fordtrucks80up-digest Friday, February 6 1998 Volume 02 : Number 051



=======================================================================
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: horsepower [Bill Funk ]
Popping noise [John Cassis ]
Re: 3.0 mileage*flaming* [rockinghorse webtv.net (Randall Goolsby)]
re: which msd [Gary Spradley ]
Re: 3.0 Gas Milage/apologie [Chad Royse ]
Re: which msd? [Gary Spradley ]
speedo gears [Gary Spradley ]
Mac Tools Gatornationals [Gary Spradley ]
Re: horsepower [Chad Royse ]
Re: 3.0 mileage*flaming* [Chad Royse ]
RE: Brain burp...dualies ["Smeins, Larry" ]
98' Truck & Correction - [John Cassis ]
Re: Brain burp...dualies [alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)]
Re: Super 21 Snake Oil/im240 [JBien45204 aol.com]
Re: speedo gears [Midwest96 aol.com]
Re: Mac Tools Gatornationals ["Randy L. Hatcher" ]
re: Brain burp...dualies [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Big Meats/Warrenty [John Cassis ]
Re: Super 21 Snake Oil/im240 [Chad Royse ]
Snake oil and oil leaks [David McDonald ]
ADMIN: Jeff Bien --> outta here [Ken Payne ]
1999 F-SD info [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Snake Oil Rebuttal - Part II ["Dave Resch"]

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 04:37:30 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: horsepower

> From: Jake
> Subject: horsepower
>
> I have a 1987 351w and would like to get a few more horses out of it.
> I
> have headers but they are pretty trashed. I have a high rev carb $
> barrel. and a mild cam. I don't know what kind of horses I am getting
>
> now but I could use a little more to turn my mud Tires on the trails
> around me. Any info on some quick horsepower would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> thanks
>
> Jake

Jake, you are really looking for torque, not horsepower.
Torque gets the big wheels turning, horsepower keeps them turning.
That "mild cam" and "high rev carb" is great for HP, but it moves your
torque peak up on the RPM range, which isn't what you want. If you were
running a road race, that would be different. For off road, torque is
king.
The cam may be the biggest problem; I'd suggest an RV-type cam, to
increase torque down low in the RPM range. The intake makes a
difference; an Edlebrock Performer is a very nice compromise with a
torque cam and good carb. At the lower RPMs, headers aren't so important
(stockers flow pretty well up to about 4K or so), but since you already
have headers that are trashed, new ones won't hurt at all. The rest of
the exhaust should be as free-flowing as you can afford.
Good luck!

Bill Funk

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:52:14 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: Popping noise

Yes I do have auto locking hubs. One more question for you. When you =
pull the front wheels off and take the cover over the hubs off what do =
you use to take that huge nut off that holds the front wheel bearings =
and hubs in place?

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 06:00:38 -0800
From: rockinghorse webtv.net (Randall Goolsby)
Subject: Re: 3.0 mileage*flaming*

Hey look,I followed the thread,too.I noted his apology yesterday.How
'bout just showing a little grace and quit shooting a dead horse?
Randy

















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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:23:30 -0600
From: Gary Spradley
Subject: re: which msd

>That's a really good reason :) 'Bout the only time I run mine hard is in a
>really low gear with the plow down... 4500RPM 2nd gear, 4low is really
>good at pushin amazing amounts of snow :) What kinda limited slip are
>you runnin? I'm lookin for one for my truck sometime soon...

Dave,
Although the 6AL could be overkill in any 4X4, I like the idea of
interchangeable rpm modules. I've never hit my 6000 chip as of yet
and hope I never will but if I do, it's there. My motor is built to
spin 6000 and not be hurt. It's ARP studded throughout etc...
If someone else drives my truck which is rare, I can drop in a 4000 chip
and be assured they won't hurt it (unless they have an 8000 chip in their
pocket).

I spent a fortune converting this truck from a 300 six to a Windsor and
I'm just protecting my investment.

