fordtrucks80up-digest Wednesday, February 4 1998 Volume 02 : Number 047



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

3.0 Gas Mailage [John Cassis ]
wiring on e-150 [adam rupert ]
which msd? [adam rupert ]
egr notes [adam rupert ]
Re: No start 302 EFI ["jccooper" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #45 [Bill Funk ]
RE: wiring on e-150 [Mike Marcum ]
Re: Scrolling annoyance. ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Which Exhaust? [David McDonald ]
Re: 3.0 Gas Milage [Chad Royse ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #45 [Chad Royse ]
Scrolling Annoyance? [John Cassis ]
Re: 3.0 Gas Milage [David McDonald ]
Re: 3.0 Milage [Chad Royse ]
Re: Scrolling annoyance. [David McDonald ]
Re: which msd? [David McDonald ]
Re: 3.0 Gas Milage ["David J. Baldwin" ]
Re: Scrolling annoyance. ["David J. Baldwin" ]
4x4 Radius Arms ["Ed Heil" ]
Turning radius [Michael Wray ]
RE: Turning radius ["Chapman, David P" ]
3.0 Gas Milage [John Cassis ]
Re: Super 21 Snake Oil ["Dave Resch"]
351? [Jake ]
1997&up---1999s ["Joseph L. Casey" ]

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 06:43:46 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: 3.0 Gas Mailage

Walt,

Actucaly bud the low end is pretty cool - second and third are stretched =
out quite a bit. Its not bad except for when your going under 60 in 5th =
gear. But you are correct the gearing is off now. I checked the speedo =
with a hand held GPS. With seven satelites tracking it seems the speedo =
is 3mph slower than actual speed. I should have factored this into my =
mpg figure. Where and how do you fix the speedo. I've heard there some =
sort of little gear in the end of the speedo cable? As I said before =
there was a noticable difrence in mpg when I added the lift and tires =
but I did not expect one from the truck top. It kind of threw me off at =
first but as stated before through discussion on this list I learned =
about the drag caused by adding the truck top. The plus to adding the =
lift was a little better ground clearence off-road and it makes my 4x4 =
Ranger stand a little taller than the norm. With the wider tires the =
truck realy floats on the sand. You would have to be an idiot to get it =
stuck in soft sand now. I do most of my off roading on the beach (I do a =
lot of surfing and fishing). Not that I had a big problem before but the =
weight is distributed a little better now. Anyway sorry so long winded.

John Cassis
The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:35:52 -0800 (PST)
From: adam rupert
Subject: wiring on e-150

Greetings,

While wiring in a radio on my 87 e-150 which had a factory radio
everything went well until I went to turn on the lights and found that
I had no dash lights. The fuse was burned and burns imediatly. As I
recall there were 5 wires, yellow, green, blue and two blacks. Green
was constant 12v yellow was keyed 12v and I got a ground throught the
blue wire, I tied off the black wires. So the question is what is
wrong? I have not been able to find a manual with a wiring diag and
since it is such a pain to pull everything apart I thought I would
check with you folks, TIA for any help.

adam in colorado springs




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:37:34 -0800 (PST)
From: adam rupert
Subject: which msd?

I noticed many who use an msd ignition use a 6a, why choose it over
the 5? Also those who have switched to an msd what were the
improvements? I am looking for a way to maximize fuel milleage.

adam in colorado springs




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 05:46:38 -0800 (PST)
From: adam rupert
Subject: egr notes

Well I jumped into rebuilding my factory holley carb and thought I
would pass on some notes. #1 this is really not that difficult a job
for a novice. Those of you whose egr valve is inop consider what I
found. There was build up so bad on the secondaries that the would
not open. I guess the egr not opening let the exhaust residue build
up pretty badly. The secondaries not working leaned out the motor bad
enough that that it ran hot under load and of course, there wasn’t
much kick in the kick down while passing. Bottom line is watch your
carb closely if the egr is inop. Only troubles for the carb rebuild
were, getting the riveted housing on the choke drilled out so I could
adjust the choke, and getting the float valve adjusted properly. Now
it runs great with no more voodoo to start the thing on cold mornings,
also makes the wife smile, which is a good thing (:O>)
adam in colorado springs




