/or con's for this combination. Thanks in advance.

Steve

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:35:46 -0600
From: rsmall isgroup.net (Robert Smallwood)
Subject: Powerstroke slow speed shutdown?

Anyone had these symptoms?

This has happened about 6 times over a 1 year period-
At very slow decel rates such as approaching a stop or parking space,
the engine just quits. I have never had any shutoffs while runnig or
accelerating.

A guy in OK City told me it is a cam timing sensor adjustment-any
experience with this?

It's not a drivability problem, but would like to know what makes the
beast die like that.

Robert

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 21:15:00 -0600
From: rsmall isgroup.net (Robert Smallwood)
Subject: Octane

Hello list

Well, it's been a long time since chemistry class and I think my teacher
may be dead......but even for a laymen, the average performance of fuels
gives evidence that higher octane fuels can be described as "burning
slower", in relation to the engine's cycle.

Higher octane fuels have a "higher" flash point (ignites at a higher
temperature). During the compression stroke of an engine, the fuel/air
mixture temperature rises due to the compression of the gases (expanding
gases absorb heat, compressing gases release heat). Lower octane fuels
with a lower flash point (ignites at a lower temperature), can actually
ignite prematurely and make that nasty "pinging" sound when the
combustion event tries to stroke the piston down extemely early on the
"power" stroke (not very energy efficient or powerful either). The
higher octane fuels actually have more available energy to convert than
lower octane fuels. However, the engine must be constructed to be able
to take advantage of this (higher compression ratios).

Diesels, are a good example. Energy wise, diesels are about 28-32%
efficient converting fuel to mechanical energy (all the rest is lost as
heat). Most gas engines are in the 20-24% range.
(I do love my Powerstroke....20mpg and big block performance).

Well, "oviously" enough Mr. Wizard s**t.

Happy Holidays

Robert

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:09:00 -0500
From: Mitch Biarsky
Subject: RE: 1999 Towing info

> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:02:44, -0500
> From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
> Subject: 1999 Towing info
>
> If anyone is looking for towing ratings on 1999 trucks, I have them.
> E-Mail me privately and tell me what ya want.
>
> Josh
> Lakeland Truck Center
>

Meadowlands Ford has some additional info on 99 Trailer Towing info.

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.meadowlandford.com/traileri.htm

Mitch

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:24:27 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: exhaust

Casey Vandor wrote:

[SNIP]

> > Also, if you are interested in even more torque, install a
> >balance tube between the dual exhaust close behind the headers (or
> >manifolds) and make it the same size diameter as the rest of the dual
> >exhaust.
>
> Is a balance tube just a pipe intertied in the two to get rid of a pressure
> difference? Also, if I get the dual exhaust, they are going to be on one
> side of the truck only, not both, (both pipes one side, not one on each) so
> would I still be able to use a balance tube?
> Thanks for the reply!
> Casey


Casey (at the bat), I don't remember all the reasons that a balance pipe
produced more torque, but it did have to do w/pressure equalization and
scavaging of flowing exhaust gases as well as sound waves. I do
remember there were two reasons to add an 'H' pipe. One was for torque
and the other for sound control. If you install it just for sound,
you'll want it to be one size smaller than the exhaust pipes; a 2"
crossover pipe on a 2 1/4" system, for example. I don't remember your
other posts, but I'm assuming you have a 4x4 and the T-case is in the
way on the driver's side of the truck therefore forcing you to run both
pipes down the passenger side. Yes, install a crossover pipe if you can
get it to fit, and place it close to the ends of the headers if you can
fit it around everything (4-5" from ends of collectors), or if you are
still running manifolds (then get headers...I assume you already have),
just after the exhaust pipes bend out near the frame since you can't
place it any closer. It's up to you whether or not you want to run the
system all the way back over the axles. I would do it just for the
aesthetics alone. Btw, so far I have assumed that you have a stock
motor, but I don't remember what you said. This set-up would be great
for a stocker or mildly built motor. Someone mentioned the friction on
the pipes. This is true, the more surface area involved the more
'friction-loss' you will experience, but I don't think that the
difference would be significant enough between 2 1/4" duals and 3"
single. If you're worried about it, step up to 2 1/2" duals. That
would be better for built-up motors, so if you plan on any engine mods,
step up now, otherwise the dual 2 1/4" (w/H-pipe) or 3" single should do
ya just fine.

Later,
Randy

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:26:19 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: Exhaust Systems

Leo Mosley wrote:
>
> I "snipped" out a bit of Randy's comment re exhaust pipe sizing, where he was
> talking about size and torque:
>
> >Keep in mind, a breathing exhaust is a good thing, but one that is too open
> >will cause a loss in torque.
> >Also, if you are interested in even more torque, install a balance
> >tube between the dual exhaust close behind the headers (or manifolds)
> >and make it the same size diameter as the rest of the
> >dual exhaust.
> >Hope this helps,
> >Randy
>
> This is very interesting! Randy could I ask why this is the case? I assume it
> has to do with back pressure on the engine.
> Thanks for the info
> Leo
> 87 F-150, 302
>
Leo, check out my reply to Casey for your answer...
Randy

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:38:16 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: Clearance lights

Michael Wray wrote:
>
> What the heck is a whitworth wrench???
>
> I looked at the light and did not see anything where any wrench
> would fit in. :(
>
LMAO over here. And I though we'd kicked that metri.....oh, I'd better
not go there again.....
Michael, as a plastics designer I have to ask you what kind of clearance
lights you have. I mean, are they cheapy's? They must be at least a
two-piece construction. That means that the cover is held to the base
at least one of two ways (since you already have eliminated screws):
clips molded into the parts so they 'snap' together, or glue. Either
way can be overcome, but the latter is usually harder. I find it hard
to believe that anyone would mfg. those w/no way to replace the bulbs.
Look closely where the base meets the cover and try to find very small
slots where you may be able to insert a small flat-tipped screwdriver
and twist the screwdriver to try and 'pop' the cover off it's built-in
snaps. This may take a little bit of force. If it seems that you roof
is about to come off w/the light assembly it may be glued on. The
screws that mount the light to the cab are usually enclosed inside the
cover. This means the cover was placed on the light AFTER the light was
mounted to the cab (I've never heard of glue-on clearance lights, but I
suppose someone may make them). So the cover must come off somehow.
Keep investigating and let me know what you come up with.
Later,
Randy

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 23:43:41 -0800
From: Randy
Subject: Re: 460 headers?

William Martin wrote:
>
> Hi there,
> Im not having a lot of luck finding a set of headers for my E-350 van.
> Anyone know of some real torque-monster headers for an '85 460 4V ?
> Ideally I'd like them to peak at about 3000 rpm. Any leads at all will
> be appreciated!
>
> thanks,
> Bill Martin

Bill (you from Cleveland by any chance?). Stan's headers advertise a
tri-y for a 460 Ford, but up to '79. They state they have other headers
available, so give them a call; Tech-(206)850-1835. Also L&L make some
parts for converting to 429/460's so they may have something for you, or
maybe a lead 800-526-0064.
Hope this helps,
Randy

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

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 21:03:14 -0800
From: "Andy Haydock"
Subject: Re: 460 headers?

> Im not having a lot of luck finding a set of headers for my E-350 van.
> Anyone know of some real torque-monster headers for an '85 460 4V ?
> Ideally I'd like them to peak at about 3000 rpm. Any leads at all will
> be appreciated!


Try a company called L & L. I don't know their number but they shouldn't
be too hard to find. A friend of mine bought a pair of their stainless....


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.