In the near future I plan to replace this block with a 427 stroked Windsor.
What will I tear up then? Can you say billet axles? hehe

In the front I'm running a Dana Trak-Lock and in the rear a Ford Torsen
differential. I chose the cheaper Dana for the front since I use it less
often.


Gary Spradley 84 F150 4X4 359 Windsor

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:24:09 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: 3.0 Gas Milage/apologie

Oh, you are still here. Apology accepted and your right, I would give up a lot
more than a truck for the well being of a loved one. All that aside, you would
have saved yourself a lot of headache by being honest of who you really are.
Also, I think that consumers are tired of having miracle product after miracle
product shoved in there faces, just to spend twenty dollars to learn that
miracles don't come from BillyBob's Chemical Plant and Eatery. People want
facts. I would suggest that if you and your company are sincere about your
feeling of your product's value, that you do as Mr. Resch suggested and get some
independent lab tests done. Once you're prepared and have indisputable proof,
plead your case. You'll, then, get a lot less flak from us Ford lovin' hard
heads.

Sincerely,
Chad Royse

JBien45204 aol.com wrote:

> Hello Chad,
> I owe you apology for the statement I made to you. You are right I do
> not no about your personal life and I eat my word's. (you got to me,
> sorry) I did not lie, it works. Could you see the Oil Co. putting this
> in the fuel and seeling 20 To 25% less fuel sale's at cost to them of 5
> cents a gallon and adding 15 cent at the pump. The Oil Co. throw this
> technology out 15 years ago because it worked, but they don't have the
> patents.
> I to didn't think this idea would work ( sake oil) but it work all the time.
> Personal I had a beautiful 1978 150 4x4 351 12 inch lift kit. Sold it
> to paid for my Daughter Hosp. Bill's. I love my Daughter more and I sure
> you would too.
>
> Sincere apology, Jeff
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:29:06 -0600
From: Gary Spradley
Subject: Re: which msd?

>Gary, I'm curious. Is your 4x4 a std, extended, or crew cab? What is your
>time in the quarter?

>There's rising interest in drag racing trucks these days. They're running
>the pint-sized guys, though. I want to see a F-350 crew cab duallie 4x4 do
a >12 sec quarter mile. That would be frightening!

>Best Regards,

>Dave Baldwin
>Dallas, TX

Dave,
Long Bed standard cab but unfortunately it hasn't seen a track yet. Just
some back roads here in Central Alabama. Maybe when I get the 427 Windsor
I'll post some time slips to the group, but I'll have to drive to Atlanta
to do it. We have only 1/8 mi tracks nearby.

Any guesses on horsepower and torque figures for a 427 stroked Windsor?

Gary Spradley 84 F150 4X4 359 Windsor

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:35:53 -0600
From: Gary Spradley
Subject: speedo gears

If anyone has recently changed a speedo gear or is planning to, I'd like
to test a program I wrote recently which will suggest the correct
speedo gear based on mileage. I'm trying to find out if it's accurate.

I'll need how many miles your odometer reports versus how many miles you've
actually driven. Next time you're on the interstate, just count mile markers
and let me know. I'll also need the number of teeth on your old gear if
possible.

Thanks
Gary Spradley 84 F150 4X4 359 Windsor
spradley uab.edu

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:39:26 -0600
From: Gary Spradley
Subject: Mac Tools Gatornationals

Any of you Ford fans going to the Mac Tools Gatornationals this
March in Gainesville Fla?

Last year I saw a 300 straight six do the quarter. Don't remember the time
but I never will forget the sound.

Gary Spradley 84 F150 4X4 359 Windsor

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:58:12 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: horsepower

You could buy some Super 21 and let us know how it goes!