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:29:05 -0600
From: "jccooper"
Subject: Re: No start 302 EFI

- ----------
> From: ACMERCG aol.com
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: Re: No start 302 EFI
> Date: Tuesday, February 03, 1998 4:30 PM
>
> In a message dated 98-02-03 16:33:21 EST, you write:
>
> >
>
>
> what is DIC / STI ?
>
> joe
>
> acmercg aol.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 -----------------+

DLC = Diagnostic Link Connector
STI = Self Test Input

JC

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 08:10:19 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #45

> From: Chad Royse
> Subject: Re: 3.0 Gas Milage
>
> Does it slice and dice too?

...

> How much? $299... $199... Only $19.95!!?? JEEPERS! Jeff, what do we
> get if we act
> now?
>
> Is anybody else with me that Jeff should not use the Ford Truck
> mailing list to
> promote his 'cure all' unrealistic products (AKA Spam)?
>
> Chad
>
> JBien45204 aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hello John, The Danger Ranger,
> > The product is Super 21 manufactured by H2OIL Corporation
> Hayward, CA.
> > Marketed by ecoCleen Forest Lake, MN. Super 21 is a concentrated
> fuel enhancer
> > formulated for engines of all types. This revolutionary product
> enhances and
> > regulates your engine's combustion resulting in more power and
> reduced fuel
>
> ....and on and on and on.

I must admit, I was a little leery of this when it was first referred
to, especially since Jeff tried to give the idea that he wasn't
connected to the produce.
...
"My name is Jeff Bien & I live in Humble, TX. I know by first hand
about bad
gas mileage. I found a product that was marketed in the Pacific Rim for
the
past eight years that gives a 20.8% average fuel increase and a 10%
increase
in horsepower. I ordered the product for myself. On a 92 Chev. Lumina
3.8 with
154,000 my best mileage was 14.4, after the 1st tank I got 18.8, after
the 4th
tank 21.8 if my math is right I'm saving about $3.88 for each $1.00 of
product
I buy. I tried this product out in my fishing boat and get about 2 more
hours
out of a 12 gal. tank, but the big news for my boat was it could never
pull me
up out of the water when I try to ski. So I tried to ski one more time
(before
this I would drink half of the lake trying to get up) and I was very
impressed
with the product. After putting this in all of my motors to date,
during 1997
I saved a little over $1,700.00 in fuel that I didn't have to buy."

Nothing there about being a regional training director, is there?
These things are a dime a dozen (well, closer to $19.95/12 oz).
None of them work.
Consider: if this worked, the first oil company to buy the rights to the
product would make a fortune, legally.
Like the magic carb that gives my 460 100 MPG, or cow magnets, or Slick
50, all these things do is remove money from the driver's pocket.

Bill Funk

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:21:20 -0800
From: Mike Marcum
Subject: RE: wiring on e-150

Adam,

Those 2 black wires were probably related to the radio light, which
dimmed in relation to the dash lights. Try seperating them from each
other, and see if that doesn't solve the problem.

- - Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: adam rupert [SMTP:a_p_rupert yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 5:36 AM
> To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Subject: wiring on e-150
>
> Greetings,
>
> While wiring in a radio on my 87 e-150 which had a factory radio
> everything went well until I went to turn on the lights and found that
> I had no dash lights. The fuse was burned and burns imediatly. As I
> recall there were 5 wires, yellow, green, blue and two blacks. Green
> was constant 12v yellow was keyed 12v and I got a ground throught the
> blue wire, I tied off the black wires. So the question is what is
> wrong? I have not been able to find a manual with a wiring diag and
> since it is such a pain to pull everything apart I thought I would
> check with you folks, TIA for any help.
>
> adam in colorado springs
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> 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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:56:44 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Scrolling annoyance.

John Cassis wrote:

> John Cassis
> The Danger Ranger

Dangerous John Ranger,

Please don't take this wrong, because it's really no big deal, but every time I get one of your postings, it ends up in my mail reader (Netscape) on one VERY long line. I have to scroll (and scroll...and scroll...and, well, you get the idea) to read it. I wonder if anyone else sees this problem (you're not the only one--but there are only a few that I get that have this problem).