Jake wrote:

> I have a 1987 351w and would like to get a few more horses out of it. I
> have headers but they are pretty trashed. I have a high rev carb $
> barrel. and a mild cam. I don't know what kind of horses I am getting
> now but I could use a little more to turn my mud Tires on the trails
> around me. Any info on some quick horsepower would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> thanks
>
> Jake
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:29:58 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: 3.0 mileage*flaming*

I can't say this enough in today's day and age, practice your right not to
participate! Alcohol, don't like it, don't buy it. Guns, don't like 'em,
don't buy em. Carrots, don't like them , don't don't eat them. Don't want
to read flames about spam, don't read it! You can even set up a mail
filter in seconds that automatically deletes them. Threading your messages
keeps all your related messages together, then you can just ignore an
entire thread. I don't know if "WEBTV" supports such features, but if it's
worth having it should. I'll even help you. Also, Jeff apologized to me
personally, which I accepted. He did not apologize to the group for
pretending to be Joe User to sell his product, which is deceitful and the
epitome of bad sales technique. It literally wreaks fowl play. It angers
people, and they have the right to show it. More so than you have the
right to suppress it.

Please don't take it personally,
Chad Royse


Randall Goolsby wrote: h

> Hey look,I followed the thread,too.I noted his apology yesterday.How
> 'bout just showing a little grace and quit shooting a dead horse?
> 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 -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:33:47 -0700
From: "Smeins, Larry"
Subject: RE: Brain burp...dualies

Its the added weight of the dual rear end. That is dual wheels, heavier
axles, etc.

Larry

>Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 01:25:38 EST
>From: Midwest96 aol.com
>Subject: Brain burp...dualies

>Sorry, but every now and then I get these brain burps...awhile ago when
you
>guys were talking about towing I thought someone mentioned dualies
bring down
>the towing cpacity. Is this true, and if so why?

>Thanks,
>Craig

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:41:27 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: 98' Truck & Correction -

Sounds like a realy nice truck congrats! Yesterday I stated that it =
would cost a couple of grand to have my 93' re-geared for the 31's I'm =
running. On a whim I called Off-Road Unlimited in Houston and they will =
swap me out to 410's or 413's not shure if they could go to 413's wich =
would bring me back to bone stock gearing but I know 410's are a =
standard ring and pinion set from ford. Anyway they would do the job for =
$650 a set. So for a total of $1300 I could have it done. I'm realy =
considering this, its alot of money but would be worth it to come back =
to the pull I had on the top end while towing with the stock size tires.

No one has responded about that huge nut that behind the cover to the =
auto-locking hubs. Whats the deal with it. Do you just use a big pair of =
channel-locks or what? Any help here on diss-assembly would be of help. =
I'm going to try and grease my hubs and front wheel bearings either this =
weekend or next. I looked at doing it a while back and could'nt figure =
out how to get that huge nut off. Anyway thanks in advance for some help =
here.

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:58:09 -0800
From: alanh galaxy.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Subject: Re: Brain burp...dualies

> Sorry, but every now and then I get these brain burps...awhile ago
> when you guys were talking about towing I thought someone mentioned
> dualies bring down the towing cpacity. Is this true, and if so why?


It's simple; the tow capacity is a function of the GCWR (gross combined
weight rating) of the vehicle. The more weight you put in, or on, the
truck, the less you can add to the trailer. Dual wheels add about
200 lbs to the truck, so you have that much less tow capacity. Four
wheel drive also reduces the tow capacity, by the way.

- ---

Alan Hepburn | |
National Semiconductor | DON'T TREAD ON ME |
Santa Clara, Ca | |
alanh galaxy.nsc.com | |

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:35:59 EST
From: JBien45204 aol.com
Subject: Re: Super 21 Snake Oil/im240