I just want to know if it's you or me that's causing this annoyance, and what can be done to fix it. Ken might have some idea.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:10:00 -0800
From: David McDonald
Subject: Re: Which Exhaust?

David Chapman wrote:

>



> I'm looking to upgrade the exhaust on my 95 Bronco 302. A
> horsepower/torque increase would be nice along with a good sound (not
> quiet mind you, but the sound of power). I've seen cat back and other's
> mentioned in the discussions, but I'm not familiar with them. Any
> suggestions (I'd rather not spend a fortune)? Should I go the header
> route at the same time?
>
> Thanks - Dave C.

Hiya Dave,

I just finished installing a Gibson cat back that I ordered from the
Truck Performance Center for about $270. It comes with a muffler, two pieces
o pipe, all the hangers and clamps and a stainless tip. It's 3" pipe,
mandrell bent, with a high flow muffler (I can see the 3" hole all the way
thru the muffler :) The only PITA about it was pulling off the old exhaust
(I used my cutting torch, a sawsall and alotta cuss words). The new one went
on without breaking a sweat, and while I've only run it in my driveway so
far, It sounds great. nice mellow sound, a little louder than stock, but a
lower tone.Actually backing the truck out of the garage to turn it around
the lack of an air filter (in prep for a K&N) struck me as being louder than
the exhaust... sounds like it's tryin to suck the hood into the intake :)


Dave MCDonald
'90 F250HD 4x4 351 5 sp
dxmcdon uswest.com
(USWest should not be held responsible for my opinions)

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:23:11 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: 3.0 Gas Milage

Good work man! I new I smelled a Vhevy in there somewhere. You should be a private
eye, or something.

Chad

David McDonald wrote:

> Chad Royse wrote:
>
>
> > your 21.8 MPG Chevy out of here. As a matter of fact you probably don't even
> > drive a Ford truck. Other wise you would've had the common sense to use it as
> > an example, rather than you piece of #$% Chevy. So IF you don't have a Ford
> > Truck, then you are exploiting the list for your personal gain and you have no
> > business on it. If you do have one, post the VIN.
> >
> > Have a nice day,
> > Chad
> >
>
>
>
> Chad,
>
> I was curious about this stuff, so I checked out the web sites (usin Infoseek).
>
> He drives a GMC Sierra SLE 1500, and is one of the ecoclean MLM distributors.
> I found no scientific data, only testimonials (many from distributors) and a bunch
> of 'as high as' percentages. If this stuff becomes proven technology, I'll bite,
> but
> not yet :)
>
> Dave McDonald
>
> +-------------- 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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:32:30 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #45

Bill Funk wrote:

> ...all these things do is remove money from the driver's pocket.
>

Amen. Ford trucks were long putting WELL over 100K between rebuilds before
any miracle products.

FLAME RETARDER: I am not open to any suggestions on the matter, nor will I
argue mine.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:23:56 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: Scrolling Annoyance?

If I need to change something in my set-up please let me know. Ken do you have any clue what the problem could be????

The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:34:43 -0800
From: David McDonald
Subject: Re: 3.0 Gas Milage

Chad Royse wrote:

> Good work man! I new I smelled a Vhevy in there somewhere. You should be a private
> eye, or something.
>
> Chad

'Shucks Chad, 'twernt nuthin :)
BTW I'm with ya on the spam thing... It belongs on an alt newsgroup, not here.


Dave McDonald

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:40:15 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: 3.0 Milage

Don't feel bad because this guy is a fake and a user. I doubt he has the b #$$ to post here again.

But hey, maybe we're being to hard on the guy. After all, if you drove a Chevy everyday wouldn't you be desperate to improve it too? Nah!!

John Cassis wrote:

> Chad,
>
> I'm with you here bud. All I asked was what was this product. Did not relize I was about to get the sales pitch/e-mail from hell. Gosh 21% increase in fuel economy - get real. And to think I've been wasting all of my money at the gas pumps when I could have purchased this new miracle product and saved all this time. I should have seen it coming.
>
> 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: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 09:40:26 -0800
From: David McDonald
Subject: Re: Scrolling annoyance.

David J. Baldwin wrote:

> Please don't take this wrong, because it's really no big deal, but every time I get one of your postings, it ends up in my mail reader (Netscape) on one VERY long line. I have to scroll (and scroll...and scroll...and, well, you get the idea) to read it. I wonder if anyone else sees this problem (you're not the only one--but there are only a few that I get that have this problem).
>
> I just want to know if it's you or me that's causing this annoyance, and what can be done to fix it. Ken might have some idea.
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Dave Baldwin
> Dallas, TX

Hee Hee.... Dave, your post did the same thing on my mail reader :)
Just look under all the options for Line wrap or Word wrap and set it
on, that'll fit the line to yer screen... On Netscape 4.04 it's under the
View menu as 'Wrap Long Lines'.

Dave McDonald

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:02:41 -0800
From: David McDonald
Subject: Re: which msd?

adam rupert wrote:

> I noticed many who use an msd ignition use a 6a, why choose it over
> the 5? Also those who have switched to an msd what were the
> improvements? I am looking for a way to maximize fuel milleage.
>
> adam in colorado springs

Hiya Adam,

I ordered the 6a based on a friend's advice (He drag races a Mustang).
He went with the 6al to get the rev limiter, but I didn't feel I needed
that
on my truck. I havn't installed it yet, but I will this weekend. I'll have
mileage
figures on the combined changes I'm making (Gibson cat back, MSD 6a,
K&N, and new wires, plugs cap and rotor). I'm shootin for maximum mileage
as well as power (I drive up Lookout Mountain daily on my commute from
Denver to Evergreen). I'll let you know how it goes.

Try lookin on http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.msdignition.com/ for the differences between the
5 and the 6 series. Looks to me like the only difference is how the 5 and
the
6a is how the ignition is triggered.... The 5 can only use points, the 6a
can
be triggered with points, electronic ignitions or magnetic pickups. I sent
an
email to their technical help line (from that web page). Sent em what I
drive,
how I drive and what I'm lookin to gain, and they sent me a long
explanation
and a part number. Pretty kewl :)


Dave McDonald
'90 F250HD 4x4 351 5sp

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:14:31 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: 3.0 Gas Milage

FastRngXLT aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/3/98 4:27:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> chadlyr ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>
> we act
> now?
>
> Is anybody else with me that Jeff should not use the Ford Truck mailing list
> to
> promote his 'cure all' unrealistic products (AKA Spam)? >>

OK. Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Jeff, here. Don't get mad, get even! I
would suggest that he pass out enough of this stuff FREE to allow several of us on
the list to have a little test of our own. We could run, say, four tankfuls
through, and then compare notes! Then the data could stand for itself.

Of course, I'm never going to BUY this stuff, even if it works as advertised. I
mean, when I fill both tanks, it costs me an average of $30. If I have to spend
$40 to treat the tanks (both of them), I'd have to get >40MPG to make it
worthwhile....and there's no way in HELL with a 200MPH tail wind that my truck
will ever get milage like that.

Not only that, but at $40 a pop, within a few months I could buy some serious
aftermarket products that would give a LOT more power than these "microbaloons"
are (allegedly) going to do.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:32:32 -0600
From: "David J. Baldwin"
Subject: Re: Scrolling annoyance.

David McDonald wrote:

> Hee Hee.... Dave, your post did the same thing on my mail reader :)
> Just look under all the options for Line wrap or Word wrap and set it
> on, that'll fit the line to yer screen... On Netscape 4.04 it's under the
> View menu as 'Wrap Long Lines'.
>
> Dave McDonald

Hee hee...yeah. I noticed that. My mail usually doesn't do that, but when I
replied to John's note, I'll be dipped if it didn't format my response that way!
Can you imagine how mortified I was when I saw my post doing the same thing that
I was calling an annoyance?!! How emabarassing!

My preferences have "wrap long lines at 72 characters" set. Also, when I composed
the message, it DID wrap in the composition window...it was only AFTER I sent it
that it got "unwrapped".

Whatever John's got, it's contagious. I'm stumped. I've put hard carriage returns
in this one, so if it puts this message all on one line, I'll be truly amazed!

If anyone knows what's going on, let us know. John, what mail reader do you use?