I,m not a chemist, but different vehicles behave differently. Here is a list
from dates, times, and milage the test was run. Ford Escort, baseline 6-22-95,
13:36, 3142 and with S 21 6-23-95, 07:16, 3203. Ford Thunderbird, baseline
6-23-95, 14:56, 352 and with S 21 6-24-95. 08:28, 414. Ford Taurus, Baseline
6-24-95, 10:59, 1498 and with S 21 6-24-95, 14:11, 1560. Toyota Corolla,
baseline 6-24-95, 11:05, 1090 and with
S 21 6-24-95 12:51, 1146. An indepedent testing lab. has no way to accout for
all these variations. We do know that it get even better with time. Here one
that failed Minnesota test even after a $1000 in repair's. Baseline HC 264, CO
3.48 (and the max for HC 220, CO 1.20) and after adding S 21 and ran 2 tank's
throw, HC 088, and CO 0.33 . I had my Truck retested here in Houston (and this
guy tested me 3 time because he did not believe the test was working right)
Jan. 13, 98 at 2665 RPM
HC 6ppm, CO 0.03%, CO2 15.1%, And O2 0.0% and 906 RPM HC 6ppm,
CO 0.00% CO2 15.1% O2 0.0%.

Kind Regards
Jeff

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:19:10 EST
From: Midwest96 aol.com
Subject: Re: speedo gears

I will be switching from 235/75/15 to 265/75/15 in about two to three weeks if
you'll still be interested.

Craig

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:58:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Randy L. Hatcher"
Subject: Re: Mac Tools Gatornationals

I live in Gainesville,but can only take off from work once in a great
while...
in the 25+ years I've lived here,I've gone mybe a total of 2 or 3 times...
I would like to go more often..

On
Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Gary Spradley wrote:

> Any of you Ford fans going to the Mac Tools Gatornationals this
> March in Gainesville Fla?
>
> Last year I saw a 300 straight six do the quarter. Don't remember the time
> but I never will forget the sound.
>
> Gary Spradley 84 F150 4X4 359 Windsor
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+
>

afn23242 afn.org
Randy Hatcher

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
those that have minds don't use them,those that do can't think straight.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:21:44, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: re: Brain burp...dualies

Craig,
Duallies will drop the towing capacity by 200-300 lbs. The reason is
the added weight for the extra equipment. Payload does up a bit, but
towing goes down. One big advantage to duallies while towing is
increased stability. No more swaying of the rear end when going down
the highway.

Josh

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:42:13 -0600
From: John Cassis
Subject: Big Meats/Warrenty

If what Bill said is correct they should only not cover your =
transmission going out. They would be able to say that do to the strain =
of the larger tires you wore the trany out. At least thats what would be =
logical. It could get sticky with the differentials to but I cant see =
what else it would void out on your warrenty. If its the standard 3 year =
36,000 miles just get the new larger tires when you wear out the stock =
ones, should be around the time the warrenty runs out. Of corse I can =
see why you would'nt want to do this but it would keep the truck under =
warrenty without, without any dickering over whats covered and whats not =
for a while.

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:10:29 -0800
From: Chad Royse
Subject: Re: Super 21 Snake Oil/im240

The MSDS I found at this site:
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www2.wavetech.net/~starpete/ecoCleen/msds2.html doesn't sound all that
enviromentaly freindly.

JBien45204 aol.com wrote:

> U.S. EPA IM240 Test Results conducted by State of Colorado, June 95.
> (Unit = GPM)
> Automobile Tested HC CO CO2 NOx
> A. 1995 Ford Escort
> Baseline 0.0868 2.1109 371.9243 0.1712
> With Super 21 0.0524 1.4753 372.4785 0.0901
> % change -40% - 30% - -48%
> B. 1995 Ford Thunderbird
> Baseline 0.0390 0.0787 472.5107 0.5369
> With Super 21 0.0153 0.0283 464.4679 0.3063
> % change -61% -64% - -43%
> C. 1995 Ford Taurus
> Baseline 0.0220 0.2118 388.8413 0.0223
> With Super 21 0.0005 0.3229 388.6041 0.0012
> % change -98% +35% - -95%
> D. 1995 Toyota Corolla
> Baseline 0.0954 1.6171 32402914 0.1100
> With Super 21 0.0463 0.2381 287.3398 0.1095
> %change -52% -85% -12% -1%
>
> +-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 and Newer --------------+
> | Send posts to fordtrucks80up listservice.net, |
> | List removal instructions on the website. |
> +----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:31:03 -0800
From: David McDonald
Subject: Snake oil and oil leaks