Here's another question for Netscape users: in "Edit->Preferences" menu, under "Mail &
Groups", it has "Display messages and articles with" and a chice radio button for
"Fixed" and "Variable" fonts. I selected "Fixed", so everything I read comes up "Fixed".
There appears to be no way to tell the Mail composition to use a "Fixed" font as default,
so every message I reply to gets "converted" to "Variable" as soon as it hits the
composition window. I have to change it back EVERY time. Anyone know how to set this
default?

Sorry about going on about this. Just trying to make things more readable.

- --
Best Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:56:05 -0500
From: "Ed Heil"
Subject: 4x4 Radius Arms

I recently has a run-in with a large rock, and I bent my left front radius
arm on my 95 F-150 4x4. I hit it pretty hard (it was buried in snow) and I
knew I did some nice damage to the front axle on my truck. When I got out
to look at it, the left front tire(32 x 11.50 BFG mud's) was pushed into
the fender, the axle was rotated about 30 degrees from horizontal, and the
point on the frame where the radius arm meets was bent pretty bad.

Other than the radius arms, I can fix everything. I can get stock radius
arms, but that is no fun. I want to replace the stock ones with longer
aftermarket ones. I don't have a lift on the truck right now, but soon I
will be putting one on, so I might as well get aftermarket radius arms now.
I know that Rancho and Superlift make aftermarket ones, but I can't find
any prices online anywhere. Anyone have recommendations on which ones to
get, or any problems you had with aftermarket arms.

Later-
Ed
_________________________________________________________________
Ed Heil Kettering (aka. GMI E&MI)
University
heil7513 kettering.edu
edheil fast.net http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.kettering.edu/~heil7513

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:05:53 -0800
From: Michael Wray
Subject: Turning radius

I have an '86 F250 SC 4x4. The turning radius really leaves a bit to
be desired (to put it nicely). Is there any modifications that can be
made to make this better?

Michael (feel like I'm driving an 18 wheeler) W.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:12:10 -0500
From: "Chapman, David P"
Subject: RE: Turning radius

Does it have a limited slip in the front? I had a 95 F150 ECSB with
limited slip in front (and rear). The turning radius was awful and the
dealer said "this is normal, nothing can be done". I've since sold it
and bought a 95 Bronco - it turns REAL well (grin).
Dave C.

> ----------
> From: Michael Wray[SMTP:MICHAEWR Attachmate.com]
> Reply To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 1998 1:05 PM
> To: 'fordtrucks80up ListService.net'
> Subject: Turning radius
>
> I have an '86 F250 SC 4x4. The turning radius really leaves a bit to
> be desired (to put it nicely). Is there any modifications that can be
>
> made to make this better?
>
> Michael (feel like I'm driving an 18 wheeler) W.
>
> +-------------- 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: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:59:11 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: 3.0 Gas Milage

Thanks to all who dogged the spammer. I was feeling pretty stupid when I =
read the message he sent yesterday. All I asked was what was the =
additive he used and got this massive sales pitch. I should've seen it =
coming. Anyway thanks.

The Danger Ranger

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 10:42:38 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Re: Super 21 Snake Oil

Yo Jeffrey:

I am assuming that you really do have a personal interest in Ford trucks,
and that you are not subscribing to this list (and possibly dozens of
others) just so you can create an opportunity to reply to the list w/ some
canned spiel generated by the corporate headquarters of either the
manufacturers or distributors of this product.

I am also assuming that you have some rational basis for your belief in the
quality and value of this product that you have chosen to represent, and
that you are not simply relying on vague, unsubstantiated claims and purely
emotional appeals to your apparently earnest desire to protect the
environment of our planet.

I am not interested in making personal attacks, nor would I want to deprive
someone of his livelihood or even an entrepreneurial quest, but as for me,
I am a skeptic when it comes to claims for automotive products that seem
"magical," and I'm afraid I have to view this product Super 21 as being
such a "magical" product, based solely on your description of its
properties.

>formulated for engines of all types. This revolutionary product
>enhances and regulates your engine's combustion resulting in
>more power and reduced fuel consumption.

This is a vague claim and completely unsubstantiated by anything else you
said. Can you explain exactly how this product "enhances and regulates
your engine's combustion?" None of your further description explains this.

>With many users report a 21% or greater increase in fuel
>economy.