Chad Royse wrote:

> The MSDS I found at this site:
> http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www2.wavetech.net/~starpete/ecoCleen/msds2.html doesn't sound all that
> enviromentaly freindly.
>

Quoted from the MSDS for super 21:
"If swallowed, get immediate medical attention, do not induce
vomiting. If more than 8 ounces swallowed, and
physician not
available within 30 minutes, then give 2 to 3 ounces
of hard
liquor (i.e. gin, whisky, vodka, etc.). For children,
give
proportionally less liquor by weight. Never give
anything by
mouth to an unconcious person."
HELP!!!!! I swallowed some! Quick gimme a drink :)


Speaking of a drink, I never got a reply back from anyone about those black
metal tubes runnin over the top of the upper intake on my 351. I looked at em
a litle closer and they appear to be smoggy stuff... I got no experience here, so
I'm gonna be shootin in the dark this weekend when I go after that dastardly
oil leak. Does smog stuff generally carry alot of pressure? these hoses seem
pretty dang beefy for carrying low pressure, and I'd rather not snip a connector
on something and have it blast me ass end over teakettle leaving sprawled out
on the rear window of my '89 Probe. I'm positive that these aren't air conditioner
hoses. I'm not sure what the heck they are tho, anyone care to venture a guess?


Thanks in advance,

Dave

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

Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 17:37:10 -0500
From: Ken Payne
Subject: ADMIN: Jeff Bien --> outta here

Administrative Notice:

With over 200 daily messages on all 4 of our mailing lists I don't get
to follow all threads like I used to. I wish someone had brought this
Jeff Bein character to my attention.

Jeff Bien, our policy clear states on the web site, in our FAQ and our
Charter that the lists are **not** to be used as a means of advertising
other than private party sales. You, like everyone else, received a
copy of our FAQ via email when you joined. AOL also has email list
policies clearly stated on their list of mailing lists. Your meager
attempt to deceive everyone about your motives tells me you knew about
our policy but simply didn't care.

AOL will be notified of your abuse of our policy. I am forwarding them a
copy of our Charter and FAQ, plus copies of messages you sent to the list
to show your abuse of our policy and your deception. Additionally, you have
earned the distinction of being the first person banned from our lists for
abuse of this policy. This will earn you a place in our history page
(updated quarterly) on the web site.

Am I angry about this? Definately. That's why this message is posted
publically. The entire purpose of our groups is discussion free of outside
influence. Heck, even when I post an announcement about a new advertiser I
keep it simple without making claims. People who've been on the lists a
long time know it takes a lot to get me angry --- you just succeeded.

This whole episode reminds me of a saying you hear in the software
development world: you can't polish a turd.

Ken
Admin, Ford Truck Enthusiasts

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:20:15, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: 1999 F-SD info

Hey y'all,
I just got some more F-SD info from Ford. Here is some other info:

Front Axle (4x4): F-250 and F-350: Dana 50
F-450 and F-550: Dana 60
Rear Axle: F-250 and F-350: Dana 80 (11.25)
F-450 and F-550: Dana S135 (14.17)
Brakes: Standard rear wheel ABS on F-250 and F-350
Standard four wheel ABS on F-450 and F-550
Standard four wheel disc brakes
Rotor diameter: F-250 and F-350: 13.03 in. front/12.83 in. rear
F-450 and F-550: 14.53 in. front/15.55 in.
rear
Transfer Case:
model: New Venture 271 (NV271)
Manual shift
high ratio: 1.00:1
low ratio: 2.72:1

Trannys:
Auto (4R100):
1st=2.71
2nd=1.54
3rd=1.00
4th=.71

5 Speed (gas only):
1st=5.72
2nd=2.94
3rd=1.61
4th=1.00
5th=.76

6 speed (diesel only):
1st=5.79
2nd=3.31
3rd=2.10
4th=1.31
5th=1.00
6th=.72

Engine Output:
5.4L V8:
235 hp 4250 rpm
335 lbs.-ft 3000 rpm

6.8L V10
275 hp 4250 rpm
410 lbs.-ft 2650 rpm

7.3L
235 hp 2700 rpm
500 lbs.-ft 1600 rpm (oh yeah!)

I also have box, cab, and overall dimensions if anyone is interested.


Towing Capacities:
Conventional Towing
The 5.4L ranges from 6900 lbs to 9800 lbs. It depends on tranny,
axle, and truck configuration.
The V10 and 7.3L are rated at 10,000 lbs for any truck confiuration,
tranny, and rear axle
Fifth wheel towing:
The 5.4L ranges from 6900 to 9800 lbs. Depends on same as above.
The V10 and 7.3L range from 10,200 to18,300. It depends on tranny,
axle ratio, and truck confiuration.

If anyone has any questions or want other info posted, just reply and
I'll be happy to supply the info.

Josh

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

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:16:43 -0700
From: "Dave Resch"
Subject: Snake Oil Rebuttal - Part II

(continued)

The following is my reply to Mr. Jeffrey Bien's follow-up response to my
questions posted in fordtrucks80up-digest V2 #47. His response was bounced
from the list server because it exceeded the server's 10K character limit
for a single message. Since Mr. Bien attempted to post his replies to the
list, I am assuming that he would not object to this post to the list
containing his quoted replies and my further questions, observations, and
rebuttals.

To avoid the same problem I'm splitting this into two messages. Here is
Part Two:

> What comes out of the tailpipe? Water vapor and carbon
> dioxide by products that are a little more desirable than
>unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of
>nitrogen.

Actually, extensive research on water injection also shows emission of
oxides of nitrogen decrease, but it has no effect on carbon monoxide and,
of course, hydrocarbon emissions are increased.

>The increase in fuel economy was a side benefit resulting
> from more complete burn of the fuel vapors. Additional
> power is also a side benefit.

Once again, the underlying theory (water injection) simply does not support
any of these claimed benefits. In fact, it seems to contradict these
claims.

> Water expands at 3-4 times the rate of fuel vapors. What
> happens with all this going on, is that there is a reduction
> or elimination of cyclic dispersion so the whole stroke is used!

If this were true, then steam engines would be capable of crankshaft speeds
of 40K-50K rpm! This is utter nonsense.

>That is the layman's description and I'm not a chemist, I'm a
>former trucker and transportation broker...

Finally a plausible assertion! I do believe that Mr. Bien is not a
chemist.

>> >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.
>>
>U.S. EPA IM240 Test Results conducted by State of Colorado, June 95.
>
snippage of table of alledged test results showing reduced HC, CO, and NOx.
>
>Also, different vehicles behave differently. Plain and simple.
> An independent testing laboratory has no way to account for
> all of these variations. If you want empirical evidence of your
> own, try the product with a 100% product guarantee!

Unfortunately, Mr. Bien doesn't understand the significance of analytical
testing procedures. Having a way to account for "all these variations" is
exactly what any analytical testing method would do. Anything less is just
unsubstantiated assertion or hearsay.

>If EVERYONE used this product who drove vehicles, it is like
> taking 85 to 97 of 100 vehicles off the road, plain and simple.
>THAT IS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT! The
>question is how many species will it SAVE from extinction?
>
>> product achieves the claimed reduction in CO output. Again,
>> some empirical evidence would be helpful.
>>
>
>Take your car to an emissions facility. Make sure you have an
> accurate record of your mileage as well. Not from last summer
> but from the last tank. Accounting for the number of miles on
> your vehicle, results are usually obtained after burning one
> treated tank per 25,000 miles on the vehicle. Some things are
> immediately noticable. See the results for yourself. If you want
>some additional evidence, there are probably 400-500
> testimonials from people just like myself on record at the
> company's HQ. How many do you want to read before it strikes
> you that I'm not sliding you a line of BS?
Mr. Bien, if I told you that using a pint of Jello pudding in every tank of
gas would give you 50% more power and improved fuel efficiency, would you
believe me? What if I swore up and down and told you that you would be
saving the lives of helpless little babies, would you believe me? What if
I tugged at your heart strings for as much sympathy and emotional reaction
as I could possibly elicit, would you believe me? What if I said you'd
just have to believe me and that there was no plausible scientific
explanation for this, and no independent testing to verify my claims, but I
really care about the environment and my children's legacy, would you
believe me? What if I showed you 1000 testimonials from people just like
you saying that Jello pudding in your gas tank would provide these
benefits, would you believe me?