Can you provide some empirical evidence of this? A certified report from
an independent testing laboratory would suffice.

>Is a super product for the environment.

This is meaningless advertising hyperbole. Will it bring species back from
extinction or something? There are millions of "super product for the
environment" claims.

>It cleans your engine's combustion chamber, reducing toxic
>emissions. Tests indicate that Super 21 reduces poisonous
>gases such as carbon monoxide by up to 95%.

Jeffrey, perhaps you could explain the chemical process by which this
product achieves the claimed reduction in CO output. Again, some empirical
evidence would be helpful.

>Super 21 uses advanced miro-emulsion technology. This
>means that when added to fuel, Super 21 breaks into
>submicroscopic water droplets.

What is "advanced miro-emulsion technology"? They never taught us that in
college!

Exactly how big are these "submicroscopic" water droplets? Would they be
smaller than atoms, or smaller than neutrons, or what?

>A protective membrane surrounds each droplet creating
>millions of tiny "water balloons."

How thick is this "membrane" surrounding each "submicroscopic" droplet?
Would it be sub-submicroscopic? Excuse me while my mind boggles.

>When the fuel ignites in the combustion chamber, these droplets
>explode as they flash into steam. This process produces an
>increase in turbulence within the air and fuel mixture, resulting in
>improved fuel efficency and better engine performance.

Can you explain how the flame fronts and pressure waves in the combustion
chamber are affected so as to produce this purported "turbulence?"

Can you explain the process that takes place causing the purported
"improved fuel efficiency?"

Can you explain exactly what you mean by "better engine performance?" Is
it more horsepower, more torque, greater thermal/kinetic efficiency, what
exactly?

> When these micro-explosions occur against the surfaces of the
>combustion chamber, the carbon deposits disintegrate and
>completely burn away. This reduces toxic emissions.

How big are these "micro-explosions?" How much energy is released over
what period of time?

What are the mechanical and chemical processes that cause the "carbon
deposits" to "disintegrate and completely burn away?"

> The benefits of Super 21. * Increases engine power
>immediately * Substantially increases fuel economy * Reduces
>toxic emissions *

Very impressive on the surface, but where are the facts (empirical
evidence) to back up these claims? This wouldn't be just more advertising
hype now, would it?

>Is registered with the US Environmental Protection Agency
>(EPA) *

What is the product's registration number? Under what statute or EPA rule
is this product registered? Can you provide a copy of this registration?
What does this mean?

>Decreases or eliminates low octane engine knocks *

How does it do this? Please explain the mechanical or chemical process.
(Enquiring minds wanna know!)

>Prolongs engine life *

This is another vague and meaningless claim. How much does it "prolong"
engine life? What is the empirical evidence you have to prove this?

>Patented Formula * 100% Money Back GUARANTEED. Super
>21 is like no other product on the market today!

Actually, so far it seems exactly like a lot of other products on the
market today. There are dozens of fuel and lubricant additives that make
similar (if not identical) wildly exaggerated claims to improve automotive
performance and fuel efficiency based on flimsy, unverifiable testimonials
and ridiculous pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo (like "micro-emulsification,"
"submicroscopic water balloons," etc.).

>It improves the performance of your engine - whether your
>engine is old or new - and it reduces toxic emissions for
>cleaner air. Where else can you find a product this good for
> your car, that's so good for the air you breath?

Once again, this is a collection of vague claims and a bald emotional
appeal that has no pretense at a rational basis.

Jeffrey, I assume you are sincere (as your signature stated) and I assume
you simply overlooked the need to provide a more rational basis to support
the many claims you asserted for the quality and value of your product. I
am eagerly looking forward to your rational explanations and solid
scientific theories as to how this product produces the benefits you have
claimed for it.

Thanks
Dave R. (M-block devotee always looking for more power, mileage, and fewer
emissions from my 351M)

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

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 14:29:30 +0000
From: Jake
Subject: 351?

I have a 1987 f-250 HD with a 351 in it and was wondering if there is
an easy way to tel if it is a Clevland or Winzar.

Jake Everly

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

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:44:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph L. Casey"
Subject: 1997&up---1999s

Ken Payne announced that the new "discussion/talk/exhange of information in....

---

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.