>>>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?
>
>Heck I don't know? If it was 1 nanometer or 100 nanometers,
> would it make a difference to you?

Yes. I'm just trying to get to the truth about this and the more Mr. Bien
tells me, the more outrageous and ridiculous it is.

>> Can you explain how the flame fronts and pressure waves in the
combustion
>> chamber are affected so as to produce this purported "turbulence?"
>>
>Nope. There is no flame front. The fuel flashes into gaseous
> by products and water without SUPER 21. Pressure waves
>and flame fronts? Well, now you're telling me you're an expert
> in combustion physics and chemistry. I'm not.

Another plausible assertion! I believe that Mr. Bien is not an expert on
combustion physics and chemistry. But you know what? Neither am I! I'm
just smart enough to ask for some reasonable basis for the claims of a
product before I stick it in my gas tank and risk either damaging my engine
or throwing away my money. How about you, Mr. Bien? Ready to try that
Jello yet?

> I just put it in my tank and use it. It saves me money and
> significantly reduces emissions.
>
>You know, we could talk all we want, but the same as "put
>your money where your mouth is" applies to SUPER 21.
>You can analyze it all day long, but we're not going to give
>you the manufacturing process and formulation so that
>you can go write a set of patents. LET THE PRODUCT
> DO THE TALKING!!
I thought the product was already patented. Patents granted are public
information and anyone can read the patent and learn about your patented
process or materials.

So come on now, Mr. Bien, I say, "Let the Jello do the talking!"

>> What is the product's registration number? Under what statute or EPA
rule
>> is this product registered? What does this mean?
>>
>Yep. 1550-0002. Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 40 CFR 79.
If this statement is true, then the product is registered as a "deposit
control gasoline additive," also known as a "detergent" additive. For a
full discussion of what this means, refer to the following URL:

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1994/November/Day-01/pr-100.html

This is starting to smell even funnier. I am wondering how all these
mileage/emissions/power claims can be made for a simple deposit control
"detergent" additive?

>> How much does it "prolong" engine life? What is the
>> empirical evidence you have to prove this?
>
>Well, what is going to last longer? A caked up engine with
>100,000 miles on it or a "cleaned up" engine burning SUPER
> 21? You can't prove that empirically but that doesn't mean
> it isn't true does it?

'Fraid so. That's exactly what it means.

> It prolongs engine life. Brushing your teeth prolongs the
> life of your teeth. Sunlight makes grass grow...these are all
> observations that can't be "proven" empirically.

Actually, they can be proven empirically. And they have been proven
empirically, repeatedly, which is exactly the point.

>I don't particularly care if you don't believe me. I won't lose
> sleep over it. The product doesn't have a personality. It can't
> lie. If used correctly, you will get the results -- we stand behind
> the product 100%!
But the people who manufacture and distribute this product can lie. I am
not questioning an inanimate object. I am asking Mr. Bien to provide some
credible evidence, or at least a plausible scientific theory as to how the
product he has chosen to represent can produce the benefits that he claims
for it. That's all.

>I never claimed I was not emotional about it either. I also love
> my wife and kids and it is a vague term to say that I'm proud
> of my family. No rational basis either.... but, well, no apologies,
> use the product and let it do the talking! ;^)~

Mr. Bien, you are not asking me to put your wife and kids into my gas tank,
are you? Whew!

I love my wife and kids and even my wife's cat, too, but this discussion is....


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.